EPA/600/R-06/125
November 2006
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
EPA Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH
Six-Month Evaluation Report
by
Sarah E. McCall
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and sub-
surface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provid-
ing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained from the first six months of the
arsenic removal treatment technology demonstration project at the Orchard Highlands Subdivision site at
Goffstown, NH. The objectives of the project are to evaluate the effectiveness of AdEdge Technologies'
AD-33 media in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of
10 |og/L. Additionally, this project evaluates the reliability of the treatment system (Arsenic Package Unit
[APU]-GOFF-LL), the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator's skills, and the
capital and O&M cost of the technology. The project also characterizes the water in the distribution
system and process residuals produced by the treatment process.
The APU-GOFF-LL treatment system consists of two 18-in.-diameter, 65-in.-tall fiberglass reinforced
plastic (FRP) vessels in series configuration, each containing approximately 5 ft3 of AD-33 media. The
media is an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG and marketed under the name of AD-33
by AdEdge. The system was designed for a peak flowrate of 10 gal/min (gpm) based on the pump curve
provided by the site. The system design had an empty bed contact time (EBCT) of about 3.7 min per
vessel based on the 10 gpm flowrate. The actual average flowrate of 13 gpm was 30% higher than the
design flowrate. The higher flowrate decreased the EBCT from 3.7 to 2.9 min, which might have
contributed, in part, to earlier than expected breakthrough of arsenic.
The AdEdge treatment system began regular operation on April 15, 2005. The data collected include
system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), process
residuals, and capital and O&M cost. Between April 15 and October 22, 2005, the system operated an
average of 5 hr/day for a total of 1,032 hr, treating approximately 807,300 gal of water (that contained
total arsenic ranging from 24.1 to 34.0 |o,g/L, and existing almost entirely as As[V]). This volume
throughput was equivalent to about 21,600 bed volumes [BV] based on the 5 ft3 bed volume in the lead
adsorption vessel. Total arsenic levels in the treated water following the lead vessel reached 10 |o,g/L at
approximately 19,500 BV. The arsenic level from the lag vessel at the time was <1 ng/L. Concentrations
of orthophosphate and silica, which could interfere with arsenic adsorption by competing with arsenate
for adsorption sites, ranged from <0.05 to 0.3 mg/L (as PO4) and from 24.2 to 31.7 mg/L (as SiO2),
respectively, in raw water. Concentrations of iron, manganese, and other ions in raw water were not high
enough to impact arsenic removal by the media.
The system was backwashed only once during the first six months of system operation because there had
been minimal solids buildup in the vessels and because pressure differential (Ap) across the vessels had
remained essentially unchanged at 3 to 6 pounds per square inch (psi). The backwash was initiated
manually with each vessel backwashed with the treated water from the 2,000-gal hydropneumatic tank for
20 min at 16 gpm (or 9 gpm/ft2), producing approximately 320 gal of wastewater. Arsenic concentrations
in the backwash water were 30.2 |o,g/L from the lead vessel and 3.6 |o,g/L from the lag vessel, compared to
the treated water arsenic level of 0.3 |o,g/L, suggesting desorption from the media. The arsenic desorption
might be due to slightly higher pH of the treated water in the hydropneumatic tank following aeration for
radon removal.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after operation of the system showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentration (from an average of 30 (ig/L to an average of 1.1 (ig/L). The
arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were similar to those in the system effluent. Neither lead
nor copper concentrations appeared to have been affected by the operation of the system.
The capital investment cost of $34,210 included $22,431 for equipment, $4,860 for site engineering, and
$6,910 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 10 gpm (14,400 gal/day [gpd]), the capital
IV
-------
cost was $3,421/gpm of design capacity ($2.38/gpd) and equipment-only cost was $2,243/gpm of design
capacity ($1.56/gpd).
The O&M cost included only incremental cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media
replacement and disposal, electricity consumption, and labor. Although not incurred during the first six
months of system operation, the media replacement cost would represent the majority of the O&M cost
and was estimated to be $4,199 to change out one vessel. This cost was used to estimate the media
replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water treated as a function of the projected media run length to the 10
arsenic breakthrough.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
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 CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 7
3.1 General Project Approach 7
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 8
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection 8
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection 10
3.3.3 Backwash Water Sample Collection 10
3.3.4 Backwash Solid Sample Collection 10
3.3.5 Distribution System 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 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 11
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
4.1 Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure 12
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 12
4.1.2 Distribution System 16
4.2 Treatment Process Description 16
4.3 System Installation 19
4.3.1 Permitting 19
4.3.2 Building Preparation 19
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 19
4.4 System Operation 21
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 21
4.4.2 Backwash 23
4.4.3 Residual Management 23
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 23
4.5 System Performance 24
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 24
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling 30
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 30
VI
-------
4.6 System Cost 32
4.6.1 Capital Cost 32
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 32
5.0 REFERENCES 35
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Treatment Building at Orchard Highlands Subdivision 12
Figure 4-2. Aeration System for Radon Treatment 13
Figure 4-3. 10,000-gal Storage Tank 13
Figure 4-4. Booster Pumps 14
Figure 4-5. 2,000-gal Hydropneumatic Pressure Tank 14
Figure 4-6. Schematic of APU-GOFF-LL System 18
Figure 4-7. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 20
Figure 4-8. APU-GOFF-LL Treatment System 21
Figure 4-9. System Control Panel 22
Figure 4-10. System Being Delivered to Site 22
Figure 4-11. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, TA, and TB Sampling Locations 28
Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves 29
Figure 4-13. Orthophosphate Trend 29
Figure 4-14. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost 34
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3-2. General Types of Data 8
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes 9
Table 4-1. Orchard Highlands Subdivision Water Quality Data 15
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media 17
Table 4-3. Design Features of the APU-GOFF-LL System 19
Table 4-4. Summary of APU-GOFF-LL System Operation 23
Table 4-5. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Orthophosphate, Iron, and Manganese 25
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results 26
Table 4-7. Backwash Water Sampling Results 30
Table 4-8. Distribution System Sampling Results 31
Table 4-9. Capital Investment Cost for the APU-GOFF-LL System 32
Table 4-10. Operation and Maintenance Cost for the APU-GOFF-LL System 33
vn
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
AM adsorptive media
APU arsenic package unit
As arsenic
ATS aquatic treatment system
BET Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
BV bed volume
Ca calcium
C/F coagulation/filtration process
Cl chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluorine
Fe iron
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HIX hybrid ion exchange
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
ND not detectable
NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
psi pounds per square inch
PO4 orthophosphate
POE point of entry
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO42" sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
U uranium
V vanadium
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Orchard Highlands Subdivision and Mr. John
Blumberg, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, who monitored the treatment system and collected
samples from the treatment system and distribution system throughout this reporting period. This
performance evaluation would not have been possible without his efforts.
-------
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 cost. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in the first round of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on
their water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 sites from a list of 115 sites to be the host sites for the
demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the Round 1 demonstration program. Using the
information provided by the review panel, EPA in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water
programs of the respective states selected one technical proposal for each site. As of July 2006, 11 of the
12 systems have been operational and the performance evaluation of two systems has been completed.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the Orchard Highlands Community Water System in Goffstown, NH was one of those selected.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28. AdEdge Technologies (AdEdge), using the Bayoxide E33 media
developed by Bayer AG, was selected for demonstration at the Orchard Highlands site in September
2004.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has 3 adsorptive media systems),
13 coagulation/filtration systems, 2 ion exchange (IX) systems, 17 point-of-use (POU) units (including 9
residential reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and 8 AM units at the OIT
site), and 1 system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, system
flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including arsenic, iron, and pH) at the 40 demon-
stration sites. The technology selection and system design for the 12 Round 1 demonstration sites have
been reported in an EPA report (Wang et al., 2004). The capital cost of the 12 Round 1 systems also has
been discussed in a separate EPA report (Chen et al., 2004). Both reports are posted on the following
EPA Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/resource.htm.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 and Round 2 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 40 full-scale
arsenic treatment technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water
supplies. The specific objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small
systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill
levels.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the AdEdge system at the Orchard Highlands Subdivision in
Goffstown, NH during the first six months from April 15 through October 22, 2005. The data collected
included system operational data, water quality data (both across the treatment train and in the distribution
system), and capital and preliminary O&M cost data.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(Mg/L)
Fe
(Mg/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
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
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (ARM 200)
AM (E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70w
10
100
22
375
300
10
150
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270™
1,312™
1,6 15™
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM(E33)
System Modification
STS
Kinetico
USFilter
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14w
13(a)
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127™
466™
1,387™
1,499™
7827™
546™
1,470™
3,078™
1,344™
1,325™
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Lyman, NE
Arnaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Village of Lyman
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Indian Health Services
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
Kinetico
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
350
385
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(e)
50
37
20
35W
19w
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
<25
2,068™
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.5
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(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
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service
District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(C)
C/F (Electromedia II)
AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenX) and POU AM®
IX (A520)
AM (GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HIX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kenetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
USFilter
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69(h>
<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; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(c) Including nine residential units.
(d) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to lower flowrate of 40 gpm.
(e) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to lower flowrate of 30 gpm.
(f) Including three under-the-sink AM units.
-------
2.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the first six months of system operation, the following
conclusions were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• Breakthrough of arsenic at 10 |o,g/L following the lead vessel occurred at
approximately 19,500 bed volumes (BV), based on the media bed volume in the lead
vessel. The arsenic level from the lag vessel at the time was <1 ng/L. The earlier
than expected arsenic breakthrough from the lead vessel was attributed, in part, to the
relatively short empty bed contact time (i.e., 2.9 min versus the design value of 3.7
min in each vessel) and competing anions, such as orthophosphate and silica.
• Orthophosphate with concentrations up to 0.3 mg/L (as PO4) was present in raw
water, and was removed to less than its detection limit of 0.05 mg/L until arsenic
breakthrough from the lead vessel had reached about 10 |og/L. Orthophosphate
apparently competed with arsenic for available adsorption sites on the media, causing
arsenic to breakthrough to occur earlier than expected.
• Silica also might have interfered with arsenic adsorption. Its removal by the media
was observed immediately after system startup and during one sampling event with
an abnormally high concentration detected in an influent sample.
• A significant decrease in arsenic concentration (from an average of 30 (ig/L to an
average of 1.1 (ig/L) was observed in the distribution system. Neither lead nor
copper concentrations appeared to have been affected by the operation of the system.
• Neither operational problems nor unscheduled downtime were encountered during
the first six months of system operation.
Required system O&Mand operator's skill levels:
• The daily demand on the operator was typically 10 min to visually inspect the system
and record operational parameters. Due to the small size of the system, operational
parameters were recorded only 3 day/wk.
• Operation of the system did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to
operate the existing water supply equipment.
• Based on the size of the population served and the treatment technology, the State of
New Hampshire requires Level 1A certification for operation of the treatment
system.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• The only process residual produced during the first six months of operation was 640
gal of backwash water from one backwash event. The system was backwashed only
once because there had been minimal solids buildup in the vessels and because
pressure differential (Ap) across the vessels had remained constant throughout this
reporting period.
• The treated water was used for backwash. Arsenic concentrations significantly
higher than those in the treated water were measured in the backwash water (i.e.,
30.2 and 3.6 |o,g/L from the lead and lag vessels, respectively). Arsenic might have
-------
been desorbed from the media due to slightly higher pH of the treated water in the
hydropneumatic tank following aeration for radon removal.
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
• Using the system's rated capacity of 10 gpm (14,400 gpd), the capital cost was
$3,421/gpm of design capacity ($2.38/gpd) and equipment-only cost was
$2,243/gpm of the design capacity ($1.56/gpd).
• Although not incurred during the first six months of system operation, the media
replacement cost represented the majority of the O&M cost for the system, and was
estimated to be $4,199 to change out one vessel.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the pre -demonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study
of the AdEdge treatment system began on April 15, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data
collected and/or considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall performance of the
system was determined based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to the target MCL of 10 |o,g/L;
this was monitored through the collection of biweekly and bimonthly water samples across the treatment
train, as described in the Study Plan (Battelle, 2005). The reliability of the system was evaluated by
tracking the unscheduled system downtime and the frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The
unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a Repair and
Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Submitted to Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Plans Submitted to NHDES
Final Study Plan Issued
System Permit Issued by NHDES
APU Unit Shipped and Arrived
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
September 13, 2004
November 9, 2004
November 24, 2004
December 7, 2004
January 18, 2005
February 9, 2005
March 1, 2005
March 3, 2005
March 24, 2005
March 3 1,2005
April 12, 2005
April 14, 2005
April 15, 2005
April 15, 2005
NHDES = New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
The required system O&M and operator skill levels were evaluated based on a combination of
quantitative data and qualitative considerations, including any pre-treatment and/or post-treatment
requirements, level of system automation, operator skill requirements, task analysis of the preventive
maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory requirements, and
general knowledge needed for safety requirements and chemical processes. The staffing requirements on
the system operation were recorded on a Field Log Sheet.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This requires the tracking of the capital cost for equipment,
site engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, electrical
power use, and labor hours. Data on Goffstown's O&M cost were limited to electricity consumption and
labor hours because media replacement did not take place during the six months of system operation.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the amount of backwash
water produced during each backwash cycle and the need to replace the media upon arsenic breakthrough.
Backwash water was sampled and analyzed for chemical characteristics.
-------
Table 3-2. General Types of Data
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
Required O&M and Operator
Skill Levels
System Cost
Residual Management
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic in effluent
-Unscheduled downtime for system
-Frequency and extent of repairs to include labor hours, problem description,
description of materials, and cost of materials
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of system automation for data collection and system operation
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and labor hours
-Task analysis of preventive maintenance to include labor hours per month and
number and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed of safety requirements and chemical processes
-Capital cost for equipment, site engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical and/or media use, electricity consumption, and labor
-Quantity of residuals generated by process
-Characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed weekly and monthly system O&M and data collection following the
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. Three times a week, the plant operator recorded system
operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a Daily Field Log Sheet;
and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. In the event of problems, the plant
operator would contact the Battelle Study Lead, who then would determine if AdEdge should be
contacted for troubleshooting. Twice a month, the plant operator measured water quality parameters,
including pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) and recorded
the data on a Weekly Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet. Backwash was set to be performed manually
by the operator. During this operation period, the system was backwashed only once. The backwash data
were recorded on a Backwash Log Sheet.
The O&M cost consisted primarily of electricity and labor cost. Electricity consumption was tracked
through the monthly electrical bill that the plant operator received. Labor hours for various activities,
such as the routine system O&M, system troubleshooting and repair, and demonstration-related work,
were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Record. The routine O&M included activities such as
completing the field logs, performing system inspection, and other miscellaneous routine requirements.
The demonstration-related work included activities such as performing field measurements, collecting and
shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead. The demonstration-related activities
were recorded but not included in the cost analysis.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the performance of the system, samples were collected from the source, treatment plant,
distribution system, and adsorption vessel backwash locations. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedule
and analytes measured during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements for analytical
methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the
EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2004).
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection. During the initial visit to the site on September 13, 2004,
one set of source water samples was collected for detailed water quality analyses (Table 3-3). Source
water also was speciated for total and soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese, and As(III) and As(V), and
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Water
Sampling
Locations'3'
At Wellhead (IN)
At Wellhead (IN),
After Lead Vessel
(TA), After Lag
Vessel (TO)
Three LCR
Residences
Backwash
Discharge Line
from Each Vessel
No. of
Sampling
Locations
1
3
3
2
Frequency
Once during
initial site
visit
Biweekly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly(b)
Sampling
based on
system
performance
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),
Na, Ca, Mg, U, V, NH4,
NO3, NO2, Cl, F, SO4,
SiO2, PO4, TDS, TOC,
turbidity, and alkalinity
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off-site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), F,
NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, and alkalinity
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),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, PO4, turbidity, and
alkalinity
pH, alkalinity, As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total), Cu
(total), and Pb (total)
pH, TDS, turbidity, As
(soluble), Fe (soluble),
and Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Date
09/13/04
04/15/05, 05/02/05,
05/16/05,05/31/05,
06/15/05, 06/27/05,
07/12/05, 07/25/05,
08/08/05, 08/22/05,
09/06/05, 09/20/05,
10/04/05, 10/17/05
04/15/05, 06/15/05,
08/08/05, 10/17/05
Baseline sampling:
01/10/05, 01/25/05,
02/07/05, 03/21/05
Monthly sampling:
05/16/05, 06/13/05,
07/11/05,08/08/05,
09/06/05, 10/05/05
08/22/05
(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-7.
(b) Four baseline sampling events performed from January 2005 to March 2005 before system became operational.
LCR = Lead and Copper Rule
TOC = total organic carbon
measured for pH, temperature, DO, and ORP on site. The sample tap was flushed for several minutes
before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted oxidation.
Arsenic speciation kits and sample bottles for water quality parameters were prepared as described in
Section 3.4.
-------
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection. During the system performance evaluation
study, water samples were collected across the treatment train by the plant operator. Samples were
collected biweekly on an 8-wk cycle. For the first three biweekly events, samples were collected at three
locations (i.e., at the wellhead [IN], after the lead adsorption vessel [TA], and after the lag adsorption
vessel [TB]) and analyzed for the analytes listed under the biweekly treatment plant analyte list in
Table 3-3. For the last event, samples were collected for arsenic speciation at the same three locations
and analyzed for the analytes listed under the bimonthly treatment plant analyte list in Table 3-3. On-site
measurements also were collected at the same locations during each sampling event.
3.3.3 Backwash Water Sample Collection. One backwash water sample was collected on August
22, 2005 from the sample tap installed on the backwash water effluent line from each vessel. Unfiltered
samples were sent to American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) for pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), and
turbidity measurements. Filtered samples using 0.45-(im disc filters were sent to Battelle's inductively
coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) laboratory for soluble As, Fe, and Mn analyses. Arsenic
speciation was not performed for the backwash water samples.
3.3.4 Backwash Solid Sample Collection. Backwash solid samples were not collected in the
initial six months of this demonstration. Two to three solid/sludge samples will be collected from the
backwash leach area if possible during the course of the second half of the demonstration study. The
solid/sludge samples will be collected in glass jars and submitted to TCCI Laboratories for toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) testing.
3.3.5 Distribution System Water Sample Collection. Samples were collected from the
distribution system by the plant operator to determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the
water chemistry in the distribution system, specifically, the lead and copper levels. From January to
March 2005, prior to the startup of the treatment system, four baseline distribution sampling events were
conducted at three locations within the distribution system. Following startup of the arsenic adsorption
system, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations.
The three residences selected are historical Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling locations serviced by
the well. The home-owners of these locations, including the plant operator, collected the baseline and
monthly distribution system samples following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and
Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The homeowners
recorded the date and time of last water use before sampling and the date and time of sample collection
for calculation of the stagnation time. All samples were collected from a cold water faucet that had not
been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. Analytes for the baseline samples
coincided with the monthly distribution system water samples as described in Table 3-3. Arsenic
speciation was not performed for the distribution system water samples.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kits preparation, sample cooler preparation, and
sample shipping and handling are discussed as follows:
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Arsenic speciation kits were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures
detailed in Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. All sample bottles were new and contained appropriate
preservatives. Each sample bottle was labeled with a pre-printed, color-coded, and waterproof label. The
10
-------
sample label consisted of sample identification (ID), sampling date and time, sampler initials, site
location, destination of the sample, analysis required, and preservative. The sample ID consisted of a
two-letter code for a specific water facility, the sampling date, a two-letter code for a specific sampling
location, and a one-letter code for the analysis to be performed. The sampling locations were color-coded
for easy identification. For example, red, orange, and yellow were used to designate sampling locations
for IN, TA, and TB, respectively. Pre-labeled bottles were placed in one of the plastic bags (each
corresponding to a specific sampling location) in a sample cooler. When arsenic speciation samples were
to be collected, an appropriate number of arsenic speciation kits also were included in the cooler.
When appropriate, the sample cooler was packed with bottles for the three distribution system sampling
locations and/or the two backwash sampling locations (one for each vessel). In addition, a packet
containing all sampling and shipping-related supplies, such as latex gloves, sampling instructions, chain-
of-custody forms, prepaid FedEx air bills, ice packs, and bubble wrap, also was placed in the cooler.
Except for the operator's signature, the chain-of-custody forms and prepaid FedEx air bills had already
been completed with the required information. The sample coolers were shipped via FedEx to the facility
approximately 1 wk prior to the scheduled sampling date.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, sample
custodians verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample label identifications were checked against the chain-of-custody forms and the samples were
logged into the laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies, if noted, were addressed by the field sample
custodian, and the Battelle Study Lead was notified.
Samples for water quality analyses by Battelle's subcontract laboratories were packed in coolers at
Battelle and picked up by a courier from AAL (Columbus, OH). The samples for metals analyses,
including arsenic speciation, were stored at Battelle's ICP-MS Laboratory. The chain-of-custody forms
remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final disposition. All
samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold
time, and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures are described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle,
2004). Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using
a WTW Multi 340i handheld meter, which was calibrated prior to use following the procedures provided
in the user's manual. The plant operator collected a water sample in a 400-mL plastic beaker and placed
the Multi 340i probe in the beaker until a stable measured value was reached.
Laboratory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the guidelines provided in
the QAPP (Battelle, 2004). Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy, method detection limit (MDL), and
completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative percent difference [RPD] of 25%,
percent recovery of 75-125%, and completeness of 80%). The quality assurance (QA) data associated with
each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared separately.
11
-------
4.1
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure
The community water system supplies water to 42 homes in the Orchard Highlands Subdivision in
Goffstown, NH. Figure 4-1 shows the water treatment building. The water source is a single deep bed-
rock well drilled to a depth of approximately 800 ft. The flowrate from this supply well was estimated to
be approximately 7.5 gal/min (gpm) based on the pump curve provided by the facility. The actual peak
flowrate recorded at the site after the installation of the system was 15 gpm with an average flowrate of
13 gpm. The existing system includes an aeration system for radon treatment (Figure 4-2), a 10,000-gal
storage tank (Figure 4-3), two booster pumps (Figure 4-4), and a 2,000-gal hydropneumatic pressure tank
(Figure 4-5).
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Treatment Building at Orchard Highlands Subdivision
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected inside the treatment building
from two sample taps before and after the aeration unit on September 13, 2004. The analytical results
from source water sampling are presented in Table 4-1, and are compared to historic data taken by the
facility for the EPA demonstration site selection and by New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services (NHDES). Except for pH and TDS, the analytical results were similar for the samples collected
before and after the aeration unit.
Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 30 to 33 |o,g/L. Out of 32.7 |o,g/L of total arsenic,
32.3 (ig/L (98.7%) existed as As(V) and only 0.8 |^g/L (1.3%) existed as As(III). According to the
vendor, the AD-33 media adsorbs As(V) with rapid kinetics and As(III) with slower kinetics. Since the
majority of the arsenic was As(V), a pre-oxidation step to convert As(III) to As(V) was not necessary.
12
-------
Figure 4-2. Aeration System for Radon Treatment
Figure 4-3. 10,000-gal Storage Tank
13
-------
Figure 4-4. Booster Pumps
Figure 4-5. 2,000-gal Hydropneumatic Pressure Tank
14
-------
Table 4-1. Orchard Highlands Subdivision Water Quality Data
Parameter
Units
Sampling 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 (total soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
V (total)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Radon
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
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
PCi/L
Facility Data
NA
7.2
NA
NA
NA
44
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<6
NA
6
NA
NA
30
NA
NA
0.001
30
<100
NA
NA
<30
NA
NA
8
14
o
J
13,100
Battelle Data
Raw
09/13/04
6.9
12.0
5.1
226
85
25
0.2
84
<0.7
O.04
O.01
0.05
1.2
0.3
5.8
25.7
0.2
32.7
33.1
0.1
0.8
32.3
<25
<25
13.5
2.8
2.4
0.4
8
7
2
NA
Post-Aeration
09/13/04
7.5
13.1
5.9
235
93
31
0.2
248
O.7
O.04
O.01
O.05
1.1
0.4
5.8
25.8
0.3
30.5
32.2
0.1
0.5
31.7
<25
<25
3.5
2.9
1.9
0.4
9
9
2
NA
NHDES
Treated
Water Data
00-04
7.2
8.0
NA
NA
44
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<6
0.4
6
NA
0.03
30-33
NA
NA
NA
NA
<100
NA
<30
NA
NA
NA
8
14
3
NA
NA = not analyzed
ND = not detectable
The pH values of raw water samples ranged from 6.9 before aeration to 7.5 after aeration. Aeration might
have helped remove some CO2, thereby increasing the pH values of the aerated water. Nevertheless,
these pH values were well within the acceptable pH range of 6.5 to 8.0 for effective arsenic adsorption by
the AD-33 media. Therefore, pH adjustment was not recommended.
The adsorptive capacity of the AD-33 media can be impacted by high levels of competing anions such as
orthophosphate, silica, vanadate, and fluoride. Orthophosphate concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 0.3
mg/L, which could compete with arsenate for adsorption sites. Concentrations of other competing anions
appeared to be low enough not to affect the media's adsorption of arsenic. Iron was not detected (with a
reporting limit of 25 (ig/L) in raw water; therefore, pre-treatment for iron removal prior to adsorption was
not required.
15
-------
4.1.2 Distribution System. The distribution system consists of a branched drinking water system,
supplied by a single deep bed-rock well. Water (from either the bedrock well before the arsenic removal
system was installed or the lag adsorption vessel after the system was installed) is treated with an aeration
system for radon removal prior to entering a 10,000-gal storage tank. Two booster pumps are located
after the storage tank to pump the water into a 2,000-gal pressure tank, which is connected to the
distribution system. The distribution system is constructed primarily of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe.
The connections to the distribution system and piping within the residences themselves are copper.
Compliance samples from the distribution system are collected for NHDES for quarterly bacterial
analysis, and for periodic analysis of inorganic chemicals, nitrates, radiologicals, synthetic organic
compounds, and volatile organic compounds (Table 4-1).
4.2 Treatment Process Description
The arsenic package unit (APU) marketed by AdEdge is a fixed-bed down-flow adsorption system used
for small water systems in the flow range of 5 to 100 gpm. It uses Bayoxide E33 media (branded as AD-
33 by AdEdge), an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG, for the removal of arsenic from
drinking water supplies. Table 4-2 presents physical and chemical properties of the media. AD-33 media
is delivered in a dry crystalline form and listed by NSF International (NSF) under Standard 61 for use in
drinking water applications.
For series operation, when the media in the lead vessel completely exhausts its capacity and/or the
effluent from the lag vessel reaches 10 (ig/L of arsenic, the spent media in the lead vessel is removed and
disposed of after being subjected to TCLP testing. After rebedding, the lead vessel is switched to the lag
position and the lag vessel is switched to the lead position. In general, the series operation better utilizes
the media capacity when compared to the parallel operation because the lead vessel may be allowed to
exhaust completely prior to change-out.
When comparing the performance of the lead vessel (series operation) with that of two smaller in-parallel
vessels of a similarly-sized system (parallel operation), the number of BV treated by the system is
calculated based on the media volume in the lead vessel for the series operation and in the two in-parallel
vessels for the parallel operation. The calculation does not use the media volume in the lead and lag
vessels because this approach considers the two vessels as one large vessel, which has twice as much
media than the in-parallel system. The media volume in the lead vessel is equal to the sum of the media
volume in each of the two vessels in parallel; the flow through the lead vessel is equal to the sum of the
flow through each of the two vessels in parallel; and the EBCT in the lead vessel is the same as EBCT in
each of the two vessels in parallel.
The arsenic treatment system (specifically referred to as the APU-GOFF-LL system) at the Orchard
Highland Subdivision site consists of two pressure vessels operating in series. Note that the system
piping/valving provided does not allow for switching of the lead/lag vessels. The schematic of the system
with switchable lead/lag vessels is shown in Figure 4-6. The adsorption vessels receive water directly
from the well and the effluent for the adsorption system is further treated by the pre-existing aeration unit
for radon removal. Table 4-3 presents the key system design parameters. Figure 4-7 shows the generalized
process flow for the system including sampling locations and parameters to be analyzed.
Three key process components are discussed as follows:
• Intake. Raw water is pumped from the well and fed into the APU-GOFF-LL system
at approximately 13 gpm. The well pump is controlled by a float switch within the
10,000-gal storage tank.
16
-------
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media(a)
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
BET Area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle size distribution
Crystal Size (A)
Crystal Phase
Value
Iron oxide composite
Dry granules
Amber
28.1
142
0.3
~ 8 (by weight)
10 x 35 mesh
70
a-FeOOH
Chemical Analysis
Constituents
FeOOH
CaO
MgO
MnO
SO3
Na2O
TiO2
SiO2
A12O3
P2O5
Cl
Weight (%)
90.1
0.27
1.00
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.01
(a) Provided by Bayer AG.
BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
• Adsorption System. The APU-GOFF-LL system consists of two 18-in.-diameter,
65-in.-tall pressure vessels in series configuration, each containing 5 ft3 of AD-33
media supported by a gravel underbed. The vessels are fiberglass-reinforced plastic
(FRP) construction, rated for 150 pounds per square inch (psi) working pressure,
skid-mounted, and piped to a valve rack mounted on a welded frame. The design
EBCT for the system is approximately 3.7 min based on a media volume of 5
ftVvessel (with a bed depth of 34 in.) and a design flowrate of 10 gpm. Figure 4-8
shows the installed system and Figure 4-9 shows the system control panel.
• Backwash. On automatic operation, backwash can be set by time or pressure
differential. The system also can be backwashed manually. The adsorption vessels
are taken off line for backwash one at a time using the treated water from the 2,000-
gal hydropneumatic tank. The purpose of the backwash is to remove particles and
media fines accumulating in the beds. The backwash water produced is discharged
to an on-site surface drainage field for disposal.
• Aeration, Storage, and Distribution. Effluent of the adsorption system is aerated
to remove radon before entering the existing 10,000-gal storage tank. Two existing
booster pumps are used to pump water from the storage tank to the 2000-gal
hydropneumatic tank to ensure adequate supply pressure to the distribution system.
17
-------
00
adedge
Basic Goffstown Flow Diagram
Arsenic Treatment System - SERIES
Treated Water
to distribution
flow Restrictoror
manual diaphragm uah/e
Figure 4-6. Schematic of APU-GOFF-LL System
-------
Table 4-3. Design Features of the APU-GOFF-LL System
Design Parameter
Pretreatment
Value
NA
Remarks
Not required
Adsorbers
No. of Adsorbers
Configuration
Vessel Size (in)
Vessel Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Type of Media
Quantity of Media (ft3)
Media Bed Depth (in)
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min)
2
Series
18Dx65H
1.77
Bayoxide E33
10 (total)
34
10
5.6
3.7
-
-
-
-
-
Two vessels, each vessel with 5 ft of media
-
Based on 7.5 gpm system use by pump curve
supplied by utility
-
Based on 10 gpm flowrate
Backwash
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Hydraulic Loading Rate
(gpm/ft2)
Backwash Duration (mm/vessel)
Backwash Water Generated (gal/vessel)
Design Backwash Frequency
15.9
9
20
320
One to two times
per month
-
-
-
-
Set to manual so that backwash sample could
be collected
Adsorption System
Average Throughput to System (gpd)
Estimated Working Capacity (B V)
Bed Volumes (BV/day)
Estimated Volume to Breakthrough (gal)
Estimated Media Life (months)
11,550
62,690
308
2,344,600
6.7
Vendor estimated
Bed volumes to breakthrough at 10 |ig/L from
lead vessel based on vendor estimate
Based on throughput of 1 1 ,550 gpd,
1 BV = 5 ft3
Based on vendor estimated bed volumes to
breakthrough at 10 |ig/L from lead vessel
Estimated frequency of change-out of media in
lead vessel based on throughput of 1 1 ,550 gpd
and breakthrough at 10|ig/L from lead vessel
4.3
System Installation
The installation of the APU system was completed by Thursty Water Systems, a subcontractor to
AdEdge, on April 14, 2005. The following briefly summarizes some of the pre-demonstration activities,
including permitting, building preparation, and system offloading, installation, shakedown, and startup.
4.3.1 Permitting. Design drawings and proposal for the proposed treatment system were
submitted to the NHDES by AdEdge on March 3, 2005. NHDES granted the treatment system permit on
March 31, 2005. NHDES commented that the disposal of the periodic backwash of the media should be
consistent with that allowed for the Rollinsford, NH site studied in Round 1 of the EPA's arsenic
technology demonstration project; and that the completed installation should be disinfected and tested for
bacterial presence before being placed into service.
4.3.2 Building Preparation. The existing building that housed pre-existing treatment system had
an adequate building footprint to house the planned arsenic treatment system. Additional preparation was
not needed.
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The treatment system arrived on-site on April 12,
2005. Figure 4-10 shows a photograph of the system arriving at the site. Several of the PVC connections
were damaged during shipping and had to be replaced before system installation. Thursty Water System
19
-------
Bimonthly
pH>), temperature^
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble), Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
WELL
Biweekly
SURFACE
DRAINAGE/LEACH
FIELD BACKWASH
DISPOSAL
TCLP-
pH, LDS, turbidity,
As (soluble), Fe (soluble),-
Mn (soluble)
pH>), temperature^, DO/ORP(a),
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble), Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
pH>), temperature^, DO/ORP(a),
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble), Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
pLf-3), temperature1:3), DO/ORP1:3),
^As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
*F,NO3, SO4, SiO2,PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
Orchard Highlands Subdivision,
Goffstown, NH
AD-33 Lechnology
Design Flow: 10 gpm
pH<3), temperature1:3), DO/ORP1:3),
^As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
*F,NO3, SO4, SiO2,PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
pH^, temperature1:3), DO/ORP1:3),
^As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
*F,NO3, SO4, SiO2,PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
RADON TREATMENT
UNIT
LEGEND
IN ) Water Sampling Location
BW 1 Backwash Sampling Location
ss ) Sludge Sampling Location
Unit Process/ System
Component
Process Flow
Backwash Flow
I
STORAGE TANK
(10,000 gal)
±
BOOSTER
PUMP
BOOSTER
PUMP
1
1
HYDRO-PNEUMATIC
TANK (2,000 gal)
Footnote
(a) On-site analyses
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Figure 4-7. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
20
-------
Figure 4-8. APU-GOFF-LL Treatment System
and AdEdge were on site for the installation during April 13 through 14, 2005. After media loading, a
water sample was collected through the system for bacterial analysis on April 14, 2005. The system was
bypassed until the results of the bacterial analysis were received on April 15, 2005. Meanwhile, AdEdge
and the local operator performed the system shakedown and startup work, which included media
backwash and flow adjustment to approximately 16 gpm for the backwash cycle. Battelle conducted a
system inspection and provided operator training on data and sample collection. After the results of the
bacterial analysis were forwarded to NHDES, the system was officially brought on-line April 15, 2005.
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the first six months of system
operation were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-4.
From April 15 through October 22, 2005, the system operated for 1,032 hr, based on the well pump hour-
meter readings collected three times a week. This cumulative operating time represents a use rate of
approximately 22% during this 28-wk period. The system typically operated for a period of
approximately 5 hr/day.
21
-------
Figure 4-9. System Control Panel
Figure 4-10. System Being Delivered to Site
22
-------
Table 4-4. Summary of APU-GOFF-LL System Operation
Operational Parameter
Duration
Cumulative Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Throughput (gal)
Bed Volumes (BV)(a)
Average (Range of) Flowrate (gpm)
Average EBCT (min)(a)
Range of EBCT (min)(a)
Average (Range of) Inlet Pressure (psi)
Average (Range of) Outlet Pressure (psi)
Average (Range of) Ap across Vessel A
(psi)
Average (Range of) Ap across Vessel B
(psi)
Value / Condition
04/15/05-10/22/05
1,032
5.4
807,300
21,586
13 (12-15)
2.9 (5. 8 for system)
2.5-3.1 (5.0-6.2 for system)
27.6 (24-30)
10.2 (9-12)
4.8 (range 3-6)
4.3 (range 3.2-6)
(a) Calculated based on 5 ft3 of media in lead vessel.
During the first six months, the system treated approximately 807,300 gal of water, or 21,586 BV based
on the totalizer readings from the lead vessel. Bed volume calculations were performed based on the 5 ft3
of media in the lead vessel. Flowrates to the system ranged from 12 to 15 gpm and averaged 13 gpm.
The highest flowrate occurred when the pump was initially turned on and the flowrate decreased
gradually as the well pump operated. The average system flowrate was 30% higher than the 10-gpm
design value (Table 4-3), which was derived from the 7.5-gpm supply well flowrate based on the pump
curve provided by the facility. Based on the flows to the system, the EBCT for the lead vessel varied
from 2.5 to 3.1 min and averaged 2.9 min. As a result, the 3.7-min design EBCT was 30% higher than
the actual EBCT.
4.4.2 Backwash. AdEdge recommended that the APU-GOFF-LL system be backwashed, either
manually or automatically, approximately once or twice per month. Automatic backwash could be
initiated either by timer or by differential pressure (Ap) across the vessels. Due to the steady pressure
drop across the vessels of 3 to 6 psi throughout the six months of system operation, the system was
backwashed only once when the arsenic concentration in the lead tank was approaching 8 (ig/L. This
occurred at about 15,000 BV, or 4 months after the system became operational.
4.4.3 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the system would include
backwash water and spent media. Because the media was not replaced during the first six months of
system operation, the only residual produced was backwash water. Piping for backwash water from both
vessels was combined aboveground before exiting the building through the floor. It then traveled
underground and resurfaced behind the treatment building. Backwash water flowed down the surface
drainage field and infiltrated to the ground. Any particulates or media fines carried in the backwash water
remained in the drainage field.
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. There were no operational problems with the
APU-GOFF-LL system during the first six-months of operation; the unscheduled downtime for the
system was 0% during this study period. The system O&M and operator skill requirements are discussed
below in relation to pre- and post-treatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill
23
-------
requirements, preventive maintenance activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory
requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The majority of arsenic at this site existed as As(V). As such, a
preoxidation step was not required.
System Automation. The system was fitted with automated controls that would allow for the backwash
cycle to be controlled automatically; however, because pressure readings across the adsorption vessels did
not rise during the first six months of operation, only one manual backwash was performed. The system
piping as currently configured does not allow the lead and lag vessels to switch after rebedding of the lead
vessel. Plans have been made to allow the vendor to be on site to reconfigure the piping and valves so
that the vessels may be switchable upon media rebedding.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the
system were minimal. The operator was on site typically three times a week and spent approximately 10
min each day to perform visual inspection and record the system operating parameters on the daily log
sheets. Normal operation of the system did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to operate
the existing water supply equipment. Based on the size of the population served and the treatment
technology, the State of New Hampshire requires Level 1A certification for operation of the treatment
system.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included such items as periodic checks
of flowmeters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. Typically, the operator
performed these duties only when he was on site for routine activities.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. No chemical was used as part of the treatment
system at Orchard Highlands Subdivision site.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected from the
treatment plant, the media backwash, and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-5 summarizes the analytical results of arsenic,
orthophosphate, iron, and manganese concentrations measured at the three sampling locations across the
treatment train. Table 4-6 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains
a complete set of analytical results through the first six months of operation. The results of the water
samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
Arsenic. Water samples were collected on 14 occasions, including one duplicate, with field speciation
performed during 4 of the 14 occasions from IN, TA, and TB sampling locations. Figure 4-11 contains
three bar charts showing the concentrations of total arsenic, particulate arsenic, As(III), and As(V) at three
locations for each of the 4 speciation events. Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 24.1
to 34.0 |o,g/L and averaged 29.4 |o,g/L. As(V) was the predominating species, ranging from 25.3 to 33.0
(ig/L and averaging 29.3 |o,g/L. As(III) and particulate As concentrations were low, averaging 0.6 and 0.1
(ig/L, respectively. The arsenic concentrations measured were consistent with those collected previously
during source water sampling (Table 4-1).
24
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Orthophosphate, Iron, and Manganese
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
Unit
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
Sample
Count
15
15
15
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
15
15
15
15
15
15
4
4
4
15
15
15
4
4
4
Concentration
Minimum
24.1
Maximum
34.0
Average
29.4
Standard
Deviation
3.0
(a)
26.0
33.7
29.9
3.2
(a)
<0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
(a)
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.0
(a)
25.3
33.0
29.3
o ^
3.2
(a)
O.05
0.3
0.17
0.13
(b)
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
0.6
<0.1
0.1
1.1
0.4
0.3
<25
<25
72.5
<25
<25
<25
16.7
1.5
1.0
1.4
1.5
1.0
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
4
0.5
0.2
1
0.9
0.6
0.0
0.0
15.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.4
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
(a) Statistics not meaningful for data related to arsenic breakthrough; see data on Figures 4-11 and 4-12.
(b) Statistics not meaningful for data related to Orthophosphate breakthrough; see data on Figure 4-13.
25
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Concentration
Minimum
33
40
41
0.2
0.2
0.2
4.6
4.6
4.6
0.05
0.05
0.05
24.2
19.1
8.9
0.1
0.1
O.I
6.9
7.1
7.2
12.0
12.4
12.4
4.8
3.7
4.9
168
183
194
22
24
24
14
16
16
7.4
7.5
4.1
Maximum
88
63
60
0.6
0.5
0.6
7.0
8.0
8.0
4.69
1.05
5.06
31.7
26.4
26.6
0.6
0.9
2.7
7.5
7.4
7.5
15.9
16.5
16.8
6.5
7.2
6.4
219
221
230
36
38
37
27
29
26
9.1
9.2
11.5
Average
53
49
49
0.4
0.4
0.3
5.7
5.7
5.9
0.45
0.25
0.51
25.5
24.6
23.5
0.2
0.3
0.4
7.1
7.3
7.4
13.5
13.7
14.0
5.7
5.4
5.7
204
205
210
27
29
29
18
21
21
8.3
8.4
7.9
Standard
Deviation
14
8
7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.18
0.33
1.27
1.8
1.7
4.1
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.2
1.2
1.4
0.6
0.9
0.5
15
11
12
6
7
6
6
6
5
0.7
0.9
3.0
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
26
-------
The total arsenic breakthrough curves shown in Figure 4-12 indicate that the lead vessel removed the
majority of arsenic, existing predominately as As(V), in the influent water, leaving only <11.3 (ig/L to be
further polished by the lag vessel. Breakthrough of total arsenic at 10 (ig/L from the lead vessel was first
observed during the October 4, 2005 sampling event at approximately 19,500 BV, which represents only
31% of the vendor-estimated working capacity of 62,690 BV (Table 4-4). One contributing factor to the
earlier than expected breakthrough was the shorter EBCT (i.e., 2.9 min versus the design value of 3.7
min), which was caused by the higher flowrate experienced by the system (i.e., 13 gpm versus the design
value of 10 gpm). However, the 22% reduction in EBCT should not have reduced the media capacity by
69%.
Another factor that might have contributed to the shorter media life was the presence of competing
anions, such as orthophosphate and silica, in raw water with concentrations up to 0.3 mg/L (as PO4) for
orthophosphate and 31.7 mg/L (as SiO2) for silica. As shown in Figure 4-13, orthophosphate was
effectively removed to below its detection limit of 0.05 mg/L by the lead vessel up to about 19,500 BV.
Coincidentally, as breakthrough of arsenic approached 10 (ig/L, orthophosphate also began to break
through. Since then, detectable concentrations of 0.1 mg/L were measured following the lead vessel, but
were reduced to below its detection limit by the lag vessel. To a lesser extent, silica also competed with
arsenic for available adsorptive sites, as evidenced by the reduced silica concentrations observed during
the first sampling event on April 15, 2005 and the event on October 4, 2005 when an elevated silica level
of 31.7 mg/L (versus an average of 25.5 mg/L) was measured in raw water.
As noted in Section 4.4.1, the system operated for approximately 5 hr/day. This on/off operation,
compared with operation 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk might have increased the media capacity due to a relaxation
in the concentration gradient following every stoppage. It was not clear if the vendor took this effect into
consideration when estimating the media capacity.
By the end of the first six months of system operations, the system treated approximately 21,600 BV of
water (equivalent to 807,300 gal). Arsenic breakthrough at this point reached 11.3 and 0.5 (ig/L for the
lead and lag vessels, respectively. Since then, system operation has continued and the media in the lead
vessel will be removed once it is completely exhausted or the breakthrough of the lag vessel reaches 10
(ig/L, whichever comes first.
Iron and Manganese. Total iron concentrations in raw water were below its detection limit of 25 (ig/L
(Table 4-5). Total iron concentrations across the treatment train also were below the detection limit,
except for one measurement of 72.5 (ig/L at the TB location on September 6, 2005. Total manganese
levels ranged from 0.6 to 16.7 (ig/L and averaged 4.2 (ig/L in raw water. Total manganese concentrations
in the effluent from the adsorption vessels showed a decreasing trend, with <1.5 (ig/L measured after the
lead vessel and <1.0 (ig/L after the lag vessel. Soluble manganese concentrations were similar for the 3
sample locations averaging 1.2 (ig/L, 0.9 (ig/L, and 0.6 (ig/L for IN, TA, and TB, respectively.
Other Water Quality Parameters. As shown in Table 4-6, pH values of raw water measured at the IN
sample location varied from 6.9 to 7.5 and averaged 7.1. This near neutral pH condition is desirable for
adsorptive media which, in general, have a greater arsenic removal capacity when treating water at near
neutral pH values. Although not monitored during the first six months of system operation, the pH value
after aeration was higher than that before aeration as measured during the initial site visit (Table 4-1).
The higher pH values might have caused some arsenic desorption into the backwash water when the
aerated water was used to backwash the media. The effect of pH is further discussed in Section 4.5.2.
27
-------
Arsenic Species at Wellhead (IN)
s-u ~
35
3-
|25-
nj
£20-
c
-------
0.40
0.00
At Wellhead (IN)
After Vessel A (TA)
After Vessel B (TB)
Bed Volumes (103|
Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves
Bed Volumes (103)
Figure 4-13. Orthophosphate Trend
29
-------
Alkalinity, reported as CaCO3, ranged from 33 to 88 mg/L. The results indicate that the adsorptive media
did not affect the amount of alkalinity in the water after treatment. The treatment plant samples were
analyzed for hardness only on speciation weeks. Total hardness ranged from 22 to 38 mg/L (as CaCO3),
and also remained constant throughout the treatment train.
Sulfate concentrations ranged from 4.6 to 8.0 mg/L, and remained constant throughout the treatment train.
Fluoride results ranged from 0.2 to 0.6 mg/L in all samples. The results indicate that the adsorptive media
did not affect the amount of fluoride in the water after treatment.
DO levels ranged from 3.7 to 7.2 mg/L; ORP readings ranged from 168 to 230 mV across all sampling
locations. The water pumped from the 800-ft-deep bedrocks appear to be fairly oxidizing.
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. Backwash was performed using the treated water from the
2,000-gal hydropneumatic pressure tank that contained, at the time, no more than 0.3 |o,g/L of arsenic.
The backwash water contained a much higher arsenic level (i.e., 30.2 (ig/L from the lead vessel and 3.6
(ig/L from the lag vessel), indicating that desorption was occurring. More arsenic was leached from the
lead than the lag vessel, apparently caused by the higher arsenic loading in the lead vessel. The arsenic
desorption might be due to the slightly higher pH (i.e., 7.5) of the treated water following aeration for
radon removal (Table 4-1), although the pH of the backwash water, ranging from 7.1 to 7.2, was similar
to that of the treated water (Table 4-6). Turbidity readings from Vessel A were higher than those from
Vessel B, most likely because the lead tank had removed the majority of particulates from raw water. The
analytical results from the backwash water samples collected are summarized in Table 4-7.
Note that the backwash water sampling procedure will be modified during the next six months of system
operation to include the collection of composite samples for total As, Fe, and Mn as well as total
suspended solids (TSS). This modified procedure involves diverting a portion of backwash water from
the backwash discharge line to a 32-gal plastic container over the duration of the backwash for each
vessel and collecting a composite sample from the container after the content had been well mixed. The
composite samples also will be filtered using 0.45-(im filters and analyzed for soluble As, Fe, and Mn.
Table 4-7. Backwash Water Sampling Results
Date
08/22/05
Vessel A (Lead Tank)
pH
S.U.
7.1
Turbidity
NTU
58
TDS
mg/L
90
As(a)
Hg/L
30.2
Few
u-g/L
<25
Mn(a)
US/L
1.3
Vessel B (Lag Tank)
pH
S.U.
7.2
Turbidity
NTU
19
TDS
mg/L
80
As(a)
u.g/L
3.6
Few
u-g/L
<25
Mn(a)
ug/L
0.3
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment
system, baseline distribution system water samples were collected at three residences on January 10,
January 25, February 7, and March 21, 2005. Following the installation of the treatment system,
distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three residences, with samples
collected on May 16, June 13, July 11, August 8, September 6, and October 5, 2005. The results of the
distribution system sampling are summarized on Table 4-8.
The most noticeable change in the distribution samples since the system began operation was a decrease
in arsenic concentration. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged from 23.7 to 34.2 (ig/L and averaged
30 (ig/L for all three locations. After the performance evaluation began, arsenic concentrations were
reduced to <2.5 (ig/L (averaging 1.1 (ig/L), which were similiar to the arsenic conentrations in the system
effluent.
30
-------
Table 4-8. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
Date
01/10/05
01/25/05
02/07/05
03/21/05
05/16/05
06/13/05
07/11/05
08/08/05
09/06/05
10/05/05
Treated
Water
3
Mg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.7
0.5
W
s.u.
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.2
DS1
Stagnation Time
hr
8.7
8.0
8.6
8.2
8.7
8.8
8.6
8.6
8.5
8.3
W
S.U.
8.2
6.9
7.6
7.5
7.8
6.6
6.7
7.4
7.0
7.4
Alkalinity
mg/L
49
49
51
45
55
58
50
47
50
50
3
Mg/L
23.7
32.4
31.5
31.4
2.5
2.3
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.2
4»
tu
Mg/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Mg/L
2.1
2.9
2.7
3.3
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
.Q
a.
Mg/L
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.3
0.4
1.3
5
Mg/L
67.7
88.1
84.3
89.0
90.9
92.5
92.2
85.1
30.8
95.6
DS2
Stagnation Time
hr
11.0
9.5
9.0
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.0
8.0
9.5
10.0
o.
S.U.
8.0
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.7
6.9
6.8
7.3
7.2
7.4
Alkalinity
mg/L
45
47
52
45
51
57
48
47
50
46
3
Mg/L
24.1
33.2
31.3
31.6
2.5
2.0
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.9
&
Mg/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Mg/L
1.9
2.3
2.3
3.0
1.3
1.3
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.3
.Q
a.
Mg/L
1.1
0.4
0.6
0.4
2.0
2.0
0.7
0.7
0.2
1.5
5
Mg/L
82.2
47.2
53.1
89.4
132
113
111
103
16.8
82.7
DS3
Stagnation Time
hr
7.8
7.3
6.8
8.3
8.0
7.0
8.5
7.3
7.3
NA
W
S.U.
7.9
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.8
7.0
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.4
Alkalinity
mg/L
48
48
51
47
50
52
48
46
51
50
3
Mg/L
24.7
34.2
31.6
32.0
1.7
1.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.8
4>
tu
Mg/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Mg/L
1.8
2.5
2.3
3.1
1.3
1.5
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.5
.Q
a.
Mg/L
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.2
1.1
5
Mg/L
46.6
38.5
37.8
51.4
68.9
66.8
63.9
80.8
18.4
121
Lead action level =15 |ig/L; copper action level =1.3 mg/L
The unit for analytical parameters is |ig/L except for alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3).
BL = Baseline Sampling; NA = Not Available.
-------
Lead concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 2.0 (ig/L, with none of the samples exceeding the action level of
15 (ig/L. Copper concentrations ranged from 16.8 to 132 (ig/L, with no samples exceeding the
1,300 (ig/L action level. The APU-GOFF-LL system did not seem to affect the Pb or Cu concentrations
in the distribution system.
Measured pH ranged from 6.6 to 8.2 and averaged 7.3. Alkalinity levels ranged from 45 to 58 mg/L (as
CaCO3). Iron was not detected in any of the samples; manganese concentrations ranged from 0.3 to 3.3
(ig/L. The arsenic treatment system did not seem to affect these water quality parameters in the
distribution system.
4.6 System Cost
The system cost is evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design capacity and the
O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The capital cost includes the cost for equipment, site
engineering, and installation and the O&M cost includes media replacement and disposal, electrical
power use, and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation of the
Goffstown treatment system was $34,210 (see Table 4-9). The equipment cost was $22,431 (or 66% of
the total capital investment), which included $17,171 for the skid-mounted APU-GOFF-LL unit, $3,000
for the AD-33 media ($300/ft3 or $10.68/lb to fill two vessels), $1,000 for shipping, and $1,260 for labor.
The engineering cost included the cost for preparation of a process flow diagram of the treatment system,
mechanical drawings of the treatment equipment, and a schematic of the building footprint and equipment
layout to be used as part of the permit application submittal (see Section 4.3.1). The engineering cost was
$4,860, or 14% of the total capital investment.
The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted unit,
perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, load and backwash the media, perform system shakedown and
startup, and conduct operator training. The installation was performed by AdEdge and its local
contractor, Thursty Water Systems. The installation cost was $6,910, or 20% of the total capital
investment.
The total capital cost of $34,210 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 10 gpm (14,400 gpd),
which resulted in $3,421/gpm of design capacity ($2.38/gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $3,229/year using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-year return period. Assumed that the system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at the
system design flowrate of 10 gpm to produce 5,256,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would
be $0.61/1,000 gal. Because the system operated an average of 5 hr/day at 13 gpm (see Table 4-4),
producing 807,000 gal of water during the six-month period, the unit capital cost increased to
$2.00/1,000 gal at this reduced rate of use.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost includes the cost for such items as media
replacement and disposal, electricity consumption, and labor (Table 4-10). Although not incurred during
the first six months of system operation, the media replacement cost would represent the majority of the
O&M cost and was estimated to be $4,199 to change out the lead vessel. This media change-out cost
would include the cost for media, freight, labor, travel, spent media analysis, and media disposal fee.
This cost was used to estimate the media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water treated as a function of
the projected lead vessel media run length at the 10 |o,g/L arsenic breakthrough from the lag vessel
(Figure 4-14).
32
-------
Table 4-9. Capital Investment Cost for the APU-GOFF-LL System
Description
EC
APU Skid-Mounted System (Unit)
AD-33Media(ft3)
Shipping
Vendor Labor
Equipment Total
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment
luipment Cost
1
10
-
-
-
$17,171
$3,000
$1,000
$1,260
$22,431
-
-
-
-
66%
Engineering Cost
Vendor Labor
Engineering Total
-
—
$4,860
$4,860
-
14%
Installation Cost
Material
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
—
—
—
—
—
-
$2,520
$1,950
$1,440
$1,000
$6,910
$34,210
—
—
—
—
20%
100%
Table 4-10. Operation and Maintenance Cost for the APU-GOFF-LL System
Cost Category
Volume processed (kgal)
Value
807
Assumptions
Through October 22, 2005
Media Replacement and Disposal Cost
Media replacement ($)
Underbedding ($)
Freight ($)
Subcontractor labor ($)
Vendor Labor ($)
Media disposal fee ($)
Spent Media Analysis ($)
Subtotal
Media replacement and disposal
($71,000 gal)
1,500
154
250
1,050
800
200
245
4,199
See Figure 4-14
Vendor quote; $300/ft3 for 5 ft3 in
lead vessel
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote for one TCLP test
Vendor quote plus spent media
analysis
Based upon lead vessel media run
length at 10-|ag/L arsenic
breakthrough from lag vessel
Electricity Cost
Electricity ($71,000 gal)
$0.001
Electrical costs assumed negligible
Labor Cost
Average weekly labor (hr)
Labor ($71, 000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
0.5
$0.33
See Figure 4-14
30 minutes/per week
Labor rate = $2 1/hr
Based upon lead vessel media run
length at 10-|ag/L arsenic
breakthrough from lag vessel
33
-------
=• $6.00 -
O&M cost
Media replacement cost
°- $5.00 -
$0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (xlOOO)
Note: One bed volume equals 5 ft3 (37.4 gal) in lead vessel
Figure 4-14. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost
Comparison of electrical bills supplied by the utility prior to system installation and since startup did not
indicate a noticeable increase in power consumption. Therefore, electrical cost associated with operation
of the APU-GOFF-LL system was assumed to be negligible.
Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed
only 30 min per week, as noted in Section 4.4.6. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $0.31/1,000 gal
of water treated.
34
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. EPA NRMRL.
September 17.
Battelle. 2005. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at Goffstown, New Hampshire. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185,
Task Order No. 0029 for U.S. EPA NRMRL. March 24.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. EPA NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA (March): 103-113.
EPA, see United States Environmental Protection Agency.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Fed.
Register, 66:14:6975. January 22.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting
Guidance for Public Water Systems. Prepared by U.S. EPA's Office of Water. EPA/816/R-
02/009. February.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141. March 25.
Wang, L., W. Condit, and A. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA Arsenic
Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S. EPA
NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH.
35
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 1 of 3)
Week
No.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Day of
Week
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Date & Time
04/15/0515:40
04/16/0507:30
04/17/0509:30
04/18/0511:05
04/19/0508:00
04/20/05 1 1 :30
04/21/0508:45
04/22/0510:15
04/23/05 08:30
04/24/0514:55
04/25/05 1 1 :30
04/26/05 08:30
04/27/05 1 1 :00
04/28/0510:00
04/29/05 1 1 :30
04/30/05 09:30
05/01/0510:00
05/02/0511:15
05/03/05 08:45
05/04/05 08:00
05/05/05 09:05
05/06/0512:45
05/07/0510:00
05/08/0510:00
05/09/0514:30
05/10/0508:00
05/11/0511:00
05/12/0510:00
05/13/0513:45
05/14/0509:30
05/15/0510:30
05/16/0509:00
05/17/0514:00
05/18/0512:00
05/19/0508:00
05/20/0515:00
05/21/0511:00
05/24/05 1 1 :00
05/26/05 1 1 :00
05/28/05 08:30
05/31/0510:45
06/02/05 08:00
06/04/05 08:30
06/07/05 08:00
06/09/05 08:30
06/11/0508:30
Electric
Meter
KWHR
1860
NA
1865
1868
1870
1873
1885
1887
1890
1893
1896
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1913
1915
1916
1919
1921
1923
1925
1929
1931
1933
1935
1938
1940
1943
1946
1949
1951
1953
1957
1959
1967
1972
1978
1986
1993
1999
2004
2009
2018
Hour
Meter1"1
hr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.1
27.7
Actual
Run
Time
hr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.1
10.6
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
14.5
14.7
12.9
14
13.4
12.7
12.2
13.7
14.4
12.9
12.1
12.9
14.2
12.6
13.5
14
13.8
13.6
14.2
13.2
14.1
14.2
13.1
12
13
13.9
13.5
12.5
14.1
11.8
12.2
11.6
13.1
14
12
14.4
12.7
14.2
13.2
12.8
12.7
13.4
12.9
12.9
13.1
11.3
Totalizer
gal
729
2400
8636
14409
17852
22950
26486
30662
34429
41213
45208
48661
53304
56709
60806
63839
67553
73158
76389
79933
83394
87494
90585
95033
101056
103347
108162
112010
116385
119747
124653
129439
134866
138653
142048
147816
151782
165420
174087
181578
194778
201319
208865
222922
232467
240924
Cum.
Bed
Volume
19
64
231
385
477
614
708
820
921
1102
1209
1301
1425
1516
1626
1707
1806
1956
2042
2137
2230
2339
2422
2541
2702
2763
2892
2995
3112
3202
3333
3461
3606
3707
3798
3952
4058
4423
4655
4855
5208
5383
5585
5960
6216
6442
Usage
qal
729
1671
6236
5773
3443
5098
3536
4176
3767
6784
3995
3453
4643
3405
4097
3033
3714
5605
3231
3544
3461
4100
3091
4448
6023
2291
4815
3848
4375
3362
4906
4786
5427
3787
3395
5768
3966
13638
8667
7491
13200
6541
7546
14057
9545
8457
Calc.
Run
Time1"1
hr
1
2
8
7
4
7
5
5
4
9
6
4
5
5
5
4
4
7
4
4
4
5
4
6
8
3
6
5
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
7
5
16
11
10
17
8
10
18
12
-
Average
Flowrate
qpm
15
15
13
14
13
13
12
14
14
13
12
13
14
13
14
14
14
14
14
13
14
14
13
12
13
14
14
13
14
12
12
12
13
14
12
14
13
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Cum.
Run
Time
hr
1
3
11
18
22
29
33
39
43
52
57
62
67
72
77
80
85
92
95
100
104
109
113
119
127
129
135
140
146
150
157
164
171
175
180
187
192
208
219
229
246
254
264
282
294
305
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
14.5
14.3
13.1
14.3
13.5
13.2
12.5
14.1
14.7
13.2
12.4
13.3
14.6
12.9
13.8
14.4
14.3
13.9
14.5
13.6
14.6
14.6
13.4
12.3
13.3
14.1
13.8
12.9
14.5
12.2
12.5
12.1
13.3
14.6
12.5
14.6
13.1
14.6
13.6
13.1
13.2
14.2
13.3
13.2
13.3
11.6
Totalizer
gal
781
2443
8800
14673
18160
23344
26948
31205
35053
41996
46089
49619
54372
57855
62045
65152
68949
74701
78013
81647
85185
89369
92546
97101
103288
105633
110580
114537
119024
122474
127522
132442
138019
141910
145393
151816
155403
169430
178334
186037
199630
206421
214270
228822
238609
247479
Cum.
Bed
Volume
21
65
235
392
486
624
721
834
937
1123
1232
1327
1454
1547
1659
1742
1844
1997
2086
2183
2278
2390
2474
2596
2762
2824
2957
3062
3182
3275
3410
3541
3690
3794
3888
4059
4155
4530
4768
4974
5338
5519
5729
6118
6380
6617
Pressure
Inlet
psig
29
29
28.5
28
28
27
26.5
28
29
28
26
28
30
27.5
28
29
29
28
30
28
29.5
30
28
26
28
29
28
27
29
26
26
26
28
29
27
29.5
27
30
28
27.5
27
29
27
27
27
25
Outlet
psig
12
12
10.5
10.5
10.5
10
10.2
10.5
12
10.5
10
10.2
10.5
10.2
10.2
10.5
10.1
10
11
10.2
12
11
10.5
10
10.2
11
10.2
10
10.5
10
10.2
10
10
10.5
10.5
10.5
10
11
10.5
10
10
10.5
10
10
10
10
AP
Inlet -
Outlet
psi
17
17
18
17.5
17.5
17
16.3
17.5
17
17.5
16
17.8
19.5
17.3
17.8
18.5
18.9
18
19
17.8
17.5
19
17.5
16
17.8
18
17.8
17
18.5
16
15.8
16
18
18.5
16.5
19
17
19
17.5
17.5
17
18.5
17
17
17
15
iP |
Vessel A
psi
3
3
3
4
5
5
4
5
5
4
4
5
6
5
5.5
5.5
6
5.5
6
5.5
5.8
5.9
5.8
4.8
5
6
5.9
5.9
5.5
4
4.9
4
5.5
5.9
4
5.5
5.2
6
5.5
5
4
5.5
3
4
5
3
Vessel
B(o]
psi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
4.5
3.5
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 2 of 3)
Week No.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Day of
Week
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Tue
Thu
Sat
Mon
Wed
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Mon
Wed
Sat
Tue
Fri
Sat
Mon
Wed
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Mon
Wed
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Mon
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Mon
Wed
Sat
Dates Time
06/13/0511:30
06/15/0509:00
06/17/0512:00
06/19/0515:30
06/21/0514:00
06/23/05 08:30
06/25/05 09:30
06/27/05 08:00
06/29/05 09:00
07/02/05 09:00
07/05/0514:30
07/07/05 09:30
07/09/05 09:30
07/11/0509:00
07/13/0514:00
07/16/0514:30
07/19/0513:00
07/22/0512:00
07/23/0510:30
07/25/05 08:00
07/27/0512:00
07/30/05 09:00
08/02/0513:30
08/04/0510:00
08/06/05 08:30
08/08/05 08:00
08/10/0509:00
08/1 3/05 09:00
08/16/0508:30
08/18/0509:00
08/20/05 08:30
08/22/05 08:30
08/25/05 08:00
08/27/05 09:30
08/30/05 09:30
08/31/05 08:30
09/03/05 09:30
09/06/05 09:00
09/08/05 09:30
09/10/0509:00
09/1 2/05 1 4:00
09/14/0515:30
09/17/0510:00
Electric
Meter
KWHR
2028
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Hour
Meter1"
hr
41.6
51.1
61.2
72.0
82.0
92.2
102.8
115.7
128.5
145.8
162.7
170.8
180.1
191.2
205.6
220.7
239.2
256.5
260.8
273.5
287.5
302.6
321.1
330.5
339.0
352.3
365.1
381.1
398.0
407.4
419.3
434.4
454.4
466.7
484.1
494.2
504.6
524.4
536.6
548.2
566.4
576.4
589.0
Actual
Run
Time1"1
hr
13.9
9.5
10.1
10.8
10.0
10.2
10.6
12.9
12.8
17.3
16.9
8.1
9.3
11.1
14.4
15.1
18.5
17.3
4.3
12.7
14.0
15.1
18.5
9.4
8.5
13.3
12.8
16.0
16.9
9.4
11.9
15.1
20.0
12.3
17.4
10.1
10.4
19.8
12.2
11.6
18.2
10.0
12.6
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flow rate
gpm
14.2
12.5
14
13
14.1
10.6
11.9
11.9
13.2
11.2
13.1
14.2
13.3
10.5
12.8
12.5
13.6
12.6
12.5
12
12
12
13.3
13.8
13.8
13
10.9
13.8
12.9
12.7
12.7
11.4
12.2
12.5
13.1
11.5
13.3
13.1
13.7
13.3
11.8
14.1
11.8
Totalizer
gal
251737
259252
267354
276090
284086
291792
300045
309679
319412
333008
346365
352860
360369
369084
379796
391514
405781
418948
422402
431780
442514
454274
468418
475728
482427
492367
502021
514382
527347
534860
544045
554938
569985
579564
592924
601017
609281
624840
633600
642626
655624
663515
673593
Cum.
Bed
Volume
6731
6932
7149
7382
7596
7802
8023
8280
8540
8904
9261
9435
9636
9869
10155
10468
10850
11202
11294
11545
11832
12146
12525
12720
12899
13165
13423
13754
14100
14301
14547
14838
15240
15496
15854
16070
16291
16707
16941
17183
17530
17741
18011
Usage
gal
10813
7515
8102
8736
7996
7706
8253
9634
9733
13596
13357
6495
7509
8715
10712
11718
14267
13167
3454
9378
10734
11760
14144
7310
6699
9940
9654
12361
12965
7513
9185
10893
15047
9579
13360
8093
8264
15559
8760
9026
12998
7891
10078
Calc. Run
Time
hr
Average
Flow rate
gpm
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
13
13
Cum. Run
Time
hr
319
328
338
349
359
369
380
393
406
423
440
448
457
468
483
498
516
534
538
551
565
580
598
608
616
629
642
658
675
684
696
711
731
744
761
771
782
801
814
825
843
853
866
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flow rate
gpm
14.3
13.2
14.3
13.3
14.6
10.8
12.2
12.4
13.5
11.6
13.4
14.5
13.7
10.8
13.2
12.9
14.3
13
12.8
12.7
12.7
12.4
13.5
14.3
14.4
13.4
11.4
14.2
13.4
13.4
13.3
11.8
12.5
13
13.6
12
13.6
13.7
14
13.5
12.2
14.1
12.3
Totalizer
gal
258394
266104
274389
283328
291510
299426
307887
317810
327822
341786
355498
362168
369876
378857
389916
402013
416782
430405
433976
443686
454794
466970
468418
475728
482427
506476
516496
529330
542800
550528
560103
571433
569985
579564
610682
619048
627572
642834
652694
662004
675452
683600
694005
Cum. Bed
Volume
6909
7115
7337
7576
7794
8006
8232
8498
8765
9139
9505
9684
9890
10130
10426
10749
11144
11508
11604
11863
12160
12486
12525
12720
12899
13542
13810
14153
14513
14720
14976
15279
15240
15496
16328
16552
16780
17188
17452
17701
18060
18278
18556
Pressure
Inlet
psig
28
27.5
28
28
29
25
26
26
28
25
28
29
28
24
28
27
29
27
27
26.5
27
26
28
28
29
28
25
28
28
28
27
27
26
26
28
25
27
27.5
28
27
25
28
25
Outlet
psig
10
10
10
10
10.5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10.5
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
AP
Inlet -
Outlet
psi
18
17.5
18
18
18.5
15
16
16
18
15
18
18.5
18
15
18
17
19
17
17
16.5
17
16
18
18
19
18
15
18
18
18
17
17
16
16
18
15
17
17.5
18
17
15
18
15
AP
Vessel A
psi
5.5
5
5
5
5.5
3
4
5
4
3
5
5
5
3
5
4.5
5
5.5
5
5
5
5
5.5
4.5
5.5
5.5
5
5.5
5
5
5
4.5
4
4
5
3
5
5
5
5
4.2
5
4.5
Vessel
B(c|
psi
5
4
5
4.5
5
3.2
3.5
4
4.5
3.5
4.5
5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4
5
4.5
4
3.5
4.5
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
4.4
4.5
4.5
3.5
4
4
4.8
3.5
4.2
4
4.5
4.3
3.5
6
4
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 3 of 3)
Week No.
23
24
25
26
27
Day of
Week
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sun
Mon
Thu
Sat
Date & Time
09/20/05 09:00
09/22/05 09:30
09/24/05 08:30
09/27/05 09:00
09/29/05 09:30
10/01/0509:15
10/04/0509:15
10/06/05 10:15
10/08/0509:45
10/11/0509:30
10/13/0509:40
10/16/0509:45
10/17/0509:30
10/20/0509:30
10/22/05 10:00
Electric
Meter
KWHR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Hour
Meter1"
hr
605.8
615.6
623.9
639.8
649.2
657.3
673.4
684.0
692.6
707.1
717.1
729.8
734.7
748.0
755.3
Actual
Run
Time1"1
hr
16.8
9.8
8.3
15.9
9.4
8.1
16.1
10.6
8.6
14.5
10.0
12.7
4.9
13.3
7.3
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
13.5
13.7
14.4
13.5
14
13.1
13.2
13.5
13.4
13.8
13.4
12.4
14.2
13.1
14
Totalizer
gal
686774
694629
701298
713955
721566
728269
740939
749348
756339
767896
775977
786345
790252
801173
807298
Cum.
Bed
Volume
18363
18573
18751
19090
19293
19472
19811
20036
20223
20532
20748
21025
21130
21422
21586
Usage
cial
13181
7855
6669
12657
7611
6703
12670
8409
6991
11557
8081
10368
3907
10921
6125
Calc. Run
Time
hr
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Flowrate
cipm
13
13
13
13
13
14
13
13
14
13
13
14
13
14
14
Cum. Run
Time
hr
883
893
901
917
926
934
950
961
970
984
994
1007
1012
1025
1032
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
13.8
14
14.7
14
14.5
13.5
13.7
13.9
13.7
14.3
13.8
12.8
14.7
13.3
14.2
Totalizer
gal
707606
715716
722600
735641
743477
750364
763411
772077
779286
791183
799492
810170
814192
825406
831683
Cum. Bed
Volume
18920
19137
19321
19670
19879
20063
20412
20644
20837
21155
21377
21662
21770
22070
22238
Pressure
Inlet
psig
28
28
29
28
28
27
28
28
27
28
28
26
28
27
28
Outlet
psig
10
10
10
10
10.1
10
10
10
10
10.1
10
9.5
10
10
10.5
AP
Inlet -
Outlet
PSI
18
18
19
18
17.9
17
18
18
17
17.9
18
16.5
18
17
17.5
AP
Vessel A
PSI
5
5
5
5
5
4.5
5
3
5
5
4
3.5
5.5
4.5
4.5
Vessel
B(d
PSI
4.5
4.5
4.7
4.7
4.9
4
4.2
3.8
4.1
5
4.5
4
4.5
4.5
4.7
Note: BV calculation assumes 5 ft of media per vessel.
NA = data not available
(a) = Hour meter was installed on June 6, 2005.
(b) = Before the hour meter was installed the run time was calculated by dividing the usage by the flowrate.
(c) = Pressure gauge was added on June 6, 2005.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goffstown, NH (Page 1 of 3)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
(as P04)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
VIg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
04/15/05(11)
IN
-
52
0.3
6.4
0.1
0.3
25.9
0.3
7.1
13.0
6.3
215
26.4
17.3
9.1
29.4
29.4
<0.1
0.7
28.8
<25
<25
16.7
1.4
TA
0.0
54
0.4
6.8
0.1
<0.05
19.1
<0.1
7.4
13.1
7.2
201
32.2
23.0
9.2
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
1.5
1.5
TB
0.0
56
0.4
7.4
<0.05
<0.05
8.9
0.2
7.3
13.1
5.8
202
28.8
24.7
4.1
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
1.0
1.0
05/02/05W
IN
-
60
0.4
6.3
0.1
<0.05
25.2
0.1
7.1
13.4
5.0
212
-
-
-
31.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.2
-
TA
2.0
60
0.5
6.5
0.1
<0.05
25.0
<0.1
7.3
13.1
5.6
205
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
TB
2.0
60
0.4
6.6
0.4
<0.05
23.7
<0.1
7.3
13.2
5.0
204
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
05/16/05(c)
IN
-
48
0.4
7.0
0.1
0.2
25.4
<0.1
7.1
12.1
6.5
212
-
-
-
32.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
TA
3.5
56
0.5
8.0
0.1
<0.05
25.8
0.3
7.3
12.7
6.2
210
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
3.5
54
0.6
8.0
0.1
<0.05
25.4
0.1
7.4
12.7
5.9
214
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
05/31/05<(1)
IN
-
67
0.6
7.0
0.1
<0.05
24.8
0.2
6.9
12.5
6.1
213
-
-
-
31.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
TA
5.2
63
0.5
7.0
0.1
<0.05
25.4
0.2
7.1
12.4
5.4
198
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
TB
5.3
58
0.5
7.0
0.4
<0.05
25.3
0.2
7.3
12.4
6.4
228
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
06/15/05(t)
IN
-
63
0.5
7.0
0.1
<0.05
25.5
0.1
6.9
13.9
4.8
219
35.9
27.2
8.7
34.0
33.7
0.3
0.7
33.0
<25
<25
15.5
1.1
TA
6.9
57
0.5
6.0
<0.05
<0.05
26.4
0.1
7.2
14.1
4.8
215
37.7
28.7
9.0
1.7
1.7
<0.1
0.6
1.0
<25
<25
0.2
1.0
TB
7.1
57
0.5
6.0
<0.05
<0.05
26.6
0.1
7.3
14.5
5.4
210
37.1
25.7
11.5
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.6
<0.1
<25
<25
0.2
0.3
(a) Water quality samples taken on 04/18/05. (b) Water quality
(d) Water quality measurements taken on 05/28/05. (e) Water qi
measurements taken on 04/29/05. (c) Water quality measurements taken on 05/13/05.
[uality samples taken on 06/13/05. IN = at wellhead; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goffstown, NH (Page 2 of 3)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as
CaC03)
Mg Hardness (as
CaC03)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
6/27/2005(11)
IN
-
33
0.3
5.0
4.7
<0.05
25.1
0.2
7.1
13.9
5.2
218
-
-
-
27.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.3
-
TA
8.3
41
0.3
5.0
1.1
<0.05
25.0
0.2
7.3
13.3
5.1
217
-
-
-
3.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
TB
8.5
41
0.3
6.0
5.1
<0.05
24.4
2.7
7.4
13.5
5.3
215
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
7/12/2005
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goffstown, NH (Page 3 of 3)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as
CaC03)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
(as P04)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as
CaC03)
Ca Hardness (as
CaC03)
VIg Hardness (as
CaC03)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (IE)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
"g/L
Hg/L
"g/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
09/06/05
------- |