EPA/600/R-05/116
October 2005
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
EPA Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH
Six-Month Evaluation Report
by
Jeff Oxenham
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0019
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0019 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 Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
facility in Rollinsford, 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 ng/L. Additionally, this project evaluates the reliability of the treatment system (Arsenic
Package Unit [APU]-100), the simplicity of required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and
operator's skills, and the cost-effectiveness of the technology. The project also characterizes the water in
the distribution system and process residuals produced by the treatment process.
The APU-100 treatment system consisted of two 36-inch-diameter, 72-inch-tall fiberglass reinforced
plastic (FRP) vessels in parallel configuration, each containing approximately 27 ft3 of AD-33 media.
The AD-33 media is an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG and packaged under the
name of AD-33 by AdEdge. This media is identical to Severn Trent Services' SORB 33™ media used at
larger arsenic removal systems. The system was designed for a peak flowrate of 100 gallons per minute
(gpm) (50 gpm to each vessel) corresponding to a design empty bed contact time (EBCT) of about 4
minutes per vessel and a hydraulic loading to each vessel of about 7 gpm/ft2.
The AdEdge treatment system began regular operation on February 9, 2004. The types of data collected
included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system),
process residuals, and capital and O&M costs. Through the period from February 9 to August 13, 2004,
the system treated approximately 7,158,000 gallons of water or about 19,500 bed volumes. Breakthrough
of total arsenic concentrations above the 10 |o,g/L target level was first observed during the May 25, 2004
sampling event at 12,500 bed volumes. Concentrations in the treated water were below 10 |o,g/L during
the next sampling event on June 8, but again exceeded the target level of 10 |o,g/L on June 22. Based on
this data, it appears that breakthrough of arsenic at concentrations above the target level occurred some-
where between 12,500 and 15,000 bed volumes (or approximately 4.5 to 5.5 million gallons of water
treated). This volume represents about 15 to 20% of the vendor-estimated working capacity of AD-33
media. Prior to breakthrough, the system reduced total arsenic levels from between 28.7 and 46.3 |o,g/L in
raw water to <10 ng/L in the treated water. The soluble arsenic concentration in the raw water included
an average of 18.3 |o,g/L of As (III) and 14.8 |o,g/L of As(V). In March, 2004 total arsenic levels in the
treated water were observed at concentrations of 5.5 to 7.7 |o,g/L, and the majority of arsenic passing
through the AD-33 media was As(III). Prechlorination was added to the treatment train on March 24,
2004 and was effective at oxidizing As(III) to As(V). Following the switch to prechlorination, the
average As(III) concentration in the treated water dropped to 0.6 |o,g/L, which was very similar to the
As(III) concentration seen in untreated water sampled upstream of the adsorption system.
Total and free chlorine residuals measured before and after the adsorption vessels were similar, ranging
from 0.05 to 0.40 mg/L (as C12) for free chlorine and 0.20 to 0.71 mg/L (as C12) for total chlorine before
the adsorption vessels, to 0.04 to 0.05 mg/L (as C12) for free chlorine and 0.23 to 0.26 mg/L (as C12) for
total chlorine after the vessels. This indicates little or no chlorine consumption by the AD-33 media.
Influent total iron concentrations ranged from 37 to 489 and averaged 156.4 |o,g/L with the majority of
iron present in the soluble Fe(II) form. Upon prechlorination, iron precipitated immediately and was
filtered by the media. Influent total manganese levels ranged from 52 to 245 |o,g/L and averaged
114.0 |og/L with the majority of manganese present in the soluble Mn(II) form. Prior to prechlorination,
manganese quickly broke through the AD-33 media, reaching about 100% breakthrough after about
3,700 bed volumes of water treated. Unlike iron, manganese remained mostly in the soluble form upon
IV
-------
prechlorination, indicating slow oxidation kinetics. However, following the adsorption vessels, manga-
nese was removed to below 10 |o,g/L, suggesting that the presence of chlorine promoted the removal of
manganese on the surface of the AD-33 media.
Results of the distribution samples collected before and after the installation and operation of the APU-
100 system showed no discernable trend in any of the distribution sampling results collected, indicating
that the treatment system had little to no effect on the water quality in the distribution system. This was
likely due to the blending of the treated water with untreated water from another well location used to
supply water to the town's looped distribution system. The blending of the treated water with the
untreated water might have masked any detectable effects of the APU-100 system on the water quality in
the distribution system.
Three backwash water samples were collected during the first six months of system operation. Arsenic
concentrations in the backwash water ranged from 11.1 to 33.4 |og/L. In most cases, arsenic, iron, and
manganese concentrations were lower than those in the raw water (backwash was performed using raw
water from the supply wells), indicating some removal of these metals by the media during backwash.
The capital investment cost of $106,568 included $82,081 for equipment, $4,907 for site engineering, and
$19,580 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 100 gpm (144,000 gallon per day (gpd)),
the capital cost was $1,066 per gpm of design capacity ($0.74/gpd) and equipment-only cost was $821 per
gpm of design capacity ($0.57/gpd). These calculations did not include the cost of the building
construction.
O&M costs included only incremental costs associated with the adsorption system, such as media
replacement and disposal, chemical supply, electricity, and labor. Although not incurred during the first
six months of system operation, the media replacement cost represented the majority of the O&M cost
and was estimated to be $16,810 to change out both vessels. This cost was used to estimate the media
replacement cost per 1,000 gallons of water treated as a function of the projected media run length to the
10 |o,g/L arsenic breakthrough.
Since startup, the APU-100 system experienced higher than expected pressure drops across the treatment
system and elevated inlet pressure. In multiple attempts to address these elevated pressure conditions,
backwashing was conducted repeatedly with flowrates up to 11 gpm/ft2, as recommended by the vendor.
However, the aggressive backwashing did not appear to be effective in solving the elevated pressure
problems. Additionally, there were periods when the system was bypassed due to the elevated pressure
conditions. Extensive troubleshooting and replacement of certain system components also were performed
to address the problems encountered. However, as of the end of the first six months of the evaluation
period, the system continued to operate under elevated pressure higher than that expected based on
original design information.
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES viii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 1
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 CONCLUSIONS 3
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 5
3.1 General Project Approach 5
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 6
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 7
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection 7
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection 7
3.3.3 Backwash Water Sample Collection 7
3.3.4 Backwash Solid Sample Collection 7
3.3.5 Distribution System Water Sample Collection 8
3.4 Sampling Logistics 9
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 9
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 9
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 10
3.5 Analytical Procedures 10
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 11
4.1 Existing Facility Description 11
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 11
4.1.2 Pre-Demonstration Treated Water Quality 13
4.1.3 Distribution System 13
4.2 Treatment Process Description 13
4.3 System Installation 16
4.3.1 Permitting 16
4.3.2 Building Construction 19
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 19
4.4 System Operation 19
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 19
4.4.2 Differential Pressure 20
4.4.3 CO2 Injection 24
4.4.4 Backwash 24
4.4.5 Residual Management 25
4.4.6 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 25
4.5 System Performance 27
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 27
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling 35
VI
-------
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 36
4.6 System Costs 36
4.6.1 Capital Costs 36
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs 38
5.0 REFERENCES 41
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA
vn
-------
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Existing Porter Well House 11
Figure 4-2. Schematic of APU-100 System 15
Figure 4-3. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 17
Figure 4-4. Gas Injection Point for the CO2 System Used forpH Adjsutment 18
Figure 4-5. APU-100 Treatment System 18
Figure 4-6. New Treatment Building (Right) and Existing Porter Well House (Left) 19
Figure 4-7. Differential Pressure Loss (Ap) and System Flowrate Across Vessel A During the First
Six Months of Operation 21
Figure 4-8. Differential Pressure Loss (Ap) and System Flowrate Across Vessel B During the First
Six Months of Operation 22
Figure 4-9. Concentration of Arsenic Species at the IN, AP, and TT Sample Locations 31
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve 32
Figure 4-11. Total Manganese Concentrations over Time 33
Figure 4-12. Concentration of Manganese Species at the IN, AP, and TT Sample Locations 34
Figure 4-13. pH Values over Time 35
Figure 4-14. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Costs 40
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Technologies and Source Water
Quality Parameters 2
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 5
Table 3-2. General Types of Data 6
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule for Rollinsford, NH Facility 8
Table 4-1. Rollinsford, NH Source Water Quality Data 12
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media 14
Table 4-3. Design Features of the APU-100 System 16
Table 4-4. Summary of APU-100 System Operation 20
Table 4-5. Summary of pH Readings Recorded at the AP Sample Location and the Inline
pH Probe 25
Table 4-6. Summary of Critical Analytical Results after Relocation of Chlorination Point
Upstream of Adsorption Vessels 28
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results after Relocation of
Chlorination Point Upstream of Adsorption Vessels 29
Table 4-8. Backwash Water Sampling Results 35
Table 4-9. Distribution System Sampling Results 37
Table 4-10. Capital Investment Costs for the APU-100 System 38
Table 4-11. Operation and Maintenance Costs for the APU-100 System 39
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media process
APU arsenic package unit
As arsenic
BET Brunauer, Emmett and Teller
BV bed volume
Ca calcium
Cl chloride
C/F coagulation/filtration process
CRF capital recovery factor
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HOPE high-density polyethylene
H2SO4 sulfuric acid
HTA Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc.
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
MDWCA Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
IX
-------
NS not sampled
O&M operation and maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
psi pounds per square inch
PO4 orthophosphate
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RPD relative percent difference
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SM system modification
SO42' sulfate
STMGID South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
TBD to be determined
TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of the Rollinsford Water and Sewer
District in New Hampshire. Mr. Jack Hladick and his staff monitored the treatment system daily and
collected samples from the treatment system and distribution system on a regular schedule throughout this
reporting period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without their efforts.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA estab-
lished a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the SDWA
required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the arsenic MCL
by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA, 2001).
In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25, 2003 to
express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community and non-
transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in 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. The Rollinsford Water and Sewer District was selected as one of the 17 Round 1
host sites for the demonstration program.
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 review
panel reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it deter-
mined were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other tech-
nical reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states selected one technical proposal for each site. AdEdge Technologies (AdEdge), using
the Bayoxide E33 media developed by Bayer AG, was selected for the Rollinsford facility. AdEdge has
given the E33 media the designation "AD-33."
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the 12 Round 1 EPA arsenic removal demonstration host sites include nine
adsorptive media systems, one anion exchange system, one coagulation/filtration system, and one process
modification with iron addition. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, and key
source water quality parameters (including arsenic, iron, and pH) of the 12 demonstration sites. The
technology selection and system design for the 12 demonstration sites have been reported in an EPA
report (Wang et al., 2004) posted on an EPA Web site (http://www.eap.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/
resource.htm).
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Technologies and Source
Water Quality Parameters
Demonstration Site
Bow,NH
Rollinsford, NH
Queen Anne's County, MD
Brown City, MI
Climax, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
Desert Sands MDWCA, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Fruitland, ID
STMGID, NV
Technology
(Media)
AM(G2)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
C/F
SM
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
IX
AM (GFH)
Vendor
ADI
AdEdge
STS
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
USFilter
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
70(a)
100
300
640
140
250
320
145
90(a)
37
250
350
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
39
36(b)
19(b)
14(b)
39(b)
146(b)
23(b)
33
50
41
44
39
Fe
(ng/L)
<25
46
270(c)
127(o)
546(c)
l,325(c)
39
<25
170
<25
<25
<25
pH
7.7
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.7
8.5
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.4
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration process; IX = ion exchange process;
SM = system modification; MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water Consumer's Association
STMGID = South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District.
(a) Due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation, the design flowrate is reduced by 50%.
(b) Arsenic exists mostly as As(III).
(c) Iron exists mostly as soluble Fe(II).
1.3
Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 12 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 simplicity of required system operation and maintenance (O&M)
and operator's skill levels.
• Determine the cost-effectiveness of the technologies.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
This report summarizes the results gathered during the first six months of the AdEdge treatment system
operation from February 9 through August 13, 2004. The types of data collected include system opera-
tional data, water quality data (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals
characterization data, and capital and preliminary O&M cost data.
-------
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:
• In the absence of prechlorination, the AD-33 media was not effective at
removing As(III) as demonstrated by arsenic breakthrough as high as 7.7 |o,g/L
after only about 2,700 bed volumes of water treated.
• After switching to prechlorination, arsenic removal improved with total arsenic
concentrations decreasing to less than 5 |og/L. The total arsenic concentration
remained below the target level of 10 |o,g/L in the treated water for a throughput
of 12,500 and 15,000 bed volumes. Even with pretreatment steps in place,
including prechlorination and pH adjustment, arsenic breakthrough occurred
sooner than predicted by the technology vendor at about 15 to 20% of the
estimated working capacity of 74,000 bed volumes.
• Prior to prechlorination, manganese quickly broke through the AD-33 media,
reaching about 100% breakthrough after about 3,700 bed volumes. Following
prechlorination, manganese remained mostly in the soluble form; however,
manganese was removed to below 10 |o,g/L following the adsorption vessels,
indicating that the presence of chlorine promoted the removal of manganese on
the surface of the AD-33 media.
• Total and free chlorine residuals measured before and after the adsorption vessels
were similar, indicating little or no chlorine consumption by the AD-33 media.
Simplicity of required system O&M and operator's skill levels:
• Operational issues related to higher than expected pressure drops across the
treatment system, elevated inlet pressure, and the operation of the CO2 injection
system were the primary factors affecting system reliability and operation
simplicity. Aggressive backwashing was not effective in solving the elevated
pressure problems.
• Unscheduled downtime of 22% was caused by the needs to address the elevated
pressures and operational problems with the CO2 injection system.
• Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the
APU-100 system were minimal with a typical daily demand on the operator of
15-20 minutes. Normal operation of the system did not appear to require
additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the existing water supply
equipment. However, due to the Ap and elevated inlet pressure problems, the
operator spent much more time troubleshooting the operation of the treatment
system than would normally be expected.
-------
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• Residuals produced by the operation of the treatment system included 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.
• Arsenic concentrations in the backwash water ranged from 11.1 to 33.4 |o,g/L. In
most cases, arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations were lower than those in
the raw water (backwash was performed using raw water from the supply wells),
indicating some removal of these metals by the media during backwash.
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
• Using the system's rated capacity of 100 gpm (144,000 gpd), the capital cost was
$1,066 per gpm of design capacity ($0.74/gpd) and equipment-only cost was
$821 per gpm ($0.57/gpd). These calculations did not include the cost of the
building construction.
• 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 $16,810 to change out both vessels.
-------
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 February 9, 2004. 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 weekly and monthly water samples across the treatment
train. 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
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Draft Letter of Understanding Sent Out
Final Letter of Understanding Sent Out
Vendor Quotation Received
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Letter Report Issued
Building Construction Began
Draft Study Plan Issued
Engineering Package Submitted to NHDES
Building Construction Completed
APU-100 Shipped by AdEdge
APU-100 Delivered to Site and System Installation Began
Permit for Treatment System Issued by NHDES
Final Study Plan Issued
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
August 5, 2003
August 7, 2003
August 13, 2003
September 9, 2003
September 10, 2003
October 6, 2003
October 17, 2003
November 3, 2003
November 26, 2003
December 19, 2003
December 22, 2003
December 23, 2003
January 8, 2004
January 12, 2004
January 2 1,2004
January 23, 2004
January 30, 2004
February 9, 2004
NHDES = New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
Simplicity of the system operation and the level of operator skill required were evaluated based on a
combination of quantitative data and qualitative considerations, including any pre-treatment and/or post-
treatment requirements, level of system automation, operator skill requirements, task analysis of the
preventive maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory require-
ments, and general knowledge needed for safety requirements and chemical processes. The staffing
requirements on the system operation were recorded on a Field Log Sheet.
-------
Table 3-2. General Types of Data
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
Simplicity of Operation and
Operator Skill
Cost-Effectiveness
Residual Management
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 ng/L of arsenic in effluent
-Unscheduled downtime for system
-Frequency and extent of repairs to include man 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 man hours
-Task analysis of preventive maintenance to include man hours per month and
number and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed of safety requirements and chemical processes
-Capital costs including equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M costs including chemical and/or media usage, electricity, and labor
-Quantity of the residuals generated by the process
-Characteristics of the aqueous and solid residuals
The cost-effectiveness of the system is evaluated based on the cost per 1,000 gallons ($/l,000 gallons) of
water treated. This requires the tracking of capital costs such as equipment, engineering, and installation
costs, as well as O&M costs for media replacement and disposal, chemical supply, electrical power use,
and labor hours. The capital costs have been reported in an EPA report (Chen et al., 2004) posted on an
EPA Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/resource.htm). Data on O&M costs were
limited to chemicals, electricity, and labor hours because media replacement did not take place during the
six months of 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.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection following the
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a Battelle-provided
Daily Field Log Sheet; checked the sodium hypochlorite drum level; checked the CO2 injection system
used for pH adjustment; 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
the vendor should be contacted for troubleshooting. Often times, after the Battelle Study Lead was
notified, the plant operator and the vendor would confer directly to troubleshoot an operational problem.
Once a week, the plant operator measured water quality parameters, including temperature, pH, dissolved
oxygen (DO)/oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and residual chlorine and recorded the data on a
Weekly Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet. The original system design and operational information
provided by the vendor suggested that a monthly backwash of the media would be necessary. In multiple
attempts to address elevated pressure drop problems observed across the treatment system, backwashing
was conducted repeatedly with aggressive flowrates up to 11 gpm/ft2, as recommended by the vendor.
See Section 4.4 for further discussion of the operational conditions experienced at the site.
Capital costs for the AdEdge treament system consisted of costs for equipment, site engineering, and sys-
tem installation. The O&M costs consisted primarily of costs for the media replacement and spent media
-------
disposal, chemical and electricity consumption, and labor. The sodium hypochlorite and CO2 usage, as
well as electricity consumption, were tracked using the Daily Field Log Sheet. 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 daily field logs, replenishing the sodium hypochlorite solution, replacing the CO2 tanks,
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 adsorptive vessel backwash. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedules and
analytes measured during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods,
sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-
endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2003).
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection. During the initial visit to the site, Battelle collected one
set of source water samples for detailed water quality analyses. The source water also was speciated for
particulate and soluble arsenic, iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), aluminum (Al), and As(III) and As(V). 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 containers for water quality samples
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 weekly across the treatment train by the plant operator. After receiv-
ing training from Battelle, the plant operator also performed on-site arsenic speciation once every four
weeks. Sampling taps were installed by the vendor before the commencement of the evaluation study.
Samples were collected weekly, on a four-week cycle. For the first week of each four-week cycle, treat-
ment plant samples were collected at three locations: at the wellhead (IN), after pH adjustment but before
splitting to the two vessels (AP), and from the combined effluent of Vessels A and B (TT) (as designated
in Table 3-3). The three samples (IN, AP, and TT) collected during this first week were analyzed for the
monthly treatment plant analyte list shown in Table 3-3. For the second, third, and fourth week of each
cycle, treatment plant samples were collected at four locations: IN, AP, after Vessel A (TA), and after
Vessel B (TB). These samples were analyzed for the weekly treatment plant analyte list shown in
Table 3-3.
3.3.3 Backwash Water Sample Collection. Three backwash water samples were collected on
April 26, June 8, and July 22 from sample taps installed in 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) tests.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule for Rollinsford, NH Facility
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
(Three of
every four
weeks)
Treatment
Plant Water
(Once every
four weeks)
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Water
Residual
Sludge
Sample Locations
Wellhead (IN)
Wellhead (IN), after
pH adjustment (AP),
after Vessel A (TA),
and after Vessel B
(TB)
Wellhead (IN), after
pH adjustment (AP),
and combined
effluent (TT)
One home (a non-
LCR sampling site)
and two non-
residences within the
area served by Wells
No. 3 and No. 4
From backwash
discharge line
From backwash
discharge area
No. of
Samples
1
4
o
J
3
2
2-3
Frequency
Once during
the initial site
visit
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
TBD
Analytes
As(total), paniculate and
soluble As, As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble), Mn
(total and soluble), Al
(total and soluble), Na, Ca,
Mg, F, Cl, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
TOC, and alkalinity.
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO/ORP, C12 (free and
total, except at wellhead).
Off-Site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), SiO2,
PO4, turbidity, and
alkalinity.
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO/ORP, and C12 (free and
total, except at wellhead).
Off-Site: As(total),
paniculate and soluble As,
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, Fe, Mn,
Pb, and Cu.
TDS, turbidity, pH, As
(soluble), Fe (soluble), and
Mn (soluble)
TCLP Metals
Date(s) Samples
Collected
08/05/03
02/10/04, 02/17/04,
02/24/04, 03/02/04,
03/09/04, 03/30/04,
04/06/04, 04/14/04,
04/19/04, 04/29/04,
05/05/04, 05/18/04,
05/25/04, 06/08/04,
06/22/04, 07/13/04,
07/20/04, 07/29/04,
08/04/04, 08/10/04
Baseline sampling(a):
12/10/03, 01/06/04,
01/21/04
Monthly sampling:
03/03/04, 04/09/04,
05/26/04, 07/27/04
04/26/04, 06/08/04
07/22/04
TBD
(a) Three baseline sampling events were performed before the system became operational.
LCR = Lead and Copper Rule.
TBD = to be determined.
Bold font indicates that field speciation was performed.
3.3.5 Distribution System Water Sample Collection. Samples were collected from the distribu-
tion system to determine what impact the addition of the arsenic treatment system would have on the
water chemistry in the distribution system, specifically, the lead and copper level. In December 2003 and
January 2004, prior to the startup of the treatment system, three baseline distribution sampling events
were conducted at three locations per sampling event within the distribution system. Following the
installation of the arsenic adsorption system, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis
at the same three locations.
-------
Baseline and monthly distribution system samples were collected by the plant operator and by one home-
owner. Samples were collected at one home, not included as a Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling
residence, as well as two non-residences. The locations were selected to maximize the likelihood that the
water supplied to these locations was produced by Wells No. 3 and No. 4, which were treated by the
arsenic removal system. Because the system was a looped drinking water system and was served by addi-
tional wells besides Wells No. 3 and No. 4, it was possible that the water collected from the distribution
system was from a source other than Wells No. 3 and No. 4 (see Section 4.1). Analytes for the baseline
samples coincided with the monthly distribution water samples as described in Table 3-3. Arsenic specia-
tion was not performed on the distribution water samples. The samples collected for the distribution
study were taken following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring
and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). Sampling at the two non-residence
locations was performed with the first sample taken at the first draw and the second sample taken after
flushing the sample tap for several minutes. The first draw sample was collected from a cold-water faucet
that had not been used for at least six hours to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. The sampler
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.
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, 2003).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. All sample bottles were new and contained appropriate
preservatives. Each sample bottle was taped with a pre-printed, color-coded, and waterproof label. The
sample label consisted of sample identification (ID), date and time of sample collection, sampler initials,
location, sent to, 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 specific analysis to be performed. The sampling locations were color-coded for easy
identification. For example, red, orange, yellow, and green were used to designate sampling locations for
IN, TA, TB, and TT, 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). For the distribution system
sampling, each set of bottles consisted of one 1-L high-density polyethylene (HOPE) wide-mouth bottle
with no preservative for pH and alkalinity analyses, and one 250-mL plastic bottle for metals analysis
(As, Fe, Mn, Pb, and Cu), which was preserved with nitric acid upon receipt at the laboratory. For the
backwash sampling, each set of bottles consisted of one 1-gal wide-mouth HDPE jar with no preservative
used for analysis of pH, TDS, and turbidity, and one 125-mL HDPE bottle preserved with 0.625 mL of
40% ultrapure nitric acid, which was to be filled with 60 mL of a filtered sample for analysis of soluble
As, Fe, and Mn.
In addition, a packet containing all sampling and shipping-related supplies, such as latex gloves, sampling
instructions, chain-of-custody forms, prepaid Federal Express 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
-------
Federal Express air bills had already been completed with the required information. The sample coolers
were shipped via Federal Express to the facility approximately one week 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 custo-
dians 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 either AAL (Columbus, OH) or TCCI Laboratories (New
Lexington, OH). The samples for arsenic speciation analyses were stored at Battelle's ICP-MS Labora-
tory. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analy-
sis 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,
2003). Field measurements of pH, temperature, and DO/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. The plant operator also
performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine test kits.
Laboratory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the guidelines provided in
the QAPP (Battelle, 2003). Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy, method detection limit (MDL), and
completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP, i.e., relative percent difference (RPD) of 20%,
percent recovery of 80-120%, and completeness of 80%. The quality assurance (QA) data associated with
each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared under separate
cover and to be shared with the other 11 demonstration sites included in the Round 1 arsenic study.
10
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Existing Facility Description
The treatment system supplies water to the town of Rollinsford and services about 450 connections.
The water source is supplied by three bedrock wells, two of which, Wells No. 3 and No. 4, are controlled
through the Porter well house shown in Figure 4-1. The Porter well house is located in a wooded area
approximately % of a mile south of the town of Rollinsford. Water from these two wells are combined
and treated before being sent to the distribution system. The third supply well, the General Sullivan well,
is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the Porter well house. Because the General Sullivan well is
completely separated from the Porter well house, this well was not treated by the AdEdge APU-100
treatment system as part of the demonstration study.
Figure 4-1. Existing Porter Well House
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected at a sampling tap inside the
Porter well house from the combined flow from Wells No. 3 and No. 4 on August 5, 2003 and subse-
quently analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3. The results of the source water analyses, along
with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those independently
collected and analyzed by EPA, are presented in Table 4-1.
Total arsenic concentrations of the source water ranged from 33.8 to 55.9 |o,g/L. Based on the August 5,
2003 sampling results, total arsenic concentration in the source water was 36.2 |o,g/L, of which 33.9 |o,g/L
was soluble As and 2.3 |o,g/L was particulate As. Of the soluble As, 20.1 |o,g/L existed as As(III) (59%)
and 13.9 |^g/L as As(V) (41%).
The pH values of the raw water samples ranged between 7.4 and 8.4. At pH values greater than 8.0 to
8.5, AdEdge recommended that the water be adjusted for pH in order to maintain the adsorption capacity
11
-------
Table 4-1. Rollinsford, NH Water Quality Data
Parameter
Units
Sampling Date
pH
Total Alkalinity
Hardness
Turbidity
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate
TOC
As(total)
As (total soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Al
Soluble Al
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total V
Soluble V
Total Mo
Soluble Mo
Total Sb
Soluble Sb
Total Na
Total Ca
Total Mg
—
mg/L (as
CaCO3)
mg/L (as
CaCO3)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
W?/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HR/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Utility
Raw
Water
Data(a)
NA
8.4
176.0
50.0
NS
42.0
NS
38.0
13.7
0.07(e)
NS
34.0-55.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
206.0
NS
NS
NS
88.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
93.0
1Q(e)
5(e)
EPA
Raw
Water
Data*10
09/16/02
NS
179.2
46.6
NS
42.3
NS
40.5
14.3
NS
NS
39.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
189.0
NS
<25
NS
100.5
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<25
NS
108.9
9.9
5.3
EPA
Raw
Water
Data(c)
09/16/02
NA
189.4
40.9
NS
47.7
NS
29.0
13.1
NS
NS
45.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
114.0
NS
<25
NS
56.7
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<25
NS
98.8
10.1
3.8
Battelle
Raw
Water
Data(a)
08/05/03
7.4
171.0
50.9
NS
48.0
0.8
36.0
13.6
O.10
<1.0
36.2
33.9
2.3
20.1
13.9
46.3
<30
<10
<10
70.8
68.6
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
O.I
101.8
11.6
5.3
NHDES
Raw
Water
Data(a)
2000 - 03
8.4(f)
176(f)
49.7(f)
NS
42.0(f)
0.57(f)
38
NS
NS
NS
33.8-55.9
NS
NS
NS
NS
206(f)
NS
NS
NS
88.2(f)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<2(f)
NS
93.2(f)
NS
NS
NHDES
Treated
Water
Data(d)
2000 - 03
8.6(g)
110(g)
24.2-26.1
NS
8.7(g)
0.37-0.38
21
NS
NS
NS
19.6-24.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
<50fe)
NS
NS
NS
20.0-20.8
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<2(g)
NS
50.8-52.0
NS
NS
(a) Collected from combined flow from Wells No. 3 and No. 4.
(b) Well No. 3.
(c) Well No. 4.
(d) Treated water data collected at residences.
(e) Data provided by EPA.
(f) Only one data point available for this time period for this parameter (Sample date - 1 1/19/0 1).
(g) Only one data point available for this time period for this parameter (Sample date - 04/12/00).
NS = Not Sampled.
12
-------
of the AD-33 media. Therefore, the treatment process included a carbon dioxide (CO2) injection module
for pH adjustment prior to arsenic adsorption. The target pH after adjustment was 7.0.
The source water iron levels ranged from 46.3 to 206 |o,g/L, and did not require removal prior to the
adsorption process. Manganese concentrations ranged from 56.7 to 100.5 (ig/L. The concentrations of
orthophosphate and silica were sufficiently low (i.e., <0.1 mg/L and <14.3 mg/L, respectively) to have no
affect on the adsorption of arsenic by the AD-33™ media.
4.1.2 Pre-Demonstration Treated Water Quality. Treated water samples (postchlorination)
were collected by the NHDES prior to the demonstration study and analyzed for the constituents shown in
Table 4-1. The concentrations of these constituents were somewhat lower than those in the raw water,
with the exception of pH, which was slightly higher (8.6 in the treated water versus 8.4 in the raw water
sample).
4.1.3 Distribution System. The town of Rollinsford receives its water via a looped drinking water
distribution system, with water supplied from the three wells described in Section 4.1. Wells No. 3 and
No. 4 are combined and sent to the distribution system from the Porter well house shown in Figure 4-1.
Excess water generated by the supply wells is sent under pressure to an elevated storage tank. The water
distribution mains are constructed of either asbestos cement, cast iron, or ductile iron. The connections to
the water system and piping within the residences themselves are primarily copper or polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) pipe.
The Rollinsford Water and Sewer District samples water from the distribution system for various param-
eters. Each month, two locations within the distribution system are sampled for bacterial analyses includ-
ing E. coll and total coliform. The Porter well is sampled quarterly at the wellhead for total arsenic.
Under the LCR, samples are collected from customer taps at 25 residences every three years.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
AdEdge's APU is designed for arsenic removal for small systems in the flow range of 5-100 gpm. It uses
Bay oxide 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 is listed by NSF
under Standard 61 for use in drinking water applications.
The AdEdge APU is a fixed bed down-flow adsorption system using the AD-33 media for the adsorption
of dissolved arsenic. Figure 4-2 is a simplified instrumentation diagram of the APU-100 system. When
the media reaches its capacity, it is removed and disposed of after being tested for EPA's TCLP.
AdEdge provided an APU-100 adsorption system for demonstration at the Rollinsford site. The APU-100
system consists of two pressure vessels operating in parallel. Due to the slightly elevated pH of the raw
water, a pH adjustment module was included as part of the arsenic adsorption system. Table 4-3 presents
the key system design parameters. Figure 4-3 shows the generalized process flow for the system including
sampling locations and parameters to be analyzed. Five key process components are discussed as follows:
• Intake. Raw water was pumped from Wells No. 3 and No. 4 and combined at
the Porter well house before feeding the APU-100 treatment system.
• pH Adjustment. The pH of the feed water was adjusted to approximately 7.0
(±0.2 pH units) through the use of a CO2 injection module. pH adjustment of the
13
-------
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
<15% (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
raw water was used to help enhance the adsorption capacity of the AD-33 media.
The pH adjustment module consisted of CO2 storage (in liquid form) and a feed
vaporizer, which vaporized the liquid CO2 prior to injection into the system.
Figure 4-4 shows the injection point for the CO2 into the piping system. The CO2
pH adjustment module was located upstream of the arsenic adsorption vessels as
shown in the instrumentation diagram in Figure 4-2. Dosage in the water line
was controlled by a pH loop. The use of CO2 for pH adjustment in this applica-
tion has two advantages: 1) it is not inherently corrosive as compared to using
acids such as sulfuric acid (H2SO4) for lowering pH, and 2) when the water is
depressurized, upon exiting the adsorption vessels, some CO2 gasifies, thus
raising the pH value of the treated water.
Post-/Prechlorination. The existing chlorine injection system was used to chlo-
rinate the source water. During the first one and a half months of operation,
chlorine was fed at the end of the treatment train following the APU-100 adsorp-
tion system. In March 2004, total arsenic levels in the treated water measured as
high as 7.7 |o,g/L, much earlier than projected, and the majority of arsenic passing
through the AD-33 media was As(III). In late March 2004, the treatment system
was retrofitted with a new chlorine addition point upstream of the adsorption
vessels and after the CO2 injection point. With this prechlorination step in place,
As(III) was oxidized to As(V) to improve the adsorption capacity of the media.
14
-------
Process Flow Diagram
Ad Edge Arsenic Reduction System w/ pH Control
APU 100 System
Rollinsford, New Hampshire
Sample valve
C02
Storage / Feed
System,
Control panel
To on-site
septic
system
Figure 4-2. Schematic of APU-100 System
-------
Table 4-3. Design Features of the APU-100 System
Design Parameter
Number of adsorbers
Configuration
Vessel size (inches)
Type of media
Quantity of media (ft3/vessel)
Pre-treatment
Backwash Frequency (per month)
Backwash Duration (min/vessel)
Peak flowrate (gal/min)
EBCT (min)
Average use rate (gal/day)
Estimated working capacity (BV)
Estimated volume to breakthrough (gal)
Estimated media life (months)
Value
2
Parallel
36 x72
BayoxideE33
27
pH adjustment
1 (or as needed)
20-25
100
4.0
60,000
74,000
29,890,080
16.8
Remarks
—
—
—
—
—
Using CO2
Based on differential pressure increase across
vessels
10-15 bed volumes
Typical expected
Based on peak flow of 100 gpm
Based on 10 hours of daily operation at 100 gpm
Bed volumes to breakthrough
1BV = 400 gal (both vessels)
Based on 10 hours of daily operation at 100 gpm
4.3
• Adsorption System. The APU-100 system consisted of two 36-inch-diameter,
72-inch-tall pressure vessels in parallel configuration, each initially containing
27 ft3 of AD-33 media supported by a gravel underbed. The tanks were
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 polyurethane-coated, welded frame. Empty bed contact time (EBCT) for the
system was approximately 4.0 minutes based on a media volume of 27 ft3 per
vessel. Hydraulic loading to each vessel based on a design flowrate of 100 gpm
(50 gpm to each vessel) was about 7 gpm/ft2. Figure 4-5 shows the installed
APU-100 system.
• Backwash. Based upon a set time or a set pressure differential, the adsorption
vessels were taken off-line one at a time for backwash using raw water from the
source well. The purpose of the backwash was to remove particulates and media
fines accumulating in the beds. The backwash water produced was discharged to
an on-site subsurface infiltration area for disposal.
System Installation
The installation of the APU-100 system was completed in January 2004. The system installation was
completed by Waterline Services, a construction subcontractor to AdEdge. The building construction
activities were carried out primarily by the local plant operator.
4.3.1 Permitting. Two permits were applied for and received from the NHDES. In late September
2003, design drawings for the proposed treatment system, new treatment building, and subsurface dis-
posal area were submitted to the NHDES by Hoyle, Tanner, & Associates (HTA), an engineering consult-
ant hired by the Rollinsford Water and Sewer District. Also, an Application for Nondomestic Wastewater
Discharge to groundwater was submitted for backwash disposal into the subsurface infiltration area.
NHDES granted the discharge permit on December 30, 2003 and the treatment system permit on January
12, 2004.
16
-------
Monthly
pHW, temperature^),
DO/ORPW, 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
pHW, temperature^),
DO/ORPW, C12 (free and total),
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, IDS, turbidity,
As (soluble),
Fe (soluble),
Mn (soluble)
INFLUENT
(PORTER WELL HOUSE)
pH ADJUSTMENT -
CO2 INJECTION
DA: C12
Rollinsford, NH
AD-33® Technology
Design Flow: 100 gpm
pH
-------
Figure 4-4. Gas Injection Point for the CO2 System Used for pH Adjustment
Figure 4-5. APU-100 Treatment System
18
-------
4.3.2 Building Construction. Building construction began on November 3, 2003 and was com-
pleted on December 22, 2003. The 3 3-ft x 13-ft building has a concrete foundation and floor and a wood
frame with vinyl siding. It includes two 10-ft roll-up doors on the front allowing access to the treatment
equipment, and one walk-through door on the end of the building (Figure 4-6). Additionally, the Water
and Sewer District installed a subsurface drainage structure in the parking area in front of the building to
handle the disposal of backwash water generated by the treatment system.
Figure 4-6. New Treatment Building (Right) and Existing Porter Well House (Left)
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The treatment system was shipped on December 23,
2003 and arrived at the site on January 8, 2004. Waterline Services, the installation subcontractor, began sys-
tem installation that same day. AdEdge and Waterline completed system installation on January 16, 2004.
Battelle, AdEdge, Waterline, and the local operator completed system shakedown and startup procedures
on January 29 and 30, 2004. During the first day, the media in both vessels was backwashed and the
flows to each vessel adjusted so that they were balanced. Battelle provided operator training on data and
sample collection and conducted a review of the piping and instrumentation diagram and system checklist
with the vendor.
On January 30, the system was put into service mode for the first time. While operating, leaks were
detected in the CO2 injection system caused by cracks in the plastic seals in the piping joints. Because of
these leaks and required repairs, the system was not put into regular service until February 9, 2004.
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the first six months of the system
operation are tabulated and attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-4. From
February 9 through August 13, 2004, the APU-100 system operated for approximately 1,800 hours, based
on readings collected daily at the well pump hour meters. The operating time for each well shown in
Table 4-4 was lower than the total operating time for the system due to both wells being inoperable during
certain periods of time. The 1,800 hours of operation represented a use rate of approximately 40% during
this 27-week period. The system typically operated for a period of approximately 10 hours per day. The
well pumps, which were controlled by a timer, normally came on in the evening about 10:00 P.M. and
went off at approximately 8:00 A.M.
19
-------
Table 4-4. Summary of APU-100 System Operation
Operational Parameter
Duration
Cumulative Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)(a)
Throughput (kgal)
Average Flowrate (gpm) (b)
Range of Flowrate (gpm) (b)
Average EBCT (min)(c)
Range of EBCT (min)(c)
Average Inlet Pressure (psi)
Range of Inlet Pressure (psi)
Average Outlet Pressure (psi)
Range of Outlet Pressure (psi)
Pressure Loss, Ap (psi)
Time between Consecutive Backwash
Events (days) (f)
Value / Condition
02/09/04-08/13/04
(Week 1 - Week 27)
Well No. 3
1676
-10 with both wells
operating
Vessel A
3,439
38
19-62
5.1
3.0-9.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
7-30+(d)
1-19 (6)
Well No. 4
1193
-10 with both
wells operating
Vessel B
3,718
40
25-63
4.8
2.9-7.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
8-30+
-------
Vessel A Differential Pressures
Differential pressure gauges graduated for readings of 0 -15 psi
Differential pressure gauges graduated for readings of 0 - 30 psi
Replace
InletOSerential
Annrt
Well #3 Backwash
Fixed Session
2/3 2/13 2/23 3/4 3/14 3/24 4/3 4/13 4/23 5/3 5/13 5/23
Date
8/1
550.0
500.0
600.0
0.0
8/11 8/21 8/31
Figure 4-7. Differential Pressure Loss (Ap) and System Flowrate Across Vessel A During the First Six Months of Operation
-------
Vessel B Differential Pressures
to
to
35 -i
30
Differential pressure gauges graduated for readings of 0 -15 psi
Differential pressure gauges graduated for readings of 0 - 30 psi
Replace
Inlet/Differential
Well #3
2/3 2/13 2/23 3/4 3/14 3/24 4/3 4/13 4/23 5/3 5/13 5/23
Date
600.0
550.0
Diaphragm
valves
replaced,
orifice plate
0.0
7/12 7/22 8/1 8/11 8/21 8/31
Figure 4-8. Differential Pressure Loss (Ap) and System Flowrate Across Vessel B During the First Six Months of Operation
-------
appear to be effective in resolving the elevated pressure problems. Additionally, there were periods when
the system was bypassed due to the elevated pressure conditions at the system inlet. Extensive trouble-
shooting and replacement of several system components also were performed to address the problems
encountered. The following is a brief summary of the differential pressure issues experienced.
Based on the system design, no more than 2-3 psi of pressure drop, Ap, would be expected across each
vessel, and backwash would be performed when the Ap reached 10 psi. However, as shown in
Figures 4-7 and 4-8, Ap consistently exceeded 10 psi for the majority of time the system operated.
During the first month of operation (from February 9 to March 12), the system was backwashed five times
in response to the elevated Ap readings. Backwashes were initiated when the Ap reached 15 psi, which was
the upper limit of the gauges originally installed on the system. The Ap returned to 10-11.5 psi following
each backwash event. In order to extend the time between backwash events, the operator sometimes had to
operate only one supply well to reduce the flowrate to the system, and reduce the inlet pressure and Ap
levels in the system.
The vendor speculated at the time that the elevated Ap readings across the vessels were caused by media
fines present at the laterals that had not been removed during the initial backwash. On March 24 and 25,
a series of aggressive backwashes were performed at increased hydraulic loadings of 8-9 gpm/ft2
(vs. 4-5 gpm/ft2, initially) in an attempt to remove the fines. The Ap readings immediately following the
aggressive backwash were 9-9.5 psi. Upon being put back into service on March 26, the Ap readings were
10.6 and 11.2 psi in Vessel A and B, respectively. The readings rose to approximately 14 psi within one
week of operation. For six weeks following the aggressive backwash, the system required backwashing
weekly. The Ap returned to about 10-12 psi immediately after each backwash and climbed steadily to
15+ psi within one week.
On May 7, 2004, the differential pressure gauges were replaced with gauges that read up to 30 psi.
On May 9, 2004, Well No. 4 went down and remained inoperable through July 2, 2004. Throughout the
month of May, with only Well No. 3 operating and total system flowrates typically of 60 gpm or less, the
system continued to experience elevated pressure conditions. On May 30, 2004, the system was shut
down due to excessive pressure (more than 100 psi) at the inlet. During the next two weeks, the system
was backwashed five times in an attempt to lower the inlet pressure and Ap levels.
On June 17, 2004, the vendor returned to the site to replace the inlet pressure gauge and the Ap gauges to
ensure that the high pressure readings were not due to faulty gauges. While on site, the vendor also
removed, cleaned, and inspected the variable diaphragm valves located upstream of each vessel for flow
control. The diaphragm valves were determined to be in satisfactory condition and re-installed into the
system. The system was put back into service on June 19 and the inlet pressure was observed to be lower
at 80 psi. Within five days, the inlet pressure levels had again increased to over 90 psi and the Ap levels
had again been above what the gauges were able to read at 30+ psi.
Due to the continuing high pressure conditions, the system was taken off-line between June 24 and July 9,
2004. The vendor returned to the site on July 1 and 2 to replace the diaphragm valves with simple non-
actuated valves. The orifice plates that controlled and balanced the flows to the vessels also were
removed from the discharge side of the vessels to help eliminate flow restrictions. After it was put back
online on July 9, 2004, the system operated at lower pressure for a short while. The pressures began to
steadily rise over the week of July 12, 2004 and by July 22, 2004 were back to the same levels (-100 psi
at the inlet and 30+ psi Ap across each vessel) as before. During the period of July 10 through July 22,
2004, Well No. 3 was down and not operating. (Note that as mentioned above, Well No. 4 was down
during the period May 9 to July 2, 2004. Well No. 3 went down 8 days after Well No. 4 was fixed.) The
23
-------
elevated Ap conditions seen during the period when Well No. 3 was inoperable were at reduced flowrates
of approximately 60 gpm. After Well No. 3 was back in service on July 22, 2004, the inlet pressure went
to 100+ psi and the Ap for both vessels went to 30+ psi, exceeding the measurable pressure on all three
gauges.
The system operated under similar conditions for the next eight days before being bypassed again on
August 2, 2004. On August 4, the vendor returned to the site to retrofit the system with a larger diameter
(2-inch vs. 1-inch, originally) backwash flowmeter to allow for an even more aggressive backwash at 10-
11 gpm/ft2. Following this backwash, the Ap reading fell to 12-13 psi across each vessel, and the inlet
pressure was recorded at 76 psi.
As of the end of the six-month evaluation period, close monitoring of the system operational parameters
continued in order to assess the effectiveness of the aggressive backwash.
4.4.3 CO2 Injection. As described in Section 4.2, pH adjustment using a CO2 injection module
was a process component. This module also experienced operational irregularities during the first 6
months of the demonstration study. First, leaks were detected in the CO2 system resulting in frequent
change-outs of the CO2 gas cylinders during the first few weeks of the system operation. Second, the CO2
injection module was not functioning properly, which was caused by a broken gas regulator and damaged
O-rings located at the CO2 injection point. Following maintenance, the CO2 system operated more
consistently by maintaining pressure and requiring regular change-outs about every 2-3 weeks.
Besides the mechanical problems, the CO2 system failed to consistently adjust the pH to the target value
of 7.0 with the pH values measured by the inline pH probe varying between 4.70 and 9.05. However, the
average pH reading from the inline probe was 6.94, which was just slightly below the target value of 7.0.
The accuracy of the CO2 system to control the incoming pH was another problem issue as noted by the
differences between the pH readings measured by the inline pH probe and those by a laboratory pH probe
(with samples taken from the AP [after pH adjustment] sampling location). As shown in Table 4-5, the
readings from the inline probe varied from 4.70 to 9.05, while the readings from the laboratory pH probe
were about 0.1 to 0.6 pH units higher than the target pH value of 7.0. Some of the variation in the inline
readings was thought to be attributed to manual adjustments to the CO2 gas flowrate, although a similar
swing should have been observed in the AP readings. Another possible explanation for the variations
might be degassing of dissolved CO2 from water samples collected from the AP location, thus resulting in
elevated readings measured by the laboratory probe. Further, buildup of a white film on the probe, first
observed near the end of April, also might affect the inline probe performance, as elevated pH readings
(see Table 4-5, inline probe readings for April 19 and April 29) were recorded during this period. Follow-
ing cleaning, the probe reading returned to below 6.8 on May 7. Since then, the probe was removed every
one to two weeks for regular cleaning.
4.4.4 Backwash. AdEdge recommended that the APU treatment system be backwashed, either
manually or automatically, approximately once per month. Automatic backwash could be initiated either
by timer or by differential pressure in the vessels. However, due to the ongoing elevated Ap and inlet
pressure problems (see Section 4.4.2), the APU-100 system was backwashed far more frequently than
was originally anticipated. Backwash has been conducted only on a manual basis. The system was back-
washed 25 times during the first 27 weeks of operation, with the interval between two consecutive
backwash events varying between 1 and 19 days (see Table 4-4).
As discussed in Section 4.4.2, in an attempt to address the elevated pressure issues, the backwash flowrate
was increased from 30-35 gpm (or approximately 4-5 gpm/ft2) to 55-65 gpm (or 8-9 gpm/ft2) in late
24
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of pH Readings Recorded at the AP Sample Location and the Inline pH Probe
Date
01/30/04
02/16/04
02/24/04
03/02/04
03/10/04
04/06/04
04/13/04
04/19/04
04/29/04
05/07/04
05/18/04
05/25/04
06/09/04
07/13/04
07/20/04
08/04/04
08/10/04
pH Reading
at AP Sample
Location
7.30
6.82
7.38
7.54
7.48
7.50
7.34
7.16
7.12
7.58
7.48
7.46
7.01
NM
7.22
7.64
7.37
pH Reading
by Inline pH
Probe
—
7.26
6.81
6.49
7.05
6.51
7.04
9.05
8.08
6.77
6.50
4.70
7.07
7.38
7.72
6.20
7.37
Difference
—
-0.44
0.57
1.05
0.43
0.99
0.30
-1.89
-0.96
0.81
0.98
2.76
-0.06
—
-0.50
1.44
0.00
March 2004, and then to 75-77 gpm (or 10-11 gpm/ft2) following system retrofit with a larger diameter
backwash flowmeter. Depending on the flowrate, a single 20-minute backwash cycle for one vessel pro-
duced between 600 and 1,500 gallons of water. Based on the backwash log sheet recorded by the operator,
approximately 60,000 gallons of backwash water were generated from the 25 backwash events conducted
during this period.
4.4.5 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the APU-100 system
included backwash water and spent media. The media was not replaced during the first six months of
system operation; therefore, the only residual produced was backwash water. Piping for backwash water
from both vessels is combined aboveground inside the treatment building before exiting the building
through the floor. The pipe then travels underground to a subsurface drainage structure located in the
parking area in front of the treatment building. The backwash water then infiltrates to the ground from
this disposal structure. Any particulates or fines carried in the backwash water remain in the drainage
structure.
4.4.6 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. The operational issues related to the elevated
Ap and inlet pressure and the operation of the CO2 injection system were the primary factors affecting
system reliability and operation simplicity.
Unscheduled downtime during the first six months of system operation was caused by the needs to
address the elevated pressures and operational problems with the CO2 injection system. As described in
Section 4.4.3, the system was bypassed between March 12 to March 26, 2004 due to some damaged parts
in the CO2 injection system. Unscheduled downtime due to the elevated inlet pressure and Ap issues
occurred from May 30 through June 2, June 5 and 6, June 16 through 18, June 24 through July 9, and
August 2, 2004. During the first 185 days of operation, the system was down for a total of 39 days,
resulting in an operational efficiency of 78%.
25
-------
The simplicity of system operation and operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to pre-
and post-treatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventive
maintenance activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Initially, the only pre-treatment performed at this site was pH
adjustment using CO2 injection. The raw water (IN) sample tap was re-located further upstream of the
CO2 injection point in late March 2004 to avoid possible influence by the CO2 injection. During the first
one and a half months of operation, chlorine addition was added at the end of the treatment train to
provide chlorine residual as was performed prior to the arsenic demonstration study. In March 2004, total
arsenic levels in the treated water measured as high as 7.7 |og/L, much earlier than projected by the
vendor, and the majority of arsenic passing through the AD-33 media was As(III). In late March 2004,
the chlorination point was moved upstream of the APU treatment vessels and after the CO2 injection point
to oxidize As(III) to As(V) and improve arsenic removal efficiency. Post-chlorination was not required
because up to 0.05 mg/L (as C12) free chlorine residual remained in the treated water before entering the
distribution system.
System Automation. The APU-100 system was fitted with automated controls that would allow for the
backwash cycle to be controlled automatically; however, due to the pressure problems these automated
controls were not used during the first six months of system operation.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the
APU-100 system were minimal. The daily demand on the operator was typically 15-20 minutes to
perform daily checks of the system, visual inspection, and record the system operating parameters on the
daily log sheets. Normal operation of the system did not appear to require additional skills beyond those
necessary to operate the existing water supply equipment. On days when the system was backwashed, the
operator typically spent approximately two hours on site to complete this process.
Due to the Ap and elevated inlet pressure problems, the operator spent much more time troubleshooting the
operation of the treatment system than would normally be expected. As requested by the vendor, the
operator conducted backwash far more frequently than originally anticipated and worked with the vendor
to troubleshoot, modify, and replace several system components. The majority of the labor to modify or
replace system components was performed by the installation subcontractor hired by the vendor; however,
all of the additional visits and coordination of additional work required the plant operator to be on site on
several occasions for periods of two to four hours or more, depending on the type of work being conducted.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included such items as periodic checks
of the flowmeters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. As mentioned in
Section 4.4.3, weekly cleaning of the inline pH probe was found to be necessary to remove the buildup of
a film on the probe. The vendor suggested inspection of the vessel internals, including adsorber laterals
and replacement of the underbedding gravel during media replacement. Due to the operational issues that
existed, the operator spent additional time at the site troubleshooting and working with AdEdge techni-
cians during their return visits to the site. Typically the operator was on site an additional 30 minutes to
as much as two to three hours per week working to address these issues. Under normal operation, it is not
expected that this additional time would be required.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. The only chemicals required for the system
operation included the sodium hypochlorite solution used for chlorination, which was already in use at the
site, and the CO2 gas cylinders used for the pH adjustment. The CO2 cylinders required change-out
typically once every two to three weeks, and the 50-gallon drum of 4% chlorine solution required refilling
once every two to three weeks.
26
-------
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the APU-100 system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected
from the treatment plant, the system backwash, and the distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Samples were collected at five locations through the treatment
process: the inlet (IN), after pH adjustment and prechlorination (AP), at the effluent of Vessels A and B
(TA and TB, respectively), and at the combined effluent (TT). Field-speciated samples at IN, AC, and TT
were collected once every four weeks throughout this reporting period. Table 4-6 summarizes the analyt-
ical results of critical constituents including arsenic, iron and manganese concentrations measured at the
five sampling locations through the treatment train. Table 4-7 summarizes the results of other water qual-
ity 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. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the APU-100 was the concentration of
arsenic in the treated water. During the first one and a half months of operation, chlorine was added at the
end of the treatment train following the APU-100 adsorption system. In March 2004, total arsenic levels
in the treated water, existing primarily as As(III), increased to as high as 7.7 |o,g/L after only about
2,700 bed volumes of water had been treated. In late March 2004, to improve arsenic removal by the
media, prechlorination was implemented. The analytical results shown in Tables 4-6 and 4-7 include only
the results collected after the switch to prechlorination. Since then, water samples were collected on
16 occasions with field speciation performed on four occasions. Raw water from the IN location was
sampled at each of the 16 sampling events. AP was sampled 15 times, TA and TB 12 times, and TT was
sampled 4 times.
Figure 4-9 contains three bar charts showing the concentrations of total arsenic, particulate arsenic,
As(III), and As(V) at the IN, AP, and TT locations for each sampling event. Total arsenic concentrations
in raw water ranged from 28.7 to 46.6 |o,g/L and averaged 39.3 |o,g/L. Particulate arsenic concentrations
averaged 4.3 |o,g/L. Typically, As (III) was slightly higher than As(V), with As(III) averaging 20.8 |o,g/L
and As(V) averaging 13.7 |o,g/L. The arsenic concentrations measured were consistent with raw water
samples collected previously during the source water sampling at this site (Table 4-1).
The pre-treatment step (including chlorination and pH adjustment) oxidized As(III) to As(V), lowered the
pH of the incoming raw water, and provided the required chlorine residual to the distribution system.
After switching to prechlorination, samples collected downstream of the chlorine injection/pH adjustment
point (AP) had average As(III) and As(V) concentrations of 0.6 and 33.2 |o,g/L, respectively. Analytical
results for As(III) and As(V) were not available from the AP sampling location for the March 9, 2004
sample, so only the soluble and particulate concentrations are shown in Figure 4-9 for that date.
Free and total chlorine were monitored at the AP and TT sampling locations to ensure that the target
chlorine residual levels were properly maintained. Free chlorine measurements at the AP and TT loca-
tions ranged from 0.04 to 0.40 mg/L and total chlorine levels ranged from 0.20 to 0.71 mg/L (Table 4-7).
The residual chlorine measured at the TT location was very similar to that measured at the AP location,
indicating little or no chlorine consumption through the AD-33 media.
After switching to prechlorination, total arsenic concentrations at the combined treated water sample
location (TT) ranged from 2.4 to 20.3 |o,g/L (Table 4-6). As shown in Figure 4-10, breakthrough of total
arsenic at concentrations above the 10 ng/L target level were first observed at 12,500 bed volumes during
the May 25, 2004 sampling event. Arsenic concentrations returned to below 10 |o,g/L at the TA/TB loca-
tions the following week, but increased to over 10 |o,g/L again at the TA location on June 22. The system
27
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Critical Analytical Results after Relocation of Chlorination Point
Upstream of Adsorption Vessels
Parameter
As (total)
As (total
soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe
(dissolved)
Mn (total)
Mn
(dissolved)
Sampling
Location'3'
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TT
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Number
of
Samples
16
15
12
12
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
16
15
12
12
4
4
3
4
16
15
12
12
4
4
3
4
Minimum
Concentration
28.7
30.0
2.1
1.7
2.4
29.8
30.7
2.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
12.4
0.5
0.4
4.0
30.2
1.5
37.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
51.9
59.5
0.6
1.1
0.6
48.9
50.2
0.6
Maximum
Concentration
46.3
75.2
17.2
21.9
20.3
35.7
35.5
19.1
6.2
7.1
1.2
25.8
0.8
0.8
19.2
34.8
18.3
489.1
898.2
131.0
280.0
<25
183.0
<25
<25
245.0
241.0
24.2
65.3
1.6
235.0
104.9
1.9
Average
Concentration
38.2
43.3
6.4
6.5
8.5
33.2
33.8
7.8
3.8
3.9
0.6
18.3
0.6
0.6
14.8
33.2
7.3
156.4
255.8
24.0
36.2
<25
59.2
<25
<25
114.0
115.7
7.2
9.1
1.2
119.8
74.9
1.1
Standard
Deviation
4.7
10.5
4.2
5.6
8.0
2.9
2.7
7.6
2.8
3.6
0.5
5.6
0.2
0.2
7.3
2.6
7.5
115.6
242.5
34.2
76.9
0.0
82.9
0.0
0.0
58.2
50.7
6.7
18.1
0.5
81.0
27.7
0.6
(a) See Figure 4-3.
One-half of the detection limit was used for samples with concentrations less than the detection limit for
calculations.
Duplicate samples were included in the calculations.
Only samples collected after the switch to prechlorination, beginning with the sample collected on March 30, 2004,
are included.
28
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results after Relocation of
Chlorination Point Upstream of Adsorption Vessels
Parameter
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Silica
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
Sampling
Location'3'
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Number
of
Samples
16
15
12
12
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
15
14
11
11
4
16
15
12
12
4
4
3
4
16
15
12
12
4
12
11
8
8
4
12
11
8
8
4
12
11
8
8
4
Minimum
Concentration
164
162
160
163
160
0.5
0.6
0.5
35
33
33
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
13.6
13.7
13.8
13.5
13.9
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
7.4
7.0
7.1
7.1
6.9
10.1
8.9
9.0
9.1
10.7
2.0
2.4
1.9
2.2
2.0
Maximum
Concentration
259
236
219
207
196
0.6
0.6
0.6
72
46
80
0.12
0.12
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
16.1
16.5
15.4
15.7
15.3
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
36.0
14.0
7.4
13.0
1.3
8.2
7.6
7.7
7.6
8.0
19.5
17.7
16.4
17.5
15.0
5.4
4.3
3.9
4.1
2.2
Average
Concentration
190
185
182
181
181
0.6
0.6
0.6
48
40
48
0.1
0.1
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
14.8
14.8
14.9
14.9
14.5
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
5.1
2.0
1.4
1.8
0.6
7.9
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.5
14.2
13.5
13.5
13.7
13.3
3.8
3.4
3.0
3.1
2.1
Standard
Deviation
25
22
17
13
16
0.1
0.0
0.1
17
7
21
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.8
3.4
2.0
3.6
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.5
1.9
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.1
29
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results after Relocation of
Chlorination Point Upstream of Adsorption Vessels (Continued)
Parameter
ORP
Free C12
Total C12
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location00
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
AP
TT
AP
TT
IN
AP
TT
Units
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Number
of
Samples
12
11
8
8
4
7
2
7
2
o
J
o
J
o
J
Minimum
Concentration
-66
-50
-41
-43
-50
0.05
0.04
0.20
0.23
54.1
53.9
54.7
Maximum
Concentration
-7
1
-2
o
-J
-1
0.40
0.05
0.71
0.26
62.7
68.1
79.6
Average
Concentration
-49
-26
-22
-22
-30
0.17
0.05
0.45
0.25
57.2
58.8
66.3
Standard
Deviation
19
14
13
14
21
0.13
0.01
0.19
0.02
4.8
8.1
12.5
(a) See Figure 4-3.
One-half of the detection limit was used for samples with concentrations less than the detection limit for
calculations.
Duplicate samples were included in the calculations.
Only samples collected after the switch to prechlorination, beginning with the sample collected on March 30, 2004,
are included.
was bypassed from June 24 and July 9, 2004 due to the elevated pressure problems. Samples of treated
water collected on July 13 and July 22 were again below 10 |og/L; however, the concentrations were
above 10 |o,g/L on July 29 and August 4, 2004. Based on this data, breakthrough of arsenic at 10 |o,g/L
occurred somewhere between 12,500 and 15,000 bed volumes representing about 15 to 20% of the
estimated working capacity of 74,000 bed volumes (see Table 4-3).
As expected, Figure 4-10 shows a close similarity in total arsenic concentrations at the IN and AP loca-
tions, and similarly reduced concentrations at the outlet of each vessel (TA and TB) and the combined
outlet (TT). The total arsenic concentration measured at the AP location on June 8, 2004 (about
13,500 bed volumes) and at the TT location on May 25, 2004 (about 12,500 bed volumes) were unusually
high at 75.2 and 20.3 |o,g/L, respectively. It was not clear why these concentrations were higher than the
other relevant data points.
Iron. Total iron concentrations at the inlet (IN) ranged from 37.1 to 489.1 |o,g/L with an average of
156.4 |og/L. Iron concentrations following pH adjustment and prechlorination (AP) ranged from <25 to
898.2 |og/L with an average concentration of 255.8 |o,g/L. Total iron from the effluent of the adsorption
vessels (TA and TB) ranged from less than detect (<25 |og/L) to 280.0 |o,g/L with an average of 24.0 and
36.2 |og/L at TA and TB, respectively. Following the switch to prechlorination, however, the iron con-
centrations in the treated water were almost always less than the detection limit. Dissolved iron levels
ranged from <25 to 183 |o,g/L at the inlet (IN), and were always <25 |o,g/L at the AP and TT locations.
These data indicate that the majority of iron entering the adsorption vessels existed in particulate form,
and that the iron particles were captured by the media beds.
30
-------
Arsenic Species at the Inlet (IN)
DAs (particulate)
• As(V)
• As (III)
Date
Arsenic Species after pH Adjustment and Pre-Chlorination'a| (AP)
4/19/2004 5/25/2004
Date
D As (particulate)
DAs(V)
• As (III)
• As (soluble)
Arsenic Species after the Tanks Combined (TT)
I-
£
01 20
DAs (particulate)
• As(V)
DAs(lll)
Date
Figure 4-9. Concentration of Arsenic Species at the IN, AP, and TT Sample Locations
-------
70 -
60 -
—*—Inlet
X After pH Adjustment/Pre-Chlorination
-A-After Vessel A
-•—After Vessel B
—3K—Combined Effluent
10 12
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (x 1000)
14
16
18
20
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve
Manganese. The treatment plant water samples were analyzed for total manganese at each sampling
event and soluble manganese only during speciation sampling. Total manganese concentrations at the
various sampling locations are plotted over time in Figure 4-11. Total and soluble manganese concentra-
tions are shown in Figure 4-12. Influent total manganese levels ranged from 51.9 to 245.0 |o,g/L and aver-
aged 114.0 |og/L (Table 4-6), with the majority of manganese present in the soluble form. In contrast to
complete iron precipitation, chlorination precipitated less than 20% of soluble manganese before water
entered the adsorption vessels. This observation was consistent with previous findings that free chlorine
was relatively ineffective at oxidizing Mn(II) at pH values less than 8.0 to 8.5 (Knocke et al., 1987 and
1990). Total manganese concentrations at the TA, TB, and TT locations were typically reduced to
<10 ng/L, indicating removal of manganese within the adsorption vessels. Prior to the switch to pre-
chlorination, manganese quickly broke through the AD-33 adsorbers and reached about 100% break-
through after only about 3,700 bed volumes. Knocke et al. (1990) reported that the presence of free
chlorine in the filter promoted Mn(II) removal on MnOx-coated media; and that in the absence of free
chlorine, Mn(II) removal was by adsorption only. Apparently, AD-33 media had a limited capacity for
Mn(II) in the absence of free chlorine. After switching to prechlorination, the presence of chlorine
promoted the removal of manganese on the AD-33 surface, probably via a mechanism similar to that
proposed by Knocke on MnOx-coated media.
Other Water Quality Parameters. In addition to arsenic analyses, other water quality parameters were
analyzed to provide insight into the chemical processes occurring within the treatment system. The
results of the water quality parameters are included in Appendix B, and are summarized in Table 4-7.
32
-------
300
Inlet
After Pre-Chlorination
After Vessel A
After Vessel B
Combined Effluent
2/3/04 2/23/04 3/14/04 4/3/04 4/23/04 5/13/04 6/2/04 6/22/04 7/12/04 8/1/04
Date
Figure 4-11. Total Manganese Concentrations over Time
pH values of the raw water measured at the IN sample location varied from 7.0 to 8.2 with the lowest
reading of 7.0 measured twice in a row soon after the system began operation. After the IN sampling
location was relocated about 6 ft farther upstream from the CO2 injection point, the lowest pH reading
recorded was 7.4. Following the CO2 injection, the pH values at the AP sample location ranged from 7.0
to 7.6 with an average reading of 7.4. As noted in Section 4.4.3, the readings at the AP sample location
were not consistent with those measured by the inline probe used to regulate CO2 gas injection. Possible
explanations for the differences were provided in Section 4.4.3. pH values recorded from the treated
water sampling locations (TA, TB, TT) ranged from 6.9 to 8.0 with an average of 7.4 to 7.5. pH values at
the various sampling locations throughout the treatment train are plotted versus time in Figure 4-13.
Sulfate concentrations ranged from 33 to 80 mg/L, and remained constant throughout the treatment train.
Alkalinity, measured as CaCO3, ranged from 160 to 259 mg/L. The results indicate that the alkalinity was
not affected by the prechlorination or the media. The treatment plant samples were analyzed for hardness
only on speciation weeks. Total hardness ranged from 53.9 to 79.6 mg/L as CaCO3, and also remained
constant throughout the treatment train.
Fluoride results ranged from 0.5 to 0.6 mg/L in all samples. Fluoride was measured only during specia-
tion weeks and did not appear to be affected by the AD-33 media. Orthophosphate was below or very
near the detection limit of 0.10 mg/L for all samples. Silica (as SiO2) concentration ranged from 13.5 to
16.5 mg/L, and appeared unaffected by the prechlorination and media.
DO levels ranged from 1.9 to 5.4 mg/L and did not appear to be affected by the prechlorination or the
media. ORP readings ranged from -66 to 1 mV across all sampling locations. ORP readings were
consistently higher in the raw water sample collected at the IN sample location than the readings from
33
-------
Manganese at the Inlet (IN)
O) 200 -
DMn (participate)
DMn (soluble)
n
2/16/2004 3/9/2004 4/19/2004 5/25/2004 7/13/2004 8/10/2004
Date
Manganese after pH Adjustment and Pre-Chlorination|a| (AP)
140
J
— • 100
j™
•£
Mn Cone
a)Pre
/1 6/2 004
chlormati
n began Marc
en on this dat
3/9/2004
h 26, 200
4
/1 9/2004
Date
12 5/2004
DMn (particulate)
• Mn (soluble)
fj
7/13/2004 (b) 8/10/2004
Manganese after the Tanks Combined (TT)
— 120 -
"5l
3.
— 100
13
43 80
O 60
o
D Mn (particulate)
DMn (soluble)
2/16/2004 3/9/2004 4/19/2004 5/25/2004 7/13/2004 8/10/2004
Date
Figure 4-12. Concentration of Manganese Species at the IN, AP, and TT Sample Locations
34
-------
8.5 -
<« 7.5 -
7 -
6.5 -
-Inlet
-After pH Adjustment
-After Vessel A
-After Vessel B
-Combined Effluent
2/3/04
2/24/04
3/16/04
4/6/04
4/27/04
5/18/04
Date
6/8/04
6/29/04
7/20/04
8/10/04
Figure 4-13. pH Values over Time
AP or the treated water samples. There did not appear to be a significant difference in the ORP readings
between the AP samples and the treated water samples (TA, TB, TT), indicating that the AD-33 media
did not have an effect on the ORP value.
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. Backwash water was sampled on April 26, June 8, and July 22,
2004. Samples were collected from the sample ports located in the backwash effluent discharge lines
from each vessel. The backwash was performed using raw water (non-chlorinated). The unfiltered
samples were analyzed for pH, turbidity, and TDS/TSS. Filtered samples using 0.45-|o,m disc filters were
analyzed for soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese. In most cases, arsenic, iron, and manganese concen-
trations were lower than those in the raw water, indicating some removal of these metals by the media
during backwash. Soluble arsenic concentrations in the backwash water ranged from 11.1 to 33.4 |o,g/L.
The analytical results from the three backwash water samples collected are summarized in Table 4-8.
Table 4-8. Backwash Water Sampling Results
Date
4/26/2004(a)
6/8/2004
7/22/2004
Vessel A
pH
-
7.41
7.15
7.30
Turbidity
mg/L
470
110
23
TDS
NTU
734
320
402
As
jig/L
18.9
21.3
33.4
Fe
Hg/L
<25
<25
47
Mn
Hg/L
20.9
22.9
240.3
Vessel B
pH
-
7.42
7.22
7.18
Turbidity
NTU
360
260
820
TDS
mg/L
308
352
450
As
|ig/L
21.8
17.5
11.1
Fe
Hg/L
<25
<25
83
Mn
Hg/L
27.7
12.5
32.3
(a) Samples were analyzed for TSS rather than TDS.
35
-------
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Distribution system samples were collected to
investigate if the water treated by the arsenic adsorption system would impact the lead and copper level
and water chemistry in the distribution system. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment system,
baseline distribution water samples were collected on December 10, 2003 and January 6, and 21, 2004.
Following the installation of the treatment system, distribution water sampling continued on a monthly
basis at the same three locations, with samples collected on March 3, April 9, May 26, and July 27, 2004.
The samples were analyzed for pH, alkalinity, arsenic, iron, manganese, lead, and copper. Samples at the
DS1 location were collected according to the procedures in EPA's Lead and Copper Rule (first draw
samples). Both first draw and flushed samples were collected at the DS2 and DS3 locations which were
non-residences.
Results of the distribution samples from all three locations following installation of the treatment system
were similar to the results from the baseline sampling (Table 4-9). Copper levels did seem to fluctuate
slightly more than the other metals analyzed, especially at the DS3 location; however, there was no
discernable trend in any of the distribution sampling results collected. Based on this data, it appeared that
the treatment system had little to no effect on the water quality in the distribution system. This was likely
due to the fact that the distribution system in place was a looped system, combining water from Wells No.
3 and No. 4 at the Porter Well House, which typically operated at 100 gpm for about 10 hr/day, and was
treated with the APU-100 system, with water produced from the General Sullivan Well, which typically
operates at 80-100 gpm for about 12 hr/day, and was not treated (see Section 4.1). The blending of the
treated water with the untreated water from General Sullivan might have masked any detectable effects of
the APU-100 system on the water quality in the distribution system.
4.6 System Costs
The cost-effectiveness of the system is evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design
capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gallons of water treated. The capital costs included equipment,
engineering, and installation costs and O&M costs included media replacement and disposal, chemical
supply, electrical power use, and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Costs. The capital investment costs for equipment, site engineering, and installation
for the Rollinsford treatment system were $106,568 (see Table 4-10). The equipment costs were $82,081
(or 77% of the total capital investment), which included $23,781 for the skid-mounted APU-100 unit,
$16,600 for the CO2 injection module, $13,230 for the AD-33 media ($245/ft3 or $8.75/lb to fill two
vessels), $15,895 for miscellaneous materials required for installation, and $12,575 for labor.
The engineering costs included the costs for the preparation of a process flow diagram of the treatment
system, mechanical drawings of the treatment equipment, and a schematic of the building footprint and
equipment lay out to be used as part of the permit application submittal (see Section 4.3.1). The
engineering costs were $4,907, which was 5% of the total capital investment.
The installation costs included the equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted unit and
CO2 injection loop and module, perform the piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and backwash the
media (see Section 4.3.3). The installation was performed by AdEdge and Waterline Services, a local
contractor subcontracted by AdEdge to perform the installation. The installation costs were $19,580, or
18% of the total capital investment.
36
-------
Table 4-9. Distribution System Sampling Results
No. of
Sampling
Events
BLl
BL2
BL3
1
2
3
4
Address
Sample Type
Flushed / 1st Draw
Sampling Date*
12/10/2003
1/6/2004
1/21/2004
3/3/2004
4/9/2004
5/26/2004 (a|
7/27/2004 (1])
DS1
50 Water Street
Non-LCR
1st Draw
o If
|I
is
6.2
6.0
18.0
6.5
7.0
6.0
7.0
t
8.6
7.67
8.1
7.24
7.84
NA
7.2
Alkalinity
35
41
49
110
98
NA
77
•si
3.3
3.9
6.6
6.7
3.0
3.9
£
53
100
149
<25
74
108
S
7.1
8.5
13.0
10.3
12.1
8.9
6.8
£
0.3
1.4
2.1
1.9
0.7
1.2
2.3
3
U
7.2
200.0
187.7
192.0
130.5
192.0
186.0
DS2
Silver St. (Town Garage)
Non-Residence
1st Draw
Stagnation
Time (hrs)
20.2
14.3
12 d
6d
23. 8 d
9.5
t
7.6
6.9
7.82
6.91
7.8
NA
6.8
Alkalinity
27
29
35
25
16
NA
32
•si
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
£
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
S
4.8
8.6
8.0
6.3
9.2
4.1
£
6.2
8.8
1.2
1.5
2.7
3
U
70.7
103.0
95.6
77.2
148.1
377tt
61.5
Flushed
'•O ^
ll
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
t
NS
7.58
7.86
6.8
7.66
NA
6.9
Alkalinity
NS
31
29
23
26
NA
20
•si
NS
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.6
£
NS
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
S
NS
8.9
7.9
6.5
8.1
7.4
8.8
£
NS
3.1
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.9
0.9
3
U
NS
44.5
41.5
12.4
22.8
79.1
31.2
DS3
679 Main Street
Non-Residence
1st Draw
Stagnation
Time (hrs)
20.2
9.8
14.5
14.5
14.8
12.8
13.8
t
7.6
7.29
7.83
6.95
7.6
NA
NA
Alkalinity
27
66
31
88
90
NA
NA
<
3.5
7.1
2.7
5.6
8.8
2.8
6.0
£
108.0
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
S
13.0
6.5
5.8
5.6
4.4
4.1
£
0.9
2.2
3.5
3.1
9.4
9.5
3
U
289.8
326.0
869.4
531.0
528.3
830.0
709.0
Flushed
o If
|I
is
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
t
NS
7.56
7.76
7.52
7.64
NA
7
Alkalinity
NS
70
146
157
115
NA
99
•si
NS
6.9
24.9
8.3
7.2
13.2
£
NS
<25
93
<25
<25
<25
S
NS
6.3
62.8
22.2
4.4
2.8
15.4
£
NS
0.5
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.3
3
U
NS
328.0
109.7
515.0
313.6
463.0
195.0
BL = baseline sampling
NS = not sampled
NA = not analyzed
(a) DS1 was sampled on May 27, 2004
(b) DS1 and DS3 were sampled on July 26, 2004
The unit for analytical parameters is fj.g/L except for alkanility (mg/L as C
Lead action level = 15 fig/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L
CO3)
-------
Table 4-10. Capital Investment Costs for the APU-100 System
Description
Ei
APU Skid-Mounted System
AD-33 Media
Miscellaneous Equipment and Materials
pH Adjustment Module
Vendor Labor
Equipment Total
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
luipment Costs
1 unit
54ft3
—
1
—
—
$23,781
$13,230
$15,895
$16,600
$12,575
$82,081
—
—
—
—
—
77%
Engineering Costs
Material
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Engineering Total
—
—
—
—
$75
$3,800
$1,032
$4,907
—
—
—
5%
Installation Costs
Material
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
—
—
—
—
—
-
$400
$14,850
$3,040
$1,290
$19,580
$106,568
—
—
—
—
18%
100%
The Rollinsford Water and Sewer District constructed a new treatment building next to the existing Porter
Well House. The wood frame structure measured 33 ft * 13 ft and has a concrete foundation and floor.
The building cost was approximately $57,000, including design and construction of the subsurface leach
field directly adjacent to the building, used for disposing of the backwash water from the system.
The total capital cost of $106,568 and equipment cost of $82,081 were converted to a unit cost of
$0.14/1,000 gallons and $0.10/1,000 gallons, respectively, using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of
0.06722 based on a 3% interest rate and a 20-year return period (Chen et al., 2004). These calculations
assumed that the system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at the system design flowrate of 100
gpm. The system operated only about 10 hours per day (see Table 4-4), producing 7,158,000 gallons of
water during the six-month period, so the total unit cost and equipment-only unit cost increased to
$0.50/1,000 gallons and $0.38/1,000 gallons, respectively, at this reduced rate of usage. Using the
system's rated capacity of 100 gpm (144,000 gpd), the capital cost was $1,066 per gpm of design capacity
($0.74/gpd) and equipment-only cost was $821 per gpm of design capacity ($0.57/gpd). These
calculations did not include the cost of the building construction.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs. O&M costs include such items as media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electricity, and labor. These costs are summarized in Table 4-11. Although
not incurred during the first six months of system operation, the media replacement cost represented the
majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to be $16,810 to change out both vessels. This media
change-out cost included costs for media, freight, labor, travel expenses, and media profiling and disposal
fee. This cost was used to estimate the media replacement cost per 1,000 gallons of water treated as a
function of the projected media run length to the 10 |o,g/L arsenic breakthrough (Figure 4-14).
38
-------
Table 4-11. Operation and Maintenance Costs for the APU-100 System
Cost Category
Volume processed (kgal)
Value
7,158
Assumptions
Through August 13, 2004
Media Replacement and Disposal
Media cost ($/ft3)
Total media volume (ft3)
Media replacement cost ($)
Under-bedding replacement cost ($)
Freight
Labor cost ($)
Waste analysis
Media disposal fee ($)
Subtotal
Media replacement and disposal cost
($71,000 gal)
$245
44
$10,780
$310
$440
$4,390
$420
$470
$16,810
See Figure 4-14
Vendor quote
Both vessels
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Based upon media run length at 10-|ag/L
arsenic breakthrough
Chemical Usage
CO2 Cylinders($)
Chemical cost ($71,000 gal)
$823
$0.11
9 change-outs, delivery included
Cost for CO2 only, no additional costs for
chlorination included
Electricity
Electricity cost ($71,000 gal)
$0.001
Electrical costs assumed negligible
Labor
Average weekly labor (hrs)
Labor cost ($71, 000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gallons
2.33
$0.18
See Figure 4-14
20 minutes/day
Labor rate = $20/hr
Based upon media run length at 10-|ag/L
arsenic breakthrough
The chemical cost associated with the operation of the treatment system included the use of sodium
hypochlorite for prechlorination and the CO2 gas for pH adjustment. Sodium hypochlorite was already
being used at the site prior to the installation of the APU-100 for disinfection purposes prior to distribu-
tion. The presence of the APU-100 system did not affect the use rate of the sodium hypochlorite solution.
Therefore, the incremental chemical cost for chlorine was negligible. The CO2 cylinders were replaced
nine times during the first six months of system operation (approximately every two to three weeks).
Each change-out costs $91.45 and includes the replacement of two CO2 cylinders and delivery charges.
The CO2 costs for the first six months of operation were calculated to be $823 or $0.11/1,000 gallons of
water treated.
Comparison of electrical bills supplied by the utility prior to system installation and since startup did not
indicate that the APU-100 system caused a noticeable increase in power consumption. Therefore, elec-
trical costs associated with operation of the APU-100 system were assumed to be negligible.
Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed
only 15-20 minutes per day, as noted in Section 4.4.6. Therefore, the estimated labor cost is
$0.18/1,000 gallons of water treated.
39
-------
$10.00
$9.00
$8.00
$7.00
=• $6.00
ro
o
o
° $5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
O&M Cost (including Media
Replacement)
Media Replacement Cost
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (x 1000)
45
50
Figure 4-14. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Costs
40
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2003. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. EPA NRMRL.
November 17.
Battelle. 2004. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at Rollinsford, New Hampshire. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185,
Task Order No. 0019 for U.S. EPA NRMRL. January 21.
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.
Knocke, W.R., et al. 1987. "Using Alternative Oxidants to Remove Dissolved Manganese from Waters
Laden with Organics." J. AWWA (March), 79:3:75.
Knocke, W.R., et al. 1990. Alternative Oxidants for the Remove of Soluble Iron and Manganese. Final
report prepared for the AWWA Research Foundation, AWWARF, Denver, Colorado (March).
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.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting
Guidance for Public Water Systems. Prepared by EPA's Office of Water. EPA/816/R-02/009.
February.
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.
Wang, L., W. Condit, and A. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA Arsenic
Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round I. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S. EPA
NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH.
41
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week No.
1
2
3
4
5
Date
02/09/04
02/10/04
02/11/04
02/12/04
02/13/04
02/14/04
02/15/04
02/16/04
02/17/04
02/18/04
02/19/04
02/20/04
02/21/04
02/22/04
02/23/04
02/24/04
02/25/04
02/26/04
02/27/04
02/28/04
02/29/04
03/01/04
03/02/04
03/03/04
03/04/04
03/05/04
03/06/04
03/07/04
03/08/04
03/09/04
03/10/04
03/11/04
03/12/04
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
0.0
16.5
10.1
9.9
0.6
0.1
10.1
10.0
10.0
9.9
9.9
9.9
10.3
10.0
10.5
11.8
8.3
9.7
11.9
10.7
7.2
10.0
11.6
9.4
11.4
8.9
10.0
9.8
10.1
11.4
10.1
9.9
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
0.0
16.5
26.6
36.5
37.1
37.2
47.3
57.3
67.3
77.1
87.1
97.0
107.3
117.3
127.8
139.7
148.0
157.7
169.5
180.2
187.4
197.4
209.0
218.4
229.9
238.7
248.7
258.5
268.6
280.0
290.1
300.0
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
104
99
101
103
-
106
105
102
101
101
101
93
98
86
114
60
89
94
86
62
93
108
89
115
60
44
79
105
103
102
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
27
55
80
83
83
112
139
167
193
220
246
272
297
325
352
378
392
428
460
481
501
533
563
593
632
639
657
674
708
736
764
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
29
61
92
95
96
126
157
187
216
246
276
304
332
362
392
420
437
461
485
499
513
542
569
596
623
640
656
672
705
734
762
Cumulative Flow
Totalizer
kgal
56
116
172
178
179
238
296
354
410
466
522
577
629
687
744
797
829
889
945
980
1014
1075
1132
1188
1255
1278
1313
1347
1414
1470
1526
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated
BV
151
317
470
485
487
649
807
964
1,116
1,269
1,422
1,571
1,715
1,873
2,028
2,172
2,260
2,423
2,575
2,670
2,762
2,930
3,083
3,238
3,420
3,484
3,577
3,670
3,852
4,005
4,158
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
8.2
9.1
12.0
13.0
0.0
12.5
10.5
11.7
12.5
13.2
14.4
15+
15+
15+
13.5
13.5
15.0
10.4
13.4
14.0
7.8
11.8
9.6
12.0
13.0
15+
11.2
9.6
10.0
11.5
12.6
14.2
Tank B
psi
7.4
7.5
9.4
9.8
0.0
11.2
9.0
9.7
10.2
11.2
12.2
14.4
15+
15+
11.8
11.4
13.0
9.6
14.6
15+
8.5
11.8
9.5
11.2
12.6
14.6
10.2
9.6
9.8
10.2
11.4
13.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
79
80
82
82
0
84
80
81
81
82
83
84
88
90
85
84
85
77
86
88
76
80
82
82
83
86
78
77
79
82
83
84
Effluent
psi
64
64
65
64
0
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
65
66
68
67
67
64
67
68
65
66
66
66
66
66
66
65
67
67
66
66
AP
psi
15
16
17
18
0
20
16
17
17
18
19
20
23
24
17
17
18
13
19
20
11
14
16
16
17
20
12
12
12
15
17
18
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
6
7
8
9
10
Date
03/26/04
03/27/04
03/28/04
03/29/04
03/30/04
03/31/04
04/01/04
04/02/04
04/03/04
04/04/04
04/05/04
04/06/04
04/07/04
04/08/04
04/09/04
04/10/04
04/11/04
04/12/04
04/13/04
04/14/04
04/15/04
04/16/04
04/17/04
04/18/04
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
11.3
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.5
9.8
10.0
11.0
10.1
10.2
10.1
11.0
9.8
10.2
11.0
10.2
10.1
10.1
10.0
9.9
10.0
12.6
18.9
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
311.4
321.4
331.6
341.7
351.7
362.3
372.1
382.1
393.1
403.2
413.4
423.4
434.4
444.3
454.4
465.4
475.7
485.8
495.9
505.9
515.8
525.8
538.4
557.2
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
96
87
91
89
87
88
90
88
89
92
87
89
91
88
88
89
92
89
89
88
90
89
91
86
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
827
852
877
901
925
951
975
999
1,027
1,053
1,078
1,103
1,130
1,154
1,179
1,207
1,233
1,259
1,283
1,308
1,333
1,357
1,391
1,436
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
Cumulative Flow
Totalizer
kgal
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated
BV
System Not Operating
827
851
876
901
926
952
977
1,003
1,030
1,055
1,080
1,106
1,133
1,158
1,183
1,210
1,236
1,261
1,286
1,312
1,336
1,361
1,394
1,438
1654
1704
1753
1802
1851
1903
1952
2002
2057
2108
2159
2209
2263
2312
2362
2418
2469
2520
2570
2620
2669
2719
2784
2874
—
4,508
4,642
4,776
4,910
5,044
5,186
5,319
5,455
5,606
5,744
5,882
6,018
6,167
6,300
6,437
6,588
6,728
6,866
7,002
7,138
7,272
7,407
7,586
7,831
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
10.6
10.6
11.8
10.6
11.9
13
13.4
14.2
11.8
12.5
14.0
13.2
13.3
14
15+
11.2
12.5
13.8
12.8
12.8
14.5
15.0
9.6
11.4
Tank B
psi
11.2
11.0
11.8
10.8
11.6
12.5
13.4
14
12.3
12.8
14.6
13.8
13.6
13.9
15+
11.7
12.8
14.5
13
12.8
14.7
15+
10.4
11.6
System Pressure
Influent
psi
83
82
84
83
83
83
83
84
83
84
86
86
84
84
90
82
84
86
84
84
84
84
82
84
Effluent
psi
67
67
67
67
67
66
66
66
66
67
66
67
67
66
66
66
67
65
65
66
66
66
66
68
AP
psi
16
15
17
16
16
17
17
18
17
17
20
19
17
18
24
16
17
21
19
18
18
18
16
16
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
11
12
13
14
15
Date
04/19/04
04/20/04
04/21/04
04/22/04
04/23/04
04/24/04
04/25/04
04/26/04
04/27/04
04/28/04
04/29/04
04/30/04
05/01/04
05/02/04
05/03/04
05/04/04
05/05/04
05/06/04
05/07/04
05/08/04
05/09/04
05/10/04
05/11/04
05/12/04
05/13/04
05/14/04
05/15/04
05/16/04
05/17/04
05/18/04
05/19/04
05/20/04
05/21/04
05/22/04
05/23/04
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
10.0
10.8
9.9
10.0
11.1
10.1
11.3
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.1
11.3
10.1
10.0
9.9
10.0
10.1
10.4
9.8
12.1
10.1
9.7
10.3
10.1
24.9
23.6
25.5
6.2
10.7
10.0
10.6
0.8
10.0
25.0
24.6
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
567.2
578.0
587.9
597.9
609.0
619.2
630.4
640.4
650.4
660.4
670.5
681.8
691.9
701.9
711.8
721.8
731.9
742.3
752.1
764.2
774.3
783.9
794.3
804.3
829.3
852.8
878.3
884.5
895.3
905.3
915.8
916.6
926.6
951.6
976.3
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
85
88
89
89
89
89
90
90
93
85
88
83
103
92
90
90
89
87
91
15
60
62
58
59
56
54
53
70
56
60
60
63
63
59
57
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
1,460
1,486
1,510
1,534
1,562
1,586
1,615
1,640
1,666
1,690
1,715
1,740
1,770
1,796
1,821
1,846
1,871
1,896
1,919
1,926
1,941
1,957
1,973
1,988
2,023
2,055
2,089
2,101
2,118
2,135
2,153
2,155
2,172
2,213
2,251
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
1,462
1,488
1,508
1,538
1,566
1,592
1,619
1,644
1,669
1,694
1,719
1,745
1,773
1,798
1,823
1,848
1,873
1,898
1,924
1,930
1,948
1,966
1,983
2,000
2,043
2,083
2,124
2,135
2,152
2,168
2,186
2,187
2,205
2,246
2,285
Cumulative Flow
Totalizer
kgal
2922
2974
3018
3072
3128
3178
3234
3284
3334
3384
3434
3486
3543
3594
3644
3694
3745
3794
3843
3855
3889
3923
3956
3988
4065
4138
4213
4236
4270
4303
4339
4342
4376
4459
4536
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated
BV
7,961
8,103
8,225
8,371
8,522
8,660
8,812
8,949
9,085
9,220
9,356
9,497
9,654
9,793
9,930
10,067
10,203
10,338
10,472
10,505
10,596
10,688
10,778
10,866
1 1 ,077
1 1 ,275
1 1 ,480
1 1 ,543
1 1 ,634
1 1 ,725
1 1 ,823
11,831
1 1 ,924
12,150
12,360
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
11.2
12.0
12.6
13.4
12.9
15+
12.2
13.6
14.8
15.0
15+
15+
12.6
12.2
12.8
15.0
15.0
15+
15+
10.5
11.5
18.0
19.0
20.0
20.0
21.0
23.0
6.5
10.0
10.0
11.5
13.0
13.5
13.0
13.0
Tank B
psi
11.7
11.8
12.7
13.2
14.0
15+
12.8
14.6
15+
15+
15+
15+
13.2
13.2
12.4
15+
15.0
15+
15+
18.0
20.0
26.5
27.5
27.5
27.0
27.5
29.5
15.0
14.0
16.0
18.5
21.5
21.0
21.0
21.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
84
83
83
84
84
86
85
84
87
87
86
87
82
81
82
85
85
85
86
80
76
78
78
79
80
82
82
76
72
75
75
76
74
76
77
Effluent
psi
68
67
67
66
66
66
67
67
67
66
65
64
65
65
65
64
66
66
66
66
64
62
62
62
64
65
64
64
64
64
64
63
62
62
64
AP
psi
16
16
16
18
18
20
18
17
20
21
21
23
17
16
17
21
19
19
20
14
12
16
16
17
16
17
18
12
8
11
11
13
12
14
13
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
16
17
18
19
20
Date
05/24/04
05/25/04
05/26/04
05/27/04
05/28/04
05/29/04
05/30/04
05/31/04
06/01/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
06/04/04
06/05/04
06/06/04
06/07/04
06/08/04
06/09/04
06/10/04
06/11/04
06/12/04
06/13/04
06/14/04
06/15/04
06/16/04
06/17/04
06/18/04
06/19/04
06/20/04
06/21/04
06/22/04
06/23/04
06/24/04
06/25/04
06/26/04
06/27/04
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
10.0
20.4
NA
10.0
10.0
11.2
10.3
0.0
NA
9.9
10.1
11.0
NA
NA
32.5
9.9
11.1
23.8
24.0
18.4
10.2
10.3
21.6
NM
10.1
10.0
10.0
10.1
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
986.3
1,006.7
NA
1,016.7
1,026.7
1,037.9
1,048.2
1 ,048.2
NA
1,058.1
1,068.2
1,079.2
NA
NA
1,111.7
1,121.6
1,132.7
1,156.5
1,180.5
1,198.9
1,209.1
1,219.4
1,241.0
1,316.3
1,326.4
1,336.4
1,346.4
1,356.5
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
58
60
NA
60
57
57
42
0
NA
64
66
47
NA
NA
59
56
57
54
56
54
54
50
62
54
55
33
68
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
2,268
2,284
2,302
2,317
2,332
2,350
2,360
NA
NA
NA
2,363
2,378
NA
NA
2,431
2,447
2,462
2,497
2,524
2,545
2,554
2,567
2,586
2,599
2,620
2,623
2,635
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
2,302
2,319
2,336
2,353
2,372
2,390
2,405
NA
NA
NA
2,407
2,421
NA
NA
2,474
2,490
2,510
2,550
2,599
2,637
2,657
2,685
2,699
2,718
2,737
2,755
2,769
Cumulative Flow
Totalizer
kgal
4570
4603
4638
4671
4703
4740
4765
NA
NA
NA
4770
4799
NA
NA
4905
4937
4972
5046
5123
5182
5211
5252
oySK
5285
5316
5357
5378
5404
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated
BV
12,452
12,542
12,636
12,726
12,816
12,915
12,984
NA
NA
NA
12,996
13,078
NA
NA
13,365
13,452
13,548
13,750
13,959
14,121
14,200
14,310
sm Not Ope
14,402
14,486
14,598
14,655
14,725
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
12.5
13.5
15.0
14.0
25.0
14.0
25.0
NM
NM
NM
20.0
25.0
NM
NM
25.0
11.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
28.0
rating
17.0
26.0
29.0
30+
30+
Tank B
psi
20.5
21.0
25.0
20.5
30.0
23.0
30.0
NM
NM
NM
30.0
30.0
NM
NM
30+
20.0
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
17.0
26.0
29.0
30+
30+
System Pressure
Influent
psi
79
78
78
76
82
84
100
NM
NM
NM
100
96
NM
NM
96
75
87
88
80
92
96
100+
80
86
90
93
93
Effluent
psi
64
65
62
64
63
63
64
NM
NM
NM
64
64
NM
NM
64
62
63
62
60
62
62
64
63
62
61
60
60
AP
psi
15
13
16
12
19
21
36
NM
NM
NM
36
32
NM
NM
32
13
24
26
20
30
34
36+
17
24
29
33
33
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
21
22
23
24
25
Date
06/28/04
06/29/04
06/30/04
07/01/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
07/04/04
07/05/04
07/06/04
07/07/04
07/08/04
07/09/04
07/10/04
07/11/04
07/12/04
07/13/04
07/14/04
07/15/04
07/16/04
07/17/04
07/18/04
07/19/04
07/20/04
07/21/04
07/22/04
07/23/04
07/24/04
07/25/04
07/26/04
07/27/04
07/28/04
07/29/04
07/30/04
07/31/04
08/01/04
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
96.4
10.1
10.1
10.2
10.1
10.4
10.0
9.9
10.0
10.3
10.1
10.1
10.3
12.3
10.3
10.8
10.2
10.1
10.9
10.7
16.0
10.8
10.0
14.8
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
1,452.8
1,462.9
1,473.0
1,483.2
1,493.3
1,503.7
1,513.7
1,523.6
1,533.6
1,543.9
1,554.0
1,564.1
1,574.4
1,586.7
1,597.0
1,607.8
1,618.0
1,628.1
1,639.0
1,649.7
1,665.7
1,676.5
1,686.6
1,701.3
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
123
63
63
60
63
62
60
62
65
60
61
61
60
91
108
108
105
104
110
103
107
110
109
106
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
2,657
2,673
2,693
2,706
2,722
2,739
2,754
2,770
2,786
2,802
2,817
2,835
2,853
2,883
2,916
2,940
2,963
2,991
3,015
3,036
3,066
3,094
3,116
3,147
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
olfr-
Sys
2,793
2,814
2,834
2,854
2,874
2,894
2,914
2,934
2,954
2,974
2,993
3,010
3,028
3,055
3,086
3,109
3,137
3,156
3,190
3,221
3,268
3,298
3,329
3,372
Cumulative Flow
Totalizer
kgal
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated
BV
tern Not Operating
5450
5487
5526
5560
5596
5633
5668
5703
5740
5775
5811
5846
5881
5939
6003
6049
6100
6148
6204
6256
6334
6392
6445
6519
14,851
14,951
15,058
15,149
15,248
15,349
15,444
15,541
15,640
15,737
15,833
15,928
16,024
16,181
16,356
16,482
16,622
16,751
16,906
17,047
17,260
17,417
17,561
17,762
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
10.0
10.0
11.0
11.5
13.0
15.0
17.5
18.0
11.0
15.0
20.0
21.0
25.0
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
19.0
22.0
30+
20.0
20.0
22.0
Tank B
psi
7.5
7.5
9.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
14.5
9.0
13.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
18.0
21.5
30+
19.0
19.0
22.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
72
71
74
73
74
75
78
79
72
78
82
82
85
100+
100+
98
100
100
84
88
100
84
82
87
Effluent
psi
63
63
63
62
62
62
62
63
64
63
62
62
62
64
64
64
66
66
66
66
65
64
63
64
AP
psi
9
8
11
11
12
13
16
16
8
15
20
20
23
36+
36+
34
34
34
18
22
35
20
19
23
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
26
27
Date
08/02/04
08/03/04
08/04/04
08/05/04
08/06/04
08/07/04
08/08/04
08/09/04
08/10/04
08/11/04
08/12/04
08/13/04
08/14/04
08/15/04
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
0.0
20.2
10.0
12.0
9.9
10.1
10.2
9.7
0.0
11.6
NM
19.7
10.1
10.3
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
1,701.3
1,721.5
1,731.5
1,743.5
1,753.4
1,763.5
1,773.7
1,783.4
1,783.4
1,795.0
NM
1,814.7
1,824.8
1,835.0
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
51
112
111
111
111
110
113
108
NM
114
114
109
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
3,167
3,188
3,207
3,242
3,270
3,300
3,329
3,356
3,356
3,387
NM
3,439
3,465
3,489
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
3,402
3,431
3,461
3,497
3,527
3,558
3,588
3,619
3,619
3,654
NM
3,718
3,752
3,785
Cumulative Flow
Totalizer
kgal
6569
6619
6668
6739
6797
6857
6917
6975
6975
7041
NM
7158
7217
7274
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated
BV
17,899
18,035
18,169
18,362
18,520
18,685
18,847
19,006
19,006
19,185
NM
19,503
19,664
19,821
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
23.5
25.0
25.0
13.0
14.0
16.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
16.5
NM
19.0
21.0
21.0
Tank B
psi
23.0
24.0
25.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
16.5
16.0
17.0
16.0
NM
18.0
20.0
20.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
90
92
90
76
74
78
80
82
80
80
NM
82
84
86
Effluent
psi
64
64
64
64
64
64
65
65
64
64
NM
64
64
65
AP
psi
26
28
26
12
10
14
15
17
16
16
NM
18
20
21
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Rollinsford, NH
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
N03-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
Hg/L
^g/L
re/L
re/L
Hg/L
^g/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
02/10/04
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Rollinsford, NH
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L®
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L«
mg/Lw
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
re/L
re/L
^g/L
03/09/04
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Rollinsford, NH
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L<»
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L«
mg/L(a)
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
04/19/04
IN
-
188
0.6
46
<0.10
15.3
<0.05
0.4
7.9
12.4
5.4
-64
-
-
54.9
30.2
24.7
41.3
35.5
5.8
18.1
17.4
68
29
112
112
AP
-
188
0.6
46
<0.10
15.6
<0.05
0.3
7.2
12.5
3.3
-16
-
-
54.3
29.7
24.6
42.5
35.4
7.1
0.5
34.9
53
<25
109
105
TT
8.0
196
0.6
40
<0.10
15.3
<0.05
0.6
7.5
13.5
2.0
-33
-
-
64.6
35.4
29.2
6.1
5.1
1.0
0.5
4.6
<25
<25
1.5
1.0
04/29/04
IN
-
195
-
-
NA
14.0
-
1.0
7.8
13.6
4.3
-50
-
-
-
-
-
36.3
-
-
-
-
115
-
85.1
-
AP
-
191
-
-
NA
14.2
-
1.4
7.1
12.8
2.0
-7
0.40
0.60
-
-
-
37.4
-
-
-
-
214
-
93.4
-
TA
9.3
187
-
-
NA
15.1
-
0.7
7.2
12.6
1.9
-10
-
-
-
-
-
3.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.3
-
TB
9.4
171
-
-
NA
15.2
-
0.7
7.2
12.5
2.3
-11
-
-
-
-
-
3.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.7
-
05/05/04
IN
-
259
-
-
0.11
15.6
-
1.3
8.0
14.8
4.3
-56
-
-
-
-
-
39.9
-
-
-
-
211
-
102
-
AP
-
231
-
-
<0.10
15.4
-
0.9
7.6
14.2
3.6
-30
0.06
0.30
-
-
-
42.9
-
-
-
-
144
-
114
-
TA
10.2
219
-
-
<0.10
15.3
-
0.4
7.5
14.3
3.4
-27
-
-
-
-
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.1
-
TB
10.2
207
-
-
<0.10
15.7
-
0.5
7.5
13.9
4.1
-26
-
-
-
-
-
5.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.2
-
05/18/04
IN
-
176
197
-
-
<0.10
0.12
14.2
14.7
-
0.7
2.4
8.2
14.8
3.9
-66
-
-
-
-
-
38.3
37.0
-
-
-
-
83
89
-
58.9
58.1
-
AP
-
181
185
-
-
0.12
<0.10
14.4
14.7
-
0.7
0.9
7.5
14.1
4.1
-24
0.14
0.30
-
-
-
41.7/38.1(c)
40.1/35.6(c)
-
-
-
-
350/426
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Rollinsford, NH
CO
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
N03-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
05/25/04
IN
-
182
0.6
37
<0.10
15.0
<0.04
3.3
8.0
10.9
4.6
-58
-
-
54.1
31.9
22.2
41.9
35.7
6.2
16.9
18.8
489/
484
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Rollinsford, NH
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/L«
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
mg/L«
Mg/L
re/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
07/20/04
IN
-
164
-
-
<0.10
13.9
-
0.8
7.5
14.1
3.4
-30
-
-
-
-
-
28.7
-
-
-
-
178
-
196
-
AP
-
164
-
-
<0.10
13.9
-
0.6
7.2
13.6
2.7
-17
0.07
0.71
-
-
-
30.0
-
-
-
-
171
-
196
-
TA
15.5
160
-
-
<0.10
14.3
-
0.7
7.2
13.6
3.8
-13
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.3
-
TB
16.4
172
-
-
<0.10
14.2
-
0.7
7.1
14.1
2.2
-11
-
-
-
-
-
2.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
5.2
-
07/29/04
IN
-
177
-
-
<0.10
15.2
-
36(tl)
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
36.1
-
-
-
-
260
-
226
-
AP
-
177
-
-
<0.10
14.9
-
2.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
42.7
-
-
-
-
373
-
241
-
TA
16.4
177
-
-
<0.10
14.7
-
7.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
8.8/
79(0)
-
-
-
-
32/
37.5
-
08/04/04
IN
-
192
-
-
<0.10
14.7
-
0.7
8.0
19.5
3.2
-61
-
-
-
-
-
42.7
-
-
-
-
99
-
127
-
AP
-
188
-
-
<0.10
15.3
-
0.3
7.6
17.7
2.8
-44
0.21
0.44
-
-
-
42.4
-
-
-
-
146
-
163
-
TA
17.4
184
-
-
<0.10
15.0
-
0.3
7.7
16.4
2.6
-41
-
-
-
-
-
17.2/
17.2(c)
-
-
-
-
131/
125
-
08/10/04
IN
-
176
0.6
35
<0.10
13.6
<0.04
29
7.9
15.1
3.2
-60
-
-
62.7
34.2
28.5
31.9
31.6
0.3
12.4
19.2
89
<25
51.9
48.9
AP
-
168
0.6
33
<0.10
13.7
<0.04
0.8
7.4
15.3
2.4
-27
0.05
0.20
68.1
38.2
29.9
30.4
30.7
<0.1
0.5
30.2
<25
<25
60.0
50.2
TT
19.0
160
0.5
33
<0.10
14.4
<0.04
0.4
7.5
15.0
2.0
-34
0.04
0.26
79.6
41.6
38.0
5.1
5.1
<0.1
0.4
4.7
<25
<25
1.6
1.9
(a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) Measured as PO4. (c) (/) indicates re-run data with original result/re-run result.
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after prechlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined
NA = data not available.
------- |