EPA/600/R-06/007
February 2006
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
EPA Demonstration Project at Queen Anne's County, Maryland
Six-Month Evaluation Report
by
Jeffrey L. 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 community of Prospect Bay at
Grasonville in Queen Anne's County, MD. The objectives of the project were to evaluate the
effectiveness of Severn Trent Services (STS) SORB 33 media in removing arsenic to meet the new
arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |o,g/L. Additionally, this project evaluates the reliability
of the treatment system (Arsenic Package Unit [APU]-300), 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 STS system consisted of two 63-inch-diameter, 86-inch-tall fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP)
vessels in parallel configuration, each containing approximately 80 ft3 of SORB 33 media. The media
is an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG and packaged under the name SORB 33 by
STS. The system was designed for a flowrate of 320 gallons per minute (gpm) (160 gpm to each vessel),
corresponding to a design empty bed contact time (EBCT) of about 3.8 minutes per vessel and a hydraulic
loading to each vessel of 7.4 gpm/ft2.
The treatment system began regular operation on June 30, 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 June 30 through December 30, 2004, the
APU-300 system operated an average of 6.3 hours per day for a total operating time of 1,082 hours. The
system treated approximately 14,856,000 gallons of water, or 12,400 bed volumes (BV), which was
approximately 11% of the vendor-estimated working capacity for the SORB 33 media. Total arsenic
concentrations in raw water ranged from 18.3 to 25.8 |o,g/L with As(III) being the predominating species,
averaging 18.7 |og/L. By the end of September 2004, the arsenic concentration in the treated water
exceeded the target concentration of 10 |o,g/L after approximately 7,400 BVs of water treated. To
improve arsenic removal by the media, prechlorination was implemented in early November. (Prior to
this, chlorine was added at the end of the treatment train.) Arsenic in samples collected following
prechlorination existed primarily as As(V) and particulate As, indicating the effectiveness of chlorination
in oxidizing As(III) to As(V). In the week following the switch to prechlorination, arsenic in the treated
water existed primarily as As(III) (i.e., 10.4 out of 12 ng/L). Within two weeks of switching to
prechlorination, total arsenic concentrations in the treated water reduced to 0.9 |o,g/L.
Because there was no on-site disposal facility for the backwash water and because there was little change
in the differential pressure during the first four months of operation, the system was backwashed only
once during the first six months of operation. The backwash was initiated manually and the backwash
water was discharged into a tanker truck and transported to the Stevensville Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) for disposal. Each vessel was backwashed separately at a flowrate of 200 gpm for a period of
20 to 25 minutes, generating approximately 9,500 gallons of backwash water. Soluble arsenic
concentrations in the backwash water were 5.4 and 3.4 |o,g/L from Vessels A and B, respectively, which
was significantly lower than those in the raw water that was used for backwash, indicating some arsenic
removal by the media during backwash.
Results of the distribution system sampling showed a distinct effect of the treatment system on the arsenic
concentrations in the treated water. The results mirrored those seen from the treatment system sampling,
as As concentrations dropped once the system was put into service, rose gradually during the first four
months of operation as As(III) began to break through, and then went down again once the switch to
IV
-------
prechlorination was made. The APU-300 did not appear to have an effect on the Pb or Cu levels in the
distribution.
The capital investment cost of $211,000 included $129,500 for equipment, $4,907 for site engineering,
and $19,580 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 320 gpm (460,800 gallons per day
[gpd]), the capital cost was $659/gpm ($0.46/gpd) and equipment-only cost was $405/gpm ($0.28/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 media replacement and
disposal did not take place during the first six months of operation, the vendor estimated $26,800 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.
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 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 7
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 9
3.5 Analytical Procedures 10
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 11
4.1 Facility Description 11
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 11
4.1.2 Pre-Demonstration Treated Water Quality 12
4.1.3 Distribution System 13
4.2 Treatment Process Description 14
4.3 System Installation 17
4.3.1 Permitting 17
4.3.2 Building Construction 17
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 18
4.4 System Operation 19
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 19
4.4.2 Previous System Design Changes 20
4.4.3 Backwash 22
4.4.4 Residual Management 22
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 22
4.5 System Performance 23
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 23
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling 32
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 32
VI
-------
4.6 System Costs 34
4.6.1 Capital Costs 34
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs 35
5.0 REFERENCES 38
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Existing Well House No. 1 11
Figure 4-2. Chlorine Gas System at Well No. 1 12
Figure 4-3. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 16
Figure 4-4. APU-300 Treatment System Prior to Shipment 17
Figure 4-5. New Treatment Building Addition with Access Hatches in the Roof. 18
Figure 4-6. Unloading of the APU Skid into the Partially Completed Treatment Building Addition 19
Figure 4-7. Differential Pressure Loss Across Adsorption Vessels 21
Figure 4-8. Diagram of STS APU-300 System as Installed at Prospect Bay 22
Figure 4-9. Concentration of Arsenic Species at the IN, AC, and TT Sample Locations 28
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve 29
Figure 4-11. Total Iron Concentrations Versus Bed Volumes 30
Figure 4-12. Total Manganese Concentrations Versus Bed Volumes 31
Figure 4-13. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Costs 37
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. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 6
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule for Prospect Bay, Queen Anne's County, MD 8
Table 4-1. Prospect Bay Water Quality Data 13
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of SORB 33 Media 14
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of the APU-300 System 15
Table 4-4. Summary of APU-300 System Operation 20
Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results Prior to Switch to
Prechlorination (July 7 to November 3, 2004) 24
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results After Switch to
Prechlorination (November 9, 2004 to December 30, 2004) 25
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Results 26
Table 4-8. Backwash Water Sampling Results 32
Table 4-9. Distribution System Sampling Results 33
Table 4-10. Capital Investment for the Prospect Bay Treatment System 34
Table 4-11. O&M Costs for the Prospect Bay Treatment System 36
vn
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
APU arsenic package unit
As arsenic
BV bed volume(s)
Ca calcium
C/F coagulation/filtration
C12 chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
Fe iron
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MDE Maryland Department of the Environment
MDWCA Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
Mo molybdenum
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NS not sampled
NSF NSF International
NTU nephlemetric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
Vlll
-------
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QAC Queen Anne's County
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/qauality control
QA quality assurance
RPD relative percent difference
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SM system modification
STMGID South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
STS Severn Trent Services
TBD to be determined
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
V vanadium
VOC volatile organic compounds
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of the Queen Annes's County (QAC)
Department of Public Works in Stevensville, Maryland. The QAC 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.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and
that are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003 to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule 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 community of Prospect Bay at Grasonville in Queen Anne's County (QAC),
MD 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. Severn Trent Services (STS), using the
Bayoxide E33 media developed by Bayer AG, was selected for the Prospect Bay facility. STS has given
the E33 media the designation "SORB 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.epa.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; GFH = granular ferric hydroxide
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 STS treatment system
operation from June 30 through December 30, 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:
The SORB 33 media was not effective at removing As(III), as demonstrated by
total arsenic breakthrough at 10 |o,g/L after approximately 7,400 bed volumes
(BVs) of water treated.
After switching to prechlorination on November 9, 2004, arsenic removal
improved with total arsenic concentrations decreasing to 0.9 |o,g/L within two
weeks of modifying the chlorination point.
Iron in the source water varied from 193 to 315 |o,g/L, with most of the iron
present in the soluble form ranging from 156 to 222 |o,g/L. Iron was removed by
the SORB 33 media to less than the detection limit of 25 |o,g/L. Iron removal
does not appear to be related to iron precipitation based on the constant Ap
readings observed across the adsorption vessels prior to the switch to
prechlorination.
The treatment system had a distinct effect on the arsenic concentrations of the
water in the distribution system. Results from samples collected from within the
distribution system followed the same pattern as those from the treatment system,
as As concentrations dropped once the system was put into service, rose
gradually during the first four months of operation as As(III) began to break
through, and then went down again once the switch to prechlorination was made.
The treatment did not appear to have an effect on the Pb or Cu levels in the
distribution system.
Simplicity of required system O&M and operator's skill levels:
The treatment system operated as expected during the first six months of the
demonstration study and did not experience any issues related to flow restriction
or pressure drop.
The skill requirements to operate the treatment 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. A Class I state-certified operator
was required for operation of the water system at Prospect Bay.
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.
-------
Soluble arsenic concentrations in the backwash water were 5.4 and 3.4 |o,g/L from
Vessels A and B, respectively, significantly lower than the arsenic concentration
in the raw water used for backwash, indicating some arsenic removal by the
media during backwash.
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
Using the system's rated capacity of 320 gallons per minute (gpm) (460,800
gallons per day [gpd]), the capital cost was $659/gpm ($0.46/gpd) and
equipment-only cost was $405/gpm ($0.28/gpd). These calculations did not
include the cost of the building construction.
Although media replacement and disposal did not take place during the first six
months of operation, the media replacement cost represented the majority of the
O&M cost for the system and the vendor estimated $26,800 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 STS treatment system began on June 30, 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 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 Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Vendor Quotation Submitted to Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Letter Report Issued
Draft Study Plan Issued
Final Study Plan Issued
Engineering Package Submitted to MDE
Building Construction Begun
APU-300 Shipped by STS
APU-300 Delivered to Site and System Installation Begun
Permit for Treatment System Issued by MDE
System Installation Completed
Building Construction Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
August 7, 2003
August 11, 2003
August 13, 2003
September 5, 2003
September 8, 2003
October 3, 2003
October 17, 2003
February 6, 2004
February 23, 2004
March 12, 2004
May 17, 2004
May 26, 2004
June 1, 2004
June 15, 2004
June 17, 2004
June 24, 2004
June 29, 2004
June 30, 2004
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 pretreatment and/or post-
treatment requirements, level of system automation, operator skill requirements, task analysis of the
preventive maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory
requirements, and general knowledge needed for safety requirements and chemical processes. The
staffing requirements on the system operation were recorded on a Daily Field Log Sheet.
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
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
Simplicity of Operation and
Operator Skill
Cost-Effectiveness
Residual Management
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 jag/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
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/re source .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 readings, and hour meter readings on a Battelle-
provided Daily Field Log Sheet; and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. In
the event of problems, the plant operator would contact the Battelle Study Lead, who then would
determine if STS should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant
information on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly basis, the plant operator measured
temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and recorded the data
on a Weekly Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet. During the six-month study period, the system was
manually backwashed on only one occasion.
Capital costs for the STS system consisted of costs for equipment, site engineering, and system
installation. The O&M costs consisted primarily of costs for the media replacement and spent media
disposal, chemical and electricity consumption, and labor. Chlorine gas application and 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 and performing regular system inspections. 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, one set of source water
samples was collected by Battelle for detailed water quality analyses. The source water also was
speciated for particulate and soluble As, 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 across the treatment train by the plant operator. Samples were
collected biweekly on a four-week cycle. For the first biweekly event, treatment plant samples were
collected at four locations (i.e., at the wellhead [IN], after chlorination [AC], after Tank A [TA], and after
Tank B [TB]), and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. For the second biweekly event, treatment
plant samples were collected for arsenic speciation at three locations (i.e., at the wellhead [IN], after
chlorination [AC], and after the combined effluent [TT]) and also analyzed for the analytes listed in Table
3-3. The sampling frequency was reduced from weekly to biweekly following the first month of system
operation due to low water demand and resulting low volume throughput. The AC sampling location was
added after switching to prechlorination on November 9, 2004 after approximately four months of system
operation. Weekly sampling was resumed after switching to prechlorination in order to monitor for the
conversion and breakthrough of As(III) and to better observe the effects of this change in operation on the
treatment system performance.
3.3.3 Backwash Water Sample Collection. Two backwash water samples were collected on
November 17, 2004 from the sample taps located at the backwash water discharge 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. Backwash solid samples will be collected during the second half
of the demonstration. The solid/sludge samples will be collected in glass jars and submitted to TCCI
Laboratories for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests.
3.3.5 Distribution System Water Sample Collection. Samples were collected from the
distribution system to determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the
distribution system, specifically, the lead and copper level. Beginning in December 2003 through March
2004, four sets of baseline distribution system samples were collected monthly by the plant operator at
each of three homes which had been included in the Prospect Bay Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling
in the past. Following the installation of the arsenic adsorption system, distribution system sampling
continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule for Prospect Bay, Queen Anne's County, MD
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Water
Residual
Sludge
Sample Locations'3'
Wellhead (IN)
At the wellhead
(IN), after
prechlorination
(AC)(b), after Tank
A (TA), after Tank
B(TB)
At the wellhead
(IN), after
prechlorination
(AC)(b), and after the
combined effluent
(TT)
Three homes
From backwash
discharge line
At backwash
discharge point
No. of
Samples
1
4
2
3
2
2-3
Frequency
Once
during the
initial site
visit
Monthly
(once
every four
weeks) (c)
Monthly
(once
every four
weeks)
Monthly
As needed
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,
V, Mo, Sb, Cl, F, SO4,
SiO2, PO4, TOC, and
alkalinity.
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO/ORP.
Off-site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), SiO2,
PO4, turbidity, and
alkalinity.
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO/ORP, and C12 (free and
total, sampled at locations
AC and TT)
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, Cu,andPO4.
TDS, turbidity, pH, As
(soluble), Fe (soluble), and
Mn (soluble)
TCLP Metals
As(Total)
Date(s) Samples
Collected
08/07/03
07/07/04, 07/13/04,
07/20/04, 07/27/04,
08/03/04, 08/18/04,
08/31/04,09/22/04,
10/07/04, 10/19/04,
10/26/04, 11/03/04,
11/09/04, 11/16/04,
11/23/04, 12/01/04,
12/07/04, 12/15/04
Baseline
sampling(d):
12/17/03, 01/14/04,
02/11/04,03/19/04
Monthly sampling:
07/20/04,08/31/04,
09/23/04, 10/26/04,
11/16/04, 12/08/04
1 1/17/04
TBD
(a) The abbreviation in each parenthesis corresponds to the sample location in Figure 4-3.
(b) Prechlorination started on November 9, 2004.
(c) Reduced from weekly to once every four weeks after one month of system operation.
(d) Four baseline sampling events were performed before the system became operational.
TBD = to be determined.
Bold font indicates speciation was performed on-site.
-------
The samples collected at the LCR locations were taken following an instruction sheet developed
according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems
(EPA, 2002). 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. Analytes for the baseline samples coincided with the monthly distribution system water samples as
described in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not performed for the distribution water samples.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation 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,
sampling location, analysis required, and preservative used. 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).
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 and sampling time, the chain-of-
custody forms and prepaid Federal Express air bills already had 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
custodians verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample label IDs 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
(usually the plant operator), 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
Laboratory. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through
analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the
respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
-------
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures are described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle,
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
Facility Description
The treatment system supplies drinking water to approximately 300 connections in the community of
Prospect Bay at Grasonville in Queen Anne's County, MD. The water source for this system is supplied
by two wells, which alternate operation on a daily basis, such that each well operates every other day, and
each well supplies roughly half of the total production to the community. Well No. 1, located off
Prospect Bay Road near the Prospect Bay Golf Course and Country Club, was chosen for treatment with
the arsenic adsorption system as part of this demonstration study. Figure 4-1 shows Well House No. 1.
Well No. 1 was drilled to a depth of approximately 360 ft and estimated, prior to the beginning of the
demonstration study, to operate for about 3 to 4 hours per day, every other day, at a rate of about
300 gpm. Prior to entering the distribution system, water was chlorinated for disinfection using chlorine
gas (Figure 4-2) and treated for corrosion inhibition with a polyphosphate. Historical operational data
from QAC indicated that the chlorine residual in the treated water typically was about 0.5 mg/L or less.
The target concentration for polyphosphate was 0.8 mg/L.
Figure 4-1. Existing Well House No. 1
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected at a sampling tap located
outside Well House No. 1 on August 7, 2003 and analyzed as 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 17.0 to 19.0 |og/L. Based on the August 7,
2003 sampling results, arsenic existed primarily as As(III) (i.e., 98% of 18.8 |og/L). Only a small amount
of arsenic was present as particulate As (0.1 |og/L) and As(V) (0.3 |o,g/L ).
11
-------
Figure 4-2. Chlorine Gas System at Well No. 1
The pH values of the raw water samples varied between 6.0 and 8.3, which was within the range
recommended by STS. Therefore, pH adjustment was not recommended.
The source water iron levels ranged from less than 50 to 1,660 |o,g/L; however, more recent data indicated
that iron levels were around 300 |o,g/L or less and that iron existed primarily in the soluble form.
Manganese concentrations ranged from 0.4 to 8 (ig/L. Because iron and manganese concentrations were
sufficiently low, pretreatment prior to the adsorption process was not required. The concentrations of
orthophosphate ranged from <0.10 to 0.4 mg/L and silica from 13.4 to 14.5 mg/L (as SiO2). SORB 33
media is reported to be affected by silica at levels greater than 40 mg/L and phosphate at levels greater
than 1 mg/L. Neither of these compounds is expected to affect the adsorption of arsenic onto the media at
this site.
4.1.2 Pre-Demonstration Treated Water Quality. Treated water samples after post-chlorination
were collected by the county and the EPA prior to the demonstration study and analyzed for certain
constituents as shown in Table 4-1. As expected, because the treatment process prior to distribution
included only chlorination and the addition of polyphosphate, concentrations of these constituents in the
treated water were very similar to those of the raw water. Total arsenic concentrations in the treated
water ranged from 17 to 18 |o,g/L. Iron concentration ranged from less than 50 to 1,100 |o,g/L and
manganese from 0.8 to 9 (ig/L. The pH values of the treated water ranged from 6.7 to 8.2 based on
historical data from the years 2000 to 2003.
12
-------
Table 4-1. Prospect Bay Water Quality Data
Parameter
Units
Sampling Date
PH
Total Alkalinity
Hardness (as
CaC03)
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
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
W?/L
HB/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Utility
Raw
Water
Data
NA
8.3
150.0
91.0
NS
1.5
NS
5.8
14.5
0.4
<0.5
17.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
300.0
NS
NS
NS
8.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
27.0
20.0
9.7
EPA
Raw
Water
Data
10/04/02
NS
136.7
98.0
NS
16.7
NS
4.3
13.4
NS
NS
19.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
95.0
NS
<25
NS
0.4
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<25
NS
24.1
23.3
9.7
EPA
Treated
Water
Data
10/04/02
NS
NA
NA
NS
NA
NS
4.2
13.3
NS
NS
18.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
91.0
NS
<25
NS
0.8
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<25
NS
23.6
23.0
9.5
Battelle
Raw
Water
Data
08/07/03
7.3
168.0
101.5
NS
1.4
1.0
4.3
14.1
O.10
NA
18.8
18.7
0.1
18.4
0.3
269.9
253.6
<10
<10
1.5
1.4
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
26.2
23.5
10.4
County
Raw Water
Data
00-03
6.0-8.2
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<50 - 1,660
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
County
Treated
Water Data
00-03
6.7-8.2
150
91
NS
1.6
NS
5.3
NS
0.038
<0.50
17-18
NS
NS
NS
NS
<50- 1,100
NS
NS
NS
<5-9
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
24
21
9.4
NA = Not Available
NS = Not Sampled
4.1.3 Distribution System. The Prospect Bay distribution system consists of a looped drinking
water distribution line supplied by two production wells (Well No. 1 and Well No. 2). Prior to the
demonstration study, the two wells alternated operation on a daily basis, such that each well supplied
roughly half of the total production to the community. The water is sent to a 300,000-gallon storage tank,
which serves to supply the distribution system constructed primarily of poly vinyl chloride (PVC) pipe.
The connections to the distribution system and piping within the residences themselves are primarily PVC
and some copper pipe. It is estimated that a few homes may have pipe with lead solder and that no homes
have lead pipe.
13
-------
The QAC Department of Public Works samples water from the distribution system for various
parameters. Each month, five locations within the distribution system are sampled for bacterial analysis.
The finish water also is sampled for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) on a regular basis. Under the
EPA LCR, samples are collected from customer taps at five residences every three years.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The STS arsenic package unit (APU) is designed for arsenic removal for small systems with flowrates
greater than 100 gpm. It uses Bayoxideฎ E33 (branded as SORB 33 by STS), 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. The SORB 33 media is delivered in a dry
crystalline form and has NSF International (NSF) 61 approval for use in drinking water.
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of SORB 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
S03
Na2O
TiO2
Si02
A12O3
P2O5
Cl
Weight %
90.1
0.27
1.00
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.01
(a) Provided by STS.
BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
The STS APU system is a fixed-bed downflow adsorption system. When the media reaches breakthrough
at 10 |o,g/L of arsenic, the spent media is removed and disposed of after being subjected to the EPA TCLP.
The APU-300 adsorption system at Prospect Bay consists of two pressure vessels operating in parallel.
The design features of the APU-300 system are summarized in Table 4-3, and a flow diagram along with
the sampling/analysis schedule are presented in Figure 4-3. Key process components are discussed as
follows:
Intake. Raw water pumped from Well No. 1 was sent to the APU-300 treatment system.
14
-------
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of the APU-300 System
Parameter
Pre-treatment/post-treatment
Number of adsorber vessels
Vessel configuration
Vessel size (in)
Type of media
Media volume (ft3/vessel)
Media bed depth (in)
Free board depth (in)
Design flowrate (gpm/vessel)
Hydraulic loading rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min)
Backwash frequency (per 45 days)
Backwash flowrate (gpm)
Backwash hydraulic loading rate (gpm/ft2)
Backwash duration (mm/vessel)
Fast rinse duration (min/vessel)
Backwash water produced (gal/vessel)
Average use rate (gal/day)
Estimated working capacity (bed volume
[BV])
Throughput (BV/day)
Estimated throughput to 10 |ag/L As
breakthrough
Estimated media life (months)
Value
Chlorination(a)
2
Parallel
63 x86
SORB 33
80
44
22
160
7.4
3.8
1
200
9.2
20
4
4,800
72,000
114,000(b)
60
136,400,000
63
Remarks
2 vessels per unit
2 units in parallel; each with 2 vessels in
parallel
-
-
160 ft3 total
-
-
3 20 gpm total
Based on vessel cross sectional area of
2 1 .6 ft2 given an inner diameter of 63 in
Based on the design flow per vessel
-
-
-
-
-
-
Based on 4 hours of daily operation at 300
gpm
Bed volumes to 10 |ag/L total As
breakthrough based on an influent As
concentration of 19 |ag/L and a bed volume
of 160 ft3
Based on 4 hours of daily operation at
300 gpm
Based on a bed volume of 160 ft3
Estimated frequency of changeout at 17%
utilization
(a) Switched from post-chlorination to prechlorination on November 9, 2005.
(b) Based on STS provided estimate with an influent As concentration of 19 |ig/L.
Chlorination. During the first four months of operation, chlorine was added at the end
of the treatment train following the APU-300 adsorption system. In late September 2004,
total arsenic levels in the treated water rose to above 10 |og/L, much earlier than
projected, and the analytical results from speciation samples showed the majority of
arsenic passing through the SORB 33 media was As(III). On November 9, 2004, the
treatment system was modified with a new chlorine addition point upstream of the
adsorption vessels. With this prechlorination step in place, As(III) was oxidized to As(V)
to improve the adsorption capacity of the media.
Adsorption System. The APU-300 system consists of two 63-inch-diameter, 86-inch-
tall vessels configured in parallel, each containing approximately 80 ft3 of SOPvB 33
media supported by a gravel underbed. The vessels are constructed of fiberglass
reinforced plastic (FPvP), rated for 75 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 is 3.8 minutes in each vessel. Hydraulic
loading to each vessel based on a design flowrate of 320 gpm is approximately 7.4
15
-------
INFLUENT
(WELL HOUSE #1)
Monthly
pH(a), 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
pH(a), temperature(a),
DO/ORPW, C12 (free and total),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
pH, IDS, turbidity,
pH(a), temperature^3),
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
Si02, P04,
y, alkalinity
BACKWASH
STORAGE TANK/
DISPOSAL TRUCK
(
dity,
jle),**~~\
ble)
i
TCLP
i}-!
BWJ
""I
i
1
F
1
' i
/MEDIA\ /MEI
I VESSEL / VES
POLYPHOSPHATE
ADDITION
Footnote
(a) On-site analyses
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
Stevensville, MD
SORB-33ฎ Technology
Design Flow: 320 gpm
Biweekly
pHW, temperature^,
DO/ORPW, As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
pHW, temperature^),
DO/ORPW, C12 (free and total),
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
SiO2, PO4, turbidity, alkalinity
.
1
g
"En
g
ITl
s
>
LEGEND
( IN J Influent
f AC j After Chlorination
TTA) Vessel A Effluent
TTB) Vessel B Effluent
( TT ) Total Combined Effluent
f BW J Backwash Sampling Location
( SS J Sludge Sampling Location
INFLUENT Unit Process
DA: C12 Chlorine Disinfection
k. n -ri
pHW, temperature^,
DO/ORPW, C12 (free and total),
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
SiO2, PO4, turbidity, alkalinity
Figure 4-3. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
16
-------
gpm/ft2. Figure 4-4 shows the APU-300 system at the manufacturing facility prior to
shipment to the site.
Figure 4-4. APU-300 Treatment System Prior to Shipment
Backwash. STS recommends that the SORB 33 media be backwashed approximately
once every 45 days to loosen up the media bed and remove media fines and/or particles
accumulated in the beds. Backwash of the system was initiated manually by the system
operator because there was no on-site disposal facility to receive the backwash water.
The backwash water was discharged into a tanker truck and transported to a local
wastewater treatment plant.
4.3 System Installation
The construction of the treatment building and the installation of the STS APU-300 system were
completed on June 24, 2004 by Stearns and Wheler, LLC, a local engineering subcontractor hired by
QACandSTS.
4.3.1 Permitting. Engineering plans for the system permit application were prepared by Stearns
and Wheler. The plans included a site plan, construction drawings and details of the new treatment
building to be constructed, and process and mechanical drawings of the APU-300 treatment system. The
plans, along with a construction permit application, were submitted to the MDE for review on March 12,
2004. The MDE replied with comments on the engineering package on April 23, 2004 and issued a letter
of approval for operation of the treatment system on June 15, 2004.
4.3.2 Building Construction. QAC constructed an addition to its existing pump house (Well
House No. 1) to contain the APU-300 treatment system. The addition included a 16-ft x 23-ft treatment
17
-------
area onto the existing 8-ft * 16-ft well house. The building was constructed using concrete block with
brick siding and included a 10-ft-wide rollup door on the end of the building and access hatches in the
roof to facilitate future media replacement. A photograph of the building housing the equipment is shown
in Figure 4-5. Building construction began on May 17, 2004 and was completed on June 24, 2004
including placement and setting of the vessels within the building, which were put into place before the
roof was installed.
Figure 4-5. New Treatment Building Addition with Two Access Hatches in the Roof
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The APU-300 system was shipped by the
vendor on May 26, 2004 and arrived at the site on June 1, 2004. Stearns and Wheler, LLC performed the
off-loading and installation of the system, including all plumbing, mechanical, and electrical work and
connections of the treatment system to the existing entry and distribution piping. A photograph of the
system being unloaded and set in place with a crane is shown in Figure 4-6. The system mechanical
equipment installation was completed by June 11, 2004. Gravel underbedding was placed in the vessels
on June 15, 2004 and the adsorption media was loaded in both vessels on June 16, 2004. A bacteria test
sample, required by the state, was collected on June 16, 2004 from the system, which had previously been
treated with chlorine for disinfection. Once the media was loaded, Stearns and Wheler conducted a
pressure test of the system piping. The system was backwashed for media conditioning prior to service
on June 17, 2004. The results from the bacteria test, received on June 17, were negative.
Battelle, STS, Stearns and Wheler, and representatives from QAC were on site to complete system
shakedown and startup procedures on June 29, 2004. All backwashing and system shakedown procedures
were completed prior to this date, so that the system was ready to go into regular service operation.
18
-------
Figure 4-6. Unloading of the APU Skid into the Partially Completed
Treatment Building Addition
Battelle provided operator training on data and sample collection and conducted a review of the piping
and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) and system checklist with the vendor. The system was put into
regular service mode on June 30, 2004.
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the first six months of system
operation are tabulated and included as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-4
including operational time, throughput, flowrate, EBCT, and pressure information. Plant operations were
initiated on June 30, 2004 and continued through December 30, 2004 with few operational problems for
the first six months of the demonstration period.
During the first six months of operation, Well No. 1 operated for approximately 1,083 total hours based
on the well pump hour meter readings with an average daily operating time of 6.3 hrs per day. This
operating time represented a utilization rate of approximately 25% over that time period. The well
operated more during the first three months of operation (July through September 2004) than the second
three-month period (October through December 2004) with an average daily operating time from July
through September of 8.0 hrs/day compared to just 4.5 hrs/day from October through December.
The total system throughput from June 30 to December 30, 2004 was approximately 14,856,000 gallons
based on the flow totalizer readings from the APU-300 system. This corresponds to approximately
12,400 BVs of water processed through the entire system. The throughput to each vessel was 7,526 and
7,406 kilogallons through Vessels A and B, respectively.
19
-------
Table 4-4. Summary of APU-300 System Operation
Operational Parameter
Duration
Cumulative Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Throughput (kgal)
Average Flowrate (gpm)
Range of Flowrate (gpm)
Average EBCT (min)(a)
Range of EBCT (min)(a)
Differential Pressure across Bed (psi)
System Pressure Loss (psi)
Value / Condition
06/30/04 - 12/30/04
(Week 1 - Week 27)
1083
8.0 hrs/day July thru Sept; 4.5 hrs/day Oct thru Dec
Vessel A
7,526
115
105-121
5.2
4.9-5.7
2.0-7.5
NA
Vessel B
7,406
114
93 - 121
5.3
4.9-6.5
1.8-7.5
NA
Total
14,856
229
198 - 242
NA
NA
NA
1-16
(a) Calculated based on 80 ft3 of media in each vessel.
NA = not applicable.
The average flowrates were 115 gpm through Vessel A and 114 gpm through Vessel B, indicating that the
flow to each vessel was well balanced for the majority of the first six months of operation. As a result,
the average EBCT for both the vessels was about 5.2 to 5.3 minutes. This EBCT is greater than the
design EBCT of 3.7 minutes shown in Table 4-3 because the average total flowrate to the system was
about 229 gpm, which is lower than the design peak flowrate of 320 gpm.
Figure 4-7 shows the differential pressures measured across the media bed in both vessels during the first
six months of system operation. The differential pressure (AP) readings across the adsorption vessels
were low (approximately 2 to 3 psi) and constant prior to the switch to prechlorination. Following the
switch to prechlorination on November 9, 2004, the AP readings across the vessels began to rise from
about 2.0 to 4.5 psi with 425 BVs of water treated. A backwash was performed on November 17, 2004
and the AP readings returned to the original level around 2 psi. Prior to this, no backwash had been
performed. Soon after the backwash, the AP readings began to rise steadily and reached 6 to 7 psi across
both vessels by the end of December 2004. It was postulated at the time that this AP rise was caused by
the accumulation of iron solids in the media bed due to the addition of chlorine before the adsorption
vessels.
No significant pressure-related problems or operational difficulties were encountered with the system
with the exception of malfunction of the Vessel B flowmeter on November 18-20. During this period, the
flowmeter read 0.0 gpm even though the system was operating and there was clearly flow going through
the vessel. The meter was removed for cleaning and inspection and returned to the system. Following
this maintenance, the meter functioned properly.
4.4.2 Previous System Design Changes. Prior to shipment of the APU-300 system to Prospect
Bay, the system was modified from its original design with revised plumbing that included replacement
of the 3-inch-diameter system piping with 4-inch-diameter pipe; removal of the diaphragm valves,
restrictive orifices, and valve controllers; and installation of a nested system of fully ported actuated
butterfly valves, and a new control panel. A diagram of the APU-300 system as installed at Prospect Bay
20
-------
Differential Pressures
12.0
10.0 -
S 8.0-
m
i
Q
6.0 -
4.0 -
2.0 -
Backwash-11/17/04
10,548 BV
(~ 12,625,000 gal)
0.0
6/27/04
7/27/04
8/26/04
9/25/04 10/25/04
Date
11/24/04
12/24/04
Figure 4-7. Differential Pressure Loss across Adsorption Vessels
is shown in Figure 4-8. These modifications were made due to operational problems experienced by
APU-300 systems previously installed at two other sites as part of the arsenic demonstration study - one
at the Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association (MDWCA) in Anthony, New
Mexico and a second system in Brown City, Michigan. Both of these systems experienced operational
issues related to flow restriction, flow imbalance, and excessive pressure losses as described in the Desert
Sands MDWCA Six-Month Report and the Brown City, Michigan Six-Month Report (Battelle, 2005a and
2005b). To troubleshoot the operational problems discovered with these two systems, STS performed a
series of systematic hydraulic testing at its Torrance, California fabrication shop and at the Brown City,
Michigan site. The results of this testing indicated that the flow restrictions and elevated pressure drop
issues were most likely caused by the programmable Fleck valve controller and the restrictive orifices
included in the original system. After considering several options, STS retrofitted the systems as
described above with larger diameter pipe and removed certain system components determined to have
caused excessive flow restrictions and pressure loss.
All such system modifications were completed on the APU-300 system for Prospect Bay prior to being
shipped from the manufacturing facility in Torrance to the site in Maryland. With these modifications
already in place, the Prospect Bay system operated as expected during the first six months of the
demonstration study and did not experience the issues related to flow restriction and pressure drop as seen
initially at the other two locations.
21
-------
Figure 4-8. Diagram of STS APU-300 System as Installed at Prospect Bay
4.4.3 Backwash. The APU-300 system was not backwashed during the first four months of operation
because AP readings across both adsorption vessels remained low and because the backwash water
produced would require off-site disposal. Following the switch to prechlorination, the AP readings across
the vessels began to rise from about 2.0 to 4.5 psi. A backwash was performed on November 17, 2004,
with each vessel backwashed separately at a flowrate of 200 gpm for a period of 20 to 25 minutes. A total
volume of approximately 9,500 gallons of backwash water was generated during the backwash event.
4.4.4 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the APU-300 system
include spent media and backwash water. The media was not exhausted during the first six months of
system operation; therefore, the only residual produced was backwash wastewater. Because there was no
on-site disposal facility, the backwash water was discharged into a tanker truck and transported to the
Stevensville Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) for disposal. The Stevensville WWTP also is owned
and operated by QAC.
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. Because all relevant system modifications
related to operational issues were completed prior to the APU-300 being shipped to Prospect Bay, no
major operational problems were encountered. The only O&M issue was related to the Vessel B
flowmeter which was not operating on November 18-20, 2004. Following some simple cleaning and
maintenance, the meter functioned properly. The APU-300 system did not experience any unscheduled
downtime during the first six months of operation.
22
-------
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. During the first four months of operation, no pretreatment was
implemented at the site. In early November 2004, the treatment system was modified to include a new
chlorine addition point upstream of the adsorption vessels to oxidize As(III) to As(V) and improve the
adsorption capacity of the media. Post-treatment consisted only of the addition of polyphosphate as a
corrosion inhibitor using the preexisting polyphosphate feed system.
System Automation. All major functions of the APU-300 system can be automated and require only
minimal operator oversight and intervention. Automated processes include system startup in the forward
feed mode when the well energizes, backwash cycling based on time or pressure triggers, fast rinse
cycling, and system shutdown when the well pump shuts down.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the
APU-300 system were basic and limited to observation of the process equipment integrity and operating
parameters such as pressure, flow, and system alarms. The operational setup was intuitive and all major
system operations were automated as described above. A Class I state-certified operator was required for
operation of the water system at Prospect Bay. The daily demand on the operator was typically only 10-
15 minutes to allow the operator to visually inspect the system and record the operating parameters on the
daily log sheets. The time requirement does not include travel time to and from the site.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks recommended by STS included
monthly inspection of the control panel, quarterly checking and calibration of the flowmeters, biannual
inspection of the actuator housings, fuses, relays, and pressure gauges, and annual inspection of the
butterfly valves. Further, inspection of the adsorber laterals and replacement of the underbedding gravel
were recommended to be performed concurrently with the media replacement. During this reporting
period, maintenance activities performed by the operator included cleaning and repair of the flowmeter
paddle wheels on the flowmeter for Vessel B.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. The chemicals required for system operation
included the chlorine gas injection system and the polyphosphate addition system which were both
already in use at the site. Media change-out was not required during the first six months of operation;
thus, no additional media handling was required after the initial installation.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the APU-300 treatment 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. Water samples were collected at four locations throughout the
treatment train: at the inlet (IN), after Vessels A and B (TA and TB), and after the combined effluent
(TT). Following switching to prechlorination on November 9, 2004, a fifth sampling location was added
after the prechlorination injection point (AC). Overall, during the first six months of system operation,
water samples were collected on 18 occasions with field speciation performed on 8 occasions. Table 4-5
summarizes the As, Fe, and Mn analytical results collected prior to switching to prechlorination, and
Table 4-6 summarizes these results after switching to prechlorination on November 9, 2004. Table 4-7
summarizes the results of the other water quality parameters collected during the first six months of
system operation. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results collected during this period.
The results of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
23
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results prior to Switching to
Prechlorination (July 7 to November 3, 2004)
Parameter
As (total)
As (total
soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
TT
IN
TT
IN
TT
IN
TT
IN
TT
IN
TA
TB
TT
IN
TT
IN
TA
TB
TT
IN
TT
Units
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
HS/L
ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Number
of
Samples
12
7
7
6
5
4
5
4
6
6
5
4
12
7
7
6
5
4
12
7
7
6
5
4
Minimum
Concentration
18.4
0.7
0.3
0.3
19.0
0.2
<0.1
0.1
12.8
0.2
0.1
<0.1
193
<25
<25
<25
161
<25
1.4
1.2
0.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
Maximum
Concentration
25.8
14.8
12.9
13.3
22.0
13.1
0.8
0.2
22.4
13.2
8.1
0.3
315
77
38
116
222
80
6.0
17.9
9.6
6.7
3.1
5.9
Average
Concentration
21.0
7.6
6.1
7.3
20.6
4.8
0.3
0.1
18.7
7.1
1.7
0.1
241
30
16
30
195
29
2.4
6.3
4.9
4.4
2.0
3.5
Standard
Deviation
2.2
6.0
5.4
5.9
1.3
5.8
0.3
0.1
4.0
5.8
3.6
0.1
36
29
10
42
24
34
1.4
5.4
2.9
2.0
0.7
1.9
Note:
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.
Arsenic. Total As concentrations in the raw water ranged from 18.3 to 25.8 |o,g/L and averaged 21.0 |o,g/L
(Tables 4-5 and 4-6). As(III) was the predominating species, ranging from 12.8 to 22.4 |o,g/L and
averaging 18.7 |o,g/L. Only trace amounts of particulate As were detected in the raw water with all
concentrations less than 1 |og/L. As(V) concentrations were typically below the detection limit of 0.1
Hg/L. Figure 4-9 contains three bar charts showing the concentrations of total As, particulate As, As(III),
and As(V) at the IN, AC, and TT locations for each speciation sampling event. The arsenic
concentrations measured during this six-month period were consistent with those in the raw water sample
collected on August 7, 2003 (Table 4-1).
The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the SORB 33 media was the concentration of
arsenic in the treated water. As shown in the arsenic breakthrough curve in Figure 4-10, total arsenic
levels in the treated water, existing primarily as As(III) (see Figure 4-9), exceeded the target
concentration of 10 |o,g/L after less than 7,400 BVs of throughput in late September 2004. To improve
24
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results after Switching to
Prechlorination (November 9, 2004 to December 30, 2004)
Parameter
As (total)
As (total
soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
Units
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
HS/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
4
o
3
2
2
5
2
o
J
5
2
o
J
5
2
3
5
2
3
5
3
o
J
2
2
5
1
o
J
5
4
5
2
2
5
2
o
J
5
Minimum
Concentration
18.3
18.8
0.4
0.3
0.3
19.0
12.2
0.2
<0.10
<0.10
0.10
18.4
0.10
0.4
O.10
12.0
O.10
229
212
<25
<25
<25
156
<25
<25
2.5
1.5
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.1
0.2
1.5
Maximum
Concentration
20.0
22.1
0.4
0.3
14.7
20.0
19.0
14.6
O.10
7.7
0.10
20.3
1.6
14.8
0.6
18.9
1.5
264
268
<25
<25
108
156
173
61
9.8
2.5
2.1
3.0
11.5
14.3
1.7
11.2
Average
Concentration
19.0
20.3
0.4
0.3
5.7
19.5
15.5
5.7
O.10
4.9
0.1
19.4
0.6
5.5
0.3
14.8
0.4
251
236
<25
<25
32
156
66
22
4.4
2.0
2.1
3.0
6.0
8.2
0.7
5.8
Standard
Deviation
0.7
1.7
0.0
0.0
7.1
0.7
3.4
7.0
0.0
4.2
0.0
1.3
0.9
6.7
0.4
3.6
0.6
19
29
0.0
0.0
43
0.0
93
22
3.6
0.5
0.1
0.0
4.5
8.6
0.8
4.7
Note: 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.
arsenic removal by the media, prechlorination was implemented on November 9, 2004. Chlorine gas was
applied at a rate of 12 Ib/day, which is equivalent to a dosage of 3.6 mg/L (as C12) assuming complete
dissolution of the chlorine gas into the water. The chlorine residual measured at the plant tap just prior to
distribution increased from 0.1 to 0.5 mg/L (as C12) over a twelve hour period immediately following the
modification of the chlorine addition point. Measurements collected over the next two days showed the
chlorine residual remained at 0.5 mg/L to 0.9 mg/L following the treatment system.
25
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Silica
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
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
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.
ฐc
ฐc
ฐc
Number
of
Samples
16
5
9
9
11
16
5
9
9
11
11
3
4
4
11
16
5
8
8
11
16
5
9
9
11
11
o
3
4
4
11
16
5
9
9
11
14
1
7
7
9
14
1
7
Minimum
Concentration
158
154
154
154
152
0.5
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.6
1.5
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.5
O.06
0.06
<0.06
<0.06
0.06
8.5
14.3
13.2
13.2
13.7
0.04
O.04
0.04
0.04
O.04
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
7.4
7.8
7.4
7.2
7.3
14.9
14.9
15.4
Maximum
Concentration
176
176
172
180
171
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
5.3
6.0
5.3
2.5
6.0
O.10
1.6
O.10
O.10
0.10
15.9
15.0
14.6
14.8
15.4
0.1
O.04
0.04
0.09
0.1
3.0
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.1
8.2
7.8
8.2
8.3
8.1
21.7
14.9
18.4
Average
Concentration
164.8
165.0
164.1
165.9
162.5
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.7
3.5
4.1
3.2
2.5
3.8
0.04
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.04
14.3
14.6
14.3
14.1
14.6
0.03
O.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.8
17.4
14.9
16.6
Standard
Deviation
4.4
8.0
5.9
7.5
4.9
0.13
0.14
0.25
0.14
0.10
1.2
1.7
1.4
0.0
1.0
0.01
0.78
0.01
0.01
0.01
1.6
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.61
0.21
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.24
NA
0.27
0.34
0.25
2.27
NA
1.15
26
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Temperature
(Continued)
Dissolved
Oxygen
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
TB
TT
IN
TA
TB
TT
IN
TA
TB
TT
AC
PT
AC
PT
IN
AC
TT
Units
ฐC
ฐC
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Number
of
Samples
7
9
12
6
5
8
14
7
7
9
1
14
1
14
8
o
3
11
Minimum
Concentration
15.4
14.7
0.9
0.8
0.7
2.1
-148
-112
-83
-76
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.3
97.7
95.5
92.5
Maximum
Concentration
18.6
18.4
5.5
2.6
2.2
5.8
160
114
120
286
0.4
0.5
0.1
1.7
116.7
113.3
129.1
Average
Concentration
16.5
16.5
2.6
1.7
1.2
4.7
-76
-29
-1
19
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.9
108
102
109
Standard
Deviation
1.19
1.31
1.46
0.67
0.59
1.25
94.8
70.3
69.5
124.0
NA
0.11
NA
0.42
7.2
10.0
9.3
Note: One-half of the detection limit was used for samples with concentrations less than the detection limit for
calculations.
NTU = nephlemetric turbidity units
Duplicate samples were included in the calculations.
The day after switching to prechlorination, a treated water sample was collected from the TT location and
speciated for arsenic. This sample had a total As concentration of 14.7 |o,g/L with all arsenic present as
As(III). On November 16 (after about 220 BVs of water treated since November 10, 2004), samples were
collected from the IN, AC, and TT locations and speciated for arsenic. As shown in Figure 4-9, As(III) in
the raw water was converted almost completely to As(V) and particulate As (i.e., 12 and 7.7 |o,g/L,
respectively) after chlorination; however, about 87% of the 12.0 |o,g/L total As in the combined treated
water remained as As(III). It was likely that chlorine added to the water was consumed by the As(III) and
ferrous ions previously removed by the media and some As(III) in the media bed was displaced into the
treated water during this early stage of prechlorination.
On November 23, 2004 (after an additional 220 BVs of water treated since November 16, 2004), As
concentration in the treated water decreased sharply to 0.9 |o,g/L, of which only 0.4 |o,g/L existed as
As(III). Subsequent treated water samples collected through December 15, 2004 continued to show
decreasing arsenic concentrations to 0.3 |o,g/L, indicating that prechlorination was effective at increasing
media adsorptive capacity and sustaining media life.
By December 30, 2004, the APU-300 system treated approximately 12,400 BVs of water (equivalent to
14,856,000 gallons of water), which is about 11% of the vendor-estimated working capacity (114,000
BVs to 10 |o,g/L total As breakthrough as shown in Table 4-3).
Iron. Figure 4-11 shows the total iron concentrations versus BVs of water treated during the first six
months at the various sampling locations throughout the treatment train. Total iron concentrations in the
27
-------
Arsenic Species at the Inlet (IN) at Prospect Bay
30
25 -
O) 20 -
03
ฃ 15 -
(0
<
10 -
As (V) + As (participate)
DAs (participate)
DAs(V)
As (III)
7/7/04 7/27/04 8/18/04 9/22/04 10/19/04 10/26/04 11/16/04 12/7/04 12/15/04
" 12/07/04: No Sample Collected Date
Arsenic Species after Pre-Chlorination (AC) at Prospect Bay
ou -
25 -
"3) 20 -
=:
c
g
"TO
^ 15 -
C
0)
o
c
0
ฐ 10 -
(A
5 -
n -
(Switched to Prechlorination on 11/09/04)
DAs (participate)
DAs(V)
D As (III)
7/7/04 7/27/04 8/18/04 9/22/04 10/19/04 10/26/04 11/16/04 12/7/04 12/15/04
Date
Figure 4-9. Concentration of Arsenic Species at the IN, AC, and TT Sample Locations
28
-------
Arsenic Species After Treatment (TT) at Prospect Bay
30
25 -
O)
3. 20 -
C
O
'^
I"
0)
O
C
O 10
in
5 -
As (V) + As (particulate)
DAs (particulate)
DAs(V)
D As (III)
7/7/04 7/27/04 8/18/04 9/22/04 10/19/04 10/26/04 11/16/04 12/7/04 12/15/04
"10/19/04: No Sample Collected Date
Figure 4-9. Concentration of Arsenic Species at the IN, AC, and TT Sample Locations
(Continued)
25
20 -
D)
3 15
c
O
is
HI
O
i 10
5 -
Inlet
After Pre-Chlorination
Vessel A
Vessel B
Outlet
10
12
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (x 1000)
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve
29
-------
300
c
o
I 150
O
o
100 -
50 -
Switch to Prechlorination on 11/09/04
10,137 BV Treated
--Inlet
-X- After Pre-Chlorination
-A-Vessel A
--Vessel B
IOutlet
10
12
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (x 1000)
Note: One-half of the detection limit (12.5 fig/L) was used for plotting data below the detection limit for iron (<25 fig/L).
Figure 4-11. Total Iron Concentrations Versus Bed Volumes
raw water varied from 193 to 315 |og/L, with most of the iron present in the soluble form ranging from
156 to 222 ng/L at the influent (Tables 4-5 and 4-6). After the SORB 33 adsorption vessels, the iron
concentrations were much lower, in most cases below the detection limit of 25 |o,g/L. These results
indicated the removal of soluble iron by the SORB 33 media bed. Although it was not clear how the
soluble iron was removed, its removal did not appear to be related to iron precipitation based on the
constant AP readings observed across the adsorption vessels as shown in Figure 4-7.
After treating about 8,200 BVs, iron concentrations ranging from 38 to 77 |o,g/L were detected in the
treated water indicating that iron was beginning to break through the SORB 33 media. After switching
to prechlorination, Fe(II) in the raw water was oxidized to Fe(III) and iron solids were filtered by the
media bed to less than the detection limit.
Manganese. Figure 4-12 shows the total Mn concentrations versus BVs of water treated during the first
six months at the various sampling locations throughout the treatment train. Total Mn concentrations in
the raw water were low and ranged from 1.4 to 9.8 |o,g/L (Tables 4-5 and 4-6) and existed almost entirely
in the soluble form. Through approximately 4,000 BVs of water treated, the total Mn concentrations in
the raw and treated water were similar with most values less than 4 |o,g/L. After 4,000 BVs and prior to
the switch to prechlorination (at about 10,000 BVs), the Mn concentration in the treated water began to
increase, and was higher than that in the raw water. It is not clear why the concentrations of manganese
increased in the treated water, but the increase may indicate that the media contributed a small amount of
manganese to the water. After switching to prechlorination in November 2004 through the end of
December 2004, there was little discernable difference between the manganese concentrations in the
water prior to and after the treatment system.
30
-------
12 -
10 -
c
o
o
o
6 -
4 -
2 -
--Inlet
-X-After Pre-Chlorination
-A-Vessel A
--Vessel B
IOutlet
Switch to Prechlorination on 11/09/04
10,137 BV Treated
10
12
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (x 1000)
Figure 4-12. Total Manganese Concentrations Versus Bed Volumes
Other Water Quality Parameters. In addition to the critical parameter analyses for arsenic, iron, and
manganese, 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.
The inlet pH values ranged from 7.4 to 8.2, with an average concentration of 7.9. The pH values were
consistent and similar at all sampling locations across the treatment train. Free and total chlorine were
monitored at the AC location and at a tap just prior to the distribution system (referred to as the Plant Tap,
PT, as listed in Table 4-7). Free chlorine measurements at the AC and PT locations ranged from 0.1 to
0.5 mg/L and total chlorine levels ranged from 0.1 to 1.7 mg/L (Table 4-7).
ORP measurements across the treatment train were erratic with a wide range of values collected at the
inlet, ranging from -148 to 160 mV, and at the treated water locations, ranging from -112 to 286 mV. DO
measurements were also highly variable. Several attempts were made to verify and improve the readings,
including replacing the field meter and probe and working closely with the operator to ensure the meter
was used properly. Due to the spread in these measurements, no discernable trend could be identified
from these data.
The results for alkalinity, fluoride, sulfate, silica, and nitrate remained fairly consistent throughout the
treatment train, appearing unaffected by the media and prechlorination. Orthophosphate (as PO4) was less
than the detection limit for all samples, except for one sample collected at the AC location in December
31
-------
which had a concentration of 1.3 mg/L. Total hardness ranged from 93 to 129 mg/L as CaCO3 and
remained constant across the treatment train.
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. The analytical results of the backwash water sampling are
summarized in Table 4-8. Soluble arsenic and iron concentrations in the backwash water from both
vessels were significantly lower than those in the raw water, which was used for backwash, indicating
some removal by the media during backwash. The pH of the backwash water also was similar to that of
the raw water. The results of all parameters measured from the Vessel A backwash were consistent with
the results from Vessel B. As the system was only backwashed once during the first six months of
operation, a backwash solids sample was not collected. Backwash solid samples will be collected during
the second half of the demonstration.
Table 4-8. Backwash Water Sampling Results
Date
11/17/2004
Vessel A
I
S.U.
7.3
&
a
'I
mg/L
600
P
H
NTU
234
<
Soluble
^g/L
5.4
&
Soluble
^g/L
<25
1
Soluble
Hg/L
1.6
Vessel B
I
S.U.
7.2
>>
a
'I
NTU
520
P
H
mg/L
222
<
Soluble
^g/L
3.4
&
Soluble
|ig/L
<25
1
Soluble
^g/L
2.1
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. The results of the distribution system sampling are
summarized in Table 4-9. The most apparent change in the distribution samples was a decrease in total
arsenic concentrations once the treatment system began operation. Average baseline arsenic
concentrations were 19.2, 19.3, and 18.5 |o,g/L at DS1, DS2, and DS3, respectively, and ranged from 16.0
to 21.5 ng/L. After the performance evaluation began, average concentrations at DS1, DS2, and DS3
were 7.5, 8.0, and 9.4 |o,g/L, respectively, and ranged from 1.5 to 16.7 |o,g/L. Note that the arsenic results
from the distribution sampling mirrored the results seen from the treatment system sampling in that the
As concentrations dropped once the system was put into service, rose gradually during the first four
months of operation as As(III) began to break through, and then went down again once the switch to
prechlorination was made.
Pb concentrations ranged from 0.1 to 1.7 |o,g/L and Cu concentrations ranged from 53 to 494 |o,g/L. None
of the Pb or Cu samples exceeded the respective action levels for these two metals (15 |o,g/L and 1,300
|o,g/L for Pb and Cu, respectively). Because there was no trend or major difference observed in the Pb or
Cu values collected from the baseline sampling versus the samples collected following treatment, it
appeared that the APU-300 treatment system did not have an effect on the Pb or Cu levels in the water.
pH values ranged from 6.8 to 7.8, with exception to the pH values collected on December 8, 2004, which
were higher at 8.2 to 8.9. Alkalinity levels ranged from 155 to 182 mg/L as CaCO3. Total Fe
concentrations were typically less than 25 |o,g/L. Since the system became operational, all of the Fe
concentrations in the distribution system samples were less than the detection limit with the exception of
two instances at DS3 which were measured at 26 and 27 |o,g/L. Total Mn concentrations in the
distribution system samples were typically low, ranging from 0.5 to 22.9 |o,g/L, with the majority of Mn
concentrations at less than 5 |o,g/L.
32
-------
Table 4-9. Distribution System Sampling Results
No. of
Sampling
Events
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sample ID
Sampling Date
12/17/03
01/14/04
02/11/04
03/19/04
07/20/04
08/31/04
09/23/04
10/26/04
11/16/04
12/8/2004w
DS1
Stagnation
Time (hrs)
8.3
8.5
7.8
7.1
10.3
8.3
8.2
7.5
9.0
8.5
O.
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.2
6.8
7.6
7.1
7.7
7.6
8.9
ฃ>
'3
ca
-i
!
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
2 2
0.5
1.6
1.9
1.7
0.5
DS2
Stagnation
Time (hrs)
NS
8.5
10.0
7.5
10.8
O.
NS
7.6
7.3
7 2
6.9
&
'3
ca
-1
ซ!
NS
163
182
160
156
X
<
ca
0
NS
21.5
18.1
18.4
3.5
&
r
a
0
NS
<25
47
<25
<25
S
s
ca
0
NS
1.0
3.9
1.5
1.1
.0
ca
0
NS
<0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
3
U
ca
0
NS
210
207
120
171
O
/o>
JS
s
NS
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
Homeowner on vacation
9.5
9.0
7.5
8.0
7.3
7.6
77
8.4
162
164
164
162
8.8
10.7
13.2
3.6
<25
<25
<25
<25
3.0
2.6
2.7
2.3
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.1
65
146
126
84
2.2
1.8
1.8
0.6
DS3
Stagnation
Time (hrs)
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
8.3
9.0
9.0
7.0
O.
7.6
7.6
7 2
7.7
6.8
7.5
7.4
7.7
7.7
8.2
ฃ>
'3
ca
-1
ซ!
164
159
161
168
160
155
162
164
164
162
X
<
a
0
16.0
19.5
19.5
19.2
4.6
7.0
16.7
11.2
12.4
4.3
&
'
a
0
<25
<25
69
<25
<25
<25
26.9
<25
<25
26
=
ca
0
0.7
16.6
9.9
1.3
1.2
3.6
8.7
2.4
11.8
1.9
.0
ca
0
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
1.1
0.8
1.6
0.5
0.3
0.3
=
u
ca
0
288
299
279
322
297
279
494
200
53
416
q-
O
-?
s
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
2.3
1.9
1.6
0.6
OJ
OJ
BL = baseline sampling
NS = not sampled
NA = not analyzed
(/) indicates rerun data with original result/rerun result.
(a) DS2 was sampled on December 7, 2004
The unit for analytical parameters is jig/L except for pH (s.u.), alkanility (mg/L as CaCO3), and orthophosphate (mg/L).
Lead action level = 15 jig/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L
-------
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
were $211,000 (see Table 4-10). The equipment costs were $129,500 (or 62% of the total capital
investment), which included costs for two FRP treatment vessels, 160 ft3 of SORB 33 media ($150/ft3
or $5.34/lb), piping and valves, instrumentation and controls, field services (including operator training,
technical support, and system shakedown), and miscellaneous materials and supplies.
Table 4-10. Capital Investment for the Prospect Bay Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
APU Skid-Mounted System
E33 Media
Misc. Equipment and Materials
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Equipment Total
1 unit
160 ft3
1
-
-
-
$72,200
$24,000
$19,800
$10,000
$3,500
$129,500
-
-
-
-
-
62%
Engineering Costs
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Engineering Total
-
-
-
-
28,940
$6,680
$1,080
$36,700
-
-
-
17%
Installation Costs
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
$35,800
$5,600
$3,400
$44,800
$211,000
-
-
-
21%
100%
The engineering costs included the costs for preparation of the system layout and footprint, treatment
system process flow diagram, and mechanical drawings of the treatment system equipment submitted as
part of the permit application submittal (Section 4.3.1). The final set of engineering plans were prepared
by Stearns and Wheler and included detailed construction drawings of the new treatment building, a floor
plan, and tie-ins and connections for the treatment system. The engineering costs were $36,700, which
was 17% of the total capital investment.
The installation costs include the labor, equipment, and materials to unload and install the skid-mounted
unit, perform the piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and backwash the media. The installation
was performed by the vendor and the installation subcontractor, Stearns and Wheler. Installation costs
were $44,800 or 21% of the total capital investment.
The Queen Anne's County Department of Public Works subcontracted Stearns and Wheler to construct
the addition to the treatment building. Total construction cost for the addition was $92,630, including
34
-------
about $18,000 for the building design and $75,000 for construction. The 16-ft x 23-ft treatment area was
an addition to the original 8-ft x 16-ft well house. The building was constructed using concrete block and
brick siding. Construction took approximately one month to complete including placement and setting of
the vessels within the building, which were put into place before the roof was installed.
The total capital cost of $211,000 and equipment cost of $129,500 were converted to a unit cost of
$0.09/1,000 gallons and $0.06/1,000 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 300
gpm. The system operated only 6.3 hours per day on average during the first six months of operation
(Section 4.4.1), producing 14,856,000 gallons of water during this period, so the total unit cost and
equipment-only unit cost is $0.48/1,000 gallons and $0.29/1,000 gallons, respectively, at this reduced rate
of usage. Using the system's rated capacity of 320 gpm (460,800 gpd), the capital cost was $659/gpm
($0.46/gpd) and equipment-only cost was $405/gpm ($0.28/gpd). These calculations did not include the
cost of the building construction.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs. O&M costs include only incremental costs associated
with the APU-300 treatment system, such as media replacement and disposal, chemical supply,
electricity, and labor. These costs are summarized in Table 4-11. Although media replacement and
disposal did not take place during the first six months of operation, the vendor estimated $26,800 to
change out both vessels, which included 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 4-13).
Disposal costs for backwash water were minimal during the first six months of system operation since the
system was only backwashed one time. The cost for disposal includes trucking costs, but no additional
disposal fees because the backwash water was disposed of at the Stevensville WWTP, also owned and
operated by QAC. The O&M costs for the second half of the demonstration will be revised accordingly
should backwash frequency increase and disposal costs become more significant.
The chemical cost associated with the operation of the treatment system included chlorine addition prior
to the adsorption vessels and injection of a polyphosphate after the APU-300 system. Both of these
treatment steps were in use at the site prior to installation of the APU-300 treatment system, which did not
have a significant effect on the chlorine gas usage based on the data collected during the first six months
of operation. Therefore, the incremental chemical cost due to the APU-300 system was negligible.
The incremental electrical power consumption was reviewed. Electrical usage during the months August
and September 2003 were compared to usage for the same period in 2004 following installation of the
APU system. Additionally, the 2003 usage estimate was determined by adding the usage at both Well
No. 1 and Well No. 2 because operation of these wells was alternated during this time. The estimated
average monthly usage for Wells No. 1 and No. 2 for August and September 2003 was about 4,160 kWh.
For August and September 2004, the average monthly usage for Well No. 1 was 5,360 kWh. Note that
once the APU-300 treatment system was installed at Well House No. 1, Well No. 2 was only rarely
operated, if at all. The incremental electrical usage was thus determined to be approximately 1,200 kWh
per month during the summer months when peak water demand was expected. At a rate of about
$0.10/kWh (including delivery and supply charges), an additional utility cost of approximately $120 per
month to operate the APU-300 system was calculated. Over the six-month operating period, the
incremental utility cost to operate the treatment system was $0.05/1,000 gallons. Although there are few
electrical parts on the APU-300 system that would require additional electrical consumption, the
35
-------
Table 4-11. O&M Costs for the Prospect Bay Treatment System
Cost Category
Volume processed (Kgal)
Value
14,856
Assumptions
From 06/30/04 through 12/30/04
Media Replacement and Disposal
Media cost ($/ft3)
Total media volume (ft3)
Media replacement cost ($)
Labor cost ($)
Media disposal fee ($)
Subtotal
Media replacement and disposal cost
($71,000 gal)
$150
160
$24,000
$2,120
$680
$26,800
See Figure 4-13
Vendor quote
Both vessels
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Based upon media run length at 10-
|ag/L arsenic breakthrough
Chemical Usage
Chemical cost ($)
$0.00
No additional chemical usage required.
Electricity
Electric utility charge ($/kWh)
Incremental monthly usage (kWh)
Estimated incremental electricity cost ($)
Incremental cost ($71,000 gal)
$0.10
1200
$720
$0.05
Includes delivery and supply charges
Average monthly incremental usage for
August and September 2004
From July to December 2004
-
Labor
Average weekly labor (hrs)
Labor cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gallons
1.75
$0.07
See Figure 4-13
15 minutes/day, 7 days/week
Average Labor rate = $21.75/hr
Based upon media run length at 10-
|ag/L arsenic breakthrough
increased usage may be due to increased total dynamic head on the well pump and electrical consumption
within the treatment building addition (i.e., lights, heating, etc.).
The routine, nondemonstration-related labor activities consumed only about 15 minutes per day, as noted
in Section 4.4.5. Based on this time requirement and a labor rate of $21.75/hr, the labor cost was
$0.07/1,000 gallons of water treated.
36
-------
$4.00 -
$3.50 -
$3.00 -
$2.50 -
o
ฐ $2.00 -
o
O
$1.50 -
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00 -
O&M Cost (including Media
Replacement)
Media Replacement Cost
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (x 1000)
Figure 4-13. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Costs
37
-------
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 Stevensville, Maryland. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task
Order No. 0019 for U.S. EPA NRMRL. February 23.
Battelle. 2005a Six-Month Performance Evaluation Report: U.S. EPA Round 1 Arsenic Removal
Technology Demonstration at Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association
(MDWCA) in Anthony, New Mexico. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No.
0019 for U.S. EPA NRMRL. January 4.
Battelle. 2005b. Six-Month Performance Evaluation Report: U.S. EPA Round 1 Arsenic Removal
Technology Demonstration at Brown City, Michigan. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185,
Task Order No. 0019 for U.S. EPA NRMRL. February.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. EPA NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA (March): 103-113.
EPA, see United States Environmental Protection Agency.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 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 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S. EPA
NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH.
38
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Queen Anne's County, MD - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week No.
1
2
3
4
5
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
Well House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
35.1
13.6
9.1
6.0
16.6
12.4
13.2
1.1
8.8
12.3
3.4
NM
NM
19.7
8.8
8.4
8.0
8.3
8.7
11.5
0.2
9.7
2.0
9.3
2.1
9.7
10.2
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
35.1
48.7
57.8
63.8
80.4
92.8
106.0
107.1
115.9
128.2
131.6
NM
NM
151.3
160.1
168.5
176.5
184.8
193.5
205.0
205.2
214.9
216.9
226.2
228.3
238.0
248.2
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
248
247
248
NM
NM
247
246
247
242
247
243
242
258
244
248
235
NM
NM
244
246
238
252
241
278
220
NA
246
250
242
246
258
227
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
NM
75
116
247
NM
NM
480
570
631
670
781
863
951
959
1,017
1,100
1,120
NM
NM
1,253
1,311
1,398
1,421
1,475
1,537
1,610
1,611
1,676
1,690
1,752
1,766
1,834
1,898
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
NM
78
121
258
NM
NM
500
593
656
697
812
897
988
995
1,056
1,142
1,164
NM
NM
1,300
1,361
1,451
1,475
1,532
1,598
1,672
1,673
1,741
1,755
1,819
1,834
1,905
1,971
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
NM
152,598
236,605
504,686
NM
NM
979,901
1,162,503
1,286,364
1,366,714
1,592,923
1,760,194
1,939,200
1,954,132
2,072,652
2,241,912
2,283,833
NM
NM
2,553,002
2,671,977
2,848,763
2,895,500
3,006,940
3,134,400
3,282,729
3,284,354
3,417,200
3,444,847
3,570,824
3,600,062
3,739,253
3,868,787
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated'3'
BV
NM
127
198
422
NM
NM
819
971
1,075
1,142
1,331
1,471
1,620
1,633
1,732
1,873
1,908
NM
NM
2,133
2,232
2,380
2,419
2,512
2,619
2,743
2,744
2,855
2,878
2,983
3,008
3,124
3,232
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.8
NM
NM
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
NM
NM
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.0
TankB
psi
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
NM
NM
2.0
2.4
1.9
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
NM
NM
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.1
System Pressure
Influent
psi
62
65
60
60
NM
NM
60
62
62
60
60
60
62
60
62
63
61
NM
NM
59
60
60
60
60
60
62
54
62
60
62
60
60
60
Effluent
psi
59
60
58
55
NM
NM
56
54
59
55
58
59
58
56
57
58
56
NM
NM
55
56
58
56
56
58
60
54
58
56
58
56
56
58
AP
psi
3
5
2
5
NM
NM
4
8
3
5
2
1
4
4
5
5
5
NM
NM
4
4
2
4
4
2
2
0
4
4
4
4
4
2
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Queen Anne's County, MD - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
6
7
8
9
10
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
08/16/04
08/17/04
08/18/04
08/19/04
08/20/04
08/21/04
08/22/04
08/23/04
08/24/04
08/25/04
08/26/04
08/27/04
08/28/04
08/29/04
08/30/04
08/31/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
09/03/04
09/04/04
09/05/04
Well House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
4.1
5.9
4.2
7.1
9.5
10.1
1.3
11.2
10.9
1.4
10.2
2.3
8.8
8.7
0.3
9.9
5.6
5.3
10.4
11.2
0.4
9.2
6.3
4.5
10.4
11.0
8.8
4.8
12.5
3.0
7.1
9.9
10.2
6.0
7.2
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
252.3
258.2
262.4
269.5
279.0
289.1
290.4
301.6
312.5
313.9
324.1
326.4
335.2
343.9
344.2
354.1
359.7
365.0
375.4
386.6
387.0
396.2
402.5
407.0
417.4
428.4
437.2
442.0
454.5
457.5
464.6
474.5
484.7
490.7
497.9
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
248
240
246
242
244
244
218
244
243
238
243
239
242
247
NA
242
238
245
242
243
208
243
246
237
242
242
241
240
240
250
239
241
240
244
241
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
1,925
1,964
1,992
2,039
2,103
2,170
2,178
2,253
2,325
2,334
2,402
2,419
2,476
2,534
2,536
2,602
2,639
2,674
2,743
2,817
2,822
2,881
2,923
2,953
3,022
3,095
3,154
3,185
3,268
3,288
3,335
3,400
3,468
3,508
3,555
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
2,000
2,040
2,070
2,119
2,185
2,256
2,264
2,342
2,418
2,427
2,499
2,514
2,575
2,636
2,638
2,707
2,746
2,782
2,854
2,894
2,936
2,998
3,048
3,073
3,146
3,222
3,283
3,316
3,402
3,423
3,472
3,541
3,612
3,654
3,703
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
3,925,158
4,004,375
4,062,367
4,157,642
4,287,806
4,425,258
4,441,636
4,594,680
4,742,388
4,761,653
4,901,258
4,933,288
5,051,076
5,169,934
5,174,090
5,308,785
5,384,655
5,456,174
5,597,437
5,711,414
5,758,071
5,879,465
5,971,793
6,026,249
6,168,051
6,317,193
6,436,567
6,501,426
6,669,901
6,711,558
6,806,750
6,941,297
7,079,957
7,161,660
7,258,093
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated'3'
BV
3,279
3,346
3,394
3,474
3,582
3,697
3,711
3,839
3,962
3,978
4,095
4,122
4,220
4,320
4,323
4,436
4,499
4,559
4,677
4,772
4,811
4,912
4,989
5,035
5,153
5,278
5,378
5,432
5,573
5,608
5,687
5,799
5,915
5,984
6,064
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.6
2.2
2.6
2.5
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.3
TankB
psi
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.0
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.2
System Pressure
Influent
psi
60
61
61
61
63
63
60
62
64
60
62
60
60
61
60
61
61
61
62
62
60
62
61
60
62
63
62
60
62
60
60
62
62
61
60
Effluent
psi
54
56
56
56
60
58
56
58
59
55
58
58
56
56
56
58
57
58
58
59
55
60
58
55
58
59
58
54
58
56
56
58
58
56
56
AP
psi
6
5
5
5
3
5
4
4
5
5
4
2
4
5
4
3
4
3
4
3
5
2
3
5
4
4
4
6
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
>
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Queen Anne's County, MD - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
11
12
13
14
15
Date
09/06/04
09/07/04
09/08/04
09/09/04
09/10/04
09/11/04
09/12/04
09/13/04
09/14/04
09/15/04
09/16/04
09/17/04
09/18/04
09/19/04
09/20/04
09/21/04
09/22/04
09/23/04
09/24/04
09/25/04
09/26/04
09/27/04
09/28/04
09/29/04
09/30/04
10/01/04
10/02/04
10/03/04
10/04/04
10/05/04
1 0/06/04
1 0/07/04
1 0/08/04
1 0/09/04
10/10/04
Well House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
10.2
6.7
4.4
9.2
4.1
9.4
8.9
11.3
10.4
3.0
8.5
0.2
9.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
20.7
11.8
5.3
7.5
8.8
10.1
0.8
2.1
10.3
2.3
8.2
9.9
0.3
0.9
9.3
1.2
2.2
8.4
13.0
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
508.1
514.8
519.2
528.4
532.5
541.9
550.8
562.1
572.5
575.5
584.0
584.2
593.4
593.4
593.5
593.5
614.2
626.0
631.3
638.8
647.6
657.7
658.5
660.6
670.9
673.2
681.4
691.3
691.6
692.5
701.8
703.0
705.2
713.6
726.6
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
240
241
239
241
248
239
240
242
242
233
241
250
241
NA
NA
NA
238
260
242
242
239
241
250
238
241
254
240
239
222
259
238
250
242
240
242
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
3,623
3,667
3,696
3,757
3,785
3,847
3,906
3,981
4,050
4,069
4,127
4,127
4,188
4,189
4,189
4,189
4,325
4,410
4,446
4,496
4,554
4,621
4,628
4,641
4,710
4,726
4,780
4,846
4,853
4,854
4,916
4,924
4,938
4,995
5,082
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
3,773
3,820
3,850
3,914
3,943
4,008
4,069
4,147
4,220
4,240
4,300
4,300
4,364
4,364
4,364
4,364
4,507
4,594
4,631
4,683
4,744
4,814
4,820
4,834
4,906
4,922
4,978
5,047
5,055
5,056
5,089
5,128
5,143
5,201
5,292
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
7,396,028
7,486,955
7,546,306
7,671,429
7,728,304
7,855,463
7,974,335
8,128,226
8,269,655
8,309,314
8,426,676
8,427,426
8,552,144
8,552,990
8,552,990
8,552,990
8,831,527
9,004,147
9,076,803
9,179,029
9,297,353
9,435,258
9,447,892
9,474,929
9,615,224
9,648,223
9,758,364
9,892,282
9,908,416
9,909,824
10,005,086
10,052,151
10,081,573
10,195,976
10,374,158
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated'3'
BV
6,179
6,255
6,305
6,410
6,457
6,563
6,663
6,791
6,909
6,942
7,041
7,041
7,145
7,146
7,146
7,146
7,379
7,523
7,584
7,669
7,768
7,883
7,894
7,916
8,034
8,061
8,153
8,265
8,279
8,280
8,359
8,399
8,423
8,519
8,668
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.3
2.7
2.5
NM
NM
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.8
2.4
2.6
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.8
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.2
TankB
psi
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.6
2.2
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
NM
NM
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.2
2.2
System Pressure
Influent
psi
60
62
61
62
60
60
58
62
62
60
63
60
61
58
50
46
58
62
61
60
58
63
60
58
62
60
62
64
62
60
62
60
60
60
62
Effluent
psi
56
58
56
58
56
55
56
58
58
56
59
55
56
54
50
46
54
57
58
55
56
58
55
54
58
56
58
59
57
56
58
56
56
55
57
AP
psi
4
4
5
4
4
5
2
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
0
0
4
5
3
5
2
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
>
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Queen Anne's County, MD - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
16
17
18
19
20
Date
10/11/04
10/12/04
10/13/04
10/14/04
10/15/04
10/16/04
10/17/04
10/18/04
10/19/04
1 0/20/04
10/21/04
10/22/04
10/23/04
1 0/24/04
10/25/04
10/26/04
10/27/04
10/28/04
1 0/29/04
1 0/30/04
10/31/04
11/01/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
11/04/04
11/05/04
11/06/04
11/07/04
11/08/04
11/9/2004(b)
11/10/04
11/11/04
11/12/04
11/13/04
11/14/04
Well House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
7.3
2.9
7.7
1.2
0.3
10.9
6.5
0.0
10.0
2.6
8.8
0.1
10.1
0.5
0.1
9.0
1.0
8.6
0.5
8.1
0.7
8.3
0.5
8.7
1.0
6.7
3.4
5.3
4.5
0.0
8.9
0.5
1.5
7.8
4.1
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
733.9
736.8
744.5
745.7
746.0
756.9
763.4
763.4
773.4
776.0
784.8
784.9
795.0
795.5
795.6
804.6
805.6
814.2
814.7
822.8
823.5
831.8
832.3
841.0
842.0
848.7
852.1
857.4
861.9
861.9
870.8
871.3
872.8
880.6
884.7
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
242
236
242
292
NA
242
238
NA
240
237
241
NA
243
200
NA
241
233
242
233
241
262
241
233
239
250
239
240
245
233
NA
242
NA
NA
237
240
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
5,131
5,150
5,202
5,211
5,211
5,284
5,327
5,328
5,396
5,412
5,470
5,471
5,541
5,542
5,542
5,603
5,609
5,667
5,670
5,726
5,779
5,784
5,788
5,845
5,852
5,897
5,903
NA
5,966
5,967
6,026
6,030
6,040
6,092
6,120
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
5,344
5,363
5,417
5,427
5,427
5,502
5,547
5,548
5,618
5,635
5,696
5,696
5,769
5,769
5,770
5,833
5,839
5,899
5,903
5,960
5,964
6,021
6,025
6,084
6,092
6,138
6,161
6,198
6,229
6,230
6,290
6,294
6,304
6,355
6,381
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
10,474,948
10,512,904
10,618,567
10,637,839
10,638,051
10,786,815
10,874,105
10,876,688
11,013,602
11,046,056
11,165,770
11,167,215
11,310,344
11,311,071
11,312,591
11,435,462
11,448,526
11,565,886
11,572,713
11,686,048
11,742,781
11,805,435
11,812,783
11,929,896
11,943,662
12,034,305
12,064,076
NA
12,118,669
12,120,184
12,239,986
12,246,468
12,266,703
12,370,563
12,424,882
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated'3'
BV
8,752
8,784
8,872
8,888
8,888
9,012
9,085
9,088
9,202
9,229
9,329
9,330
9,450
9,450
9,452
9,554
9,565
9,663
9,669
9,764
9,811
9,864
9,870
9,967
9,979
10,055
10,080
NA
10,125
10,126
10,227
10,232
10,249
10,336
10,381
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
2.0
2.8
2.0
2.2
3.0
2.8
2.4
2.2
2.5
3.0
3.0
2.6
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.0
2.4
3.0
2.8
3.0
3.4
3.5
TankB
psi
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.2
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.1
2.4
2.6
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.6
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.5
2.8
2.8
3.0
3.4
3.5
System Pressure
Influent
psi
62
62
62
58
60
60
62
60
63
63
64
62
64
65
56
62
62
64
61
62
60
64
60
60
62
64
62
62
64
58
64
58
60
63
64
Effluent
psi
58
57
58
58
58
56
58
56
58
58
59
58
59
58
58
58
56
58
56
58
56
58
56
58
56
58
56
58
59
60
59
59
56
58
58
AP
psi
4
5
4
0
2
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
5
7
2
4
6
6
5
4
4
6
4
2
6
6
6
4
5
2
5
1
4
5
6
>
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Queen Anne's County, MD - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
21
22
23
24
25
Date
11/15/04
11/16/04
11/17/04
11/18/04
11/19/04
11/20/04
11/21/04
11/22/04
11/23/04
11/24/04
11/25/04
11/26/04
11/27/04
11/28/04
11/29/04
11/30/04
12/01/04
12/02/04
12/03/04
12/04/04
12/05/04
12/06/04
12/07/04
12/08/04
12/09/04
12/10/04
12/11/04
12/12/04
12/13/04
12/14/04
12/15/04
12/16/04
12/17/04
12/18/04
12/19/04
Well House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
5.6
0.4
9.3
0.3
1.6
8.3
7.2
2.2
0.1
7.9
0.1
8.8
0.1
8.8
0.7
8.7
3.1
0.5
9.4
2.0
5.2
3.9
2.0
1.5
8.7
0.1
7.2
0.9
8.4
0.1
3.0
6.7
0.7
9.7
5.9
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
890.3
890.7
900.0
900.3
901.9
910.2
917.4
919.6
919.7
927.6
927.7
936.5
936.6
945.4
946.1
954.8
957.9
958.4
967.8
969.8
975.0
978.9
980.9
982.4
991.1
991.2
998.4
999.3
1007.7
1007.8
1010.8
1017.5
1018.2
1027.9
1033.8
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
235
292
233
NA
281
241
245
227
NA
241
NA
239
NA
242
238
239
226
267
234
242
244
235
233
233
236
NA
264
NA
238
NA
261
221
214
241
229
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
6,158
6,162
6,225
6,228
6,238
6,294
6,343
6,358
6,358
6,410
6,413
6,473
6,474
6,540
6,540
6,602
6,683
6,687
6,693
6,707
6,746
6,773
6,787
6,799
6,861
6,862
6,920
6,921
6,983
6,984
7,005
7,094
7,100
7,131
7,174
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
6,417
6,420
6,476
6,478
6,484
6,484
6,484
6,485
6,485
6,536
6,536
6,589
6,590
6,647
6,648
6,700
6,717
6,720
6,774
6,786
6,816
6,839
6,850
6,860
6,906
6,907
6,952
6,952
6,998
6,999
7,015
7,051
7,055
7,108
7,140
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
12,498,204
12,504,435
12,624,832
12,629,651
12,645,584
12,701,438
12,750,270
12,765,960
12,766,977
12,869,014
12,871,965
12,985,890
12,987,109
13,110,082
13,111,222
13,224,902
13,323,149
13,330,245
13,390,318
13,416,288
13,485,306
13,535,284
13,560,562
13,581,776
13,690,265
13,692,504
13,795,098
13,796,335
13,904,079
13,906,120
13,943,899
14,068,253
14,077,898
14,161,948
14,237,138
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated'3'
BV
10,442
10,448
10,548
10,552
10,565
10,612
10,653
10,666
10,667
10,752
10,755
10,850
10,851
10,954
10,955
11,049
11,132
11,137
11,188
11,209
1 1 ,267
11,309
11,330
11,348
11,438
11,440
11,526
11,527
11,617
11,619
11,650
11,754
1 1 ,762
11,832
11,895
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
4.2
4.5
2.0
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.6
3.6
3.4
3.5
4.4
4.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.1
5.8
5.9
5.9
5.9
7.5
7.0
6.0
6.2
6.1
6.0
6.2
TankB
psi
4.5
4.8
2.6
2.0
2.0
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.6
3.0
3.2
3.6
3.6
3.6
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.6
5.3
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.1
6.0
5.8
6.6
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.8
System Pressure
Influent
psi
66
64
70
68
66
68
69
69
68
70
70
70
68
69
70
70
70
68
72
70
70
72
71
70
75
70
72
70
59
59
71
70
70
71
72
Effluent
psi
58
58
58
58
56
58
58
58
56
60
55
58
58
57
58
60
58
56
59
58
58
58
57
56
60
56
58
57
61
60
56
58
56
56
58
AP
psi
8
6
12
10
10
10
11
11
12
10
15
12
10
12
12
10
12
12
13
12
12
14
14
14
15
14
14
13
2
1
15
12
14
15
14
>
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Queen Anne's County, MD - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
26
27
Date
12/20/04
12/21/04
12/22/04
12/23/04
12/24/04
12/25/04
12/26/04
12/27/04
12/28/04
12/29/04
12/30/04
Well House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
4.6
0.1
9.2
2.2
10.6
2.7
1.6
5.7
0.4
2.3
9.3
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
1038.4
1038.5
1047.7
1049.9
1060.5
1063.2
1064.8
1070.5
1070.9
1073.2
1082.5
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
250
NA
226
227
NA
NA
NA
231
292
239
235
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
7,207
7,207
7,275
7,290
7,324
7,367
7,399
7,440
7,443
7,460
7,526
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
7,165
7,165
7,216
7,228
7,254
7,286
7,310
7,341
7,343
7,356
7,406
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
14,294,755
14,296,174
14,414,075
14,441,944
14,501,500
14,576,528
14,632,491
14,703,635
14,709,268
14,738,907
14,855,963
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated'3'
BV
11,943
11,945
12,043
12,066
12,116
12,179
12,226
12,285
12,290
12,314
12,412
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
6.0
6.2
6.0
6.0
6.2
6.1
6.2
6.0
6.0
6.5
6.0
TankB
psi
6.5
7.0
6.9
6.5
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.5
7.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
75
70
74
72
72
72
72
70
70
70
73
Effluent
psi
60
56
60
58
56
58
58
59
56
56
59
AP
psi
15
14
14
14
16
14
14
11
14
14
14
(a) Bed volume = 160 cu.ft. or 1,197 gallons total for both vessels
(b) Pre-chlorination started November 9, 2004
NM = Not Measured
NA = Not Available
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Queen Anne's County, MD
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-(N)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
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
rag/I*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/Lซ
mg/L(a)
mg/Lซ
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
07/07/04(c)
IN
-
166
0.8
5.3
<0.10
14.6
<0.20
1.1
8.0
17.0
2.9
-64
97.7
52.5
45.2
20.2
19.4
0.8
20.2
<0.1
234
210
1.9
2.3
TT
971
158
0.8
5.3
<0.10
14.4
<0.20
1.1
8.0
16.1
4.3
-63
129.1
53.9
75.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
<0.1
116
80
1.5
1.5
07/13/04
IN
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
NA
-
NA
-
TA
1,602
172
0.9
<5.0
<0.10
13.2
<0.04
0.3
7.9
16.8
1.8
-50
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.2
-
TB
1,663
172
1.0
<5.0
<0.10
13.2
0.09
0.7
7.9
16.5
0.9
-50
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
07/20/04
IN
-
164
0.8
<5.0
<0.10
8.5
<0.04
0.6
8.1
21.6
0.9
-112
-
-
-
18.9
-
-
-
-
248
-
3.8
-
TA
2,190
168
0.8
<5.0
<0.10
14.4
<0.04
0.4
8.0
16.1
1.0
-42
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.0
-
TB
2,274
180
0.8
<5.0
<0.10
13.6
<0.04
0.4
8.0
16.0
0.7
12
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.4
-
07/27/04
IN
-
167
0.8
<5.0
<0.10
14.2
<0.04
0.5
8.2
21.7
1.11
-119
103.1
61.9
41.2
20.8
21.7
<0.1
22.4
<0.1
210
201
1.4
1.5
TT
2,855
171
0.8
<5.0
<0.10
13.7
<0.04
0.3
8.0
16.2
4.8
-43
104.1
61.5
42.6
1.8
1.8
<0.1
2.1
<0.1
<25
<25
2.5
2.6
08/03/04
IN
-
158
0.8
<5.0
<0.10
14.6
<0.04
1.0
8.1
18.0
2.5
-122
-
-
-
23.8
-
-
-
-
273
-
6.0
-
TA
3,282
158
0.8
<5.0
<0.10
14.4
<0.04
0.6
7.9
16.4
2.1
-43
-
-
-
2.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.0
-
TB
3,410
162
0.9
<5.0
<0.10
13.9
<0.04
0.2
7.9
16.1
NA
-18
-
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
<2.5
-
3.5
-
08/18/04
IN
-
164
0.8
3.7
<0.10
14.5
<0.04
1.3
7.7
18.4
NA
-134
109.4
65.8
43.6
22.0
22.0
<0.1
22.3
<0.1
220
222
1.5
1.6
TT
4,499
160
0.8
3.7
<0.10
14.5
<0.04
0.7
7.8
18.4
NA
-7
109.7
66.0
43.7
3.8
4.0
<0.1
3.7
0.3
<25
<25
4.4
4.1
(a) as CaCO3. (b) as PO4. (c) Water quality
IN = at the inlet; AC = after prechlorination;
NA = data not available.
parameters sampled on July 9, 2004.
TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B; TT = after tanks combined.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Queen Anne's County, MD
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-(N)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
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/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
08/31/04
IN
-
171
0.6
5.3
<0.10
14.6
<0.04
0.9
8.0
18.0
NA
-99
-
-
-
22.4
-
-
-
-
193
-
1.5
-
TA
5,495
171
0.6
5.3
<0.10
14.5
<0.04
0.3
8.0
17.9
NA
-10
-
-
-
8.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
5.3
-
TB
5,721
171
0.7
<5.0
<0.10
14.4
<0.04
0.5
8.0
17.7
NA
53
-
-
-
5.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
5.4
-
09/22/04
IN
-
166
0.5
3.3
<0.06
14.7
<0.04
0.6
8.0
15.4
2.2
-14
112.4
66.6
45.8
20.6
20.9
<0.1
12.8/
12.3
8.1/
7.1
271
161/
150
2.7
3.1
TT
7,379
166
0.6
3.4
<0.06
14.2
<0.04
0.1
8.1
15.5
3.8
-62
109.3
65.2
44.1
11.1
NA
-
10.2
-
<25
-
6.7
-
10/07/04
IN
-
166
166
0.7
0.9
-
<0.06
<0.06
14.5
14.2
-
0.8
0.7
8.0
15.4
2.2
-140
-
-
-
19.2
25.8
-
-
-
-
236
315
-
3.0
2.7
-
TA
8,228
166
162
0.8
0.9
-
<0.06
<0.06
14.3
14.2
-
0.3
0.5
8.2
15.4
0.8
-63
-
-
-
13.1
11.9
-
-
-
-
76.9
<25
-
17.9
6.8
-
TB
8,569
166
162
0.8
0.8
-
<0.06
<0.06
14.3
13.9
-
0.6
0.5
8.3
15.4
1.0
-44
-
-
-
9.2
12.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
6.2
9.6
-
10/19/04
IN
-
162
0.7
4.0
<0.06
14.4
<0.04
0.9
8.0
15.7
1.8
-126
110.3
55.8
54.5
18.4
-
-
14.9
-
208
-
1.5
-
TT
9,202
162
0.8
4.0
<0.06
14.3
<0.04
0.3
8.1
15.8
5.4
-76
114.8
62.3
52.5
13.2
-
-
13.1
-
<25
-
5.7
-
10/26/04
IN
-
164
0.5
4.0
<0.06
14.6
<0.04
0.5
7.7
14.9
1.6
-132
116.7
63.6
53.1
19.4
19.0
0.4
19.7
<0.1
210
180
1.5
1.6
TT
9,554
164
0.6
4.0
<0.06
14.4
<0.04
0.1
7.8
14.7
5.5
-74
111.0
57.9
53.1
13.3
13.1
0.2
13.2
<0.1
<25
<25
5.8
5.9
1 1/03/04
IN
-
164
0.6
-
<0.06
14.1
-
0.7
7.6
18.5
1.6
-148
-
-
-
20.2
-
-
-
-
273
-
1.6
-
TA
9,768
164
0.5
-
<0.06
14.2
-
0.4
7.6
18.4
2.6
-112
-
-
-
14.8
-
-
-
-
68
-
6.2
-
TB
10,167
164
0.5
-
<0.06
14.1
-
0.4
7.7
18.6
2.2
-83
-
-
-
12.9
-
-
-
-
38
-
6.4
-
(a) as CaCO3. (b) as PO4. (/) indicates re-run data with original
IN = at the inlet; AC = after prechlorination; TA = after tank A;
NA = data not available.
result/re-run result.
TB = after tank B; TT = after tanks combined.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Queen Anne's County, MD
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/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lฎ
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
11/10/04
------- |