EPA/600/R-11/002
January 2011
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
LEADS Head Start Building in Buckeye Lake, OH
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Abraham S.C. Chen*
Jody P. Lipps§
Ryan J. Stowe§
Brian J. Yates§
Vivek Lal§
Lili Wang*
§Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693
JALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43219-6093
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order (TO) 0029 of Contract No. 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is provid-
ing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowl-
edge 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 meth-
ods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface
resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sedi-
ments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environ-
ment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained for the arsenic removal treatment
technology demonstration project at Licking Economic Action Development Study (LEADS) Head Start
School in Buckeye Lake, Ohio. The objectives of the project were to evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of a
Kinetico arsenic removal system using Engelhard/BASF's ARM 200 media in removing arsenic (As) to
meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 (ig/L, (2) the reliability of the treatment
system, 3) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skills, and 4) the capital
and O&M cost of the technology. The project also characterized water in the distribution system and
residuals produced by the treatment process.
The Kinetico system consisted of two 18-in x 65-in sealed vessels connected in series to treat up to 10
gal/min (gpm) of water. Water supplied from a well was temporarily stored in a 120-gal pressure tank,
softened through a water softener, chlorinated with a sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution, and retained
in a 120-gal contact tank. Following the contact tank, chlorinated water flowed through the two
adsorption vessels, each loaded with 4.5 ft3 of ARM 200, an iron oxide/iron hydroxide media. At the
design flowrate of 10 gpm, the system would yield a hydraulic loading rate of 5.6 gpm/ft2 and an empty
bed contact time (EBCT) of 3.3 min in each vessel. Because of on-demand operation of the system,
actual flowrates through the treatment system could not be measured. Based on visual observations
during site visits, it was determined that the actual flowrates were much lower than 10 gpm. Therefore,
the actual hydraulic loading rates were much lower and the actual EBCTs were much longer than the
design values.
The system operated from June 28, 2006, to February 24, 2010, treating approximately 303,200 gal (or
9,000 bed volumes [BV]) of water. Daily use rates averaged 450 gal, compared to 675-gal rate provided
by the school. Source water contained 5.5 to 20.5 (ig/L of arsenic, existing predominately as soluble
As(III), averaging 79% of the soluble arsenic. Ten-(ig/L arsenic breakthrough following the two
adsorption vessels did not occur during the almost 4 years of operation. The highest arsenic concentration
measured after treatment was 1.4 (ig/L.
Significantly elevated total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic acids (F£AA5) were measured in the
vessel effluent soon after system startup. Examination of system operating conditions and disinfectant
byproduct (DBF) data revealed that the exceedances coincided with elevated chlorine residuals levels at
or above 4.4 mg/L (as C12). The results of laboratory column studies suggested that ARM 200 media had
the ability to promote TTHM and HAA5 formation, but only with the presence of chlorine and total
organic carbon (TOC) in its influent. The increase found in the laboratory was not on the same order as
observed onsite. Therefore, the results of the column studies did not totally explain the elevated DBF
concentrations observed onsite.
Comparison of distribution system water sampling results before and after system startup showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentration at the two sampling locations during the 12 monthly
sampling events. Arsenic concentrations were reduced from an average baseline level of 15.2 (ig/L to an
average of 1.3 (ig/L. In general, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system water were somewhat
higher than those measured in the treatment system effluent. Some dissolution and/or resuspension of
arsenic might have occurred in the distribution system. Lead and copper levels were well below their
respective action levels in the distribution system water both before and after system startup.
The capital investment cost included $10,435 for equipment, $11,000 for site engineering, and $5,820 for
installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 10 gpm (or 14,400 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was
$2,725/gpm (or $1.89/gpd). The annualized capital cost was $2,572/yr based upon a 7% interest rate and
IV
-------
a 20-year return. The unit capital cost was $0.49/1,000 gal assuming the system operated continuously 24
hr/day, 7 days a week at 10 gpm. At the current use rate of approximately 82,500 gal per year, the unit
capital cost increased to $31.36/1,000 gal.
The O&M cost included only incremental cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media
replacement and disposal (for adsorptive media), electricity consumption, and labor. The unit O&M cost
was driven by the cost to replace the spent media as a function of the media run length. Because the
media was not replaced during the performance evaluation study, the O&M cost to supply water to the
Head Start Building in one year when using ARM 200 media was estimated based on an assumed
rebedding cost for the lead vessel.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 6
3.1 General Project Approach 6
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 7
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 8
3.3.1 Source Water 8
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 8
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater 11
3.3.4 Spent Media 11
3.3.5 Distribution System Water 11
3.3.6 Disinfection Byproducts 11
3.4 Sampling Logistics 16
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 16
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 16
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 16
3.5 Analytical Procedures 17
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 18
4.1 Facility Description 18
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 19
4.1.2 Distribution System 20
4.2 Treatment Process Description 20
4.3 System Installation 24
4.4 System Operation 25
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 25
4.4.2 Chlorine Addition 26
4.4.3 Media Replacement 26
4.4.4 Residual Management 26
4.4.5 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation 27
4.5 System Performance 28
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 28
4.5.2 Disinfection Byproducts 37
4.5.3 Backwash Wastewater Sampling 54
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling 55
VI
-------
4.6 System Cost 55
4.6.1 Capital Cost 57
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 58
5.0 REFERENCES 60
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA A-l
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL RESULTS B-l
APPENDIX C: COLUMN STUDIES ANALYTICAL RESULTS C-l
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 10
Figure 3-2. Column Study Apparatus 14
Figure 3-3. Glass Column Schematic 14
Figure 3-4. Floating Teflon® Lid 15
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Treatment System Components at Head Start Building 18
Figure 4-2. Schematic of Arsenic Removal System with Series Configuration 22
Figure 4-3. Adsorptive Media Arsenic Removal System 24
Figure 4-4. Total and Free Chlorine Residuals Measured at Kitchen Sink 27
Figure 4-5. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species Across Treatment Train 32
Figure 4-6. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves 33
Figure 4-7. Total Phosphorus Concentrations Across Treatment Train 34
Figure 4-8. Silica Concentrations Across Treatment Train 35
Figure 4-9. TTHM Concentrations at Kitchen Sink 39
Figure 4-10. HAA5 Concentrations at Kitchen Sink 41
Figure 4-11. Formation of TTHM Across Treatment Train and Distribution System 42
Figure 4-12. Formation of HAA5 Across Treatment Train and Distribution System 42
Figure 4-13. Effects of Water Temperature on TTHM and HAA5 Concentrations at AC
Location 43
Figure 4-14. Correlation of TTHM/HAA5 with Free Chlorine Residuals Measured After Contact
Tank 44
Figure 4-15. Correlation of TTHM/HAA5 with Free Chlorine Residuals Measured at Kitchen
Sink 44
Figure 4-16. TTHM Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water) 48
Figure 4-17. HAA5 Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water) 48
Figure 4-18. THM Formation Potential Test Results in Chlorinated AS Water 49
Figure 4-19. Formation Potential Test Results of HAAs in Chlorinated AS Water 50
Figure 4-20. Column A ARM 200 Chlorine Demand and pH 52
Figure 4-21. TOC Breakthrough from Column A 53
Figure 4-22. TTHM and HAA5 Concentrations in Feed and Column A Effluent 53
Figure 4-23. Comparison of Arsenic Concentrations in System Effluent and Distribution System 57
Figure 4-24. Total O&M and Media Replacement Cost Curves 59
vn
-------
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 3
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 6
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedules and Analyses 9
Table 3-4. Experimental Parameters for DBP Formation Potential Study 12
Table 3-5. Experimental Matrices for DBP Formation Potential Study 13
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for New Well 19
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of Adsorptive Media 20
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of Arsenic Removal System 23
Table 4-4. System Punch-List/Operational Issues and Corrective Action 25
Table 4-5. Summary of System Operations 25
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 29
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements 30
Table 4-8. Silica Removal by Adsorptive Media Observed at EPA Arsenic Removal
Demonstration Sites 36
Table 4-9. Summary of TTHM Concentrations in Water Samples 38
Table 4-10. Summary of HAA5 Concentrations in Water Samples 40
Table 4-11. Chlorine Demand Test Results (AS Water) 46
Table 4-12. THM Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water) 46
Table 4-13. HAA Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water) 47
Table 4-14. TTHM and HAA5 Concentrations Measured During Column A (Phases II and III)
and Column C Studies 51
Table 4-15. TTHM and HAA5 Concentrations Measured During Column B Studies 51
Table 4-16. Backwash Water Analytical Results 55
Table 4-17. Distribution System Sampling Results 56
Table 4-18. Summary of Capital Investment Cost 58
Table 4-19. Summary of O&M Cost 58
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
BDCM bromodichloromathanes
bgs below ground surface
BV bed volume (s)
Ca calcium
CDBM chlorodibromomathane
C/F coagulation/filtration
Cu copper
DBF disinfection byproduct
DBA dibromoacetic acid
DCA dichloroacetic acid
DI deionized water
DO dissolved oxygen
DOM dissolved organic matter
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
F£AA5 haloacetic acid
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
Hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
LEADS Licking Economic Action Development Study
LOU letter of understanding
MCA monochloroacetic acid
MBA monobromoacetic acid
MCL maximum contaminant level
-------
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
N/A not analyzed
Na sodium
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND non detect
NH3 ammonia
NO3 nitrate
NPT National Pipe Thread
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF NSF International
O&M operation and maintenance
OEPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P phosphorus
Pb lead
POU point-of-use
PRD percent relative difference
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
RFQ request for quotation
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO4 sulfate
SS stainless steel
STS Severn Trent Services
TCA trichloroacetic acid
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TTHM total trihalomethane
voc
volatile organic compound
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the operator of LEADS Head Start in Buckeye
Lake, Ohio. The operator monitored the treatment system 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 his efforts.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) mandates that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and are
known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic (As) 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). To clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule on March 25, 2003, to
express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required 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 for reducing compliance cost. As part of
this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement published in the Federal Register requested water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided recommendations to EPA on the technologies it determined
acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical reasons,
only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information provided by the
review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of the respective
states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites. The water system at Licking Economic Action Development Study (LEADS) Head Start Building
in Buckeye Lake, Ohio, was one of those selected.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving two to eight proposals. In April 2004, EPA convened another technical panel to review the
proposals and provide recommendations to EPA; the number of proposals per site ranged from none (for
two sites) to a maximum of four. Final selection of the treatment technology at sites receiving at least one
proposal was made, again through a joint effort by EPA, the state regulators, and the host site. Since then,
four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program, reducing the number of sites to 28.
Kinetico's ARM 200 arsenic removal system was selected for demonstration at the LEADS Head Start
building in September 2004.
As of December 2010, 39 of the 40 systems were operational and the performance evaluation study of all
39 systems was completed.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Rounds 1 and 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive media
(AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13
coagulation/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, 17 point-of-use (POU) units
(including nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and
eight AM units at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations,
technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, iron
[Fe], and pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design
for the 12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital costs is provided in two EPA reports
(Wang et al, 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic treatment technology
demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific objectives are
to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M costs of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the Kinetico system at the LEADS Head Start building in
Buckeye Lake, OH, from June 28, 2006, through February 24, 2010. The types of data collected included
system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals,
and capital and O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(MS/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NY(d)
Buckeye Lake, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM(G2)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (ARM 200)
AM(E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70(b)
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250(e)
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19(a)
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,806(c)
1,312W
1,615W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM(E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM(E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340W
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14w
13W
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127(c)
466W
l,387(c)
l,499(c)
7827(c)
546(c)
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
1,344W
1,325W
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(b)
50
37
35W
19w
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(Mg/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
And POU AM (ARM 200)fe)
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM(HIX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69w
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media; C/F = coagulation/filtration; GFH = granular ferric hydroxide; HTX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% after system was switched from parallel to serial configuration.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) Withdrew from program in 2007. Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(e) Faculties upgraded Springfield, OH system from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI system from 210 to 340 gpm, and Arnaudville, LA system from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the almost four years of 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:
• ARM 200 adsorptive media was effective in removing arsenic to below its MCL. After 9,000
bed volumes (BV) of system operation, the arsenic concentration remained below the method
detection limit (MDL) of 0.1 (ig/L. The run length to 10 (ig/L could not be determined in the
duration of this study.
• Sodium hypochlorite was effective in converting soluble As(III) to soluble As(V).
Formation of disinfection byproducts (DBFs) during treatment:
• Above MCL levels of total trihalomethane (TTHM) and haloacetic acid (HAAS) were
detected soon after system startup.
• Formation of DBFs was believed to have been caused by high levels of chlorine residuals in
the AM system. There was evidence to suggest that ARM 200 media had the ability to
enhance DBF formation but only with the presence of chlorine and total organic carbon
(TOC) in its influent.
Simplicity of required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• Very little attention was needed to operate and maintain the system. The weekly demand on
the operator was typically 15 min to visually inspect the system and record operational
parameters.
• Operation of the treatment system did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to
operate the existing water supply equipment.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• The system did not need to be backwashed on a regular basis.
Technology Costs:
• Using the system's rated capacity of 10 gal/min (gpm) (or 14,400 gal/day [gpd]), the capital
cost was $2,725/gpm (or $1.89/gpd).
• The actual O&M cost to supply water to the Head Start building in one year when using
ARM 200 media could not be determined because the media was not exhausted during the
almost four year evaluation.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Table 3-1 summarizes pre-demonstration activities and completion dates. The original plan was to install
systems in two separate buildings that shared a well. The main building was the LEADS Head Start
building, which was estimated to have a peak flowrate of 9 gpm. The second building was a library,
which was estimated to have a peak flowrate of 3 gpm. The plan as set forth in the letter of understanding
(LOU), request for quotation (RFQ), and engineering plan was to have two appropriately sized systems
designed by Kinetico for each of the buildings. Because of concerns over liability issues between the
management of the LEADS Head Start Program and the library, the Head Start management decided to
drill a new well on January 25, 2006, and to separate its water distribution from the library. Only one 10-
gpm system was placed in the Head Start building.
The performance evaluation study of the 10-gpm system began on June 28, 2006, and ended on February
24, 2010. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected and considered as part of the technology
evaluation process. The overall system performance was evaluated based on its ability to consistently
remove arsenic to below the MCL of 10 |o,g/L. This was monitored through the collection of water
samples across the treatment train, as described in a revised study plan for the one 10-gpm treatment
system (Battelle, 2005). The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking unscheduled system
downtime and frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The plant operator recorded unscheduled
downtime and repair information on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Final Letter of Understanding Issued(a)
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor(a)
Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle(a)
Purchase Order Completed and Signed(a)
Engineering Plan Submitted to OEPA(a)
Final Study Plan Issued(a)
Comments Received from OEPA(a)
Sampling of New Well
Revised Engineering Plan Submitted to OEPA(b)
System Permit Issued by OEPA(b)
New Well Permit Issued by OEPA
Purchase Order Revised and Issued(b)
System Installation Completed(b)
System Shakedown Completed(b)
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
August 18, 2004
October 4, 2004
November 1, 2004
November 5, 2004
November 15, 2004
December 22, 2004
February 24, 2005
March 3, 2005
March 17, 2005
January 25, 2006
April 5, 2006
April 10, 2006
May 17, 2006
May 23, 2006
June 2, 2006
June 23, 2006
June 28, 2006
OEPA = Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(a) For two treatment systems in Head Start and library buildings.
(b) For one treatment system in Head Start building.
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation
Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and
Operator Skill
Requirements
Residual
Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic MCL in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs, including a description of problems,
materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements, including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance, including number,
frequency, and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed of relevant chemical processes and health
and safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated
by system process
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for media replacement, electricity usage, and labor
O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through a combination of quantitative data and
qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation,
extent of preventive maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory,
and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and safety practices.
The staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital cost for equipment,
site engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical
supplies, electrical power use, and labor.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The operator performed system O&M and data collection following the instructions provided by the
vendor and Battelle. On a regular basis, the operator recorded system operational data, such as pressure
and totalizer readings on a System Operation Log Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure
normal system operations. If any problems occurred, the operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who
then determined if Kinetico should be contacted for troubleshooting. The operator recorded all relevant
information, including problems encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and
associated cost and labor incurred on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a monthly basis, the
operator measured several water quality parameters onsite, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen
(DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded the data on an Onsite
Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for media replacement, electricity consumption,
and labor. Labor for various activities, such as the routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and
demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system
O&M included activities such as completing field logs, ordering supplies, performing system inspections,
and others as recommended by the vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities
-------
such as performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the
Battelle Study Lead and the vendor, was recorded, but not used for cost analysis.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the treatment plant, and
from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides sampling schedules and analytes measured during each
sampling event. Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the treatment system along with the analytes and
schedules at each sampling location. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample
volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is
described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. Source water samples from the well shared by the Head Start and library
buildings were collected and speciated during the initial site visit on August 18, 2004. Because a new
well was drilled for the Head Start building, samples of the new well were collected and speciated on
January 25, 2006. Speciation was performed using arsenic speciation kits (see Section 3.4.1). Before
sampling, sample taps were flushed for several minutes; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which
could cause unwanted oxidation. The samples were analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the first six months of system opertion, the operator
collected treatment plant water samples every other week (except for four sampling events that took place
once every one, three, or four weeks) at four locations across the treatment train, including at the wellhead
(IN), after chlorination (AC), and after adsorption vessels (TA and TB). Due to low water usage,
sampling frequency was reduced to monthly after December 19, 2006. In February 2007, a sampling tap
was added after the water softener (AS) and water samples were collected at five locations from this point
forward. Sampling frequency was further reduced to quarterly from May 1, 2007, through the end of the
evaluation period. Two Battelle staff members traveled to the site each quarter to collect quarterly
samples.
Because analytical data contained a number of inconsistencies during the first several months of system
operation (perhaps due to a large water holding capacity [300 to 400 gal] in the treatment system and a
small water use rate [675 gpd]), beginning in May 2007, the following steps were taken to ensure that
new well water was flowing through the treatment system and that more representative samples were
collected during sampling:
• Sampling to be conducted in the middle of the week to avoid any issues with stagnant water
in the treatment system on weekends.
• Before sampling, the treatment system to be flushed with approximately 400 gal of water
(considering the combined water holding capacity in all system components, including a
pressure tank, a water softener, a contact tank, two adsorption vessels, and associated piping)
by turning on a mop sink and a kitchen sink at a combined flowrate of approximately 4 gpm.
Speciation samples were taken during every other sampling event for the first six months of system
operation. Beginning on December 19, 2006, speciation samples were collected during each sampling
event. Initially, samples taken during the speciation sampling events were analyzed for total and soluble
arsenic (including As [III] and As[V]), total and soluble iron, and total and soluble manganese (except for
two sampling events on June 28 and August 30, 2006, when other analytes listed under non-speciation
events as shown below also were analyzed). Samples taken during the non-speciation events were
analyzed for total arsenic, total iron, total manganese, calcium, magnesium, fluoride, nitrate, sulfate,
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedules and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Backwash
Wastewater
Distribution
Water
Sample
Locations'3'
IN
IN, AS, AC,
TA, TB
Backwash
Wastewater
Discharge
Line
Two LCR
and one non-
LCR sinks
No. of
Samples
1
5(d)
1
3
Frequency
Once (after
new well
installation)
Biweekly to
Quarterly(e)
Once
Monthly®
Analytes
Off site:
As (total and soluble),
As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, NH3, TOC, and
alkalinity,
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and/or C12
(total and free)
Off site:
As (total and soluble),
As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3,
SO4, SiO2, P, TOC,
turbidity, alkalinity,
TTHM, and/or HAAS
pH, TDS, TSS,
As(total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble), and
Mn (total and soluble)
Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu, and
Pb, pH and alkalinity
Collection
Date(s)
08/18/04(b)
01/25/06(c)
See Appendix B
12/13/06
See Table 4-17
(a)
Abbreviations corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 3-1 (IN = at wellhead, AS =
after water softener, AC = after chlorination, and TA and TB = after adsorption vessels A and B).
From well shared by Head Start and library buildings.
From new well installed by Head Start.
AS sampling location was added in February 2007.
Biweekly sampling from June 28, 2006, through December 19, 2006; monthly sampling from
January 5, 2007, through May 1, 2007; and quarterly sampling from September 19, 2007, through
February 24, 2010.
Four baseline sampling events performed before system startup. After system startup, 12 monthly
sampling events conducted between August 23, 2006, and September 12, 2007. The non-LCR
sampling location in the library building removed from monthly sampling due to removal of that
building from demonstration project.
LCR = lead and copper rule
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
silica, phosphorus, turbidity, and alkalinity. pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were measured onsite during
all sampling events. A number of exceptions occurred during sampling and are summarized as follows:
• Starting from December 19, 2006, with the beginning of monthly sampling, all analytes listed
above were analyzed during each sampling event.
• Starting from April 5, 2007, ammonia was analyzed for samples collected during each
sampling event.
-------
fl
o
8
S"
1
1
*
LEGEND
f IN J Influent
f AS J After Softening
f AC J After Conditioning
TlAJ After Vessel A
( TB ) After Vessel B
f BWJ Backwash Sampling Location
INFLUENT Unit Process
DA: C12 Chlorine Disinfection
^ T-l T-1
INFLUENT
(WELL#1)
120-GAL
PRESSURE TANK
Buckeye Lake, OH
UltrAsorb-F® Technology
Design Flow: 10 gpm
WATER SOFTENING/
IRON REMOVAL
SEWER
1
120-GAL
CONTACT TANK
Biweekly to Quarterly
pHW, temperature^, DO^, ORPO), As(III), As(V),
As (total and/or soluble), Fe (total and/or soluble),
• Mn (total and/or soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3,
SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, turbidity, alkalinity, TTHM,
and/or HAA5
pHW, temperature^), DO^1, ORPO), As(III), As(V),
As (total and/or soluble), Fe (total and/or soluble),
Mn (total and/or soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3,
SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, turbidity, alkalinity, TTHM,
and/or HAAS
pH, TSS, TDS,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble)
pHW, temperature^, DO
-------
• Starting from September 19, 2007, TTHM and TOC were analyzed for samples taken from
all sampling locations across the treatment train and at the kitchen sink in the distribution
system (DIST). HAAS also were added to the list of analytes on March 19, 2008.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater. The treatment system was backwashed once on December 13,
2006, after approximately six months of system operation. (The operator tried to backwash in September
after 3 months of operation; however, because it was not done correctly, the filters were not backwashed).
Backwash wastewater samples were collected by directing a portion of backwash wastewater at
approximately 1 gpm to a clean, 32-gal container over the duration of backwash for each vessel. This
sidestream was produced via plastic tubing connected to a tap on the backwash wastewater discharge line.
After the content in the container was thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected and/or filtered
onsite with 0.45-(im disc filters. Analytes for the backwash wastewater samples are listed in Table 3-3.
Because there was no pressure loss across the treatment train, backwashing was not necessary. Therefore,
no additional backwashing was done after December 2006.
3.3.4 Spent Media. The media did not reach breakthrough for arsenic during the almost four years
of operation. Therefore, no sampling or analysis was performed for spent media.
3.3.5 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to system startup from January 2005 to March
2005, four sets of baseline samples were collected from three sampling locations, including two sinks in
the Head Start building that were part of the historic sampling network under the Lead and Copper Rule
(LCR) and one sink in the library building that was not part of the LCR network. Because the library
building was removed from the system performance evaluation study prior to system startup, sampling in
the library building was discontinued after completion of baseline sampling. Therefore, only two LCR
locations were sampled for distribution system water sampling after system startup. Distribution system
water sampling continued on a monthly basis from August 23, 2006, through September 12, 2007.
The distribution system water samples were collected following an instruction sheet developed by
Battelle according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems
(EPA, 2002). For the baseline sampling and first four monthly sampling events after system startup, both
first draw and flushed samples were collected from the sink faucets. Afterwards, only first draw samples
were taken. For the first draw samples, stagnant water was collected from faucets that had not been used
for at least six hours. Because the time water was last used before sampling was not known in the Head
Start building, staganation time typically could not be determined. The samples were analyzed for the
analytes listed in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not performed on the distribution water samples.
3.3.6 Disinfection Byproducts. In September 2007, the operator and Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (OEPA) informed Battelle that TTHM and HAA5 had been exceeding their MCL of
80 (ig/L and 60 (ig/L, respectively, on several occasions after the treatment system was installed. TTHM
concentrations ranged from 37.3 to 220 (ig/L from June 2006 through December 2007 and HAA5
concentrations ranged from 39 to 262 (ig/L during the same period.
Several steps were taken to define the extent of and determine the cause of the DBP formation, including:
(1) sampling across the treatment train for DBFs, (2) conducting a DBP formation potential study on the
influent (taken from the AS sampling location) to the adsorption vessels, and (3) conducting a column
study. The methods are described below and can be found in greater details in a letter report (Chen and
Yates, 2009) and a Test Plan to EPA (Chen et al., 2009b).
11
-------
Onsite Disinfection Byproducts Sampling. As described in Section 3.3.2, TOC, TTHM, and/or HAAS
were added to the analyte list starting from September 19, 2007, and March 19, 2008, respectively. In
addition, historical TTHM, HAAS, and chlorine data were evaluated to assess the cause of the high DBF
levels observed in the distribution system.
DBF Formation Potential Study. The formation potential of softened water taken at the AS location
was examined following the procedures developed by Summers et al. (1996). Softened water was used
for the study because it did not contain soluble iron, which would precipitate during sampling and transit,
causing unwanted incidental removal of arsenic and dissolved organic matter (DOM).
Four chlorine doses and four reaction times were tested (Table 3-4). Assuming 0.5-mg/L chlorine
demand, 1.5, 2.5, and 4.5 mL of a 1.02 g/L (as C12) NaOCl stock solution was spiked into appropriate
amounts of the AS water to achieve target free chlorine residual levels of 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 mg/L (as C12).
The actual chlorine doses were verified by spiking 1.5, 2.5, and 4.5 mL of the stock solution into three 1-
L amber bottles filled with deionized (DI) water. Free chlorine concentrations as measured by Hach free
chlorine test kits were 1.6, 2.6, and 4.8 mg/L, which were within +4.0 to +6.7% of the target levels. Thus,
these spiking amounts were used for the formation potential experiments.
Table 3-4. Experimental Parameters for DBF Formation Potential Study
Parameter/Condition'3*
Chlorine Dosage
Reaction Time
Temperature
Unit
mg/L (as C12)
hr
°C
Values
0,1.6, 2.6, and 4.8
0, 12, 24, and 48
Ambient
(a) Duplicate samples at 48-hr contact time taken for TTHM and
HAAS analyses.
Table 3-5 presents the experimental matrix for the formation potential study. Appropriate aliquots (i.e.,
1.5, 2.5, or 4.5 mL) of the NaOCl stock solution were spiked into a series of 1 L, pre-labeled, pre-cleaned
amber bottles (i.e., five bottles per chlorine dosage) filled with the AS water. Care was taken to ensure no
head-space as the bottles were capped with Teflon®-lined caps. Five additional bottles that did not
receive any chlorine were used as controls. The analytical methods, sample volumes, containers,
preservation, and holding times are discussed in a letter report to EPA (Chen and Yates, 2009).
Column Study. A series of columns was used to re-create the conditions seen at Buckeye Lake in the
laboratory. Columns were loaded separately with:
(1) Virgin ARM 200 media and fed with a softened water, taken at the AS location, chlorinated
with approximately 4 mg/L of NaOCl (as C12) - Column A. This column was used to
simulate the conditions observed at the Head Start building, examine the TOC breakthrough
behavior, and determine if ARM 200 media was indeed responsible for the elevated DBFs
observed.
(2) Partially spent ARM 200 media taken from Vessel A and fed with a chlorinated DI water
(approximately 4 mg/L of NaOCl [as C12] in DI water) - Column B. This column was used
to determine if pre-adsorbed TOC on the media could lead to continued formation of DBFs.
(3) Partially spent ARM 200 media taken from Vessel A and fed with a chlorinated AS water
(similar to that described under Column A) - Column C. This column was used to recreate
conditions seen at the site.
12
-------
Table 3-5. Experimental Matrices for DBF Formation Potential Study
Chlorine
Dose
(mg/L [as C12])
0
1.6
2.6
4.8
Reaction
Time
(hr)
0
12
24
48
48 (Dup)
Ow
12
24
48
48 (Dup)
Ow
12
24
48
48 (Dup)
Ow
12
24
48
48 (Dup)
Reaction
Bottle
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Measurements
C12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
pH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Temp
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THMs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HAAS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(a) Time-0 measurements taken about 10 to 20 min after chlorine addition.
The apparatus used for the column studies (see Figure 3-2) consisted of one 5-gal straight-wall
polypropylene reservoir (for chlorinated AS water), one 5-gal plastic bucket (for chlorinated DI water),
three FMI Q pumps (Model QG50 MB), three 1-in x 12-in glass columns (Ace Glass, Vineland, NJ), and
two 5-gal buckets for effluent collection. The glass column assembly was constructed of glass, Teflon®,
and stainless steel (SS). Figure 3-3 shows the schematic of a glass column, which had two threaded
Teflon® end caps, each fitted with a %-in National Pipe Thread (NPT) to Vs-in compression fitting.
Teflon® tubing (% in) and SS Swaglok® fittings were used to make connections to the FMI pumps and
waste buckets.
After thoroughly rinsed with DI water to remove fines, a 10-in section of ARM 200 media was packed
into a glass column and secured between two glass wool/glass bead end plugs. Before media packing, the
bottom end cap was connected to the discharge side of an FMI pump, which was used to fill the column
half-way with DI water. Special care was taken to avoid trapping any air bubbles in the Teflon® tubing
and, especially, the bottom glass wool/glass bead plug. During media packing, media granules were
dispensed slowly into the column using a spatula and the column was tapped to ensure that there were no
air bubbles in the media bed. After placing the top end cap, the exit tubing was directed to a 5-gal waste
bucket.
13
-------
Figure 3-2. Column Study Apparatus
Teflon end cap
1-in. diameter
and 12-m long
glass column
Teflon end cap
Figure 3-3. Glass Column Schematic
14
-------
The chlorinated AS water was prepared and stored in 5-gal straight-wall reservoirs. To minimize
volitalization of DBFs formed from chlorination, a floating Teflon® lid at 1/64-in thickness (and a
diameter just less than that of the reservoir) was placed on the top of the reservoir and allowed to move
vertically along with the water level (see Figure 3-4). Efforts were made to ensure that the lid rested flush
to the surface of water in the reservoir. A %-in opening was drilled in the center of the lid to allow the %-
in influent line to pass through. The reservoir was replenished by carefully moving the Teflon® lid aside
and slowly pouring in the replenishment solution along the wall of the reservoir. The reservoir and the
glass columns were covered in aluminum foil to prevent incident light from entering the apparatus.
Figure 3-4. Floating Teflon® Lid
The columns were operated upflow with a design EBCT of 30 min, which yielded a flowrate of
4.3 mL/min. The upflow configuration was used to avoid accumulation of air bubbles in the coloumn.
The target flowrate was attained by adjusting the pump to decrease or increase the flow as necessary.
Before the column studies began, Column A was conditioned with a chlorinated water (approximately 4
mg/L of chlorine [C12] in DI water). Upon chlorine breakthrough at 1.6 mg/L (as C12), samples were
collected and analyzed for TOC, TTHM, and HAAS to determine if the media itself could promote DBF
formation in the presence of chlorine. After sample collection, the chlorinated DI water was replaced
with a chlorinated AS water. Periodic samples were collected subsequently to evaluate the formation of
DBFs due to the presence of TOC and chlroine in the influent water.
15
-------
Columns B and C were not conditioned as they were loaded with partially spent media from Vessel A,
which had already been exposed to chlorine for an extended period prior to media sampling. Samples
also were collected periodically from these two columns and analyzed for TOC, TTHM, and HAAS to
evaluate DBF formation.
Effluent samples were collected by placing an effluent tubing into a clean 250-mL Erlenmeyer flask,
allowing it to overflow for 10 to 15 min, and quickly filling sample bottles free of headspace with the
water in the flask. In this way, potential loss of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) would be diffusion-
limited to a small layer near the air/water interface at the top of the flask. One 250-mL flask was
sufficient to fill all sample containers required by the studies. Influent samples were collected directly
from the plastic bucket by using a 25 mL disposable pipette or from the straight-wall polyethylene (PE)
reservoir by inserting the tip of a pipette into the opening in the center of the Teflon® lid (so the lid would
not be unnecessarily disturbed). Sampling schedule, sample volumes, containers, preservatives, and hold
times for each relevant analyte are discussed in greater detail in the column study test plan (Chen et al.,
2009b).
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All demonstration-related sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kits preparation, sample cooler
preparation, and sampling shipping and handling are discussed as follows:
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate soluble arsenic species, i.e., As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories in accordance with the procedures
detailed in Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, colored-coded label consisting of sample identification (ID), date and time of sample collection,
collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The sample ID
consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code for a specific
sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if necessary). The
sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The labeled bottles
were separated by sampling location, placed in zip-lock bags, and packed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were placed in each cooler.
The chain-of-custody forms and air bills were complete except for the operator's signature and the sample
dates and times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following
week's sampling event. For the sampling events conducted by Battelle staff, all sampling-related materials
were taken to the site by the Battelle staff member.
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 or driven to Battelle. Upon receipt, the
sample custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and
intact. Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into
the laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the
plant operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
16
-------
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-
MS) laboratory. Samples for other water quality parameters were packed in separate coolers and picked
up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, Ohio, Belmont Labs in
Englewood, Ohio, and TCCI Laboratories in New Lexington, Ohio, all of which were under contract with
Battelle for this demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the
time of preparation through collection, 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 described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, Belmont Labs, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms
of precision, accuracy, MDL, and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative
percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The QA data
associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared
under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator or Battelle
staff member using a VWR Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and
DO prior to use following the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was
checked for accuracy by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected
value. The plant operator collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Symphony
SP90M5 probe in the beaker until a stable value was obtained.
17
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Facility Description
The LEADS Head Start building is located at 5312 Walnut Rd. SE, Buckeye Lake, Ohio, approximately
30 miles east of Columbus, Ohio. LEADS Head Start is a preschool with approximately 60 students and
staff members. A new well was installed on January 25, 2006, to supply water to the Head Start building.
The well was installed to a depth of 125 ft below ground surface (bgs) with a screen set from 121 to 125 ft
bgs. Groundwater was delivered at 12 gpm with a !/2-horsepower (hp) submersible pump (Aeromotor
model A50S-12) set at 100 ft bgs. Figure 4-1 shows the treatment room, which housed a pressure tank
(installed when the new well was installed), a water softener, a chlorination module, and a retention tank.
The average daily use rate was estimated to be 675 gpd according to the school.
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Treatment System Components at Head Start Building
(From left to right: Pressure Tank, Chlorination Module, Retention Tank, and Softening Unit)
Pre-existing treatment at the facility included a dual column IX softening module in series configuration
and a chlorination system using dilute sodium hypochlorite solution for disinfection. Water from the well
was pumped directly to a 120-gal hydropneumatic tank located in the treatment room prior to the
treatment system. After the hydropneumatic tank, water was softened and then chlorinated. Chlorinated
water was held in a 120-gal contact tank prior to going to the distribution system.
18
-------
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples from the well shared by the Head Start and
the library buildings were collected during the initial site visit on August 18, 2004. Installation of the
new well for the Head Start building was completed on January 25, 2006, so another set of samples was
collected on that day. Because the new well was installed approximately five months before system
startup, little historical data were available. Table 4-1 presents the results of source water analyses and
those obtained from OEPA for the new well.
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for New Well
Parameter
Date
pH
Total Alkalinity(as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
As(total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Pb (total)
Cu (total)
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
^g/L
^g/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
^g/L
HB/L
OEPA
Raw Water
Data
01/25/06
7.6
309
266
359
N/A
0.1
0.1
N/A
<5
0.9
24
17.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,216
N/A
70.9
N/A
36.3
70
22.1
<5
<40
Battelle
Raw Water
Data
01/25/06
N/A
343
298
N/A
2.0
N/A
N/A
0.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
15.2
14.5
0.7
12.1
2.4
1,312
1,241
83.4
80.3
N/A
80.4
23.5
N/A
N/A
N/A= not available; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total
organic carbon
Total arsenic concentrations ranged from 15.2 to 17.0 (ig/L. Based on the January 25, 2006, sampling
results obtained by Battelle, 14.5 |o,g/L (or 95%) of total arsenic existed as soluble arsenic and 83% of
soluble arsenic was present as As(III).
The pH of source water was 7.6, which is within the acceptable range of 5.5 to 8.0 for arsenic removal by
adsorptive media. Therefore, pH adjustment was not required.
Iron concentrations in raw water ranged from 1,216 to 1,312 |o,g/L, existing mostly as soluble iron. The
pre-existing water softener reduced iron concentrations to near or below the MCL of 30 |o,g/L, as shown
19
-------
by the data provided by the Head Start, EPA, and vendor (Battelle, 2005). This softening unit was placed
upstream of the arsenic removal system.
Manganese concentrations in raw water were high, ranging from 70.9 to 83.4 |o,g/L. Manganese existed
almost entirely as soluble manganese. As much as 0.9 mg/L of ammonia was detected in source water.
Soluble manganese and ammonia should be removed by the water softener.
The TOC concentration in source water was 2.0 mg/L, which can react with chlorine to form DBFs.
Because the treatment system has a relatively large water holding capacity and a relatively small use rate
as noted in Section 3.3.2, resulting residence times after chlorination can be long. Long residence times
can contribute to higher DBF concentrations (Rathbun, 1997; Summers et al., 1996).
Other water quality parameters presented in Table 4-1 had sufficiently low concentrations and, therefore,
were not expected to affect arsenic adsorption on adsorptive media.
4.1.2 Distribution System. Installed in 1990, the distribution system was constructed primarily of
l-/1.5-in Schedule 80/40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and 0.75-in copper pipe. There are no lead pipes or
known lead solder in the distribution system. Nonetheless, samples are collected from five taps within
the Head Start building every three years under the EPA LCR. Other compliance samples collected from
the distribution system include those collected quarterly for bacterial analysis and every three years for
VOCs.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The Kinetico arsenic removal system uses ARM 200, a granular ferric hydroxide media developed by
Engelhard Corporation specifically for arsenic adsorption. Table 4-2 lists physical properties of the
media. The media has NSF International (NSF) Standard 61 approval for use in drinking water.
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of Adsorptive Media
Parameter
ARM 200
Physical Properties
Physical Form
Dry granular media
Matrix
ferric oxide/hydroxide
Color
Bulk Density (g/cm3) [Ib/ftT
(Dark) brown
BET area (m /g)
225
Sieve size (U.S. Standard)
20 x 40 mesh
Moisture Content
Attrition (%)
<1
(a) As measured by Battelle
-------
The Kinetico arsenic removal system is a fixed-bed adsorption system consisting of two pressure vessels
containing ARM 200 media. Figure 4-2 shows a system schematic. Operation of the system involves
routine sampling and periodic backwashing of the adsorptive media. When arsenic reaches 10 (ig/L
following the lag vessel, the media in the lead vessel is replaced with virgin media. The newly-rebedded
lead vessel is then placed at the lag position via valving adjustment. Spent media, which is expected to
pass the EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test, can be disposed of as
nonhazardous waste.
The arsenic removal system was constructed using Schedule 80 PVC piping and fittings. Table 4-3
summarizes the design features of the system. Figure 4-3 shows a photograph of the system. The major
system components/treatment steps are described as follows:
• Intake and Pressure Tank. Raw water pumped from the well was fed to the pre-existing,
120-gal WX-350 Well-X-Trol (by Amtrol) pressure tank via a 1-in copper pipe. The pressure
tank operated with low- and high-pressure triggers at 40 and 60 psi, respectively, such that
when the pressure fell below 40 psi, the well pump was turned on and when the pressure
reached 60 psi, the well pump was turned off.
• Water Softener. One CSI Water Treatment Systems dual column IX softening module in
series configuration was located after the 120-gal pressure tank. The softener was used to
remove calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese, and ammonia from the well water. The water
softener was set to regenerate every 300 gal using raw water from the 120-gal pressure tank.
• Pre-chlorination/Oxidation. Chlorine was added prior to the arsenic removal system to
oxidize As(III) to As(V). The chlorine addition system consisted of a Liquid Metronics Uni-
Dose Model U021-281 metering pump with a maximum capacity of 12 gpd, a chlorine
injection tap, a flow switch, and a 10-gal polyethylene chemical feed tank (containing a
solution of 1 gal of 5.75%NaOCl with 9 gal of water). The flow switch was installed in the
water piping and would turn on the pump to inject chlorine when water flow was detected.
Because As(III) levels in raw water were typically low (<15 (ig/L) and because reducing
species such as iron, manganese, and ammonia had already been removed by the softener, the
chlorine demand was low. The dosage was based on the state-required total and free residual
levels of 1 and 0.2 mg/L (as C12), respectively, in the distribution system and the target dose
was set at 1 mg/L (as C12). Because the injection rate did not vary with varying flowrates,
this pump could not provide a constant residual level throughout the study period.
To resolve the problem of fluctuating residual levels in the distribution system, a Pulsafeeder
Pulsatron E-Plus flow-paced pump and seaMetrics MJ series pulse meter were installed to
gain better control over chlorine dosage on November 2, 2009. After installation, chlorine
dosage was belter controlled, but still fluctuated between 0.7 to 4.9 mg/L (as C12) (with the
use of approximately 2,000 to 5,000 mg/L (as C12) of NaOCl solutions). The resulting total
and free chlorine residual levels averaged 0.9 and 0.75 mg/L (as C12), respectively.
• Retention Tank. Once the water was chlorinated, it was stored in a 120-gal We 11-Mate
contact tank to ensure sufficient contact times for oxidation and disinfection.
• ARM 200 Adsorption. The ARM 200 adsorption system consisted of two Pentair 18 in x
65-in sealed polyethylene vessels in series, each containing 4.5 ft3 of ARM 200 media. The
media (30.5 in) was placed over the bottom distributor. Each vessel had approximately 25 in
of freeboard and an upper distributor. The softened and chlorinated water entered the top of
21
-------
to
to
ADDITIONAL Mil KftTER S«M«>LE T*F HILL X. FROVJIE1
ran INSTALLATION PBICR ra THE SOFTUEC CLEANINS
SOFTEWD, CHLCI*(«WTIJ
IUTEB FiSW
r
L
VEU. MTE Mttt
SUBASSEMBLY A
H*JN RBILOIWi LEAD/LAO «KSE«jC (CHQvm.
sfJif
»HB^
Lifc^ ****
III!
Figure 4-2. Schematic of Arsenic Removal System with Series Configuration
-------
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of Arsenic Removal System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Adsorption
Vessel Size (in)
Number of Vessels
Configuration
Media Type
Media Quantity (Ib/vessel)
Media Volume (ft3/vessel)
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min/vessel)
Maximum Use Rate (gpd)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Throughput to Breakthrough (gal)
Estimated Media Life (month)
18 D x65H
2
Series
ARM 200
225
4.5
10
5.6
3.3
675
35,000
1,179,500
57
-
-
-
Iron oxide/hydroxide
-
-
-
-
6.6 min for both vessels
Estimate provided by Head Start
Vendor estimated bed volumes to
breakthrough at 10 ug/L from lead tank
Vendor estimated throughput to
breakthrough at 10 ug/L from lead tank
(1 bed volume = 4.5 ft3 or 33.7 gal)
Estimated frequency of media changeout in
lead tank based on throughput of 675 gpd
Backwash
Backwash (time/month)
Initiating Ap (psi)
Number of Vessels for Backwash
Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Duration (min)
Wastewater Production (gal/vessel)
Wastewater Production (gal/event)
1
6-7
2
5.6-7.3
10-13
15-20
200
400
Based on pressure drop
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
the vessel and flowed down through the media and exited the bottom of the vessel. Based on
a design flowrate of 10 gpm, the hydraulic loading to the vessels was 5.6 gpm/ft2 and the
EBCT for each vessel was 3.3 min. The vessels were valved so that the positions of the lead
and lag vessels could be reversed after the media in the lead vessel was replaced.
Based on the average daily total use rate of about 675 gpd, size of the adsorption vessels, and
chemistry of source water, it was expected that the media would last for approximately 57
months before requiring vessel rotation and changeout of the lead vessel. Factors anticipated
to play a role in system performance include arsenic concentration, arsenic species, pH,
natural organic matter, and concentrations of competing ions present in source water.
• Backwash Operation. Backwash piping was installed so that the media could be
backwashed to remove particles and fluff the media beds to minimize channeling. The
operator monitored inlet and outlet pressure of both vessels and could manually initiate
backwashing if differential pressure (Ap) readings across a vessel had increased to about 6 to
7 psi. During the performance evaluation study, Ap readings across the vessels never reached
6 to 7 psi.
23
-------
4.3
Figure 4-3. Adsorptive Media Arsenic Removal System
Media Disposal. When ARM 200 media exhausts its capacity, the spent media will be
removed from the vessels and disposed of at a sanitary landfill after successfully passing
EPA's TCLP test. Virgin media will then be loaded into the lead vessel. During the almost
four years of system operations, the media did not reach exhaustion.
System Installation
Engineering plans for the treatment system in the Head Start building were prepared by Kinetico. The
plans consisting of a schematic and a written description of the arsenic removal system were submitted to
OEPA for approval on April 5, 2006. The approval was granted on April 10, 2006.
The system was installed in the existing treatment room, shown in Figure 4-1, without any addition or
modifications. The system consisting of two adsorption vessels, media, piping, valves, gauges, and
sample taps was delivered to the site on May 19, 2006. Kinetico met with a subcontractor on May 19,
2006, to plan for system installation. The subcontractor installed the system to the tie-ins at the inlet and
entry point to the distribution system. System installation was completed on June 2, 2006, and system
shakedown was completed by Kinetico on June 23, 2006.
A Battelle staff member was onsite on June 28, 2006, to inspect the system and train the operator for
sampling and data collection. No operational issues were identified during the system inspection.
24
-------
However, shortly after system startup, the operator identified several issues, which were quickly resolved
by the vendor. Table 4-4 summarizes the items identified and corrective actions taken.
Table 4-4. System Punch-List/Operational Issues and Corrective Action
Item
No.
1
2
Punch List/
Operational Issues
Pressure Readings higher after
Vessels A and B as compared to
influent pressure readings
Leak at one pressure gauge
Corrective Action Taken
Three new replacement gauges
(0-100 psi) shipped by vendor
and installed by operator
Leak fixed by a vendor's local
contractor
Resolution
Date
09/14/06
09/13/06
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters of the system are tabulated and
attached as Appendix A and summarized in Table 4-5. The performance evaluation study began on June
28, 2006, and ended on February 24, 2010, for atotal of 1,343 days. Approximately half of the days fell
on weekends or during school breaks when there was little or no water usage.
Table 4-5. Summary of System Operations
Operational Parameter
Performance Evaluation Duration
Daily Run Time (hr/day)
Total System Operating Time (hr)
Total Throughput (gal)
Average Daily Use Rate (gpd)
Instantaneous Flowrate (gpm)
EBCT (mm/vessel)
Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
Ap Across System (psi)
Value/Condition
06/28/06-02/24/10
Unknown(a)
Unknown(a)
303,200
450
<2 (most of times)
>16.8 (most of times)
<1 . 1 (most of times)
Negligible
(a) System operated on demand.
The system treated approximately 303,200 gal of water during the study. Based on the total throughput
and the estimated number of days the school was in session, the daily use rate averaged 450 gpd,
compared to the 675-gpd rate provided by the school.
The system operated on demand at varying flowrates. Instantaneous flowrates were typically showing 0
gpm on the flow meter when the operator was onsite. This also was observed when Battelle staff was
onsite collecting water samples each quarter. The flow meter would not register flow less than 2 gpm and
there were many situations when water was flowing at a rate less than 2 gpm. Based on site observations,
the flowrate was typically below 2 gpm for the majority of the day.
Due to low flow through the system, EBCT values were at least five times greater than the designed
EBCT of 3.3 min per vessel for the majority of the day. On June 17, 2009, the pressure tank, which was
located upstream of the treatment system, was re-piped to the end of the treatment train. This was done
so the system would no longer be on demand to gain better control over the chlorine injection system.
25
-------
The water softener used raw water from the pressure tank for regeneration. When the pressure tank was
placed at the end of the treatment train, the softener could not be regenerated. Therefore, the pressure
tank was placed back before the treatment train on September 14, 2009.
No pressure loss across the system was commonly found throughout the system evaluation study.
Because the system did not lose pressure, it was not necessary to backwash the media.
4.4.2 Chlorine Addition. The pre-existing chlorine addition system consisted of a day tank filled
with a NaOCl solution, a metering pump, a flow switch, and an injection port. When the chlorine tank
was replenished, 1 gal of a 5.75% NaOCl solution was mixed with 9 gal of tap water. The metering pump
operated at one speed and was turned on when the flow switch detected water flow. Presumably, the
same amount of chlorine was injected into the on-demand water stream, thus causing a large variation in
chlorine residuals in the treatment and distribution systems.
The operator visited the site once per week and measured chlorine concentrations from the kitchen sink.
If the chlorine concentrations were high, he would dilute the chlorine solution in the day tank and if they
were low, he would add more NaOCl concentrate to the day tank. This and abovementioned on-demand
flow resulted in highly fluctuating chlorine residuals in the treatment and distribution systems as seen in
Figure 4-4.
To belter control chlorine residuals in the treatment and distribution system, a Battelle staff member
began to visit the Head Start building in July 2009 at least once a week to check on chlorine consumption;
adjust the metering pump; replenish the chemical day tank, if necessary; and measure chlorine residuals at
the AC and/or DIST locations. It was also decided that a paced pump would be better for controlling the
chlorine dosage and was installed on November 2, 2009. The NaOCl solution in the day tank was
prepared at a chlorine concentration of approximately 4,000 mg/L (as C12). The metering pump was set at
10 pulses per gal of water at 40% and the target dosage was 1 mg/L of chlorine (as C12).
Chlorine concentrations in the distribution system continued to fluctuate after the installation of the paced
pump; however, the fluctuation was less than when the metering pump was in operation. From July 2006
through October 2009 during operation of the metering pump, total chlorine concentrations measured at
the kitchen sink ranged from 0.0 to 3.5 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 0.8 mg/L (as C12); free chlorine
concentrations ranged from 0.0 to 3.4 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 0.8 mg/L (as C12). From November
2009 through February 2010 during operation of the paced pump, total chlorine concentrations ranged
from 0.03 to 1.4 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 0.5 mg/L (as C12); free chlorine concentrations ranged from
0.01 to 1.4 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 0.4 mg/L (as C12). Although the average total chlorine residual
was below the target of 1.0 mg/L (as C12), the average free chlorine residual was slightly higher than the
target of 0.2 mg/L (as C12). In addition, there was no chlorine measurement in the distribution that was
above 2 mg/L (as C12), which is believed to attribute to the much lower TTHM and HAA5 concentrations
measured in samples collected after November 2009.
4.4.3 Media Replacement. The media did not reach exhaustion during the performance evaluation
study and, therefore, it was not replaced.
4.4.4 Residual Management. The only solid residuals produced were backwash wastewater
solids. The system was backwashed once on December 13, 2006, after approximately six months of
operation. Backwash wastewater collected in a 33-gal drum was given time to settle. The supernatant
was then decanted off the top and the solids were collected in a 1-gal container. These solids were not
analyzed because less than 1,400 BV of water had been treated at the time of the backwash.
26
-------
Cl
E
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
°
Date
Figure 4-4. Total and Free Chlorine Residuals Measured at Kitchen Sink
During backwash, the lead vessel (Vessel A) was backwashed for approximately 20 min at 10 gpm and
the lag vessel (Vessel B) was backwashed for approximately 15 min at a 13 gpm. A total of 200 gal of
wastewater was produced through each vessel. The wastewater produced was sent directly to the sewer.
Because there was very little pressure drop across the system, backwash was no longer performed during
the remainder of the performance evaluation study.
4.4.5 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation. The system required very little effort by the
operator. The only problem encountered was the pressure gauges, which read a lower pressure at the
influent of the treatment system than after each adsorption vessel. Kinetico installed new pressure gauges
on September 14, 2006. Additional discussion regarding system operation and operator skill
requirements is provided below.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pretreatment included water softening and chlorination. Both
of these pre-treatments existed prior to the installation of the arsenic removal system. Therefore, there
were no additional requirements for pre- and post-treatment after the installation of the arsenic removal
system.
System Automation. The Kinetico adsorptive media arsenic removal system was a passive system,
requiring only the operation of the supply well pump to send groundwater to the pressure tank at the
system inlet and through the adsorption vessels to the distribution system. The media vessels themselves
did not have automated parts and all valves were manually activated. The only electrical power required
was that needed to run the well pump, water softener, and chlorination pump. All of these components
were in place prior to the installation of the Kinetico treatment system. The system operation was
controlled by the pressure switches in the pressure tank at the system inlet.
27
-------
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to operate the
Kinetico arsenic removal system were minimal. The operation of the system did not appear to require
additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the existing system in place at the site.
The level of operator certification is determined by the type and class of the public drinking water
systems. OEPA's drinking water rules require all community and non-transient, non-community public
drinking water and distribution systems to be classified based on potential health risks. Classifications
range from "Class I" (lowest) to "Class IV" (highest) for treatment systems and from "Class I" to "Class
II" for distribution systems, depending on such factors as the system's complexity, size, and source water
(OEPA, 2006). The Head Start water system is classified as a "Class I" treatment and distribution
system. The operator has a "Class IV" license, which is higher than what is need to operate the system.
Preventative Maintenance Activities. The only regularly scheduled preventative maintenance activity
recommended by Kinetico was to watch the pressure across the system and backwash the filters as
needed. The treatment system operator visited the site approximately once per week for approximately 15
min each visit to check the system for leaks, and record flow, volume, and pressure readings.
4.5 System Performance
The system performance was evaluated based on analyses of samples collected across the treatment train
and distribution system. The system ran from June 23, 2006, through February 24, 2010. After almost
four years of operation, the system had not reached 10-(ig/L breakthrough due mainly to the low water
use rate. Arsenic concentrations stayed below 1.5 (ig/L following both the lead and lag vessels
throughout the entire evaluation period.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 28 occasions
including one duplicate and 22 speciation sampling events. Appendix B contains a complete set of
analytical results through the almost four years of system operation. Table 4-6 summarizes the arsenic,
iron, and manganese results from samples collected across the treatment plant. Table 4-7 summarizes the
results of other water quality parameters. The results of the treatment plant sampling are discussed below.
Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the treatment system was the
concentration of arsenic in the treated water.
Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 5.5 to 20.5 (ig/L and averaged 15.4 (ig/L (Table 4-
6). Soluble As(III) was the predominating species, with concentrations ranging from 2.2 to 16.6 (ig/L and
averaging 11.3 (ig/L. Soluble As(V) also was present, averaging 3.0 (ig/L. Particulate As was low,
averaging 1.8 (ig/L. Influent arsenic concentrations measured during the almost four-year study period
were consistent with that in the raw water sample collected prior to the study on January 25, 2006.
Figure 4-5 contains four bar charts each showing the concentrations of total As, particulate As, As(III),
and As(V) across the treatment train. Because arsenic concentrations remained relatively unchanged
between the IN and AS locations, only the IN sampling results are presented in the figure. With the
exception of September 28, 2006, March 19, 2008, and September 23, 2009, soluble As(III) was
effectively oxidized to soluble As(V) by chlorination. Residual chlorine concentrations were not
measured during the September 28, 2006, sampling event. During the September 23, 2009 sampling
event, free and total chlorine concentrations were below the MDL at both the AC and DIST locations.
This explains why the As(III) concentration remained high at the AC location.
The majority of the arsenic detected after treatment (at the TA and TB locations) was in the soluble As(III)
form. This is expected since adsorptive media has been shown to have a higher adsorptive
28
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
Parameter
(Figure, if any)
As (total)
(Figure 4-6)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
(Figure 4-5)
As (III)
(Figure 4-5)
As(V)
(Figure 4-5)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
Number of
Samples
28
13
28
26
26
22
13
22
20
20
22
13
22
20
20
22
13
20(b)
20
20
22
13
20(b)
20
20
28
13
28
26
26
21
12
21
19
19
28
13
28
26
26
22
13
22
20
20
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
5.5
13.4
9.2
0.1
0.1
4.1
13
11.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.2
12.9
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
12.3
0.1
0.1
855
<25
<25
<25
<25
381
<25
<25
<25
<25
61
0.1
0.1
O.I
O.I
61.9
O.I
O.I
O.I
O.I
Maximum
20.5
20.1
22.4
1.4
1.4
17.8
17.7
19.5
1.8
1.4
3.7
3.5
2.9
1.0
0.9
16.6
17.2
2.4
2.0
1.9
9.1
3.8
18.7
0.2
0.1
5,365
69
367
86
48
3,882
<25
369
<25
<25
125
0.7
18.4
0.4
0.3
117
0.3
19.2
0.5
0.3
Average
15.4
17.6
17.2
14.3
15.9
16.0
-
-
1.8
1.8
1.5
11.3
15.3
0.7
3.0
0.7
15.2
2,290
<25
41.9
<25
<25
1,717
<25
32.2
<25
<25
85.7
0.2
1.1
0.1
0.1
79.8
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.1
Standard
Deviation
4.0
2.0
2.9
a)
3.6
1.2
1.8
-
-
1.0
1.3
0.9
a)
4.9
1.6
0.5
a)
2.9
1.3
1.8
a)
1,204
15.7
72.3
15.8
9.2
832
0.0
77.7
0.0
0.0
18.7
0.2
3.5
0.
0.
16.8
0.
4.
0.
0.
(a) Statistics not meaningful for data related to breakthrough; see Figure 4-6 for breakthrough curves.
(b) Outliers on 09/28/06 and 09/23/09 not included in calculation.
IN = at wellhead; AS = after softener; AC = after chlorination; TA/TB = after lead/lag vessel
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for
calculations; duplicate samples included in calculations.
29
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Nitrate (as N)
Temperature
TOC
Turbidity
Sampling
Location
IN
AS
AC
TAW
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
IN
AS
ACW
TAW
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
INW
AS
AC
TA
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TBw
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
Unit
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
°C
°C
°C
°C
°C
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
Number of
Samples
24
13
24
22
23
12
12
12
12
12
24
13
23
22
23
24
13
24
23
23
23
13
24
23
23
24
13
24
23
22
24
13
24
23
23
22
11
22
11
19
8
8
8
8
8
24
13
24
23
23
Concentration
Minimum
299
312
306
305
134
0.8
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.9
33
33
32
32
33
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
13.9
13.0
12.9
<0.2
<0.2
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
<0.05
13.5
13.9
14.0
14.8
14.3
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.4
1.3
7.5
0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
Maximum
361
354
373
395
423
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.8
1.2
1.3
1.3
2.4
44
38
43
42
160
<10
147
187
<10
<10
17.7
15.5
16.1
13.4
11.6
0.4
O.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
23.8
19.5
21.4
25.0
21.1
2.6
2.5
2.4
1.9
2.4
41
3.9
2.7
5.3
6.4
Average
333
335
342
346
337
1.0
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
37
36
37
37
43
<10
36.6
57.4
<10
<10
15.3
14.4
14.5
_
_(cl)
0.05
O.05
O.05
0.05
0.08
16.9
15.4
17.4
17.1
17.6
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.7
1.8
22
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.0
Standard
Deviation
16.8
13.9
16.6
24.0
52.3
0.1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
2.7
1.4
2.4
2.4
25.7
0.0
48.7
51.6
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.7
0.8
_(A>
_(cl)
0.1
0.0
0.02
0.04
0.1
2.6
1.6
2.2
2.9
1.9
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
9.9
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.4
30
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements (Continued)
Parameter
pH
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
AS
AC
TAW
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TB
IN
AS
AC
TA
TBW
IN
AS
AC
TA
TBw
IN
AS
AC
TA
TBW
Unit
S.U.
s.u.
S.U.
s.u.
s.u.
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Number of
Samples
20
9
20
8
17
19
8
19
8
17
20
9
19
9
17
23
12
23
22
21
23
12
23
22
21
23
12
23
22
21
Concentration
Minimum
6.9
7.2
7.5
7.2
7.4
1.3
0.7
0.8
1.1
0.8
-79
20
-50
103
-54
260
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
166
O.25
O.25
O.25
O.25
81.5
<0.1
O.I
O.I
O.I
Maximum
7.7
8.2
8.0
8.1
8.1
3.6
1.9
4.5
3.0
2.0
447
439
867
741
990
488
2.0
1.6
13.6
22.1
354
1.8
1.5
11.1
20.9
134
0.2
0.2
3.6
7.0
Average
7.4
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.7
2.0
1.2
2.0
1.8
1.5
115
188
645
638
559
303
0.8
0.7
2.4
5.8
205
0.7
0.6
1.8
4.6
98.3
O.I
O.I
0.6
1.3
Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.4
199
135
181
202
254
45
0.6
0.4
3.8
6.4
38
0.6
0.4
3.2
5.8
10.6
0.06
0.04
1.0
2.0
(a) Outlier on 2/24/10 not included in calculations.
(b) Outlier on 1 1/4/09 not included in calculations.
(c) Outlier on 02/15/07 not included in calculations.
(d) Statistics not meaningful for data related to breakthrough; see Figure 4-8 for breakthrough curves.
(e) Outlier on 10/1 1/06 not included in calculations.
IN = at wellhead; AS = after water softener; AC = after chlorination; TA/TB = after lead/lag vessel
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for calculations;
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
capacity for soluble As(V) than soluble As(III). Nonetheless, the elevated soluble As(III) detected at the
AC location on September 28, 2006, and September 23, 2009, was almost completely removed by the
media (to <0.4 (ig/L).
Figure 4-6 presents total arsenic breakthrough curves. The breakthrough curves indicate that ARM 200
media removed arsenic to levels well below the 10-(ig/L MCL. Effluent samples collected during the
final sampling event on February 24, 2010, contained <0.1 (ig/L of total arsenic. The highest total arsenic
concentration measured during the almost four-year study period was 1.4 (ig/L. The low arsenic
concentrations observed were attributed to the low water use rate. Throughout the performance
evaluation study, the system treated only 303,200 gal (or 9,000 BV) of water, which was much less than
the vendor's estimate of 1,179,500 gal (or 35,000 BV) to reach the MCL. Therefore, it could not be
determined if the vendor's estimate was accurate.
31
-------
r^j
Ln
concentration (ug/L)
h^ h^ r^j
o Ln o
Arsenic Species atWellhead (IN)
I As(particulate)
I soluble As(lll)
soluble As(V)
Arsenic Species After Chlorination (AC)
25
CT 20
1
10
< 5
1- -•
As(particulate)
soluble As(lll)
soluble As(V)
Date
Date
OJ
to
25
ug/
io
l-l
Ln
Arsenic conc
l-l
Ln o
Arsenic Species at After Vessel A (TA)
I As(particulate)
I soluble As(lll)
soluble As(V)
ArsenicSpeciesat AfterVessel B (TB)
N)
Ln
)
N)
o
ug/
concentration
h-1 h-1
o Ln
Ars
Ln
As(particulate)
soluble As(lll)
soluble As(V)
Date
Date
Figure 4-5. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species Across Treatment Train
-------
Arsenic Breakthrough Curves
0 1.000 2.000 3,000 4.000 5.000 5,000 7.000 8,000 9,000 10.000
Bed Volumes
Note: Breakthrough curves based upon BV of 4.5 ft3 for each column
Figure 4-6. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves
Iron and Manganese. Total iron levels in source water ranged from 855 and 5,365 (ig/L and averaged
2,290 (ig/L (Table 4-6). Total iron concentrations were reduced to below the MDL after softening for the
majority of sampling events. In the case that iron did show up in one of the sampling locations after the
softener (i.e., AS, AC, TA or TB), it was below 200 (ig/L in all but one occasion (i.e., iron concentration
at the AC location on September 28, 2006, was 367 (ig/L). Iron levels remained below the MDL in the
treatment system effluent in all but two occasions.
Total manganese levels in source water ranged from 61 and 125 (ig/L and averaged 85.7 (ig/L (Table 4-6).
Similar to iron, manganese also was removed to near completion by the water softener. Concentrations
detected after the water softener (AS) ranged from <0.1 to 0.7 (ig/L and averaged 0.2 (ig/L.
Concentrations in the system effluent (TB) were similar to those after the softener (AS).
Competing Anions. Phosphorus and silica, which can adversely affect arsenic adsorption onto adsorptive
media, were monitored at sampling locations across the treatment train. Total phosphorus concentrations
at the wellhead were below detection (<10 (ig/L [as P]) throughout the performance evaluation study.
Phosphorus, however, was measured in nine of the 13 samples collected at the AS location and 22 out of
24 samples collected at the AC location. Concentrations at these locations ranged from <10 (ig/L to 187
(ig/L, which was removed by ARM 200 media to below the MDL as seen at TA and TB (Figure 4-7).
Silica concentrations in source water ranged from 13.9 to 17.7 mg/L (as SiO2) and averaged 15.3 mg/L (as
SiO2). Silica concentrations remained essentially unchanged, averaging 14.4 and 14.5 mg/L (as SiO2) after
softening and chlorination, respectively. ARM 200 media removed silica from the AC water for the first
2,000 BV before silica began to break through. After 9,000 BV, the silica concentration at TA was
33
-------
Phosphorus
200
IN
-AS
-AC
-TA
JE
0 1,000 2,000 3.000 4.000 5,000 6,000 7,000 3,000 9,000 10.000
Bed Volumes
Note: Breakthrough curves based upon BV of 4.5 ft for each tank
Figure 4-7. Total Phosphorus Concentrations Across Treatment Train
13.4 mg/L (as SiO2), which was very close to the source water concentration of 16.2 mg/L (as SiO2). The
silica concentration at TB was 11.6 mg/L (as SiO2) after 9,000 BV (Figure 4-8).
Silica adsorption has been observed at a number of arsenic demonstration sites using adsorptive media
(Table 4-8). At Valley Vista, AZ (Valigore et al,, 2007), where ARM 200 also was evaluated, 52% silica
removal was observed after treating approximately 800 BV of water. The removal was reduced to 3% at
4,900 BV. Silica removal by iron-based E33 media can be as high as 37% at 800 BV as observed at
Brown City, MI (Chen et al., 2008). No additional removal was observed after treating 20,000 BV at
Brown City; 2,800 BV at Bruni, TX (Williams et al., 2010); and 900 BV at Wellman, TX (Williams et al.,
2009).
A/P 2002 oxidizing media and A/I 2000 adsorptive media, both alumina-based and manufactured by ATS,
were observed to remove silica at Dummerston, VT (Lipps et al., 2008), Susanville, CA (Chen et al.,
2009a), and Wales, ME (Lipps et al., 2010), with reduction as high as 60% reported at Dummerston. The
removal was reduced to 6.5% to near exhaustion after treating approximately 22,600 BV at Susanville,
18,700 BV at Wales, and 16,300 BV at Dummerston. Another alumina-based media, AAFS50, also
removed silica at Valley Vista. Removal of two separate adsorption runs did not reach exhaustion until
34,300 or 24,800 BV. The run with high influent pH (i.e., 7.7 vs. 6.9 [on average]) appeared to remove
more silica.
At Reno, NV (Cumming et al., 2009), iron-based GFH media reduced silica concentrations from 68.5 to
<48.8 mg/L (as SiO2) at 2,400 BV and reached exhaustion at 5,000 BV. The Reno source water had the
highest silica concentration (i.e., 72.6 mg/L as SiO2 [on average]) measured among the 39 demonstration
sites.
34
-------
Silica
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10.000
Bed Volumes
Note: Breakthrough curves based upon BV of 4.5 ft for each tank
Figure 4-8. Silica Concentrations Across Treatment Train
Other Water Quality Parameters. Water pH increased from an average of 7.4 in source water to an
average of 7.7 after softening. pH values remained essentially unchanged throughout the rest of the
treatment train. DO concentrations ranged from 0.7 to 4.5 mg/L and averaged 1.7 mg/L throughout the
treatment train. This value is within a tight range of 1.2 and 2.0 mg/L for average DO concentrations
across the treatment train. ORP readings varied greatly in raw water, ranging from -79 to 447 mV and
averaging 115 mV. Fluctuating ORP readings most likely were caused by the field meter used. ORP
readings increased slightly to an average of 188 mV after softening and, as expected, much greater to an
average of 645 mV after chlorination. ORP readings decreased slightly after each adsorption vessel,
averaging 638 and 559 mV at TA and TB, respectively.
Total hardness (consisting of calcium and magnesium) in source water ranged from 260 to 488 mg/L (as
CaCO3) and averaged 303 mg/L (as CaCO3). The water softener removed the majority of the hardness,
reducing its concentrations to <0.3 to 2 mg/L (as CaCO3). Total hardness concentrations remained low
throughout the remainder of the treatment train.
Nitrate concentrations were typically below detection in source water and throughout the treatment train.
Ammonia concentrations in source water ranged from 0.8 to 1.2 mg/L (as N) and averaged 1.0 mg/L (as
N). Similar to calcium and magnesium, ammonia was removed by the softener to below the MCL and
remained below the MDL throughout the rest of the treatment train.
TOC concentrations in source water ranged from 1.7 to 2.6 mg/L and averaged 2.0 mg/L. As expected,
TOC concentrations remained unchanged after chlorination. Following Vessels A and B, 0.2 to 0.3 mg/L
of TOC (on average) was removed by ARM 200. Alkalinity, fluoride, and sulfate concentrations
remained rather constant across the treatment train.
35
-------
Table 4-8. Silica Removal by Adsorptive Media Observed at EPA Arsenic Removal
Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Site
Brown City,
MI
Bruni, TX
Dummerston,
VT
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Valley Vista,
AZ
Wales, ME
Wellman, TX
Adsorptive
Media
E33
E33
A/12000
GFH
A/P 2002(e)
AAFS50
AAFS50
ARM 200
A/P 2002(e)
Filox-R(e)
CFH-12
GFH
E33
Average
(Range)
of Silica
Concentration
in
Source
Water
(mg/L)
9.0
(6.5-14.6)
41.5
(39.1-43.9)
12.6
(10.6-16.8)
72.6
(51.5-95.1)
14.1
(12.8-15.7)
19.0
(15.7-21.2)
10.5
(9.6-13.3)
46.8
(42.1-62.1)
Average
(Range)
ofpH
in
Source
Water
(S.U.)
7.9
(7.6-8.5)
7.4
(7.1-8.1)(b)
7.7
(7.0-8.4)
7.1
(6.5-7.9)
8.1
(7.7-8.4)
7.7
(7.5-8.4)
6.9
(6.6-7.6) (a)
7.7
(7.5-8.4)
8.5
(7.3-8.8)
7.8
(7.6-8.0)
Observed Silica Reduction
37% reduction at 800 BVW
Exhaustion at 20,000 BV®
19% reduction at 600 BV^
7% reduction at 1,200 BV(c)
Exhaustion at 2,800 BV^
60% reduction at 800 BV-C>
Exhaustion at 16,300 BVc)
30% reduction at 2,400 BV(d)
Exhaustion at 5,000 fiV*
56% reduction at 3,700 BV(C)
5% reduction at end of run at
22,600 BV^
19% reduction at 2,500 BVf>
2% reduction at 34,300 BV(c)
14% reduction at 2,700 BV(c)
3% reduction at 24,800 BV(c)
52% reduction at 800 BV(c)
3% reduction at 4,900 BV(c)
Exhaustion at 14,200 B V0
38% reduction at 2,000 BV^
6.5% reduction at end of run
at 18,700 BV^
No reduction
41% reduction at 4,500 BV(c)
Exhaustion at 13,900 BV^
42% reduction at 3,500 BV(c)
Exhaustion at 10,700 BV^
44% reduction at system
startup
Exhaustion at 900 BV(f)
Reference
Chen, etal.,
2008
Williams,
etal., 2010
Lipps, etal.,
2008
Gumming,
et al., 2009
Chen, etal.,
2009
Valigore,
et al., 2007
Lipps, et al.,
2010
Williams,
et al., 2007
(a) Bed volumes calculated based on media volume in four adsorption vessels in parallel.
(b) After pH adjustment.
(c) Bed volumes calculated based on media volume
(d) Bed volumes calculated based on media volume
(e) Oxidizing media.
(f) Bed volumes calculated based on media volume in two adsorption vessels in parallel.
in lead vessel.
in three adsorption vessels in parallel.
36
-------
4.5.2 Disinfection Byproducts. Prior to installation of the arsenic removal system, the water
system at the Head Start building was required to collect distribution system water samples for DBFs
because the pre-existing treatment included chlorination. DBFs are a large and diverse class of
halogenated organic compounds formed, as first described by Rook (1974), mainly through interaction of
chlorine, bromine, and iodine with natural organic matter present in source water. The two classes of
DBFs that receive most attention are THMs and HAAs. THMs include chloroform, bromoform,
chlorodibromomathane (CDBM), and bromodichloromathanes (BDCM), collectively known as total
trihalomethane (TTHM). HAAs include monochloroacetic acid (MCA), dichloroacetic acid (DCA),
trichloroacetic acid (TCA), monobromoacetic acid (MBA), and dibromoacetic acid (DBA), collectively
known as HAAS. These chemicals were regulated by EPA with an MCL of 80 ug/L for TTHM and 60
ug/L for HAAS. DBFs are found in the finished water from water treatment plants employing
chlorination through the introduction of either chlorine gas or sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl).
After system startup, exceedances of TTHM and HAAS were noticed. Historical DBF data were obtained
from OEPA to facilitate the evaluation of conditions before and after system startup. For TTHM, eight
compliance samples were collected before system startup and 12 compliance and eight non-compliance
samples collected after system startup (see Table 4-9 and Figure 4-9). For HAAS, seven compliance
samples were collected before system startup and 12 compliance and seven non-compliance samples
collected after system startup (see Table 4-10 and Figure 4-10). Compliance samples were collected at
the kitchen sink (DIST) by the Head Start operator and analyzed by AAL. Non-compliance samples were
collected across the treatment train at IN, AS, AC, TA, and TB and the kitchen sink (DIST) by Battelle
staff members and analyzed by either AAL or EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL). Non-compliance samples collected by Battelle are denoted by "*"in Figures 4-9 and 4-10.
Where applicable, total and free chlorine concentrations measured at the AC location are noted along with
the TTHM and/or HAAS data in the figures.
Before installation of the arsenic removal system, source water was softened and chlorinated. TTHM
concentrations measured at the kitchen sink ranged from 7.0 to 86.1 ug/L and averaged 30.1 ug/L; HAAS
concentrations ranged from 6.3 to 42.0 ug/L and averaged 24.4 ug/L. Except for one TTHM sample
taken on July 28, 2004, all TTHM and HAAS results were below the respective MCLs of 80 and 60 ug/L.
The formation of TTHM and HAAS was the result of interaction between NaOCl and approximately 2
mg/L of natural organic matter in source water after some periods of reaction time (Rathbun, 1997;
Summers et al., 1996).
After system startup on June 23, 2006, TTHM concentrations at the kitchen sink drastically increased to
87.4, 179, and 220 ug/L on July 5, 2006; October 5, 2006; and January 31, 2007, respectively; HAAS
concentrations also increased to 187 and 262 ug/L on October 5, 2006, and January 31, 2007. On April 4,
2007, the TTHM concentration decreased to 63.2 ug/L but the HAAS concentration remained above the
MCL at 81.3 ug/L. On September 19, 2007, and March 19, 2008, Battelle began to collect samples
across the treatment train and at the kitchen sink for TTHM and HAAS analyses, respectively. Since then
through June 2009 when the system configuration was modified in an effort to curb excessive DBP
formation, TTHM and HAAS concentrations at the kitchen sink had been fluctuating between 23.5 and
278 ug/L and between 13.1 and 489 ug/L, respectively. Among the samples collected since system
startup until June 2009, 11 out 16 TTHM samples and 12 out of 15 HAAS samples exceeded their
respective MCLs.
37
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of TTHM Concentrations in Water Samples
Sampling
Date
07/28/04
12/14/04
03/09/05
04/13/05
07/06/05
10/05/05
01/18/06
04/05/06
07/05/06
10/05/06
01/31/07
04/04/07
09/19/07
10/03/07
12/18/07
01/09/08
03/19/08
04/09/08
07/09/08
10/01/08
01/21/09
01/23/09
04/15/09
05/07/09
07/29/09
11/04/09
12/29/09
02/24/10
TTHM Concentration (ug/L)
IN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.5
NA
<2
NA
5.6
NA
NA
<2
NA
<2
NA
<2
NA
<2
NA
<2
AS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<2
NA
<2
NA
2.1
NA
NA
<2
NA
<2
NA
<2
NA
<2
NA
<2
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.8
NA
10.8
NA
16.3
NA
NA
7.9
NA
20.1
NA
7.0
NA
11.8
NA
6.7
TA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.2
NA
30.5
NA
37.1
NA
NA
18.3
NA
51.0
NA
20.4
NA
31.5
NA
9.2
TB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
49.5
NA
43.9
NA
39.5
NA
NA
29.2
NA
152
NA
49.3
NA
44.8
NA
14.1
DIST
86.1
13.9
7.0
33.0
26.3
16.9
30.4
26.8
87.4
179
220
63.2
112
128
37.3
62.8
49.6
88.8
90.3
120
278
234
96.7
23.5
4.5
46.1
58.6
13.1
Data
Source
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
Battelle/NRMRL
OEPA/AAL
Battelle/NRMRL
OEPA/AAL
Battelle/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
Battelle/AAL
OEPA/AAL
Battelle/AAL
OEPA/AAL
Battelle/AAL
OEPA/AAL
Battelle/AAL
OEPA/AAL
Battelle/AAL
Shading indicates samples collected after system startup.
Bold values are MCL exceedances.
IN = at wellhead; AS = after water softener; AC = after chlorination; TA and TB
= after adsorption vessels A and B; DIST = kitchen sink
AAL = American Analytical Laboratories; NA = not analyzed; NRMRL =
National Risk Management Research Laboratory; OEPA = Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
Figures 4-11 and 4-12 plot TTHM and HAAS concentrations, respectively, in samples taken across the
treatment train and at the kitchen sink by Battelle. From September 19, 2007, through May 7, 2009,
TTHM concentrations after chlorination and detention (AC) ranged from 7.0 to 20.1 (ig/L and averaged
12.2 ug/L; HAAS concentrations ranged from 4.1 to 19.4 (ig/L and averaged 12.2 ug/L. After adsorption,
TTHM concentrations increased significantly to between 18.3 and 51.0 (ig/L (30.9 (ig/L [on average])
following Vessel A and to between 29.2 and 152 ug/L (60.6 ug/L [on average]) following Vessel B.
Similarly, HAA5 concentrations increased to between 11.9 and 55.4 ug/L (28.5 ug/L [on average])
following Vessel A and to between 25.9 and 197 ug/L (81.7 ug/L [on average]) following Vessel B. The
use of ARM 200 media appears to have promoted TTHM and HAA5 formation in the presence of TOC
and chlorine; prolonged contact with the media appeared to have further enhanced the formation. As
noted above, out of the 2.0 mg/L of TOC in source water, about 0.2 to 0.3 mg/L (on average) was
removed by ARM 200.
38
-------
OJ
New wen
Drilled
(01/25*6)
Permit
approved
05/17/06)
System
Installed
(06/23/06)
Freed: 4.2mgJL
TotalCI:4.3ina'L
Freed: 54.4 mg!L
Total d:>4.4 ma(L
Freed: >4.4mg,'L
TotalCI:>4.4 mgfL
CI:1.Bmg;L
l Cl: 1.8 mart.
373* Free Cl: 1.2 mj/'L
TotalCl: I.SmgJL
FfeeCI:i.7m»L
Total C I: LSmgH.
23.5
TotalCI: 0.0.7 mglL
.8 my'L
.3 myl
Date
Note: Sam pies denoted by "-" collected by Battelle. Other samples taken bv operator for State compliance. Free and total chlorine concentrations from samples collected at
the afterchlorination (AC) sampling location.
Figure 4-9. TTHM Concentrations at Kitchen Sink
-------
Table 4-10. Summary of HAAS Concentrations in Water Samples
Sampling
Date
07/28/04
03/09/05
04/13/05
07/06/05
10/05/05
01/18/06
04/05/06
07/05/06
10/05/06
01/31/07
04/04/07
10/03/07
01/09/08
03/19/08
04/09/08
07/09/08
07/09/08
10/01/08
01/21/09
01/23/09
04/15/09
05/07/09
07/29/09
11/04/09
12/29/09
02/24/10
HAAS Concentration (ng/L)
IN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<2
NA
NA
<2
<2
NA
<2
NA
<2
NA
<2
NA
<2
AS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<2
NA
NA
<2
<2
NA
<2
NA
<2
NA
<2
NA
<2
AC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.9
NA
NA
19.4
10.6
NA
16.1
NA
4.1
NA
3.0
NA
7.3
TA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.7
NA
NA
55.4
19.1
NA
42.6
NA
11.9
NA
9.5
NA
12.1
TB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.9
NA
NA
94
36.6
NA
197
NA
55.1
NA
13.0
NA
20.3
DIST
32.6
6.3
11.9
27.1
42.0
27.0
24.0
39.0
187
262
81.3
223
244
28.6
122
188
193
107
489
279
86.1
13.1
8.7
12.6
75.3
13.8
Data
Source
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
Battelle/AAL
OEPA/AAL
OEPA/AAL
Battelle/AAL
Battelle/AAL
OEPA/AAL
Battelle/AAL
OEPA/AAL
Battelle/AAL
OEPA/AAL
Battelle/AAL
OEPA/AAL
Battelle/AAL
Shading indicates samples collected after system startup.
Bold values are MCL exceedances.
IN = at wellhead; AS = after water softener; AC = after chlorination; TA and TB
= after adsorption vessels A and B; DIST = kitchen sink
AAL = American Analytical Laboratories; NA = not analyzed; NRMRL =
National Risk Management Research Laboratory; OEPA = Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
Following the adsorption vessels, the treated water entered the distribution system constructed of PVC
and copper. Significant increases in DBF concentrations at the kitchen sink were observed during two
sampling events on October 1, 2008, and January 23, 2009, with TTHM and HAAS concentrations spiked
o as high as 234 and 279 (ig/L, respectively. Piping leading from the outlet of the arsenic removal system
to the kitchen sink included 12.6, 4.6, and 32.6 ft of 1.5 in PVC Schedule 80, 1.0 in PVC Schedule 40,
and 0.75 in copper pipe, respectively, which could hold only 2.1 gal of water combined. As such, the
extra contact time in the distribution piping would not have contributed to the significant increase in DBP
concentrations observed. Water temperature also was contemplated as a potential factor; however, its
effect was soon ruled out as shown by Figure 4-13, which plots TTHM and HAA5 concentrations against
temperature at the AC sampling location.
40
-------
500
450
400
350
gsoc
c
o
2 250
c
0200
'150
100 -
50
32.
New Well
Permit
Approved
(05/17/06)
N
New Well
Drilled
(01/25/06)
Old Well
Free Cl: I
Total Cl:
Freed: 2.2 mg/L Freed: 0.1 mg/L
Free Cl: 2.2 mg/L Total Cl: 2.2 mg/L Total C|- 0 2 mg/L
Total Cl: 2.2 mg/L 42 jt^ I 391!
"—^^ 27 I 24"* I Free Cl: 2.2 mg/L 22.1
j^S-*"*^ 11.9 | | Total Cl: 2.2 mg/L
MCL=60ug/L
^ Freed: 1.2 mg/L
13.8 Total Cl: 1.3 mg/L
06/12/04 12/09/04 06/07/05 12/04/05 06/02/06 11/29/06 05/28/07 11/24/07 05/22/08 11/18/08 05/17/09 11/13/09 05/12/10
Date
Note: Samples denoted by "*" collected by Battelle. Other samples taken by operator for State compliance. Sample was collected by both Battelle for EPA and the
operator for State Compliance on 07/09/08. July 2007 data not valid due to system bybpass.
Figure 4-10. HAAS Concentrations at Kitchen Sink
-------
i
7
t"
u
5
t
I
r.
1 1
1 *" 1
1_1M
"1
1
1 1
1
•
i
• IN
AS
LAC
f
-------
000
LTJ O LTJ
rM r-J ^-t
(n/2rl) uoi}CJ}U33i
0 0
O LTl
*r-\
JODSWH/IAIHIJ.
0
c
TTHM/HAA5 vs Temperature at TB
I
I
• HAAS
) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (9C)
Figure 4-13. Effects of Water Temperature on TTHM and HAAS Concentrations at AC Location
Differences in water temperature of the samples collected at the kitchen sink might have been caused by
how the samples were collected using a single-lever faucet during sampling. It was conceivable that
some hot water could have been dispensed depending on the lever position of the faucet. To alleviate any
concern, TTHM and HAAS samples were collected from the kitchen sink in May 2009, with the lever
positioned for either hot or cold water. The hot water sample, after being flushed long enough to get the
water hot at 44.1°C, had a TTHM concentration of 5.8 (ig/L and a HAAS concentration of 5.8 (ig/L. The
cold water sample at 21.8°C had a TTHM concentration of 40.6 (ig/L and a HAAS concentration was
25.9 (ig/L. Therefore, it appears that water temperature did not have much of an effect on TTHM and
HAAS concentrations.
High total and free chlorine residual concentrations were measured at the kitchen sink (DIST) on a
number of occasions as shown in Figures 4-9 and 4-10. Even higher total and free chlorine residual levels
(with some above the MDL of 4.4 mg/L [as C12]) were measured after the contact tank (AC). (Higher
levels of chlorine residuals at AC compared to those at TA and TB indicate chlorine demand across the
media beds.) Measured values of TTHM and HAAS at DIST were correlated to free chlorine residual
levels at both AC and DIST and these correlations are presented in Figures 4-14 and 4-15. A linear
regression was fit over both sets of data forcing the origin to the fit. These regressions yielded R2 values
of 0.64 and 0.66 for TTHM and 0.62 and 0.26 for HAAS. The low R2 value of 0.26 was caused mainly
by a single data point, i.e., 193 (ig/L of HAAS at 0 mg/L free chlorine residuals, at the kitchen sink.
Except for two data points at DIST, higher-than-MCL levels of TTHM and HAAS occurred only when
free chlorine residual levels were over 2 mg/L (as C12).
As noted above, system modifications were implemented as an attempt to curb excessive DBF formation.
The first modification involved moving the 120-gal pressure tank from the head to the end of the
treatment train to gain better control over chlorine dosing. This modification, completed on June 17,
2009, allowed the system to operate with a constant water flowrate (10 gpm) and a constant chlorine
43
-------
~)cr\
j*
1?
E
O
"^
TO
1
0
LJ 1 no
CL
CO
Q
cr\
c
DBFs vs Free Chlorine after Contact Tank
•
•
•
y=40.829x
R2 = 0.6208 ^^^^
^^^ 1
.^-****^--"""" y=33.199x
^^^~-'~~' R2 = 0.6354
^^i ^
• •
) 1 2 3 4 E
Free Chlorine (mg/L)
Figure 4-14. Correlation of TTHM/HAA5 with Free Chlorine Residuals
Measured After Contact Tank
Dnn
TCfl
_l
i *jnn
c
o
"^
TO
*- 1 "^n
I
0
CL
CO
Q
1
c
DBFs vs Free Chlorine at Kitchen Sink
•
y=79.021x *
R2 = 0.2578 yS
\ / .''
^T *
^f +
^^ *
>/-'' y=70.976x
*/s''' R2 = 0.6623
^S +
^T *
^s +
^r*
^r*
' » — ^
./ *
• *
112345
Free Chlorine (mg/L)
Figure 4-15. Correlation of TTHM/HAA5 with Free Chlorine Residuals
Measured at Kitchen Sink
44
-------
dose rate whenever the well pump was on. (Before this modification, the system was operating on-
demand with varying water flowrates and one chlorine dose rate). This, in conjunction with better O&M
on the chlorine addition system by a designated Battelle staff member as discussed in Section 4.4.2,
allowed the chlorine residuals at AC and DIST to become more constant as shown in Figure 4-4.
However, it was discovered soon after the modification that this new system configuration would not
allow the water softener to be regenerated properly due to lack of water during most regeneration cycles.
(Note that during softener regeneration, water needed for regeneration would be supplied from the
pressure tank.) After system reconfiguration, the softener would be regenerated only when the well pump
was triggered by low pressure in the pressure tank. Otherwise, the softener would not be regenerated
even though the system would still go through the regeneration cycle as though it had. Therefore, the
pressure tank was returned to the beginning of the treatment train on September 14, 2009, so that the
water softener could be regenerated properly.
The second system modification involved replacing the pre-existing metering pump with a flow-paced
pump. This allowed the amount of chlorine addition to be paced with varying water flowrates to the
system. This modification, completed on November 2, 2009, resulted in a better control over chlorine
dosing, which appeared to help reduce DBF concentrations as shown in Figures 4-9 through 4-12. From
November 2, 2009, through the end of DBF sampling on February 24, 2010, TTFiM concentrations
ranged from 14.1 to 44.8 ug/L following the treatment system and from 13.1 to 58.6 ug/L at the kitchen
sink; F£AA5 concentrations ranged from 13.0 to 20.3 ug/L following the treatment system and 8.7 to 75.3
ug/L at the kitchen sink. Except for one F£AA5 exceedance (75.3 ug/L on December 29, 2009), all DBF
measurements were below the respective MCLs of 80 and 60 ug/L.
In summary, exceeded levels of TTHM and F£AA5 are thought to be caused by elevated free chlorine
residuals in the ARM 200 adsorptive media system. In general, TTHM and HAA5 exceeded the MCL
when free chlorine residuals were above approximately 2 mg/L (as C12). Additional testing was
conducted in the laboratory to better understand the processes involved in the DBF formation.
Formation Potential Tests. Formation potential tests were conducted in the laboratory on the water
collected after softening (from AS location). As noted above, the formation of DBFs requires the
presence of organic matter, chlorine and some contact time. Under these conditions, concentrations of
DBFs can be quantified and the water can be assigned the so-called "formation potential," given a
specific dose of NaOCl and a specific reaction time. The formation potential of a source water also is
dictated by the amount and type of oxidizable organic matter (often measured as TOC or via UV 254 nm)
in the water. Many types of organic matter are present in natural waters and extensive efforts have been
made to identify specific moieties of organic carbon responsible for the formation of DBFs (Joll et al.,
2010; Quintana et al., 2010; Bond et al., 2009; Fang et al., 2009; Huang, 2009; Kristiana, 2009; Zhang,
2009; Marhaba, 2000; Oliver, 1980). No attempts were made to identify the types of organic matter for
this study. The formation potential also may be affected by the amount of reducing species present in the
water and, to a greater extent, the ammonia content of the water (Amy et al., 1984). The presence of
ammonia can significantly reduce the DBF formation and ammonia addition has even been suggested as a
mitigating action for the formation of DBFs (Bougeard et al., 2010).
Table 4-11 summarizes residual chlorine concentrations in the chlorinated AS water at 0, 12, 24, and 48
hr. The 0-hr measurements were performed approximately 10 to 20 min after 1.6, 2.6, and 4.8 mg/L of
chlorine (as C12) had been spiked into respective sample bottles. Thus, the initial chlorine demand of the
AS water, measured at 10 min, was 0.78 mg/L (as C12). The 1.6 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) spiked was
completely consumed in 48 hr. The 2.6 and 4.8 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) spiked were consumed to close
to 0.6 and 2.4 mg/L (as C12), respectively, in 48 hr.
45
-------
Table 4-11. Chlorine Demand Test Results (AS Water)
Reaction Time
(hr)
0
12
24
48
Chlorine Dosage (mg/L [as C12])
0
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
1.6
0.82
0.27 ± 0.00
0.13 ±0.01
0.05
2.6
1.80
1.14 ±0.02
0.83 ±0.06
0.60 ± 0.02
4.8
3.06
2.71 ±0.01
2.76 ±0.03
2.38 ±0.10
Tables 4-12 and 4-13 summarize concentrations of four THMs and five HAAs in the chlorinated AS
water. All TTHM and HAAS concentrations were well below the respective MCL of 60 and 80 ug/L,
with TTHM concentrations ranging from 14.9 to 36.8 ug/L and HAAS concentrations from 7.4 to 19.0
ug/L. These values are rather close to the results of non-compliance sampling conducted by Battelle at
AC (which ranged from 7.0 to 20.1 ug/L for TTHM and 4.1 to 19.4 ug/L for HAAS), but somewhat lower
than the results of compliance sampling conducted by the Head Start operator before system startup
(which ranged from 7.0 to 86.1 ug/L for TTHM and 6.3 to 42.0 ug/L for HAAS). Chloroform was the
most abundant THM in the chlorinated AS water while TCA and DCA were the most abundant HAAs.
Duplicate samples collected at 48 hr yielded consistent results for both THMs and HAAs with the percent
relative difference (PRD) ranging from 0.23 to 15%.
Figures 4-16 and 4-17 presents 3-D plots of TTHM and HAAS concentrations, respectively, at three
chlorine dosages over four reaction times. Figure 4-18 presents concentrations of chloroform, BDCM,
DBCM, and TTHM in the chlorinated AS water as a function of reaction time. Figure 4-19 presents
concentrations of DCA, TCA, and HAAS in the chlorinated AS water as a function of reaction time. In
general, concentrations of individual THMs/TTHM and individual HAAs/HAAS increase with chlorine
dosage and reaction time.
Table 4-12. THM Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water)
Chlorine
Dosage
(mg/L
[as C12])
1.6
2.6
4.8
Reaction
Time
(hr)
12
24
48
48 (Dup)
12
24
48
48 (Dup)
0
12
24
48
48 (Dup)
Compounds (^g/L)
Chloroform
10.7
13.9
14.0
14.5
15.2
18.8
22.2
22.1
0.5
15.3
17.8
27.5
25.7
BDCM
3.3
4.5
5.3
5.4
4.5
6.2
7.5
7.6
0.5
5.3
6.0
7.7
7.2
DBCM
1.0
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.2
1.8
1.9
2.0
0.5
1.3
1.6
1.7
1.9
Bromoform
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
TTHM
14.9
19.8
20.6
21.5
20.9
26.8
31.6
31.7
<2
21.9
25.4
36.8
34.8
BDCM = bromodichloromethane; DBCM = dibromochloromethane;
TTHM = total THMs
46
-------
Table 4-13. HAA Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water)
Chlorine
Dosage
(mg/L
[as C12])
1.6
2.6
4.8
Reaction
Time
(hr)
12
24
48
48 (Dup)
12
24
48
48 (Dup)
0
12
24
48
48 (Dup)
Compounds (jig/L)
DBA
<1
<1
1.1
1.1
<1
<1
1.0
1.0
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
DCA
3.3
4.0
4.4
4.4
3.7
5.3
5.4
6.3
<1
4.8
6.2
7.1
6.8
MBA
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
MCA
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
TCA
4.1
4.8
5.2
5.3
6.3
8.3
7.8
8.5
<1
8.6
11.3
11.9
11.0
HAAS
7.4
8.8
10.6
10.8
10.1
13.6
14.2
15.8
<5
13.4
17.5
19.0
17.8
DBA = dibromoacetic acid; DCA = dichloroacetic acid;
MBA = monobromoacetic acid; MCA = monochloroacetic acid;
TCA = trichloroacetic acid; HAA5 = sum of all five HAAs
Because the highest concentrations of TTHM and HAAS formed were 36.8 and 19.0 (ig/L, respectively,
the elevated DBF concentrations observed in the system effluent and kitchen sink must have been
contributed by factors other than TOC concentration, chlorine dosage, and chlorine reaction time.
Therefore, additional laboratory tests were conducted to recreate field conditions in the laboratory to
determine the cause of the elevated DBF concentrations observed.
Column Studies. A series of column studies was carried out in an attempt to simulate onsite conditions
under a controlled laboratory setting. The column studies were divided into three phases for Column A
and two phases for Columns B and C. Appendix C contains a complete set of analytical results.
Tables 4-14 and 4-15 summarize TTHM and HAAS results measured during each of the three column
studies.
Column A, packed with virgin ARM 200 media, received DI water spiked with 2.4 to 5.4 mg/L of
chlorine (as C12) during Phase I of the study (see Figure 4-20). After feeding the column with
approximately 2,000 BV of chlorinated DI water, pH values of the column effluent, after initial dips to as
low as 4.1, began to approach those of the feed at 7.5 (on average). After that time, total chlorine
residuals in the column effluent were still at levels below 1.6 mg/L (as C12), indicating chlorine demand
by the media. (Note that because ammonia had been removed by the softener prior to chlorination, total
chlorine residuals were at about the same levels as free chlorine residuals.) A sample was then collected
and analyzed for DBFs. The results showed only 1.7 and 5.8 (ig/L of TTHM and HAA5, respectively, in
the column effluent, indicating little or no DBF precursor associated with the media.
47
-------
THM-12h
THM-24 h
THM-48 h
Figure 4-16. TTHM Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water)
HAA-O h
HAA-12 h
Figure 4-17. HAAS Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water)
48
-------
THM Formation in 1.6 mg/L Chlorinated Water
12-hr 24-hr
Reaction Time, hr
THM Formation in 2.6 mg/L Chlorinated Water
12-hr 24-hr
Reaction Time, hr
THM Formation in 4.8 mg/L Chlorinated Water
12-hr 24-hr
Reaction Time, hr
Figure 4-18. THM Formation Potential Test Results in Chlorinated AS Water
49
-------
HAA Formation in 1.6 mg/L Chlorinated AS Water
12-hr 24-hr
Reaction Time, hr
HAA Formation in 2.6 mg/L Chlroinated AS Water
12-hr 24-hr
Reaction Time, hr
HAA Formation in 4.8 mg/L Chlorinated Water
12-hr 24-hr
Reaction Time, hr
Figure 4-19. Formation Potential Test Results of HAAs in Chlorinated AS Water
50
-------
Table 4-14. TTHM and HAAS Concentrations Measured During
Column A (Phases II and III) and Column C Studies
Date
08/28/09
09/10/09 (a)
09/25/09
10/09/09
10/23/09
11/06/09
11/13/09
11/20/09
12/4/09 (d)
01/15/10
Influent
TTHM
(HS/L)
NA
<2.0
25.4
34.5
29.9
35.1
30.0
40.8
39.6
33.4
HAAS
(Hg/L)
NA
1.9
13.1
9.3
9.8
10.3
10.0
12.2
12.4
17.3
Total/Free
Chlorine
(mg/L)
3.3/NA
4.1/0.8
3.3/3.7
4.4/3.8
4.0/3.5
4.2/4.0
4.2/4.4
4 .4/4.1
11.1/10.9
10.0/9.5
Effluent
Column A(b)
TTHM
(HS/L)
<2.0
<2.0
73.2
65.1
52.6
51.6
43.3
66.9
55.3
49.2
HAAS
(HS/L)
5.8
3.9
58.3
24.1
19.1
20.2
16.4
26.7
21.4
22.0
Column C(c)
TTHM
(Hg/L)
-
-
40.4
40.6
35.4
40.0
36.2
53.5
45.2
41.3
HAAS
(HS/L)
-
-
24.1
14.0
12.3
12.1
12.8
9.2
17.1
17.3
(a) Influent to column on September 10, 2009, contained ammonia, which reacted
with chlorine to form combined chlorine.
(b) Phase II of Column A began operation on August 28, 2009; influent to column
contained 4.0 mg/L of chlorine (as C12).
(c) Column C began operation on September 21, 2009.
(d) Phase III of Column A began operation on December 2, 2009; influent to
column contained 10 mg/L of chlorine (as C12).
NA = not available
Table 4-15. TTHM and HAAS Concentrations Measured
During Column B Studies
Date
09/25/09
10/09/09
10/23/09
11/06/09
11/13/09
11/20/09
12/4/09 (a)
01/15/10
Influent
TTHM
(Hg/L)
0.8
0.9
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.7
0.9
2.3
HAAS
(Hg/L)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total/Free
Chlorine
(mg/L)
4.7/4.6
4.3/4.1
4.0/3.8
4.4/4.2
3.5/3.9
5.4/5.3
10.4/10.3
9.9/8.5
Effluent
TTHM
(Hg/L)
2.2
3.9
0.0
5.2
2.3
3.3
3.6
2.3
HAAS
(Hg/L)
1.5
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
1.9
2.3
0.0
(a) Chlorine concentrations in feed increased to 10 mg/L (as C12).
51
-------
Column A ARM 200 Chlorine Demand and pH
10.0
1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 5.000
0.0
Reservoir Total Chlorine
Effluent Total Chlorine —*— Reservoir pH • Effluent pH
Figure 4-20. Column A ARM 200 Chlorine Demand and pH
During Phase II, the feed to Column A was switched from chlorinated DI water to chlorinated softened
water (softened water was taken at AS containing 1.3 to 2.1 mg/L of TOC), but maintained the target total
chlorine dose of 4.0 mg/L (as C12). From the formation potential study, it was determined that TOC
present in the influent acted as a DBF precursor. Observations made during onsite sampling indicated
that ARM 200 might be playing a role in increasing DBF concentrations following the adsorption vessels.
The hypothesis was that interaction of chlorine and TOC in the presence of ARM 200 media would
increase DBF concentrations above the levels indicated by the formation potential study. This indeed was
the case except for one instance on September 10, 2009, when the feed water contained combined
chlorine (see Table 4-14) due to the presence of NH3 in the feed water. The presence of combined
chlorine apparently inhibited the formation of TTHM and HAAS, resulting in only <2.0 and 3.9 (ig/L of
TTHM and HAAS, in the column effluent. Also of note is that the presence of NH3 in AS water was
caused by improper softener regeneration due to the system reconfiguration as described on page 45.
After switching the column influent to chlorinated AS water, some TOC was removed by ARM 200
media during the first 1,500 BV (i.e., from approximately 2,000 to 3,500 BV) but effluent TOC levels
reached influent levels throughout the remainder of the column test (Figure 4-21). Meanwhile, TTHM
and HAA5 concentrations increased to 73.2 and 58.3 (ig/L, respectively (Figure 4-22). The increase in
DBF concentration was offset by the increase in DBF formation in the feed itself, which ranged from 25.4
to 40.8 (ig/L for TTHM and from 9.3 to 17.3 (ig/L for HAA5 during the study. Therefore, net increases
in concentration ranged from 13.3to47.8 (ig/L for TTHM and from 6.1 to 14.6 (ig/L for HAA5.
Although ARM 200 did increase the DBF concentration as the feed passed through the column, the
increase was not of the same magnitude observed at the Head Start building.
52
-------
TOC vs. Throughput for Column A
-Influent to Column A
"Column A Effluent
Switched from Dl water
with 4 mg/L NaOCI (CL2) to
AS water on 08/28/09
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000
Bed Volumes
Figure 4-21. TOC Breakthrough from Column A
Column A with Virgin ARM 200 Media
Chlorine concentration feed
increased to 10 mg/L (as CI2) after
4.516BV
Feed switched from Dl
to AS water at 1
BV; chlorine levels
maintained at 4 mg/L
(as CI2)
2,300
3,300
3,800
4,300
-Effluent TTHM
Bed Volume
Figure 4-22. TTHM and HAAS Concentrations in Feed and Column A Effluent
53
-------
The literature has reported enhanced formation of DBFs in a chlorinated system of organic polymer and
clay (Lee et al., 1998). The enhanced formation was thought to be caused by the presence of metal
cations on the clay surface. In follow-up work (Lee et al., 2004), DBF formation in the presence of
metal-doped montmorillonite was enhanced five times during a 2-hr reaction time and four to 10 times
during a 24-hr reaction time. It was hypothesized that the acidic cation-exchanged montmorillonite
served as an effective catalyst for the electrophilic organic substitution reaction, which ultimately led to
the formation of DBFs. It is not clear if any metal cations on ARM 200 media played a role in increased
production of TTHM and HAAS.
During Phase III of the study, chlorine dosages were increased to between 10.0 and 10.3 mg/L (as C12)
(see Figure 4-20). Net increases in DBF formation after the switch to 10.0 mg/L (as C12) ranged from
15.7 to 15.8 (ig/L for TTHM and from 4.6 to 9.0 (ig/L for HAA5, which were less than expected.
Column B was packed with the media taken from the top of Vessel A at the Head Start building and was
fed with DI water spiked with an average of 4.1 (Phase I) or 10.4 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) (Phase II)
throughout the study. As shown in Table 4-15, concentrations in the column effluent were measured from
-------
Table 4-16. Backwash Water Analytical Results
Analytes
pH
TDS
TSS
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Unit
S.U.
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Vessel A
7.8
482
125
8.2
4.6
3.7
54,469
721
317
30.0
Vessel B
7.5
482
74
1.7
0.8
0.9
28,036
35.0
43.0
0.4
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. Table 4-17 presents the results of the distribution
system water sampling. As expected, prior to system startup, arsenic concentrations in the distribution
system were similar to those measured in raw water, ranging from 12.8 to 18.3 ug/L and averaging 15.2
ug/L. After system startup, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were reduced significantly to
<0.1 to 5.0 ug/L and averaged 1.3 ug/L.
During the first 13 months of system operation when distribution system water samples were collected,
arsenic concentrations in the distribution system water were somewhat higher than those measured in
treatment system effluent (see Figure 4-23). Some dissolution and/or resuspension of arsenic might have
occurred in the distribution system.
Lead levels ranged from <0.1 to 0.6 ug/L and averaged 0.3 ug/L in the baseline samples and ranged from
<0.1 to 3.4 ug/L and averaged 0.8 ug/L in the samples collected after system startup (excluding the
September 13, 2006, sample when the lead level spiked to 8.5 ug/L at the DS3 sampling location). All
lead measurements were below the lead action level of 15 ug/L. Copper concentrations ranged from 104
to 796 ug/L and averaged 356 ug/L in the baseline samples and ranged from 11 to 299 ug/L and averaged
90 ug/L in the samples taken after system startup. All copper concentrations measured were below the
copper action level of 1,300 ug/L. Lead concentrations in the distribution system water were generally
slightly higher than before system startup. Copper concentrations in the distribution system water were
significantly lower than those before system startup.
Similar to those in softened water, iron concentrations were below the MDL in the distribution system
water samples. Manganese concentrations also were low, averaging 0.5 and 0.8 ug/L before and after
system startup. pH values ranged from 7.4 to 8.2, which were similar to the pH values measured after
Vessels A and B. Alkalinity values remained rather constant throughout the distribution system.
4.6
System Cost
The cost of the treatment system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design
capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking capital cost for the
equipment, site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal,
replacement parts, chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor. The cost associated with
improvements to the building and any other infrastructure was not included in the capital cost. These
activities were funded separately by the facility.
55
-------
Table 4-17. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Address
Sample Type
Flushed /1st Draw
Analytes
Date
01/07/05
01/28/05
02/25/05
03/21/05
08/23/06
09/13/06
10/19/06
11/09/06
12/19/06
01/25/07
02/15/07
03/14/07
04/11/07
05/08/07
06/06/07
09/12/07
DS2
Kitchen Sink
LCR
1st Draw
§> <£
SI
hr
NS
13
15.3
72.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
X
Q_
S.U.
NS
7.8
7.8
7.5
8.1
8.2
7.4
7.6
7.9
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.9
>,
±£
c
"ra
<
mg/L
NS
334
351
326
312
358
360
361
409
324
356
389
360
369
316
341
c/>
M9'L
NS
12.8
14.3
18.3
1.2
5.0
1.0
2.6
0.5
1.5
3.6
1.4
<0.1
2.1
1.2
1.3
o>
M9'L
NS
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
•i
M9'L
NS
0.5
0.4
<0.1
0.2
4.5
0.4
1.4
0.5
1.0
1.4
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.7
4.4
«
SI
hr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
X
S.U.
7.9
7.9
7.6
7.6
8.1
8.2
7.6
7.7
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
>,
±£
c
"ra
mg/L
343
326
320
343
314
360
374
355
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
c/>
M9'L
13.9
13.7
14.9
17.3
1.0
0.4
2.0
1.2
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
o>
M9'L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
•i
M9'L
5.0
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
2.5
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
M9'L
<10
<10
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
ff
M9'L
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.1
3.4
0.8
2.9
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
3
M9'L
219
645
551
400
37.1
10.7
251
43.6
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DS3
Men's Sink
LCR
1st Draw
L
SI
hr
NA
13.17
15.30
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
X
S.U.
7.8
8.0
7.6
7.5
8.1
8.2
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.9
>,
±£
c
"ra
mg/L
318
334
338
334
318
358
376
365
393
314
359
369
353
345
313
346
c/>
M9'L
13.1
16.2
14.5
15.7
1.4
0.9
0.8
0.6
2.4
1.0
2.9
1.1
<0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
o>
M9'L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
27.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
•i
M9'L
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.6
<0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
<0.1
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.5
M9'L
15.2
<10
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ff
M9'L
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.9
8.5
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.7
3
o
M9'L
796
199
261
237
28.6
27.3
62.2
51.0
79.2
49.3
96.8
101
52.9
20.8
51.1
161
Flushed
L
SI
hr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
X
S.U.
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.6
8.1
8.2
7.6
7.7
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
;>,
±£
c
"ra
mg/L
322
334
338
334
314
365
370
357
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
c/>
M9'L
14.4
17.3
15.4
16.2
0.9
1.2
0.5
0.9
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
o>
M9'L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
•i
M9'L
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
1.4
0.2
0.1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
M9'L
12.6
<10
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
ff
M9'L
0.3
0.1
<0.1
0.1
1.9
2.1
0.9
0.4
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
3
M9'L
184
121
111
104
26.3
29.5
60.0
78.6
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
BL = Baseline Sampling;
Lead action level = 15 n
NS = not sampled
/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L
-------
S 4
500
-±: ii o
1,000 1,500 2,000
Bed Volumes of Treated Water
TP:
"-"*—-— I D
0 DS2
a DS3
2,500
3,000
Figure 4-23. Comparison of Arsenic Concentrations in System Effluent and Distribution System
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation was
$27,255 (see Table 4-18). The equipment cost was $10,435 (or 38% of the total capital investment),
which included $4,435 for the treatment system mechanical hardware, $4,000 for 9 ft3 of ARM 200 media
(i.e., $445/ft3 or $8.89/lb), and $2,000 for the vendor's labor and shipping cost.
The engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of the system layout and footprint, design of the
piping connections to the entry and distribution tie-in points, and assembly and submission of the
engineering plans for the permit application (Section 4.3). The engineering cost was $11,000, or 40% of
the total capital investment.
The installation cost included the cost of labor and materials to unload and install the treatment system,
complete the piping installation and tie-ins, and perform the system startup and shakedown (Section 4.3).
The installation was performed by Kinetico. The installation cost was $5,820, or 22% of the total capital
investment.
The total capital cost of $27,255 was normalized to $2,725/gpm ($1.89/gpd) of design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 10 gpm (or 14,400 gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an annualized
cost of $2,572/yr using a capital recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a 20-year
return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/week at the design flowrate of 10 gpm
to produce 5,256,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.49/1,000 gal. However, the
system processed 303,200 gal of water in 44 months or approximately 82,500 gal/yr. At this reduced rate
of operation, the unit capital cost increased to $31.36/1,000 gal of water treated.
57
-------
Table 4-18. Summary of Capital Investment Cost
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Cost
Adsorption Vessels
ARM 200 Adsorptive Media (ft3)
Piping and Valves
Flow Totalizers/Meters
Procurement, Assembly, Labor
Equipment Total
2
9
1
2
1
-
$1,450
$4,000
$2,105
$880
$2,000
$10,435
-
-
-
-
-
38%
Engineering Cost
Design/Scope of System (hr)
Engineering Total
88
-
$11,000
$11,000
-
40%
Installation Cost
Mechanical Materials
Vendor Installation Labor
Mechanical Subcontractor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
1
-
-
-
-
-
$400
$1,000
$4,000
$420
$5,820
$27,255
-
-
22%
100%
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost for the Kinetico arsenic removal system
included only the incremental cost associated with the treatment system, such as media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor, as presented in Table 4-19.
In general, for a two-vessel system operating in series, the media in the lead vessel is replaced when the
effluent arsenic concentration following the lag vessel reaches the 10-(ig/L MCL. Once the lead vessel is
rebedded, it is valved into the lag position and the lag vessel becomes the lead vessel. This method
allows the media's capacity to be fully utilized before its replacement.
Table 4-19. Summary of O&M Cost
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Media Re
Unit Media Cost ($/ft3)
Subtotal ($)
Media Replacement Cost ($71,000 gal)
Media Run
303,200
Remarks
To end of evaluation period in 44
months
placement and Disposal
$300
$4,049
See Figure 4-24
4.5 ft3 of E33 in lead vessel
Including media, underbedding,
freight, labor, travel, and spent
media analysis and disposal
Chemical Usage
Chemical ($)
$0.0
No additional chemical required
Electricity
Electricity ($71,000 gal)
$0.0
No additional electricity required
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Labor Cost ($/yr)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M cost ($71,000 gal)
0.25
$260
$3.17
See Figure 4-24
15 min/day, 1 day/week
$20/hr
82,000 gal/yr of water treated
58
-------
Because the media was not replaced at the Head Start building during the performance evaluation study
and because ARM 200 media was no longer available, it was assumed that it would cost $4,049 to change
out and dispose of 4.5 ft3 of media in the lead vessel. This media change-out cost was derived from the
cost for rebedding 5 ft3 of E33 media in the lead vessel at Goffstown, NH, where a similar lead/lag
adsorptive media system was evaluated under this demonstration program (McCall, et al., 2009). The
$4,049 included the cost for 4.5 ft3 of E33 media, freight, labor, travel, spent media analysis, and media
disposal fee. By averaging the media replacement cost of $4,049 over the media life, the unit cost per
1,000 gal of water treated is plotted as a function of the media life, as shown in Figure 4-24.
There were no additional electricity requirements associated with the treatment system. The well pump
and chlorine injection pump were pre-existing and the only equipment present that required electricity.
Routine, non-demonstration-related labor activities consumed about 15 min/week as noted in
Section 4.4.4. Depending on how the system performs and if any additional troubleshooting is required,
the labor incurred will vary. The estimated labor cost for operating and maintaining the arsenic removal
system was $3.17/1,000 gal of water treated.
$50
$40
O
O
O
g $20
O
$10
$0
Spent Media Replacement and Disposal
O&M (including Spent Media Replacement
and Disposal)
10,000
20,000 30,000 40,000
Media Working Capacity (BV)
50,000
Figure 4-24. Total O&M and Media Replacement Cost Curves
59
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Amy, G.L., P.A. Chadik, and P.H. King. 1984. "Chlorine Utilization During Trihalomethane Formation
in the Presence of Ammonia and Bromide." Environ. Sci. Technol, 18:781-786.
Battelle. 2004. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Battelle. 2005. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at the LEADS Head Start Site in Buckeye Lake, OH. Prepared under
Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Bond, T., O. Henriet, E.H. Goslan, S.A. Parsons, and B. Jefferson. 2009. "Disinfection Byproduct
Formation and Fractionation Behavior of Natural Organic Matter Surrogates." Environ. Sci.
Technol. 43: 5982-5989.
Bougeard, C.M.M., E.H. Goslan, B. Jefferson, and S.A. Parsons. 2010. "Comparison of the Disinfection
By-product Formation Potential of Treated Waters Exposed to Chlorine and Monochloramine,"
Water Research, 44:729-740.
Chen, A.S.C. V. Lai, R.J. Stowe, and B.J. Yates. 2009b. Test Plan: Disinfection Byproducts Column
Studies. U. S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration - Round 2a at Head Start
Program Building in Buckeye Lake, OH. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order
No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., J.P. Lipps, S.E. McCall, and L. Wang. 2009a. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in
Susanville, CA. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-09/067. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C. and B.J. Yates. 2009. Letter Report: Disinfection Byproducts Formation Potential of
Softened Inlet Water at Buckeye Lake Head Start Program Building. Prepared under Contract
No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., W.E. Condit, L. Wang, and A.Wang. 2008. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI. Final Performance
Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-08/142. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L.Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Cumming, L.J., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2009. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at South Truckee Meadows General Improvement
60
-------
District (STMGID), NV. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-09/016. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, RC. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Fang, J., J. Ma, X. Yang, and C. Shang, C. 2009. "Formation of Carbonaceous and Nitrogenous
Disinfection Byproducts from the Chlorination ofMicrocyistis aeruginosa." Water Research,
44(6): 1934-1940.
Huang, J., N. Graham, M.R. Templeton, Y. Zhang, C. Collins, and M. Nieuwenhuijsen. 2009. "A
Comparison of the Role of Two Blue-Green Algae in THM and HAA Formation." Water
Research, 43:3009-3018.
Joll, C.A., M.J. Alessandrino, and A. Heitz. 2010. "Disinfection Byproducts Formation from
Halogeation of Aqueous Solutions of Terpenoids." Water Research, 44: 232-242.
Kristiana, I., H. Gallard, C. Joll, and J.-P. Croue. 2009. "The Formation of Halogen-specific TOX from
Chlorination and Chloramination of Natural Organic Matter Isolates." Water Research, 43:4177-
4186.
Lee, J.F., P.M. Liao, C.K. Lee, H.P. Chao, C.L. Peng, and C.T. Chiu. 2004. "Clay-catalyzed Reactions
of Coagulant Polymers During Water Chlorination." J. Coll. Int. Sci. 270: 381-387.
Lee, J.F., P.M. Liao, D.H. Tseng, and P.T. Wen. 1998. "Behavior of Organic Polymers in Drinking
Water Purification." Chemosphere. 37: 1045-1061
Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, A. Wang, and S.E. McCall. 2010. Arsenic Removal from Drinking
Water by Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Spring Brook Mobile Home
Park in Wales, ME. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-10/012. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, S.E. McCall, and L.Wang. 2008. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Dummerston, VT. Final Performance
Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-08/081. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Marhaba, T.F. and V. Doanh. 2000. "The Variation of Mass and Disinfection By-product Formation
Potential of Dissolved Organic Matter Fractions Along a Conventional Surface Water Treatment
Plant," J. Haz. Mat., 74: 133-147.
61
-------
McCall, S.E., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2009. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH. Final Performance Evaluation
Report. EPA/600/R-09/015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Ohio EPA. 2006. Chapter 3745-7: Operator Certification for Public Water Systems and Wastewater
Treatment Works. Ohio Revised Code. December 21.
Oliver, E.G. and D.B. Shindler. 1980. "Trihalomethane from the Chlorination of Aquatic Algae."
Environ. Sci. Technol, 14:1502-1505.
Quintana, J.B., R. Rodil, P. Lopez-Mahia, S. Muniategui-Lorenzo, and D. Prada-Rodreguez. 2010.
"Investigating the Chlorination of Acidic Pharmaceuticals and By-product Formation Aided by
an Experimental Design Methodology." Water Research. 44:243-255.
Rook, J.J. 1974. "Formation of Haloforms During Chlorination of Natural Waters." Water Treat Exam,
23: 234-243.
Rathbun, R.E. 1997. "Effect of Reaction Time on the Formation of Disinfection Byproducts."
Chemosphere. 34(12): 2699-2713.
Summers, R.S., S.M. Hooper, H.M. Shukairy, G. Solarik, and D. Owen. 1996. "Assessing DBP Yield:
Uniform Formation Conditions," J. AWWA. 88: 80-93.
Valigore, J.M., A.S.C. Chen, and L.Wang. 2007. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Valley Vista, AZ. Final Performance Evaluation
Report. EPA/600/R-07/133. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
Williams, S., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2010. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Webb Consolidated Independent School District in
Bruni, TX. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-10/040. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Williams, S., A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, and A.M. Paolucci. 2009. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX. Final Performance
Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-09/145. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Zhang, Q., W.-F. Kuang, L.-Y. Liu, K. Li, K.-H. Wong, A.T. Chow, and P.-K. Wong. 2009.
"Trihalomethane, Haloacetonitrile and Chloral Hydrate Formation Potentials of Organic Carbon
Fractions from Sub-tropical Forest Soils." J. Haz. Mat., 172: 880-887.
62
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start in Buckeye Lake, OH - Daily System Operational Data
Week
No.
0
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
26
27
28
Day
of
Week
Sat
Mon
Wed
Wed
Sun
Wed
Sun
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Thur
Wed
Thur
Thur
Wed
Tues
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Date
06/24/06
06/26/06
06/28/06
07/05/06
07/16/06
07/26/06
07/30/06
08/02/06
08/09/06
08/16/06
08/23/06
09/06/06
09/14/06
09/20/06
09/28/06
10/05/06
10/18/06
10/24/06
11/01/06
11/08/06
11/15/06
11/29/06
12/06/06
12/19/06
12/27/06
01/03/07
Time
10:00
9:30
11:45
14:30
9:30
9:47
12:00
17:00
18:15
17:00
10:00
20:00
15:15
20:00
6:00
5:15
17:00
22:00
16:45
18:00
13:00
20:00
17:30
10:00
11:30
20:30
ARM 200 System
Flow rate
gpm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totalizer
gal
400
400
599
700
1,200
1,400
1,700
1,900
2,100
2,300
3,100
4,300
5,900
26,400
27,900
29,400
31,900
32,900
35,200
36,700
40,000
42,300
43,600
46,000
46,100
46,800
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BVs
12
12
18
21
36
42
51
56
62
68
92
128
175
784
829
873
948
977
1,046
1,090
1,188
1,257
1,295
1,367
1,370
1,390
Usage
gal
400
0
199
101
500
200
300
200
200
200
800
1,200
1,600
20,500
1,500
1,500
2,500
1,000
2,300
1,500
3,300
2,300
1,300
2,400
100
700
Pressure
Inlet
psig
43
45
47
48
40
44
37
36
31
33
44
23
61
50
49
46
42
55
50
40
50
50
45
54
61
46
After
Vessel
A
psig
38
41
42
43
36
42
38
37
33
36
47
34
62
52
51
48
43
60
52
42
49
51
47
56
62
47
After
Vessel
B
psig
42
45
47
49
41
47
43
43
41
43
54
41
62
52
50
47
42
61
50
42
48
51
46
55
62
45
AP
Across
Vessel A
psi
5
4
5
5
4
2
-1
-1
-2
-3
-3
-11
-1
-2
-2
-2
-1
-5
-2
-2
1
-1
-2
-2
-1
-1
Across
Vessel B
psi
-4
-4
-5
-6
-5
-5
-5
-6
-8
-7
-7
-7
0
0
1
1
1
-1
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
AP
Across
System
psi
1
0
0
-1
-1
-3
-6
-7
-10
-10
-10
-18
-1
-2
-1
-1
0
-6
0
-2
2
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
Chlorine
Chlorine
Tank
Level
gal
8
7.5
7
7
12
12
11.5
11
10
9
8
14
11
3
0
13
8
7
2
15
8
6
14
7
7
15
Chlorine
Solution
Feed
Rate
L/min
35
35
31
35
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
50
50
48
40
40
40
40
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start in Buckeye Lake, OH - Daily System Operational Data
(Continued)
Week
No.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Day
of
Week
Wed
Thur
Mon
Thur
Mon
Wed
Wed
Thur
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Tues
Wed
Tues
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Date
01/17/07
01/18/07
01/22/07
01/25/07
01/29/07
01/31/07
02/07/07
02/15/07
02/21/07
02/28/07
03/07/07
03/14/07
03/21/07
03/28/07
04/04/07
04/11/07
04/18/07
04/25/07
05/01/07
05/02/07
05/08/07
05/16/07
05/23/07
05/30/07
06/06/07
06/13/07
Time
21:00
13:00
12:00
6:00
8:00
11:00
17:00
18:00
20:30
19:30
15:00
21:00
19:30
20:00
19:00
19:30
10:00
20:30
14:15
20:30
9:30
10:30
18:30
20:45
13:00
9:00
ARM 200 System
Flow rate
gpm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totalizer
gal
49,200
49,400
49,800
50,700
51,400
51,700
52,800
54,100
54,800
57,000
58,500
61,100
63,100
63,700
64,700
66,100
67,400
69,700
70,900
71,300
72,400
74,400
76,200
76,400
76,500
77,200
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BVs
1,462
1,468
1,480
1,506
1,527
1,536
1,569
1,607
1,628
1,693
1,738
1,815
1,875
1,892
1,922
1,964
2,002
2,071
2,106
2,118
2,151
2,210
2,264
2,270
2,273
2,294
Usage
gal
2,400
200
400
900
700
300
1,100
1,300
700
2,200
1,500
2,600
2,000
600
1,000
1,400
1,300
2,300
1,200
400
1,100
2,000
1,800
200
100
700
Pressure
Inlet
psig
46
35
42
56
40
64
41
44
46
56
51
36
44
51
60
48
51
49
45
47
59
48
41
56
46
42
After
Vessel
A
psig
48
35
35
58
40
65
42
46
47
58
52
35
46
52
62
49
53
51
46
48
61
49
43
57
48
44
After
Vessel
B
psig
47
35
35
57
40
65
42
45
46
58
52
35
45
52
62
48
52
50
46
47
61
49
43
57
47
43
AP
Across
Vessel A
psi
-2
0
7
-2
0
-1
-1
-2
-1
-2
-1
1
-2
-1
-2
-1
-2
-2
-1
-1
-2
-1
-2
-1
-2
-2
Across
Vessel B
psi
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
AP
Across
System
psi
-1
0
7
-1
0
-1
-1
-1
0
-2
-1
1
-1
-1
-2
0
-1
-1
-1
0
-2
-1
-2
-1
-1
-1
Chlorine
Chlorine
Tank
Level
gal
13
12
11.5
11.25
10.5
10.25
15
14
13
12
15
13
37
35
14
13
10
7
6
5
15
12
10
9
15
14
Chlorine
Solution
Feed
Rate
L/min
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
>
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start in Buckeye Lake, OH - Daily System Operational Data
(Continued)
Week
No.
52
53
54
55
56
57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Day
of
Week
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Thur
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Tues
Wed
Wed
Tues
Tues
Wed
Date
06/20/07
07/04/07
07/11/07
07/18/07
07/25/07
08/01/07
08/15/07
08/23/07
08/29/07
09/05/07
09/12/07
09/19/07
09/26/07
10/03/07
10/10/07
10/17/07
10/24/07
10/31/07
11/07/07
11/14/07
11/20/07
11/28/07
12/05/07
12/11/07
12/18/07
12/19/07
Time
20:00
9:45
5:30
5:30
19:15
13:15
7:30
8:15
19:15
19:30
20:15
15:00
9:00
22:00
7:30
12:30
20:15
21:00
20:00
20:30
20:00
19:45
21:00
14:00
9:30
19:30
ARM 200 System
Flow rate
gpm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totalizer
gal
77,200
77,200
77,200
77,200
77,300
77,500
78,100
78,700
79,000
80,300
83,300
85,200
86,500
88,600
89,900
91,200
93,200
95,000
96,600
97,800
99,100
100,500
101,700
102,800
104,100
105,200
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BVs
2,294
2,294
2,294
2,294
2,296
2,302
2,320
2,338
2,347
2,386
2,475
2,531
2,570
2,632
2,671
2,709
2,769
2,822
2,870
2,906
2,944
2,986
3,021
3,054
3,093
3,125
Usage
gal
0
0
0
0
100
200
600
600
300
1,300
3,000
1,900
1,300
2,100
1,300
1,300
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,200
1,100
1,300
1,100
Pressure
Inlet
psig
58
49
47
47
59
51
55
45
53
50
41
57
57
42
45
51
42
53
55
46
48
61
51
43
54
47
After
Vessel
A
psig
59
50
48
48
61
52
54
48
54
52
42
58
58
44
47
53
43
54
56
48
50
63
53
44
55
48
After
Vessel
B
psig
59
50
48
48
61
52
55
46
54
52
42
58
58
43
46
52
44
54
57
47
49
63
52
43
55
48
AP
Across
Vessel A
psi
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-1
1
-3
-1
-2
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
Across
Vessel B
psi
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
-1
0
-1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
AP
Across
System
psi
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-1
0
-1
-1
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-1
-2
-1
-1
-2
-1
0
-1
-1
Chlorine
Chlorine
Tank
Level
gal
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
12
11
13
28
18
5
14
13
12
8
5
14
12
10
8
15
13
12
10
Chlorine
Solution
Feed
Rate
L/min
30
30
30
30
30
30
35
35
35
35
35
35
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
35
35
35
35
35
35
>
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start in Buckeye Lake, OH - Daily System Operational Data
(Continued)
Week
No.
79
80
81
82
83
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Day
of
Week
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Thur
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Date
12/26/07
01/02/08
01/09/08
01/16/08
01/23/08
02/06/08
02/13/08
02/20/08
02/27/08
03/05/08
03/12/08
03/19/08
03/26/08
04/02/06
04/09/08
04/16/08
04/23/08
05/01/08
05/07/08
05/14/08
05/21/08
06/04/08
06/11/08
06/18/08
06/25/08
07/02/08
Time
9:15
21:00
18:30
19:00
22:00
19:00
18:30
19:30
18:30
19:45
19:30
10:00
20:00
20:30
20:30
20:30
20:00
19:00
20:30
20:15
22:45
20:30
18:30
21:10
20:00
18:00
ARM 200 System
Flow rate
gpm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totalizer
gal
105,900
106,300
107,500
109,100
110,100
113,700
114,600
115,700
117,000
118,600
120,200
121,513
122,000
123,200
124,700
126,100
127,700
129,200
131,100
132,800
134,400
136,600
137,800
138,900
139,800
140,700
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BVs
3,146
3,158
3,194
3,241
3,271
3,378
3,405
3,437
3,476
3,523
3,571
3,610
3,624
3,660
3,705
3,746
3,794
3,838
3,895
3,945
3,993
4,058
4,094
4,127
4,153
4,180
Usage
gal
700
400
1,200
1,600
1,000
3,600
900
1,100
1,300
1,600
1,600
1,313
487
1,200
1,500
1,400
1,600
1,500
1,900
1,700
1,600
2,200
1,200
1,100
900
900
Pressure
Inlet
psig
51
44
53
57
62
44
46
58
44
48
44
58
44
57
62
45
47
47
51
50
52
58
59
49
57
44
After
Vessel
A
psig
53
46
54
58
64
46
48
60
45
50
46
58
46
58
64
46
49
49
52
52
54
60
62
51
58
45
After
Vessel
B
psig
53
45
54
59
64
45
47
60
45
49
46
58
45
58
64
46
48
48
52
52
54
60
62
50
59
45
AP
Across
Vessel A
psi
-2
-2
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-2
-2
0
-2
-1
-2
-1
-2
-2
-1
-2
-2
-2
-3
-2
-1
-1
Across
Vessel B
psi
0
1
0
-1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
-1
0
AP
Across
System
psi
-2
-1
-1
-2
-2
-1
-1
-2
-1
-1
-2
0
-1
-1
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-3
-1
-2
-1
Chlorine
Chlorine
Tank
Level
gal
9
8
12
11
10
7
13
12
10
15
13
11.5
10
8
13
11
8
5
3
14
12
15
13
11
9
8
Chlorine
Solution
Feed
Rate
L/min
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
>
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start in Buckeye Lake, OH - Daily System Operational Data
(Continued)
Week
No.
106
107
108
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
Day
of
Week
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Tues
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Date
07/09/08
07/16/08
07/23/08
08/06/08
08/13/06
08/20/08
08/27/08
09/03/08
09/10/08
09/17/08
09/24/08
10/01/08
10/08/08
10/15/08
10/22/08
11/05/08
11/12/08
11/19/08
11/25/08
12/03/08
12/10/08
12/17/08
12/23/08
01/07/09
01/14/09
01/21/09
Time
10:00
20:30
18:00
19:30
21:30
19:45
20:00
19:30
19:15
20:30
20:45
10:15
20:00
20:30
20:20
19:30
20:00
20:15
20:15
19:15
19:00
19:00
19:45
19:15
15:00
21:15
ARM 200 System
Flow rate
gpm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totalizer
gal
141,270
142,400
143,800
145,700
146,500
146,900
148,200
149,000
150,900
152,400
154,800
156,468
159,100
160,500
162,100
165,800
167,700
169,400
170,800
172,400
174,600
195,400
196,700
198,500
200,200
201,700
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BVs
4,197
4,231
4,272
4,329
4,352
4,364
4,403
4,427
4,483
4,528
4,599
4,648
4,727
4,768
4,816
4,926
4,982
5,033
5,074
5,122
5,187
5,805
5,844
5,897
5,948
5,992
Usage
gal
570
1,130
1,400
1,900
800
400
1,300
800
1,900
1,500
2,400
1,668
2,632
1,400
1,600
3,700
1,900
1,700
1,400
1,600
2,200
20,800
1,300
1,800
1,700
1,500
Pressure
Inlet
psig
43
45
61
42
49
55
48
48
43
52
60
45
63
62
47
59
49
44
60
51
53
53
46
52
50
64
After
Vessel
A
psig
44
46
62
43
50
56
50
51
45
54
62
42
64
64
48
62
50
46
62
53
55
55
48
54
52
66
After
Vessel
B
psig
45
45
63
42
50
57
49
49
44
54
62
40
65
64
48
62
50
45
62
52
55
55
48
53
52
66
AP
Across
Vessel A
psi
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-3
-2
-2
-2
3
-1
-2
-1
-3
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
Across
Vessel B
psi
-1
1
-1
1
0
-1
1
2
1
0
0
2
-1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
AP
Across
System
psi
-2
0
-2
0
-1
-2
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
5
-2
-2
-1
-3
-1
-1
-2
-1
-2
-2
-2
-1
-2
-2
Chlorine
Chlorine
Tank
Level
gal
15
12.5
10
7
14
13
12
15
11
8
5
2
0
12
8
0
15
10
7
5
12
5
2
0
13
10
Chlorine
Solution
Feed
Rate
L/min
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
>
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start in Buckeye Lake, OH - Daily System Operational Data
(Continued)
Week
No.
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
Day
of
Week
Fri
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Thur
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Date
01/23/09
01/28/09
02/04/09
02/11/09
02/18/09
02/25/09
03/04/09
03/11/09
03/18/09
03/25/09
04/01/09
04/08/09
04/15/09
04/22/09
04/30/09
05/06/09
05/13/09
05/20/09
05/27/09
06/03/09
06/10/09
06/17/09
06/24/09
07/01/09
07/08/09
07/15/09
Time
9:30
7:00
20:15
19:30
19:00
18:30
19:00
19:30
20:30
20:18
21:30
20:30
19:30
20:00
9:30
19:00
19:30
20:00
21:00
20:30
20:00
19:30
20:00
21:00
20:30
21:30
ARM 200 System
Flow rate
gpm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totalizer
gal
202,152
202,900
204,500
206,900
207,700
208,700
210,700
212,400
214,400
216,400
216,900
218,200
221,700
223,200
224,890
226,500
228,400
230,000
230,800
231,100
231,500
232,000
232,600
233,100
233,400
234,100
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BVs
6,006
6,028
6,075
6,147
6,171
6,200
6,260
6,310
6,370
6,429
6,444
6,482
6,586
6,631
6,681
6,729
6,786
6,833
6,857
6,866
6,878
6,892
6,910
6,925
6,934
6,955
Usage
gal
452
748
1,600
2,400
800
1,000
2,000
1,700
2,000
2,000
500
1,300
3,500
1,500
1,690
1,610
1,900
1,600
800
300
400
500
600
500
300
700
Pressure
Inlet
psig
45
52
61
51
39
43
47
50
54
51
53
51
62
43
42
47
47
47
58
63
57
47
50
46
42
61
After
Vessel
A
psig
44
54
62
53
38
45
49
52
56
52
56
53
64
45
44
48
49
49
60
65
59
49
51
48
44
63
After
Vessel
B
psig
44
54
63
52
37
45
49
51
56
52
56
52
65
44
44
48
48
49
60
65
59
49
51
47
43
63
AP
Across
Vessel A
psi
1
-2
-1
-2
1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-3
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-2
-2
-2
Across
Vessel B
psi
0
0
-1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
-1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
AP
Across
System
psi
1
-2
-2
-1
2
-2
-2
-1
-2
-1
-3
-1
-3
-1
-2
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-2
Chlorine
Chlorine
Tank
Level
gal
10
8
15
12
11
9
6
15
12
11
11
13
25
15
0
15
12
12
8
8
10
13
14
13
13
12
Chlorine
Solution
Feed
Rate
L/min
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
30
30
30
30
30
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
-
>
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start in Buckeye Lake, OH - Daily System Operational Data
(Continued)
Week
No.
159
161
162
164
165
166
167
168
169
Day
of
Week
Wed
Wed
Tues
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Wed
Tues
Date
07/22/09
08/05/09
08/11/09
08/12/09
08/26/09
09/02/09
09/09/09
09/16/09
09/23/09
10/01/09
Time
20:30
21:30
21:30
20:30
20:00
20:30
20:30
20:00
13:30
7:15
ARM 200 System
Flow rate
gpm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totalizer
gal
235,100
236,400
241,400
242,200
243,300
244,200
245,500
249,200
253,000
255,600
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BVs
6,985
7,023
7,172
7,195
7,228
7,255
7,294
7,403
7,516
7,594
Usage
gal
1,000
1,300
5,000
800
1,100
900
1,300
3,700
3,800
2,600
Pressure
Inlet
psig
44
54
0
43
49
60
49
52
44
44
After
Vessel
A
psig
45
56
0
45
51
62
51
54
50
46
After
Vessel
B
psig
44
56
0
44
50
62
50
54
49
46
AP
Across
Vessel A
psi
-1
-2
0
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-6
-2
Across
Vessel B
psi
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
AP
Across
System
psi
0
-2
0
-1
-1
-2
-1
-2
-5
-2
Chlorine
Chlorine
Tank
Level
gal
12
10
5
4
3
10
8
3
10
10
Chlorine
Solution
Feed
Rate
L/min
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>
NOTE: B V calculation assumes 4.5 ft3 of media per vessel.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Buckeye Lake, OH
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volumes
Alkalinity
(as CaCOs)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10"3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
•c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
06/28/06
IN
-
318
0.9
34
<0.05
<10
15.1
39.0
7.4
19.8
2.4
-54
-
289
189
99.7
9.7
8.4
1.3
7.0
1.4
3,974
3,161
112
114
AC
-
335
0.9
35
<0.05
187
15.2
1.3
7.5
21.4
1.3
546
-
0.9
0.8
0.1
16.4
15.3
1.1
0.2
15.1
142
47
1.3
0.4
TT
0.0
19
0.9
131
<0.05
<10
<0.2
1.0
7.0
25.0
1.4
375
-
1.0
0.9
0.1
0.4
4.1
<0.1
0.2
3.9
<25
<25
2.1
1.6
07/12/06
IN
-
322
1.8
37
0.4
<10
14.4
41.0
7.6
20.0
2.6
-36
-
268
178
90.2
9.3
-
-
5,365
-
114
AC
-
331
0.9
32
<0.05
36.8
13.5
0.9
7.9
20.3
2.0
-50
-
0.3
0.3
0.1
9.2
-
-
40
-
0.9
TA
-
314
1.3
35
<0.05
<10
<0.2
0.4
-
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
TB
0.0
134
2.4
160
<0.05
<10
<0.2
0.4
7.9
20.0
1.5
-54
0.1
0.5
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
07/25/06
IN
-
-
-
7.5
17.8
3.6
-47
-
-
12.4
8.7
3.7
6.0
2.7
2,495
875
93.9
92.9
AC
-
-
-
8.0
19.9
4.5
667
-
-
13.5
11.4
2.0
0.6
10.9
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
TT
0.0
-
-
8.0
20.4
1.7
420
0.2
0.9
-
4.7
4.3
0.4
0.5
3.8
<25
<25
0.2
<0.1
08/23/06
IN
-
325
0.7
40
<0.05
<10
13.9
34.0
-
-
-
294
204
89.5
11.7
-
-
3,738
-
110
AC
-
331
1.0
43
<0.05
72.6
14.7
0.5
-
-
-
0.4
0.3
0.1
18.6
-
-
29
-
0.3
TA
-
348
1.1
42
0.2
<10
<0.2
0.2
-
-
-
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.2
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
TB
0.1
322
1.4
43
<0.05
<10
<0.2
0.4
-
-
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.2
-
-
26
-
0.1
08/30/06
IN
-
344
1.1
39
<0.05
<10
14.4
39.0
7.4
19.8
1.6
-74
-
299
199
101
11.6
9.5
2.1
3.0
6.5
4,840
3,882
118
117
AC
-
353
1.0
38
<0.05
57.2
14.1
1.1
7.6
20.0
2.1
603
-
0.6
0.6
0.1
14.4
12.8
1.6
0.5
12.3
100
<25
0.7
0.2
TA
-
360
1.1
41
<0.05
<10
<0.2
0.3
-
-
-
0.4
0.4
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.5
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TB
-
366
1.1
34(a)
<0.05
<10
<0.2
<0.1
-
-
-
0.4
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TT
0.1
369
1.3
43
<0.05
<10
<0.2
0.2
7.5
24.0
1.0
433
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.2
09/13/06
IN
-
344
344
0.9
1.0
33
35
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
14.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
-
-
-
303
306
212
213
90.7
92.9
13.1
13.0
-
-
1,600
1,614
-
77.5
77.7
AC
-
355
355
0.9
0.9
35
35
<0.05
<0.05
14.4
14.7
14.7
15.1
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
<0.04
<0.04
13.9
13.8
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.1
0.1
TA
-
371
367
0.9
0.9
35
34
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
0.3
0.3
<0.25
<0.25
<0.04
<0.04
0.2
<0.1
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
TB
0.2
346
351
1.0
1.0
34
36
<0.05
0.2
<10
<10
<0.2
<0.2
0.2
2.0
-
-
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
<0.25
0.3
<0.04
<0.04
0.2
0.2
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
(a) Reanalysis conducted outside of hold time.
IN = At Wellhead, AS = After Water Softener, AC = After Chlorination, TA = After Tank A, TB = After Tank B, DIST = Distribution
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Buckeye Lake, OH (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volumes
Alkalinity
(asCaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
3H
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
(asCaC03)
Ca Hardness
(asCaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(asCaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
=e (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10»3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
•c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
09/28/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
16.6
14.6
2.0
8.6
6.0
2,667
2,585
91.7
93.8
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18.6
16.9
1.7
10.7
6.2
367
369
18.4
19.2
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
TB
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
O.1
0.1
0.1
47
<25
0.1
0.1
10/11/06
IN
358
-
1.0
38
0.2
<10
14.7
37.0
-
7.5
19.6
2.3
-56
-
295
192
103
11.6
4,058
125
AC
373
-
0.8
37
O.05
176
14.9
1.1
-
7.9
19.6
2.6
700
1.6
1.4
0.2
22.4
118
3.6
TA
388
-
0.7
35
O.05
<10
0.8
1.1
-
1.4
1.3
O.1
0.4
<25
0.1
TB
0.9
423
1.1
47
0.2
<10
0.7
0.5
-
7.4
19.3
2.0
485
0.0
0.1
67.8
48.1
19.6
0.4
<25
O.1
10/24/06
IN
-
-
-
17.6
16.0
1.6
11.9
4.1
2,352
2,154
87.5
85.4
AC
-
-
-
20.6
18.7
1.9
0.8
17.9
46
<25
0.7
0.2
TA
-
0.3
0.3
O.1
0.7
0.1
<25
<25
O.1
0.1
TB
1.0
-
0.2
0.2
O.1
0.8
0.1
<25
<25
O.1
0.1
11/15/06
IN
-
343
1.4
38
O.05
<10
14.8
18.0
7.6
15.9
1.7
447
265
166
98.7
19.2
-
-
2,117
82.9
-
AC
-
361
1.0
37
O.05
26.9
14.7
1.1
7.9
15.9
3.5
716
0.5
0.5
0.04
19.4
-
-
46
0.5
-
TA
-
371
1.0
36
0.1
<10
0.2
0.6
-
-
O.3
O.25
O.04
0.3
-
-
<25
O.1
-
TB
1.2
365
1.0
39
0.3
<10
0.5
1.1
7.9
16.2
1.5
689
2.2
2.2
17.5
17.1
0.4
1.0
-
-
48
0.2
-
11/29/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
13.3
12.7
0.6
6.8
5.9
1,738
1,653
80.9
80.1
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
14.1
14.2
O.1
0.6
13.6
26
<25
0.3
0.1
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
O.1
O.1
0.1
<25
<25
O.1
0.1
TB
1.3
-
-
-
-
2.2
2.2
0.9
0.7
0.2
0.8
0.1
<25
<25
O.1
0.1
IN = At Wellhead, AS = After Water Softener, AC = After Chlorination, TA = After Tank A, TB = After Tank B, DIST = Distribution
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Buckeye Lake, OH (Continued)
CO
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volumes
Alkalinity
(as CaCOs)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfete
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
3H
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Ca Hardness
(asCaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(asCaCOs)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10"3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
•c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
12/1 9/0*'
IN
-
361
1.2
44
<0.05
<10
15.2
37.0
7.6
19.5
1.6
-47
-
301
200
101
13.9
12.0
1.9
5.0
7.0
4,057
3,124
117
117
AC
-
363
1.3
42
<0.05
65.6
14.0
0.8
7.9
19.0
2.3
625
-
0.5
0.4
0.1
17.1
16.5
0.6
0.5
16.0
<25
<25
0.3
0.2
TA
-
395
1.2
38
0.1
<10
<0.2
1.2
-
-
-
0.3
0.3
<0.04
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.5
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TB
1.4
415
1.2
46
0.2
<10
0.7
1.5
7.8
18.5
2.0
990
-
7.0
6.9
0.1
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
01/25/0 7™
IN
-
299
1.2
39
<0.05
<10
14.8
18.0
7.3
14.6
2.5
405
-
307
207
100
20.3
17.8
2.4
8.7
9.1
1,401
1,451
66.2
68.8
AC
-
306
0.9
40
0.1
49.7
14.6
0.7
7.5
15.8
1.7
681
-
0.7
0.6
0.1
20.4
19.5
0.8
0.8
18.8
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
TA
-
305
0.9
39
0.1
<10
<0.2
0.7
-
-
-
3.0
0.6
2.4
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.5
<0.1
86
<25
0.4
0.4
TB
1.5
308
1.2
40
0.1
<10
0.6
0.8
7.4
17.2
1.6
501
0.1
0.1
13.6
8.2
5.4
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.3
02/15/07
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Buckeye Lake, OH (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volumes
Alkalinity
(as CaCOa)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
Total HAAS
Total THM
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
(asCaCOa)
Ca Hardness
(asCaCOa)
Mg Hardness
(asCaCOa)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10"3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
•c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
04/05/07 (a
IN
331
0.9
1.1
37
<0.05
<10
14.5
19.0
-
7.5
16.4
1.4
391
-
-
273
176
97.0
16.7
15.1
1.6
7.9
7.1
1,800
1,760
74.7
75.2
AS
340
<0.05
0.9
37
<0.05
147
13.9
0.9
-
-
-
0.9
0.9
0.1
18.3
16.8
1.5
13.0
3.8
<25
<25
0.2
0.3
AC
352
<0.05
1.1
39
<0.05
59.7
13.9
0.8
-
7.7
17.5
2.5
704
-
-
0.9
0.8
0.1
19.3
18.0
1.3
2.4
15.6
<25
<25
0.2
0.3
TA
338
<0.05
1.0
39
<0.05
<10
<0.2
0.6
-
-
-
0.9
0.6
0.2
1.4
1.8
<0.1
2.0
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.2
TB
1.9
338
<0.05
1.5
37
0.1
<10
0.9
0.8
-
7.6
17.4
1.8
722
-
-
5.0
3.7
1.2
1.4
1.4
<0.1
1.8
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.2
05/01/07
IN
345
0.8
1.1
35
<0.05
<10
15.6
11.0
-
7.5
15.3
1.5
175
0.1
0.1
296
193
103
19.5
17.5
2.0
16.3
1.2
1,489
1,345
74.7
74.1
AS
354
<0.05
0.7
36
<0.05
23.6
15.5
0.7
-
7.7
15.2
1.9
439
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.1
19.6
16.4
3.2
16.4
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
AC
352
<0.05
0.9
37
<0.05
18.0
15.8
0.3
-
7.8
15.5
2.8
738
3.5
4.4
0.3
0.3
<0.04
19.1
16.5
2.6
0.6
15.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TA
352
<0.05
1.0
37
<0.05
<10
<0.2
1.1
-
7.7
16.0
1.8
712
1.7
1.9
0.8
<0.3
0.8
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TB
2.1
335
<0.05
1.0
36
<0.05
<10
1.2
1.8
-
7.8
16.7
1.0
263
0.3
0.3
2.6
2.1
0.5
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
09/19/07™
IN
350
1.1
1.0
36
<0.05
<10
15.3
22.0
1.8
8.5
7.7
15.0
1.9
251
0.0
0.0
260
171
88.9
18.1
16.5
1.6
15.3
1.2
2,170
1,295
97.7
69.0
AS
346
<0.05
0.9
36
<0.05
<10
15.1
3.9
1.8
ND
7.7
19.5
1.2
271
0.0
0.0
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
18.1
15.0
3.1
15.2
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.25
<0.25
AC
352
<0.05
1.1
36
<0.05
<10
15.1
2.7
1.9
10.8
7.8
15.8
1.7
721
>4.4
>4.4
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
19.0
16.1
3.0
0.6
15.5
<25
<25
<0.25
0.4
TA
354
<0.05
1.1
37
<0.05
<10
0.7
5.3
1.4
28.2
7.7
15.9
1.1
741
>4.4
>4.4
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.2
<25
<25
0.4
0.5
TB
2.5
352
<0.05
1.2
37
0.2
<10
1.2
6.4
1.3
49.5
7.5
21.1
2.0
736
3.4
3.5
0.4
<0.25
0.1
0.5
0.5
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.25
0.5
DIST
-
-
-
-
1.0
112
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12/18/07
IN
322
1.2
0.9
37
<0.05
<10
17.7
17.0
4.3
ND
7.7
13.5
2.1
228
-
-
290
192
97.6
17.8
15.7
2.2
15.3
0.4
2,630
1,411
92.2
73.2
AS
320
0.1
0.9
37
<0.05
24.0
14.3
0.7
1.9
ND
7.8
14.1
1.6
225
-
-
0.2
0.1
<0.1
19.7
16.2
3.5
16.6
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
AC
327
0.1
0.8
36
<0.05
28.7
14.3
0.9
1.8
10.8
7.8
15.3
1.6
644
1.7
1.8
0.2
0.1
<0.1
18.4
15.6
2.8
0.9
14.7
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TA
320
0.1
0.8
35
<0.05
<10
3.1
0.9
1.7
30.5
7.7
15.2
3.0
691
2.1
2.2
0.4
0.3
<0.1
0.8
0.1
0.6
0.8
<0.1
<25
<25
0.2
<0.1
TB
3.1
324
0.1
0.9
36
<0.05
<10
1.2
0.4
5.9
43.9
7.9
16.5
1.0
681
1.2
1.4
0.8
0.7
<0.1
0.7
0.1
0.6
0.8
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
DIST
-
-
-
-
8.7
37.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(a) Onsite measurements taken on 04/25/07. (b) TOC samples were collected on 10/10/07.
IN = At Wellhead, AS = After Water Softener, AC = After Chlorination, TA = After Tank A, TB = After Tank B, DIST = Distribution
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Buckeye Lake, OH (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volumes
Alkalinity
(asCaCOa)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
Total HAAS
Total THM
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
(asCaCOa)
Ca Hardness
(asCaCOa)
Mg Hardness
(asCaCOa)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10"3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
S.U.
•c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
03/19/08
IN
-
321
0.9
0.9
43.1
<0.05
<10
15.4
20.0
2.6
<2
5.6
7.4
15.6
1.8
130
-
262
174
88.1
19.5
16.9
2.7
16.6
0.2
1,911
1,351
81.9
73.1
AS
-
329
<0.05
0.9
37.8
<0.05
21.4
15.2
0.5
2.5
<2
2.1
7.2
16.9
0.7
232
-
0.2
<0.06
<0.1
18.2
16.4
1.9
16.5
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
AC
-
331
<0.05
1.0
36.2
<0.05
36.6
15.4
0.4
2.4
10.9
16.3
7.5
15.5
0.8
661
1.2
1.5
0.2
<0.06
<0.1
18.8
16.4
2.4
1.0
15.4
<25
<25
1.5
<0.1
TA
-
323
<0.05
0.9
37.5
<0.05
<10
8.8
0.5
1.6
13.7
37.1
7.2
16.0
1.1
684
0.7
0.5
0.2
<0.06
<0.1
1.0
<0.1
0.9
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TB
3.6
325
<0.05
0.9
37.5
<0.05
<10
1.5
0.6
2.4
25.9
39.5
7.5
17.7
0.8
505
0.3
0.3
0.2
<0.06
<0.1
0.9
<0.1
0.8
0.9
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
DIST
-
-
-
-
-
2.2
28.6
49.6
7.2
15.3
0.9
583
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
07/09/08
IN
-
325
1.1
1.0
32.7
<0.05
<10
16.8
19.0
NA'"1
<2
NA'">
NA1"
23.8
1.4
9.4
-
351
269
81.3
18.3
16.2
2.1
15.7
0.5
1,432
NA
74.4
74.4
AS
-
328
<0.05
1.0
33.6
<0.05
44.5
14.3
0.2
NA1"'
<2
NA(a)
NA™
15.8
1.4
269
-
0.6
0.5
<0.1
20.1
17.7
2.5
17.2
0.5
<25
NA
<0.1
<0.1
AC
-
339
<0.05
1.1
32.5
<0.05
102
13.9
0.2
NA'"1
19.4
NA'"'
NA1"
19.2
1.3
697
4.0
>4.4
0.4
0.3
<0.1
16.9
15.3
1.6
0.5
14.9
<25
NA
<0.1
<0.1
TA
-
325
<0.05
1.0
31.7
<0.05
<10
9.7
0.2
NA1"'
55.4
NA'"'
NA™
19.2
2.1
709
3.4
1.8
0.4
0.3
<0.1
0.2
0.1
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
NA
<0.1
<0.1
TB
4.2
323
<0.05
1.0
32.8
<0.05
<10
1.6
0.1
NA'"1
94.0
NA'"'
NA""
19.9
1.7
548.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.5
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
NA
<0.1
<0.1
DIST
-
-
-
-
-
NA"1
193
NA'"'
NA™
22.7
1.1
328
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10/01/08
IN
-
308
1.0
1.0
36.4
<0.05
<10
16.0
17.0
2.1
<2
<2
7.5
16.2
2.0
-60.6
-
NA
NA
NA
19.1
16.8
2.3
16.2
0.6
1,280
1,245
66.5
66.6
AS
-
312
<0.05
1.1
35.4
<0.05
<10
14.3
0.1
2.1
<2
<2
8.2
15.0
1.2
111
-
NA
NA
NA
17.2
15.1
2.1
15.1
<0.1
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
AC
-
314
<0.05
1.1
37.3
<0.05
23.8
14.0
0.2
2.2
10.6
7.9
7.8
15.6
1.1
693
>4.4
>4.4
NA
NA
NA
17.4
15.7
1.7
0.4
15.4
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
TA
-
314
<0.05
1.1
37.1
<0.05
<10
11.2
0.2
1.6
19.1
18.3
7.8
16.5
2.9
696
>4.4
>4.4
NA
NA
NA
0.3
0.2
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TB
4.6
314
<0.05
1.0
37.2
<0.05
<10
2.6
<0.1
1.7
35.6
29.2
8.1
17.3
1.7
708
>4.4
>4.4
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
DIST
-
-
-
-
-
107
119
7.9
22.3
1.3
527
1.3
1.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
01/23/09
IN
-
310
1.0
1.1
34.6
<0.05
<10
15.5
26.0
1.9
<2
<2
NA'C)
14.8
1.8
-49
-
302
207
95
17.1
15.2
1.9
14.3
0.9
1,654
1,632
77.8
77.5
AS
-
319
<0.05
1.2
36.3
<0.05
16.5
13.0
0.1
1.8
<2
<2
NA'C)
14.4
1.1
20.1
-
0.9
0.8
<0.1
14.6
14.6
<0.1
13.9
0.8
<25
<25
0.2
<0.1
AC
-
326
<0.05
1.2
34.5
<0.05
48.2
12.9
0.2
1.9
16.1
20.1
NA'C)
18.2
1.3
737
4.18
4.32
0.8
0.7
<0.1
17.6
16.1
1.5
0.4
15.7
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
TA
-
342
<0.05
1.2
35.0
<0.05
<10
9.0
<0.1
1.9
42.6
51.0
NA'C)
18.3
1.2
737
>4.4
3.22
11.3
7.7
3.6
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TB
6.0
333
<0.05
1.3
37.1
<0.05
<10
7.5
<0.1
1.9
197
152
NA'C)
19.4
1.3
754
3.34
3.24
8.1
1.1
7.0
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
DIST
-
-
-
-
-
279
234
NA'C)
19.3
1.0
756
2.9
3.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(a) Sample pH too low to conduct TOC and Total THM analysis, (b) measurements not taken due to meter error (ERR 107), (c) measurements not taken due to calibration error.
IN = At Wellhead, AS = After Water Softener, AC = After Chlorination, TA = After Tank A, TB = After Tank B, DIST = Distribution
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Buckeye Lake, OH (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volumes
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
Total HAAS
Total THM
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
(as CaCOa)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCOa)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCOa)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10*3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
S.U.
•c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
05/07/09
IN
344
1.0
1.1
36.9
<0.05
<10
17.1
15.0
1.8
<2
<2
7.2
15.0
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
15.0
205
116
18.2
16.5
1.7
15.4
1.1
1,736
1,500
73.8
70.7
AS
351
<0.05
1.1
37.3
<0.05
16.7
14.3
0.2
1.9
<2
<2
7.5
14.8
NA(C)
NA(cl
-
-
0.2
1.2
0.2
18.5
16.4
2.1
16.5
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
AC
349
<0.05
1.1
37.8
<0.05
57.5
13.6
0.3
1.9
4.1
7.0
7.6
15.2
NA'C)
NA(C)
0.69
0.3
1.1
0.1
18.1
16.4
1.8
0.4
15.9
<25
<25
0.1
0.2
TA
349
<0.05
1.1
39.9
<0.05
<10
12.6
0.5
1.7
11.9
20.4
7.5
15.3
NA(C)
NA(cl
0.82
0.5
4.0
0.1
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.5
<0.1
26
<25
0.2
<0.1
TB
6.7
344
<0.05
1.2
37.6
<0.05
<10
7.0
0.6
1.9
55.1
49.3
7.5
15.5
NA'C)
NA(C)
0.82
0.6
6.3
0.5
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
DIST
-
-
-
1.6
13.1
23.5
7.5
18.4
NA(C)
NA(cl
0.9
-
-
-
-
09/23/09
IN
318
1.0
1.1
36.7
<0.05
<10
15.2
14.0
1.7
NS
NS
6.9
16.1
NA'C)
-12.0
-
-
293
194
99
19.6
16.9
2.7
16.0
0.8
1,125
1,129
61.0
61.9
AS
324
<0.05
1.0
36.1
<0.05
21.9
14.8
0.3
1.8
NS
NS
8.0
15.5
NA'C)
99.1
-
-
0.6
0.5
0.1
18.7
16.0
2.7
15.7
0.4
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
AC
324
<0.05
1.1
36.6
<0.05
20.7
15.1
0.2
1.7
NS
NS
8.0
15.3
NAlc)
NA(C)
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.5
0.1
18.9
16.2
2.7
15.7
0.5
35
<25
0.3
0.2
TA
332
<0.05
1.0
36.3
<0.05
<10
12.7
0.2
1.7
NS
NS
8.1
16.1
NA(C)
103.2
13.5
11.1
2.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TB
7.5
332
<0.05
1.0
36.9
<0.05
<10
8.3
0.2
1.7
NS
NS
8.1
15.2
NA(C)
114.7
12.4
8.5
3.9
0.3
<0.1
0.2
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
DIST
-
-
-
1.7
NS
NS
8.0
19.5
NA(C)
125.5
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
11/04/09
IN
332
0.9
1.1
39.0
<0.05
62.4
15.6
18.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
7.1
14.2
NA(C)
-105.3
-
-
488
354
134
14.5
14.0
0.5
13.7
0.3
1,462
1,544
69.2
71.2
AS
341
<0.05
0.8
36.0
<0.05
<10
13.6
0.2
2.4
0.0
0.0
7.7
14.5
NA(C)
109.1
-
-
2.1
1.8
0.2
13.4
13.0
0.4
12.9
<0.1
<25
<25
0.3
0.2
AC
341
<0.05
1.1
39.9
<0.05
<10
13.2
0.4
1.9
3.0
11.8
7.8
15.1
NA(C)
553.2
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.5
0.1
13.4
13.3
<0.1
<0.1
13.2
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
TA
339
<0.05
1.3
38.3
<0.05
<10
12.9
0.5
1.9
9.5
31.5
6.4
14.8
NA(C)
597.3
1.0
8.8
8.5
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
0.3
0.2
TB
7.9
343
<0.05
1.0
36.3
<0.05
<10
9.4
0.3
1.9
13.0
44.8
7.7
15.0
NA(C)
298.1
0.1
22.1
20.9
1.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
0.14
0.1
DIST
-
-
-
1.9
12.6
46.1
-
NA'C)
-
0.2
0.3
-
-
-
-
02/24/1 d"
IN
331
1.0
1.2
37.3
<0.05
<10
16.2
16.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
7.3
14.4
1.3
-78.5
-
-
311
210
102
16.7
17.0
<0.1
16.4
0.6
1,202
1,228
63.5
64.5
AS
334
<0.05
1.2
37.8
<0.05
<10
14.2
0.6
1.8
0.0
0.0
7.5
13.9
0.8
30.2
-
-
1.6
1.5
<0.1
16.2
16.7
<0.1
16.8
<0.1
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
AC
336
<0.05
5.0
41.0
<0.05
15.1
14.1
0.8
1.8
7.3
6.7
7.5
14.0
1.0
603.9
1.8
1.9
1.5
1.4
<0.1
17.1
16.5
0.6
0.4
16.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TA
34
<0.05
3.3
37.5
<0.05
<10
13.4
0.5
1.7
12.1
9.2
7.5
25.0
1.2
671.4
3.2
3.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TB
9.0
341
<0.05
1.9
38.1
<0.05
<10
11.6
0.7
1.8
20.3
14.1
7.6
14.3
0.8
671.3
6.0
5.8
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
DIST
<0.05
-
-
-
1.8
13.8
13.1
-
-
1.2
1.3
-
-
-
-
(a) Total THM & HAAS re-collected on 03/22/10.
IN = At Wellhead, AS = After Water Softener, AC = After Chlorination, TA = After Tank A, TB = After Tank B, DIST = Distribution
-------
APPENDIX C
COLUMN STUDIES ANALYTICAL RESULTS
-------
Table C-l. Concentrations of Arsenic, TOC, Ammonia, THMs, and HAAs in Columns A and C Feed Prepared with AS
Water and 4 or 10 mg/L of Chlorine (as C12)
Date
8/28/2009(c)
8/31/2009
9/1/2009
9/3/2009
9/4/2009
9/10/2009 (d)
9/11/2009
9/25/2009
9/30/2009
10/2/2009
10/6/2009
10/9/2009
10/13/2009
10/16/2009
10/20/2009
10/23/2009
10/27/2009
10/30/2009
11/3/2009
11/6/2009
11/10/2009
11/13/2009
11/17/2009
11/20/2009
11/24/2009
12/4/2009 (e)
1/15/2010
Total
Arsenic
(Hg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.28
15.40
NA
NA
NA
14.20
NA
NA
NA
15.90
NA
NA
NA
16.70
NA
15.70
NA
15.50
NA
16.00
16.2
Soluble
Arsenic
(Hg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.50
NA
NA
NA
16.20
NA
16.10
NA
16.20
NA
16.10
16.6
TOC
(mg/L)
<1.00(b)
NA
1.37
NA
1.33
2.11
.96
.65
.63
.63
.68
.42
.45
.53
.62
.65
.65
.65
.81
.92
2.01
.81
.83
.57
.65
.42
.65
Ammonia -
Hach
(mg/L)(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.06
NA
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.36
0.01
0.11
0.11
NA
Ammonia
(mg/L)(a)
0.61
0.65
NA
1.34
NA
NA
NA
O.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chloroform
(Hg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.68
NA
18.60
NA
NA
NA
25.50
NA
NA
NA
21.89
NA
NA
NA
25.30
NA
21.11
NA
27.69
NA
29.18
24.63
Bromodichloro-
methane
(Hg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
5.60
NA
NA
NA
7.41
NA
NA
NA
6.49
NA
NA
NA
8.05
NA
7.41
NA
10.46
NA
8.77
7.22
Dibromochloro-
methane (jig/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
1.24
NA
NA
NA
1.62
NA
NA
NA
1.52
NA
NA
NA
1.70
NA
1.52
NA
2.69
NA
1.67
1.54
Bromoform
(Hg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
O.500
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
O.500
NA
O.500
NA
O.500
O.500
TTHM
(Hg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
25.40
NA
NA
NA
34.53
NA
NA
NA
29.90
NA
NA
NA
35.05
NA
30.04
NA
40.84
NA
39.62
33.39
o
-------
Table C-l. Concentrations of Arsenic, TOC, Ammonia, THMs, and HAAs in Columns A and C Feed Prepared with AS
Water and 4 or 10 mg/L of Chlorine (as C12) (Continued)
Date
8/28/2009(c)
8/31/2009
9/1/2009
9/3/2009
9/4/2009
9/10/2009(d)
9/11/2009
9/25/2009
9/30/2009
10/2/2009
10/6/2009
10/9/2009
10/13/2009
10/16/2009
10/20/2009
10/23/2009
10/27/2009
10/30/2009
11/3/2009
11/6/2009
11/10/2009
11/13/2009
11/17/2009
11/20/2009
11/24/2009
12/4/2009 (e)
1/15/2010
THM Plus
Oig/L as CHC13)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
26
26
NA
34
10
NA
0
0
0
37
11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dibromoacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
<1.00
Dichloroacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.92
NA
5.47
NA
NA
NA
4.61
NA
NA
NA
4.64
NA
NA
NA
5.42
NA
5.33
NA
5.22
NA
5.37
7.61
Monobromoacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
<1.00
Monochloroacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
<2.00
Trichloroacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
7.64
NA
NA
NA
4.70
NA
NA
NA
5.17
NA
NA
NA
4.85
NA
4.69
NA
6.93
NA
7.04
9.70
HAAS
(Hg/L)(b)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.92
NA
13.11
NA
NA
NA
9.31
NA
NA
NA
9.81
NA
NA
NA
10.27
NA
10.02
NA
12.15
NA
12.41
17.32
o
(a) Ammonia samples taken during AS water sampling at Head Start building.
(b) Sum of concentrations of individual acids.
(c) Feed changed from DI to AS water; continued to maintain 4 mg/L C12 in water.
(d) As water contained ammonia from 08/28/09 through 09/11/09 due to improper regeneration of softener; ammonia reacted with chlorine to form combined
chlorine, which inhibited DPB formation.
(e) On 12/2/09, chlorine concentration in feed increased to 10 mg/L (as C12).
NA = Not Analyzed
Questionable results flagged in red
-------
Table C-2. Concentrations of Arsenic, TOC, Ammonia, THMs, and HAAs in Column B Feed Prepared with DI water and
4 or 10 mg/L of Chlorine (as C12)
Date
9/25/2009
9/30/2009
10/2/2009
10/6/2009
10/9/2009
10/13/2009
10/16/2009
10/20/2009
10/23/2009
10/27/2009
10/30/2009
11/3/2009
11/6/2009
11/10/2009
11/13/2009
11/17/2009
11/20/2009
11/24/2009
12/4/2009(c)
1/15/2010
Total
Arsenic
(HS/L)
0.18
NA
NA
NA
0.10
NA
NA
NA
0.1
NA
NA
NA
0.50
NA
0.16
NA
0.13
NA
0.13
0.3
Soluble
Arsenic
(HS/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
NA
NA
NA
0.17
NA
0.13
NA
0.11
NA
0.20
0.1
TOC
(mg/L)
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Ammonia -
Hach
(mg/L)(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ammonia
(mg/L)(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chloroform
(Hg/L)
0.80
NA
NA
NA
0.91
NA
NA
NA
0.500
NA
NA
NA
1.08
NA
0.500
NA
0.66
NA
0.85
2.30
Bromodichloro-
methane
(HS/L)
0.500
NA
NA
NA
0.500
NA
NA
NA
0.500
NA
NA
NA
0.500
NA
0.500
NA
0.500
NA
0.500
0.500
Dibromochloro-
methane
(HS/L)
0.500
NA
NA
NA
0.500
NA
NA
NA
0.500
NA
NA
NA
0.500
NA
0.500
NA
0.500
NA
0.500
0.500
Bromoform
(HS/L)
0.500
NA
NA
NA
0.500
NA
NA
NA
0.500
NA
NA
NA
0.500
NA
0.500
NA
0.500
NA
0.500
0.500
o
-------
Table C-2. Concentrations of Arsenic, TOC, Ammonia, THMs, and HAAs in Column B Feed Prepared with DI water and
4 or 10 mg/L of Chlorine (as C12) (Continued)
Date
9/25/2009
9/30/2009
10/2/2009
10/6/2009
10/9/2009
10/13/2009
10/16/2009
10/20/2009
10/23/2009
10/27/2009
10/30/2009
11/3/2009
11/6/2009
11/10/2009
11/13/2009
11/17/2009
11/20/2009
11/24/2009
12/4/2009(c)
1/15/2010
TTHM
(HS/L)
0.80
NA
NA
NA
0.91
NA
NA
NA
0.00
NA
NA
NA
1.08
NA
0.00
NA
0.66
NA
0.85
2.30
THM Plus
Qig/L as
CHC13)
0
0
NA
13
0
NA
0
8
0
0
29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dibromoacetic
Acid
(HS/L)
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
<1.00
Dichloroacetic
Acid (jig/L)
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
<1.00
Monobromoacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
<1.00
Monochloroacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
<2.00
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
<2.00
Trichloroacetic
Acid (fig/L)
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
<1.00
HAAS
(Hg/L)(b)
0.00
NA
NA
NA
0.00
NA
NA
NA
0.00
NA
NA
NA
0.00
NA
0.00
NA
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
o
(a) Ammonia samples are taken before use from the buckets brought from Buckeye Lake, not the reservoir itself. Ammonia values represent maximum values
applicable between ammonia samples.
(b) Sum of HAA-5 calculated as sum of values of individual components. Values BRL are treated as nil (as per EPA 552.2).
(c) On 12/2/09, chlorine concentration in feed increased to 10 mg/L (as C12).
NA = Not Analyzed.
Questionable results flagged in red.
-------
Table C-3. Arsenic, TOC, THMs, and HAAs Concentrations in Effluent from Column A Packed with Virgin ARM 200 Media
Date
8/28/2009(a)
9/1/2009
9/4/2009
9/10/2009(c)
9/11/2009
9/25/2009
9/30/2009
10/2/2009
10/6/2009
10/9/2009
10/13/2009
10/16/2009
10/20/2009
10/23/2009
10/27/2009
10/30/2009
11/3/2009
11/6/2009
11/10/2009
11/13/2009
11/17/2009
11/20/2009
11/24/2009
12/4/2009ld)
1/15/2010
Total
Throughput
(BV)
1996
2135
2243
2497
2536
2814
2851
2981
3056
3181
3229
3358
3414
3547
3599
3733
3792
3934
3997
4136
4193
4333
4403
4604
4770
AS Water
Throughput
(BV)
0
139
247
501
540
818
855
985
1060
1185
1233
1362
1418
1551
1603
1737
1796
1938
2001
2140
2197
2337
2407
2608
2774
Total
Arsenic
(Hg/L)
0.1
NA
NA
NA
0.45
0.31
NA
NA
NA
0.10
NA
NA
NA
0.11
NA
NA
NA
0.88
NA
0.40
NA
2.47
NA
0.47
0.4
Soluble
Arsenic
(Hg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
NA
NA
NA
0.67
NA
0.35
NA
0.28
NA
0.45
0.5
TOC
(mg/L)
<1.00
.37
.33
NA
.15
.22
2.51
.35
.44
.25
.23
.42
.59
.71
.71
.70
.86
.88
2.09
.70
.37
.30
.68
.56
.58
Chloroform
(HS/L)
1.74
NA
NA
1.81
NA
60.20
NA
NA
NA
53.24
NA
NA
NA
42.29
NA
NA
NA
39.82
NA
32.73
NA
50.85
NA
43.07
38.32
Bromodichloro-
methane
(HS/L)
0.500
NA
NA
0.500
NA
10.90
NA
NA
NA
9.98
NA
NA
NA
8.56
NA
NA
NA
9.70
NA
8.94
NA
13.18
NA
10.51
9.17
Dibromochloro-
methane
(Hg/L)
0.500
NA
NA
0.500
NA
2.12
NA
NA
NA
1.90
NA
NA
NA
1.71
NA
NA
NA
2.06
NA
1.62
NA
2.87
NA
1.73
1.67
Bromoform
(Hg/L)
0.500
NA
NA
0.500
NA
0.500
NA
NA
NA
0.500
NA
NA
NA
0.50
NA
NA
NA
0.500
NA
0.500
NA
0.500
NA
0.500
0.500
TTHM
(HS/L)
<2.00
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
73.20
NA
NA
NA
65.12
NA
NA
NA
52.56
NA
NA
NA
51.58
NA
43.29
NA
66.90
NA
55.31
49.16
o
-------
Table C-3. Arsenic, TOC, THMs, and HAAs Concentrations in Effluent from Column A Packed with
Virgin ARM 200 Media (Continued)
Date
8/28/2009(a)
9/1/2009
9/4/2009
9/10/2009(c)
9/11/2009
9/25/2009
9/30/2009
10/2/2009
10/6/2009
10/9/2009
10/13/2009
10/16/2009
10/20/2009
10/23/2009
10/27/2009
10/30/2009
11/3/2009
11/6/2009
11/10/2009
11/13/2009
11/17/2009
11/20/2009
11/24/2009
12/4/2009(d)
1/15/2010
THM Plus
(fig/L as
CHC13)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
NA
15
20
20
0
14
2
0
46
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dibromoacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
1.19
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
<1.00
Dichloroacetic
Acid Oig/L)
2.20
NA
NA
3.89
NA
32.70
NA
NA
NA
13.76
NA
NA
NA
10.50
NA
NA
NA
11.67
NA
9.39
NA
15.76
NA
10.34
12.04
Monobromoacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
<1.00
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
<1.00
Monochloroacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
<1.00
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
<2.00
Trichloroacetic
Acid (jig/L)
2.39
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
25.60
NA
NA
NA
10.36
NA
NA
NA
8.63
NA
NA
NA
8.52
NA
7.02
NA
10.96
NA
11.03
9.91
HAAS
(Hg/L)^
5.78
NA
NA
3.89
NA
58.30
NA
NA
NA
24.12
NA
NA
NA
19.12
NA
NA
NA
20.20
NA
16.41
NA
26.71
NA
21.37
21.95
o
(a) Ammonia samples taken during AS water sampling at Head Start building.
(b) Sum of concentrations of individual acids.
(c) As water contained ammonia from 08/28/09 through 09/11/09 due to improper regeneration of softener; ammonia reacted with chlorine to form combined
chlorine,which inhibited DPB formation.
(d) On 12/2/09, chlorine concentration in feed increased to 10 mg/L (as C12).
NA = Not Analyzed
Questionable results are flagged in red
-------
Table C-4. Arsenic, TOC, THMs, and HAAs Concentrations in Effluent from Column B Packed with ARM 200 Media
Taken from System in Head Start Building
Date
9/25/2009
9/30/2009
10/2/2009
10/6/2009
10/9/2009
10/13/2009
10/16/2009
10/20/2009
10/23/2009
10/27/2009
10/30/2009
11/3/2009
11/6/2009
11/10/2009
11/13/2009
11/17/2009
11/20/2009
11/24/2009
12/4/2009(b)
1/15/2010
Total
Throughput
(BV)
174
263
346
407
544
597
732
786
925
980
1117
1173
1306
1363
1498
1555
1693
1802
1992
2164
Total
Arsenic
(Hg/L)
36.00
NA
NA
NA
9.27
NA
NA
NS
0.17
NA
NA
NA
0.97
NA
0.52
NA
0.51
NA
0.60
1.4
Soluble
Arsenic
(Hg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.16
NA
NA
NA
0.56
NA
0.68
NA
0.59
NA
0.61
1.4
TOC
(mg/L)
<1.00
<1.00
<5.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Chloroform
(Hg/L)
2.21
NA
NA
NA
3.93
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
NA
NA
5.19
NA
2.30
NA
3.27
NA
3.61
2.30
Bromodichloro-
methane (jig/L)
O.500
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
O.500
NA
O.500
NA
O.500
O.500
Dibromochloro-
methane
(Hg/L)
O.500
NA
NA
NA
<0.500
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
<0.500
NA
O.500
NA
<0.500
<0.500
Bromoform
(Hg/L)
<0.500
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
NA
NA
<0.500
NA
O.500
NA
<0.500
NA
O.500
<0.500
o
-------
Table C-4. Arsenic, TOC, THMs, and HAAs Concentrations in Effluent from Column B Packed with ARM 200 Media
Taken from System in Head Start Building (Continued)
Date
9/25/2009
9/30/2009
10/2/2009
10/6/2009
10/9/2009
10/13/2009
10/16/2009
10/20/2009
10/23/2009
10/27/2009
10/30/2009
11/3/2009
11/6/2009
11/10/2009
11/13/2009
11/17/2009
11/20/2009
11/24/2009
12/4/2009(b)
1/15/2010
TTHM
(Hg/L)
2.21
NA
NA
NA
3.93
NA
NA
NA
0.00
NA
NA
NA
5.19
NA
2.30
NA
3.27
NA
3.61
2.30
THM Plus
(fig/L as
CHC13)
23
23
NA
54
13
1
0
48
0
0
38
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dibromoacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
<1.00
Dichloroacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
1.52
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
2.39
NA
<1.00
NA
1.90
NA
2.29
<1.00
Monobromoacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
<1.00
Monochlo ro acetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
<2.00
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
<2.00
Trichloroacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
<1.00
HAAS
(Hg/L)(a)
1.52
NA
NA
NA
0.00
NA
NA
NA
0.00
NA
NA
NA
2.39
NA
0.00
NA
1.90
NA
2.29
0.00
o
(a) Sum of concentrations of individual acids.
(b) On 12/2/09, chlorine concentration in feed increased to 10 mg/L (as C12).
NA = Not Analyzed.
Questionable results are flagged in red.
-------
Table C-5. Arsenic, TOC, THMs, and HAAs Concentrations in Effluent from Column C Packed with ARM 200 Media
Taken from System in Head Start Building
Date
9/25/2009
9/30/2009
10/2/2009
10/6/2009
10/9/2009
10/13/2009
10/16/2009
10/20/2009
10/23/2009
10/27/2009
10/30/2009
11/3/2009
11/6/2009
11/10/2009
11/13/2009
11/17/2009
11/20/2009
11/24/2009
12/4/2009(b)
1/15/2010
Total
Throughput
(BV)
168
287
373
423
555
607
745
799
936
991
1131
1187
1322
1380
1516
1571
1695
1755
1941
2104
Total
Arsenic
(HS/L)
13.60
NA
NA
NA
21.50
NA
NA
NS
21.70
NA
NA
NA
22.30
NA
18.80
NA
5.33
NA
12.50
15.0
Soluble
Arsenic
(HS/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.90
NA
NA
NA
22.30
NA
17.90
NA
6.21
NA
12.30
15.1
TOC
(mg/L)
.63
.72
2.35
.66
.41
.44
.41
.58
.61
.65
.72
.85
.82
.97
.78
.64
.28
.57
.39
.58
Chloroform
(Hg/L)
30.50
NA
NA
NA
30.85
NA
NA
NA
26.95
NA
NA
NA
29.82
NA
26.53
NA
38.73
NA
34.19
31.32
Bromodichloro-
methane (jig/L)
8.21
NA
NA
NA
7.94
NA
NA
NA
6.90
NA
NA
NA
8.44
NA
8.05
NA
12.00
NA
9.40
8.20
Dibromochloro-
methane
(Hg/L)
1.74
NA
NA
NA
1.81
NA
NA
NA
1.58
NA
NA
NA
1.76
NA
1.63
NA
2.80
NA
1.63
1.73
Bromoform
(HS/L)
O.500
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
NA
NA
O.50
NA
NA
NA
O.500
NA
O.500
NA
O.500
NA
O.500
O.500
o
-------
Table C-5. Arsenic, TOC, THMs, and HAAs Concentrations in Effluent from Column C Packed with ARM 200 Media
Taken from System in Head Start Building (Continued)
Date
9/25/2009
9/30/2009
10/2/2009
10/6/2009
10/9/2009
10/13/2009
10/16/2009
10/20/2009
10/23/2009
10/27/2009
10/30/2009
11/3/2009
11/6/2009
11/10/2009
11/13/2009
11/17/2009
11/20/2009
11/24/2009
12/4/2009(b)
1/15/2010
TTHM
(Hg/L)
40.40
NA
NA
NA
40.60
NA
NA
NA
35.43
NA
NA
NA
40.02
NA
36.21
NA
53.53
NA
45.22
41.25
THM Plus
(jig/L as
CHC13)
31
34
NA
30
38
17
29
0
0
41
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dibromoacetic
Acid
(HS/L)
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
<1.00
Dichloroacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
12.70
NA
NA
NA
7.07
NA
NA
NA
6.05
NA
NA
NA
7.80
NA
7.10
NA
<1.00
NA
8.17
7.61
Monobromoacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
NA
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
NA
<1.00
<1.00
Monochloroacetic
Acid
(Hg/L)
<2.00
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
NA
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
NA
<2.00
<2.00
Trichloroacetic
Acid
(HS/L)
11.40
NA
NA
NA
6.89
NA
NA
NA
6.23
NA
NA
NA
6.26
NA
5.73
NA
9.17
NA
8.89
9.70
HAAS
frig/L)(a)
24.10
NA
NA
NA
13.96
NA
NA
NA
12.28
NA
NA
NA
12.06
NA
12.82
NA
9.17
NA
17.09
17.32
o
(a) Sum of concentrations of individual acids.
(b) On 12/2/09, chlorine concentration in feed increased to 10 mg/L (as C12).
NA = Not Analyzed.
Questionable results are flagged in red.
------- |