EPA/600/R-07/072
August 2007
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park in Springfield, OH
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Sarah E. McCall
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, 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 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and sub-
surface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provid-
ing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed for and the results obtained from the arsenic removal
treatment technology demonstration project at the Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park in Springfield, OH.
The objectives of the project are to evaluate the effectiveness of AdEdge Technologies' AD-33 media in
removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |o,g/L. Additionally,
this project evaluates 1) the reliability of the treatment system, 2) the required system operation and
maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels, and 3) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The
project also characterizes the water in the distribution system and process residuals produced by the
treatment process.
The 250 gal/min (gpm) Arsenic Package Unit (APU-250) treatment system consisted of two integrated
units referred to as AD-26 oxidation/filtration and AD-33 adsorption systems. The AD-26 pretreatment
system was for iron and manganese removal, followed in series by the AD-33 adsorption system for
arsenic removal. Both the AD-26 oxidation/filtration and AD-33 adsorption systems were skid-mounted,
each comprised of three carbon steel pressure vessels of similar construction and configuration, but of
different sizes.
AD-26 media was a manganese dioxide mineral commonly used for oxidation and filtration of iron and
manganese. Because chlorine was added prior to the AD-26 system, it helped precipitate soluble iron,
oxidize As(III) to As(V), and form arsenic-laden solids, which were then filtered by the AD-26 media.
The pretreated water was subsequently polished by the AD-33 media, an iron-based adsorptive media
developed by Bayer AG for arsenic removal.
The APU-250 system began regular operation on September 21, 2005. The types of data collected
included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system),
process residuals, and capital and O&M cost. Through the demonstration period from September 21,
2005, to September 24, 2006, the system treated approximately 16,873,000 gal (about 19,726 bed
volumes) of water with the daily run time ranging from 3.7 to 17.3 hr/day and averaging 9.5 hr/day. The
AD-26 system operated at the well pump flowrates with water supplied by two alternating wells at
approximately 130 and 90 gpm. The AD-33 system operated on demand from the distribution system,
ranging from 9 to 71 gpm and averaging 37 gpm. Because of the low flowrates, long empty bed contact
times (EBCT), averaged at 23 min, were experienced by the AD-33 system.
The treatment system reduced the arsenic levels from between 9.5 and 35.4 |o,g/L (averaged 22.7 (ig/L) in
raw water to <10 (ig/L in the treated water. As(III) was the predominating arsenic species in raw water,
ranging from 5.6 to 25.8 (ig/L and averaging 16.9 (ig/L in both wells. Upon chlorination, As(III) was
oxidized to As(V) that, in turn, was attached to the iron solids also formed during chlorination. The
majority of arsenic was removed in the particulate form by the AD-26 media, leaving only 0.5 to 2.1 (ig/L
in solution, existing mainly as As(V), to be further polished by the AD-33 media. The system also
reduced total iron concentrations from an average of 1,000 (ig/L to less than the method detection limit
(MDL) of 25 (ig/L, while the total manganese concentrations decreased from an average of 35.6 to
0.1 ng/L.
The AD-26 system was backwashed initially every two days for 15 min with a 2-min service-to-waste
rinse, producing approximately 5,640 gal of wastewater per backwash event. During a power outage, the
backwash settings were reset to default values, prompting the system to produce almost twice as much
wastewater per backwash event. This problem was resolved by manually adjusting the backwash settings,
which, after a short time, were further reduced to every three days for 9 min with a 90-sec rinse.
Assuming that 83 mg/L of total suspended solid (TSS) was produced in 6,000 gal of backwash
wastewater, approximately 4 Ib of solids (including 0.02, 1.51, and 0.03 Ib of arsenic, iron, and
IV
-------
manganese, respectively) would be discharged during each backwash event. The AD-33 system was
backwashed four times during the one year demonstration period.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after the system startup showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentration (from an average of 23.7 to 1.6 (ig/L). The arsenic
concentrations in the distribution system were similar to those in the system effluent. Iron and manganese
also were significantly reduced in the distribution system. Neither lead nor copper concentrations
appeared to have been affected by the operation of the system.
The most significant operational issue observed was related to the chlorine injection system. In spite of
repeated efforts to fine tune the chlorine injection system and even reconfigure the system piping to allow
the injection to be controlled by well pump flowrates instead of on-demand flowrates, as much as 4 and
3.8 mg/L (as C12) total and free chlorine, respectively, were measured in the treated water, which were
significantly higher than the 1.5 and 1 mg/L (as C12) of total and free residuals targeted for the treatment.
The problem seems to be resolved by the addition of an inline filter placed just before the chlorine
monitor to reduce clogging and coating of the chlorine probe due to iron particulates.
The capital investment cost for the system was $292,252, including $212,826 for equipment, $27,527 for
site engineering, and $51,899 for installation. This cost included the cost, paid for by the Park owner, to
upgrade the system size from 150 to 250 gpm to meet the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's (Ohio
EPA's) redundancy requirement, upgrade the pressure vessel construction material from fiberglass
reinforced plastic (FRP) to carbon steel, and add a chlorine injection and control system. Using the
system's rated capacity of 250 gpm (360,000 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $1,170 per gpm of
design capacity ($0.81/gpd) and equipment-only cost was $851 per gpm of design capacity ($0.59/gpd).
The O&M cost of $0.33/1000 gal included the incremental cost associated with the oxidation/filtration
and adsorption system, such as media replacement and disposal, chemical supply, electricity
consumption, and labor. Although media replacement did not occur during the demonstration period, the
adsorptive media replacement cost would represent the majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to be
$34,230.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
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 7
3.1 General Project Approach 7
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 9
3.3.1 Source Water 9
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 9
3.3.3 Backwash Water and Solids 9
3.3.4 Spent Media 9
3.3.5 Distribution System Water 9
3.4 Sampling Logistics 11
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 11
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 11
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 12
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13
4.1 Facility Description and Preexisting Treatment System Infrastructure 13
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 14
4.1.2 Predemonstration Treated Water Quality 17
4.1.3 Distribution System 17
4.2 Treatment Process Description 17
4.3 System Installation 24
4.3.1 Permitting 24
4.3.2 Building Preparation 26
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 26
4.4 System Operation 28
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 28
4.4.2 Chlorine Injection 31
4.4.3 Backwash 34
4.4.4 Residual Management 35
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 35
4.5 System Performance 37
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 37
VI
-------
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling 44
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 47
4.6 System Cost 47
4.6.1 Capital Cost 50
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 50
5.0 REFERENCES 53
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
OPERATIONAL DATA
ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Treatment Building at Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park 13
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Chlorine and Polyphosphate Addition Systems 14
Figure 4-3. Preexisting Storage Tank 15
Figure 4-4. West Well Pump Flowrate and On-Demand Flowrate 15
Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 21
Figure 4-6. Chlorine Injection System 22
Figure 4-7. AD-26 Treatment System 23
Figure 4-8. Hydropneumatic Tanks 23
Figure 4-9. AD-33 Treatment System 25
Figure 4-10. System Control Panel 25
Figure 4-11. AD-33 Media Loading 26
Figure 4-12. AD-33 Media Supersack, AD-26 Media Bags and Loading of Underbedding 27
Figure 4-13. AD-33 Adsorption System Flowrates 30
Figure 4-14. AD-26 Oxidation/Filtration System Flowrates 30
Figure 4-15. Free and Total Chlorine Residuals at Entry Point 32
Figure 4-16. Volume of Wastewater Produced When Backwashing AD-26 Vessels 35
Figure 4-17. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AC, OT and TT Sampling
Locations 41
Figure 4-18. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for AD-26 Oxidation/Filtration and AD-33
Adsorption Systems 42
Figure 4-19. Media Replacement Cost Curves for Springfield System 52
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 8
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes 10
Table 4-1. Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park Water Quality Data 16
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-26 Media(a) 19
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media(a) 19
Table 4-4. Design Features of AdEdge Treatment System 20
Table 4-5. Summary of APU-250 System Operation 29
Table 4-6. Settings/Activities Associated with Chlorine Inj ection System 33
vn
-------
Table 4-7. AD-26 Backwash Settings and Volume of Wastewater Produced 34
Table 4-8. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 38
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 39
Table 4-10. Amount of Mn2+ Precipitated After Chlorination at Ten Arsenic Removal
Demonstration Sites 43
Table 4-11. Oxidation/Filtration Vessels Backwash Sampling Results 45
Table 4-12. Oxidation/Filtration Vessels Backwash Solid Sample Total Metal Results 46
Table 4-13. Adsorption Vessels Backwash Sampling Results 46
Table 4-13. Distribution System Sampling Results 48
Table 4-14. Capital Investment Cost for AdEdge Treatment System 49
Table 4-15. Operation and Maintenance Cost for AdEdge Treatment System 51
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
APU arsenic package unit
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
BET Brunauer, Emmett and Teller
bgs below ground surface
BL baseline sampling
BV bed volume
Ca calcium
Cl chloride
C/F coagulation/filtration
CRF capital recovery factor
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
i.d. inner diameter
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.;
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
IX
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NS not sampled
O&M operation and maintenance
Ohio EPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
psi pounds per square inch
PO4 orthophosphate
PLC programmable logic controller
POU point-of-use
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO42" sulfate
SOC synthetic organic compound
STS Severn Trent Services
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
voc
volatile organic compound
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the administrator of Chateau Estates Mobile
Home Park in Springfield, OH. The Park Administrator monitored the treatment system and collected
samples from the treatment and distribution systems throughout this demonstration study. 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule 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 in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in 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 be the host sites for the demonstration
studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site. As of April 2007, 11 of the 12 systems
were operational and the performance evaluation of eight systems was completed.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the community water system in the Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park in Springfield, OH was
one of those selected.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28. AdEdge Technologies (AdEdge), using the Bayoxide E33 media
developed by Bayer AG, was selected for demonstration at the Chateau Estates site in September 2004.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13 coagula-
tion/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, and 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, 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 website at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/resource.htm.
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 cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the AdEdge system at the Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
in Springfield, OH during the one year demonstration period from September 21, 2005, through
September 24, 2006. 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 Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(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
70TO
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250W
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270W
l,806(c)
l,312(c)
1,615W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM(E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
USFilter
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14W
13W
16W
20(a)
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127W
466(c)
l,387(c)
l,499(c)
7827(c)
546W
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
1,344W
1,325(CJ
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Arnaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90TO
50
37
35W
19W
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(MS/L)
Fe
(ug/L)| PH
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well CH2-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)(g)
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HIX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
USFilter
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
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; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% after system was switched from parallel to serial configuration.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) Replaced Village of Lyman, NE site which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(e) Faculties upgraded Springfield, OH system from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI system from 210 to 340 gpm, and Arnaudville, LA system from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the one year of system operation, the following conclusions
were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• Chlorination effectively oxidized As(III) and Fe(II) and formed arsenic-laden particles
filterable by the AD-26 media. Via filtration of particles, the AD-26 media alone was
capable of reducing total arsenic concentrations to less than 2.5 (ig/L, far below the 10-(ig/L
MCL.
• Without extended contact time, chlorination was effective in precipitating Mn(II), converting
85 to 98% of Mn2+ to MnO2 in nine of the 13 speciation events. This observation was
contrary to previously documented findings that, upon chlorination, Mn2+ remained in
solution for an extended duration due to slow oxidation kinetics (Knocke et al., 1987; Knocke
et al., 1990; Condit and Chen, 2006).
• The AD-33 system worked as a polisher, reducing total arsenic concentrations from 2.1 (ig/L
to less than or equal to 0.5 (ig/L (existing mainly as As(V) in the system effluent).
• In spite of repeated efforts, the automatic chlorine monitor/controller failed to control free
and total chlorine residuals within the target level of 1.0 mg/L (as C12), leaving as much as
3.8 mg/L (as C12) of free chlorine and 4 mg/L (as C12) of total chlorine at the entry point to
the distribution system.
Required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• The daily demand on the operator was typically 20 min to visually inspect the system and
record operational parameters.
• The most significant operational issue was related to the chlorine injection system. Many
attempts of fine-tuning the system and even reconfiguring the system piping did not seem to
resolve the significant high free and total chlorine measured in the treated water.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• Residuals produced by the operation of the treatment system included backwash wastewater
and spent media. Because media was not replaced during this demonstration study, the only
residual produced was backwash wastewater.
• The AD-26 system had to be backwashed periodically in order to maintain system operation.
The average system run length was increased from 7 to 27 hr (or from two to three days of
system operation) during the one year demonstration study, but potentially can be further
extended because of low pressure loss (i.e., 2 pounds per square inch [psi]) across the AD-26
vessels.
• The AD-33 system did not require backwashing during the one year demonstration period.
The pressure loss across the AD-33 vessels also was insignificant, averaging 2 psi throughout
the study period.
• Assuming an average of 83 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS) in 6,000 gal of wastewater
produced by backwashing the three AD-26 vessels, approximately 4 Ib of solids would be
-------
discharged during each backwash event. The solids were comprised of 0.5%, 37.8%, and
0.8% of arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively.
Capital and O&Mcost of the technology:
• The unit capital cost was $0.21/1,000 gal if the system operated at 100% utilization rate. The
system's real unit cost was $1.64/100 gal, based on 16,873,000 gal of water production (i.e.,
about 13% utilization). The O&M cost was $0.33/1,000 gal for labor, chemical usage, and
electricity consumption.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study
of the AdEdge treatment system began on September 21, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data
collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance
was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the MCL of 10 |o,g/L through
the collection of water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the system was evaluated by
tracking the unscheduled system downtime and the frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The
unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a Repair and
Maintenance Log Sheet.
The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data
and qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system
automation, extent of preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling
and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and
safety practices. The staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
water produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water and solids were sampled and analyzed for
chemical characteristics.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Second Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Plans Submitted to Ohio EPA
System Permit Issued by Ohio EPA
Building Construction Began
Final Letter Report Issued
Building Construction Complete
APU Unit Shipped and Arrived
Final Study Plan Issued
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Began
Performance Evaluation Completed
Date
August 5, 2004
September 9, 2004
October 8, 2004
October 15, 2004
November 5, 2004
November 16, 2004
November 29, 2004
March 1, 2005
June 1, 2005
July 6, 2005
July 15, 2005
July 19, 2005
August 15, 2005
August 19, 2005
August 30, 2005
September 2, 2005
September 9, 2005
September 2 1,2005
September 24, 2006
Ohio EPA = Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
Cost-Effectiveness
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic 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 preventive maintenance including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (or gpm) (or gal/day [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, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electrical usage, and labor.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a Daily System
Operation Log Sheet; checked the sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) level; and conducted visual inspections
to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred, the plant operator contacted the Battelle
Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator
recorded all relevant information, including the problem, course of action taken, materials and supplies
used, and associated cost and labor, on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a biweekly basis, the
plant operator measured several water quality parameters on-site, including temperature, pH, dissolved
oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and total and free chlorine, and recorded the data on
an On-Site Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet. The backwash data collected monthly were recorded on
a Backwash 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 chemical usage, electricity consumption, and
labor. Consumption of NaOCl was tracked on the Daily System Operation Log Sheet. Electricity
consumption was determined by utility bills. 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,
replenishing the NaOCl solution, 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 the cost analysis.
-------
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected from the wellheads, across treatment plant,
during the oxidation/filtration vessel backwash, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 presents the
sampling schedules and analytes measured during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements
for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in
Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2004). The procedure
for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial visit to the site, one set of source water samples from the
West Well was collected and speciated using an arsenic specitation kit (see Section 3.4.1). A second
introductory meeting was held to further discuss the technology selection for the site and a set of source
water samples from the East Well was collected and speciated. The sample taps were flushed for several
minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted
oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, the plant
operator collected samples biweekly. For the first biweekly event, samples were taken at the wellhead
(IN), after chlorination (AC), after the oxidation/filtration vessels (OT), and after the adsorption vessels
(TT) and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for the monthly (without speciation) treatment plant
water. For the second biweekly event, samples were collected and speciated on-site at the same four
locations and analyzed for the analytes listed under the monthly (with speciation) treatment plant water
list in Table 3-3.
3.3.3 Backwash Water and Solids. Backwash water samples were collected monthly by the plant
operator from each oxidation/filtration vessel. Over the duration of backwash for each vessel, a side
stream of backwash water was directed from the tap on the backwash water discharge line to a clean, 32-
gal plastic container at approximately 1 gpm. After the content in the container was thoroughly mixed,
one aliquot was collected as is and the other filtered with 0.45-(im disc filters. The samples were
analyzed for analytes listed in Table 3-3.
Once during the one-year study period, the content in the 32-gal plastic container was allowed to settle
and the supernatant was carefully siphoned using apiece of plastic tubing to avoid agitation of settled
solids in the container. The remaining solids/water mixture was then transferred to a 1-gal plastic jar.
After solids in the jar were settled and the supernatant was carefully decanted, one aliquot of the
solids/water mixture was air-dried before being acid-digested and analyzed for the metals listed in
Table 3-3.
Backwash water and solid samples were collected once from each adsorption vessel using the same
procedure applied to the oxidation/filtration vessels. The samples were analyzed for analytes listed in
Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Spent Media. The media in the oxidation/filtration and adsorption vessels were not
recharged, therefore, no spent media were produced as residual solids during this demonstration study.
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 the system start-up from April to July 2005, four
sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected at three Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) locations
within the distribution system, including the Park Clubhouse and Lots 12 and 76 Residences. Following
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Water
Sampling
Location01'
At Wellhead (IN)
At Wellhead (IN),
after Chlorination
(AC),
after Oxidation/
Filtration Vessels
(OT),
after Adsorption
Vessels (TT)
Two LCR
Locations
(including Park
Clubhouse and
Lot 76 Residence)
and One Non-
LCR Residence
/T 4- 1 ^T\
(Lot 16)
Backwash
Discharge Line
from Each
Oxidation/
Filtration Vessel
No. of
Samples
2 (East
Well and
West
Well)
4
3
o
J
Frequency
Once at
West Well
during initial
introductory
visit and
once at East
Well during
second
introductory
visit
Monthly
(Without
speciation)
Monthly
(With
speciation)
Monthly(b)
Monthly
Analyte
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off-site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, NH3, NO3,
NO2, Cl, F, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, TDS, TOC, turbidity,
and alkalinity
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free
and total)(c)
Off-site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), Ca, Mg,
F, NH3, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
P, turbidity, and alkalinity
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free
and total)(c)
Off-site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NH3, NO3,
SO4, SiO2, P, turbidity,
and alkalinity
As (total), Fe (total), Mn
(total), Cu (total), Pb
(total), pH, and alkalinity
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
pH, TDS, TSS, turbidity
Sampling
Date
08/05/04 and
09/09/04
10/11/05, 11/08/05,
12/12/05, 01/16/06,
02/13/06, 03/13/06,
04/10/06, 05/08/06,
06/13/06, 07/12/06,
08/14/06,09/11/06
09/28/05, 10/25/05,
12/05/05, 01/03/06,
02/01/06, 02/28/06,
03/27/06, 04/24/06,
05/22/06, 06/28/06,
07/26/06, 08/30/06,
09/18/06
Baseline sampling:
04/04/05, 05/03/05,
06/08/05, 07/07/05
Monthly sampling:
10/12/05, 11/15/05,
12/12/05, 01/16/06,
02/13/06, 03/13/06,
04/10/06, 05/08/06,
06/12/06,07/11/06,
08/14/06, 09/12/06
10/13/05, 12/05/05,
01/12/06, 02/02/06,
02/27/06, 03/24/06,
04/20/06, 05/17/06,
06/22/06, 07/13/06,
08/15/06, 09/17/06
10
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes (Continued)
Sample
Type
Backwash
Water
Backwash
Solids
Backwash
Solids
Sampling
Locations'3'
Backwash
Discharge Line
from Each
Adsorption Vessel
Backwash
Discharge Line
from Each
Oxidation/
Filtration Vessel
Backwash
Discharge Line
from Each
Adsorption Vessel
No. of
Samples
3
3
3
Frequency
Once
Once
Once
Analytes
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
pH, TDS, TSS, turbidity
Al, Ag, As, Ba, Be, Cd,
Ca, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, K,
Mg, Mn, Hg, Ni, Pb, Se,
Sb, Na, Tl, V, Zn
Al, Ag, As, Ba, Be, Cd,
Ca, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, K,
Mg, Mn, Hg, Ni, Pb, Se,
Sb, Na, Tl, V, Zn
Sampling
Date
02/12/07
09/19/06
02/12/07
(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-5.
(b) Four baseline sampling events performed from April to July 2005 before system became operational.
(c) Taken only at AC, OT, and TT locations.
LCR = Lead and Copper Rule
TDS = total dissolved solids
TSS = total suspended solids
system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the Park Clubhouse and Lot
76 Residence. Due to availability issues, the Lot 12 Residence was replaced by a non-LCR location at the
Lot 16 Residence.
The homeowners of the two residences and the Park adminstrator collected samples following an
instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for
Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The dates and times of last water usage before sampling and sample
collection were recorded for calculation of the stagnation time. All samples were collected from a cold-
water faucet that had not been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled.
3.4
Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a 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, color-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 a 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 for
each sampling location were placed in separate Ziplock™ bags and packed in a cooler.
11
-------
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 included.
The chain-of-custody forms and airbills 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.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metals analyses were stored at Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
(ICP-MS) laboratory. Water samples to be analyzed for other parameters by American Analytical
Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH, under contract with Battelle, were packed in separate coolers for
pickup by AAL couriers. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of
preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate
laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time, and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004)
were followed by Battelle ICP-MS and AAL. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all
methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy, method detection
limits (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 quality assurance (QA)
data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be
prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator 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. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements
using Hach chlorine test kits following the user's manual.
12
-------
4.1
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Preexisting Treatment System Infrastructure
The water treatment system has a total of 226 connections and serves a population of approximately 600
in the Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park Community in Springfield, OH. Source water for the Park is
groundwater supplied from two bedrock wells, the West Well and the East Well, located near the pump
house (Figure 4-1) at 3454 Folk Ream Road. The West Well produces about 150 gpm and the East Well
produces about 90 gpm. Before the installation of the treatment system, only the West Well was in
operation. Both wells are 8-in in diameter and were originally installed to a depth of 100 ft below ground
surface (bgs). In 2001, the East Well was extended to a depth of 220 ft bgs.
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Treatment Building at Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
The preexisting water treatment system consisted of chlorination using a 12.5%NaOCl solution and the
addition of polyphosphate as a sequestering agent for corrosion and scale control. Figure 4-2 shows the
chlorine and polyphosphate storage tanks and chemical metering pumps. Following chlorination and
polyphosphate addition, the water was stored in a 2,000-gal hydropneumatic tank (Figure 4-3) prior to
entering the distribution system.
Before the installation of the water treatment system, the West Well typically operated for approximately
5 hr/day, producing around 40,000 gal of water based on estimates provided by the facility. To help
verify the flowrate of the West Well and the average flowrate to the distribution system from the existing
hydropneumatic tank, a flow meter was installed downstream of the hydropneumatic tank in mid-
November 2004. Readings from the flow meter and an hour meter (installed in early December 2004) on
the West Well pump were collected until the end of February 2005. These readings confirmed that, on
average, the West Well pump operated 5.6 hr/day and produced an average of 43,740 gal.
13
-------
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Chlorine and Polyphosphate Addition Systems
The average flowrate produced by the supply well was calculated based on the volume of water pumped
and the time of operation per day; the average flowrate from the supply well was calculated to be 131
gpm, less than the 150-gpm design flowrate assumed for the West Well. The average instantaneous flow
reading collected from the hydropnuematic tank to the distribution system was 33 gpm. Figure 4-4 shows
the instantaneous flow readings and calculated flowrate from West Well.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on August 5, 2004, for the
West Well and on September 9, 2004, for the East Well. Samples were analyzed for the analytes shown
in Table 3-3. The analytical results from source water sampling events are presented in Table 4-1 and
compared to data collected by the facility for the EPA demonstration site selection. Historical water
quality data at the entry point and from the distribution system were obtained from the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) and the site owner, respectively, and are summarized in
Table 4-1.
Total arsenic concentrations in source water (from both wells) ranged from 14.6 to 25.0 (ig/L. Based on
the water samples collected and analyzed by Battelle, soluble arsenic existed almost entirely as As(III)
(24.7 (ig/L) in the West Well. Soluble arsenic in the East Well existed as As(III) (6.1 (ig/L), As(V) (2.8
(ig/L), and particulate As (5.7 (ig/L). Total arsenic concentration in the West Well was much higher than
that in the East Well (i.e., 24.6 versus 14.6 (ig/L). The variations in concentration and species between
these two wells were carefully monitored during the course of the demonstration study and are discussed
in Section 4.5.1.
Total iron concentrations in source water ranged from 636 to 1,615 |o,g/L, which exceed the secondary
maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 300 |o,g/L. The most recent test results of Battelle showed iron
concentrations in the West Well at 1,615 (ig/L (existing almost entirely in the soluble form) and in the
14
-------
Figure 4-3. Preexisting Storage Tank
cfec&c&c&c&c&c&cS)
^
-------
Table 4-1. Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park Water Quality Data
Parameter
Date
Ph
Conductivity
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as
P04)
As(total)
As (total soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Sb (total)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
lamhos
°C
mg/L
mv
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
^g/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Facility
Data
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Battelle Data
West
Well
08/05/04
NA
NA
14.5
0.8
-88
319
256 381
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.3
11.3
NA
25.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,078
NA
35.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
68
21
23.0
418
<1.0
0.04
0.01
0.24
14
1.5
27
19.4
0.10
24.6
24.3
0.3
24.7
0.1
1,615
1,635
18.5
18.8
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.2
NA
11.3
89
39
East
Well
09/09/04
7.3
NA
12.9
3.4
-25
343
291
6.5
372
0.7
0.04
0.01
0.17
1.4
0.8
15
17.5
0.10
14.6
8.9
5.7
6.1
2.8
636
385
62.3
56
1.45
1.6
0.41
0.27
0.30
14.8
67
30
Historical Data
Entry
Point
1995-2005
7.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
325
NA
1.07-1.4
NA
NA
0.05-0.33
0.05
NA
140
0.85-1.64
20-33
16-18
NA
15-27.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
738-2,570
NA
0.02-43
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<4
10-12
68-73
31-33
Distribution
1998-2004
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3-17.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.0-543
NA
NA
NA
NA
40^4,800
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = not analyzed
East Well at 636 (ig/L (with 60% existing in the soluble form). The presence of participate iron in the
East Well sample was consistent with the presence of participate arsenic in the same water. The presence
of particulate iron and arsenic in the East Well water, however, needed to be verified during the
demonstration study to ensure that these results were not caused by inadvertent aeration of the sample
during sampling. Note that the DO and ORP values of the East Well sample were significantly higher
than those of the West Well sample.
16
-------
Manganese concentrations in source water ranged from 18.5 to 62.3 |og/L. The test results of Battelle
show manganese concentrations in the West Well at 18.5 (ig/L (existing entirely in the soluble form) and
in the East Well at 62.3 (ig/L (with 90% existing in the soluble form). Based on the relatively high iron
and manganese concentrations in source water, the selected vendor proposed to include a pretreatment
step for iron and manganese removal prior to arsenic removal.
pH values of source water were consistently around 7.3. Typically, the target pH range for the use of
adsorption with iron-based media for arsenic removal is 6.0 to 8.0. The pH value of 7.3 was well within
this range; therefore, pH adjustment was not proposed for the arsenic treatment system.
Arsenic adsorption onto iron-based media may be impacted by the presence of competing anions such as
silica, sulfate, and phosphate. AD-33 was reportedly affected by silica at levels greater than 40 mg/L,
sulfate at levels greater than 150 mg/L, and phosphate at levels greater than 1 mg/L (AdEdge, 2005). The
silica levels ranged from 11.3 to 19.4 mg/L, the sulfate levels ranged from 15 to 27 mg/L, and the
orthophosphate levels were less than the MDL; therefore, the presence of these anions was not expected
to have a significant impact on arsenic adsorption.
Other analyzed water quality parameters showed low concentrations or less than MDLs of ammonia,
nitrate, nitrite, fluoride, uranium, vanadium, antimony, and total organic carbon (TOC). The hardness
levels ranged from 256 to 381 mg/L, which existed mainly as calcium hardness.
4.1.2 Predemonstration Treated Water Quality. Results of the treated water samples collected
at the entry point and from the distribution system from 1995 through 2005 provided by the Ohio EPA
and the facility are summarized in Table 4-1. The concentrations of some constituents were considerably
higher in the distribution system than those in raw water at the entry point. For example, arsenic
concentrations in the distribution system ranged from 4.0 to 543 (ig/L (versus 14.6 to 25.0 (ig/L in raw
water and 15 to 27.2 (ig/L at the entry point). Iron concentrations in the distribution system ranged from
40 to 44,800 (ig/L (versus 636 to 1,615 (ig/L in raw water and 738 to 2,570 (ig/L at the entry point).
Elevated arsenic and iron concentrations in the distribution system were likely caused by accumulation of
particulate matter and/or corrosion products in the distribution system. The facility has been flushing the
11 fire hydrants located throughout the distribution system on a monthly basis.
4.1.3 Distribution System. Based on the information provided by the facility, the water mains
within the distribution system are constructed primarily of poly vinyl chloride (PVC) and some copper
piping. There also are a few sections of iron pipe installed at the wellhouse at the entry point to the
distribution system. The laterals coming off the mains and leading to the individual mobile home units
consist of copper and black polyethylene. The piping within the mobile home units is typically PVC,
copper, or polybutylene. No lead pipe or lead solder was installed and/or used. Eleven fire hydrants are
located throughout the distribution system. Fire hydrants are flushed once a month to remove sediment
that builds up in the distribution system.
The LCR samples are collected at five locations every three years. Additional compliance samples
include arsenic and iron collected monthly at locations throughout the distribution system and
bacteria/total coliform collected monthly. The facility also samples for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), synthetic organic compounds (SOCs), inorganics, nitrate, and radionuclides as directed by the
Ohio EPA, typically once every two to three years.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
The treatment system consists of two integrated units referred to as an AD-26 pretreatment system and an
AD-33 arsenic package unit (APU) adsorption system. The AD-26 pretreatment system is for iron and
17
-------
manganese removal, followed in series by the APU adsorption system for arsenic removal. The treated
water exiting the APU adsorption system is sent to distribution. The preexisting polyphosphate addition
system was terminated since it was not needed with the new treatment system.
AD-26 media is a manganese dioxide mineral commonly used for oxidation and filtration of iron and
manganese. The media has NSF International Standard 61 approval for use in drinking water
applications. Table 4-2 provides physical and chemical properties of the AD-26 media.
Raw water was first treated with chlorine for disinfection and to provide oxidation prior to the AD-26
media. The use of chlorine precipitated soluble iron and converted As(III) to As(V). The As(V) formed
was adsorbed onto the precipitated iron solids, which in turn, were filtered out by the AD-26 media.
Following the oxidation/filtration system, the pretreated water was sent to the APU system, which was
used as a polishing step. AdEdge's APU arsenic removal system is designed for small systems in the
flow range of 10 to 300 gpm. The APU is a fixed bed adsorption system that uses Bayoxide E33 media,
an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG and marketed as AD-33 by AdEdge. Table 4-3
presents physical and chemical properties of the AD-33 media. AD-33 is delivered in a dry crystalline
form and has NSF International Standard 61 approval for use in drinking water applications. Once
reaching its adsorptive capacity, the spent media is removed and disposed of.
Both the AD-26 oxidation/filtration and the APU systems are skid-mounted, each comprised of three
carbon steel pressure vessels of similar construction and configuration but of different sizes. Table 4-4
presents the key system design parameters. Figure 4-5 shows the generalized process flow for the system
including sampling locations and parameters to be analyzed. Six key process components are discussed
as follows:
• Intake. Raw water was pumped from two supply wells, West and East Wells, alternating
every cycle to the AD-26 oxidation/filtration system.
• Chlorination. Prior to the AD-26 oxidation/filtration system, water was chlorinated
using a 12.5% liquid NaOCl solution injected to the 4-in PVC line. Chlorine oxidized
arsenic and iron and provided a chlorine residual for disinfection. The automatic chlorine
injection system was composed of a solenoid driven diaphragm metering pump with a
maximum capacity of 2 gal/hr, an in-line chlorine probe, a chlorine monitor/control
module equipped with a flow sensor, and a 75-gal polyethylene chemical feed tank with
secondary containment. A side-stream of water was directed, via 0.188-in inner diameter
(i.d.) poly tubing, from a valve located approximately 12-ft downstream of the chlorine
injection point and an inline mixer to the chlorine monitor/controller module. The
chlorine injection pump was turned on and off initially by the flow sensor (so that
chlorine was injected only when there was on-demand flow flowing through the
treatment system and, therefore, the chlorine monitor/controller module), but later by the
well pumps (so that chlorine was injected only when a well was on). Further, the
feedback from the inline probe to the monitor/controller module relative to a free chlorine
set point automatically adjusted the injection rate (in terms of pulses per minute) of the
chlorine metering pump. The proper operation of the NaOCl feed system was tracked by
the operator through measurements of free and total chlorine across the treatment train
and at the entry point. Figure 4-6 is a composite of photographs of the chlorine feed
system and its components.
18
-------
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-26 Media(a)
Parameter
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lbs/ft3)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle Size Distribution (U.S. Standard mesh)
Oxidant
Value
Manganese dioxide mineral
(> 80% active ingredient)
Dry granular media
Black
120
< 10 (by weight)
20 x 40 or 8 x 20
12.5%NaOCl
(a) Provided by AdEdge
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media(a)
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
BET Area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle size distribution (U.S. Standard mesh)
Crystal Size (A)
Crystal Phase
Value
Iron oxide composite
Dry pellets
Amber
35
142
0.3
< 15 (by weight)
10 x35
70
a -FeOOH
Chemical Analysis
Constituents
FeOOH
CaO
MgO
MnO
S03
Na2O
TiO2
Si02
A1203
P205
Cl
Weight (%)
90.1
0.27
1.00
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.01
(a) Provided by Bayer AG.
BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
Iron/Manganese Removal. When a well pump was on, prechlorinated water entered the
AD-26 oxidation/filtration system at an average flowrate of 130 gpm (Table 4-4) and
exited the system to the three new hydropneumatic tanks. The AD-26 oxidation/filtration
system consisted of three 36-in-diameter, 60-in-sidewall high carbon steel pressure
vessels configured in parallel. Each vessel was filled with 31 in (19 ft3) of AD-26 media,
which was underlain by 7 in (5 ft3) of fine underbedding. The free board measurement in
19
-------
Table 4-4. Design Features of AdEdge Treatment System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Influent Specifications
Peak Design Flowrate (gpm)
West Well Flowrate (gpm)
East Well Flowrate (gpm)
Average Throughput to System (gpd)
Arsenic Concentration (|J.g/L)
Iron Concentration (M-g/L)
250
130
90
40,000
24.6
1,615
System upsized from 150 gpm at Park
Owner's request
Average flowrate based on totalizer and
well pump hour meter readings
Based on information received from facility
—
-
-
Prechlorination
Chlorine Dosage (mg/L [as C12])
2.5
1.0 mg/L residual chlorine within
distribution system
AD-26 - Oxidation/Filtration
No. of Vessels
Configuration
Vessel Size (in)
Type of Media
Quantity of Media (ftVvessel)
Flowrate through Each Vessel (gpm)
Backwash Flowrate through Each Vessel
(gpm)
Backwash Duration (min)
Expected Backwash Frequency
(times/week)
Estimated AD26 Media Life (yr)
3
Parallel
36 D x 60 H
AD-26
19
43
130
15
3
4
—
—
—
Manganese dioxide mineral (See Table 4-2)
57 ft3 total
Total flowrate of 130 gpm through AD-26
system
18.4 gpm/ft2
Per Vessel
Actual backwash frequency to be
determined during system operation
Vendor provided estimate
AD-33 Adsorption
No. of Vessels
Configuration
Vessel Size (in)
Type of Media
Quantity of Media (ftVvessel)
Flowrate through Each Vessel (gpm)
EBCT (mm/vessel)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Duration (min)
Expected Backwash Frequency (times/60
days)
Bed Volumes (BV)/Day
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Estimated Volume to Breakthrough (gal)
Estimated ADS 3 Media Life (yr)
3
Parallel
48 D x 60 H
AD-33
38
on-demand
25.8
127
15
1
47
83,500
71,200,000
4.9
—
—
—
Bayoxide E33 (see Table 4-3)
114 ft3 total
Based on average on-demand flowrate of
33 gpm measured prior to demonstration
study (Figure 4-4).
10 gpm/ft2
Per Vessel
Actual backwash frequency to be
determined during system operation
Based on throughput of 40,000 gpd,
lBV=114ft3
Bed volumes to breakthrough at 10 ug/L
based on vendor estimate
Vendor provided estimate
Estimated frequency of media change-out
based on estimated media working
capacity of 83,500 BVs and average
throughput of 40,000 gpd to system
20
-------
Monthly
pHw, temperatureW,
DOW, ORPW, C12 (free and total)1^)
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble), Mn (total and"
soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NH3,
NO3, SO4, SiO2, P,
turbidity, and alkalinity
INFLUENT
Springfield, OH
AD26/AD33 Technology
Design Flow: 250 gpm
Monthly
pH^a\ temperature^,
DO«>, ORPW, C12 (free and total)'"'*),
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
Ca, Mg, F, NH3
NO3, SO4, SiO2, P,
alkalinity, and turbidity
LEGEND
IN J At Wellhead
^^S
S~*\
AC 1 After Chlorination
v_X
Y"/\ After Oxidation Vessels
^/ (OA-OC)
'TIN Combined Effluent from AD-26
^J Vessels
A After Adsorption Vessels
^) VA-TC)
TT\ Combined Effluent from AD-33
y^y Vessels
OVA AD-26 Backwash
V^_x Sampling Location
S~\
BW) AD-33 Backwash Sampling
^^ Location
^~\
SS J Sludge Sampling Location
Unit Process
• Process Flow
• Backwash Flow
Footnotes
a) On-site analyses
b) Except at IN location
pH, TDSJSS,
turbidity,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble), and
Mn (total and soluble)
pH, TDSJSS,
turbidity,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble), and
Mn (total and soluble)
i
r
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
TCLP
Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
21
-------
Figure 4-6. Chlorine Injection System
(Clockwise from Top: Chlorine Injection Point; Chlorine Monitor/Control Module;
Chlorine Injection System; Metering Pump; Chlorine Sensor; Chlorine Monitor/Controller)
the AD-26 vessels was 22 in. The AD-26 system was controlled by electrically actuated
butterfly valves and a centralized programmable logic controller (PLC) unit. Figure 4-7
is a photograph of the AD-26 system.
Hydropneumatic Tanks. The filtered water from the AD-26 system entered the three
hydropnuematic tanks for storage until needed to meet demand. Each tank had a storage
capacity of 528 gal for a total capacity of 1,584 gal. Figure 4-8 is a photograph of the
three hydropnuematic tanks.
Arsenic Adsorption System. Upon demand, the water stored in the hydropnuematic
tanks flowed through the APU arsenic adsorption system at a varying flowrate. As
discussed in Section 4.1, flowrates ranging from 18.1 to 58.2 gpm and averaging 33.0
gpm (Figure 4-4) were recorded from the existing hydropnuematic tank to the distribution
system during a predemonstration water demand study. The APU system consisted of
three 48-in-diameter, 60-in-sidewall high carbon steel pressure vessels also configured in
parallel. Each of the APU vessels contained approximately 38 ft3 (114 ft3 total) of AD-33
media. Assuming a flowrate of 33.0 gpm (or 11.0 gpm/vessel), the media empty bed
contact time (EBCT) in each vessel would be 25.8 min, which is at least five times higher
than that recommended by the vendor. Similar to the AD-26 system, the APU system
was controlled by a series of electrically actuated butterfly valves and the PLC unit.
22
-------
Figure 4-7. AD-26 Treatment System
Figure 4-8. Hydropneumatic Tanks
23
-------
Figure 4-9 is a photograph of the APU system. Figure 4-10 presents a photograph of the
APU control panel.
• Backwash. Both the AD-26 and APU systems required backwashing to remove
particulates and solids that build up in the media beds. Both systems can be set to initiate
backwash automatically based on differential pressure (Ap) measured across the
individual pressure vessels, system run time, or volume of water treated. Each vessel was
backwashed one at a time using water stored in the hydropnuematic tanks.
For the AD-26 system that filtered arsenic ladened-iron solids and manganese solids,
backwash was performed every two to three days based on a set time. Backwash was
adjusted on February 9, 2006, from once every 2 days for 15 min per vessel to once every
3 days for 9 min per vessel, with a 2- or 1.5-min filter-to-waste rinse at a flowrate of 130
gpm. After the adjustment, the total amount of wastewater produced should have been
reduced from approximately 6,630 to 4,100 gal for the three vessels although this volume
reduction was not observed (see Section 4.4.3).
The backwash duration for the APU system was 15 min and the backwash flowrate 127
gpm. Each backwash event produced 6,045 gal of wastewater from backwashing the
three adsorption vessels. Initially, automatic backwash was disabled to allow for manual
backwash; however, the manual setting was reverted back to default for automatic
backwash due to a power outage at the end of November 2005. Therefore, the system
was automatically backwashed once every 60 days up until September 14, 2006.
The backwash wastewater produced from both AD-26 and APU systems was collected in
two 6,000-gal onsite storage tanks. One a weekly basis, a vacuum truck came to transfer
the wastewater from the storage tanks and disposed of it at the Village of North Hampton
sewer system. On September 14, 2006, the treatment system was connected to the sewer
system.
• Media replacement. When the AD-33 adsorptive media exhausts its capacity, the spent
media will be removed and disposed of and virgin media loaded into the vessels. Media
replacement was not performed during the one year demonstration period. The vendor
initially estimated the life of AD-26 media to be 4 yr, but after observation of its
performance, extended the media life to 10 yr. The AD-26 media will be replaced when
it loses its filtration capabilities.
4.3 System Installation
The installation of the treatment system was completed by LBJ Inc., a subcontractor to AdEdge, on
September 2, 2005. The following briefly summarizes some of the system/building installation activities,
including permitting, building preparation, system offloading, installation, shake-down, and start-up.
4.3.1 Permitting. Design drawings and a process description of the proposed treatment system
were submitted to the Ohio EPA by LBJ, Inc., on May 27, 2005. Ohio EPA's review comments were
received on June 21, 2005. The comments were related to redundancy, sampling requirements,
disinfection practice, and minimum EBCT. After incorporating the responses to the comments, the plans
were resubmitted to Ohio EPA on June 30, 2005. Ohio EPA granted the treatment system permit on July
6,2005.
24
-------
Figure 4-9. AD-33 Treatment System
Figure 4-10. System Control Panel
25
-------
4.3.2 Building Preparation. The building housing the preexisting chlorination and polyphosphate
addition systems and the 2,000-gal hydropnuematic tank needed modifications for the planned arsenic
treatment system. The necessary additional preparation included removing the ceiling joists, cutting into
the floor to install sub-floor piping, removing the 2,000-gal hydropnuematic tank, and pouring a pad for
the three new hydropnuematic tanks. The building construction began on July 15, 2005, and was
completed on August 15, 2005.
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The treatment system arrived at the site on August
10, 2005. The installation activities, which lasted about two weeks, included removing the existing
hydropnuematic tank, removing the existing polyphosphate system, offloading and placing the AD-26
oxidation/filtration and AD-33 APU systems and the three new hydropnuematic tanks, connecting system
piping at the tie-in points, completing electrical wiring and connections, and assembling the chlorine
injection system.
Upon completion of system installation, the media vessels were tested hydraulically before media loading
on September 1, 2005. For the APU system, six 100-lb bags of coarse gravel (for a total of 600 Ib [or
6 ft3]), three 100-lb bags of fine gravel (for a total of 300 Ib [or 3 ft3]), and one and one fifth 1,100-lb
supersacks of the AD-33 media (for a total of 1,330 Ib [or 38 ft3]) were loaded sequentially into each
vessel containing approximately half a tank of water. Figure 4-11 shows a photograph of loading the AD-
33 media from a supersack through a hatch on the roof of the building. Each AD-26 vessel was loaded
with five 100-lb bags of fine gravel (for a total of 500 Ib [or 5 ft3]) and then approximately 41 55-lbbags
of the AD-26 media (for a total of 2,255 Ib [or 19 ft3]) with the vessel containing about half a tank of
water. Figure 4-12 is a composite of pictures showing the media bags and loading the underbedding into
one of the AD-33 vessels.
Figure 4-11. AD-33 Media Loading
26
-------
Figure 4-12. AD-33 Media Supersack, AD-26 Media Bags and Loading of Underbedding
After media loading, the vessels were backwashed one at a time to remove media fines. Backwashing
continued until the backwash water ran clear. Freeboard measurements were then taken from where the
straight side of the tank starts to the top of the media. For the AD-26 oxidation/filtration vessels, the
freeboard to the top of the media was measured at 24 to 25 in, which, based on the 5 5-in freeboard to the
top of the underbedding gravel, would yield a bed depth of 30 to 31 in (compared to the design value of
32 in). For the AD-33 adsorption vessels, the freeboard measurements to the top of the media ranged
from 24 to 26 in, which, based on the freeboard measurement of 58 in to the top of gravel, would result in
a bed depth of 32 to 34 in (compared to the design value of 36 in).
After the media was loaded and backwashed, the vendor and plant operator performed system shakedown
and startup work, which included checking system control and interlocking, testing for balanced flows
among individual vessels, and adjusting chlorine injection and control. The system was then sanitized
with a 12.5% NaOCl according to the Ohio EPA procedure. A water sample was collected for bacteria
analysis and the system was bypassed until the results of the bacteria analysis were received.
After the satisfactory results of the bacteria analysis had been forwarded to Ohio EPA, the system was
officially put online on September 21, 2005. Battelle conducted a system inspection and provided
operator training on data and sample collection on September 28, 2005.
The configuration of the system as it was initially installed allowed water to flow from one of the wells
into the three hydropnuematic tanks until demand in the distribution system forced water, after
chlorination, to flow through the AD-26 oxidation/filtration and AD-33 adsorption systems. Due to
difficulties encountered when attempting to maintain a stable chlorine residual level in the treated water
(see discussion in Section 4.4.2), the system was reconfigured on October 26, 2005, to allow the chlorine
27
-------
addition system and the AD-26 oxidation/filtration vessels to locate prior to the hydropnuematic tanks.
As such, the chlorine injection pump and the AD-26 system could operate based on the well flowrate of
either 130 or 90 gpm (depending on the operating well). Downstream from the hydropnuematic tanks, the
AD-33 adsorption system operated on-demand as before. This configuration improved the chlorine feed
system for a more steady feed into the head of the treatment system.
4.4 System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the one year demonstration study
were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-5. As
discussed in Section 4.3.3, the treatment system operated on-demand from system startup on September
21, 2005, through October 25, 2005. The system piping was then modified so that the chlorine injection
system and AD-26 oxidation/filtration system would operate at pump flowrates and the AD-33 adsorption
system would operate on-demand as before. During the one year demonstration study from September
21, 2005, through September 24, 2006, the West Well pump ran for a total of 1,995.6 hr with a daily
average of 5.5 hr/day (Note: 5.5 hr/day was used to calculate cumulative hours from September 21
through October 21, 2005, during which an hour meter was not available at the well pump), and the East
Well pump ran for a total of 1,429 hr with a daily average of 4.0 hr/day (Note: East Well stopped running
during October 27 through 31, 2005, due to replacement of the old well piping). The combined daily run
times for both wells ranged from 3.7 to 17.3 hr/day and averaged 9.5 hr/day. The operating time of the
APU system could not be determined due to the on-demand use of the system; however, after piping
retrofit on October 26, 2005, the AD-26 system operated for 3,151 hr based on the well pump hour
meters. The system was bypassed for five days from November 29 through December 3, 2005, due to a
power outage that caused problems with the control panel (see Section 4.4.5).
During the one-year study period, the system treated approximately 18,026,000 gal of water based on the
readings of the totalizers installed on the effluent side of each of the three AD-26 oxidation/filtration
vessels, or 16,873,000 gal based on the readings of the totalizers installed on the effluent side of each of
for the three AD-33 adsorption vessels. The combined throughput for the AD-26 system was 6.4% higher
than for the AD-33 system. Significantly unbalanced flow was observed among the three AD-26 (Vessels
A, B, and C) and three AD-33 vessels (Vessels D, E, and F). Before the totalizers were reset on
November 28, 2005, due to a power outage, 17.5, 45.2, and 37.3% of the flow passed through Vessels A,
B, and C, respectively. The exceptionally low flow through Vessel A (i.e., 17.5%) was caused mainly by
close to zero throughput through that vessel before October 26, 2005, when the AD-26 system operated
on-demand. After the totalizer was reset and when the system was operating primarily at pump flowrates,
a more even flow was observed, accounting for 29.2, 34.6, and 36.2% through Vessels A, B, and C,
respectively. For the AD-33 vessels, 32.2, 38.9, and 28.8% of the flow passed through Vessels D, E, and
F, respectively, before the totalizers were reset and 32.2, 39.5, and 28.3% after the totalizers were reset.
Using the 16,873,000 gal throughput for calculations, 19,726 bed volumes (BV) of water were treated by
the AD-33 system during the demonstration period. BV calculations were based on 114 ft3 of media in
the adsorption system. The instantaneous on-demand flowrates to the individual adsorption vessels
ranged from 3 to 26 gpm with combined flowrates ranging from 9 to 71 gpm and averaging 37 gpm
(Figure 4-13). This average on-demand flowrate is nearly the same as that at 33 gpm obtained just before
the demonstration study.
Flowrates through the three AD-26 vessels were monitored using individual totalizers/flowmeters
installed at the exit side of the vessels. Before the system piping retrofit, instantaneous on-demand
flowrate readings taken from the meters ranged from 6 to 28 gpm for Vessels B and C, with combined
flowrates ranging from 17 to 52 gpm and averaging 29 gpm (Table 4-5 and Figure 4-14). As noted
28
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of APU-250 System Operation
Operational Parameter
Duration
Value/Condition
09/21/05 -09/24/06
Well Pumps
Daily Run Time (hr/day)(a)
Well Range
West 0.7-11.0
East 0.0-7.8
Combined 3.7-17.3
Average
5.5
4.0
9.5
AD-26 Oxidation/Filtration System
Time Operated (hr)
Throughput (gal)
Flowrate before Retrofit (gpm/b'
Flowrate after Retrofit (gpm)(b)
Vessel/System Pressure and Ap (psi)
3,425
Vessel 09/21/05-11/28/05
A 514,502
B 1,330,884
C 1,095,615
Combined 2,941,001
Total 18,025,785
Vessel Range
A 0
B 11-28
C 6-24
Combined 17-52
Vessel Range
A 14-40
B 17-49
C 18-51
Combined 49 - 140
Cal. Combined(c) 10-165
Vessel Inlet Outlet
A 50(32-70) 46(33-60)
B 47(36-58) 47(37-58)
C 48(28-58) 48(28-58)
System 49(16-60) 46(33-56)
11/28/05-09/24/06
4,400,705
5,222,773
5,461,306
15,084,784
Average
NA
17
12
29
Average
29
35
36
101
89
AP
NA
NA
NA
4 (0 - 9)
AD-33 Adsorption System
Throughput (gal)
Bed Volume (BV)
Flowrate (gpm)
EBCT (min)(d)
Vessel/System Pressure and Ap (psi)
Vessel 09/21/05-11/28/05
D 884,259
E 1,067,843
F 790,679
Combined 2,742,781
Total 16,872,665
11/28/05-09/24/06
4,555,985
5,578,345
3,995,554
14,129,884
19,726
Vessel Range
D 5-23
E 5-26
F 3-22
Combined 9-71
Vessel Range
D 12.4-56.8
E 10.9-56.8
F 12.9-94.7
Combined 12.0 - 94.7
Vessel Inlet Outlet
D 48(36-60) 52(31-60)
E 49 (36 - 58) 49 (36 - 58)
F 48 (32 - 58) 48 (36 - 56)
System 48 (35 - 56) 48 (35 - 58)
Average
12
14
11
37
Average
23.9
20.3
25.8
23.0
AP
NA
NA
NA
0
(a) From October 26, 2005, through March 26, 2006.
(b) System piping retrofitted on October 26, 2005.
(c) Totalizer readings divided by sum of West Well and East Well hours.
(d) Calculated based on 114 ft3 of media in adsorption system.
29
-------
09/28/05 11/12/05 12/27/05 02/10/06 03/27/06 05/11/06 06/25/06 08/09/06 09/23/06
Date
Figure 4-13. AD-33 Adsorption System Flowrates
160
140
120
-•-Vessel A
-m- Vessel B
-_ Vessel C
-x-Combined
—«— Calculated Combined
09/28/05 11/17/05 01/06/06 02/25/06 04/16/06 06/05/06 07/25/06 09/13/06
Date
Figure 4-14. AD-26 Oxidation/Filtration System Flowrates
30
-------
above, little or no flow passed through Vessel A during this time period. After the system piping retrofit,
the system operated at the well pump flowrates. The instantaneous flowrate readings taken from the
meters ranged from 14 to 51 gpm for the three vessels with combined flowrates ranging from 49 to
140 gpm and averaging 101 gpm. The combined flowrates from the meter readings are compared in
Figure 4-14 with the calculated flowrates derived by dividing the combined throughput values by the
corresponding operating hours. As expected, the calculated flowrates were less scattered, excluding a few
outlier readings, than the instantaneous readings (i.e., 62 to 122 gpm [averaged 89 gpm] versus 49 to 140
gpm [averaged 101 gpm]) due to the different times the readings were recorded. The average flowrate
obtained from the meter readings was closer to the operating time-weighted average (i.e., 117 gpm) of the
West and East Wells flowrates (i.e., 130 and 90 gpm, respectively).
Based on the flowrates to the individual AD-33 vessels and system, the EBCTs for the individual
adsorption vessels varied from 10.9 to 94.7 min and averaged 23.3 min; the EBCTs for the system varied
from 12.0 to 94.7 min and averaged 23.0 min. This EBCT is at least five times higher than what normally
would be recommended by the vendor for iron-based adsorptive media.
The pressure loss across each AD-26 oxidation/filtration vessel ranged from 0 to 10 psi and averaged
2 psi. The inlet pressure of the AD-26 system ranged from 16 to 60 psi and averaged 49 psi, while the
outlet pressure of the AD-26 system ranged from 33 to 56 psi and averaged 46 psi. The average
differential pressure for the AD-26 system was 4 psi. The pressure loss across each AD-33
oxidation/filtration vessel ranged from 0 to 8 psi and averaged 2 psi. The inlet pressure of the AD-33
system ranged from 35 to 56 psi and averaged 48 psi, while the outlet pressure of the AD-33 system
ranged from 35 to 58 and averaged 48 psi. The average differential pressure for the AD-33 system was
Opsi.
4.4.2 Chlorine Injection. As described in Section 4.2, chlorine was added as an oxidant to oxidize
As(III) and Fe(II) using a 12.5% NaOCl solution. The chlorine injection system experienced operational
irregularities during most of the demonstration period, as reflected by the wide variation office and total
chlorine residuals measured at the entry point to the distribution system shown in Figure 4-15. After
system startup, with a free chlorine set point of 2.5 mg/L (as C12), free and total chlorine residuals varied
considerably from 0.34 to 3.49 mg/L and from 0.43 to 3.91 mg/L (as C12), respectively, which, at the
time, were thought to have been caused by the fluctuating on-demand flow through the treatment system.
The system was, therefore, reconfigured on October 26, 2005, so that the chlorine addition system and the
AD-26 system were located before the hydropnuematic tanks and operated based on the well flowrate of
either 130 or 90 gpm. Table 4-6 summarizes timelines of the settings and activities associated with the
chlorine injection system.
After system reconfiguration, the free chlorine setpoint was maintained at 2.5 mg/L (as C12). Although
somewhat improved, the free and total chlorine residuals measured at the entry point continued to scatter,
with concentrations ranging from 1.12 to 3.78 mg/L and from 1.81 to 3.99 mg/L (as C12), respectively
from October 27, 2005, through January 26, 2006. On November 30, 2005, the free chlorine set point
was decreased from 2.5 to 1.8 mg/L (as C12), but the scattering office and total chlorine residuals
continued without significant improvement. On December 20, 2005, modification was made to the
setting of pump stroke length in an attempt to reduce chlorine residuals. On January 3, 2006, in an
attempt to shorten the response time of the chlorine controller, the chlorine injection system was relocated
from the east wall of the well house to approximately 20 ft to the west wall next to the AD-26 vessels and
the chlorine injection point so that the length of the polyethylene tubing was reduced from 25 to 30 ft to
5 to 10 ft. On January 6, 2006, the chlorine metering pump was interlocked to the well pumps so that it
would operate only when one of the well pumps was on. In addition, on January 6 and 26, 2006, the free
chlorine set point was further reduced from 1.8 to 1.5 and then, 1.25 mg/L (as C12). The combination of
these efforts caused a somewhat decreasing trend for the chlorine residuals at the entry point, but the
31
-------
residuals continued to scatter significantly between 0.29 and 3.49 mg/L (as C12) for free chlorine and
between 0.29 and 3.72 mg/L (as C12) for total chlorine from January 27 through July 28, 2006.
Another potential contributing factor to the erratic free and total chlorine residual readings might be the
presence of iron particles in the chlorinated water, which clogged and/or coated the polyethylene tubing
leading from the inline mixer to the chlorine monitor/control module and the chlorine probe and flow
sensor assemblies. As a result, erroneous measurements might have been made by the chlorine probe,
causing incorrect feedback to the chlorine monitor/controller for erratic chlorine injection rates. In an
attempt to resolve this issue, an AD2710S iron removal cartridge was installed just before the chlorine
monitor/controller and after the polyethylene tubing on July 28, 2006. Due to a significant amount of iron
particles removed, the frequency of the cartridge change-out was increased from monthly to
approximately twice a month on September 1, 2006. The resulting free and total chlorine residual
readings became much less scattered, with concentrations ranging from 0.37 to 2.11 and from 0.56 to 2.88
mg/L (as C12), respectively. The average free chlorine concentration was 1.20 mg/L (as C12), very close to
the set value of 1.25 mg/L (as C12). Since then, the plant operator included cleaning of the relevant
system components, including the chlorine probe trap, chlorine probe, and flow meter trap, as part of the
routine system O&M activities.
6.0
5.0
ET
o
4.0
1.8 mg/L as C12
1.5 mg/L as C12
if" *•
re-
installed filter before chlorine
monitor on 07/28/06
: :r*-
Moved Chlorine Injection
Unit on 01/03/06
-j >]| 1.5 mg/L as C12
• Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
N iii
Initially calibrated chlorine probe on 08/07/06
then recalibrated probe on 08/10/06
09/22/05 10/22/05 11/21/05 12/21/05 01/20/06 02/19/06 03/21/06 04/20/06 05/20/06 06/19/06 07/19/06 08/18/06 09/17/06
Figure 4-15. Free and Total Chlorine Residuals at Entry Point
The vendor recommended calibration of the chlorine probe every three months. Because it had not been
calibrated since system startup, the chlorine probe was recalibrated by the plant operator following the
vendor's instructions on August 7, 2006. Due to a miscommunication, the chlorine probe was calibrated
with water from the entry point (or the TT sample tap) instead of water from the chlorine probe holder
which caused the free and total chlorine concentrations to drop through the treatment train. To correct the
drop in chlorine level, the free chlorine set point was increased from 1.25 to 2.25 mg/L (as C12). A call to
the vendor was made and the miscommunication was identified. The chlorine probe was then recalibrated
32
-------
Table 4-6. Settings/Activities Associated with Chlorine Injection System
Operating
Period
From
09/21/05
10/26/05
11/30/05
12/20/05
01/03/06
01/06/06
01/26/06
07/28/06
08/08/06
08/10/06
To
10/26/05
11/30/05
12/20/05
01/03/06
01/06/06
01/26/06
07/28/06
08/08/06
08/10/06
09/24/06
Free
Chlorine
Setting(a)
(mg/L
[as C12])
2.5
2.5
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.25
1.25
2.25
1.5
Chlorine
Metering
Pump on/off
Controlled by
Flow Sensor'
Flow Sensor
Flow Sensor
Flow Sensor
Flow Sensor
Well Pumps
Well Pumps
Well Pumps
Well Pumps
Well Pumps
Chlorine
Metering
Pump
Stoke
Length
(%)
50
50
50
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
Poly
Tubing
Length^
(ft)
25-30
25-30
25-30
25-30
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
Remarks
System operational on
09/21/05
System piping retrofitted on
10/26/05
Free chlorine setting reduced
to 1.8mg/L(asCl2)on
11/30/05
Stroke length reduced to 45%
on 12/20/05
Chlorine injection system
relocated on 01/03/06 to help
reduce distance of
polyethylene tubing and
response time of chlorine
controller
Relay rewired from flow
sensor on chlorine monitor/
controller to well pumps and
free chlorine setting reduced
to 1.5 mg/L (as C12) on
01/06/06
Free chlorine setting reduced
to 1.25 mg/L (as C12) on
01/26/06
Filter installed before chlorine
monitor on 07/28/06
Chlorine probe recalibrated
and free chlorine setting
increased to 2.25 mg/L (as
C12) due to low chlorine
readings in distribution system
on 08/08/06
Chlorine probe recalibrated
and free chlorine setting
reduced to 1.5 mg/L (as C12)
on 08/10/06
(a) Feedback from chlorine probe to controller that automatically adjusted injection rate (pulse/min) of chlorine
metering pump.
(b) Polyethylene tubing that off shot from main water line approximately 12 ft downstream from in-line mixer to
chlorine monitor/controller.
(c) Chlorine monitor/controller assembly.
with water from the chlorine probe holder and the free chlorine setpoint was reduced to 1.5 mg/L (as C12)
on August 10, 2006. These adjustments made the free and total chlorine readings much steadier, ranging
from 0.51 to 2.11 mg/L (as C12) with an average of 1.27 mg/L (as C12) for free chlorine and 0.59 to 2.88
mg/L (as C12) with an average of 1.58 mg/L (as C12) for total chlorine. There seems to be an increasing
33
-------
trend in the free and total chlorine concentrations. The facility is looking into relocating the chlorine
monitor/control module from after the chlorination injection point to after the treatment system to reduce
the problems associated with the iron build-up.
4.4.3 Backwash. Water stored in the three hydropneumatic tanks after AD-26 treatment was used
for backwash. Table 4-7 summarizes the backwash settings and volume of wastewater produced from the
three AD-26 oxidation/filtration vessels during the demonstration study. Figure 4-16 plotted the volume
of wastewater produced over time. The AD-26 system was backwashed automatically based on a set
time. Under the initial settings (i.e., 15 min backwash and 2 min service-to-waste rinse), an average of
5,640 gal, or 85% of the expected volume, was produced from the three vessels during a backwash event.
When the Park experienced the power outage on November 28, 2005, the backwash controls apparently
were reset so that each vessel would be backwashed for 20 min and rinsed for an extended duration (the
vendor reported 25 min but was not sure if it was correct). Consequently, more than twice as much
wastewater, i.e., 13,100 gal on average, was produced from each backwash event. The backwash settings
were adjusted back to 15 min backwash and 90 sec service-to-waste rinse on January 12, 2006, and the
volume of wastewater produced was restored to an average of 5,890 gal per backwash event. Since the
backwash water cleared up fairly quickly, it was decided on February 9, 2006, to reduce the backwash
duration from 15 to 9 min while the rinse duration remained unchanged. This reduced backwash setting,
however, did not result in the expected reduction in wastewater production per backwash event, with the
average volume staying at 6,145 gal. Nonetheless, because the backwash frequency also was reduced
from every two days to every three days on February 9, 2006, the overall wastewater production was
reduced by approximately 33%.
Table 4-7. AD-26 Backwash Settings and Volume of Wastewater Produced
Operating
Period
From
10/26/05
12/03/05
01/12/06
02/09/06
To
11/28/05
01/12/06
02/09/06
09/24/06
Backwash Settings
Backwash
Duration
(min)
15
20
15
9
Fast Rinse
Duration
(min)
2
25
1.5
1.5
Backwash
Frequency
(times/wk)
3
o
J
o
J
2
Average Volume
Produced per
Backwash Event
Expected
Based on
Settings
(gal)
6,630
17,550
6,435
4,095
Actual
(gal)
5,640(a)
13,100
5,890
6,145
Remarks
Piping retrofit
completed on
10/26/05; power
outage occurred on
11/28/05
System operation
resumed on 12/03/05;
PLC fixed on 01/12/06
Backwash settings
adjusted on 02/09/06
Demonstration ended
09/24/06
(a) Excluding data from October 28, 2005, October 30, 2005, and November 19, 2005, when abnormally low
volumes of wastewater were recorded.
The vendor recommended to backwash the AD-33 adsorption vessels approximately once every 60 days.
Automatic backwash could be initiated either by timer or by differential pressure across the vessels.
Initially, the backwash setting was placed on manual. After the power outage at the end of November
2005, the setting was reverted back to default, which was once every 60 days. The AD-33 vessels were
34
-------
backwashed four times (February 1, 2006, April 2, 2006, June 1, 2006, and July 31, 2006) during this
demonstration study. The backwash settings were for 15 min at approximately 127 gpm (or 10 gpm/ft2),
which produced approximately 5,700 gal for the three APU vessels. The average volume of backwash
wastewater produced during the four events was 6,045 gal, slightly above the estimated volume.
16,000
14,000
— 12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000 --
• Vessel A
Vessel B
A Vessel C
x* taa&x **** xxmmy**
Xfc*
X***
V~jic
fl^^1 —
-£^j^f™^-m*^*™***ep*^***rffyffi**ff\ipi*M**ff****"am**Qp*-yff(piiQ£l
_ A B
0
10/26/05 11/25/05 12/25/05 01/24/06 02/23/06 03/25/06 04/24/06 05/24/06 06/23/06 07/23/06 08/22/06 09/21/06
Date
Figure 4-16. Volume of Wastewater Produced When Backwashing AD-26 Vessels
4.4.4 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the system included
backwash water and spent media. Neither the adsorptive media (AD-33) nor the oxidation/filtration
media (AD-26) was replaced during the demonstration period; therefore, the only residual produced was
backwash wastewater. Initially, the backwash wastewater was stored in two 6,000-gal storage tanks on-
site and a vacuum truck hauled the backwash wastewater for off-site disposal at the Village of North
Hampton sewer system on a weekly basis. On September 14, 2006, the facility was connected to the
sewer system and the backwash wastewater was discharged to the sewer directly.
On February 27, 2006, during the system backwash and sample collection, one of the backwash
wastewater storage tanks overflowed, due to the fact that there was already water in the storage tank
before the backwash was initiated. The incident was reported to Ohio EPA, which requested a copy of
the latest analytical data. After reviewing the analytical data, the Ohio EPA deemed that the spill would
not adversely affect the environment. The quality of the backwash wastewater is discussed in
Section 4.5.2.
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. The operational issues related to the chlorine
injection system as discussed Section 4.4.2 were the primary factors affecting system/operation reliability
and simplicity.
35
-------
Unscheduled downtime during the demonstration period was caused by a power outage on November 28,
2005; a power surge was created, causing the master and slave chips within the control panel to
malfunction. The system was shut down and bypassed from November 28 through December 3, 2005,
while the vendor and plant operator tried to troubleshoot and fix the problems. On November 30, 2005, a
new set of chips was installed and the system was rebooted. The control panel malfunctioned again and a
new set of chips had to be shipped to the Park. On December 1, 2005, the new chips were installed and
the system was rebooted. All totalizer readings were reset and the system became operational. However,
on December 2, 2005, the control panel malfunctioned in the middle of the night, causing all three vessels
to backwash at once. Meanwhile, the system stopped sending water to the distribution system. The
vendor went through the steps to correct the problems to no avail, so on December 3, 2005, a new master
and slave chips were installed and the control panel became operational.
The system O&M and operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to pre- and post-
treatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventive maintenance
activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The pretreatment included chlorinating source water to oxidize
arsenic, iron, and manganese, while maintaining a chlorine residual for disinfection. In addition, the AD-
26 media was used to filter arsenic-ladened iron and manganese solids and oxidize any remaining reduced
metals, such as Mn(II). Post-treatment was not needed for this system.
System Automation. The APU-250 system included automated controls, which interlocked the well
pump alternating on/off controls. The system also was equipped with an automated chlorine feed and
control unit, which processed the signal from a chlorine sensor and activated a solenoid that drove the
metering pump. In addition, the system was fitted with automated controls to allow for automatic
backwash for both the AD-26 and AD-33 vessels. The backwash wastewater storage tanks did not have
automation associated with them. Because there were no level sensors installed in the tanks, there was a
potential for the tanks to overflow as occurred on February 27, 2006. On September 14, 2006, the
backwash line was connected to the sewer system, so the problems associated with the backwash storage
tanks were no longer a concern.
Operator Skill Requirements. The skills required to operate the APU-250 system were relatively
complex due to the problems associated with the chlorine injection and the power outage that occurred at
the site. The operator needed to adjust the dosage of the chlorine, adjust the metering pump, clean the
chlorine probe and associated tubing (which would get clogged with iron particulates), calibrate the
chlorine probe, change out the filter before the chlorine probe, and change out the master chip within the
control panel.
Under normal operating conditions, the operator spent approximately 20 min daily to perform visual
inspection and record the system operating parameters on the Daily Field Log Sheets. The operator also
performed routine weekly and monthly maintenance according to the users' manual to ensure proper
system operation. Normal operation of the system did not appear to require additional skills beyond those
necessary to operate the existing water supply equipment.
All Ohio public water systems, both community and nontransient, serving more than 250 people must
have a certified operator. Operator certifications are granted by the State of Ohio after passing an exam
and maintaining a minimum amount of continuing education hours at professional training events on a
biannual basis. Operator certifications are classified by Class I through IV water system operator, Class I
and II water distribution operator, Class I through IV wastewater works operator, and Class I and II
wastewater collection system operator. Class I is the lowest classification with Class IV being the
highest. Chateau Estates has a Class III water system operator.
36
-------
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included such items as periodic checks
of flow meters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. The chlorine probe
needed to be calibrated approximately once every 3 months. During this time, the chlorine feed/control
unit would be cleaned out since some system components, such as the chlorine probe trap, chlorine probe,
and flow meter trap, tended to build up iron residue. In addition, the polyethylene tubing that provided
the side stream to the chlorine monitor/control module was inspected biweekly and replaced, if necessary.
The filter cartridge installed just before the chlorine monitor/controller had to be changed out every two
weeks. Typically, the operator performed these duties when onsite for routine activities.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. The only chemical required for the system
operation was the NaOCl solution used for chlorination, which was already in use at the site. Every week
approximately 15 gal of the 12.5% chlorine solution was added to the 75-gal chlorine tank.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the APU-250 system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected
from the treatment plant, the media backwash, and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-8 summarizes the analytical results of arsenic, iron,
and manganese measured at the four sampling locations across the treatment train. Table 4-9 summarizes
the results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results for
the demonstration study. The results of the analysis of the water samples collected throughout the
treatment plant are discussed below.
Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the arsenic removal system was the
concentration of arsenic in the treated water. Water samples were collected on 27 occasions, including
two duplicates, with field speciation performed during 13 of the 27 occasions from four sampling
locations at IN, AC, OT, and TT.
Figure 4-17 contains four bar charts showing the concentrations of total arsenic, particulate arsenic,
As(III), and As(V) at the IN, AC, OT, and TT locations for each speciation event. Total arsenic
concentrations in raw water ranged from 9.5 to 35.4 |o,g/L and averaged 22.7 |o,g/L (Table 4-8). Of the
soluble fraction, As(III) was the predominating species, ranging from 5.6 to 25.8 (ig/L and averaging
16.9 ng/L. The particulate arsenic concentrations were low, averaging 2.8 (ig/L. The presence of As(III)
as the predominating arsenic species was consistent with the low DO concentrations (averaging 2.1 mg/L)
measured (Table 4-9). The ORP readings, however, were high, averaging 246 mV. Recall that the ORP
readings obtained during the August 5 and September 9, 2004, source water sampling events were -
88 mV for the West Well and -25 mV for the East Well. The higher than expected ORP readings might
have been caused by aeration of water during sampling.
Similar to the August 5 and September 9, 2004, source water sampling test results, total arsenic
concentrations were higher in the West Well than the East Well (26.9 versus 20.2 (ig/L on average).
Unlike what was observed during these source water sampling events, As(III) was the predominating
species in both wells with only 7% of As(V) measured in both the West Well (based on five sets of
speciation results) and the East Well (based on eight sets of speciation results). There was no evidence to
suggest that there were significant differences in arsenic speciation between the two wells. The presence
of elevated particulate arsenic and particulate iron during some of these speciation events and the
September 9, 2004, East Well source water sampling (as discussed in Section 4.1.1) most likely was
caused by inadvertent aeration of the samples during sampling.
37
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
Sample
Count
27
27
27
27
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
27
27
27
27
13
13
13
13
27
27
27
27
13
13
13
13
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
9.5
9.4
0.5
<0.1
8.4
1.9
0.5
0.1
0.7
1.3
0.1
O.I
5.6
O.I
O.I
0.1
O.I
0.1
O.I
0.1
521
535
<25
<25
217
<25
<25
<25
17.3
16.4
O.I
0.1
17.9
0.4
0.1
O.I
Maximum
35.4
31.6
2.1
0.5
25.6
26.2
1.8
0.4
5.7
28.9
0.5
0.2
25.8
23.1
11.6
0.8
6.1
26.1
1.4
0.1
2,238
1,733
25.3
<25
1,475
838
<25
<25
82.1
77.3
0.7
0.2
81.6
39.6
1.2
0.5
Average
22.7
23.7
Standard
Deviation
5.6
5.0
.(a)
.(a)
18.5
6.4
4.8
7.7
.(a)
.(a)
2.8
15.2
1.8
7.3
.(a)
.(a)
16.9
2.1
5.7
6.3
(a)
.(a)
1.7
4.5
1.6
6.6
(a)
.(a)
1,102
1,171
<25
<25
822
77.7
<25
<25
35.6
29.5
0.2
0.1
36.3
8.3
0.2
0.2
451
407
2.5
.
408
228
.
-
17.1
13.7
0.2
0.04
17.5
11.0
0.3
0.2
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
(a) Statistics not provided; see Figure 4-18 for arsenic breakthrough curves.
38
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as
P04)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
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
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
18
19
19
19
Concentration
Minimum
325
319
306
326
<0.05
0.05
O.05
0.05
0.8
1.1
0.9
0.8
14.0
12.0
13.7
22.8
O.05
0.05
O.05
O.05
0.03
O.03
0.03
O.03
16.8
16.8
16.9
16.2
0.6
0.7
0.1
O.I
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.0
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
1.1
0.9
1.2
1.0
Maximum
371
370
365
365
0.53
0.26
0.15
0.05
3.3
3.5
3.6
3.1
34.0
37.0
34.0
33.0
O.05
0.13
0.20
O.05
0.03
O.03
0.03
O.03
20.5
20.1
19.8
18.9
25.0
26.0
0.8
1.4
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.4
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
3.5
3.4
3.8
3.1
Average
343
341
341
342
0.21
0.08
0.03
0.05
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.4
24.1
26.1
26.0
26.4
O.05
0.03
0.03
O.05
0.03
O.03
0.03
O.03
18.4
18.5
18.2
17.9
12.4
3.2
0.4
0.5
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.2
16.2
15.8
15.8
15.7
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
Standard
Deviation
11.4
11.6
11.1
9.3
0.09
0.08
0.02
-
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
5.0
6.4
3.6
2.3
-
0.02
0.03
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.7
7.6
5.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.4
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
39
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
OT
TT
AC
OT
TT
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
Unit
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
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
22
22
22
21
10
15
21
6
13
21
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
Concentration
Minimum
-131
-77.6
270
281
<0.1
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.8
285
282
240
297
170
170
140
166
112
112
101
115
Maximum
435
746
742
718
4.0
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.5
3.8
432
436
417
387
270
261
253
231
162
175
164
157
Average
246
497
588
623
1.7
1.4
1.8
1.5
1.8
2.3
341
344
343
346
206
206
205
207
135
138
137
139
Standard
Deviation
196
231
148
121
1.3
0.9
0.6
1.4
0.9
0.7
26.1
26.7
29.9
18.4
17.9
16.2
19.3
12.9
12.0
11.8
13.1
9.8
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for
calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
Chlorination oxidized As(III) to As(V) that, in turn, was attached onto the iron solids also formed upon
chlorination. The samples collected downstream of the chlorine injection point at the AC location
showed a decrease in soluble arsenic concentration from an average of 18.5 (ig/L in source water to an
average of 6.4 (ig/L after chlorination and a corresponding increase in particulate arsenic concentration
from an average of 2.8 (ig/L in source water to an average of 15.3 (ig/L after chlorination. The majority
of particulate arsenic was filtered out by the AD-26 oxidation/filtration media, leaving only 0.5 to
2.1 (ig/L of total arsenic, existing mainly as soluble As(V), to be further removed by the AD-33
adsorption vessels. By the end of the demonstration period, total arsenic concentrations in the treated
water after the AD-33 adsorption vessels were reduced to less than 0.5 (ig/L. Figure 4-18 presents arsenic
breakthrough curves from the AD-26 oxidation/filtration and AD-33 adsorption systems.
Free and total chlorine were monitored at the AC, OT, and TT sampling locations to ensure that the target
chlorine residual levels were properly maintained. Free chlorine levels at the AC location ranged from
<0.1 to 4.0 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 1.7 mg/L (as C12); total chlorine levels ranged from 0.1 to 3.2
mg/L (as C12) and averaged 1.5 mg/L (as C12) (Table 4-9). The residual chlorine levels measured at the
OT and TT locations were similar to those measured at the AC location, indicating little or no chlorine
40
-------
Arsenic Speciation at Wellhead (IN)
Arsenic Speciation after Chlorination (AC)
IT 30 -
B>
3 25 -
1 20-
&
g 15-
O
c
o 10 -
o
< 5 -
n
u
\V
DAs (particulate)
• As (III)
DAs(V)
I — |
1 1
—
— —
a Egg -n
M
~
B _ — — B ~ |— |
x///////////
Date
Arsenic Speciation after Oxidation/Filtration Vessels (OT)
v^
OJ
2- 30
B)
5 25
c
£ 20
ro
is
g 15
o
o 10
< 5
n
DAs (particulate)
- HAs (III)
DAs(V)
F=l r-i
2" 30 -
3)
3 25-
c
1 2°-
g 15 -
o
o 10-
< 5 -
n
DAs (particulate)
• As (III)
DAs(V)
-
=
-
=
-
=
=
=
-
=
1 — 1
=
-
-
=
-1
-
o
'•&
ra
i:
c
01
o
c
o
O
35 j
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
0 --
Date
Arsenic Speciation after Adsorption Vessels (TT)
DAs (particulate)
• As (III)
DAs(V)
#
Pd
Date Date
Figure 4-17. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AC, OT and TT Sampling Locations
-------
35
30 -
-7 25
-After Chlorination (AC)
-After Oxidation/Filtration Vessels (OT)
-After Adsorption Vessels (TT)
8 10 12
Bed Volume (103)
14
16
18
20
Figure 4-18. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for AD-26 Oxidation/Filtration
and AD-33 Adsorption Systems
consumption through the AD-26 and AD-33 vessels. Repeated attempts had been made to reduce the
levels of free and total chlorine residuals to the target levels of 1.5 and 1 mg/L (as C12). With the addition
of the cartridge filter that was placed just before the chlorine monitor/control module, the chlorine levels
appeared to have been under control.
After chlorination, DO concentrations, as expected, remained essentially unchanged; however, ORP
readings increased significantly to 491, 588, and 623 mV, on average, at the AC, OT, and TT locations,
respectively. The high ORP readings were consistent with the presence of high free chlorine levels,
which averaged l.l mg/L (as C12) at the AC location, and 1.4 and 1.8 mg/L (as C12) at the OT and TT
locations, respectively.
Iron. Total iron concentrations at the wellhead ranged from 521 to 2,238 (ig/L and averaged 1,102 (ig/L.
Iron concentrations following the prechlorination step at the AC location were similar to those at the
wellhead, with concentrations ranging from 535 to 1,733 (ig/L and averaging 1,171 (ig/L. Iron was
removed from the treatment train by the AD-26 media with concentrations at the OT sampling point
ranging from less than the MDL of 25 (ig/L to 25.3 (ig/L and less than the MDL of 25(ig/L at the TT
sample point. Soluble iron levels (based upon 0.45-(im filters) ranged from 217 to 1,475 (ig/L at the
wellhead. After prechlorination, except for one outlier at 838 (ig/L occurring on July 26, 2006, soluble
iron levels ranged from less than the MDL of 25 (ig/L to 32.8 (ig/L. Soluble iron levels were always less
than the MDL at the OT and TT sampling locations. The data indicated that chlorine effectively oxidized
soluble iron to form iron solids, which were then effectively filtered by the AD-26 oxidation/filtration
42
-------
media. The backwash frequency of once every 3 days appeared to be adequate without having any iron
leakage between backwash cycles.
Manganese. The treatment plant water samples were analyzed for total manganese and soluble
manganese during speciation sampling. Total manganese levels in source water ranged from 17.3 to 82.1
(ig/L and averaged 35.6 (ig/L, which existed almost entirely in the soluble form. After prechlorination,
over 70% on average, of soluble manganese was precipitated, presumably, to form MnO2 solids, which,
along with unoxidized Mn2+, were removed by the AD-26 media to less than or equal to 0.7 (ig/L. Total
manganese concentrations were further reduced to 0.2 (ig/L after the AD-33 adsorptive media. Note that
0.45 (im disc filters were used to separate solids from the soluble fraction.
It is interesting to note that the amount of Mn2+ that precipitated upon chlorination varied quite
extensively during the 13 speciation events, with nine events ranging from 85.0 to 98%, two ranging from
48.8 to 57.6%, and the remaining two ranging from 1.1 to 5.8%. The 85 to 98% precipitation rates
observed during the nine speciation events reflected rapid oxidation kinetics by chlorine, which were
contrary to the findings by most researchers who investigated the oxidation of Mn2+ even with some
lengths of contact time (Knocke et al., 1987 and 1990; Condit and Chen, 2006). Slow Mn2+oxidation
kinetics also were observed at a number of EPA arsenic removal demonstration sites (Table 4-10), where
less than 10% Mn2+ precipitation rates were observed at two sites (i.e., Delavan, WI and Bruni, TX) and
14.6 to 55.0% observed at seven sites. Alvin, TX, however, had high precipitation rates, averaging
93.5%. It is not clear why precipitation rates varied at the Chateau Estates site and why some raw waters
had slower oxidation kinetics than others. The contact time did not seem to correlate directly with the
precipitation rate.
Table 4-10. Amount of Mn + Precipitated After Chlorination at Ten
Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Anthony, NM
Alvin, TX
Brown City, MI
Bruni, TX
Climax, MN
Delavan, WI
Pentwater, MI
Rollinsford, NH
Sabin, MN
Sandusky, MI
Approximate
Contact Time
(min)
None
None
None
None
5
2
6
None
7
41
Average Mn in
Raw Water
(Total/Soluble)
HS/L
9.6/8.9
54.0/53.4
16.1/15.7
5.0/4.7
135/126
19.2/20.1
27.3/28.8
110/124
346/378
25.3/26.7
Average Mn after
Chlorination
(Total/Soluble)
HS/L
9.8/6.8
50.9/2.8
15.0/9.8
3.9/3.5
130/73.7
18.1/17.7
30.1/14.3
101/86.5
338/228
26.0/11.7
Average
Mn2+
Precipitated
(%)
23.5
93.5
31.9
5.8
35.9
2.7
52.5
14.6
32.6
55.0
Other Water Quality Parameters. The raw water pH values measured at the IN location varied from 6.9
to 7.5. This near neutral pH is desirable for iron removal and adsorption processes, both of which, in
general, have a greater arsenic removal capacity at near or lower than neutral pH values. The pH values
remained essentially unchanged after the AD-26 and AD-33 vessels. Alkalinity values ranged from 306
to 371 mg/L (as CaCO3) across the treatment train. The results indicate that the adsorptive media did not
affect the amount of alkalinity in water after treatment. The treatment plant samples were analyzed for
43
-------
hardness only when arsenic speciation was performed. Total hardness, existing primarily as calcium
hardness (about 60%), ranged from 240 to 436 mg/L (as CaCO3), and also remained constant throughout
the treatment train. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 12.0 to 37.0 mg/L, and remained constant
throughout the treatment train. Silica (as SiO2) concentration ranged from 16.2 to 20.5 mg/L, and
appeared unaffected by the chlorine injection and the AD-26 and AD-33 media. Fluoride results ranged
from 0.8 to 3.6 mg/L and did not appear to be affected by the AD-33 media. Total phosphorous was
below the MDL of 0.03 mg/L (as PO4) for all samples.
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling. Backwash was performed using the AD-26 treated water
stored in the hydropneumatic tanks for both the AD-26 and AD-33 systems. Unfiltered backwash
wastewater samples were analyzed for pH, TDS, TSS, and total arsenic, iron, and manganese. Samples
filtered with 0.45-|am disc filters were analyzed for soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese. As shown in
Table 4-11, the backwash wastewater from the first oxidation/filtration vessel (OW1), was sampled 12
times, while the second (OW2) and third (OW3) oxidation/filtration vessels, were sampled 11 and eight
times, respectively. The pH values of the backwash wastewater were about 0.2 pH units higher than those
of the AD-26 treated water, ranging from 7.3 to 7.7. TDS concentrations ranged from 360 to 476 mg/L
and averaged 408 mg/L. TSS concentrations ranged from 9 to 262 mg/L and averaged 83.4 mg/L. There
were several unusually low TSS values measured during backwash of each oxidation/filtration vessel
(including Vessel 1 on September 17, 2006; Vessel 2 on February 2, March 24, and September 17, 2006;
and Vessel 3 for March 24, April 20, June 22, and September 17, 2006), which were thought to be the
results of sampling errors caused by insufficient mixing of the solids/water mixtures in the backwash
wastewater collection containers. Note that lower TSS values also had lower particulate arsenic, iron, and
manganese concentrations. As such, these sets of data were not used for further data analyses.
The majority of the total arsenic, iron and manganese in the backwash wastewater were in the particulate
form. For example, total arsenic concentrations averaged 456 (ig/L while soluble arsenic concentrations
averaged only 4.2 (ig/L. Total iron levels ranged from 5,257 to 59,656 (ig/L, with soluble iron levels
ranging from less than the MDL of 25 (ig/L to 279 (ig/L. Total manganese levels ranged from 127 to
1,357 (ig/L, while soluble manganese levels ranged only from 0.4 to 5.2 (ig/L.
Assuming that 83 mg/L of TSS (average of all TSS values except for the outliers) was produced in 6,000
gal of backwash wastewater from the vessels, approximately 4.2 Ib of solids would be discharged during
each AD-26 backwash event. The solids discharged would be composed of 0.02, 1.51, and 0.03 Ib of
arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively, assuming 450 (ig/L of particulate arsenic, 30,100 (ig/L of
particulate iron, and 500 (ig/L of particulate manganese in the backwash wastewater.
Table 4-12 presents the results of total metals analysis for three backwash solid samples collected on
September 17, 2006 and analyzed in triplicate. The iron levels in the solids ranged from 3.78 x 105 to
4.82 x 105 ng/g and the arsenic levels ranged from 5,069 to 6,295 (ig/g. This yields an Fe:As ratio of
76:1, which is much higher than the 20:1 ratio as a rule of thumb for effective arsenic removal (EPA,
2001; Sorg, 2002). This 76:1 ratio also equates to 13.2 (ig of arsenic per mg of iron solids.
During the demonstration period, each AD-33 adsorption vessels were backwashed four times, generating
approximately 6,050 gal of wastewater. Initially the vendor recommended that the AD-33 vessels be
backwashed once every 60 days; however, after reviewing the system operation, it was determined that
the media would not need to be backwashed on a regular basis and that it would be determined based on
system pressures. After the power outage at the end of November 2005, the default setting (which was
once every 60 days) was restored, causing a backwash of the AD-33 adsorption vessels on February 1,
April 2, June 1, and July 31, 2006.
44
-------
Table 4-11. Oxidation/Filtration Vessels Backwash Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
Date
M
a.
S.U.
!/5
0
H
mg/L
!/5
!/5
H
mg/L
"3
-*^
§
5«
<
Hg/L
As (soluble)
iig/L
As (particulate)
Hg/L
^
-^-i
§
0)
U.
Hg/L
Fe (soluble)
iig/L
"3
-*^
§
I
Hg/L
Mn (soluble)
Hg/L
Oxidation/Filtration Vessel 1 (OW1)
10/13/05
12/05/05
01/12/06
02/02/06
02/27/06
03/24/06
04/20/06
05/17/06
06/22/06
07/13/06
08/15/06
09/17/06
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.3
414
420
408
412
384
400
408
410
476
402
432
402
NS
156
46
96
64
92
262
86
106
135
61
17
NS
296
238
634
536
487
1,089
628
699
814
410
153
2.7
3.2
5.6
4.3
4.7
5.6
5.0
4.8
4.9
4.2
4.0
3.6
NS
293
232
630
532
482
1,084
624
694
810
406
150
NS
21,366
13,545
57,464
30,997
24,432
59,656
55,409
50,318
49,955
25,375
10,014
<25
54
161
133
116
279
129
173
55.3
56.4
104
73.4
NS
724
527
1,357
486
443
487
368
802
833
692
266
1.8
3.1
5.0
5.2
1.6
4.5
1.3
3.2
1.2
2.0
2.3
1.9
Oxidation/Filtration Vessel 2 (OW2)
12/05/05
01/12/06
02/02/06
02/27/06
03/24/06
04/20/06
05/17/06
06/22/06
07/13/06
08/15/06
09/17/06
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
378
360
416
424
424
386
402
434
402
416
394
54
42
22
64
18
80
70
52
35
67
9
231
269
114
501
133
300
499
71.1
247
398
78.9
3.9
4.6
3.2
5.3
4.0
3.2
4.8
2.2
3.3
3.0
3.2
227
265
111
496
129
297
494
68.9
243
395
75.7
15,282
15,216
8,226
30,131
6,577
15,974
44,738
5,257
14,818
25,461
5,279
64.7
102
72.8
160
170
46.8
146
<25
63.5
88.1
84.7
342
556
183
481
213
127
253
133
273
653
152
3.3
3.3
2.9
2.2
3.0
0.4
1.2
0.6
2.2
1.6
2.2
Oxidation/Filtration Vessel 3 (OW3)
02/27/06
03/24/06
04/20/06
05/17/06
06/22/06
07/13/06
08/15/06
09/17/06
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
4.4
7.3
7.4
7.3
414
408
376
398
418
422
416
384
120
28
26
30
9
56
60
12
853
184
104
269
289
210
344
89.0
7.2
4.3
2.7
3.8
2.9
3.4
3.9
2.7
846
179
101
265
286
207
340
86.3
51,450
9,869
5,237
20,860
21,126
12,350
23,053
5,920
226
245
43.8
96.0
<25
64.5
205
36.4
566
202
51.1
147
362
212
579
168
2.5
5.3
0.5
1.0
0.9
2.1
3.0
1.1
NS = not sampled;
OW2 not sampled
OW3 not sampled
TDS = total dissolved solids; TSS = total suspended solids
on 10/13/05.
on 10/13/05, 12/05/05, 01/12/06, or 02/02/06.
Backwash of the AD-33 adsorption vessels was manually activated on February 12, 2007, so that a
backwash wastewater sample could be collected from each adsorption vessel. Table 4-13 presents the
results of the backwash wastewater analysis. The pH values of the backwash wastewater were about 0.2
pH units higher than those of the AD-33 treated water, ranging from 7.4 to 7.5. TDS concentrations
45
-------
Table 4-12. Oxidation/Filtration Vessels Backwash Solid Sample Total Metal Results
Sample
Vessel OWl-Solids-A
Vessel OWl-Solids-B
Vessel OWl-Solids-C
Vessel OW1 Average
Vessel OW2-Solids-A
Vessel OW2-Solids-B
Vessel OW2-Solids-C
Vessel OW2 Average
Vessel OW3-Solids-A
Vessel OW3-Solids-B
Vessel OW3-Solids-C
Vessel OW3 Average
Unit
lig/g
tig/g
lig/g
lig/g
tig/g
lig/g
tig/g
lig/g
lig/g
tig/g
lig/g
lig/g
Mg
13,971
14,474
14,964
14,470
9,574
9,422
9,305
9,434
8,306
8,280
8,220
8,268
Al
813
916
982
904
752
518
643
637
702
723
662
696
Si
179
119
235
178
238
429
431
366
344
373
366
361
P
,457
,446
,430
,445
,096
,140
,220
,152
,477
,267
,254
,333
Ca
69,283
68,558
69,783
69,208
58,785
59,433
60,117
59,445
58,252
59,638
57,830
58,573
Fe
378,975
379,741
394,841
384,519
434,952
441,247
473,494
449,898
482,080
465,394
465,609
471,028
Mn
11,144
11,100
11,706
11,316
12,374
11,146
13,691
12,404
15,134
14,736
14,421
14,763
Ni
13.3
14.0
15.2
14.2
11.0
10.9
11.9
11.3
12.1
12.7
12.2
12.3
Cu
28.0
28.4
28.9
28.4
20.8
21.5
20.4
20.9
19.6
34.4
19.1
24.3
Zn
84.9
91.8
89.6
88.7
64.8
60.7
66.3
63.9
71.3
34.1
34.5
46.6
As
5,069
5,156
5,175
5,133
5,899
5,951
6,020
5,956
6,295
6,208
6,251
6,251
Cd
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.15
0.14
0.18
0.16
0.17
0.19
0.12
0.16
Pb
14.0
14.7
15.5
14.7
12.9
11.9
14.8
13.2
11.9
12.3
11.7
12.0
Fe/As
74.8
73.7
76.3
74.9
73.7
74.1
78.7
75.5
76.6
75.0
74.5
75.4
Table 4-13. Adsorption Vessels Backwash Sampling Results
Sampling
Date
M
8.
S.U.
P
H
mg/L
^^
H
mg/L
13
3
jig/L
.a
s
0
3
jig/L
"3
o
r
sS
a.
3
jig/L
13
o
£
jig/L
'S*
s
o
£
jig/L
5
;§,
=
fig/L
S"
^
vS
=
fig/L
Adsorptive Vessel 1 (OW1)
02/12/07
7.4
380
36
114
2.8
111
12,949
99.6
322
2.2
Adsorptive Vessel 2 (OW2)
02/12/07
7.5
374
5
13.3
1.9
11.4
1,770
19.3
42.9
1.2
Adsorptive Vessel 3 (OW3)
02/12/07
7.5
376
24
86.9
2.2
84.6
11,268
56.1
252
1.9
TDS = total dissolved solids; TSS = total suspended solids
-------
ranged from 374 to 380 mg/L and averaged 377 mg/L. TSS concentrations ranged from 5 to 36 mg/L and
averaged 21.7 mg/L.
Similarly to the AD-26 backwash water sample results, the majority of total arsenic, iron and manganese
in the backwash wastewater were in the particulate form. For example, total arsenic concentrations
averaged 71.4 (ig/L while soluble arsenic concentrations averaged only 2.3 (ig/L. Total iron levels ranged
from 1,770 to 12,949 (ig/L, with soluble iron levels ranging from 19.3 (ig/L to 99.6 (ig/L. Total
manganese levels averaged 206 (ig/L, while soluble manganese concentrations averaged 1.8 (ig/L.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment
system, first draw baseline distribution system water samples were collected at three locations (two
residences and the mobile park clubhouse) on April 4, May 5, June 8, and July 7, 2005. Following the
installation of the treatment system, distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis. Two of
the three locations, i.e., the clubhouse and one residence, remained the same as the baseline, but the
residence for the third location was changed on October 12, 2005, to a new residence due to availability.
The samples were collected on October 12, November 15, December 12, 2005, January 16, February 13,
March 13, April 10, May 8, June 12, July 11, August 14, and September 12, 2006. The results of the
distribution system sampling are summarized in Table 4-14.
The most noticeable change in the distribution samples since system startup was a decrease in arsenic,
iron, and manganese concentrations. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged from 9.2 to 68.8 (ig/L and
averaged 23.7 (ig/L for all three locations. After the performance evalution began, arsenic concentrations
were reduced to less than 0.1 to 4.5 (ig/L (averaged 1.6 (ig/L). The baseline iron concentrations ranged
from 113 to 5,504 (ig/L (averaging 1,359) with the highest concentrations observed in the clubhouse
water samples (ranging from 1,423 to 5,504 (ig/L). After the treatment system became operational, iron
concentrations decreased to less than the MDL of 25 (ig/L in all samples except for three at 26.2, 28.1,
and 58.3 (ig/L. Manganese had a similar trend with baseline concetrations averaging 15.2 (ig/L and after
startup samples averaging 0.2 (ig/L.
Lead concentrations of all water samples collected before and after the installation of the treatment
system were less than 2 (ig/L, except for three instances at 2.2, 3.6, and 5.2 (ig/L. All of the Pb values
were, therefore, significantly below the action level of 15 (ig/L. Copper concentrations ranged from 0.3
to 1,353 (ig/L across all sampling locations, with one sample exceeding the 1,300 (ig/L action level
during baseline sampling. The arsenic treatment system did not have an effect on the Pb or Cu
concentrations in the distribution system.
Measured pH values ranged from 7.3 to 8.0 and averaged 7.5. Alkalinity levels ranged from 198 to
364 mg/L (as CaCO3). The arsenic treatment system did not affect these water quality parameters of the
distributed water.
4.6 System Cost
The cost of the treatment system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design
capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This required the tracking of the capital cost
for the equipment, site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor. The park owner decided to upgrade the
system from 150 gpm to 250 gpm in response to the Ohio EPA's redundancy requirement and to build
additional capacity for future growth of the Park. The additional cost incurred was funded by the park
owner and is listed as system upgrades on Table 4-15.
47
-------
Table 4-14. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
BL1®
BL2
BL3(C)
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
04/04/05
05/03/05
06/08/05
07/07/05
10/12/05
11/15/05
12/12/05
01/16/06
02/13/06
03/13/06
04/10/06
05/08/06
06/12/06
07/11/06
08/14/06
09/12/06
DS1
O>
H
=
.0
**^
03
=
M
03
55
Hr
25.3
6.1
6.0
6.2
7.8
9.0
6.1
6.3
6.0
7.2
8.0
8.6
8.0
8.1
8.0
9.6
M
S.U.
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.8
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
Alkalinity
mg/L
339
355
343
352
343
330
352
348
338
331
332
333
338
339
337
344
(K
-------
Table 4-15. Capital Investment Cost for AdEdge Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
Three 42-in Diameter Fiberglass Vessels on
Skid (for APU- 150)
AD-33 Media
Gravel Underbedding
Process Valves and Piping
Instrumentation and Controls
Totalizer for Backwash Line
O&M Manuals
One-Year O&M Support
Subtotal
Three 30-in Diameter Fiberglass Vessels on
Skid (for AD26)
AD26 Media
Gravel Underbedding
Process Valves and Piping
Instrumentation and Controls
Additional Sample Taps
Subtotal
Freight- ADS 3 Media
Freight- AD26 Media
Freight-System
Subtotal
Upgrades to APU-250 System (Paid by
Owner)
Additional AD-33 Media
Additional AD-26 Media
Other Upgrades (Vessels, Hydro Tanks, etc)
Subtotal
Equipment Total
1 unit
76ft3
1
1
1
1
1 unit
36ft3
1
1
1
1
2,430 Ib
4,470 Ib
12,000 Ib
38ft3
21ft3
1
—
$35,586
$21,254
$1,125
$12,600
$12,075
$990
$720
$2,920
$87,270
$23,400
$7,866
$990
$10,800
$10,600
$675
$54,331
$600
$525
$1,410
$2,535
$10,627
$4,588
$53,475
$68,690
$212,826
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
73
Engineering Cost
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Vendor Material
Subcontractor Labor
Subcontractor Travel
Subcontractor Material
System Upgrade (Paid by Owner)
Engineering Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
$4,534
$2,480
$98
$14,375
$403
$564
$5,074
$27,527
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
9
Installation Cost
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Vendor Material
Subcontractor Mechanical
Subcontractor Electrical
Subcontractor Other Labor
System Upgrade (Paid by Owner)
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
$7,920
$4,200
$925
$9,000
$780
$4,200
$24,874
$51,899
$292,252
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
18
100
49
-------
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation for the
250-gpm treatment system was $292,252. The equipment cost was $212,826 (or 73% of the total capital
investment), including $144,136 for the 150-gpm system (funded by EPA) and $68,690 for the system
upgrades (funded by the facility). The vendor provided cost breakdowns for the 150-gpm system, which
included $87,270 for the skid-mounted APU-150 unit, $54,331 for the skid-mounted AD-26 unit, and
$2,535 for freight (as shown in Table 4-15). The APU-150 system included $35,586 for the skid-
mounted fiberglass vessels, $21,254 for the AD-33 media ($280/ft3 or $5.33/lb), $12,600 for process
valves and piping, $12,075 for instrumentation and controls, and $5,753 for other materials. The AD-26
system included $23,400 forthe skid-mounted AD-26 unit, $7,866 for the AD-26 media ($218.50/ft3 or
$1.75/lb), $10,800 for process valves and piping, $10,600 for instrumentation and controls, and $1,665
for other materials. The $68,690 of equipment upgrades covered the cost of upgrading three 42-in
diameter fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) vessels to three 48-in diameter steel epoxy vessels forthe
APU unit and three 30-in diameter FRP vessels to three 36-in diameter steel epoxy vessels for the AD-26
unit, adding 38 ft3 of AD-33 and 21 ft3 of AD-26 media, adding three new hydropnuematic tanks, and
adding a chlorine injection system including a chlorine monitor/controller module.
The engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of a process flow diagram of the treatment
system, mechanical drawings of the treatment equipment, and a schematic of the building footprint and
equipment lay out to be used as part of the permit application submittal (see Section 4.3.1). The
engineering cost was $27,527, which was 9% of the total capital investment.
The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted units,
perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and backwash the media (see Section 4.3.3). The
installation was performed by AdEdge and LBJ, Inc., a local contractor subcontracted by AdEdge. The
installation cost was $51,899, or 18% of the total capital investment.
The capital cost of $292,252 was normalized to $l,170/gpm ($0.81 gpd) of design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 250 gpm (or 360,000 gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $27,590/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-yr return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at the design
flowrate of 250 gpm to produce 360,000 gal/day, the unit capital cost would be $0.21/1,000 gal. During
the year long demonstration, the system produced 16,873,000 gal of water (see Table 4-5); at this reduced
rate of usage, the unit capital cost increased to $1.64/1,000 gal.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost includes media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electricity, and labor, as summarized in Table 4-16. Although media
replacement did not occurred during the demonstration study, the media replacement cost would represent
the majority of the O&M cost. The vendor initially estimated that the AD-26 media would have a 4-yr
life expectancy, but revised it to a 10-yr life expectancy after reviewing the performance of the media. It
is estimated to cost $13,140 for replacement of 57 ft3 media in three AD-26 vessels. At the current water
use rate (i.e., 16,873,000 gal for one year), the system would treat 169 million gal of water in a 10-yr
period. Therefore, the AD-26 media replacement cost would be equivalent to $0.08/1,000 gal of water
treated.
The vendor estimated that the AD-33 media would have a 4.9-yr life expectancy before replacement. It
was estimated to cost $34,230 to change out the adsorptive vessels with 114 ft3 of AD-33 media; that
estimate included the cost for media, freight, labor, travel expenses, and media disposal fee. This cost
was used to estimate the media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water treated as a function of the
projected media run length to the 10-|o,g/L arsenic breakthrough (Figure 4-19).
50
-------
A 12.5% sodium hypochlorite solution was used for chlorination. The cost associated with chlorination
was approximately $2,800 during this demonstration study, which translated into a chemical cost of
$0.17/1,000 gal of water treated.
Comparison of electrical bills provided by the Park prior to system installation and since startup did not
indicate any noticeable increase in power consumption by the treatment system. Therefore, electrical cost
associated with operation of the APU-250 system was assumed to be negligible. Under normal operating
conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed 20 min per day, which
translates into 2.33 hr/wk, as noted in Section 4.4.6. Therefore, the estimated labor cost is
$0.16/1,000 gal of water treated.
Table 4-16. Operation and Maintenance Cost for AdEdge Treatment System
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Value
16,873,000
Assumptions
Through September 24, 2006
Media Replacement and Disposal
AD26 Media Unit Cost ($/ft3)
AD26 Media Volume (ft3)
Underbedding Gravel ($)
Subcontractor Labor Cost ($)
Freight ($)
Waste Disposal ($)
Waste Analysis ($)
Subtotal ($)
AD26 Media Replacement and
Disposal cost ($/l,000 gal)
ADS 3 Media Unit Cost ($/ft3)
ADS 3 Media Volume (ft3)
Underbedding Gravel ($)
Subcontractor Labor Cost ($)
Freight ($)
Waste Disposal ($)
Waste Analysis ($)
Subtotal ($)
AD-33 Media Replacement and
Disposal cost ($/l,000 gal)
150
57
1,040
1,950
705
650
245
13,140
0.08
260
114
1,040
1,950
705
650
245
34,230
See Figure 4-19
Vendor quote
To fill three 36-in diameter vessels
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Assume 10-year media life, treating 169
million gal of water
Vendor quote
To fill three 48-in diameter vessels
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
One TCLP test
Chemical Usage
Chemical Cost ($/l,000)
0.17
Approximately $2,800 for one year
Electricity
Electricity Cost ($/l,000 gal)
0.001
Electrical costs assumed negligible
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Labor cost ($/l,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
2.33
0.16
See Figure 4-19
20 min/day
Labor rate = $2 1/hr
Total O&M cost = adsorptive media
replacement cost + 0.08 + 0. 17 + 0. 16
51
-------
$2.00
$1.75
$1.50
$1.25 -
s: $1.00
ts
8
1.75
$0.50
$0.25
$0.00
AD-33 Media Replacement
Total O&M
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (xlOOO)
1 BV = 114 cubic feet = 850 gal
Figure 4-19. Media Replacement Cost Curves for Springfield System
52
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
AdEdge. 2005. Operation and Maintenance Manual for Groundwater Treatment System: APUandAD-
26 Package Units for Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Reduction.
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 Round 2 at Springfield, 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., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Condit, W.E. and A.S.C. Chen. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal, U.S. EPA
Demonstration Project at Climax, MN, Final Performance Evaluation Report.
EPA/600/R-06/152. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 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.
Knocke, W.R., Hoehn, R. C.; Sinsabaugh, R. L. 1987. "Using Alternative Oxidants to Remove Dissolved
Manganese from Waters Laden with Organics." J. AWWA, 79(3): 75.
Knocke, W.R., Van Benschoten, J.E., Kearney, M., Soborski, A., and Reckhow, D.A., 1990. Alternative
Oxidants for the Remove of Soluble Iron and Manganese. Final report prepared for the AWWA
Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Sorg, T.J. 2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, AWWA, 28(11): 15.
Wang, L., W. 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.
53
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Springfield, OH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 1 of 11)
Week
No.
2
3
4
5
6
Date
09/28/05(D)
09/29/05
09/30/05
10/01/05
10/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
10/05/05
10/06/05
10/07/05
10/08/05
10/09/05
10/10/05
10/11/05
10/12/05
10/13/05
10/14/05
10/15/05
10/16/05
10/17/05
10/18/05
10/19/05
10/20/05
10/21/05W
10/22/05
10/23/05
10/24/05
10/25/05
10/26/05(9)
10/27/05
10/28/05
10/29/05
10/30/05
Hour Meter
West Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.5
4.6
3.3
4.7
2.5
6.2
8.5
7.5
7.1
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
38.5
44.0
49.5
55.0
60.5
66.0
71.5
77.0
82.5
88.0
93.5
99.0
104.5
110.0
115.5
121.0
126.5
132.0
137.5
143.0
148.5
154.0
159.5
132.0
138.5
143.1
146.4
151.1
153.6
159.8
168.3
175.8
182.9
East Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
NA
0.2
3.0
2.7
3.1
6.6
0.1
2.4
6.9
1.1
1.2
4.3
4.6
2.9
2.8
2.8
4.2
2.0
3.3
3.6
3.2
2.7
5.7
NA
4.5
3.2
2.5
3.2
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
28.0
28.2
31.2
33.9
37.0
43.6
43.7
46.1
53.0
54.1
55.3
59.6
64.2
67.1
69.9
72.7
76.9
78.9
82.2
85.8
89.0
91.7
97.4
101.2
105.7
108.9
111.4
114.6
120.2
120.2
120.2
120.2
120.2
Service
AD-26
Combined
Flowrate|b'c|
gpm
10
26
37
27
33
NA
21
22
52
30
26
38
29
20
19
39
22
20
30
28
24
32
17
35
36
40
24
27
86
95
86
88
87
Calculated
Combined
Flowrate|d|
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
99
91
84
97
30
84
64
96
75
AD-33
Combined
Flowrate|e|
gpm
21
NA
19
23
35
NA
23
22
23
20
41
45
23
15
21
29
16
20
32
23
20
37
18
25
29
33
28
NA
27
23
27
26
23
Backwash
AD-26
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4,533
NA
4,671
NA
4,683
NA
337
NA
3,127
NA
3,161
AD-33
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
System Pressure
AD-26
Inlet
Pressure
psi
38
52
39
54
48
NA
44
40
44
42
42
42
42
44
44
54
40
42
42
40
44
54
48
54
52
54
42
48
52
40
50
46
52
Outlet
Pressure
psi
38
51
38
52
48
NA
44
40
46
52
42
38
42
44
46
52
40
40
44
40
46
52
46
52
50
52
44
48
52
40
50
46
54
AD-33
Inlet
Pressure
psi
55
NA
42
38
50
NA
38
46
40
44
54
54
48
40
44
44
40
40
43
50
46
52
42
44
46
46
50
54
52
40
52
48
50
Outlet
Pressure
psi
55
NA
42
38
50
NA
40
48
40
44
54
54
50
40
44
44
40
40
43
50
46
52
44
44
46
46
50
54
52
42
52
48
48
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Springfield, OH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 2 of 11)
Week
No.
7
8
9
10
11
Date
10/31/05
11/01/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
11/04/05
11/05/05
11/06/05
11/07/05
11/08/05
11/09/05
11/10/05
11/11/05
11/12/05
11/13/05
11/14/05
11/15/05
11/16/05
11/17/05
11/18/05
11/19/05
11/20/05
11/21/05
11/22/05
11/23/05
11/24/05
11/25/05
11/26/05
11/27/05
11/28/05""
11/29/05
11/30/05
12/01/05
12/03/05
12/04/05
Hour Meter
West Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
10.1
2.8
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.8
4.4
4.6
4.3
4.1
3.9
4.8
3.8
5.8
3.1
5.3
3.3
8.0
3.2
5.5
7.0
2.3
4.5
5.2
5.3
5.1
5.8
6.7
7.4
2.8
0.7
3.7
12.5
5.1
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
193.0
195.8
199.8
203.7
207.6
211.4
215.8
220.4
224.7
228.8
232.7
237.5
241.3
247.1
250.2
255.5
258.8
266.8
270.0
275.5
282.5
284.8
289.3
294.5
299.8
304.9
310.7
317.4
324.8
327.6
328.3
332.0
344.5
349.6
East Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
0.5
2.6
2.5
3.3
2.7
3.3
3.0
3.8
2.8
3.3
2.5
4.1
2.7
4.0
1.8
3.7
1.7
7.1
1.7
3.3
3.7
2.0
2.5
3.2
2.8
2.8
3.1
4.3
3.4
5.8
7.4
2.1
11.9
2.9
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
120.7
123.3
125.8
129.1
131.8
135.1
138.1
141.9
144.7
148.0
150.5
154.6
157.3
161.3
163.1
166.8
168.5
175.6
177.3
180.6
184.3
186.3
188.8
192.0
194.8
197.6
200.7
205.0
208.4
214.2
221.6
223.7
235.6
238.5
Service
AD-26
Combined
Flowrate|b'c|
gpm
87
97
117
101
NA
133
79
129
124
88
96
84
134
91
89
88
125
108
82
90
122
123
135
91
121
87
119
88
131
NA
NA
88
140
71
Calculated
Combined
Flowrate|d|
gpm
80
80
94
85
106
90
95
85
95
114
95
71
62
90
99
90
95
92
93
95
102
63
97
88
96
95
97
90
97
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AD-33
Combined
Flowrate|e|
gpm
28
34
22
30
23
34
20
9
29
25
34
23
28
31
18
19
25
37
30
41
41
22
36
32
39
42
38
39
43
NA
NA
29
41
30
Backwash
AD-26
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
653
6,228
NA
5,888
NA
6,106
NA
5,846
NA
6,100
NA
6,116
NA
5,389
NA
5,494
NA
5,256
NA
2,277
NA
5,272
NA
5,276
NA
219
NA
4,700
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AD-33
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
System Pressure
AD-26
Inlet
Pressure
psi
54
50
47
45
53
53
47
40
54
44
52
50
50
44
38
52
54
38
52
40
50
48
51
46
51
46
51
43
46
NM
NM
41
46
46
Outlet
Pressure
psi
54
50
47
45
53
53
48
42
52
44
50
50
48
44
38
50
50
38
48
48
48
48
49
45
49
43
46
41
42
NM
NM
38
44
44
AD-33
Inlet
Pressure
psi
52
55
48
50
47
45
NM
40
50
44
50
52
50
48
40
50
38
48
52
48
50
43
44
47
43
48
36
48
42
NM
NM
42
54
44
Outlet
Pressure
psi
52
55
48
50
47
45
NM
42
52
46
52
52
50
48
42
50
38
50
52
50
50
43
44
47
43
48
36
48
44
NM
NM
42
54
46
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Springfield, OH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 3 of 11)
Week
No.
12
13
14
15
16
Date
12/05/05
12/06/05
12/07/05
12/08/05
12/09/05
12/10/05
12/11/05
12/12/05
12/13/05
12/14/05
12/15/05
12/16/05
12/17/05
12/18/05
12/19/05
12/20/05
12/21/05
12/22/05
12/23/05
12/24/05
12/25/05
12/26/05
12/27/05
12/28/05
12/29/05
12/30/05
12/31/05
01/01/06
01/02/06
01/03/06
01/04/06
01/05/06
01/06/06
01/07/06
01/08/06
Hour Meter
West Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
3.1
5.5
5.7
5.8
6.4
8.2
4.0
7.2
4.3
5.6
5.5
5.5
6.0
5.3
6.8
6.5
8.0
5.6
5.5
9.1
5.4
3.7
5.5
6.1
5.6
7.4
9.5
4.2
5.3
6.0
6.2
6.3
6.7
6.0
7.7
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
352.7
358.2
363.9
369.7
376.1
384.3
388.3
395.5
399.8
405.4
410.9
416.4
422.4
427.7
434.5
441.0
449.0
454.6
460.1
469.2
474.6
478.3
483.8
489.9
495.5
502.9
512.4
516.6
521.9
527.9
534.1
540.4
547.1
553.1
560.8
East Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
4.1
3.4
3.2
4.9
3.6
5.7
3.2
5.9
2.4
5.0
3.3
5.2
3.4
5.2
3.7
5.5
4.0
5.3
3.2
6.6
3.0
3.8
3.1
5.3
3.0
4.8
2.6
7.8
3.1
6.0
3.8
6.0
4.0
6.0
4.9
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
242.6
246.0
249.2
254.1
257.7
263.4
266.6
272.5
274.9
279.9
283.2
288.4
291.8
297.0
300.7
306.2
310.2
315.5
318.7
325.3
328.3
332.1
335.2
340.5
343.5
348.3
350.9
358.7
361.8
367.8
371.6
377.6
381.6
387.6
392.5
Service
AD-26
Combined
Flowrate|b'c|
gpm
93
130
92
123
123
93
91
138
84
129
88
127
77
110
85
92
49
80
100
80
132
89
77
90
130
85
118
123
58
128
113
81
86
125
87
Calculated
Combined
Flowrate|d|
gpm
76
30
105
75
94
72
122
83
94
81
97
81
96
81
95
81
94
80
96
83
99
88
89
78
98
84
66
104
93
79
93
80
93
81
91
AD-33
Combined
Flowrate|e|
gpm
20
28
41
45
39
52
42
31
24
41
35
43
30
35
51
46
34
41
41
42
31
41
27
30
41
38
34
44
32
37
34
40
48
26
38
Backwash
AD-26
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
13,547
1,227
NA
13,284
NA
13,166
NA
13,097
NA
13,217
NA
13,241
NA
13,181
NA
12,959
NA
13,048
NA
13,019
NA
13,004
NA
13,035
NA
13,135
NA
12,221
900
13,241
NA
12,788
NA
12,894
NA
AD-33
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
System Pressure
AD-26
Inlet
Pressure
psi
42
48
42
52
52
44
44
44
40
50
43
50
42
57
48
40
44
50
42
52
48
42
48
42
44
46
52
50
52
39
56
56
53
43
45
Outlet
Pressure
psi
40
46
33
48
48
42
40
40
40
47
39
49
40
54
44
38
40
48
38
50
44
40
48
40
38
44
46
46
47
38
55
54
49
43
42
AD-33
Inlet
Pressure
psi
42
42
52
40
52
42
40
48
35
49
48
45
43
42
46
42
44
52
42
52
50
40
36
44
44
44
48
46
39
41
47
43
53
39
48
Outlet
Pressure
psi
42
42
54
40
52
47
40
48
35
49
48
45
43
42
48
42
44
52
42
52
50
40
36
46
44
44
50
48
39
41
47
43
53
39
48
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Springfield, OH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 4 of 11)
Week
No.
17
18
19
20
21
Date
01/09/06
01/10/06
01/11/06
01/12/06
01/13/06
01/14/06
01/15/06
01/16/06
01/17/06
01/18/06
01/19/06
01/20/06
01/21/06
01/22/06
01/23/06
01/24/06
01/25/06
01/26/06
01/27/06
01/28/06
01/29/06
01/30/06
01/31/06
02/01/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
02/04/06
02/05/06
02/06/06
02/07/06
02/08/06
02/09/06
02/10/06
02/11/06
02/12/06
Hour Meter
West Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
7.3
7.2
4.7
6.0
5.5
7.5
5.5
3.7
6.2
6.5
4.0
4.5
5.9
7.5
3.5
4.0
5.5
5.1
4.4
3.8
5.3
6.1
4.5
4.6
5.5
5.3
7.4
5.3
6.3
4.7
6.2
4.9
5.4
6.8
4.3
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
568.1
575.3
580.0
586.0
591.5
599.0
604.5
608.2
614.4
620.9
624.9
629.4
635.3
642.8
646.3
650.3
655.8
660.9
665.3
669.1
674.4
680.5
685.0
689.6
695.1
700.4
707.8
713.1
719.4
724.1
730.3
735.2
740.6
747.4
751.7
East Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
6.6
5.1
5.6
3.9
4.5
5.5
3.6
3.3
4.3
5.8
3.3
4.0
3.8
5.6
2.2
3.9
4.0
4.7
3.4
3.9
3.4
5.3
3.8
5.5
3.3
3.6
5.1
3.9
3.8
2.9
4.3
3.4
4.7
4.6
3.3
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
399.1
404.2
409.8
413.7
418.2
423.7
427.3
430.6
434.9
440.7
444.0
448.0
451.8
457.4
459.6
463.5
467.5
472.2
475.6
479.5
482.9
488.2
492.0
497.5
500.8
504.4
509.5
513.4
517.2
520.1
524.4
527.8
532.5
537.1
540.4
Service
AD-26
Combined
Flowrate|b'c|
gpm
130
121
89
82
79
128
80
91
88
91
91
91
91
128
122
130
129
129
91
78
83
130
86
87
98
126
112
107
100
115
90
87
80
119
84
Calculated
Combined
Flowrate|d|
gpm
81
92
80
93
85
89
93
85
95
89
83
95
93
89
86
91
96
87
89
93
94
88
96
91
93
92
84
93
80
95
85
94
85
100
82
AD-33
Combined
Flowrate|e|
gpm
56
52
37
43
36
38
52
43
34
43
46
26
35
43
37
26
36
28
26
32
23
31
29
32
37
28
45
42
45
33
26
33
33
37
48
Backwash
AD-26
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
12,898
NA
12,106
NA
6,133
5,402
NA
5,434
NA
5,406
NA
5,343
NA
5,476
NA
5,427
NA
5,348
NA
6,202
NA
6,426
NA
6,355
NA
2,473
7,661
NA
9,244
NA
6,060
NA
6,125
NA
NA
AD-33
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5,752
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
System Pressure
AD-26
Inlet
Pressure
psi
50
52
44
54
58
54
56
42
48
48
54
44
58
48
48
42
16
52
43
46
49
52
50
46
50
52
54
52
44
54
44
46
56
50
48
Outlet
Pressure
psi
48
46
42
50
54
50
52
42
44
42
52
42
54
44
42
41
42
48
41
44
47
48
48
44
46
48
52
46
42
50
42
43
54
44
42
AD-33
Inlet
Pressure
psi
52
50
48
52
52
54
52
40
46
50
48
48
50
40
44
55
50
54
47
50
43
54
48
48
50
54
54
50
44
54
42
48
54
50
48
Outlet
Pressure
psi
52
50
48
52
52
54
52
40
48
50
48
48
50
40
44
58
50
56
48
50
44
56
48
46
52
54
54
50
44
54
42
48
54
50
48
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Springfield, OH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 5 of 11)
Week
No.
22
23
24
25
26
Date
02/13/06
02/14/06
02/15/06
02/16/06
02/1 7/06
02/18/06
02/19/06
02/20/06
02/21/06
02/22/06
02/23/06
02/24/06
02/25/06
02/26/06
02/27/06
02/28/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
03/05/06
03/06/06
03/07/06
03/08/06
03/09/06
03/10/06
03/11/06
03/12/06
03/13/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
03/16/06
03/1 7/06
03/18/06
03/19/06
Hour Meter
West Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
5.7
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.7
4.9
6.5
5.3
5.8
5.6
6.6
5.4
7.7
6.2
3.6
5.6
5.7
4.6
5.1
5.1
8.1
2.9
4.4
4.9
4.3
6.0
4.8
4.9
1.4
6.3
4.5
4.6
4.4
4.6
6.7
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
757.4
762.7
768.0
773.3
779.0
783.9
790.4
795.7
801.5
807.1
813.7
819.1
826.8
833.0
836.6
842.2
847.9
852.5
857.6
862.7
870.8
873.7
878.1
883.0
887.3
893.3
898.1
903.0
904.4
910.7
915.2
919.8
924.2
928.8
935.5
East Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
4.3
3.8
3.9
4.6
3.7
3.6
4.9
3.9
5.1
4.5
4.8
3.7
5.3
4.1
2.4
3.8
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.3
5.9
2.3
3.7
3.6
4.6
3.5
5.1
3.8
2.3
3.9
4.1
3.3
3.1
4.2
5.6
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
544.7
548.5
552.4
557.0
560.7
564.3
569.2
573.1
578.2
582.7
587.5
591.2
596.5
600.6
603.0
606.8
610.6
614.5
618.5
621.8
627.7
630.0
633.7
637.3
641.9
645.4
650.5
654.3
656.6
660.5
664.6
667.9
671.0
675.2
680.8
Service
AD-26
Combined
Flowrate|b'c|
gpm
99
120
114
124
86
81
87
125
110
92
124
120
93
115
120
87
111
89
129
126
101
77
91
86
92
120
107
81
114
85
86
124
127
90
87
Calculated
Combined
Flowrate|d|
gpm
82
95
91
84
128
54
77
109
87
86
107
74
87
91
92
82
93
91
83
96
91
78
96
92
84
86
102
94
103
84
89
97
93
86
96
AD-33
Combined
Flowrate|e|
gpm
36
48
23
39
40
33
42
42
29
33
43
31
42
42
35
29
30
29
35
34
49
35
28
30
43
40
34
36
32
28
26
37
36
32
39
Backwash
AD-26
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
6,150
NA
NA
6,144
NA
NA
6,003
NA
NA
6,167
NA
NA
5,976
NA
NA
7,507
NA
NA
6,278
NA
NA
6,250
NA
NA
6,254
NA
NA
6,283
NA
NA
4,808
NA
NA
6,246
NA
AD-33
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
System Pressure
AD-26
Inlet
Pressure
psi
44
50
56
42
45
55
47
52
54
46
52
54
44
56
52
48
58
48
50
48
56
46
46
50
46
52
60
54
56
48
46
50
56
44
46
Outlet
Pressure
psi
43
47
50
41
42
53
46
48
48
44
48
48
42
52
46
46
54
46
48
44
50
44
44
48
44
48
46
50
52
44
44
48
52
40
42
AD-33
Inlet
Pressure
psi
44
56
39
50
53
44
51
52
54
48
50
54
46
52
52
48
54
48
52
52
52
46
48
48
44
52
48
54
56
48
44
48
52
48
44
Outlet
Pressure
psi
45
56
39
50
54
44
51
54
54
48
50
54
44
52
52
48
54
48
52
52
54
46
48
48
44
50
48
54
54
48
44
48
52
48
44
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Springfield, OH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 6 of 11)
Week
No.
27
28
29
30
31
Date
03/20/06
03/21/06
03/22/06
03/23/06
03/24/06
03/25/06
03/26/06
03/27/06
03/28/06
03/29/06
03/30/06
03/31/06
04/01/06
04/02/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
04/05/06
04/06/06
04/07/06
04/08/06
04/09/06
04/10/06
04/11/06
04/12/06
04/13/06
04/14/06
04/15/06
04/16/06
04/1 7/06
04/18/06
04/19/06
04/20/06
04/21/06
04/22/06
04/23/06
Hour Meter
West Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
3.6
5.1
5.7
3.6
5.8
6.2
5.1
4.3
3.7
4.6
5.3
4.5
4.3
7.3
4.5
5.2
6.9
7.5
4.0
8.3
6.1
3.8
5.6
6.3
4.9
6.2
5.6
6.8
5.7
6.1
5.8
5.8
5.3
8.5
8.5
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
939.1
944.2
949.9
953.5
959.3
965.5
970.6
974.9
978.6
983.2
988.5
993.0
997.3
1,004.6
1,009.1
1,014.3
1,021.2
1,028.7
1,032.7
1,041.0
1,047.1
1,050.9
1,056.5
1,062.8
1,067.7
1,073.9
1,079.5
1,086.3
1,092.0
1,098.1
1,103.9
1,109.7
1,115.0
1,123.5
1,132.0
East Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
2.4
4.0
4.6
2.8
4.2
4.3
3.7
3.4
2.8
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.7
4.9
3.3
3.5
4.5
6.9
2.3
5.9
3.8
2.4
4.4
4.3
3.1
3.9
3.4
4.5
4.5
3.8
3.9
4.1
3.4
5.1
5.4
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
683.2
687.2
691.8
694.6
698.8
703.1
706.8
710.2
713.0
716.9
720.6
724.1
727.8
732.7
736.0
739.5
744.0
750.9
753.2
759.1
762.9
765.3
769.7
774.0
777.1
781.0
784.4
788.9
793.4
797.2
801.1
805.2
808.6
813.7
819.1
Service
AD-26
Combined
Flowrate|b'c|
gpm
89
132
90
85
128
87
122
79
79
123
90
82
121
89
86
114
130
79
86
90
126
113
91
85
81
130
89
88
91
129
79
79
90
120
90
Calculated
Combined
Flowrate|d|
gpm
92
85
98
86
87
93
92
83
93
95
82
96
89
86
94
93
84
95
90
86
93
91
84
94
84
91
92
NA
NA
100
84
84
94
91
86
AD-33
Combined
Flowrate|e|
gpm
22
31
37
36
33
37
42
0
42
26
31
31
25
33
30
40
32
39
38
44
58
37
26
31
31
39
47
42
36
38
48
32
27
39
51
Backwash
AD-26
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
6,232
NA
NA
6,222
NA
NA
6,244
NA
NA
6,257
NA
NA
6,230
NA
NA
6,185
NA
NA
6,182
NA
NA
6,247
NA
NA
6,232
NA
NA
6,250
NA
NA
5,896
NA
NA
5,825
AD-33
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6,302
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
System Pressure
AD-26
Inlet
Pressure
psi
48
52
48
48
54
48
52
50
46
52
46
52
52
44
48
56
52
56
48
48
50
42
42
46
54
46
54
48
44
50
56
54
48
52
46
Outlet
Pressure
psi
44
50
44
46
52
44
46
48
42
48
44
50
46
42
46
52
48
52
44
46
46
50
40
42
48
42
52
42
42
46
52
52
46
46
42
AD-33
Inlet
Pressure
psi
48
52
46
46
50
46
50
50
46
52
46
52
46
42
46
50
56
54
46
46
48
50
44
42
48
42
44
40
46
50
52
54
48
48
44
Outlet
Pressure
psi
48
54
46
46
50
46
50
50
46
52
46
52
48
42
48
50
56
54
46
46
48
50
44
42
50
42
44
40
48
50
54
56
48
48
44
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Springfield, OH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 7 of 11)
Week
No.
32
33
34
35
36
Date
04/24/06
04/25/06
04/26/06
04/27/06
04/28/06
04/29/06
04/30/06
05/01/06
05/02/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
05/05/06
05/06/06
05/07/06
05/08/06
05/09/06
05/10/06
05/11/06
05/12/06
05/13/06
05/14/06
05/15/06
05/16/06
05/1 7/06
05/18/06
05/19/06
05/20/06
05/21/06
05/22/06
05/23/06
05/24/06
05/25/06
05/26/06
05/27/06
05/28/06
Hour Meter
West Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
4.0
6.3
6.9
4.0
4.4
5.4
5.8
4.5
4.9
4.9
4.9
7.8
6.7
5.3
3.5
5.2
5.0
5.9
5.1
5.0
5.8
5.9
6.1
4.9
5.3
5.4
7.7
4.9
4.1
5.8
4.5
5.7
6.8
4.5
10.6
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
1,136.0
1,142.3
1,149.2
1,153.2
1,157.6
1,163.0
1,168.8
1,173.3
1,178.2
1,183.1
1,188.0
1,195.8
1,202.5
1,207.8
1,211.3
1,216.5
1,221.5
1,227.4
1,232.5
1,237.5
1,243.3
1,249.2
1,255.3
1,260.2
1,265.5
1,270.9
1,278.6
1,283.5
1,287.6
1,293.4
1,297.9
1,303.6
1,310.4
1,314.9
1,325.5
East Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
2.0
3.9
4.0
3.0
2.9
4.1
3.5
3.3
4.0
3.1
3.3
7.1
4.1
4.1
2.8
3.4
3.4
4.1
3.4
3.7
4.1
3.6
3.5
4.6
3.7
3.5
5.3
3.2
2.8
4.5
3.4
3.5
4.3
2.9
6.7
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
821.1
825.0
829.0
832.0
834.9
839.0
842.5
845.8
849.8
852.9
856.2
863.3
867.4
871.5
874.3
877.7
881.1
885.2
888.6
892.3
896.4
900.0
903.5
908.1
911.8
915.3
920.6
923.8
926.6
931.1
934.5
938.0
942.3
945.2
951.9
Service
AD-26
Combined
Flowrate|b'c|
gpm
115
87
80
127
79
79
126
120
90
107
121
88
88
123
87
89
117
90
84
116
91
125
81
130
90
125
87
120
89
84
79
124
123
122
89
Calculated
Combined
Flowrate|d|
gpm
100
4
159
95
92
84
93
94
84
94
92
86
95
91
80
94
92
84
94
91
85
94
91
85
96
83
93
93
100
80
95
92
84
94
89
AD-33
Combined
Flowrate|e|
gpm
41
26
35
26
34
40
31
36
26
36
39
39
27
37
33
32
37
28
40
47
38
40
29
36
33
41
39
36
42
36
36
44
29
24
37
Backwash
AD-26
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
6,280
NA
NA
6,266
NA
NA
6,246
NA
NA
6,167
NA
NA
6,249
NA
NA
6,243
NA
NA
6,060
NA
NA
6,069
NA
NA
6,058
NA
NA
6,222
NA
NA
6,201
NA
NA
AD-33
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
System Pressure
AD-26
Inlet
Pressure
psi
52
50
56
48
56
58
48
52
44
50
52
46
48
52
46
48
48
42
50
50
44
52
48
48
46
48
46
52
46
50
58
42
44
48
46
Outlet
Pressure
psi
46
44
54
44
52
56
42
48
42
46
46
44
46
46
44
46
42
42
48
44
40
48
44
46
42
44
44
48
42
48
54
40
44
44
40
AD-33
Inlet
Pressure
psi
48
44
54
46
54
56
50
52
48
50
50
46
50
50
44
44
42
42
46
42
46
52
44
50
44
48
46
50
44
48
54
48
42
44
42
Outlet
Pressure
psi
48
46
54
46
54
56
50
52
48
52
50
48
50
50
44
44
44
44
46
42
46
52
44
50
46
48
46
50
42
48
54
48
42
44
42
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Springfield, OH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 8 of 11)
Week
No.
37
38
39
40
41
Date
05/29/06
05/30/06
05/31/06
06/01/06
06/03/06
06/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
06/07/06
06/08/06
06/09/06
06/10/06
06/11/06
06/12/06
06/13/06
06/14/06
06/15/06
06/16/06
06/1 7/06
06/18/06
06/19/06
06/20/06
06/21/06
06/22/06
06/23/06
06/24/06
06/25/06
06/26/06
06/27/06
06/28/06
06/29/06
06/30/06
07/01/06
07/02/06
Hour Meter
West Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
4.2
5.6
5.0
5.7
16.3
6.9
4.3
7.1
7.7
11.0
5.8
8.4
5.2
4.4
6.3
6.1
7.3
6.7
7.5
7.4
2.8
5.9
5.8
5.6
5.0
4.9
7.3
5.3
4.7
4.8
5.2
5.1
5.6
7.4
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
1,329.7
1,335.3
1,340.3
1,346.0
1,362.3
1,369.2
1,373.5
1,380.6
1,388.3
1,399.3
1,405.1
1,413.5
1,418.7
1,423.1
1 ,429.4
1 ,435.5
1,442.8
1 ,449.5
1 ,457.0
1 ,464.4
1 ,467.2
1,473.1
1 ,478.9
1 ,484.5
1 ,489.5
1 ,494.4
1,501.7
1 ,507.0
1,511.7
1,516.5
1,521.7
1 ,526.8
1,532.4
1 ,539.8
East Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
2.6
2.7
3.8
4.9
11.3
4.9
3.3
4.9
5.1
3.9
5.1
7.2
3.0
3.4
6.0
4.3
4.8
4.6
4.8
3.7
1.7
3.3
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.3
3.5
2.8
3.5
3.5
3.3
3.6
4.1
5.0
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
954.5
957.2
961.0
965.9
977.2
982.1
985.4
990.3
995.4
999.3
1,004.4
1,011.6
1,014.6
1,018.0
1,024.0
1,028.3
1,033.1
1,037.7
1,042.5
1,046.2
1,047.9
1,051.2
1,054.4
1,057.8
1,061.3
1,064.6
1,068.1
1,070.9
1,074.4
1,077.9
1,081.2
1,084.8
1,088.9
1,093.9
Service
AD-26
Combined
Flowrate|b'c|
gpm
82
83
89
91
116
126
123
92
79
79
76
126
129
121
122
89
119
90
110
89
79
121
106
87
114
88
87
86
121
90
84
89
83
91
Calculated
Combined
Flowrate|d|
gpm
82
93
91
88
90
84
91
91
83
88
88
86
91
90
84
90
89
81
92
88
73
90
89
82
93
85
85
90
92
81
93
91
82
91
AD-33
Combined
Flowrate|e|
gpm
44
38
35
33
43
42
48
42
37
62
34
32
39
42
46
46
43
36
46
29
43
29
42
53
37
31
42
50
37
35
50
37
39
45
Backwash
AD-26
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
6,250
NA
NA
6,081
NA
6,074
NA
NA
6,098
NA
NA
6,141
NA
NA
6,176
NA
NA
6,215
NA
NA
6,229
NA
NA
6,242
NA
NA
6,239
NA
NA
6,075
NA
NA
6,036
NA
AD-33
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
NA
5,723
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
System Pressure
AD-26
Inlet
Pressure
psi
54
52
48
46
50
50
52
54
54
54
60
52
52
52
50
46
50
44
50
48
54
48
54
44
50
52
48
48
52
44
50
46
52
46
Outlet
Pressure
psi
52
50
44
44
46
46
48
48
54
50
56
48
46
46
48
42
44
42
46
44
52
52
48
42
46
46
46
44
46
42
46
44
48
42
AD-33
Inlet
Pressure
psi
52
50
46
48
48
52
48
52
54
50
56
48
46
50
50
44
48
44
48
46
52
52
50
50
44
44
44
44
50
48
48
46
50
44
Outlet
Pressure
psi
52
52
48
48
48
52
48
52
54
50
56
48
46
50
50
44
48
44
48
48
52
52
50
50
44
44
44
46
50
48
48
46
50
44
>
oo
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Springfield, OH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 9 of 11)
Week
No.
42
43
44
45
46
Date
07/03/06
07/04/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
07/07/06
07/08/06
07/09/06
07/10/06
07/11/06
07/12/06
07/13/06
07/14/06
07/15/06
07/16/06
07/1 7/06
07/18/06
07/19/06
07/20/06
07/21/06
07/22/06
07/23/06
07/24/06
07/25/06
07/26/06
07/27/06
07/28/06
07/29/06
07/30/06
07/31/06
08/01/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
08/04/06
08/05/06
08/06/06
Hour Meter
West Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
3.1
5.6
4.1
4.7
5.5
6.5
5.4
7.4
5.2
5.4
5.7
7.1
6.5
7.6
4.8
4.5
5.7
6.7
6.1
6.4
5.2
7.5
6.1
6.3
5.2
5.7
5.6
6.1
7.0
6.1
7.3
4.9
6.4
6.7
6.8
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
1,542.9
1 ,548.5
1,552.6
1 ,557.3
1,562.8
1 ,569.3
1,574.7
1,582.1
1 ,587.3
1,592.7
1 ,598.4
1 ,605.5
1,612.0
1,619.6
1 ,624.4
1 ,628.9
1 ,634.6
1,641.3
1 ,647.4
1 ,653.8
1 ,659.0
1 ,666.5
1,672.6
1 ,678.9
1,684.1
1 ,689.8
1 ,695.4
1,701.5
1 ,708.5
1,714.6
1,721.9
1,726.8
1 ,733.2
1 ,739.9
1,746.7
East Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
2.5
6.0
2.6
4.1
5.5
3.5
3.1
5.4
2.7
3.1
4.0
4.0
4.7
5.0
3.9
2.7
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
3.2
3.6
4.7
3.8
3.7
3.9
3.5
3.8
5.5
3.8
4.3
3.5
4.9
4.6
5.2
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
1,096.4
1,102.4
1,105.0
1,109.1
1,114.6
1,118.1
1,121.2
1,126.6
1,129.3
1,132.4
1,136.4
1,140.4
1,145.1
1,150.1
1,154.0
1,156.7
1,161.2
1,165.2
1,169.7
1,174.2
1,177.4
1,181.0
1,185.7
1,189.5
1,193.2
1,197.1
1,200.6
1,204.4
1,209.9
1,213.7
1,218.0
1,221.5
1,226.4
1,231.0
1,236.2
Service
AD-26
Combined
Flowrate|b'c|
gpm
119
124
118
80
90
89
119
76
100
87
124
86
87
83
117
121
89
83
119
81
87
109
88
123
79
87
107
112
122
77
119
128
102
80
77
Calculated
Combined
Flowrate|d|
gpm
92
83
92
91
87
91
92
82
90
88
83
90
89
83
91
87
88
84
90
81
93
89
82
91
89
83
92
90
81
91
88
80
92
89
83
AD-33
Combined
Flowrate|e|
gpm
43
47
33
27
51
45
49
38
46
44
43
29
35
59
47
48
32
44
42
47
45
49
42
45
32
25
38
38
40
63
51
48
56
70
59
Backwash
AD-26
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
6,197
NA
NA
6,214
NA
NA
6,199
NA
NA
6,210
NA
NA
6,191
NA
NA
6,185
NA
NA
6,158
NA
NA
6,136
NA
NA
6,198
NA
NA
6,196
NA
NA
6,180
NA
NA
6,119
AD-33
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6,402
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
System Pressure
AD-26
Inlet
Pressure
psi
52
56
50
56
48
46
52
48
48
46
48
48
48
46
50
50
50
50
50
52
46
54
44
50
56
46
56
50
48
56
58
50
52
48
56
Outlet
Pressure
psi
46
52
44
56
46
42
46
48
44
42
46
46
44
42
44
42
48
46
44
48
42
48
42
46
52
42
54
44
44
52
52
46
48
44
56
AD-33
Inlet
Pressure
psi
44
52
46
54
44
42
44
42
48
44
48
48
46
42
46
44
48
46
48
50
44
52
44
48
52
46
52
56
48
54
54
48
48
44
56
Outlet
Pressure
psi
44
52
46
54
44
42
44
42
48
44
48
48
46
42
44
44
48
46
48
50
46
52
44
48
52
48
52
56
48
52
54
48
48
44
56
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Springfield, OH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 10 of 11)
Week
No.
47
48
49
50
51
Date
08/07/06
08/08/06
08/09/06
08/10/06
08/11/06
08/12/06
08/13/06
08/14/06
08/15/06
08/16/06
08/1 7/06
08/18/06
08/19/06
08/20/06
08/21/06
08/22/06
08/23/06
08/24/06
08/25/06
08/26/06
08/27/06
08/28/06
08/29/06
08/30/06
08/31/06
09/01/06
09/02/06
09/03/06
09/04/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
09/07/06
09/08/06
09/09/06
09/10/06
Hour Meter
West Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
6.5
5.8
6.6
6.0
5.2
6.2
5.9
6.0
6.0
6.6
5.6
5.1
6.0
5.3
5.6
6.2
5.7
4.6
5.3
6.2
5.9
3.8
4.7
5.1
5.0
4.7
5.7
3.9
5.0
5.1
4.1
3.9
4.7
5.1
3.8
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
1 ,753.2
1 ,759.0
1 ,765.6
1,771.6
1,776.8
1 ,783.0
1 ,788.9
1 ,794.9
1 ,800.9
1 ,807.5
1,813.1
1,818.2
1 ,824.2
1 ,829.5
1,835.1
1,841.3
1 ,847.0
1,851.6
1 ,856.9
1,863.1
1 ,869.0
1,872.8
1,877.5
1,882.6
1 ,887.6
1,892.3
1 ,898.0
1,901.9
1 ,906.9
1,912.0
1,916.1
1 ,920.0
1,924.7
1 ,929.8
1 ,933.6
East Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
3.7
4.0
5.0
3.7
4.2
4.5
4.4
4.9
4.3
4.7
4.6
4.2
3.9
3.7
4.9
3.5
4.3
4.9
3.5
4.6
4.9
3.0
3.2
3.9
3.7
3.6
4.8
2.8
3.9
4.0
2.9
3.2
5.7
3.8
3.3
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
1,239.9
1,243.9
1,248.9
1,252.6
1,256.8
1,261.3
1,265.7
1,270.6
1,274.9
1,279.6
1,284.2
1,288.4
1,292.3
1,296.0
1,300.9
1,304.4
1,308.7
1,313.6
1,317.1
1,321.7
1,326.6
1,329.6
1,332.8
1,336.7
1,340.4
1,344.0
1,348.8
1,351.6
1,355.5
1,359.5
1,362.4
1,365.6
1,371.3
1,375.1
1,378.4
Service
AD-26
Combined
Flowrate|b'c|
gpm
78
77
117
79
100
128
80
89
82
98
78
128
77
85
90
89
117
84
88
83
89
80
123
128
122
114
86
80
81
90
81
94
126
122
80
Calculated
Combined
Flowrate|d|
gpm
90
88
81
90
90
82
91
10
165
89
87
82
89
89
79
90
87
84
91
88
83
92
90
80
93
89
89
85
90
80
93
90
82
93
90
AD-33
Combined
Flowrate|e|
gpm
51
55
53
56
48
47
59
44
42
44
41
42
58
71
35
50
53
42
40
36
48
26
41
36
28
28
36
49
43
33
33
28
27
32
36
Backwash
AD-26
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
6,150
NA
NA
6,024
NA
NA
6,048
NA
NA
6,197
NA
NA
6,222
NA
NA
4,721
NA
NA
6,054
NA
NA
6,190
NA
NA
6,195
NA
NA
6,228
NA
NA
6,081
NA
NA
AD-33
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
System Pressure
AD-26
Inlet
Pressure
psi
56
56
48
56
54
48
50
52
50
46
48
48
56
60
46
44
50
48
44
50
44
52
58
50
50
52
46
54
60
46
54
58
50
50
52
Outlet
Pressure
psi
52
52
44
52
52
44
46
48
48
42
52
44
52
54
44
42
46
46
42
48
42
50
54
48
44
44
42
50
54
44
52
54
46
44
48
AD-33
Inlet
Pressure
psi
52
54
48
54
52
48
48
48
48
46
52
50
52
54
46
42
48
48
44
48
44
54
54
50
46
48
46
50
54
42
52
48
48
48
50
Outlet
Pressure
psi
52
54
48
54
52
48
46
44
48
44
52
50
50
54
46
42
48
48
44
48
42
54
54
50
46
48
46
50
54
42
52
48
48
48
50
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Springfield, OH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 11 of 11)
Week
No.
52
53
Date
09/11/06
09/12/06
09/13/06
09/14/06
09/15/06
09/16/06
09/1 7/06
09/18/06
09/19/06
09/20/06
09/21/06
09/22/06
09/23/06
09/24/06
Hour Meter
West Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
4.5
4.3
3.8
4.4
4.2
5.9
4.9
2.3
4.0
4.8
4.4
4.4
4.6
5.5
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
1,938.1
1,942.4
1 ,946.2
1 ,950.6
1 ,954.8
1 ,960.7
1 ,965.6
1 ,967.9
1,971.9
1,976.7
1,981.1
1 ,985.5
1,990.1
1 ,995.6
East Well
Daily
Op
Hours
hr
3.8
3.1
2.8
3.5
3.1
5.0
3.9
1.6
4.0
3.5
3.3
4.1
4.3
4.8
Cumulative
Hours1"
hr
1,382.2
1,385.3
1,388.1
1,391.6
1,394.7
1,399.7
1,403.6
1,405.2
1,409.2
1,412.7
1,416.0
1,420.1
1,424.4
1,429.2
Service
AD-26
Combined
Flowrate|b'c|
gpm
127
126
124
129
123
88
89
126
107
84
125
88
83
88
Calculated
Combined
Flowrate|d|
gpm
80
92
92
80
93
91
83
98
24
142
91
92
83
93
AD-33
Combined
Flowrate|e|
gpm
24
41
20
30
29
28
29
40
26
18
29
31
27
38
Backwash
AD-26
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
6,243
NA
NA
6,215
NA
NA
6,042
NA
NA
6,052
NA
NA
6,027
NA
AD-33
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
System Pressure
AD-26
Inlet
Pressure
psi
48
48
52
48
48
48
44
50
54
48
50
46
44
46
Outlet
Pressure
psi
46
46
48
46
46
44
42
46
50
46
44
42
42
42
AD-33
Inlet
Pressure
psi
50
46
52
48
50
46
46
50
54
50
48
44
46
44
Outlet
Pressure
psi
52
46
52
48
50
46
46
50
54
50
48
46
46
44
Note: System started on September 21,2005 at 5:00 pm, but operational readings not taken until September 28, 2005.
(a) In instances where readings not taken per hour meters, average used to calculate cumulative hours (5.5 hr for West Well and 4.0 hr for East Well)
(b) Oxidation/Filtration Vessel A not in service between September 28 to October 23, 2005.
(c) Sum of flowrate readings on each of three AD-26 vessels.
(d) Totalizer readings divided by sum of West Well and East Well hours.
(e) Sum of flowrate readings of each of three AD-33 vessels.
(f) Hour meter on East Well switched to West Well and a new hour meter installed on East Well on October 21, 2005.
(g) Since October 26, 2005 AD-26 system operated at pump flowrates and AD-33 system continued to operate on-demand.
(h) System by-passed between November 28 (8 a.m.) and 29, 2005 due to power outage/surge. System back online on November 30, 2005.
NA = Not Available
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Springfield, OH (Page 1 of 7)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)(a)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
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)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
09/28/05 - East
IN
-
361
0.3
1.2
14.0
<0.05
<0.05
-
18.3
5.9
7.4
23.1
1.1
107
-
-
285
170
115
9.5
8.4
1.1
5.6
2.8
549
390
77.0
81.6
AC
-
370
0.2
1.2
13.8
O.05
<0.05
-
18.8
1.4
7.4
17.6
1.8
746
-
-
282
170
112
9.4
3.2
6.2
0.3
2.9
535
<25
77.3
39.6
OT
-
365
<0.05
1.3
13.7
O.05
<0.05
-
19.2
<0.1
7.3
17.1
1.4
728
-
-
287
171
116
0.5
0.6
<0.1
0.5
0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TT
0.5
365
<0.05
1.5
23.0
<0.05
<0.05
-
17.3
<0.1
7.4
18.0
1.6
718
1.1
1.6
297
166
131
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
1 0/1 1/05(b)- East
IN
-
352
0.2
1.3
17.9
O.05
-
<0.03
17.5
6.6
7.2
21.4
1.3
232
-
-
339
205
134
19.4
-
-
-
-
521
-
82.1
-
AC
-
356
<0.05
1.3
20.1
O.05
-
<0.03
17.1
0.7
7.2
21.1
1.4
624
1.4
1.8
343
202
141
25.9
-
-
-
-
1,283
-
32.7
-
OT
-
352
<0.05
1.4
23.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
16.9
<0.1
7.1
20.8
1.6
627
1.1
-
334
198
135
1.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TT
1.1
348
<0.05
1.4
23.0
O.05
-
<0.03
16.2
0.1
7.1
20.4
1.6
566
3.2
3.3
340
203
137
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
10/25/05- East
IN
-
343
0.2
1.1
20.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
17.1
7.6
7.3
25.0
1.9
102
-
-
344
210
134
18.5
17.4
1.1
16.5
0.9
614
519
62.1
58.8
AC
-
330
<0.05
1.4
12.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
17.2
1.0
7.4
25.0
1.5
734
-
-
337
205
131
20.6
3.6
17.0
0.4
3.2
800
<25
47.3
7.1
OT
-
339
<0.05
1.2
25.0
O.05
-
<0.03
17.2
<0.1
7.4
25.0
1.5
712
2.1
2.2
353
214
139
1.4
1.2
0.1
0.4
0.8
<25
<25
0.2
0.4
TT
1.7
334
<0.05
1.2
26.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
16.7
0.1
7.3
25.0
1.2
713
1.3
1.9
343
208
135
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
0.1
0.5
11/08/05 -East
IN
-
352
0.2
1.3
20.8
O.05
-
<0.03
17.6
7.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
333
212
121
16.7
-
-
-
-
671
-
54.3
-
AC
-
343
O.05
1.5
29.9
O.05
-
<0.03
18.1
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
349
212
137
23.6
-
-
-
-
1,595
-
18.3
-
OT
-
352
O.05
1.4
25.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
17.6
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
345
215
130
1.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
TT
2.2
343
O.05
1.4
25.9
O.05
-
<0.03
17.0
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
359
222
138
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
IN = at Wellhead; AC = after chlorination; OT = after oxidation/filtration vessels; TT = after adsorption vessels
(a) Due to holding time issues, stopped sampling for Orthophosphate and started sampling for total phosphorous.
(b) Water quality measurements taken on 10/18/05.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Springfield, OH (Page 2 of 7)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter | Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
Ph
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
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)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
12/05/05 -East
IN
-
343
0.2
0.8
17.1
O.05
O.03
18.1
7.0
7.5
10.2
NA
145
-
-
322
195
126
16.9
16.0
0.8
14.6
1.5
773
658
42.8
43.5
AC
-
339
0.2
1.1
24.5
O.05
O.03
19.0
1.1
7.4
10.2
0.9
148
-
-
325
189
136
22.4
1.9
20.5
0.4
1.5
1,386
<25
20.0
0.4
OT
-
339
<0.05
1.1
21.6
<0.05
<0.03
18.3
<0.1
7.4
10.2
1.2
394
3.1
3.5
240
140
101
0.6
0.5
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TT
3.2
339
<0.05
1.2
22.8
O.05
O.03
18.3
0.1
7.3
10.2
1.0
468
1.5
2.0
347
194
153
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
1 2/1 2/05(a)- West
IN
-
338
0.2
1.4
30.1
O.05
O.03
19.7
24.0
7.4
14.4
1.5
132
-
-
331
202
129
24.5
-
-
-
-
1,587
-
19.6
-
AC
-
343
<0.05
1.4
30.3
<0.05
<0.03
19.7
1.5
7.4
14.2
1.9
689
-
-
326
202
124
25.4
-
-
-
-
1,546
-
19.6
-
OT
-
348
<0.05
1.3
25.0
0.20
O.03
18.9
0.8
7.4
14.2
1.9
681
-
-
323
203
120
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
TT
3.6
339
<0.05
1.3
25.7
<0.05
<0.03
18.7
0.4
7.4
14.1
2.3
684
2.7
3.8
320
205
115
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
01/03/06 -East
IN
-
339
0.2
1.2
22.0
<0.05
<0.03
18.8
9.2
7.2
15.7
1.3
5
-
-
357
214
143
21.9
21.2
0.7
21.5
<0.1
1,260
933
24.7
24.4
AC
-
339
<0.05
1.2
22.0
O.05
O.03
17.9
1.0
7.2
15.7
2.5
691
2.3
2.8
345
215
131
18.4
3.1
15.3
0.4
2.7
802
<25
36.3
3.8
OT
-
334
<0.05
1.3
27.0
<0.05
O.03
18.0
0.5
7.2
15.7
2.1
679
1.1
1.6
348
202
146
1.6
1.6
<0.1
0.4
1.2
<25
<25
<0.1
0.3
TT
4.9
339
<0.05
1.3
27.0
O.05
O.03
18.2
0.7
7.2
15.6
2.6
689
1.8
2.2
354
207
147
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.5
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.2
01/1 6/06 -West
IN
-
343
0.2
1.4
29.5
O.05
O.03
19.4
24.0
7.2
17.1
2.7
-131
-
-
344
209
134
27.0
-
-
-
-
1,595
-
17.9
-
AC
-
352
<0.05
1.4
29.6
<0.05
<0.03
19.2
1.1
7.2
16.7
2.7
110
2.1
3.2
349
211
139
26.7
-
-
-
-
1,538
-
17.4
-
OT
-
352
<0.05
1.2
25.2
O.05
<0.03
18.2
0.1
7.2
16.5
2.8
395
0.4
1.8
351
214
137
2.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
TT
5.7
348
<0.05
1.2
23.9
O.05
O.03
18.9
0.2
7.1
16.3
2.7
475
1.7
1.8
349
214
135
0.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
IN = at Wellhead; AC = after chlorination; OT = after oxidation/filtration vessels; TT = after adsorption vessels
(a) Water quality measurements recorded on 12/16/05.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Springfield, OH (Page 3 of 7)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
Ph
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
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)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
02/01 /06(a)- East
IN
-
348
0.2
1.1
22.0
O.05
<0.03
18.5
11.0
7.2
17.8
1.7
228
-
-
321
201
120
20.0
16.4
3.6
15.3
1.1
650
563
34.4
36.6
AC
-
343
0.2
1.1
22.0
O.05
<0.03
18.3
1.2
7.3
17.6
1.5
653
-
-
323
197
126
18.7
3.4
15.3
0.7
2.7
660
<25
34.2
2.2
OT
-
335
<0.05
1.3
24.0
<0.05
<0.03
18.5
0.3
7.2
17.4
2.0
341
0.6
0.6
347
194
153
1.9
1.8
<0.1
0.7
1.2
<25
<25
0.2
<0.1
TT
6.6
343
O.05
1.3
25.0
O.05
<0.03
18.5
0.2
7.2
17.3
2.6
393
1.4
1.6
305
183
121
0.3
0.4
<0.1
0.8
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
02/1 3/06 - West
IN
-
338
0.1
1.3
28.0
O.05
<0.03
19.1
25.0
7.1
16.6
1.8
-90
-
-
360
208
152
30.8
-
-
-
-
1573
-
18.9
-
AC
-
342
0.2
1.1
20.0
<0.05
<0.03
17.6
2.0
7.0
16.0
2.1
-78
2.4
-
349
210
139
18.0
-
-
-
-
728
-
39.0
-
OT
-
338
O.05
1.2
23.0
O.05
<0.03
18.5
0.6
7.1
15.8
2.7
600
1.7
2.3
357
213
144
1.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
TT
7.3
338
<0.05
1.2
25.0
<0.05
<0.03
18.1
0.6
7.1
15.7
2.3
619
1.2
1.7
360
212
148
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
02/28/06(b)-West
IN
-
329
0.2
1.5
33.0
<0.05
<0.03
19.9
25.0
7.2
13.6
2.6
-84
-
-
365
215
150
31.3
25.6
5.7
24.7
0.9
1484
1463
18.2
18.8
AC
-
350
O.05
1.3
23.0
O.05
<0.03
17.9
1.2
7.2
13.9
2.6
304
2.5
-
341
208
134
22.9
4.8
18.1
0.6
4.3
703
<25
34.9
3.2
OT
-
338
<0.05
1.5
27.0
<0.05
<0.03
18.5
0.5
7.2
14.0
3.0
270
0.3
0.9
349
207
141
2.0
1.7
0.3
0.6
1.0
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TT
8.1
338
O.05
1.4
26.0
O.05
<0.03
17.7
0.6
7.1
14.1
2.4
281
0.7
0.8
348
209
139
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.6
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
IN = at Wellhead; AC = after chlorination; OT = after oxidation/filtration vessels; TT = after adsorption vessels
(a) Water quality measurements recorded on 01/30/06.
(b) On-site water quality parameters taken on 02/27/06.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Springfield, OH (Page 4 of 7)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
Ph
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
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)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
03/13/06- East
IN
-
351/335
<0.05/<0.05
1 .3/1 .3
22.8/22.4
<0.05/<0.05
<0.01/<0.01
17.3/17.0
1 1 .0/1 1 .0
7.3
15.7
-
193
-
-
329/336
206/210
123/126
20.9/21 .8
-
_
_
-
829/896
-
35.4/34.7
-
AC
-
331/331
<0.05/<0.05
1 .5/1 .6
32.5/33.1
<0.05/<0.05
<0.01/<0.01
18.8/18.7
4.3/14.0
7.4
15.4
-
489
0.3
0.7
342/346
204/208
138/138
29.2/29.8
-
_
_
-
1561/1564
-
17.6/17.3
-
OT
-
331/335
<0.05/<0.05
1.5/1.6
30.7/29.2
<0.05/<0.05
<0.01/<0.01
17.8/17.4
0.8/0.7
7.5
15.4
-
347
1.6
2.5
349/344
21 0/21 1
139/133
1.8/1.8
-
_
_
-
<25/<25
-
0.2/0.2
-
TT
8.9
339/ 343
<0.05/<0.05
1 .4/1 .4
27.5/27.6
<0.05/<0.05
<0.01/<0.01
17.8/17.4
1.4/1.1
7.2
15.5
-
-
2.0
2.5
345/339
211/209
1 34/1 30
0.2/0.2
-
_
_
-
<25/<25
-
<0.1/<0.1
-
03/27/06(a) - West
IN
-
340
0.3
1.3
23.0
<0.05
O.01
18.7
2.6
7.2
14.3
2.2
396
-
-
339
196
143
29.7
24.8
4.9
23.6
1.2
1892
1475
20.0
20.8
AC
-
323
<0.05
1.6
33.0
<0.05
O.01
18.3
26.0
7.3
14.0
1.9
313
4.0
-
328
197
131
20.3
4.0
16.3
0.3
3.8
903
<25
33.8
2.9
OT
-
328
<0.05
1.4
28.0
<0.05
<0.01
18.7
0.4
7.3
14.3
2.7
658
0.9
-
346
206
140
1.8
1.5
0.2
0.2
1.3
<25
<25
0.3
0.1
TT
9.6
336
<0.05
1.4
27.0
<0.05
O.01
18.8
0.4
7.3
13.6
2.2
684
1.9
2.3
344
205
139
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
0.2
<0.1
04/10/06- East
IN
-
328
0.3
1.3
22.0
<0.05
<0.01
17.7
15.0
7.2
13.8
2.1
414
-
-
308
196
112
20.5
-
-
-
-
1058
-
46.6
-
AC
-
319
<0.05
1.4
33.0
<0.05
<0.01
18.6
1.1
7.3
14.2
2.1
734
0.0
0.1
324
199
126
26.0
-
-
-
-
1733
-
21.0
-
OT
-
336
<0.05
1.3
27.0
<0.05
O.01
17.7
0.5
7.3
13.7
1.5
742
0.1
0.2
323
201
122
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
TT
10.4
328
<0.05
1.3
28.0
<0.05
<0.01
17.6
0.4
7.3
13.9
1.6
694
2.0
2.1
332
205
127
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
IN = at Wellhead; AC = after chlorination; OT = after oxidation/filtration vessels; TT = after adsorption vessels
(a) On-site water quality parameters taken on 04/04/06.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Springfield, OH (Page 5 of 7)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
Ph
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
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)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
04/24/06 - West
IN
-
357
0.2
1.3
23.0
<0.05
O.01
18.5
9.3
7.3
14.3
3.5
422
-
-
347
215
133
21.5
18.8
2.6
17.2
1.6
1113
988
32.2
32.2
AC
-
348
<0.05
1.9
31.0
<0.05
<0.01
18.2
1.1
7.3
14.1
2.9
422
-
-
344
207
137
27.4
26.2
1.3
<0.1
26.1
1627
2.5
18.9
17.8
OT
-
348
0.2
1.5
28.0
<0.05
O.01
18.2
0.2
7.5
14.2
2.4
681
-
-
344
211
133
1.5
1.4
0.1
0.2
1.2
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TT
11.2
353
<0.05
1.7
28.0
<0.05
<0.01
17.8
0.2
7.3
13.8
2.6
702
1.7
3.3
351
216
136
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
05/08/06 - East
IN
-
326
0.2
1.1
23.0
<0.05
<0.01
18.8
7.2
7.1
13.6
1.7
419
-
-
432
270
162
21.3
-
-
-
-
1020
-
37.7
-
AC
-
335
<0.05
1.2
23.0
<0.05
O.01
19.4
0.8
7.3
13.6
2.9
559
-
-
436
261
175
29.3
-
-
-
-
1599
-
18.7
-
OT
-
306
<0.05
1.3
27.0
<0.05
<0.01
18.9
0.4
7.3
13.6
2.7
722
-
-
417
253
164
2.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
TT
11.9
326
<0.05
1.2
29.0
<0.05
O.01
18.6
0.7
7.3
13.6
2.7
654
1.0
1.2
387
230
157
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
05/22/06 - East
IN
-
326
0.2
1.1
23.0
<0.05
O.01
18.8
7.2
7.2
13.8
3.4
435
-
-
319
188
131
20.0
16.6
3.4
14.8
1.7
697
613
32.7
33.4
AC
-
335
<0.05
1.2
23.0
<0.05
<0.01
19.4
0.8
7.4
13.6
3.4
722
-
-
325
191
134
19.5
4.2
15.3
0.1
4.0
675
<25
32.1
1.0
OT
-
306
<0.05
1.3
27.0
<0.05
O.01
18.9
0.4
7.4
13.6
3.8
699
1.6
1.9
335
194
141
1.9
1.4
0.5
0.1
1.3
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
TT
12.7
326
<0.05
1.2
29.0
<0.05
O.01
18.6
0.7
7.4
13.7
3.1
709
2.0
2.9
349
205
144
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
06/1 3/06(a)- West
IN
-
327
0.2
1.4
34.0
<0.05
<0.01
20.5
24.6
6.9
14.6
2.3
414
-
-
355
210
145
29.5
-
-
-
-
1565
-
17.3
-
AC
-
322
<0.05
1.3
33.0
<0.05
O.03
20.1
1.1
7.2
14.3
2.1
620
-
-
354
210
144
29.1
-
-
-
-
1504
-
16.8
-
OT
-
331
<0.05
1.2
28.0
<0.05
O.01
19.2
0.4
7.1
14.0
1.7
525
-
-
346
208
138
2.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
TT
14.1
327
<0.05
1.3
28.0
<0.05
<0.01
18.9
0.6
7.1
14.2
1.8
593
2.4
2.6
341
205
136
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
IN = at Wellhead; AC = after chlorination; OT = after oxidation/filtration vessels; TT = after adsorption vessels
(a) On-site water quality parameters taken on 06/12/06.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Springfield, OH (Page 6 of 7)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
Ph
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
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)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
06/28/06 - West
IN
-
348
0.2
0.9
23.0
<0.05
O.01
19.7
8.7
7.1
17.8
3.1
434
-
-
343
195
148
20.2
17.8
2.3
11.7
6.1
981
773
35.2
34.3
AC
-
344
0.1
1.2
22.0
<0.05
O.01
19.4
7.3
7.2
16.4
2.6
461
-
-
358
208
150
20.2
2.3
17.9
0.2
2.1
1133
<25
34.9
2.6
OT
-
339
<0.05
1.2
27.0
<0.05
<0.01
19.8
0.5
7.3
17.6
3.0
506
-
-
361
203
158
1.8
1.6
0.2
0.2
1.4
<25
<25
0.5
0.3
TT
14.9
335
<0.05
1.0
25.0
<0.05
<0.01
18.2
1.1
7.4
17.4
2.9
676
2.5
2.9
348
195
153
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
07/1 2/06(a)- East
IN
-
345/345
0.1/0.2
1.7/1.1
23.0/23.0
<0.05/<0.05
<0.01/<0.01
18.9/18.0
0.6/9.8
7.0
15.8
1.6
410
-
-
342/329
208/200
133/129
19.8/20.2
-
-
-
-
822/893
-
36.1/34.8
-
AC
-
345/350
<0.05/0.2
1.7/1.2
24.0/23.0
<0.05/<0.05
<0.01/<0.01
18.2/18.7
2.0/7.2
7.1
16.1
2.3
430
-
-
333/336
203/204
129/131
23.0/19.5
-
-
-
-
737/739
-
38.3/35.3
-
OT
-
350/345
<0.05/<0.05
0.9/1 .2
23.0/26.0
<0.05/<0.05
<0.01/<0.01
18.1/17.9
0.4/0.4
7.1
15.8
2.2
674
-
-
335/337
204/206
131/131
1 .6/2.0
-
-
-
-
<25/<25
-
0.2/0.7
-
TT
15.7
337/341
<0.05/<0.05
0.8/1.0
27.0/23.0
<0.05/<0.05
O.01/O.01
18.3/18.0
0.9/1.2
7.2
15.4
2.1
706
2.3
2.9
340/345
205/208
136/137
O.1/O.1
-
-
-
-
<25/<25
-
<0.1/<0.1
-
07/26/06 - East
IN
_
325
0.2
1.4
31.0
<0.05
O.01
19.4
24.0
7.0
17.1
-
375
-
-
322
187
135
26.0
25.1
1.0
25.8
<0.1
1451
1393
17.6
17.8
AC
_
333
0.2
1.3
22.0
<0.05
<0.01
19.3
1.8
7.1
17.8
-
422
0.2
0.2
331
193
138
26.2
20.7
5.5
23.1
<0.1
1455
838
17.6
17.4
OT
_
346
<0.05
1.6
25.0
<0.05
O.01
18.4
0.2
7.2
17.5
-
568
1.5
1.6
332
199
133
1.6
1.6
<0.1
11.5
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.2
TT
16.5
346
<0.05
1.4
25.0
<0.05
O.01
17.6
0.5
7.0
17.7
-
669
2.2
2.7
346
207
139
0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.6
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.5
IN = at Wellhead; AC = after chlorination; OT = after oxidation/filtration vessels; TT = after adsorption vessels
(a) On-site water quality parameters taken on 07/11/06.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Springfield, OH (Page 7 of 7)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
Ph
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
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)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
08/1 4/06 - West
IN
-
341
0.3
3.3
33.0
<0.05
O.03
18.1
23.0
6.9
17.5
-
433
-
-
358
205
153
28.0
-
-
-
-
1485
-
18.5
-
AC
-
341
<0.05
3.5
23.0
<0.05
<0.03
17.7
1.1
7.1
16.5
-
742
-
-
366
217
149
21.2
-
-
-
-
776
-
39.1
-
OT
-
337
O.05
3.6
24.0
<0.05
O.03
17.7
0.3
7.2
16.1
-
718
2.7
2.7
361
210
151
2.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
TT
17.7
337
<0.05
3.1
26.0
<0.05
<0.03
17.7
0.5
7.2
16.2
-
716
1.8
2.4
369
213
156
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
08/30/06 - East
IN
-
371
0.5
1.5
26.0
<0.05
<0.03
17.7
7.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
359
224
135
23.7
18.5
5.2
16.0
2.5
807
703
36.6
36.5
AC
-
355
0.3
1.8
37.0
<0.05
O.03
17.9
1.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
384
234
150
31.6
2.8
28.9
0.3
2.5
1679
32.8
18.4
7.8
OT
-
350
<0.05
1.7
34.0
<0.05
<0.03
17.3
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
373
226
147
2.0
1.7
0.4
0.3
1.4
<25
<25
0.1
1.2
TT
18.5
357
O.05
1.7
33.0
<0.05
O.03
17.4
0.7
-
-
-
-
1.2
1.4
366
222
144
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.2
09/1 1/06 -East
IN
-
350
0.2
1.3
23.0
<0.05
O.03
16.8
11.0
7.0
14.1
1.9
416
-
-
365
232
132
35.4
-
-
-
-
2238
-
39.0
-
AC
-
352
<0.05
1.3
23.0
0.1
<0.03
16.8
1.2
7.1
14.3
2.1
395
2.3
-
378
225
153
31.4
-
-
-
-
922
-
42.8
-
OT
-
348
O.05
1.5
28.0
<0.05
O.03
17.6
0.3
7.2
14.3
2.4
663
1.8
1.8
371
232
139
2.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
TT
19.1
350
<0.05
1.6
30.0
<0.05
O.03
17.0
0.4
7.3
14.4
2.8
665
1.0
1.4
370
231
139
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
09/1 8/06 -East
IN
-
358
0.2
1.3
23.0
<0.05
<0.03
18.7
6.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
318
185
132
17.6
14.0
3.6
12.9
1.1
742
217
32.6
32.9
AC
-
349
0.1
1.6
33.0
<0.05
O.03
19.3
1.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
342
195
147
23.6
2.7
20.8
<0.1
2.6
1430
25.2
16.4
1.9
OT
-
352
<0.05
1.5
30.0
<0.05
O.03
18.8
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
348
204
144
1.1
1.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.0
<25
<25
<0.1
0.2
TT
19.4
359
O.05
1.5
28.0
<0.05
<0.03
18.4
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
345
204
141
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.2
IN = at Wellhead; AC = after chlorination; OT = after oxidation/filtration vessels; TT = after adsorption vessels
------- |