EPA/600/R-08/006
March 2008
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Bow, NH
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. 0019
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document is funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0019 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface 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 environmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) arsenic removal treatment technology demonstration project at
the White Rock Water Company (WRWC) public water system, a small residential drinking water facility
in Bow, NH. The main objective of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of the ADI International,
Inc. (ADI), located in New Brunswick, Canada, G2 media in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic
maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |o,g/L. Additionally, this project evaluated: 1) the reliability of
the treatment system for use at small water facilities, 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
characterized the water in the distribution system and process residuals generated by the treatment
system. 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.
After engineering plan review and approval by the state, the ADI arsenic removal system was installed
and put into service on October 13, 2004. The system consisted of two vertical, 72-in-diameter and 72-in-
sidewall-height stainless steel vessels configured in series. The adsorption vessels were originally
designed to operate in parallel for the Holiday Acres Mobile Home Park in Allenstown, NH, with a
flowrate of 70 gal/min (gpm) or 35 gpm per vessel. Due to switching to the site in Bow, which had a total
well production of about 40 gpm, the system was reconfigured to operate in series. At 40 gpm, each
vessel provided an empty bed contact time (EBCT) of 16 min or 32 min total contact time and a hydraulic
loading rate of 1.4-gpm/ft2. The EBCT was 60% longer and the hydraulic loading rate was about 50%
lower than recommended by the manufacturer for the G2 media.
The G2 media is a granular media with a calcined diatomite substrate coated with ferric hydroxide.
Because of its inherently high pH value from the manufacturing process, the G2 media had to be
conditioned onsite with sulfuric acid (H2SO4) before service. In repeated, but unsuccessful, attempts to
improve media performance, the raw water pH was progressively lowered from an average of 7.3 to 6.8,
6.4, and 6.0 using a 93% H2SO4 solution. The treated water pH was readjusted to 7.5 using 25% caustic
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution before entering the two 15,000-gal storage tanks and distribution
system. Inline pH probes were used to monitor pH values of the feed and treated water but the rates of
acid and caustic additions were controlled via manual adjustments to the pump stroke length. The relative
feed rates were then flow-paced with a magnetic flow meter located on the discharge line following the
treatment system. Operational difficulties with the inline pH probes were encountered throughout the
study, with acid inline pH probe readings being about 0.4 pH units lower and the inline caustic probe
readings being at least 1.0 pH unit higher throughout the entire study period, compared to those measured
by a more reliable handheld field pH meter.
The treatment system was operated in three configurations under three separate test runs. Run 1, with
both vessels configured in series, ran for 3,714 hr from October 13, 2004, through November 29, 2005.
The system removed arsenic from an average of 46.4 |o,g/L, present almost entirely as As(V), to <10 jog/L
for about 3,890,000 gal or 3,050 bed volumes (BV) of throughput. Treated water arsenic levels spiked to
37.5 ng/L immediately after system startup though they leveled off to about 15 |o,g/L following the lead
vessel and about 5 (ig/L following the lag vessel at approximately 800 BV. Arsenic concentrations at
>10 |o,g/L continued to be observed in all samples taken following the lead vessel until reaching the
influent level by the end of the test run. Further, elevated manganese (as high as 35.8 |o,g/L) and silica
concentrations (as high as 61.8 mg/L [as SiO2]) were measured in the effluent of both vessels
immediately after system startup. The elevated arsenic, manganese, and silica levels were believed to
have been caused, in part, by leaching of the elements present either as impurities (i.e., arsenic and
IV
-------
manganese) or a substrate (silica). Short circuiting in the media bed also was considered a potential
cause, but could not be confirmed from the test data.
After rebedding of both vessels in late December 2005, Run 2 with only Vessel A in service ran from
January 13 through April 14, 2006, for 119 hr and Run 3 with only Vessel B in service ran from April 15
through September 26, 2006, for 2,705 hr. Similar observations made in Run 1 also were made in Runs 2
and 3. For Run 2, arsenic concentrations, after an initial spike, progressively decreased to <10 |o,g/L for
only two weekly sampling events (1,100 BV) before steadily increasing to 15.2 |o,g/L. For Run 3, after an
initial spike, arsenic concentrations decreased to 1.2 |o,g/L before breaking through at the 10-|o,g/L level
after treating approximately 1,900,000 gal or 3,000 BV of water. During this run, well flows were
reduced 88, 20, and 18% for Wells 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and overall system flows were kept from 15
to 35 gpm on average, depending on which well(s) were running.
The system was backwashed only three times because of low headless (i.e., 1 to 2 pounds per square inch
[psi]) across each filter. Analysis of the backwash water indicated that soluble As concentrations were 11
to 40 |og/L higher than the levels in the finished water. Because the finished water was used for
backwash, some arsenic appeared to have been desorbed from the media during backwashing.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after system startup showed a decrease
in arsenic concentration at all three Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling locations until the media
reached capacity. Initially, the arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were about twice those at
the entry point, suggesting some solubilization, destablization, and/or desorption taking place in the
distribution system. Afterwards, arsenic concentrations closely mirrored those measued at the entry point.
Manganese concentrations in the distribution system generally followed those measured at the entry point.
Immediately after start of the runs, two to five times higher manganese concentrations were observed at
the entry point than in the distribution system. Due to slow oxidation kinetics in the presence of chlorine,
some soluble managenes might have been precipitated into MnO2 after water entered the storage tanks
and distribution system.
Following a drop in pH of the treated water in December 2004 and an operational error on the caustic
feed pump, the lead concentration in the January 12, 2005 sample increased to 9.9 |o,g/L at one sampling
location and copper levels increased across all three sampling locations, with the most noticeable increase
exceeding the action level of 1.3 mg/L at one location. During subsequent sampling events, the pH values
were better controlled; however, the lead and copper levels continued to be more elevated than those
observed before the pH drop in January 2006.
The most significant operational issue during this study was the need for the addition of acid and caustic
to maintain the desired pH ranges of the feed water to the treatment system and the finish water to the
storage tanks and distribution system. Confounding the proper chemical dosing were continuing
discrepancies observed in pH readings from the inline pH probes versus the field meter. In fact, an
inadvertent lowering of the caustic addition in late December resulted in the pH drop observed in the
distribution system samples collected on January 12, 2005, and the corresponding increase in lead and
copper levels in the distribution system as described above.
The capital investment for the treatment system was $166,050, including $105,350 for equipment,
$17,200 for site engineering, and $43,500 for installation. Using the system's actual capacity of 40 gpm
(57,600 gal per day [gpd]), the capital cost was $4,150/gpm ($2.88/gpd). These calculations did not
include the cost of the building construction, which was approximately $25,000 funded by WRWC.
-------
The O&M cost associated with the G2 media system was approximately $5.11/1,000 gal of water treated,
including $4.30 for media replacement and disposal, $0.47 for chemical supply, and $0.34 for labor.
Incremental costs for electricity were negligible. Media replacement and disposal cost for both vessels
was $16,752, with 44% being the media cost. Based on an annual production of 8,530,000 gal of water, it
is estimated that the G2 system will require 2.2 media changeouts per year for a total annual cost of
$36,680 for the media and $4,009 of chemical cost for pH adjustment.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES viii
FIGURES viii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xii
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 4
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 6
3.1 General Project Approach 6
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 7
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 8
3.3.1 Source Water 8
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 8
3.3.3 Backwash Water 8
3.3.4 Residual Solids 8
3.3.5 Distribution System Water 10
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 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 11
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13
4.1 Facility Description 13
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 13
4.1.2 Predemonstration Treated Water Quality 16
4.1.3 Distribution System 16
4.2 Treatment Process Description 16
4.3 System Installation 22
4.3.1 Permitting 22
4.3.2 Building Construction 22
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 23
4.4 System Operation 23
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 23
4.4.2 pH Adjustments 27
4.4.3 Backwash 28
4.4.4 Media Changeout 28
4.4.5 Residuals Management 28
4.4.6 System Operation Reliability and Simplicity 28
4.5 System Performance 30
vn
-------
4.5.1 Treatment Plant 30
4.5.2 Backwash Water 45
4.5.3 Spent Media 46
4.5.4 Distribution System 46
4.6 System Cost 50
4.6.1 Capital Cost 50
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs 51
5.0 REFERENCES 54
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA A-l
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL RESULTS B-l
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Underground Treatment and Control Structure 13
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Storage Tanks in Underground Concrete Structure 14
Figure 4-3. Preexisting Activated Alumina System in Underground Treatment and Control
Structure 14
Figure 4-4. Schematic of G2 Media Adsorption System 18
Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 20
Figure 4-6. ADI G2 Media Arsenic Adsorption System 21
Figure 4-7. New Treatment Building Addition 22
Figure 4-8. Flowrates of Wells During Runs 1, 2, and 3 25
Figure 4-9. Comparison of pH Readings from Inline Probes and WTW Field Meter 27
Figure 4-10. Concentration of Arsenic Species at IN, AP, TA, and TB Sampling Location 35
Figure 4-11. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves 37
Figure 4-12. Run 1 Total Arsenic Breakthough Versus Influent pH 38
Figure 4-13. Run 3 Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve and Corresponding pH and Flowrates 40
Figure 4-14. Total Manganese Breakthrough Curves 41
Figure 4-15. pH, Alkalinity, and Sulfate Values Over Time 42
Figure 4-16. Silica Concentrations Over Time 44
Figure 4-17. Comparison of Arsenic Concentrations at Entry Point and in Distribution System 49
Figure 4-18. Comparison of Manganese Concentrations at Entry Point and in Distribution
System 49
Figure 4-19. Media Replacement Cost Curves for Bow System 53
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Technologies and Source Water
Quality Parameters 2
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 6
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses 9
Table 4-1. WRWC Water Quality Data 15
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of G2 Media 17
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of G2 Media System 19
Vlll
-------
Table 4-4. Key Operational Parameters 24
Table 4-5. Freeboard Measurements and Media Loss after Run 1 28
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic and Iron Analytical Results 31
Table 4-7. Summary of Manganese and Water Quality Parameter Measurements 32
Table 4-8. Theoretical Acid Consumption Requirements for Raw Water pH Adjustment 43
Table 4-9. Backwash Water Sampling Results 45
Table 4-10. Total Metal Contents of Virgin and Spent Media 46
Table 4-11. TCLP Results of Spent Media 47
Table 4-12. Distribution System Sampling Results 48
Table 4-13. Capital Investment for G2 Media System 51
Table 4-14. O&M Costs for G2 Media System 52
IX
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AA activated alumina
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
ADI ADI International, Inc.
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
BV bed volume(s)
C/F coagulation/filtration
Ca calcium
C12 chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
gal gallons
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HAMHP Holiday Acres Mobile Home Park
HOPE high-density polyethylene
hr hours
hp horsepower
H2SO4 sulfuric acid
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MDWCA Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association
Mg magnesium
mg/L milligrams per liter
|o,g/L micrograms per liter
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
mm
Mn
Mo
mV
minutes
manganese
molybdenum
millivolts
N/A not analyzed
Na sodium
NA not available
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
NaOH sodium hydroxide
NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF NSF International
NTU nephlemetric turbidity unit
O&M operation and maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
Pb lead
PM process modification
PO4 orthophosphate
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RPD relative percent difference
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO4 sulfate
STMGID South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
STS Severn Trent Services
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
V vanadium
VOC volatile organic compound
WRWC White Rock Water Company
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of C&C Water Services of Gilford and
Bow in New Hampshire. The C&C Water Services staff monitored the treatment system daily, and
collected samples from the treatment plant and distribution system on a regular schedule throughout this
performance evaluation. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without their efforts.
xn
-------
1.0: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 |o,g/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies. Holiday
Acres Mobile Home Park (HAMHP) in Allenstown, NH, was originally selected as one of the 17 Round 1
host sites for the demonstration program.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical 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. The ADI International, Inc. (ADI) G2
adsorptive media was selected for the Allenstown site. In January 2004, HAMHP decided to withdraw
from the demonstration study due to the facility's decision to switch to an alternate public water supply
source.
In March 2004, EPA decided to replace HAMHP with the White Rock Water Company (WRWC) public
water system, operated by C&C Water Services, serving the community of Village Shore Estates at Bow,
NH. Because the design flowrate for the WRWC system was about half of the flowrate at HAMHP, the
ADI adsorption system was reconfigured to operate in series, increasing the empty bed contact time
(EBCT) from 16 to 32 min total (i.e., 16 min per vessel, two vessels in series).
Following a series of predemonstration activities including engineering design, permitting, and system
installation, startup and shakedown, the performance evaluation of the system began on October 13, 2004,
and was completed on September 26, 2006.
-------
1.2
Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the 12 Round 1 EPA arsenic removal demonstration host sites include nine
adsorptive media (AM) systems, one anion exchange system, one coagulation/filtration (C/F) system, and
one process modification with iron addition. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors,
and key source water quality parameters (including arsenic, iron, and pH) of the 12 demonstration sites.
An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 demonstration sites and the
associated capital cost are provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are
posted on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Technologies and Source Water Quality Parameters
Demonstration Site
WRWC Public Water
System (Bow), NH
Rollinsford, NH
Queen Anne's County, MD
Brown City, MI
Climax, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
Desert Sands MDWCA, NM
Nambe Pueblo Tribe, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Fruitland, ID
STMGID, NV
Technology
(Media)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
C/F
PM
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
IX
AM (GFH)
Vendor
ADI
AdEdge
STS
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
USFilter
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
70(a)
100
300
640
140
250
320
145
90(d)
37
250
350
Source Water Quality
As
(Hg/L)
39
36(b)
19(b)
14(b)
39(b)
146(b)
23(b)
33
50
41
44
39
Fe
(^g/L)
<25
46
270(c)
127(o)
546(c)
l,325(c)
39
<25
170
<25
<25
<25
PH
7.7
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.7
8.5
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.4
AM = adsorptive media; C/F = coagulation/filtration; IX = ion exchange process;
MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water Consumer's Association; PM = process modification;
STMGID = South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District;
STS = Severn Trent Services; WRWC = White Rock Water Company
(a) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to a lower flowrate of 40 gal/min (gpm) at
WRWC site.
(b) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(c) Iron existing mostly as soluble Fe(II).
(d) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to reduced flowrate of 30 gpm.
1.3
Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 arsenic demonstration program was to conduct 12 full-scale arsenic
treatment technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The
specific objectives of the demonstration study in Bow, NH were to:
• Evaluate the performance of the G2 adsorptive media for arsenic removal on small
systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill
levels.
-------
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technology.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technology.
This report summarizes the performance of the ADI G2 system in Bow, NH, from October 13, 2004
through September 26, 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.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the demonstration, the following is a summary and the
conclusions drawn from the performance and cost study of the treatment technology.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• ADI's G2 media is not effective in removing arsenic to below 10 |o,g/L from the water tested.
The useful media life is short (i.e., 3,000 bed volumes [BV]) even with the use of pH
adjustment to lower the pH values of feed water to 6.0. Lowering the feed water pH appears
to have little effect on arsenic concentrations in the treated water.
• Impurities such as arsenic and manganese can be leached from the G2 media. Concentrations
as high as 30.6 |o,g/L for arsenic and 39.1 |o,g/L for manganese were detected in the treated
water immediately after the test runs began. A significant amount of arsenic, possibly over
0.8 mg/g of media, might have been attached onto the media surface before the media was
put into service. Arsenic and manganese were introduced to the media via the use of
impurity-laden FeCl3 during the media manufacturing process.
• Leaching of silica from the diatomite substrate also can occur. Silica as high as 61.8 mg/L
(as SiO2) was measured in the treated water immediately after the start of each test run.
Leaching leveled off after about 2,000 BV of throughput but continued throughout the
remainder of the test runs.
• Changing pH conditions at the entry point can cause changes in lead and copper
concentrations in the distribution system. A loss of pH control resulted in lower than normal
pH values in the distrubution system, causing a significant increase in the lead and copper
levels with the copper concentration at one location exceeding its action level of 1.3 mg/L.
Other than a few exceptions, arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations in the distribution
system closely mirrored those in the plant effluent.
• The G2 media does not have any chlorine demand, as evident by the similar levels of total
and free chlorine residuals measured before and after the adsorption vessels.
Required system O&Mand operator's skill levels:
• Generally, the operation of the G2 system does not require additional skills beyond those
necessary to operate the preexisting treatment equipment. The daily demand on the system
operator is typically about 20 min to inspect the system and record operational parameters.
• Based on the size of the population served and the treatment technology, the State of New
Hampshire requires Level 1A Certification for operation of the treatment system and is
considering upgrading this requirement to Level 1 certification.
• A significant O&M issue is the need for acid and caustic addition to maintain the desired pH
ranges of the feed and finished water.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• Residuals produced by the G2 system include backwash water and spent media.
• The system does not need to be backwashed if pressure drop across the vessels is low (i.e., 1
to 2 psi). The system was backwashed only three times during the demonstration study.
-------
The spent media can be disposed of in a non-hazardous waste landfill based on the result of a
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test.
Cost of the technology:
The capital cost is $4,150/gpm ($2.88/gpd) based on the system's actual capacity of
40 gal/min (gpm) (57,600 gal/day [gpd]), which does not include the cost of the treatment
building.
Although the G2 media cost is low (i.e., $0.75/lb), the operational cost is high (i.e.,
$5.11/1,000 gal). The high operational cost is due to the very short media life and high
chemical cost for pH adjustment.
The media replacement cost is the most significant add-on operational cost. Replacing media
in both lead and lag vessels at the same time instead of only the lead vessel seems to be
necessary due to limited media capacity. The cost of replacing 170 ft3 of G2 media is
$16,752 or $4.30/1,000 gal of water treated.
-------
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 ADI adsorption system began on October 13, 2004. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected
and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance was
determined based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to the target 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 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 and the need to replace the media upon arsenic breakthrough.
Backwash water was sampled and analyzed for chemical characteristics.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital cost for equipment,
engineering, and installation, as well as O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical supply,
electrical usage, and labor.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Revised Vendor Quotation Submitted to Battelle
Purchase Order Modification Completed
Engineering Package Submitted to NHDES
Steel Floor for Treatment System Installed
Adsorption Vessels Delivered to Site
Permit Issued by NHDES
Draft Study Plan Issued
System Installation Completed
Final Study Plan Issued
Media Conditioning and System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
April 22, 2004
May 10, 2004
June 10, 2004
June 14, 2004
June 25, 2004
June 28, 2004
August 23, 2004
September 2, 2004
September 13, 2004
October 6, 2004
October 11, 2004
October 13, 2004
NHDES = New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
-------
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-|ag/L arsenic MCL in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of the 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 media replacement and disposal, chemical usage, electricity
consumption, 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), sulfuric acid (H2SO4), and sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) levels; 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 problems encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and
labor required, on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly basis, the plant operator measured
several water quality parameters on-site, including pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-
reduction potential (ORP), and total and free chlorine, and recorded the data on a Water Quality
Parameters Log Sheet. Backwash data also 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 the media replacement and spent media
disposal, chemical and electricity consumption, and labor. Consumption of NaOCl, H2SO4, and NaOH
was tracked on the Daily System Operation Log Sheet. Electricity consumption was determined from
utility bills. Labor for various activities, such as 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, H2SO4, and NaOH
solutions; 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 at the wellhead, across the treatment plant,
during backwash, and from the distribution system. The sampling schedule and analytes measured during
each sampling event are listed in Table 3-3. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods,
sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-
endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2003). 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 was
collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (see Section 3.4.1). The sample tap was 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, water samples
were collected across the treatment train by the plant operator. At the beginning of the study, samples
were collected biweekly on an eight-week cycle. For the first three biweekly events, treatment plant
samples were collected at four locations, i.e., after wells combined (IN), after chlorination and pH
adjustment (AP), after Vessel A (TA), and after Vessel B (TB), and analyzed for the analytes listed under
the biweekly treatment plant analyte list (see Table 3-3). For the fourth biweekly event (or once every
eight weeks), treatment plant samples collected at the same four locations were speciated for arsenic and
analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 under the bimonthly treatment plant analyte list. The
sampling frequency was reduced from weekly as stated in the Study Plan to biweekly following the first
month of system operations.
After the media changeout, treatment plant samples were collected on a weekly basis from IN, AP, and
the vessel that was on-line (i.e., TA from January 17 through April 17, 2006, and TB from April 18, 2006
through September 26, 2006). For the first three weekly events, samples were collected for the analytes
listed under the weekly treatment plant analyte list in Table 3-3. For the fourth weekly event, samples
were collected at the same three locations and speciated for arsenic and analyzed for the analytes listed in
Table 3-3 under the monthly treatment plant analyte list.
3.3.3 Backwash Water. One set of backwash water samples was collected on January 11 and
April 12, 2005, and two sets were collected on June 14, 2005, at both the beginning and the end of the
backwash cycle, from the sample taps located at the backwash water discharge line from each vessel.
Unfiltered samples were measured on site for pH using a field pH meter (see Section 3.5), and collected
in 1-gal sample bottles for total dissolved solids (TDS) and turbidity measurements. Filtered samples
using 0.45-(im filters were analyzed for soluble As, Fe, and Mn. Arsenic speciation was not performed
for the backwash water samples.
3.3.4 Residual Solids. Residual solids included backwash solids and spent media samples. Due to
low solids in the backwash water, solids were not collected from any of the three backwash events.
Two spent G2 media samples were collected from each vessel when the media was removed on
December 23, 2005. One media sample was removed from the top and bottom of each media bed using a
wet/dry vacuum that was thoroughly cleaned and disinfected prior to use. The media removed from each
layer was we 11-mixed and stored in a 1-gal wide-mouth high-density polyethylene (HOPE) bottle. The
spent media sample from the top of the lead vessel (TA) was analyzed for metals detailed in Table 3-3.
The plant operator also submitted a sample of the spent media for TCLP tests.
-------
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Sample Locations'3'
Storage tanks
After wells combined
(IN), after
chlorination and pH
adjustment (AP) ,
after Vessel A (TA),
and after Vessel B
(TB)
IN, AP, and TA (from
01/17/06 through
04/11/06)
IN, AP, and TB (from
04/18/06 through
09/26/06)
No. of
Samples
1
4
3
Frequency
Once
during
initial site
visit
Biweekly
Bimonthly
Weekly
Analytes
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off-site: As(III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Al (total and soluble),
Mo (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble),
V(total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, SO4,
S2; SiO2, PO4, TOC, and
alkalinity
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, C12 (free and
total)(t)
Off-site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), SiO2,
PO4, turbidity, and
alkalinity
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free
andtotal)(b)
Off-site: As(III), As(V),
As(total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, N03, S04,
SiO2, PO4, turbidity, and
alkalinity
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO,ORP, C12 (free and
total)00
Off-site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), SiO2,
PO4, turbidity, and
alkalinity
Date(s) Samples
Collected
04/22/04
10/19/04, 10/26/04,
11/02/04, 11/16/04,
11/30/04,01/04/05,
01/18/05, 02/15/05,
03/01/05, 03/15/05,
04/12/05, 04/26/05,
06/07/05, 06/21/05,
08/02/05, 08/16/05,
08/30/05, 09/13/05,
09/27/05, 10/25/05,
11/08/05, 11/29/05
10/13/04, 12/14/04,
02/01/05, 03/29/05,
05/10/05, 07/05/05.
10/11/05
01/31/06,02/07/06,
02/14/06, 02/28/06,
03/07/06, 03/14/06,
03/28/06, 04/04/06,
04/11/06,04/25/06,
05/02/06, 05/09/06,
05/23/06, 05/30/06,
06/06/06, 06/20/06,
06/27/06, 07/05/06,
07/11/06,07/18/06,
07/25/06, 08/01/06,
08/08/06, 08/15/06,
08/22/06, 08/29/06,
09/05/06, 09/12/06,
09/19/06, 09/26/06
-------
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses (Continued)
Sample
Type
Treatment
Plant Water
(continued)
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Water
Spent Media
Sample Locations'3'
IN, AP, and TA
(from 01/17/06
through 04/1 1/06)
IN, AP, and TB
(from 04/18/06
through 09/26/06)
Three residences
previously used as
LCR sampling
locations
Sample ports on
backwash discharge
line from each
vessel
Top layer of TA
(lead vessel)
No. of
Samples
3
3
2
1
Frequency
Monthly
Monthly
During
each
backwash
event
During
media
changeout
Analytes
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free and
total)(b)
Off-site: As(III), As(V),
As(total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble), Mn
(total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, and alkalinity
pH, alkalinity, As, Fe, Mn,
Pb, and Cu
TDS, turbidity, pH, As
(soluble), Fe (soluble), and
Mn (soluble)
Al, As, Mn, Ca, Mg, Fe, Si,
P
Date(s) Samples
Collected
01/17/06, 01/24/06,
02/21/06, 03/21/06,
04/18/06, 05/16/06,
06/13/06
Baseline
sampling(c):
07/21/04, 08/05/04,
08/18/04, 09/08/04
Monthly sampling:
11/03/04, 12/08/04,
01/12/05, 02/09/05,
03/09/05, 04/20/05,
05/11/05,06/08/05,
07/12/05, 08/03/05,
09/14/05, 10/11/05,
11/02/05,01/18/06,
02/15/06, 03/15/06,
04/12/06, 06/21/06
01/11/05
04/12/05
06/14/05
12/23/05
(a) Abbreviation in each parenthesis corresponding to sample location in Figure 4-5.
(b) Taken only at AP, TA, and TB locations.
(c) Four baseline sampling events performed before system became operational.
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 arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to start-up from July through September 2004, four
sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected at three Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) locations
within the distribution system. Following system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a
monthly basis at the same three locations for approximately a year and a half.
The homeowners collected samples following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and
Copper Rule 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 cold-water faucets that had not been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that
stagnant water was sampled.
10
-------
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kit preparation, sample cooler preparation, and sample
shipping and handling are discussed as follows.
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2003).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. 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.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling
instructions, chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, ice packs, and bubble wrap, were
included. The chain-of-custody forms and air bills were complete except for the operator's signature and
the sample dates and times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the
following week's sampling event.
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. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in a cooler and picked up by
a courier from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH, which was under contract
with Battelle for this demonstration study. 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, 2003)
were followed by Battelle ICP-MS laboratory 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 limit (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.
11
-------
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
WTW Multi 340i handheld meter, 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 Multi 340i 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
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Facility Description
The WRWC public water system is operated by C&C Water Services and supplies water to 96 homes in
the community of Village Shore Estates at Bow, NH. The facility is located on a wooded lot at 6 Rocky
Point Drive, Bow, NH. Figure 4-1 shows the small underground structure that housed the existing water
system components prior to installation of the ADI adsorption system. The water source is groundwater
from three on-site bedrock wells (Wells 1, 2, and 3). The total flowrate from the three wells is
approximately 40 gpm at startup, based on the information provided by the plant operator. The well
pumps are activated based on the water level in two 15,000-gal storage tanks (Figure 4-2) housed in a
separate underground structure located about 50 ft from the treatment and control structure. Prior to the
beginning of the demonstration study, the system was estimated to run approximately 6 to 8 hr/day with
an average daily use rate of 15,000 to 20,000 gpd. The preexisting treatment process included the
addition of a dilute NaOCl solution for disinfection and a caustic solution (NaOH) to raise pH to make the
treated water less corrosive in the distribution system. Approximately 10 to 15% of the total flow also
was treated with a small activated alumina (AA) system, shown in Figure 4-3, which had been at the site
for many years. The AA system was removed from the site prior to installation of the ADI adsorption
system.
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Underground Treatment and Control Structure
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on April 22, 2004, and
subsequently analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3. The results of the source water analyses,
along with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those obtained
from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), are presented in Table 4-1.
13
-------
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Storage Tanks in Underground Concrete Structure
Figure 4-3. Preexisting Activated Alumina System in
Underground Treatment and Control Structure
14
-------
Table 4-1. WRWC Water Quality Data
Parameter
Unit
Sampling Date
pH
Total Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Turbidity
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfide
Sulfate
Nitrate-Nitrite
(asN)
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate
(asP)
TOC
As(total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Mo (total)
Mo (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Na
Ca
Mg
—
mg/L
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
^g/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
^g/L
HB/L
W?/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
EPA
Raw
Water
Data(a)
06/10/98
7.7
56.0
83.0
0.4
N/A
0.8
N/A
15.5
0.3
N/A
N/A
1.0
44.2
44.9
N/A
0.5
44.4
60.0
N/A
<400
N/A
25.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
24.7
5.2
Battelle
Raw
Water
Data
04/22/04
6.8
54.0
92.7
N/A
41.0
0.6
N/A
12.0
N/A
19.7
<0.10
0.7
39.2
44.1
0.1
0.5
43.6
<25
<25
<10
<10
2.1
1.5
0.6
0.6
1.9
3.0
0.2
0.7
17.0
28.3
5.3
NHDES Raw
Water Data(b)
06/02
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.019-0.076
0.5
32-47
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
18.2-39.7
3.5-7.1
NHDES
Treated
Water Data(c)
12/29/99-
04/26/04
7.6-7.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
34-35
0.9-1.0
N/A
11-12
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
36.3-47
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
<50
N/A
N/A
N/A
<5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
<3
N/A
16.6-17.5
N/A
N/A
(a) Results of source water sample collected in 1998.
(b) Raw water samples from Wells 1, 2, and 3 separately.
(c) Blended water from Wells 1, 2, and 3 as treated water.
N/A = not analyzed.
15
-------
Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 32 to 47 |o,g/L. Based on the April 22, 2004
speciation results, the majority of arsenic existed as As(V), with only a small amount (i.e., 0.5 |og/L)
present as As(III).
pH values of raw water ranged between 6.8 and 7.7, higher than the desired range of 6.0 to 7.0 indicated
by ADI for using the G2 media.
Concentrations of iron (<25 to 60 |o,g/L) and other ions in raw water were low enough that pretreatment
prior to the adsorption process would not be required. The concentrations of orthophosphate and silica
also were sufficiently low (i.e., <0.1 mg/L [as PO4] and 19.7 mg/L [as SiO2], respectively) and, therefore,
not expected to affect As adsorption on the G2 media.
4.1.2 Predemonstration Treated Water Quality. Table 4-1 also presents historic treated water
quality data collected in compliance with the state monitoring and reporting requirements. Because the
treatment process prior to distribution included only chlorination and caustic addition, concentrations in
the treated water were very similar to those of raw water. Total arsenic concentrations in the treated
water ranged from 36.3 to 47 |o,g/L. Iron and manganese concentrations were below the respective
detection limits of 50 and 5 |o,g/L. pH values of the treated water ranged from 7.6 to 7.8.
4.1.3 Distribution System. The distribution system serving the community of Village Shore
Estates consists of a looped distribution line constructed primarily of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. The
connections to the distribution system and piping within the residences themselves are primarily PVC and
some copper pipe. According to the plant operator, a few homes may have pipe with lead solder, but no
homes have lead pipe.
Compliance samples from the distribution system are collected monthly for bacterial and yearly for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Under the EPA LCR, samples are collected from customer taps at
five residences every three years.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
The ADI adsorption system uses G2 media for arsenic removal. The media consists of a granular,
calcined diatomite substrate coated with ferric hydroxide. Table 4-2 presents physical and chemical
properties of the media. The G2 media has NSF International (NSF) Standard 61 listing for use in
drinking water applications.
The ADI system is a fixed-bed downflow adsorption system. When the media reaches its capacity, the
spent media may be removed and disposed of after being subjected to the EPA TCLP test. The media
also can be regenerated using a 1% NaOH solution. However, due to the relatively small size of the
treatment facility, spent media was removed and disposed of to simplify system operation.
The adsorption system at the WRWC site consisted of two vertical, 72-in-diameter and 72-in-sidewall-
height cylindrical filter vessels, configured in series. The adsorption vessels were originally designed to
operate in parallel for HAMHP with a flowrate of 70 gpm (or 35 gpm per vessel). Due to the switch to
the site in Bow with a total flowrate of only 40 gpm, the system was reconfigured to operate in series. As
a result, each vessel would provide for an EBCT of 16 min, compared to 18 min had the system been
installed at HAMHP. Note that these values were much longer than the 10-min EBCT normally
recommended by the vendor. Additionally, the hydraulic loading rate of the system was increased
slightly from 1.2 to 1.4 gpm/ft2 with the switch from HAMHP to WRWC. These loading rates were
significantly lower than the 2.5 to 3.0 gpm/ft2 that would normally be applied to the G2 media. ADI
16
-------
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of G2 Media
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Specific Gravity (dry)
Hardness (lb/in2)
Effective Size (mm)
Uniformity Coefficient
Bulk Relative Density
Adsorption (%)
Value
Diatomite impregnated with
ferric hydroxide
Dry granules
Dark brown
47
0.75
210
0.32
1.8-2.0
1.073
51.1
Ch emical An alysis
Constituents
Fe
Na
Al
Diatomaceous Earth (a silica-based material)
Trace Elements
Weight %
5-6
9-10
0.5
Balance
<0.1
Source: ADI
recommended the use of 72-in-diameter vessels with the intent of extending the media run length for
HAMHP. Figure 4-4 is a process flow diagram of the adsorption system supplied by ADI. The design
features of the treatment system are summarized in Table 4-3, and a flow diagram along with the
sampling/analysis schedule are presented in Figure 4-5. Key process components include:
• Intake. Raw water was pumped from the three on-site bedrock wells (Wells 1, 2, and 3) and
fed to the ADI treatment system. The inlet piping consisting of 2-in PVC pipe from the three
supply wells was combined into a single line located in the preexisting underground portion
of the new treatment building. The single line was extended up through an opening in the
floor of the treatment building and connected to the 3-in entry point of the treatment system.
• Prechlorination. The existing NaOCl feed system was used to add chlorine ahead of the
adsorption vessels to prevent biological growth in the vessels and maintain a target chlorine
residual value of 0.5 mg/L (as C12) in the distribution system for disinfection purposes. The
chorine addition system consisted of an LMI™ chlorine metering pump, a 50-gal HOPE
chemical feed tank, and polyethylene tubing to transfer the NaOCl solution from the tank to
the injection point. The NaOCl solution was injected directly into the raw water line after the
wells were combined as described above. Operation of the chlorine feed system was tied to
the well pumps so that chlorine was injected only when the wells were on. Chlorine
consumption was measured using volumetric markings on the outside of the feed tank.
• pH Adjustment Prior to Adsorption. Source water pH was adjusted using a 93% H2SO4
solution from an average of 7.3 to an initial target value of 6.8 then to 6.4 and 6.0 in order to
increase the adsorption capacity of the media. The H2SO4 solution was delivered to the site
in 15-gal containers (200 Ib per container). The acid was metered directly from these
containers using a Prominent™ solenoid dosing pump to the injection point located on the
17
-------
FROM SOURCE
V ARV1
FILTER 1
V2
-1X1-
RV2 V7
OPTIONAL v6
PORT r-CX>-
V1 0
-txl—
FILTER 2
V7
—CXH
-CX3—
ST7
LEGEND:
MANUAL
BUTTERFLY
VALVE
SAMPLE TAP
ANALYSER,
INDICATING,
TRANSMITTER
IN-LINE
FLOW METER
AIR RELEASE
VALVE
PRESSURE
GAUGE
METERING
PUMP
8ACKW ASH/RINSE
THIS DOCUMENT AND THE INFORMATION, DESIGNS,
INVENTIONS, AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS CONTAINED
HEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF ADI INTERNATIONAL
INC, AND ARE SOLELY FOR USE ON BEHALF OF ADI
AND ARE NOT TO BE DISCLOSED, COPIED OR USED
FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WHATSOEVER UNLESS
SPECIFIC PERMISSION IS FIRST OBTAINED FROM AN
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ADI. MEDIA G2e
FILTER MEDIA IS AN ADI TRADE MARK AND PROTECTED
BY UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,200,482; OTHER
PATENTS PENDING.
NOTE;
MAKE SURE RESERVOIR IS TOPPED OFF BEFORE A
BACKWASH. WHILE "BACKWASHING ONE FILTER, THE
OTHER MAY BE IN SERVICE. PLEASE CONTACT ADI
FOR MORE INFORMATION.
VALVE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
1 1
SERIES 1-2
0
X
0
X
X
X
0
X
X
0
X
SERIES 2-1
X
0
X
X
0
0
X
0
X
X
X
PARALLEL
0
X
X
X
0
0
X
X
X
0
X
BW!
X
0
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
BW2
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
0
X
0
RINSE
0
X
0
X
X
0
X
0
X
X
0
> A D ! Limited
Engineering, Consulting, Procurement ar
Project Management
PRELIMINARY
m pH Design-Buna. TurrvKey padoges
BOW, NH
ARSENIC REMOVAL
SYSTEM
PROCESS FLOW
DIAGRAM
FIGURE 1
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 4-4. Schematic of G2 Media Adsorption System (Provided by ADI)
-------
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of G2 Media System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Adsorption Vessels
Vessel Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/vessel)
Number of Vessels
Configuration
72 D x 72 H
28.3
2
Series
-
-
-
-
Adsorptive Media
Media Type
Media Quantity (Ib)
Media Volume (ft3)
G2
8,000
170
-
4,000 Ib/vessel
36-inbed depth or 85 ftVvessel
Service
System Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (mint/Vessel
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Throughput to Breakthrough (gal)
Average Use Rate (gal/day)
Estimated Media Life (months)
Pre-treatment
Post-treatment
40
1.4
16
10,300
6,550,000
15,000
14
NaCIO
H2SO4
NaOH
System originally designed for 70 gpm at
HAMHP in Allenstown, NH
-
32-min EBCT for both vessels
Vendor-provided estimate based on As
breakthrough at 10 |ag/L in lead vessel with
influent arsenic concentration at 39 |ag/L
lBV=636gal
Based on 6 hr of daily operation at 40 gpm
Estimated frequency of media change-out
in lead vessel based on average throughput
to system
Prechlorination
pH adjustment before adsorption
pH adjustment after adsorption
Backwash
Backwash Frequency
Backwash Hydraulic Loading Rate
(gpm/ft2)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Duration (min/vessel)
Wastewater Production (gal/vessel)
As needed
4
115
10-15
1,700
-
—
-
-
-
raw water line just downstream of the chlorine injection point. These injection points were
installed about 3 ft apart and approximately 25 ft upstream of the adsorption system.
Arsenic Adsorption. The two 72-in-diameter, 72-in-sidewall-height vessels were
constructed of 304 stainless steel and rated for 50 pounds per square inch (psi) working
pressure. The system was delivered to the site with a pre-assembled pipe and valve manifold
consisting of 3-in schedule 80 PVC with flanged and solvent weld connections. The
manifold was mounted directly on a uni-strut steel frame bolted directly to the front of the
adsorption vessels as shown in Figure 4-6. Inlet and outlet pressure gauges, PVC manually-
actuated butterfly valves, air release/vacuum valves, and sampling ports were installed as part
of the pre-assembled unit. There were no automated controls included as part of the
adsorption system; all valves were manually actuated. Initiation of system backwash or other
operational adjustments required manual adjustment of valves. Two inline pH probes were
installed in the piping manifold in order to measure the pH values of the water following the
acid and caustic addition. Additionally, a pH chart recorder was installed for continuous
19
-------
INFLUENT
(WELLS 1,2, AND 3)
White Rock Water Company
Public Water System in
Bow, NH
MEDIA G2® Technology
Design Flow: 40 gpm
Bimonthly/Monthly
pH«, temperature^), DOW, O
C12 (free and total)
As (total and soluble), As
As (V), Fe (total and soli
Mn (total and soli
Ca, Mg, F, N03, S04, SiO2, P
turbidity, alka
(a) (b)
(in),
ible),
inity
SURFACE DRAINAGE/
LEACH FIELD
BACKWASH DISPOSAL
-
(S
pH, TDS, turbidity,
As (soluble) /C
Fe (soluble), \^
Mn (soluble)
'
^
TCLP
A
:>-!
5>
K
i
•^ 1 11
\
pH ADJUSTMENT
WITH H2S04
— I A T, \ ^
1
x^
/ME
1
/ME
r
DIA\
SEE j
5 •
DIA\
v B /
^ f ^rr- 1 ^>
Footnotes
(a) On-site analyses
(b) Except at IN locations
(c) Analyzed for total P instead of PO4 from
01/31/06 until end of demonstration
pH ADJUSTMENT
WITH NaOH
Biweekly/Weekly
pH'a', temperature^',
DOM, ORPW, C12 (free and total)
• As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
LEGEND
After Wells Combined
After pH Adjustment and
Chlorine Addition
After Vessel A
After Vessel B
lackwash Sampling Location
SS j Sludge Sampling Location
Unit Process
Chlorine Disinfection
Process Flow
iackwash Flow
Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
20
-------
logging of the inline probe readings. The addition of the acid and caustic solutions was flow
paced based on a 4 to 20 mA control signal from a flowmeter located on the treated water line
downstream of the adsorption system. Each vessel was filled with 36 in of G2 media (85 ft3
or 4,000 Ib), which was underlain by 9 in of gravel underbedding (1/8 in x 1/16 in size).
Assuming a flowrate of 40 gpm, the system would provide for an EBCT of 16 min (per
vessel) and a hydraulic loading rate of 1.4 gpm/ft2.
pH Adjustment Prior to Storage and Distribution. After passing through the adsorption
vessels, the treated water pH was adjusted using a 25% NaOH solution to raise the pH from
between 6.0 to 6.5 to a target value of 7.5 before entering the storage tanks and distribution
system. The pH was increased to reduce the tendency for dissolution of metals, especially
lead and copper, from distribution piping. The 25% NaOH solution was delivered to the site
in 15-gal containers (160 Ib per container). The caustic solution was metered directly from
these containers to the injection point using a Prominent™ solenoid dosing pump. The
injection point was located downstream of the adsorption system and before the treated water
reached the two 15,000-gal storage tanks.
Figure 4-6. ADI G2 Media Arsenic Adsorption System
• Storage and Distribution. The treated water was temporarily stored in two preexisting
15,000-gal storage tanks at atmospheric pressure. The tanks were housed in an underground
structure and about 4 ft below the media tanks due to topography. The water in the storage
tanks was pumped with a Burkes 50G7-2 and a Goulds 3656-1.5 booster pumps to a 5,000-
gal hydropneumatic tank, operating at a high and a low pressure of 48 and 40 psi,
respectively.
21
-------
4.3
System Installation
The installation of the treatment system at the site was completed in September 2004; shakedown and
startup activities continued into October 2004. The system installation and building construction
activities were carried out by the plant operator, C&C Water Services, as a subcontractor to ADI.
4.3.1 Permitting. Engineering plans for the system permit application were prepared by Lewis
Engineering, an ADI subcontractor located in Litchfield, NH. The plans included diagrams and
specifications of the G2 media treatment system, as well as site drawings showing the proposed layout of
the new treatment building. The plans were submitted to the NHDES (Water Supply Engineering
Bureau) for review and approval on June 14, 2004. The NHDES issued a letter of approval on August 23,
2004. The state did not issue a separate permit for discharging the system backwash water at the time of
startup.
4.3.2 Building Construction. To house the G2 media treatment system, C&C Water Services
constructed an aboveground addition to the existing underground pump house structure (Figure 4-1).
Construction included placement of steel support beams on top of the existing concrete structure, and
construction of a wood frame building on the steel supports. The new building is roughly the same size
as the existing structure, approximately 20 ft by 22 ft. A photograph of the aboveground addition to the
treatment building is shown in Figure 4-7. Building construction began on June 14, 2004, with placement
of the steel support beams and continued through the end of August 2004, including placement and
setting of the vessels, which were put into place before completing the walls and roof of the new
treatment building.
Figure 4-7. New Treatment Building Addition
22
-------
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The adsorption vessels arrived on site and were
placed on the steel supports of the new treatment building on June 28, 2004. During shipment, some
minor damage was made to welds on the bottom flanges of both vessels. The manufacturer arranged for
repair of the welds by a local certified welding shop. C&C Water Services performed the system
installation, including all plumbing, mechanical, and electrical work. Installation of system piping was
completed on September 2, 2004.
The G2 media was loaded into the vessels on September 13, 2004. Prior to system startup, the media was
first backwashed at 115 gpm for about 1 hr to remove media fines in the bed. The G2 media was then
conditioned using a downflow acid rinse to neutralize the pH of the media from about 12 as a result of the
media manufacturing process. To minimize the amount of wastewater produced, conditioning was done
by recirculating the rinse water through each vessel at a flowrate of 70 gpm using a 5-horsepower (hp)
pump. Meanwhile, a chemical metering pump was used to add a 93% H2SO4 solution at the inlet of each
vessel. Each vessel was conditioned separately for two 8-hr days and the total acid consumption was
about 3 gal per vessel (or 6 gal total). The volume of wastewater produced per vessel per day was
equivalent to the volume of one vessel and some additional piping (i.e., about 1,500 gal). The wastewater
(about 3,000 gal per vessel over the two-day period) was discharged to a rip-rap lined surface drainage
area near the treatment building at the end of each day. The pH of the wastewater as it was discharged
ranged from about 10 on the first day to 7 on the second day.
Because of some delay in receiving the required components for the recirculation pump, the media
conditioning did not begin until September 28, 2004, and continued for about four days. The system was
put into service and the performance evaluation study officially began on October 13, 2004. A Battelle
staff member visited the site on this date to inspect the system, provide operator training for data and
sample collection, and collect the first set of samples from the treatment system.
4.4 System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters of the system are tabulated and
attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-4. Throughout the two-year study
period, the system was operated in three different configurations. Run 1 was operated from October 13,
2004 through November 29, 2005 with two vessels in series (i.e., Vessel A in the lead position and Vessel
B in the lag position). During Run 1, arsenic broke through at 10 |o,g/L following the lag vessel after only
6,100 BV (based on the media volume in the lead vessel) or 3,050 BV (considering the lead and lag
vessels as one large vessel) in May 2005 (See Section 4.5.1). The breakthrough occurred much earlier
than expected given the influent arsenic concentrations. After repeated, but unsuccessful attempts to
improve arsenic removal including lowering the pH and performing a backwash, a decision was made to
change out the media in both vessels. Following the spent media removal in December 2005 and virgin
media placement in January 2006, only one vessel was operated at a time so that the performance of each
vessel could be independently evaluated. As such, Run 2 was in operation with Vessel A only from
January 13, 2006 through April 14, 2006 and Run 3 with Vessel B only from April 15, 2006 through
September 26, 2006.
Run 1. Run 1 operated for a total of 3,714 hr based on the well pump hour meter readings with the
supply wells operating at an average of 9.5 hr/day. The total system throughput from October 13, 2004
through November 29, 2005 was 7,928,750 gal based on the flow totalizer readings from the finished
water magnetic meter. The flowrates through the system ranged from 10.6 to 49 gpm and averaged 41.0
gpm, based on the instantaneous flowrate readings (denoted as "•" in Figure 4-8) recorded daily from the
finished water magnetic meter. Averaging 41.0 gpm, these flowrate readings were, in general, higher
than the total daily well flowrates (denoted as "x" in Figure 4-8) that averaged 31.7 gpm. The well
23
-------
Table 4-4. Key Operational Parameters
Operational Parameter
Value/Condition
Run 1 (Both Vessel A andB in Series)
Duration
Time Operated (hr)
Daily Run Time (hr/day)
Throughput (gal)
Flowrate (gpm)
EBCT for both vessels (min)
Vessel Pressure and AP (psi)
pH Adjustment
10/13/04-11/29/05
3,714 (with All 3 wells operating)
9.5 (5.6-20.8(a))
7,928,746
41 (10.6^9)
31(26-120)
Vessel Inlet Outlet
A 13.0 (1.0-27) 12.9 (2.0-28)
B 10.6 (0.5-27) 12.4 (2.0-28)
Pre/Post Range
Pre 6.1-7.803'
Post 5.7-9.2(c)
AP
0.2 (-5.0-6)
-1.7 (-4.0-4.0)
Average
6.6(b)
8.1(c)
Run 2 Vessel A Only
Duration
Time Operated (hr)
Daily Run Time (hr/day)
Throughput (gal)
Flowrate (gpm)
EBCT (min)
Vessel A Pressure and AP (psi)
pH Adjustment
01/13/06-04/14/06
Well(s) Operating Time (hr)
Wells 1 and 2 Only 119
Well 3 Only 83
All 3 Wells 642
Total 844
Well(s) Operating Range
Wells 1 and 2 Only 16.4-24.0
Well 3 Only 13.8-21.8
All 3 Wells 5.2-17.5
Average
19.8
16.6
8.0
1,628,842
Well(s) Operating Range
Wells 1 and 2 Only 15-16
Well 3 Only 17-20
All 3 Wells 33-47
Well(s) Operating Range
Wells 1 and 2 Only 39.8-42.4
Well 3 Only 31.8-37.4
All 3 Wells 13.5-19.3
Vessel A Range
Inlet 7.0-13.0
Outlet 7.0-13.0
AP -2.0-1.0
Pre/Post Range
Pre 5.8-7.403'
Post 6.3-10.5(c)
Average
15.8
18.5
44.0
Average
40.2
34.4
14.5
Average(d)
10.9 (4.0)
11.0(5.0)
-0.1 (-1.0)
Average
6.4(b)
9.5(c)
Run 3 VesselB Only
Duration
Time Operated (hr)
Daily Run Time (hr/day)
04/15/06-09/26/06
Well(s) Operating Time (hr)
Wells 2 and 3 Only 91
Well 3 Only 1,436
All 3 Wells 1,178
Total 2,705
Well(s) Operating Range
Wells 2 and 3 Only 19.6-24
Well 3 Only 14.3-24
All 3 Wells 5.5-24
Average
22.7
21.4
13.1
24
-------
Table 4-4. Key Operational Parameters (Continued)
Operational Parameter
Throughput (gal)
Flowrate (gpm)
EBCT (min)
Vessel B Pressure and AP (psi)
pH Adjustment
Value/Condition
3,558,337
Well(s) Operating
Wells 2 and 3 Only
Well 3 Only
All 3 Wells
Well(s) Operating
Wells 1 and 2 Only
Well 3 only
All 3 Wells
Vessel B
Inlet
Outlet
AP
Pre/Post
Pre
Post
Range
12-19
13-37
19^6
Range
33.5-53
17.2-18.9
13.8-33.5
Range
3-13
5-14
1-3
Range
5.9-7.6(b)
6.4-10.4(c)
Average
15
17
35
Average
42.4
37.4
18.2
Averase(d)
8.3 (4)
9.8 (6)
1.5 (2)
Average
6.300
8.0(c)
(a) Not including two data points when well pumps were left on overnight.
(b) Field probe readings.
(c) Inline probe readings; data suspicious as discussed in Section 4.4.2.
(d) Value in parentheses for average pressure or differential pressure (AP) reading corresponding to reduced
flowrates.
. Well #1
n Well #2
Well #3
X All Wells
• Instanteous Flowrate (3 wells)
10/20/04 01/28/05 05/08/05 08/16/05 11/24/05
Date
03/04/06
06/12/06
09/20/06
Figure 4-8. Flowrates of Wells During Runs 1, 2, and 3
25
-------
flowrates were calculated based on the readings on the individual wellhead flow totalizers and respective
hour meters. As shown in Figure 4-8, Wells 1, 2, and 3 yielded, for the most part, rather constant
flowrates, averaging 6.0, 10.2, and 19.5 gpm, respectively, during the entire Run 1 study period. The
only exception was from system startup on October 13, 2004, through January 4, 2005, during which the
Well 3 totalizer did not register flow and had to be replaced on January 4, 2005. Using the 41 gpm
average flowrate as the basis for calculations, it would result in an average EBCT of 16 min per vessel or
31 min through the entire system. These values are essentially the same as the design values presented in
Table 4-3.
Pressure readings at the exit side of Vessel B (or the entry point to the storage tanks) averaged 12.4 psi.
Pressure drops (Ap) were negligible across the adsorption vessels and the system due largely to the low
hydraulic loading rates (i.e., 1.4 gpm/ft2) applied. The pressure gauges used are in 0 to 30 psi
graduations.
Run 2. After the media changeout, Vessel A was operated from January 13, 2006 through April 14,
2006, for a total of 844 hr. The total system throughput for Run 2 was approximately 1,628,800 gal based
on the flow totalizer readings from the finished water magnetic meter. To yield this throughput, all three
wells were operating during most of this study period, except for two short time intervals, i.e., from
February 2 through 8, 2006, when only Wells 1 and 2 were operating and from February 9 through 13,
2006, when only Well 3 was operating. When all three wells were in operation, the average flowrate was
44 gpm, which resulted in an average EBCT of 14.5 min. The average flowrate was 15.8 when both
Wells 1 and 2 were operating and 18.5 gpm when only Well 3 was operating (each equivalent to an
average EBCT of 40.2 or 34.4 min in Vessel A alone). These instantaneous flowrate readings, again,
were higher than the calculated total daily well flowrates. The calculated flowrates for individual wells
followed the similar trend as observed during Run 1 with flowrates averaging 6.1, 10.6, and 21.0 gpm for
Wells 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
During February 2 through 13, 2006, the system flowrates were lowered from the average of 44.0 gpm to
a range of 15.8 to 18.5 gpm (on average) to determine if reduced flowrates would result in any increase in
arsenic concentration in the G2 media effluent. This was done to verify the speculation made by the
vendor that premature arsenic breakthrough from the G2 media during Run 1 might have been caused by
short-circuiting of flow within the media bed operating at extremely low flowrates. Well 3 was turned off
from February 2 through 8, 2006, for a total of 119 hr and Wells 1 and 2 turned off from February 9
through 13, 2006, for a total of 83 hr, resulting in 57 to 64% flow reduction. As to be discussed in
Section 4.5.1, lowering the flowrates, in fact, improved arsenic removal, an observation that contradicted
to the short-circuiting speculation.
System pressure readings and pressure drops across Vessel A were similar to those observed during
Run 1.
Run 3. On April 15, 2006, Run 3 was initiated with Vessel B only until the end of the demonstration
study on September 26, 2006. The system operated for a total of 2,705 hr with 45% of the time utilizing
all three wells and the remaining time utilizing only Well 3 (except for 91 hr when Well 2 was turned on
to help replenish the storage tank). The total system throughput for Run 3 was 3,558,300 gal based on the
flow totalizer readings from the finished water magnetic meter.
Shortly after the start of Run 3 on May 2, 2006, there were noticeable drops in flowrate as reflected by
both instantaneous system flowrate readings and calculated total well flowrates. The average decreases
were 88, 20, and 18% for Wells 1, 2, ad 3, respectively, i.e., from 6.0, 10.3, and 19.8 gpm before May 2,
2006, to 0.7, 8.2, and 16.3 gpm after May 2, 2006. The cause of the decrease in flowrate is unknown;
however, low precipitation might have been a contributing factor. During this time, the instantaneous
26
-------
flowrate readings averaged 35 gpm with all three wells in operation and 17 gpm with just Well 3 in
operation. The corresponding average EBCTs were 18.2 and 37.4 min, respectively.
Pressure loss across the vessels averaged less than 2 psi for all three runs. The differential pressure
between the vessels did not seem to be affected by the varying flowrates or configurations. Because the
observed pressure drop was low and did not change significantly during system operation, the system was
backwashed only three times during the course of the demonstration study.
4.4.2 pH Adjustments. Throughout the demonstration study, the system experienced operational
problems with the inline pH meters. As shown in Figure 4-9, during the first six months of system
operation, the inline probe located after the acid addition point prior to the adsorption vessels read
approximately 0.4 pH units lower than the corresponding measurements using a WTW field pH probe.
Meanwhile, the inline probe located after the caustic addition point following the adsorption vessels read
about 1.3 pH units higher than the corresponding measurements using the same field pH probe. These
field pH readings after the caustic addition were, for the most part, similar to those of the distribution
water samples measured in the laboratory by AAL (i.e., 6.4 to 7.8 using the field pH probe versus 6.6 to
8.1 by AAL), suggesting that the field pH probe was more accurate than the inline probes.
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
.00
In-line AP probe
In-line TB probe
Handheld AP location
Handheld TB location
10/20/04 01/28/05 05/08/05 08/16/05 11/24/05 03/04/06 06/12/06 09/20/06
Date
Figure 4-9. Comparison of pH Readings from Inline Probes and WTW Field Meter
Efforts made to correct the problems during the first six-month study period included cleaning and
calibrating the probes, consulting with the vendor and manufacturer, switching the "acid" inline probe
(which seemed to read more accurately) with the "caustic" inline probe, and conducting an on-site service
call by the vendor to investigate and replace the "acid" inline probe with a new probe. These efforts
seemed to have improved the correlation between the "acid" inline probe and the field meter readings
during some of the remainder months under Run 1, and the entire duration under Run 2. However, the
correlation between the "caustic" inline probe and the field meter readings continued to be poor
throughout the entire study period.
27
-------
Initially, the vendor recommended having the pH of raw water reduced to 6.4. After a series of tests with
raw water in November 2005, the vendor recommended that the raw water pH be further reduced to 6.0 in
order to increase media's adsorptive capacity (with the arsenic concentration in the treated water
decreased from about 5 to <1 |o,g/L per vendor's tests). pH values of the water after H2SO4 addition
averaged 6.6, 6.4 and 6.3 for Run 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Table 4-4).
4.4.3 Backwash. During the entire demonstration period, the system was backwashed three times,
one time each on January 11, April 12, and June 14, 2005, after about three, six, and eight months of
system operation, respectively. Backwash was performed manually using finished water from the storage
tanks. During backwash, the system was taken offline and treated water was drawn via a booster pump
from the storage tanks at a flowrate of approximately 115 gpm (or about 4 gpm/ft2). The backwash lasted
for 20 min per vessel for the first and 10 min per vessel for the second and third backwash events,
producing approximately 2,200 and 1,200 gal of wastewater from each vessel.
4.4.4 Media Changeout. The system was taken offline on November 29, 2005, to allow the
vessels to drain in preparation for media changeout, which was performed by C&C Water Services. The
virgin media was delivered to the site on December 9, 2005; however, due to weather conditions at the
site and scheduling conflicts with the vacuum truck, spent media removal was not carried out until
December 23, 2005. Before removal, the heights of the freeboard from the lower rim of the manway to
the media bed surface were measured and summarized in Table 4-5. The spent media then was sampled
and removed from each vessel as described in Section 3.3.4. The replacement media was installed on
January 11, 2006. Both vessels were properly backwashed before freeboard measurements were
obtained. Freeboard measurements were taken from the lower rim of the manway on the top of each
vessel. For Vessel A, there was 75.5 in to the top of the underbedding and 47 in to the top of the virgin
media. For Vessel B, there was 75 in to the top of the underbedding and 45 in to the top of the media.
The resulting bed depths were 28.5 and 30 in, respectively, which were 21 and 17% shorter than the
design value of 36 in (Table 4-3). The vessels were conditioned from January 11 through 12, 2006, and
from April 14 through 15, 2006, respectively, as described in Section 4.3.3, and put into service on
January 13, 2006, for Vessel A and April 15, 2006, for Vessel B.
Table 4-5. Freeboard Measurements and Media Loss After Run 1
Parameter
Volume Loaded (ft3)
Initial Freeboard (in)
Final Freeboard (in)
Bed Reduction due to Media Loss (in)
Volume of Media Loss (ft3)
Total Media Loss (%)
Vessel A
85.0
38.0
50.0
12.0
28.3
33.3
Vessel B
85.0
38.0
48.0
10.0
23.5
27.6
4.4.5 Residuals Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the treatment system
include spent media and backwash water. Backwash water was discharged to a rip-rap lined surface
drainage and allowed to infiltrate into the ground. The spent media was removed from the vessels on
December 23, 2005. Analytical results from the EPA TCLP test showed that the spent media was non-
hazardous and was disposed of in a landfill (see Section 4.5.3).
4.4.6 System Operation Reliability and Simplicity. A significant O&M need for this system was
the acid and caustic addition to maintain the desired pH values of the feed water to the adsorption vessels
and the finished water to the distribution system. Confounding the proper dosing of acid and caustic were
28
-------
the continuing discrepancies observed in pH readings from the inline probes versus the field probe as
discussed in Section 4.4.2. Further discussion on the impact of pH adjustment in the distribution system
is included in Section 4.5.4.
Additional discussion regarding system operation and operator skill requirements are provided 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. Pre-treatment consisted of the addition of a 6% NaOCl solution
for disinfection, which was already performed at the site prior to the installation of the arsenic treatment
system, and a 93% H2SO4 solution for lowering the water pH in order to maximize the arsenic removal
capacity of the G2 media. Post-treatment included the addition of a 25% NaOH solution to raise the pH
values back to approximately 7.5 to reduce corrosivity prior to entering the storage tanks and distribution
system. The rate of chemical consumption is provided below under chemical handling and inventory
requirements.
System Controls. The G2 media adsorption system was a passive system, requiring only the operation of
the well pumps and chemical metering pumps for chlorination and acid and caustic addition. The
adsorption system itself required no automated parts and all valves were manually activated. Power
supply to the chemical metering pumps was tied into the supply well pumps so that when the supply wells
were started, triggered by a level switch in the storage tanks, the chemical metering pumps also were
energized to dispense chlorine, acid, and caustic. For chlorine addition, the metering pump was set at a
pre-determined rate. For acid and caustic additions, the system had the capability to adjust the chemical
feed rates to maintain a specified pH value based on the inline probe readings. However, this control
setup was disabled during the course of the demonstration period. Instead, the acid and caustic feed rates
were controlled by manually setting the pump stroke-length and automatically pacing the pump based on
a 4 to 20 mA control signal provided by a Badger™ magnetic flowmeter located on the treated water line.
The magnetic meter became stuck on one setting on June 2, 2005, causing both acid and caustic pumps to
stay on until the meter could be reset. This caused a drop in pH of the treated water, which was
consequently seen in the distribution samples.
Additionally, a two-pen pH chart recorder was installed for continuous logging of the pH values after the
acid and caustic additions. Although useful for tracking the operation of the system, the pH chart
recorder proved somewhat problematic to operate as it was initially installed without the proper relays to
allow it to communicate with the inline pH probes. As a result, the system operated for several weeks
with the pH recorder giving erroneous readings. In early January 2005, the proper relays were installed
and the chart recorder was adjusted so that the readings better reflected the inline probe readings.
However, the inline probes continued to give erroneous readings as shown in Figure 4-9.
Backwash cycles were initiated manually and required the operator to adjust system valves accordingly
prior to initiating the system backwash.
Operator Skill Requirements. Generally, the operation of the treatment system did not require additional
skills beyond those necessary to operate the original treatment equipment used at the site prior to the
demonstration. The daily demand on the system operator was typically 20 min to visually inspect the
system and record operating parameters, such as totalizer and hour meter readings, flowrates, and system
pressure readings on the field log sheets.
In addition to the standard checks and data recording performed daily for the system, C&C Water
Services personnel typically spent 3 to 4 hr/week troubleshooting various problems associated with the
system, especially during the first few months of system operation. This time was primarily spent making
29
-------
adjustments to acid and caustic additions. Because the system was not set to make these adjustments
automatically, all adjustments were made by manually adjusting the stroke-length of the chemical
metering pumps. Adding to the complexity of achieving the proper balance of acid and caustic additions
was the disagreement in readings between the inline pH probes and the WTW field probe, as discussed in
Section 4.4.2. In early December 2004, acid addition was increased to further lower the pH of the feed
water to attempt to increase arsenic removal by the G2 media. To counterbalance this increase in acid
addition, intuitively, the caustic addition also would have to be increased. In fact, in late December 2004,
the caustic metering pump was inadvertently ramped down such that the pH values of water going to the
storage tanks were lower than what had been measured historically at the site. The drop in pH values was
noticeable in the subsequent distribution system samples collected on January 12, 2005. Further
discussion on the impact of this pH drop in the distribution system is included in Section 4.5.4.
Based on the size of the population served and the treatment technology, the State of New Hampshire
requires Grade IA Certification for operation of the WRWC system and is considering upgrading this
requirement to Grade I. The State of New Hampshire has five grades of certifications based on the
complexity of the treatment and distribution system. The grades range from Grade IA, the least complex,
to Grade IV, the most complex. The C&C Water Services operator is a certified Grade III operator.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Regular maintenance activities consisted primarily of daily visual
inspection of the system to ensure that it appeared to be operating appropriately, maintaining chemical
supply for feed chemicals, collecting routine water samples, cleaning and calibrating the inline pH probes,
and system backwashing as necessary.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. Chemicals required for system operation
included a 6% NaOCl, a 93% H2SO4, and a 25% NaOH solution. Proper handling and storage of these
chemicals were required, including secondary containment for the chemical storage area and proper safety
equipment for plant operators, including eye wash station and use of personal protective equipment
(gloves, chemical apron, and face shield as required). During the demonstration period, approximately
two 15-gal containers (160 Ib per container) of 25% NaOH and one 15-gal container (200 Ib per
container) of 93% H2SO4 were consumed per month for pH control purposes. The average chemical
consumption was 0.27 lb/1,000 gal of water treated for H2SO4 and 0.57 lb/1,000 gal for NaOH.
4.5 System Performance
The system performance was evaluated based on analyses of samples collected from the raw and finished
water from the treatment plant, backwash lines, and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant. Sampling taps were installed at four locations through the treatment train:
at the inlet (IN), after chlorination and pH adjustment (AP), at the effluent of Vessel A (TA), and at the
effluent of Vessel B (TB). Samples were collected at the four locations during Run 1 and at three
locations during Runs 2 and 3 (i.e., IN, AP, and TA during Run 2 and IN, AP, and TB during Run 3).
Field-speciated samples at each location were collected once every eight weeks throughout Run 1 and
once every four weeks during Runs 2 and 3. Table 4-6 summarizes the arsenic and iron analytical results.
Table 4-7 summarizes the manganese and the results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B
contains a complete set of analytical results. The results of the water samples collected throughout the
treatment plant are discussed below.
Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the G2 media treatment system was the
concentration of arsenic in the treated water. The treatment system was run in three different
configurations. Run 1 had both Vessels A and B in operation with Vessel A being placed in the lead
position and Vessel B in the lag position. Runs 2 and 3 had only one vessel in operation at a time with
30
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic and Iron Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Sample
Location(a)
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TA only
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TA only
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TA only
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
Unit
Mfi/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
HB/L
Mfi/L
HB/L
Mfi/L
HB/L
Mfi/L
^g/L
HB/L
W?/L
Mfi/L
W?/L
Mfi/L
W?/L
HB/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
HB/L
Mfi/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
^g/L
W?/L
Mfi/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
Mfi/L
W?/L
^g/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
Mfi/L
HB/L
Mfi/L
HB/L
^g/L
W?/L
Sample
Count
72
72
34
34
13
25
14
14
7
7
4
3
14
14
7
7
4
o
3
14
14
7
7
4
o
3
14
14
7
7
4
3
67
67
29
29
13
25
14
14
7
7
4
3
Concentration
Minimum
35.3
12.7
12.6
1.7
6.2
2.2
41.3
43.7
15.5
3.6
9.9
4.0
<0.1
0.1
O.I
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.2
O.I
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
40.7
43.3
14.8
3.0
9.5
3.7
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Maximum
91.3
96.1
46.2
50.9
30.6
23.6
54.6
55.7
38.4
32.1
31.2
18.4
40.8
43.8
12.2
47.2
0.3
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.8
1.1
0.5
0.3
54.1
55.1
38.0
31.7
30.9
18.3
33.3
60.0
<25
39.0
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Average
46.4
46.2
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
47.9
48.5
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
3.2
3.4
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
0.5
0.4
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
47.5
48.1
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
13.0
13.7
<25
13.4
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Standard
Deviation
6.8
8.4
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
3.5
3.7
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
10.8
11.7
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
0.2
0.2
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
3.5
3.6
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
2.8
7.0
-
4.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(a) "TA (Lead)" and "TB (Lag)" for Run 1; "TA only" for Run 2; and "TB only" for Run 3.
(b) Average concentration and standard deviation not calculated; see Figure 4-11 for As breakthrough
curves
Note: One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for
calculations. Duplicate samples included in the calculations.
31
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Manganese and Water Quality Parameter Measurements
Parameter
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
(asP)
Total P (as
P04)
Sample
Location'3'
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (lag)
TA only
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
Unit
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
Mfi/L
W?/L
HB/L
^g/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
67
67
29
29
13
25
14
14
7
7
4
3
69
72
34
34
13
25
14
14
7
7
4
3
15
15
8
8
4
3
14
14
7
7
4
3
10
10
8
8
2
35
35
2
2
9
24
Concentration
Minimum
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.1
1.4
0.9
55.0
12.0
22.0
22.0
21.0
15.0
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.5
10.0
26.0
12.0
9.6
35.0
35.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
Maximum
15.7
16.1
27.0
35.8
39.1
13.1
11.4
11.0
9.0
12.5
32.9
6.2
88.0(c)
67.0
62.0
68.0
57.0
66.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.5
24.0
52.0
48.0
48.0
43.0
55.0
1.0
0.5
1.3
1.4
0.3
0.4
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.13
0.14
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.05
Average
2.3
2.5
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
1.6
1.5
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
66.3(c)
34.5
41.0
41.5
34.7
28.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
11.9
39.8
34.4
33.7
40.5
46.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
Standard
Deviation
3.8
3.9
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
2.9
2.8
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
5.0(c)
12.4
8.1
8.6
9.4
11.9
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
3.4
8.5
11.7
12.1
3.7
10.3
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
0.03
0.03
-
-
-
0.01
32
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements (Continued)
Parameter
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Chlorine
(as C12)
Sample
Location'3'
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB(Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TA only
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TA only
TBonly
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TA only
TBonly
AP
TA (Lead)
TB(Lag)
TA only
TBonly
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
64
64
26
26
13
25
64
64
26
26
13
25
66
66
29
29
13
24
66
66
29
29
13
24
59
62
25
25
13
24
64
65
28
28
13
22
68
31
30
13
24
68
31
31
13
24
Concentration
Minimum
18.1
17.9
19.8
21.9
24.7
21.5
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.2
0.05
6.7
5.8
6.1
6.1
6.0
5.9
9.7
10.1
11.2
11.2
10.1
11.5
3.1(d)
1.9
3.2
3.0
2.1
1.7
172
190
183
173
341
386
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
Maximum
21.4
37.2
50.8
61.8
51.2
53.1
1.6
1.5
0.6
0.5
3.0
1.2
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
7.3
7.3
12.9
12.9
12.9
13.2
11.5
12.9
7.9(d)
7.5
5.3
5.4
7.6
4.5
498
730
703
714
708
728
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.5
1.0
Average
19.7
20.0
24.6
28.2
31.1
27.5
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.9
0.3
7.3
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.3
11.9
11.9
12.0
12.0
11.1
12.2
4.8
3.5
4.0
3.9
3.4
2.9
348
550
511
521
611
624
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
Standard
Deviation
0.7
2.3
6.6
9.8
7.2
7.1
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
1.0(d)
1.0
0.6
0.6
1.4
0.8
127
122
132
123
100
83.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
33
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements (Continued)
Parameter
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sample
Location
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
IN
AP
TA (Lead)
TB (Lag)
TAonly
TBonly
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
Sample
Count
14
14
7
7
4
o
J
14
14
7
7
4
o
J
14
14
7
7
4
3
Concentration
Minimum
79.8
81.5
85.0
86.8
91.8
77.4
57.2
60.1
66.6
41.4
70.5
48.7
18.1
17.5
18.4
19.6
21.3
19.2
Maximum
164
129
167
102
109
123
126
99.2
122
79.2
82.0
95.9
37.8
29.3
44.4
45.4
27.3
28.6
Average
100
97.7
105
95.2
101
97.9
77.4
75.5
80.2
70.0
77.2
72.9
22.7
22.2
24.9
25.2
23.9
25.1
Standard
Deviation
20.0
12.3
27.8
5.6
7.2
23.4
15.6
9.9
19.1
12.9
4.8
23.6
4.7
2.9
8.8
9.0
2.6
5.1
(a) "TA (Lead)" and "TB (Lag)" for Run 1 only; "TA only" for Run 2 only; and "TB only" for Run 3 only.
(b) Average concentration and stand deviation not calculated. See Figures 4-15 and 4-16 for
alkalinity, sulfate, pH, and silica measurements.
(c) Not including three data points with usually high values (i.e., 120, 154, and 265 mg/L [as
CaC03]).
(d) Not including three data points considered to be outliers (i.e., 1.8, 2.8, and 9.4 mg/L).
Note: One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for
calculations. Duplicate samples included in calculations.
Run 2 utilizing Vessel A and Run 3 utilizing Vessel B. The treatment plant water was sampled on 34
occasions (including three duplicates) during Run 1,13 times during Run 2, and 25 times (including one
duplicate) during Run 3. Field speciation was performed on seven of the 34 occasions for Run 1, four of
the 13 for Run 2, and three of the 25 occasions for Run 3. Samples were collected at IN and AP at each
of the 72 sampling events with samples being collected at TA and TB when they were utilized.
Figure 4-10 contains four bar charts showing the concentrations of total As, particulate As, As(III), and
As(V) at the IN, AP, TA , and/or TB sampling locations for each of the field speciation events. Total
arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 35.3 to 91.3 |o,g/L and averaged 46.4 |o,g/L (Table 4-6).
As(V) was the predominating species, ranging from 40.7 to 54.1 |o,g/L and averaging 47.5 |o,g/L. Only
trace amounts of As(III) existed with concentrations averaging 0.5 |o,g/L. Particulate As also was low
with concentrations typically less than 5 |o,g/L. During the system startup on October 13, 2004, an
unusually high concentration of particulate As (i.e., greater than 40 |o,g/L, or almost 50% of total As) was
measured. It was not clear why such a high particulate As concentration was detected during this
sampling event. The arsenic concentrations measured during this demonstration were generally
consistent with those in the raw water sample collected on April 22, 2004 (Table 4-1).
As expected, arsenic concentrations at the AP location were similar to those in raw water. Because the
majority of arsenic present in raw water was already in the As(V) oxidation state and because little or no
iron was present in raw water, chlorination had little or no effect on the concentration or oxidation state of
34
-------
•4-*
C
+J
in
3
•o
<
X
Q.
C
cu
c
O
U-i
ro
•= s:
° SL
Q
O
£
re
i/>
o
o
R
w
o
c
(/)
<
_
"TO
o
s=>
(/) (/)(/)
< < <
D • D
1
O
o:
£=
•
1
}
5 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
" ^\-
%>
" ^
"%>
" ^
'fe
" ^
%
- %^
"%
" ^
^?
i2^
^^
•£>
" "^
%•
" ~\,
\-
"%>
" "*%•
%
" ^<2-
^b
-\
^
^-
B
00
"o
(0
(0
o
o
r
ns
(0
o
'o
o
a.
tn
sen
if) if) if)
D • D
^\
•- ^
O
u
o
Ml
c
"a,
5
PQ
H
•o
^_^
z
•o
ns
O
O
>
ns
in
9)
o
a.
CO
'E
to
k.
S
o
Q." >
D • D
I
c*
Q
c
Q
c
Q
'
II
1
3
1
1
1
- |
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
g g
-------
arsenic entering the adsorption vessels. Similar to those at the IN location, total arsenic concentrations at
the AP location ranged from 12.7 to 96.1 |o,g/L and averaged 46.2 |og/L.
Total As concentrations at the wellhead and immediately before and after the adsorption vessels during
Runs 1, 2, and 3 are plotted against bed volumes of water treated in Figure 4-11. Note that one BV is
equal to 85 ft3 which is the amount of media in one adsorption vessel. During Run 1, greater than
30 |og/L of total As was unexpectedly detected in samples collected following the lead vessel just after
system startup on October 13 and about one week later on October 19, 2004. Since then, total As
concentrations gradually decreased to 12.6 |o,g/L after treating approximately 1,584,800 gal (or 2,500 BV)
of water on January 4, 2005, before beginning a steadily increasing trend. Total arsenic concentrations
reached the media's capacity, as indicated by a similar level of arsenic in the influent to (i.e., 43.6 |o,g/L)
and the effluent from the adsorption vessel (i.e., 46.2 ng/L), on October 25, 2005.
Total As concentrations after the lag vessel also were high during the first two weeks of system operation,
with 16.7 to 21.8 |o,g/L of arsenic measured on October 13 and October 19, 2004, respectively.
Afterwards, the concentrations dropped to 1.7 |o,g/L on January 4, 2005, the day when the arsenic
concentrations following the lead vessel also reached the lowest level, and then increased steadily to
10 |o,g/L after treating approximately 3,890,000 gal (or 6,100 BV) of water. Considering the lead and lag
vessels as one large vessel that housed 170 ft3 of media, arsenic breakthrough at 10 |o,g/L would have
occurred at about 3,050 BV. This underachieved media performance was with a long EBCT of 31 min
(on average, see Table 4-4) and a low loading rate of 1.4 gpm/ft2 (on average).
The total As concentration measured after the lag vessel (B) on December 14, 2004 was unusually high at
50.9 ng/L, of which 47.3 |o,g/L existed as particulate As (See Figure 4-10). It was not clear what caused
the elevated particulate As concentration.
The vendor attributed the elevated arsenic concentrations just after system startup to the leaching of
arsenic from the G2 media that was prepared with a FeCl3 solution containing arsenic and manganese as
impurities. While this might explain the elevated arsenic levels observed in the treated water during the
first two weeks of system operation, it did not explain why the arsenic concentrations remained high (i.e.,
12.6 |o,g/L or greater) following the lead vessel throughout the entire Run 1 study period.
Arsenic breakthrough occurred much earlier than expected, compared to vendor's estimate of 10,300 BV
based on breakthrough at 10 |o,g/L following the lead vessel and an influent arsenic concentration of
39 |og/L. Decreasing the pH of the influent to the adsorption vessels did not appear to be useful in
reversing the trend of steady increase in arsenic concentration in the treated water. As shown in Figure 4-
12, as influent pH was reduced to the target value of 6.8 (from October 19 through November 30, 2004),
and then 6.4 (through June 7, 2005), arsenic concentrations in the vessel effluent continued to rise.
Further decrease in pH to about 6.0 (through September 13, 2005) did not seem to have any effect either.
In theory, lowering the pH of feed water should help result in decreased arsenic concentrations in the
treated water, as observed at a separate Round 1 site at Valley Vista, AZ where an iron-modified activated
alumina media, AAFS50, was used for arsenic removal (Valigore, et al, 2006). The reduced
concentrations were caused by the additional positively-charged adsorptive sites made available due to
decreased pH. Since no apparent reduction in arsenic concentration was realized at pH values as low as
6.0 at Bow, there might be a limited number of amphoteric ferric hydroxide sites available on this
modified diatomite media.
Because of the unexpectedly poor media performance, a decision was made in early June 2005 to
backwash the media as an attempt to improve the media performance by redistributing the media within
the adsorption vessels. A backwash was thus performed on June 14, 2005, and the results indicated that
36
-------
Run 1 (Vessels A/B in Series)
At the Wellhead (IN)
After Chlorination and pH Adjustment (AP)
After Lead Vessel A (TA)
After Lag Vessel B (TB)
100
2.0
4.0
6.0 8.0
Bed Volume (103)
Run 2 (Vessel A Only)
10.0
12.0
14.0
80 -
70 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
-At Wellhead (IN)
-After Chlorination and pH Adjustment (AP)
-After Vessel A (TA)
= 10ng/L
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Bed Volume (103)
Run 3 (Vessel B Only)
2.5
At Wellhead (IN)
After Chlorination and pH Adjustment (AP)
After Vessel B (TB)
3.0
Bed Volume (103)
Figure 4-11. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves
(BV Calculated Based on Media Volume in One Vessel)
37
-------
Run 1 (Vessels A/B in Series)
-At Wellhead (IN)
-After Chlorination and pH Adjustment (AP)
-After Lead Vessel A (TA)
-After Lag Vessel B(TB)
- pH values at AP location
-- 7.5
Bed Volumes (10°)
Figure 4-12. Run 1 Total Arsenic Breakthough Versus Influent pH
backwash did not improve arsenic removal in any way. Because the system could not be optimized for
arsenic removal, it was rebedded in January 2006.
The rebedded and reconditioning media was put into operation under Run 2 on January 13, 2006, with
only Vessel A in service. Similarly to Run 1, arsenic concentrations in the treated water, as shown in
Figure 4-11, went up to 17.6, and then to 30.6 |o,g/L immediately after system startup, presumably due to
arsenic leaching. Afterwards, arsenic concentrations decreased sharply to 11.8 on January 31, 2006, and
then to 10.0 |o,g/L on February 7, 2006, before reaching <10 |o,g/L levels during two consecutive sampling
events on February 14 (6.2 |og/L) and February 28, 2006 (9.7 |og/L). From this point on, arsenic
concentrations steadily increased to as high as 17.0 |o,g/L, after treating about 1,437,000 gal (or 2,260 BV)
of water, before the run was stopped on April 14, 2006. pH of the influent water was lowered to 6.0 to
6.5 (6.3 on average) for almost the entire study duration.
From February 2 through 14, 2006, the system flowrate was reduced intentionally from the 44 gpm
typically seen to 15.8 to 18.5 gpm in order to determine if low flowrates would cause short-circuiting
through the media bed, as speculated by the vendor. The speculation was that low flowrates could have
caused short-circuiting along the vessel walls, thus resulting in the higher-than-expected arsenic
concentrations observed in the treated water. Because the arsenic concentrations actually decreased
during this low-flow period, short-circuiting was determined not to be a problem.
After reconditioning, Vessel B was put into service on April 15, 2006, under Run 3. For the first two
weeks of system operation, flowrates and pH values similar to those of Runs 1 and 2 were used. Arsenic
concentrations following the adsorption vessel were 19.2 and 12.4 |o,g/L during the first two sampling
events, similar to those observed in Runs 1 and 2. Starting from May 2, 2006, only Well 3 was operating
38
-------
most of the time until July 4, 2006, when all three wells resumed operation through the remainder of this
demonstration study. As discussed in Section 4.4.1, there were noticeable drops in flowrate from all three
wells starting from May 2, 2006; the average flowrate was 35 gpm (based on instantaneous flowrate
readings) when all three wells were running and 17 gpm (based on calculated flowrates) when only Well
3 was running. Meanwhile, the pH of the influent to the adsorption vessel was kept around 6.3 (based on
field meter readings denoted as "o" on Figure 4-13) or around 6.0 (based on inline probe readings
denoted as "•" on Figure 4-13) most of the time. At these lower flowrates and lower pH values, arsenic
concentrations following the adsorption vessel were reduced to the lowest point of 1.2 |o,g/L before
beginning to rebound to 11.1 ng/L by the end of Run 3. Arsenic broke through at 10 |o,g/L just before
July 18, 2006, after treating approximately 1,900,000 gal (or 3,000 BV) of water. As shown in Figure 4-
13, changing flowrates and influent pH values did not appear to have any noticeable impact on the rising
trend for arsenic in the treated water. For easy comparison, the flowrate and pH value plot is presented
side by side with the Run 3 arsenic breakthrough curve copied from Figure 4-11.
Iron. Iron concentrations in source water were low. With the exception of only a few data points, the
iron concentrations, both total and dissolved, were below the analytical reporting limit of 25 |o,g/L at all
sampling locations throughout the demonstration period (Table 4-6).
Manganese. Treatment plant water samples were analyzed for total manganese during all sampling
events and for soluble manganese during speciation sampling events. Figure 4-14 shows total manganese
concentrations over time at each of the four sampling locations across the treatment train. Similar to iron,
manganese concentrations in raw water were low, ranging from 0.1 to 15.7 |og/L (Table 4-7). However,
manganese concentrations in the treated water were significantly elevated to over 35 |o,g/L immediately
after system startup, and then reduced sharply to the intake levels after about 2,000 to 3,000 BV of
throughput in both Runs 1 and 2. As noted above, manganese was an impurity present in the FeCl3
solution used for manufacturing the G2 media. Apparently, some manganese was leached from the media
during system operation. For Run 3, manganese concentrations in the vessel effluent varied, ranging from
<0.1 to 13.1 ng/L. The varying and lower manganese concentrations could be due to the lower flowrates
used during Run 3, compared to those utilized during Runs 1 and 2. Further, uncharacteristically high
manganese concentrations (i.e., as much as 16.1 |o,g/L) also were detected in about 50% of the samples
taken at the wellhead and after pH adjustment. Naturally occurring manganese most likely was the source
of these elevated concentrations.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Figure 4-15 summaries the results of pH (based on the readings from
the handheld pH meter), alkalinity, and sulfate measurements collected across the treatment train.
The first few samples taken during October 13 through November 2, 2004, showed somewhat erratic pH
results across the treatment train, which were thought to have been caused, in part, by erroneous on-site
measurements using the WTW handheld meter. The plant operators were retrained for the use of the
meter on November 9, 2004, and the results obtained since then appeared to follow a steadier trend.
pH values of source water typically ranged from 6.7 to 7.7 and averaged 7.3. At the suggestion of the
vendor, the pH of the feed water was targeted at 6.8 at system startup, and then reduced to 6.4 by mid-
December 2004. The target pH was furthered reduced to 6.0 during later part of Run 1 and most of Run
3. The target pH value for the treated water following caustic addition was set at 7.5. For the most part,
the measured pH values after acid addition and after Vessels A and B were very close to the target value
of 6.8, 6.4, and 6.0, with values after acid addition averaged at 6.6, 6.4, and 6.3 for Runs 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. The measured pH values after the caustic addition, however, deviated by more than 1.0 pH
unit from the target value of 7.5. As described in Section 4.4.2, the operator had some difficulties in
adjusting the rate of caustic addition to account for the increased acid addition.
39
-------
Flowrate, In-line pH, and Field Meter pH of Run 3
(Vessel B only)
0 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 5.5
04/15/06 05/05/06 05/25/06 06/14/06 07/04/06 07/24/06 08/13/06 09/02/06 09/22/06
Date
Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve for Run 3 (Vessel B Only)
100
O)
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
c 40 H
o
O
30 H
20 -
10 -
-At Wellhead (IN)
-After Chlorination and pH Adjustment (AP)
-After Vessel B (TB)
AsMCL= 10mg/L
0
04/15/06 05/05/06 05/25/06 06/14/06 07/04/06 07/24/06 08/13/06 09/02/06 09/22/06
Date
Figure 4-13. Run 3 Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve and Corresponding pH and Flowrates
40
-------
Run 1 (Vessels A/B in Series)
45
40 -
35 -
J 30 -
|25-
I 20 H
I-
10 -
5 -
0
-•-At Wellhead (IN)
-•-After Chlorination and pH Adjustment (AP)
-*-After Lead Vessel A (TA)
After Lag Vessel B (TB)
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Bed Volumes (103)
Run 2 (Vessel A Only)
10.0
12.0
At Wellhead (IN)
After Chlorination and pH Adjustment (AP)
After Vessel A (TA)
1.0 1.5
Bed Volume (103)
Run 3 (Vessel B Only)
At Wellhead (IN)
After Chlorination and pH Adjustment (AP)
After Vessel B (TB)
Bed Volume (103)
Figure 4-14. Total Manganese Breakthrough Curves
(BV Calculated Based on Media Volume in One Vessel)
41
-------
pH Values
8.5
-At Wellhead (IN)
-After Chlorination and pH Adjustment (AP)
After Vessel A (TA)
-After Vessel B (TB)
10/10/04 01/18/05 04/28/05 08/06/05 11/14/05 02/22/06 06/02/06 09/10/06
Date
305
Alkalinity Values
At Wellhead (IN)
After Chlorination and pH Adjustment (AP)
After Vessel A (TA)
After Vessel B (TB)
10/10/04 01/18/05 04/28/05 08/06/05 11/14/05 02/22/06 06/02/06 09/10/06
Date
Sulfate Concentrations
-At Wellhead (IN)
-After Chlorination and pH Adjustment (AP)
-After Vessel A (TA)
-After Vessel B (TB)
10/10/04 01/18/05 04/28/05 08/06/05 11/14/05 02/22/06 06/02/06 09/10/06
Date
Figure 4-15. pH, Alkalinity, and Sulfate Values Over Time
42
-------
Total alkalinity values in source water ranged from 55 to 88 mg/L (as CaCO3) and averaged 66.3 mg/L
(as CaCO3) (Table 4-7 and Figure 4-15). Three abnormally high values measured on November 16, 2004,
March 1, 2005, and February 28, 2006, at 254, 120, and 265 mg/L (as CaCO3), respectively, were
considered as outliers and excluded from the statistical analysis. [It is not clear why these values were so
high.] After the acid addition, the water pH was reduced from 7.3 to 6.4 (on average) whereas the
alkalinity values were decreased to an average of 34.5 mg/L (as CaCO3) after pH adjustment.
Sulfate concentrations in source water ranged from 10 to 24 mg/L and averaged 11.9 mg/L (Table 4-7 and
Figure 4-15). Immediately after system startup during Run 1, sulfate concentrations were reduced to 12.0
and 9.6 mg/L following the lead and lag vessels, respectively, apparently being removed by the G2 media.
The addition of H2SO4 raised the sulfate concentrations to an average of 39.8 mg/L (for the entire study
period), which was 27.9 mg/L higher than that of raw water. The actual amount of acid used for pH
adjustment was 32 mg/L (or 0.27 lb/1,000 gal) based on the amount of acid used and the volume of water
treated during the entire study period. This acid addition would have increased the sulfate concentration
by 31.3 mg/L, slightly higher than the measured value of 27.9 mg/L.
Based on the pH and/or total alkalinity of raw and treated water, theoretical acid consumption required for
pH adjustment can be calculated using a set of pH curves developed as a function of total alkalinity and
free CO2 (Rubel, 2003). The results of these calculations, as shown in Table 4-8, not only allow
comparison of actual and theoretical acid consumption rates, but also verify the accuracy of total
alkalinity and sulfate measurements. For example, lowering the pH from 7.3 to 6.4 would theoretically
decrease alkalinity from 66.3 to 40 mg/L (as CaCO3), which was slightly higher than the measured value
of 34.5 mg/L (as CaCO3) as discussed above. To achieve the theoretical and actual levels of alkalinity
reduction, i.e., 26.3 and 31.8 mg/L (as CaCO3), 27.7 and 33.5 mg/L of 93% H2SO4, respectively, would
need to be added to the water, which would result in an increase of 25.2 and 30.5 mg/L in sulfate
concentration (compared to the actual measured value of 27.9 mg/L as noted above). Further, the actual
acid consumption (i.e., 0.27 lb/1,000 gal) was similar to that derived from the theoretical calculations
(i.e., 0.23 and 0.28 lb/1,000 gal). Therefore, the pH, total alkalinity, sulfate, and acid consumption
measurements correlate well with each other and are consistent with theoretical calculations.
Table 4-8. Theoretical Acid Consumption Requirements for Raw Water pH Adjustment
Parameter
pH
Total Alkalinity
Free CO2
Total Alkalinity Reduction
Acid Required
93% H2SO4 Required
93% H2SO4 Required
Unit
S.U.
mg/L (as CaCO3)
mg/L
mg/L (as CaCO3)
meq/L
mg/L
lb/1,000 gal
Raw Water
7.3 (actual)
66.3 (actual)
6 (theoretical)
Treated Water
6.4 (actual)
40 (theoretical)
34.5 (actual)
29 (theoretical)
26.3 (theoretical)
3 1.8 (actual)
0.526 (theoretical)
0.635 (actual)
27.7 (theoretical)
33.5 (actual)
0.23 (theoretical)
0.28 (actual)
Figure 4-16 presents silica concentrations over time across the treatment train. Silica concentrations in
source water ranged from 18.7 to 21.4 mg/L (as SiO2) and averaged 19.7 mg/L (as SiO2), which were
similar to those in samples collected at the AP location following chlorination and pH adjustment,
43
-------
(excluding one data point observed on April 25, 2006, at 37.2 mg/L [as SiO2]). Elevated silica
concentrations as high as 61.8 mg/L (as SiO2) were measured in the treated water immediately after
startup of each test run, suggesting leaching of silica from the media. As discussed in Section 4.2, the G2
media is a silica-based material and, therefore, could very well be the source of the elevated silica
observed. As seen in Figure 4-16, the highest silica concentrations were detected following Vessel B, the
lag vessel, when the system was running in series under Run 1. Silica concentrations averaging 51 mg/L
(as SiO2) were measured after the lead vessel during Run 1 and during Runs 2 and 3 where only one
vessel was in operation. Leaching of silica leveled off at about 2,000 BV (calculated based on the media
volume in one vessel), but continued throughout the remainder of the respective study period. After
leveling off, the increases in silica concentration ranged from 1.6 to 3.0 mg/L (as SiO2) following the lead
vessel and from 3.7 to 6.2 mg/L (as SiO2) following the lag vessel when the vessels were configured in
series under Run 1. The increases averaged 3.0 mg/L (as SiO2) following Vessel B under Run 3. The run
length for Run 2 was short and the run was discontinued as silica was still being leached at a relatively
higher rate. It appears that silica after being leached passed through the lead and, then, lag vessels
without being retained by the media. This observation was evidenced by the data that showed almost
twice as high concentration increases following the lag than the lead vessels.
K^
cc
00
—1 A.ZI
• — *rJ
O)
E 35
re
o
— 9^
V>
1 5
Silica Values
-•-At We
-m- After C
A After V
\ -x- After V
T
I /
i *
X.
*•-
W^St^
.. .. •• .^^rtH*^ -? *
Ihead (IN)
hlorination and pH Adjustment (AP)
essel A (TA)
essel B (TB)
1
5
*^^^MF^*TI
iPW x
LiLjfcJkH^^*
10/10/04 01/18/05 04/28/05 08/06/05 11/14/05 02/22/06
Date
06/02/06 09/1 0/06
Figure 4-16. Silica Concentrations Over Time
Orthophosphate was not detected above the method reporting limit of 0.05 mg/L [as P]. Similarly, total
phosphorous concentrations were low, ranging from below the method reporting limit (0.03 mg/L [as
PO4]) to 0.13 mg/L (as PO4). The small amount of phosphorus was removed by the media.
Total hardness results ranged from 79.8 to 164 mg/L (as CaCO3) and averaged 100 mg/L (as CaCO3),
which existed predominantly (i.e., 77%) as calcium hardness. Fluoride concentrations ranged from 0.6 to
1.1 mg/L and averaged 0.8 mg/L. Nitrate ranged from 0.1 to 1.4 mg/L (as N) and averaged 0.3 mg/L
(as N). Levels of hardness, fluoride, and nitrate were consistent across the treatment train and did not
appear to have been affected by any of the steps involved in the treatment process.
44
-------
Free and total chlorine was measured at the AP, TA, and TB sampling locations. Typically, free chlorine
levels were measured from non detect to 0.8 mg/L at the AP location, with total chlorine levels ranging
from non detect to 0.9 mg/L. Residual chlorine levels measured at the TA and TB locations were similar
to those measured at the AP location, indicating little or no chlorine consumption by the G2 media.
DO levels ranged from 3.1 to 7.9 mg/L across the treatment train and were consistent at each location
excluding three values that were considered outliers (1.8, 2.8, and 9.4 mg/L). The wide variance in the
DO values was probably caused, in part, by inadvertent aeration of the samples during sampling. ORP
readings at the IN location varied from 172 to 498 mV and averaged 348 mV. After chlorination, the
ORP readings increased significantly, ranging from 173 to 730 mV and averaging 550, 511, 521, 611, and
624 mV, respectively, at the AP, TA (lead), TB (lag), TA (only) and TB (only) locations.
4.5.2 Backwash Water. Backwash was performed using finished water in the storage tanks.
Backwash water was sampled on January 11, April 12, and June 14, 2005. On June 14, 2005, two sets of
grab samples were collected - one at the beginning of the backwash cycle and the other one after 6 min
into the backwash. Samples were collected from the sample port located on the backwash effluent
discharge line from each vessel. Unfiltered samples were analyzed for pH, turbidity, and TDS. Filtered
samples, using 0.45-|om disc filters, were analyzed for soluble As, Fe, and Mn.
Soluble iron was low, ranging from below the method reporting limit of 25 |og/L to 66 |o,g/L. Soluble
manganese concentrations also were low and comparable to the levels observed in raw water and the
treated water after leaching of manganese had been ceased. Soluble arsenic concentrations in the Vessel
A backwash water were 20.6 to 42.8 |o,g/L; soluble arsenic concentrations in the Vessel B backwash water
were lower, ranging from 11.4 to 30.4 |o,g/L. Arsenic levels in finished water were about 2 |o,g/L on
January 11, 2005; 5.8 |o,g/L on April 12, 2005; and about 19 |o,g/L on June 14, 2005. Because finished
water was used for backwash, the elevated arsenic concentrations in backwash water suggest desorption.
pH values of backwash water ranged from 6.2 and 6.9, which mirrored the daily pH values of the finished
water, i.e., 6.8, 6.4, and 6.5. The analytical results from the three backwash water sampling events are
summarized in Table 4-9.
Table 4-9. Backwash Water Sampling Results
Date/Vessel
Vessel
A
Vessel
B
01/11/05
04/12/05
06/14/05(b)
06/14/05(c)
01/11/05
04/12/05
06/14/05(c)
06/14/05(b)
pH
S.U.
6.9
6.2
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.6
Turbidity
NTU
140
200
220
34
390
120
140
58
TDS
mg/L
38.0
244
214
198
72.0
240
220
218
Soluble
As(a)
Hg/L
40.3
42.8
40.4
20.6
11.4
26.1
30.4
18.0
Soluble
Fe(a)
Hg/L
<25
<25
<25
66.0
<25
<25
<25
50.0
Soluble
Mn(a)
Hg/L
0.8
2.0
0.8
6.0
2.3
0.7
0.3
4.6
(a) Samples filtered with 0.45 |am disc filters.
(b) Sample collected at beginning of backwash cycle.
(c) Sample collected 6 min into backwash cycle.
45
-------
4.5.3 Spent Media. Spent media samples were collected according to Section 3.3.5. Although
samples were collected at the top, middle and bottom of both vessels, only the sample collected from the
top of Vessel A was analyzed for total metals. The results are presented in Table 4-10.
As expected, arsenic on the G2 media was low, amounting to only 1.1 mg/g of dry media (or 0.1%) at the
top of the lead vessel. This amount, however, was more than 3.5 times higher than that removed from
raw water by the lead vessel, i.e., 0.31 mg/g, estimated based on the breakthrough curve shown on
Figure 4-11. Recall that arsenic was leached from the media in the beginning of the three test runs due to
its presence as an impurity from the media manufacturing process. Therefore, the balance (i.e., 0.8 mg/g)
plus the amount leached could have come with the media even before it was put into service. A sample of
the virgin media used during the initial media loading and during the rebedding of the vessels was
analyzed and the results are summarized in Table 4-10. The virgin media had arsenic concentrations
ranging from 0.03 to 0.24 mg/g, which is more than four times less than the 0.8 mg/g discussed above.
Iron and aluminum levels were high, but silica levels were low. The iron level was over 12.3%,
significantly higher than the 5 to 6% provided in the vendor's specification sheet. The iron levels in the
virgin media were 2.6 to 4.3%, lower than but closer to that in the vendor's specification sheet. The
aluminum level was 3.0%, six times higher than the vendor-provided 0.5%. The silica level was 0.3%,
apparently due to incomplete dissolution of silica during HNO3 digestion.
Table 4-10. Total Metal Contents of Virgin and Spent Media
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Phosphorous
Silica
Vanadium
Zinc
Spent Media
Top of Vessel A (fJg/g)
A
29,429
1.1
1,124
185
5,171
189
192,813
98.6
962
284
15.8
810
3,319
100
501
B
30,472
1.5
1,161
197
5,328
202
93,151
97.9
1,066
308
17.6
819
3,229
103
496
C
29,085
1.2
1,109
200
5,133
191
84,584
99.2
1,011
300
16.6
764
2,326
106
473
Average
29,662
1.3
1,131
194
5,211
194
123,516
98.6
1,013
297
16.7
798
2,958
103
490
Virgin Media
Initial Media(fjg/g)
A
31,109
8.7
132
147
2,196
NA
35,963
NA
1303
165
16.7
179
6,016
NA
NA
B
28,008
2.1
31
140
2,222
NA
15,955
NA
1217
142
16.5
<25
9,764
NA
NA
Average
29,559
5.4
81
144
2,209
NA
25,959
NA
1,260
154
17
90
7,890
NA
NA
Rebedded media(fjg/g)
A
33,979
1.3
244
144
2,696
NA
44,733
NA
1587
193
19.2
233
4,497
NA
NA
B
33,005
1.6
134
146
2,486
NA
41,199
NA
1380
204
19
132
6,249
NA
NA
Average
33,492
1.4
189
145
2,591
NA
42,966
NA
1,484
199
19
183
5,373
NA
NA
A TCLP test conducted on the top sample from Vessel A indicated that the spent media could be disposed
of as a non-hazardous waste. Only barium was detected at 0.6 mg/L (Table 4-11).
4.5.4 Distribution System. Distribution system water samples were collected to determine if the
water treated by the arsenic removal system would impact the lead and copper levels and water chemistry
in the distribution system. Prior to system startup, baseline distribution system water samples were
46
-------
Table 4-11. TCLP Results of Spent Media
Analyte (mg/L)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Vessel A
<0.5
0.6
<0.1
<0.1
<0.5
0.01
0.1
0.1
(a) Source: Eastern Analytical Inc.
collected at three homes on July 21, August 5, August 18, and September 8, 2004. Following system
startup, distribution system water sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations. The
samples were analyzed for pH, alkalinity, arsenic, iron, manganese, lead, and copper. The results of the
distribution system sampling are summarized in Table 4-12.
Prior to system startup, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were, as expected, similar to
those measured in raw water, ranging from 36.9 to 52.3 |o,g/L. As shown in Figure 4-17, arsenic
concentrations in the distribution system decreased significantly after system startup. During the first
three sampling events, higher concentrations were measured in the distribution system than at the entry
point (i.e., from 3.9 to 11.2 |o,g/L versus from 1.9 to 4.2 ng/L), suggesting some solubilization,
destabilization, and/or desorption of arsenic-laden particles/scales in the distribution system (Lytle, 2005).
Afterwards, arsenic concentrations closely mirrored those measured at the entry point.
Iron concentrations were similar to those observed in raw water and typically below the method reporting
limit of 25 |o,g/L. The iron concentration in the DS1 sample collected on January 12, 2005 was high
(174 ng/L); it was not clear why this concentration was significantly higher than the other relevant data
points.
Manganese concentrations in the distribution system generally followed those measured at the entry point
with the highest concentration (i.e., 16.0 |o,g/L) observed at the sampling location DS3 during the first
sampling event soon after system startup (Figure 4-18). Increases in manganese were not as significant at
the DS2 sampling location as at the other two locations. Manganese concentrations declined steadily to
levels only slightly higher than those observed at the entry point after about three months of system
operation. After switching to rebedded Vessel A in January 2006 (Run 2) and rebedded Vessel B in April
2006 (Run 3), an increase in manganese concentration was once again observed, although the increase
was not as high as when the system was initially started in October 2004. This could be due to the fact
that only one vessel was operating in Runs 2 and 3. Once again, manganese concentrations decreased
steadily as observed during Run 1.
Although elevated, the manganese concentrations in the distribution system samples collected at the
beginning of the runs were two to five times lower than those measured at the entry point. Due to the
slow oxidation kinetics, soluble manganese most likely would have been oxidized to MnO2by chlorine
and subsequently dropped out from the treated water after entering the storage tanks and distribution
system given additional contact time. Similar observations also were made at several other arsenic
demonstration sites, including Sabin, MN, where manganese concentrations were reduced from as high as
370 |og/L at the entry point to as low as 4 |o,g/L in the distribution system.
47
-------
o
—
S/j
_c
"a,
VI
O
VI
ri
^H
•4
—
2
es
H
Vl
O
no
qj
HIM
sy
no
qj
UT\[
sy
H«I
3uni ll(>!Ji:uSi:js
q
-------
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Distribution Sampling Events
Figure 4-17. Comparison of Arsenic Concentrations at Entry Point and in
Distribution System
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Figure 4-18. Comparison of Manganese Concentrations at Entry Point and
in Distribution System
49
-------
pH values measured during the baseline sampling ranged from 7.2 to 7.8. After the system was in
operation, pH values ranged from 6.6 to 8.1. pH values across all three sampling locations were high
during the sampling event on December 8, 2004. During the next sampling event on January 12, 2005,
however, pH values were significantly lower, ranging from 6.6 to 6.8. This swing in pH was caused by
difficulties encountered with adjustments to the rate of caustic addition as described under Operator Skill
Requirements in Section 4.4.6. In addition, low pH values were measured during sampling events on
June 8, 2005, at 6.9 to 7.0; July 12, 2005 at 6.7 to 7.0; and June 21, 2006 at 6.8 to 7.0. The causes behind
the low pH values included operational difficulties with the magnetic meter on June 2, 2005, causing the
acid and caustic chemical pumps to stay on until the meter had been reset, and a delay in replacing empty
caustic containers.
The lower pH values appeared to have had a significant impact on the lead and copper levels in the
distribution system. Prior to the January 2005 sampling event, the lead and copper levels measured at the
three sampling locations ranged from 0.8 to 2.4 |o,g/L for lead and from 35.4 to 147.0 |o,g/L for copper,
which were consistent with the baseline values of 0.8 to 4.6 |o,g/L for lead and 62.1 to 240.1 |o,g/L for
copper. With the pH drop in January 2005, the lead concentration increased to 9.9 |o,g/L at the DS3
location; copper levels increased across all three sampling locations, with the most noticeable increase
exceeding the action level of 1.3 mg/L at the DS3 location. During the subsequent monthly sampling
events, the pH values were better controlled; however, the lead and copper levels continued to be elevated
when compared to the levels before the pH drop in January. The same trend was seen in the other low pH
sampling events although the action level for either lead or copper was not exceeded during these events.
For the most part, alkalinity levels were consistent both before and after system startup, averaging
62.5 mg/L (as CaCO3). In January 2005, alkalinity values were lower (i.e., 43 to 55 mg/L), consistent
with the low pH values measured during this sampling event. The alkalinity value for the sample
collected on June 8, 2005 at the DS3 location was high; it was not clear why this concentration was
significantly higher than the other relevant data points.
4.6 System Cost
The system cost 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. The capital cost included cost for equipment, site engineering,
and system installation. The O&M cost included cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical
supplies, electrical power use, and labor. The cost incurred for treatment building construction was
funded by WRWC and was not included in the cost evaluation.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation was
$166,050 (see Table 4-13). The equipment cost was $105,350 (or 64% of the total capital investment),
which included $76,100 for the adsorption vessels and piping, $6,000 forthe G2 media (i.e., $35/ft3 or
$0.75/lb to fill two vessels), $3,900 for a backwash booster pump, $2,750 for a pH chart recorder, and
$16,600 for vendor's labor and travel for system shakedown and startup. The backwash booster pump
and the pH chart recorder were not included in the original proposal and added as a change order.
The engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of the system layout and footprint, design of the
piping connections up to the distribution tie-in points, design of the electrical connections, and
assembling and submission of the engineering plans forthe permit application (Section 4.3.1). The
engineering cost was $17,200 (or 10% of the total capital investment), including a change order of $4,700
for incorporating the backwash booster pump and the pH chart recorder into the engineering plan.
The installation cost included the cost for the equipment and labor to unload and install the adsorption
system, perform the piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and condition the media (Section 4.3.3).
50
-------
System installation was conducted by Lewis Engineering and C&C Water Services subcontracted to ADI.
The installation cost was $43,500 (or 26% of the total capital investment), including a change order of
$3,900 for installing the backwash pump and pH chart recorder.
C&C Water Services constructed an aboveground addition to the existing underground pump house
structure to house the G2 media system (Section 4.3.2). The cost of building the addition was
approximately $25,000, including placement of a steel support on top of the existing concrete structure
and construction of a wooden frame building on this steel support.
Table 4-13. Capital Investment for G2 Media System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Cost
Adsorption System
G2 Media
Backwash Booster Pump
pH Chart Recorder
Field Services (Vendor Labor and Travel)
Equipment Total
1 unit
170 ft3
1
1
-
-
$76,100
$6,000
$3,900
$2,750
$16,600
$105,350
-
-
-
-
64%
Engineering Cost
Vendor Labor
Change Order
Engineering Total
-
-
-
$12,500
$4,700
$17,200
-
-
10%
Installation Cost
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Change Order
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
-
$32,500
$3,550
$3,550
$3,900
$43,500
$166,050
-
-
-
-
26%
100%
The capital cost of $166,050 was normalized to $4,150/gpm ($2.88/gpd) of design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 40 gpm (or 57,600 gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an annualized
cost of $15,673/year by multiplying by a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/week at the design
flowrate of 40 gpm to produce 21,024,000/year, the unit capital cost would be $ 0.75/1,000 gal. During
the Run 1 study period when both vessels were placed into service, the system operated an average of 9.5
hr/day at an average flowrate of 41 gpm, producing 8,530,000 gal of water annually. Therefore, the unit
capital cost increased to $1.84/1,000 gal at this reduced rate of usage.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs. The O&M cost included only the incremental cost
associated with the G2 system, such as media replacement and disposal, chemical supply, electricity, and
labor, as summarized in Table 4-14. As discussed in Section 4.4, the spent media in both vessels were
removed in December 2005 and virgin media was loaded in January 2006 followed by conditioning of
media in Vessel A. Media conditioning of vessel B was performed in April 2006. The virgin G2 media
was supplied by ADI, but the field work was performed by C&C Water Services. The total cost incurred
51
-------
Table 4-14. O&M Costs for G2 Media System
Cost Category
Value
Remarks
Media Replacement and Disposal
Media Cost ($/ft3)
Total Media Volume (ft3)
Virgin Media Cost ($)
Freight ($)
Media Removal Cost ($)
Media Installation Cost ($)
Waste Analysis, TCLP ($)
Media Disposal Fee ($)
Subtotal ($)
Media Replacement and Disposal Cost
($71,000 gal)
40
170
6,800
580
3,916
4,356
300
800
16,752
See Figure 4-19
-
Replacing spent media in both vessels
Supplied by ADI
-
Labor costs and vacuum truck rental
Media installation and conditioning
-
-
$4.30 for a media life of 3,896,000 gal
or 3,064 BV
Chemical Usage
Acid Unit Price ($/lb)
Acid Consumption Rate (lb/ 1,000 gal)
Acid Cost ($71,000 gal)
Caustic Unit Price ($/lb)
Caustic Consumption Rate (lb/ 1,000 gal)
Caustic Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total Chemical Cost ($71,000 gal)
0.40
0.27
0.11
0.63
0.57
0.36
0.47
200 lb container at $80
3,600 lb used to treat 13,154 kgal
-
1 60 lb container at $100
7,520 lb used to treat 13,154 kgal
-
Cost for chlorination not included
Electricity
Electricity Cost ($71,000 gal)
0.001
Electrical costs assumed negligible
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hrs)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($71,000 gal)
2.33
0.34
5.11
20 min/day
Labor rate = $20/hr
Sum of $4.30, $0.47, and $0.34
was $16,752, which included cost for 170 ft3 of new media, freight, rental of vacuum truck, labor for
removing and installing the new media, media conditioning, and spent media profiling and disposal.
Although a lead/lag vessel design typically replaces the spent media in the lead vessel only, the limited
arsenic removal capacity of the G2 media at WRWC (i.e., -3,000 BV) would require rather frequent
media changeout. Therefore, it would be more cost-effective to replace the media in both vessels at the
same time in order to save cost for labor and logistics associated with two separate changeouts. By
averaging the media replacement cost of $16,752 over the media life, the unit cost per 1,000 gal of water
treated is plotted as a function of the media life, as shown in Figure 4-19. The media life in BV was
calculated by dividing the system throughput (gal) by 170 ft3 (or 1,272 gal) of media. In the case of
WRWC, the arsenic concentration in the system effluent exceeded the MCL at 3,896,000 gal or 3,064
BV, so the corresponding media replacement cost was $4.30/1,000 gal. Assuming the system operated an
average of 9.5 hr/day, producing 8,530,000 gal of water annually (see Section 4.6.1), it would require 2.2
times of media changeout for a total of $36,680 annually.
Chemical costs included NaOCl for chlorination and H2SO4 and NaOH for pH adjustment. Chlorination
was in use prior to the installation of the G2 system to maintain chlorine residuals in the distribution
system. Because the treatment system did not change the use rate of the NaOCl solution, the chemical
cost of NaOCl was unchanged with zero incremental cost. During the demonstration study, 18 containers
(15-gal, 200 lb per container) of 93% H2SO4 and 47 containers (15-gal, 160 lb per container) of 25%
NaOH were consumed for pH adjustment. Based on the price per drum of approximately $80 and $100
for acid and caustic, respectively, the total chemical cost during the study period was about $6,140 or
52
-------
$10.00
2,000
System Throughput (x1,000 gal)
4,000 6,000 8,000
10,000
12,000
Total O&M cost
Media replacement cost
Effluent As exceeded 10 ug/L MCL at WRWC
$0.00
34567
Media Life, Bed Volumes (x1,000)
1 BV = 170 cu ft = 1,272 gal
Figure 4-19 Media Replacement Cost Curves for Bow System.
$10.00
-- $8.00
-- $6.00
-- $4.00
'- $2.00
$0.00
$0.47/1,000 gallons. Applying this unit cost to an annual water production of 8,530,000 gal, the annual
chemical cost associated with the pH adjustment was $4,009.
The electricity consumption for the pump station averaged 131 kWh per day during the study period.
Comparison of electrical bills prior to system installation and since startup indicated that the treatment
system did not cause a noticeable increase in electricity consumption. Therefore, electricity cost
associated with operation of the G2 media system was negligible.
The routine, non-demonstration-related labor activities consumed about 20 minutes per day, as noted in
Section 4.4.6. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $0.34/1,000 gal of water treated.
53
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2003. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Battelle. 2004. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at Bow, New Hampshire. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task
Order No. 0019 for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
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.
Lytle, D.A and T. Sorg. 2005. "Distribution Systems Issues." Presented at the Workshop on Arsenic
Removal from Drinking Water - August 16-18, Cincinnati, OH.
Rubel, Jr., F. 2003. Design Manual: Removal of Arsenic from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media.
EPA/600/R-03/019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Valigore, J.M., L. Wang, and A.S.C. Chen. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Valley Vista, AZ. Six Month Evaluation Report.
EPA/600/R-06/083. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
54
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 1 of 19)
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Date
10/13/04
10/19/04
10/20/04
10/21/04
10/22/04
10/23/04
10/24/04
10/25/04
10/26/04
10/27/04
10/28/04
10/29/04
10/30/04
10/31/04
11/01/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
11/04/04
11/05/04
11/06/04
11/07/04
11/08/04
11/09/04
11/10/04
11/11/04
11/12/04
11/13/04
11/14/04
11/15/04
11/16/04
11/17/04
11/18/04
11/19/04
11/20/04
11/21/04
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
6.7
7.3
8.4
6.6
8.9
7.8
7.2
8.8
6.8
8.4
7.5
7.6
9.6
9.7
7.9
9.2
6.9
8.6
8.8
8.1
8.8
9.2
7.7
7.2
7.7
9.8
7.7
8.3
8.9
8.2
7.9
7.5
8.6
9.7
8.4
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
6.7
14.0
22.4
29.0
37.9
45.7
52.9
61.7
68.5
76.9
84.4
92.0
101.6
111.3
119.2
128.4
135.3
143.9
152.7
160.8
169.6
178.8
186.5
193.7
201.4
211.2
218.9
227.2
236.1
244.3
252.2
259.7
268.3
278.0
286.4
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
36
38.6
26.9
30.6
39.0
44.0
47.0
48.0
38.0
45.0
46.0
48.0
49.0
44.0
41.7
44.0
44.0
43.0
43.3
41.0
43.0
45.0
42.0
43.0
45.0
36.0
42.0
41.0
48.0
40.0
42.0
43.0
41.0
44.0
40.0
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
537,160
643,625
664,300
680,661
702,593
721,837
739,366
760,847
777,478
797,624
816,002
834,796
858,346
880,781
899,790
921,975
938,108
957,946
978,591
997,718
1,017,767
1 ,038,441
1,056,213
1 ,073,299
1,091,607
1,114,759
1,132,453
1,151,444
1,171,547
1,198,461
1,208,577
1,226,155
1,246,352
1,268,470
1,286,856
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
NA
106,465
20,675
16,361
21,932
19,244
17,529
21,481
16,631
20,146
18,378
18,794
23,550
22,435
19,009
22,185
16,133
19,838
20,645
19,127
20,049
20,674
17,772
17,086
18,308
23,152
17,694
18,991
20,103
26,914
10,116
17,578
20,197
22,118
18,386
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
NA
106,465
127,140
143,501
165,433
184,677
202,206
223,687
240,318
260,464
278,842
297,636
321,186
343,621
362,630
384,815
400,948
420,786
441 ,431
460,558
480,607
501,281
519,053
536,139
554,447
577,599
595,293
614,284
634,387
661,301
671,417
688,995
709,192
731,310
749,696
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
NA
167
200
226
260
290
318
352
378
410
439
468
505
540
570
605
631
662
694
724
756
788
816
843
872
908
936
966
998
1,040
1,056
1,084
1,115
1,150
1,179
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
3
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
6.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
12.0
10.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
5
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
8.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
10.0
10.0
8.0
10.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
Ap
psi
NA
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
0.0
-2.0
0.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
-2.0
0.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
2
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
8.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
8.0
4.0
8.0
5.0
8.0
11.0
9.0
11.0
9.0
8.0
10.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
8.0
10.0
8.0
9.0
12.0
11.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
11.0
Ap
psi
NA
-1.0
-1.5
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-4.0
-2.0
-3.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 2 of 19)
Week
No.
7
8
9
10
11
Date
11/22/04
11/23/04
11/24/04
11/25/04
11/26/04
11/27/04
11/28/04
11/29/04
11/30/04
12/01/04
12/02/04
12/03/04
12/04/04
12/05/04
12/06/04
12/07/04
12/08/04
12/09/04
12/10/04
12/11/04
12/12/04
12/13/04
12/14/04
12/15/04
12/16/04
12/17/04
12/18/04
12/19/04
12/20/04
12/21/04
12/22/04
12/24/04
12/25/04
12/26/04
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
8.6
7.3
9.7
8.2
8.8
8.4
11.0
7.6
8.5
7.1
8.1
9.1
7.4
9.2
7.3
7.6
7.7
8.0
8.2
8.4
10.2
7.2
9.4
6.5
7.0
9.2
8.1
9.4
9.1
7.2
8.7
20.8
9.9
10.6
Cumulative
Operation
Time
Hr
295.0
302.3
312.0
320.2
329.0
337.4
348.4
356.0
364.5
371.6
379.7
388.8
396.2
405.4
412.7
420.3
428.0
436.0
444.2
452.6
462.8
470.0
479.4
485.9
492.9
502.1
510.2
519.6
528.7
535.9
544.6
565.4
575.3
585.9
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
39.3
40.3
43.3
41.7
41.3
40.3
39.4
40.1
46.7
41.5
41.6
38.2
41.5
42.5
42.3
41.1
43.8
43.4
43.7
42.6
36.8
42.9
45.5
41.7
43.4
41.6
41.3
38.0
41.6
42.3
41.4
41.8
38.7
40.6
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
1,306,700
1,323,674
1,345,911
1,364,685
1,384,761
1,403,810
1,427,681
1,444,834
1,463,974
1,480,492
1,499,233
1,520,747
1,537,957
1,558,903
1,575,151
1,592,399
1,610,551
1,628,928
1,648,334
1,667,441
1,690,927
1,706,789
1,728,436
1,744,098
1,760,533
1,782,219
1,800,894
1,822,426
1,842,688
1,854,450
1,878,671
1,924,958
1,946,344
1,969,074
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
19,844
16,974
22,237
18,774
20,076
19,049
23,871
17,153
19,140
16,518
18,741
21,514
17,210
20,946
16,248
17,248
18,152
18,377
19,406
19,107
23,486
15,862
21,647
15,662
16,435
21,686
18,675
21,532
20,262
1 1 ,762
24,221
NA
21,386
22,730
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
769,540
786,514
808,751
827,525
847,601
866,650
890,521
907,674
926,814
943,332
962,073
983,587
1,000,797
1,021,743
1,037,991
1,055,239
1,073,391
1,091,768
1,111,174
1,130,281
1,153,767
1,169,629
1,191,276
1,206,938
1,223,373
1,245,059
1,263,734
1,285,266
1,305,528
1,317,290
1,341,511
NA
1,362,897
1,385,627
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
1,210
1,237
1,272
1,302
1,333
1,363
1,401
1,428
1,458
1,484
1,513
1,547
1,574
1,607
1,633
1,660
1,688
1,717
1,748
1,778
1,815
1,840
1,874
1,898
1,924
1,958
1,988
2,021
2,053
2,072
2,110
NA
2,144
2,179
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
10.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
9.0
10.0
9.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
11.0
12.0
9.0
13.0
10.0
9.0
10.0
8.0
9.0
7.0
7.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
11.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
9.0
10.0
9.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
12.0
9.0
12.0
10.0
9.0
10.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
8.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
9.0
Ap
psi
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
8.0
9.0
10.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
7.0
8.0
7.0
10.0
9.0
11.0
11.0
9.0
13.0
7.0
12.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
10.0
11.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
9.0
10.0
8.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
12.0
9.0
12.0
9.0
8.0
9.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.0
Ap
psi
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
1.0
-2.0
0.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
>
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 3 of 19)
Week
No.
12
13
14
15
16
Date
12/27/04
12/28/04
12/29/04
12/30/04
12/31/04
01/01/05
01/02/05
01/03/05
01/04/05(a)
01/05/05
01/06/05
01/07/05
01/08/05
01/09/05
01/10/05
01/11/05
01/12/05
01/13/05
01/14/05
01/15/05
01/16/05
01/17/05
01/18/05
01/19/05
01/20/05
01/21/05
01/22/05
01/23/05
01/24/05
01/25/05
01/26/05
01/27/05
01/28/05
01/29/05
01/30/05
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
9.7
8.8
9.8
10.1
11.7
7.4
23.5
7.3
8.5
8.1
10.5
8.9
8.5
9.6
9.5
12.4
6.6
9.4
7.8
9.8
10.3
9.5
8.5
7.9
8.6
9.1
9.4
9.6
9.1
8.1
8.0
8.4
10.1
8.0
12.3
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
595.6
604.4
614.2
624.3
636.0
643.4
666.9
674.2
682.7
690.8
701.3
710.2
718.7
728.3
737.8
750.2
756.8
766.2
774.0
783.8
794.1
803.6
812.1
820.0
828.6
837.7
847.1
856.7
865.8
873.9
881.9
890.3
900.4
908.4
920.7
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
42.1
39.5
40.8
36.5
35.4
38.5
31.5
40.3
41.6
43.0
38.2
40.6
40.1
44.3
40.3
31.5
43.2
40.3
40.7
40.0
40.8
39.9
43.7
41.5
40.3
41.1
40.4
42.7
41.3
40.1
42.2
44.3
38.2
37.0
34.0
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
1,988,059
2,008,591
2,030,335
2,052,360
2,077,382
2,093,961
2,134,111
2,149,653
2,168,274
2,186,659
2,210,604
2,229,746
2,248,542
2,269,572
2,290,483
2,317,137
2,331,891
2,352,893
2,369,333
2,391,115
2,413,979
2,434,854
2,452,751
2,470,822
2,490,330
2,510,687
2,531,399
2,552,097
2,571,909
2,590,546
2,608,795
2,627,629
2,650,511
2,668,851
2,695,129
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
18,985
20,532
21,744
22,025
25,022
16,579
40,150
15,542
18,621
18,385
23,945
19,142
18,796
21,030
20,911
26,654
14,754
21,002
16,440
21,782
22,864
20,875
17,897
18,071
19,508
20,357
20,712
20,698
19,812
18,637
18,249
18,834
22,882
18,340
26,278
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
1,404,612
1,425,144
1,446,888
1,468,913
1,493,935
1,510,514
1,550,664
1,566,206
1,584,827
1,603,212
1,627,157
1,646,299
1,665,095
1,686,125
1,707,036
1,733,690
1,748,444
1,769,446
1,785,886
1,807,668
1,830,532
1,851,407
1,869,304
1,887,375
1,906,883
1,927,240
1,947,952
1,968,650
1,988,462
2,007,099
2,025,348
2,044,182
2,067,064
2,085,404
2,111,682
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
2,209
2,241
2,276
2,310
2,350
2,376
2,439
2,463
2,493
2,522
2,559
2,589
2,619
2,652
2,685
2,727
2,750
2,783
2,809
2,843
2,879
2,912
2,940
2,969
2,999
3,031
3,064
3,096
3,127
3,157
3,186
3,215
3,251
3,280
3,321
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
9.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
7.0
9.0
6.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
7.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
7.0
15.0
12.0
15.0
14.0
12.0
11.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
16.0
11.0
11.0
8.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
9.0
9.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
9.0
4.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
7.0
8.0
10.0
10.0
8.0
8.0
15.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
13.0
13.0
16.0
15.0
15.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
12.0
12.0
8.0
Ap
psi
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
-1.0
0.0
-1.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
7.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
3.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
13.0
11.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
13.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
9.0
10.0
6.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
8.0
6.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
7.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.0
8.0
15.0
13.0
15.0
14.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
15.0
15.0
13.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
12.0
12.0
9.0
Ap
psi
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
2.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-3.0
>
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 4 of 19)
Week
No.
17
18
19
20
21
Date
01/31/05
02/01/05
02/02/05
02/03/05
02/04/05
02/05/05
02/06/05
02/07/05
02/08/05
02/09/05
02/10/05
02/11/05
02/12/05
02/13/05
02/14/05
02/15/05
02/16/05
02/1 7/05
02/18/05
02/19/05
02/20/05
02/21/05
02/22/05
02/23/05
02/24/05
02/25/05
02/26/05
02/27/05
02/28/05
03/01/05
03/02/05
03/03/05
03/04/05
03/05/05
03/06/05
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
8.0
7.9
8.3
8.3
8.7
9.8
11.3
7.5
7.9
8.4
9.1
8.9
9.9
10.0
8.9
7.8
8.4
8.5
9.1
11.0
11.0
8.6
9.1
10.4
9.6
10.5
12.5
11.4
9.1
10.0
10.4
8.0
11.5
11.0
13.2
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
928.7
936.6
944.9
953.2
961.9
971.7
983.0
990.5
998.4
1,006.8
1,015.9
1,024.8
1,034.7
1,044.7
1,053.6
1,061.4
1,069.8
1,078.3
1,087.4
1,098.4
1,109.4
1,118.0
1,127.1
1,137.5
1,147.1
1,157.6
1,170.1
1,181.5
1,190.6
1,200.6
1,211.0
1,219.0
1,230.5
1,241.5
1,254.7
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
39.6
42.4
37.3
45.9
39.5
45.7
36.8
40.7
41.1
47.2
43.1
39.7
33.6
38.8
39.9
40.1
40.3
41.0
41.2
36.0
38.9
44.0
39.9
39.3
42.1
41.2
42.2
38.0
42.9
38.0
36.4
41.3
35.5
39.4
35.6
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
2,711,222
2,729,013
2,747,686
2,766,522
2,786,021
2,807,547
2,831,725
2,848,555
2,866,591
2,885,410
2,906,231
2,925,923
2,948,119
2,969,745
2,989,704
3,007,034
3,026,039
3,045,281
3,066,022
3,090,622
3,114,486
3,133,287
3,153,152
3,175,292
3,195,313
3,217,543
3,243,080
3,266,391
3,285,641
3,307,138
3,329,356
3,346,888
3,371,421
3,394,246
3,420,533
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
16,093
17,791
18,673
18,836
19,499
21,526
24,178
16,830
18,036
18,819
20,821
19,692
22,196
21,626
19,959
17,330
19,005
19,242
20,741
24,600
23,864
18,801
19,865
22,140
20,021
22,230
25,537
23,311
19,250
21,497
22,218
17,532
24,533
22,825
26,287
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
2,127,775
2,145,566
2,164,239
2,183,075
2,202,574
2,224,100
2,248,278
2,265,108
2,283,144
2,301,963
2,322,784
2,342,476
2,364,672
2,386,298
2,406,257
2,423,587
2,442,592
2,461,834
2,482,575
2,507,175
2,531,039
2,549,840
2,569,705
2,591,845
2,611,866
2,634,096
2,659,633
2,682,944
2,702,194
2,723,691
2,745,909
2,763,441
2,787,974
2,810,799
2,837,086
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
3,347
3,375
3 ,,404
3,434
3,464
3,498
3,536
3,563
3,591
3,621
3,653
3,684
3,719
3,753
3,785
3,812
3,842
3,872
3,905
3,943
3,981
4,010
4,042
4,077
4,108
4,143
4,183
4,220
4,250
4,284
4,319
4,346
4,385
4,421
4,462
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
16.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
10.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
13.0
13.0
11.0
13.0
13.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
7.0
7.0
9.0
20.0
19.0
19.0
21.0
17.0
17.0
20.0
16.0
16.0
20.0
15.0
17.0
15.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
10.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
21.0
19.0
19.0
22.0
18.0
17.0
20.0
16.0
16.0
20.0
15.0
18.0
16.0
Ap
psi
0.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
8.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
10.0
11.0
9.0
11.0
10.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
4.0
4.0
7.0
17.0
16.0
17.0
19.0
15.0
15.0
17.0
14.0
14.0
17.0
12.0
15.0
13.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
16.0
15.0
16.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
9.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
11.0
12.0
11.0
13.0
12.0
8.0
7.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
20.0
18.0
19.0
21.0
17.0
17.0
19.0
16.0
16.0
19.0
14.0
17.0
15.0
Ap
psi
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
>
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 5 of 19)
Week
No.
22
23
24
25
26
Date
03/07/05
03/08/05
03/09/05
03/10/05
03/11/05
03/12/05
03/13/05
03/14/05
03/15/05
03/16/05
03/1 7/05
03/18/05
03/19/05
03/20/05
03/21/05
03/22/05
03/23/05
03/24/05
03/25/05
03/26/05
03/27/05
03/28/05
03/29/05
03/30/05
03/31/05
04/01/05
04/02/05
04/03/05
04/04/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
04/07/05
04/08/05
04/09/05
04/10/05
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
10.6
13.2
14.1
14.1
14.3
11.0
11.0
8.2
9.1
8.1
8.4
8.7
9.2
10.7
8.0
8.0
9.8
7.1
9.5
9.8
13.2
8.2
8.5
9.6
8.9
8.5
9.8
9.8
8.7
7.7
8.0
7.8
8.5
9.1
10.2
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
1,265.3
1,278.5
1,292.6
1,306.7
1,321.0
1,332.0
1,343.0
1,351.2
1,360.3
1,368.4
1,376.8
1,385.5
1,394.7
1,405.4
1,413.4
1,421.4
1,431.2
1,438.3
1 ,,447.8
1,457.6
1,470.8
1,479.0
1,487.5
1,497.1
1,506.0
1,514.5
1,524.3
1,534.1
1,542.8
1,550.5
1,558.5
1,566.3
1,574.8
1,583.9
1,594.1
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
40.3
37.8
39.3
37.2
38.4
38.7
42.6
36.4
44.3
43.0
42.6
41.7
40.3
42.3
44.5
47.7
43.6
42.5
36.7
42.9
35.7
37.8
39.1
41.6
39.9
40.7
42.3
43.9
40.6
42.5
44.4
38.7
39.6
42.5
42.5
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
3,441,728
3,467,373
3,494,579
3,521,436
3,548,297
3,568,879
3,590,313
3,606,707
3,625,853
3,643,284
3,661,488
3,680,954
3,700,919
3,723,897
3,740,922
3,758,479
3,780,333
3,796,412
3,817,763
3,838,499
3,866,379
3,883,085
3,902,013
3,922,384
3,941,732
3,960,622
3,982,195
4,003,448
4,022,552
4,038,787
4,056,802
4,074,577
4,093,908
4,113,962
4,135,968
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
21,195
25,645
27,206
26,857
26,861
20,582
21,434
16,394
19,146
17,431
18,204
19,466
19,965
22,978
17,025
17,557
21,854
16,079
21,351
20,736
27,880
16,706
18,928
20,371
19,348
18,890
21,573
21,253
19,104
16,235
18,015
17,775
19,331
20,054
22,006
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
2,858,281
2,883,926
2,911,132
2,937,989
2,964,850
2,985,432
3,006,866
3,023,260
3,042,406
3,059,837
3,078,041
3,097,507
3,117,472
3,140,450
3,157,475
3,175,032
3,196,886
3,212,965
3,234,316
3,255,052
3,282,932
3,299,638
3,318,566
3,338,937
3,358,285
3,377,175
3,398,748
3,420,001
3,439,105
3,455,340
3,473,355
3,491,130
3,510,461
3,530,515
3,552,521
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
4,496
4,536
4,579
4,621
4,663
4,696
4,729
4,755
4,785
4,813
4,841
4,872
4,903
4,939
4,966
4,994
5,028
5,053
5,087
5,120
5,163
5,190
5,220
5,252
5,282
5,312
5,346
5,379
5,409
5,435
5,463
5,491
5,521
5,553
5,587
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
19.0
17.0
17.0
25.0
22.0
27.0
27.0
NA
20.0
22.0
22.0
17.0
15.0
12.0
21.0
22.0
15.0
16.0
13.0
15.0
10.0
15.0
14.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
16.0
16.0
11.0
14.0
16.0
15.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
19.0
18.0
18.0
25.0
23.0
28.0
28.0
27.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
17.0
16.0
13.0
22.0
27.0
15.0
16.0
13.0
15.0
9.0
16.0
14.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
13.0
13.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Ap
psi
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
NA
-1.0
0.0
-1.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
0.0
4.0
6.0
5.0
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
17.0
15.0
15.0
23.0
19.0
25.0
25.0
27.0
16.0
19.0
19.0
15.0
13.0
10.0
18.0
19.0
12.0
13.0
10.0
12.0
7.0
13.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
14.0
13.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
18.0
18.0
17.0
25.0
22.0
27.0
27.0
28.0
20.0
21.0
21.0
16.0
15.0
12.0
20.0
21.0
14.0
15.0
12.0
14.0
9.0
15.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
16.0
15.0
15.0
12.0
15.0
14.0
Ap
psi
-1.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-4.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
0.0
-2.0
-2.0
>
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 6 of 19)
Week
No.
27
28
29
30
31
Date
04/11/05
04/12/05
04/13/05
04/14/05
04/15/05
04/16/05
04/1 7/05
04/18/05
04/19/05
04/20/05
04/21/05
04/22/05
04/23/05
04/24/05
04/25/05
04/26/05
04/27/05
04/28/05
04/29/05
04/30/05
05/01/05
05/02/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
05/05/05
05/06/05
05/07/05
05/08/05
05/09/05
05/10/05
05/11/05
05/12/05
05/13/05
05/14/05
05/15/05
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
9.2
10.2
7.5
8.8
9.4
10.6
10.8
9.6
10.0
10.2
9.0
24.7
7.8
9.0
7.2
10.2
5.6
8.7
7.5
7.2
11.4
7.2
8.6
8.8
9.2
9.1
9.6
13.6
7.9
8.6
10.5
9.9
8.7
11.8
10.4
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
1,603.3
1,613.5
1,621.0
1,629.8
1,639.2
1,649.8
1,660.6
1,670.2
1,680.2
1,690.4
1,699.4
1,724.1
1,731.9
1,740.9
1,748.1
1,758.3
1,763.9
1,772.6
1,780.1
1,787.3
1,798.7
1,805.9
1,814.5
1,823.3
1,832.5
1,841.6
1,851.2
1,864.8
1,872.7
1,881.3
1,891.8
1,901.7
1,910.4
1,922.2
1,932.6
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
44.6
42.4
47.3
41.4
10.6
39.3
45.4
44.7
40.9
41.9
44.6
27.4
44.1
41.5
44.9
39.1
41.1
39.3
43.0
41.1
41.1
44.4
42.0
42.5
40.6
41.2
41.9
38.4
39.0
42.5
41.1
41.8
41.3
41.7
42.0
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
4,155,862
4,178,409
4,195,027
4,214,799
4,235,652
4,258,123
4,280,778
4,300,836
4,321,862
4,343,599
4,363,147
4,405,545
4,422,047
4,440,999
4,456,994
4,479,919
4,492,476
4,512,216
4,529,763
4,546,122
4,570,358
4,586,648
4,605,520
4,624,967
4,645,176
4,665,530
4,686,213
4,713,963
4,730,671
4,749,359
4,771,623
4,793,498
4,812,279
4,837,476
4,859,138
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
19,894
22,547
16,618
19,772
20,853
22,471
22,655
20,058
21,026
21,737
19,548
42,398
16,502
18,952
15,995
22,925
12,557
19,740
17,547
16,359
24,236
16,290
18,872
19,447
20,209
20,354
20,683
27,750
16,708
18,688
22,264
21,875
18,781
25,197
21,662
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
3,572,415
3,594,962
3,611,580
3,631,352
3,652,205
3,674,676
3,697,331
3,717,389
3,738,415
3,760,152
3,779,700
3,822,098
3,838,600
3,857,552
3,873,547
3,896,472
3,909,029
3,928,769
3,946,316
3,962,675
3,986,911
4,003,201
4,022,073
4,041,520
4,061,729
4,082,083
4,102,766
4,130,516
4,147,224
4,165,912
4,188,176
4,210,051
4,228,832
4,254,029
4,275,691
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
5,619
5,654
5,680
5,711
5,744
5,780
5,815
5,847
5,880
5,914
5,945
6,011
6,037
6,067
6,092
6,128
6,148
6,179
6,207
6,233
6,271
6,296
6,326
6,357
6,388
6,420
6,453
6,497
6,523
6,552
6,587
6,622
6,651
6,691
6,725
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
16.0
15.0
16.0
15.0
13.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
15.0
16.0
8.0
13.0
14.0
16.0
10.0
13.0
11.0
16.0
16.0
14.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
16.0
14.0
15.0
14.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
14.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
10.0
15.0
16.0
14.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
7.0
13.0
13.0
16.0
10.0
13.0
12.0
15.0
15.0
13.0
16.0
17.0
16.0
16.0
13.0
15.0
13.0
15.0
16.0
15.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
Ap
psi
6.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
13.0
12.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
4.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
8.0
10.0
9.0
13.0
13.0
11.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
11.0
13.0
11.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
15.0
14.0
15.0
13.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
7.0
13.0
13.0
15.0
10.0
12.0
11.0
15.0
15.0
13.0
15.0
16.0
15.0
15.0
13.0
14.0
12.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
12.0
12.0
14.0
8.0
Ap
psi
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-3.0
4.0
>
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 7 of 19)
Week
No.
32
33
34
35
36
Date
05/16/05
05/1 7/05
05/18/05
05/19/05
05/20/05
05/21/05
05/22/05
05/23/05
05/24/05
05/25/05
05/26/05
05/27/05
05/28/05
05/29/05
05/30/05
05/31/05
06/01/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
06/04/05
06/05/05
06/06/05
06/07/05
06/08/05
06/09/05
06/10/05
06/11/05
06/12/05
06/13/05
06/14/05
06/15/05
06/16/05
06/1 7/05
06/18/05
06/19/05
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
9.3
9.8
11.4
9.0
9.3
10.5
11.4
9.1
9.0
8.8
9.7
12.9
10.4
10.5
9.3
10.0
9.2
12.0
11.2
11.4
14.6
12.3
11.8
10.9
10.3
12.4
14.6
12.0
9.6
15.0
8.1
9.0
10.5
10.7
8.6
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
1,941.9
1,951.7
1,963.1
1,972.1
1,981.4
1,991.9
2,003.3
2,012.4
2,021.4
2,030.2
2,039.9
2,052.8
2,063.2
2,073.7
2,083.0
2,093.0
2,102.2
2,114.2
2,125.4
2,136.8
2,151.4
2,163.7
2,175.5
2,186.4
2,196.7
2,209.1
2,223.7
2,235.7
2,245.3
2,260.3
2,268.4
2,277.4
2,287.9
2,298.6
2,307.2
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
42.7
42.3
40.5
43.3
40.4
42.0
39.6
41.3
44.6
41.6
41.6
38.5
40.2
42.1
39.3
39.3
42.0
21.9
37.9
43.2
25.9
40.2
37.3
39.2
41.5
38.7
30.5
38.3
41.6
44.7
43.3
41.5
42.3
42.6
42.3
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
4,878,851
4,899,283
4,923,579
4,942,210
4,962,065
4,984,451
5,007,657
5,026,370
5,045,586
5,064,476
5,085,206
5,112,946
5,133,993
5,155,402
5,175,514
5,196,495
5,215,404
5,225,218
5,235,009
5,257,479
5,285,518
5,307,243
5,331,825
5,353,315
5,373,936
5,398,513
5,426,175
5,449,431
5,468,879
5,497,350
5,513,917
5,532,883
5,554,707
5,577,004
5,595,339
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
19,713
20,432
24,296
18,631
19,855
22,386
23,206
18,713
19,216
18,890
20,730
27,740
21,047
21,409
20,112
20,981
18,909
9,814
9,791
22,470
28,039
21,725
24,582
21,490
20,621
24,577
27,662
23,256
19,448
28,471
16,567
18,966
21,824
22,297
18,335
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
4,295,404
4,315,836
4,340,132
4,358,763
4,378,618
4,401,004
4,424,210
4,442,923
4,462,139
4,481,029
4,501,759
4,529,499
4,550,546
4,571,955
4,592,067
4,613,048
4,631,957
4,641,771
4,651,562
4,674,032
4,702,071
4,723,796
4,748,378
4,769,868
4,790,489
4,815,066
4,842,728
4,865,984
4,885,432
4,913,903
4,930,470
4,949,436
4,971,260
4,993,557
5,011,892
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
6,756
6,788
6,826
6,856
6,887
6,922
6,958
6,988
7,018
7,048
7,080
7,124
7,157
7,191
7,223
7,256
7,285
7,301
7,316
7,351
7,396
7,430
7,468
7,502
7,535
7,573
7,617
7,653
7,684
7,729
7,755
7,785
7,819
7,854
7,883
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
14.0
15.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
8.0
10.0
13.0
12.0
13.0
15.0
10.0
11.0
14.0
7.0
15.0
8.0
10.0
13.0
12.0
7.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
15.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
14.0
15.0
12.0
15.0
15.0
13.0
13.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
8.0
10.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
15.0
10.0
12.0
13.0
7.0
14.0
8.0
10.0
13.0
12.0
7.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
15.0
Ap
psi
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
12.0
13.0
10.0
13.0
13.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
7.0
7.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
13.0
7.0
9.0
11.0
4.0
12.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
8.0
4.0
8.0
10.0
10.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
12.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
13.0
15.0
12.0
14.0
15.0
12.0
14.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
8.0
10.0
8.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
10.0
11.0
13.0
6.0
13.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
6.0
11.0
11.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
13.0
14.0
Ap
psi
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-3.0
2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-4.0
-2.0
-3.0
-1.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
>
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 8 of 19)
Week
No.
37
38
39
40
41
Date
06/20/05
06/21/05
06/22/05
06/23/05
06/24/05
06/25/05
06/26/05
06/27/05
06/28/05
06/29/05
06/30/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
07/03/05
07/04/05
07/05/05
07/06/05
07/07/05
07/08/05
07/09/05
07/11/05
07/12/05
07/13/05
07/14/05
07/15/05
07/16/05
07/1 7/05
07/18/05
07/19/05
07/20/05
07/21/05
07/22/05
07/23/05
07/24/05
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
8.7
11.4
11.4
8.4
7.9
11.5
10.1
11.4
9.5
7.1
7.9
8.2
9.2
7.7
8.2
7.5
6.4
7.3
7.2
7.4
14.7
8.4
10.5
10.2
7.9
5.8
8.1
8.4
6.2
10.5
7.2
10.1
9.1
8.9
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
2,315.9
2,327.3
2,338.7
2,347.1
2,355.0
2,366.4
2,376.5
2,387.9
2,397.4
2,404.5
2,412.4
2,420.6
2,429.8
2,437.5
2,445.7
2,453.2
2,459.6
2,466.9
2,474.1
2,481.5
2,496.2
2,504.6
2,515.1
2,525.3
2,533.2
2,539.0
2,547.1
2,547.4
2,553.6
2,564.1
2,571.3
2,581.4
2,590.5
2,599.4
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
40.1
37.8
39.3
42.2
42.2
42.3
40.3
43.9
44.5
40.3
40.7
41.9
40.0
41.9
40.4
43.0
44.3
40.3
43.7
44.3
42.8
40.6
37.9
37.3
41.7
45.1
40.7
41.2
43.4
40.2
43.4
40.3
40.4
43.4
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
5,613,577
5,638,097
5,659,552
5,678,017
5,694,891
5,718,731
5,739,845
5,762,703
5,782,099
5,797,891
5,815,563
5,833,735
5,854,381
5,870,556
5,888,691
5,909,122
5,923,644
5,940,737
5,956,882
5,973,817
6,007,845
6,026,585
6,050,254
6,072,238
6,090,322
6,103,324
6,121,597
6,140,510
6,154,432
6,178,233
6,194,410
6,216,531
6,235,786
6,255,894
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
18,238
24,520
21,455
18,465
16,874
23,840
21,114
22,858
19,396
15,792
17,672
18,172
20,646
16,175
18,135
20,431
14,522
17,093
16,145
16,935
NA
18,740
23,669
21,984
18,084
13,002
18,273
18,913
13,922
23,801
16,177
22,121
19,255
20,108
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
5,030,130
5,054,650
5,076,105
5,094,570
5,111,444
5,135,284
5,156,398
5,179,256
5,198,652
5,214,444
5,232,116
5,250,288
5,270,934
5,287,109
5,305,244
5,325,675
5,340,197
5,357,290
5,373,435
5,390,370
NA
5,409,110
5,432,779
5,454,763
5,472,847
5,485,849
5,504,122
5,504,762
5,518,684
5,542,485
5,558,662
5,580,783
5,600,038
5,620,146
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
7,911
7,950
7,984
8,013
8,039
8,077
8,110
8,146
8,177
8,201
8,229
8,258
8,290
8,316
8,344
8,376
8,399
8,426
8,451
8,478
NA
8,508
8,545
8,579
8,608
8,628
8,657
8,658
8,680
8,717
8,743
8,778
8,808
8,839
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
15.0
8.0
14.0
12.0
15.0
13.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
15.0
14.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
17.0
13.0
16.0
16.0
14.0
15.0
9.0
9.0
11.0
15.0
13.0
12.0
16.0
10.0
14.0
12.0
16.0
12.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
15.0
8.0
14.0
12.0
14.0
13.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
17.0
13.0
16.0
16.0
14.0
15.0
9.0
9.0
11.0
15.0
13.0
12.0
16.0
10.0
14.0
12.0
16.0
12.0
Ap
psi
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
13.0
7.0
12.0
9.0
12.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
8.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
14.0
11.0
13.0
14.0
11.0
12.0
7.0
7.0
9.0
12.0
10.0
9.0
14.0
7.0
12.0
9.0
13.0
9.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
15.0
8.0
14.0
11.0
14.0
13.0
14.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.0
15.0
16.0
13.0
14.0
9.0
9.0
11.0
14.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
10.0
14.0
12.0
15.0
12.0
Ap
psi
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-3.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-1.0
-3.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-3.0
>
oo
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 9 of 19)
Week
No.
42
43
44
45
46
47
Date
07/25/05
07/26/05
07/27/05
07/28/05
07/30/05
07/31/05
08/01/05
08/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
08/05/05
08/06/05
08/07/05
08/08/05
08/09/05
08/10/05
08/11/05
08/12/05
08/13/05
08/14/05
08/15/05
08/16/05
08/1 7/05
08/18/05
08/19/05
08/20/05
08/21/05
08/22/05
08/25/05
08/26/05
08/27/05
08/29/05
08/30/05
08/31/05
09/01/05
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
7.1
10.8
9.3
8.6
15.4
7.8
7.1
6.1
10.3
9.3
9.3
10.7
11.5
11.1
11.4
11.2
18.5
15.2
8.1
10.3
10.4
8.1
7.3
9.8
10.4
10.3
6.8
6.9
21.5
16.5
10.1
20.1
7.3
7.8
8.7
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
2,597.6
2,608.4
2,617.7
2,626.3
2,641.7
2,649.5
2,648.8
2,654.9
2,665.2
2,674.5
2,683.8
2,685.2
2,695.3
2,696.3
2,707.7
2,718.9
2,737.4
2,752.6
2,760.7
2,771.0
2,781.4
2,789.5
2,796.8
2,806.6
2,817.0
2,827.3
2,834.1
2,841.0
2,862.5
2,879.0
2,889.1
2,909.2
2,916.5
2,924.3
2,933.0
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
41.3
42.3
44.7
41.8
41.0
42.4
43.5
44.9
43.1
44.6
42.3
36.3
40.3
42.9
41.0
42.4
38.9
29.5
42.2
39.3
44.3
43.4
45.3
45.0
38.4
36.9
40.3
42.0
44.0
39.1
42.9
36.9
44.1
44.4
41.3
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
6,271,570
6,295,442
6,315,162
6,334,295
6,369,063
6,386,215
6,402,260
6,416,485
6,436,113
6,456,549
6,477,172
6,500,090
6,522,497
6,544,793
6,567,620
6,590,098
6,623,549
6,650,944
6,665,937
6,687,339
6,702,053
6,719,481
6,735,487
6,756,433
6,779,275
6,800,577
6,815,760
6,831,522
6,877,373
6,911,833
6,932,069
6,974,740
6,989,614
7,006,664
7,025,653
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
15,676
23,872
19,720
19,133
34,768
17,152
16,045
14,225
19,628
20,436
20,623
22,918
22,407
22,296
22,827
22,478
33,451
27,395
14,993
21,402
14,714
17,428
16,006
20,946
22,842
21,302
15,183
15,762
45,851
34,460
20,236
42,671
14,874
17,050
18,989
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
5,615,714
5,639,586
5,659,306
5,678,439
5,713,207
5,730,359
5,729,252
5,743,477
5,763,105
5,783,541
5,804,164
5,827,082
5,849,489
5,871,785
5,894,612
5,917,090
5,950,541
5,977,936
5,992,929
6,014,331
6,029,045
6,046,473
6,062,479
6,083,425
6,106,267
6,127,569
6,142,752
6,158,514
6,204,365
6,238,825
6,259,061
6,301,732
6,316,606
6,333,656
6,352,645
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
8,833
8,870
8,901
8,931
8,986
9,013
9,011
9,033
9,064
9,096
9,129
9,165
9,200
9,235
9,271
9,307
9,359
9,402
9,426
9,459
9,483
9,510
9,535
9,568
9,604
9,638
9,661
9,686
9,758
9,813
9,844
9,912
9,935
9,962
9,992
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
13.0
9.0
15.0
16.0
13.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
13.0
10.0
13.0
14.0
14.0
15.0
10.0
6.0
14.0
10.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
8.0
11.0
13.0
13.0
15.0
12.0
15.0
10.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
13.0
9.0
15.0
15.0
13.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
13.0
10.0
13.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
10.0
5.0
13.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
16.0
15.0
9.0
11.0
13.0
12.0
14.0
12.0
14.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
Ap
psi
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
11.0
7.0
12.0
13.0
10.0
13.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
13.0
9.0
7.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
7.0
4.0
11.0
7.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
7.0
8.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
7.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
13.0
9.0
11.0
15.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
16.0
15.0
15.0
12.0
10.0
13.0
13.0
14.0
13.0
10.0
6.0
13.0
10.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
14.0
11.0
14.0
9.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
Ap
psi
-2.0
-2.0
1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
>
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 10 of 19)
Week
No.
47
48
49
50
51
52
Date
09/02/05
09/04/05
09/05/05
09/06/05
09/07/05
09/08/05
09/09/05
09/10/05
09/11/05
09/12/05
09/13/05
09/14/05
09/15/05
09/16/05
09/1 7/05
09/18/05
09/19/05
09/20/05
09/21/05
09/22/05
09/23/05
09/25/05
09/26/05
09/27/05
09/28/05
09/29/05
09/30/05
10/01/05
10/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
10/05/05
10/07/05
10/08/05
10/09/05
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
8.9
15.5
9.8
9.8
11.6
9.8
10.0
12.8
12.5
11.0
13.9
16.1
13.7
7.7
9.0
11.9
7.8
7.7
7.2
7.7
8.7
16.0
8.0
11.0
7.4
8.6
6.5
8.1
9.2
8.3
8.1
8.0
15.1
8.6
9.0
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
2,941.9
2,957.4
2,967.2
2,977.0
2,988.6
2,998.4
3,008.4
3,021.2
3,033.7
3,044.7
3,058.6
3,074.7
3,088.4
3,096.1
3,105.1
3,117.0
3,124.8
3,132.5
3,139.7
3,147.4
3,156.1
3,172.1
3,180.1
3,191.1
3,198.5
3,207.1
3,213.6
3,221.7
3,230.9
3,239.2
3,247.3
3,255.3
3,270.4
3,279.0
3,288.0
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
41.9
42.7
43.4
43.6
36.9
41.3
42.2
43.0
30.4
42.8
41.2
26.0
44.5
40.4
44.2
42.2
40.0
44.1
42.4
44.5
42.5
43.7
44.3
43.6
40.2
41.2
44.3
43.3
41.4
41.6
44.1
41.6
46.4
42.2
41.8
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
7,045,050
7,078,801
7,099,881
7,120,280
7,144,239
7,164,006
7,185,321
7,210,109
7,234,542
7,254,919
7,280,433
7,296,937
7,318,892
7,334,953
7,353,882
7,377,538
7,393,638
7,410,283
7,426,303
7,443,217
7,462,438
7,497,176
7,514,321
7,531,785
7,548,366
7,567,976
7,582,656
7,600,840
7,620,699
7,638,464
7,655,891
7,673,475
7,706,999
7,725,865
7,745,257
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
19,397
33,751
21,080
20,399
23,959
19,767
21,315
24,788
24,433
20,377
25,514
16,504
21,955
16,061
18,929
23,656
16,100
16,645
16,020
16,914
19,221
34,738
17,145
17,464
16,581
19,610
14,680
18,184
19,859
17,765
17,427
17,584
33,524
18,866
19,392
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
6,372,042
6,405,793
6,426,873
6,447,272
6,471,231
6,490,998
6,512,313
6,537,101
6,561,534
6,581,911
6,607,425
6,623,929
6,645,884
6,661,945
6,680,874
6,704,530
6,720,630
6,737,275
6,753,295
6,770,209
6,789,430
6,824,168
6,841,313
6,858,777
6,875,358
6,894,968
6,909,648
6,927,832
6,947,691
6,965,456
6,982,883
7,000,467
7,033,991
7,052,857
7,072,249
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
10,022
10,075
10,108
10,140
10,178
10,209
10,243
10,282
10,320
10,352
10,392
10,418
10,453
10,478
10,508
10,545
10,570
10,597
10,622
10,648
10,679
10,733
10,760
10,788
10,814
10,845
10,868
10,896
10,927
10,955
10,983
11,010
1 1 ,063
1 1 ,093
11,123
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
13.0
17.0
15.0
16.0
12.0
15.0
12.0
14.0
7.0
12.0
14.0
5.0
15.0
16.0
15.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
13.0
15.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
16.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
14.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
12.0
16.0
14.0
15.0
12.0
15.0
11.0
13.0
7.0
11.0
13.0
5.0
13.0
15.0
14.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
15.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
17.0
15.0
14.0
13.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
14.0
Ap
psi
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
10.0
14.0
12.0
12.0
9.0
12.0
8.0
10.0
4.0
9.0
10.0
3.0
11.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
10.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
14.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
13.0
14.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
12.0
15.0
9.0
14.0
11.0
9.0
12.0
13.0
7.0
11.0
13.0
5.0
14.0
15.0
13.0
12.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
16.0
15.0
13.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
Ap
psi
-2.0
-1.0
3.0
-2.0
-2.0
3.0
-4.0
-3.0
-3.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-3.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
0.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 11 of 19)
Week
No.
53
54
55
56
57
Date
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
10/22/05
10/23/05
10/24/05
10/25/05
10/26/05
10/27/05
10/28/05
10/29/05
10/30/05
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
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
7.7
10.8
13.4
7.6
7.6
7.6
8.7
7.3
7.1
6.9
6.8
14.9
8.5
7.4
8.2
6.8
7.2
7.4
7.7
8.5
12.8
9.8
7.2
10.3
11.0
12.4
14.9
12.0
8.5
6.8
7.2
7.5
8.9
7.9
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
3,295.7
3,306.5
3,319.9
3,327.5
3,335.1
3,342.7
3,351.4
3,358.7
3,365.8
3,372.7
3,379.5
3,394.4
3,402.9
3,410.3
3,418.5
3,425.3
3,432.5
3,439.9
3,447.6
3,456.1
3,468.9
3,478.7
3,485.9
3,496.2
3,507.2
3,519.6
3,534.5
3,546.5
3,555.0
3,561.8
3,569.0
3,576.5
3,585.4
3,593.3
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
44.2
33.8
41.5
46.8
43.2
38.9
43.7
41.8
42.4
44.4
42.7
42.6
45.5
44.2
44.4
44.6
43.1
43.8
42.6
43.3
35.9
35.3
33.2
33.6
32.2
23.8
23.9
39.2
43.4
44.4
45.4
44.5
41.1
37.9
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
7,762,226
7,785,877
7,809,745
7,826,042
7,842,642
7,859,709
7,878,485
7,894,632
7,910,677
7,926,485
7,942,159
7,976,119
7,995,286
8,011,830
8,030,265
8,045,879
8,062,444
8,079,639
8,097,323
8,116,291
8,135,960
8,151,552
8,168,493
8,185,038
8,202,393
8,221,971
8,243,593
8,260,896
8,276,337
8,291,951
8,308,600
8,325,926
8,346,439
8,364,209
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
16,969
23,651
23,868
16,297
16,600
17,067
18,776
16,147
16,045
15,808
15,674
NA
19,167
16,544
18,435
15,614
16,565
17,195
17,684
18,968
19,669
15,592
16,941
16,545
17,355
19,578
21,622
17,303
15,441
15,614
16,649
17,326
20,513
17,770
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
7,089,218
7,112,869
7,136,737
7,153,034
7,169,634
7,186,701
7,205,477
7,221,624
7,237,669
7,253,477
7,269,151
NA
7,288,318
7,304,862
7,323,297
7,338,911
7,355,476
7,372,671
7,390,355
7,409,323
7,428,992
7,444,584
7,461,525
7,478,070
7,495,425
7,515,003
7,536,625
7,553,928
7,569,369
7,584,983
7,601,632
7,618,958
7,639,471
7,657,241
Cumulative
Bed
Volume
Treated
11,150
11,187
11,225
1 1 ,250
11,277
1 1 ,303
1 1 ,333
1 1 ,358
1 1 ,384
1 1 ,408
1 1 ,433
NA
1 1 ,463
1 1 ,489
11,518
1 1 ,543
1 1 ,569
1 1 ,596
1 1 ,624
1 1 ,654
1 1 ,684
1 1 ,709
1 1 ,736
1 1 ,762
1 1 ,789
1 1 ,820
1 1 ,854
11,881
1 1 ,905
1 1 ,930
1 1 ,956
1 1 ,983
12,016
12,043
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
17.0
8.0
15.0
17.0
17.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
16.0
17.0
15.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
8.0
5.0
5.0
9.0
18.0
19.0
18.0
18.0
14.0
14.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
16.0
8.0
14.0
16.0
16.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
16.0
14.0
16.0
16.0
17.0
15.0
16.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
5.0
5.0
8.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
12.0
12.0
Ap
psi
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
13.0
6.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
14.0
12.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
13.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
10.0
10.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
15.0
7.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
15.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
11.0
12.0
Ap
psi
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 12 of 19)
Week
No.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
Date
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""
01/13/06(c)
01/14/06
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
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.3
8.2
7.4
9.0
8.5
8.1
9.3
7.9
7.9
8.9
9.5
7.1
9.4
12.2
32.2
6.0
7.9
8.1
6.7
9.7
9.4
8.3
7.4
7.2
7.6
7.5
9.6
8.3
7.5
7.5
5.9
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
3,600.3
3,607.4
3,614.5
3,621.8
3,630.0
3,637.4
3,646.4
3,654.9
3,663.0
3,672.3
3,680.2
3,688.1
3,697.0
3,706.5
3,713.6
0.0
12.2
44.4
50.4
58.3
66.4
73.1
82.8
92.2
100.5
107.9
115.1
122.7
130.2
139.8
148.1
155.6
163.1
169.0
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
41.8
45.2
43.4
43.5
43.4
42.9
43.9
41.8
43.3
36.4
38.2
44.3
36.9
38.9
44.5
40.8
42.8
38.6
43.3
43.3
42.6
43.3
41.2
42.7
44.4
44.7
44.4
45.3
46.2
42.3
44.3
43.7
45.3
46.8
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
8,379,794
8,396,171
8,412,879
8,429,823
8,448,988
8,465,764
8,485,732
8,504,580
8,523,106
8,544,471
8,561,933
8,579,245
8,599,454
8,620,197
8,635,714
9,501,211
9,526,145
9,583,201
9,596,349
9,613,678
9,631,514
9,646,699
9,667,987
9,688,332
9,706,287
9,723,101
9,739,563
9,756,979
9,774,079
9,795,387
9,814,052
9,830,775
9,848,032
9,863,582
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
15,585
16,377
16,708
16,944
19,165
16,776
19,968
18,848
18,526
21,365
17,462
17,312
20,209
20,743
15,517
0
24,934
57,056
13,148
17,329
17,836
15,185
21,288
20,345
17,955
16,814
16,462
17,416
17,100
21,308
18,665
16,723
17,257
15,550
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
7,672,826
7,689,203
7,705,911
7,722,855
7,742,020
7,758,796
7,778,764
7,797,612
7,816,138
7,837,503
7,854,965
7,872,277
7,892,486
7,913,229
7,928,746
0
24,934
81,990
95,138
112,467
130,303
145,488
166,776
187,121
205,076
183,590
200,052
217,468
234,568
255,876
274,541
291 ,264
308,521
324,071
Cumulative
Bed
Volume
Treated
12,068
12,094
12,120
12,147
12,177
12,203
12,235
12,264
12,293
12,327
12,354
12,382
12,413
12,446
12,471
NA
39
129
150
177
205
229
262
294
323
289
315
342
369
402
432
458
485
510
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
15.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
15.0
11.0
12.0
15.0
12.0
12.0
16.0
7.0
10.0
9.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
16.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
13.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
12.0
13.0
16.0
12.0
12.0
16.0
8.0
10.0
9.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
Ap
psi
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
14.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
11.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
9.0
10.0
13.0
10.0
10.0
14.0
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Outlet
Pressure
psi
15.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Ap
psi
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 13 of 19)
Week
No.
64
65
66
67
68
69
Date
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
02/13/06
02/14/06
02/15/06
02/16/06
02/17/06
02/18/06
02/19/06
02/20/06
02/21/06
02/22/06
02/23/06
02/01/06
02/25/06
02/26/06
02/27/06
02/28/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
03/05/06
03/06/06
03/07/06
03/08/06
03/09/06
03/10/06
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
19.3
16.4
16.9
24.0
24.1
18.1
8.9
17.7
13.9
15.8
13.8
21.8
5.2
6.4
7.6
7.6
8.3
10.6
8.8
6.4
7.8
7.2
8.0
6.4
6.6
6.4
6.2
17.5
7.6
8.7
6.5
6.8
7.2
7.7
8.0
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
188.3
204.7
221.6
245.6
269.7
287.8
296.8
314.5
328.4
344.2
358.0
379.7
384.9
391.3
398.9
406.5
414.8
425.4
434.2
440.6
448.4
455.6
463.6
470.0
476.6
483.0
489.2
506.7
514.3
523.0
529.5
536.3
543.5
551.2
559.2
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
15.7
15.8
16.3
15.6
15.5
15.9
25.1
18.6
18.6
18.4
19.5
17.4
44.3
46.2
46.4
42.1
40.8
33.2
35.5
44.5
44.9
46.6
40.5
43.7
46.3
46.7
46.9
47.1
39.1
42.7
41.4
46.5
46.2
42.7
38.6
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
9,884,087
9,901,010
9,918,375
9,941,205
9,963,640
9,981,527
9,996,989
10,019,581
10,037,467
10,056,718
10,073,539
10,098,715
10,114,551
10,129,508
10,147,143
10,165,028
10,184,108
10,207,974
10,227,475
10,241,570
10,259,229
10,275,879
10,294,714
10,309,696
10,325,200
10,340,418
10,355,574
10,398,903
10,417,967
10,438,264
10,453,938
10,469,660
10,486,726
10,505,205
10,524,113
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
20,505
16,923
17,365
22,830
22,435
17,887
15,462
22,592
17,886
19,251
16,821
25,176
15,836
14,957
17,635
17,885
19,080
23,866
19,501
14,095
17,659
16,650
18,835
14,982
15,504
15,218
15,156
43,329
19,064
20,297
15,674
15,722
17,066
18,479
18,908
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
344,576
361,499
378,864
401,694
424,129
442,016
457,478
480,070
497,956
517,207
534,028
559,204
575,040
589,997
607,632
625,517
644,597
668,463
687,964
702,059
719,718
736,368
755,203
770,185
785,689
800,907
816,063
859,392
878,456
898,753
914,427
930,149
947,215
965,694
984,602
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
542
569
596
632
667
695
720
755
783
813
840
880
904
928
956
984
1,014
1,051
1,082
1,104
1,132
1,158
1,188
1,211
1,236
1,260
1,284
1,352
1,382
1,414
1,438
1,463
1,490
1,519
1,549
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
7.0
7.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
9.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
9.0
11.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
7.0
7.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
9.0
11.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
Ap
psi
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Outlet
Pressure
psi
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Ap
psi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 14 of 19)
Week
No.
69
70
71
72
73
74
Date
03/11/06
03/12/06
03/13/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
03/16/06
03/17/06
03/18/06
03/19/06
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
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
8.9
7.9
6.8
7.7
7.1
7.9
7.4
8.7
9.3
8.4
8.1
7.4
7.1
7.4
8.3
8.8
8.2
9.1
7.0
7.0
7.4
8.2
8.4
8.9
7.7
7.9
8.5
8.0
8.2
9.7
8.5
8.2
7.7
8.2
11.1
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
568.1
576.0
582.8
590.5
597.6
605.5
612.9
621.6
630.9
639.3
647.4
654.8
661.9
669.3
677.6
686.4
694.6
703.7
710.7
717.7
725.1
733.3
741.7
750.6
758.3
766.2
774.7
782.7
790.9
800.6
809.1
817.3
825.0
833.2
844.3
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
39.1
42.6
46.6
46.2
46.2
46.9
45.0
45.1
44.6
46.4
41.5
43.2
46.3
46.5
45.1
44.3
46.0
39.1
43.6
46.7
47.0
45.4
44.2
45.1
45.4
45.9
42.3
43.6
44.7
43.3
45.7
46.4
45.9
45.9
0.0
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
10,544,576
10,562,610
10,578,248
10,595,977
10,612,699
10,630,903
10,648,137
10,667,874
10,688,460
10,706,884
10,725,499
10,742,458
10,758,641
10,775,745
10,794,761
10,814,462
10,832,594
10,853,226
10,869,001
10,884,983
10,902,161
10,920,875
10,939,719
10,959,143
10,976,440
10,994,306
11,013,655
11,031,576
11,050,223
11,071,452
11,089,885
11,108,037
11,125,369
11,143,691
11,168,353
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
20,463
18,034
15,638
17,729
16,722
18,204
17,234
19,737
20,586
18,424
18,615
16,959
16,183
17,104
19,016
19,701
18,132
20,632
15,775
15,982
17,178
18,714
18,844
19,424
17,297
17,866
19,349
17,921
18,647
21,229
18,433
18,152
17,332
18,322
24,662
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
1,005,065
1,023,099
1,038,737
1,056,466
1,073,188
1,091,392
1,108,626
1,128,363
1,148,949
1,167,373
1,185,988
1,202,947
1,219,130
1,236,234
1,255,250
1,274,951
1,293,083
1,313,715
1,329,490
1,345,472
1,362,650
1,381,364
1,400,208
1,419,632
1,436,929
1,454,795
1,474,144
1,492,065
1,510,712
1,531,941
1,550,374
1,568,526
1,585,858
1,604,180
1,628,842
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
1,581
1,609
1,634
1,662
1,688
1,717
1,744
1,775
1,807
1,836
1,865
1,892
1,917
1,944
1,974
2,005
2,034
2,066
2,091
2,116
2,143
2,173
2,202
2,233
2,260
2,288
2,319
2,347
2,376
2,409
2,438
2,467
2,494
2,523
2,562
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
9.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
12.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
2.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
9.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
10.0
11.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
4.0
Ap
psi
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-2.0
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Outlet
Pressure
psi
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Ap
psi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 15 of 19)
Week
No.
74
75
76
77
78
79
Date
04/15/06(a)
04/16/06
04/17/06
04/18/06
04/19/06
04/20/06
04/21/06
04/22/06
04/23/06
04/24/06
04/25/06
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
05/07/06
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
05/17/06
05/18/06
05/19/06
05/20/06
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
6.5
24.3
7.9
7.4
10.3
8.9
10.1
11.7
7.1
6.9
7.8
17.9
5.5
8.9
9.7
8.5
8.8
19.3
16.3
19.3
34.7
23.9
19.5
20.3
19.0
19.4
14.3
19.5
24.3
17.8
17.2
17.7
15.3
15.3
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
6.5
30.8
38.7
46.1
56.4
65.3
75.4
87.1
94.2
101.1
108.9
126.8
132.3
141.2
150.9
159.4
168.2
187.5
203.8
223.1
257.8
281.7
301.2
321.5
340.5
359.9
374.2
393.7
418.0
435.8
453.0
470.7
486.0
501.3
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
31.8
24.7
31.6
45.1
42.0
41.4
38.1
32.4
39.4
46.1
39.2
35.6
45.2
38.3
33.7
45.3
23.4
17.0
17.2
16.8
17.5
16.3
16.9
16.6
16.9
17.2
17.5
17.4
16.4
16.8
16.7
17.0
17.3
17.6
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
11,183,597
11,223,128
11,239,763
11,255,498
11,277,148
11,296,163
11,317,781
11,342,446
11,357,219
11,372,314
11,390,462
11,430,122
11,443,036
11,463,428
11,484,616
11,502,252
11,521,574
11,543,488
11,561,408
11,582,091
11,619,603
11,643,733
11,664,171
11,685,223
11,705,209
11,725,666
11,741,268
11,761,992
11,785,803
11,804,713
11,823,159
11,842,236
11,858,936
11,875,786
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
15,244
39,531
16,635
15,735
21,650
19,015
21,618
24,665
14,773
15,095
18,148
39,660
12,914
20,392
21,188
17,636
19,322
21,914
17,920
20,683
37,512
24,130
20,438
21,052
19,986
20,457
15,602
20,724
23,811
18,910
18,446
19,077
16,700
16,850
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
0
39,531
56,166
71,901
93,551
112,566
134,184
158,849
173,622
188,717
206,865
246,525
259,439
279,831
301,019
318,655
337,977
359,891
377,811
398,494
436,006
460,136
480,574
501,626
521,612
542,069
557,671
578,395
602,206
621,116
639,562
658,639
675,339
692,189
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
0
62
88
113
147
177
211
250
273
297
325
388
408
440
473
501
532
566
594
627
686
724
756
789
820
853
877
910
947
977
1,006
1,036
1,062
1,089
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Outlet
Pressure
psi
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Ap
psi
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
4.0
4.0
5.0
10.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
7.0
7.0
10.0
7.0
6.0
10.0
7.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
7.0
6.0
6.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
7.0
10.0
12.0
9.0
9.0
12.0
9.0
7.0
12.0
8.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Ap
psi
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-3.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 16 of 19)
Week
No.
79
80
81
82
83
84
Date
05/21/06
05/22/06
05/23/06
05/24/06
05/25/06
05/26/06
05/27/06
05/28/06
05/29/06
05/30/06
05/31/06
06/01/06
06/02/06
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
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
19.4
24.7
16.9
19.3
18.1
23.8
16.0
22.0
24.3
23.5
14.3
23.5
20.3
23.9
17.6
23.8
20.6
19.4
19.6
19.6
19.3
22.2
23.8
22.0
25.5
18.4
22.7
26.5
19.3
9.7
9.6
23.7
22.4
25.2
24.6
17.5
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
520.7
545.4
562.3
581.6
599.7
623.5
639.5
661.5
685.8
709.3
723.6
747.1
767.4
791.3
808.9
832.7
853.3
872.7
892.3
911.9
931.2
953.4
977.2
999.2
1,024.7
1,043.1
1,065.8
1,092.3
1,111.6
1,121.3
1,130.9
1,154.6
1,177.0
1,202.2
1,226.8
1,244.3
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
17.4
16.3
16.7
16.8
16.8
16.2
16.9
16.5
36.5
25.4
22.6
15.4
15.7
15.4
16.6
15.5
16.4
16.4
16.0
16.1
16.5
15.7
15.7
15.3
15.6
16.1
15.8
36.6
25.1
38.9
22.7
16.5
16.2
16.1
15.9
16.8
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
11,896,557
11,921,349
11,939,347
11,959,524
11,978,697
12,002,196
12,019,439
12,041,117
12,065,109
12,103,567
12,127,391
12,149,796
12,169,328
12,196,641
12,209,190
12,231,852
12,252,145
12,270,813
12,290,642
12,310,379
12,330,192
12,351,616
12,374,318
12,395,012
12,418,740
12,437,091
12,458,093
12,483,286
12,516,674
12,535,387
12,554,389
12,578,821
12,600,646
12,624,992
12,648,649
12,666,742
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
20,771
24,792
17,998
20,177
19,173
23,499
17,243
21,678
23,992
38,458
23,824
22,405
19,532
27,313
12,549
22,662
20,293
18,668
19,829
19,737
19,813
21,424
22,702
20,694
23,728
18,351
21,002
25,193
33,388
18,713
19,002
24,432
21,825
24,346
23,657
18,093
Cumulative
Flow Totalizer
gal
712,960
737,752
755,750
775,927
795,100
818,599
835,842
857,520
881,512
919,970
943,794
966,199
985,731
1,013,044
1,025,593
1,048,255
1,068,548
1,087,216
1,107,045
1,126,782
1,146,595
1,168,019
1,190,721
1,211,415
1,235,143
1,253,494
1,274,496
1,299,689
1,333,077
1,351,790
1,370,792
1,395,224
1,417,049
1,441,395
1,465,052
1,483,145
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
1,121
1,160
1,189
1,220
1,251
1,288
1,315
1,349
1,386
1,447
1,484
1,520
1,550
1,593
1,613
1,649
1,681
1,710
1,741
1,772
1,803
1,837
1,873
1,905
1,943
1,972
2,005
2,044
2,097
2,126
2,156
2,194
2,229
2,267
2,304
2,333
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Outlet
Pressure
psi
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Ap
psi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Ap
psi
-3.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-2.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
Os
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 17 of 19)
Week
No.
85
86
87
88
89
Date
06/26/06
06/27/06
06/28/06
06/29/06
06/30/06
07/01/06
07/02/06
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
07/17/06
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
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
23.8
24.2
18.5
24.1
23.9
16.1
24.0
23.8
19.3
9.9
13.4
10.8
14.1
11.4
13.8
11.7
11.8
9.1
10.4
13.4
10.7
10.9
16.2
23.9
12.7
13.5
10.9
10.4
9.3
9.7
17.3
14.0
11.9
10.3
10.5
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
1,268.1
1,292.3
1,310.8
1,334.9
1,358.8
1,374.9
1,398.9
1,422.7
1,442.0
1,451.9
1,465.3
1,476.1
1,490.2
1,501.6
1,515.4
1,527.1
1,538.9
1,548.0
1,558.4
1,571.8
1,582.5
1,593.4
1,609.6
1,633.5
1,646.2
1,659.7
1,670.6
1,681.0
1,690.3
1,700.0
1,717.3
1,731.3
1,743.2
1,753.5
1,764.0
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
16.0
15.3
15.5
15.5
15.9
16.1
15.8
15.2
15.8
40.1
35.8
39.7
25.5
33.3
41.2
41.4
41.5
43.0
39.2
34.6
38.0
40.7
37.2
21.6
38.2
27.2
39.5
37.6
41.4
41.6
31.1
37.4
40.7
40.3
38.6
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
12,690,253
12,713,156
12,731,200
12,753,633
12,775,605
12,791,747
12,814,291
12,836,261
12,854,900
12,877,991
12,902,703
12,923,321
12,948,697
12,969,247
12,992,936
13,014,988
13,036,794
13,054,972
13,076,081
13,101,178
13,121,417
13,141,839
13,169,951
13,204,150
13,224,882
13,249,139
13,268,962
13,288,506
13,306,411
13,325,368
13,355,677
13,379,452
13,400,353
13,419,737
13,439,863
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
23,511
22,903
18,044
22,433
21,972
16,142
22,544
21,970
18,639
23,091
24,712
20,618
25,376
20,550
23,689
22,052
21,806
18,178
21,109
25,097
20,239
20,422
28,112
34,199
20,732
24,257
19,823
19,544
17,905
18,957
30,309
23,775
20,901
19,384
20,126
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
1,506,656
1,529,559
1,547,603
1,570,036
1,592,008
1,608,150
1,630,694
1,652,664
1,671,303
1,694,394
1,719,106
1,739,724
1,765,100
1,785,650
1,809,339
1,831,391
1,853,197
1,871,375
1,892,484
1,917,581
1,937,820
1,958,242
1,986,354
2,020,553
2,041,285
2,065,542
2,085,365
2,104,909
2,122,814
2,141,771
2,172,080
2,195,855
2,216,756
2,236,140
2,256,266
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
2,370
2,406
2,434
2,469
2,504
2,529
2,565
2,599
2,629
2,665
2,704
2,736
2,776
2,809
2,846
2,880
2,915
2,943
2,977
3,016
3,048
3,080
3,124
3,178
3,211
3,249
3,280
3,311
3,339
3,369
3,416
3,454
3,487
3,517
3,549
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Outlet
Pressure
psi
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Ap
psi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
9.0
7.0
9.0
4.0
6.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
8.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
7.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
10.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
6.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
7.0
10.0
8.0
10.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
9.0
6.0
11.0
7.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
8.0
11.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
Ap
psi
-3.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 18 of 19)
Week
No.
90
91
92
93
94
Date
07/31/06
08/01/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
08/04/06
08/05/06
08/06/06
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
08/17/06
08/18/06
08/19/06
08/20/06
08/21/06
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
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
12.5
15.3
10.5
10.3
10.0
14.2
13.5
11.8
12.1
14.9
11.9
19.3
17.8
13.0
17.9
18.8
15.2
15.8
15.3
15.7
12.1
8.5
74.3
10.8
14.4
16.6
12.6
11.8
12.0
11.4
11.0
12.4
10.4
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
1,776.5
1,791.8
1,802.3
1,812.6
1,822.6
1,836.8
1,850.3
1,862.1
1,874.2
1,889.1
1,901.0
1,920.3
1,938.1
1,951.1
1,969.0
1,987.8
2,003.0
2,018.8
2,034.1
2,049.8
2,061.9
2,070.4
2,144.7
2,155.5
2,169.9
2,186.5
2,199.1
2,210.9
2,222.9
2,234.3
2,245.3
2,257.7
2,268.1
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
40.3
36.9
40.8
40.9
41.1
36.8
24.0
40.3
40.5
36.3
38.5
38.6
23.2
24.1
22.0
31.6
22.3
38.6
35.1
22.9
23.3
39.3
20.1
26.8
22.7
25.9
39.1
39.8
38.0
40.6
38.6
39.8
37.1
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
13,462,543
13,488,847
13,508,192
13,527,787
13,546,993
13,572,736
13,596,605
13,615,628
13,637,169
13,662,825
13,683,597
13,712,502
13,740,803
13,762,174
13,788,724
13,815,691
13,839,652
13,862,463
13,886,960
13,912,365
13,933,294
13,947,875
14,043,021
14,060,642
14,083,109
14,107,770
14,128,660
14,148,669
14,169,402
14,189,830
14,209,982
14,232,291
14,251,870
Daily Flow
Totalizer
gal
22,680
26,304
19,345
19,595
19,206
25,743
23,869
19,023
21,541
25,656
20,772
28,905
28,301
21,371
26,550
26,967
23,961
22,811
24,497
25,405
20,929
14,581
95,146
17,621
22,467
24,661
20,890
20,009
20,733
20,428
20,152
22,309
19,579
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
2,278,946
2,305,250
2,324,595
2,344,190
2,363,396
2,389,139
2,413,008
2,432,031
2,453,572
2,479,228
2,500,000
2,528,905
2,557,206
2,578,577
2,605,127
2,632,094
2,656,055
2,678,866
2,703,363
2,728,768
2,749,697
2,764,278
2,859,424
2,877,045
2,899,512
2,924,173
2,945,063
2,965,072
2,985,805
3,006,233
3,026,385
3,048,694
3,068,273
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
3,584
3,626
3,656
3,687
3,717
3,758
3,795
3,825
3,859
3,899
3,932
3,978
4,022
4,056
4,097
4,140
4,178
4,213
4,252
4,292
4,325
4,348
4,497
4,525
4,560
4,599
4,632
4,664
4,696
4,728
4,760
4,795
4,826
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Outlet
Pressure
psi
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Ap
psi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
11.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
4.0
12.0
12.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
7.0
4.0
11.0
9.0
4.0
4.0
11.0
4.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
13.0
11.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
11.0
6.0
13.0
13.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
9.0
5.0
12.0
10.0
6.0
6.0
13.0
5.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
13.0
11.0
Ap
psi
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bow, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 19 of 19)
Week
No.
95
96
97
98
Date
09/04/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
09/07/06
09/08/06
09/09/06
09/10/06
09/11/06
09/12/06
09/13/06
09/14/06
09/15/06
09/16/06
09/17/06
09/18/06
09/19/06
09/20/06
09/21/06
09/22/06
09/23/06
09/24/06
09/25/06
09/26/06
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
11.8
11.4
10.2
10.2
12.2
15.0
13.8
12.3
10.4
22.2
23.8
24.8
23.3
23.3
24.8
19.6
25.1
23.2
24.9
23.1
24.7
23.9
22.6
Cumulative
Operation
Time
hr
2,279.9
2,291.3
2,301.5
2,311.7
2,323.9
2,338.9
2,352.7
2,365.0
2,375.4
2,397.6
2,421.4
2,446.2
2,469.5
2,492.8
2,517.6
2,537.1
2,562.2
2,585.4
2,610.3
2,633.4
2,658.1
2,682.0
2,704.6
Outlet Magnetic Meter
Outlet
Flowrate
gpm
37.3
38.9
41.1
41.6
40.4
24.1
39.7
39.7
18.5
13.3
13.2
13.2
13.2
24.8
18.4
12.3
13.0
13.0
13.2
13.6
19.3
19.1
11.9
Outlet
Totalizer
gal
14,273,572
14,293,943
14,312,811
14,332,192
14,354,769
14,381,015
14,403,247
14,424,725
14,444,531
14,462,666
14,481,832
14,501,733
14,520,451
14,539,252
14,568,241
14,591,036
14,610,346
14,628,605
14,648,444
14,666,924
14,687,107
14,716,300
14,741,934
Daily
Flow
Totalizer
gal
21,702
20,371
18,868
19,381
22,577
26,246
22,232
21,478
19,806
18,135
19,166
19,901
18,718
18,801
28,989
22,795
19,310
18,259
19,839
18,480
20,183
29,193
25,634
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
3,089,975
3,110,346
3,129,214
3,148,595
3,171,172
3,197,418
3,219,650
3,241,128
3,260,934
3,279,069
3,298,235
3,318,136
3,336,854
3,355,655
3,384,644
3,407,439
3,426,749
3,445,008
3,464,847
3,483,327
3,503,510
3,532,703
3,558,337
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
4,860
4,892
4,922
4,952
4,988
5,029
5,064
5,098
5,129
5,157
5,188
5,219
5,248
5,278
5,323
5,359
5,390
5,418
5,450
5,479
5,510
5,556
5,597
Vessel A
Inlet
Pressure
psi
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Outlet
Pressure
psi
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
Ap
psi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vessel B
Inlet
Pressure
psi
10.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
4.0
12.0
12.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
11.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
5.0
13.0
14.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
Ap
psi
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
NA = Not Available
Note: 1 bed volume = 85 ft3 or 636 gal in one vessel
(a) Totalizer replaced on January 4, 2005.
(b) Treatment system bypassed between November 28, 2005 and January 13, 2006.
(c) Media replaced on January 11, 1006 and Vessel A put into operation on January 13,
(d) Switched so Vessel B only in operation on April 15, 2006.
2006.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaC03)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
103
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
Hg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
10/13/04(a)(b)
IN
-
55
0.7
1.0
<0.05
18.8
24.0
0.7
7.7
12.3
5.5
198
-
-
163.3
125.5
37.8
91.3/
89.5
50.5/
46.9
40.8/
42.6
0.7
49.8/
46.2
<25/
<25
<25
1.8/
1.2
0.4/
0.6
AP
-
55
0.7
0.5
<0.05
19.1
26.0
0.1
7.8
12.7
2.9
190
0.2
0.1
128.4
99.1
29.3
96. 1/
90.2
52.3/
47.8
43. 8/
42.4
0.6
51.7/
47.2
60/
56
<25
1.11
4.6
0.3/
0.5
TA
TB
0
57
1.1
1.3
<0.05
50.8
12.0
0.2
7.9
12.9
4.1
183
0.1
0.1
166.6
122.2
44.4
37. 5/
34.4
25.31
23.3
12.21
11.1
0.8
24.51
22.5
<25
<25
19.3/
19.1
9.0/
10.4
59
0.8
1.4
<0.0!
61.8
9.6
0.2
8.0
13.0
4.0
173
0.1
0.1
86.8
41.4
45.4
17.1/
16.7
14.3/
14.6
2.8/
2.1
1.1
13.2/
13.5
39/
38
<25
5. 1/
6.0
4. 1/
4.9
10/19/04
IN
-
61
-
-
<0.05
19.4
-
0.7
6.8
11.7
5.8
234
-
-
-
-
-
49.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
AP
-
41
-
-
<0.05
19.8
-
0.5
6.8
11.7
3.6
233
0.7
0.4
-
-
-
50.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
TA
TB
0.2
55
-
-
<0.05
39.1
-
0.4
7.0
11.7
3.8
227
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
30.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
12.0
-
55
-
-
<0.05
54.2
-
0.5
7.1
11.8
4.3
231
0.6
0.5
-
-
-
21.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.1
-
10/26/04
IN
-
57
-
-
<0.05
19.5
-
0.4
7.1
12.1
5.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
52.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
AP
-
43
-
-
<0.05
19.4
-
0.2
6.9
11.9
3.9
-
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
52.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
TA
TB
0.4
45
-
-
<0.05
28.5
-
<0.1
7.1
11.8
3.6
-
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
14.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
27.0
-
46
-
-
<0.05
36.8
-
<0.1
6.9
11.7
4.5
-
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
5.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
31.5
-
11/02/04
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
Total Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
ll/16/04(a)
IN
-
254
-
-
<0.05
18.9
-
0.3
7.4
11.9
5.7
218
-
-
-
-
-
44.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
AP
46
-
-
<0.05
19.5
-
0.4
6.9
11.8
4.4
219
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
44.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TA
TB
1.0
43
-
-
<0.05
26.4
-
0.3
6.8
11.7
4.5
221
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
14.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
12.5
-
45
-
-
<0.05
33.0
-
0.3
6.8
11.5
4.4
222
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
3.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
28.3
-
11/30/04
IN
-
61
-
-
<0.05
19.4
-
1.1
7.4
11.8
4.7
208
-
-
-
-
-
42.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
AP
-
41
-
-
<0.05
19.6
-
0.3
6.7
11.9
4.7
524
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
43.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
TA
TB
1.5
41
-
-
<0.05
24.8
-
0.1
6.7
11.7
4.7
542
0.1
0.2
-
-
-
13.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
5.2
-
41
-
-
<0.05
30.9
-
0.4
6.7
11.5
4.7
450
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
3.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
15.3
-
12/14/041"'
IN
-
67
1.1
0.2
<0.05
19.2
ll.O/
11.1
0.5
7.4
11.5
5.6
211
-
-
92.1
72.3
19.8
52.3
52.6
<0.1
0.6
52.0
<25
<25
1.2
0.4
AP
-
31
1.0
0.1
<0.05
19.4
39.0/
46.7
0.2
6.5
11.6
4.6
548
0.2
0.2
98.7
77.5
21.2
55.2
55.7
<0.1
0.6
55.1
<25
<25
0.6
0.4
TA
TB
1.9
31
0.8
0.2
<0.05
25.0
39.0/
45.7
0.3
6.4
11.5
4.4
554
0.1
0.1
93.5
72.6
20.9
15.6
15.5
0.1
0.7
14.8
<25
<25
5.0
4.8
31
0.7
0.2
<0.05
28.4
39.0/
46.6
0.4
6.4
11.5
4.5
553
0.1
0.1
101.8
79.2
22.6
50.9/
50.8
3.6
47.3
0.6
3.0
<25/
<25
<25
13.3/
12.8
12.5
01/04/05(c)
IN
-
66
65
-
-
20.4
20.0
-
0.3
0.2
7.4
11.8
6.8
498
-
-
-
-
-
38.4
38.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.9
0.8
-
AP
-
28
29
-
-
20.6
19.9
-
0.1
0.2
6.4
11.8
4.7
484
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
38.7
38.9
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.8
0.8
-
TA
TB
2.5
31
31
-
-
23.2
22.9
-
0.2
0.6
6.4
11.9
4.5
553
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
13.0
12.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
2.3
2.4
-
31
31
-
-
26.6
26.2
-
0.2
0.4
6.4
12.1
4.7
558
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
1.7
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
5.2
5.3
-
(a) Began bi-weekly sampling instead of weekly sampling.
(b) Samples re-run with original result/re-run result.
(c) Duplicate sampling week.
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
01/18/05
IN
-
66
-
-
19.7
-
0.5
7.5
12.4
6.0
238
-
-
-
-
-
46.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
AP
-
35
-
-
20.1
-
<0.1
6.5
12.6
4.5
207
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
46.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
TA
TB
2.9
33
-
-
22.7
-
<0.1
6.4
12.3
4.0
548
0.2
0.3
-
-
-
15.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.0
-
35
-
-
25.3
-
<0.1
6.4
12.3
3.9
584
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
2.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.8
-
02/01/05
IN
-
69
0.9
0.22
18.7
11.0
<0.1
7.4
11.5
6.6
211
-
-
84.0
65.9
18.1
54.1
54.6
<0.1
0.5
54.1
<25
<25
0.5
0.5
AP
-
43
1.0
0.19
18.5
47.0
<0.1
6.5
11.6
5.6
587
0.2
0.2
81.5
64.0
17.5
54.5
54.4
0.1
0.5
53.9
<25
<25
3.3
0.5
TA
TB
3.4
37
0.7
0.23
21.1
48.0
<0.1
6.4
11.4
5.3
591
0.2
0.2
85.0
66.6
18.4
24.4
24.8
<0.1
0.4
24.4
<25
<25
1.1
1.2
41
0.3
0.24
24.9
48.0
<0.1
6.5
11.2
5.4
586
0.2
0.2
89.6
70.0
19.6
5.0
5.0
<0.1
0.4
4.6
<25
<25
1.5
1.3
02/15/05
IN
-
69
-
-
20.0
-
<0.1
7.4
11.5
-
212
-
-
-
-
-
45.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
AP
-
45
-
-
20.1
-
<0.1
6.4
11.5
-
580
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
46.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
TA
TB
3.8
36
-
-
22.9
-
<0.1
6.3
11.5
-
594
0.3
0.2
-
-
-
17.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.4
-
38
-
-
24.9
-
<0.1
6.3
11.2
-
595
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
3.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.4
-
03/01/05
IN
-
120
-
-
19.7
-
<0.1
7.3
11.9
5.1
195
-
-
-
-
-
49.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
AP
-
61
-
-
19.9
-
<0.1
6.5
12.0
3.9
607
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
49.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.9
-
TA
TB
4.3
62
-
-
22.0
-
<0.1
6.4
11.8
3.9
610
0.5
0.4
-
-
-
22.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
68
-
-
23.9
-
<0.1
6.4
11.5
3.9
608
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
3.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
Total Hardness (as
CaC03)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
103
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
Hg/L
Hg/L
re/L
re/L
^g/L
re/L
^g/L
re/L
Hg/L
03/15/05
IN
-
77
69
-
-
21.4
20.3
-
<0.1
<0.1
7.4
11.9
-
213
-
-
-
-
-
48.1
47.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
2.0
1.9
-
AP
-
35
39
-
-
21.4
20.8
-
<0.1
<0.1
6.6
11.9
-
608
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
46.9
47.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
1.9
1.8
-
TA
TB
4.8
37
37
-
-
23.9
22.7
-
<0.1
<0.1
6.3
11.7
-
606
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
23.0
23.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.6
0.5
-
38
37
-
-
24.4
24.3
-
<0.1
<0.1
6.3
11.6
-
608
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
6.9
6.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.3
0.3
-
03/29/05(a)(b)
IN
-
66
0.9
0.2
19.8
11.0
<0.1
7.4
11.7
5.3
212
-
-
95.4
75.8
19.6
48.9
48.2
0.7
0.7
47.5
<25
<25
1.2
1.2
AP
-
33
1.0
0.2
19.7
51.0
<0.1
6.1
11.5
4.3
577
0.4
0.4
93.4
72.7
20.7
50.0
49.7
0.3
0.6
49.1
<25
<25
0.9
1.0
TA
TB
5.2
29
0.9
0.2
21.4
48.0
<0.1
6.1
11.4
4.7
590
0.4
0.3
101.4
77.2
24.2
21.0
20.8
0.2
0.6
20.2
<25
<25
1.2
1.4
28
0.8
0.3
23.5
46.0
0.3
6.1
11.4
4.4
594
0.3
0.3
98.5
75.7
22.8
5.5
5.5
<0.1
0.7
4.8
<25
<25
1.5
1.4
04/12/05
IN
-
67
-
-
20.7
-
<0.1
7.3
11.7
4.8
192
-
-
-
-
-
42.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
AP
-
28
-
-
20.1
-
0.1
6.1
11.6
3.9
560
0.4
0.3
-
-
-
41.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
TA
TB
5.7
44
-
-
23.0
-
<0.1
6.4
11.7
4.8
577
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
26.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
42
-
-
25.1
-
<0.1
6.5
11.5
4.6
578
0.4
0.3
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
04/26/05
IN
-
72
-
-
20.6
-
<0.1
7.2
12.0
5.5
207
-
-
-
-
-
48.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.9
-
AP
-
56
-
-
20.2
-
<0.1
6.6
11.9
4.2
576
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
48.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
TA
TB
6.1
50
-
-
22
-
<0.1
6.6
11.8
3.6
585
0.5
0.4
-
-
-
31.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
44
-
-
23.9
-
<0.1
6.6
11.8
3.4
589
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
11.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
(a) On-site water quality parameters measured on March 28, 2005.
(b) For AP location, because water not filtered into bottle B, it had to be re-filled with filtered water. The initial content of bottle B including preservative discarded.
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
103
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
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
re/L
re/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
05/10/05
IN
-
72
0.9
0.2
19.8
11
0.7
7.3
12.1
3.9
198
-
-
87.0
67.5
19.5
48.8
48.4
0.4
0.4
48.0
<25
<25
0.5
0.5
AP
-
46
1.0
0.2
20.2
29
0.3
6.7
12.1
3.4
577
0.5
0.5
84.0
65.1
18.9
47.7
47.7
<0.1
0.4
47.3
<25
<25
0.6
0.5
TA
TB
6.6
46
0.8
0.3
21.5
31
<0.1
6.6
12.0
3.5
544
0.4
0.4
89.8
68.8
20.9
31.3
31.3
<0.1
0.3
31.0
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
46
0.8
0.3
22.7
31
0.3
6.6
11.8
3.3
523
0.1
0.1
92.5
72.2
20.3
13.5
13.3
0.2
0.3
13.0
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
05/24/05
IN
-
72
-
-
19.9
-
0.3
6.9
11.3
4.5
195
-
-
-
-
-
45.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
AP
-
46
-
-
19.7
-
0.4
6.5
12.0
3.2
471
0.5
0.4
-
-
-
45.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
TA
TB
7.0
45
-
-
21.1
-
<0.1
6.4
11.9
3.3
491
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
32.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
45
-
-
22.8
-
0.1
6.4
11.8
3.6
484
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
16.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
06/07/05
IN
-
69
69
-
-
19.7
20.0
-
<0.1
0.2
7.2
12.9
4.7
198
-
-
-
-
-
46.3
46.5
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
1.9
1.9
-
AP
-
42
42
-
-
19.9
20.0
-
0.2
0.1
6.5
12.7
2.8
521
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
46.7
46.3
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
2.1
1.7
-
TA
TB
7.5
41
41
-
-
22.1
21.8
-
<0.1
<0.1
6.4
12.6
3.9
481
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
30.9
31.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.3
0.2
-
41
41
-
-
22.8
23.1
-
<0.1
0.2
6.4
12.6
3.4
517
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
19.7
19.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
-
06/21/05
IN
-
66
-
-
19.9
-
0.2
7.1
12.4
-
182
-
-
-
-
-
47.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.3
-
AP
-
42
-
-
21.1
-
0.2
6.3
12.4
-
542
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
33.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
TA
TB
8.0
42
-
-
21.0
-
0.1
6.2
12.4
-
515
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
32.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
42
-
-
21.9
-
<0.1
6.3
12.3
-
535
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
19.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
103
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
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
re/L
re/L
07/05/05
IN
-
66
0.8
0.3
19.5
12
<0.1
6.8
12.3
-
174
-
-
100
76.6
23.7
42.7
48.1
<0.1
0.7
47.5
<25
<25
0.8
0.6
AP
-
44
0.8
0.3
19.8
34
<0.1
6.2
12.2
-
568
0.4
0.3
99.3
76.9
22.4
43.1
45.6
<0.1
0.7
44.9
<25
<25
0.9
0.6
TA
TB
8.4
44
0.8
0.3
20.9
34
<0.1
6.2
12.2
-
584
0.3
0.4
102.0
79.1
22.5
31.5
32.9
<0.1
0.6
32.3
<25
<25
0.4
0.3
44
0.8
0.3
22.0
33
0.2
6.2
12.3
-
587
0.4
0.3
97.8
75.2
22.5
18.0
19.7
<0.1
0.8
18.9
<25
<25
0.4
0.3
07/19/05
IN
-
63
-
-
19.1
-
<0.1
7.1
12.5
-
190
-
-
-
-
-
42.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
AP
-
39
-
-
19.4
-
<0.1
6.9
12.5
-
553
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
42.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
TA
TB
8.7
39
-
-
20.7
-
<0.1
6.2
12.6
-
565
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
29.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
39
-
-
21.9
-
<0.1
6.2
12.7
-
569
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
21.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
08/02/05
IN
-
62
-
-
-
-
-
6.7
12.4
4.8
196
-
-
-
-
-
40.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
AP
-
33
-
-
-
-
-
6.1
12.4
3.2
523
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
38.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
TA
TB
9.0
34
-
-
-
-
-
6.1
12.5
3.2
517
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
27.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
33
-
-
-
-
-
6.1
12.6
3.1
556
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
19.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
08/16/05
IN
-
58
-
-
-
-
-
7.1
12.8
4.1
181
-
-
-
-
-
43.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
AP
-
36
-
-
-
-
-
6.3
12.6
3.0
521
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
42.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
TA
TB
9.5
36
-
-
-
-
-
6.2
12.5
3.3
537
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
32.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
36
-
-
-
-
-
6.2
12.4
3.3
547
0.4
0.3
-
-
-
22.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Orthophosphate(as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
103
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
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
08/30/05
IN
-
66
-
-
-
-
-
11
-
7.0
12.8
4.7
172
-
-
-
-
-
45.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
AP
-
42
-
-
-
-
-
37
-
6.3
12.7
3.5
547
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
45.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
TA
TB
9.9
39
-
-
-
-
-
36
-
6.2
12.6
3.6
537
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
39.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
42
-
-
-
-
-
36
-
6.2
12.5
3.8
541
0.3
0.2
-
-
-
22.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
09/13/05
IN
-
66
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.2
12.9
5.7
182
-
-
-
-
-
43.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AP
-
44
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.3
12.9
6.4
540
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
41.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
TB
10.4
44
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.2
12.8
3.8
555
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
32.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.2
12.6
3.5
560
0.4
0.3
-
-
-
21.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
09/27/05
IN
-
66
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
11.7
4.1
186
-
-
-
-
-
50.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AP
-
46
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.7
12.3
2.7
549
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
48.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
TB
10.8
45
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.5
13.0
5.2
530
0.1
0.2
-
-
-
37.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
48
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.5
13.2
3.0
516
NA
0.1
-
-
-
32.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10/11/05
IN
-
72
0.8
0.3
0.06
<0.05
18.7
10
0.1
7.1
12.7
5.0
178
-
-
96.8
74.3
22.4
44.8
45.4
<0.1
0.4
44.9
<25
<25
0.4
0.3
AP
-
44
0.8
0.3
0.06
<0.05
18.6
27
0.2
6.5
12.6
3.3
529
0.4
0.4
98.0
75.3
22.7
46.5
46.4
<0.1
0.4
46.1
<25
<25
0.5
0.3
TA
TB
11.2
45
0.8
0.3
0.04
<0.05
19.8
27
0.2
6.5
12.5
3.7
536
0.4
0.3
97.9
74.7
23.2
38.9
38.4
0.5
0.5
38.0
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
46
0.8
0.3
<0.03
<0.05
21.9
27
0.1
6.5
12.5
3.6
545
0.3
0.4
99.4
76.3
23.1
31.3
32.1
<0.1
0.4
31.7
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Orthophosphate(as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
103
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
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
re/L
re/L
Mg/L
re/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
10/25/05
IN
-
55
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
43.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AP
-
47
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.3
-
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
43.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
TB
11.5
46
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.5
-
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
46.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
47
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.1
-
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
37.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11/08/05
IN
-
62
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
46.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AP
-
44
-
-
0.04
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.8
0.9
-
-
-
43.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
TB
11.9
42
-
-
0.04
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
35.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
42
-
-
<0.03
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
0.7
-
-
-
31.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ll/29/05(a)
IN
-
69
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.5
11.5
4.0
449
-
-
-
-
-
50.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AP
-
22
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.0
11.6
3.3
676
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
51.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
TB
-
22
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.1
11.5
3.3
703
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
28.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.1
11.5
3.4
714
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
23.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
oi/n/06^
IN
-
67
0.6
0.3
-
<0.05
19.9
12
0.6
7.2
10.7
-
414
-
-
106
83.7
22.6
41.7
41.3
0.4
0.6
40.7
<25
<25
3.7
3.3
AP
-
30
0.6
0.3
-
<0.05
20.6
42
1.0
6.4
11.2
-
648
0.6
0.5
100
78.1
21.9
43.0
43.7
<0.1
0.4
43.3
<25
<25
3.2
3.1
TA(0
TB
0.15
37
0.5
0.3
-
<0.05
39.8
42
0.5
6.6
11.3
-
688
0.5
0.4
103
78.5
24.4
17.6
18.8
<0.1
0.5
18.3
<25
<25
34.2
32.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(a) System bypassed between 11/28/05 to 01/13/06 for media rebedding.
(b) Replacement media installed on 01/11/06 and Vessel A only resumed operations on 01/13,
'06.
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Orthophosphate (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
103
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
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
01/24/06
IN
-
68
0.7
0.2
-
<0.05
19.9
10.7
0.2
7.5
12.1
3.7
448
-
-
93.9
71.7
22.1
49.9
49.4
0.5
0.7
48.7
<25
<25
1.2
1.2
AP
-
32
0.7
0.2
-
<0.05
18.9
39.3
0.3
7.4
11.6
2.9
560
0.5
0.5
94.4
71.8
22.6
49.6
50.5
<0.1
0.9
49.6
<25
<25
1.2
1.1
TA
TB
0.3
57
0.6
0.2
-
<0.05
51.2
42.0
0.2
7.3
11.5
2.7
572
0.5
0.4
109
82.0
27.3
30.6
31.2
<0.1
0.3
30.9
<25
<25
15.8
15.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
01/31/06
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Total P(asPO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
Total Hardness (as
CaC03)
Ca Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
103
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
Hg/L
Hg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
Mg/L
MS/L
Mg/L
02/21/06(a)
IN
-
63
0.7
0.3
-
20.3
12
1.6
7.4
9.7
5.5
469
-
-
95.2
73.3
21.9
41.9
43.1
<0.1
0.3
42.8
<25
<25
0.3
0.2
AP
-
29
0.8
0.2
-
20.2
43
1.3
6.4
10.1
2.8
601
0.3
0.3
93.0
72.2
20.8
46.1
44.0
2.1
0.4
43.6
<25
<25
0.3
0.2
TA
TB
1.1
29
0.7
0.3
-
29.1
43
3
6.3
10.2
3.0
585
0.3
0.3
91.8
70.5
21.3
9.7
9.9
<0.1
0.3
9.5
<25
<25
7.3
7.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
02/28/06
IN
-
265
-
-
0.1
19.0
-
0.3
7.0
9.7
2.8
472
-
-
-
-
-
46.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
AP
-
36
-
-
0.1
19.3
-
0.3
6.3
10.2
2.6
629
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
47.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
TA
TB
1.3
35
-
-
<0.03
28.7
-
0.3
6.3
10.1
2.5
652
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
11.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
6.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
03/07/06
IN
-
64
-
-
<0.03
18.7
-
0.7
7.3
10.2
4.6
478
-
-
-
-
-
46.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
AP
-
42
-
-
<0.03
18.6
-
0.4
6.5
10.6
3.0
648
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
49.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
TA
1.5
35
-
-
<0.03
27.4
-
0.7
6.4
10.6
3.7
688
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
12.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
5.8
-
03/14/06
IN
-
64
-
-
0.04
18.7
-
0.2
7.4
11.3
9.4
381
-
-
-
-
-
48.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
AP
-
36
-
-
0.04
18.5
-
0.4
6.5
11.4
4.1
550
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
49.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
TA
TB
1.7
36
-
-
<0.01
28.2
-
0.4
6.5
11.4
4.0
614
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
12.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(a) 02/14/06 all three wells operating at 40 gpm.
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Total P(asPO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
Total Hardness (as
CaC03)
Ca Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
103
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
Hg/L
Hg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
03/21/06
IN
-
63
0.8
0.3
-
19.6
11
0.3
7.3
10.8
5.2
479
-
-
99.4
76.8
22.6
47.9
49.3
<0.1
0.3
49.1
<25
<25
0.9
0.7
AP
-
38
0.8
0.3
-
20.0
35
1.1
6.5
10.8
2.3
610
0.5
0.5
101
77.8
22.9
49.5
49.1
0.4
0.3
48.8
<25
<25
1.0
0.7
TA
TB
1.9
37
0.8
0.3
-
27.5
35
1.6
6.5
11.0
3.0
630
0.4
0.5
101
77.9
22.7
13.3
13.0
0.3
0.4
12.7
<25
<25
1.5
1.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
03/28/06
IN
-
65
-
-
0.1
19.9
-
0.8
7.3
11.2
4.3
450
-
-
-
-
-
38.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
AP
-
42
-
-
0.1
19.6
-
1.3
6.5
11.3
2.8
684
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
40.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
TA
2.1
40
-
-
<0.01
27.1
-
0.8
6.5
11.1
3.2
685
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
11.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.9
-
04/04/06
IN
-
64
-
-
<0.01
19.7
-
1.5
7.3
11.2
7.9
306
-
-
-
-
-
47.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
AP
-
41
-
-
<0.01
19.9
-
1.1
6.6
11.4
4.1
354
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
48.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
TA
TB
2.3
39
-
-
<0.01
26.1
-
0.4
6.5
11.4
3.7
341
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
17.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
04/11/06
IN
-
63
-
-
<0.01
19.3
-
0.9
7.1
11.3
4.6
460
-
-
-
-
-
50.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
AP
-
40
-
-
<0.03
19.4
-
0.9
6.6
11.6
3.0
612
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
52.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
TA
TB
2.5
39
-
-
<0.01
24.7
-
1.0
6.5
11.5
3.0
666
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
15.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
Total Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
04/18/06
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Total P(asPO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
Total Hardness (asCaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
05/16/06
IN
-
88
0.7
0.4
<0.01
21
11
1.1
7.5
11.6
4.9
461
-
-
112
86.4
25.4
44.1
44.7
<0.1
0.3
44.4
<25
<25
1.0
0.6
AP
-
20
0.6
0.3
<0.01
21.1
52
0.3
6.1
11.6
3.6
7.0
0.4
0.3
115
89.2
25.9
45.3
45.2
<0.1
0.3
44.9
<25
<25
1.0
0.5
TA
TB
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25
0.5
0.4
<0.01
33.4
55
0.4
6.3
11.6
11.6
718
0.5
0.5
123
95.9
27.5
4.0
4.0
<0.1
0.3
3.7
<25
<25
6.5
6.2
05/23/06
IN
-
66
-
-
<0.01
20.0
-
0.1
7.4
11.8
3.9
445
-
-
-
-
-
49.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
AP
-
20
-
-
<0.01
19.9
-
0.3
6.4
11.8
2.5
636
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
49.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
TB
1.2
23
-
-
<0.01
29.9
-
0.2
6.4
11.7
2.0
-
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
2.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.8
-
05/30/06
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Total P(asPO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
Total Hardness (as
CaC03)
Ca Hardness (as
CaC03)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
06/13/06
IN
-
67
0.6
0.2
<0.01
21.0
10
0.2
7.4
12.8
3.1
456
-
-
97.1
77.0
20.1
49.3
47.6
1.7
0.2
47.4
<25
<25
11.5
11.4
AP
-
27
0.6
0.2
<0.01
21.2
48
0.6
6.1
12.5
1.9
730
0.7
0.7
97.4
77.5
19.9
47.5
47.5
<0.1
0.2
47.4
<25
<25
11.3
11.0
TA
TB
1.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
27
0.5
0.2
<0.01
29.1
49
0.3
6.0
12.5
1.7
728
0.6
0.6
93.1
73.9
19.2
4.1
4.0
<0.1
0.1
3.9
<25
<25
0.9
0.9
06/20/06(a'b)
IN
-
66
-
-
0.1
20.6
-
0.2
7.3
12.3
3.5
467
-
-
-
-
-
46.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
14.9
-
AP
-
21
-
-
0.1
20.7
-
0.5
6.2
12.2
2.8
598
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
44.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
13.6
-
TA
TB
2.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22
-
-
<0.01
25.9
-
0.2
6.1
12.1
2.9
609
0.2
0.3
-
-
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
10.2
-
06/27/06
IN
-
67
-
-
<0.01
20.2
-
0.3
7.4
12.7
1.8
469
-
-
-
-
-
41.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
15.0
-
AP
-
24
-
-
<0.01
19.7
-
0.3
6.1
12.7
2.1
646
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
42.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
15.3
-
TA
TB
2.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24
-
-
<0.01
25.2
-
0.3
6.0
12.6
2.1
668
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
4.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.9
-
07/05/06
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
As (total)
Fe (total)
Mn (total)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
07/11/06
IN
-
65
0.1
20.2
0.5
7.3
12.4
5.1
478
-
-
37.3
<25
9.0
AP
-
22
0.1
20.1
0.3
6.1
12.2
3.3
655
0.5
0.5
41.0
<25
9.1
TA
TB
2.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25
<0.03
24.5
1
6.1
12.1
3.2
676
0.5
0.5
8.0
<25
2.7
07/18/06
IN
-
66
0.1
18.9
0.5
7.3
12.6
43.9
466
-
-
47.7
<25
6.0
AP
-
23
0.1
18.6
0.6
6.2
12.4
3.1
657
0.6
0.6
46.7
<25
5.8
TA
TB
3.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24
<0.01
22.3
0.6
6.1
12.3
2.9
674
0.5
0.5
10.6
<25
1.1
07/25/06
IN
-
64
0.1
19.9
0.9
7.2
12.2
5.2
448
-
-
45.9
<25
3.7
AP
-
23
0.1
19.9
1.1
6.2
12.1
3.9
591
0.6
0.5
47.1
<25
3.4
TA
TB
3.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25
<0.01
23.8
1.2
6.2
12.1
3.3
632
0.4
0.5
11.1
<25
0.5
08/01/06
IN
-
66
<0.03
19.2
0.2
7.4
12.7
5.4
446
-
-
44.3
<25
1.4
AP
-
65
<0.03
19.1
0.1
7.4
12.4
4.6
559
0.5
0.7
45.1
<25
1.5
TA
TB
3.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
47
<0.01
21.8
0.1
6.7
12.3
4.5
620
0.4
0.5
16.0
<25
<0.1
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total P(asPO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
As (total)
Fe (total)
Mn (total)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
|xg/L
|xg/L
|xg/L
08/08/06
IN
-
66
<0.03
18.9
0.2
7.2
12.6
6.7
-
-
-
45.5
<25
0.9
AP
-
25
<0.01
18.9
0.1
6.2
12.5
4.0
546
0.4
0.4
45.9
<25
0.9
TA
TB
3.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25
<0.01
22.1
0.1
6.1
12.4
4.5
-
0.3
0.3
12.9
<25
0.2
08/15/06
IN
-
67
<0.03
18.1
0.3
7.4
12.8
3.6
469
-
-
47.9
<25
1.2
AP
-
24
<0.01
18.9
0.4
6.2
12.7
2.6
62.4
0.5
0.5
48.2
<25
1.3
TA
TB
4.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22
<0.01
21.8
0.1
6.1
12.6
2.3
575
0.5
0.6
14.9
<25
<0.1
08/22/06
IN
-
71
<0.03
18.3
0.2
7.3
12.9
4.3
441
-
-
50.1
<25
1.7
AP
-
13
<0.01
19.0
0.2
6.1
12.6
3.6
621
0.2
0.4
52.4
<25
1.3
TA
TB
4.3W
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22
<0.01
21.5
0.1
6.2
12.7
4.2
669
0.5
0.6
14.8
<25
0.3
08/29/06
IN
-
68
0.1
19.6
0.3
7.3
12.5
4.2
461
-
-
41.1
<25
1.1
AP
-
14
0.1
18.3
0.2
6.3
12.3
2.9
615
0.4
0.5
40.9
<25
1.2
TA
TB
4.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22
<0.03
22.5
<0.1
6.4
12.2
3.2
641
0.3
0.4
12.4
<25
0.3
Cd
(a) Bed volume recorded on 08/21/06.
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Bow, New Hampshire (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total P(asPO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
As (total)
Fe (total)
Mn (total)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
|xg/L
|xg/L
|xg/L
09/05/06
IN
-
73
0.1
18.5
0.1
7.3
12.3
4.3
461
-
-
46.6
<25
1.3
AP
-
16
0.1
17.9
0.2
6.3
12.2
3.7
659
0.4
0.5
47.2
<25
1.4
TA
TB
4.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
<0.01
21.7
0.1
6.3
12.1
3.5
666
0.3
0.4
12.8
<25
0.5
09/12/06(a)
IN
-
66
0.04
19
0.2
7.1
12.2
4.5
480
-
-
46.8
<25
2.0
AP
-
12
0.04
19
0.2
6.0
12.1
3.1
610
0.3
0.2
44.6
<25
2.0
TA
TB
5.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15
<0.01
22
0.1
6.0
12.0
3.1
564
0.3
1.0
13.5
<25
1.0
09/19/06
IN
-
69
<0.01
19
0.2
7.1
12.7
3.7
459
-
-
41.9
<25
1.0
AP
-
20
<0.01
19.5
0.1
6.0
12.8
2.2
503
0.2
0.2
43.7
<25
1.0
TA
TB
5.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
38
<0.01
25.4
0.2
6.2
12.9
2.1
512
0.3
0.2
23.6
<25
<0.1
09/26/06
IN
-
81
0.1
19.1
<0.1
7.0
12.6
3.5
335
-
-
35.3
<25
4.6
AP
-
18
0.1
18.5
0.1
6.4
12.5
2.5
346
0.3
0.3
35.3
<25
4.8
TA
TB
5.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
21
<0.01
22.4
0.1
6.4
12.5
2.0
386
0.2
0.7
11.1
<25
0.9
Cd
(a) Reduced flow to approximately 16 gpm.
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B.
------- |