EPA/600/R-11/026
March 2011
Arsenic and Antimony Removal from Drinking Water by
Point-of-Entry Reverse Osmosis Coupled with Dual Plumbing Distribution
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Carmel Elementary School in Carmel, ME
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Lili Wang*
Gary M. Lewis8
Abraham S.C. Chen*
§Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693
JALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43219-0693
Contract No. EP-C-05-057
Task Order No. 0019
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0019 of Contract EP-C-05-057 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 for and the results obtained from the arsenic and antimony
removal treatment technology demonstration project at the Carmel Elementary School (CES) in Carmel,
ME. An innovative approach of employing point-of-entry (POE) reverse osmosis (RO) coupled with dual
plumbing was demonstrated at CES as a low cost alternative to achieve compliance with arsenic and
antimony maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) compared with conventional RO treatment. The
objectives of the project were to evaluate the performance of the RO/dual plumbing system in meeting
the new arsenic MCL of 10 |o,g/L and the antimony MCL of 6 (ig/L, the reliability of the treatment
system, the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels, and the capital
and O&M cost of the technology. Additionally, the project characterized the water quality of the
distribution system and process residuals produced by the RO system.
The original treatment system selected for demonstration at CES was a Watts Premier 9,600-gal/day
(gpd) RO treatment system, which would require a significant building modification/expansion to house
the new system and construction of a larger septic/leach field to receive residual water from the RO
system. To reduce the financial burden on the school, a joint decision was made by United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Maine Drinking Water Program (MDWP), CES, and Battelle to
use a smaller RO system coupled with a dual plumbing distribution system so that only a portion of raw
water would be treated and consumed as potable water while the untreated water was available for non-
potable use. The only modification required was re-plumbing of the existing distribution system to
convert it into a duplex system with separate potable and non-potable lines. The potable line supplied
RO-treated water to the kitchen sinks and dishwasher (both cold and hot water), water fountains in school
buildings, and cold water facets in restrooms. Based on a water demand study conducted upon
completing the plumbing modification, it was determined that the potable water demand could be met by
a Crane Environmental EPRO-1,200 treatment system. A similar but smaller unit, EPRO-600 system,
had been used by EPA/Battelle for a pilot study conducted at CES in 2006 and was effective at removing
arsenic and antimony to levels well below their respective MCLs.
The Crane Environmental EPRO-1,200 RO treatment system consisted of an RO unit, a calcite filter for
pH adjustment, two 300-gal atmospheric storage tanks, a re-pressurization system, and a post-chlorination
system. Major components of the RO unit included a 5-(im sediment filter, a !/2-horsepower (hp) booster
pump, and two 2.5-in x 40-in thin-film composite RO membrane modules. The RO permeate water
passed through the calcite filter to raise its pH level to near neutral, then was stored in two 300-gal
atmospheric storage tanks. The water from the storage tank was re-pressurized by a 1-hp booster pump
before entering the potable distribution line.
Operation of the EPRO-1,200 RO treatment system began on February 4, 2009, but logging of
operational data did not begin until April 16, 2009. The types of data collected included system
operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), process residuals,
and capital and O&M cost. Through the performance evaluation study period from April 16 through
December 15, 2009, the system operated for approximately 1,474 hr, processing approximately 180,700
gal of water. With an average recovery rate of 40%, the system generated 71,100 gal of permeate and
109,600 gal of reject water. Daily system run times averaged 11.7 hr/day when the school was in session
and 1.9 hr/day when the school was out of session.
Arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 13.6 to 22.6 (ig/L and averaged 18.2 (ig/L. Soluble
As(V) was the predominating species, with concentrations ranging from 14.3 to 18.7 (ig/L and averaging
16.7 (ig/L. Antimony concentration in source water ranged from 8.6 to 13.2 (ig/L and averaged
10.8 (ig/L, with the majority present in the soluble form. Total arsenic concentrations in permeate water
IV
-------
averaged 0.1 (ig/L. Total antimony concentrations in permeate water were below the MDL of 0.1 (ig/L.
Based on the average arsenic and antimony concentrations in raw and permeate water, the RO system had
achieved 99% removal efficiency for both analytes. The RO system had achieved an average of 97%
rejection for total dissolved solids (TDS), slightly below the specified 98% rejection.
pH values measured in source water averaged 7.9 and decreased to an average of 6.9 after the RO unit.
Alkalinity concentrations were reduced from an average of 206 mg/L (as CaCO3) in source water to an
average of 5.6 mg/L (as CaCO3) in permeate water, causing the decrease in pH. After pH adjustment via
the calcite filter, pH values and alkalinity concentrations were raised, on average, to 7.4 and 16.6 mg/L
(as CaCO3), respectively.
The RO process concentrated the contaminants into the reject water, which was discharged to the existing
septic system. During the performance evaluation study, approximately 109,570 gal of reject water was
generated. The reject water contained, on average, 31.9 (ig/L of arsenic, 17.7 (ig/L of antimony, 410
mg/L of TDS, 340 mg/L (as CaCO3) of alkalinity, 352 mg/L (as CaCO3) of total hardness, 18.1 mg/L of
silica (as SiO2), and 17.9 mg/L of sulfate. Mass balance calculations showed that the RO process
(permeate and reject water) had recovered 107% of arsenic and 100% of antimony from raw water.
Distribution system "first draw" samples were collected from a cold water tap in the kitchen on a monthly
basis to determine if the RO treatment had any impacts on the distribution water quality. pH values of the
distribution "first draw" samples ranged from 6.8 to 9.2, and averaged 8.4. Alkalinity concentrations
ranged from 10.1 to 58.3 mg/L, and averaged 24.6 mg/L. Arsenic and antimony concentrations in the
distribution "first draw" samples were both in the sub-parts per billion (ppb) levels (except for one time at
2.7 (ig/L of arsenic), similar to those in the treatment effluent. Lead and copper concentrations were well
below the respective action levels. Therefore, the RO treatment system did not have any adverse effects
on the water quality in the distribution system.
Operational problems encountered during the demonstration study included a bearing failure on the RO
motor and pump assembly. The problem was corrected promptly by the vendor and has not re-occurred.
The replacement parts were covered under warranty; however, the cost to diagnose the problem and
install the replacement parts was not.
The capital investment for the system was $20,452, including $8,600 for the dual plumbing and $ 11,942
for the EPRO-1,200 RO system. With the system's rated capacity of 1,200 gpd, the normalized capital
cost was $17.12 per gpd of design capacity.
The O&M cost included the cost incurred by system repairs, electricity consumption, and labor to operate
the system. The cost to diagnose and install a faulty RO motor and pump assembly was $321. Annual
electricity consumption was estimated to be 5,078 kWh and cost $376. Routine labor activities consumed
10 min per day, which translated into $666/yr. The total annual O&M cost was estimated to be $1,404, or
$12.89/1,000 gal of permeate water produced.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 7
3.1 General Project Approach 7
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 8
3.3.1 Source Water 8
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 9
3.3.3 Residual Wastewater 10
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 10
3.4 Sampling Logistics 10
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 10
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 10
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 11
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
4.1 Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure 12
4.1 Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure 13
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 14
4.1.2 Distribution System 15
4.2 Treatment Process Description 15
4.2.1 Dual Plumbing 15
4.2.2 Treatment Technology Description and System Design 16
4.3 System Installation 24
4.3.1 Permitting 24
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 24
4.4 System Operation 25
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 25
4.4.2 Residual Management 26
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 28
4.5 System Performance 29
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 29
4.5.2 Residual Water Sampling 37
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 38
4.6 System Cost 39
VI
-------
4.6.1 Capital Cost 39
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 40
5.0 REFERENCES 42
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Pre-existing Facility 12
Figure 4-2. RO Pilot System and Components 13
Figure 4-3. Installation of Dual Plumbing System Using PEX Piping 16
Figure 4-4. Water Demand Monitoring at CES 17
Figure 4-5. Schematic of RO Treatment System 19
Figure 4-6. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations for Carmel, ME Site 20
Figure 4-7. Sediment Filter 21
Figure 4-8. EPRO-1,200 RO Unit 21
Figure 4-9. Schematic of RO Membrane Module 22
Figure 4-10. Calcite Filter 22
Figure 4-11. Atmospheric Storage Tank (top left), Re-Pressurization Pump (middle), and
Pressure Tank and Retention Tanks (top right) 23
Figure 4-12. Chlorine Addition System at CES 23
Figure 4-13. Percent Recovery Calculations 27
Figure 4-14. Flowrate Readings of RO Permeate and Reject Water 27
Figure 4-15. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, RO, and AP Sampling Locations 33
Figure 4-16. Total Arsenic Concentrations at IN, RO, AP, and RW Sampling Locations 34
Figure 4-17. Total Antimony Concentrations at IN, RO, AP, and RW Sampling Locations 34
Figure 4-18. TDS Concentrations at IN, RO, AP, and RW Sampling Locations 35
Figure 4-19. pH Levels at IN, RO, AP, and RW Sampling Locations 35
Figure 4-20. Alkalinity Concentrations at IN, RO, AP, and RW Sampling Locations 36
Figure 4-21. Total Hardness Concentrations at IN, RO, AP, and RW Sampling Locations 36
Figure 4-22. Silica Concentration at IN, RO, AP, and RW Sampling Locations 37
vn
-------
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 1 -2. Number of Demonstration Sites for Each Type of Arsenic Removal Technology 5
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 8
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes 9
Table 4-1. Source Water Quality at Carmel, ME 14
Table 4-2. Design Specifications of EPRO-1,200 RO System 18
Table 4-3. MDWP Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions 24
Table 4-4. Battelle's Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions 25
Table 4-5. Summary of EPRO-1,200 System Operation 26
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Antimony, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 30
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 31
Table 4-8. Mass Balance Calculations 38
Table 4-9. Distribution System Sampling Results 38
Table 4-10. Capital Investment Cost for CES at Carmel, ME 39
Table 4-11. Operation and Maintenance Cost for EPRO-1200 RO Unit Treatment System 40
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
AQWS Advanced Quality Water Solutions
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
Ca calcium
CES Carmel Elementary School
Cl chloride
C/F coagulation/filtration
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fe iron
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HOPE high-density polyethylene
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
Hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IR iron removal
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MDWP Maine Drinking Water Program
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
NS not sampled
NSF NSF International
NTNCWS non-transient, non-community water system
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
Pb lead
PEX cross-linked polyethylene
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
PO4 orthophosphate
POE point-of-entry
POU point-of-use
Ppb parts per billion
psi pounds per square inch
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RFP Request for Proposal
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
RW reject water
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO42' sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TDS total dissolved solids
TFC thin-film composite
VOC volatile organic compound
VSWS very small water system
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Carmel Elementary School in Carmel, ME for
monitoring operation of the arsenic removal system and collecting samples from the treatment and
distribution systems throughout the performance evaluation study. The authors also appreciate the
technical support provided by Jennifer Grant and Greg DuMonthier of the Maine Drinking Water
Program and Cindy Klevens of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) mandates that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and 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 (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (< 10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems 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.
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.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites. In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28.
With additional funding from Congress, EPA selected 10 more sites for demonstration under Round 2a.
Somewhat different from the Round 1 and Round 2 selection process, Battelle, under EPA's guidance,
issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on February 14, 2007, to solicit technology proposals from vendors
and engineering firms. Upon closing of the RFP on April 13, 2007, Battelle received from 14 vendors a
total of 44 proposals, which were subsequently reviewed by a three-expert technical review panel
convened at EPA on May 2 and 3, 2007. Copies of the proposals and recommendations of the review
-------
panel were later provided to and discussed with representatives of the 10 host sites and state regulators in
a technology selection meeting held at each host site during April through August 2007. The final
selections of the treatment technology were made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the respective
state regulators, and the host sites.
As one of the 10 Round 2a host sites, the water system at Carmel Elementary School (CES) in Carmel,
Maine had elevated arsenic and antimony (Sb) in its water supply. The original technology selected was a
9,600-gal/day (gpd) point-of-entry (POE) reverse osmosis (RO) system designed to treat the entire water
supply at the school. This would require expansion of the treatment building and installation of a
septic/leach field for discharge of RO reject water. To reduce the treatment cost, a smaller RO system
was used to treat only potable water, which was then distributed via a separate distribution system for
potable purposes. The system evaluated was a 1,200-gpd EPRO-1200 RO System supplied by Crane
Environmental.
As of February 2011, 49 of the 50 systems were operational and performance evaluations of all 49
systems were completed.
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
Technologies selected for Rounds 1, 2, and 2a demonstration included adsorptive media (AM), iron
removal (IR), coagulation/filtration (C/F), ion exchange (IX), RO, point-of-use (POU) RO, and
system/process modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, system
flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, iron [Fe], and pH). Table 1-2 presents
the number of sites for each type of technology. AM technology was demonstrated at 30 sites, including
four with IR pretreatment. IR technology was demonstrated at 12 sites, including four with supplemental
iron addition. C/F, IX, and RO technologies were demonstrated at three, two, and one sites, respectively.
The Sunset Ranch Development site that demonstrated POU RO technology had nine under-the-sink RO
units. The Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) site classified under AM had three AM systems and
eight POU AM units. The Lidgerwood site encompassed only system/process modifications. An
overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the
associated capital costs is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are
posted on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/resource.htm.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program was to conduct full-scale performance evaluations of
treatment technologies for arsenic removal from drinking water supplies. The specific objectives were to:
Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small systems.
Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels.
Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the Crane Environmental EPRO-1,200 RO system at CES in
Carmel, ME, from April 16 through December 15, 2009. The types of data collected included system
operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and
capital and O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(HS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Carmel, ME
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Houghton, NY(C)
Woodstock, CT
Pomfret, CT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Conneaut Lake, PA
Buckeye Lake, OH
Springfield, OH
Carmel Elementary School
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Caneadea
Woodstock Middle School
Seely-Brown Village
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Conneaut Lake Park
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
RO
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
IR (Macrolite)
AM (Adsorbsia)
AM (ArsenXnp)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
IR (Greensand Plus) with ID
AM (ARM 200)
IR & AM (E33)
Norlen's Water
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
Siemens
SolmeteX
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
Kinetico
AdEdge
l,200gpd
14
70
10
100
22
550
17
15
375
300
250
10
250(e)
21
38W
39
33
36W
30
27w
21
25
30W
19W
28W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
l,806(d)
<25
<25
48
270
157
1,312
1,615
7.9
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
7.6
7.7
7.3
8.2
7.3
8.0
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Goshen, IN
Fountain City, IN
Waynesville, IL
Geneseo Hills, IL
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
Lead, SD
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Clinton Christian School
Northeastern Elementary School
Village of Waynesville
Geneseo Hills Subdivision
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
Terry Trojan Water District
AM(E33)
IR (Macrolite) with ID
IR (Aeralater)
IR (Macrolite)
IR&AM(E33)
IR (G2)
IR (Greensand Plus)
AM(E33)
IR (Macrolite)
IR (Macrolite) with ID
IR (Macrolite)
IR (Macrolite)
IR&AM(E33)
Process Modification
AM (ArsenXnp)
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
AdEdge
US Water
Peerless
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
SolmeteX
640
400
340(e)
40
25
60
96
200
375
140
250
20
250
250
75
14W
13(a)
16W
20W
29W
27W
32W
25W
17W
39W
34W
25W
42(>0
146W
24
127
466
1,387
1,499
810
1,547
2,543
248
7,827
546
1,470
3,078
1,344
1,325
<25
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.1
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
7.3
Midwest/Southwest
Willard, UT
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Hot Springs Mobile Home Park
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School District
City of Wellman
IR & AM (Adsorbsia)
IR (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
Filter Tech
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
30
770(e)
150
40
100
15.4W
35W
19W
56W
45
332
2,068
95
<25
<25
7.5
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Site Name
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water Consumers
Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
Technology (Media)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Vendor
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Design
Flow rate
(gpm)
320
145
450
90(b)
50
37
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
23W
33
14
50
32
41
Fe
(ug/L)
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
PH
(S.U.)
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General Improvement
District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU R0(t)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/
ARM200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)(g)
IX(ArsenexII)
AM (GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM(HIX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75 gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69w
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HTX = hybrid ion exchanger; IR = iron removal; IR with ID = iron removal with iron addition; IX = ion exchange process;
RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(c) Withdrew from program in 2007. Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(d) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Amaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
Table 1-2. Number of Demonstration Sites for Each Type of Arsenic
Removal Technology
Type of Technologies
Adsorptive Media(a)
Adsorptive Media with Iron Removal Pretreatment
Iron Removal (Oxidation/Filtration)
Iron Removal with Supplemental Iron Addition
Coagulation/Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Point-of-Use Reverse Osmosis(b)
System/Process Modifications
Number
of Sites
26
4
8
4
o
J
2
1
1
1
(a) OIT site at Klamath Falls, OR had three AM systems and
eight POU AM units.
(b) Including nine under-the-sink RO units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the 10-month system operation, the following conclusions were
made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic and antimony removal technology for use on small systems:
The dual plumbing system with a smaller 1,200-gpd RO unit was found to be more cost effective
than the originally proposed 9,600-gpd RO unit treating the entire water supply. The major cost
saving was from the reduced quantity of reject water that could be discharged to the existing
septic system.
The POE RO system was effective in removing arsenic from source water, reducing its
concentrations (total) from 18.2 to 0.1 (ig/L (on average) in permeate water.
The POE RO system was effective in removing antimony from source water, reducing its
concentrations from 10.8 to <0.1 (ig/L in permeate water.
The POE RO system also was effective in removing total dissolved solids (TDS), manganese,
and silica, achieving 97%, 95%, and 96% removal, respectively, for these analytes. pH values
were initially reduced to 6.9 (on average) due to reduction in alkalinity by RO, but was increased
to 7.4 (on average) after pH adjustment.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
The only process residual produced by the RO system was reject water. The amount produced
was high, accounting for 60% of feed water. The reject water was discharged to the existing
septic system at the school.
The reject water contained, on average, 31.9 (ig/L of arsenic, 17.7 (ig/L of antimony, and 410
mg/L of TDS. The pH of the reject water was 8.0 (on average).
Required system O&M and operator skill levels:
Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to operate the EPRO-1,200 RO system
were minimal. The daily demand on the operator was typically 10 min to visually inspect the
system and record operational parameters.
Capital and O&M cost of the technology:
Total capital cost was $20,542, including $8,600 for dual plumbing and $ 11,942 for the EPRO-
1,200 RO system.
The annual O&M cost was $1,404, or $12.89/1,000 gal of permeate 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
EPRO-1,200 RO unit began on April 16, 2009, and ended on December 15, 2009. Table 3-2 summarizes the
types of data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system
performance was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic and antimony to below their
respective MCLs of 10 and 6 |o,g/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train, as
described in the Study Plan (Battelle, 2009). The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the
unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The plant operator
recorded unscheduled downtime and repair information on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. The
vendor (Norlen's Water Treatment Service [Norlen's Water]) was contracted by Battelle for system
installation and assisted in tracking system operation.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Permit Issued by MDWP
Installation of Dual Plumbing System Begun
Installation of Dual Plumbing System Completed
RO Equipment Arrived
System Installation and Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Final Study Plan Issued
Date
July 24, 2007
September 17, 2008
October 10, 2008
November 4, 2008
December 11, 2008
December 19, 2008
July 1, 2008
October 1, 2008
January 5, 2009
February 4, 2009
April 16, 2009
April 23, 2009
MDWP = Maine Drinking Water Program
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 cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (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 the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical supply,
electrical usage, and labor.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, biweekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a regular basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a System Operation Log
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation
Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and
Operator Skill
Requirements
Residual
Management
Cost Effectiveness
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic MCL in treated water
-Ability to consistently meet 6 (o,g/L of antimony MCL in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems
encountered, materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
incurred
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency,
and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred,
the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead and/or Norlen's Water 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 incurred on the Repair and Maintenance Log
Sheet. On a monthly basis, Norlen's Water measured temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO),
oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and chlorine residuals and recorded the data on an Onsite Water
Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for electricity consumption and labor. Labor for
various activities, such as the routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-
related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included
activities such as completing field logs, performing system inspections, and others as recommended by
the vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as performing field
measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the
vendor, was recorded, but not used for cost analysis.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected from the wellheads, across the treatment plant,
and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 presents the sampling schedules and analytes measured
during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes,
containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2007). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in
Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. Source water characterization was peformed by Battelle before and during an
EPA pilot study in 2005 and 2006 under a separate EAP task order. Source water samples were collected
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes
Sample
Type
Treatment
Plant Water
(Speciation
Sampling)
Treatment
Plant Water
(Regular
Sampling)
Residual
Wastewater
Distribution
System
Water
Sample
Locations'3'
IN, RO, and
AP
RW
Tap in
school
(DS1)
No. of
Samples
3
1
1
Planned
Frequency
First week
of each
four-week
cycle
Second,
third, and
fourth
week of
each four-
week cycle
Weekly(b)
Monthly
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and/or ORP
Offsite: As(III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, P, TDS, turbidity,
and alkalinity
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and/or ORP
Offsite: As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
Sb (total), Ca, Mg, SiO2,
TDS, turbidity, and
alkalinity
Onsite: pH
Offsite: As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
Sb (total), Ca, Mg, NO3,
SO4, SiO2, P, TDS,
turbidity, and alkalinity
Onsite: free and total C12
Offsite: As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
Sb (total), Cu (total),
Pb (total), pH, and
alkalinity
Actual
Sampling Date
04/30/09, 05/27/09,
06/30/09, 07/29/09,
09/02/09, 09/28/09,
10/28/09, 12/03/09
04/16/09, 05/12/09,
05/20/09, 06/04/09,
06/17/09, 09/08/09,
09/14/09, 09/30/09,
10/07/09, 10/20/09,
10/27/09, 11/17/09,
12/15/09
05/27/09, 06/17/09,
06/30/09, 07/29/09,
09/02/09, 09/08/09,
09/14/09, 09/28/09,
09/30/09, 10/07/09,
10/20/09, 10/27/09,
10/28/09, 11/17/09,
12/03/09, 12/15/09
05/20/09, 06/17/09,
07/09/09, 08/27/09,
09/08/09, 09/29/09,
10/27/09, 11/19/09
(a) Abbreviations in parenthesis corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-6, i.e., IN =
blended source water; RO = RO permeate; AP = after pH adjustment; RW = reject water; DS1 =
distribution system.
(b) Actual sampling spanned from 1 day to 3 weeks.
DO = dissolved oxygen; ORP = oxidation-reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids
from Wells No. 1 and No. 2 on September 13, 2005, during the initial site visit prior to the pilot study.
More complete source water characterization was conducted on the blended water from both wells during
the pilot study from March 7 through July 11, 2006. These samples were filtered for soluble arsenic and
antimony and then speciated for As(III) and As(V) using a field arsenic specitation kit (see Section 3.4.1).
Results of these source water sampling events are discussed in Section 4.1.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. Battelle Study Plan (2009) called for weekly sampling of
treatment plant water samples for onsite and offsite analyses. For the first week of each four-week cycle,
samples were taken (1) after water from Wells No. 1 and No. 2 had blended (IN), (2) at the RO permeate
port (RO), and (3) after pH adjustment (AP), speciated onsite, and analyzed for the analytes listed in
-------
Table 3-3 under "Treatment Plant Water (Speciation Sampling)." For the second, third, and fourth weeks
of each four-week cycle, samples were collected at the same three locations and analyzed for the analytes
listed in Table 3-3 under "Treatment Plant Water (Regular Sampling)." During the performance
evaluation study, actual sampling frequencies spanned from one day to three weeks, with speciation
samples taken approximately once a month on eight sampling occasions and regular samples taken once
every one to four weeks on 13 sampling occasions. During the summer break from June 13 through
August 25, only three sets of samples were taken, including one on June 17 for regular sampling and two
on June 30 and July 29 for speciation sampling.
3.3.3 Residual Wastewater. The Battelle Study Plan (2009) called for weekly sampling of reject
water (RW) from a sampling tap on the RW discharge line leading to the septic system. Actual sampling
frequencies spanned from 1 days to three weeks. For each sampling event, an unfiltered sample from the
reject water discharge line was collected in an unpreserved 1-gal wide-mouth high-density polyethylene
(HOPE) bottle and a 60-mL filtered sample (using 0.45-(im filters) was collected into a 125-mL HDPE
bottle preserved with nitric acid. Analytes for the reject water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Water samples were collected from the distribution system
monthly to determine the impact of the RO system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the pH, arsenic, antimony, lead, and copper levels.
The plant operator collected the samples following an instruction sheet developed in accordance with the
Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The date
and time of last water usage before sampling and of actual sample collection were recorded for
calculation of sample stagnation time. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not
been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an
anion exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et
al., 1998). Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories in accordance with the
procedures detailed in Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2007).
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 zip-lock bags and packed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling
instructions, chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were 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.
10
-------
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for offsite 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 analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up by
couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH, which was contracted by
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, 2007)
were followed by Battelle's 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 limits (MDLs), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative
percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The QA data
associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared
under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the vendor using a VWR
Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following
the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by
measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The vendor collected a
water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Symphony SP90M5 probe in the beaker until a
stable value was obtained. The vendor also performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach
chlorine test kits following the user's manual.
11
-------
4.1
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure
CES is located on 50 Plymouth Road in Carmel, Maine. Serving approximately 200 students and faculty
members, the facility is a non-transient, non-community water system (NTNCWS) supplied by two wells,
i.e., Wells No. 1 and No. 2, with a combined capacity of 30 gpm. The average daily demand was 1,700 to
1,800 gal during the school year. The pre-existing system consisted of a 576-gal storage tank, a chlorine
addition system, and three contact/retention tanks configured in parallel (Figure 4-1). About 0.3 mg/L (as
C12) of free chlorine residual was maintained in treated water for disinfection purposes.
Figure 4-1. Pre-existing Facility
(Clockwise from Top: School Building, Storage Tank, Contact Tanks, and Chlorination System)
Under a separate EPA task order, Battelle conducted a four-month pilot study on a 600-gpd, skid-
mounted RO system from March 2 through July 11, 2006. The pilot system was supplied by Crane
Environmental and installed by Norlen's Water. The pilot system received a split flow at 2 gpm from the
wells with the balance (i.e., 28 gpm) continued to supply the school's water demand. Major components
of the pilot system included a 5-(im sediment pre-filter, a !/2-horsepower (hp) positive displacement rotary
vane booster pump, and a single 2.5-in x 40-in thin-film composite RO membrane (Figure 4-2). During
the pilot study, the RO system operated for a total of 740 hr, processing approximately 76,500 gal of
water. The system produced 16,300 gal of permeate, corresponding to a recovery rate of 21%. Both
permeate and reject water were discharged to the septic system.
12
-------
1) IN sample tap
2) TDS monitor
3) Sediment filter
4) Pressure gauges
5) Booster pump
6) RO membrane
7) Flow meters
8) Totalizer
9) Timer
10) RO drain line
11) RW drain line
Figure 4-2. RO Pilot System and Components
Results of the pilot study were summarized in a letter report dated December 29, 2006. Key conclusions
are highlighted below:
The RO system was effective in removing arsenic and antimony to levels well below their
respective MCLs.
A considerable amount of residual wastewater was produced (i.e., 79% of the influent flow)
by the single-stage RO membrane element. A multiple-stage RO system can achieve a higher
recovery rate.
Blending the RO permeate with raw water can help neutralize permeate, reduce the volume of
reject water, and lower the overall treatment cost.
13
-------
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Analytical results from the source water sampling events in 2005
and 2006 are presented in Table 4-1 and discussed as follows.
Table 4-1. Source Water Quality at Carmel, ME
Parameter
Unit
Date
Well
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
TDS
pH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Al (total)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Na (total)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
Battelle Source Water Data
09/13/05(a)
No. 1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.2
21.5
<0.1
0.7
20.9
<25
<25
1.7
1.6
13.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
No. 2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.2
28.0
0.2
0.7
27.3
<25
<25
1.6
1.6
14.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
03/07/06(b)
No. 1 & 2
216
24
<0.1
11.2
9.6
246
7.9
NA
226
107
119
<10
21.1
20.3
0.8
0.5
19.8
<25
<25
2.0
1.9
12.6
12.4
0.5
0.6
25.0
03/21/06-
07/ll/06(c)
No. 1 & 2
202-225
NA
NA
NA
NA
240-264
7.5-7.8
11.0-14.1
184-247
91.2-127
88.3-128
NA
19.7-29.8
19.1-29.8
<0. 1-0.8
0.3-0.7
6.2-29.1
<25
NA
2.1
NA
9.7-12.1
10.1-12.5
NA
NA
NA
(a) Samples collected during initial site visit
(b) Samples collected during startup of pilot system.
(c) Samples collected during pilot study
NA = data not available
Arsenic. Based on the September 13, 2005 sampling data, Well No. 1 water contained a slightly lower
arsenic concentration than Well No. 2 (i.e., 21.2 vs 28.2 ng/L). These concentrations were well within
the range of 19.7 to 29.8 p.g/L measured in blended source water during the four-month pilot study. Most
arsenic was present as soluble As(V) with only 0.3 to 0.7 |og/L present as As(III). Therefore, oxidation of
the water prior to the RO treatment was not required.
Antimony. Water from Wells No. 1 and No. 2 contained similar levels of antimony at 13.6 and 14.1
p-g/L, respectively, based on the September 13, 2005 data. Total antimony concentrations measured in the
blended source water during the pilot study ranged from 9.7 to 12.6 (ig/L. Most antimony was present in
the soluble form with concentrations ranging from 10.1 to 12.5 (ig/L.
14
-------
Other Water Quality Parameters. TDS concentrations in combined source water ranged from 240 to
264 mg/L, which were composed primarily of calcium (36 to 51 mg/L), magnesium (35 to 51 mg/L),
sodium (25.0 mg/L), sulfate (11.2 mg/L), silica (9.6 mg/L), and chloride (24 mg/L). Hardness
concentrations ranged from 184 to 247 mg/L (as CaCO3); alkalinity from 202 to 225 mg/L (as CaCO3);
pH values ranged from 7.5 to 7.9.
4.1.2 Distribution System. Based on the information provided by the school, the distribution
system material was comprised of a combination of galvanized and copper piping. In preparation for the
installation of the 1,200-gpd RO unit, the distribution system was modified to be a duplex system in July
2008, for both potable and non-potable water distribution. Installation of the duplex distribution system is
further discussed in Section 4.2.1.
One location inside the school building was selected for monthly distribution system water sampling to
evaluate the effect of the RO treatment system on the distribution system water quality.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
4.2.1 Dual Plumbing. The original treatment technology selected for CES was a Watts Premier
9,600-gpd RO system proposed by Advanced Quality Water Solutions (AQWS) in 2007. The system
consisted of two Goulds V260 HydroPro diaphragm tanks, a water softener, an RO unit, a 3,000-gal
atmospheric storage tank, a 30-gpm booster pump, and two acid neutralizers. During an onsite
introductory meeting attended by EPA, Battelle, MDWP, AQWS, and an engineering firm representing
CES on July 24, 2007, two main issues were identified: (1) the existing building would need to be
modified/expanded to house the new 9,600-gpd RO system and (2) a new septic/leach field would need to
be built to handle residual wastewater produced by the RO system. Based on a rough estimate, the cost
for constructing a new septic/leach field alone would range from $30,000 to $35,000. CES expressed
concerns over its ability to cover the cost of these two new requirements.
To reduce the financial burden on CES, a dual plumbing approach was discussed and later adopted by the
project team. This approach involved installing a parallel plumbing system dedicated to the potable water
distribution only and had been successfully employed at schools and small businesses in the State of New
Hampshire. Because most water consumed at CES was for non-potable use (i.e., lavatory), only a portion
of raw water would need to be treated for potable use (i.e., kitchen sinks, water fountains, etc.).
Therefore, a smaller RO system with a separate distribution system was used to meet the potable water
demand, thus reducing the capital and O&M cost.
In July 2008, Battelle contracted Patriot Plumbing in Etna, ME to perform the plumbing work necessary
to convert the existing distribution system into a duplex system. Cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) piping
with 0.5 and 0.75-in nominal sizes was installed from the boiler room, where the RO system was to be
housed, to the existing cold water line supplying water fountains and bathroom, break-room, kitchen, and
locker-room sinks. The PEX piping was installed at hallway ceilings and extended to locations near the
fixtures receiving potable water. The pre-existing piping at the ceiling feeding these fixtures was capped
off and the PEX piping was connected to the piping going to the fixtures. The PEX piping is NSF
International (NSF) 61 certified for use in drinking water systems. Figure 4-3 presents photos of the
installation of the dual plumbing system using the PEX piping. A water meter was installed on the
portable line to monitor the water demand. An existing water meter was used to monitor the raw water
demand (potable and non-potable).
During a project planning meeting attended by EPA, Battelle, MDWP, and CES on September 17, 2008,
the size of the RO system was discussed. The school expressed a desire that the hot water line supplying
the kitchen sinks and dishwashers be treated because the hot water might be used for food preparation.
15
-------
Figure 4-3. Installation of Dual Plumbing System Using PEX Piping
(from left to right: prior to Installation, through Ceilings, and to a Hot Water Tank)
As such, two options were discussed as either refurbishing the old EPRO-600 RO pilot system capable of
producing 600 gpd or purchasing a new EPRO-1,200 RO system capable of producing 1,200 gpd. A final
decision was made based on the potable water demand (both hot and cold water) and a cost comparison of
these two options.
In October 2008, Patriot Plumbing was contracted again to modify the plumbing to provide RO-treated
water to a newly installed 62-gal hot water tank supplying the kitchen sinks and dishwashers. PEX piping
was installed to supply RO-treated water to the hot water tank located in the boiler room and from the hot
water tank to the kitchen sinks and dishwashers (Figure 4-3). Another water meter was installed on the
hot water tank feed line to monitor the hot water demand. The existing boiler continued to be fed with
non-RO water to supply hot water to the rest of the building, i.e., hot water taps in the bathrooms and the
shower rooms in the gym.
Water demands were monitored from August 29, 2008, through January 16, 2009, and are shown in
Figure 4-4. Daily total water demands ranged from 403 to 3,613 gpd and averaged 1,588 gpd, including
16 to 147 gpd (41 gpd [on average]) of cold potable water and 125 to 401 gpd (223 gpd [on average]) of
hot potable water. Thus, total daily potable water demands requiring the RO treatment ranged from 143
to 456 gpd and averaged 257 gpd. This average daily potable water demand accounted for 16% of the
total daily water demand.
In November 2008, quotations were received from Norlen's Water for the cost to refurbish the existing
600-gpd RO system used for the pilot study and the cost to purchase and install a new 1,200-gpd RO
system. Upon review of the quotations and further discussion with EPA, the EPRO-1,200 RO treatment
system was selected because: (1) the difference in cost to refurbish the 600-gpd system or to purchase the
new 1,200-gpd system was rather insignificant, and (2) the larger system could better meet CES' peak
demand during lunch time.
4.2.2 Treatment Technology Description and System Design. The RO system used thin-film
composite (TFC) RO membranes to remove dissolved solids from source water. Source water was
delivered under pressure to the membranes with dissolved solids removed through RO and permeate
passed through the membranes. The dissolved solids rejected by the membranes were concentrated into
the residual wastewater stream and discharged to the existing septic system.
16
-------
-Potable-ColdWater Demand
-Potable-HotWater Demand
-Total Water Demand
Figure 4-4. Water Demand Monitoring at CES
The Crane Environmental EPRO-1,200 RO treatment process consisted of an RO unit, a pH adjustment
unit, two 300-gal atmospheric storage tanks, re-pressurization system, and post-chlorination system.
Table 4-2 summarizes key system design parameters of the treatment system. Figure 4-5 presents a
schematic of the treatment system. Figure 4-6 shows a process flowchart, along with the sampling/
analysis schedule for the treatment system. The key process components of the treatment system are
discussed as follows:
Intake - Source water was pumped from Wells No. 1 and No. 2 and stored in the pre-existing
576-gal storage tank. Upon exiting the storage tank, source water was split into potable and
non-potable water lines. The non-potable water line led water through a retention tank to the
school non-potable distribution system. The potable water line fed water to the RO system.
A pre-existing flow meter and a pressure gauge monitored the volume and flowrate of intake
water and the inlet pressure to the treatment system. A sample tap located at the RO intake
line was used for the collection of source water samples for water quality analysis.
Sediment Filter - Prior to entering the RO unit, source water flowed through a 5-(im, 2.75-in
x 10-in sediment filter (Figure 4-7) to remove any particulates that could potentially foul the
RO membranes. The manufacturer recommended that the sediment filter be changed on a
monthly basis or when the differential pressure became greater than 10% between the
pressure reading before and after the sediment filter.
RO System - Major components of the skid-mounted RO system included a !/2-hp positive
displacement, a rotary vane booster pump, a TDS monitor, and two 2.5-in x 40-in TFC RO
membrane modules (Figure 4-8). Figure 4-9 presents a schematic of an RO membrane
module. The RO system was rated for 1,200 gpd of permeate production with a 40%
recovery (or 2.5:1, that is, for every 2.5 gal of feed water, 1 gal of permeate water and
17
-------
Table 4-2. Design Specifications of EPRO-1,200 RO System
Parameter
Value
System Components
No. of Pre-filters
Pre-filter Size (um)
No. of RO Membrane Elements
RO Membrane Construction
Size of Membrane Elements
1
5
2
Thin film composite
2.5-inD x40-inH
Inlet Water Quality Requirements
Max. Operating Pressure (psi)
Max. Operating Temperature (°F)
pH Range (S.U.)
Max. Free Chlorine (mg/L [as C12])
Max. Turbidity (NTU)
Max. Silica (mg/L)
Max. Iron (mg/L)
Max. (mg/L)
300
113
2-11
<0.1
1
<1
O.01
<1,000
Operating Specifications
Feed Flow (gpd)
Daily Permeate Production (gpd)
Recovery (%)
Min. Rejection (%)
3,000
1,200
40
98
1.5 gal of reject water will be produced). The reject water was discharged into the existing
septic system. Both permeate and reject water lines were equipped with flow meters and
totalizers, pressure gauges, and sample taps for monitoring purposes.
pH Adjustment - After passing through the RO unit, permeate water flowed through a 10-in
x 44-in neutralization tank containing 1.25 ft3 of calcite (Figure 4-10). Based on results of
the pilot study, alkalinity concentrations were reduced from 211 mg/L (as CaCO3) in raw
water to 3 mg/L (as CaCO3) in permeate water while pH values were reduced from 7.7 to 5.7,
on average. Therefore, it was necessary to raise the pH of the permeate water prior to
distribution. The calcite filter intended to re-mineralize the permeate water and raise its pH
to a near neutral level prior to entering the two 300-gal atmospheric storage tanks.
Storage Tank and Re-pressurization System - After passing through the calcite filter,
permeate water was stored in two 300-gal atmospheric storage tanks equipped with float
switches that controlled the RO unit on/off based on tank levels. A re-pressurization system
consisted of a Goulds Model J10S 1-hp re-pressurization pump and a 40-gal non-corrosive
fiberglass pressure tank to supply water to the distribution system at a rate of 16 gpm and an
average pressure of 38 psi. Figure 4-11 presents photographs of an atmospheric storage tank
and re-pressurization system.
Chlorination - The existing chlorination system was relocated to after the re-pressurization
system to chlorinate the RO permeate. The chlorine injection system consisted of a 37-gal
solution storage tank, a Chem-Tech Series 100 chemical feed pump rated at 30 gpd, and two
existing contact/retention tanks (Figure 4-12). The chemical feed pump was tied into the re-
pressurization pump to chlorinate the water as water was pumped to the distribution system.
The contact/retention tanks were used to allow mixing of the chlorine solution with permeate
water. The target chlorine residual was 0.6 mg/L.
18
-------
Norlen's Water Treatment
Service, LLC
P.O.Box 46, Route 15
Carmel Elementary School Schematic
TP6
SF: Sediment Filter
RO: Reverse Osmosis System
pH: Calcite Filter with mixing valve
ST: Atmospheric Storage Tank
TP1-TP6: Test Points
WM: Water Meter
FS: Float Switch, RO shutoff
BV: Ball Valve
RP: Repressurization Pump
PT: Pressure Tank
SST: Solution Storage Tank (w/ bleach)
FP: Feed Pump
CI: Chlorine Injection
RT: Retention Tanks
RT
RT
BV
TP2
Pcrmcatc 25
TP3
e ©
RO
TP4
Pi i
Concentrate
to
floor drain
ST
ST
NWT DIAGRAM.CDR
Figure 4-5. Schematic of RO Treatment System
-------
INFLUENT
(WELL#1)
INFLUENT
(WELL #2)
Monthly
pH, temperature^', DO/ORP(a>,
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As(V), Fe (total and soluble),^
Mn (total and soluble), Sb (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P (total),
TDS, turbidity, and alkalinity
As (total), Fe (total),
Mn (total), Sb (total),
Ca,Mg,N03, S04, Si02, P,
TDS, turbidity, and alkalinity
Carmel, ME
EPRO-1200
Reverse Osmosis System
Design Flow: l,200gpd
576-GAL
STORAGE TANK
RETENTION TANK
SEDIMENT FILTER
RE VERSE OSMOSIS
SYSTEM
pHM,temperature(a>, DO/ORPW,
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),-
Sb (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P (total),
TDS, turbidity, and alkalinity
pHM,temperature(a>, DO/ORPW,
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), -
Sb (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P (total),
TDS, turbidity, and alkalinity
ATMOSPHERIC
STORAGE TANKS
REPRESSURIZATION
PUMP
Weekly
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
Sb (total), Ca,Mg, SiO2,
TDS, turbidity, and alkalinity
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
Sb(total), Ca,Mg, SiO2,
TDS, turbidity, and alkalinity
As (total), Fe (total),
^Mn(total), Sb (total),
"ca,Mg, N03, S04, Si02, P,
TDS, turbidity, and alkalinity
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
-Sb(total), Ca,Mg, SiO2,
TDS, turbidity, and alkalinity
LEGEND
Influent
After RO Unit
Residual Wastewater
After pH Adjustment
FT-l ) Non-Potable Water
RO Permeate Water
FT-3 ) RO Concentrate Water
FT-4 ) ROPermeateWaterConsumption
Chlorine Disinfection
Unit Process
Process Flow
Backwash Flow
Footnote
(a)On-site analyses
\
r
POTABLE
WATER
i
r
NON-POTABLE
WATER
Figure 4-6. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations for Carmel, ME Site
20
-------
Figure 4-7. Sediment Filter
1) Pressure gauges
2) RO membrane
3) Flow meters
4) Totalizer
5) TDS monitor
Figure 4-8. EPRO-1,200 RO Unit
21
-------
CONCENTRATE WATER containing salts is
rejected by the membrane and does not enter
the product tube. The concentrate water exits
the side of the element opposite of the feed.
RAW WATER FEED enters into membrane
layers. Applied pressure forces raw water
across membrane layers into the
product tube.
Product tube
PRODUCT WATER collects in the product tube and
can be output from either end of the membrane element.
Figure 4-9. Schematic of RO Membrane Module
Figure 4-10. Calcite Filter
22
-------
Figure 4-11. Atmospheric Storage Tank (top left), Re-Pressurization Pump
(bottom), and Pressure Tank and Retention Tanks (top right)
Figure 4-12. Chlorine Addition System at CES
23
-------
4.3
System Installation
Norlen's Water was contracted by Battelle to install the RO system at CES. The installation and
shakedown of the system was completed on February 4, 2009. This section briefly summarizes the
system installation activities, including permitting, system offloading, installation, shakedown, and
startup.
4.3.1 Permitting. A treatment system approval package, which included a schematic of the
proposed system, was submitted to MDWP by Norlen's Water on December 15, 2008. MDWP did not
have any review comments and issued approval on December 19, 2008.
4.3.2 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. System components were delivered to Norlen's
Water's office during the week of December 22, 2008, and arrived at CES on January 5, 2009. The
system was installed during the weeks of January 5, 12, and 19, 2009, with installation completed on
January 26, 2009. Installation activities included offloading, placing, and connecting the EPRO-1,200
RO unit and re-pressurization system, connecting the system at the tie-in points, completing electrical
wiring, and relocating the chlorination system to post-treatment. System shakedown was completed on
February 4, 2009.
On February 27, 2009, two members from MDWP were onsite to inspect the system and noted several
punch-list items that needed to be addressed prior to final approval. Table 4-3 summarizes the punch-list
items and corrective actions taken. MDWP also collected water samples from the distribution system for
arsenic and antimony analysis. Analytical results indicated that arsenic and antimony concentrations were
below 0.5 (ig/L. Based on these results, MDWP officially lifted off the "DO NOT DRINK ORDER"
previously imposed on CES.
Table 4-3. MDWP Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions
Date
02/27/09
02/27/09
02/27/09
02/27/09
Issues/Problems Indemnified
Valves on RO unit not labeled
with appropriate positions
Difficult to distinguish
between potable and non-
potable water lines in boiler
room
Lines leading to floor drain
not raised
Level III operator required to
operate the system
Corrective Action Taken
Labeled all valves with their
appropriate positions
Labeled all water lines as either
potable or non-potable
Raised lines leading to floor
drain
Hired Norlen's Water as
school's contract operator
Date(s) of
Corrective
Action
04/15/09
04/15/09
04/15/09
03/01/10
Work
Performed
by
Norlen's
Water
Norlen's
Water
Norlen's
Water
CES
On April 30, 2009, two Battelle staff members visited CES. While onsite, they inspected the treatment
system, trained the CES personnel on collection of operational data and water samples, and discussed
how the remainder of the project would be conducted. Battelle requested the installation of an hour meter
and a pump discharge pressure gauge on the RO system to help track system operation. Also, they noted
that the RO system could not keep up with the school's peak water demand. Upon discussion with EPA
and Norlen's Water, it was decided that a second 300-gal atmospheric storage tank would be necessary to
ensure water supply during peak hours. Table 4-4 summarizes the punch-list items and corrective actions
taken.
24
-------
Table 4-4. Battelle's Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions
Date
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
Issues/Problems
Indemnified
System operational hours
not tracked
No pump discharge
pressure gauge on the
system
System couldn't meet
demand during peak hours
Corrective Action Taken
Installed an hour meter
installed on RO unit to track
operational hours
Installed a pump discharge
pressure gauge to help track
system operation
Installed a second 3 00 -gal
atmospheric storage tank to
ensure an adequate supply of
treated water during peak hours
Date(s) of
Corrective
Action
06/29/09
05/19/09
05/05/09
Work
Performed
by
Norlen's
Water
Norlen's
Water
Norlen's
Water
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the 10-month demonstration study
were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Table 4-5 summarizes key operational parameters. The
system began operation on February 4, 2009, but logging of operational data did not begin until April 16,
2009, when a technician from Norlen's Water travelled to CES to provide training to its personnel on data
recording. Because an hour meter was not installed until June 29, 2009, recording of hour meter readings
did not begin until July 7, 2009. From July 7, 2009, through the end of the performance evaluation study
on December 15, 2009, the system operated for 953.7 hr. Daily system run time averaged 11.7 hr/day
when the school was in session (from August 25 through December 15, 2009, for a total of 76 days
excluding weekends) and 1.9 hr/day when the school was out of session (from July 7 through August 24,
2009, for a total of 35 days excluding weekends). Based on these average run time values, the system
was assumed to have operated for 519.9 hr from April 16 through July 7, 2009 (including 491.4 hr from
April 16 through June 12, 2009, when the school was in session and for 28.5 hr from June 15 through July
2, 2009, when the school was out of session). Therefore, the total system operating time was estimated to
be 1473.6 hr starting from April 16, 2009, 2,011.8 hr starting from February 4, 2009, or 2,269.2 hr forthe
year of 2009.
During the 1,473.6 hr of operation from April 16 through December 15, 2009, the RO system treated
approximately 180,700 gal of water, generating 71,100 gal of permeate and 109,600 gal of reject water.
Recovery, specified at 40% by the manufacturer, ranged from 33 to 45% and averaged 40% based on
incremental totalizer readings. The recovery of the RO system was calculated using Equation 1 below
and presented in Appendix A. Figure 4-13 plots the daily recovery rates during the study period.
where
Recovery (%) = 100 x VP/(VP + Vr)
VP = Volume of permeate (gal)
Vr = Volume of reject water (gal)
(1)
The potable water demand averaged 562 gpd when the school was in session and 91 gpd when the school
was out of session. The in-session demand was more than twice the amount recorded during August 28,
2008 and January 16, 2009, prior to system installation. The non-potable water demand averaged
924 gpd when the school was in session and 118 gpd when the school was out of session. The in-session
25
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of EPRO-1,200 System Operation
Operational Parameter
Duration
Average Daily Run Time (hr/day)
Total Operating Time (hr)
Number of Days System in Operation (day)
Volume of Permeate (gal)
Volume of Reject Water (gal)
Volume of Feed Water to System (gal)
Average (Range) Recovery (%)
Average (Range) Permeate Water Flowrate (gpm)
Average (Range) Reject Water Flowrate (gpm)
Average (Range) Inlet Water Pressure (psi)
Average (Range) Feed Water Pressure (psi)
Average (Range) of Ap Across Sediment Filter (psi)
Average (Range) Permeate Discharge Pressure (psi)
Average (Range) Reject Water Discharge Pressure (psi)
Average (Range) Re-Pressurization System Pressure (psi)
Value/Condition
04/16/09(a)-12/15/09
1 1.7 (when school was in session)
1.9 (when school was out of session)
1,473.6
168
71,lll(b)
109,567(c)
180,678(d)
40 (33-45)(e)
0.8 (0.8-1.4)
1.2(1.2-1.3)
37 (30-42)
37 (28-40)
0.3 (0-6)
145 (120-185)
141(110-175)
38 (30-45)
(a) System placed into service on 02/04/09, but logging of operational data did not begin until
04/16/09.
(b) Permeate volume from 04/27/09 through end of study read from permeate totalizer; permeate
volume from 04/16/09 through 04/24/09 estimated based on 0.8-gpm flowrate and 11.7-
hr/day daily run time for 7 days.
(c) Reject water volume from 04/27/09 through end of study read from reject water totalizer;
reject water volume from 04/16/09 through 04/24/09 estimated based 1.2-gpm flowrate and
11.7-hr/day daily run time for 7 days.
(d) Sum of permeate volume and reject water volume.
(e) Calculated by dividing incremental volume of permeate by incremental volume of feed water
to system.
average total daily demand (including potable and on-potable demand) was 1,486 gal, which is very close
to the 1,588 gpd value measured prior to system installation.
Flowrate, pressure, and TDS also were monitored. As shown in Table 4-5 and Figure 4-14, flowrate
readings of permeate and reject water stayed consistently at 0.8 and 1.2 gpm, respectively. Both inlet and
feed water pressure averaged 37 psi with pressure loss across the sediment filter ranging from 0 to 6 psi
and averaging 0.3 psi. Permeate and reject water discharge pressures were similar, averaging 145 and
141 psi, respectively. The re-pressurization system pressure ranged from 30 to 45 psi and averaged 38
psi. All system pressures were within the specified ranges. The permeate TDS monitor showed zero
readings most of the time except for five times when the reading was 2 mg/L. In contrast, laboratory TDS
results of the permeate ranged from <2.0 to 34.0 mg/L and averaged 8.6 mg/L. Because the onsite TDS
monitor was a low-end meter, it was used as a "quick check" of the system performance in the field.
4.4.2 Residual Management. Residuals generated from the RO system operation included RO
reject water, which was discharged to the existing septic system.
26
-------
where Vp = Volume of permeate (gal)
Vr= Volume of residual wastewater (gal)
X X X X X X X X X
-100*Vp/(Vp +
Figure 4-13. Percent Recovery Calculations
X X X
X X
Date
Figure 4-14. Flowrate Readings of RO Permeate and Reject Water
27
-------
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. The main operational issue with the EPRO-
1,200 RO unit was a RO pump and motor that needed to be replaced. When a CES personnel noticed that
the system was louder than normal, Norlen's Water visited the site on October 19, 2009, to diagnose the
problem. After inspections, it was determined that bearings on the RO motor were failing and should be
replaced along with the RO pump. On October 29, 2009, Norlen's Water installed a new RO motor and
pump.
The system O&M and operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to pre- and post-
treatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventative
maintenance activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pre-treatment requirements for the EPRO-1,200 RO unit
included a 5-(im sediment filter to remove any particulates that could potentially foul the RO membrane.
Post-treatment requirements included a calcite filter to raise the pH of permeate from an average of 6.9
after the RO unit to an average of 7.4. Although not a post-treatment requirement, the existing
chlorination system was placed after the RO unit to provide chlorine residuals in the distribution system.
System Automation. All major functions of the EPRO-1,200 RO unit were automated and would require
only minimal operator oversight and intervention if all functions were operating as intended. The
operator controlled the system operation manually. Once the permeate water in the two atmospheric
storage tanks reached a pre-set level, a float switch was triggered, and the RO unit shut off. The chemical
feed pump was tied into the re-pressurization pump to chlorinate the water as water was pumped to the
distribution system.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to operate the
EPRO-1,200 RO unit were minimal. The operator was typically onsite five times per week and spent
approximately 10 min each day performing visual inspections and recording system operating parameters
on the daily log sheets. Normal operation of the system did not require additional skills beyond those
necessary to operate the existing water supply equipment.
The level of operator certification is determined by the type and class of public drinking water systems.
MDWP's drinking water rules require all community and non-transient, non-community public drinking
water and distribution systems to be classified based on potential health risks. Classifications range from
"very small water system (VSWS)" (lowest) to "Class IV" (highest) for treatment systems and from
"VSWS" to "Class IV" for distribution systems, depending on such factors as the system's complexity,
size, and source water. CES is classified as a "VSWS" distribution system and, therefore, a plant operator
with a "VSWS" certificate was required by the MDWP. To fulfill the plant operator requirements, CES
hired Nolen's Water to be their contract operator since they have the appropriate credentials and are
familiar with the system.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. The only regularly scheduled maintenance activities required for
system operations were (1) replacing the sediment filter on a monthly basis or when the differential
pressure was greater than 10% and (2) replenishing calcite in the calcite filter as it became depleted.
Replacement of the sediment filter and calcite replenishment was not required during this performance
evaluation study.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. NaOCl solution was used for chlorination.
The 35-gal chlorine tank was filled with a diluted NaOCl solution using a 3:1 water to 12.5% NaOCl (as
C12) ratio.
28
-------
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the Crane Environmental EPRO -1,200 RO system was evaluated based on analyses
of water samples collected from the treatment plant and the distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. A total of four locations were sampled from the treatment
system, including IN, RO, AP, and RW. Water samples were collected on 22 occasions, including one
duplicate sample, with field speciation performed during eight occasions at IN, RO, and AP. Beginning
May 27, 2009, sampling was conducted at the RW sample tap so there were only 16 sampling events for
RW.
Table 4-6 summarizes the analytical results of arsenic, antimony, iron, and manganese measured at the
four sampling locations across the treatment train. Table 4-7 summarizes the results of other water
quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results for the demonstration study.
The results of the analysis of the water samples collected throughout the treatment system are discussed
below.
Arsenic. The key parameters for evaluating the effectiveness of the RO treatment system were the
arsenic and antimony concentrations in treated water.
Figure 4-15 contains four bar charts showing concentrations of arsenic species, including particulate
arsenic, As(III), and As(V) at the IN, RO, and AP locations for each of the eight speciation events. Total
arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 13.6 to 22.6 |o,g/L and averaged 18.2 |o,g/L (Table 4-6).
Of the soluble fraction, As(V) was the predominating species, with concentrations ranging from 14.3 to
18.7 (ig/L and averaging 16.7 |o,g/L. Particulate arsenic concentrations were low, with all concentrations
below the MDL of 0.1 (ig/L except for one outlier. Only a trace amount of As(III) existed, ranging from
<0.1 to 0.5 (ig/L and averaging 0.2 (ig/L. The concentrations of source water arsenic species measured
during the performance evaluation study were consistent with those measured on September 13, 2005,
and during the pilot study from March 7, 2006 to July 11, 2006 (Table 4-1).
Total arsenic concentrations measured at IN, RO, AP, and RW are plotted on Figures 4-16. The
concentrations in the permeate ranged from <0.1 to 0.3 (ig/L, averaging 0.1 (ig/L. Based on the average
concentration in source water, the RO unit achieved 99% of arsenic removal. After pH adjustment by the
calcite filter, total arsenic concentration remained unchanged, as expected. Total arsenic concentration in
reject water averaged 31.9 (ig/L, which was 1.75 times the average raw water concentration, as a result of
the RO membrane separation.
Antimony. Total antimony concentrations measured at IN, RO, AP, and RW are plotted on Figures 4-17.
The concentrations in source water ranged from 8.6 to 13.2 (ig/L and averaged 10.8 (ig/L with the
majority present in the soluble form. During the performance evaluation, antimony was consistently
removed by the RO unit to below the MDL of 0.1 (ig/L, achieving a 99% removal rate. As expected,
antimony concentrations after pH adjustment did not change. Total antimony concentration in reject
water averaged 17.7 (ig/L, which was 1.64 times the average raw water concentration, as a result of the
RO membrane separation.
Iron and Manganese. Total iron concentrations in source water were all below the MDL of 25 (ig/L.
Total manganese concentrations in source water ranged from 0.5 to 6.3 (ig/L and averaged 2.2 (ig/L with
the majority present in the soluble form at an average concentration of 1.3 (ig/L. Total manganese
concentrations after the RO unit were less than the MDL of 0.1 (ig/L for all samples, except for three
measurements at 0.11, 0.25, and 0.28 (ig/L. As expected, manganese concentrations after pH adjustment
remained the same.
29
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Antimony, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
RO
AP
RW
IN
RO
AP
IN
RO
AP
IN
RO
AP
IN
RO
AP
IN
RO
AP
RW
IN
RO
AP
IN
RO
AP
RW
IN
RO
AP
IN
RO
AP
RW
IN
RO
AP
Unit
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Sample
Count
22
22
21W
17
8
8
7
7(b)
8
7
8
8
7
8
8
7
22
22
20W
17
7
7
7
20W
21
21
17
8
7w
7
22
22
21
16W
7
7
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Phosphorous
(asP)
Turbidity
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
RO
AP
RW
IN
RO
AP
RW
IN
RO
AP
RW
IN
RO
AP
RW
IN
RO
AP
RW
IN
RO
AP
RW
IN
RO
AP
RW
IN
RO
AP
RW
IN
RO
AP
IN
RO
AP
IN
RO
AP
IN
RO
AP
RW
IN
RO
AP
RW
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
°C
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
22
22
20W
17
8
8
7
7
8
8
7
7
22
22
21
17
8
8
7
7
22
22
21
17
22
22
21
17
16
16
16
16
7
7
6
7
7
6
7
7
6
22
22
20tb)
17
21
21
20
17
Concentration
Minimum
186
1.6
2.3
308
6.09
0.1
0.1
16.3
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.1
10.0
0.3
0.3
16.6
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
216
<2.0
<2.0
354
7.8
6.5
6.8
7.9
12.6
14.0
14.3
3.6
1.0
1.4
310
324
323
183
0.6
8.8
300
70
O.25
7.9
113
Maximum
220
20.7
25.9
375
11.9
0.2
0.1
19.0
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.5
12.9
1.0
0.9
19.8
<10.0
12.5
<10.0
<10.0
10.0
2.7
9.4
3.7
286
34.0
52.0
468
8.0
7.2
8.9
8.0
25.3
25.3
25.5
5.2
4.4
4.6
445
457
457
275
2.0
30.1
496
150
1.4
64.6
271
Average
206
5.6
16.6
340
9.8
0.1
0.1
17.9
0.2
0.05
0.05
0.2
11.2
0.5
0.5
18.1
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
2.3
1.0
1.2
1.2
255
8.6
19.3
410
7.9
6.9
7.4
8.0
21.6
21.8
21.8
4.3
3.1
3.1
351
373
364
217
1.2
18.3
352
107
0.5
19.3
172
Standard
Deviation
10.1
5.3
5.3
16.0
1.9
-
-
1.0
0.1
-
-
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.8
-
-
-
-
2.4
0.7
2.0
1.0
18.3
7.8
13.3
31.7
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.0
4.5
4.0
4.3
0.6
1.2
1.2
43.7
42.8
48.3
23.6
0.5
5.9
43.6
18.1
0.3
5.6
34.3
31
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results (Continued)
Parameter
Mg
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
RO
AP
RW
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
21
21
20(c)
17
Concentration
Minimum
84.8
0.3
0.7
144
Maximum
128
1.0
2.6
225
Average
110
1.0
1.3
180
Standard
Deviation
10.2
0.7
0.5
17.8
(a) One outlier (i.e., 341 mg/L on 09/30/09) omitted.
(b) One outlier (i.e., 136 mg/L on 09/14/09) omitted.
(c) One outlier (i.e., 71.3 mg/L on 09/14/09) omitted.
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect samples for calculations.
TDS. Salt rejection is an important parameter for a RO system. The manufacturer specified a minimum
rejection rate to be 98% (Table 4-2), which was calculated according to Equation 2:
where
Rejection (%) = 100 * (TDS:N - TDSRO)/TDSiN
TDSiN = TDS in raw water (mg/L)
TDSRO = TDS in permeate (mg/L)
(2)
TDS concentrations ranged from 216 to 286 mg/L and averaged 255 mg/L in raw water, and ranged from
<2 to 34 mg/L and averaged 8.6 mg/L in the RO permeate. The rejection rates varied from 88 to 99.6%
and averaged 96.7%. Therefore, the RO system did not consistently achieve the minimal rejection rate of
98% as specified. TDS concentrations increased slightly after pH adjustment to an average concentration
of 19.3 mg/L as expected. Figure 4-18 presents TDS concentrations and rejection rates measured during
the performance evaluation study.
pH and Alkalinity. Source water pH values measured at the IN location ranged from 7.8 to 8.0 and
averaged 7.9. pH values of the RO permeate water ranged from 6.5 to 7.2 and averaged 6.9. The
observed pH drop was caused by the reduction in total alkalinity. The RO unit reduced alkalinity values
from an average of 206 mg/L (as CaCO3) in source water to an average of 5.6 mg/L (as CaCO3) in RO
permeate, a 97% reduction on average. After pH adjustment, pH values increased to levels ranging from
6.8 to 8.9 and averaging 7.4. The rise in pH was attributed to an increase in alkalinity, which averaged
16.6 mg/L (as CaCO3). pH levels and alkalinity concentrations measured during the performance
evaluation study are presented in Figures 4-19 and 4-20, respectively.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Total hardness in source water ranged from 183 to 275 mg/L (as
CaCO3) and averaged 217 mg/L (as CaCO3) consisting of approximately 49% calcium hardness and 51%
magnesium hardness. The total hardness was initially reduced to an average concentration of 1.2 mg/L
(as CaCO3) in the RO permeate water. However, as expected, total hardness concentrations were elevated
after the calcite filter to an average of 18.3 mg/L (as CaCO3). Figure 4-21 presents total hardness
concentrations measured during the performance evaluation study. Silica concentrations in source water
ranged from 10.0 to 12.9 mg/L (as SiO2) and averaged 11.2 mg/L (as SiO2), which was above the vendor-
suggested maximum value of 10 mg/L in the feed water to the RO unit. Silica concentrations in RO
permeate water ranged from 0.3 to 1.0 mg/L (as SiO2) and averaged 0.5 mg/L (as SiO2), indicating
effective removal by the RO unit. Figure 4-22 presents silica concentrations measured during the
performance evaluation study. Sulfate and nitrate (as N) concentrations were low in source water, i.e., an
average of 9.8 and 0.2 mg/L, respectively, and were completely removed to below their respective MDLs
of 1.0 and 0.05 mg/L.
32
-------
Arsenic Speciation at Wellhead (IN)
ArsenicSpeciation after Reverse Osmosis (RO)
ArsenicSpeciation after pH Adjustment (AP)
Figure 4-15. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, RO, and AP Sampling Locations
33
-------
= 25
S
I 20
lOng/LMCL
X X
I ^AtWellhead|IN| .' After Reverse Osmosis |RO| .. AfterpH Adustment |AP| Residual Wastewater |RW|
Figure 4-16. Total Arsenic Concentrations at IN, RO, AP, and RW Sampling Locations
a 15
6|ag/LMCL
X X X X X X X X X
-At Wellhead (IN) '. After Reverse Osmosis (RO) "-After pH Adjustment (AP) Residual Wastewater (RW) |
Figure 4-17. Total Antimony Concentrations at IN, RO, AP, and RW Sampling Locations
34
-------
^ 500
oo
E
X" X
AtWellhead (IN) After Reverse Osmosis (RO) After pH Adjustment (AP) Residual Wastewater Rejection(%) |
Figure 4-18. TDS Concentrations at IN, RO, AP, and RW Sampling Locations
X X X X X X X X X X
-AtWellhead (IN) After Reverse Osmosis (RO) After pH Adjustment (AP) Residual Wastewater
Figure 4-19. pH Levels at IN, RO, AP, and RW Sampling Locations
35
-------
"|250
X X
X X
X X X X
-AtWellhead (IN) After Reverse Osmosis (RO) After pH Adjustment (AP) Residual Wastewater (RW)
Figure 4-20. Alkalinity Concentrations at IN, RO, AP, and RW Sampling Locations
IS 400
I
s
c
s
= 300
X
-AtWellhead (IN) After Reverse Osmosis (RO) After pH Adjustment (AP) Residual Wastewater (RW)
Figure 4-21. Total Hardness Concentrations at IN, RO, AP, and RW Sampling Locations
36
-------
f !5
S
s
9 X X X X X X X X X X
-AtWellhead (IN) After Reverse Osmosis (RO) After pH Adjustment (AP) Residual Wastewater (RW)
Figure 4-22. Silica Concentration at IN, RO, AP, and RW Sampling Locations
4.5.2 Residual Water Sampling. RW samples were collected from the reject water discharge line
beginning May 27, 2009, for a total of 16 sampling events. The analytical results from the residual
sampling are summarized in Tables 4-6 and 4-7 and presented in Figures 4-16 through 4-22. As
expected, residual water contained higher concentrations of arsenic, antimony, TDS, alkalinity, total
hardness, silica (as SiO2), and sulfate at 31.9 (ig/L, 17.7 (ig/L, 410 mg/L, 340 mg/L, 352 mg/L, 18.1
mg/L, and 17.9 mg/L, respectively, on average. Manganese and nitrate concentrations were similar to
source water concentrations averaging 2.0 (ig/L and 0.2 mg/L (as N), respectively.
Calculations of mass balance for total arsenic and antimony were performed using the average
concentrations at IN, RO, and RW and the volume of each stream according to Equation 3 as follows:
cfvf=cpvp + crvr
(3)
where
Cf = feed water total arsenic or antimony concentration
Vf = volume of feed water
Cp = permeate water total arsenic or antimony concentration
Vp = volume of permeate water
Cr = reject water total arsenic or antimony concentration
Vr = volume of reject water.
Results of the mass balance calculations are presented in Table 4-8. During the performance evaluation,
mass balance data in terms of the mass recovered in the permeate and reject water against the mass in
feed water were 107% and 100% for total arsenic and antimony, respectively.
37
-------
Table 4-8. Mass Balance Calculations
Analyte
Arsenic
Antimony
Feed
Cf
fig/L
18.2
10.8
vf
gal
177,390(a)
177,390(a)
Permeate
CD
Hg/L
0.1
0.05(b)
VD
gal
69,780
69,780
Reject
cr
Hg/L
31.9
17.7
vr
gal
107,610
107,610
r v +r v
\^0 VD T^ ^rvr
mg
13,019
7,222
cfvf
mg
12,220
7,251
Mass
Balance
%
107
100
(a) Calculated based on permeate and residual wastewater production.
(b) All antimony concentrations were below MDL of 0.1 ug/L. Thus, one-half the detection limit was used for
calculation.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Following the startup of the RO treatment system,
distribution system "first draw" samples were collected from a cold water tap in the kitchen on a monthly
basis from May through November 2009. Table 4-9 presents results of the distribution sampling.
Table 4-9. Distribution System Sampling Results
No. of
Sampling
Events
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Location
Sample Type
Flushed/lst Draw
Sampling Date
Date
05/20/09
06/17/09
07/09/09
08/27/09
09/08/09
09/29/09
10/27/09
11/19/09
Average
DS1
Kitchen Sink
LCR
1st Draw
0
'i
B a>
M a
c« =
£ H
hrs
12.0
14.0
NA
15.0
12.0
13.0
13.5
12.0
13.1
M
s.u.
6.8
8.9
7.0
8.5
8.9
9.2
9.1
9.2
8.4
Alkalinity
mg/L
10.1
22.1
13.9
58.3
22.9
24.7
19.1
25.4
24.6
5«
<
ug/L
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
2.7
0.5
0)
u.
ug/L
<25
<25
<25
48.6
<25
<25
<25
166
36
1
ug/L
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.1
1.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
.a
a.
ug/L
1.0
0.8
1.4
1.2
0.7
1.9
0.5
0.1
1.0
U
ug/L
211
163
117
135
147
190
144
57.6
146
.a
in
ug/L
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
NA = not available
Alkalinity concentrations in the distribution "first draw" samples ranged from 10.1 to 58.3 mg/L, and
averaged 24.6 mg/L, which was slighly higher than the average concentration in the pH-adjusted water
(i.e., 16.6 mg/L). The slightly higher alkalinity concentration may have partially contributed to the
elevated pH level in the distribution system which ranged from 6.8 to 9.2, and averaged 8.4, in
comparison with that of the pH-adjusted water (i.e., ranging from 6.8 to 8.9 and averaging 7.4). Since the
distribution sample pH was measured in an off-site laboratory, whereas the treatment sample pH was
measured on site, it is possible that the pH measurement might have also contributed to the one pH unit
difference (pH 7.4 vs. 8.4) between the distribution water and the pH-adjusted water.
38
-------
Arsenic and antimony concentrations in the distribution "first draw" samples were similar to those in the
system effluent. They were both in the sub-parts per billion (ppb) levels (except for one time at 2.7 (ig/L
of arsenic).
Lead concentrations in the distribution system ranged from <0.01 to 1.9 (ig/L and averaged 1.0 (ig/L. All
of the lead values were, therefore, below the action level of 15 (ig/L. Copper concentrations ranged
between 57.6 to 211 (ig/L and averaged 146 (ig/L, with no samples exceeding the 1,300 (ig/L action level.
Therefore, the RO treatment system did not have any adverse effects on the water quality in the
distribution system during the performance evaluation study.
4.6
System Cost
The cost of the treatment system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design
capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This required tracking of the capital cost for
the equipment, site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for chemical supply, electricity
consumption, and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The total capital investment for the dual plumbing and EPRO-1,200 RO unit
was $20,542 (Table 4-10). The dual plumbing installation cost was $8,600 (or 42% of the total capital
investment), which included $2,650 for the plumbing materials and $5,950 for the labor to convert the
existing plumbing into a duplex distribution system. The cost of the EPRO-1,200 RO treatment system
was $11,942, including $8,471 for equipment and parts, $300 for shipping, and $3,171 for installation.
Table 4-10. Capital Investment Cost for CES at Carmel, ME
Description
Quantity
% of Capital
Investment
Cost Cost
Dual Plumbing
PEX Piping and Materials
Vendor Labor
Subtotal
1
1
-
$2,650
$5,950
$8,600
-
-
42%
EPRO-1,200 RO System
Crane Environmental EPRO-1,200 RO Unit
Calcite Filter (1.25 ft3), two 300-gal
Atmospheric Storage Tanks w/Float Controls
230 V Solution Feed Pump
Re-pressurization System
Flow Totalizer
Pump Discharge Pressure Gauge
Process Valves and Piping
Shipping
Vendor Labor
Subtotal
Total Capital Investment
1
-
-
-
$6,227
$429
$946
$149
$80
$640
$300
$3,171
$11,942
$20,542
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
58%
100%
The capital cost of $20,542 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 1,200 gpd of permeate,
which results in $17.12/gpd of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted to an annualized cost
of $l,939/yr using 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 365 days annually at the design capacity of 1,200 gpd,
39
-------
the system would produce 438,000 gal of permeate water. The unit capital cost would be $4.43/1,000 gal.
During the 10-month demonstration study, the system produced 96,576 gal of permeate. The annual
production was estimated to be 108,912 gal (see Table 4-11); at this reduced rate of production, the unit
capital cost was increased to $17.80/1,000 gal of water treated.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included the cost incurred by system
repairs, electricity, and labor, as summarized in Table 4-11. As described in Section 4.4.3, the main
operational issue that occurred during the study period was replacement of a RO pump and motor
assembly in November 2009. The equipment was covered under the manufacturer's warranty, but the
cost of labor to install the replacement parts was not covered by the warranty. The cost of labor to install
the replacement parts was $321, which included $96 for diagnostics, $160 for labor, and $65 for shipping.
This cost was normalized to the volume of permeate water produced between February 4 and December
15, 2009 during the demonstration study. Therefore, the cost per 1,000 gal of permeate water was
$3.32/1,000 gal.
The school did not have a separate electrical meter for the EPRO-1,200 RO system. Based on the total
operational hours and the rated horsepower of the RO pump and the re-pressurization pump, the annual
electricity consumption was estimated to be 5,078 kWh. Applying a local electricity rate of 0.074/kWh,
the annual electrical cost associated with the system operation was estimated to be $376, or $3.45/1,000
gal of permeate water.
Table 4-11. Operation and Maintenance Cost for EPRO-1200 RO Unit
Treatment System
Cost Category
Permeate Water Volume (gal)
Annual Permeate Production
(gal/yr)
Value
96,576
108,912
Assumptions
February 4 through December 15, 2009 (2,012
hr of operation, 0.8 gpm)
January 1 through December 31, 2009
(assuming 2,269 hr of operation, 0.8 gpm)
RO Pump and Motor Assembly Replacement
Diagnostics
Labor
Shipping
Subtotal
Cost ($/l, 000 gal)
$96
$160
$65
$321
$3.32
-
-
-
-
Permeate produced = 96,576 gal
Electricity
Annual Electricity
Consumption (kWh/yr)
Annual Electricity Cost
(kWh/yr)
Electricity Cost ($/l,000 gal)
5,078
$376
$3.45
1, !/2-hp RO pump, 1 1-hp re-pressurization
pump, 50% efficiency, 2,269 hr of annual
operation
$0.074/kWh
Annual production of 108,912 gal
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Annual Labor (hr/yr)
Annual Labor Cost ($/yr)
Labor Cost ($/l,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
0.8
41.6
$666
$6.12
$12.89
10 mm/day, 5 days a week
52 weeks a year
Labor rate = $16/hr
Annual production of 108,912 gal
Total O&M cost = $3.32+$3.45 + $6.12
40
-------
Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed
10 min per day, or 50 min per week. With a labor rate of $16/hr, the estimated annual labor cost was
$666, or $6.12/1,000 gal of permeate water produced.
In summary, the total O&M cost was estimated to be $12.89/1,000 gal of permeate water produced based
on the cost data collected during the performance evaluation study.
41
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2007. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology (QAPP
ID 355-Q-6-0). Prepared under Contract No.EP-C-05-057. Task Order No. 0019, for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
Battelle. 2009. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology Round 2a at Carmel Elementary School in Carmel, Maine. Prepared under
Contract No. EP-C-05-057, 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." JAWWA, 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.
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.
42
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Carmel Elementary School at Carmel, ME ~ Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Date
04/16/09
04/17/09
04/21/09
04/22/09
04/23/09
04/24/09
04/27/09
04/28/09
04/29/09
04/30/09
05/01/09
05/04/09
05/05/09(a)
05/06/09
05/07/09
05/11/09
05/12/09
05/13/09
05/14/09
05/15/09
05/18/09
05/19/09(b)
05/20/09
05/21/09
05/22/09
05/26/09
05/27/09
05/28/09
05/29/09
06/01/09
06/02/09
06/03/09
Time
11:30
9:40
8:30
8:30
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
Non-
Potable
Water
FT-1
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,957,300
2,958,500
2,959,700
2,960,800
2,962,000
2,963,100
2,964,100
2,966,500
2,967,600
2,968,500
2,969,900
2,970,900
2,972,100
2,973,000
2,974,100
2,975,100
2,976,200
2,977,200
2,978,200
2,979,300
2,980,800
2,982,200
2,983,300
2,984,700
Pre-Filter
Inlet
Pressure
psig
32
32
32
32
32
32
35
32
35
40
34
34
40
35
35
40
40
40
40
35
35
35
35
35
42
35
35
30
35
35
35
40
RO Unit
Feed
Pressure
psig
30
30
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
38
34
34
40
35
35
38
35
40
40
35
35
35
35
35
36
35
35
30
35
35
35
40
Hour
Meter
hrs
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
Concentrate
Pressure
psig
160
NA
160
160
160
150
140
140
145
145
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
Flowrate
gpm
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
FT-2
gal
NA
NA
181,840
181,890
181,920
NA
182,420
183,310
184,250
185,240
186,250
187,250
188,220
189,580
190,710
192,990
193,860
194,890
196,000
196,960
198,470
199,450
200,390
201,610
202,590
203,450
204,630
205,740
206,770
207,740
208,680
209,860
Permeate
Flowrate
gpm
1.2
1.4
1.3
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
FT-3
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
400
940
1,490
2,170
2,670
3,260
3,840
4,640
5,310
6,680
7,210
7,820
8,530
9,070
10,000
10,600
11,170
11,910
12,510
13,040
13,770
14,440
15,070
15,670
16,250
16,980
Pump
Discharge
Pressure
psi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
135
135
135
135
140
140
148
140
145
145
145
Recovery
%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
44
38
37
41
33
37
37
37
37
38
38
37
39
36
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
Re-pressurization
System
Pressure
psig
32
32
45
45
40
32
35
30
45
40
35
35
40
35
40
45
40
35
35
45
35
40
45
40
44
40
40
45
40
40
40
40
FT-4
gal
212,725
212,890
212,940
212,990
213,030
NA
213,160
213,670
214,210
214,790
215,340
215,900
216,470
217,000
217,630
218,820
219,330
219,910
220,620
221,120
221,940
222,490
223,040
223,660
224,240
224,700
225,380
226,000
226,620
227,140
227,700
228,380
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Carmel Elementary School at Carmel, ME ~ Daily System Operation
Log Sheet (Continued)
Wk
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Date
06/04/09
06/05/09
06/08/09
06/09/09
06/10/09
06/11/09
06/12/09
06/15/09
06/16/09
06/17/09
06/18/09
06/19/09
06/22/09
06/23/09
06/24/09
06/25/09
06/29/09
06/30/09
07/01/09
07/02/09
07/07/09
07/08/09
07/09/09
07/13/09
07/14/09
07/15/09
07/16/09
07/20/09
07/21/09
07/22/09
07/23/09
07/27/09
07/28/09
07/29/09
Time
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
7:00
6:50
7:20
7:15
8:00
8:00
8:00
Non-
Potable
Water
FT-1
gal
2,985,700
2,986,900
2,988,000
2,989,100
2,990,200
2,991,500
2,992,600
2,993,700
2,994,700
2,995,200
2,995,200
2,995,300
2,995,400
2,995,500
2,995,500
2,995,600
2,995,600
2,995,700
2,995,900
2,996,100
2,996,400
2,996,600
2,996,700
2,996,800
2,996,900
2,997,100
2,997,300
2,997,300
2,997,400
2,997,500
2,997,600
2,997,700
2,997,800
2,997,900
Pre-Filter
Inlet
Pressure
psig
40
35
35
35
40
35
35
40
35
40
40
40
40
40
35
40
40
35
35
40
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
38
30
37
30
38
35
40
RO Unit
Feed
Pressure
psig
40
35
35
35
40
35
35
40
35
40
40
40
40
40
35
40
40
35
35
40
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
37
28
36
28
38
35
40
Hour
Meter
hrs
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36.3
38.1
41.5
42.3
44.1
47.6
48.8
50.7
52.1
53.9
56.8
60.7
63.7
65
Concentrate
Pressure
psig
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
135
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
135
135
135
115
110
120
115
130
135
115
Flowrate
gpm
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
FT-2
gal
210,660
212,050
212,940
214,000
214,980
215,960
217,010
217,890
218,700
219,130
219,260
219,390
219,570
219,900
219,990
220,160
220,420
220,810
220,970
221,190
221,680
221,800
222,010
222,090
222,210
222,390
222,470
222,580
222,670
222,780
222,960
223,200
223,380
223,460
Permeate
Flowrate
gpm
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
FT-3
gal
17,480
18,340
18,920
19,570
20,180
20,800
21,470
22,030
22,590
22,830
22,910
23,010
23,130
23,350
23,410
23,600
23,760
23,990
24,090
24,240
24,590
24,670
24,810
24,860
24,960
25,090
25,140
25,220
25,280
25,370
25,490
25,670
25,800
25,860
Pump
Discharge
Pressure
psi
145
145
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
120
125
120
120
140
140
130
Recovery
%
38
38
39
38
38
39
39
39
41
36
38
43
40
40
40
NA
38
37
38
41
42
40
40
38
45
42
38
42
40
45
40
43
42
43
Re-pressurization
System
Pressure
psig
40
40
40
35
40
35
35
45
35
45
40
40
35
35
35
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
35
35
35
35
40
34
33
37
35
35
42
FT-4
gal
228,888
229,750
230,290
230,900
231 ,490
232,070
232,700
233,250
233,780
233,940
233,960
233,980
234,000
234,060
234,090
234,130
234,160
234,370
234,460
234,550
234,640
234,730
234,790
234,850
234,930
235,010
235,090
235,150
235,200
235,260
235,360
235,490
235,580
235,630
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Carmel Elementary School at Carmel, ME ~ Daily System Operation
Log Sheet (Continued)
Wk
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Date
07/30/09
08/03/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
08/06/09
08/10/09
08/11/09
08/12/09
08/13/09
08/17/09
08/18/09
08/19/09
08/20/09
08/24/09
08/25/09
08/26/09
08/27/09
09/01/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
09/04/09
09/08/09
09/09/09
09/10/09
09/11/09
09/14/09
09/15/09
09/16/09
09/17/09
09/18/09
09/21/09
09/22/09
09/23/09
09/24/09
Time
8:00
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
Non-
Potable
Water
FT-1
gal
2,998,100
2,998,200
2,998,300
2,998,400
2,998,500
2,998,600
2,998,700
2,998,800
2,998,800
2,998,900
2,999,000
2,999,400
2,999,600
2,999,700
2,999,800
2,999,900
3,000,100
3,000,700
3,001,800
3,002,700
3,003,600
3,004,500
3,005,300
3,006,400
3,007,400
3,008,400
3,009,300
3,010,300
3,011,300
3,012,300
3,013,200
3,014,100
3,015,100
3,015,800
Pre-Filter
Inlet
Pressure
psig
40
40
35
35
35
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
35
35
35
35
35
40
35
35
35
40
40
35
35
35
40
40
40
RO Unit
Feed
Pressure
psig
40
40
35
35
35
40
40
40
40
40
38
40
40
40
40
40
40
35
35
35
35
35
40
35
35
35
40
40
35
35
35
40
40
40
Hour
Meter
hrs
69.4
72.5
74.4
76.2
77.5
81.5
84.0
86.3
86.3
88.8
89.3
93.8
96.5
101.7
110.4
111.4
112.4
130.6
144.9
156.0
179.0
190.9
212.6
220.5
240.0
254.6
268.9
286.3
297.4
310.0
325.0
341.1
354.1
363.7
Concentrate
Pressure
psig
135
140
135
135
130
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
130
130
130
135
135
135
135
135
130
130
130
130
130
140
140
135
135
Flowrate
gpm
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
FT-2
gal
223,780
223,940
224,030
224,160
224,250
224,490
224,630
224,780
224,780
224,920
224,960
225,230
225,390
225,700
226,230
226,590
227,100
227,460
228,360
229,060
229,820
231,250
232,610
233,490
234,340
235,270
236,170
237,270
237,980
238,790
239,770
240,750
241,580
242,190
Permeate
Flowrate
gpm
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
FT-3
gal
26,070
26,190
26,260
26,340
26,400
26,580
26,680
26,790
26,790
26,900
26,930
27,120
27,230
27,460
27,830
28,090
28,430
28,700
29,300
29,760
30,260
31,240
32,160
32,740
33,310
33,930
34,530
35,260
35,760
36,280
36,910
37,560
38,110
38,510
Pump
Discharge
Pressure
psi
140
140
135
135
135
140
140
140
135
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
Recovery
%
40
43
44
38
40
43
42
42
NA
44
43
41
41
43
41
42
40
43
40
40
40
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
39
39
40
40
40
Re-pressurization
System
Pressure
psig
40
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
35
35
40
40
40
35
35
35
35
FT-4
gal
235,740
235,840
235,910
235,960
236,030
236,180
236,280
236,360
236,370
236,430
236,490
236,680
236,800
236,970
237,300
237,560
237,920
238,260
238,840
239,260
239,780
240,690
241 ,580
242,190
242,760
243,260
243,850
244,580
245,030
245,540
246,210
246,840
247,370
247,770
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Carmel Elementary School at Carmel, ME ~ Daily System Operation
Log Sheet (Continued)
Wk
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Date
09/25/09
09/28/09
09/29/09
09/30/09
10/01/09
10/02/09
10/06/09
10/07/09
10/08/09
10/09/09
10/13/09
10/14/09
10/15/09
10/19/09
10/20/09
10/26/09
10/27/09
10/28/09
10/29/09
10/30/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
11/04/09
11/05/09
11/06/09
11/09/09
11/10/09
11/12/09
11/16/09
11/17/09
11/18/09
11/19/09
11/20/09
11/23/09
Time
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:30
8:00
8:15
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:30
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
Non-
Potable
Water
FT-1
gal
3,016,711
3,017,600
3,018,600
3,019,500
3,020,400
3,021,300
3,023,200
3,024,200
3,025,200
3,025,900
3,026,000
3,026,900
3,027,700
3,029,800
3,030,700
3,034,600
3,035,500
3,036,400
3,037,400
3,038,300
3,039,300
3,040,100
3,041,100
3,042,100
3,043,200
3,043,600
3,044,100
3,045,100
3,047,100
3,048,100
3,049,200
3,050,100
3,051,100
3,054,000
Pre-Filter
Inlet
Pressure
psig
40
40
35
35
40
40
40
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
40
30
40
34
40
40
38
40
35
35
35
40
40
RO Unit
Feed
Pressure
psig
40
40
35
35
40
40
40
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
32
36
30
40
32
40
40
36
40
35
35
35
40
40
Hour
Meter
hrs
379.1
392.0
404.8
423.3
434.4
445.9
474.0
489.1
505.8
515.2
525.3
540.0
554.6
580.9
592.5
640.3
653.5
667.5
680.0
690.2
699.9
709.6
723.2
731.7
743.6
744.6
755.9
767.4
789.8
800.6
812.1
825.1
834.1
876.6
Concentrate
Pressure
psig
135
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
170
170
170
175
175
175
175
175
155
155
160
155
155
160
Flowrate
gpm
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
FT-2
gal
243,210
243,980
244,790
245,960
246,670
247,400
249,170
250,170
251,190
251,780
252,390
253,330
254,260
255,940
256,690
259,850
260,730
261,660
262,490
263,230
263,930
264,650
265,670
266,300
267,180
267,480
268,100
268,960
270,630
271,430
272,280
273,250
273,970
277,090
Permeate
Flowrate
gpm
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
FT-3
gal
39,190
39,710
40,250
41,010
41,500
41,980
43,170
43,830
44,510
44,900
45,340
45,960
46,560
47,670
48,170
50,270
50,850
51,460
52,010
52,520
53,000
53,480
54,150
54,580
55,160
55,320
55,780
56,350
57,450
57,980
58,530
59,160
59,620
61,640
Pump
Discharge
Pressure
psi
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
180
180
180
185
185
180
180
180
160
170
170
165
160
165
Recovery
%
40
40
40
39
41
40
40
40
40
40
42
40
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
41
40
40
41
40
35
43
40
40
40
39
39
39
39
Re-pressurization
System
Pressure
psig
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
35
35
40
40
40
40
35
35
40
40
35
40
35
32
35
45
32
45
45
45
40
40
35
35
40
35
40
FT-4
gal
248,440
248,930
249,470
250,210
250,710
251,180
252,320
252,990
253,640
254,040
254,260
254,880
255,440
256,510
256,980
259,020
259,580
260,160
260,720
261,190
261 ,670
262,140
262,800
263,230
263,750
263,900
264,320
264,880
265,900
266,420
266,950
267,560
268,030
269,850
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Carmel Elementary School at Carmel, ME ~ Daily System Operation
Log Sheet (Continued)
Wk
35
36
Date
11/24/09
11/25/09
11/26/09
11/27/09
12/07/09
12/08/09
12/10/09
12/11/09
12/14/09
12/15/09
Time
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
Non-
Potable
Water
FT-1
gal
3,054,800
3,055,900
3,056,900
3,057,800
3,058,900
3,059,800
3,061,000
3,061,900
3,063,100
3,064,000
Pre-Filter
Inlet
Pressure
psig
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
RO Unit
Feed
Pressure
psig
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Hour
Meter
hrs
886.3
897.6
908.1
918.3
931.4
943.6
958.3
969.2
979.3
990.0
Concentrate
Pressure
psig
160
160
160
160
155
150
155
155
150
150
Flowrate
gpm
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
FT-2
gal
277,810
278,650
279,430
280,190
281,170
282,070
283,160
283,970
284,720
285,510
Permeate
Flowrate
gpm
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
FT-3
gal
62,100
62,640
63,140
63,640
64,290
64,890
65,620
66,160
66,650
67,180
Pump
Discharge
Pressure
psi
165
165
165
165
165
155
155
155
165
150
Recovery
%
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Re-pressurization
System
Pressure
psig
40
40
40
35
40
35
40
35
40
40
FT-4
gal
270,310
270,810
271,280
271,780
272,320
272,900
273,590
274,120
274,580
275,100
(a) Norlen's Water installed second 300-gal atmospheric storage tank.
(b) Norlen's Water installed pump discharge pressure gauge.
NA = not available
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Carmel, ME
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Unit
mg/
L
mg/
L
mg/
L
M9/L
mg/
L
NTU
mg/
L
S.U.
°C
mg/
L
mV
mg/
L
mg/
L
mg/
L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
04/16/09
IN
198
-
-
-
11.8
0.8
270
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
218
112
106
20.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.7
-
12.1
-
RO
2.3
-
-
-
0.4
0.9
2.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.6
0.3
0.3
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
AP
20.7
-
-
-
0.3
9.4
35.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.0
14.3
0.7
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.0
-
<0.1
-
04/30/09
IN
209
11.9
0.1
<10
12.9
2.9
286
NA
8.2
12.6
5.2
445
231
110
121
17.7
18.0
<0.1
0.2
17.8
<25
<25
2.1
2.2
10.4
10.5
RO
1.6
<0.1
<0.05
<10
0.6
1.2
8.0
NA
6.9
14.0
1.0
457
0.9
0.4
0.6
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
AP
15.4
<0.1
<0.05
<10
0.3
1.6
52.0
NA
7.7
14.3
1.4
457
25.5
24.2
1.4
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
1.2
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
05/12/09
IN
217
-
-
-
11.5
2.2
268
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
203
94.2
109
18.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.3
-
10.6
-
RO
2.5
-
-
-
0.5
0.9
4.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1
0.4
0.7
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
AP
19.9
-
-
-
0.4
1.6
16.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.0
20.1
1.9
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
<0.1
-
05/20/09
IN
220
-
-
-
11.7
2.5
276
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
218
111
107
20.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.8
-
11.0
-
RO
2.7
-
-
-
0.5
1.1
16.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.9
<0.25
0.6
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
AP
16.4
-
-
-
0.4
0.7
26.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.8
17.2
1.5
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<0.1
-
05/27/09
IN
215
6.1
0.2
<10
11.0
10.0
258
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
275
150
125
15.7
15.8
<0.1
0.5
15.4
<25
<25
2.7
2.2
10.2
10.1
RO
2.4
<0.1
<0.05
<10
0.3
2.7
8.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
AP
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
RW
337
17.7
0.2
<10
17.5
0.7
416
;
-
-
-
359
197
162
31.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.0
-
16.9
-
(a) Data from AP water samples were discarded due to collection of samples from wrong sampling tap.
NA = not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Carmel, ME (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter | Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
mg/
L
mg/
L
mg/
L
M9/L
mg/
L
NTU
mg/
L
S.U.
°C
mg/
L
mV
mg/
L
mg/
L
mg/
L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
06/04/09
IN
210
-
-
-
11.5
0.9
262
7.3
NA
22.5
4.7
327
208
107
100
18.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.9
-
11.8
-
RO
4.2
-
-
-
0.4
0.5
10.0
6.7
NA
22.3
4.3
352
1.7
0.9
0.8
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
AP
13.7
-
-
-
0.5
0.3
12.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.2
17.5
1.7
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<0.1
-
06/17/09
IN
214
-
-
-
11.6
2.0
258
7.9
NA
NA
NA
215
111
104
21.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.9
11.1
-
RO
2.9
-
-
-
0.5
2.0
<2
6.7
NA
NA
NA
1.8
0.8
1.0
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
AP
15.4
-
-
-
0.7
0.4
4.0
7.0
NA
NA
NA
30.1
27.5
2.6
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
<0.1
-
RW
349
-
-
-
18.5
1.1
412
7.9
-
-
-
348
176
172
38.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
17.9
-
06/30/09
IN
195
9.4
0.2
<10
10.3
1.0
220
7.8
6.8
25.0
3.9
350
199
114
84.8
13.6
14.4
<0.1
<0.1
14.3
231 (a
)
<25
6.3
<0.1
10.0
10.4
RO
2.9
<0.1
<0.05
<10
0.6
0.5
<2
7.2
6.5
25.0
2.2
365
1.2
0.7
0.5
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
74.0(b)
<0.1
1.7(a)
<0.1
<0.1
AP
20.6
<0.1
<0.05
<10
0.5
0.5
8.0
7.6
7.4
25.0
2.9
363
16.2
15.2
1.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
RW
327
16.3
0.3
<10
16.6
0.4
354
8.0
-
-
-
346
201
144
23.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.
1
-
17.7
-
07/29/09
IN
186
8.3
0.3
<10
10.6
3.3
216
7.8
7.3
25.3
3.5
340
218
94.9
123
16.4
15.2
1.2
<0.1
15.1
<25
<25
1.0
0.6
13.2
12.9
RO
3.2
<0.1
0.1
12.5
0.5
1.0
6.0
7.1
6.6
25.3
2.9
346
1.3
0.6
0.6
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
AP
16.6
<0.1
0.1
<10
0.7
0.6
16.0
7.5
7.1
25.5
2.8
340
10.7
9.5
1.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
RW
308
19.0
0.5
<10
17.0
0.8
362
7.9
-
-
-
333
145
188
30.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.7
-
20.6
-
09/02/09
IN
203
11.1
0.1
<10
10.9
1.8
254
7.9
7.3
25.0
4.3
336
190
88.7
102
15.1
16.7
<0.1
<0.1
16.6
<25
-
1.1
-
13.1
13.3
RO
2.3
<0.1
<0.05
<10
0.4
2.4
14.0
6.5
6.5
25.0
3.9
377
0.6
0.2
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
<0.1
AP
14.7
<0.1
<0.05
<10
0.4
1.8
22.0
7.1
7.6
25.0
3.6
378
9.1
8.4
0.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
<0.1
RW
325
19.
0
0.1
<10
17.
6
2.6
406
7.9
-
-
-
312
139
172
26.
7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
22.
0
-
(a) Outlier.
NA = not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Carmel, ME (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
09/08/09
IN
206
-
-
-
11.3
1.6
254
7.9
NA
NA
NA
196
89.0
107
15.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
12.0
-
RO
4.0
-
-
-
0.8
1.6
16.0
6.6
NA
NA
NA
1.2
0.5
0.7
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
AP
13.0
-
-
-
0.7
0.6
12.0
7.4
NA
NA
NA
11.8
10.1
1.7
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
RW
349
-
-
-
18.8
0.9
414
7.9
-
-
-
326
146
180
27.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.0
-
20.4
-
09/14/09
IN
193
-
-
-
11.2
1.2
250
8.0
NA
NA
NA
196
88.5
107
16.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
11.6
-
RO
5.6
-
-
-
1.0
0.9
<2
7.2
NA
NA
NA
1.2
0.5
0.7
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
AP
25.9
-
-
-
0.9
0.6
16.0
8.9
NA
NA
NA
136(a)
64.6(a)
71.3(a)
10.0(a)
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
76(a)
-
RW
343
-
-
-
18.0
0.2
408
8.0
-
-
-
327
148
179
31.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
19.8
-
09/28/09
IN
210
9.8
0.2
<10
11.1
0.3
226
7.8
NA
NA
NA
208
105
103
18.0
18.4
<0.1
0.4
18.1
<25
<25
1.1
0.7
9.8
9.7
RO
9.5
<0.1
<0.05
<10
0.5
0.1
<2
7.1
NA
NA
NA
0.9
<0.25
0.7
0.1
0.3
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
AP
11.3
<0.1
<0.05
<10
0.5
<0.1
<2
6.8
NA
NA
NA
8.8
7.9
0.9
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
RW
344
18.0
0.1
<10
18.2
0.2
354
7.9
-
-
-
336
168
167
30.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.7
-
16.3
-
09/30/09
IN
200
201
-
-
-
11.0
11.0
0.2
0.4
272
258
7.9
7.9
NA
NA
NA
211
220
103
106
108
114
20.1
20.4
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
1.6
1.7
-
10.4
10.5
-
RO
2.7
1.8
-
-
-
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.1
18.0
10.0
7.1
6.8
NA
NA
NA
0.8
0.8
<0.25
<0.25
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
AP
341 (a)
11.8
-
-
-
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
20.0
20.0
7.1
7.1
NA
NA
NA
12.3
15.8
11.4
14.8
0.8
0.9
0.1
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.3
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
RW
337
328
-
-
-
18.2
17.9
0.6
0.5
460
436
7.5
8.0
-
-
-
350
348
169
169
181
178
36.5
35.9
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
2.3
2.3
-
17.2
17.1
-
10/07/09
IN
204
-
-
-
10.6
1.8
258
7.9
NA
NA
NA
232
112
119
22.6
-
-
-
-
34
-
3.7
-
10.2
-
RO
5.4
-
-
-
0.4
0.7
8.0
6.6
NA
NA
NA
0.8
0.2
0.6
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
AP
24.4
-
-
-
0.4
0.9
26.0
8.9
NA
NA
NA
20.5
19.2
1.3
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
<0.1
-
RW
336
-
-
-
16.9
1.8
418
8.0
-
-
-
357
172
185
37.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.1
-
16.6
-
(a) Outliers
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Carmel, ME (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
10/20/09
IN
207
-
-
-
10.0
8.3
246
7.9
NA
NA
NA
216
102
114
18.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.8
-
10.2
-
RO
3.0
-
-
-
0.4
2.2
8.0
7.2
NA
NA
NA
1.1
0.3
0.8
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
<0.1
-
AP
21.3
-
-
-
0.4
3.4
20.0
7.5
NA
NA
NA
25.9
24.1
1.8
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<0.1
-
RW
375
-
-
-
18.1
3.7
468
8.0
-
-
-
380
179
202
37.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.0
-
18.1
-
10/27/09
IN
194
-
-
-
10.8
1.0
242
8.0
NA
NA
NA
249
125
124
18.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.2
-
9.8
-
RO
4.9
-
-
-
0.4
0.7
<2
6.9
NA
NA
NA
1.8
1.0
0.9
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<0.1
-
AP
16.6
-
-
-
0.4
0.3
<2
7.7
NA
NA
NA
20.7
19.3
1.3
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
<0.1
-
RW
348
-
-
-
18.2
0.8
402
8.0
-
-
-
393
198
196
32.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.8
-
16.2
-
10/28/09
IN
195
10.6
0.1
<10
10.8
3.8
242
7.9
7.4
20.4
4.3
310
273
144
128
17.7
17.9
<0.1
<0.1
17.8
<25
<25
2.5
2.4
10.5
10.5
RO
5.7
0.2
<0.05
<10
0.4
1.2
4.0
7.1
6.7
20.5
4.4
324
1.9
0.9
1.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
AP
13.4
0.1
<0.05
<10
0.5
0.5
12.0
6.9
7.5
20.5
4.6
323
22.3
21.0
1.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
0.4
0.5
<0.1
<0.1
RW
321
18.2
0.2
<10
18.1
3.0
410
8.0
-
-
-
496
271
225
29.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.0
-
16.8
-
11/17/09
IN
220
-
-
-
11.3
0.9
256
7.9
-
-
-
183
70
113
19.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.8
-
10.3
-
RO
19.3
-
-
-
0.4
0.4
10.0
6.8
-
-
-
1.9
0.8
1.0
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
AP
22.7
-
-
-
0.3
0.8
12.0
7.3
-
-
-
16.5
15.3
1.2
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
RW
347
-
-
-
18.5
1.2
414
8.0
-
-
-
300
113
187
32.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.3
-
16.8
-
12/03/09
IN
220
11.0
0.1
<10
11.7
1.5
284
7.9
7.6
20.7
3.9
349
212
108
104
18.6
19.0
<0.1
0.3
18.7
<25
<25
2.4
2.2
8.6
9.7
RO
12.2
<0.1
<0.05
<10
0.3
1.0
34.0
6.8
6.6
20.7
2.9
389
2.0
1.4
0.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
AP
18.9
<0.1
<0.05
<10
0.3
0.9
48.0
7.2
8.3
20.7
2.3
366
23.8
22.8
1.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
0.5
0.5
<0.1
<0.1
RW
347
17.3
0.2
<10
19.0
1.8
436
8.0
-
-
-
350
176
174
30.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.1
-
14.5
-
CO
(a) Outliers
NA = not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Carmel, ME (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
12/15/09
IN
218
-
-
-
11.6
2.0
254
8.0
-
-
-
202
101
101
17.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.8
-
9.5
-
RO
4.6
-
-
-
0.4
0.6
8.0
6.7
-
-
-
1.1
0.4
0.7
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
AP
18.6
-
-
-
0.3
0.5
26.0
7.2
-
-
-
21.5
20.2
1.4
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.2
-
<0.1
-
RW
364
-
-
-
19.8
0.9
402
8.0
-
-
-
324
161
163
29.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
15.9
-
------- |