EPA/600/R-11/072
July 2011
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Seely-Brown Village in Pomfret, CT
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Abraham S.C. Chen*
Ramona Darlington8
Lili Wang*
§Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693
JALSA Tech, LLC, Powell, OH 43065-6082
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 sub-
surface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provid-
ing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed for and the results obtained from the arsenic removal
treatment technology demonstration project at Seely-Brown Village in Pomfret, CT. The objectives of
the project were to evaluate the effectiveness of ArsenXnp adsorption media in removing arsenic to meet
the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 ug/L. Additionally, this project evaluated (1)
the reliability of the treatment system, (2) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and
operator skill levels, and (3) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The project also characterized
the water in the distribution system and process residuals produced by the treatment process.
The community water system was supplied by two wells (Wells No. 1 and No. 2). Arsenic concentrations
in raw water averaged 25.2 ug/L, existing primarily as soluble As(V). Iron and manganese
concentrations were mostly low, either below the method detection limit (MDL) of 25 ug/L (for iron) or
averaging 28.3 ug/L or less (for manganese). Elevated particulate iron and manganese (to as high as
1,232 and 709 ug/L, respectively) were measured occasionally during the study period, and had to be
removed by pre-filters.
The 15-gal/min (gpm) arsenic treatment system consisted of a pre-filter and two 12-in x 52-in lead/lag
vessels, each containing 2.3 ft3 of ArsenXnp or LayneRT™ media. Both media are engineered hybrid
inorganic/organic sorbents consisting of hydrous iron oxide nanoparticles impregnated into anion
exchange resin beads. Operation of the system began on February 4, 2009. ArsenXnp was evaluated in
Study Period I from February 4, 2009, through December 2, 2009. Replacement vessels loaded with
LayneRT™ were put online after arsenic levels in system effluent had reached 10 ug/L. LayneRT™ was
evaluated from December 3, 2009, through September 24, 2010. The types of data collected included
those for system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system),
process residuals, and capital and O&M cost.
The system operated for 1,060 and 1,096 hr with daily run times averaging 3.6 hr/day in both Study
Periods I and II. Total amounts of water produced by Wells No. 1 and 2 (that operated simultaneously) in
the two study periods were 581,200 and 606,600 gal, respectively, which were comparable to the amounts
registered by two totalizers installed after the two adsorption vessels. Based on a flow meter installed
downstream of Vessel B, system flowrates averaged 9.6 gpm, equivalent to an average empty bed contact
time (EBCT) of 1.8 min/vessel and an average hydraulic loading rate of 12.1 gpm/ft2. The design EBCT
and hydraulic loading rate were 1.2 min and 19 gpm/ft2, respectively.
Both soluble As(V) and soluble As(III) were removed by ArsenXnp and LayneRT™, but breakthrough 10
ug/L from both media occurred rather early at 15,000 to 18,000 bed volumes (BV). BV was calculated
based on 2.3 ft3 of media in the lead vessel. Short run lengths experienced might be caused, in part, by
phosphorus, as a competing anion, and/or coating of the media by iron and/or manganese particulate.
Comparison of distribution system water sampling results before and after the system startup showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentrations, which were either similar to or somewhat higher than those
in system effluent. Neither lead nor copper concentrations were affected by the operation of the system.
The capital investment cost for the system was $17,255, including $11,345 for equipment and site
engineering and $5,910 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 15 gpm (21,600 gal/day
[gpd]), the normalized capital cost was $l,150.33/gpm ($0.80/gpd). The O&M cost included the cost for
media replacement and disposal, pre-filter replacement, and labor. A cost curve was created to project the
cost for media replacement and disposal based on the media run length experienced during an adsorption
run.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vi
FIGURES vi
TABLES vi
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x
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
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 8
3.3.1 Source Water 9
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 9
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids 10
3.3.4 Spent Media 10
3.3.5 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
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 12
4.1.2 Predemonstration Treated Water Quality 16
4.1.3 Distribution System 16
4.2 Treatment Process Description 16
4.2.1 Technology Description 16
4.2.2 System Design and Treatment Process 17
4.3 System Installation 21
4.3.1 Permitting 21
4.3.2 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 22
4.4 System Operation 23
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 23
4.4.2 Media Replacement 26
4.4.3 Residual Management 28
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 28
4.5 System Performance 29
-------
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 29
4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling 37
4.6 System Cost 38
4.6.1 Capital Cost 38
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 39
5.0 REFERENCES 41
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Well Instrumentation 13
Figure 4-2. 5,000-gal Atmospheric Water Storage Tank, Booster Pump Skid, and 300-gal
Hydropneumatic Tank 13
Figure 4-3. Parallel Configuration of Birm Filters for Iron Removal 14
Figure 4-4. Schematic of SolmeteX's ArsenXnp Arsenic Removal System at Seely-Brown Village 18
Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram and Planned Sampling/Analytical Schedules 20
Figure 4-6. SolmeteX npXtra-POE 12 Control Head Assembly 21
Figure 4-7. Wellhead Totalizers and Hour Meters 25
Figure 4.8. Pre-filter and Adsorption Vessels at Seely-Brown Village 25
Figure 4-9. Pressure Readings Across Treatment Train 27
Figure 4-10. Arsenic Species at IN, TA and TB Sampling Locations with ArsenXnp Media 33
Figure 4-11. Arsenic Species at IN, TA and TB Sampling Locations with LayneRT™ Media 34
Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for ArsenXnp Media 35
Figure 4-13. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for LayneRT™ Media 35
Figure 4-14. Phosphorus Breakthrough Curves for ArsenXnp Media 36
Figure 4-15. Phosphorus Breakthrough Curves for LayneRT™ Media 36
Figure 4-16. Media Replacement and Total O&M Cost Curves 40
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 Under Each 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. Raw and Distribution Water Quality Data at Seely-Brown Village 15
Table 4-2. Properties of ArsenXnp and LayneRT™ Media 17
Table 4-3. Design Features of ArsenXnp Adsorption System 19
Table 4-4. System Hydraulic Test Results at Seely-Brown Village 22
Table 4-5. Summary of System Operation Parameters 24
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 30
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 31
VI
-------
Table 4-8. Distribution System Water Sampling Results (Kitchen Sink) 37
Table 4-9. Capital Investment Cost for Seely-Brown Village Treatment System 39
Table 4-10. Seely-Brown Village Treatment System Operation and Maintenance Cost 40
vn
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
bgs below ground surface
BV bed volume
Ca calcium
Cl chloride
C/F coagulation/filtration
CRF capital recovery factor
DO dissolved oxygen
DPH Department of Public Health
DWS Drinking Water Section
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
gpd gallons per day
gph gallons per hour
gpm gallons per minute
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
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.;
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
NRMRL
NS
NSF
NTU
O&M
OIT
ORD
ORP
PCBs
PO4
POU
psi
PVC
QAPP
QA/QC
RFP
RO
RPD
Sb
SDWA
SiO2
SMCL
SO42-
STS
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
not sampled
NSF International
nephelometric turbidity unit
operation and maintenance
Oregon Institute of Technology
Office of Research and Development
oxidation-reduction potential
polychlorinated biphenyls
orthophosphate
point-of-use
pounds per square inch
polyvinyl chloride
Quality Assurance Project Plan
quality assurance/quality control
Request for Proposal
reverse osmosis
relative percent difference
antimony
Safe Drinking Water Act
silica
secondary maximum contaminant level
sulfate
Severn Trent Services
TCLP
TDS
TEM
TOC
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
total dissolved solids
transmission electron microscopy
total organic carbon
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Ms. Cathy Grant of Seely-Brown Village for
monitoring operation of the arsenic removal system and collecting samples from the treatment and
distribution systems throughout the performance evaluation study. This performance evaluation would
not have been possible without her support and dedication.
-------
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 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. A 15-gal/min (gpm) ArsenXnp adsorption adsorptive media (AM) system fabricated by
SolmeteX (which was later acquired by Layne Christensen Company in December 2007) was selected for
demonstration at Seely-Brown Village in Pomfret, CT.
As of June 2011, all 50 systems were operational and the performance evaluations of 49 systems were
completed.
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
Technologies selected for Rounds 1, 2, and 2a demonstration included AM, iron removal (IR),
coagulation/filtration (C/F), ion exchange (IX), reverse osmosis (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 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 ArsenXnp AM at Seely-Brown Village in Pomfret, CT, from
February 4, 2009, through September 24, 2010. The types of data collected included system operation,
water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and capital and
O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of 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
Hot Springs Mobile Home Park
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School District
IR & AM (Adsorbsia)
IR (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
Filter Tech
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
30
770(e)
150
40
15.4W
35W
19W
56W
332™
2,068™
95
<25
7.5
7.0
7.8
8.0
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Site Name
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water Consumers
Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
Technology (Media)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Vendor
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Design
Flow rate
(gpm)
100
320
145
450
90W
50
37
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
45
23W
33
14
50
32
41
Fe
(ug/L)
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
PH
(S.U.)
7.7
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 Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/
ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)(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
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69w
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; 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) Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006; withdrew from program in 2007 and replaced with a home system
in Lewisburg, OH.
(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 Under Each Arsenic
Removal Technology
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 20 months of system operation, the following summary and
conclusions were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• ArsenXnp and LayneRT™ media were capable of removing both soluble As(III) and soluble
As(V) from source water. However, run lengths for both media were short, spanning from
approximately 15,000 bed volumes (BV) for ArsenXnpto 18,000 BV for LayneRT™ (BV was
calculated based on 2.3 ft3 [or 17.2 gal] of media in the lead vessel).
• Arsenic concentrations in distribution system water were significantly reduced from the
baseline level of 24.3 (ig/L (on average) to <10.4 (ig/L for ArsenXnp and <1.4 (ig/L for
LayneRT™. Arsenic levels in distribution water mirrored essentially those in treatment
system effluent water.
• System operation did not appear to have any effect on lead and copper levels in the
distribution system.
Required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• The daily demand on the operator was typically 20 min to visually inspect the system and
record operational parameters. No other special skill was required to operate the system.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• Residuals produced by system operations included spent filters and spent ArsenXnp media.
The spent filters were disposed of with the trash. The spent ArsenXnp media was regenerated
with other spent media from the vendor's point-of-entry product line and used in non-
drinking water applications.
Capital and O&M cost of the technology:
• The annualized unit capital cost was $0.21/1,000 gal of water treated if the system operated at
a 100% utilization rate. At an actual use rate of 706,000 gal per year, the unit cost increased
to $2.31/1,000 gal of water treated.
• The O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated was relatively high at $3.01 for pre-filter
replacement and labor plus the media replacement and disposal cost.
-------
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 ArsenXnp arsenic removal system began on February 4, 2009, and ended on September 24, 2010.
Table 3-2 summarizes types of data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process.
The overall system performance was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to
below the MCL of 10 |o,g/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train, as
described in the Study Plan (Battelle, 2008). 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.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Technology Selection Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Revised Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Package Submitted to CT DPH
Permit Issued by CT DPH
Equipment Arrived at Site
Final Study Plan Issued
System Installation and Shakedown Completed
System Operation Begun
Performance Evaluation Study Begun
Date
December 15, 2006
June 12, 2007
July 23, 2007
July 30, 2007
August 10, 2007
February 2 1,2008
March 10, 2008
April 4, 2008
May 7, 2008
November 26, 2008
January 6, 2009
January 09, 2009
January 2 1,2009
February 4, 2009
February 4, 2009
DPH = Department of Public Health
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. Staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log
Sheet.
Quantities of aqueous and solid residuals generated were estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
wastewater produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash wastewater and solids were sampled and
analyzed for chemical characteristics.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (or gal/day [gpd]) of design
capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital cost for
equipment, site engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electrical usage, and labor.
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation
Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and
Operator Skill
Requirements
Residual
Management
Cost-Effectiveness
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic MCL in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems
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
-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
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
Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred,
the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted
for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information, including the problems
encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred
on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. Occasionally, the plant operator also measured temperature,
pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), 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 expenditure for media replacement and disposal,
chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor. Labor for various activities, such as the routine
system O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, was tracked using an
Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as completing field
logs, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the vendor. The
labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as performing field measurements,
collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the vendor, was
recorded, but not used for cost analysis.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the 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.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Sample
Locations
At
Wellhead
(IN)
IN, after
vessel A
(TA), after
vessel B
(TB),
distribution
system
(DS)
Tap in
Kitchen
(DS)
No. of
Samples
1
4
1
Frequency
Once (during
initial site
visit)
Monthly
(with
speciation)(a)
Monthly
(regular
without
speciation)(b)
Monthly
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature, DO,
andORP
Offsite: As (III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble),
V, Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NO3,
NO2, NH3, SO4, SiO2, P,
turbidity, alkalinity, TDS,
and TOC
Onsite: pH, temperature, DO,
and/or ORP
Offsite: As(III), As(V), As
(total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble), Mn
(total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F,
NO3, SO4, SiO2, P, turbidity,
and alkalinity
Onsite: pH, temperature, DO,
and/or ORP
Offsite: As (total), Fe (total),
Mn (total), SiO2, P, turbidity,
and alkalinity
Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu, and Pb,
pH, and alkalinity
Sampling
Date
12/15/06
See Appendix B
See Appendix B
See Table 4-8
(a) On 08/10/10, 09/07/10, and 10/07/10, analytes reduced to As (total and soluble), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), and P.
(b) "Without Speciation" sampling discontinued after 05/27/10.
DO = dissolved oxygen; ORP = oxidation/reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total
organic carbon
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit on December 15, 2006, one set each of source
water samples from Wells No. 1 and No. 2 were collected and speciated using arsenic specitation kits (see
Section 3.4.1). Sample taps were flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to
avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted oxidation. Analytes for source water samples are listed in
Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, the plant
operator collected water samples across the treatment train every other week. In general, sampling
alternated between regular and speciation sampling. Regular sampling involved taking samples at the
wellhead (IN), after Vessel A (TA), after Vessel B (TB) and at distribution system (DS) and having them
analyzed for the analytes listed under "Regular Sampling" in Table 3-3. Speciation sampling involved
collecting and speciating samples onsite at the same four locations and having them analyzed for the
analytes listed under "Speciation Sampling" in Table 3-3.
-------
Regular sampling was discontinued after May 27, 2010. Speciation sampling continued, but the
frequency was extended from monthly to bi-monthly once on August 10, 2010. Analytes for the last three
speciation sampling events in August, September, and October 2010 were reduced to phosphorus and
total and soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids. Because the system did not require backwashing, no
backwash wastewater or solid samples were collected during the performance evaluation study.
3.3.4 Spent Media. Upon exhaustion, spent ArsenXnp in the two adsorption vessels was replaced
with LayneRT™ media. The spent media and the vessels was returned to SometeX's facility for
rengeneration and disposal, respecively. The spent media was regenerated with other spent media from
the vendor's point-of-entry product line and used in non-drinking water applications. .
3.3.5 Distribution System Water. Water samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, lead and copper levels. Prior to system startup from November 17, 2008,
through December 17, 2008, four sets of baseline distribution system water samples were collected. The
first set of baseline samples was collected from three locations: at the kitchen sink, at the nurses sink, and
at the staff dining room sink. All three locations were used by the facility for Lead and Copper Rule
(LCR) sampling. The following three sets of baseline samples were taken only from the kitchen sink.
After system startup, distribution system water sampling continued monthly at the kitchen sink from
March 2009 through May 2010.
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 stagnation time. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been
used for at least 6 hr to ensure collection of stagnant water.
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 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 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 under contract with Battelle for this demonstration
study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through
analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the
respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2007)
were followed by Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (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 (MDL), and completeness
met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of
80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The QA data associated with each analyte will be presented and
evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic
Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
VWR Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use
following the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy
by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator
collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Symphony SP90M5 probe in the beaker
until a stable value was obtained.
11
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure
Located at 400 Deerfield Road in Pomfret, CT, Seely-Brown Village is a nursing home facility,
comprised of 32 one-bedroom apartments with approximately 48 residents. The facility is a community
water system supplied by two wells (i.e., Wells No. 1 and No. 2). Based on Section III.B.2 of the State of
Connecticut DPH Guidelines, the water system must meet an average daily water demand of 4,800 gpd,
based on a design population of 64 (or two occupants per living unit) and a design water usage value of
75 gal/day/capita. The actual average daily production at the facility was 1,926 gpd according to Lenard
Engineering, the facility's engineer, or 2,800 gpd according to the information submitted by the state to
EPA for the demonstration site selection. These average daily production values represent 40% to 58% of
the recommended design value for the average daily water demand. Although future expansion of the
Seely-Brown Village is under consideration, the treatment system for the EPA demonstration project was
sized based on the pre-existing facility infrastructure.
Wells No. 1 and No. 2 are located on the north side of the paved driveway and parking lot and spaced
approximately 170 ft from each other. Well No. 1 is 6-in in diameter, installed to a depth of 220 ft
below ground surface (bgs) with a casing extending to 120 ft bgs. At the time of installation in
September 1993, the well yielded 5 gpm, which is somewhat higher than the 3.6-gpm flowrate measured
by the facility in November 2007 and the 4.3-gpm flowrate measured by the vendor in September 2008
(with water pumped to an atmospheric storage tank). Well No. 2 is 6-in in diameter and installed to a
depth of 500 ft bgs with a casing extending to 140 ft bgs. At the time of installation in September 1993,
the well yielded 6.5 gpm, which is somewhat lower than the 8.9-gpm flowrate measured by the facility in
November 2007 and the 7.0-gpm flowrate measured by the vendor in September 2008 (again with water
pumped to the atmospheric storage tank). With 35 pounds per square inch (psi) of backpressure applied,
well pump flowrates were reduced to 3.3 gpm for Well No. 1 and 4.3 gpm for Well No. 2 based upon
measurements taken by the vendor in September 2008. With both wells running simultaneously, it would
yield an approximate total flowrate of 8 gpm with 35 psi of backpressure to the system. Each well has an
associated raw water sample tap and a well totalizer. A control panel exists to turn the pumps on/off
based on water storage tank levels along with a high level alarm (see Figure 4-1).
The wells were originally alternated with water being blended into one 5,000-gal atmospheric storage
tank shown in Figure 4-2. From the water storage tank, two skid-mounted, 1.5-horsepower (hp) booster
pumps (25 gpm) were used to provide pressure to the distribution system via a 300-gal hydropneumatic
tank with a 70/80 psi pressure setting (see Figure 4-2). Pressurized water was sent through two Birm
filters (Figure 4-3) for iron removal prior to entering the distribution system (see Figure 4-3). Each Birm
vessel was 21-in in diameter (or 2.4 ft2 in cross-sectional area) with a capacity of 12 gpm. The maximum
loading rate to a Birm vessel was 5 gpm/ft2. The site also had an onsite septic system for wastewater
discharge.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on December 15, 2006, when
two Battelle staff members traveled to the site to conduct an introductory meeting for this demonstration
project. Table 4-1 presents analytes of interest. The source water also was filtered for soluble arsenic,
iron, manganese, and antimony, and then speciated for As(III) and As(V) using the field speciation
method modified from Edwards et al. (1998) by Battelle (Wang et al., 2000). In addition, pH,
temperature, DO, and ORP were measured onsite using a field meter.
12
-------
Raw Water Taps
Figure 4-1. Well Instrumentation
(Clockwise from Left: Raw Water Sample Taps, Water Totalizers, Well Pump Control Panel)
Booster Purnp Skid
Hydro pneumatic
Tank
Figure 4-2. 5,000-gal Atmospheric Water Storage Tank, Booster Pump Skid,
and 300-gal Hydropneumatic Tank (White Tank in Background, Blue Skid on
Floor, and Grey Tank in Foreground and on Right, respectively)
13
-------
Figure 4-3. Parallel Configuration of Birm Filters for Iron Removal
Analytical results from the December 15, 2006, source water sampling event were compared to the pre-
site selection data provided by EPA and historical raw water and distribution system water data obtained
from the facility/Connecticut DPH. Overall, Battelle's data are comparable to those provided by EPA and
the facility. The results of the source water assessment and implications for water treatment are discussed
briefly below.
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 18.0 to 30.0 ug/L. Based on the
results obtained by Battelle for Wells No. 1 and No. 2, arsenic was present entirely in the soluble form
with 18.6 to 27.7 ug/L existing as As(V) and 1.6 to 2.5 ug/L as As(III). Therefore, As(V) was the
predominating species. The low levels of As(III) suggest that treatment via adsorption would be effective
without a pre-oxidation step. No prior information on arsenic speciation was available from EPA,
Connecticut DPH, or the facility. In the distribution water, total arsenic levels ranged from 13 to 24 ug/L
and averaged 20 ug/L.
14
-------
Table 4-1. Raw and Distribution Water Quality Data at Seely-Brown Village
Parameter
Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthopho sphate
(as PO4)
P(asP04)
Al (total)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
V (total)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
EPA Data
Well
No. 1
Raw
Water
Well
No. 2
Raw
Water
05/05/06
NA
NA
NA
NA
53.1
56.1
NA
NA
NA
0.07
<0.01
0.04
NA
NA
20.0
13.9
O.005
<0.2
<25
18
NA
NA
NA
NA
86
NA
13.0
NA
<25
NA
NA
9.8
20.1
1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
41.6
52.3
NA
NA
NA
0.08
<0.01
0.03
NA
NA
20.4
13.9
0.7
1.0
<25
28
NA
NA
NA
NA
144
NA
43.0
NA
<25
NA
NA
7.0
17.2
2.3
Treated
Water
Restroom
Treated
Water
05/04/06
NA
NA
NA
NA
47.7
53.8
NA
NA
NA
0.04
<0.01
0.05
NA
NA
20.4
13.8
0.4
0.6
<25
22
NA
NA
NA
NA
16
NA
0.4
NA
<25
NA
NA
8.3
18.6
1.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
47.4
50.1
NA
NA
NA
0.04
<0.01
0.06
NA
NA
18.9
12.8
0.3
0.5
30
24
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
1.0
NA
<25
NA
NA
7.7
17.3
1.7
Battelle Data
Well
No. 1
Raw
Water
Well
No. 2
Raw
Water
12/15/06
6.9
12.7
0.7
402
58.0
56.6
0.5
92
<1.0
O.05
O.05
<0.05
3
0.3
18.0
13.3
NA
0.03
NA
19.6
20.2
<0.1
1.6
18.6
<25
<25
10.6
10.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
9.6
20.2
1.5
7.6
11.0
3.9
403
46.0
55.1
0.4
88
<1.0
0.07
O.05
<0.05
6
0.2
19.0
13.4
NA
0.95
NA
30.0
30.2
<0.1
2.5
27.7
27
<25
39.9
4.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
7.2
18.1
2.4
Facility Data
Well
No. 1
Raw
Water
Well
No. 2
Raw
Water
Distribution
Water(a)
11/02/01-11/29/06
7.9
NA
NA
NA
66
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.8
NA
13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
80
NA
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
NA
NA
7.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.5
NA
12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
250
NA
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.2
NA
NA
7.7
NA
NA
NA
77
17
NA
NA
NA
<0. 01-0.18
(<0.01)
NA
NA
3.3^.0(3.7)
0.1-0.32
(0.19)
16-24 (20)
NA
NA
NA
NA
13-24(20)
NA
NA
NA
NA
30
NA
10
NA
<1
NA
NA
8.1-9.8(9.0)
NA
NA
(a) minimum-
DO = dissolved
organic carbon
•maximum [average]
oxygen; NA = not available; ORP = oxidation-reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total
Iron and Manganese. Total iron concentrations in source water ranged from <25 to 250 ug/L. For Well
No. 1, iron concentrations ranged from <25 to 86 ug/L and averaged 60 ug/L. For Well No. 2, iron
concentrations ranged from 27 to 250 ug/L and averaged 140 ug/L. These values are below the 300 ug/L
secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL). Adsorption technologies work best with low influent
iron levels because of the potential for iron fouling of the media bed. This site is a good candidate for
15
-------
adsorption because of the low iron levels. However, total iron levels were <25 ug/L in Well No. 1 and 27
ug/L in Well No. 2 during the December 15, 2006 source water sampling event. The reason for
historically elevated iron levels was not determined.
Total manganese levels in Well No. 1 source water ranged from 10.0 to 13.0 ug/L, which is well below
the SMCL of 50 ug/L for manganese. Total manganese levels for Well No. 2 were higher at 30.0 to
43.0 ug/L, which also is below the SMCL. Overall, the two wells exhibited somewhat different water
chemistry, with Well No. 2 having higher levels of total arsenic, iron, and manganese.
Competing Anions. Adsorption of arsenic can be influenced by competing anions such as silica and
phosphorus. Based on the results shown in Table 2-1, silica concentrations at 13.3 to 13.9 mg/L in raw
water did not appear to be high enough to impact adsorption. Total phosphorus levels varied significantly
between the wells with 0.03 to <0.2 mg/L (as PCk) in Well No. 1 water and 0.95 to 1.0 mg/L (as PCk) in
Well No. 2 water, based on the data collected by EPA and Battelle. High levels of phosphorus can
significantly affect arsenic removal and shorten useful media life.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Battelle's data indicate a moderate pH of 6.9 for Well No. 1 and 7.6
for Well No. 2; this is within the commonly-agreed target range of 5.5 to 8.5 for arsenic removal. The
relatively lower pH of Well No. 1 may result in more effective arsenic removal via adsorption compared
to Well No. 2. The facility pH data appear to be significantly higher, ranging from 7.8 to 7.9.
Based on Battelle's data, total hardness concentrations ranged from 55.1 to 56.6 mg/L (as CaCOs);
turbidity from 0.4 to 0.5 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU); TDS from 88 to 92 mg/L; nitrate from less
than 0.05 to 0.07 mg/L; and sodium from 7.2 to 9.6 mg/L. TOC concentrations were <1.0 mg/L and
ammonia concentrations were <0.05 mg/L (as N).
All other analytes were below detection limits and/or anticipated to be low enough not to adversely affect
the arsenic removal process. Radionuclides, including combined radium, combined uranium, and gross
alpha, were non-detect at the site based on quarterly compliance monitoring conducted in 2006.
4.1.2 Predemonstration Treated Water Quality. Treated water quality was similar to raw water
quality except for noticeably lower iron and arsenic levels. The lower iron levels in treated water could
be due to treatment of raw water by Birm that are known to reduce iron levels in water. Treated water
samples were not collected by Battelle or EPA at the time of source water sampling.
4.1.3 Distribution System. The distribution system for Seely-Brown Village consists of
connections to serve 32 apartments. The distribution system material is comprised primarily of copper
piping. One location within the nursing home was selected for monthly baseline and distribution
sampling to evaluate the effect of the treatment system on the distribution system water quality.
The Seely-Brown Village operator is a Class II operator. Compliance sampling for the entry point
includes arsenic (quarterly); radionuclides including gross alpha, uranium, and combined radium
(quarterly); nitrate and nitrite (yearly); organic chemicals (once every three years); pesticides, herbicides,
and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (once every three years); and inorganic chemicals (once every
three years). Compliance sampling for the distribution system includes total coliform (monthly); physical
parameters (monthly); lead and copper (once every five years); and asbestos (once every nine years).
4.2 Treatment Process Description
4.2.1 Technology Description. The treatment system installed at Seely-Brown Village used both
ArsenXnp and LayneRT™ media. The performance evaluation was sub-divided into two study periods.
16
-------
Study Period I took place from February 4 through December 2, 2009, using ArsenXnp and Study Period
II followed immediately thereafter from December 3, 2009, through September 24, 2010, using
LayneRT™.
Manufactured by the Purolite Company, ArsenXnp is an engineered hybrid inorganic/organic sorbent that
incorporates a nanoparticle technology originally developed by researchers at Lehigh University in
Bethlehem, PA, and further refined by SolmeteX, Inc., of Northborough, MA. The media consists of
hydrous iron oxide nanoparticles impregnated into 300 to 1,200 jam anion exchange resin beads. The
hybrid material contains approximately 25% of iron (dry weight) or 36% of iron oxide, Fe2O3. Analysis
using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) indicates that hydrous iron oxide is present as 50 to 150
nm thick coating throughout the resin beads.
LayneRT™ is a newer version of hybrid adsorbent manufactured by Dow Chemical. Both media do not
require backwashing, are regenerable, and are NSF International (NSF) 61 certified for use in drinking
water treatment systems. Regenerated ArsenXnp is certified to NSF/American National Standards
Institute (ANSI)-61 by the Water Quality Association. Table 4-2 summarizes physical properties, which
are essentially the same for both media.
Table 4-2. Properties of ArsenXnp and LayneRT™ Media
Property
ArsenXnp
LayneRT™
Reddish-brown spherical beads
Reddish-brown spherical beads
Physical Form and Appearance
Particle Size (\im)
300 to 1,200
300 to 1,200
Operating Temperature (°F)
33 to 172
33 to 172
Operating pH (S.U.)
5.0 to 8.5
5.0 to 8.5
Bulk Density (g/cm3 [lb/ft3])
0.79 to 0.84 [49 to 52]
0.79 to 0.84 [49 to 52]
Moisture Content (%
55-60
Base Polymer
Macroporous polystyrene
Macroporous polystyrene
Active Component
Hydrous iron oxide
Hydrous iron oxide
4.2.2 System Design and Treatment Process. The 15-gpm arsenic removal system installed at
Seely-Brown Village consisted of a pre-filter, two adsorption vessels, and a control head assembly. The
treatment system was placed upstream of the pre-existing storage tank, booster pump skid, pressure tank,
and Birm filters as shown by the schematic in Figure 4-4. Table 4-3 specifies key system design
parameters. Figure 4-5 presents a process flowchart along with the sampling and analysis schedule. Key
process components are discussed in detail below.
17
-------
Well Pump
npXtra-POE12
arsenic ft*«ovai Systew
Figure 4-4. Schematic of SolmeteX's ArsenXnp Arsenic Removal System at Seely-Brown Village
• Intake - Wells No. 1 and No. 2 were originally configured to operate on an alternating basis.
Because of a Connecticut DPH request to blend water from the two wells due to significantly
different water quality in the two wells, the electrical panel was modified so that both wells
could operate simultaneously. Raw water pumped from the two wells was combined via a T-
fitting before entering a 50-(im pre-filter to remove any well sediment and particulates. The
use of the pre-filter was recommended because filtered water could help minimize particulate
fouling of the media beds.
• Adsorption - The adsorption system consisted of two 12-in x 52-in pressure vessels
configured in series. The vessels were of fiberglass construction and rated for 150 psi
working pressure. Each vessel contained 2.3 ft3 of ArsenXnp or LayneRT™ media. Based on
a design flowrate of 15 gpm, the empty bed contact time (EBCT) for each vessel was 1.2 min
(or 2.3 min for both vessels) and the hydraulic loading rate was 19 gpm/ft2. The anticipated
pressure drop across a clean resin bed was approximately 10 psi. Figure 4-6 shows a
schematic of the control head assembly.
The adsorption system was designed for manual operation. The operator was required to
manually open or close hand valves to achieve an intended vessel configuration and correct
flow path. The operator also monitored and adjusted system flowrate and operating pressure,
recorded log sheets, and took routine samples of raw water and treated water following the
lead and lag vessels. All plumbing for the system was schedule 80 polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
and the skidded unit was pre-plumbed with the necessary isolation valves, check valves,
sampling ports, and other features.
18
-------
Table 4-3. Design Features of ArsenXnp Adsorption System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Influent Specifications
Peak Flowrate (gpm)
Total Arsenic Concentration (ug/L)
Total Iron Concentration (ug/L)
15
<30
<25 to 250
-
Based on source water samples taken on
11/02/01 to 12/15/06
Adsorption
No. of Vessels
Configuration
Tank Size (in)
Vessel Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Media Volume (ft3/tank)
Media Depth (in)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpni/ft2)
EBCT (min/tank)
Differential Pressure Across System (psi)
Maximum Daily Production (gpd)
Average Daily Production (gpd)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
Projected Media Run Length to 10-ug/L
As Breakthrough from Lead Vessel (B V)
Throughput to 10-ug/L As Breakthrough
from Lead Vessel (gal)
Projected Media Life (day)
2
Series
12 D x52H
0.79
2.3
35
19
1.2
10
21,600
4,800
22.2
45,000
774,000
161
-
-
-
-
4.6 ft3 total media volume in two vessels
Based on 15 gpmflowrate
Based 2.3 ft3 of media and 15 gpmflowrate
Across two vessels and valves
Based on 15-gpm peak flowrate, 24 hr/day
Based on 15-gpm peak flowrate and 5.3
hr/day average daily run time
Based on revised vendor run length
estimate dated March 10, 2008
1BV= 2.3 ft3 =17.2 gal
Based on 4,800 gpd water usage
• Backwash - ArsenXnp and LayneRT™ media did not require backwashing during the
performance evaluation study.
• Media Rebedding - SolmeteX initially recommended replacing spent ArsenXnp media in the
lead vessel (Vessel A) with virgin ArsenXnp when total arsenic levels following the lag vessel
exceeded the MCL. After rebedding, the freshly rebedded vessel would be placed in the lag
position and the vessel with partially spent ArsenXnp would be placed in the lead position for
continuing system operations. Because of the development of a new media, LayneRT™, the
vendor recommended replacing the spent media in both adsorption vessels with LayneRT™.
Instead of rebedding onsite, vessels filled with LayneRT™ were brought to the site by a
SolmeteX technician. Upon positioning the new vessels, the old vessels with spent ArsenXnp
were returned to a SolmeteX shop.
• Treated Water Storage and Distribution - After treatment for arsenic removal, the treated
water was stored in a 5,000-gal atmospheric storage tank. Two skid-mounted, 1.5-hp booster
pumps were used to provide pressure to the distribution system via a 300-gal hydropneumatic
tank with a 70/80 psi pressure setting. The pressurized water was sent through two pre-
existing Birm filters configured in parallel prior to entering the distribution system. Post-
chlorination was not required at this facility.
19
-------
INFLUENT
(WELL #1 AND WELL #2)
Sneciation Sampling
Monthly (Week Tt
pHW, temperature^, DO/ORP(a),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As(V), Fe (total and soluble),_
Mn(totaland soluble), Ca,Mg,
F, NO,, SO4, SiO2, P (total),
turbidity, and/or alkalinity
Seely-Brown Village, Pomfret, CT
npXtra-POEl 2 Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: 15 gpm
Non-Sneciation Sampling
Monthly (Week 3)
pH
-------
ITEM
1
P
3
4
5
6
U 1 Y:
2
10
4
c!
1
1
DESCRIPTION
Clack Media Column Tank Head
Adapters-WSl Fit-tin X 1' NPT-M
1* PVC Female Threaded Union
Media Column 1EX52'
Control He-ad
Clack Bypass Valve
17-1/2
Figure 4-6. SolmeteX npXtra-POE12 Control Head Assembly
4.3
System Installation
SolmeteX completed installation and shakedown of the treatment system on January 21, 2009. The
following briefly summarizes system installation activities, including permitting, system offloading,
installation, shakedown, and startup.
4.3.1 Permitting. Design drawings and a process description of the proposed treatment system
were submitted to Connecticut DPH by SolmeteX, on behalf of Seely-Brown Village, on May 7, 2008. In
a request for additional information dated May 21, 2008, Connecticut DPH commented and
recommended placement of the treatment system at the wellhead (vs. downstream of the storage tank),
inclusion of an oxidation unit for soluble As(III) to soluble As(V) conversion, and relocation of the
existing Birm filters to upstream of the arsenic treatment system for iron and manganese removal.
A conference call was held on August 20, 2008 with Connecticut DPH to discuss the state's requests and
recommendations. As a result of the discussion, it was agreed that the treatment system would be moved
to the wellhead with a total flow of 15 gpm supplied by both wells. Operating the two wells
simultaneously would ensure more uniform source water quality prior to the treatment system. It also
was agreed that the installation of an oxidation unit and reconfiguration of the Birm filters would be
deferred because of relative low soluble As(III) (<2.5 ug/L), iron (<27 ug/L), and manganese
concentrations (at <40 ug/L) in source water (see Table 4-1) and because of Connecticut DPH's position
to only recommend rather than require.
21
-------
SolmeteX completed all requested changes to the permit application, updated the design documents, and
provided the package to Seely-Brown Village for signature and re-submission on October 27, 2008. On
October 30, 2008, Seely-Brown Village mailed the signed package to Connecticut DPH. On
November 26, 2008, Connecticut DPH granted a permit to Seely-Brown Village with no further
comments.
4.3.2 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. Upon receipt of the permit, Seely-Brown Village
began to modify electrical wiring to allow both well pumps to operate at the same time. By January 21,
2009, all electrical wiring changes were complete and in time for system shakedown and startup.
System components were delivered to Seely-Brown Village on January 6, 2009. Installation activities,
including offloading, plumbing, hydraulic testing, media loading, and disinfection were completed by
January 21, 2009. All installation activities were conducted by SolmeteX and its subcontractor, Aqua
Pump Co., Inc.
Before and after media loading, the system was tested hydraulically to ensure within-spec system
operations. Table 4-4 presents results of the tests performed with either Well No. 1 or 2 or both wells.
Before media loading with one or both wells operating, the system inlet pressure was 5 psi and pressure
losses across the lead and lag vessels were 1 and 2 psi, respectively. Because no leak or excessive
pressure loss was observed, media loading followed.
Table 4-4. System Hydraulic Test Results at Seely-Brown Village
Monitoring
Location
System Inlet
After Vessel A
After Vessel B
System Outlet
System Pressure
Before Media Loading
At
4gpm
with
Well
No. 1
only
5
4
2
0
At
5gpm
with
Well
No. 2
only
5
4
2
0
At
9 gpm(a)
with
Both
Wells
5
4
2
0
System Pressure
After Media Loading
At
4gpm
with
Well
No. 1
only
5
4
3
0
At
5 gpm
with
Well
No. 2
only
7
6
3
0
At
9
gpm(a)
with
Both
Wells
11
10
5
0
(a) Estimated combined flowrate due to lack of flow meter during testing.
Approximately 2.3 ft3 of ArsenXnp was loaded into each adsorption vessel without the use of
underbedding. A freeboard of 9 in was measured above the media bed in each vessel. This freeboard
value was smaller than the would-be value of 17 in, assuming that the bed depth was 35 in. After
installation, the media in each vessel was flushed with approximately 230 gal of water (i.e., 100 gal/ft3 of
media); the wastewater produced was discharged to the septic system. Sanitization of the system was
accomplished by pouring approximately 4 oz (1 oz in 8 gal of water) of Sani-System into the lead vessel,
applying water until both vessels had the Sani-System solution, allowing it to stand for 10 min, and then
rinsing the vessels with water until they were clean.
After the system was put in the forward service mode, the system with media was tested again
hydraulically. Readings of the system inlet pressure were 5, 7, and 11 psi at 4 gpm (with Well No. 1
operating only), 5 gpm (with Well No. 2 operating only), and 9 gpm (with both wells operating),
respectively. Pressure losses across the lead and lag vessels ranged from 1 to 3 psi with only one well
22
-------
operating, and was 1 and 5 psi, respectively, with both wells operating. The 5 psi pressure loss across the
lag vessel was considerably higher than that across the lead vessel, suggesting that more media flushing
might be needed to remove media fines. Connecticut DPH visited the site for the final inspection on
January 29, 2009, and requested that the system remain offline until negative bacteriological test results
were obtained and a final approval was granted by Connecticut DPH. The system was, therefore, turned
off on January 3 0,2009.
On January 30, 2009, Seely-Brown Village notified Connecticut DPH of the construction completion via
the "Certification of Completed Water or Treatment Works: Construction/Installation." The notification
was followed with negative bacteriological test results of samples taken on January 21, 2009. Because
Seely-Brown Village did not have a certified operator, it contracted with Millenium Water to retain
services for system operation and collection of compliance samples by certified operators. On February
2, 2009, Seely-Brown Village submitted the "Operator Verification Form" to notify Connecticut DPH's
Drinking Water Section (DWS) of the designation. On February 2, 2009, Connecticut DPH issued a copy
of the Arsenic Treatment System project closure letter for Seely-Brown Village and the arsenic treatment
system was officially started on February 4, 2009.
On March 11, 2009, two Battelle staff members visited Seely-Brown Village to inspect the system and
provide operator training. The system was found to be installed as specified. The only punch-list item for
the vendor was to provide replacement filters with a correct nominal pore size, i.e., 50 (im. A 5-(im filter
bag was used during Battelle's site visit.
4.4 System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. Operational parameters for the 20-month demonstration study
were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Table 4-5 summarizes key parameters. The system
began to operate on February 4, 2009, and logging of operational data began on the same day. The
operator experienced a few issues initially when using the field meter for onsite water quality
measurements, but was able to perform the measurements with the assistance of the Battelle Study Lead a
few months into the study.
The performance evaluation study covered two study periods with Study Period I extending from
February 4 through December 2, 2009, and Study Period II from December 3, 2009, through September
24, 2010. Study Period I evaluated ArsenXnp; Study Period II evaluated LayneRT™.
Although Wells No. 1 and No. 2 operated simultaneously, the Well No. 1 hour meter (Figure 4-7)
registered 7.5% and 8% more hours than the Well No. 2 hour meter during Study Periods I and II,
respectively. The differences observed probably were due to meter calibration issues. Based on the Well
No. 1 hour meter, the system operated for 1060.6 and 1,096.1 hr with daily run times averaging 3.6 and
3.7 hr/day in Study Periods I and II, respectively.
Based on readings from the two AMCO C700 totalizers (Figure 4-7) installed at the wellheads, Wells No.
1 and 2 produced 327,400 and 253,800 gal of water, respectively, during Study Period I, and 342,800 and
263,800 gal, respectively, during Study Period II. Total amounts of water produced in the two study
periods were 581,200 and 606,600 gal, respectively, which were comparable to the amounts (i.e., 3.3%
and 3.0% higher) registered by the two totalizers installed after the two adsorption vessels.
Flowrates calculated based on readings of the two totalizers and two hour meters installed at the
wellheads averaged 5.4 and 4.4 gpm for Wells No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, in Study Period I, and 5.4
and 4.6 gpm, respectively, in Study Period II. Combined flowrates at wellheads averaged 9.8 and
10.0 gpm in Study Periods I and II, respectively. These values were every close to the respective average
23
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of System Operation Parameters
Operational
Parameter
Study Duration
Total Operating Time (hr)(a)
Total Operating Days (day)
Daily Run Time (hr/day)
Individual Well Production (gal)(b)
Vessel Throughput (gal)(c)
Calculated Well Flowrate (gpm)(d-e)
Instantaneous Flowrate (gpm)(f)
EBCT (min/vessel)w
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Pressure at Wellhead (psi)
Pressure Before Pre-filter (psi)fe)
Pressure After Pre-filter (psi)(g)
Pressure After Vessel A (psi)
Pressure After Vessel B (psi)
Ap Across Vessel A (psi)
Ap Across Vessel B (psi)
Ap Across System (psi)
Study Period I
ArsenX media
02/04/09-12/02/09
1060.6 (Well No. 1)
986.4 (Well No. 2)
301
3.6 [0-13. 5] (Well No.l)
3.4 [1.1-10.3] (Well No. 2)
327,400 (Well No. 1)
253,800 (Well No. 2)
581,200 (Combined)
562,3 16 (Vessel A)
562, 171 (Vessel B)
5.4 [0.7-1 1.9] (Well No. 1)
4.4 [1.6-19.4] (Well No. 2)
9.8 [4.5-22] (Combined)
9.4 [6.6-10]
1.8 [2.6-1.7]
11. 9 [8.4-12.7]
37 [18-60] (Well No. 1)
38 [17-60] (Well No. 2)
35 [15-44] (50 urn filter)
36 [30-60] (30 urn filter)
28 [14-32] (50 urn filter)
31 [25-35] (30 urn filter)
20 [10-30]
12 [3-14]
10 [4-13]
8 [4-17]
23 [9-50]
Study Period II
LayneRT Media
12/03/20-09/24/10
1096.1 (Well No. 1)
10 14.8 (Well No. 2)
295
3.7 [0-19.7] (Well No. 1)
3. 5 [0.9- 8.2] (Well No. 2)
342,800 (Well No. 1)
263,800 (Well No. 2)
606,600 (Combined)
589, 139 (Vessel A)
589, 139 (Vessel B)
5.4 [2.4-8.7] (Well No. 1)
4.6 [1.8-18.2] (Well No. 2)
10.0 [7. 1-24.0] (Combined)
9.6 [6.3-10.2]
1.8 [2.7-1.7]
12.2 [8.0-12.9]
37 [10-55] (Well No. 1)
38 [13-55] (Well No. 2)
36 [19-50] (30 urn filter)
31 [15-40] (30 urn filter)
21 [10-25]
15 [7-18]
10 [5-20]
7 [3-9]
22 [12-40]
(a) Based on hour meters installed at respective well heads.
(b) Based on totalizers installed at respective wellheads.
(c) Based on totalizer installed after respective vessels.
(d) Based on readings of respective wellhead totalizers and hour meters.
(e) After omitting obvious outliers.
(f) Based on flow meter installed after Vessel B.
(g) Pre-filter nominal pore size reduced from 50 to 30 nm on 06/09/09.
instantaneous flowrate readings, i.e., 9.4 and 9.6 gpm, registered by a GPI turbine flow meter installed
after Vessel B in the two study periods.
After water was combined, it flowed through a 30-(im pre filter (Figure 4-8) before entering Vessels A
and B. Initially, 50-(im filters were used, but the nominal pore size of the filters was reduced to 30 (im on
June 9, 2009, as an attempt to capture more solids.
Based on 2.3 ft3 (or 17.2 gal) of media in each vessel and instantaneous flowrates, the average EBCT was
1.8 min/vessel for both study periods, compared to the design value of 1.2 min/vessel. Average hydraulic
loading rates were 11.9 and 12.2 gpm/ft2 in Study Periods I and II, respectively, compared to the design
value of 19 gpm/ft2.
24
-------
Figure 4-7. Wellhead Totalizers and Hour Meters
Figure 4.8. Pre-filter and Adsorption Vessels at Seely-Brown Village
25
-------
Pressure readings were monitored at both wellheads, before pre-filter, before Vessels A and B, and after
Vessels A and B. Due to accumulation of sediment and particulate in the pre-filter, pressure readings
before the filter rose significantly from an average baseline level of approximately 30 psi (i.e., pressure
after filter) to as high as 60 psi, depending upon the nominal pore size of the filter used and frequency of
filter replacement. As shown in Figure 4-9, the pressure loss (Ap) across the pre-filter immediately after
system startup on February 4, 2009, was 1 psi. Pressure losses across the filter increased steadily to 17
psi by April 14, 2009, approximately 10 weeks into system operation. Immediately after replacement of
the pre-filter on April 15, 2009, pressure before the pre-filter returned to the baseline level of 30 psi and
Ap across the filter returned to 0 psi. After approximately 8 weeks of follow-on system operation, Ap
across the filter increased to 17 psi again. To capture more solids and to ensure proper system operation,
the vendor recommended the use of 30-um pre-filters with a more frequent filter replacement schedule of
once every two weeks. This was implemented during a site visit by the vendor on June 9, 2009.
Since the use of 30-um filters, inlet pressure readings to the filter increased much more quickly from an
average baseline level of approximately 33 psi to significantly elevated levels, as reflected by most of the
spikes shown in Figure 4-9. The rapid rises of inlet pressure and Ap occurred even with more frequent
filter replacements, i.e., once every 11 to 45 days (or 25 days [on average]). From June 10 through
September 2, 2009, however, inlet pressure readings remained uncharacteristically low at mid-30 psi
levels, even though the pre-filter had been replaced only once on August 24, 2009. The only plausible
explanation for this would be that fewer particles were present in incoming source water, thus resulting in
little or no solid buildup in the pre-filter. Careful examination of analytical data in Appendix B revealed
that source water samples collected during this period contained only low levels of iron and manganese,
i.e., 42 and 28, ng/L [on average], respectively, present primarily as particulate. In contrast, as much as
1,232 and 581 ug/L of iron and manganese, respectively, were measured in Study Period I and 1,054 and
709 ug/L in Study Period II, with most existing also in the particulate form. Occurrence of particulate
iron and manganese in source water appeared to be rather sporadic as discussed in Section 4.5.1.
Because of the presence of particulate iron and manganese in source water and because of the need for
rather frequent replacement of pre-filters, it would be prudent for the facility to consider replacing the
current pre-filter with a relatively larger bag filter for more sustainable system operation. The facility
also could consider repositioning the Birm filters from its current location, i.e., after the 5,000-gal
atmospheric storage tank and 300-gal hydropneumatic tank, to upstream of the arsenic treatment system,
as recommended previously by Connecticut DPH. In doing so, the Birm filters can precipitate any
soluble iron and manganese and filter out most, if not all, iron and manganese particulate before water
flows into the arsenic treatment system. Birm media has been shown to be effective in oxidizing soluble
iron and manganese and removing iron and manganese particulate.
As shown in Table 4-5, the average pressure after the 50-nm pre-filter was 28 psi; the average pressure
after the 30-um pre-filter was 31 psi. After Vessels A and B, average pressure readings were reduced to
20 and 12 psi, respectively, in Study Period I, and to 21 and 15, respectively, in Study Period II. As such,
an average of 10 and 8 psi pressure loss was realized across Vessels A and B, respectively, in Study
Period I, and 10 and 7 psi, respectively, in Study Period II. The average pressure loss across the system
was 23 psi in Study Period I and 22 psi in Study Period II. Pressure losses across the two adsorption
vessels and the system were rather constant as shown in Figure 4-9.
4.4.2 Media Replacement. SolmeteX estimated a media life of 45,000 BV for ArsenXnp before
reaching 10-ug/L arsenic breakthrough from the lead vessel. At an average daily use rate of 4,800 gal,
this corresponded to approximately 161 days of system operations. Actual media replacement would not
occur until arsenic concentrations following the lag vessel had reached 10 ug/L or the media in the lead
vessel had been fully exhausted, whichever happened first. The vessel containing freshly rebedded
ArsenXnp would be placed in the lag position and the vessel containing partially spent media would be
26
-------
70 -\
-Welll
-Well 2
-Pressure Before 50 u.m filter
-Inlet Vessel A
-Outlet Vessel A
Outlet Vessel B
Pressure Readings
Date
Figure 4-9. Pressure Readings Across Treatment Train
-------
placed in the lead position for continuing system operations. Although ArsenXnp could be regenerated, its
regeneration was never considered due to the small size of the treatment system. Also, because ArsenXnp
was no longer available on the marketplace when the system was ready for rebedding, LayneRT™ was
recommended to Battelle and Seely-Brown Village by the vendor.
On December 3, 2009, two vessels each containing 2.3 ft3 of LayneRT™ were brought to the site to
replace the vessels containing spent ArsenXnp. After sanitization, the vessels were put online for
continuing system operations. The vessels containing spent ArsenXnp were returned to the vendor's shop.
4.4.3 Residual Management. Residuals included spent filter bags and spent media. The spent
filter bags were disposed of with landfill trash. The spent media was regenerated with other spent media
from the vendor's point-of-entry product line and used in non-drinking water applications. The vessels
were disposed of because they could not be reused according to the vendor.
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. Once the system was installed there were no
operational issues affecting the system. 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. No pretreatment was required, but raw water from the wells
passed through a 50- or 30-(im filter cartridge located upstream of the treatment system to remove
sediment and particulates. Filters were changed biweekly to monthly to ensure that pressure losses across
the filter cartridge were kept below 10 psi. However, due to untimely changes of filters, the system
experienced elevated pressure losses (i.e., >10 psi) a number of times during the study period.
System Automation. The adsorption system was designed for manual operation. The operator had to
manually open or close hand valves to achieve an intended vessel configuration and correct flow path.
The on/off of the well pumps was controlled by the low/high level sensors in the 5,000-gal atmospheric
storage tank. Water in the storage tank was pumped by two 1.5-hp booster pumps to replenish the 300-
gal hydropneumatic tank prior to entering the distribution system. The on/off of the booster pumps was
controlled by a 70/80 psi pressure setting in the hydropneumatic tank.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, skills required to operate the arsenic
treatment system were minimal. Operator's duties were to visually inspect the system and record
operational data during system operations.
Seely-Brown Village is a community water system. According to Connecticut DPH, all community and
non-transient, non-community water systems are required to have their water treatment plants,
distribution systems, and small water systems operated by certified operators. To be certified as a water
treatment plant operator, a person must demonstrate the ability to responsibly operate a plant of a given
classification applied for (i.e., I, II, 111, IV) by passing a written examination. The minimum education
requirement is either a high school diploma or a high school equivalency diploma. Any amount of
educational training beyond high school (12 years) in a field of study applicable to water treatment may
be substituted for an equal amount of the experience requirement; however, one year of experience is
required for all classes. Experience in class means experience gained in operating a particular class plant
or the next lower class providing that the operator has direct responsible charge. Operators must renew
their certificates every three years by meeting specific training hour requirements for renewal. The Seely-
Brown Village operator has a Class II certification.
28
-------
4.5 System Performance
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. In Study Period I, treatment plant water samples were collected
on 22 occasions (including two duplicate samples collected during two non-speciation sampling events)
with field speciation performed during 10 of the 22 occasions at IN, TA, TB, and DS sampling locations.
In Study Period II, treatment plant water samples were collected on 18 occasions, including two duplicate
samples collected during two non-speciation sampling events, with field speciation performed during 10
of the 18 occasions at the same four sampling locations. Table 4-6 summarizes analytical results of
arsenic, iron, and manganese obtained in both study periods. Table 4-7 summarizes results of other water
quality parameters. Study Period II results are bracketed in both tables for side-by-side comparison with
Study Period I results. Appendix A contains a complete set of analytical results collected throughout the
performance evaluation study.
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 22.4 to 29.4 ug/L and averaged 25.2
ug/L in Study Period I; and ranged from 17.2 to 34.4 ug/L and averaged 25.1 ug/L in Study Period II.
Based on the 20 speciation sampling events in both study periods (see bar charts in Figures 4-10 and 4-
11), soluble As(V) was the predominating species, ranging from 17.1 to 25.4 ug/L and averaging 20.7
ug/L in Study Period I and from 15.5 to 24.7 ug/L and averaging 21.8 ug/L in Study Period II. The
presence of As(V) as the predominating species was consistent with somewhat elevated DO levels and
high ORP readings (i.e., 2.8 mg/L and 444 mV [on average], respectively). Only two and three sets of
DO and ORP measurements, respectively, were made during the entire study period due to
malfunctioning of field handheld probes and difficulties in handling these probes by the operator.
Low levels of soluble As(III) also existed, with concentrations ranging from <0.1 to 5.7 ug/L and
averaging 3.2 ug/L in Study Period I and from <0.1 to 5.9 ug/L and averaging 1.6 ug/L in Study Period II.
Particulate arsenic concentrations were low as well, averaging 0.8 ug/L in Study Period I and 0.2 ug/L in
Study Period II. Arsenic concentrations in source water measured during the performance evaluation
study were consistent with those collected previously from Wells No. 1 and No. 2 during source water
sampling (Table 4-1).
As shown by the second and the third bar charts in Figures 4-10 and 4-11, both soluble As (V) and
soluble As (III) could be removed by ArsenX and LayneRT™. However, after treating approximately
260,000 to 275,000 gal (or 15,100 to 16,000 BV) of water (1 BV = 2.3 ft3 [or 17.2 gal] of media in the
lead vessel), arsenic concentrations following the lead vessel had already reached 10 ug/L for both
ArsenXnp and LayneRT™ media. Arsenic breakthrough at 10 ug/L following the lag vessel occurred at
approximately 15,000 BV for ArsenXnp or at >18,000 BV for LayneRT™ (at 17,900 BV, the arsenic level
was 8.5 ug/L). BV calculations for the lag vessel were based on 4.6 ft3 (or 34.4 gal) of media in both
vessels. Figures 4-12 and 4-13 presents arsenic breakthrough curves for both media.
The arsenic breakthrough data indicate that the run length for ArsenXnp is approximately 15,000 BV and
that the run length for LayneRT™ is approximately 20% longer. These run length values were much
shorter than the vendor-projected run length of 45,000 BV for ArsenXnp media.
A number of water quality parameters potentially could affect media run lengths, including pH, silica, and
phosphorus. pH values of raw water ranged from 7.8 to 8.0 and averaged 7.9, which were similar to those
measured historically by the facility (Table 4-1). Although at the higher end of the commonly accepted
range of 5.5 to 8.5, these pH values should not be a major factor impeding arsenic adsorption. Elevated
silica concentrations were reported to affect arsenic removal by iron-based media (Cumming et al., 2009);
however, reported concentration ranges were much higher than the one observed at Seely-Brown Village,
i.e., 13.8 to 16.6 mg/L (as SiO2). Phosphorus concentrations in raw water ranged from 130 to 298 ug/L,
29
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
Sample
Count
22 [18]
22 [18]
22 [18]
22 [18]
10 [9lb)]
10 [10]
10 [10]
10 [10]
10 [9(c)]
10 [10ld)]
10 [10]
10 [10]
10 [10]
10 [10]
10 [10]
10 [10]
10 [9(e)]
10 [10]
10 [10]
10 [10]
21 [18]
22 [18]
22 [18]
22 [18]
10 [10]
10 [10]
10 [10]
10 [10]
22 [18]
22 [18]
22 [18]
22 [18]
10 [10]
10 [10]
10 [10]
10 [10]
NA[3]
NA[3]
NA[3]
NA[3]
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
22.4 [17.2]
1.0 [0.3]
0.1 [0.1]
0.1 [0.4]
22.5 [17.3]
1.0 [1.2]
0.1 [1.3]
0.1 [0.7]
0.1 [0.1]
0.1 [0.1]
0.1 [0.1]
0.1 [0.1]
0.1 [0.1]
0.1 [0.1]
0.1 [0.1]
0.1 [0.1]
17.1 [15.5]
0.1 [0.2]
0.1 [0.1]
0.1 [0.6]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
16.7 [14.8]
0.1 [0.1]
0.1 [0.1]
0.1 [0.1]
3.6 [0.3]
0.1 [0.1]
0.1 [0.1]
0.1 [0.1]
NA [1.8]
NA [1.4]
NA [1.0]
NA [1.0]
Maximum
29.4 [34.4]
21.8 [24.4]
13.4 [8.5]
12.3 [27.2]
26.9 [25.6]
19.3 [19.5]
12.5 [19.5]
11.2 [21.8]
4.9 [0.5]
0.7 [0.3]
0.3 [0.3]
0.2 [5.4]
5.7 [5.9]
0.9 [1.0]
0.4 [0.7]
0.3 [0.7]
25.4 [24.7]
19.1 [19.4]
12.2 [8.0]
11.0 [21.1]
1,232 [1,054]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [49]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
581 [709]
12.0 [7.0]
3.3 [0.5]
2.4 [1.6]
11.4 [12.1]
1.6 [6.9]
0.9 [0.2]
0.4 [3.8]
NA [2.6]
NA [1.8]
NA [1.7]
NA [1.8]
Average
25.2 [25.1]
_(a) r(a)-.
_(a) r_(ah
3.8 [3.0]
23.9 [23.7]
_(a) r_(ah
_(a) r_(ah
3.8 [4.4]
0.8 [0.2]
_(a) r_(ah
_(a) r_(ah
0.1 [0.8]
3.2 [1.6]
_(a) r_(ah
_(a) r_(ah
0.1 [0.2]
20.7 [21.8]
_(a) r_(ah
_(a) r_(ah
3.7 [4.2]
97.3 [146]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
56.8 [104]
2.4 [1.3]
0.8 [0.2]
0.6 [0.4]
8.1 [7.2]
0.4 [0.8]
0.4 [0.1]
0.2 [0.6]
NA [2.2]
NA [1.7]
NA[1.3]
NA [1.4]
Standard
Deviation
1.9 [3.5]
_(a) r_(ah
_(a) r_(ah
3.6 [6.2]
1.3 [2.6]
_(a) r_(ah
_(a) r_(ah
3.7 [6.4]
1.5 [0.2]
_(a) r_(ah
_(a) r(a)-.
0.1 [1.8]
2.0 [1.6]
_(a) r_(ah
_(a) r(a)-.
0.1 [0.2]
2.7 [3.0]
_(a) r_(ah
_(a) r(a)-.
3.7 [6.2]
256 [260]
- -
- -
- [8.6]
- -
- -
- -
- -
119 [173]
3.4 [1.7]
0.8 [0.2]
0.6 [0.4]
2.4 [3.3]
0.5 [2.1]
0.3 [0.0]
0.1 [1.1]
NA [0.4]
NA [0.2]
NA [0.3]
NA [0.4]
(a) Statistics not meaningful for concentrations related to breakthrough; see Figures 4-10 and
4-13 and Appendix B for results.
(b) One outlier (i.e., 0.1 ug/L) on 12/16/09 omitted.
(c) One outlier (i.e., 24.1 ug/L) on 12/16/09 omitted.
(d) One outlier (i.e., 23.2 ug/L) on 12/16/09 omitted.
(e) One outlier (i.e., 0.05 ug/L) on 12/16/09 omitted.
NA = not available
[ ] = Study Period II
30
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
(DO)
Oxidation-
Reduction
Potential
(ORP)
Total
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
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
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
22 [15]
22 [15]
22 [15]
22 [14]
10 [7]
10 [7]
10 [7]
10 [7]
10 [7]
10 [7]
10 [7]
10 [7]
10 [7]
10 [7]
10 [7]
10 [7]
22 [17]
22 [18]
22 [18]
22 [18]
22 [15]
22 [15]
22 [15]
22 [14]
22 [15]
22 [15]
22 [15]
22 [14]
4
4
4
5
2(a)
2(b)
2(c>
2(d>
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
10 [7]
10 [7]
10 [7]
10 [7]
Concentration
Minimum
46.2 [46.8]
45.0 [46.8]
44.3 [46.5]
46.9 [48.9]
0.2 [0.2]
0.2 [0.2]
0.2 [0.2]
0.2 [0.2]
17.9 [19.5]
19.6 [18.7]
19.5 [19.7]
18.8 [18.8]
0.05 [0.05]
0.05 [0.05]
0.05 [0.05]
0.05 [0.05]
133 [130]
<10 [<10]
<10 [<10]
<10 [<10]
13.8 [14.0]
13.5 [13.7]
13.7 [11.6]
13.3 [9.9]
0.3 [0.7]
0.1 [0.3]
0.1 [0.3]
0.1 [0.2]
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.6
18.5
10.3
17.9
18.9
2.8
2.0
2.0
3.5
414
409
426
414
41.2 [49.8]
43.8 [52.2]
45.9 [49.8]
44.5 [51.9]
Maximum
56.7 [64.4]
53.9 [62.6]
54.4 [61.9]
55.6 [55.7]
0.3 [0.7]
0.3 [0.3]
0.4 [0.7]
0.4 [0.4]
25.4 [25.5]
21.1 [21.7]
23.2 [27.2]
21.9 [444.6]
0.05 [0.05]
0.05 [0.05]
0.05 [0.05]
0.1 [0.05]
272 [298]
252 [186]
228 [224]
183 [161]
16.6 [15.9]
16.2 [16.6]
16.5 [16.5]
16.1 [16.1]
6.2 [5.4]
4.2 [3.4]
5.0 [3.5]
2.6 [1.1]
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.2
20.5
20.3
20.4
20.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
4.1
488
451
451
456
65.5 [59.9]
72.5 [66.0]
71.6 [69.7]
75.7 [62.9]
Average
50.6 [53.3]
49.3 [51.6]
50.2 [51.8]
50.3 [52.2]
0.2 [0.3]
0.3 [0.3]
0.3 [0.3]
0.3 [0.3]
20.5 [21.5]
20.3 [20.6]
20.9 [21.7]
20.5 [24.2]
0.05 [0.05]
0.05 [0.05]
0.05 [0.05]
0.05 [0.05]
180 [171]
_(a) r_(a)-i
_(a) r(a)-i
125 [79.0]
15.1 [15.0]
15.0 [15.0]
15.2 [14.9]
15.0 [14.7]
2.0 [1.9]
1.0 [1.1]
1.1 [1.0]
0.6 [0.4]
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.9
19.5
15.3
19.2
19.9
2.8
2.4
2.3
3.8
444
428
438
438
56.6 [56.2]
58.2 [57.8]
58.8 [59.5]
58.3 [57.1]
Standard
Deviation
2.8 [4.4]
2.0 [4.2]
2.3 [3.6]
2.3 [1.9]
0.0 [0.2]
0.0 [0.0]
0.1 [0.2]
0.1 [0.1]
2.0 [1.9]
0.5 [1.0]
1.0 [2.6]
1.0 [9.2]
-[-]
-[-]
-[-]
0.05 [-]
33.4 [39.5]
_(a) r(a)-i
_(a) r(a)-i
60.4 [64.3]
0.8 [0.7]
0.8 [0.8]
0.7 [1.2]
0.7 [1.5]
1.5 [1.2]
0.9 [0.8]
1.1 [0.8]
0.7 [0.3]
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
1.4
7.1
1.8
1.4
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.4
38.9
21.1
12.4
21.4
7.7 [3.4]
8.3 [4.8]
7.7 [7.2]
9.1 [4.1]
31
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results (Continued)
Parameter
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
DS
IN
TA
TB
DS
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
11 [7]
11 [7]
11 [7]
11 [7]
10 [7]
10 [7]
10 [7]
10 [7]
Concentration
Minimum
34.8 [42.2]
37.1 [44.4]
38.7 [42.5]
37.4 [44.2]
6.4 [7.1]
6.7 [7.7]
7.2 [7.3]
7.1 [7.7]
Maximum
55.9 [52.4]
63.8 [56.1]
62.9 [61.5]
66.5 [54.7]
11. 9 [9.5]
13.0 [9.9]
13.6 [10.1]
12.0 [9.3]
Average
49.0 [47.8]
50.3 [49.0]
50.7 [51.0]
50.5 [48.5]
8.4 [8.4]
8.6 [8.8]
8.9 [8.6]
8.6 [8.6]
Standard
Deviation
7.2 [3.3]
7.9 [4.2]
7.5 [6.8]
8.6 [3.9]
1.7 [0.9]
2.0 [0.7]
2.1 [0.8]
1.6 [0.6]
(a) Statistics not meaningful for concentrations related to breakthrough; see Figures 4-14 and 4-15 and
Appendix B for results.
(b) One outlier (i.e., 25. °C mg/L) on 06/08/09 was omitted.
(c) One outlier (i.e., 25.0 °C mg/L) on 06/08/09 was omitted.
(d) One outlier (i.e., 25.0 °C mg/L) on 06/08/09 was omitted.
(e) One outlier (i.e., 25.0 °C mg/L) on 06/08/09 was omitted.
[ ] = Study Period II
and averaged 176 ug/L. Phosphorus was completely removed by LayneRT™ during the first 5,000 BV
(1 BV = 2.3 ft3 = 17.2 gal) of system operations and began to break through thereafter. Phosphorus
concentrations in system effluent started to approach influent levels at approximately 8,500 BV.
Adsorption of phosphorus apparently used up some adsorptive sites, thus reducing media run lengths for
arsenic. Figures 4-14 and 4-15 present phosphorus breakthrough curves.
Under a normal lead/lag arrangement, when the arsenic level following the lag vessel has reached 10
ug/L, the lag vessel is to be placed in the lead position along with a newly rebedded vessel placed in the
lag position. The lead vessel with the partially spent media will last for no more than 18,000 BV (1 BV =
2.3 ft3 = 17.2 gal), based on the breakthrough curves in Figure 4-13, before the arsenic level following the
lag vessel reaches 10 (ig/L again. By continuing rebedding of the lead vessel and switching the vessel
position, the capacity of the media can be utilized to its greatest extent. The treatment system at Seely-
Brown Village can be operated in this manner should the facility choose to continue using LanyeRT™ as
the media of choice.
Iron and Manganese. Iron and manganese concentrations in raw water were mostly low, either below
the MDL of 25 ug/L for iron or averaging 28.3 (in Study Period I) and 27.2 ug/L (in Study Period II) for
manganese, excluding outliers. There were instances where elevated iron and manganese were observed.
In Study Period I, one elevated iron (at 1,232 ug/L on September 23, 2009) and two elevated manganese
levels (at 102 and 581 ug/L on September 9 and 23, 2009, respectively) were measured, existing either
entirely (for iron) or mostly (for manganese) as particulates. In Study Period II, five sets of elevated iron
and manganese levels were measured on February 3 (including one set of duplicate results), April 1, June
10, and October 7, 2010, with iron levels ranging from 170 to 1,054 ug/L and manganese levels ranging
from 91.7 to 709 ug/L. Similar to Period Study I, iron and manganese existed either entirely (for iron) or
mostly (for manganese) as particulates.
The presence of iron and manganese particulates in raw water had caused rising pressure drops across the
pre-filter, prompting the vendor to recommend more frequent replacement of filters (from monthly to
biweekly) as discussed in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.4. Some iron and manganese particulates apparently had
penetrated through the filters (with a nominal pore size of 50 and 5 um before and after June 9, 2009), as
evidenced by black coatings on some ArsenXnp media beads observed during media changeout. Coatings
on media beads could result in unwanted media fouling and shorter run length according to the vendor.
32
-------
Arsenic Species at Wellhead (IN) - ArsenX""
Arsenic Species after Vessel A (TA) - ArsenXnp
Arsenic Species after Vessel B (TB) - ArsenX""
LE!
Figure 4-10. Arsenic Species at IN, TA and TB Sampling Locations with ArsenXnp Media
33
-------
Arsenic Species at Wellhead (IN) - Layne RT
Arsenic Species after Vessel A (TA) - Layne RT
Arsenic Species after Vessel B (TB) - Layne RT
Figure 4-11. Arsenic Species at IN, TA and TB Sampling Locations with LayneRT™ Media
34
-------
As Breakthrough from Vessels A and B with ArsenXnp
Throughput (xlOOOBV)
Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for ArsenXnp Media
(1 BV = 2.3 ft3 = 17.2 gal)
0)
U
c
o
O
o
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
As Breakthrough from Vessels A and B with LayneRT
TM
•IN
-TA
•TB
Throughput (x1,000 BV)
Figure 4-13. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for LayneRT™ Media
(1 BV = 2.3 ft3 = 17.2 gal)
35
-------
P Breakthrough from Vessels A and B with ArsenXnp
300
O)
c
,0
'•P
2
+-
c
0)
u
c
O
O
Q.
1
270
240
2W
180
150
120
90
60
30
0 4
IN
-TA
-TB
Throughput(xlOOOBV)
Figure 4-14. Phosphorus Breakthrough Curves for ArsenXnp Media
(1 BV = 2.3 ft3 = 17.2 gal)
O)
.0
?
2
+*
0)
u
c
O
O
Q.
1
O
P Breakthrough from Vessels A and B with LayneRT
TM
Throughput(x1,OOOBV)
Figure 4-15. Phosphorus Breakthrough Curves for LayneRT™ Media
(1 BV = 2.3 ft3 = 17.2 gal)
36
-------
After Vessels A and B, iron and manganese (as particulates) were mostly removed to the MDL of 25 (ig/L
for iron and below 2.4 and 0.8 (ig/L (on average), respectively, for manganese.
4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to installation/operation of the treatment
system, four first-draw baseline samples were collected from a kitchen sink on November 17, December
4, December 11, and December 17, 2008. After system startup, distribution system water sampling
continued monthly at the kitchen sink on 10 and six occasions with ArsenXnp and LayneRT™,
respectively, in the system. Table 4-8 presents results of the distribution system water sampling. Because
the November 17, 2009, baseline results from the nurses sink and staff dining room sink were similar to
those from the kitchen sink, they are not included in the table.
Table 4-8. Distribution System Water Sampling Results (Kitchen Sink)
Sampling
Event
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Sampling
Date
11/17/08
12/04/08
12/11/08
12/17/08
03/26/09
04/23/09
05/20/09
06/17/09
07/15/09
08/12/09
09/09/09
10/08/09
11/05/09
12/02/09
01/07/10
02/03/10
03/03/10
04/01/10
04/28/10
05/27/10
0
•Ł w
§.!
%*
-*^
!/5
hr
11.0
16.0
10.1
11.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.0
11.5
10.6
NA
14.9
M
a.
S.U.
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.1
7.8
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.8
8.0
7.8
8.0
7.8
7.8
7.9
6.6
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.8
Alkalinity
mg/L
45.8
48.9
48.9
50.1
48.5
48.2
47.6
51.3
49.7
48.0
49.9
50.9
60.1
55.6
49.3
55.7
56.5
55.4
57.3
48.6
5«
<
Hg/L
25.2
25.5
23.6
23.1
1.4
1.5
5.5
1.3
1.5
2.8
2.1
6.2
10.4
9.1
1.4
1.3
0.6
1.3
0.9
1.0
1>
u.
HS/L
<25
<25
31
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
1
Hg/L
4.7
3.2
5.3
3.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
1.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
3.7
0.2
0.2
0.2
.a
a.
Hg/L
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
0.1
<0.
<0.
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
u
Hg/L
24.0
46.1
26.8
53.2
25.8
35.7
34.4
35.1
43.6
50.7
41.8
50.5
31.5
59.2
53.1
57.0
28.0
36.2
30.4
36.0
BL = baseline sampling; NA
Lead action level =15 ng/L;
Unit for alkalinity expressed
= not available
copper action level =1.3 mg/L
as CaCO3.
The most noticeable change in the distribution system water samples since system startup was a decrease
in arsenic concentration when either media was in the system. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged
from 23.1 to 25.5 (ig/L and averaged 24.3 (ig/L. After system startup, arsenic concentrations were
reduced to 1.3 to 10.4 (ig/L with ArsenXnp in the system during Sutdy Period I and to 0.6 to 1.4 (ig/L with
LayneRT™ in the system during Study Period II. Arsenic was above the MCL during only one sampling
event just before ArsenXnp was replaced.
37
-------
During Study Period I, arsenic concentrations essentially mirrored those in system effluent throughout the
ArsenXnp adsorption run, but were generally higher than those in system effluent when system effluent
concentrations were low in the 0.1 to 2.8 ug/L range. Similarly, higher concentrations in distribution
system water also were observed during the first five to six months of system operation in Study Period II
when the monthly distribution system water sampling continued. Some solublization, destablization,
and/or desorption of arsenic-laden particles/scales in the distribution system might have occurred,
contributing to the higher concentrations observed. Similar observations were made by other researchers
(Lytle and Sorg, 2005) and at other arsenic demonstration sites (Chen et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2010a;
Chen et al., 2010b; Lipps et al. 2010; Wang et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2010c; Chen et
al., 2009a; Chen et al., 2009b; Condit et al., 2009; McCall et al., 2008; Condit and Chen, 2006).
Except for one instance where 31 (ig/L of iron was measured during baseline sampling, iron
concentrations were below the MDL of 25 (ig/L both before and after system startup regardless which
media was used in the system. Baseline manganese concentrations were low, ranging from 3.0 to 5.3
(ig/L and averging 4.1 (ig/L. After system startup, its concentrations remained low from 0.1 to 1.2 (ig/L
in Study Period I and from 0.2 to 3.7 (ig/L in Study Period II. These concentrations were very close to
the iron and manganese concentrations in system effluent during both study periods.
Lead concentrations of all water samples collected before and after system startup were equal to or below
the reporting limit of 0.1 (ig/L in all but two cases, where 0.2 (ig/L was measured. Copper concentrations
ranged from 24.0 to 53.2 (ig/L and averaged 37.5 (ig/L before system startup. These concentrations were
comparable to those after system startup, ranging from 25.8 to 59.2 (ig/L and averaging 40.6 (ig/L. No
sample exceeded the 1,300 (ig/L action level both before and after system startup. The arsenic treatment
system did not appear to have an effect on the lead or copper concentration in the distribution system.
4.6 System Cost
The cost of the treatment system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of 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 media replacement and disposal,
chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation for the
15-gpm treatment system was $17,255 (Table 4-9). The equipment and site engineering cost was $11,345
(or 66% of the total capital investment), including $10,995 for the treatment system and media and $350
for freight. The site engineering cost was not broken out from the equipment cost.
The installation cost included subcontractor travel to the site and subcontractor labor to unload and install
the system, perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load the media. The installation cost was
$5,910, or 34% of the total capital investment.
The capital cost of $17,255 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 15 gpm (or 21,600 gpd),
which results in $l,150.33/gpm (or $0.80/gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted to
an annualized cost of $l,629/year using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-yr return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at the design
flowrate of 15 gpm to produce 7,884,000 gal/year, the unit capital cost would be $0.21/1,000 gal. During
the 20 month-long demonstration project, the system produced approximately 1,151,500 gal of water
based on Vessel A totalizer for both study periods (see Table 4-5), equivalent to 706,000 gal per year. At
this reduced rate of usage, the unit capital cost increased to $2.31/1,000 gal.
38
-------
Table 4-9. Capital Investment Cost for Seely-Brown Village Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
%of
Capital
Investment
Cost
Equipment and Site Engineering Cost
ArsenXnp Media
Pressure Vessels
Process Valves and Piping
Instrumentation and Controls
Shipping
Equipment Total
4.6 ft3
2
1
1
Subtotal
-
$6,300
$1,600
$2,095
$1,000
$10,995
$350
$11,345
-
-
-
-
66%
Installation Cost
Subcontractor Material
Subcontractor Labor
Subcontractor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
$2,000
$3,800
$110
$5,910
$17,255
-
-
34%
100%
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost includes media replacement and disposal,
pre-filter replacement, electricity, and labor, as summarized in Table 4-10. The media was replaced
during the performance evaluation study and its cost represents the majority of the O&M cost. Although
both the lead and lag vessels were replaced, only the lead vessel would be replaced in the future.
Therefore, the O&M cost analysis was performed based on the cost of replacing only the lead vessel. The
cost to replace the lead vessel was $2,740, including $1,960 for a replacement vessel and 2.3 ft3 of
LayneRT™ and $780 for miscellaneous items and labor (see Table 4-10). (Note that during actual media
changeout at Seely-Brown Village, the vendor replaced the lag vessel at no cost as a promotion for its
new LayneRT™ media.) The $2,740 cost was used to estimate the media replacement cost per 1,000 gal
of water treated as a function of the projected media run length to the 10-ug/L arsenic breakthrough
(Figure 4-16).
The cost for replacing pre-filters was $456, based on replacement of 24 filters/year at a unit cost of
$19/filter. The unit filter replacement cost was estimated to be $0.65/1,000 gal of water treated.
Comparison of electrical bills provided by the school before and after system startup did not indicate any
noticeable increase in power consumption by the treatment system. Therefore, electrical cost associated
with operation of the treatment system was negligible. Under normal operating conditions, routine labor
activities to operate and maintain the system consumed approximately 20 min/day or 1.6 hr/week.
Assuming an hourly rate of $20/hr, the estimated labor cost would be $2.36/1,000 gal of water treated.
39
-------
Table 4-10. Seely-Brown Village Treatment System Operation and Maintenance Cost
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Value
1,151,500
Assumptions
From 02/04/09, through 09/24/10, equivalent
to 706,000/year
Media Replacement and Disposal
Replacement Media Vessel
Vessel Sanitization
Jumbo Cart Filter and Sanitization
Labor
Tax
Subtotal ($)
LayneRT Media Replacement and
Disposal Cost/1,000 gal
$1,960
$2,00
$65
$360
$155
$2,740
See Figure 4-16
For 2.3 ft3 of LayneRT™ and a replacement
vessel (old vessel disposed of)
$100/vessel
$90/hrfor4hr
Pre-filter Replacement Cost
Annual Filter Replacement
Filter Replacement Cost/1,000 gal
$456
$0.65
Replacing 24 filters per year at $ 19/filter
Electricity
Electricity Cost ($/l,000 gal)
0
Electrical cost assumed negligible
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Annual Labor Cost ($)
Labor Cost/1,000 gal ($)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
1.6
1,664
2.36
See Figure 4-16
20 min/day for 5 days
At $20/hr for 52 weeks
Total O&M cost = media replacement and
disposal cost + $0.65 + $2.36
$12.00
$10.00
75 $8.00
D)
I
,_- $6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
-Media Replacement Cost
O$M cost
20 40 60 80 100 120
Media Working Capacity (x1,000 BV)
140
160
Figure 4-16. Media Replacement and Total O&M Cost Curves
(1 BV = 2.3 ft3 = 17.2 gal)
40
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2008. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan. U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology Round 2a at Clinton Christian School in Goshen, Indiana. 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. 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.
Chen, A.S.C., J.P. Lipps, R.J. Stowe, B.J. Yates, Vivek Lai, and L. Wang. 2011. Arsenic Removal from
Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start
Building in Buckeye Lake, OH. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-11/002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
Chen, A.S.C., W.E. Condit, B.J. Yates, and L. Wang. 2010a. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Iron Removal. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN. Final Performance Evaluation
Report. EPA/600/R-10/033. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., G.M. Lewis, L. Wang, and A. Wang. 2010b. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Coagulation/Filtration. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Town ofFelton, DE. Final
Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-10/039. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., J.P. Lipps, S.E. McCall, and L. Wang. 2009a. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Adsorptive Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in
Susanville, CA. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-09/067. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, and W.E. Condit. 2009b. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron
Removal. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Vantage on the Ponds in Delavan, WI. Final
Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-09/066. 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.
Condit, W.E., A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, and A. Wang. 2009. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Iron Removal and Adsorptive Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Stewart, MN. Final
Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-09/144. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Condit, W.E. and A.S.C. Chen. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal. U.S. EPA
Demonstration Project at Climax, MN. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-
41
-------
06/152. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Cumming, L.J., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2009. Arsenic and Antimony Removal from Drinking Water
by Adsorptive Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at South Truckee Deadows General
Improvement District (STMGID), NV. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-
09/016. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, A. Wang, and S.E. McCall. 2010. Arsenic Removal from Drinking
Water by Adsorptive Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Spring Brook Mobile Home
Park in Wales, ME. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-10/012. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
LJBInc. 2007. Water Treatment System Improvements. Clinton Christian School PWS ID# 2200025.
Lytle, D.A. and T.J. Sorg. 2005. "Distribution System Issues." Presented at the Workshop on Arsenic
Removal from Drinking Water - August 16 to 18, Cincinnati, OH.
McCall, S.E., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2008. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Bow, NH. Final Performance Evaluation Report.
EPA/600/R-08/006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Wang A, A.S.C. Chen, and L, Wang. 2010a. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD. Final Performance Evaluation Report.
EPA/600/R-10/179. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH
Wang, L., A.S.C. Chen, and G.M. Lewis. 2010b. Arsenic and Uranium Removal from Drinking Water
by Adsorptive Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Upper Bodfish in Lake Isabella, CA.
Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-10/165. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Wang, L., A.S.C. Chen, and A. Wang. 2010c. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Oak Manor Municipal Utility District at Alvin, TX.
Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-10/045. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
42
-------
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.
Wang, L., A.S.C. Chen, and K.A. Fields . 2000. Arsenic removal from Drinking Water by Ion Exchange
and Activated Alumina Plants. EPA/600/R-00/088. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
43
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pomfret, CT- Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
o
2/4/09
2/5/09
2/6/09
2/10/09
2/11/09
2/12/09
2/13/09
2/16/09
2/17/09
2/18/09
2/19/09
2/20/09
2/24/09
2/25/09
2/26/09
2/27/09
3/2/09
3/3/09
3/4/09
3/5/09
3/6/09
3/9/09
3/10/09
3/11/09
3/13/09
3/16/09
3/17/09
3/18/09
3/19/09
3/20/09
3/23/09
3/24/09
3/25/09
3/26/09
3/27/09
3/30/09
3/31/09
4/1/09
4/2/09
4/3/09
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pomfret, CT - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
1
Q
4/6/09
4/7/09
4/8/09
4/9/09
4/10/09
4/13/09
4/14/09
4/16/09
4/17/09
4/20/09
4/21/09
4/22/09
4/23/09
4/24/09
4/27/09
4/28/09
4/29/09
4/30/09
5/1/09
5/4/09
5/5/09
5/6/09
5/7/09
5/8/09
5/11/09
5/12/09
5/13/09
5/14/09
5/15/09
5/18/09
5/19/09
5/20/09
5/21/09
5/22/09
6/1/09
6/2/09
6/3/09
6/4/09
6/5/09
6/8/09
6/9/09
6/10/09
6/11/09
6/12/09
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pomfret, CT - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1
Q
6/15/09
6/16/09
6/17/09
6/18/09
6/19/09
6/22/09
6/26/09
6/29/09
6/30/09
7/1/09
7/6/09
7/7/09
7/8/09
7/9/09
7/10/09
7/13/09
7/14/09
7/15/09
7/16/09
7/17/09
7/22/09
7/23/09
7/24/09
7/27/09
7/28/09
7/29/09
7/30/09
7/31/09
8/3/09
8/4/09
8/5/09
8/6/09
8/7/09
8/10/09
8/11/09
8/12/09
8/13/09
8/14/09
8/17/09
8/18/09
8/19/09
8/20/09
8/21/09
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pomfret, CT - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
38
39
40
41
1
Q
8/25/09
8/26/09
8/27/09
8/28/09
8/31/09
9/1/09
9/2/09
9/3/09
9/4/09
9/9/09
9/11/09
9/14/09
9/15/09
9/16/09
9/17/09
9/21/09
10/1/09
10/2/09
10/5/09
10/6/09
10/7/09
10/8/09
10/20/09
10/21/09
10/22/09
10/23/09
10/26/09
10/27/09
10/28/09
10/29/09
10/30/09
11/2/09
11/3/09
11/4/09
11/5/09
11/6/09
11/9/09
11/10/09
11/12/09
11/13/09
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pomfret, CT - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
42
44
45
46
49
50
52
53
54
55
56
1
Q
11/16/09
11/17/09
11/18/09
11/19/09
11/20/09
12/1/09
12/2/09
12/7/09
12/8/09
12/9/09
12/1 1/09
12/14/09
12/15/09
12/16/09
12/17/09
12/18/09
1/4/2010
1/5/2010
1/6/2010
1/7/2010
1/12/2010
1/13/2010
1/14/2010
1/15/2010
1/25/2010
1/26/2010
1/27/2010
1/28/2010
1/29/2010
2/1/2010
2/3/2010
2/4/2010
2/5/2010
2/9/2010
2/10/2010
2/11/2010
2/12/2010
2/16/2010
2/17/2010
2/23/2010
2/24/2010
2/25/2010
2/26/2010
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pomfret, CT - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
57
58
59
60
62
63
64
65
66
68
69
1
Q
3/1/2010
3/2/2010
3/3/2010
3/4/2010
3/8/2010
3/9/2010
3/10/2010
3/11/2010
3/12/2010
3/18/2010
3/19/2010
3/22/2010
3/23/2010
3/24/2010
4/5/2010
4/6/2010
4/7/2010
4/8/2010
4/9/2010
4/12/2010
4/13/2010
4/14/2010
4/15/2010
4/19/2010
4/20/2010
4/21/2010
4/22/2010
4/23/2010
4/26/2010
4/27/2010
4/28/2010
4/29/2010
5/3/2010
5/18/2010
5/19/2010
5/20/2010
5/21/2010
5/24/2010
5/25/2010
5/26/2010
5/27/2010
5/28/2010
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pomfret, CT - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
1
Q
6/8/2010
6/9/2010
6/10/2010
6/11/2010
6/14/2010
6/15/2010
6/16/2010
6/17/2010
6/22/2010
6/23/2010
6/24/2010
6/25/2010
6/29/2010
7/2/2010
7/5/2010
7/6/2010
7/7/2010
7/8/2010
7/14/2010
7/15/2010
7/16/2010
7/19/2010
7/20/2010
7/21/2010
7/22/2010
7/23/2010
7/26/2010
7/27/2010
7/28/2010
7/29/2010
8/2/2010
8/3/2010
8/4/2010
8/5/2010
8/9/2010
8/10/2010
8/11/2010
8/12/2010
8/13/2010
8/18/2010
8/19/2010
8/20/2010
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pomfret, CT - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week No.
82
83
1
Q
8/23/2010
8/24/2010
8/25/2010
8/26/2010
8/27/2010
8/30/2010
8/31/2010
9/1/2010
9/2/2010
84 9/7/2010
85
9/15/2010
9/16/2010
9/17/2010
oo
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Pomfret, CT
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCOs)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as Si02)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCOs)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
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
03/11/09
IN
-
53.3
0.3
19.1
<0.05
229
14.4
0.3
7.9
18.5
2.8
429
65.5
53.6
11.9
26.5
26.9
0.1
4.2
22.7
36
<25
16.7
11.4
TA
TB
DS
3.6
49.1
0.2
20.4
<0.05
48.3
15.0
0.2
7.9
10.3
2.0
409
65.3
52.2
13.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.9
0.1
<25
<25
2.3
1.6
-
49.1
0.3
20.7
0.05
<10
14.7
0.2
7.5
17.9
2.0
438
65.5
52.0
13.6
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
O.1
<25
<25
1.5
0.9
46.9
0.3
20.4
0.05
<10
14.7
0.1
7.6
18.9
4.1
456
65.3
53.3
12.0
1.5
1.5
0.1
0.3
1.2
<25
<25
0.7
0.1
-
03/26/09
IN
-
46.4
-
-
-
159
13.9
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
24.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
20.2
TA
TB
DS
5.2
46.4
-
-
116
13.5
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
1.4
-
-
<25
-
2.6
-
-
44.3
-
-
-
<10
14.1
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
48.5
-
-
-
<10
14.1
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
-
04/08/09
IN
-
46.2
0.2
20.3
0.05
168
14.2
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
51.4
44.3
7.1
22.4
23.0
0.1
3.5
19.5
36
<25
22.8
6.8
TA
TB
DS
6.5
48.6
0.3
20.6
0.05
<10
14.0
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
50.5
43.7
6.8
3.5
4.0
0.1
0.3
3.6
<25
<25
6.7
0.5
-
48.6
0.2
20.8
0.05
<10
14.3
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
52.0
44.2
7.8
O.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
<25
<25
0.5
0.4
50.9
0.3
21.0
0.05
<10
14.5
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
50.0
42.4
7.6
0.9
4.2
0.1
0.1
4.1
<25
<25
0.1
0.3
-
04/23/09
IN
-
48.2
-
-
192
14.2
4.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
26.8
-
-
74
-
55.3
TA
TB
DS
8.0
48.2
-
-
-
188
14.1
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.7
-
-
48.2
-
-
21.0
15.9
2.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
0.1
-
-
<25
-
0.6
48.2
-
-
-
11.6
15.8
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
-
05/06/09
IN
-
50.9
0.3
21.7
0.05
172
16.6
2.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
63.3
55.7
7.5
23.1
22.5
0.6
4.0
18.5
58
<25
46.7
9.7
TA
TB
DS
9.3
48.5
0.3
19.9
0.05
185
16.2
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
72.5
63.8
8.7
5.0
5.1
0.1
0.4
4.7
<25
<25
2.0
0.4
-
49.7
0.3
20.5
0.05
119
16.5
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
71.6
62.9
8.7
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
O.1
<25
<25
0.6
0.5
49.7
0.3
21.9
0.05
84.9
16.1
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
75.7
66.5
9.2
1.9
1.8
0.1
0.1
1.7
<25
<25
0.6
0.1
-
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Pomfret, CT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCOs)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as Si02)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCOs)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
05/20/09
IN
49.2
-
-
178
15.6
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
55.9
25.2
-
36
34.5
-
-
TA
TB
DS
10.8
50.9
-
-
-
185
15.5
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
57.6
-
7.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.2
-
-
47.6
-
-
152
16.0
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
58.5
0.1
-
<25
0.5
-
-
49.2
-
-
-
139
15.7
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
57.6
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
-
06/03/09
IN
50.6
0.2
20.1
<0.05
184
16
1.9
7.9
25.0
NA
488
54.5
47.4
7.2
24.1
23.9
0.2
4.7
19.3
<25
<25
19.9
8.1
-
TA
TB
DS
12.9
50.6
0.2
20.7
<0.05
195
15.8
0.7
7.9
25.0
NA
451
57.1
49.4
7.6
8.8
9.3
<0.1
0.2
9.0
<25
<25
0.8
0.3
-
51.9
0.4
21.2
<0.05
170
15.6
1.1
7.9
25.0
NA
451
55.6
48.1
7.5
0.1
0.2
O.1
0.1
0.1
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
-
50.6
0.2
20.3
O.05
160
15.8
0.7
7.9
25.0
NA
445
56.7
49.4
7.3
1.2
1.4
O.1
O.1
1.3
<25
<25
0.6
0.1
-
06/17/09
IN
51.3
-
-
177
15.1
1.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
24.6
-
37
22.9
-
-
TA
TB
DS
14.0
51.3
-
-
-
172
15.2
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
11.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
-
49.2
-
-
167
15.1
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
-
<25
0.4
-
-
51.3
-
-
-
162
15.3
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
-
07/01/09
IN
51.3
0.2
25.4
O.05
166
14.9
4.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
63.5
55.5
8.0
24.1
22.8
1.3
5.7
17.1
36
<25
19.5
9.9
-
TA
TB
DS
16.0
49.0
0.3
20.8
O.05
111
15.6
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
61.4
54.1
7.4
9.7
9.7
O.1
0.2
9.6
<25
<25
O.1
0.1
-
51.3
0.2
21.9
O.05
147
15.2
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
63.4
55.5
7.9
0.2
0.2
O.1
O.1
0.1
<25
<25
O.1
0.1
-
51.3
0.3
20.9
O.05
166
14.8
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
64.5
56.5
8.0
0.9
0.8
0.1
O.1
0.7
<25
<25
O.1
0.1
-
07/15/09
IN
47.3
49.7
-
-
171
196
15.3
15.2
1.1
0.7
7.8
25.0
NA
414
-
29.4
29.1
-
<25
25
29.9
30.4
-
TA
TB
DS
17.7
49.7
45
-
-
-
142
165
15.3
15.5
2.1
0.4
7.8
25.0
NA
425
-
-
-
14.3
14.9
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.6
0.7
-
49.7
49.7
-
-
-
130
129
15.2
15.2
2.0
0.1
7.8
25.0
NA
426
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.8
0.7
-
49.7
-
-
-
148
149
15.4
15.5
0.1
O.1
7.9
25.0
NA
421
-
-
-
1.9
1.9
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.6
0.6
-
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Pomfret, CT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCOs)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as Si02)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCOs)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
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
07/30/09
IN
-
48.0
0.3
21.1
<0.05
247
13.8
3.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
49.1
38.8
10.3
25.0
25.5
<0.1
<0.1
25.4
78
<25
33.9
10.5
-
TA
TB
DS
19.3
48.0
0.3
20.4
<0.05
252
14.8
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
52.7
41.5
11.2
18.2
17.9
0.3
<0.1
17.8
<25
<25
0.7
0.2
-
49.1
0.2
20.1
<0.05
228
14.9
2.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
54.2
42.6
11.6
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<25
<25
0.5
0.4
-
49.1
0.4
21.5
0.1
183
15.1
2.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
50.2
39.8
10.4
0.1
O.1
O.1
O.1
0.1
<25
<25
2.4
0.3
-
08/12/09
IN
-
-
182
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
25.8
-
78
38.0
-
-
TA
TB
DS
20.7
-
-
-
-
178
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
19.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
172
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
1.9
-
<25
0.6
-
-
-
-
168
14.8
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
2.1
-
<25
0.2
-
-
08/26/09
IN
49.0
0.2
20.3
O.05
181
15.4
1.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
41.2
34.8
6.4
23.6
23.0
0.6
5.3
17.7
<25
<25
23.0
9.1
-
TA
TB
DS
22.2
50.1
0.2
21.1
O.05
179
16.1
4.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
43.8
37.1
6.7
17.1
17.4
O.1
0.3
17.1
<25
<25
1.3
0.2
-
50.1
0.3
20.7
O.05
175
15.9
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
45.9
38.7
7.2
2.6
2.9
O.1
0.4
2.5
<25
<25
0.4
0.3
-
51.3
0.2
21.4
O.05
163
15.2
0.9
7.9
NA
NA
NA
44.5
37.4
7.1
2.5
2.6
O.1
0.2
2.5
<25
<25
O.1
0.1
-
09/09/09M
IN
-
51.9
-
-
172
15.8
0.5
8.0
NA
NA
NA
-
-
25.3
-
166
102
-
-
TA
TB
DS
23.7
53.9
-
-
-
170
16.1
0.6
8.0
NA
NA
NA
-
-
17.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
-
47.9
-
-
171
16.1
1.0
8.0
NA
NA
NA
-
-
2.8
-
<25
0.3
-
-
49.9
-
-
-
164
13.3
0.3
8.2
NA
NA
NA
-
-
2.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
-
09/23/09
IN
53.7
0.3
19.5
O.05
272
16.1
2.8
NA
NA
NA
56.3
47.5
8.9
28.9
24.0
4.9
1.2
22.8
1,232
<25
581
3.6
-
TA
TB
DS
25. 1W
48.1
0.2
19.6
O.05
157
13.9
0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
55.7
46.9
8.7
19.0
19.0
O.1
0.2
18.7
<25
<25
0.4
0.1
-
50
0.3
20.1
O.05
157
13.7
1.8
-
NA
NA
NA
56.1
47.3
8.8
6.2
6.2
O.1
0.1
6.0
<25
<25
3.3
0.2
-
51.9
0.2
18.8
O.05
157
14.1
0.2
NA
NA
NA
56.5
47.8
8.7
6.5
6.3
0.2
0.2
6.2
<25
<25
0.6
0.4
-
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Pomfret, CT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCOs)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as Si02)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCOs)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
10/08/09
IN
52.8
56.6
-
-
147
148
14.5
14.5
1.6
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
24.2
24.5
-
38
37
20.8
24.0
-
TA
TB
DS
26.8
52.8
49.1
-
-
-
173
171
14.5
14.6
0.5
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
20.1
20.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
12.0
11.8
-
50.9
52.8
-
-
172
167
15
14.7
0.5
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
7.7
7.7
-
<25
<25
1.9
1.8
-
50.9
47.2
-
-
-
155
161
14.2
14.3
0.4
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
7.0
6.9
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
1.5
0.8
-
10/21/09
IN
50.6
0.2
17.9
<0.05
135
15.4
6.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
62.5
54.7
7.8
24.1
23.4
0.8
1.0
22.3
<25
<25
18.7
6.1
-
TA
TB
DS
28.2
48.6
0.3
20
<0.05
134
15.5
2.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
65.4
57.8
7.6
19.9
19.2
0.7
<0.1
19.1
<25
<25
1.8
0.1
-
52.7
0.4
23.2
<0.05
129
15.5
5.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
65.7
58.2
7.5
8.8
8.9
<0.1
<0.1
8.8
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
-
50.6
0.4
19.7
O.05
121
15.3
2.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
62.5
55.2
7.3
8.2
8.5
O.1
O.1
8.4
<25
<25
O.1
0.1
-
11/05/09
IN
50.9
-
-
187
14.6
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
25.4
-
35
23.3
-
-
TA
TB
DS
29.8
48.6
-
-
-
179
14.1
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
20.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
-
53.2
-
-
172
14.1
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
10.8
-
<25
O.1
-
-
55.5
-
-
-
136
14.3
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
8.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.6
-
-
11/18/09
IN
56.7
0.2
19.7
O.05
133
15.2
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
59.0
50.5
8.5
23.4
23.5
O.1
1.8
21.7
28
<25
22.7
6.4
-
TA
TB
DS
31.1
52.1
0.2
19.9
O.05
123
15.5
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
57.7
49.3
8.3
19.8
19.3
0.5
0.3
19.0
<25
<25
1.0
0.2
-
54.4
0.4
19.5
O.05
139
15.4
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
58.3
49.8
8.5
12.8
12.5
0.3
0.2
12.2
<25
<25
0.3
0.2
-
52.1
0.2
19.5
O.05
139
15.2
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
57.5
49.2
8.2
11.1
11.2
O.1
0.2
11.0
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
-
12/02/09
IN
51.1
-
-
166
15.8
1.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
24.5
-
48.0
43.5
-
-
TA
TB
DS
32.6
48.9
-
-
-
174
15.7
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
21.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.7
-
-
53.3
-
-
171
15.9
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
13.4
-
<25
0.5
-
-
55.6
-
-
-
166
15.5
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
12.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
-
CO
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Pomfret, CT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCOs)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as Si02)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCOs)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
M9/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
12/16/09M
IN
-
64.4
0.7
25.5
<0.05
163
15.4
2.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
49.8
42.2
7.6
24.2
0.1
24.1
0.1
<0.1
31
<25
25.0
0.3
2.6
TA
TB
DS
1.5
51.1
0.3
21.3
<0.05
158
13.7
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
52.2
44.4
7.7
24.4
1.2
23.2
<0.1
1.1
<25
<25
7.0
6.9
1.8
51.1
0.7
27.2
<0.05
<10
11.6
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
49.8
42.5
7.3
<0.1
0.1
0.1
O.1
O.1
<25
<25
0.2
O.1
1.0
48.9
0.4
25.3
0.05
60.7
9.9
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
51.9
44.2
7.7
3.9
1.3
2.6
0.1
1.2
<25
<25
1.0
0.2
1.3
01/07/10
IN
-
54.0
-
-
-
149
15.6
5.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
24.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
20.9
-
-
TA
TB
DS
3.9
51.6
-
-
<10
15.8
1.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
<25
-
1.2
51.6
-
-
-
224
15.5
3.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
O.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
-
51.6
-
-
<10
15.2
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
0.8
-
-
<25
-
0.3
01/20/10
IN
-
52.9
0.2
21.3
0.05
167
15.9
1.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
55.0
46.7
8.3
25.6
25.6
0.1
2.2
23.4
<25
<25
19.6
7.4
-
TA
TB
DS
-5.4
50.6
0.3
20.4
0.05
<10
16.6
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
54.6
46.2
8.4
1.3
1.3
0.1
1.0
0.2
<25
<25
0.8
0.2
52.9
0.2
22.5
0.05
<10
16.1
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
54.7
46.6
8.1
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.7
O.1
<25
<25
0.5
O.1
-
50.6
0.3
20.2
0.05
23.0
15.8
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
53.4
45.3
8.1
1.3
3.2
0.1
0.6
2.5
<25
<25
0.7
0.6
02/03/10
IN
-
51.3
46.8
-
-
219
298
15.4
14.6
3.2
1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
29.7
34.4
-
-
392
1,054
-
339
709
TA
TB
DS
7.0
46.8
49.0
-
-
96.5
96.5
15.4
14.9
0.4
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
0.8
0.8
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.6
0.8
49.0
51.3
-
-
<10
<10
15.1
15.0
1.5
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
0.1
0.1
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.4
0.3
51.3
55.7
-
-
<10
<10
15.1
14.8
0.5
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
0.6
0.5
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.1
O.1
02/18/10
IN
-
52.3
0.5
19.5
0.05
154
15.5
2.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
57.1
48.5
8.6
17.2
17.3
0.1
1.8
15.5
30
<25
42.8
10.6
1.8
TA
TB
DS
-8.6
59.1
0.3
21.7
0.05
139
15.6
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
56.0
47.6
8.4
1.9
1.9
0.1
0.5
1.4
<25
<25
1.5
0.1
1.4
56.8
0.3
20.1
0.05
<10
15.9
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
69.7
61.5
8.3
O.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
O.1
<25
<25
0.4
0.2
1.2
54.5
0.2
20.6
0.05
<10
15.9
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
62.9
54.7
8.2
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.6
<25
<25
0.2
0.4
1.0
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Pomfret, CT (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCOs)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as Si02)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCOs)
Ca Hardness (as CaCOs)
Mg Hardness (as CaCOs)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
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
03/03/10
IN
-
61.2
-
-
-
153
14.2
1.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
21.4
-
-
-
-
37
-
49.8
-
-
TA
TB
DS
10.3
51.8
147
14.1
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
3.3
-
<25
0.2
-
-
61.9
-
-
-
<10
14.2
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
-
54.1
22.3
14.1
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
2.3
-
<25
0.4
-
-
03/18/10
IN
-
51.2
0.2
21.7
<0.05
175
15.8
2.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
59.9
50.5
9.5
24.9
24.9
<0.1
0.6
24.3
<25
<25
19.9
7.5
-
TA
TB
DS
12.0
48.8
0.2
21.4
<0.05
171
15.6
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
61.7
52.8
8.9
6.1
6.3
<0.1
0.8
5.5
<25
<25
2.7
0.1
-
51.2
0.2
21.1
<0.05
<10
16.5
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
60.1
51.4
8.7
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.2
0.1
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
-
53.5
0.2
44.6
O.05
<10
16.1
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
59.2
50.2
9.0
0.6
1.3
O.1
0.1
1.1
<25
<25
0.4
0.2
-
04/01/10
IN
-
53.2
-
-
-
193
15.1
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
27.9
-
-
-
-
349
-
196
-
-
TA
TB
DS
-13.5
51.0
164
15.5
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
7.4
-
<25
0.9
-
-
46.5
-
-
-
79.5
15.8
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
-
51.0
43.8
15.6
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
0.9
-
<25
0.2
-
-
04/15/10
IN
-
54.7
0.2
21.1
O.05
156
14.5
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
54.8
45.6
9.2
25.1
24.7
0.3
5.9
18.8
46
<25
37.2
10.2
-
TA
TB
DS
15.1
52.4
0.3
20.4
O.05
159
14.7
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
55.1
46.0
9.1
10.2
10.8
O.1
0.4
10.4
<25
<25
0.7
0.1
-
52.4
0.2
19.7
O.05
112
14.8
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
55.1
46.1
9.0
0.3
0.3
O.1
0.2
0.1
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
-
52.4
0.3
20.5
O.05
99.6
14.7
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
53.7
44.7
9.0
0.8
0.9
O.1
O.1
0.8
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
-
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Pomfret, CT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCOs)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as Si02)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCOs)
Ca Hardness (as CaCOs)
Mg Hardness (as CaCOs)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
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
04/29/10
IN
-
51.4
51.4
-
-
-
179
172
14
14.1
1.3
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
26.5
26.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
18.0
18.2
-
-
TA
TB
DS
16.6
51.4
62.6
-
-
-
186
177
13.8
14.1
1.5
1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
12.8
12.3
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.1
0.2
-
-
51.4
51.4
154
147
14.0
14.0
0.7
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
0.2
0.2
-
<25
<25
0.2
<0.1
-
-
53.6
139
136
14.1
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
0.7
0.7
-
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
-
-
05/18/10
IN
-
53.2
0.2
20.2
<0.05
137
15.6
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
57.2
48.4
8.9
23.2
23.1
<0.1
0.9
22.2
<25
<25
14.8
5.9
-
TA
TB
DS
19.0
50.9
0.2
18.7
<0.05
151
15.8
1.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
66.0
56.1
9.9
13.3
13.2
<0.1
0.2
13.1
<25
<25
0.4
0.1
-
50.9
0.2
19.8
<0.05
147
15.0
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
68.1
58.0
10.1
0.4
0.4
<0.1
0.1
0.3
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
-
53.2
0.2
18.8
O.05
139
15.0
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
58.6
49.3
9.3
0.9
2.3
O.1
0.1
2.2
49.2
<25
0.4
0.2
-
05/27/10
IN
-
48.6
-
-
-
160
14.7
1.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
25.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
25.2
-
-
TA
TB
DS
20.0
48.6
170
14.8
3.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
13.9
-
<25
0.2
-
-
48.6
-
-
-
152
15.0
2.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
O.1
-
-
50.9
155
14.9
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
0.9
-
<25
0.2
-
-
06/10/10
IN
-
52.3
0.3
21.3
O.05
57.2
14.4
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
59.5
52.4
7.1
22.7
22.8
O.1
2.0
20.7
170
<25
162
12.1
2.2
TA
TB
DS
21.6
47.7
0.3
20.5
O.05
177
14.5
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
58.8
49.9
8.9
15.5
16.0
O.1
0.2
15.8
<25
<25
1.7
0.1
1.8
50.0
0.2
21.3
O.05
161
14.9
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
59.3
50.6
8.7
1.0
1.0
O.1
0.2
0.8
<25
<25
0.4
0.1
1.7
50.0
0.3
19.3
O.05
161
15.2
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
60.1
51.2
8.9
1.4
1.3
O.1
0.2
1.2
<25
<25
0.2
0.4
1.8
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Pomfret, CT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCOs)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as Si02)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCOs)
Ca Hardness (as CaCOs)
Mg Hardness (as CaCOs)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
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
08/10/10
IN
-
-
-
-
-
130
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23.6
24.7
0.1
1.1
23.6
52
<25
29.4
6.2
-
TA
TB
DS
29.1
-
-
145
-
-
-
-
-
16.8
16.5
0.3
0.2
16.4
<25
<25
0.8
<0.1
-
-
-
-
143
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.2
4.1
0.1
0.1
3.9
<25
<25
0.3
<0.1
-
-
-
138
-
-
-
-
-
4.1
5.0
0.1
0.1
4.9
<25
<25
1.6
0.4
09/07/10
IN
-
-
-
164
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25.9
25.4
0.5
0.7
24.7
63
<25
47.9
5.8
TA
TB
DS
32.3
-
-
-
-
167
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19.1
19.5
0.1
0.1
19.4
<25
<25
0.4
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
161
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.2
6.1
0.1
0.1
6.0
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
157
-
-
-
-
-
5.7
6.5
0.1
0.1
6.4
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
10/07/10
IN
-
-
-
-
-
131
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24.9
24.4
0.5
1.0
23.4
317
<25
91.7
6.2
-
TA
TB
DS
-35.8
-
-
130
-
-
-
-
-
19.3
19.2
0.1
0.3
18.9
<25
<25
3.6
0.1
-
-
-
-
124
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.5
8.2
0.3
0.2
8.0
<25
<25
0.5
0.1
-
-
-
123
-
-
-
-
-
27.2
21.8
5.4
0.7
21.1
<25
<25
0.3
3.8
------- |