EPA/600/R-11/059
May 2011
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Woodstock Middle School in Woodstock, CT
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Ramona Darlington8
Abraham S.C. Chen*
Wendy E. Condit§
Lili Wang*
§Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693
JALSA Tech, LLC, Powell, OH 43065-6938
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 the Woodstock Middle School in Woodstock, CT. The
objectives of the project were to evaluate the effectiveness of Adsorbsia™ GTO™ media in removing
arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |o,g/L. Additionally, this
project evaluated (1) the reliability of the treatment system, (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 20 gal/min (gpm) arsenic treatment system consisted of two 24-in x 72-in lead/lag vessels. Rather
than the design quantity of 7.5 ft3, each vessel was loaded with 7.0 ft3 of Adsorbsia™ GTO™ media, a
titanium oxide-based adsorptive media developed by Dow chemical Company for arsenic removal.
Operation of the system began on February 10, 2009, but logging of operational data did not begin until
March 10, 2009. 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.
Through the performance evaluation study period from March 10, 2009, through September 30, 2010, the
system treated approximately 544,600 gal of water supplied by two wells (No. 1 and No. 2). Daily run
times averaged 1.0 hr/day. Based on two flow meters installed at the inlet to the adsorption vessels,
system flowrates ranged from 14.7 to 16.9 gpm and averaged 16.4 gpm, equivalent to an average empty
bed contact time (EBCT) of 3.2 min and an average hydraulic loading rate of 5.2 gpm/ft2. The design
EBCT and hydraulic loading rate were 2.8 min and 6.4 gpm/ft2, respectively.
Arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 17.9 to 29.3 |o,g/L and averaged 24.7 (ig/L. Soluble
As(V) was the predominating arsenic species, with concentrations ranging from 15.5 to 22.4 (ig/L and
averaging 19.6 (ig/L. Both soluble As(V) and soluble As(III) were removed by Adsorbsia™ GTO™
media, but breakthrough at 10 ugL from the lead vessel occurred rather early at 7,600 bed volumes (BV).
BV was calculated based on 7.0 ft3 of media in the lead vessel. No plausible reason is offered to explain
the short run length.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after the system startup showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentration from an average of 23.1 to 2.3 (ig/L. The arsenic
concentrations in the distribution system were either similar to or somewhat higher than those in the
system effluent. Neither lead nor copper concentrations were affected by the operation of the system.
The capital investment cost for the system was $51,895, including $30,215 for equipment, $10,110 for
site engineering, and $11,570 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 20 gpm (28,800
gal/day [gpd]), the normalized capital cost was $2,594.75/gpm ($1.80/gpd). The O&M cost included the
cost for media replacement and disposal 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 10
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 10
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 13
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 16
4.3 System Installation 21
4.3.1 Permitting 21
4.3.2 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 22
4.4 System Operation 26
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 26
4.4.2 Backwash 29
4.4.3 Residual Management 30
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 30
4.5 System Performance 31
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 31
-------
4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling 36
4.6 System Cost 37
4.6.1 Capital Cost 37
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 38
5.0 REFERENCES 41
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Wellhead Inlet Piping and Raw Water Sample Taps for Wells No. 1 (on right) and
No. 2 (on left) 12
Figure 4-2. 10,000 gal Underground Storage Tank for Water Supply and Softener Unit 13
Figure 4-3. Booster Pump Skid and Associated Pump Control Panel 14
Figure 4-4. Schematic of Siemens's Adsorbsia™ GTO™ Arsenic Removal System at
Woodstock Middle School 18
Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram and Planned Sampling/Analytical Schedules 19
Figure 4-6. Booster Pump and Bag Filter Assembly 20
Figure 4-7. Adsorption Vessels 21
Figure 4-8. Adsorption System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration 22
Figure 4-9. Offloading and Staging of Equipment 23
Figure 4-10. Treatment System Installed 24
Figure 4-11. Pressure Readings Across Treatment Train 28
Figure 4-12. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, TA and TB Sampling Locations 34
Figure 4-13. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves from Lead and Lag Vessels 36
Figure 4-14. 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 Treated Water Quality Data at Woodstock Middle School 15
Table 4-2. Properties of Adsorbsia™ GTO™ Media 17
Table 4-3. Design Features of Adsorbsia™ GTO™ Adsorption System 17
Table 4-4. Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions 25
Table 4-5. Summary of System Operation Parameters 27
Table 4-6. Summary of System Backwash Operations 30
Table 4-7. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Titanium Analytical Results 32
Table 4-8. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 33
Table 4-9. Distribution System Water Sampling Results 37
VI
-------
Table 4-10. Capital Investment Cost for Adsorbsia™ GTO™ Treatment System 38
Table 4-11. Operation and Maintenance Cost for Woodstock Treatment System 39
vn
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
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
DEP Department of Environmental Protection
DPH Department of Public Health
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
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
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NS not sampled
NSF NSF International
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
PO4 orthophosphate
PLC programmable logic controller
POU point-of-use
psi pounds per square inch
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RFP Request for Proposal
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO42" sulfate
SOC synthetic organic compound
STS Severn Trent Services
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the Woodstock Public School, Mr. Richard
Johnson and Mr. John Ganter 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 their 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 20-gal/min (gpm) Adsorbsia™ GTO™ adsorptive media system fabricated by Siemens
was selected for demonstration at Woodstock Middle School in Woodstock, CT.
As of May 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 adsorptive media (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 the Adsorbsia™ GTO™ AM system at the Woodstock
Middle School in Woodstock, CT, from March 10, 2009, through September 30, 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
fepm)
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, NY1^
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
70W
10
100
22
550
17
15
375
300
250
10
250(e)
21
38W
39
33
36W
30
27W
21
25
30W
19(a)
28W
15w
25W
<25
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
l,806(d)
<25
<25
48
270(d)
157(d)
1,312W
1,615W
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
340W
40
25
60
96
200
375
140
250
20
250
250
75
14W
13(a)
16W
20W
29W
27W
32W
25W
17(a)
39W
34W
25W
42W
146W
24
127(d)
466(d)
l,387(d)
l,499(d)
810(d)
l,547(d)
2,543(d)
248W
7,827(d)
546W
l,470(d)
3,078(d)
l,344(d)
l,325(d)
<25
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.1
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
7.3
Midwest/Southwest
Willard, UT
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Hot Springs Mobile Home Park
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School District
City of Wellman
IR & AM (Adsorbsia)
IR (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
Filter Tech
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
30
770(e)
150
40
100
15.4W
35W
19w
56W
45
332w
2,068(d)
95
<25
<25
7.5
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Site Name
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water Consumers
Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
Technology (Media)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Vendor
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
320
145
450
90(b)
50
37
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
23W
33
14
50
32
41
Fe
(ug/L)
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
PH
(S.U.)
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General Improvement
District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU R0(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
75 gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37w
35
15
<25
<25
134
69W
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; EHX = 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 replace 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
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 19 months of system operation, the following conclusions
were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• Adsorbsia™ GTO™ media was capable of removing both As(III) and As(V) from source
water. However, its run length was short; arsenic concentrations in the lead vessel effluent
reached 10 ug/L after treating only 395,000 gal (or 7,600 bed volumes [BV]) of water (BV
was calculated based on 7 ft3 [or 52 gal] of media in the lead vessel). The cause of the short
run length was unknown.
• Initial backwash was effective in removing media fines, reducing differential pressure (Ap)
across the adsorption vessels to below 7.9 lb/in2 (psi) (on average). Twenty-five BV, as
recommended by the vendor, was needed to thoroughly backwash the media. Little or no
increase in pressure differential was observed across the adsorption vessels throughout the
study period.
• Although set for every 99 days, backwash appeared to occur randomly from every seven to
every 77 days through most of the study period.
• Arsenic concentrations in distribution system water were significantly reduced from the
baseline level of 23.1 (ig/L [on average] to <3.5 (ig/L after system startup. System operation
did not appear to have an 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:
• The only residual produced by system operation was backwash wastewater, which contained
little or no solids.
• Under normal operating conditions, the amount of wastewater produced per backwash event
was 540 to 660 gal, which brackets the design value of 600 gal.
Capital and O&M cost of the technology:
• The annualized unit capital cost was $0.47/1,000 gal of water treated if the system operated at
a 100% utilization rate. At an actual use rate of 349,000 gal per year, the unit cost increased
to $14.03/1,000 gal of water treated.
• The O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated was relatively high at $4.77 for 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 Adsorbsia™ GTO™ arsenic removal system began on March 10, 2009, and ended on September 30,
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
Discharge Permit Obtained
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
September 28, 2007
November 8, 2007
March 18, 2008
April 11, 2008
October 29, 2008
December 9, 2008
January 6, 2009
January 26, 2009
January 28, 2009
February 10, 2009
March 10, 2009
DPH = Department of Public Health
The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data
and qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system
automation, extent of preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling
and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and
safety practices. The staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
wastewater produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water 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, 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. 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 cost 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,
during oxidation/filtration vessel backwash, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 presents the
sampling schedules and analytes measured during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements
for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in
Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 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(c)
Sample
Locations'3'
IN
IN, TA, TB
Kitchen tap
in school
(DS)
No. of
Samples
2
(Wells
No. 1
and
No. 2)
3
1
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)
Speciation
Sampling:
Monthly
(first week
of each
four-week
cycle)(b)
Regular
Sampling:
Monthly
(third week
of each
four-week
cycle)
Monthly
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Offsite: As (III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, V, Cl, F,
NO3,NO2,NH3 SO4,
SiO2, P, TDS, TOC,
turbidity, and alkalinity
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Offsite: As(III), As(V),
As(total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ti (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, P, turbidity, and
alkalinity
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Offsite: As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
Ti (total), SiO2, P,
turbidity, and alkalinity
As (total), Fe (total), Mn
(total), Cu, Pb, pH, and
alkalinity
Sampling Date
12/15/06
03/10/09, 04/07/09,
05/06/09, 06/04/09,
07/02/09, 08/05/09,
08/27/09, 09/22/09,
10/29/09, 12/01/09,
12/30/09, 01/27/10,
02/24/10, 03/25/10,
04/21/10, 05/18/10,
06/15/10, 07/14/10,
08/10/10, 09/14/10,
10/06/10
03/25/09, 04/21/09,
05/19/09, 06/17/09,
08/13/09, 09/10/09,
10/15/09, 11/10/09,
12/15/09, 01/12/10,
02/09/10, 03/10/10,
04/07/10, 05/06/10,
06/03/10
05/29/08, 11/14/08,
12/02/08, 01/07/09,
03/25/09, 04/22/09,
05/20/09, 06/16/09,
07/02/09, 08/12/09,
09/10/09, 10/15/09,
11/10/09, 12/15/09,
01/12/10, 02/09/10,
03/10/10, 04/07/10,
05/05/10, 06/02/10
(a)
(b)
Abbreviations in parenthesis correspond to sample locations shown in Figure 4-5, i.e., IN = at
wellhead; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B.
Analytes reduced to total and soluble As, Fe, Mn, and Ti during June, July, August, September,
and October 2010 sampling events.
(c) Four baseline sampling events taking place in May, November, and December 2008, and
January 2009 before system startup.
DO = dissolved oxygen; ORP = oxidation-reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC =
total organic carbon; TSS = total suspended solids
-------
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit on Decemebr 15, 2006, one set each of source
water samples from Wells No. 1 and No. 2 were collected and speciated using arsenic speciation 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 the source water samples are listed
in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, the plant
operator collected water samples across the treatment train once every one to four weeks. In general,
sampling alternated between regular and speciation sampling. Regular sampling involved taking samples
at the wellhead (IN), after Vessel A (TA), and after Vessel B (TB) 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 three locations and having them analyzed for the analytes listed
under "Speciation Sampling" in Table 3-3.
During the last five sampling events in June, July, August, September, and October 2010, only total and
soluble arsenic, iron, manganese, and titanium were speciated and analyzed.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids. Although the system was backwashed during the
evaluation period, no backwash wastewater nor solids were collected because of lack of solids in the
wastewater.
3.3.4 Spent Media. The media in the adsorption vessels were not replaced, therefore, no spent
media were produced as residual solids during this demonstration study.
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 the system startup from May 29, 2008, to
January 7, 2009, four sets of baseline distribution system water samples were collected. The first set of
baseline samplers was collected from three locations in the school kitchen, at the nurses sink, and at the
staff dining room sink with all locations used by the school for Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling.
The additional three sets of baseline samples were taken from the school kitchen. Following system
startup, distribution system water sampling continued monthly at the kitchen sink.
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 that stagnant water was sampled.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion
exchange resin column to separate 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
10
-------
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.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for offsite analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the
plant operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metals analyses were stored at Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
(ICP-MS) laboratory. Samples for other water analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up by
couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH, which was 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 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. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements
using Hach chlorine test kits following the user's manual.
11
-------
4.1
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure
The Woodstock Middle School is located at 147A Route 169 in Woodstock, CT. The facility is a non-
transient, non-community water system supplied by two wells (i.e., Wells No. 1 and No. 2) to
approximately 510 students and staff. Prior to the demonstration study, the average daily production was
1,747 gpd. Wells No. 1 and No. 2 are both 6-in in diameter and 300-ft deep with a static water level at
approximately 31 ft below ground surface (bgs). The well pumps are situated at 220 ft bgs. The
wellheads are located approximately 200 to 250 ft from the school building and spaced laterally about 20
ft from each other. Each wellhead has its own sample tap located within the basement of the school
building (see Figure 4-1). The wells operate simultaneously, producing a pressure of 12 psi to the
influent of the pre-existing softening unit. Well No. 1 is equipped with a 1.5-horsepower (hp)
submersible pump, which provides a flowrate of 8.1 gpm under field hydraulic head conditions. Well No.
2 is equipped with a 2.0-hp submersible pump, which is rated for a maximum flowrate of 10 gpm, at a
total dynamic head of 480 ft of water. Well No. 2 provides a flowrate of 8.9 gpm underthe field
hydraulic head conditions. A softening unit was installed downstream of the combined wellheads to
soften water prior to a 10,000-gal underground storage tank. The school eliminated the use of this
softener after installation of the treatment system for the demonstration study.
Figure 4-1. Wellhead Inlet Piping and Raw Water Sample Taps for
Wells No. 1 (on right) and No. 2 (on left)
12
-------
The 10,000-gal underground storage tank is under atmospheric conditions and has an access hatch located
in the basement (see Figure 4-2). Three booster pumps are used to supply pressurized water to the
school's distribution system (Figure 4-3). The booster pumps are controlled by a control panel with alarm
signals and on/off switches. Only one booster pump operates at a time. The site has access to a local
sanitary sewer system.
Water Softener Unit
Figure 4-2. 10,000-gal Underground Storage Tank for Water Supply and Softener Unit
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. 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 by Battelle from Edwards
(1998). In addition, pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were measured onsite using a field meter.
Analytical results from the December 15, 2006, source water sampling event are presented in Table 4-1
and compared to the data provided by EPA and the facility. Historical distribution system water quality
data also were obtained and are summarized in Table 4-1. Overall, Battelie's data are comparable to
those provided by EPA and the facility.
Results of the source water assessment and how it would influence water treatment are discussed briefly
below.
13
-------
Figure 4-3. Booster Pump Skid and Associated Pump Control Panel
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 20.4 to 25.0 |o,g/L (see Table 4-1).
Based on the December 15, 2006 sampling results obtained by Battelle, arsenic existed almost entirely in
the soluble form. Of the 19.7 to 22.1 |o,g/L of soluble arsenic, 17.7 to 18.2 |og/L existed as As(V) and 1.5
to 4.4 |og/L as As(III). Therefore, As(V) was the predominant species. The presence of As(V) as the
predominant species is consistent with the relatively high ORP readings (ranging from 378 to 386 mV)
measured with a handheld meter. The DO levels at 0.6 mg/L were lower than expected for oxidizing
water. No prior information on arsenic speciation was available from EPA or the facility.
Iron and Manganese. Total iron concentrations in source water were less than the method reporting
limit of 25 |o,g/L by ICP/MS (EPA Method 200.8). Due to the low iron content, the site was an ideal
candidate for AM technology, which works best for water with low iron content. Total manganese levels
in source water ranged from 15.0 to 18.4 |o,g/L, which are well below the secondary maximum
contaminant level (SMCL) of 50 |o,g/L for manganese.
Competing Anions. Depending on the technology selected, removal of arsenic potentially can be
influenced by competing anions such as silica and phosphate. Based on the results shown in Table 4-1,
the concentrations for silica (14.0 to 14.7 mg/L) and total phosphorous (<0.2 mg/L [as PO4]) in raw water
do not appear to be high enough to impact the adsorption process.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Battelle's data indicate a pH range of 7.4 to 8.0, which is within the
commonly accepted range of 5.5 to 8.5 for effective arsenic removal using AM. Both total organic
carbon (TOC) (<1.0 mg/L) and ammonia (<0.05 mg/L) levels are less than their respective
14
-------
Table 4-1. Raw and Treated Water Quality Data at Woodstock Middle School
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)
Total P (as PO4)
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)
Cu (total)
Pb (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
Mg/L
EPA Data
Well
No. 1
Raw
Well
No. 2
Raw
After
Softening
Office
after
Softening
05/03/06
NA
NA
NA
NA
70.7
77.8
NA
NA
NA
0.02
O.01
0.03
NA
NA
23.4
14.7
0.2
<25
24
NA
NA
NA
NA
24
NA
15.0
NA
<25
NA
NA
9.9
29.1
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
71.0
75.1
NA
NA
NA
0.02
O.01
0.03
NA
NA
22.6
14.4
0.2
<25
25
NA
NA
NA
NA
12
NA
16.0
NA
<25
NA
NA
9.5
28.1
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72.2
9.9
NA
NA
NA
0.02
O.01
0.03
NA
NA
23.8
13.9
0.2
<25
21
NA
NA
NA
NA
85
NA
5.0
NA
<25
NA
NA
3.9
3.7
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
71.8
7.0
NA
NA
NA
0.02
O.01
0.03
NA
NA
22.1
13.7
0.2
<25
21
NA
NA
NA
NA
97
NA
4.0
NA
<25
NA
NA
4.0
2.6
0.1
NA
NA
Battelle Data
Well
No. 1
Raw
Well
No. 2
Raw
12/15/06
7.4
12.3
0.6
378
90.0
86.2
0.3
112
<1.0
0.05
O.05
0.05
7
0.3
19.0
14.5
0.02
NA
20.4
19.7
0.7
1.5
18.2
<25
<25
16.1
15.8
0.1
0.1
0.3
11.0
32.2
1.4
NA
NA
8.0
11.7
0.6
386
78.0
80.4
0.5
132
<1.0
0.05
O.05
0.05
7
0.3
20.0
14.0
0.02
NA
22.4
22.1
0.3
4.4
17.7
<25
<25
18.4
18.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
10.0
30.0
1.3
NA
NA
Facility Data
Distribution*3'
03/25/04-09/27/05
7.9-8.4 [8.3]
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4-6.0 [3.2]
NA
NA
0.10
O.010
NA
7.9-14 [10]
0.38
21-28 [25]
NA
NA
NA
20
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND-71 [40]
NA
ND-26 [0.01]
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0-9.4 [5.8]
NA
NA
0.052-0. 16 [0.086]
ND-0.060 [0.015]
(a) minimum-maximum [av
DO = dissolved oxygen; NA
total organic carbon
erage]
= not available;
ORP = oxidation-reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC =
reporting limits. Total hardness concentrations ranged from 75.1 to 86.2 mg/L (as CaCOs) and the total
alkalinity values from 70.7 to 90.0 mg/L (as CaCOs). Turbidity readings ranged from 0.3 to 0.5
nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) in Battelle's source water samples for Wells No. 1 and 2. However,
the facility reported historic turbidity results up to 6 NTU in the treated water. Although not applicable to
groundwater sources unless under the influence of surface water, the facility reported this value as
exceeding the treatment technique standard of 1 NTU or 0.3 NTU in 95% of daily samples in any month.
The facility also reported that the color of the water at 30 color units had historically exceeded the SMCL
of 15 mg/L. All other analytes were below detection limits and/or anticipated to be low enough not to
adversely affect the arsenic removal process.
15
-------
4.1.2 Predemonstration Treated Water Quality. The existing treatment process at the
Woodstock Middle School was a water softening unit. The water quality after softening and in the
distribution system is shown in Table 4-1. Water quality analysis after softening showed that water
hardness decreased from 75.1-77.8 to 7.0-9.9 mg/L (as CaCO3). Other ions that decreased significantly
in concentration after the water softening unit were manganese, sodium, calcium and magnesium (see
Table 4-1). Arsenic concentrations decreased slightly from 24-25 to 21 (ig/L, but iron concentrations
increased from 12-24 to 85-97 (ig/L.
4.1.3 Distribution System. The distribution system within the building consists primarily of
copper piping. One location within the school was selected for monthly baseline and distribution system
water sampling to evaluate the impact of the treatment system on the distribution system water quality.
The location was selected from among the 10 LCR locations currently used by the school.
Compliance sampling for the entry point includes nitrate and nitrite (once every year); organic chemicals
(once every year); pesticides, herbicides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (once every three years);
and inorganic chemicals (once every three years). Compliance samples for the distribution system
include total coliform (once every quarter); physical parameters (once every quarter); lead and copper
(once every three years); and asbestos (once every nine years).
The operator for the Woodstock Middle School is required to be a Water Treatment Plant Class I
Operator. The following requirements must be met: (1) pass the examination administered by CT DPH,
(2) hold a high school diploma or high school equivalency diploma, and (3) one year of experience in
operation of Class I or higher treatment plant(s).
4.2 Treatment Process Description
This section provides a general technology description and site-specific details on the Adsorbsia™
GTO™ arsenic removal system installed at the school.
4.2.1 Technology Description. Adsorbsia™ GTO™ is a white, free flowing granular, titanium
oxide-based media manufactured by the Dow Chemical Company. The media can adsorb both soluble
As(III) and soluble As(V), but has a higher capacity for soluble As(V). Adsorption occurs in a pH range
of 5.5 to 8.5, but is less effective at the upper end of the range. According to the vendor, its adsorptive
capacity for arsenic is independent of anions such as sulfate, phosphate, and vanadium, but not silica.
The media is NSF International (NSF)-certified and is not regenerable. Based on the tests performed
internally by Dow Chemical, spent media can pass the EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) test. Table 4-2 summarizes key physical and chemical property of the media.
4.2.2 System Design and Treatment Process. The arsenic removal system at the Woodstock
Middle School consists of a 3/4 hp booster pump, a 5-um cartridge filter, and two adsorption vessels
configured in series. Table 4-3 specifies key system design parameters. Figure 4-4 shows a system
schematic of the treatment system. Figure 4-5 presents a process flowchart, along with planned
sampling/analytical schedules. Key process steps are discussed below:
• Intake - Raw water from Wells No. 1 and No. 2 at an average flowrate of 8.1 and 8.9 gpm,
respectively, was boosted with a %-hp booster pump (Grundfos Model No. CRN5-2) to reach
an inlet pressure of approximately 25 psi (Figure 4-6). The well pumps and booster pump
were controlled by a set of high/low level sensors in the 10,000-gal atmospheric storage
tank. (Note that the booster pump was bypassed soon after system startup and that a pressure
transducer was installed at the far end of the treatment system just before the atmospheric
storage tank to provide back pressure.)
16
-------
Table 4-2. Properties of Adsorbsia™ GTO™ Media
Property
Value/Description
Physical Property
Color
Matrix
Physical Form
Bulk Density (g/cmJ)
Bulk Density (lb/ftJ)
Specific Surface Area (m /g)
Pore Volume (mL/g)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle Size (U.S. Standard)
White
Nanocrystalline titanium oxide
Dry granular media
0.71
44
200-300
0.20-0.25
<15 (by weight)
10 x 60 mesh
Chemical Property
Active Ingredient
Constituents
Titanium Dioxide (%)
Binder (%)
Metal Oxide (%)
pH Range
Titanium dioxide
89.0-99.0
1.0-10.0
0.01-1.0
4 to 9
Table 4-3. Design Features of Adsorbsia™ GTO™ Adsorption System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Influent Specifications
Total Arsenic Concentration (ug/L)
Total Iron Concentration (ug/L)
20.4 to 25
<25
Based on source water samples taken on
05/03/06 to 12/15/06
-
Adsorption
No. of Vessels
Configuration
Vessel Size (in)
Vessel Cross Section (ftVvessel)
Media Volume (ftVvessel)
Media Depth (in)
Peak Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (mm/vessel)
Differential Pressure Across System (psi)
Backwash/Fast Rinse Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft )
Backwash/Fast Rinse Duration (mm/vessel)
Backwash Wastewater Generated (gal/vessel)
Design Backwash Frequency (time/month)
Maximum Daily Production (gpd)
Estimated Daily Production (gpd)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
Projected Media Run Length to 10-ug/L As
Breakthrough from Lead Vessel (BV)
Throughput to 10-ug/L As Breakthrough (gal)
Projected Media Life (month)
2
Series
24 D x 72 H
3.14
7.5
29
20
6.4
2.8
15
20
6.4
10/5
300
NA
28,800
9,600
6-33
108,000
6,048,000
21
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Based on 20 gpm flowrate
Based 7.5 ftJ of media and 20 gpm flowrate
Across two vessels in series (clean beds)
To be determined onsite
Based on peak flowrate and 24 hr/day run time
Based on 8 hr/day run time; much higher than
reported daily average of 1 ,747 gpd
Based on 1 ,747 (reported average) to 9,600
gpd (design estimate)
Vendor Estimate
lBV = 7.5ftJ = 56gal
Based on 9,600-gpd production
Effluent Specifications
Total Arsenic Concentration (ug/L)
Total Iron Concentration (ug/L)
<10
<25
-
-
17
-------
(1) BOOSTER PUMP
20 GPM @ 22 PSI
W/3/4HPTEFC MOTOR
115V/60IIZ/1PII
(11 PREFILTER
BAG TYPE
201 X 5 MICRON
PC CONSTRUCTION
(Z)ARSENIC REMOVAL FILTERS
24"DIAX72"SIDE
FRPCONSTRUCTION W/LEAD-LAG MANIFOLD
W/GALLONAGC-INITIATCD CONTROL
BY BY
1 1/21 SEMENSJOTHERS
SCH80
/•PVC
"0 DRAIN WITH 3"AIR GAP \
FLOW: 20 GPM BACKWASH PER VESSEL)
20 GPM FAST RINSE /
BY [
SIEMENS I OTHERS
ATMOSPHERIC BOOSTER
STORAGE PUMP
TANK
1 1
FLOW: 20 GPM
ARSEMC:<10PPB
HYDRO-
PNEUMATIC
TANK
NOTES:
1. CONCRETE PAD, FENCE, SECURITYAND WEATHER PROTECTION BY OTHERS
2.115V,'60HX/13H POWER TO CONTROL BY OTHERS
3. BACKWASH FLOWMETER BATTERY OPERATED
c PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM - LEAD/LAG OPTION
20 GPM ARSENIC RED JCTION SYSTEM
U.S. EPA DEMONSTRATION, ROUND 2A
"BATTELLE
WOODSTOCKMIDDI FSCHOCI -WOODSTOCK CT
SIEMENS
Figure 4-4. Schematic of Siemens's Adsorbsia™ GTO™Arsenic Removal System at Woodstock Middle School
-------
Week 1 of a Four-Week Cycle
pH<», temperature^, DO/ORP<»,
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), -^-
Ti (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P (total),
turbidity, and alkalinity
SANITARY
SEWER
As, Fe, Mn, Ti, Al, Ca, Mg,
Cd, Cu, Ni, Si, P, Pb, and Zn
pH^, IDS, TSS,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ti (total and soluble)
pH<», temperature^), DO/ORP<»,
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ti (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P (total),
turbidity, and alkalinity
iHW, temperature^, DO/ORP^,
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), -
Ti (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P (total),
turbidity, and alkalinity
INFLUENT
(WELL #1 AND WELL #2)
5 urn BAG FILTERS
1
F
10,000 GAL
ATMOSPHERIC
STORAGE TANK
BOOSTER PUMP SKID
264 GAL
HYDROPNEUMATIC
TANK
Footnote
(a) On-site analyses
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
Woodstock, CT
Adsorbsia™ Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: 20 gpm
Week 3 of a Four-Week Cycle
pHW, temperature^, DO/ORPW,
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
Ti (total), SiO2, P (total),
turbidity, and alkalinity
pHW, temperature^, DO/ORPW,
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
Ti (total), SiO2, P (total),
turbidity, and alkalinity
pH
-------
Figure 4-6. Booster Pump and Bag Filter Assembly
Pre-filter - Prior to the treatment system, raw water from the wells passed through a 5-(im
bag filter (Figure 4-6) to remove sediments and/or particles. The filter bag was not changed
for the duration of the demonstration because the pressure drop across the cartridge never
reached 10 psi.
Adsorption - The adsorption system consisted of two 24-in x 72-in adsorption vessels in a
series (lead/lag) configuration (Figures 4-7 and 4-8). Each vessel was designed to contain 7.5
ft3 of Adsorbsia™ GTO™ media supported by 3.0 ft3 of gravel underbedding (only 7.0 ft3 of
media was actually loaded). The vessels were of composite polyethylene and fiberglass
construction.
Based on a design flowrate of 20 gpm, the empty bed contact time (EBCT) was 2.8 min for
each vessel or 5.6 for the lead/lag system. The Ap across a clean lead/lag system was 15 psi.
Backwash - The backwash frequency was determined based on the rate of differential
pressure buildup across the adsorption vessels. The design backwash flowrate was 20 gpm
and the design backwash duration was 10 min. The backwash step was followed with a 4-
min settling period and a 5-min fast rinse at a flowrate of 20 gpm. The total amount of
wastewater produced was 300 gal per vessel, or 600 gal for the lead/lag system.
Media Replacement - Adsorbsia™ GTO™ media is not regenerable and must be disposed
of after it is exhausted. Spent media can be disposed of as a non-hazardous waste after it
passes the EPA TCLP test. The media was expected to last for 21 months and, therefore, not
be disposed of during the study period.
20
-------
4.3
Figure 4-7. Adsorption Vessels
Treated Water Storage and Distribution - The treated water was sent to the 10,000-gal
atmospheric storage tank. A booster pump skid equipped with three Alyan pumps (Model
#CPS 12065) was used to provide pressure to the distribution system. Pump No. 1 is rated at
5 hp [224 ft of H2O], pump No. 2 at 10 hp [150 of H2O], and pump No. 3 at 10 hp [150 of
H2O]). The booster pump skid was connected to a 264-gal hydropneumatic tank, which
turned the well pumps on/off based on a low pressure of 90 psi and a high pressure of 100
psi.
System Installation
Siemens completed installation and shakedown of the system on January 28, 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 CT DPH by TurnKey Compliance Solution, LLC, a subcontractor to Siemens, on
October 29, 2008. CT DPH provided comments/concerns on December 3, 2008. The comments received
were:
21
-------
Figure 4-8. Adsorption System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration
(1) It was difficult to read the piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID).
(2) The project might be held up due to issues related to discharge of backwash wastewater
to the sewer.
In response to the comments, TurnKey Compliance Solution provided a clearer copy of the P&ID to CT
DPH and informed CT DPH that the school had already received a wastewater discharge permit from CT
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on September 28, 2007. The permit was issued on
December 9, 2008.
Upon receipt of the permit, it was noted that the site owner had to complete an Operator Verification
Form and a Certificate of Completion Form once the system was installed. These forms were submitted
to CT DPH on January 9, 2009.
4.3.2 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. System components were delivered to the
Woodstock Middle School on January 6, 2009. Installation activities included offloading, staging (see
Figure 4-9), plumbing (from the adsorption vessels to the booster pump and hydropneumatic tanks), and
wiring. Due to the delivery of incorrect solenoid valves with the system, installation could not be
completed until the correct ones were received, which occurred on January 19, 2009. The final
installation and wiring were completed on January 21, 2009.
22
-------
Figure 4-9. Offloading and Staging of Equipment
On January 21, 2009, Siemens inspected the system (see Figure 4-10) and associated piping connections,
verified electrical wiring and relays, and performed hydraulic testing before media loading. Upon
completion, 7.0 ft3 (instead of 7.5 ft3) of media was loaded into each vessel with approximately 34 in of
freeboard above the media beds. Freeboards after gravel loading was not measured. After control heads
were reinstalled, the system was re-pressurized and the adsorption vessels were backwashed individually
at a maximum flowrate of 10 gpm for 20 min (see more detailed discussion about backwash in Section
4.4.2). Afterwards, the control heads were removed to re-measure the freeboards, which remained at 34
in. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) was added to the adsorption vessels on the evening of January 27,
2009, and the system was thoroughly flushed the next day. Samples taken showed negative results for
bacteria.
23
-------
Figure 4-10. Treatment System Installed
(From left to right: Booster Pump, Bag Filter, Adsorption Vessel
A, and Adsorption Vessel B. One Hydropneumatic tank and one
10,000 gal Storage Tank not Shown)
The system remained offline until the arsenic treatment system was inspected by CT DPH on January 29,
2009, and a project completion letter to allow the system to be started was received by the school on
February 3, 2009. The system became operational on February 10, 2009.
After startup, it was realized that the system was not operating against enough back pressure so it was
shut down on February 11, 2009, to facilitate installation of a pressure transducer before the atmospheric
tank. A decision was then made to create the needed back pressure by throttling a ball valve before the
atmospheric tank and the system was turned on again on February 12, 2009. (The pressure transducer
was eventually installed on March 25, 2009.) During hydraulic testing, the inlet pressure to the system
was 10 psi; after the booster pump and with the valve throttled, the inlet pressure was 34 psi.
During installation, the system was set to backwash weekly at a flow rate of 10 gpm. The frequency was
later changed to once every 30 days on February 17, 2009, per Battelle's request.
On February 27, 2009, the operator noticed that readings on the totalizers at the wellheads were
decreasing instead of advancing; however, this problem did not occur again. It also was observed that
only one well pump was operating and with the booster pump in operation the flowrate to the system was
24
-------
a mere 9 gpm instead of the designed value of 20 gpm. Previously with both well pumps operating and
the booster pump turned on, the flowrate to the system was about 20 gpm.
On March 9 and 10, 2009, two Battelle staff members visited the school to inspect the system and
provide operator training. Table 4-4 summarizes the punch-list items and corrective actions taken.
The Battelle staff members observed that the arsenic treatment system was configured in parallel
although the engineering drawing showed that the system should be configured in series as requested
by CT DPH. On March 25 through 27, 2009, Siemens visited the school to correct the system
configuration and several other punch-list items listed in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4. Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions
Date
03/09/09-
03/25/09
02/27/09-
03/24/09
03/09/09-
03/24/09
03/09/09-
04/17/09
03/09/09-
03/27/09
03/09/09-
03/27/09
03/09/09-
03/24/09
03/09/09-
03/24/09
03/09/09-
04/17/09
03/09/09-
03/24/09
03/09/09-
03/24/09
Issue/Problem Encountered
System configured for parallel
operation instead of series operation
Pressure reducing valve (PRV) not
installed per Siemens' design
Pressure switch to trigger booster
pump not installed per Siemens'
design
Pressure to booster pump lower than
vendor-recommended range of 12 to
15 psi
Pressure gauge at inlet incorrect size
(0-100 psi)
Pressure gauge missing on outlet
line leading to atmospheric storage
tank
Incorrect sample taps (4) installed
on treatment system
Leaks observed at T-joint at
distribution booster pump
Backwash flowrate lower than
vendor- recommended flowrate of
20 gpm
Backwash missing a co-current fast
rinse step
Duration between backwash events
too short
Corrective Action
System re-configured for series operation by
opening/closing selected valves
PRV installed to provide extra protection to
the system piping
Pressure switch installed to trigger booster
pump at pressure <60 psi
%-in flowmeter/totalizer and associated
piping after each well pump replaced with
1.5 -in and/or 1-inflowmeter/
totalizer and piping to minimize pressure
loss (this corrective action eventually not
done)
Inlet pressure gauge replaced with a 0-60 psi
gauge
A 0-30 psi pressure gauge installed on outlet
line
All four sample taps replaced with '/4-in
valve with a barb fitting
Leaky T-joint replaced with a new T-joint
Supply line relocated from 264-gal
hydropneumatic tank to 10,000-gal storage
tanking using a 1-in line
A fast rinse duration of 5 min at 20 gpm
added into programming of valve controller
Backwash frequency changed from every 7
days to every 30 days in late February 2009,
then to every 99 days to allow better control
over backwashing by operator
Work
Performed
By
Siemens
Siemens
Siemens
Woodstock
Middle
School
Siemens
Siemens
Siemens
Siemens
Woodstock
Middle
School
Siemens
Siemens
As noted in Section 4.3.3, a booster pump was installed between the well pumps and the adsorption
vessels to provide sufficient pressure for system operation. During Battelle's site visit on March 9, 2009,
the booster pump was bypassed because the pressure transducer required to create back pressure had not
been installed. Several tests were conducted on the system with and without bypassing the booster pump.
25
-------
The pressure at the wellhead was 20 psi, but once the booster pump was turned on, the pressure at the
wellhead decreased to zero. Both with and without bypassing, the pressure after the booster pump was 10
psi. Siemens determined that a pressure loss at the inlet to the booster pump had occurred due to the
small size of the piping that fed into the booster pump. The piping from the well pumps was 1.5 and 1 in,
but the combined flow piping was reduced to % in. This reduced size apparently caused restriction and
had to be changed to 1.5 in to ensure proper functioning of the booster pump. This change, however, was
never made and the booster pump remained bypassed for the entire demonstration study.
4.4 System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the 19-month demonstration study
were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Table 4-5 summarizes key parameters. The system
began to operate on February 10, 2009, but logging of operational data did not begin until March 10, 2009
when two Battelle staff members visited the site to inspect the system and provide operator training.
During the first month of operation, the system was turned off for just one day on February 11, 2009, for
installation of a pressure transducer on the far side of the treatment system (before the atmospheric tank)
to create sufficient back pressure on the system. The system, however, was restarted on February 12
without the transducer and a valve at the end of the system was throttled to create the needed back
pressure. The pressure transducer was eventually installed on March 25, 2009.
From March 10, 2009, through the end of the performance evaluation study on September 30, 2010,
Wells No. 1 and No. 2 operated for a total of 560.9 and 562.7 hr, respectively. The total number of days
the system was operating, regardless whether the school was in session or out of session, was 570 days.
Therefore, the average daily system run time was about 1 hr/day (note that Wells No. 1 and No. 2
operated simultaneously).
Based on readings from the totalizers installed at the wellheads, Wells No. 1 and No. 2 produced 259,850
and 284,760 gal of water, respectively, during the entire study period. The amount of water produced by
Well No. 2 was slightly higher (9.6%) than that by Well No. 1. This was reflected by the slightly higher
flowrate of Well No. 2, i.e., 8.9 vs. 8.1 gpm as noted in Section 4.1.
The total amount of water produced by Wells No. 1 and No. 2 was 544,610 gal, which is comparable to
the amounts, i.e., 528,000 and 541,000 gal, registered by the totalizers installed on the influent side of
Adsorption Vessels A and B, respectively. These amounts included the 21,000 and 26,000 gal registered
by Vessels A and B totalizers, respectively, when the system was configured in parallel. Siemens visited
the school on March 25, 2009, to change the system configuration in series.
Well flowrates were calculated by dividing incremental wellhead totalizer readings by respective run
times (after removing obvious outliers). The average flowrate from Well No. 1 was 7.1 gpm and the
average flowrate from Well No. 2 was 7.7 gpm, compared to the 8.1 and 8.9 gpm reported by the operator
prior to the study.
After the flow was combined and boosted, it flowed through Vessels A and then Vessel B before entering
the 10,000-gal atmospheric storage tank. Instantaneous flowrate readings tracked by the flow meters
installed on the inlet of the vessels were constant, ranging from 15.6 to 16.7 gpm and averaging 16.3 gpm
for Vessel A and ranging from 14.7 to 16.9 gpm and averaging 16.4 gpm for Vessel B. These data did
not include those before March 25, 2009, when the system was incorrectly configured in parallel or those
from May 8 through 13, 2009, when the operator reported extremely low flowrate (e.g. 1.7 gpm) through
Vessel A, but normal flow through Vessel B. The lack of flow through Vessel A was due to a defective
seal (loose O- ring), which was repaired by Siemens on May 13, 2009. Once the seal was repaired,
Siemens tested and backwashed the system.
26
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of System Operation Parameters
Operational Parameter
Duration
Total Operating Time (hr)
Total Operating Days (day)
Average Daily Run Time (hr/day)
Individual Well Production (gal)
Total Well Production (gal)
Throughput (gal)
Calculated Well Flowrate (gpm)(a)
Instantaneous Flowrate (gpm)(a>b)
EBCT (min/vessel)(c)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Pressure at Wellhead (psi)
Pressure After Booster Pump (psi)(d)
Pressure After Filter Cartridge (psi)
Pressure Prior to Vessel A (psi)
Pressure After Vessel A (psi)
Pressure After Vessel B (psi)
Ap Across Vessel A (psi)
Ap Across Vessel B (psi)
Values/Conditions
03/10/09-09/30/10
560.9 (Well No. 1)
562.7 (Well No. 2)
570
1.0
259,850 (Well No. 1)
284,760 (Well No. 2)
544,610
528,000 (Vessel A)
541,000 (Vessel B)
7.1 [3. 0-9.4] (Well No. 1)
7.7 [2.8-10.5] (Well No. 2)
16.3 [15.6-16.7] (Vessel A)
16.4 [14.7-16.9] (Vessel B)
3. 2 [3. 3-3.1] (Vessel A)
3.2 [3. 5-3.1] (Vessel B)
5.2 [5.0-5.3] (Vessel A)
5.2 [4.7-5.4] (Vessel B)
28.8 [20-36] (Well No. 1)
28.8 [20-36] (Well No. 2)
23.0 [15-32]
21.7 [14-31]
21.2 [13-30]
13.1 [10-23.5]
4.7 [2-11]
8.3 [2-10]
8.4 [1-17.5]
(a) After omitting obvious outliers.
(b) Not including data prior to March 25,
incorrectly configured in parallel.
(c) Based on instantaneous flowrates and
each vessel.
(d) With booster pump bypassed.
2009, when system was
7.0 ft3 (or 52 gal) of media in
Based on 7.0 ft3 (or 52 gal) of media in each vessel and instantaneous flowrate, the average EBCT and
hydraulic loading rate were 3.2 min/vessel and 5.2 gpm/ft2, respectively, compared to the design values of
2.8 min/vessel and 6.4 gpm/ft2.
From March 10 through 24, 2009, while the system was configured in parallel and the booster pump was
bypassed, average pressure readings at the wellheads were 17 and 16 psi at Wells No. 1 and 2,
respectively (see Figure 4-11). Once the system was placed in series and the pressure transducer installed
(with the booster pump still being bypassed), average pressure readings at both wellheads increased to
28.8 psi (Table 4-5). The pressure after the booster pump (with the pump bypassed) was 23 psi (on
average), which was reduced to 21.7, 13.1, and 4.7 psi after the filter cartridge, Vessel A, and Vessel B,
respectively. As shown in Figure 4-11, from March 25 through June 10, 2009, as high as 30 psi was
measured at the inlet to Vessel A and as much as 26 psi pressure differential was measured across the
system. Siemens suggested that the elevated inlet pressure and pressure differential were caused by a
combination of the system not having been thoroughly backwashed since startup and the inlet line to the
system was still at % in. The system was thoroughly backwashed on June 10, 2009 (see Section 4.4.2),
27
-------
Pressure Readings
to
oc
Welll
Well 2
After Booster Pump
After Filter Cartridge
Inlet to Vessel A
After Vessel A
After Vessel B
H-H—hHH 111T^ 1^1111
2/26/09 3/8/09 3/18/09 3/28/09 4/7/09 4/17/09 4/27/09 5/7/09 5/17/09 5/27/09 6/6/09 6/16/09 6/26/09 7/6/09
Date
Figure 4-11. Pressure Readings Across Treatment Train (from March 10 through June 30, 2009)
-------
after which average differential pressure was reduced to 7.9 psi for Vessel A and 7.5 psi for Vessel B.
After June 10, 2009, through the end of the performance evaluation study on September 30, 2010,
pressure readings across the treatment train remained rather similar to those recorded between June 10
through June 30, 2009, and therefore, were not included in Figure 4-11.
4.4.2 Backwash. Each adsorption vessel was designed for a backwash at 20 gpm for 10 min
followed by a fast rinse at 20 gpm for 5 min, generating 300 gal of wastewater. During system
installation, the system was backwashed briefly at a maximum flowrate of 10 gpm for 20 min. On March
10, 2010, when Battelle staff visited the school, backwash of both vessels was attempted. Soon after the
initiation of backwash, a flowrate of 6.3 gpm and a system pressure of 110 psi were observed. Both
flowrate and pressure continued to decrease, ending at 2.2 gpm and 20 psi by the conclusion of backwash.
The flowrates experienced were much lower than the design value of 20 gpm. Water for backwash
originated from the 264-gal hydropneumatic tank located downstream from the 10,000-gal atmospheric
tank and the booster pump skid (Section 4.2). It appeared that the booster pumps were not triggered when
the system pressure reached the 90-psi low pressure setpoint, thus causing the flowrate and pressure to
drop. Siemens recommended that the backwash water line be moved so that it connected to the
distribution system.
The backwash frequency was set initially for once every seven days but changed to once every 30 days on
February 16, 2009 (Table 4-6). The system was then backwashed automatically on March 17, 2009, but
generated only 28 gal of wastewater. Since then, the system was backwashed once every six to eight days
on March 25, March 31, and April 7, 2009, and generated only 30 to 45 gal of wastewater during each
backwashing event (note that only Vessel A was backwashed). This represents a backwash/fast rinse
flowrate of 2.0 to 3.0 gpm, assuming that the backwash and fast rinse durations were 10 and 5 min,
respectively, as set. The low backwash flowrates observed were similar to that encountered during
Battelle's site visit on March 10, 2010, suggesting that the backwash water line had not yet been moved
as recommended by Siemens. Upon completion of installation of a new supply line by the operator on
April 17, 2009, Siemens visited the school on April 27, 2009, to backwash the system and reported a
significantly increased backwash and fast rinse flowrate of 14 gpm. The actual flowrate might have been
higher (28.2 gpm) based on the 845 gal of wastewater produced during the backwash event. The
backwash frequency was reset to 99 days (the maximum allowed) because little or no increase in Ap was
observed across the adsorption vessels.
After backwash on April 27, 2009, Ap across Vessels A and B remained elevated at as high as 10 and
17.5 psi, respectively. Dow chemical believed that the system had still not been backwashed thoroughly
and recommended that each vessel be backwashed for 30 min at the maximum bed expansion. Dow
Chemical's rule of thumb was to backwash each vessel with 15 to 25 BV of water before system startup,
but only approximately 9 BV was used by April 27, 2009. On June 11, 2009, Siemens conducted the 30-
min backwash using approximately 826 gal (or 15 BV) of water for each vessel (see Table 4-6). Upon
completion, Ap across both vessels was reduced to 7 psi and stayed constantly around 7 to 8 throughout
the remainder of the study period.
After June 11, 2009, amounts of wastewater produced during all backwashing events ranged from 540 to
660 gal, excluding three outliers at 1,449 and 1,077 on August 26 and 27, 2009, due to a power outage
and a subsequent system reset, and at 912 gal on March 17, 2010. The amounts of wastewater produced
were very close to the design values of 600 gpm per event (see Table 4-3). However, the backwash
frequency varied from 7 to 77 days, even though the system was set to backwash every 99 days. It
appeared that the backwash timer was not functioning correctly even after being reset a number of times.
A consistent backwashing pattern never occurred during the performance evaluation study.
29
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of System Backwash Operations
Date
02/17/09
03/17/09
03/25/09
03/31/09
04/07/09
04/27/09
05/05/09
05/08/09
05/11/09
05/13/09
05/28/09
06/11/09
07/09/09
08/26/09
08/27/09
09/03/09
10/21/09
11/13/09
12/10/09
01/28/10
03/04/10
03/17/10
06/02/10
06/10/10
07/01/10
09/09/10
Actual
Duration
Between
Backwashes
(day)
_(a)
28
8
6
7
20(b)
8
3
3
2
15
14
28
48
1
7
48
23
27
49
35
13
77
8
21
70
Amount of
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
-
28
30
45
43
845
214
71
364
562
232
1,653
542
1,449
1,077
540
550
655
656
657
655
912
656
659
660
656
No. of
Vessels
Backwashed
1 (Vessel A)
1 (Vessel A)
1 (Vessel A)
1 (Vessel A)
2
1 (Vessel(c))
1 (Vessel(c))
1 (Vessel(c))
2
1 (Vessel(c))
2
2
?
?
2
2
2
2
2
2
2(d)
2
2
2
2
Remarks
Old backwash piping used until 04/27/09
-
-
-
-
Began to use new backwash piping
-
-
-
-
-
Each vessel backwashed for 30 min
-
System reset due to power surge
System reset due to power surge
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
—
-
(a) Backwash frequency set at once every 30 days in programmable logic controller (PLC).
(b) Backwash frequency set at once every 99 days in PLC.
(c) Not certain what vessel was backwashed.
(d) Not certain if only two vessels were backwashed.
4.4.3 Residual Management. Residuals expected included backwash wastewater, spent bag
filters, and spent media. No AM nor bag filter was replaced during the study period; therefore, the only
residuals produced was backwash wastewater. Backwash wastewater was discharged directly to the drain
line to the sewer. No backwash wastewater or solids were collected during the performance evaluation
study. The bag filter was not changed during the demonstration study.
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. Once placed into series operation, the main
operational issues affecting the system were limited to (1) high inlet and differential pressure across the
two adsorption vessels and (2) random backwash frequency (even though the timer was set for once every
30 or 99 days). The issue of high inlet and differential pressure was addressed through thorough vessel
backwash; the random backwash issue was never resolved during the performance evaluation study.
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.
30
-------
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. No pretreatment was required, but the raw water from the wells
passed through a 5-(im bag filter located upstream from the treatment system. The bag filter did not need
to be changed during the performance evaluation study due to lack of solids. The pressure loss across the
bag filter remained between 1 to 3 psi during the entire study period.
System Automation. The system was operated by interlocking well pump alternating on/off controls.
The system also was fitted with automated controls to allow for automatic backwash for both adsorption
vessels. The backwash frequency could be set on the controller but it appeared that that feature never
worked adequately. On May 7 and 8, 2009, Siemens visited the school to change pistons in two
controllers at the top of the vessels and replace an O-ring on the controller that blocked flow to Vessel B.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to operate the
Adsorbsia™ GTO™ system were minimal. The operator's duties were to record data from the system.
The Woodstock facility is a non-transient, non-community water system. According to CT 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 the
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
Woodstock school operator has a Class I certification.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. There was no regularly scheduled maintenance activity required for
the operation of the treatment system.
4.5 System Performance
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Water samples were collected on 40 occasions, including four
duplicate and 21 speciation events at the IN, TA and TB sampling locations. One of the 21 speciation
sampling events took place after September 30, 2010, when logging of operation data officially ended.
Table 4-7 summarizes results of arsenic, iron, manganese, and titanium measured at the four sampling
locations across the treatment train. Table 4-8 summarizes results of other water quality parameters.
Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results for the demonstration study. The results of the
analysis of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
Arsenic. Figure 4-12 contains three bar charts showing concentrations of various arsenic species at the
wellhead (after Wells No. 1 and No. 2 water combined) and after the lead (A) and lag vessel (B)
measured during the 21 speciation events. Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 17.9 to
29.3 |og/L and averaged 24.7 |o,g/L, existing almost entirely as soluble arsenic. As(V) was the
predominating species, with concentrations ranging from 15.5 to 22.4 (ig/L and averaging 19.6 |o,g/L. The
remaining soluble fraction was As(III), with concentrations ranging from 2.6 to 10.1 (ig/L and averaging
5.8 (ig/L. The presence of As(V) as the predominating species is consistent with elevated DO and ORP
readings measured (i.e., 7.5 mg/L and 311 mV [on average], respectively). Aeration during sampling also
could contribute to the high DO and ORP readings observed. Note that only three sets of DO
measurements were made during the entire study period due to malfunctioning of handheld probes.
31
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Titanium Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
Ti (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
Sample
Count
40
40
40
21
21
21
21
21
21
20(a)
21
21
20(b)
21
21
39(o)
40
40
21
21
21
40
40
40
21
21
21
40
40
40
21
21
21
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
17.9
0.1
0.1
19.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.6
0.1
0.1
15.5
O.I
O.I
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
9.8
O.I
O.I
8.6
O.I
O.I
0.9
1.3
0.8
0.9
0.2
0.3
Maximum
29.3
17.2
5.2
29.1
18.0
5.0
1.5
0.1
0.2
10.1
6.4
1.4
22.4
13.6
4.4
83
<25
<25
33
<25
<25
32.0
1.2
0.7
23.4
0.6
0.8
4.8
98.6
38.3
1.5
2.2
1.7
Average
24.7
.*
.*
25.5
.*
.*
0.2
.*
.*
5.8
.*
.*
19.6
.*
.*
27
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
17.5
0.2
0.2
16.8
0.2
0.2
1.4
9.5
3.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
Standard
Deviation
2.6
.*
.*
2.2
.*
.*
0.4
.*
.*
1.9
.*
.*
2.2
.*
.*
<25
-
-
<25
-
-
3.5
0.2
0.2
2.9
0.2
0.2
0.6
20.0
6.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
(a) One outlier (i.e., 27.4 ug/L) on 03/10/09 omitted.
(b) One outlier (i.e., 0.4 ug/L) on 03/10/09 omitted.
(c) One outlier (i.e., 189 ug/L) on 06/03/10 omitted.
* Not meaningful for concentrations related to breakthrough; see Figures 4-12 and 4-13
and Appendix B for results.
As shown by the second and the third bar charts, both soluble As(V) and soluble As(III) could be
removed by Adsorbsia GTO™ media™. However, after treating approximately 395,000 gal (or 7,600
BV) of water (1 BV = 7.0 ft3 = 52 gal of media in one tank), arsenic concentrations following the lead
vessel had already reached 10 ug/L. The 7,600 BV experienced was much shorter than the vendor-
projected run length of 108,000 BV. By the end of the performance evaluation study, the arsenic
concentration in the system effluent was 5.2 (ig/L (on October 6, 2010). Figure 4-13 presents arsenic
breakthrough curves.
32
-------
Table 4-8. 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)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
°C
°C
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
33W
35
35
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
34W
35
11
11
11
10W
10W
gW
3
3
3
12
12
11
15W
\5(a>
I5(a>
I5(e>
I5(e>
\5(e>
16
16
16
Concentration
Minimum
68.1
56.1
56.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
18.1
20.6
19.4
O.05
O.05
O.05
<10
<10
<10
14.0
1.3
3.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
6.3
6.7
5.6
6.5
10.4
11.6
2.8
2.1
2.1
244
243
19.5
58.2
67.0
66.9
52.4
61.8
61.7
4.9
4.7
4.8
Maximum
87.9
93.9
82.8
2.0
0.5
2.4
26.1
27.7
27.2
0.1
O.05
O.05
<10
<10
<10
16.8
17.9
17.1
4.0
19.0
9.3
7.5
7.6
7.5
22.7
22.8
22.8
9.9
9.7
9.8
417
418
396
96.1
89.5
90.6
90.6
84.8
85.9
8.6
7.7
7.2
Average
76
74
73
0.5
0.3
0.5
22.3
23.2
22.8
O.05
O.05
O.05
<10
<10
<10
15.8
13.3
11.7
1.0
2.2
1.3
7.1
7.3
7.0
14.4
15.0
15.5
7.5
6.8
7.2
311
323
274
81.8
79.8
79.1
76.0
74.1
73.4
5.9
5.8
5.7
Standard
Deviation
4.9
6.5
6.3
0.4
0.1
0.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
3.7
3.5
0.8
3.7
1.6
0.3
0.3
0.5
4.3
3.7
3.8
4.1
4.1
4.4
58.4
64.3
126
9.5
6.9
6.8
9.6
7.1
6.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
(a) Two outliers (i.e., 126 and 1 18 mg/L) on 04/21/10 and 06/03/10 omitted.
(b) One outlier (i.e., 62.0 NTU) on 04/07/09 omitted.
(c) Two outliers (i.e., 25.0°C) on 03/10/09 and 06/18/09 omitted.
(d) One outlier each (i.e., 127, 1 12, and 134 mg/L [as CaCO3]) at IN, TA, and TB, respectively, on
10/29/09 omitted.
(e) One outlier each (i.e., 120, 105, and 127 mg/L [as CaCO3]) at IN, TA, and TB, respectively, on
10/29/09 omitted.
33
-------
35 j
30 -
25 -
80
o
15
Ol
0 15-
3
10 -
5 -
0 -
Arsenic Species at Inlet (IN)
~
—
—
—
1 — |
-
-
=
—
=
—
—
—
=
—
[=1 As (participate) ^«As(V)
1=1 As(lll) As MCL (10 ug/L)
—
-
-
—
—
—
—
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
_
—
«P«?«P«?«?«?«?«P«?«P^?^?^?^?^?^?^?^?^?^?
d*> #• #• ^ #• *X" «*' *>" ' o^ ^ *x'
-------
Arsenic Species after Tank B (TB)
at io
0)
u 15-
O
U
wl
As(Particulate)
-- AsMCL(10ug/L)
1 | pq
_H_
Figure 4-12. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, TA and TB
Sampling Locations (Continued)
Why Adsorbsia GTO™ media™ achieved such a short run length is unknown. Iron concentrations in raw
water were mostly below the MDL of 25 ug/L. Manganese concentrations also were low, ranging from
9.8 to 32.0 ug/L, and averaging 17.5 ug/L. Manganese existed almost entirely in the soluble form and
was removed by the media to 0.2 ug/L (on average). Concentrations of competing anions such as
phosphorus and silica also were low, either <10 ug/L (the MDL for phosphorus) or at 15.8 mg/L (as
SiO2). Some silica was removed by the media. Immediately after system startup, silica was reduced to as
low as 1.3 mg/L (as SiO2) following the lead vessel. Silica concentrations gradually increased to the raw
water level after treating 145,600 gal (or 2,800 BV) of water (1 BV = 7.0 ft3 = 52 gal). pH values ranged
from 5.6 to 7.6 and averaged 7.2 throughout the treatment train. This pH range was considered ideal for
arsenic adsorption.
Titanium. Total titanium concentrations in source water were low, ranging from 0.9 to 4.8 ug/L and
averaging 1.4 ug/L. Total titanium concentrations following the lead and lag vessels increased slightly to
9.5 and 3.1 ug/L (on average), respectively, due primarily to leaching of titanium-oxide particles. The
highest detected titanium concentration was 98.6 ug/L.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity values ranged from 56.1 to 93.9 mg/L (as CaCO3) across
the treatment train. Concentrations of total hardness, existing primarily as calcium hardness (about
92.9%), ranged from 58.2 to 96.1 mg/L (as CaCO3), and remained essentially unchanged across the
treatment train. Fluoride concentrations ranged from 0.3 to 2.4 mg/L; sulfate from 18.1 mg/L to 27.7
mg/L; both did not appear to be affected by the AM system. Nitrate was not detected in any sample but
one at 0.1 mg/L.
35
-------
Total As Breakthrough Curves
40.0
Throughput (xlOOO gal)
Figure 4-13. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves from Lead and Lag Vessels
4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment
system, four first draw baseline distribution system water samples were collected. The first baseline
samples were collected on May 29, 2008, from three locations, i.e., the kitchen sink, the nurses station,
and the staff dining areas. The three additional baseline samples were collected from the kitchen sink
only on Novemeber 14, 2008, December 2, 2008 and January 4, 2009. After system startup, distribution
system water sampling continued on a monthly basis from the kitchen sink. Table 4-9 presents results of
the distribution system water sampling.
The most noticeable change in the distribution samples since system startup was a decrease in arsenic
concentration. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged from 22.0 to 25.7 (ig/L and averaged 23.1 (ig/L.
After system startup, arsenic concentrations were reduced to 0.6 to 3.5 (ig/L. Iron concentrations were
below the MDL of 25 (ig/L both before and after system startup with a few exceptions at 43, 39, 39 and
32 (ig/L. Baseline manganese concentrations were low, ranging from 1.2 to 7.9 (ig/L and averging 4.3
(ig/L. After system startup, its concentrations remained low for 11 of the 16 sampling events. The other
five events had higher manganese concentrations ranging from 10.6 to 184 (ig/L. Why the concentrations
were elevated is not known.
Lead concentrations of all water samples collected before and after the installation of the treatment
system averaged 1.3 (ig/L within a range of <0.1 to 2.5 (ig/L. Copper concentrations ranged from 85.6 to
480 (ig/L across all sampling locations, with no samples exceeding 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.
36
-------
Table 4-9. Distribution System Water Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
Date
BLl(a)
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
05/29/08
11/14/08
12/02/08
01/07/09
03/25/09
04/22/09
05/20/09
06/16/09
07/02/09
08/12/09
09/10/09
10/15/09
11/10/09
12/15/09
01/12/10
02/09/10
03/10/10
04/07/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
.0
-*^
sS
a jo
M a
cs a
35 P
hr
16.1
14.4
14.2
15.3
16.0
16.1
NA
13.6
16.3
16.0
188
135
15.5
17.8
16.5
NA
16.5
16.0
16.5
16.5
16.0
16.0
M
a.
S.U.
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
7.7
7.9
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.7
8.0
8.1
7.9
8.1
Alkalinity00
mg/L
72.5
74.7
72.5
69.1
75.0
65.2
63.3
66.3
68.9
66.3
66.9
66.3
61.1
70.2
70.7
71.1
83.3
77.7
77.6
71.1
71.7
76.0
5«
•<£
ug/L
23.6
22.7
22.1
22.6
25.7
22.0
1.3
2.1
1.7
1.8
1.7
3.5
0.6
3.1
2.2
2.0
2.8
2.4
2.4
3.1
3.0
3.5
1>
u.
ug/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
43
<25
<25
<25
<25
39
<25
39
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
32
I
ug/L
6.0
6.5
7.9
2.1
2.1
1.2
16.8
12.8
7.5
7.7
10.6
184
20.7
6.8
6.6
4.9
2.8
3.1
3.7
3.4
3.2
2.8
.a
a.
ug/L
1.1
0.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
1.6
1.5
1.2
1.6
1.4
2.5
2.2
1.1
0.9
1.6
1.3
0.8
1.3
0.1
1.0
1.1
U
ug/L
124
85.6
101
93.6
107
120
480
448
435
384
250
246
248
276
275
240
176
156
165
149
134
108
4.6
(a) First baseline sampling event taking place at three locations, including
school kitchen sink, nurses sink, and staff dining room. All additional
baseline and distribution sampling performed at kitchen sink.
(b) asCaCO3.
BL = baseline sampling; NA = not available; NS = not sampled
Lead action level = 15 ug/L; copper action level =1.3 mg/L
System Cost
The cost of the treatment system was 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
20-gpm treatment system was $51,895 (Table 4-10). The equipment cost was $30,215 (or 58% of the
total capital investment), including $24,007 for the treatment system and media, $4,308 for vendor labor,
and $1,900 for freight.
The site engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of a process flow diagram and relevant
mechanical drawings of the treatment system, piping, valves, and a backwash discharge line, as well as
submission of a permit application package to CT DPH for approval. The site engineering cost was
37
-------
Table 4-10. Capital Investment Cost for Adsorbsia™ GTO™ Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
24-in Diameter Fiberglass Pressure
Vessels
Adsorbsia™ GTO™ Media
Process Valve/Pipe Rack
Instrumentation (i.e., Controller,
Totalizers/Flowmeters, and Gauges)
Bag Filter and Housing
Booster Pump
Subtotal
Vendor Labor
Shipping
Equipment Total
2
15ft3
Lot
1
1
1
-
-
$5,476
$6,729
$3,928
$1,192
$111
$6,571
$24,007
$4,308
$1,900
$30,215
—
-
-
—
-
-
-
58%
Engineering Cost
Subcontractor Labor
Engineering Total
-
-
$10,110
$10,110
-
20%
Installation Cost
Vendor Labor for System Start Up
Vendor Travel for System Start Up
Subcontractor Material
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
$8,185
$2,154
$1,231
$11,570
$51,895
-
-
-
22%
100%
$10,110, or 20% of the total capital investment. All of the site engineering cost was incurred by a
subcontractor, TurnKey Compliance Solutions, LLC.
The installation cost included the vendor travel to the site and vendor labor to unload and install the
system, perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and backwash the media. The installation
cost was $11,570, or 22% of the total capital investment.
The capital cost of $51,895 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 20 gpm (or 28,800 gpd),
which results in $2594.75/gpm (or $1.80/gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted to
an annualized cost of $4,898/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-yr return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at the design
flowrate of 20 gpm to produce 28,800 gpd, the unit capital cost would be $0.47/1,000 gal. During the 19
month-long demonstration project, the system produced approximately 544,600 gal of water (see Table 4-
5), equivalent to 349,000 gal per year. At this reduced rate of usage, the unit capital cost increased to
$14.03/1,000 gal.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost includes media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electricity, and labor, as summarized in Table 4-11. Although media
replacement did not occur during the performance evaluation study, the media replacement cost would
represent the majority of the O&M cost. It was estimated that media replacement would cost $5,808 for
7.5 ft3 of the media, labor, and disposal. This cost was used to estimate the media replacement cost per
1,000 gal of water treated as a function of the projected media run length to the 10-|o,g/L arsenic
breakthrough (Figure 4-14).
38
-------
Table 4-11. Operation and Maintenance Cost for Woodstock Treatment System
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Value
544,600
Assumptions
From March 10, 2009 through
September 30, 2010;
equivalent to 349,000 gal per
year
Media Replacement and Disposal
Media Replacement and Disposal ($)
Adsorbsia™ GTO™ Media
Replacement and Disposal cost
($71,000 gal)
5,808
See Figure 4-14
For 7.5 ft3 in lead vessel
Chemical Usage
Chemical Cost ($71,000)
0
No chemical usage
Electricity
Electricity Cost ($71,000 gal)
—
Electrical costs assumed
negligible
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Annual Labor Cost ($)
Labor Cost per 1,000 gal Treated ($)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
1.6
1,664
4.77
See Figure 4-14
20 min/day for 5 days
At $20/hr for 52 weeks
Total O&M cost = media
replacement and disposal cost
+ $4.77
Comparison of electrical bills provided by the school prior to system installation and since startup did not
indicate any noticeable increase in power consumption by the treatment system. Therefore, electrical cost
associated with operation of the 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 $4.77/1,000 gal of water
treated.
39
-------
$20.00
-Media Replacement Gost
O$M cost
$15.00
,-- $10.00
s»
o
O
$5.00
$0.00
20
40 60 80 100
Media Working Capacity (BV1000)
120
140
160
Figure 4-14. Media Replacement and Total O&M Cost Curves
40
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2007. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology (QAPP
ID 355-Q-6-0). Prepared under Contract No.EP-C-05-057. Task Order No. 0019, for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
Battelle. 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.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Wang, L., W. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
41
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Woodstock, CT- Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Date
03/10/09
03/11/09
03/12/09
03/13/09
03/16/09
03/17/09
03/18/09
03/19/09
03/20/09
03/23/09
03/24/09
03/25/09
03/26/09
03/27/09
03/30/09
03/31/09
04/01/09
04/02/09
04/03/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
04/08/09
04/09/09
04/14/09
04/17/09
04/20/09
04/21/09
04/22/09
04/23/09
04/27/09
04/28/09
04/30/09
05/01/09
Well Pumps
Operating
time
(hr)
NA
2.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
4.3
0.3
2.9
1.1
0.0
0.0
5.4
0.1
18.2
0.0
0.1
2.5
2.2
0.0
3.8
0.5
0.0
4.1
1.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
4.7
0.1
3.8
1.2
3.2
0.1
Cumulative
Operating
Time
(hr)
NA
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
6.5
6.8
9.7
10.8
10.8
10.8
16.2
16.3
34.5
34.5
34.6
37.1
39.3
39.3
43.1
43.6
43.6
47.7
49.1
49.2
49.3
49.4
54.1
54.2
58.0
59.2
62.4
62.5
Vessel A
Instant
Flow
rate
(gpm)
11.1
11.2
7.9
7.9
7.9
5.8
7.9
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.5
15.7
15.8
15.7
15.7
16.1
16.1
16.2
16.3
16.3
16.0
16.0
16.4
16.2
16.2
16.4
16.4
16.4
16.4
15.6
15.6
15.7
15.7
Totalizer
XI 000
(gal)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
21
37
37
38
40
42
42
45
46
46
50
51
51
51
51
56
56
60
61
64
64
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
404
404
712
712
731
769
808
808
865
885
885
962
981
981
981
981
1,077
1,077
1,154
1,173
1,231
1,231
Vessel B
Instant
Flow
rate
(gpm)
6.1
6.1
9.6
9.6
9.6
11.5
9.6
10.7
10.5
10.5
10.5
15.8
15.8
15.9
15.9
16.0
16.2
16.2
16.1
16.2
16.0
16.0
16.4
16.3
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.0
16.1
15.5
15.6
15.8
15.7
Totalizer
XI 000
(gal)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
26
26
43
43
43
45
47
47
51
52
52
55
57
57
57
57
61
61
65
66
69
69
Bed
Volumes
Treated*3'
BV
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
500
500
827
827
827
865
904
904
981
1,000
1,000
1,058
1,096
1,096
1,096
1,096
1,173
1,173
1,250
1,269
1,327
1,327
Pressure
Inlet
Pressure
Vessel A
(psi)
8
8
5
5
5
14
8
7
7
7
7
30
30
26
26
26
25
25
25
24
25
25
21
25
24
24
24
23
23
26
29
29
29
Outlet
Pressure
Vessel A
(psi)
9
8
7
7
7
14
8
7
7
7
7
16
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
15
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
20
23
23
23
Outlet
Pressure
Vessel B
(psi)
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
5.5
5.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
6
6
6
Backwash
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
1,818
1,818
1,818
1,818
1,818
1,846
1,846
1,846
1,846
1,846
1,846
1,876
1,876
1,876
1,876
1,921
1,921
1,921
1,921
1,921
1,964
1,964
1,964
1,964
1,964
1,964
1,964
1,964
1,964
2,809
2,809
2,809
2,809
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goshen, IN- Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Date
05/04/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
05/07/09
05/08/09
05/11/09
05/13/09
05/14/09
05/15/09
05/18/09
05/19/09
05/21/09
05/22/09
05/26/09
05/27/09
05/28/09
05/29/09
06/01/09
06/02/09
06/03/09
06/04/09
06/05/09
06/09/09
06/10/09
06/11/09
06/15/09
06/16/09
06/17/09
06/18/09
06/19/09
06/22/09
06/23/09
06/24/09
06/25/09
06/26/09
06/29/09
07/02/09
Well Pumps
Operating
time
(hr)
4.5
0.7
3.5
0.6
0.0
5.0
4.7
3.8
0.1
0.0
2.9
6.4
0.0
0.1
4.3
0.1
0.1
4.3
0.0
3.8
0.1
1.2
4.6
4.8
0.1
4.4
0.3
2.0
2.2
0.1
3.6
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
Cumulative
Operating
Time
(hr)
67.0
67.7
71.2
71.8
71.8
76.8
81.5
85.3
85.4
85.4
88.3
94.7
94.7
94.8
99.1
99.2
99.3
103.6
103.6
107.4
107.5
108.7
113.3
118.1
118.2
122.6
122.9
124.9
127.1
127.2
130.8
130.9
130.9
131.0
131.0
131.0
131.3
Vessel A
Instant
Flow
rate
(gpm)
15.8
15.6
15.8
15.8
1.7
1.1
15.9
16.1
15.9
15.9
15.6
16.0
15.8
16.1
15.8
15.8
16.0
15.9
16.0
16.0
16.2
16.2
16.2
16.1
16.4
16.2
16.1
16.1
16.2
16.5
16.4
16.3
16.3
16.3
16.4
16.3
16.5
Totalizer
X1000
(gal)
68
68
72
72
72
73
77
80
80
80
83
89
89
89
92
93
93
97
97
100
100
102
106
110
110
115
115
117
119
119
122
122
122
123
123
123
123
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
1,308
1,308
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,404
1,481
1,538
1,538
1,538
1,596
1,712
1,712
1,712
1,769
1,788
1,788
1,865
1,865
1,923
1,923
1,962
2,038
2,115
2,115
2,212
2,212
2,250
2,288
2,288
2,346
2,346
2,346
2,365
2,365
2,365
2,365
Vessel B
Instant
Flow
rate
(gpm)
15.8
15.6
15.8
15.8
14.7
15.4
16.1
16.1
15.9
15.9
15.8
16.0
15.9
16.0
16.1
16.0
16.2
16.3
16.3
16.2
16.2
16.3
16.2
16.1
16.4
16.5
16.4
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.8
16.4
16.5
16.5
16.7
16.5
16.5
Totalizer
X1000
(gal)
74
74
77
78
78
83
87
90
91
91
93
99
99
99
101
103
103
107
107
111
111
112
117
121
121
125
126
128
130
130
133
133
133
133
133
133
134
Bed
Volumes
Treated*3'
BV
1,423
1,423
1,481
1,500
1,500
1,596
1,673
1,731
1,750
1,750
1,788
1,904
1,904
1,904
1,942
1,981
1,981
2,058
2,058
2,135
2,135
2,154
2,250
2,327
2,327
2,404
2,423
2,462
2,500
2,500
2,558
2,558
2,558
2,558
2,558
2,558
2,577
Pressure
Inlet
Pressure
Vessel A
(psi)
28
29
28
29
18
13
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
26
26
25
25
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Outlet
Pressure
Vessel A
(psi)
23
23
24
22
18
14
17
18
18
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
13
12
13
13
12
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
Outlet
Pressure
Vessel B
(psi)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
Backwash
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
2,809
3,023
3,023
3,023
3,094
3,458
4,020
4,020
4,020
4,020
4,020
4,020
4,020
4,020
4,020
4,252
4,252
4,252
4,252
4,252
4,252
4,252
4,252
4,252
5,905
5,905
5,905
5,905
5,905
5,905
5,905
5,905
5,905
5,905
5,905
5,905
5,905
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goshen, IN- Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
18
19
20
21
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Date
07/09/09
07/14/09
07/15/09
07/21/09
08/03/09
08/05/09
08/07/09
08/10/09
08/14/09
08/17/09
08/19/09
08/26/09
08/27/09
08/28/09
08/31/09
09/01/09
09/03/09
09/08/09
09/09/09
90/10/09
09/11/09
09/15/09
09/17/09
09/21/09
09/22/09
09/24/09
09/28/09
09/30/09
10/01/09
10/05/09
10/08/09
10/13/09
10/15/09
10/16/09
10/21/09
10/22/09
Well Pumps
Operating
time
(hr)
3.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
3.8
18.6
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.0
1.4
3.3
0.1
4.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
3.8
0.1
1.4
2.8
4.1
4.5
0.1
4.5
4.7
3.9
0.1
4.3
0.0
8.2
3.9
1.4
3.3
4.6
3.9
Cumulative
Operating
Time
(hr)
134.8
134.8
134.9
134.9
138.7
157.3
157.4
157.5
157.9
157.9
159.3
162.6
162.7
166.7
166.7
166.7
171.0
174.8
174.9
176.3
179.1
183.2
187.7
187.8
192.3
197.0
200.9
201.0
205.3
205.3
213.5
217.4
218.8
222.1
226.7
230.6
Vessel A
Instant
Flow
rate
(gpm)
16.3
16.2
16.2
16.4
16.3
16.5
16.2
16.4
16.4
16.5
16.5
16.1
16.2
16.5
16.3
16.5
16.4
16.2
16.2
16.0
16.3
16.2
16.2
16.2
16.3
16.4
16.4
16.5
16.3
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.2
16.4
16.5
16.4
Totalizer
X1000
(gal)
126
126
126
126
130
147
147
147
148
148
148
152
152
156
156
156
160
163
163
165
167
171
175
175
180
184
188
188
192
192
200
203
205
208
212
216
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
2,423
2,423
2,423
2,423
2,500
2,827
2,827
2,827
2,846
2,846
2,846
2,923
2,923
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,077
3,135
3,135
3,173
3,212
3,288
3,365
3,365
3,462
3,538
3,615
3,615
3,692
3,692
3,846
3,904
3,942
4,000
4,077
4,154
Vessel B
Instant
Flow
rate
(gpm)
16.7
16.6
16.6
16.7
16.5
16.7
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.7
16.7
16.2
16.4
16.9
16.4
16.6
16.3
16.2
16.3
16.3
16.4
16.5
16.5
16.4
16.3
16.5
16.4
16.5
16.4
16.4
16.6
16.4
16.4
16.3
16.5
16.5
Totalizer
X1000
(gal)
137
137
137
137
141
158
158
159
159
159
159
163
163
167
167
167
171
175
175
176
179
182
187
187
191
196
199
199
203
204
211
215
216
220
224
228
Bed
Volumes
Treated*3'
BV
2,635
2,635
2,635
2,635
2,712
3,038
3,038
3,058
3,058
3,058
3,058
3,135
3,135
3,212
3,212
3,212
3,288
3,365
3,365
3,385
3,442
3,500
3,596
3,596
3,673
3,769
3,827
3,827
3,904
3,923
4,058
4,135
4,154
4,231
4,308
4,385
Pressure
Inlet
Pressure
Vessel A
(psi)
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
22
20
20
19
19
20
18
19
20
20
20
21
20
20
20
21
20
20
20
21
20
21
20
20
20
Outlet
Pressure
Vessel A
(psi)
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
12
12
12
12
14
12
12
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Outlet
Pressure
Vessel B
(psi)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
11
11
11
11
11
5
5
Backwash
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
6,447
6,447
6,447
6,447
6,447
6,447
6,447
6,447
6,447
6,447
6,447
7,896
8,973
8,973
8,973
8,973
9,513
9,513
9,513
9,513
9,513
9,513
9,513
9,513
9,513
9,513
9,513
9,513
9,513
9,513
9,513
9,513
9,513
9,513
10,063
10,063
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goshen, IN- Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Date
10/26/09
10/28/09
10/29/09
11/02/09
11/04/09
11/09/09
11/13/09
11/17/09
11/19/09
11/24/09
12/01/09
12/04/09
12/07/09
12/10/09
12/14/09
12/15/09
12/17/09
12/21/09
12/22/09
12/23/09
12/30/09
01/05/10
01/07/10
01/08/10
01/12/10
01/12/10
01/19/10
01/20/10
01/27/10
01/28/10
02/02/10
02/05/10
02/09/10
02/10/10
02/18/10
Well Pumps
Operating
time
(hr)
3.7
6.0
0.0
6.2
2.9
6.0
3.8
3.1
5.1
4.1
3.6
4.9
3.7
3.9
4.4
0.1
4.5
3.9
0.0
4.2
0.1
0.4
4.1
3.6
2.8
5.5
2.5
1.9
4.7
3.7
6.0
3.6
3.9
0.0
4.6
Cumulative
Operating
Time
(hr)
234.3
240.3
240.3
246.5
249.4
255.4
259.2
262.3
267.4
271.5
275.1
280.0
283.7
287.6
292.0
292.1
296.6
300.5
300.5
304.7
304.8
305.2
309.3
312.9
315.7
321.2
323.7
325.6
330.3
334.0
340.0
343.6
347.5
347.5
352.1
Vessel A
Instant
Flow
rate
(gpm)
16.5
16.3
16.3
16.3
16.5
16.3
16.6
16.5
16.2
16.6
16.5
16.3
16.4
16.2
16.3
16.4
16.4
16.6
16.6
16.4
16.7
16.5
16.1
16.5
16.3
16.5
16.2
16.4
16.5
16.2
16.3
16.4
16.2
16.5
16.2
Totalizer
X1000
(gal)
219
225
225
231
234
239
243
247
251
255
258
263
266
270
274
274
279
282
282
286
286
287
291
294
297
302
304
306
311
314
319
323
326
326
331
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
4,212
4,327
4,327
4,442
4,500
4,596
4,673
4,750
4,827
4,904
4,962
5,058
5,115
5,192
5,269
5,269
5,365
5,423
5,423
5,500
5,500
5,519
5,596
5,654
5,712
5,808
5,846
5,885
5,981
6,038
6,135
6,212
6,269
6,269
6,365
Vessel B
Instant
Flow
rate
(gpm)
16.5
16.2
16.4
16.3
16.7
16.4
16.7
16.4
16.6
16.8
16.7
16.4
16.5
16.4
16.4
16.2
16.3
16.5
16.8
16.5
16.6
16.7
16.7
16.6
16.4
16.3
16.3
16.3
16.3
16.3
16.4
16.5
16.3
16.5
16.4
Totalizer
X1000
(gal)
231
237
237
243
245
251
255
258
263
267
270
275
278
282
286
286
291
294
295
299
299
299
303
306
309
314
317
319
323
326
332
335
339
339
343
Bed
Volumes
Treated*3'
BV
4,442
4,558
4,558
4,673
4,712
4,827
4,904
4,962
5,058
5,135
5,192
5,288
5,346
5,423
5,500
5,500
5,596
5,654
5,673
5,750
5,750
5,750
5,827
5,885
5,942
6,038
6,096
6,135
6,212
6,269
6,385
6,442
6,519
6,519
6,596
Pressure
Inlet
Pressure
Vessel A
(psi)
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
22
21
21
21
22
21
22
23
22
22
22
22
Outlet
Pressure
Vessel A
(psi)
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
11
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
12
12
13
13
13
13
14
14
13
13
12
Outlet
Pressure
Vessel B
(psi)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Backwash
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
10,063
10,063
10,063
10,063
10,063
10,063
10,718
10,718
10,718
10,718
10,718
10,718
10,718
11,374
11,374
11,374
11,374
11,374
11,374
11,374
11,374
11,374
11,374
11,374
11,374
11,374
11,374
11,374
11,374
12,031
12,031
12,031
12,031
12,031
12,031
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goshen, IN- Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
Date
02/23/10
02/24/10
02/26/10
03/01/10
03/04/10
03/09/10
03/10/10
03/17/10
03/23/10
03/25/10
03/30/10
04/06/10
04/07/10
04/09/10
04/14/10
04/21/10
04/27/10
04/29/10
05/04/10
05/06/10
05/07/10
05/11/10
05/12/10
05/13/10
05/14/10
05/17/10
05/18/10
05/19/10
05/21/10
05/27/10
05/28/10
06/01/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
06/08/10
06/10/10
06/11/10
Well Pumps
Operating
time
(hr)
4.4
0.0
4.9
0.0
5.6
8.3
0.0
11.7
7.2
3.6
6.3
7.4
0.0
3.7
12.0
0.1
4.4
0.0
7.9
3.9
0.2
3.6
3.7
0.0
3.7
0.1
3.7
5.8
4.2
5.5
3.7
1.8
1.7
0.1
6.2
4.3
5.0
Cumulative
Operating
Time
(hr)
356.5
356.5
361.4
361.4
367.0
375.3
375.3
387.0
394.2
397.8
404.1
411.5
411.5
415.2
427.2
427.3
431.7
431.7
439.6
443.5
443.7
447.3
451.0
451.0
454.7
454.8
458.5
464.3
468.5
474.0
477.7
479.5
481.2
481.3
487.5
491.8
496.8
Vessel A
Instant
Flow
rate
(gpm)
16.4
16.3
16.4
16.4
16.4
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.7
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.4
16.5
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.4
16.5
16.5
16.4
16.6
16.4
16.4
16.3
16.4
16.5
16.6
16.5
16.4
16.3
16.3
16.4
16.5
16.5
Totalizer
X1000
(gal)
335
335
340
340
345
352
352
363
370
374
380
387
387
390
402
402
406
406
413
417
417
421
424
424
428
428
431
437
441
446
450
451
453
453
459
463
467
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
6,442
6,442
6,538
6,538
6,635
6,769
6,769
6,981
7,115
7,192
7,308
7,442
7,442
7,500
7,731
7,731
7,808
7,808
7,942
8,019
8,019
8,096
8,154
8,154
8,231
8,231
8,288
8,404
8,481
8,577
8,654
8,673
8,712
8,712
8,827
8,904
8,981
Vessel B
Instant
Flow
rate
(gpm)
16.4
16.3
16.5
16.5
16.3
16.7
16.7
16.6
16.8
16.6
16.5
16.6
16.6
16.5
16.5
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.5
16.5
16.6
16.5
16.3
16.5
16.6
16.7
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.3
16.4
16.3
16.4
16.6
16.5
16.5
Totalizer
X1000
(gal)
348
348
352
352
357
365
365
376
383
386
392
400
400
403
415
415
419
419
427
430
430
434
437
437
441
441
445
450
454
459
463
465
466
466
472
476
481
Bed
Volumes
Treated*3'
BV
6,692
6,692
6,769
6,769
6,865
7,019
7,019
7,231
7,365
7,423
7,538
7,692
7,692
7,750
7,981
7,981
8,058
8,058
8,212
8,269
8,269
8,346
8,404
8,404
8,481
8,481
8,558
8,654
8,731
8,827
8,904
8,942
8,962
8,962
9,077
9,154
9,250
Pressure
Inlet
Pressure
Vessel A
(psi)
22
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
21
21
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
19
20
19
19
19
18
20
20
20
19
19
18
19
19
19
20
20
Outlet
Pressure
Vessel A
(psi)
13
13
13
13
13
14
13
14
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
Outlet
Pressure
Vessel B
(psi)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Backwash
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
12,031
12,031
12,031
12,031
12,686
12,686
12,686
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
13,598
14,254
14,254
14,254
14,913
14,913
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goshen, IN- Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
65
66
67
68
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Date
06/15/10
06/17/10
06/18/10
06/30/10
07/01/10
07/06/10
07/08/10
07/14/10
07/16/10
07/29/10
07/30/10
08/04/10
08/09/10
08/10/10
08/13/10
08/18/10
08/19/10
08/30/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
09/08/10
09/09/10
09/10/10
09/14/10
09/15/10
09/17/10
09/21/10
09/29/10
09/30/10
Well Pumps
Operating
time
(hr)
0.3
3.5
3.0
5.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
3.5
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
3.3
4.9
0.1
3.7
3.7
0.1
4.0
4.1
3.8
3.8
12.3
0.1
Cumulative
Operating
Time
(hr)
497.1
500.6
503.6
509.0
509.0
509.1
509.1
509.1
513.1
513.1
513.1
513.2
516.7
516.8
517.0
517.0
517.0
520.3
525.2
525.3
529.0
532.7
532.8
536.8
540.9
544.7
548.5
560.8
560.9
Vessel A
Instant
Flow
rate
(gpm)
16.4
16.4
16.1
16.4
16.5
16.2
16.1
16.2
16.2
16.3
16.3
16.3
16.3
16.5
16.5
16.3
16.4
16.2
16.4
16.3
16.1
16
16.3
16.2
16.1
16.2
16.0
16.3
16.3
Totalizer
X1000
(gal)
467
471
474
479
479
479
479
479
483
483
483
483
486
486
487
487
487
490
494
494
498
501
501
505
509
513
516
528
528
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
8,981
9,058
9,115
9,212
9,212
9,212
9,212
9,212
9,288
9,288
9,288
9,288
9,346
9,346
9,365
9,365
9,365
9,423
9,500
9,500
9,577
9,635
9,635
9,712
9,788
9,865
9,923
10,154
10,154
Vessel B
Instant
Flow
rate
(gpm)
16.4
16.6
16.3
16.5
16.3
16.3
16.4
16.5
16.6
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.4
16.6
16.5
16.6
16.6
16.5
16.3
16.3
16.3
16.3
16.3
16.3
16.4
16.5
16.2
16.5
16.4
Totalizer
X1000
(gal)
481
485
487
493
493
493
493
493
496
496
496
496
500
500
500
500
500
504
508
508
511
515
515
519
523
526
530
541
541
Bed
Volumes
Treated*3'
BV
9,250
9,327
9,365
9,481
9,481
9,481
9,481
9,481
9,538
9,538
9,538
9,538
9,615
9,615
9,615
9,615
9,615
9,692
9,769
9,769
9,827
9,904
9,904
9,981
10,058
10,115
10,192
10,404
10,404
Pressure
Inlet
Pressure
Vessel A
(psi)
20
20
20
19
19
18
18
18
19
17
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
19
20
18
18
Outlet
Pressure
Vessel A
(psi)
12
12
12
11
11
10
10
10
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
11
11
Outlet
Pressure
Vessel B
(psi)
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
Backwash
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
14,913
14,913
14,913
14,913
15,573
15,573
15,573
15,573
15,573
15,573
15,573
15,573
15,573
15,573
15,573
15,573
15,573
15,573
15,573
15,573
15,573
16,229
16,229
16,229
16,229
16,229
16,229
16,229
16,229
NA = not available
(a) BV based on 7.5 cubic feet of media in each vessel
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Woodstock, CT
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
Ti (soluble)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
03/10/09
IN
TA
-
74.8
0.4
21.7
<0.05
<10
15.4
0.1
7.1
25.0
2.8
260
85.8
77.1
8.6
27.7
27.8
<0.1
27.4
0.4
<25
<25
20.6
19.8
1.3
1.1
56.1
0.3
21.8
<0.05
<10
1.3
0.3
6.7
25.0
2.1
259
71.4
63.7
7.7
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
0.5
0.5
2.5
0.2
TB
-
56.1
0.3
21.4
<0.05
<10
3.2
2.3
6.6
25.0
2.1
257
74.5
67.3
7.2
0.8
0.9
<0.1
0.9
<0.1
<25
<25
0.7
0.7
6.2
0.3
03/25/09
IN
-
76.0
-
-
-
<10
14.0
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
23.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
18.7
-
1.1
-
TA
0.4
63.3
-
-
-
<10
2.7
11.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
28.2
-
TB
0.5
59.1
-
-
-
<10
4.4
2.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
15.7
-
04/07/09
IN
-
81.2
0.3
22.7
<0.05
<10
14.5
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
72.9
67.2
5.7
22.8
23.1
<0.1
4.9
18.2
29
<25
14.8
13.9
1.1
0.9
TA
0.9
71.6
0.4
27.7
<0.05
<10
7.0
62.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
69.8
64.3
5.5
0.3
1.0
<0.1
0.3
0.8
<25
<25
1.2
0.5
75.8
1.5
TB
1.0
69.3
0.5
21
<0.05
<10
5.1
2.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
68.9
63.4
5.5
0.5
0.9
<0.1
0.3
0.6
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
4.5
0.6
04/21/09
IN
-
75.4
-
-
-
<10
15.3
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
26.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
14.2
-
1.4
-
TA
1.0
65.7
-
-
-
<10
7.6
2.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
26.2
-
TB
1.1
65.7
-
-
-
<10
5.6
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
5.6
-
05/06/09
IN
-
77.6
0.4
21.6
<0.05
<10
16.7
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
96.1
90.6
5.5
26.1
27.3
<0.1
6.4
20.9
29
<25
19.2
19.0
1.4
1.3
TA
1.4
70.3
0.4
22.1
<0.05
<10
10.8
19.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
89.2
84.0
5.2
1.2
1.4
<0.1
0.6
0.8
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
33.4
0.9
TB
1.5
67.9
0.3
22.0
<0.05
<10
6.8
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
87.8
82.6
5.2
0.5
0.6
<0.1
0.3
0.3
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
1.4
0.6
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Woodstock, CT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
Ti (soluble)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
05/19/09
IN
-
68.1
-
-
-
<10
16.8
0.8
7.0
13.2
9.9
391
-
-
-
26.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
17.9
-
1.1
-
TA
1.6
70.7
-
-
-
<10
11.9
1.5
7.4
13.3
8.6
387
-
-
-
1.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
10.2
-
TB
1.8
73.2
-
-
-
<10
8.5
1.0
7.5
13.2
9.8
383
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
0.8
-
06/04/09
IN
-
77.9
0.3
23.4
<0.05
<10
15.9
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
83.2
78.3
4.9
25.6
25.9
<0.1
4.2
21.7
49
<25
18.9
17.6
1.3
1.0
TA
1.9
75.8
0.3
22
<0.05
<10
12.2
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
80.3
75.6
4.8
1.7
1.8
<0.1
0.6
1.2
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
1.6
0.8
TB
2.1
69.5
0.3
22.6
<0.05
<10
8.7
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
78.0
72.9
5.1
0.6
0.6
<0.1
0.5
0.1
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.6
06/17/09
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Woodstock, CT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
Ti (soluble)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
08/05/09
IN
-
72.9
2.0
22.8
<0.05
<10
15.9
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
82.4
75.0
7.4
28.3
28.1
0.2
7.0
21.0
<25
<25
23.4
23.4
1.2
1.2
TA
2.8
77.5
0.4
21.3
<0.05
<10
15.6
6.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
84.4
77.0
7.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
27.0
1.3
TB
3.0
72.9
2.4
23.9
<0.05
<10
11.7
1.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
81.0
73.9
7.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
6.5
1.7
08/13/09*0
IN
-
70.9
-
-
-
<10
15.0
1.3
7.0
22.7
NA
309
-
-
-
23.6
-
-
-
-
60
-
12.1
-
1.1
-
TA
2.8
77.7
-
-
-
<10
15.3
0.8
7.3
22.8
NA
356
-
-
-
2.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
3.3
-
TB
3.1
70.9
-
-
-
<10
11.1
1.2
7.2
22.8
NA
373
-
-
-
0.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
0.8
-
08/27/09
IN
-
70.0
0.3
26.1
0.1
<10
15.8
1.4
7.2
18.9
NA
244
85.7
79.8
5.8
26.8
26.5
0.2
6.3
20.3
39
<25
16.3
16.1
1.1
1.1
TA
2.9
72.3
0.3
24.5
<0.05
<10
14.6
6.4
7.5
20.1
NA
260
79.0
73.8
5.3
3.6
3.5
<0.1
1.6
1.9
<25
<25
0.9
0.6
98.6
2.2
TB
2.9
72.3
0.4
22.2
<0.05
<10
11.8
9.3
7.3
20.8
NA
265
79.5
74.3
5.2
1.2
1.2
<0.1
1.0
0.2
<25
<25
0.7
0.8
38.3
1.7
09/10/09
IN
-
68.5
68.5
-
-
-
<10
<10
15.9
16.2
1.2
3.0
7.3
15.3
NA
294
-
-
-
24.0
23.6
-
-
-
-
67
66
-
17.8
17.8
-
1.2
1.2
-
TA
3.2
66.7
66.7
-
-
-
<10
<10
13.0
12.9
0.9
1.5
7.4
14.4
NA
402
-
-
-
1.2
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
-
2.1
2.5
-
TB
3.4
61.1
64.8
-
-
-
<10
<10
11.0
10.7
0.4
0.8
7.3
14.7
NA
396
-
-
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
-
2 2
1.2
-
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Woodstock, CT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
Ti (soluble)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
09/22/09
IN
-
68.5
0.3
22.5
<0.05
<10
14.9
0.2
6.3
14.7
NA
256
81.7
76.2
5.6
20.2
19.7
0.5
2.6
17.1
<25
<25
17.8
17.6
1.6
1.5
TA
3.5
75.9
0.3
22.9
<0.05
<10
14.0
0.4
7.2
15.0
NA
243
82.7
77.2
5.6
3.6
3.6
<0.1
1.3
2.3
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
2.0
1.5
TB
3.7
72.2
0.3
27.2
<0.05
<10
11.4
0.3
6.9
15.1
NA
71.4
80.3
74.7
5.6
0.9
0.9
<0.1
0.6
0.3
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
1.3
1.2
10/15/09
IN
-
77.6
-
-
-
<10
14.3
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
22.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
16.9
-
1.4
-
TA
3.9
77.6
-
-
-
<10
12.9
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
1.3
-
TB
4.2
70.2
-
-
-
<10
11.0
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
1.0
-
10/29/09
IN
-
70.6
0.6
21.9
<0.05
<10
16.1
2.6
6.7
13.0
NA
344
127
120
7.0
24.1
23.9
0.2
7.9
16.0
83
<25
18.6
17.8
1.7
1.4
TA
4.3
69.6
0.3
23.3
<0.05
<10
15.0
3.2
7.4
13.2
NA
326
112
105
7.0
4.2
4.3
<0.1
1.1
3.1
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
2.3
1.5
TB
4.6
71.9
0.4
23.5
<0.05
<10
12.7
3.8
7.4
13.4
NA
19.5
134
127
7.1
0.6
0.5
<0.1
0.2
0.3
<25
<25
0.2
0.4
1.4
1.2
11/10/09
IN
-
75.2
79.8
-
-
-
<10
<10
16.8
16.8
0.4
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
21.6
21.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
20.1
19.3
-
1.1
1.2
-
TA
4.6
79.8
79.8
-
-
-
<10
<10
16.1
15.9
1.1
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
5.9
5.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
2.6
2.4
-
TB
4.8
77.5
79.8
-
-
-
<10
<10
14.0
13.6
0.3
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.1
1.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
1.6
1.4
-
CO
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Woodstock, CT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
Ti (soluble)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
12/01/09
IN
-
76.3
0.5
23.6
<0.05
<10
16.5
4.0
7.1
12.8
NA
337
81.1
75.8
5.3
24.4
24.9
<0.1
7.2
17.7
32
<25
13.7
13.8
1.2
1.1
TA
5.2
78.6
0.5
24.1
<0.05
<10
15.7
0.7
6.7
14.2
NA
323
83.7
78.2
5.5
5.3
5.3
<0.1
1.6
3.7
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
2.6
1.0
TB
5.4
74
0.4
24.4
<0.05
<10
13.5
2.4
5.6
12.8
NA
324
81.1
75.7
5.3
0.9
0.9
<0.1
0.5
0.5
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.9
12/15/09
IN
-
86.7
-
-
-
<10
15.9
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
22 2
-
-
-
-
35
-
15.6
-
1.4
-
TA
5.3
77.8
-
-
-
<10
15.8
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
5.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
3.9
-
TB
5.5
73.3
-
-
-
<10
14.5
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
1.5
-
12/30/09
IN
-
78.1
0.6
23.0
<0.05
<10
16.4
1.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
86.3
80.3
6.0
29.3
29.1
0.2
7.0
22.0
<25
<25
16.8
16.5
1.5
1.3
TA
5.5
75.7
0.4
25.4
<0.05
<10
15.4
2.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
83.7
77.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
<0.1
2.1
3.9
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
1.8
1.5
TB
5.8
82.8
0.4
25.4
<0.05
<10
13.5
2.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
84.3
78.4
6.0
1.5
1.6
<0.1
0.7
0.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
1.5
1.2
01/12/10
IN
-
74.5
-
-
-
<10
16.6
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
24.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
17.5
-
1.2
-
TA
5.7
67.9
-
-
-
<10
15.6
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
6.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
1.8
-
TB
5.9
72.3
-
-
-
<10
14.2
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
1.1
-
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Woodstock, CT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
Ti (soluble)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
01/27/10
IN
-
78.2
0.3
19.9
<0.05
<10
16.7
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
69.5
64.1
5.4
25.5
25.4
<0.1
5.6
19.8
53
<25
19.8
18.1
2.0
1.2
TA
6.0
80.5
0.3
20.9
<0.05
<10
15.6
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
67.0
61.8
5.2
6.2
6.1
<0.1
1.9
4.2
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
2.8
1.2
TB
6.2
73.6
0.3
19.4
<0.05
<10
15.1
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
66.9
61.7
5.2
1.6
1.6
<0.1
0.8
0.8
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
1.3
1.2
02/09/10
IN
-
82.3
82.3
-
-
-
<10
<10
15.9
16.3
1.3
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
17.9
18.5
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
13.0
13.0
-
1.1
1.0
-
TA
6.3
77.7
73.1
-
-
-
<10
<10
14.8
14.6
1.0
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
7.2
7.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
-
1.4
1.4
-
TB
6.5
80.0
77.7
-
-
-
<10
<10
13.5
13.7
1.5
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.4
1.4
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
-
1.5
1.4
-
02/24/10
IN
-
80.0
0.4
21.8
<0.05
<10
15.6
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
89.2
83.5
5.7
22.5
23.2
<0.1
4.7
18.5
<25
<25
21.5
19.0
1.9
1.0
TA
6.4
77.7
0.4
21.9
<0.05
<10
14.4
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
78.1
73.1
5.0
7.3
7.2
<0.1
2.5
4.7
<25
<25
0.3
0.1
1.6
0.8
TB
6.7
75.4
0.3
22.6
<0.05
<10
13.3
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
74.3
68.7
5.5
1.5
1.5
<0.1
0.7
0.8
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
1.5
0.8
03/10/10
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Woodstock, CT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
Ti (soluble)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
03/25/10
IN
-
74.1
0.5
18.1
<0.05
<10
15.6
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
77.0
71.6
5.5
23.8
23.9
<0.1
7.7
16.2
<25
<25
16.9
19.2
4.8
1.2
TA
7.2
71.9
0.3
22.0
<0.05
<10
14.7
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
78.4
72.7
5.7
8.6
8.7
<0.1
2.7
5.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
1.6
1.3
TB
7.4
76.3
0.5
20.8
<0.05
<10
14.1
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
79.0
73.5
5.5
2.2
2.2
<0.1
0.6
1.5
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
1.6
1.1
04/07/10
IN
-
75.6
-
-
-
<10
16.1
0.3
NA
11.9
NA
417
-
-
-
25.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
32.0
-
1.4
-
TA
7.4
75.6
-
-
-
<10
15.7
0.2
NA
11.9
NA
418
-
-
-
9.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
1.6
-
TB
7.7
80.0
-
-
-
<10
15.9
0.3
NA
-
NA
-
-
-
-
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
1.3
-
04/21/10
IN
-
126
0.3
21.7
<0.05
<10
15.7
1.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
58.2
52.4
5.8
26.2
26.2
<0.1
4.2
22.0
47
<25
15.8
14.8
1.5
1.2
TA
7.7
80.0
0.4
24.4
<0.05
<10
15.6
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
73.2
67.5
5.7
10.3
10.8
<0.1
1.7
9.2
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
1.6
1.2
TB
8.0
82.3
0.4
21.2
<0.05
<10
15.6
1.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
72.9
67.3
5.6
2.7
2.8
<0.1
0.9
1.9
<25
<25
0.1
<0.01
1.4
1.3
05/06/10
IN
-
87.9
-
-
-
<10
15.6
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
27.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
17.3
-
1.1
-
TA
8.0
80.9
-
-
-
<10
15.5
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
11.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
1.3
-
TB
8.3
78.6
-
-
-
<10
15.2
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
0.9
-
Cd
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Woodstock, CT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
Ti (soluble)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
05/18/10
IN
-
76.3
0.3
20.2
<0.05
<10
15.9
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
84.3
78.5
5.8
23.5
22.3
1.2
3.1
19.2
<25
<25
16.8
17.7
1.2
1.1
TA
8.3
76.3
0.3
20.6
<0.05
<10
16.3
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
86.5
80.6
5.9
11.2
11.9
<0.1
4.1
7.8
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
1.4
1.1
TB
8.6
76.3
0.3
22.2
<0.05
<10
15.3
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
86.9
80.9
6.0
2.7
2.6
<0.1
0.8
1.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
1.2
1.0
06/03/10
IN
-
118
-
-
-
<10
16.1
1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
27.7
-
-
-
-
189
-
21.0
-
1.8
-
TA
8.7
93.9
-
-
-
<10
17.9
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
15.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
7.0
-
TB
9.0
78.2
-
-
-
<10
17.1
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
5.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
2.4
-
06/15/10
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
26.0
26.8
<0.1
7.3
19.5
<25
<25
15.4
14.8
1.1
0.9
TA
9.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
16.6
18.0
<0.1
6.4
11.6
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
2.4
1.1
TB
9.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
4.4
4.6
<0.1
1.4
3.2
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
1.3
1.0
07/14/10
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
25.4
27.9
<0.1
6.2
21.7
25
<25
16.1
15.3
1.5
0.9
TA
9.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
15.1
16.6
<0.1
3.1
13.6
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
4.2
1.1
TB
9.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
4.1
4.3
<0.1
0.8
3.5
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
1.5
1.0
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Woodstock, CT (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Ti (total)
Ti (soluble)
103
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
08/10/10
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
25.2
26.1
<0.1
3.7
22.4
53
<25
9.8
8.6
1.2
0.9
TA
9.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
17.2
17.1
0.1
5.6
11.5
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
1.7
1.1
TB
9.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
4.3
4.2
0.1
1.3
2.9
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
1.2
1.0
09/14/10
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
27.1
25.6
1.5
10.1
15.5
31
33
17.0
15.4
1.2
1.0
TA
9.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
13.6
14.8
<0.1
3.5
11.4
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
3.0
1.0
TB
10.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
4.3
4.4
<0.1
1.3
3.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
1.6
1.0
10/06/10
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
24.7
25.8
<0.1
5.9
19.9
52
<25
17.2
17.8
0.9
0.9
TA
-10.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
15.3
15.4
<0.1
2.8
12.6
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
2.1
0.9
TB
-10.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
5.2
5.0
0.2
0.6
4.4
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.9
------- |