EPA/600/R-09/017
February 2009
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Lydia J. Gumming
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0037
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 0037 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and sub-
surface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provid-
ing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained from the arsenic removal
treatment technology demonstration project at Rollinsford, New Hampshire. The objectives of the project
were to evaluate: 1) the effectiveness of AdEdge Technologies' AD -33™ media in removing arsenic to
meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 (ig/L; 2) the reliability of the treatment
system; 3) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skills; and 4) the capital
and O&M costs of the technology. The project also characterized water in the distribution system and
process residuals produced by the treatment system.
The Rollisford, NH demonstration project consisted of two study phases. The source water for both
studies consisted of water from two wells having a flow capacity of 95 to 112 gal/min (gpm). Phase 1 of
the study utilized an Arsenic Package Unit (APU)-IOO system designed for a flowrate of 100 gpm.
Because higher flowrates up to 112 gpm were experienced in Phase 1, a 120-gpm APU-RWS system was
designed and installed for Phase 2 of the study. Both packages units contained the AdEdge AD-33™
media, which is an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG under the brand name of
Bay oxide 33.
The Phase 1 APU-100 system consisted of two 36-in-diameter, 72-in-tall pressure vessels in parallel
configuration, each initially containing 27 ft3 of AD-33™ media supported by a gravel underbed. Empty
bed contact time (EBCT) for the system was approximately 4.0 min per vessel. Hydraulic loading to each
vessel based on a design flowrate of 100 gpm was approximately 7 gpm/ft2. The Phase 2 APU-RWS
system consisted of two 48-in-diameter, 72-in-tall pressure vessels in parallel configuration, each initially
containing 30 ft3 of AD-33™ media also supported by a gravel underbed. EBCT for the APU-RWS
system was approximately 3.7 min based on a media volume of 30 ft3 per vessel. Hydraulic loading to
each vessel based on a design flowrate of 120 gpm was about 4.8 gpm/ft2.
The APU-100 system included a carbon dioxide (CO2) injection module with manual controls for pH
adjustment prior to arsenic adsorption. Contributing, in part, by mechanical problems, the CO2 system
failed to consistently adjust pH to the target value of 7.0. Attempts were made to upgrade the manual pH
control system for automatic operation to provide for better control for Phase 2; however, the system
automation was never completed because the CO2 injection membrane was subject to fouling that could
not be resolved. As a result, pH adjustment was not performed during the Phase 2 study.
Two system performance runs were conducted in the Phase 1 APU-100 treatment system. Run 1
operating from February 9, 2004, through October 27, 2004, and Run 2 from November 3, 2004, through
January 15, 2005. The replacement system, APU-RWS, was evaluated under Phase 2 from June 13,
2005, through May 8, 2006. During Phase 1, the system was sometimes operated with only one supply
well to reduce the flowrate to the system, thereby reducing the inlet pressure and differential pressure (Ap)
in order to extend the time between backwash events. During Phase 2, the system also was operated with
one supply well to reduce the flowrate to the system to try to improve arsenic removal performance.
Run 1 of the system treated approximately 11,926,000 gal of water based on totalizer readings from each
vessel, operating 11.6 hr/day with an average flowrate of 95 (with both supply wells operating) or 60 gpm
(with one supply well operating). Run 2 of the system treated approximately 3,921,000 gal of water
operating 10.5 hr/day with an average flowrate of 112 gpm (with both supply wells operating). During
Phase 2, the APU-RWS system treated approximately 12,881,000 gal of water, operating 9.7 hr/day with
an average flowrate of 97 (with both supply wells operating) or 58 gpm (with one supply well operating).
The EBCTs for Run 1 in each vessel ranged from 3.0 to 7.0 min with both wells running and from 4.3 to
9.5 min with only one well running. During Run 2, the EBCTs ranged from 2.5 to 3.9 min. The EBCTs
IV
-------
in Phase 2 ranged from 4.0 to 5.6 min with both wells running and from 4.0 to 10.0 min with only one
well running.
During Phase 1, higher than normal system Ap and inlet pressures were experienced. Consequently, the
operator conducted frequent backwashes and worked with the vendor to troubleshoot, modify, and replace
several system components. The aggressive and frequent backwashing resulted in high media loss - up to
46 to 59% by the end of the study. The system design for Phase 2 successfully addressed the elevated
pressure and eliminated the need for frequent backwashes.
Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 28.7 to 52.4 (ig/L with As(III) comprising a
significant portion of the total soluble arsenic, with concentrations ranging from 7.6 to 28.8 (ig/L. After
one and one half months of Run 1 operation, the preexisting chlorine injection system was used to
prechlorinate the source water and effectively oxidized the As(III) to As(V). The prechlorination step
continued throughout the remainder of the study.
Breakthrough of total arsenic at concentrations above the 10 (ig/L target MCL was first observed after the
APU-100 system had processed between 12,500 and 17,000 bed volumes (BV) of water, representing
about 17 to 23% of the estimated working capacity of 74,000 BV. The media performed similarly during
the Phase 2 operation of the APU-RWS system. Although the re-design of the system helped alleviate
both inlet pressure and Ap problems, it did not improve the media performance in terms of its run length.
Backwash wastewater contained soluble arsenic concentrations ranging from 9.5 to 33.8 (ig/L. Soluble
iron and soluble manganese concentrations ranged from <25 to 115 and 3.3 to 75.7 (ig/L, respectively.
As expected, total arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations were considerably higher than the soluble
concentrations, indicating the presence of particulate material in the backwash wastewater. Particulate
arsenic might be associated with either iron particles filtered out by the media beds during the service
cycle or the media fines. Based on the total suspended solids (TSS) values, approximately 8 Ib of
suspended solids would be produced in 1,890 gal of backwash wastewater from the vessels for Phase 1
and approximately 25 Ib of solids would be produced in 4,200 gal of backwash wastewater for Phase 2.
The spent media passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test for all metals, with only barium showing detectable concentrations
ranging from 0.95 and 0.96 mg/L. The average arsenic loading on the spent media based on the
inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) results was 1.88 mg/g or 0.188%. This 1.88
mg/g loading compared well (98%) with the average adsorptive capacity of 1.93 mg/g measured by
dividing the area between the influent and effluent breakthrough curves by the amount of dry media in
each tank.
Distribution system water samples were collected before and after the installation of the treatment system
to determine any impact of arsenic treatment on the lead and copper level and water chemistry in the
distribution system. However, because the distribution system in place was a looped system that included
water from a third untreated well (General Sullivan Well), the impact of the treated water could not be
exactly determined.
The capital investment cost for the re-designed APU-RWS system was $131,692, which included
$105,805 for equipment, $4,672 for engineering, and $21,215 for installation. Using the system's rated
capacity of 120 gpm (172,800 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $l,097/gpm ($0.76/gpd). These
calculations do not include the cost of a building to house the treatment system. The unit annualized
capital cost is $0.20/1,000 gal, assuming the system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at the system
design flowrate of 120 gpm. The system operated only 10 hr/day, producing 21,243,000 gal of water per
-------
year with both wells operating. At this reduced usage rate, the unit annualized capital cost increased to
$0.59/1,000 gal.
The O&M cost for the APU-RWS system was estimated at $3.59/1,000 gal, which included media
replacement and disposal, electricity consumption, and labor. Chlorination was not included in the O&M
cost calculation because it was part of the existing treatment system.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES viii
TABLES ix
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 6
3.1 General Project Approach 6
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 7
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 8
3.3.1 Source Water 8
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 8
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater 8
3.3.4 Residual Solids 8
3.3.5 Distribution System Water 10
3.4 Sampling Logistics 11
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 11
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 11
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13
4.1 Existing Facility Description 13
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 13
4.1.2 Predemonstration Treated Water Quality 15
4.1.3 Distribution System 15
4.2 Treatment Process Description 15
4.3 System Installation 26
4.3.1 Permitting 26
4.3.2 Building Construction 26
4.3.3 APU-100 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 26
4.3.4 APU-RWS Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 27
4.4 System Operation 27
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 28
4.4.2 Differential Pressure 31
4.4.3 CO2 Injection 35
4.4.4 Backwash 38
4.4.5 Media Loading and Removal 39
4.4.6 Residual Management 39
4.4.7 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 40
vn
-------
4.5 System Performance 41
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 41
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling 52
4.5.4 Spent Media Sampling 56
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 57
4.6 System Conversion to Coagulation/Filtration 57
4.7 System Costs 59
4.7.1 Capital Cost 59
4.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 60
5.0 REFERENCES 63
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA A-l
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA B-l
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Porter Well House - Prior to Building Construction and Treatment
System Installation 13
Figure 4-2. Schematic Diagrams for APU-100 (top) and APU-RWS Systems (bottom) 18
Figure 4-3. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations and Schedules 19
Figure 4-4. Diagram of CO2 pH Adjustment System (top) and pH/PID Control Panel(bottom) 20
Figure 4-5. Carbon Dioxide Gas Flow Control System for pH Adjustment 21
Figure 4-6. APU-100 Treatment System Front and Side View (top) with a Close-up View of
Fleck Controller Valve (bottom) 24
Figure 4-7. APU-RWS Treatment System (top left) with Valve Tree (bottom) and Backside of
System Piping including Backwash Sight Glass (top right) 25
Figure 4-8. Porter Well House Area after Building Construction and Treatment System
Installation 26
Figure 4-9. Flowrate Measurement Data for Phase 1, APU 100, Runs 1 and 2 30
Figure 4-10. Flowrate Measurements for Phase 2, APU-RWS System 31
Figure 4-11. System Flowrate and Differential Pressure (Ap) across Vessel A of APU-100
System 32
Figure 4-12. System Flowrate and Differential Pressure (Ap) across Vessel B of APU-100
System 33
Figure 4-13. Differential Pressure (Ap) across Vessels A (top) and B (bottom) of APU-RWS
System 36
Figure 4-14. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AP, and TT Sampling Locations 46
Figure 4-15. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves 47
Figure 4-16. Total Manganese Concentrations Measured during Phases 1 and 2 Studies 48
Figure 4-17. Concentrations of Manganese Species at IN, AP, and TT Sampling Locations 49
Figure 4-18. pH Values Measured during Phases 1 and 2 Studies 50
Figure 4-19. Total Phosphorus (as P) Breakthrough Curve 53
Figure 4-20. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost 62
Vlll
-------
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Technologies and Source
Water Quality 2
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 6
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses 9
Table 4-1. Rollinsford, NH Water Quality Data 14
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33™ Media 16
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of APU-100 and RWS Systems 17
Table 4-4. Properties of Celgard, Microporous Hollow Fiber Membrane 22
Table 4-5. Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 27
Table 4-6. Key Operational Parameters 29
Table 4-7. Summary of pH Readings after pH Adjustment 37
Table 4-8. APU-100 System Media Loading, Removal, and Freeboard Measurements 39
Table 4-9. Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese after Relocation of
Chlorination Point Upstream of Adsorption Vessels for Phase 1 and Phase 2
Studies 43
Table 4-10. Analytical Results of Other Water Quality Parameter after Relocation of
Chlorination Point Upstream of Adsorption Vessels for Phase 1 and Phase 2
Studies 44
Table 4-11. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results 54
Table 4-12. Backwash Solid Total Metal Results under Phase 1 Run 1 55
Table 4-13. TCLP Results for Spent Media under Phase 1 Run 1 56
Table 4-14. Total Metals Analysis Results for Virgin and Spent Media* 56
Table 4-15. Distribution System Sampling Results 58
Table 4-16. Treatment Train Sampling Results after Conversion to Coagulation/Filtration 59
Table 4-17. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results after Conversion to Coagulation/Filtration 59
Table 4-18. Capital Investment Cost for APU-RWS System 60
Table 4-19. O&M Cost for APU-RWS System 61
IX
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap
AAL
Al
AM
APU
As
ASTI
BET
BV
differential pressure
American Analytical Laboratories
aluminum
adsorptive media process
arsenic package unit
arsenic
Applied Technology System, Inc.
Brunauer, Emmett and Teller
bed volume
Ca calcium
Cl chloride
C/F coagulation/filtration
CO2 carbon dioxide
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fe iron
FeCl3 ferric chloride
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HC1 hydrochloric acid
HOPE high-density polyethylene
H2SO4 sulfuric acid
HTA Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc.
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
ISFET ion sensitive field effect transistor
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MDWCA Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
-------
mV
millivolts
NA not applicable
Na sodium
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NS not sampled
NSF NSF International
O&M operation and maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
Pb lead
PID Proportional Integral Derivative
PM process modification
psi pounds per square inch
PO4 orthophosphate
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RCRA Resource conservation and Recovery Act
RPD relative percent difference
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SM system modification
SO42" sulfate
STMGID South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
STS Severn Trend Services
TBD to be determined
TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
WRWC White Rock Water Company
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of the Rollinsford Water and Sewer
District in New Hampshire. Mr. Jack Hladick and his staff monitored the treatment system daily and
collected samples from the treatment system and distribution system on a regular schedule throughout this
reporting period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without their efforts.
xn
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the United States 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 requires all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies. The
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District (the District) in New Hampshire was selected as one of the 17
Round 1 host sites for the demonstration program.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration program. 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. AdEdge Technologies' (AdEdge)
adsorptive media process was selected for the Rollinsford facility. Designated as AD-33™ by AdEdge,
the process uses the Bayoxide E33 media developed by Bayer AG.
The Rollinsford, NH study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 of the study utilized an Arsenic
Package Unit (APU)-IOO system designed for a maximum flowrate of 100 gal/min (gpm). Because
higher flowrates up to 112 gpm (100 gpm average) were experienced in Phase 1, a 120-gpm APU-RWS
system was designed and installed in Phase 2 to replace the APU-100. Following a series of
predemonstration activities, including engineering design, permitting, and system installation, startup and
shakedown, the Phase 1 performance evaluation began on February 9, 2004, and was completed on
January 16, 2005. After state approval and installation of the APU-RWS system, the Phase 2
performance evaluation was conducted from June 13, 2005, to May 8, 2006. After the demonstration
project, the District converted the adsorptive media system to a coagulation/filtration (C/F) system.
-------
1.2
Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the 12 Round 1 EPA arsenic removal demonstration host sites include nine
adsorptive media systems, one ion exchange system, one coagulation/filtration system, and one process
modification with iron addition. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, and key
source water quality parameters (including arsenic, iron, and pH) of the 12 demonstration sites. An
overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 demonstration sites and the associated
capital cost was provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on
the EPA Website (http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html). As of November
2008, all 12 systems have been operational and 11 performance evaluations have been completed.
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Technologies and Source Water Quality
Demonstration Site
WRWC (Bow), NH
Rollinsford, NH
Queen Anne's County, MD
Brown City, MI
Climax, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
Desert Sands MDWCA, NM
Nambe Pueblo Tribe, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Fruitland, ID
STMGID, NV
Technology
(Media)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
C/F
PM
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
IX
AM (GFH)
Vendor
ADI
AdEdge
STS
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
USFilter
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
70(a)
100
300
640
140
250
320
145
90(d)
37
250
350
Source Water Quality
As
(Hg/L)
39
36(b)
19(b)
14(b)
39(b)
146(b)
23(b)
33
50
41
44
39
Fe
(Hg/L)
<25
46
270(c)
127(o)
546(c)
l,325(c)
39
<25
170
<25
<25
<25
PH
7.7
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.7
8.5
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.4
AM = adsorptive media; C/F = coagulation/filtration; IX = ion exchange; MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water
Consumer's Association; PM = process modification; STMGID = South Truckee Meadows General Improvement
District; STS = Severn Trent Services; WRWC = White Rock Water Company
(a) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to a lower flowrate of 40 gpm at WRWC site
(b) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(c) Iron existing mostly as soluble Fe(II).
(d) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to a reduced flowrate of 30 gpm.
1.3
Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 arsenic demonstration program was to conduct full-scale arsenic removal
technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies at 12
demonstration host sites. The specific objectives of the demonstration study in Rollinsford, NH were to:
• Evaluate the performance of AD-33™ arsenic removal technology for use on
small systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator
skill levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technology.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technology.
-------
This report summarizes the performance of AdEdge's APU-100 and APU-RWS systems at Rollinsford
Water and Sewer District in New Hampshire from February 9, 2004, through January 16, 2005, and from
June 13, 2005, through May 8, 2006, respectively. The types of data collected included system operation,
water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals characterization,
and capital and O&M cost.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during two years of system operation, the following observations were
summarized and conclusions drawn relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology
demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• The AD-33™ media was not effective at removing As(III). Breakthrough of arsenic at 7.7
Hg/L occurred after only 2,700 bed volumes (BV) of throughput.
• Chlorine was effective at oxidizing As(III) to As(V), reducing As(III) concentrations from
17.6 |og/L (on average) in raw water to 1.1 ng/L (on average) after chlorination.
• Prechlorination significantly improved arsenic removal by the media. However,
breakthrough of total arsenic at 10 |o,g/L occurred between 12,500 and 17,000 BV,
representing only 17 to 23% of the vendor-projected media run length.
• The short run length observed was caused, in part, by the manganese (Mn) removed by the
media. Manganese removal increased significantly with the presence of chlorine. For
example, without chlorine, manganese reached about 100% "breakthrough" from the media
beds after treating only about 3,700 BV of water. Following implementation of
prechlorination, manganese, existing mostly in the soluble form, was removed almost
entirely, presumably via precipitation on the media surface. Removal of manganese was
supported by the chemical analysis of the spent media, which showed significantly higher
manganese concentrations in the spent media than in the virgin media.
• Over 46 to 59% media loss was observed during the two media runs using the APU-100
system. The media loss was likely caused by frequent aggressive backwashing, which was
used to address elevated differential pressure (Ap) and inlet pressure problems.
Required system O&Mand operator skill levels:
• The operator typically spent only 20 min per day operating and maintaining the system. On
days when the system was backwashed, the operator could spend as much as two hours
completing the process.
• During Phase 1, the operator spent much more time troubleshooting operational issues, such
as elevated Ap and inlet pressure, than would normally be expected. The operator also
conducted frequent backwashes and worked with the vendor to troubleshoot, modify, and
replace several system components.
• Changing the system design from controller valves to a valve tree prior to Phase 2 successfully
addressed the Ap and elevated inlet pressure problems and eliminated the need for frequent
backwashes.
• Due to mechanical problems associated with the carbon dioxide (CO2) pH control system, the
system failed to consistently reduce the pH to the target value of 7.0. Attempts were made to
upgrade the manual pH control system for automatic operation to provide for belter control in
Phase 2; however, the system automation was never completed because the CO2 injection
membrane was subject to fouling.
Characteristics of residuals produced by the technology:
• During Phase 1, each backwash event produced 1,890 gal, on average, of wastewater. In
Phase 2, each backwash event produced 4,200 gal, on average, of wastewater.
• Backwash wastewater contained less soluble arsenic than raw water, indicating removal of
arsenic by the media during backwashing. High total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations
(i.e., 308 to 788 mg/L) indicated removal of media fines during backwashing, which is
-------
supported by the similar chemical composition of the backwash solids and spent media and
by the observations of significant media loss in the vessels during operation.
• Approximately 1.88 mg of arsenic was loaded per gram of dry media, equivalent to about
0.19% arsenic loading. The spent media was non-hazardous and could be disposed of at a
lined, permitted sanitary landfill per requirements by the State of New Hampshire.
Capital and O&M cost of the technology:
• The unit annualized capital cost is $0.20/1,000 gal if the system operates at a 100% utilization
rate. The system's actual unit annualized capital cost is $0.59/1,000 gal, based on 10 hr/day
of system operation and 21,243,000 gal of water production. The unit O&M cost is
$3.59/1,000 gal, based on media replacement and disposal, electricity consumption, and
labor.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study
of AdEdge's APU-100 system began on February 9, 2004. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data
collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The study was intended initially to
take place over a one-year period; however, because of several performance- and operational issues, the
technology evaluation was extended for one additional year to evaluate a redesigned system, APU-RWS,
which replaced the APU-100 system. Both systems are fixed-bed, down-flow adsorption systems using
the AD-33™ media for the adsorption of dissolved arsenic. The APU-RWS system was designed to
provide a higher treatment capacity and alleviate some of the operational problems experienced by the
APU-100 system.
The overall performance of the systems was evaluated based on their ability to consistently remove
arsenic to below the MCL of 10 |o,g/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment trains.
The reliability of the systems was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency
and extent of repair and replacement. The unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded
by the plant operator on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Vendor Quotation Received
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Letter Report Issued
Building Construction Began
Draft Study Plan Issued
Engineering Package Submitted to NHDES
Building Construction Completed
APU-100 Shipped by AdEdge
APU-100 Delivered to Site and System Installation Began
Permit for APU-100 Treatment System Issued by NHDES
Final Study Plan Issued
APU-100 System Installation Completed
APU-100 System Shakedown Completed
APU-100 Performance Evaluation Began
Date
August 5, 2003
August 7, 2003
August 13, 2003
September 9, 2003
September 10, 2003
October 6, 2003
October 17, 2003
November 3, 2003
November 26, 2003
December 19, 2003
December 22, 2003
December 23, 2003
January 8, 2004
January 12, 2004
January 2 1,2004
January 23, 2004
January 30, 2004
February 9, 2004
NHDES = New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
The O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through quantitative data and qualitative
considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation, extent of
the preventive 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.
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic in effluent
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems,
materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of system automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency,
and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed of 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 and/or media usage, electricity, and labor
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the amount of backwash
wastewater produced during each backwash cycle and the need to replace the media upon arsenic
breakthrough. Backwash wastewater and spent media were sampled and analyzed for chemical
characteristics.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (gpm) (or gal/day [gpd]) of
design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking of the
capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement
and disposal, chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection following the
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a Daily System
Operation Log Sheet; checked sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) drum levels; checked CO2 consumption
levels used for pH adjustment; and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operation. If
any problem occurred, the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor
and its subcontractors should be contacted for troubleshooting. Once a week, the plant operator measured
water quality parameters, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO)/oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, using field meters and recorded the data on a Weekly Water
Quality Parameters Log Sheet. Backwash events also were recorded on a Backwash Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of cost for media replacement and spent media disposal,
chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor. Consumption of NaOCl, CO2, and electricity was
tracked using the Daily System Operation Log Sheet. Labor for various activities, such as the routine
system O&M, troubleshooting and repair, and demonstration-related work, was tracked using an Operator
Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine O&M included activities such as completing the daily field logs,
replenishing the NaOCl solution, replacing CO2 tanks, performing system inspection, and other
miscellaneous routine requirements as recommended by the vendor. The demonstration-related labor,
-------
including activities such as performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and
communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and vendor representatives, was recorded but not used for
the cost analysis.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the system performance, samples were collected routinely from the wellhead, treatment plant,
and distribution system. Table 3-3 provides 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, 2003). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of
the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial visit to the site on August 5, 2003, one set of source water
samples was collected for detailed water quality analyses. The source water also was speciated for
particulate and soluble As, iron (Fe), Mn, aluminum (Al), and As(III) and As(V) using an arsenic
speciation kit described in Section 3.4.1. The sample tap was flushed for several minutes before
sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted oxidation.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. Two media runs (i.e., Runs 1 and 2) were performed in Phase 1.
Water samples were collected by the plant operator weekly, on a four-week cycle, for on- and off-site
analyses. For the first week of each four-week cycle, water samples were collected at the wellhead (IN),
after pH adjustment but before splitting to the two adsorption vessels (AP), and from the combined
effluent of Vessels A and B (TT) and analyzed for the monthly treatment plant analyte list shown in
Table 3-3. For the second, third, and fourth week of each cycle, water samples were collected at four
locations across the treatment train, including IN, AP, after Vessel A (TA), and after Vessel B (TB) and
analyzed for the weekly treatment plant analyte list shown in Table 3-3. After the APU-100 system was
replaced with the redesigned, larger capacity APU-RWS system, the weekly sampling frequency was
reduced to biweekly during the second year of system operation. After the system was converted into a
coagulation/filtration (C/F) treatment system, several biweekly samples were collected for total As, Fe,
and Mn to evaluate the effectiveness of the new treatment system at meeting the target MCL.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater. From April 26, 2004, through January 31, 2006, backwash
wastewater was sampled and analyzed during nine backwash events. During the first eight events, grab
samples were collected from the sample tap on the backwash wastewater discharge line from each vessel
and filtered onsite with 0.45-(im disc filters. During the last event, composite samples were collected
following a modified procedure to allow for more representative characterization of the wastewater.
Tubing directed a portion of backwash water from the sample tap at approximately 1 gpm into a clean
plastic container over the duration of the backwash for each vessel. After the content in the container was
thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected and/or filtered onsite with 0.45-(im disc filters.
Analytes for the backwash samples are listed in Table 3-3. Unfiltered samples were analyzed for pH,
turbidity, and TSS. Filtered samples were analyzed for soluble As, Fe, and Mn, and total dissolved solids
(TDS). Arsenic speciation was not performed for the backwash wastewater samples.
3.3.4 Residual Solids. Residual solids included backwash solids and spent media. Backwash
solid samples were collected twice on September 8 and 30, 2004. Backwash solids were taken from 1-gal
plastic jars containing mixtures of backwash wastewater and solids. After solids in the jars were settled
and the supernatant was carefully decanted, residual solids samples were air-dried, acid-digested, and
analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3.
-------
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant
Water
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Wastewater
Sample
Locations(a)
Wellhead (IN)
Wellhead (IN), after
pH adjustment (AP),
after Vessel A (TA),
and after Vessel B
(TO)
Wellhead (IN), after
pH adjustment (AP),
and combined
effluent (TT)
One home (a non-
LCR sampling
location) and two
non-residences
within area served
by Wells No. 3 and
No. 4
From backwash
discharge line
No. of
Samples
1
4
o
J
o
J
2
Frequency
Once (during
initial site
visit)
Weekly
(second,
third, and
fourth weeks
of every four-
week cycle)
Monthly
(first week of
every four-
week cycle)
Monthly
Monthly
Analytes
Off-Site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Al (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Mo (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, SO4,
SiO2, PO4, TOC,
alkalinity, turbidity, and
pH
On-Site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and chlorine
(free and total at AP, TA,
and TB only)
Off-Site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), SiO2,
P, alkalinity, and turbidity
On-Site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and chlorine
(free and total at AP and
TT only)
Off-Site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, PO4(f), P, alkalinity,
and turbidity
As, pH, alkalinity, Cu, Pb,
Fe, and Mn
As (soluble), Fe (soluble),
Mn (soluble), TDS, TSS,
turbidity, and pH
Date(s) Samples
Collected
08/05/03
Phase 1 Run l(b):
See Appendix B
Phase 1 Run 2(b):
See Appendix B
r\i ^(c)
Phase 2{ ':
See Appendix B
Other(d)(e):
See Appendix B
Phase 1 Run l(b):
See Appendix B
Phase 1 Run 2(b):
See Appendix B
Phase 2(c):
See Appendix B
Other(d)(e):
See Appendix B
Baseline sampling(g):
See Table 4-15
Phase l(b):
See Table 4-15
Phase 2(c):
See Table 4-15
Phase l(b):
See Table 4- 11
Phase 2(c):
See Table 4- 11
Other(d): 05/08/06(h)
-------
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses (Continued)
Sample
Type
Backwash
Solids
Spent
Media
Sample
Locations(a)
From backwash
discharge line
From spent media in
vessel
No. of
Samples
4
2
Frequency
Twice
Once during
media
changeout
Analytes
Total Al, As, Ca, Cd, Cu,
Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb, Si,
andZn
TCLP metals
Total Al, As, Ca, Cd, Cu,
Fe, Mn, Mg, Ni, P, Pb, Si,
andZn
Date(s) Samples
Collected
09/08/04, 09/30/04
Phase l(b): 10/27/04
(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-2.
(b) APU-100 system operating.
(c) APU-RWS system operating.
(d) System converted into a C/F system.
(e) Samples analyzed for total metals only.
(f) PO4 replaced with P (total) analysis beginning January 10, 2006.
(g) Three baseline sampling events performed before system became operational.
(h) Modified sampling procedure to also include total metals on January 31, 2006.
LCR = Lead and Copper Rule; TCLP = toxicity characteristic leacing procedure
During the first media changeout on October 27, 2004, three spent media samples were collected from
each adsorption vessel that contained approximately 12 to 15 ft3 of AD-33™ media with a bed depth of
20.5 to 25 in. Spent media was removed from the top (0 to 4 in depth), middle (10 to 14 in depth), and
bottom (19 to 25 in depth) of the bed in each vessel using a 5-gal wet/dry shop vacuum, which was
thoroughly cleaned and disinfected. Using a garden spade, the media from each layer was well-mixed in
a clean 5-gal pail prior to being filled in an unpreserved 1-gal wide-mouth high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) bottle. One aliquot of each sample was sent to TCCI Laboratories in New Lexington, OH, for
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests and another aliquot was air dried for metal
analyses at Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) laboratory.
3.3.5 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, arsenic, lead (Pb) and copper (Cu) levels. In December 2003 and January 2004, prior to the
startup of the treatment system, three baseline sampling events were conducted at three locations per
sampling event within the distribution system. Following startup of the APU-100 and APU-RWS
systems, distribution system sampling continued at the same three locations for eigh sampling events
from March through December 2004 and for four sampling events from July 2005 through January 2006,
respectively.
Baseline and monthly distribution system samples were collected by the plant operator and by one home-
owner. Samples were collected at one home, not included as a Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling
residence, as well as two non-residences. The locations were selected to maximize the likelihood that the
water supplied to these locations was produced by Wells No. 3 and No. 4, which were treated by the
arsenic removal system. With a looped system being served by additional wells besides Wells No. 3 and
No. 4, it was possible that water collected from the distribution system was from a source other than
Wells No. 3 and No. 4 (see Section 4.1). Analytes for the baseline samples coincided with the monthly
distribution water samples as described in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not performed on the
distribution water samples. The samples were collected following an instruction sheet developed
according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA,
2002). Sampling at the two non-residence locations was performed with the first sample taken at the first
10
-------
draw and the second sample taken after flushing the sample tap for several minutes. The first draw
sample was collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least six hours to ensure that
stagnant water was sampled. The sampler recorded the date and time of last water use before sampling
and the date and time of sample collection for calculation of the stagnation time.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kits preparation, sample cooler preparation, and
sample shipping and handling are discussed below:
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2003).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a 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,
colored-coded, waterproof label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample
collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The
sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code
for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code for designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. For
example, red, orange, yellow, and green were used to designate sampling locations for IN, TA, TB, and
TT, respectively. The labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in a ziplock bag (each
corresponding to a specific sample location) and packed in the cooler. On a monthly basis, the sample
cooler also included bottles for the distribution system sampling.
All sampling and shipping-related supplies, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions, chain-of-
custody forms, prepaid/pre-addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were placed in each cooler. The
chain-of-custody forms and air bills were completed except for the operator's signature and the sample
date and time. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following week's
sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian checked sample IDs against the chain-of-custody forms and verified that all samples indicated
on the forms were included and intact. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with
the plant operator by the Battelle Study Lead. The shipment and receipt of all coolers by Battelle were
recorded on a cooler tracking log.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's ICP-MS laboratory. Samples for other water quality
analyses by Battelle's subcontract laboratories, including American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in
Columbus, OH, and TCCI Laboratories, were packed in coolers and picked up by couriers. The chain-of-
custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final
disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the
required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
11
-------
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy,
method detection limit (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP, i.e., 20% relative
percent difference (RPD), 80 to 120% percent recovery, and 80% completeness. The quality assurance
(QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be
prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
WTW Multi 340i handheld meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the
procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring
the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a
water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the WTW probe in the beaker until a stable value was
obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine
test kits following the user's manual.
12
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Existing Facility Description
The Rollinsford water system supplied water to approximately 450 connections. The water source was
from three bedrock wells, two of which, Wells No. 3 and No. 4, were controlled through the Porter well
house shown in Figure 4-1. The Porter well house was located in a wooded area approximately % of a
mile south of the town of Rollinsford. Water from these two wells were combined and chlorinated before
being sent to the distribution system. The third supply well, the General Sullivan well, was located
approximately 1.5 miles north of the Porter well house. Because the General Sullivan well was
completely separated from the Porter well house, this well was not treated by either APU treatment
system.
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Porter Well House - Prior to Building
Construction and Treatment System Installation
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected at a sampling tap inside the
Porter well house with water coming from both Wells No. 3 and No. 4 on August 5, 2003, and subse-
quently analyzed for the analytes presented in Table 3-3. The results of the source water analyses, along
with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those independently
collected and analyzed by EPA, are presented in Table 4-1.
Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 33.8 to 55.9 |o,g/L. Based on the August 5,
2003, sampling results, total arsenic concentration in source water was 36.2 |o,g/L, of which 33.9 |o,g/L was
present in the soluble form and 2.3 |o,g/L in the particulate form. Of the soluble fraction, 20.1 |o,g/L (or
59%) existed as As(III) and 13.9 |^g/L (or 41%) as As(V).
pH values of raw water ranged between 7.4 and 8.4. At pH values greater than 8.0, AdEdge
recommended that the water pH be adjusted to increase media adsorptive capacity and prolong media run
length. Therefore, the treatment process included a pH adjustment step prior to the arsenic adsorption
system using a CO2 injection module. The target pH value after adjustment was 7.0.
13
-------
Table 4-1. Rollinsford, NH Water Quality Data
Parameter
Unit
Sampling Date
pH
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as P)
TOC
As(total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Mo (total)
Mo (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
—
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HS/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Utility
Raw
Water
Data(a)
NA
8.4
176
50.0
NS
42.0
NS
38.0
13.7
0.07(e)
NS
34.0-55.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
206
NS
NS
NS
88.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
93.0
10.0(e)
5.0(e)
EPA
Raw
Water
Data(b)
09/16/02
NS
179
46.6
NS
42.3
NS
40.5
14.3
NS
NS
39.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
189
NS
<25
NS
100.5
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<25
NS
109
9.9
5.3
EPA
Raw
Water
Data(c)
09/16/02
NA
189
40.9
NS
47.7
NS
29.0
13.1
NS
NS
45.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
114
NS
<25
NS
56.7
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<25
NS
98.8
10.1
3.8
Battelle
Raw
Water
Data(a)
08/05/03
7.4
171
50.9
NS
48.0
0.8
36.0
13.6
O.10
<1.0
36.2
33.9
2.3
20.1
13.9
46.3
<30
<10
<10
70.8
68.6
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
101.8
11.6
5.3
NHDES
Raw
Water
Data(a)
2000-2003
8.4(1)
176(1)
49.7(1)
NS
42.0(1)
0.57(1)
38.0
NS
NS
NS
33.8-55.9
NS
NS
NS
NS
206(f)
NS
NS
NS
88.2(f)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<2(f)
NS
93.2(1)
NS
NS
NHDES
Treated
Water
Data(d)
2000-2003
8.6(g)
110(g)
24.2-26.1
NS
8.7(g)
0.37-0.38
21.0
NS
NS
NS
19.6-24.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
<50fe)
NS
NS
NS
20.0-20.8
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<2(g)
NS
50.8-52.0
NS
NS
(a) Collected from combined flow from Wells No. 3 and No. 4.
(b) Well No. 3.
(c) Well No. 4.
(d) Treated water data collected at residences.
(e) Data provided by EPA.
(f) Only one data point available for this time period for this parameter (Sample date- 11/19/01).
(g) Only one data point available for this time period for this parameter (Sample date - 04/12/00).
NS = not sampled
Iron levels in source water ranged from 46.3 to 206 |o,g/L; manganese levels ranged from 56.7 to
100.5 (ig/L. At these levels, pretreatment for iron and manganese removal prior to adsorption was not
considered necessary. Competing anions, such as Orthophosphate and silica, were at levels sufficiently
low (i.e., <0.1 mg/L and <14.3 mg/L, respectively) to not have any effect on arsenic adsorption. Other
analytes also were at levels not expected to impact arsenic adsorption.
14
-------
4.1.2 Predemonstration Treated Water Quality. During 2000 to 2003, the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) collected and analyzed chlorinated water samples from
the combined flow of Wells No. 3 and No. 4 for the constituents shown in Table 4-1. The concentrations
were somewhat lower than those of the raw water samples analyzed by the utility, EPA, and Battelle, with
the exception of pH, which was slightly higher at 8.6 (versus 8.4 in raw water). Arsenic concentrations
remained high at 19.6 to 24 (ig/L.
4.1.3 Distribution System. The town of Rollinsford received its water via a looped water
distribution system, with water supplied from the three wells described in Section 4.1. Wells No. 3 and
No. 4 were combined and sent to the distribution system from the Porter well house shown in Figure 4-1.
Excess water generated by the supply wells was sent under pressure to an elevated storage tank. The
water distribution mains were constructed of asbestos cement, cast iron, or ductile iron. The connections
to the water system and piping within the residences themselves were primarily copper or polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) pipe. The Rollinsford Water and Sewer District sampled water from the distribution
system for various parameters. Each month, two locations within the distribution system were sampled
for bacterial analyses including E. coll and total coliform. The Porter well water was sampled quarterly at
the wellhead for total arsenic. Under the LCR, samples were collected from customer taps at 25
residences every three years.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
Two AdEdge APUs were installed at the Rollinsford demonstration site. Both systems used Bay oxide
E33 media (labeled as AD-33™ by AdEdge), an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG,
for arsenic removal from drinking water supplies. The first treatment system, APU-100, was designed for
a flow of 100 gpm. The redesigned system, APU-RWS, was intended for a maximum flow of 120 gpm.
Both APUs were fixed-bed, down-flow adsorption systems. When the media reached its capacity, the
spent media was removed and disposed of after being tested for EPA's TCLP. Table 4-2 presents the
physical and chemical properties of the media. AD-33™ media was delivered in a dry crystalline form
and listed by NSF International (NSF) under Standard 61 for use in drinking water applications. E33
media is available in both granular and pelletized forms, with the pelletized media being about 25%
denser than its granular counterpart (i.e., 35 lb/ft3 vs. 28 lb/ft3). The media installed in the replacement
system (i.e., APU-RWS) was the granular media, similar to that used for the original system (i.e., APU-
100).
Table 4-3 presents the key system design parameters for the two systems. Figure 4-2 shows a simplified
process flow diagram of the APU-100 and APU-RWS systems. Figure 4-3 is a generalized process flow
diagram along with the sampling/analysis schedule. Both systems consisted of two pressure vessels
operating in parallel. Key design changes for the replacement system included the use of larger diameter
adsorption vessels (i.e., 48 vs. 36 in) with top/bottom openings and a valve tree design (vs. riser tubes and
Fleck controller valves). The APU-RWS system also included larger diameter (3-in) piping and
connections. Due to high pH values of the raw water (above 8), a CO2 pH control system with manual
controls was included as part of the original system. After the installation of the APU-RWS system,
attempts were made to upgrade the manual pH control system for automatic operations. However, system
automation was never completed, as discussed in Section 4.4.3, and not used during the operation of the
APU-RWS operation. Key process components for each system include:
15
-------
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33™ Media(i
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
BET Area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle Size Distribution
Crystal Size (A)
Crystal Phase
Value
Iron oxide composite
Dry granular media
Amber
28.1
142
0.3
<15% (by weight)
10 x 35 mesh
70
a -FeOOH
Chemical Analysis
Constituents
FeOOH
CaO
MgO
MnO
S03
Na2O
TiO2
SiO2
A12O3
P2O5
Cl
Weight %
90.1
0.27
1.00
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.01
(a) Provided by Bayer AG.
BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
• Intake. Raw water was pumped from Wells No. 3 and No. 4 and combined at the Porter
well house before feeding the APU treatment system.
• pH Adjustment Prior to Adsorption. The pH of the feed water was adjusted to a target pH
value of approximately 7.0 (±0.2 pH units) using CO2. CO2 was selected for pH adjustment
because 1) it is less corrosive than mineral acids, such as sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and
hydrochloric acid (HC1), and 2) when the treated water is depressurized, some CO2 will
degas, thereby raising the pH of the treated water and reducing its corrosivity.
A manual CO2 gas flow control system manufactured by Applied Technology Systems, Inc.
(ATSI, Souderton, PA), was used for pH adjustment. Designed to introduce gaseous CO2
into the water in a side-stream configuration, or a CO2 loop (see a process diagram in Figure
4-4 and a composite of photographs in Figure 4-5), the system consisted of a liquid CO2
supply assembly, a manual pH control panel, a CO2 membrane assembly, and a pH probe:
> The liquid CO2 supply assembly consisted of two 50-lb cylinders and a feed vaporizer,
which allowed liquid CO2 to vaporize into gaseous CO2 prior to entering the pH control
panel.
16
-------
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of APU-100 and RWS Systems
Parameter
APU-100
APU-RWS
Adsorption Vessels
Vessel Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/vessel)
No. of Vessels
Configuration
36 D x 72 H
7.1
2
Parallel
48 D x 72 H
12.6
2
Parallel
Adsorption Media Bed
Media Weight (Ibs)
Media Volume (ft3)
Media Bed Depth (ft)
l,517(a)/l,236(b)
54(a)/44(b)
3.8(a)/3.1(b)
1,680
60
2.4
Service
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading (gprn/ft2)
EBCT (min/vessel)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)(c)
Throughput to Breakthrough (gal)(c)
Average Use Rate (gal/day)
Estimated Media Life (months)
Pre-treatment pH adjustment
Pre-treatment Prechlorination
Pressure Differential Set Point (psi)
100
7.0
4.0(a)/3.3(b)
74,000(a)
29,890,000(a)
60,000(a)
16.8(a)
C02
NaCIO
10
120
4.8
3.7
44,000
19,747,000
60,000
11
CO2 (never used)
NaCIO
10
Backwash
Backwash Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Frequency (per month)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Duration (min/vessel)
Wastewater Production (gal/vessel)
6.0
1 (or as needed)
42
20-25
840-1,050
9.9
As needed
125
20
1,500-2,700
(a) Phase 1 Run 1.
(b) Phase 1 Run 2.
(c) Bed volumes/throughput to 10-|ag/L total arsenic breakthrough.
The pH control panel housed a pH controller that provided gas flow control via a
solenoid valve (to interlock with the well pump to allow gas flow only when the well
pump was on) and a rotameter (for flowrate adjustment).
After exiting the control panel, CO2 was introduced into the water through a Celgard
microporous hollow fiber membrane module contained within a stainless steel sanitary
cross (see properties and specifications in Table 4-4). The sanitary cross was located in a
side stream from the main water line to allow only a portion of water to flow through the
membrane module to minimize the pressure drop. CO2 gas entered into the top of the
membrane module with water passing through the membrane module in a direction
perpendicular to the gas flow. The membrane dispersed CO2 gas into water, forming fine
bubbles for rapid mixing to achieve a quick pH change.
Located downstream from the sanitary cross was a Cole Palmer Model A-27011-01 glass
pH probe, which read pH levels of the treated water. The pH controller monitored
signals from the pH probe and set off alarms if the readings were ±0.5 pH units outside of
the target set point. When the alarm was triggered, the solenoid valve in the panel shut
off the flow of CO2 gas.
17
-------
Process Flow Diagram
AdEdge Arsenic Reduction System w/ pH Control
APU-100 System
Rollinsford, New Hampshire
(Prechlorinated)
Figure 4-2. Schematic Diagrams for APU-100 (top) and APU-RWS Systems (bottom)
18
-------
Monthly
pH®, temperature®,
DO/ORP®, As (total and
soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble), •
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, turbidity, alkalinity
pH®, temperature®,
DO/ORP®, C12 (free and total),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
F, N03, S04, Si02, P04,
turbidity, alkalinity
INFLUENT
(PORTER WELL HOUSE)
Rollinsford, NH
AD-3 3® Technology
Design Flow: lOOgpm
Weekly
pH®, temperature®,
DO/ORP®, As, Fe, Mn,
SiO2, PO4, turbidity, alkalinity
pH ADJUSTMENT -
C02 INJECTION
DA: C12
pH®, temperature®,
DO/ORP®, C12 (free and total),
As, Fe, Mn, SiO2, PO4, turbidity,
alkalinity
pH, IDS, turbidity,
As (soluble),
Fe (soluble),
Mn (soluble)
pH®, temperature®,
DO/ORP®, C12 (free and total),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
Footnote
(a) On-site analyses
LEGEND
Influent
After pH Adjustment
and Chlorination
LEACH FIELD
Vessel A Effluent
Vessel B Effluent
Total Combined Effluent
BWl Backwash Sampling Location
SS 1 Sludge Sampling Location
DA: CU Chlorine Disinfection
MEDIA
VESSEL
A
MEDIA
VESSEL
B
INFLUENT Unit Process
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
pH®, temperature®, DO/ORP®,
C12 (free and total), As, Fe, Mn,
SiO2, PO4, turbidity, alkalinity
Figure 4-3. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations and Schedules
19
-------
Source: AdEdge Technologies, Inc.
HS»
Groyndwater,
Inlet
Throttling
Valve
Pymp
i To Adedge
i API) System •
............................................ '
pH Probe
Poser iniel
110 »C
1/4* SB Compression
Figure 4-4. Diagram of CO2 pH Adjustment System (top) and
pH/PID Control Panel (bottom)
20
-------
Figure 4-5. Carbon Dioxide Gas Flow Control System for pH Adjustment
(From Left to Right: Liquid CO2 Supply Assembly; pH Control Panel;
Sanitary Cross Containing CO2 Membrane Module;
Vault with CO2 Injection Loop; Port for pH Probe)
21
-------
Table 4-4. Properties of Celgard, Microporous
Hollow Fiber Membrane
Parameter
Porosity (%)
Pore Dimensions (urn)
Effective Pore Size (urn)
Minimum Burst Strength (psi)
Tensile Break Strength (g/filament)
Average Resistance to Air Flow (Gurley sec)
Axial Direction Shrinkage (%)
Fiber Internal Diameter, nominal (um)
Fiber Wall Thickness, nominal (um)
Fiber Outer Diameter, nominal (um)
Module Dimensions (in)
Value
40
0.04x0.10
0.04
400
>300
50
<5
220
40
300
4.0 x9.0
Data Source: Celgard®
> The CO2 pH control system supplied CO2 at approximately 1 to 8 ft3/hr, using about 1 to
9 Ib/day (based on a gas density of 0.117 lb/ft3 and an average operating time of 10
hr/day). The CO2 gas supplied from two 50-lb cylinders provided CO2 for about 4 to 30
days (average 19 days) before requiring change-out.
Prior to Phase 2 work, attempts were made to upgrade the CO2 control system for automatic,
feedback-based pH control in conjunction with the use of a more durable Sentron Ion
Sensitive Field Effect Transistor (ISFET) type silicon chip sanitary pH probe as opposed to
the original glass probe. Specific modifications to the CO2 control system included
retrofitting the pH control panel with a JUMO pFI/Proportional Integral Derivative (PID)
controller, an Alicat mass flow meter, a modulating valve, a control module, a ball valve, and
stainless steel fittings to enable automatic pH control, and installing a Sentron pH probe,
holder, and cable box assembly to allow for more accurate in-line pH monitoring.
As CO2 gas flowed to the pH control panel, its flowrate was automatically controlled and
adjusted by the PID controller and mass flow meter to reach a desired pH setpoint. The
Sentron ISFET-type pH probe with automatic temperature compensation continuously
monitored pH levels of the treated water and sent signals back to the pH/PID controller for
pH control.
The retrofitted pH adjustment system was never fully functional during operation of the
APU-RWS system due to fouling of two membrane modules and relocation of the
underground wire for the pH probe control, which was originally installed too close to an
electrical line (which, as indicated by the installer, could cause interference in pH readings).
Because pH values of the inlet water to the system were lower than what were previously
observed in Phase 1 (i.e., from 7.2 to 7.9 during Phase 2 versus 7.4 to 8.1 during Phase 1, Run
2), the operation continued without pH adjustment. Similar automatic pH control systems
were used successfully at several arsenic demonstration sites in Taos, NM, Bruni, Texas, and
Nambe Pueblo Tribe, NM. Details regarding their construction and performance are
described in an EPA report (Williams et al., 2007).
• Chlorination. The existing chlorine injection system was used to chlorinate source water.
During the first one and a half months of operation, chlorine was added to the treated water
following the APU-100 adsorption system. In March 2004, total arsenic levels in the treated
22
-------
water measured as high as 7.7 |o,g/L, much earlier than projected, and the majority of arsenic
was As(III). In late March 2004, the chlorine addition point was moved upstream of the
adsorption vessels and after the CO2 injection point. With this prechlorination step, As(III)
was oxidized to As(V) and a target chlorine residual level of 0.1 to 0.5 mg/L (as C12) was
maintained in the treated water for disinfection purposes. The chlorine feed system included
a 25 mL/min-rated chlorine metering pump and a 50-gal HDPE chemical feed tank to store a
4% NaOCl solution. NaOCl was injected into the raw water line following the CO2 system
for pH adjustment, and upstream of the pH probe and AP sampling location. Operation of the
chlorine feed system was tied to the well pumps so that the chlorine was injected only when
the wells were operating. Chlorine consumption was measured using volumetric markings on
the outside of the feed tank. Prechlorination continued during operation of the APU-RWS
system.
• Arsenic Adsorption (APU-100 and APU-RWS). The APU-100 system consisted of two
36-in-diameter, 72-in-tall pressure vessels in parallel configuration, each initially containing
27 ft3 of AD-33™ media supported by a gravel underbed. The delivery system components
included inlet piping, two electrically actuated diaphragm valves (to control flow), two
strainers, two programmable Fleck controller valves (to switch flow from a service to a
backwash mode), two tanks (each with a top diffuser and a bottom lateral), two restrictive
orifices, and outlet piping. The vessels were fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) construction,
rated for 150 pounds per square inch (psi) working pressure, skid-mounted, and piped to a
valve rack mounted on a polyurethane-coated, welded frame. Empty bed contact time
(EBCT) for the system was approximately 4.0 min based on a media volume of 27 ft3 per
vessel under Run 1 or 3.3 min on 22 ft3 of media per vessel under Run 2. Hydraulic loading
to each vessel based on a design flowrate of 100 gpm (50 gpm to each vessel) was about 7
gpm/ft2. Figure 4-6 shows the installed APU-100 system.
The APU-RWS system consisted of two 48-in-diameter, 72-in-tall pressure vessels in parallel
configuration, each initially containing 30 ft3 of AD-33™ media supported by a gravel
underbed. The vessels also were FRP construction, rated for 150 psi working pressure, and
piped to a valve rack mounted on a polyurethane-coated, steel frame. The APU-RWS system
plumbing design eliminated the diaphragm valves, Fleck controller valves, and restrictive
orifices, and replaced them with a nested system of fully ported actuated butterfly valves and
a new control panel. The APU-RWS valve-tree design was based on a series of systematic
hydraulic tests on similar, but larger-capacity systems at STS's Torrance, CA, fabrication
shop and at the Brown City, MI, arsenic removal demonstration site in March and April 2004.
The test results indicated that the fleck controller valves and restrictive orifices were the main
sources of excessive pressure loss experienced at Desert Sands, NM, Brown City, MI, and
Queen Anne's County, MD, arsenic removal demonstration sites. A summary of the
hydraulic test results are provided in the Six Month Reports for the Desert Sands, Brown
City, and Queen Anne's County sites (Coonfare et al., 2005; Condit et al., 2006; Oxenham et
al., 2006).
EBCT for the APU-RWS system was approximately 3.7 min based on a media volume of 30
ft3 per vessel (compared to 4 min EBCT for the APU-100 system). The hydraulic loading to
each vessel based on a design flowrate of 120 gpm (60 gpm to each vessel) was about 4.8
gpm/ft2 (compared to 7 gpm/ft2 for the APU-100 system). Figures 4-7 shows the installed
APU-RWS system.
• Backwash. Based upon reaching a pressure differential of 10 psi across each vessel, the
adsorption vessels were taken offline manually, one at a time, for backwashing using raw
23
-------
water from the source well supplemented with treated water from the distribution system.
The purpose of the backwash was to remove particulates and media fines accumulating in the
beds. Backwash wastewater produced was discharged to an on-site subsurface infiltration
area for disposal.
Figure 4-6. APU-100 Treatment System Front and Side View (top) with a
Close-up View of Fleck Controller Valve (bottom)
24
-------
Figure 4-7. APU-RWS Treatment System (top left) with Valve Tree (bottom) and Backside
of System Piping Including Backwash Sight Glass (top right)
25
-------
4.3
System Installation
The installation of the APU-100 and APU-RWS systems was completed in January 2004 and May 2005,
respectively. The system installation was completed by Waterline Services, a construction subcontractor
to AdEdge. The building construction activities were carried out primarily by the local plant operator.
4.3.1 Permitting. Two permits were applied for and received from the NHDES. In late September
2003, a system permit application consisting of design drawings for the proposed APU-100 treatment
system, new treatment building, and subsurface disposal area was submitted to the NHDES by Hoyle,
Tanner, & Associates (HTA), the District's engineering consultant. An application for nondomestic
wastewater discharge to groundwater also was submitted for backwash disposal into the subsurface
infiltration area. NHDES granted the discharge permit on December 30, 2003, and the treatment system
permit on January 12, 2004.
Prior to installing the APU-RWS system, AdEdge submitted a site layout and a letter of explanation of
intensions to NHDES in order to obtain regulatory approval.
4.3.2 Building Construction. Building construction began on November 3, 2003, and was com-
pleted on December 22, 2003. The 3 3-ft * 13-ft building had a concrete foundation and floor and a wood
frame with vinyl siding. It included two 10-ft roll-up doors on the front allowing access to the treatment
equipment, and one walk-through door on the end of the building (Figure 4-8). Additionally, the Water
and Sewer District installed a subsurface drainage structure in the parking area in front of the building to
handle the disposal of backwash water generated by the treatment system.
Figure 4-8. Porter Well House Area after Building Construction and
Treatment System Installation (Large Treatment Building Addition
in Background, Fenced Parking Area, and
EPA Demonstration Project Sign to left of Gated Entrance)
4.3.3 APU-100 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The APU-100 system was shipped on
December 23, 2003, and arrived at the site on January 8,2004. Waterline Services began system installation
that same day. AdEdge and Waterline completed system installation on January 16, 2004, and system
shakedown and startup on January 29 and 30, 2004. During the first day, the media in both vessels was
26
-------
back-washed and the flows to each vessel adjusted so that they were balanced. Meanwhile, Battelle
provided operator training on data and sample collection and conducted an inspection of the system.
On January 30, 2004, the system was put into service mode for the first time. While operating, leaks were
detected in the CO2 injection system caused by cracks in plastic seals in the piping joints. Because of
these leaks and required repairs, the system was not put into regular service until February 9, 2004.
4.3.4 APU-RWS Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. After the Phase 1 study, two options
were considered to address the need for a larger capacity treatment system: 1) add a third vessel of similar
design to the two existing vessels in the APU-100 treatment train and 2) remove the APU-100 and replace
it with the higher-capacity APU-RWS system. A cost proposal was received from AdEdge on February
4, 2005, for these two options. For the second option, the new system would include larger vessels with
top and bottom openings and a valve tree arrangement. Based on the costs of each option and
consideration of the past operational difficulties with the existing system, the second option was selected.
Prior to installation, hydraulic testing was conducted on the APU-RWS system at the manufacturer's
facility. Total pressure drop across the system was measured at 3 psi with a differential pressure across
each vessel of 0.5 psi at a flow rate of 80 gpm through each vessel. The APU-RWS system was installed
in May 2005 and operation commenced on June 13, 2005.
4.4
System Operation
Table 4-5 presents timelines of key activities/events that occurred during the system performance
evaluation. These demonstration activities are described in more detail in the following sections.
Table 4-5. Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity/Event
APU-100 Run 1 System Performance Evaluation Began (Start of Phase 1)
APU-100 System Retrofit Completed for Higher Flowrate during Backwash
APU-100 Run 1 Arsenic Breakthrough at 10 ng/L
Media Changeout
APU-100 Run 2 System Performance Evaluation Began
Pre-chlorination Temporarily Changed to Post-chlorination(a)
APU-100 System Shutdown (End of Phase 1)
APU-RWS System Proposed
APU RWS System Hydraulic Testing Completed Prior to Shipment
APU-100 System Removed
APU-RWS System Installed
APU-RWS System On-site Hydraulic Testing Completed
APU-RWS System Shakedown and Startup Completed (b) (Start of Phase 2)
COa Injection System Permanently Taken Off-line
APU-RWS Arsenic Breakthrough at 10 ng/L
Decision on Converting System to Coagulation/Filtration Made (End of Phase 2)
APU-RWS System Converted to coagulation/Filtration
APU-RWS Property Transfer Completed
Date
February 9, 2004
August 4, 2004
August 17, 2004
October 27-28, 2004
November 3, 2004
December 2, 2004
January 16, 2005
February 4, 2005
April 27, 2005
Week of May 16,2005
Week of May 23, 2005
May 3 1,2005
June 13, 2005
July 25, 2005
November 30, 2005
December 14, 2005
March 2006
May 8, 2006
October 24, 2006
(a) Due to elevated pressure on inlet side of system.
(b) Shakedown and startup delayed due to previously scheduled well maintenance.
(c) pH adjustment system not functional during entire length of APU-RWS operation.
27
-------
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the entire duration of system
operation are tabulated and attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-6. The
APU-100 system as originally designed was evaluated under Phase 1 with Run 1 operating from February
9, 2004, through October 27, 2004, and Run 2 from November 3, 2004, through January 16, 2005. The
replacement system, APU-RWS, was evaluated under Phase 2 from June 13, 2005, through May 8, 2006.
Relevant system operational parameters are discussed in detail as follows:
Phase 1 Run 1. The APU-100 system with 27 ft3 of media loaded in each vessel began its operation on
February 9, 2004. In 2004, the system was shut down from March 13 through March 25 for CO2 system
repairs, from May 31 to June 1, June 5 to June 6, June 16 to June 18, and June 24 to July 8 for
replacement of inlet diaphragm valves with true union ball valves, and on October 27 for media
rebedding. The system operated 222 days for a total of 2,577 hr with an average daily operating time of
11.6 hr. The total run time was tracked by hour meter readings collected daily. The well pumps were
controlled by separate timers that normally came on in the evenings at about 10:00 p.m. and went off in
the mornings at about 8:00 a.m.
The system treated approximately 11,926,000 gal of water, with 47 and 53% flowing through Vessels A
and B, respectively, based on totalizer readings from each vessel. This amount was 14% lower than that
(i.e., 13,835,000 gal) recorded from the master flow meter at the Porter well house. These discrepancies
were discussed with the vendor, but never properly addressed during the demonstration study. The
11,926,000 gal of water treated corresponded to 32,500 BV, based on 49 ft3, instead of 54 ft3, of media in
both vessels. Per the vendor, close to 3 ft3 of media in Vessel A, and possibly 2 ft3 from Vessel B might
have been washed away during the initial system backwash and follow-on media conditioning prior to
system startup in February 2004. The original system design provided less than 15 in of freeboard in each
vessel, which could accommodate no more than 30% bed expansion during media backwash. More
detailed discussions about backwash and media loss can be found in Section 4.4.4.
As shown in Figure 4-9, the combined flowrates to the system, denoted by "x," as measured by individual
flow meters installed on Vessels A and B (with respective flowrates denoted by "•" and "A") varied
widely from 47 to 112 gpm due mainly to operation of only one supply well during 28% of the system
run time. (As discussed in Section 4.4.2, at times one supply well was operated to reduce the flowrate, thus
reducing the inlet pressure and Ap levels in the system.) With both wells running, flowrates ranged from
72 to 112 and averaged 95 gpm. With either Well No. 3 or 4 running, flowrates ranged from 47 to 75 and
averaged 60 gpm. Therefore, the EBCTs in each vessel ranged from 3.0 to 7.0 min with both wells
running and from 4.3 to 9.5 min with only one well running (assuming that the amount of media in each
vessel remained unchanged at 24.5 ft3). As also shown in Figure 4-9, calculated flowrates based on the
daily mass flow meter and pump hour meter readings, denoted as "*," ranged from 83 to 115 gpm (and
averaged 102 gpm) with both wells running and from 33 to 86 gpm (and averaged 59 gpm) with only one
well running. These flowrates were somewhat higher than those recorded from the individual flow meters
and the discrepancies again were never reconciled during the demonstration studies.
Phase 1 Run 2. After media changeout, Run 2 began on November 3, 2004, with a less amount of media
in each vessel (i.e., 22 ft3). The run was discontinued 73 days later on January 16, 2005. The system
operated for 765 hr with an average daily operating time of 10.5 hr. The system was taken offline only
one day, treating approximately 3,921,000 gal of water with flow equally split between Vessels A and B.
The master flow meter again registered more flow (i.e., 13%) than the individual flow meters/totalizers on
the vessels combined. The amount of water treated based on the combined total of the individual flow
meters corresponded to 11,920 BV, which was based on 44 ft3 of media in both vessels. During this run,
both wells were on whenever the system was operating, resulting in a relatively tight flowrate range (i.e.,
from 97 to 118 gpm) based on the individual flow meters installed on Vessels A and B. Assuming that
the media volume in each vessel remained unchanged at 22 ft3, EBCTs would range from 2.5 to 3.9 min.
28
-------
Table 4-6. Key Operational Parameters
Operational Parameter
Duration
Cumulative Operating Time (hr)
Days of System Operations (day)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)(c)
pH Adjustment (f)
Throughput (kgal) fe)
Flowrate (gpm)fe)
EBCT (min)(h)
Pressure Loss across System (psi)
Time Elapsed between Consecutive
Backwash Events (day) (e)
Values/Conditions
APU-100 Run 1
02/09/04-10/27/04
(Weeks 1-38)
2,577
222(a)
11.6
Pre/Post Range Average
Pre 7.0-8.3 7.8
Post 6.8-7.9 7.4
Vessel A Vessel B Total
5,580 6,346 11,926
Well(s) Range Average
Two 72-112 95
One 47-75 60
Well(s) Range Average
Two 3.0-7.0 3.9
One 4.3 - 9.5 6.2
6-36+(d)
1-22 (8)
APU-100 Run 2
11/03/04-01/16/05
(Weeks 39-49)
765
73
10.5
Pre/Post Range Average
Pre 7.4-8.1 7.7
Post 7.2-8.1 7.6
Vessel A Vessel B Total
1,952 1,969 3,921
Well(s) Range Average
Two 97-118 112
One NA NA
Well(s) Range Average
Two 2.5-3.9 3.2
One NA NA
10-31
1-28 (4)
APU-RWS
06/13/05-05/08/06
(Weeks 1-47)
2,561
263(b)
9.7
Pre/Post Range Average
Pre 7.2-7.9 7.7
Post No pH Adjustment
Vessel A Vessel B Total
6,360 6,521 12,881
Well(s) Range Average
Two 80-106 97
One 48-105 58
Well(s) Range Average
Two 4.0 - 5.6 4.7
One 4.0-10.0 8.2
0-13
7-109 (36)
(a) Sixty -four out of 222 days with system operating with only one supply well.
(b) Sixty out of 263 days with system operating with only one supply well.
(c) Average daily operating times include only those days when treatment system was in operation.
(d) "+" denoting readings that passed highest values on gauges.
(e) Number in parentheses corresponding to average number of operating days between backwashes.
(f) Field probe readings
(g) Combined total of individual flow meters/totalizer readings.
(h) Calculated based on 49 and 60 ft3 of media in APU-100 and APU-RWS systems, respectively.
NA = not applicable
-------
140
-Calc Avg Flowrate at Pumphouse
-Calc Avg Flowrate at Instrument Panel
- Flow Totalizer A Reading
-Flow Totalizer B Reading
-Totalizer A + B
01/14/04 03/04/04 04/23/04 06/12/04 08/01/04 09/20/04 11/09/04 12/29/04 02/17/05
Measurement Date
Figure 4-9. Flowrate Measurement Data for Phase 1, APU 100, Runs 1 and 2
Phase 2. The re-designed APU-RWS system became operational on June 13, 2005. The system operated
263 days for a total of 2,561 hr with an average daily operating time of 9.7 hr. The system was taken
offline from August 5 through September 26, 2005, due to a ruptured pipe connection; from October 7
through 10 and, again, from October 17 through 20, 2005, while the operator attempted to find the source
of entrained air in the distribution system (the APU-RWS system was not the cause); and from February
18 through 19, 2006, due to a power outage. On May 8, 2006, the demonstration project ended and the
District began to add iron at the head of the treatment as part of its ongoing effort to improve arsenic
removal.
Based on the individual flow meter on each vessel, the system treated approximately 12,881,000 gal of
water with about even split (i.e., 49.4 and 50.6%) between the two vessels. This throughput value was
23% lower than the cumulative volume registered by the master flow meter, indicating even worse
correlation between the master flow meter and the flow meters installed on the APU-RWS system.
Assuming negligible media loss during the run, 12,881,000 gal corresponded to 28,700 BV, calculated
based on 60 ft3 of media in both vessels.
Similar to Run 1 under Phase 1, combined flowrates (denoted by "x" in Figure 4-10) to the system varied
significantly from 48 to 106 gpm due, again, to operation of only one supply well during 23% of the
system run time. Operation of only one well was done at the request of the NHDES as an attempt to
improve system performance for arsenic removal. With both wells running, flowrates ranged from 80 to
106 and averaged 97 gpm. With either Well No. 3 or 4 running, flowrates ranged from 48 to 105 and
averaged 58 gpm. With 30 ft3 of media in each vessel, EBCTs ranged from 4.0 to 5.6 min with both wells
running and from 4.0 to 10.0 min with only one well running.
30
-------
140
120
-Calc Avg Flowrate at Pumphouse
-Calc Avg Flowrate at Instrument Panel
- Flow Totalizer A Reading
- Flow Totalizer B Reading
-Totalizer A + B
Note. Alternating the 2 wells on daily basis
caused flowrates to fluctuate up and down
depending upon which well was operating.
5/28/05 7/17/05 9/5/05 10/25/05 12/14/05 2/2/06
Measurement Date
3/24/06
5/13/06
7/2/06
Figure 4-10. Flowrate Measurements for Phase 2, APU-RWS System
4.4.2 Differential Pressure. The APU-100 system experienced elevated inlet pressure and higher
than expected differential pressure across each adsorption vessel. There were periods when the system was
bypassed due to elevated pressure conditions at the system inlet. Extensive troubleshooting was performed
and removal and/or replacement of several system components did not appear to be useful for solving the
problems. Ultimately, the APU-100 system was replaced with the completely re-designed APU-RWS
system. The following summarizes the differential pressure issues experienced:
Phase 1 Run 1. Figures 4-11 and 4-12 present histograms of Ap readings measured across Vessels A and
B, respectively, and total well flowrates calculated based on master flow meter and well hour meter
readings recorded at the wellheads. Based on the vendor, Ap across each vessel should be no more than 2
to 3 psi when operating the system at the design flowrate of 100 gpm and backwash should be performed
when the Ap across each vessel had reached 10 psi. However, as shown in Figures 4-11 and 4-12, Ap
consistently exceeded 10 psi for the majority of time the system operated.
During the first month of operation, the system was backwashed five times when Ap readings across each
vessel reached approximately 15 psi, the upper limit of the pressure gauges originally installed on the
system. Ap readings returned to 10 to 11.5 psi following each backwash. In order to extend the time
between backwashes, the operator sometimes had to operate only one supply well to reduce the flowrate to
the system, thereby reducing the inlet pressure and Ap levels in the system.
The vendor speculated at the time that elevated Ap levels were caused by media fines present at the
laterals that had not been removed during initial backwash. A series of aggressive backwashes were,
31
-------
Differential pressure gauges graduated
for readings of 0 -15 psi
OJ
to
Differential pressure gauges graduated
for readings of 0 - 30 psi
600
1/16-
System Bypassed Due High
Pressure Conditions
-- 550
-- 500
7/1-7/2 Diaphragm valves replaced
Orifice Plate removed
Replace inlet/differential Pressure 6/17
Date
Figure 4-11. System Flowrate and Differential Pressure (Ap) across Vessel A of APU-100 System
-------
Differential pressure gauges graduated
for readings of 0 -15 psi
Differential pressure gauges graduated for readings
of 0 - 30 psi
OJ
OJ
35
30
600
Replace inlet/differential Pressure 6/17
Well #4 Down
Date
Figure 4-12. System Flowrate and Differential Pressure (Ap) across Vessel B of APU-100 System
-------
therefore, performed at increased hydraulic loading rates of 8 to 9 gpm/ft2. These backwashes, however,
did not appear to be effective at reducing Ap across the vessels, restoring Ap to only 9 to 9.5 psi
immediately following backwash. Furthermore, the Ap readings rose to approximately 14 psi within one
week of operation. Six weeks following the aggressive backwashes, the system was backwashed once per
week with Ap being reduced from 15 psi to about 10 to 12 psi after each backwash.
On May 7, 2004, the two differential pressure gauges installed on the vessels were replaced with those
that read up to 30 psi. Meanwhile, Well No. 4 was shut down on May 9, 2004, and remained inoperable
through July 2, 2004. With only Well No. 3 operating at flowrates typically <60 gpm, the system
continued to experience elevated pressure conditions. On May 30, 2004, the system was shut down due
to excessive pressure of over 100 psi at the inlet. During the next two weeks, backwash was performed
five times, but failed to lower inlet pressure and Ap levels as shown in Figures 4-11 and 4-12.
On June 17, 2004, the vendor returned to the site to replace the inlet pressure and Ap gauges with new
ones to ensure that the high readings observed were not the result of faulty gauges. The vendor also
inspected two variable diaphragm valves installed upstream of each vessel for flow control. The
diaphragm valves were determined to be in good working condition and re-installed back to the system.
The system was put back into service and the inlet pressure was observed to be lower at 80 psi. Within
five days, the inlet pressure levels again increased to over 90 psi and the Ap levels to above what the
gauges were able to read at 30+ psi.
Due to the continuing high pressure conditions, the system was taken offline between June 24 and July 9,
2004, and the two diaphragm valves were replaced with simple non-actuated valves on July 1 and 2,
2004. In addition, the two orifice plates that controlled and balanced the flows to the two vessels were
removed from the discharge side of the vessels to help reduce flow restriction. The system was put back
online on July 9, 2004, and operated at lower pressure for a few days before the system pressure began to
steadily rise to the same level of approximately 100 psi at the inlet and 30+ psi Ap across each vessel by
July 22, 2004. During July 10 through 22, 2004, Well No. 3 was down, causing the system to operate at a
reduced flowrate of approximately 60 gpm. After Well No. 3 was back in service on July 22, 2004, the
inlet pressure and Ap for both vessels rose to 100+ and 30+ psi, respectively, exceeding the measurable
levels on all three gauges.
The system was operating under these conditions for the next eight days before being bypassed again on
August 2, 2004. On August 4, 2004, the vendor returned to the site to replace the 1-in diameter backwash
flowmeter with a 2-in one in order to allow for an even higher loading rate (i.e., 10 to 11 gpm/ft2) for
backwash. Following the backwash, the inlet pressure fell to 76 psi and Ap to 12 to 13 psi across each
vessel. Over the next 12 weeks, the system was backwashed five times using the elevated loading rate of
approximately 11 gpm/ft2. Each time, Ap was reduced from 20-23 psi to 12-13 psi, with the inlet
pressure staying at about 90 to 100 psi. Meanwhile, the inlet pressure gauge was replaced again on
September 1, 2004. Comparison of pressure readings indicated that the replaced gauge functioned
normally; therefore, high pressure conditions were not the results of erroneously high readings from
faulty gauges.
Phase 1 Run 2. After the media replacement (with only 22 ft3 of media in each vessel) in late October
2004, the system operated very similarly to what was observed during Run 1. During the first month of
system operation, Ap increased relatively slowly from the baseline level of 10.5 psi to about 19 to 20 psi
across the vessels and the inlet pressure increased slightly from about 80 to 85 psi. Since then, Ap and
inlet pressure continued to increase significantly (see Figures 4-11 and 4-12) even after repeated
backwashes on November 30, 2004, December 7, 13, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30, and 31, 2004, and January 2, 3,
and 4, 2005. On December 2, 2004, the chlorine injection point had to be relocated from the inlet side to
34
-------
the exit side of the system because the hose connected to the prechlorination injection point kept popping
off due to elevated pressure on the inlet side of the system.
In early January 2005, the operator and the vendor's subcontractor, Waterline Services, conducted a series
of system inspections to attempt to troubleshoot the elevated pressure conditions. Without any success,
the system was bypassed on January 16, 2005.
Phase 2. Figures 4-13 and 4-14 present Ap readings measured across Vessels A and B, respectively,
during operation of the re-designed system. As shown in the figures, the Ap readings ranged from 0 to 13
psi, significantly less than those measured during Phase 1. In addition, the system was first backwashed
after 3!/2 weeks of operation on July 8, 2005, as the pressure drop across each vessel had exceeded 12 psi
(that was 2+ psi over the target backwash trigger). Afterwards, the system operated for another 3!/2 weeks
before reaching the 10-psi backwash trigger on August 1, 2005. The system was shut down for
approximately seven weeks beginning August 5, 2005 due to a ruptured pipe connection on the inlet side
of Vessel A (apparently caused by a factory defect in the union). In response to some media loss,
approximately 1 ft3 of media was added to each of the vessels, the system piping was reconnected, and a
backflow preventer was installed. After being restarted on September 26, 2005, the system operated for
3.5 months without any backwash because the Ap across the vessels rose at an uncharacteristically slow
rate to only <6 psi. During this period, the conditions of all pressure gauges were examined repeatedly by
the operator and all readings were believed to be accurate. It is not known why the Ap behavior across
the vessels changed so drastically.
The system was backwashed on January 18, 2006, and the differential pressure across each vessel
dropped from <6 to about 1 psi after backwash. The system was backwashed again on January 31, 2006,
at a flowrate of 116 gpm for 22 min for each vessel. The operator reported that the backwash wastewater
was clear by the end of backwash, indicating thorough removal of accumulated particulates and media
fines. The system did not reach the target backwash trigger until the end of the study on May 8, 2005.
4.4.3 CO2 Injection. The manual CO2 gas flow control system used for pH adjustment
experienced operational irregularities throughout Phase 1 of the demonstration study. Attempts were
made to improve the system in preparation for the Phase 2 study; however, as discussed previously and
below, the system experienced additional operational problems. Therefore, pH adjustment was not
performed during operation of the APU-RWS system.
Phase 1. The CO2 gas flow control system experienced several operational problems soon after system
startup. Leaks were detected in the CO2 system, resulting in frequent change-outs of the CO2 gas
cylinders during the first few weeks of system operation. A faulty gas regulator and a damaged O-ring at
the CO2 injection point also were identified, causing the system to function improperly. Following
troubleshooting and repairs, the system appeared to function more consistently with the cylinder change-
out frequency being extended to once every 2 to 3 weeks.
Contributed, in part, by the mechanical problems, the CO2 system failed to consistently adjust pH to the
target value of 7.0. pH values of the CO2-treated water as measured by the inline pH probe varied widely
between 4.7 and 9.1, although the average pH value was 6.9, just slightly below the target value of 7.0.
Significant differences were noted between pH readings measured by the inline pH probe and a laboratory
pH probe (with samples taken from the AP [after pH adjustment] sampling location). As noted above and
shown in Table 4-7, the readings by the inline probe varied from 4.7 to 9.1, while the readings by the
laboratory pH probe varied only from 6.8 to 7.9. Therefore, the differences between the two set of
readings ranged from -1.9 to 2.8 pH units. Some of the variation in the inline readings might have been
caused by manual adjustments to the CO2 gas flowrate, although a similar swing should have been
35
-------
Backwash -
08/01/05
Backwash -
Backwash - 01/31/06 Backwash -
01/18/06 02/07/06
03/13/06
Backwash -
05/08/06
System Not
Operating ^ ^»
i
§
Si
in
g
CO
S
in
S
-------
observed in the AP readings. Another possible explanation for the variation was degassing of dissolved
CO2 from water during sampling and analysis because the laboratory measurements generally resulted in
higher pH readings than the inline measurements. Further, buildup of a white film on the probe, first
observed near the end of April 2004, also might have affected the inline probe performance, as elevated
pH readings (see Table 4-7 for inline probe readings for April 19 and 29, 2004) were recorded during this
period. Following cleaning, the inline readings returned to below 6.8 on May 7, 2004. Since then, the
probe was removed every one to two weeks for cleaning. During the October 27 to 28, 2004, media
changeout, it was noted by the vendor that the inline pH probe did not appear to be operating correctly.
The inline pH probe was replaced then with a spare pH probe, which was kept on site.
Table 4-7. Summary of pH Readings after pH Adjustment
Date
01/30/04
02/16/04
02/24/04
03/02/04
03/10/04
04/06/04
04/13/04
04/19/04
04/29/04
05/07/04
05/18/04
05/25/04
06/09/04
07/13/04
07/20/04
08/04/04
08/10/04
08/17/04
08/24/04
09/09/04
09/14/04
09/22/04
09/28/04
10/06/04
10/12/04
10/21/04
11/04/04
11/10/04
12/08/04
12/13/04
01/05/05
Average
pH Reading of Sample
Taken at AP Sampling
Location Using a
Laboratory pH Probe
7.3
6.8
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.0
NM
7.2
7.6
7.4
7.8
7.0
7.7
7.5
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.8
7.9
7.7
8.1
7.8
7.2
7.4
7.43
pH Reading
by Inline
pH Probe
—
7.3
6.8
6.5
7.1
6.5
7.0
9.1
8.1
6.8
6.5
4.7
7.1
7.4
7.7
6.2
7.4
6.6
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.6
7.2
7.4
6.6
6.6
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.98
Difference
—
-0.5
0.6
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.3
-1.9
-1.0
0.8
1.0
2.8
-0.1
—
-0.5
1.4
0.0
1.2
-0.1
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.0
-0.2
1.2
1.3
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.2
0.4
37
-------
Based on the operational issues experienced during Phase 1, it was decided to upgrade the CO2 pH control
system for Phase 2. Proposed upgrades included utilizing an active PID-based control instead of a
manual control and a more durable ISFET-type pH probe as opposed to the conventional glass probe to
reduce the need to clean and handle the glass probe.
Phase 2. After APU-RWS system installation in June 2005, the CO2 system vendor, ATSI, was on site to
upgrade the system for automatic operation during the week of July 25, 2005. The vendor discovered
several problems with the original system, including 1) improper installation of an underground wire
connecting the control panel and inline pH probe (i.e., the wire was too close to another electrical line,
which could cause interference to the pH readings), 2) extensive biological growth in the CO2 membrane
module, and 3) damaged O-rings at the injection point on the CO2 loop. The vendor indicated that some
site re-work and additional parts would be required before the new CO2 system installation could be
completed and the pH adjustment put back online.
ATSI returned to the site on September 21, 2005 to complete CO2 system modifications and parts
replacement. Prior to its arrival, the underground line was relocated by a local subcontractor. ASTI
replaced the CO2 injection membrane, upgraded the control panel, installed a new pH probe, and left the
CO2 system online with the adsorption system. Upon checking the system, however, it was discovered
that the CO2 system was not operating correctly and the pH adjustment was discontinued. After being
contacted, AdEdge made arrangements with ATSI to return to the site on October 4 through 5, 2005.
While on site, ATSI and the facility operator observed the accumulation of a black silty material on the
membrane module, indicating fouling. No further action was taken to resolve the operational problems
because the cause of the membrane fouling had to be eliminated prior to installing another CO2
membrane. With the raw water pH values ranging between 7.5 to 7.9 since startup of the new system, the
need for pH adjustment diminished and pH adjustment was discontinued for the remainder of the Phase 2
study.
4.4.4 Backwash. AdEdge recommended that the APU system be backwashed, either manually or
automatically, approximately once per month. Automatic backwash could be initiated by either a timer or
a Ap setpoint. However, due to the ongoing problems with elevated Ap and inlet pressure (see
Section 4.4.2), the APU-100 system was backwashed far more frequently than was originally anticipated.
The need for frequent, aggressive backwashing was eliminated with the installation of the APU-RWS
system. A brief description of the backwash events follows:
Phase 1. For Run 1, backwash events occurred 28 times during 33 weeks of system operation (not
including the system downtime from March 13 to 25, 2004, and from June 24 to July 8, 2004), with the
interval between two consecutive backwash events varying between 1 and 22 days (see Table 4-6). As
discussed in Section 4.4.2, in an attempt to address the elevated pressure issues, the backwash flowrate
was increased from 30 to 35 gpm (or approximately 4 to 5 gpm/ft2) to 55 to 65 gpm (or 8 to 9 gpm/ft2) in
late March 2004, and then to 75 to 77 gpm (or 10 to 11 gpm/ft2) following system retrofit with a larger
diameter backwash flowmeter. Depending on the flowrate, a single 20-min backwash cycle for one vessel
produced between 600 and 1,500 gal of water.
Following the media replacement in the APU-100 system in October 2004, the first backwash occurred
after approximately 3!/2 weeks of system operation. However, after November 30, 2004, the system
experienced elevated inlet pressure of near 100 psi or greater and elevated Ap (between 23 to 30 psi)
requiring backwash on December 7, 13, and 20, 2004, and every other day during the period from
December 22 through 30, 2004. Backwash frequency even increased to once a day in early January 2005.
Ap readings did not return to the expected levels of 10 to 12 psi following the respective backwash cycles.
38
-------
Phase 2. As discussed in Section 4.2, the APU-RWS system plumbing design eliminated the use of
diaphragm valves, Fleck controller valves, and restrictive orifices; they were replaced with a nested
system of fully ported actuated butterfly valves and a new control panel. The problems associated with
the pressure losses were resolved with system retrofitting, resulting in far less frequent backwashing (i.e.,
seven times during 47 weeks of operation). The interval between two consecutive backwash events
varied between 7 and 109 days (see Table 4-6). As discussed in Section 4.4.2 and shown in Figures 4-13
and 4-14, the system was manually backwashed on several occasions even though the Ap readings were
less than the 10-psi backwash trigger. Depending on the flowrate, a single 20-min backwash cycle for one
vessel produced between 1,500 and 2,700 gal of water.
4.4.5 Media Loading and Removal. The media was loaded on-site during the installation of each
system (i.e., January 16, 2004, for the APU-100 system and June 13, 2005, for the APU-RWS system).
In addition, one media changeout was performed during the APU-100 system operation between October
27 and 28, 2004. Before the removal of spent media, the heights of the freeboard were measured from the
flange at the top of the vessels to the top of the media beds and summarized in Table 4-8. The spent media
then was sampled and removed from each vessel as described in Section 3.3.4. As shown in Table 4-8,
significant amounts (i.e., 39 to 53%) of the media were lost during Run 1 of the APU-100 system
operation, based on the freeboard heights estimated/measured at media loading (i.e., <15 in) and before
media changeout (i.e., 39 and 33 in for Vessels A and B, respectively). This loss of media apparently
occurred during backwashing, especially after a more aggressive backwash procedure with approximately
11 gpm/ft2 of hydraulic loading rate was implemented in August 2004. This observation was supported
by much shorter freeboard heights (i.e., 25 and 20 in) measured in July 2004 during a vendor site visit
than in October 2004 before the media changeout.
The APU-100 system was removed from the site during the week of May 16, 2005. During the
decommissioning of the old system, freeboard heights were measured to be 42 and 38 in. Comparing to
the freeboard heights recorded following the media replacement in October 2004 (i.e., 18.5 in), 13.9 and
11.5 ft3 of the media (or 63 and 52%) were lost from Vessels A and B, respectively, over 2.5 months of
system operations (i.e., from late October 2004 to mid January 2005). The aggressive backwash
flowrates (75 to 77 gpm or 11 gpm/ft2) again were thought to have caused the media to be washed away.
Note that the system was backwashed at these flowrates 19 times during this adsorption run.
Table 4-8. APU-100 System Media Loading, Removal, and Freeboard Measurements
Media
Run
No.
1
2
Media
Loading
Date
01/16/04
01/16/04
10/28/04
10/28/04
Tank
(A/B)
A
B
A
B
Media
Volume
(ft3)
27
27
22
22
Freeboard
Height
at Media
Loading
(in)
<15(a)/25(b)
<15(a)/20(b)
18.5
18.5
Media
Removal
Date
10/27/04
10/27/04
05/16/05
05/16/05
Freeboard
Height
at Media
Removal
(in)
39
33
42
38
Difference
of
Freeboard
Height
(in)
>24
>18
23.5
19.5
Amount
of
Media
Lost
(ft3)/%
14.2/53
10.7/39
13.9/59
11.5/46
(a) Estimated measurements (see Section 4.4.1 on page 28).
(b) Field measurements made in July 2004.
4.4.6 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the APU-100 and APU-
RWS systems included backwash wastewater and spent media. Piping for discharging backwash
wastewater from both vessels was combined aboveground inside the treatment building before exiting the
building through the floor. Piping then traveled underground to a subsurface drainage structure located
39
-------
beneath a parking area in front of the treatment building. The backwash wastewater then infiltrated to the
ground from this disposal structure. Particles or fines carried in backwash wastewater remained in the
drainage structure.
4.4.7 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. The operational issues related to the elevated
Ap and inlet pressure and the operation of the CO2 gas flow control system were the primary factors
affecting system reliability and operation simplicity.
Unscheduled downtime during the APU-100 system operation was caused by the need to address the
elevated pressures and operational problems with the CO2 injection system. As described in
Section 4.4.1, the system was bypassed between March 13 to March 25, 2004, due to damaged parts in
the CO2 gas flow control system. Unscheduled downtime due to the elevated inlet pressure and Ap issues
occurred from May 31 through June 1, June 5 and 6, June 16 through 18, June 24 through July 8, and
August 2, 2004. During the first 261 days of operation, the system was down for a total of 36 days,
representing 14% downtime. Following the media replacement in October 2004, the system ran almost
on a daily basis. The replacement of the APU -100 system with the APU-RWS system eliminated
downtime caused by elevated pressure.
The APU-RWS system ran on a daily basis except for an extended period from August 5 through
September 26, 2005, when the system was shut down due to a ruptured pipe at the inlet side of Vessel A.
On August 6, the operator discovered the pipe break and immediately shut down the well pumps. Due to
backflow from the elevated storage tank through the system, a small amount of media was washed out of
the adsorption vessels to the treatment building. AdEdge's local subcontractor, Waterline Services, was
on site during the week of August 15 to fix the broken pipe connection and install a backflow preventer.
Waterline Services opened the vessels and measured freeboard heights at 26 in for both vessels, which
were very similar to those measured during system startup. This confirmed that only a small amount of
media (estimated to be <1 ft3) was lost during the pipe break.
In addition to the extended system shutdown from August 5 through September 26, 2005, the APU-RWS
system was bypassed on October 7, 2005, due to air in the distribution system. Entrained air in the
distribution system caused water to appear milky as it came from taps, resulting in some complaints from
customers. Although the cause for this entrained air was not clear, the operator decided to temporarily
bypass the APU unit. The unit was placed back online on October 10, 2005, because bypassing it did not
appear to help solve the problem. The two supply wells at the Porter well house were turned off during
the week of October 17, 2005, when the operator attempted to isolate the source of the entrained air in the
system. The wells were back in operation by October 24, 2005, and it appeared that there was less air in
the distribution system than previously observed. During the 328 days of operation, the system was down
for a total of 59 days, equivalent to 18% downtime.
The requirements for system O&M and operator skills are discussed below in relation to pre- and post-
treatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventive maintenance
activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Initially, the only pre-treatment performed was pH adjustment
using CO2. The raw water sample tap was relocated further upstream of the CO2 injection point in late
March 2004 to avoid possible influence by the CO2 injection. During the first one and one half months of
system operation, chlorine was added at the end of the treatment train to provide chlorine residuals as was
performed prior to the arsenic demonstration study. In late March 2004, the chlorination point was
moved upstream of the adsorption vessels and after the CO2 injection point to oxidize As(III) to As(V)
and improve arsenic removal efficiency. Post-chlorination was not required because as much as 0.6 mg/L
40
-------
(as C12) of free chlorine residuals (on average) remained in the treated water before entering the
distribution system.
System Automation. Both APU systems were fitted with automated controls that would allow for the
backwash cycle to be controlled automatically; however, due to the pressure problems these automated
controls were not used. Instead, the operator performed backwashes manually. The APU-100 CO2 gas
control flow was designed for manual operation in Phase 1. Attempts were made to upgrade the system
for automatic flow control, which, however, was subject to CO2 membrane fouling and other problems
and pH adjustment was discontinued.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the
APU systems were minimal. The daily demand on the operator was typically 15 to 20 min to perform
daily checks of the system, visual inspections, and record the system operating parameters on the daily
log sheets. Normal operation of the system did not appear to require additional skills beyond those
necessary to operate the existing water supply equipment. On days when the systems were backwashed,
the operator typically spent about two hours on site to complete this process.
Due to recurring problems with elevated Ap and inlet pressure and the CO2 gas flow control system, the
operator spent much more time troubleshooting the operation of the treatment system than would
normally be expected. As requested by the vendor, the operator conducted backwash far more frequently
than originally anticipated and worked with the vendor to troubleshoot, modify, and replace several system
components. The majority of the labor to modify or replace system components was performed by the
installation subcontractor hired by the vendor; however, all of the additional visits and coordination of
additional work required the plant operator to be on site on several occasions for periods of two to four
hours or more, depending on the type of work being conducted.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included such items as periodic checks
of the flowmeters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. As mentioned in
Section 4.4.3, weekly cleaning of the inline pH probe was found to be necessary to remove the buildup of
a film on the probe. The vendor suggested inspection of the vessel internals, including adsorber laterals
and replacement of the underbedding gravel during media replacement. Due to the operational issues, the
operator spent additional time troubleshooting and working with AdEdge technicians during their return
visits to the site. Typically, the operator was onsite an additional 30 min to as much as two to three hours
per week working to address these issues. Under normal operation, it is not expected that this additional
time would be required.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. The only chemicals required for the system
operation included the NaOCl solution used for chlorination, which was already in use at the site, and the
CO2 gas cylinders used for pH adjustment. The CO2 cylinders required change-out typically once every
two to three weeks, and the 50-gal drums of 4% chlorine solution required refilling once every two to
three weeks.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the APU systems was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected from
the treatment plant, the system backwash, and the distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Treatment plant water samples were collected at five locations
through the treatment process, including IN, AP, TA, TB, and TT (see Table 3-3). During operation of
the APU-100 system with prechlorination (excluding the six-week period when chlorine was added after
the APU-100 system), water samples were collected on 37 occasions (including four sampling events
41
-------
with duplicate samples taken) with field speciation performed on eight occasions. Raw water from the IN
location was sampled at each of the 37 occasions. AP was sampled 36 times, TA and TB 29 times, and
TT eight times. During operation of the APU-RWS system, treatment plant water samples were collected
on 11 occasions, with field speciation performed on six occasions. Water from the IN and AP locations
were sampled at each of the 11 sampling occasions. TA and TB were sampled five times and TT six
times.
Table 4-9 provides a summary of analytical results for arsenic, iron, and manganese after relocation of the
chlorination point upstream of the adsorption vessels during APU-100 system operation from March 30,
2004, through January 5, 2005, and during APU-RWS system operation from June 13, 2005, through
May 8, 2006. Table 4-10 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters during the same
periods of time. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results during the operation of each
system. The results of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of APU systems was arsenic concentrations
in the treated water. As shown by the comparison of the results, which are shown side by side in Tables
4-9 and 4-10, as well as in Figures 4-14 through 4-18, the behavior of the adsorptive media was very
similar between the two systems.
Figure 4-14 contains three bar charts showing the concentrations of total arsenic, particulate arsenic, and
soluble arsenic (including As[III] and As[V]) at the IN, AP, and TT sampling locations for each
speciation event. Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 28.7 to 52.4 |o,g/L and averaged
37.0 ng/L during APU-100 system operation (excluding the six-week period when chlorine was added
after the adsorption system) and ranged from 31.6 to 51.1 |o,g/L (average 37.7 |o,g/L) during APU-RWS
system operation. Particulate arsenic concentrations averaged 6.2 and 3.4 |og/L during APU-100 and
APU-RWS system operations, respectively. Typically, As (III) comprised a significant portion of total
soluble arsenic with its concentrations averaging 18.3 and 16.8 |o,g/L, respectively. The remainder of
soluble arsenic was As(V) with concentrations averaging 15.7 and 18.2 |o,g/L, respectively. The arsenic
concentrations measured in raw water were consistent with those collected previously during the source
water sampling (Table 4-1).
During the first six-weeks of APU-100 system operation, chlorine was added at the end of the treatment
train. In March 2004, total arsenic levels in the treated water, existing primarily as As(III) as shown in
Figure 4-14, increased to as high as 7.7 |o,g/L after only about 2,700 BV of throughput. This early arsenic
breakthrough prompted relocation of the chlorine injection point to upstream of the adsorption vessels so
that As(III) might be oxidized to As(V) before coming in contact with the adsorptive media. When
prechlorination was performed, samples collected downstream of the chlorine injection/pH adjustment
point (AP) had As(III) and As(V) concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 and 30.3 to 37.6 |og/L,
respectively, indicating oxidation of As(III) by chlorine. Before the December 2, 2004, sampling event,
the line that delivered chlorine to the chlorine injection point bursted due to high inlet pressure; therefore,
prechlorination was not performed during sampling and a mix of As(III) and As(V) at 14.4 and 21.7 |o,g/L,
respectively, was observed at the AP location.
The arsenic breakthrough curves for each media run are shown in Figure 4-15. As shown in the top
graph, breakthrough of total arsenic at concentrations above the 10 |o,g/L target MCL was first observed at
the TT location after the APU-100 system processed approximately 12,500 BV of water. Arsenic
concentrations returned to below 10 |o,g/L at the TA/TB locations the following week at approximately
13,300 and 13,600 BV, respectively, but increased to over 10 |o,g/L again at the TA location at 14,300 BV.
Samples of treated water collected at the TA location at 15,000 BV and at the TT location at 15,200 BV
were again below 10 |o,g/L; however, the concentration was above 10 |og/L at the TB location at 17,400
42
-------
Table 4-9. Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese after Relocation of Chlorination
Point Upstream of Adsorption Vessels for Phases 1 and 2 Studies
Parameter
As
(total)
As
(total
soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As (III)
(soluble)
As(V)
(soluble)
Fe
(total)
Fe
(soluble)
Mn
(total)
Mn
(soluble)
Sampling
Location'3'
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TT
Unit
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HR/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HR/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HR/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
HR/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
Number of
Samples
Phase I/
Phase 2
37/11
36/11
29/5
29/5
8/6
8/6
7/6
8/6
8/6
7/6
8/6
8/6
6/6
7/6
8/6
6/6
7/6
37/11
36/11
29/5
29/5
8/6
8/6
7/6
8/6
37/11
36/11
29/5
29/5
8/6
8/6
7/6
8/6
Minimum
Concentration
Phase I/
Phase 2
28.7/31.6
23.3/28.5
1.0/1.0
1.4/1.0
1.1/1.5
29.8/30.3
30.7/30.8
<0. 1/1.2
0.1/0.1
O.l/O.l
0.1/0.1
12.4/7.6
0.5/0.4
0.3/0.5
4.1/11.1
30.3(d)/29.6
0.2/O.1
37/77
<25/56
<25/<25
<25/<25
<25/<25
<25/<25
<25/<25
<25/<25
51.9/59.7
53.1/55.6
0.5/0.5
0.8/0.5
0.6/0.5
48.9/57.6
50.2/55.1
0.6/0.5
Maximum
Concentration
Phase I/
Phase 2
52.4/51.1
75.2/48.6
40.5/20.3
30.0/19.5
20.8/16.5
36.4/45.0
39.1/37.2
19.1/16.3
17.6/6.6
7.1/10.5
2.3/0.5
25.8/28.8
1.5(c)/2.3
0.8/1.3
19.1/25.3
37.6/35.9
18.3/15.6
l,120(e)/799
898/555
131/165
280/64
78/72
183/158
41/68
<25/79
245.0/175.5
240.7/192.0
50.5/19.7
69.6/11.2
9.7/23.6
235.3/181.6
104.9/147.7
2.7/15.3
Average
Concentration
Phase I/
Phase 2
37.0/37.7
38.1/37.5
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
34.0/35.0
35.5/33.5
-
6.2/3.4
2.7/3.1
-
18.3/16.8
0.9/1.2
-
15.7/18.2
34.9/32.3
-
208/297
185/239
22.9/43
33/23
23/30
42/72
17/24
<25/24
100.4/106.3
100.2/109.3
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
97.9/128.2
76.8/82.7
-
Standard
Deviation
Phase I/
Phase 2
6.0/6.4
8.6/5.6
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
2.3/5.3
2.8/2.2
-
7.2/3.2
2.6/4.1
-
4.3/8.2
0.4/0.7
-
5.0/5.0
2.9/2.1
-
209/213
176/163
24/68
50/23
23/27
58/49
11/22
0/27
43.9/37.3
37.9/44.7
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
58.9/47.7
18.5/33.0
-
(a) See Table 3-3 and Figure 4-2.
(b) Average concentration and standard deviation not calculated; see Figures 4-15 and 4-16 for total As and total
Mn breakthrough curves.
(c) Omitted one outlying datum at 34.5 |J.g/L; also omitted 12/02/07 result at 14.4 |ag/L due to a broken
prechlorination line.
(d) Omitted one outlying datum at <0.1 M-g/L; also omitted 12/02/07 result at 21.7 |ag/L due to a broken
prechlorination line.
(e) Omitted one outlying datum at 4,645 |J.g/L.
Phase 1 = APU-100 Run 1 from 03/30/04 through 10/27/04 and Run 2 from 11/03/04 through 01/05/05; Phase 2 =
APU-RWS from 06/13/05 through 05/08/06
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than the detection limit for calculations.
Duplicate samples were included in calculations.
43
-------
Table 4-10. Analytical Results of Other Water Quality Parameters after Relocation of Chlorination
Point Upstream of Adsorption Vessels for Phases 1 and 2 Studies
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
(as P)(b)
Total P
(asP)
Silica (as SiO2)
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Sampling
Location'3'
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
Number
of
Samples
Phase I/
Phase 2
37/11
36/11
29/5
29/5
8/6
8/6
7/6
8/6
8/6
7/6
8/6
34/4
33/4
26/1
26/1
8/3
0/6
0/6
0/3
0/3
0/3
37/11
36/11
29/5
29/5
8/6
8/6
7/6
8/6
37/11
36/11
29/5
29/5
8/6
35/8
34/8
27/5
26/5
8/4
24/8
23/8
17/5
16/5
7/4
Minimum
Concentration
Phase I/
Phase 2
162/158
162/172
160/172
163/172
160/172
0.5/0.3
0.5/0.4
0.5/0.4
35.0/27.7
33.0/28.6
33.0/30.8
<0.06/<0.05
< 0.06/O.05
O.06/O.05
O.06/O.05
O.06/O.05
NS/72.8
NS/71.4
NS/5.0
NS/5.0
NS/15.3
13.6/13.9
13.7/14.0
13.8/13.5
13.5/13.1
9.9/1.6
O.04/O.05
O.04/O.05
0.04/0.05
0.3/0.5
0.2/0.2
0.2/0.2
0.3/0.2
0.2/0.2
7.4/7.2
7.0/7.6
7.1/7.8
7.1/7.8
7.0/7.8
8.3/5.6
7.6/6.5
9.0/5.9
9.1/7.0
7.8/7.0
Maximum
Concentration
Phase I/
Phase 2
259/198
236/198
219/189
207/185
196/198
1.5/0.6
1.7/0.6
1.6/0.6
72.0/59.0
46.0/56.0
80.0/76.0
2.3/0.1
0.1/0.1
0.1/O.05
0.2/O.05
0.1/0.1
NS/100.6
NS/94.2
NS/86.2
NS/72.9
NS/50.3
16.7/17.0
16.5/16.4
15.9/15.6
16.1/15.4
15.3/15.5
0.1/0.1
0.1/0.5
0.1/0.4
36.0/5.1
14.0/5.0
7.4/2.7
2.1/1.3
1.3/1.4
8.2/7.9
8.1/8.1
8.0/8.1
8.0/8.1
8.0/8.3
19.5/19.7
17.7/18.7
16.4/12.2
17.5/11.6
16.0/18.3
Average
Concentration
Phase I/
Phase 2
184.7/179.9
182.4/184.0
182.0/179.6
181.3/177.0
179.3/187.0
0.7/0.5
0.8/0.5
0.7/0.5
44.8/40.5
41.3/39.9
44.8/44.5
0.1/0.00
0.00/0.00
0.1/O.05
0.1/O.05
0.00/0.1
NS/81.5
NS/82.9
_(<0
_(<0
_(<0
15.0/15.3
14.9/15.0
15.0/14.7
15.0/14.6
14.1/12.6
0.00/O.05
0.00/0.10
0.00/0.10
3.8/2.0
1.2/1.7
0.8/1.1
0.6/0.5
0.6/0.6
7.9/7.7
7.5/7.8
7.5/7.9
7.5/7.9
7.5/8.1
13.6/11.7
13.1/11.6
13.2/10.0
13.4/10.1
12.5/12.2
Standard
Deviation
Phase I/
Phase 2
18.2/12.5
14.9/9.8
11.7/7.1
9.2/4.8
12.8/10.9
0.3/0.1
0.4/0.0
0.4/0.1
11.6/12.8
4.2/9.6
14.6/17.3
0.4/0.00
0.00/0.00
0.00/0.00
0.00/0.00
0.00/0.1
NS/10.4
NS/7.8
_(<0
_(<0
_(<0
0.7/0.9
0.6/0.8
0.5/0.9
0.6/0.9
1.8/5.4
0.00/0.00
0.00/0.2
0.00/0.1
7.7/1.6
2.2/1.6
1.4/1.0
0.4/0.5
0.3/0.5
0.2/0.2
0.3/0.2
0.3/0.1
0.3/0.1
0.3/0.2
2.6/3.9
2.4/3.4
1.9/2.4
2.1/1.8
2.7/4.6
44
-------
Table 4-10. Analytical Results of Other Water Quality Parameters after Relocation of Chlorination
Point Upstream of Adsorption Vessels for Phase 1 and Phase 2 Studies (Continued)
Parameter
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location'3*
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
AP
TT
AP
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TT
IN
AP
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Number
of
Samples
Phase I/
Phase 2
24/7
23/7
17/4
16/4
7/4
24/8
23/8
17/5
16/5
7/4
20/6
6/3
19/6
5/3
8/6
7/6
8/6
8/6
7/6
8/6
8/6
7/6
8/6
Minimum
Concentration
Phase I/
Phase 2
3.2/3.5
2.0/4.1
1.9/6.4
2.2/6.2
2.0/3.3
-70.0/164
-47.0/158
-54.0/159
-54.0/157
-50.0/151
0.0/0.0
0.0/0.0
0.0/0.1
0.1/0.0
47.8/53.4
48.9/46.4
54.7/48.7
28.2/29.5
28.5/25.1
31.1/27.8
19.6/22.3
20.4/21.2
22.1/19.6
Maximum
Concentration
Phase I/
Phase 2
5.5/7.8
4.2/9.4
4.4/9.6
5.4/9.5
3.5/5.9
234/224
434/436
437/336
466/314
262/201
1.8/0.4
3.2/0.1
3.8/0.6
3.2/0.3
101.0/87.7
81.4/83.0
103.1/92.0
52.8/47.6
51.0/46.6
53.4/52.2
48.2/29.2
30.4/26.1
49.7/31.1
Average
Concentration
Phase I/
Phase 2
4.2/5.3
3.3/6.3
3.3/7.6
3.4/7.1
2.7/4.0
46/198
71/213
77/201
86/196
39/172
0.2/0.1
0.6/0.0
0.7/0.3
0.8/0.2
67.7/66.9
61.5/62.6
70.1/68.5
39.8/38.4
37.0/35.4
39.8/39.0
29.2/27.1
26.1/25.6
31.1/28.7
Standard
Deviation
Phase I/
Phase 2
0.7/1.4
0.6/1.9
0.6/1.4
0.8/1.6
0.6/1.1
133/20
136/91
144/76
151/67
125/24
0.4/0.1
1.3/0.1
1.1/0.2
1.4/0.1
17.6/13.1
10.9/13.7
16.1/18.0
9.2/7.0
7.6/8.6
7.8/11.3
9.0/6.7
3.9/5.8
9.0/7.1
(a) See Table 3-3 and Figure 4-2.
(b) Orthophosphate (as P) data generated between 1/1/05 to 10/3/05 was considered unusable and was removed
from data set.
(c) See Figure 4-19 for total P breakthrough curve.
Phase 1 = APU-100 Run 1 from 03/30/04 through 10/27/04 and Run 2 from 11/03/04 through 01/05/05; Phase 2 =
APU-RWS from 06/13/05 through 05/08/06
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
Only samples collected after switched to prechlorination, beginning with samples collected on 03/30/04.
BV. Total arsenic concentrations measured at the AP location at about 13,500 BV and at the TT location
at about 12,500 BV were unusually high at 75.2 and 20.3 |o,g/L, respectively. It was not clear why these
concentrations were higher than the other relevant data points. Based on these data, breakthrough of
arsenic at 10 |o,g/L occurred somewhere between 12,500 and 17,000 BV, representing about 17 to 23% of
the vendor-estimated working capacity of 74,000 BV.
After the media was changed out, the APU-100 system processed approximately 10,000 BV before it was
bypassed due to unacceptably high inlet pressure. Breakthrough of arsenic at this time was at about 4
(ig/L (middle graph in Figure 4-15), which comprised primarily As(III) (see Figure 4-14) following the
switch back of the chlorine injection point to after the adsorption vessels on December 2, 2004, due to
elevated inlet pressure problems as discussed in Section 4.4.2.
45
-------
As Species at the Inlet (IN)
70-
"3)
centration (
o o
c 3U-
O
3 20-
10-
APU-100
Run 1 . - Run 9 .
Post-
chlorinaticjn Pre-chlorination
1 1
In
1 1 1
-
-
_
-
—
H
I |
-
-
n
L
r
1
J
APU-RWS
I.
-
_
-
-
"
n
•
u
n
1 1
Date
As Species after pH Adjustment and Pre-Chlorination (AP)
70
— 60
0)
3.
- 50
o
Concentra
o o
< 20
10
n
APU-100
, Run 1
Post-
, , Run ? ,
chlorination Pre-chlorination
(a)
L
n
. I n
_
_
(a)
1
APU-RWS
-
_
-
=
n
_
-
=
_
1
\\
(a) Pre-chlorination not performed
(b) As (III) and (V) data not available
(c) Sample not taken
As Species after Vessels Combined (TT)
O)
3.
" 50
O
£ 40
g
- 30
O
< 20
10
n
APU-100 System Operating
t Run 1
Post-
chlorinatidn Pre-chlorination
Ii
.J
( t Run 2 >
Ln
APU-RWS System Operating
ll
Date
DAs (III) BAs (V) DAs (particulate)]
Figure 4-14. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AP, and TT Sampling Locations
46
-------
-•-Inlet
-*- After Pre-Chlorination
-*-Vessel A
-•-Vessel B
-*- Vessels A/B combined
10 15 20
Bed Volumes (*103)
70-
60 -
350-
c
o
I 40-
o
8 3°-
tr>
<
20 -
10 -
n -
APU-100,Run2 -.-Inlet
-*- After Pre
-*- Vessel A
-•-Vessel B
-"- Vessels/
/v
/ ^\
\-_/ /\S*~~~^^_
\ /
V
10-^g/L MCL
^*— *" •*
Chlorination
VB combined
10 15 20
Bed Volumes (A103)
nlet
After Pre-Chlorination
Vessel A
Vessel B
Vessels A/B combined
15 20
Bed Volumes (A103)
Figure 4-15. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves
47
-------
250 -
M50 ',(
nlet
After Pre-Chlorination
Vessel A
Vessel B
Vessels A/B combined
50 -
10 15 20
Bed Volumes (*103)
APU-100, Run 2
•B, 200-
50-
-•-Inlet
-*«- After Pre-Chlorination
-*-Vessel A
-•-Vessel B
-•-Vessels A/B combined
15 20
Bed Volumes (*103)
25
30
35
APU-RWS
15 20
Bed Volumes (A103)
-Inlet
-After Pre-Chlorination
-Vessel A
-Vessels
-Vessels A/B combined
Figure 4-16. Total Manganese Concentrations Measured during Phases 1 and 2 Studies
48
-------
Manganese Species at Inlet (IN) at Rollinsford, NH
250 -
200 -
150 -
100 -
50 -
•4
1
APU-100 System Operating
Run
Pre-
st- chlorination
orination
n
-
-
-
"
.Run 2
n
_
f
-K
IAPU-RWS System Operating
•
-
n
-
PI
Date
Manganese Species after pH Adjustment and Pre-Chlorination (AP)
APU-100 System Operating
, Run 1
Run'
Pre-
Post chlorination
chlorination
a)
=
-
n
-
~
-
(a
APU-RWS System Operating
-
M
(a) Pre-chlorination not performed
(b) Sample not taken
Manganese Species after Vessels Combined (TT)
entration (ug/L)
o o o
O 100-
c
S
50-
n -
APU-100 System Operating
^
Post-
chlorinat
i — i
Run 1 , , Run 7 ,
Pre-
chlorination
on
m m
IAPU-RWS System Operating
n
IMn (soluble) DMn (particulate)
Figure 4-17. Concentrations of Manganese Species at IN, AP, and
TT Sampling Locations
49
-------
a 7.5
Post-
chlorination
APU-100 System, Run 1
Pre-chlorination
« 7.5 -
APU-100, Run 2
- Inlet
-After Pre-Chlorination
-Vessel A
-Vessel B
-Vessels A/B combined
10 15 20
Bed Volumes ("103)
-Inlet
-After Pre-Chlorination
-Vessel A
-Vessel B
-Vessels A/B combined
15 20 25
Bed Volumes (A103)
-Inlet
-After Pre-Chlorination
-Vessel A
-Vessel B
-Vessels A/B combined
10 15 20 25
Bed Volumes ("103)
Figure 4-18. pH Values Measured During Phases 1 and 2 Studies
50
-------
The media performed similarly with prechlorination as the only pretreatment step during the operation of
the APU-RWS system. Breakthrough of arsenic above the 10 |o,g/L MCL occurred at approximately
12,500 BV (bottom graph of Figure 4-15), similar to that observed for the APU-100 system. Although it
helped alleviate both inlet pressure and Ap problems, re-design of the system did not improve the media
performance in terms of its run length.
Iron. Total iron concentrations in raw water ranged from 37.1 to 1,120 |o,g/L and averaged 208 |o,g/L
during the operation of the APU-100 system and ranged from 77 to 799 |o,g/L and averaged 297 |o,g/L
during the operation of the APU-RWS system. Iron concentrations following pH adjustment and
prechlorination at the AP location ranged from <25 to 898 |o,g/L and averaged 185 |o,g/L during APU-100
system operation and ranged from 56 to 555 |o,g/L and averaged 239 |o,g/L during APU-RWS system
operation. Total iron concentrations following the adsorption vessels at the TA and TB locations ranged
from <25 |o,g/L to 280 |o,g/L and averaged 23 and 33 |o,g/L, respectively, for the APU-100 system, and
ranged from <25 to 165 with an average of 43 and 23 |o,g/L, respectively, for the APU-RWS system. Out
of 34 sampling occasions (including duplicates) after relocating the chlorination point upstream of
adsorption vessels, only 14 had concentrations higher than the method detection limit of 25 (ig/L in the
treated water. Soluble iron levels ranged from <25 to 183 |o,g/L at the inlet (IN), and were almost always
<25 |og/L at the AP and TT locations. These data indicate that the majority of iron entering the adsorption
vessels existed in the particulate form, and that iron particles were mostly captured by the media beds.
Manganese. The treatment plant water samples were analyzed for total manganese at each sampling
event and soluble manganese during speciation sampling. Total manganese concentrations at the various
sampling locations are plotted overtime in Figure 4-16. Total and soluble manganese concentrations are
shown in Figure 4-17. Total manganese levels in raw water ranged from 51.9 to 245.0 |o,g/L and averaged
100.4 |o,g/L during the operation of the APU-100 system, and ranged from 59.7 to 175.5 and averaged
106.3 |o,g/L during the operation of the APU-RWS system (Table 4-9). As shown in Figure 4-17,
manganese existed almost entirely in the soluble form. In contrast to complete iron precipitation,
chlorination precipitated less than 20% of soluble manganese before water entered the adsorption vessels.
This observation was consistent with previous findings that free chlorine was relatively ineffective at
oxidizing Mn(II) at pH values less than 8.5 (Knocke et al., 1987 and 1990).
Prior to switching to prechlorination, manganese, existing primarily as soluble manganese based on the
use of 0.45-(im disc filters, quickly broke through the AD-33™ adsorbers and reached about 100%
breakthrough after only about 3,700 BV of throughput. However, after prechlorination was implemented,
total manganese concentrations at the TA, TB, and TT locations were typically reduced to <10 ng/L,
indicating removal of manganese within the adsorption vessels. Knocke et al. (1990) reported that the
presence of free chlorine promoted Mn(II) removal on MnOx-coated media, and that in the absence of
free chlorine, Mn(II) removal was by adsorption only. In the absence of free chlorine, AD-33™ media
apparently had a limited adsorptive capacity for Mn(II). The presence of 0.1 to 0.2 mg/L (as C12) of free
chlorine (Table 4-10) apparently was enough to promote the removal of manganese by the AD-33™
media presumably via a mechanism similar to that proposed by Knocke et al.
The removal of manganese was supported by the observation of a black coating on the spent media
retrieved from the top several inches of the media bed during media changeout in October 2004.
Furthermore, the ICP-MS result of the spent media (see Table 4-14) showed samples collected from the
top layer contained notably more manganese than the samples collected from deeper depths.
Other Water Quality Parameters. In addition to arsenic analyses, other water quality parameters were
analyzed to provide insight into the chemical processes occurring within the treatment system.
51
-------
Table 4-10 provides a summary of analytical results during APU-100 system operation from March 30,
2004, through January 5, 2005, and during APU-RWS system operation from June 13, 2005, through
May 8, 2006. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results during the operation of each
system.
pH values of raw water measured at the IN location throughout the study varied from 7.2 to 8.2 and
averaged 7.8. As noted in Section 4.4.3, pH values of the pH-adjusted water taken at the AP location and
measured with a laboratory probe were generally higher than those measured with the inline probe.
Possible explanations for the differences were provided in Section 4.4.3. pH values of the treated water
taken from TA, TB, and TT locations ranged from 7.0 to 8.3 and averaged 7.6. Considering degassing of
CO2 during sampling and analysis, the actual pH values of the treated water might have been lower than
what were measured in the laboratory. Figure 4-18 plotted pH values at the various sampling locations
throughout the treatment train over time.
Chlorine residuals were monitored at the AP and TT sampling locations to ensure that the target residual
levels were properly maintained. Chlorine residuals measured at the AP location throughout the study
ranged from 0.0 to 1.8 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 0.2 mg/L (as C12) for free chlorine and from 0.0 to 3.8
mg/L (as C12) and averaged 0.7 mg/L (as C12) for total chlorine. The free and total chlorine levels
measured at the TT location were similar to those measured at the AP location, indicating little or no
chlorine consumption through the AD-33™ media beds.
Sulfate concentrations at the IN location ranged from 27.7 to 72 mg/L, and remained unchanged across
the treatment train throughout the study with concentrations at the AP and TT locations ranging from 28.6
to 80.0 mg/L. Alkalinity, measured as CaCO3, ranged from 158 to 259 mg/L. The results indicated that
alkalinity was not affected by prechlorination, pH adjustment, or the media, with concentrations at the AP
and TT locations ranging from 160 to 236 mg/L. Again, degassing of CO2 during sampling and analysis
might have played a role. The treatment plant samples were analyzed for hardness only during speciation
events. Total hardness at the IN sampling location ranged from 47.8 to 101.0 mg/L (as CaCO3) and
remained constant throughout the treatment train.
Fluoride levels ranged from 0.3 to 1.7 mg/L in all samples throughout the study. Fluoride was measured
only during speciation events and did not appear to be affected by the AD-33™ media. Orthophosphate
was below or very near the method detection limit of 0.10 mg/L for all samples. Total phosphorus (as P),
which was measured during operation of the APU-RWS system, ranged between 71.4 and 94.2 |o,g/L prior
to the adsorption vessels (AP location) and was initially removed by the media and reached complete
breakthrough at approximately 15,000 BV (Figure 4-19). Silica concentrations in the AP location ranged
from 13.7 to 16.5 mg/L (as SiO2), and quickly reached breakthrough, as indicated by the low
concentrations at the TT location measured once at the beginning of the Phase 2 performance evaluation.
DO levels measured at the IN sampling location ranged from 3.2 to 7.8 mg/L, which were
uncharacteristically high for water containing significant amounts of As(III) and Fe(II). Errors associated
with sampling and the handheld meter might have been the contributing factors. ORP readings were
consistently lower in the raw water sample collected at the IN sample location than those from AP or the
treated water samples. There did not appear to be a significant difference in the ORP readings between
the AP samples and the treated water samples (TA, TB, TT), indicating that the AD-33™ media did not
have an effect on ORP values.
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling. Backwash wastewater samples were collected
periodically from the sample ports located in the backwash effluent discharge lines from each vessel.
Backwash was performed using raw water (non-chlorinated). The unfiltered samples were analyzed for
pH, turbidity, and TDS/TSS. Filtered samples using 0.45-|o,m disc filters were analyzed for soluble
52
-------
120
100 -
o
u
f
60 -
40 -
20 -
APU-RWS System Operating
-After Pre-Chlorination
-Outlet
* Includes data collected at TA and TB
in addition to TT
10 15 20 25
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (A103)
30
35
Figure 4-19. Total Phosphorus (as P) Breakthrough Curve
arsenic, iron, and manganese. For the last backwash wastewater sampling event taking place during the
APU-RWS system operation in Phase 2, total As, Fe, and Mn concentrations also were measured. The
analytical results are summarized in Table 4-11. As shown in the table, most results for the September 8,
2004, sample were uncharacteristically higher than the rest of the data and, therefore, are not included in
the following discussion.
pH values of backwash wastewater ranged from 7.2 to 8.4, similar to those of raw water. Soluble arsenic
concentrations ranged from 9.5 to 33.8 |o,g/L, which were somewhat lower than those in raw water. Some
soluble arsenic might have been removed by the media during backwash. Soluble iron and soluble
manganese concentrations ranged from <25 to 115 and from 3.7 to 118 |o,g/L (omitting data for July 22,
2004, Vessel A sample and data for September 8, 2004, Vessel B sample), respectively. As expected,
total arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations were considerably higher than the soluble
concentrations, indicating the presence of particulate metals in the backwash wastewater. Particulate
arsenic might be associated with either iron particles filtered out by the media beds during the service
cycle or the media fines. Assuming that 521 mg/L of TSS (average of TSS values measured during Phase
1 APU-100 system operation) was produced in 1,890 gal of backwash wastewater from the vessels,
approximately 8.2 Ib of solids would be discharged during each backwash event in Phase 1. Assuming
that 724 mg/L of TSS (average of TSS values measured during Phase 2 APU-RWS system operation) was
produced in 4,200 gal of backwash wastewater from the vessels, approximately 25.4 Ib of solids would be
discharged during each backwash event in Phase 2. Based on the total metal (or, more correctly, digested
metal) data collected during the last backwash event, the solids discharged would be composed of 0.05,
0.38, and 0.05 Ib of arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively, assuming 132 (ig/L of particulate arsenic,
10,869 (ig/L of particulate iron, and 1,535 (ig/L of particulate manganese in the backwash wastewater.
These amounts, even after being converted to the weights of corresponding metal oxides, apparently were
much lower than those estimated based on TSS. Challenges associated with sampling and sample
digestion were believed to have contributed to the discrepancies observed.
Table 4-12 presents the total metal results of two backwash solid samples (one each from Vessels A and
B backwash) collected on September 8 and 30, 2004 and analyzed in triplicate. Iron levels in the solids
53
-------
Table 4-11. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No
Date
Vessel A
M
S.U.
Turbidity
NTU
C/5
g
mg/L
C/5
e
mg/L
13
•^
<&
Hg/L
2"
3
_2
K 0
^ &
Hg/L
13
2!
Hg/L
2"
3
_2
W 0
ta &
Hg/L
13
II
Hg/L
2"
3
li
Hg/L
APU-100 Phase 1 Run 1
1
2
o
J
4
5
04/26/04
06/08/04
07/22/04
09/08/04
09/30/04
7.4
7.2
7.3
8.8(b)
7.5
470
110
23(a)
120
620
NS
320
402
l,040(b)
406
734
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
18.9
21.3
33.4
33.8
70.9(b)
26.3
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<25
<25
47
34
28
85
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
20.9
22.9
240(b)
246(b)
3.7
11.7
APU-100 Phase 1 Run 2
6
7
11/30/04
12/13/04
7.7
7.7
390
140
278
348
NS
NS
NS
NS
9.5
13.5
NS
NS
27
<25
NS
NS
24.4
55.6
APU-RWS Phase 2
1
2
08/01/05
01/31/06(d)
8.2
8.2
620
NS
398
300
NS
788
NS
166
10.8
19.8
NS
3,008
<25
53
NS
401
3.3
33.5
Sampling Event
No
Date
Vessel B
M
S.U.
Turbidity
NTU
C/5
Q
H
mg/L
C/5
C/5
H
mg/L
13
-*^
3§
Hg^
2"
A
_2
K O
<1 ^
Hg^
13
-*^
^§
Hg/L
2"
A
s
-------
Table 4-12. Backwash Solid Total Metal Results under Phase 1 Run 1
Sample ID
RF-09-08-04-BWla
RF-09-08-04-BWlb
RF-09-08-04-BW1C
Vessel 1 Average
RF-09-08-04-BW2a
RF-09-08-04-BW2b
RF-09-08-04-BW2C
Vessel 2 Average
RF-09-30-04-BWla
RF-09-30-04-BWlb
RF-09-30-04-BW1C
Vessel 1 Average
RF-09-30-04-BW2a
RF-09-30-04-BW2b
RF-09-30-04-BW2C
Vessel 2 Average
Unit
lig/g
lig/g
lig/g
VS/S
tig/g
tig/g
tig/g
tig/g
tig/g
tig/g
tig/g
tig/g
lig/g
lig/g
tig/g
tig/g
Mg
2,271
2,472
2,363
2,369
1,639
1,633
1,626
1,633
1,922
1,967
1,932
1,940
2,216
2,224
2,261
2,234
Al
397
431
410
413
403
406
401
403
441
448
437
442
668
668
669
668
Si
89.8
109
84.0
94.1
136
97.8
199
144
72.3
72.3
70.3
71.6
81.5
85.2
87.2
84.6
P
5,703
6,262
5,942
5,969
4,588
4,568
4,552
4,570
6,291
6,251
5,936
6,159
9,494
9,143
9,219
9,285
Ca
6,742
7,415
7,065
7,074
4,778
4,711
4,570
4,686
6,264
6,217
5,975
6,152
9,943
9,601
9,809
9,784
Fe
587,491
641,332
616,609
615,144
587,864
597,157
579,148
588,057
597,885
587,580
574,195
586,553
569,533
556,097
584,040
569,890
Mn
12,409
13,414
13,084
12,969
10,053
10,256
10,129
10,146
14,345
14,251
13,992
14,196
23,940
22,829
23,597
23,456
Ni
156
173
164
164
165
163
163
164
161
166
165
164
150
153
157
153
Cu
24.0
25.0
23.7
24.2
25.0
22.6
21.4
23.0
21.7
21.5
21.1
21.4
25.5
25.7
24.3
25.2
Zn
904
930
918
917
837
848
846
844
910
906
897
904
1134
1141
1080
1,118
As
2,356
2,676
2,434
2,489
2,080
2,058
2,063
2,067
2,747
2,740
2,687
2,725
3,538
3,648
3,709
3,632
Cd
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
Pb
3.45
4.07
3.29
3.60
1.66
1.69
1.61
1.65
3.53
3.48
3.46
3.49
7.29
7.39
7.31
7.3
Fe/As
Ratio00
249
240
253
247
283
290
281
284
218
214
214
215
161
152
157
157
(a) No unit.
-------
4.5.3 Spent Media Sampling. On October 27, 2004, spent media samples were collected for
metals and TCLP analysis (Section 3.3.4). The results from TCLP analysis (Table 4-13) indicated that
the media was non-hazardous and could be disposed of in a lined, permitted sanitary landfill. Only
barium was detected at 0.96 and 0.95 mg/L for the spent media taken from Vessels A and B, respectively;
the other Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals were at concentrations less than the
respective method detection limits.
Table 4-13. TCLP Results for Spent Media under Phase 1 Run 1
Parameter
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chrome
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Method
EPA 200. 7
EPA 200. 7
EPA 200. 7
EPA 200. 7
EPA 200. 7
EPA 245.1
EPA 200.7
EPA 200. 7
Concentration
Tank A
0.05
0.96
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.003
0.3
0.05
TankB
0.05
0.95
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.003
0.3
0.05
The ICP-MS results of the spent media were compared to ICP-MS results of the virgin media. The virgin
media contained mostly iron at 570 mg/g (as Fe) or 907 mg/g (as FeOOH), which compares closely to the
90.1% (by weight) specified by Bayer AG (Table 4-2). The spent media also contained mostly iron at a
higher concentration, i.e., 675 mg/g (as Fe). The metals results indicate that, when compared with the
virgin media, the spent media contained higher concentrations of nearly every metal analyzed, including
even cations, such as Al, Ca, Cd, Cu, Mg, Mn, Ni, Pb, and Zn. These cationic and anionic metals
apparently were removed by the AD-33™ media, as evident by the decreasing concentrations from top to
bottom of the media beds. The mechanisms that govern the removal of the cations by this positively
charged media is unknown.
The arsenic loading on the spent media based on the ICP-MS results was 1.88 mg/g or 0.188% (average
across bed from Table 4-14). The adsorptive capacity also was calculated by dividing the arsenic mass
represented by the area between the influent (AP) and effluent (TT) breakthrough curves, as shown in
Figure 4-15, by the amount of dry media in each tank. Assuming no media loss, the calculated dry weight
of the media, i.e., 1,170 Ib, was based on a wet weight of 1,380 Ib (i.e., 49 ft3 of media at 28.1 lb/ft3) and a
maximum moisture content of 15% (Table 4-2). Using this approach, the arsenic loading for the spent
media was 1.93 mg/g.
Table 4-14. Total Metals Analysis Results for Virgin and Spent Media*
Analyte
Unit
Virgin Media
Top of Tank A
Middle of Tank A
Bottom of Tank A
Top of TankB
Middle of TankB
Bottom of TankB
Mg
M-g/g
766
2,088
2,134
2,044
2,138
2,245
2,186
Al
Hg/g
166
414
314
309
407
446
276
Si
Hg/g
96.3
8.9
8.1
13.2
11.2
8.0
7.9
P
Hg/g
<25.4
3,779
3,761
3,495
3,706
3,840
3,529
Ca
Hg/g
1,678
5,687
4,335
3,680
5,750
3,399
2,867
Fe
mg/g
570
643
663
642
654
689
759
Mn
mg/g
1.4
27.3
11.1
4.8
26.7
7.8
5.1
Ni
M-g/g
89.5
213
163
138
217
154
140
Cu
Hg/g
5.4
14.7
13.5
10.4
11.0
9.7
8.7
Zn
M-g/g
9.9
2,550
906
321
2,424
626
326
As
M-g/g
0.9
2,515
1,831
1,392
2,475
1,644
1,421
Cd
Hg/g
<0.1 3
0.09
0.05
0.06
0.16
0.17
0.07
Pb
Hg/g
0.52
2.9
1.0
0.5
2.6
2.0
0.7
* Average compositions calculated from triplicate analyses.
56
-------
The ICP-MS result of the spent media (see Table 4-14) showed samples collected from the top layer
contained notably more manganese than the samples collected from deeper depths. As discussed in
Section 4.5.1, it appears that the presence of free chlorine prompted Mn(II) removal on the AD-33™
media. This phenomenon was observed on MnOx-coated media in a report by Knocke et al. (1990), and
likely a similar mechanism resulting from prechlorination occurred in this study.
The chemical composition of the spent media is similar to that of the backwash solids (see Table 4-12),
indicating that the backwash solids is comprised mostly of spent media.
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. Distribution system water samples were collected to
determine if the arenic treatment would impact the lead and copper level and water chemistry in the
distribution system. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment system, baseline distribution water
samples were collected on December 10, 2003, and January 6, and 21, 2004. Following the installation of
the treatment system, distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis (except during Phase 2) at
the same three locations.
The samples were analyzed for pH, alkalinity, arsenic, iron, manganese, lead, and copper. First draw
samples were collected at the three sampling locations according to the procedure noted in Section 3.3.5.
In addition, flushed samples also were collected at the DS2 and DS3 locations, which were non-
residences.
Results of the distribution samples from all three locations following installation of the treatment system
were similar to the results from the baseline sampling (Table 4-15). Copper levels did seem to fluctuate
slightly more than the other metals analyzed, especially at the DS3 location; however, there was no
discernable trend in any of the distribution sampling results collected. It was not possible to determine
the effect of the treatment system on the water quality in the distribution system. The distribution system
in place was a looped system, combining water from Wells No. 3 and No. 4 at the Porter well house,
which typically operated at 100 gpm for about 10 hr/day with the APU-100 system online, and water
from the General Sullivan Well, which typically operates at 80 to 100 gpm for about 12 hr/day (see
Section 4.1). The blending of the treated water with the untreated water from General Sullivan might
have masked any detectable effects of the APU systems on the water quality in the distribution system.
4.6 System Conversion to Coagulation/Filtration
As the longevity of the media did not meet expectations, the NHDES and District made a decision to
convert the adsorption system into a C/F system. The conversion was achieved by adding ferric chloride
(FeCl3) to raw water to remove soluble As(V) and filtering particles, including arsenic-laden iron solids,
using the existing AD-33™ media beds. Specific steps included 1) adding a static in-line mixer where the
CO2 was previously introduced into water at the stainless steel sanitary cross; 2) adding two new
chemical feed taps upstream of the static mixer, with one for NaOCl followed by another one for FeCl3;
and 3) using existing adsorptive vessels as filters pending evaluation of alternatives. NaOCl was added at
a rate similar to that during the adsorption study. FeCl3 was added at a target dose rate of 1 mg/L (as Fe).
Contact time prior to entering the media beds was estimated at 1 to 2 min based on a flowrate of 100 gpm
and the freeboard height. Treatment plant water samples were collected across the treatment train during
four sampling events in May and June 2006, and analyzed for total and/or soluble arsenic, iron, and
manganese (including two speciation events). The results, as shown in Appendix B and summarized in
Table 4-16, were sporadic and did not show satisfactory treatment results. Backwash sampling results, as
presented in Table 4-17, were similar to those for APU-RWS operation except that total metal
concentrations were consistently higher as would be expected.
57
-------
Table 4-15. Distribution System Sampling Results
No. of
Sampling
Events
BL1
BL2
BL3
Address
Sam pie Type
Flushed/ 1st Draw
Sampling Date
12/10/03
01/06/04
01/21/04
DS1
50 Water Street
Non-LCR
1st Draw
Stagnation
Time (hrs)
6.2
6
18
Q.
8.6
/./
8.1
.f
To
35
41
49
v>
3.3
3.9
4.4
£.
53
100
149
E
/.1
8.5
13.0
.a
Q_
0.3
1.4
2.1
3
O
12
200.0
18/7
DS2
Silver St. (Town Garage)
Non-Residence
1st Draw
l|
to i-
20.2
14.3
288
Q.
/.6
6.9
7.8
.f
To
21
29
35
v>
1.0
0.6
0.6
£.
<25
<25
<25
E
4.8
8.6
8.0
Q_
6.2
8.8
1.2
3
O
/O./
103
95.6
Flushed
g-»
•g £.
E 0
Si i=
NS
NA
NA
Q.
NS
/.6
7.9
APU-1000peratin
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
03/03/04
04/09/04
5/26/2004""
5/26/2004" rerun
7/27/2004'"'
8/25/04'"'
09/29/04
10/28/04
1^/9C004'"'
6.5
/.O
6.0
/.O
18.1
/.O
NA
6.0
12
7.8
NA
12
/.5
/.8
NA
/.O
110
98
NA
//
120
123
NA
106
6.6
67
3.0
3.9
6.6
8.3
NA
8.5
46
<25
74
108
<25
130
NA
99
10.3
12.1
8.9
6.8
3.5
10.9
NA
4.4
1.9
07
1.2
2.3
1.6
2.5
NA
1.6
192.0
130.5
192.0
186.0
165.0
118.0
NA
93.2
144
571
9.5
77
552
13.9
14.0
10.7
6.9
7.8
NA
6.8
6.9
7A
7.1
71
25
16
NA
32
32
41
36
40
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.0
2.4
1.0
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
6.3
9.2
4.1
12
6.4
4.9
8.0
9.0
3.6
1.5
27
/.4
9.9
3.5
3.4
22.1
112
148
3//1"1
439.1
61.5
102
322
42.1
110
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.8
77
NA
6.9
/.3
/.6
8.0
12
&
E
1
NS
31
29
v>
NS
0.5
0.5
£.
NS
<25
<25
E
NS
8.9
7.9
.a
Q_
NS
3.1
0.6
3
O
NS
44.5
41.5
DS3
679 Main Street
Non-Residence
1st Draw
If
E ~^3
S J
to i-
20.2
9.75
14.5
Q.
/.6
/.3
7.8
"E
1
21
66
31
v>
3.5
/.1
27
£.
108
<25
<25
E
13.0
6.5
5.8
.a
Q_
0.9
2.2
3.5
3
O
290
326
869
Flushed
Stagnation
Time (hrs)
NS
NA
NA
Q.
NS
/.6
7.8
"E
1
NS
/O
146
v>
NS
6.9
24.9
£.
NS
<25
93
E
NS
6.3
62.8
.a
Q_
NS
0.5
1.5
3
O
NS
328
110
g
23
26
NA
20
30
31
164
3/
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.8
2.5
1.6
0.5
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
31
<25
<25
6.5
8.1
7.4
8.8
13.0
12.1
6.9
9.1
0.5
0.3
0.9
0.9
27
2.5
0.9
1.0
12.4
22.8
/9.1
31.2
35.1
32.0
128
19./
14.5
14.8
12.8
13.8
12.5
13.8
13.7
15.3
/.O
7.6
NA
NA
/.5
/./
7.8
/.1
88
90
NA
NA
116
123
115
106
5.6
8.8
2.8
6.0
6.0
6.9
97
5.4
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
5.6
4.4
4.1
5.3
3.3
3.4
1.8
37
4.3
3.1
9.4
9.5
/.O
5.8
2.4
4.6
531
528
830
/09
771
641
234
698
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
/.5
7.6
NA
/.O
/.6
/.5
7.9
/.3
15/
115
NA
99
130
152
115
1/5
9.9
8.3
12
13.2
10.8
18.9
10.4
4.5
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
36
<25
<25
22.2
4.4
2.8
15.4
9.5
6.6
17
5.0
1.8
2.1
2.3
3.5
2.6
5.1
1.2
1.4
515
314
463
195
302
804
1/8
111
APU-RWS Operating
1
2
3
4
7/27/2005
11/3/2005
12/14/2005
1/26/2006
7.5
8.5
6.1
12.8
8.2
/.8
8.5
8.3
106
110
114
180
13.0
9.0
9.1
19.1
60
<25
<25
<25
2.5
1.9
2.2
27
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.5
28.0
8.6
4.0
8.7
NA
9.5
13.0
8.0
/.5
6.6
/./
7.9
33
44
43
40
0.5
2.2
07
1.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
6.3
4.8
5.9
9.2
4.0
3.8
27
3.0
23.8
387
6.8
9.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
/.5
6.5
/./
7.9
136
32
42
40
0.5
0.5
0.4
O./
<25
<25
<25
<25
12.4
5.4
6.8
12.1
1.9
1.0
1.0
O./
25.1
66.0
8.0
8.2
NA
15.0
14.0
NA
8.2
/.6
8.2
8.3
106
110
114
104
8.5
5.8
6.3
9.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
3.1
3.4
3.3
5.1
3./
3.9
1.6
2.5
6/.9
6/.8
42.1
20. /
NA
NA
NA
NA
/.5
/.6
8.2
8.3
106
101
114
1/1
9.8
5.5
6.0
18.5
<25
<25
<25
<25
3.9
27
3.5
2.9
1.6
27
0.6
1.0
II A
80.9
6.3
21.9
(a) DS1 sampled on May 27, 2004.
(b) DS 1 and DS4 sampled on July 26, 2004.
(c) DS2 sampled on August 26, 2004.
(d) DS3 sampled on December 8, 2004.
(e) Data questionable.
BL = baseline sampling; NA = not analyzed; NS = not sampled
Lead action level =15 ng/L; copper action level =1.3 mg/L
as units for all analytical parameters except for alkalinity, which is mg/L (as CaCO3).
-------
Table 4-16. Treatment Train Sampling Results after Conversion to Coagulation/Filtration
Sampling Date
Parameter
pH
Temperature
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Unit
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
05/08/06
IN
7.7
12.4
-
-
43.0
-
-
-
556
-
115
-
AP
7.4
12.6
0.3
0.6
9.9
-
-
-
349
-
41.0
-
TT
7.3
12.2
0.0
0.1
12.4
-
-
-
722
-
51.4
-
05/17/06
IN
7.8
12.7
-
-
31.8
27.3
4.4
13.6
13.8
399
512
280
281
AP
7.8
12.5
0.1
0.4
6.1
3.7
2.3
0.4
3.3
231
<25
4.0
1.3
TT
7.1
12.5
0.1
0.1
7.2
4.5
2.7
0.4
4.1
217
<25
9.3
1.3
06/07/06
IN
7.8
12.1
-
-
33.0
-
-
-
273
-
98.4
-
AP
7.9
12.9
0.0
0.4
34.7
-
-
-
181
-
121
-
TT
7.8
12.9
0.0
0.0
15.7
-
-
-
<25
-
8.5
-
06/22/06
IN
7.5
20.4
-
-
30.9
27.4
3.5
14.7
12.7
185
72
160
148
AP
6.9
16.0
0.3
0.6
24.6
0.6
24.0
0.4
0.2
10,915
<25
209
153
TT
7.4
15.6
0.1
0.1
11.3
10.6
0.7
10.4
0.2
<25
<25
1.1
1.3
Table 4-17. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results after Conversion to Coagulation/Filtration
Date
05/08/06
Vessel A
PH
S.U.
7.5
TDS(a)
mg/L
288
[142]
Soluble
As®
HS/L
4.8
(233)
Soluble
Fe(b)
Ug/L
93.3
(19,762)
Soluble
Mn®
Hg/L
4.3
(1,416)
Vessel B
PH
S.U.
7.6
IDS
mg/L
308
[182]
Soluble
As(b)
Hg/L
5.9
(171)
Soluble
Fe(b)
Hg/L
86.1
(20,298)
Soluble
Mn^
Ug/L
6.3
(1,286)
4.7
(a) Values in brackets are TSS results.
(b) Values in parentheses are total metals results.
System Cost
The cost of the Phase 2 APU-RWS system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of
the design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The capital and O&M cost for the
APU-100 system was evaluated previously and reported in the six-month report (Battelle, 2005).
4.7.1 Capital Cost. The capital cost for equipment, site engineering, and installation was $131,692
(see Table 4-18). The equipment cost was $105,805 (or 80% of the total capital investment), which
included $30,970 for the skid-mounted APU-RWS unit, $25,100 for the CO2 gas flow control system and
field upgrade, $14,700 for the AD-33™ media ($245/ft3 to fill both vessels), and $35,035 for
miscellaneous materials and labor for system fabrication.
The engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of the engineering plans, system layout and
footprint, drawings of site and piping plans, and equipment cut sheets for the permit application submittal
(see Section 4.3.1). The engineering cost was $4,672, which was 4% of the total capital investment.
The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted unit,
perform the piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and backwash the media (see Section 4.3.3). The
installation was performed by AdEdge and Waterline Services, a local contractor subcontracted by
AdEdge to perform the installation. The installation cost was $21,215, or 16% of the total capital
investment.
59
-------
Table 4-18. Capital Investment Cost for APU-RWS System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Cost
APU Skid-Mounted System
AD-33™ Media
pH Adjustment Module
Miscellaneous Materials and Labor
Equipment Total
1 unit
60ft3
1
-
-
$30.970
$14,700
$25,100
$35,035
$105,805
—
-
-
-
80%
Engineering Cost
Material
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Engineering Total
-
-
-
-
$98
$2,935
$1,640
$4,672
-
-
-
4%
Installation Cost
Material
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
-
$240
$17,215
$2,160
$1,600
$21,215
$131,692
-
-
-
-
16%
100%
The Rollinsford Water and Sewer District constructed a new treatment building next to the existing Porter
well house. The wood frame structure measures 33 ft x 13 ft and has a concrete foundation and floor.
The building cost was approximately $57,000, including design and construction of the subsurface leach
field directly adjacent to the building, used for disposing of the backwash water from the system.
The capital cost of $131,692 was normalized to $l,097/gpm ($0.76/gpd) of design capacity using the
system's design flowrate of 120 gpm (or 172,800 gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $12,431/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-year return period. If the system had operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/week at the 120-gpm design
flowrate to produce 63,072,000 gal/yr, the unit capital cost would have been $0.20/1000 gal. Because the
system operated only about 10 hr/day (see Table 4-6), producing approximately 21,243,000 gal of water
in one year, the unit annualized capital cost increased to $0.59/1,000 gal at this reduced rate of usage.
4.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor (Table 4-19). The media replacement cost
represented the majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to be $19,520 to change out both vessels.
This media change-out cost included costs for media, freight, labor, travel expenses, and media profiling
and disposal fee. This cost was used to estimate the media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water treated
as a function of the projected media run length to the 10 |o,g/L arsenic breakthrough (Figure 4-20). Based
on a breakthrough of 12,500 BV, the media replacement and disposal cost was $3.48/1,000 gal of water
treated. As shown in Figure 4-20, the unit O&M cost can be significantly lower if the media run length is
longer.
The chemical cost associated with the operation of the treatment system included the use of NaOCl for
prechlorination, which had already been used prior to this demonstration study. The APU-RWS system
did not affect the use rate of the NaOCl solution, therefore, the incremental chemical cost for chlorine was
negligible. As discussed in Section 4.4.3, the CO2 gas flow control system was not used during operation
of the APU-RWS system.
60
-------
Comparison of electrical bills supplied by the District prior to system installation and since system startup
did not indicate a noticeable increase in power consumption. Therefore, electrical cost associated with
APU system operation was assumed to be negligible.
Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system required
only 15 to 20 min/day, as noted in Section 4.4.7. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $0.11/1,000 gal
of water treated, based on operating 10 hours per day, 7 days per week, at 97 gpm. Thus, the total O&M
cost, including media replacement, is $3.59/1,000 gal of water treated.
Table 4-19. O&M Cost for the APU-RWS System
Cost Category
Volume processed (kgal)
Value
5,613
Assumptions
12,500 BV treatment capacity
Media Replacement and Disposal
Media cost ($/ft3)
Total media volume (ft3)
Media replacement cost
Under-bedding replacement cost
Freight
Labor cost
Waste analysis
Media disposal fee
Subtotal
Media replacement and disposal cost
($/l,000 gal)
$245
60
$14,700
$350
$450
$3,120
$450
$450
$19,520
3.48
Vendor quote
Both vessels
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Based upon media run length at 10-ug/L
arsenic breakthrough
Chemical Usage
Chemical cost ($/l,000 gal)
$0
No additional costs for chlorination
Electricity
Electricity cost ($/l,000 gal)
$0.001
Electrical costs assumed negligible
Labor
Average weekly labor (hr)
Labor cost ($/l, 000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
2.3
$0.11
3.59
20 min/day, 7 day/week
Labor rate $20/hr, 407,400 gal/wk
Based upon media run length at 10-u.g/L
arsenic breakthrough
61
-------
5,000
SystemThroughput (X 1000 gal)
10,000 15,000 20,000
25,000
$10.00
Total O&M cost
Media replacement cost
$0.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
10 20 30 40 50
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (xlOOO)
Figure 4-20. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost
62
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2003. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Battelle. 2004. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at Rollinsford, New Hampshire. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185,
Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Oxenham, J.L., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2005. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH, Six-Month Evaluation Report.
EPA/600/R-05/005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Condit, W.E. and A.S.C. Chen. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media, U.S.
EPA Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI, Six-Month Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-
06/004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Coonfare, C.T., A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, and J.M. Valigore. 2005. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water
by Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Desert Sands, MDWCA, NM, Six-
Month Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-06/004. 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.
Knocke, W.R., Hoehn, R. C.; Sinsabaugh, R. L. 1987. "Using Alternative Oxidants to Remove Dissolved
Manganese from Waters Laden with Organics." J. AWWA, 79(3): 75.
Knocke, W.R., Van Benschoten, J.E., Kearney, M., Soborski, A., and Reckhow, D.A., 1990. Alternative
Oxidants for the Remove of Soluble Iron and Manganese. Final report prepared for the AWWA
Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
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.
Oxenham, J.L., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Queen Anne's County, Maryland, Six-Month
Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-06/007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Sorg, T.J. 2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, AWWA, 28(11): 15.
63
-------
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.
Williams, S., L. Wang, and A.S.C. Chen. 2007. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water byAdsorptive
Media U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Webb Consolidated Independent School District in
Bruni, TX, Six-Month Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-07/049. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
64
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation
Week
No.
1
2
3
Date
2/9/2004
2/10/2004
2/11/2004
2/12/2004
2/13/2004
2/14/2004
2/15/2004
2/16/2004
2/17/2004
2/18/2004
2/19/2004
2/20/2004
2/21/2004
2/22/2004
2/23/2004
2/24/2004
2/25/2004
2/26/2004
2/27/2004
2/28/2004
2/29/2004
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
NA
0.0
16.5
10.1
9.9
0.6
0.1
10.1
10.0
10.0
9.9
9.9
9.9
10.3
10.0
10.5
11.8
8.3
9.7
11.9
10.7
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
NA
0.0
16.5
26.6
36.5
37.1
37.2
47.3
57.3
67.3
77.1
87.1
97.0
107.3
117.3
127.8
139.7
148.0
157.7
169.5
180.2
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
NA
36,690
36,793
36,853
36,913
36,917
36,917
36,981
37,044
37,105
37,165
37,225
37,285
37,343
37,400
37,462
37,523
37,580
37,615
37,678
37,738
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
Kgal
NA
NA
27
55
80
83
83
112
139
167
193
220
246
272
297
325
352
378
392
428
460
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
NA
NA
29
61
92
95
96
126
157
187
216
246
276
304
332
362
392
420
437
461
485
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
kgal
NA
NA
56
116
172
178
179
238
296
354
410
466
522
577
629
687
744
797
829
889
945
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
NA
NA
56
101
94
NA
NA
98
97
97
94
94
95
88
89
92
80
106
55
84
87
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated (a)(b)
No.
NA
NA
151
317
470
485
487
649
807
964
1,116
1,269
1,422
1,571
1,715
1,873
2,028
2,172
2,260
2,423
2,575
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
NA
8.2
9.1
12.0
13.0
0.0
12.5
10.5
11.7
12.5
13.2
14.4
15+
15+
15+
13.5
13.5
15.0
10.4
13.4
14.0
Tank
B
psi
NA
7.4
7.5
9.4
9.8
0.0
11.2
9.0
9.7
10.2
11.2
12.2
14.4
15+
15+
11.8
11.4
13.0
9.6
14.6
15+
System Pressure
Influent
psi
NA
79
80
82
82
0
84
80
81
81
82
83
84
88
90
85
84
85
77
86
88
Effluent
psi
NA
64
64
65
64
0
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
65
66
68
67
67
64
67
68
AP
psi
NA
15
16
17
18
0
20
16
17
17
18
19
20
23
24
17
17
18
13
19
20
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
4
5
6
Date
03/01/04
03/02/04
03/03/04
03/04/04
03/05/04
03/06/04
03/07/04
03/08/04
03/09/04
03/10/04
03/11/04
03/12/04
Pump House
Avg
Operatio
n Hours
hr
7.2
10.0
11.6
9.4
11.4
8.9
10.0
9.8
10.1
11.4
10.1
9.9
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
187.4
197.4
209.0
218.4
229.9
238.7
248.7
258.5
268.6
280.0
290.1
300.0
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
37,775
37,812
37,877
37,938
37,999
38,060
38,096
38,122
38,170
38,242
38,304
38,365
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
481
501
533
563
593
632
639
657
674
708
736
764
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
499
513
542
569
596
623
640
656
672
705
734
762
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
kgal
980
1014
1075
1132
1188
1255
1278
1313
1347
1414
1470
1526
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
81
56
89
100
82
126
39
58
56
98
93
94
Cumulative
Amount
Treated(11)(W
BV
2,670
2,762
2,930
3,083
3,238
3,420
3,484
3,577
3,670
3,852
4,005
4,158
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
7.8
11.8
9.6
12.0
13.0
15+
11.2
9.6
10.0
11.5
12.6
14.2
System Not Operating
Tank
B
psi
8.5
11.8
9.5
11.2
12.6
14.6
10.2
9.6
9.8
10.2
11.4
13.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
76
80
82
82
83
86
78
77
79
82
83
84
Effluent
psi
65
66
66
66
66
66
66
65
67
67
66
66
AP
psi
11
14
16
16
17
20
12
12
12
15
17
18
>
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
7
8
9
Date
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
kgal
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated (a)(b)
No.
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
Tank
B
psi
System Pressure
Influent
psi
Effluent
psi
AP
psi
39,302
3/26/2004
3/27/2004
3/28/2004
3/29/2004
3/30/2004
3/31/2004
4/1/2004
4/2/2004
4/3/2004
4/4/2004
4/5/2004
4/6/2004
4/7/2004
4/8/2004
4/9/2004
4/10/2004
4/11/2004
11.3
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.5
9.8
10.0
11.0
10.1
10.2
10.1
11.0
9.8
10.2
11.0
10.2
311.4
321.4
331.6
341.7
351.7
362.3
372.1
382.1
393.1
403.2
413.4
423.4
434.4
444.3
454.4
465.4
475.7
39,367
39,420
39,475
39,529
39,581
39,637
39,690
39,743
39,802
39,858
39,911
39,965
40,025
40,077
40,131
40,190
40,246
827
852
877
901
925
951
975
999
1,027
1,053
1,078
1,103
1,130
1,154
1,179
1,207
1,233
827
851
876
901
926
952
977
1,003
1,030
1,055
1,080
1,106
1,133
1,158
1,183
1,210
1,236
1654
1704
1753
1802
1851
1903
1952
2002
2057
2108
2159
2209
2263
2312
2362
2418
2469
NA
81
81
81
82
82
83
83
84
84
83
83
82
83
82
84
84
4,508
4,642
4,776
4,910
5,044
5,186
5,319
5,455
5,606
5,744
5,882
6,018
6,167
6,300
6,437
6,588
6,728
10.6
10.6
11.8
10.6
11.9
13.0
13.4
14.2
11.8
12.5
14.0
13.2
13.3
14.0
15+
11.2
12.5
11.2
11.0
11.8
10.8
11.6
12.5
13.4
14.0
12.3
12.8
14.6
13.8
13.6
13.9
15+
11.7
12.8
83
82
84
83
83
83
83
84
83
84
86
86
84
84
90
82
84
67
67
67
67
67
66
66
66
66
67
66
67
67
66
66
66
67
16
15
17
16
16
17
17
18
17
17
20
19
17
18
24
16
17
>
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
10
11
12
Date
4/12/2004
4/13/2004
4/14/2004
4/15/2004
4/16/2004
4/17/2004
4/18/2004
4/19/2004
4/20/2004
4/21/2004
4/22/2004
4/23/2004
4/24/2004
4/25/2004
4/26/2004
4/27/2004
4/28/2004
4/29/2004
4/30/2004
5/1/2004
5/2/2004
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
10.1
10.1
10.0
9.9
10.0
12.6
18.9
10.0
10.8
9.9
10.0
11.1
10.1
11.3
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.1
11.3
10.1
10.0
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
485.8
495.9
505.9
515.8
525.8
538.4
557.2
567.2
578.0
587.9
597.9
609.0
619.2
630.4
640.4
650.4
660.4
670.5
681.8
691.9
701.9
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
40,300
40,354
40,407
40,461
40,514
40,583
40,680
40,731
40,788
40,841
40,894
40,953
41,007
41,068
41,122
41,178
41,229
41,282
41,338
41,400
41,455
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
1,259
1,283
1,308
1,333
1,357
1,391
1,436
1,460
1,486
1,510
1,534
1,562
1,586
1,615
1,640
1,666
1,690
1,715
1,740
1,770
1,796
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
1,261
1,286
1,312
1,336
1,361
1,394
1,438
1,462
1,488
1,508
1,538
1,566
1,592
1,619
1,644
1,669
1,694
1,719
1,745
1,773
1,798
Cumulativ
eFlow
Totalizer
k gal
2520
2570
2620
2669
2719
2784
2874
2922
2974
3018
3072
3128
3178
3234
3284
3334
3384
3434
3486
3543
3594
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
84
83
83
82
83
87
79
80
81
74
90
83
83
83
84
84
82
83
76
95
85
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated (a)(b)
No.
6,866
7,002
7,138
7,272
7,407
7,586
7,831
7,961
8,103
8,225
8,371
8,522
8,660
8,812
8,949
9,085
9,220
9,356
9,497
9,654
9,793
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
13.8
12.8
12.8
14.5
15.0
9.6
11.4
11.2
12.0
12.6
13.4
12.9
15+
12.2
13.6
14.8
15.0
15+
15+
12.6
12.2
Tank
B
psi
14.5
13.0
12.8
14.7
15+
10.4
11.6
11.7
11.8
12.7
13.2
14.0
15+
12.8
14.6
15+
15+
15+
15+
13.2
13.2
System Pressure
Influent
psi
86
84
84
84
84
82
84
84
83
83
84
84
86
85
84
87
87
86
87
82
81
Effluent
psi
65
65
66
66
66
66
68
68
67
67
66
66
66
67
67
67
66
65
64
65
65
AP
psi
21
19
18
18
18
16
16
16
16
16
18
18
20
18
17
20
21
21
23
17
16
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
13
14
15
Date
5/3/2004
5/4/2004
5/5/2004
5/6/2004
5/7/2004
5/8/2004
5/9/2004
5/10/2004
5/11/2004
5/12/2004
5/13/2004
5/14/2004
5/15/2004
5/16/2004
5/17/2004
5/18/2004
5/19/2004
5/20/2004
5/21/2004
5/22/2004
5/23/2004
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
9.9
10.0
10.1
10.4
9.8
12.1
10.1
9.7
10.3
10.1
24.9
23.6
25.5
6.2
10.7
10.0
10.6
0.8
10.0
25.0
24.6
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
711.8
721.8
731.9
742.3
752.1
764.2
774.3
783.9
794.3
804.3
829.3
852.8
878.3
884.5
895.3
905.3
915.8
916.6
926.6
951.6
976.3
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
41,509
41,563
41,617
41,671
41,724
41,735
41,771
41,807
41,843
41,879
41,963
42,040
42,121
42,147
42,183
42,219
42,257
42,260
42,298
42,387
42,471
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
1,821
1,846
1,871
1,896
1,919
1,926
1,941
1,957
1,973
1,988
2,023
2,055
2,089
2,101
2,118
2,135
2,153
2,155
2,172
2,213
2,251
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
1,823
1,848
1,873
1,898
1,924
1,930
1,948
1,966
1,983
2,000
2,043
2,083
2,124
2,135
2,152
2,168
2,186
2,187
2,205
2,246
2,285
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
kgal
3644
3694
3745
3794
3843
3855
3889
3923
3956
3988
4065
4138
4213
4236
4270
4303
4339
4342
4376
4459
4536
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
84
83
83
79
84
NA
55
58
53
53
52
51
49
62
52
56
56
NA
57
55
52
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated (a)(b)
No.
9,930
10,067
10,203
10,338
10,472
10,505
10,596
10,688
10,778
10,866
11,077
11,275
11,480
11,543
11,634
11,725
11,823
11,831
11,924
12,150
12,360
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
12.8
15.0
15.0
15+
15+
10.5
11.5
18.0
19.0
20.0
20.0
21.0
23.0
6.5
10.0
10.0
11.5
13.0
13.5
13.0
13.0
Tank
B
psi
12.4
15+
15.0
15+
15+
18.0
20.0
26.5
27.5
27.5
27.0
27.5
29.5
15.0
14.0
16.0
18.5
21.5
21.0
21.0
21.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
82
85
85
85
86
80
76
78
78
79
80
82
82
76
72
75
75
76
74
76
77
Effluent
psi
65
64
66
66
66
66
64
62
62
62
64
65
64
64
64
64
64
63
62
62
64
AP
psi
17
21
19
19
20
14
12
16
16
17
16
17
18
12
8
11
11
13
12
14
13
>
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
16
17
18
Date
5/24/2004
5/25/2004
5/26/2004
5/27/2004
5/28/2004
5/29/2004
5/30/2004
5/31/2004
6/1/2004
6/2/2004
6/3/2004
6/4/2004
6/5/2004
6/6/2004
6/7/2004
6/8/2004
6/9/2004
6/10/2004
6/11/2004
6/12/2004
6/13/2004
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
10.0
20.4
NA
10.0
10.0
11.2
10.3
0.0
NA
9.9
10.1
11.0
NA
NA
32.5
9.9
11.1
23.8
24.0
18.4
10.2
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
986.3
1,006.7
NA
1,016.7
1,026.7
1,037.9
1,048.2
1,048.2
NA
1,058.1
1,068.2
1,079.2
NA
NA
1,111.7
1,121.6
1,132.7
1,156.5
1,180.5
1,198.9
1,209.1
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
42,506
42,579
NA
42,615
42,649
42,687
42,713
42,714
NA
42,752
42,792
42,823
NA
NA
42,938
42,971
43,009
43,086
43,167
43,227
43,260
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
2,268
2,284
2,302
2,317
2,332
2,350
2,360
NA
NA
NA
2,363
2,378
NA
NA
2,431
2,447
2,462
2,497
2,524
2,545
2,554
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
2,302
2,319
2,336
2,353
2,372
2,390
2,405
NA
NA
NA
2,407
2,421
NA
NA
2,474
2,490
2,510
2,550
2,599
2,637
2,657
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
kgal
4570
4603
4638
4671
4703
4740
4765
NA
NA
NA
4770
4799
NA
NA
4905
4937
4972
5046
5123
5182
5211
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
57
27
NA
55
55
55
41
NA
NA
NA
NA
45
NA
NA
NA
54
53
52
53
54
47
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated (a)(b)
No.
12,452
12,542
12,636
12,726
12,816
12,915
12,984
NA
NA
NA
12,996
13,078
NA
NA
13,365
13,452
13,548
13,750
13,959
14,121
14,200
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
12.5
13.5
15.0
14.0
25.0
14.0
25.0
NA
NA
NA
20.0
25.0
NA
NA
25.0
11.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
Tank
B
psi
20.5
21.0
25.0
20.5
30.0
23.0
30.0
NA
NA
NA
30.0
30.0
NA
NA
30+
20.0
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
System Pressure
Influent
psi
79
78
78
76
82
84
100
NA
NA
NA
100
96
NA
NA
96
75
87
88
80
92
96
Effluent
psi
64
65
62
64
63
63
64
NA
NA
NA
64
64
NA
NA
64
62
63
62
60
62
62
AP
psi
15
13
16
12
19
21
36
NA
NA
NA
36
32
NA
NA
32
13
24
26
20
30
34
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
19
20
21
Date
6/14/2004
6/15/2004
6/16/2004
6/17/2004
6/18/2004
6/19/2004
6/20/2004
6/21/2004
6/22/2004
6/23/2004
6/24/2004
6/25/2004
6/26/2004
6/27/2004
6/28/2004
6/29/2004
6/30/2004
7/1/2004
7/2/2004
7/3/2004
7/4/2004
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
10.3
21.6
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
1,219.40
1,241.00
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
43,291
43,371
75.3
10.1
10
10
10.1
1,316.30
1,326.40
1,336.40
1,346.40
1,356.50
43,636
43,669
43,702
43,722
43,763
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
2,567
2,586
2,599
2,620
2,623
2,635
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
2,685
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
kgal
5252
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
66
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated (a)(b)
No.
14,310
System Not Operating
2,699
2,718
2,737
2,755
2,769
5285
5316
5357
5378
5404
NA
51
68
35
43
14,402
14,486
14,598
14,655
14,725
System Not Operating
Head Loss
Tank Tank
A B
psi psi
28 30+
System Pressure
Influent Effluent AP
psi psi psi
100+ 64 36+
|
17 17
26 26
29 29
30+ 30+
30+ 30+
80 63 17
86 62 24
90 61 29
93 60 33
93 60 33
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
22
23
24
Date
7/5/2004
7/6/2004
7/7/2004
7/8/2004
7/9/2004
7/10/2004
7/11/2004
7/12/2004
7/13/2004
7/14/2004
7/15/2004
7/16/2004
7/17/2004
7/18/2004
7/19/2004
7/20/2004
7/21/2004
7/22/2004
7/23/2004
7/24/2004
7/25/2004
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
96.4
10.1
10.1
10.2
10.1
10.4
10.0
9.9
10.0
10.3
10.1
10.1
10.3
12.3
10.3
10.8
10.2
1,452.8
1,462.9
1,473.0
1,483.2
1,493.3
1,503.7
1,513.7
1,523.6
1,533.6
1,543.9
1,554.0
1,564.1
1,574.4
1,586.7
1,597.0
1,607.8
1,618.0
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
44,474
44,512
44,550
44,587
44,625
44,664
44,700
44,737
44,776
44,813
44,850
44,887
44,924
44,991
45,058
45,128
45,192
2,657
2,673
2,693
2,706
2,722
2,739
2,754
2,770
2,786
2,802
2,817
2,835
2,853
2,883
2,916
2,940
2,963
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
kgal
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
(a)(b)
No.
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
System Not Operating
2,793
2,814
2,834
2,854
2,874
2,894
2,914
2,934
2,954
2,974
2,993
3,010
3,028
3,055
3,086
3,109
3,137
5450
5487
5526
5560
5596
5633
5668
5703
5740
5775
5811
5846
5881
5939
6003
6049
6100
NA
60
65
55
60
60
58
60
61
58
58
58
57
78
104
71
84
14,851
14,951
15,058
15,149
15,248
15,349
15,444
15,541
15,640
15,737
15833
15,928
16,024
16,181
16,356
16,482
16,622
10.0
10.0
11.0
11.5
13.0
15.0
17.5
18.0
11.0
15.0
20.0
21.0
25.0
30+
30+
30+
30+
Tank
B
psi
System Pressure
Influent
psi
Effluent
psi
AP
psi
7.5
7.5
9.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
14.5
9.0
13.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
30+
30+
30+
30+
72
71
74
73
74
75
78
79
72
78
82
82
85
100+
100+
98
100
63
63
63
62
62
62
62
63
64
63
62
62
62
64
64
64
66
9
8
11
11
12
13
16
16
8
15
20
20
23
36+
36+
34
34
>
oo
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
25
26
27
Date
7/26/2004
7/27/2004
7/28/2004
7/29/2004
7/30/2004
7/31/2004
8/1/2004
8/2/2004
8/3/2004
8/4/2004
8/5/2004
8/6/2004
8/7/2004
8/8/2004
8/9/2004
8/10/2004
8/11/2004
8/12/2004
8/13/2004
8/14/2004
8/15/2004
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
10.1
10.9
10.7
16.0
10.8
10.0
14.8
0.0
20.2
10.0
12.0
9.9
10.1
10.2
9.7
0.0
11.6
NA
19.7
10.1
10.3
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
1,628.1
1,639.0
1,649.7
1,665.7
1,676.5
1,686.6
1,701.3
1,701.3
1,721.5
1,731.5
1,743.5
1,753.4
1,763.5
1,773.7
1,783.4
1,783.4
1,795.0
NA
1,814.7
1,824.8
1,835.0
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
45,255
45,327
45,393
45,496
45,567
45,633
45,727
45,792
45,854
45,921
46,001
46,067
46,134
46,201
46,267
46,267
46,342
NA
46,477
46,546
46,613
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
2,991
3,015
3,036
3,066
3,094
3,116
3,147
3,167
3,188
3,207
3,242
3,270
3,300
3,329
3,356
3,356
3,387
NA
3,439
3,465
3,489
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
3,156
3,190
3,221
3,268
3,298
3,329
3,372
3,402
3,431
3,461
3,497
3,527
3,558
3,588
3,619
3,619
3,654
NA
3,718
3,752
3,785
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
kgal
6148
6204
6256
6334
6392
6445
6519
6569
6619
6668
6739
6797
6857
6917
6975
6975
7041
NA
7158
7217
7274
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
78
87
81
81
89
87
83
NA
41
82
98
98
100
97
100
NA
95
NA
99
98
93
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated (a)(b)
No.
16,751
16,906
17,047
17,260
17,417
17,561
17,762
17,899
18,035
18,169
18,362
18,520
18,685
18,847
19,006
19,006
19,185
NA
19,503
19,664
19,821
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
30+
19.0
22.0
30+
20.0
20.0
22.0
23.5
25.0
25.0
13.0
14.0
16.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
16.5
NA
19.0
21.0
21.0
Tank
B
psi
30+
18.0
21.5
30+
19.0
19.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
25.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
16.5
16.0
17.0
16.0
NA
18.0
20.0
20.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
100
84
88
100
84
82
87
90
92
90
76
74
78
80
82
80
80
NA
82
84
86
Effluent
psi
66
66
66
65
64
63
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
65
65
64
64
NA
64
64
65
AP
psi
34
18
22
35
20
19
23
26
28
26
12
10
14
15
17
16
16
NA
18
20
21
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
28
29
30
Date
8/16/2004
8/17/2004
8/18/2004
8/19/2004
8/20/2004
8/21/2004
8/22/2004
8/23/2004
8/24/2004
8/25/2004
8/26/2004
8/27/2004
8/28/2004
8/29/2004
8/30/2004
8/31/2004
9/1/2004
9/2/2004
9/3/2004
9/4/2004
9/5/2004
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
10.2
10.3
10.5
10.7
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.0
10.1
10.3
10.0
10.0
10.2
10.1
10.0
10.1
10.8
10.3
9.9
10.2
10.3
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
1,845.2
1,855.6
1,866.0
1,876.7
1,886.7
1,896.8
1,907.0
1,917.0
1,927.1
1,937.3
1,947.3
1,957.3
1,967.5
1,977.6
1,987.6
1,997.6
2,008.4
2,018.7
2,028.6
2,038.8
2,049.0
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
46,679
46,748
46,817
46,889
46,955
47,023
47,090
47,157
47,224
47,291
47,358
47,424
47,492
47,559
47,625
47,691
47,762
47,830
47,895
47,962
48,028
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
3,514
3,543
3,574
3,608
3,639
3,670
3,700
3,730
3,760
3,789
3,817
3,846
3,875
3,904
3,932
3,959
3,988
4,016
4,043
4,069
4,095
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
3,818
3,853
3,886
3,919
3,949
3,981
4,012
4,044
4,076
4,110
4,141
4,173
4,206
4,239
4,272
4,305
4,340
4,374
4,407
4,441
4,476
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
kgal
7331
7396
7460
7526
7588
7651
7713
7774
7836
7899
7959
8020
8081
8143
8204
8264
8328
8390
8450
8510
8571
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
93
105
102
103
102
104
101
103
102
102
100
101
101
102
101
100
100
100
100
99
99
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated (a)(b)
No.
19,977
20,154
20,328
20,508
20,675
20,847
21,016
21,183
21,351
21,522
21,687
21,852
22,020
22,188
22,354
22,517
22,693
22,862
23,023
23,188
23,354
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
22.0
17.0
19.0
12.0
12.0
14.0
15.0
15.5
16.0
15.5
16.0
16.5
17.5
17.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.5
19.0
20.5
21.0
Tank
B
psi
21.0
17.0
19.0
11.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
15.5
16.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.5
18.5
20.0
20.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
100
94
99
90
90
92
94
94
96
96
94
95
96
96
96
98
98
84
83
84
86
Effluent
psi
67
66
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
AP
psi
33
28
31
22
22
24
26
26
28
28
26
27
28
28
28
30
30
16
15
16
18
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
31
32
33
Date
9/6/2004
9/7/2004
9/8/2004
9/9/2004
9/10/2004
9/11/2004
9/12/2004
9/13/2004
9/14/2004
9/15/2004
9/16/2004
9/17/2004
9/18/2004
9/19/2004
9/20/2004
9/21/2004
9/22/2004
9/23/2004
9/24/2004
9/25/2004
9/26/2004
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
9.9
9.9
10.2
11.1
10.8
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.2
11.0
9.9
10.0
10.2
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.9
11.0
9.9
10.3
10.1
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
2,058.9
2,068.9
2,079.1
2,090.2
2,101.0
2,111.1
2,121.2
2,131.2
2,141.4
2,152.3
2,162.2
2,172.2
2,182.4
2,192.4
2,202.4
2,212.4
2,222.3
2,233.3
2,243.2
2,253.4
2,263.6
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
48,094
48,159
48,225
48,298
48,369
48,436
48,503
48,569
48,636
48,707
48,772
48,837
48,903
48,968
49,033
49,099
49,165
49,233
49,298
49,363
49,429
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
4,120
4,145
4,175
4,208
4,240
4,270
4,300
4,328
4,355
4,384
4,411
4,437
4,463
4,488
4,514
4,539
4,567
4,593
4,618
4,642
4,667
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
4,511
4,546
4,576
4,609
4,642
4,673
4,705
4,737
4,767
4,802
4,835
4,869
4,903
4,945
4,971
5,006
5,038
5,075
5,109
5,144
5,180
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
kgal
8631
8691
8751
8818
8882
8943
9004
9065
9122
9187
9246
9306
9366
9433
9485
9545
9605
9668
9727
9786
9846
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
101
100
98
101
100
101
101
101
93
99
101
99
98
112
86
101
101
96
99
97
99
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated
(a)(b)
No.
23,517
23,680
23,844
24,026
24,203
24,369
24,535
24,700
24,855
25,032
25,194
25,356
25,520
25,703
25,844
26,009
26,172
26,344
26,503
26,665
26,829
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
21.5
22.0
27.0
11.5
12.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
17.0
17.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
20.0
20.0
19.0
20.0
20.0
20.5
Tank
B
psi
20.5
22.0
17.0
13.0
12.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
15.0
17.0
17.0
18.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
20.0
21.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
86
86
92
76
78
80
80
80
82
82
82
82
84
84
84
86
86
84
86
86
86
Effluent
psi
68
66
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
AP
psi
18
20
24
8
10
12
12
12
14
14
14
14
16
16
16
18
18
16
18
18
18
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
34
35
36
Date
9/27/2004
9/28/2004
9/29/2004
9/30/2004
10/1/2004
10/2/2004
10/3/2004
10/4/2004
10/5/2004
10/6/2004
10/7/2004
10/8/2004
10/9/2004
10/10/2004
10/11/2004
10/12/2004
10/13/2004
10/14/2004
10/15/2004
10/16/2004
10/17/2004
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
10.1
10.0
10.2
10.0
10.7
10.1
10.1
10.0
9.8
10.1
10.1
10.2
10.0
10.1
10.0
10.0
10.4
10.0
10.7
10.5
10.1
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
2,273.6
2,283.6
2,293.8
2,303.8
2,314.6
2,324.7
2,334.8
2,344.8
2,354.6
2,364.7
2,374.7
2,384.9
2,394.9
2,405.0
2,415.0
2,425.0
2,435.4
2,445.4
2,456.1
2,466.6
2,476.6
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
49,493
49,558
49,624
49,688
49,759
49,825
49,892
49,957
50,022
50,088
50,154
50,219
50,284
50,349
50,414
50,478
50,545
50,609
50,680
50,747
50,813
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
4,691
4,715
4,740
4,763
4,786
4,826
4,856
4,885
4,912
4,938
4,964
4,988
5,012
5,036
5,059
5,083
5,107
5,130
5,162
5,193
5,222
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
5,215
5,250
5,286
5,321
5,353
5,383
5,414
5,445
5,478
5,511
5,544
5,579
5,614
5,650
5,685
5,720
5,756
5,791
5,818
5,854
5,885
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
kgal
9906
9966
10025
10084
10139
10209
10270
10330
10389
10449
10508
10568
10627
10686
10744
10803
10863
10921
10980
11047
11107
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
99
99
98
97
85
116
101
100
101
98
99
97
98
98
98
97
96
98
92
106
100
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated
(a)(b)
No.
26,992
27,154
27,317
27,476
27,626
27,818
27,984
28,147
28,309
28,471
28,633
28,795
28,956
29,116
29,276
29,436
29,599
29,758
29,918
30,101
30,265
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
20.0
22.0
23.0
23.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
16.5
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.5
19.5
20.0
19.0
20.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
Tank
B
psi
20.0
22.0
23.0
22.0
12.5
12.5
14.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
17.0
17.5
17.5
18.0
18.5
19.0
18.0
20.0
12.0
13.0
13.5
System Pressure
Influent
psi
86
86
88
88
76
80
80
74
82
83
83
82
84
84
85
85
84
85
76
78
80
Effluent
psi
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
69
68
68
69
AP
psi
18
18
20
20
8
12
12
6
14
15
15
14
16
16
17
17
16
16
8
10
11
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
37
38
39
Date
10/18/2004
10/19/2004
10/20/2004
10/21/2004
10/22/2004
10/23/2004
10/24/2004
10/25/2004
10/26/2004
10/27/2004
10/28/2004
10/29/2004
10/30/2004
10/31/2004
11/1/2004
11/2/2004
11/3/2004
11/4/2004
11/5/2004
11/6/2004
11/7/2004
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
10.1
8.9
11.2
10.0
10.4
10.1
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
2,486.7
2,495.6
2,506.7
2,516.8
2,527.1
2,537.2
2,547.2
2,557.3
2,567.3
2,577.3
72.9
10.0
10.4
10.3
10.1
2,650.1
2,660.1
2,670.5
2,680.8
2,690.9
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
50,878
50,935
51,007
51,072
51,138
51,203
51,268
51,333
51,396
51,462
51,942
52,004
52,075
52,140
52,204
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
5,250
5,275
5,305
5,331
5,358
5,384
5,410
5,439
5,460
5,485
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
5,916
5,944
5,980
6,012
6,046
6,079
6,112
6,144
6,178
6,212
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
kgal
11167
11219
11285
11344
11404
11463
11521
11584
11638
11697
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
99
99
97
98
97
98
98
103
90
100
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated (a)(b)
No.
30,427
30,571
30,748
30,909
31,072
31,234
31,393
31,563
31,710
31,873
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
14.0
15.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
1TO
System Not Operating
37
67
94
130
161
36
64
94
122
150
73
132
188
252
311
NA 223
98 401
89 570
105 767
97 946
10.5
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
Tank
B
psi
14.0
15.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
ITO
10.5
10.5
11.0
12.0
12.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
80
80
81
82
82
82
83
83
83
82
80
80
80
81
81
Effluent
psi
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
70
70
70
70
69
AP
psi
12
12
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
14
10
10
10
11
12
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
40
41
42
Date
1 1/8/2004
11/9/2004
11/10/2004
11/11/2004
11/12/2004
11/13/2004
11/14/2004
11/15/2004
11/16/2004
11/17/2004
11/18/2004
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
43
44
45
Date
11/29/2004
11/30/2004
12/1/2004
12/2/2004
12/3/2004
12/4/2004
12/5/2004
12/6/2004
12/7/2004
12/8/2004
12/9/2004
12/10/2004
12/11/2004
12/12/2004
12/13/2004
12/14/2004
12/15/2004
12/16/2004
12/17/2004
12/18/2004
12/19/2004
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
8.9
9.1
1.6
9.6
8.9
9.1
9.0
9.0
9.9
9.3
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.0
10.1
9.2
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.2
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
2,915.4
2,924.5
2,926.1
2,935.7
2,944.6
2,953.6
2,962.7
2,971.7
2,981.6
2,990.9
3,000.0
3,009.1
3,018.2
3,027.2
3,037.3
3,046.5
3,055.6
3,064.7
3,073.8
3,083.0
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
53,596
53,657
53,667
53,732
53,795
53,856
53,916
53,977
54,045
54,108
54,169
54,231
54,292
54,353
54,422
54,484
54,546
54,608
54,670
54,732
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
799
826
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
781
802
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
kgal
1580
1629
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
NA
89
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated (a)(b)
No.
4,803
4,950
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
20.0
13.5
System Not Operating
831
862
891
920
949
977
1,008
1,038
1,067
1,096
1,124
1,152
1,185
1,214
1,242
1,268
1,296
1,321
807
835
863
890
916
943
973
1,000
1,000
1,027
1,054
1,081
1,108
1,138
1,165
1,193
1,221
1,250
1638
1697
1754
1810
1865
1920
1981
2038
2067
2122
2178
2233
2292
2351
2407
2462
2517
2572
NA
102
106
103
102
101
103
101
102
102
101
102
98
107
101
100
102
98
4,979
5,158
5,331
5,501
5,669
5,835
6,022
6,194
6,282
6,451
6,620
6,788
6,968
7,147
7,316
7,482
7,651
7,816
13.5
15.5
16.0
17.0
18.0
21.0
14.5
15.5
16.5
17.0
18.0
20.0
14.5
15.5
18.0
19.0
20.5
22.0
Tank
B
psi
15.0
13.5
13.5
15.5
16.0
16.5
18.0
21.0
14.5
15.5
16.0
16.5
18.0
20.0
14.5
15.0
17.5
18.5
20.0
22.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
100
94
90
94
95
98
100
100
96
96
98
98
100
100
95
96
98
100
100
100
Effluent
psi
69
70
67
68
69
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
AP
psi
31
24
23
26
26
28
30
30
26
26
28
28
30
30
25
26
28
30
30
30
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
46
47
48
Date
12/20/2004
12/21/2004
12/22/2004
12/23/2004
12/24/2004
12/25/2004
12/26/2004
12/27/2004
12/28/2004
12/29/2004
12/30/2004
12/31/2004
1/1/2005
1/2/2005
1/3/2005
1/4/2005
1/5/2005
1/6/2005
1/7/2005
1/8/2005
1/9/2005
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
9.0
9.9
8.9
10.0
9.1
9.9
9.1
9.9
9.0
10.1
9.1
9.9
9.9
9.0
9.9
11.1
9.9
10.3
9.6
8.6
10.4
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
3,092.1
3,102.0
3,110.9
3,120.9
3,130.0
3,139.9
3,149.0
3,158.9
3,167.9
3,178.0
3,187.1
3,197.1
3,206.9
3,215.9
3,225.8
3,236.9
3,246.8
3,257.1
3,266.8
3,275.4
3,285.8
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
54,792
54,859
54,922
54,991
55,053
55,121
55,182
55,250
55,311
55,380
55,442
55,511
55,580
55,643
55,711
55,784
55,861
55,933
56,000
56,063
56,132
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
1,347
1,381
1,409
1,442
1,470
1,502
1,524
1,552
1,572
1,598
1,621
1,648
1,677
1,701
1,730
1,733
1,763
1,791
1,820
1,847
1,874
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
1,279
1,309
1,336
1,362
1,390
1,417
1,446
1,477
1,510
1,541
1,575
1,606
1,638
1,668
1,697
1,727
1,730
1,765
1,798
1,827
1,853
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
kgal
2626
2689
2745
2804
2859
2919
2970
3029
3082
3139
3195
3253
3316
3369
3427
3460
3493
3556
3619
3673
3728
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
101
106
103
99
101
101
92
100
98
94
104
97
106
98
98
50
54
103
108
105
88
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated (a)(b)
No.
7,983
8,174
8,342
8,524
8,691
8,873
9,026
9206
9,367
9,540
9,712
9,889
10,079
10,240
10,417
10,518
10,616
10,809
10,999
11,164
11,330
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
26.0
17.0
20.0
16.5
22.0
18.0
22.0
18.0
24.0
18.0
22.0
21.0
17.5
25.0
26.0
28.0
23.0
18.0
16.5
20.0
13.5
Tan
kB
psi
26.0
17.0
20.0
16.5
21.5
18.0
22.0
18.0
24.0
18.5
22.0
21.0
18.0
25.0
26.0
28.0
22.5
18.0
17.0
20.5
17.5
System Pressure
Influent
psi
100
98
100
98
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100+
100+
100+
100
96
100+
98
Effluent
psi
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
AP
psi
30
28
30
28
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
26
30
28
Os
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-100 System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
49
Date
1/10/2005
1/11/2005
1/12/2005
1/13/2005
1/14/2005
1/15/2005
1/16/2005
Pump House
Avg
Operation
Hours
hr
8.5
10.6
9.0
9.0
9.1
10.0
NA
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
3,294.3
3,305.0
3,314.0
3,323.0
3,332.1
3,342.1
NA
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
56,193
56,263
56,324
56,384
56,450
56,524
Off
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
kgal
1,896
1,927
1,952
1,952
NA
1,979
NA
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
kgal
1,884
1,914
1,943
1,969
NA
NA
NA
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
kgal
3781
3842
3895
3922
NA
NA
NA
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
104
96
98
49
NA
NA
NA
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated (a)(b)
No.
11,492
11,677
11,838
11,920
NA
NA
NA
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
24.0
26.0
26.0
30.0
Off
27.0
Off
Tank
B
psi
25.0
26.5
27.5
30.0
Off
27.0
Off
System Pressure
Influent
psi
100
100
100
100
Off
100
Off
Effluent
psi
70
70
70
70
Off
70
Off
AP
Psi
30
30
30
30
Off
30
Off
NA = Not Applicable
(a) Initial Bed Volume = 49 cu.ft. or 367 gal total for both vessels
(b) Media change on 10/27/04. New bed volume = 44 cu. ft. (22 cu. ft. for each vessel) or 329 gal total for both vessels
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-RWS System Operation
Week
No.
1
2
3
Date
6/13/2005
6/14/2005
6/15/2005
6/16/2005
6/17/2005
6/18/2005
6/19/2005
6/20/2005
6/21/2005
6/22/2005
6/23/2005
6/24/2005
6/25/2005
6/26/2005
6/27/2005
6/28/2005
6/29/2005
6/30/2005
7/1/2005
7/2/2005
7/3/2005
Pump House
Average
Operation
Hours
hr
NA
NA
10.0
18.0
17.4
10.1
10.1
10.2
10.0
10.0
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.2
13.7
NA
15.6
10.1
10.1
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
NA
NA
10.0
28.0
45.4
55.5
65.6
75.8
85.8
95.8
105.9
116.0
126.1
136.2
146.2
156.4
170.1
NA
185.7
195.8
205.9
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
NA
65,033
65,103
65,223
65,343
65,413
65,483
65,553
65,621
65,683
65,764
65,835
65,906
65,976
66,045
66,116
66,211
66,233
66,268
66,306
66,344
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
gal
NA
33
62
113
163
193
223
253
283
312
341
371
401
432
462
493
531
544
562
580
599
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
gal
NA
37
67
121
169
198
227
256
285
315
346
375
404
433
461
489
526
534
548
562
575
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
NA
NA
60
164
263
321
340
439
498
557
617
676
735
794
853
911
988
1001
1040
1071
1104
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
NA
NA
99
97
95
97
97
96
99
98
99
97
98
97
97
97
92
NA
33
53
53
Cumulative
Total Bed
Volumes
Treated*"'
No.
NA
NA
133
366
585
715
846
977
1,109
1,240
1,375
1,505
1,638
1,769
1,899
2,031
2,200
2,246
2,316
2,387
2,459
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
NA
0.0
2.0
2.5
3.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.5
9.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.5
11.0
TankB
psi
NA
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
8.0
8.0
10.0
10.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
NA
59.0
67.0
67.0
67.0
69.0
68.0
68.0
70.0
70.0
69.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
71.0
72.0
74.0
70.0
70.0
72.0
74.0
Effluent
Psi
NA
58.0
64.0
62.0
62.0
63.0
64.0
68.0
62.0
62.0
63.0
62.0
62.0
63.0
61.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
60.0
62.0
62.0
AP
psi
NA
1.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
4.0
0.0
8.0
8.0
6.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
10.0
10.0
12.0
8.0
10.0
10.0
12.0
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-RWS System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
4
5
6
Date
7/4/2005
7/5/2005
7/6/2005
7/7/2005
7/8/2005
7/9/2005
7/10/2005
7/11/2005
7/12/2005
7/13/2005
7/14/2005
7/15/2005
7/16/2005
7/17/2005
7/18/2005
7/19/2005
7/20/2005
7/21/2005
7/22/2005
7/23/2005
7/24/2005
Pump House
Average
Operation
Hours
hr
10.2
10.0
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.6
11.1
9.2
10.1
10.1
10.9
9.6
13.1
7.1
10.6
9.9
10.4
10.2
10.1
10.1
10.2
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
216.1
226.1
236.2
246.3
256.3
266.9
278.0
287.2
297.3
307.4
318.3
328.0
341.1
348.2
358.8
368.7
379.1
389.3
399.4
409.5
419.7
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
66,383
66,421
66,492
66,564
66,634
66,710
66,782
66,854
66,925
66,996
67,065
67,123
67,170
67,217
67,290
67,360
67,433
67,504
67,574
67,645
67,715
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
gal
616
639
667
700
731
765
795
826
856
886
910
940
959
978
1006
1032
1060
1087
1114
1142
1169
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
gal
590
604
631
657
684
718
748
111
806
843
856
885
905
926
958
989
1021
1053
1084
1114
1144
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
1136
1173
1228
1286
1345
1413
1473
1533
1592
1660
1696
1756
1794
1835
1893
1951
2011
2070
2128
2185
2243
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
52
62
90
97
97
107
90
108
98
112
56
102
50
94
92
98
96
96
96
94
94
Cumulative
Total Bed
Volumes
Treated*"'
No.
2,530
2,613
2,734
2,866
2,996
3,147
3,280
3,413
3,545
3,696
3,778
3,910
3,997
4,086
4,216
4,345
4,479
4,609
4,740
4,867
4,995
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
11.0
11.5
11.5
12.0
12.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
7.5
8.0
TankB
psi
10.0
10.0
10.0
11.5
11.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
76.0
74.0
74.0
75.0
76.0
67.0
67.0
68.0
68.0
69.0
68.0
68.0
69.0
69.0
70.0
69.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
71.0
72.0
Effluent
psi
64.0
61.0
62.0
63.0
63.0
63.0
63.0
62.0
63.0
63.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
61.0
62.0
62.0
61.0
62.0
63.0
AP
psi
12.0
13.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-RWS System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
7
8
9
Date
7/25/2005
7/26/2005
7/27/2005
7/28/2005
7/29/2005
7/30/2005
7/31/2005
8/1/2005
8/2/2005
8/3/2005
8/4/2005
%/5/2QQ5m
8/6/2005
8/7/2005
8/8/2005
8/9/2005
8/10/2005
8/11/2005
8/12/2005
8/13/2005
8/14/2005
Pump House
Average
Operation
Hours
hr
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.2
10.4
10.1
10.2
10.1
5.4
10.1
10.4
10.1
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
429.8
439.8
449.9
460.1
470.5
480.6
490.8
500.8
506.3
516.3
526.7
536.8
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
67,785
67,854
67,924
67,995
68,068
68,138
68,209
68,280
68,319
68,390
68,464
68,536
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
gal
1194
1225
1255
1284
1315
1344
1372
1400
1418
1450
1480
1509
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
gal
1173
1201
1229
1256
1284
1312
1340
1367
1384
1411
1439
1468
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
2297
2356
2413
2470
2529
2585
2642
2698
2733
2791
2850
2908
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
89
99
94
94
94
93
93
93
107
96
95
95
Cumulative
Total Bed
Volumes
Treated*"'
No.
5,115
5,247
5,374
5,502
5,632
5,758
5,884
6,008
6,086
6,215
6,347
6,476
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
8.5
8.5
9.0
9.0
9.5
9.5
9.5
10.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
TankB
psi
7.5
7.5
8.0
8.0
8.5
8.5
9.0
9.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
System Pressure
Influent
psi
68.0
69.0
72.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
74.0
74.5
66.0
66.0
67.0
67.0
Effluent
psi
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
63.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
AP
psi
6.0
7.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
11.5
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
System Offline Between August 5, 2005
and September 26, 2005.
to
o
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-RWS System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
16
17
18
Date
9/26/2005(tl)
9/27/2005
9/28/2005
9/29/2005
9/30/2005
10/1/2005
10/2/2005
10/3/2005
10/4/2005
10/5/2005
10/6/2005
10/7/2005
10/8/2005
10/9/2005
10/10/2005
10/11/2005
10/12/2005
10/13/2005
10/14/2005
10/15/2005
10/16/2005
Pump House
Average
Operation
Hours
hr
NA
10.8
10.2
10.2
10.1
11.0
9.2
10.0
13.8
12.6
10.2
10.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
9.5
10.9
22.3
24.2
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
Master
Flow
Meter
hr gal
536.8
547.7
557.8
568.0
578.1
589.1
598.3
608.3
622.1
634.7
644.9
654.9
664.9
664.9
664.9
674.4
685.4
707.7
731.9
72,285
72,361
72,432
72,503
72,574
72,645
72,716
72,786
72,882
72,968
73,039
73,109
73,180
73,180
73,180
73,256
73,331
73,486
73,639
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
gal
1647
1675
1704
1731
1757
1784
1810
1837
1863
1899
1930
1931
1959
1986
2043
2099
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
gal
1603
1630
1659
1687
1715
1742
1770
1797
1824
1861
1893
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
NA
2962
3020
3075
3129
3183
3237
3291
3344
3417
3481
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
90
89
89
90
82
97
89
87
84
Cumulative
Total Bed
Volumes
Treated*"'
No.
NA
6,596
6,727
6,848
6,969
7,090
7,210
7,329
7,449
7,610
7,752
Head Loss
Tank
A
psi
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
TankB
psi
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
System Not Operating
1894
1922
1950
2008
2064
3481
3537
3592
3707
3819
NA
98
85
86
77
7,753
7,877
8,001
8,257
8,506
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
System Pressure
Influent
psi
66.0
67.0
67.0
68.0
67.0
68.0
69.0
70.0
68.0
66.0
67.0
Effluent
psi
62.0
62.0
63.0
62.0
62.0
63.0
62.0
63.0
63.0
62.0
62.0
AP
psi
4.0
5.0
4.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
65.0
66.0
67.0
67.0
67.0
60.0
61.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
>
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-RWS System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
19
20
21
Date
10/17/2005
10/18/2005
10/19/2005
10/20/2005
10/21/2005
10/22/2005
10/23/2005
10/24/2005
10/25/2005
10/26/2005
10/27/2005
10/28/2005
10/29/2005
10/30/2005
10/31/2005
11/1/2005
11/2/2005
11/3/2005
11/4/2005
11/5/2005
11/6/2005
Pump House
Average
Operation
Hours
hr
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
Master
Flow
Meter
hr gal
NA
15.8
10.0
10.0
10.3
13.0
10.1
10.3
10.1
10.1
10.2
10.1
9.9
10.6
11.3
9.6
14.0
731.9
747.7
757.7
767.7
778.0
791.0
801.2
811.5
821.6
831.7
841.9
851.9
861.9
872.5
883.7
893.3
907.3
73,786
73,852
73,893
73,935
73,977
74,080
74,158
74,237
74,314
74,391
74,468
74,544
74,617
74,699
74,774
74,850
74,925
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
gal
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
gal
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
Cumulative
Total Bed
Volumes
Treated*"'
No.
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
System Not Operating
2153
2118
NA
NA
NA
2.0
TankB
psi
System Pressure
Influent
psi
Effluent
psi
AP
psi
1.0
70.0
64.0
6.0
| System Not Operating
2153
2169
2205
2232
2260
2286
2313
2339
2365
2392
2419
2445
2471
2498
2119
2135
2174
2204
2235
2265
2294
2324
2353
2383
2413
2442
2471
2500
NA
3851
3927
3984
4041
4098
4154
4210
4266
4321
4380
4435
4490
4545
NA
52
96
93
94
94
93
91
93
93
92
82
96
65
NA
8,578
8,745
8,872
9,001
9,127
9,252
9,377
9,501
9,624
9,754
9,877
10,000
10,122
1.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
70.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
77.0
69.0
70.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
69.0
69.0
69.0
69.0
1.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
to
to
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-RWS System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
22
23
24
Date
11/7/2005
11/8/2005
1 1/9/2005
11/10/2005
11/11/2005
11/12/2005
11/13/2005
11/14/2005
11/15/2005
11/16/2005
11/17/2005
11/18/2005
11/19/2005
11/20/2005
11/21/2005
1 1/22/2005
11/23/2005
11/24/2005
1 1/25/2005
1 1/26/2005
11/27/2005
Pump House
Average
Operation
Hours
hr
10.1
10.0
10.1
10.1
17.8
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.0
10.0
24.1
11.9
10.6
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.0
9.6
12.1
11.0
10.1
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
Master
Flow
Meter
hr gal
917.4
927.4
937.5
947.6
965.4
975.4
985.5
995.7
1,005.8
1,015.8
1,039.9
1,051.8
1,062.4
1,072.4
1,082.6
1,092.7
1,102.7
1,112.4
1,124.4
1,135.5
1,145.6
75,002
75,077
75,153
75,229
75,359
75,433
75,508
75,583
75,656
75,732
75,900
75,984
76,060
76,135
76,210
76,285
76,360
76,435
76,528
76,603
76,679
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
gal
2524
2550
2577
2604
2649
2675
2701
2727
2753
2779
2839
2868
2895
2920
2946
2972
2998
3024
3056
3082
3108
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
gal
2529
2557
2586
2615
2662
2692
2720
2748
mi
2804
2867
2898
2926
2954
2982
3010
3038
3066
3100
3128
3156
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
4600
4655
4710
4766
4860
4914
4968
5023
5077
5131
5253
5313
5368
5422
5476
5529
5583
5637
5703
5757
5811
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
91
91
91
91
88
90
90
89
91
90
84
84
00
00
00
00
88
89
89
93
92
81
89
Cumulative
Total Bed
Volumes
Treated*"'
No.
10,245
10,368
10,491
10,614
10,824
10,944
11,065
11,186
11,308
11,428
11,699
11,832
11,957
12,075
12,195
12,315
12,434
12,554
12,703
12,823
12,942
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
TankB
psi
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
76.0
76.0
77.0
76.0
76.0
77.0
77.0
76.0
76.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
Effluent
psi
70.0
70.0
71.0
70.0
70.0
71.0
71.0
70.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
71.0
AP
psi
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
to
OJ
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-RWS System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
25
26
27
Date
11/28/2005
11/29/2005
1 1/30/2005
12/1/2005
12/2/2005
12/3/2005
12/4/2005
12/5/2005
12/6/2005
12/7/2005
12/8/2005
12/9/2005
12/10/2005
12/11/2005
12/12/2005
12/13/2005
12/14/2005
12/15/2005
12/16/2005
12/17/2005
12/18/2005
Pump House
Average
Operation
Hours
hr
10.1
10.0
10.1
12.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.6
9.1
9.0
9.2
9.1
9.0
9.0
9.5
9.1
9.1
9.1
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
Master
Flow
Meter
hr gal
1,155.7
1,165.7
1,175.7
1,187.9
1,197.0
1,206.1
1,215.2
1,224.3
1,233.4
1,242.5
1,252.1
1,261.2
1,270.2
1,279.4
1,288.6
1,297.6
1,306.6
1,316.1
1,325.2
1,334.2
1,343.4
76,754
76,829
76,903
76,993
77,060
77,127
77,194
77,261
77,327
77,393
77,463
77,512
77,578
77,623
77,689
77,754
77,808
77,876
77,942
78,008
78,075
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
gal
3134
3160
3186
3217
3241
3265
3289
3313
3337
3361
3387
3406
3430
3450
3472
3497
3517
3543
3567
3591
3616
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
gal
3183
3211
3239
3272
3297
3322
3349
3372
3396
3421
3447
3466
3491
3508
3533
3557
3578
3604
3629
3654
3679
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
5865
5918
5972
6037
6085
6134
6185
6232
6281
6330
6382
6419
6469
6504
6553
6601
6642
6694
6743
6793
6842
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
89
89
89
89
89
89
93
87
89
90
90
68
91
67
86
90
76
91
90
91
90
Cumulative
Total Bed
Volumes
Treated*"'
No.
13,062
13,181
13,301
13,444
13,553
13,662
13,774
13,880
13,989
14,098
14,213
14,296
14,407
14,489
14,594
14,702
14,794
14,909
15,018
15,128
15,238
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
TankB
psi
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
System Pressure
Influent
psi
77.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
77.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
Effluent
psi
71.0
70.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
70.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
70.0
70.0
71.0
70.0
70.0
71.0
72.0
72.0
71.0
71.0
AP
psi
6.0
8.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-RWS System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
28
29
30
Date
12/19/2005
12/20/2005
12/21/2005
12/22/2005
12/23/2005
12/24/2005
12/25/2005
12/26/2005
12/27/2005
12/28/2005
12/29/2005
12/30/2005
12/31/2005
1/1/2006
1/2/2006
1/3/2006
1/4/2006
1/5/2006
1/6/2006
1/7/2006
1/8/2006
Pump House
Average
Operation
Hours
hr
9.1
9.1
9.0
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.2
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.0
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
Master
Flow
Meter
hr gal
1,352.5
1,361.6
1,370.6
1,379.7
1,388.8
1,397.9
1,407.1
1,416.2
1,425.3
1,434.4
1,443.5
1,452.6
1,461.7
1,470.8
1,479.9
1,488.9
1,497.9
1,506.9
1,515.9
1,525.1
1,534.1
78,141
78,208
78,273
78,339
78,405
78,471
78,536
78,602
78,668
78,733
78,798
78,864
78,929
78,995
79,060
79,126
79,191
79,256
79,321
79,387
79,452
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
gal
3640
3665
3688
3713
3737
3761
3785
3809
3833
3857
3880
3904
3928
3951
3976
3999
4022
4045
4069
4093
4117
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
gal
3704
3729
3754
3779
3804
3829
3854
3879
3905
3930
3955
3980
4006
4030
4055
4080
4105
4130
4154
4179
4204
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
6891
6941
6990
7039
7088
7137
7186
7236
7285
7334
7383
7432
7481
7529
7578
7626
7674
7722
7770
7819
7868
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
90
91
90
90
90
90
89
90
90
89
89
90
90
88
91
88
89
89
89
89
90
Cumulative
Total Bed
Volumes
Treated*"
No.
15,348
15,458
15,567
15,676
15,786
15,896
16,005
16,115
16,225
16,334
16,442
16,551
16,661
16,769
16,878
16,985
17,092
17,199
17,306
17,415
17,523
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.5
5.5
5.5
TankB
psi
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
System Pressure
Influent
psi
77.0
77.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
79.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
79.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
78.0
79.0
79.0
79.0
79.0
Effluent
psi
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
AP
psi
6.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-RWS System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
31
32
33
Date
1/9/2006
1/10/2006
1/11/2006
1/12/2006
1/13/2006
1/14/2006
1/15/2006
1/16/2006
1/17/2006
1/18/2006
1/19/2006
1/20/2006
1/21/2006
1/22/2006
1/23/2006
1/24/2006
1/25/2006
1/26/2006
1/27/2006
1/28/2006
1/29/2006
Pump House
Average
Operation
Hours
hr
9.2
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.0
9.0
10.2
9.1
9.1
9.0
8.1
9.6
9.6
9.0
9.2
9.1
9.0
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
Master
Flow
Meter
hr gal
1,543.3
1,552.3
1,561.3
1,570.4
1,579.5
1,588.6
1,597.7
1,606.8
1,615.8
1,624.8
1,635.0
1,644.1
1,653.2
1,662.2
1,670.3
1,679.9
1,689.5
1,698.5
1,707.7
1,716.8
1,725.8
79,518
79,582
79,647
79,712
79,777
79,842
79,907
79,972
80,037
80,101
80,176
80,243
80,309
80,375
80,442
80,508
80,574
80,640
80,707
80,773
80,840
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
gal
4140
4164
4187
4211
4235
4259
4283
4306
4329
4353
4382
4405
4428
4451
4475
4500
4524
4549
4573
4598
4623
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
gal
4229
4253
4277
4303
4327
4352
4377
4401
4426
4451
4477
4504
4530
4555
4580
4604
4629
4653
4678
4701
4725
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
7916
7964
8012
8061
8110
8158
8207
8255
8303
8351
8407
8456
8505
8554
8603
8651
8700
8749
8798
8847
8896
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
88
89
88
90
89
89
89
OO
00
88
90
91
90
90
91
100
84
85
90
89
90
90
Cumulative
Total Bed
Volumes
Treated*"'
No.
17,631
17,738
17,844
17,953
18,061
18,170
18,278
18,385
18,491
18,599
18,723
18,832
18,941
19,051
19,160
19,268
19,377
19,486
19,595
19,704
19,813
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
TankB
psi
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.0
1.0
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
System Pressure
Influent
psi
78.0
79.0
79.0
79.0
79.0
79.0
79.0
79.0
79.0
79.0
78.0
78.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
76.0
76.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
Effluent
psi
71.0
72.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
70.0
70.0
68.0
70.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
AP
psi
7.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-RWS System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
34
35
36
Date
1/30/2006
1/31/2006
2/1/2006
2/2/2006
2/3/2006
2/4/2006
2/5/2006
2/6/2006
2/7/2006
2/8/2006
2/9/2006
2/10/2006
2/11/2006
2/12/2006
2/13/2006
2/14/2006
2/15/2006
2/16/2006
2/17/2006
2/18/2006
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-RWS System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
37
38
39
Date
2/20/2006
2/21/2006
2/22/2006
2/23/2006
2/24/2006
2/25/2006
2/26/2006
2/27/2006
2/28/2006
3/1/2006
3/2/2006
3/3/2006
3/4/2006
3/5/2006
3/6/2006
3/7/2006
3/8/2006
3/9/2006
3/10/2006
3/11/2006
3/12/2006
Pump House
Average
Operation
Hours
hr
9.1
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
10.0
8.0
9.1
9.1
9.0
9.0
-0.4
9.3
9.8
9.1
9.0
9.1
9.1
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
1,922.2
1,931.2
1,940.3
1,949.4
1,958.5
1,967.6
1,976.7
1,985.8
1,995.8
2,003.8
2,012.9
2,022.0
2,031.1
2,040.1
2,039.7
2,049.0
2,058.8
2,067.9
2,076.9
2,086.0
2,095.1
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
82,261
82,327
82,393
82,459
82,524
82,590
82,655
82,720
82,785
82,849
82,915
82,980
83,045
83,081
83,082
83,149
83,221
83,287
83,353
83,390
83,421
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
gal
5128
5150
5173
5197
5222
5247
5271
5295
5319
5343
5367
5390
5414
5427
5428
5452
5478
5502
5526
5540
5552
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
gal
5268
5296
5323
5348
5372
5397
5421
5446
5471
5496
5521
5546
5572
5586
5586
5612
5639
5664
5690
5704
5717
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
9944
9993
10043
10092
10142
10191
10240
10289
10337
10386
10435
10484
10533
10561
10561
10611
10665
10714
10763
10792
10816
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
91
91
92
90
91
90
90
90
81
101
90
89
90
52
NA
88
92
91
91
52
45
Cumulative
Total Bed
Volumes
Treated*"'
No.
22,146
22,256
22,367
22,477
22,587
22,697
22,806
22,915
23,023
23,131
23,241
23,349
23,458
23,520
23,521
23,632
23,752
23,862
23,972
24,035
24,089
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
TankB
psi
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
System Pressure
Influent
psi
76.0
76.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
75.0
75.0
74.0
74.0
75.0
70.0
71.0
Effluent
psi
70.0
70.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.5
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
70.0
69.0
68.0
70.0
71.0
67.0
68.0
AP
psi
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
to
oo
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-RWS System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
40
41
42
Date
3/13/2006
3/14/2006
3/15/2006
3/16/2006
3/17/2006
3/18/2006
3/19/2006
3/20/2006
3/21/2006
3/22/2006
3/23/2006
3/24/2006
3/25/2006
3/26/2006
3/27/2006
3/28/2006
3/29/2006
3/30/2006
3/31/2006
4/1/2006
4/2/2006
Pump House
Average
Operation
Hours
hr
9.2
9.9
9.2
9.1
9.1
NA
NA
18.3
9.1
9.0
9.1
9.1
9.0
9.1
9.1
9.0
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
2,104.3
2,114.2
2,123.4
2,132.5
2,141.6
NA
NA
2,159.9
2,169.0
2,178.0
2,187.1
2,196.2
2,205.2
2,214.3
2,223.4
2,232.4
2,241.5
2,250.6
2,259.7
2,268.8
2,277.9
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
83,458
83,496
83,534
83,565
83,598
NA
NA
83,703
83,736
83,774
83,806
83,844
83,876
83,914
83,946
83,984
84,016
84,054
84,086
84,124
84,156
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
gal
5566
5581
5594
5605
5616
NA
NA
5655
5667
5681
5693
5707
5718
5732
5744
5757
5779
5782
5794
5807
5819
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
gal
5730
5746
5762
5775
5789
NA
NA
5832
5845
5860
5873
5888
5901
5916
5929
5945
5958
5974
5987
6002
6016
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
10844
10874
10903
10928
10953
NA
NA
11035
11059
11088
11113
11142
11167
11196
11220
11249
11284
11303
11328
11357
11382
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
51
51
52
45
46
NA
NA
75
45
54
45
53
46
53
45
54
64
35
45
53
45
Cumulative
Total Bed
Volumes
Treated*"'
No.
24,152
24,219
24,283
24,338
24,393
NA
NA
24,576
24,631
24,695
24,750
24,815
24,870
24,935
24,990
25,054
25,132
25,174
25,229
25,294
25,349
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.2
TankB
psi
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
76.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
NA
NA
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
63.0
62.0
62.0
61.0
61.0
62.0
Effluent
psi
71.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
NA
NA
60.0
59.0
59.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
60.0
59.0
59.0
59.0
59.0
58.0
58.0
59.0
AP
psi
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
NA
NA
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-RWS System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
43
44
45
Date
4/3/2006
4/4/2006
4/5/2006
4/6/2006
4/7/2006
4/8/2006
4/9/2006
4/10/2006
4/11/2006
4/12/2006
4/13/2006
4/14/2006
4/15/2006
4/16/2006
4/17/2006
4/18/2006
4/19/2006
4/20/2006
4/21/2006
4/22/2006
4/23/2006
Pump House
Average
Operation
Hours
hr
9.1
9.0
21.9
9.1
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.0
9.1
9.1
9.0
9.1
9.0
9.1
9.1
9.1
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
2,287.0
2,296.0
2,317.9
2,327.0
2,336.3
2,345.5
2,354.6
2,363.7
2,372.8
2,381.8
2,390.8
2,399.9
2,408.9
2,418.0
2,427.1
2,436.1
2,445.2
2,454.2
2,463.3
2,472.4
2,481.5
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
84,195
84,226
84,318
84,349
84,389
84,421
84,459
84,491
84,529
84,561
84,599
84,631
84,670
84,701
84,740
84,771
84,810
84,842
84,881
84,913
84,951
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
gal
5832
5843
5877
5888
5903
5915
5930
5942
5957
5970
5985
5997
6012
6025
6041
6053
6068
6082
6097
6110
6126
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
gal
6031
6045
6081
6094
6109
6121
6135
6147
6161
6173
6187
6199
6213
6225
6238
6250
6263
6275
6288
6300
6313
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
11411
11435
11505
11530
11560
11584
11612
11637
11666
11690
11719
11744
11773
11797
11826
11850
11879
11904
11933
11957
11987
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
53
45
53
45
54
44
53
45
53
45
53
45
54
45
53
45
53
46
54
45
53
Cumulative
Total Bed
Volumes
Treated*"'
No.
25,414
25,469
25,624
25,679
25,745
25,799
25,864
25,918
25,983
26,037
26,101
26,155
26,220
26,274
26,339
26,393
26,457
26,512
26,577
26,631
26,696
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
1.2
1.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.5
2.9
2.5
TankB
psi
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.0
System Pressure
Influent
psi
62.0
62.0
63.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
63.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
63.0
63.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
Effluent
psi
59.0
59.0
60.0
60.0
59.0
59.0
59.0
59.0
58.0
58.0
59.0
59.0
58.0
59.0
58.0
58.0
59.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0
AP
psi
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
OJ
o
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
APU-RWS System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
46
47
Date
4/24/2006
4/25/2006
4/26/2006
4/27/2006
4/28/2006
4/29/2006
4/30/2006
5/1/2006
5/2/2006
5/3/2006
5/4/2006
5/5/2006
5/6/2006
5/7/2006
Pump House
Average
Operation
Hours
hr
9.1
9.0
9.0
19.3
9.1
9.0
9.1
9.1
9.0
18.1
0.0
9.0
9.1
9.1
Cumulative
Operation
Hours
hr
2,490.6
2,499.6
2,508.6
2,527.9
2,537.0
2,546.0
2,555.1
2,564.2
2,573.2
2,591.3
2,591.3
2,600.3
2,609.4
2,618.5
Master
Flow
Meter
gal
84,983
85,021
85,053
85,134
85,173
85,211
85,250
85,288
85,326
85,388
85,389
85,427
85,465
85,503
Instrument Panel
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel A
gal
6139
6154
6167
6201
6217
6232
6247
6262
6277
6302
6301
6317
6332
6347
Flow
Totalizer
Vessel B
gal
6325
6338
6349
6377
6390
6404
6418
6432
6446
6469
6469
6483
6497
6510
Cumulative
Flow
Totalizer
gal
12011
12040
12064
12125
12154
12183
12212
12241
12270
12318
12318
12347
12376
12405
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
45
53
45
53
53
54
53
53
53
44
NA
54
53
53
Cumulative
Total Bed
Volumes
Treated*"'
No.
26,750
26,814
26,869
27,005
27,070
27,134
27,199
27,264
27,328
27,434
27,434
27,499
27,564
27,628
Head Loss
Tank A
psi
2.6
3.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
5.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
TankB
psi
2.0
3.0
2.5
5.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
System Pressure
Influent
psi
62.0
63.0
63.0
64.0
62.0
63.0
64.0
62.0
62.0
64.0
70.0
63.0
64.0
65.0
Effluent
psi
59.0
58.0
59.0
58.0
57.0
58.0
59.0
59.0
59.0
59.0
64.0
58.0
59.0
59.0
AP
psi
3.0
5.0
4.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
NA = Not Applicable
(a) Bed volume = 60 cu.ft. or 449 gallons total for both vessels
(b) System down since August 5, 2005.
(c) CO2 shut off because it was adding air bubbles to the system.
(d) Unit bypassed on September 26, 2005.
(e) Power outage between February 18-19, 2006.
(f) Week of 6/12/2006 through 6/18/2006 used 6% chlorine solution.
(g) Operational data from pump house was not collected from 7/3/2006 to 7/9/2006.
(h) Operational data was not collected from 7/10/2006 to 7/23/2006.
(i) Operational data was not collected from 8/7/2006 to 8/13/2006.
>
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L«
re/L
re/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
re/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
02/10/04
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH(APU-IOO) (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
mg/L«
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L«
mg/L(a)
|jg/L
^g/L
^g/L
Hg/L
^g/L
re/L
Hg/L
^g/L
Hg/L
03/09/04
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
re/L
Hg/L
^g/L
|jg/L
^g/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
^g/L
^g/L
04/19/04
IN
-
188
0.6
46
<0.10
15.3
<0.05
0.4
7.9
12.4
5.4
-64
-
-
54.9
30.2
24.7
41.3
35.5
5.8
18.1
17.4
68
29
112
112
AP
-
188
0.6
46
<0.10
15.6
<0.05
0.3
7.2
12.5
3.3
-16
-
-
54.3
29.7
24.6
42.5
35.4
7.1
0.5
34.9
53
<25
109
105
TT
8.0
196
0.6
40
<0.10
15.3
<0.05
0.6
7.5
13.5
2.0
-33
-
-
64.6
35.4
29.2
6.1
5.1
1.0
0.5
4.6
<25
<25
1.5
1.0
04/29/04
IN
-
195
-
-
NA(e)
14.0
-
1.0
7.8
13.6
4.3
-50
-
-
-
-
-
36.3
-
-
-
-
115
-
85.1
-
AP
-
191
-
-
NA(e)
14.2
-
1.4
7.1
12.8
2.0
-7
0.40
0.60
-
-
-
37.4
-
-
-
-
214w
-
93.4
-
TA
9.3
187
-
-
NA(e)
15.1
-
0.7
7.2
12.6
1.9
-10
-
-
-
-
-
3.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.3
-
TB
9.4
171
-
-
NA(e)
15.2
-
0.7
7.2
12.5
2.3
-11
-
-
-
-
-
3.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.7
-
05/05/04
IN
-
259
-
-
0.11
15.6
-
1.3
8.0
14.8
4.3
-56
-
-
-
-
-
39.9
-
-
-
-
211
-
102
-
AP
-
231
-
-
<0.10
15.4
-
0.9
7.6
14.2
3.6
-30
0.06
0.30
-
-
-
42.9
-
-
-
-
144
-
114
-
TA
10.2
219
-
-
<0.10
15.3
-
0.4
7.5
14.3
3.4
-27
-
-
-
-
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.1
-
TB
10.2
207
-
-
<0.10
15.7
-
0.5
7.5
13.9
4.1
-26
-
-
-
-
-
5.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.2
-
05/18/04
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/L«
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
re/L
|jg/L
re/L
re/L
Hg/L
re/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
re/L
05/25/04
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
rng/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L«
mg/Lw
Hg/L
MJ/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
07/20/04
IN
-
164
-
-
<0.10
13.9
-
0.8
7.5
14.1
3.4
-30
-
-
-
-
-
28.7
-
-
-
-
178
-
196
-
AP
-
164
-
-
<0.10
13.9
-
0.6
7.2
13.6
2.7
-17
0.07
0.71
-
-
-
30.0
-
-
-
-
171
-
196
-
TA
15.5
160
-
-
<0.10
14.3
-
0.7
7.2
13.6
3.8
-13
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.3
-
TB
16.4
172
-
-
<0.10
14.2
-
0.7
7.1
14.1
2.2
-11
-
-
-
-
-
2.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
5.2
-
07/29/04
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
re/L
jjg/L
jjg/L
^g/L
jjg/L
^g/L
^g/L
jjg/L
jjg/L
08/17/04fe>
<0.1®
68
<25/
<25
83.5
71.71
75.8
TT
24.0
182
1.6
42
<0.10
15.2
0.09
0.4
7.6
16.0
3.2
-42
0.28
0.34
56.4
33.5
22.8
20.8
18.5
2.3
0.4
18.1
78
<25
9.7
0.7
(a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) On-site water quality measurements were sampled on August 18, 2004. (d) On-site water quality measurements were sampled on August 26, 2004.
(e) Not enough sample for re-analysis, (f) (/) indicates re-run data w/original result/re-run result, (g) Data is questionable, (h) Operator did not take on-site water quality measurements.
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined.
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/L«
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L«
mg/L(a)
Hg/L
^g/L
^g/L
|jg/L
^g/L
Hg/L
^g/L
^g/L
Hg/L
09/14/04
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
N03-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
re/L
Hg/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
Hg/L
10/12/04
IN
-
191
-
-
<0.06
16.7
-
1.1
8.0
13.2
4.4
220
-
-
-
-
-
34.2
-
-
-
-
133
-
125.0
-
AP
-
183
-
-
<0.06
15.3
-
0.8
7.8
12.5
2.8
434
0.40
0.50
-
-
-
39.6
-
-
-
-
142
-
99.1
-
TA
27.7
183
-
-
<0.06
14.7
-
0.3
7.7
12.5
3.3
437
-
-
-
-
-
34.1
-
-
-
-
25
-
8.3
-
TB
31.2
183
-
-
<0.06
15.2
-
0.3
7.7
12.6
2.9
466
-
-
-
-
-
23.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
14.9
-
10/21/04
IN
-
185
185
-
-
2.30
<0.06
7.5®
7.4
-
6.4
1.8
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
-
-
-
-
-
31.0
32.0
-
-
-
-
204®
133
-
67.0
67.0
-
AP
-
185
181
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
7.8®
7.3
-
0.4
0.5
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
-
-
-
38.0
35.0
-
-
-
-
327®
222
-
120.0®
81.0
-
TA
29.1
185
185
-
-
<0.06
0.1C
7.6®
7.6
-
0.2
0.2
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
-
-
-
-
-
20.0
19.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
3.8®
1.4
-
TB
32.8
181
181
-
-
<0.06
0.0?
7.7®
7.8
-
0.5
0.5
NA([1)
NA(tl)
NA([1)
NA([1)
-
-
-
-
-
21.0
23.0
-
-
-
-
25®
39
-
3.8®
6.9
-
10/26/04
IN
-
172
-
-
<0.06
14.5
-
0.7
NA([1)
NA(tl)
NA([1)
NA([1)
-
-
-
-
-
32.0
-
-
-
-
119
-
63.0
-
AP
-
172
-
-
<0.06
14.5
-
0.5
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
-
-
-
31.0
-
-
-
-
95
-
72.0
-
TA
29.8
172
-
-
0.12
14.4
-
0.2
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
-
-
-
-
-
29.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.9
-
TB
33.7
172
-
-
0.23
14.2
-
0.3
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
-
-
-
-
-
30.0
-
-
-
-
28
-
1.7
-
ll/04/04(c)
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
|jg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
Hg/L
11/10/04
IN
-
185
-
-
<0.06
15.3
-
0.8
8.1
13.6
3.6
234
-
-
-
-
-
32.3
-
-
-
-
164
-
81.8
-
AP
-
184
-
-
<0.06
15.1
-
0.9
8.1(c)
13.8
3.6
238
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
mg/L«
jjg/L
jjg/L
re/L
jjg/L
re/L
jjg/L
re/L
jjg/L
re/L
12/13/04
IN
-
203
-
-
<0.06
16.1
-
3.7
7.7
11.3
4.8
210
-
-
-
-
-
41.9
-
-
-
-
492
-
151
-
AP
-
191
-
-
<0.06
15.9
-
2.0
7.2
11.2
4.2
81
0.01
0.03
-
-
-
35.7
-
-
-
-
333
-
127
-
TA
7.0
195
-
-
<0.06
15.3
-
0.9
7.4
11.0
3.7
86
-
-
-
-
-
3.4
-
-
-
-
36
-
26.7
-
TB
6.6
191
-
-
<0.06
16.1
-
0.7
7.2
11.8
3.4
88
-
-
-
-
-
3.4
-
-
-
-
37
-
26.5
-
01/05/05(<1)
IN
-
174
174
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
15.1
14.8
-
2.4
8.0
7.4
7.6
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
-
-
-
31.2
31.6
-
-
-
-
96
60
-
65.1
69.1
-
AP
-
174
174
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
14.4
14.5
-
0.6
0.6
7.4
7.6
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
-
-
-
31.5
31.8
-
-
-
-
47
70
-
69.0
71.1
-
TA
10.7
182
186
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
15.9
15.8
-
0.4
0.4
7.4
7.5
NA(tl)
NA([1)
NA(tl)
NA([1)
NA(tl)
-
-
-
4.1
3.5
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
15.4
12.9
-
TB
10.5
186
186
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
15.8
15.8
-
0.4
0.4
7.4
7.6
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
NA(tl)
-
-
-
4.7
4.7
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
12.5
12.5
-
(a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) On-site water quality measurements taken on December 14, 2004. (d) On-site water quality
measurements not taken, (d) The pH was measured at the laboratory and not on-site. (e) System bypassed due to high pressure
conditions.
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined. NA = data not available.
-------
Table 2. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-RWS)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Unit
10A3
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L«
mg/Lw
mg/LW
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
6/13/2005
-------
Table 2. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-RWS) (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
10A3
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/L«
mg/L(a)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
9/28/2005
-------
Table 2. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-RWS) (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
10A3
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
11/30/2005
IN
-
176
0.4
35
0.1
82.3
15.0
<0.05
1.3
7.8
10.3
3.9
178
-
-
53.4
29.5
23.9
41.2
34.7
6.6
13.2
21.4
322
48
97.5
97.5
AP
-
198
0.5
36
0.1
94.2
14.4
<0.05
0.8
8.0
11.3
4.1
179
0.15
0.28
46.4
25.1
21.2
37.6
37.2
0.5
1.2
35.9
62
<25
69.7
65.8
TT
13.3
189
0.4
34
0.1
48.5
15.1
<0.05
0.2
8.1
11.5
3.5
180
0.03
0.24
52.1
27.8
24.3
11.8(d)
11.8(tl)
<0.1
1.3
10.5
<25
<25
2.5
0.8
CA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12/14/2005
IN
-
176
-
-
<0.05
101
14.2
-
4.2
7.5
11.5
4.8
195
-
-
-
-
-
34.2
-
-
-
-
201
-
91.8
-
AP
-
172
-
-
<0.05
71.7
14.4
-
4.4
7.7
11.1
6.2
436
0.41
0.63
-
-
-
28.5
-
-
-
-
120
-
126
-
TA
TB
14.8
185
-
-
<0.05
86.2
15.1
-
1.0
8.0
11.4
5.2
176
-
-
-
-
-
13.9
-
-
-
-
165
-
19.7
-
176
-
-
<0.05
72.9
14.6
-
1.3
8.0
11.2
6.3
314
-
-
-
-
-
10.1
-
-
-
-
64
-
9.1
-
CA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1/18/2006
IN
-
180
0.3
35
<0.05
77.3
15.7
<0.05
3.4
7.9
12.1
3.5
224
-
-
60.1
36.3
23.9
38.0
31.8
6.2
16.6
15.2
570
79
126
165
AP
-
189
0.4
36
<0.05
77.4
15.3
<0.05
1.5
8.1
11.8
5.5
192
0.1
0.2
55.3
33.2
22.2
35.6
33.0
2.6
0.6
32.4
278
<25
94.3
73.5
TT
18.6
189
0.4
36
<0.05
50.3
15.5
<0.05
1.4
8.3
12.1
3.6
201
0.1
0.3
58.3
32.6
25.7
16.5
16.3
0.2
0.7
15.6
55
<25
23.6
15.3
CA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2/6/2006
IN
-
176
-
-
-
72.8
15.6
-
1.5
7.7
11.3
NA([1)
210
-
-
_
_
_
46.8
_
_
-
_
271
_
95.1
-
AP
-
176
-
-
-
83.0
15.6
-
1.8
7.6
10.1
NA(tl)
200
0.1
0.2
_
_
_
48.6
_
_
-
_
247
_
86.5
-
TA
TB
20.7
176
-
-
-
66.2
15.6
-
0.3
7.9
10.6
NA(tl)
186
-
-
_
_
_
20.3
_
_
-
_
<25
_
12.1
-
176
-
-
-
62.8
15.3
-
0.3
7.9
10.7
NA(tl)
183
-
-
_
_
_
19.5
_
_
-
_
<25
_
11.2
-
CA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(a)Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) CO2 system is down therefore caustic addition is not needed to raise the pH of the treated water, (d) DO probe not working.
IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined; CA = after caustic addition. NA = data not available.
-------
Table 3. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (After Conversion to Coagulation/Filtration)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
10A3
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L**
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
5/8/2006
IN
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
7.7
12.4
3.5
NA(d)
-
-
_
_
_
43.0
_
_
_
_
556
-
115
-
AP
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
7.4
12.6
4.5
NA(tl)
0.3
0.6
_
_
_
9.9
_
_
-
_
349
-
41.0
-
TA
TB
26.9
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
7.2
12.0
3.7
NA(tl)
-
-
_
_
_
-
_
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
7.3
12.0
6.0
NA(tl)
-
-
_
_
_
-
_
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
TT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.3
12.2
4.3
NA(tl)
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
12.4
-
-
-
-
722
-
51.4
-
CA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5/17/2006
------- |