EPA/600/R-10/167
December 2010
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Oxidation/Filtration
and Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Clinton Christian School in Goshen, IN
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Ramona Darlington8
Abraham S.C. Chen*
Lili Wang*
§Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693
JALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43219-0693
Contract No. EP-C-05-057
Task Order No. 0019
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0019 of Contract EP-C-05-057 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and sub-
surface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provid-
ing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed for and the results obtained from the arsenic removal
treatment technology demonstration project at the Clinton Christian School in Goshen, IN. The
objectives of the project were to evaluate the effectiveness of AdEdge Technologies' AD26/E33 media in
removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |o,g/L. Additionally,
this project evaluated (1) the reliability of the treatment system, (2) the required system operation and
maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels, and (3) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The
project also characterized the water in the distribution system and process residuals produced by the
treatment process.
The 25 gal/min (gpm) AD26/E33 modular arsenic treatment system consisted of two integrated units.
The AD26 oxidation/filtration unit consisted of three 13-in x 54-in vessels, each loaded with 2.3 ft3 of
AD26 media. The E33 adsorption unit consisted of two 18-in x 65-in vessels, each loaded with 5.3 ft3 of
E33 media. AD26 media is a manganese dioxide granular mineral commonly used for iron and
manganese removal. E33 is an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG for arsenic removal.
Operation of the AD26/E33 system began on May 1, 2008, but logging of operational data did not begin
until June 6, 2008. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality (both across the
treatment train and in the distribution system), process residuals, and capital and O&M cost. Through the
performance evaluation study period from June 6, 2008, through June 19, 2009, the system treated
approximately 517,000 gal (or 6,522 bed volumes [BV]) of water. (Note that BV was calculated based on
5.3 ft3 of E33 in each adsorption vessel.) Daily run times averaged 1.9 hr/day when the school was in
session or 1.5 hr/day when the school was not in session. The AD26 unit operated at 16.4 gpm (on
average), with an equal amount of water flowing through each of the three oxidation/filtration vessels.
The E33 unit operated at 16.0 gpm (on average), with 7.7 and 8.3 gpm of water flowing through each of
the two adsorption vessels. Based on the flowrates to the E33 unit, empty bed contact times (EBCTs)
varied from 4.1 to 7.3 min and averaged 5.0 min. This average EBCT was over 61% higher than the
vendor recommended EBCT of 3.1 min for E33 media.
Arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 22.2 to 33.4 |o,g/L and averaged 28.6 (ig/L. Soluble
As(III) was the predominating arsenic species, with concentrations ranging from 16.3 to 25.6 (ig/L and
averaging 20.2 (ig/L. Upon chlorination, soluble As(III) was oxidized to soluble As(V), which was then
adsorbed onto and/or co-precipitated with iron solids. The majority of arsenic (existing mainly in the
particulate form) was removed by AD26 media, leaving only 1.2 to 5.0 (ig/L (existing mainly as As[V))
to be further removed by E33 media. The system also reduced total iron concentrations from an average
of 741 (ig/L in raw water to below the method detection limit (MDL) of 25 (ig/L. Total manganese
concentrations were reduced from an average of 81.5 to <0.1 (ig/L.
The AD26 unit was backwashed every 70.3 to 72.1 hr, producing 56,810 gal of wastewater (or 226 gal
per vessel per backwash cycle). During the summer months when the school was not in session and the
water use rate was low, the system was backwashed manually when the pressure difference across the
AD26 vessels rose to approximately 7 psi. The E33 vessels were backwashed every 39 to 44 days,
producing 3,450 gal of wastewater. Assuming 10 mg/L of total suspended solid (TSS) in 56,810 gal of
backwash wastewater produced in one year, approximately 4.7 Ib of solids (including 0.039, 1.5, and 0.21
Ib of arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively) would be discharged annually.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after the system startup showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentration from an average of 17.6 to 2.8 (ig/L. The arsenic
concentrations in the distribution system were either similar to or somewhat higher than those in the
IV
-------
system effluent. Iron and manganese also were significantly reduced in the distribution system. Neither
lead nor copper concentrations appeared to have been affected by the operation of the system.
The most significant operational issue observed during the performance evaluation study was related to
maintaining a target level of free chlorine residuals. In spite of repeated efforts to increase chlorine doses,
free chlorine residuals were often below the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)-
required level of 0.2 mg/L (as C12).
The capital investment cost for the system was $5 5,423, including $31,73 5 for equipment, $ 11,278 for
site engineering, and $12,410 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 25 gpm (36,000
gal/day [gpd]), the normalized capital cost was $2,216/gpm ($1.54/gpd).
The O&M cost included the cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical supply, electricity
consumption, and labor. Although media replacement did not occur during the demonstration period, the
media replacement and disposal cost would represent the majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to
be $2,593 for AD26 and $3,951 for E33. The vendor estimated that both media would have a life
expectancy of 8.7 yr, which could not be confirmed during the 1-year performance evaluation study.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 7
3.1 General Project Approach 7
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 8
3.3.1 Source Water 9
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 9
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids 9
3.3.4 Spent Media 9
3.3.5 Distribution System Water 9
3.4 Sampling Logistics 9
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 9
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 11
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 11
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
4.1 Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure 12
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 15
4.1.2 Predemonstration Treated Water Quality 16
4.1.3 Distribution System 17
4.2 Treatment Process Description 17
4.2.1 Technology Description 17
4.2.2 AD26 Media 17
4.2.3 E33 Media 17
4.2.4 System Design and Treatment Process 17
4.3 System Installation 27
4.3.1 Permitting 27
4.3.2 Building Preparation 27
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 27
4.4 System Operation 31
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 31
4.4.2 Chlorine Injection 34
4.4.3 Backwash 34
VI
-------
4.4.4 Residual Management 37
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 37
4.5 System Performance 38
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 39
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling 45
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 48
4.6 System Cost 49
4.6.1 Capital Cost 49
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 49
5.0 REFERENCES 53
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA
APPENDIX C: AD26 MEDIA BACKWASH DATA
FIGURES
Figure 4.1. Clinton Christian School Location 12
Figure 4-2. Myers Model J1525 Submersible Pump Curve 13
Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Boiler Room that Housed Piping and Water System Equipment 14
Figure 4-4. Pre-existing Water System Bladder Tanks 14
Figure 4-5. P&ID of AD26/E33 Arsenic Removal System at Clinton Christian School 19
Figure 4-6. Process Flow Diagram 21
Figure 4-7. Chlorine Addition System 22
Figure 4-8. Headers, Fleck Controllers, and Piping/Valves on AD26 Vessels 23
Figure 4-9. Fleck Controllers and Piping /Valves Connected to One AD26 (left) and One E33
(right) Vessels 24
Figure 4-10. ProFlo PF119 Pressure Tanks 25
Figure 4-11. Bag Filter Assembly and GAC Tank 27
Figure 4-12. Layout of Backwash Discharge Drain Line at Clinton Christian School 28
Figure 4-13. New Boiler Room Attached to Existing School Building 29
Figure 4-14. Treatment System Installed 30
Figure 4-15. Comparison of Instantaneous Flowrate Readings and Calculated Flowrate Values
for AD26 Vessels 33
Figure 4-16. Comparison of Instantaneous Flowrate Readings and Calculated Flowrate Values
to E33 Vessels 33
Figure 4-17. Total and Free Chlorine Residuals at Entry Point 35
Figure 4-18. Temporary Storage Tank for Backwash Wastewater 37
Figure 4-19. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AC, OT and TT Sampling
Locations 42
Figure 4-20. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves from AD26 and E33 Vessels 44
Figure 4-21. Media Replacement Cost Curves for Clinton Christian School System 52
vn
-------
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 1 -2. Number of Demonstration Sites Under Each Arsenic Removal Technology 5
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3 -2. Evaluation Obj ectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 8
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes 10
Table 4-1. Flowrate Data Collected by Hawkins Water Tech, Inc., in August 2007 13
Table 4-2. Clinton Christian School Source Water Data 15
Table 4-3. Clinton Christian School Historic Water Quality Data (1993 to 2006) 16
Table 4-4. Properties of AD26 Media 18
Table 4-5. Properties of E33 Media 18
Table 4-6. Design Features of AD26/E33 Arsenic Removal System 20
Table 4-7. Backwash Settings and Amounts of Wastewater Production 26
Table 4-8. Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions 30
Table 4-9. Summary of AD26/E33 System Operation 31
Table 4-10. Summary of System Backwash Operations 36
Table 4-11. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 39
Table 4-12. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 40
Table 4-13. Oxidation/Filtration Vessels Backwash Sampling Results 46
Table 4-14. Oxidation/Filtration Vessels Backwash Solid Sample Total Metal Results 47
Table 4-15. Distribution System Sampling Results 48
Table 4-16. Capital Investment Cost for AdEdge Treatment System 50
Table 4-17. Operation and Maintenance Cost for AdEdge Treatment System 51
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
bgs below ground surface
BL baseline sampling
BV bed volume
Ca calcium
Cl chloride
C/F coagulation/filtration
CRF capital recovery factor
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
GAC granular activated carbon
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gph gallons per hour
gpm gallons per minute
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management
lOCs inorganic compounds
IR Iron Removal
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
Iph liter per hour
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.;
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
IX
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
mV
millivolts
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NS not sampled
NSF NSF International
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
PO4 orthophosphate
PLC programmable logic controller
POU point-of-use
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RFP Request for Proposal
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO42" sulfate
SOC synthetic organic compound
STS Severn Trent Services
TCLP
TDS
TOC
TSS
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
total dissolved solids
total organic carbon
total suspended solids
voc
volatile organic compound
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Clinton Christian School in Goshen, IN, for
monitoring operation of the arsenic removal system and collecting samples from the treatment and
distribution systems throughout the performance evaluation study.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems to reduce compliance costs. As part of
this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites. In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28.
With additional funding from Congress, EPA selected 10 more sites for demonstration under Round 2a.
Somewhat different from the Round 1 and Round 2 selection process, Battelle, under EPA's guidance,
issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on February 14, 2007, to solicit technology proposals from vendors
and engineering firms. Upon closing of the RFP on April 13, 2007, Battelle received from 14 vendors a
total of 44 proposals, which were reviewed by a three-expert technical review panel convened at EPA on
May 2 and 3, 2007. Copies of the proposals and recommendations of the review panel were later
-------
provided to and discussed with representatives of the 10 host sites and state regulators in a technology
selection meeting held at each host site during April through August 2007. The final selections of the
treatment technology were made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the respective state regulators, and
the host sites. A 25-gal/min (gpm) AdEdge AD26/E33 hybrid modular treatment system was selected for
demonstration at Clinton Christian School in Goshen, IN.
As of December 2010, 49 of the 50 systems were operational and the performance evaluations of 48
systems were completed.
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
Technologies selected for Rounds 1, 2, and 2a demonstration included adsorptive media (AM), iron
removal (IR), coagulation/filtration (C/F), ion exchange (IX), reverse osmosis (RO), point-of-use (POU)
RO, and system/process modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, system
flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, iron [Fe], and pH). Table 1-2 presents
the number of sites for each technology. AM technology was demonstrated at 30 sites, including four
with IR pretreatment. IR technology was demonstrated at 12 sites, including four with supplemental iron
addition. C/F, IX, and RO technologies were demonstrated at three, two, and one sites, respectively. The
Sunset Ranch Development site that demonstrated POU RO technology had nine under-the-sink RO
units. The Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) site classified under AM had three AM systems and
eight POU AM units. The Lidgerwood site encompassed only system/process modifications. An
overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the
associated capital costs is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al, 2004; Chen et al, 2004), which are
posted on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/resource.htm.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program was to conduct full-scale performance evaluations of
treatment technologies for arsenic removal from drinking water supplies. The specific objectives were to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the AdEdge system at the Clinton Christian School in
Goshen, IN, from May 1, 2008, through June 19, 2009. The types of data collected included system
operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and
capital and O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water
Quality
As
(HS/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Camel, ME
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Houghton, NY(C)
Woodstock, CT
Pomfret, CT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, ME)
Conneaut Lake, PA
Newark, OH
Springfield, OH
Camel Elementary School
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water/Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Caneadea
Woodstock Middle School
Seely-Brown Village
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Conneaut Lake Park
Buckeye Lake Head Start
Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home
Park
RO
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
IR (Macrolite)
AM (Adsorbsia)
AM (ArsenXnp)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
IR (Greensand Plus) with ID
AM (ARM 200)
IR & AM (E33)
Norlen's
Water
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
Siemens
SolmeteX
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
Kinetico
AdEdge
1,200
gpd
14
70(b)
10
100
22
550
17
15
375
300
250
10
250(e)
21
38W
39
33
36W
30
27W
21
25
30W
19W
28W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
1,806W
<25
<25
48
270W
157W
l,312(d)
1,61 5W
7.9
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
7.6
7.7
7.3
8.2
7.3
8.0
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Goshen, IN
Fountain City, IN
Waynesville, IE
Geneseo Hills, IE
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
Lead, SD
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Clinton Christian School
Northeaster Elementary School
Village of Waynesville
Geneseo Hills Subdivision
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home
Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
Terry Trojan Water District
AM(E33)
IR (Macrolite) with ID
IR (Aeralater)
IR (Macrolite)
IR & AM (E33)
IR (G2)
IR (Greensand Plus)
AM(E33)
IR (Macrolite)
IR (Macrolite) with ID
IR (Macrolite)
IR (Macrolite)
IR &AM (E33)
Process Modification
AM (ArsenXnp)
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
AdEdge
US Water
Peerless
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
SolmeteX
640
400
340(e)
40
25
60
96
200
375
140
250
20
250
250
75
14W
13W
16W
20W
29W
27W
32W
25W
17w
39W
34W
25W
42W
146W
24
127(d)
466W
l,387(d)
l,499(d)
810(d)
l,547(d)
2,543(d)
248(d)
7,827(d)
546W
l,470(d)
3,078(d)
l,344(d)
1,325W
<25
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.1
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
7.3
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water
Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(ug/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Midwest/Southwest
Willard, UT
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Hot Springs Mobile Home Park
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility
District
Webb Consolidated Independent
School District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic
Water Consumers Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility
Authority
Arizona Water Company
IR & AM (Adsorbsia)
IR (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Filter
Tech
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
30
770(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(b)
50
37
15.4W
35W
19w
56W
45
23W
33
14
50
32
41
332(d)
2,068(d)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.5
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A
Golden Hills Community Service
District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POURO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/
ARM200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)(B)
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (fflX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69™
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HEX = hybrid ion exchanger; IR = iron removal; IR with ID = iron removal with iron addition; IX = ion exchange
process; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(c) Withdrew from program in 2007. Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(d) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Amaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
Table 1-2. Number of Demonstration Sites Under Each Arsenic
Removal Technology
Technologies
Adsorptive Media(a)
Adsorptive Media with Iron Removal Pretreatment
Iron Removal (Oxidation/Filtration)
Iron Removal with Supplemental Iron Addition
Coagulation/Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Point-of-use Reverse Osmosis
System/Process Modifications
Number
of Sites
26
4
8
4
o
J
2
1
1
1
(a) OIT site at Klamath Falls, OR had three AM systems and
eight POU AM units.
(b) Including nine under-the-sink RO units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the one year of system operation, the following conclusions
were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• Chlorine was effective in oxidizing As(III) and Fe(II) and forming arsenic-laden iron
particles.
• AD26 media was capable of removing the arsenic-laden particles formed, reducing arsenic
and iron concentrations to <5.0 and <25 (ig/L, respectively, presumably via filtration.
• AD26 media was effective in removing both particulate (53%) and soluble manganese (47%),
reducing its concentrations from an average of 79.5 ug/L (after chlorination) to 1.1 ug/L.
• Backwashing once every 72 hr was adequate, resulting in no iron particle breakthrough from
the AD26 media beds. This backwash frequency allowed an average system run time of 5.7
hr when the school was in session or 4.5 hr when the school was not in session.
Required system O&Mand operator skill levels:
• The daily demand on the operator was typically 20 min to visually inspect the system and
record operational parameters.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• Residuals produced by the operation of the treatment system consisted of only backwash
wastewater.
• Assuming an average of 10 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS) in 56,810 gal of wastewater
produced by backwashing the three AD26 vessels in one year, approximately 4.7 Ib of solids
would be discharged annually. The solids were composed of 0.039, 1.5, and 0.21 Ib of
arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively.
Capital and O&Mcost of the technology:
• The unit capital cost was $0.39/1,000 gal of water treated if the system operated at a 100%
utilization rate. The system's real unit cost was $10.12/1,000 gal, based on 517,000 gal of
water production (i.e., about 4% utilization).
-------
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 AD26/E33 arsenic removal system began on May 1, 2008, and ended on June 19, 2009. Table
3-2 summarizes the types of data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process.
The overall system performance was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to
below the MCL of 10 |o,g/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train, as
described in the Study Plan (Battelle, 2008). The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the
unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The plant operator
recorded unscheduled downtime and repair information on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Technology Selection Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Package Submitted to IDEM
Permit Issued by IDEM
Equipment Arrived at Site
System Installation and Shakedown Completed
Final Study Plan Issued
Performance Evaluation Begun
Discharge Permit Obtained
Date
September 27, 2006
May 11,2007
June 13th 2007
June 2 1,2007
July 3, 2007
August 13, 2007
August 3 1,2007
September 18, 2007
November 19, 2007
January 10, 2008
February 6, 2008
February 27, 2008
April 15, 2008
June 6, 2008
September 23, 2008
IDEM = Indiana Department of Environmental Management
The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data
and qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system
automation, extent of preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling
and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and
safety practices. The staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
wastewater produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water and solids were sampled and
analyzed for chemical characteristics.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (or gal/day [gpd]) of design
capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital cost for
equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal,
chemical supply, electrical usage, and labor.
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
Cost-Effectiveness
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 u.g/L of arsenic MCL in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems
encountered, materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
incurred
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, biweekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a regular basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a System Operation Log
Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred,
the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted
for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information, including the problems
encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred
on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. Occasionally, the plant operator also measured temperature,
pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and chlorine residuals and recorded the
data on an Onsite Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical
supply, electricity consumption, and labor. Labor for various activities, such as the routine system O&M,
troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour
Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as completing field logs, ordering supplies,
performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the vendor. The labor for demonstration-
related work, including activities such as performing field measurements, collecting and shipping
samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the vendor, was recorded, but not used for
cost analysis.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected from the wellheads, across the treatment plant,
during the oxidation/filtration vessel backwash, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 presents the
sampling schedules and analytes measured during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements
for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in
Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2007). The procedure
for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
-------
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit on September 27, 2006, one set of source water
samples from Well No. 1 was collected and speciated using an arsenic specitation kit (see Section 3.4.1).
The sample taps were flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid
agitation, which might cause unwanted oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in
Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, the plant
operator collected water samples across the treatment train once every one to four weeks. In general,
sampling alternated between regular and speciation sampling. Regular sampling involved taking samples
at the wellhead (IN), after chlorination (AC), after oxidation/filtration vessels (OT), and after adsorption
vessels (TT) and having them analyzed for the analytes listed under regular sampling in Table 3-3.
Speciation sampling involved collecting and speciating samples at the same four locations onsite and
having them analyzed for the analytes listed under speciation sampling in Table 3-3.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids. The plant operator collected backwash wastewater
samples from each oxidation/filtration vessel on 10 occasions. Over the duration of backwash for each
vessel, a side stream of backwash wastewater was directed from the tap on the backwash water discharge
line to a clean, 32-gal plastic container at approximately 1 gpm. After the content in the container was
thoroughly mixed, one aliquot was collected as is and the other filtered with 0.45-(im disc filters. The
samples were analyzed for analytes listed in Table 3-3.
Once during the 1-year study period, the content in the 32-gal plastic container was allowed to settle and
the supernatant was carefully siphoned using a piece of plastic tubing to avoid agitation of settled solids
in the container. The remaining solids/water mixture was then transferred to a 1-gal plastic jar. After
solids in the jar were settled and the supernatant was carefully decanted, one aliquot of the solids/water
mixture was air-dried before being acid-digested and analyzed for the metals listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Spent Media. The media in the oxidation/filtration and adsorption vessels were not replaced,
therefore, no spent media were produced as residual solids during this demonstration study.
3.3.5 Distribution System Water. Water samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, lead and copper levels. Prior to the system startup from February 7 to 23, 2008,
four sets of baseline distribution system water samples were collected at the bathroom sink, which was
one of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) locations used by the school for LCR sampling. Following
system startup, distribution system sampling continued periodically at the same sampling location.
The plant operator collected the samples following an instruction sheet developed in accordance with the
Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The date
and time of last water usage before samploing and of acutual sample collection were recorded for
calculation of stagnation time. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been
used for at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al, 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories in accordance with the procedures
detailed in Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2007).
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
System
Water(c)
Backwash
Water
Backwash
Solids
Sample
Locations'3*
IN
IN, AC, OT,
andTT
Tap in
school (DS)
Backwash
discharge
line (BW)
Wastewater
container
No. of
Samples
1
4
1
2
2
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)
Speciation
sampling
Regular
sampling
Varying
Varying
Once
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Offsite: As (III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Al, Cl, F,
NO3, NO2, NH3, SO4,
SiO2, PO4, P, turbidity,
alkalinity, TDS, and TOC
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and/or total and
free C12 (except for IN)
Offsite: As(III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, N03, NH3,
SO4, SiO2, P, turbidity,
and alkalinity
Onsite: Same as above
Offsite: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), NH3,
SiO2, P, turbidity, and
alkalinity
Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu, and
Pb, pH, and alkalinity
pH, TDS, TSS, turbidity,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble), and
Mn (total and soluble)
Al, As, Ba, Ca, Cd, Cu,
Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb, Si,
Zn
Sampling Date
09/27/06 and
06/17/05
6/6/2008(b),
08/20/08, 10/09/08,
11/19/08,01/08/09,
02/04/09, 03/04/09,
03/31/09,04/29/09,
06/04/09, 07/01/09,
07/28/09, 09/15/09
06/27/08, 08/13/08,
09/14/08, 11/06/08,
12/09/08, 01/22/09,
02/18/09, 03/19/09,
04/15/09, 05/14/09,
06/10/09
02/07/08, 02/13/08,
02/21/08, 02/23/08,
06/18/08, 09/14/08,
10/30/08, 11/12/08,
12/18/08, 01/22/09,
03/19/09, 04/15/09,
05/14/09, 06/10/09,
07/28/09, 09/15/09
10/02/08, 12/18/08,
01/22/09, 02/18/09,
03/18/09, 04/15/09,
05/14/09, 06/10/09,
07/28/09, 09/15/09
12/18/08
(a) Abbreviations in parenthesis corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-6, i.e., AC = after
chlorination; BW = backwash discharge line; DS = distribution system; IN = at wellhead; OT = after
oxidation/filtration vessels; TT = after adsorption vessels.
(b) Sample taken at IN, OT and TT locations. Sample tap was not yet installed at AC.
(c) Four baseline sampling events taking place in February 2009 before system startup.
DO = dissolved oxygen; ORP = oxidation-reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total
organic carbon; TSS = total suspended solids
10
-------
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, color-coded label consisting of sample identification (ID), date and time of sample collection,
collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The sample ID
consisted of a two-letter code for a specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code for a specific
sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if necessary). The
sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The labeled bottles for
each sampling location were placed in separate zip-lock bags and packed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling
instructions, chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included.
The chain-of-custody forms and airbills were complete except for the operator's signature and the sample
dates and times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following
week's sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for offsite analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metals analyses were stored at Battelie's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
(ICP-MS) laboratory. Samples for other water analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up by
couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH, which was under contract with
Battelle for this demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the
time of preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate
laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2007)
were followed by Battelle's ICP-MS laboratory and AAL. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy,
method detection limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative
percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The QA data
associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared
under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
VWR Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use
following the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy
by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator
collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Symphony SP90M5 probe in the beaker
until a stable value was obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements
using Hach chlorine test kits following the user's manual.
11
-------
4.1
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure
Clinton Christian School is located at 61763 County Road 35 in Goshen, IN. Figure 4-1 shows the
location of the school in relation to downtown Goshen, IN. The non-transient, non-community water
system at the school supplied water to approximately 130 students and 12 staff members during the
academic year. The water system was supplied by a single well, i.e., Well No. 1, which was 4-in in
diameter and 166 ft deep. The well was equipped with a Myers 1.5-horsepower (hp) submersible pump
set at a depth of 145 ft below ground surface (bgs). Based on the pump curve shown in Figure 4-2, the
pump yielded an average production rate of 18 gpm and a maximum production rate of 25 gpm. After
installing a totalizer/ flow meter and an hour meter at the wellhead, Hawkins Water Tech, Inc., a local
contractor subcontracted to AdEdge, took a series of readings to confirm pump flowrates from August 17
through 24, 2007. Table 4-1 summarizes the results. Instantaneous flowrates recorded from the flow
meter ranged from 10.7 to 19.5 gpm and averaged 16.9 gpm, comparable to those (i.e., 7.5 to 20.1 gpm)
calculated based on wellhead totalizer and corresponding hour meter readings. These flowrate readings
were within the maximum flowrate of 25 gpm while maintaining a wellhead pressure of 20 lb/in2 (psi).
The well turned on and off by a hydopneumatic tank, which was set to operate between 40 and 70 psi.
According to the engineering report prepared by LJB Inc., the well had an average daily flow of 1,155
gal/day (gpd) and a weekday average flow of 1,620 gpd (LJB Inc., 2007).
---
'•©
Clinton Christian School
Figure 4.1. Clinton Christian School Location (LJB Inc., 2007)
12
-------
-25 GPM (95 LPM)
(19)
(33) (57) (76) (95)
Capacity In U.S. GPM (LPM)
40 45
(114) (132) (151) (170)
Figure 4-2. Myers Model J1525 Submersible Pump Curve
Table 4-1. Flowrate Data Collected by Hawkins
Water Tech, Inc., in August 2007
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
Cumulative
Totalizer
Reading
2,244
3,185
8,960
10,823
13,308
13,647
14,012
14,487
15,407
Cumulative
Hour
Meter
Reading
NA
NA
4.8
6.9
9.7
10.5
10.9
NA
1.2
Calculated
Flowrate
(gpm)
NA
NA
20.1
14.8
14.8
7.5
14.8
NA
12.9
Instantaneous
Flowrate
(gpm)
16.8
10.7
14.6
17.0
18.5
17.8
19.5
18.9
18.6
Influent
Pressure
(psi)
44.0
71.0
58.0
54.0
46.0
51.0
49.0
50.0
48.0
NA = Not Available
Prior to the new boiler room construction and repiping for this project, raw water was piped from the
supply well to four 20-gal steel bladder tanks in the school's old boiler room. Figure 4-3 is a photograph
of the boiler room that housed the piping and water system equipment. Figure 4-4 is a photograph of the
old bladder tanks. Following the bladder tanks, water was divided into two streams, each for cold or hot
water distribution. The stream dedicated for hot water distribution was treated with a water softener prior
to heating.
13
-------
Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Boiler Room that Housed Piping and Water System Equipment
Figure 4-4. Pre-existing Water System Bladder Tanks
14
-------
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on September 27, 2006, when
a Battelle staff member traveled with EPA to the site for an introductory meeting for this demonstration
project. Table 4-2 presents the analytical results along with the data provided by EPA and Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). Overall, Battelle's data are comparable to those
provided by EPA and IDEM.
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 21.0 to 28.7 ug/L. Based on the
speciation results obtained by Battelle on September 27, 2006, of the 28.7 |o,g/L total arsenic, 14.7 |o,g/L
existed as As(III) and 11.6 |o,g/L as As(V). Therefore, chlorination was needed to oxidize As(III) to
As(V) for more effective arsenic removal.
Table 4-2. Clinton Christian School Source Water Data
Parameter
Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
P (total)
Al (total)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
HS/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
EPA Data
05/08/06
NA
NA
NA
NA
273
256
NA
NA
NA
0.02
<0.01
0.2
NA
NA
2.0
18.4
O.005
<0.2
<25
24.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
800
NA
90.0
NA
<25
NA
NA
8.1
65.4
22.5
Battelle
Data
09/27/06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
255
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.1
18.0
NA
<0.2
<25
21.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
807
NA
92.4
NA
<25
NA
NA
8.1
65.7
22.2
7.4
17.0
NA
NA
291
255
5.3
274
<1.0
O.05
<0.05
0.2
6
0.2
2.0
18.1
<0.1
O.03
NA
28.7
26.3
2.4
14.7
11.6
810
758
95.4
97.4
NA
<0.1
0.1
8.0
63.4
23.4
IDEM
Data
06/17/05
NA
NA
NA
NA
270
291
NA
NA
0.773
NA
NA
NA
2.8
NA
5.0
18
NA
0.05
NA
24.2
NA
NA
9.2
15.0
1,300
NA
92
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
IDEM = Indiana Department of Environmental Management; NA = not available
15
-------
Ammonia. The presence of 0.2 mg/L of NH3 (as N) in raw water, as shown by the data collected by EPA
on May 8, 2006, and by Battelle on September 27, 2006, would consume chlorine especially if breakpoint
chlorination was required. The IDEM rule requires at least 0.2 mg/L of free chlorine (as C12) in the
treated water. To reach breakpoint, approximately 1.5 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) was needed to react with
0.2 mg/L of NH3 (as N).
Iron and Manganese. Battelle's speciation results indicated that, out of 810 |o,g/L of iron measured
(which is significantly over the 300-|o,g/L secondary maximum contaminant level [SMCL]), 758 |o,g/L (or
94%) existed as soluble iron, which is about 29 times the soluble arsenic level at 26.3 |og/L. EPA's May
8 and September 27, 2006, sampling results also showed 800 and 807 |o,g/L of total iron in raw water,
respectively, which are very close to Battelle's results. The presence of soluble iron in raw water helps
remove arsenic once an oxidant, such as chlorine, is introduced to raw water. The use of chlorination
prior to AD26 media oxidizes and precipitates iron, enabling removal of arsenic-laden iron solids via
filtration through AD26 media. It is important to note that, when using chlorine, total chlorine residuals
must be controlled to <1 mg/L (as C12) to minimize any adverse effect on the resin in the softener units,
which are located downstream in the new wing of the school building.
Manganese concentrations of 92.4 and 95.4 |o,g/L obtained on September 27, 2006 by EPA and Battelle,
respectively, also exceeded the SMCL of 50 |og/L. Manganese concentrations at these levels could
impact performance of adsorptive media.
Competing Anions. Adsorptive media potentially can be affected by competing anions such as silica and
phosphate. Based on the results shown in Table 4-2, concentrations of silica (18.0-18.4 mg/L) and
phosphate (less than the MDL) in raw water do not appear to be high enough to impact the IR and
adsorption process.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Battelle's data indicate a pH value of 7.4, which is within the
commonly-agreed target range of 5.5 to 8.5 for arsenic removal via IR and adsorption. Total hardness
concentrations ranged from 255 to 291 mg/L (as CaCO3); turbidity was 5.3 nephelometric turbidity unit
(NTU); total dissolved solids (TDS) was 274 mg/L; nitrate ranged from less than the MDL to 0.02 mg/L;
and sodium ranged from 8.0 to 8.1 mg/L. All other analytes were below MDLs and/or anticipated to be
low enough to not adversely affect the arsenic removal process.
4.1.2 Predemonstration Treated Water Quality. As shown in Table 4-3, the treated water
quality for samples taken by IDEM was similar to raw water quality except for the slightly lower arsenic
levels in treated water. Treated water samples were not collected by Battelle or EPA at the time of source
water sampling.
Table 4-3. Clinton Christian School Historic Water Quality Data (1993 to 2006)
Parameter
Unit
Sampling Date
Nitrate(a)
Nitrite(a)
Fluoride
Arsenic
Antimony
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HS/L
HS/L
Well No. 1
09/20/93
0.1
0.1
0.26
22.0
<5
10/23/96
NS
NS
NS
21.2
NS
05/25/99
0.2
NS
NS
22.3
NS
03/11/03
NS
NS
NS
26.0
NS
05/20/03
0.2
NS
NS
NS
NS
03/20/06
NS
NS
0.23
20.0
<5
05/01/06
0.1
NS
NS
17.0
NS
07/10/06
NS
NS
NS
23.0
NS
10/16/06
NS
NS
NS
20.0
NS
Source: IDEM
NS = not sampled
(a) as N.
16
-------
4.1.3 Distribution System. Based on the information provided by the facility, the distribution
system material was comprised of galvanized, copper, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping. The pipe
material between the supply well and the boiler room was galvanized piping. The pipe material within
the boiler room and of the distribution system was copper and PVC, respectively.
For compliance purposes, Clinton Christian School periodically samples water for several parameters.
Raw water samples are collected quarterly for arsenic; yearly for nitrate; once every three years for
cyanide, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), synthetic organic compounds (SOCs), and inorganic
compounds (lOCs). Distribution system water samples are collected once every three years under the
LCR; and once every nine years for asbestos.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
This section provides a general technology description and site-specific details on the AD26/E33 modular
arsenic removal system for arsenic, iron, and manganese removal.
4.2.1 Technology Description. The AD26/E33 system consisted of three parallel AD26
oxidation/filtration vessels and two parallel E33 adsorption vessels. AD26 was designed to remove iron
and manganese prior to E33 arsenic adsorption. Because chlorine was added prior to AD26, some arsenic
was removed along with precipitated iron solids via filtration across AD26, leaving remaining soluble
As(V) to be further treated by E33.
The treatment system was a fixed-bed, downflow system. Groundwater was pumped from the wellhead
and oxidized with chlorine added in the form of liquid sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). Chlorinated water
then flowed through the AD26 vessels, which removed arsenic-laden iron solids and, perhaps,
manganese. The filtered water flowed through the E33 vessels where the remaining arsenic, existing
primarily as soluble As(V), was removed before entering the distribution system. Both AD26 and E33
vessels needed to be backwashed regularly. The backwash wastewater was filtered through bag filters
before being discharged to Rock Run Creek.
4.2.2 AD26 Media. AD26 media is a manganese dioxide granular media that oxidizes and filters
out iron and manganese. This process is enhanced by chlorination, which oxidizes and precipitates
As(III), Fe(II), and, possibly, Mn(II). Once precipitated, solids are filtered out by the media. After
reaching a set differential pressure, solids accumulated in the media beds are removed via backwashing.
AD26 media has NSF International (NSF)-61 approval for use in drinking water applications. Table 4-4
provides the physical properties of AD26 media.
4.2.3 E33 Media. Bay oxide E33 is an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Lanxess
(formerly Bayer AG) for removal of arsenic from drinking water. E33 media has NSF-61 approval for
use in drinking water applications. Table 4-5 provides the physical properties of E33 media.
4.2.4 System Design and Treatment Process The treatment processes at Clinton Christian
School included prechlorination, AD26 oxidation/filtration, and E33 adsorption. Figure 4-5 shows the
piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) of the system. Table 4-6 specifies the key system design
parameters of the treatment system. Figure 4-6 presents a process flowchart, along with the
sampling/analysis schedule, for the system.
17
-------
Table 4-4. Properties of AD26 Media
Property
Value
Black, dry granular media
Physical Form and Appearance
Matrix
Manganese dioxide (>80%
active ingredient)
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
125
Moisture Content (% by wt.)
<0.5
Particle Size Distribution
(U.S. standard mesh)
20x40
Effective Size
0.40
Uniformity Coefficient
1.54
Specific Gravity (g/cm3)
Oxidant
NaOCl (12.5%)
Operating pH Range
6-9
Operating Flowrate (gpm)
8-15
Source: AdEdge Technologies, Inc.
Table 4-5. Properties of E33 Media
Property
Value
Amber, dry granular media
Physical Form and Appearance
Matrix
Iron oxide composite
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
28
Moisture Content (%)
< 15% by weight
Base Polymer
Macroporous polystyrene
Particle Size Distribution
(U.S. standard mesh)
10 x35
Crystal Size (A)
70
Crystal Phase
a-FeOOH
Source: Bayer AG
18
-------
ITEM
2
3
d
s
c
DESCRIPTION
13-XM- TANK
1" INLINE FLOWMETER
0-100 PSI C3AUC3E
1 .5" DIAPHRAGM VALVE
'.TKA'-'H R/\r,L-j 5m fib,
PART;?
wane
TMlOf)
U1Q16
FTSgg
PP I --
::i b
QTY
•y CHECK
•L VALVE
rS
LT!
SV&TEM EQUIPMENT
ITEM
1A
2A
•3A
4A
CA
DESCRIPTION
EW 1 .P" F LOV'.' M ETE R
2" STATIC MIXER
1 . 5" AUTO FW VAI \.'F
BAG FILTERS
15 GAL HYPO pn|_Y TAT-1K
KTFNNFRCHFMP1.IMP
PARTS
TM160
til N ' '
STfl15Hr",
4r,MPHin
QTV
i
1
T
^
ITEM
1
2
'i
4
5
C
DESCRIPTION
2750NT CONTROL VALVE
1S"XGS1IXB'TFTANK
I" INLINE FLOWMETER
CMIjDPSI C3ALKJE
1 .5" DIAPHRAGM VALVE
GfiA-»FI ftAGb r;'il fif
PARTS
A75B4
W3073
TM 100
U1016
FTOOn
QTV
2
2
2
a
1
ppTMS | 4 BA'jS.
2
AD26
MEDIA
MF-1D1B
-ijv . f,-t--
0- SCH5B
i
•5
1
FVC
£
a
i
r
L
i^_
^
•*
MF-1O1C
3" X 54"
i
S
£
g
1
r
L
^
?n-
iffims
MF-101E
VESSEL E:
©
SCH80 PV
i
S
$
G
S
-
L
f_ SHKKmM
Ih ™
\ / «™*™
®
I .
.5" SCH30 PVC
MANUW.
1.5" DIAPHRAGM
DV-111
^.^FV.-reROJTT-gT
PROCESS S INSTRUMENT Dl,
MODEL: AD 26-MOD-M-3-2 5P
MQDFI : IMOH-Ivl- !J-?SP
Figure 4-5. P&ID of AD26/E33 Arsenic Removal System at Clinton Christian School
-------
Table 4-6. Design Features of AD26/E33 Arsenic Removal System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Influent Specifications
Design Peak Flowrate (gpm)
Arsenic Concentration (ng/L)
Iron Concentration (ng/L)
Manganese Concentration (ng/L)
25
28.7
810
95.4
-
Based on 09/27/06 source water results
Based on 09/27/06 source water results
Based on 09/27/06 source water results
Pretreatment
NaOCl Strength (%)
NaOCl Dosage (mg/L [as C121)
Estimated Chlorine Usage (gph [gpy])
12.5
2.4
0.03 [13.7]
-
Based on a design flowrate of 25 gpm, a dosage of
2.4 mg/L (as C12), a NaOCl solution strength of
12.5%, and a daily operating time of 1.3 hr/day
AD26 Oxidation/Filtration Unit
No. of Vessels
Configuration
Vessel Size (in)
Vessel Cross-sectional Area (ft )
Media Volume (ftYtank)
Media Depth (in)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft )
EBCT (min/vessel)
Differential Pressure across Clean Bed (psi/vessel)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Duration (min)
Fast Rinse Duration (min)
Backwash Frequency (day)
3
Parallel
13Dx54H
0.9
2.3
30
9.0
2.1
3
18.4
12
2
1-4
-
-
-
-
6.9 ftj total media volume in 3 vessels
-
Based on 8.3 gpm/tank flowrate
-
Vendor specified
At 20 gpm/ft2 backwash rate
-
At 12 gpm flowrate
-
E33 Adsorption Unit
No. of Vessels
Configuration
Vessel Size (in)
Vessel Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Media Volume (ft /vessel)
Media Depth (in)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min/vessel)
Differential Pressure across Clean Bed (psi/tank)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Duration (min)
Fast Rinse Duration (min)
Backwash Frequency (day)
2
Parallel
18Dx65H
1.8
5.25
35
7.1
3.1
2-3
16
13
2
45-60
-
-
-
-
10.5ft total media volume in 2 vessels
-
Based on 12.5gpm/vessel flowrate
-
Vendor specified
At 8.9 gpm/ft backwash rate
-
At 1 1 gpm flowrate
-
Effluent Specifications
Arsenic Concentration (|ig/L)
Iron Concentration (ng/L)
Manganese Concentration (ng/L)
Average Daily Production (gpd)
Daily System Operation (hr/day)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
Throughput to 10-ng/L As Breakthrough (gal)
Throughput for Three AD26 Vessels (BV/day)
Projected AD26 Media Run Length (BV)
Projected AD26 Media Life (years)
Throughput for Two E33 Vessels (BV/day)
Projected E33 Media Run Length to 10-ng/L As
Breakthrough (BV)
Projected E33 Media Life (years)
<10
<25
0.1
2,000
1.3
5.6
6,366,060
38.8
123,763
8.7
25.5
81,055
8.7
-
-
-
Based on average throughput during school year
Based on 25 gpm flowrate
Typical system operation of 1.3 hr/day
Vendor estimate
Based on 2,000 gpd water usage
Based on 6,366,060 gal of throughput and 51.6 gal
for 3 vessels
Based on 38.8 BV treated/day
Based on 2,000 gpd water usage
Based on 6,366,060 gal to breakthrough and 78.5
gal for 2 tanks
Based on 81,055 BV to breakthrough and 25.5 BV
treated/day
20
-------
Speciation
Sampling
pH, temperature^, FJO/ORPW,
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca,Mg, F, NO3, NH3, SO4, SiO2,
P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity
pH
-------
Intake - Raw water pumped from Well No. 1 was fed to the treatment system via a 2-in PVC
pipe to a tie-in point, where connection was made to the system piping.
Prechlorination/Oxidation - Chlorine was added prior to the AD26/E33 arsenic treatment
system to oxidize As(III) to As(V) and Fe(II) to Fe(III). The chlorine addition system
(Figure 4-7) consisted of a Stenner single-head peristaltic pump (Model No. 45
MHP10*45M2) with a maximum capacity of 0.13 gal/hr (gph) or 0.48 L/hr (Iph), a chlorine
injection tap, a 15-gal polyethylene chemical feed tank (containing a 12.5% NaOCl solution),
a 1.5-in in-line mixer, and a control relay box for chlorine pump control. Chlorine addition
was synchronized with the well pump.
Figure 4-7. Chlorine Addition System
The chlorine dosage required was estimated to be 2.4 mg/L (of C12) based on concentrations
of As(III), Fe(II), Mn(II), and NH3 in source water. To reach "breakpoint" chlorination, 1.5
mg/L of chlorine (as C12) was needed to react with 0.2 mg/L of NH3 (as N). An additional 0.7
mg/L of chlorine (as C12) was needed to meet the chlorine demand for reducing species, such
as As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II). Further, the IDEM rule required at least 0.2 mg/L of free
chlorine (as C12) in the treated water. The actual target chlorine dosage was determined
during system startup and adjusted manually on pump settings. Proper operation of the
chlorine feed system was tracked through tank level measurements.
To meet the 0.2 mg/L (as C12) free chlorine requirement, water system operators are required
to test for total and free chlorine residuals daily on days when the system is in operation.
22
-------
The results obtained are recorded on a Monthly Report of Operations, which must be
submitted monthly to IDEM's Drinking Water Branch.
To minimize any adverse effect on the resin in the softener units located downstream in the
new wing of the school building, the total chlorine residual level must not exceed 1 mg/L (as
C12).
AD26 Oxidation/Filtration - The AD26 oxidation/filtration unit consisted of three parallel,
13-in x 54-in composite vessels, each containing 2.3 ft3 of AD26 media supported by 47 Ib of
quartz gravel underbedding (with a size distribution of Vs-in * 1/16-in and a bulk density of
100 lb/ft3). Three smaller vessels (compared to the dimensions of E33 vessels) were selected
to allow enough flow from the pressure tanks to lift the heavy AD26 media during backwash.
The quartz gravel was placed over the lower hub and lateral system below the oxidizing
media. The vessels had a 4-in threaded opening at the top for loading media and accessing
tank intervals. The flow entered the top of the vessels through a 1.5-in diameter header
(Figure 4-8). When water reached the tank bottom and screened laterals, it flowed up through
a center riser tube back to the top of the valve before exiting the AD26 module.
Figure 4-8. Headers, Fleck Controllers, and Piping/Valves on AD26 Vessels
Based on a design flowrate of 25 gpm, the empty bed contact time (EBCT) for each tank was
about 2.1 min and the hydraulic loading rate to each vessel was 9.0 gpm/ft2. The anticipated
pressure drop across each tank for a clean bed was approximately 3 psi. Standard operation
had three vessels online running parallel, treating a total flow of 25 gpm. The flow through
23
-------
each vessel was regulated to about 8.3 gpm by an outlet valve after each vessel. Each vessel
also had a Fleck 2750 automatic controller with a side-mounted 3200NT timer for setting
backwash. The piping used for the system was Schedule 80 PVC.
E33 Adsorption - The E33 adsorption unit consisted of two parallel, 18-in x 65-in
composite vessels, each containing 5.25 ft3 of E33 media supported by 80 Ib of quartz gravel
underbedding (with a size distribution of %-in x %-in and a bulk density of 100 Ib/ft). The
quartz gravel was placed over the lower hub and lateral system below the adsorption media.
The vessels had a 4-in threaded opening at the top for loading media and accessing tank
intervals. The flow entered the top of the vessels through a 1.5-in diameter header. When
water reached the vessel bottom and screened laterals, it flowed up through a center riser tube
back to the top of the valve before exiting the E33 module.
Based on a design flowrate of 25 gpm, the EBCT for each tank was 3.1 min. The anticipated
pressure drop across each train was approximately 2 to 3 psi. Standard operation had two
vessels online running parallel, treating a total flow of 25 gpm. The flow through each tank
was regulated to about 12.5 gpm by an outlet valve after each vessel. In addition, each vessel
had a Fleck 2750 automatic controller with a side-mounted 3200NT timer for setting
backwash. The piping used for the unit was Schedule 80 PVC. Figure 4-9 shows Fleck
controllers and associated piping/valves connected from AD26 vessels to E33 vessels.
Figure 4-9. Fleck Controllers and Piping/Valves Connected to One AD26 (left) and
One E33 (right) Vessel
24
-------
Pressure Tanks - The treatment system was equipped with three newly installed and one
pre-existing 119-gal ProFlo PF119 pressure tanks (Figure 4-10) prior to entering the
distribution system. The pressure tanks operated with low- and high-pressure triggers at 40
and 60 psi, respectively, such that when the pressure fell below 40 psi, the well pump was
turned on and when the pressure reached 60 psi, the well pump was turned off. In addition to
supplying treated water to the distribution system, the pressure tanks also provided needed
capacities for backwashing the AD26 and E33 vessels, i.e., 220 gal per AD26 vessel and 208
gal per E33 vessel (see more detailed discussions under Filter Backwash Operation below).
Figure 4-10. ProFlo PF119 Pressure Tanks
Filter Backwash Operation - All AD26 and E33 vessels required backwashing to remove
particles and fluff the media beds to minimize channeling. Backwashing was initiated either
by pre-setting the time (in days) between backwashes or by manually pressing the recycle
button for 3 sec on the 3200NT display. The vendor recommended that the AD26 vessels be
backwashed once every 2 to 4 days and the E33 vessels once every 45 to 60 days.
Backwashing for each vessel lasted for either 12 (AD26) or 13 min (E33), followed by 2-min
of forward rinse. Upon completion, the vessels were put online for normal operation. Table
4-7 summarizes backwash settings and amounts of wastewater generated.
The three AD26 vessels were backwashed once every 3 days with backwashing of the first
vessel initiated at 12 a.m. and the second and third vessels at 1 and 2 a.m., respectively. The
1-hr lag time between two consecutive backwashes allowed the four pressure tanks to be
refilled, such that sufficient treated water might be drawn from the pressure tanks during each
25
-------
Table 4-7. Backwash Settings and Wastewater Production
Parameter
Initiating Pressure (psi)
Initiating Standby Time (days)
Number of Tanks for Backwash
Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Duration (min)
Fast Rinse Flowrate (gpm)
Fast Rinse Duration (min)
Wastewater Production (gal/tank)
Wastewater Production (gal/event)
AD26
6-7
1-4
3
20
18.4
12
12
2
245
735
£•33
6-7
45-60
2
9
16.0
13
11
2
230
460
backwash. The two E33 vessels were backwashed every 45 days, with backwashing of the
first and second vessels initiated at 3 and 4 a.m., respectively. These backwash initiation
times were chosen in case that backwashing of the AD26 and E33 vessels occurred on the
same day.
During the summer months when school was not in session and the vessels did not require
backwashing as frequently, the backwash frequency was set to 99 days, the maximum time
allowed. The operator monitored the inlet and outlet pressure of all vessels and manually
initiated backwash when differential pressure (Ap) across a vessel had increased to about 6 to
7 psi. If backwash was triggered manually, the backwash standby time to the next backwash
event would be reset.
Treated water was used for backwash and fast rinse. A separate backwash line was used to
draw treated water from the four pressure tanks to the head of the treatment train for AD26
backwashing. Although treated water was preferred, source water also was used to
supplement backwash when pressure in the pressure tanks dropped to below 40 psi. When
backwashing the E33 vessels, treated water drawn from the pressure tanks flowed through the
AD26 vessels before being used for E33 backwash. If the well pump was triggered during
backwash (when pressure in the pressure tanks dropped to below 40 psi), source water was
first flowed through (and treated by) the AD26 vessels and then used for E33 backwash.
Wastewater produced from backwash was processed through one l-(im bag filter assembly to
remove arsenic-laden particles and other particulate matter and two granular activated carbon
(GAC) tanks to remove chlorine before discharge as required by IDEM (see Figure 4-11).
Processed wastewater was temporarily stored in a 1,200-gal holding tank until a discharge
permit was received. After receipt of the discharge permit, the wastewater was discharged
directly to an 8-in drain line leading to Rock Run Creek approximately 700 ft from the school
property. Figure 4-12 shows the location of the backwash discharge line. The totalizer on
each AD26 and E33 vessel registered both raw water and backwash water; therefore, the
amount of backwash water used was subtracted when determining the total amount of water
treated.
Media Regeneration/Disposal - AD26 media is regenerated during chlorination and
backwashing. E33 media, when exhausted, is removed from the vessels and disposed of at a
sanitary landfill if successfully passing EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) tests. Virgin media is then loaded into the vessels. Based on the source water data
26
-------
4.3
Figure 4-11. Bag Filter Assembly and GAC Tank
and an average daily throughput of 2,000 gpd, the vendor estimated a media life of 8.7 years
for E33, which could not be confirmed during the 1-year performance evaluation study.
System Installation
AdEdge and Hawkins Water, a subcontractor to AdEdge, completed installation and shakedown of the
system on February 27, 2008. The following briefly summarizes system/building installation activities,
including permitting, building preparation, system offloading, installation, shakedown, and startup.
4.3.1 Permitting. Design drawings and a process description of the proposed treatment system
were submitted to IDEM by LJB Inc. on November 19, 2007. IDEM did not have any review comments
and the permit was issued on January 10, 2008.
4.3.2 Building Preparation. The building housing the pre-existing hydropneumatic tanks and
water softener was demolished and a new 28 ft x 28 ft boiler room attached to the existing school
building (see Figure 4-13) was built to house the new treatment equipment with funds provided by the
Indiana State Revolving Fund Loan Program. Piping from the wellhead and to the distribution system
was laid to the tie-in points in the building to facilitate system installation and piping connection.
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. System components were delivered to Hawkins
Water during the week of January 28, 2008, and arrived at the school on February 6, 2008. The system
was installed during the weeks of February 7 and 14, 2008, with installation completed on February 18,
2008. Installation activities included offloading, placing, and connecting the AD26/E33 system vessels
and three new hydropneumatic tanks, connecting the system at the tie-in points, completing
27
-------
to
oc
Figure 4-12. Layout of Backwash Discharge Drain Line at Clinton Christian School (LJB Inc., 2007)
-------
Figure 4-13. New Boiler Room Attached to Existing School Building
electrical wiring, and assembling the chlorine injection system. Figure 4-14 shows a photograph of the
treatment system.
Upon completion of system installation, the vendor and its subcontractor met on February 25, 2008, to
inspect the system and associated piping connections, verify electrical wiring and relays, and perform
hydraulic testing before media loading. System shakedown and startup continued on February 26, 2008.
Underbedding and 2.3 ft3 of AD26 were loaded into each of the three AD26 vessels and underbedding
and 5.3 ft3 of E33 were loaded into each of the two E33 vessels. Freeboards above the underbedding and
media bed were measured to ensure proper loading of individual media in each vessel. After control
heads were reinstalled, the system plumbing was re-pressurized. Each AD26 vessel was then backwashed
individually for 50 to 60 min at a maximum flowrate of 18.4 gpm and each E33 vessel was backwashed
individually for 50 to 60 min at a maximum flowrate of 16 gpm. Afterwards, the control heads were
disassembled to measure the freeboards again.
The treatment system was disinfected by increasing chlorine residual levels at the system outlet to
approximately 50 mg/L (as C12). The system was allowed to sit for 24 hr before being flushed of residual
chlorine to below 0.5 mg/L (as C12). Bacterial samples were collected by Hawkins Water on March 3 and
4, 2008, and the results received on March 20, 2008, were negative.
The system remained offline while LJB, Inc., under contract with the school, prepared for a construction
and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the treatment and discharge
of backwash wastewater. The applications were submitted on April 21, 2008. During this time, the
school contracted with a drainage contractor to install an 8-in main drainline to discharge backwash
wastewater to Rock Run Creek. To allow the system to be operated before the NPDES permit was
granted, a holding tank was installed to store backwash wastewater. With the storage tank installed, the
system was put online on May 1, 2008.
On June 6, 2008, two Battelle staff members visited the school to inspect the system and provide operator
training. Table 4-8 summarizes the punch-list items and corrective actions taken.
29
-------
Figure 4-14. Treatment System Installed
(From left to right: AD26 Vessels, E33 Vessels, and GAC Vessels; One AD26
Vessel and One Bag Filter Assembly not Shown)
Table 4-8. Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions
Date(s)
06/06/08 -
06/18/08
06/06/08 -
06/18/08
06/06/08 -
06/18/08
06/06/08
06/06/08 -
06/25/08
Issues/Problems
Encountered
Raw water (IN) sample tap
too close to chlorine
injection point
After chlorination (AC)
sample tap not installed as
shown on P&ID
Sample tap on AD26
combined effluent line
(OT) not installed as shown
on P&ID
Chlorine residuals in
distribution system water
contained >5.5 mg/L of
chlorine (as C12)
Backwash flowrate too low,
i.e., 15.4 gpm(or 17
gpm/ft2) vs. design value of
18.4gpm(or20gpm/ft2)
Corrective Action Taken
IN sample tap moved 10 ft
upstream of chlorine injection point
AC sample tap installed after
chlorine injection point but before 3-
way split to AD26 vessels
OT sample tap installed on
combined effluent line after AD26
vessels but before 2-way split to E33
vessels
Instructions provided for chlorine
stock solution preparation and feed
pump operation to achieve a 0.30
mg/L (as C12) target residual level
Adjusted diaphragm flow control
valve (DV1 1 1) to achieve a flow of
18gpmforAD26
Work Performed
by
Hawkins Water
Hawkins Water
Hawkins Water
AdEdge
AdEdge
30
-------
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the 1-year demonstration study
were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Table 4-9 summarizes key parameters. The system
began to operate on May 1, 2008, but logging of operational data did not begin until June 6, 2008, when
two Battelle staff members visited the site to inspect the system and provide operator training. Also,
because an hour meter was not installed until June 30, 2008, recording of hour meter readings did not
begin until July 16, 2008. From June 30, 2008, through the end of the performance evaluation study on
June 19, 2009, the system operated for 621.6 hr. Daily system run times averaged 1.9 hr/day when the
school was in session and 1.5 hr/day when the school was not in session. Before installation of the hour
meter, the system had operated for 90 hr since May 1, 2008, or 36 hr since June 6, 2008, assuming 1.5 h
of daily run time. The total system operating time was estimated to be 712 hr starting from May 1, 2008,
or 658 hr starting from June 6, 2008.
From June 6, 2008, through June 19, 2009, the system treated 529,192 gal of water based on readings of
the totalizers installed on the influent side of each of the three AD26 vessels, or 517,174 gal based on
readings of the totalizers installed on the influent side of each of the two E33 vessels (Table 4-9).
Because the flow meters/totalizers were installed at the influent side of the AD26 and E33 vessels,
throughput values registered by these totalizers reflect not only the amount of water treated by the
AD26/E33 vessels, but also the amount of water used for backwashing A26 and E33 vessels (as read by
the AD26 totalizers), or for backwashing E33 vessels (as read by the E33 totalizers). Between June 6,
2008, and June 19, 2009, the two E33 vessels were backwashed seven and eight times, using just over
3,450 gal of water for backwash. Therefore, the 517,174 gal registered by the E33 totalizers was
considered the amount of water treated by the E33 vessels and used to calculate the number of bed
volumes (BV) treated by the vessels.
Table 4-9. Summary of AD26/E33 System Operation
Operational Parameter
Duration
Value/Condition
06/06/08-06/19/09
Well Pump
Average daily Run Time
(hr/day)
Total Operating Time (hr)
1.9 (When school was in session)
1.5 (When school was out of session)
658 (since 06/06/08) or 7 12 (since
05/01/08)
AD-26 Oxidation/Filtration Unit
Throughput (gal)(a)
Instantaneous Flowrate (gpm)
Calculated Flowrate (gpm)(b)
Vessel 06/06/08-06/19/09
A 195,142
B 192,775
C 141,275
Combined 529,192
Vessel Range
A 1.8-7.4
B 3.0-9.9
C 2.9-8.1
Combined 8.7-20.3
Vessel Range
A 2.2-9.9(c)
B 3.0-10.2(d)
C 2.9-10. l(e)
Combined 9.3-20.2(f)
Average
5.4
5.6
5.5
16.4
Average
5.1
5.3
5.1
15.2
31
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of AD26/E33 System Operation (Continued)
Operational Parameter
Vessel/System Pressure and Ap
(psi)
Value/Condition
Vessel
A
B
C
Inlet Outlet AP
54 (46-68) 47 (36-58) 7 (0- 19)
54 (46-68) 47 (38-59) 7 (0- 19)
54 (46-68) 47 (37-59) 7 (1- 19)
E-33 Adsorption Unit
Throughput (gal)*8'
Bed Volume (BV)
Instantaneous Flowrate (gpm)
Calculated Flowrate (gpm)(b)
EBCT (min)(1)
Vessel/System Pressure and Ap
(psi)
Vessel
D
E
Combined
06/06/08-06/19/09
248,371
268,803
517,174
6,522
Vessel
D
E
Combined
Vessel
D
E
Combined
Vessel
D
E
Combined
Vessel
D
E
Range Average
5.1-9.4 7.7
5.7-10.1 8.3
lO.S-19.5^ 16.0
Range Average
3.1-9.1(1) 7.4
3.4-10.9® 6.7
6.5-18.9(k) 12.9
Range Average
4.2-7.8 5.1
3.9-7.0 4.8
4.1-7.3 5.0
Inlet Outlet Ap_
47 (37-59) 43 (30-58) 4 (1-12)
47 (37-59) 43 (30-59) 4 (0-12)
(a) Including amount of treated and source water used for backwashing AD26 and E33 vessels.
(b) Data calculated by dividing incremental throughput by incremental hour meter readings recorc
during July 16, 2008, through June 19, 2009.
(c) Three outliers (0.8, 1.1, and 23.4 gpm) omitted.
(d) Two outliers (1.1 and 24.1 gpm) omitted.
(e) Five outliers (0.7, 1.2, 1.6, 1.6, and 24.3 gpm) omitted.
(f) One outlier (71.7 gpm) omitted.
(g) Including amount of treated and source water used for backwashing E3 3 vessels.
(h) One outlier (6.4 gpm) omitted
(i) Four outliers (0.6, 13.8, 29.8, and 32.4 gpm) omitted.
(j) Two outliers (15.4 and 36.2 gpm) omitted.
(k) Three outliers (29.2, 37.7, and 68.6 gpm) omitted.
(1) Calculated based on 5.3 ft3 of media in each adsorption vessel and corresponding instantaneous
flowrate readings.
Based on the rationale discussed above, 6,522 BV of water were treated by the E33 unit from June 6,
2008, through June 19, 2009. BV calculations were based on 10.5 ft3 of media in the two adsorption
vessels.
Flowrates through the three AD26 (Figure 4-15) and two E33 vessels (Figure 4-16) were tracked with
both instantaneous readings of the flow meters installed at the inlet to the AD26/E33 vessels and
calculated values by dividing volume throughputs recorded from respective totalizers by incremental
operating times. As shown in Table 4-9, instantaneous readings of each of the three AD26 flow meters
averaged 5.4, 5.6, and 5.5 gpm; calculated values for each of these flow meters averaged 5.1, 5.3, and
32
-------
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
06/01/08 07/31/08 09/29/08 11/28/08 01/27/09 03/28/09 05/27/09 07/26/09
Date
Figure 4-15. Comparison of Instantaneous Flowrate Readings and
Calculated Flowrate Values for AD26 Vessels
40.0
35.0
0.0
06/01/08 07/31/08 09/29/08 11/28/08 01/27/09 03/28/09 05/27/09 07/26/09
Date
Figure 4-16. Comparison of Instantaneous Flowrate Readings and
Calculated Flowrate Values to E33 Vessels
33
-------
5.1 gpm. While these two sets of flowrate data were comparable to each other, the calculated values
appeared to scatter somewhat more than the instantaneous readings (Figure 4-15). Instantaneous readings
of each of the two E33 flow meters averaged 7.7 and 8.3 gpm and calculated values averaged 7.4 and
6.7 gpm. The calculated values were more scattered and, again, resulted in lower combined flowrates
than the instantaneous readings (i.e., 12.9 gpm vs. 16.0 gpm [for E33 unit] or 16.5 gpm [for AD26 unit]).
Thus, only instantaneous readings were used for EBCT calculations.
Based on the flowrates to the individual E33 vessels and the adsorption unit, EBCTs for the individual
vessels varied from 3.9 to 7.8 min and averaged 5.0 min; EBCTs for the unit varied from 4.1 to 7.3 min
and averaged 5.0 min. This average EBCT is over 61% higher than the vendor-recommended EBCT of
3.1 min for E33 media.
Pressure loss across each AD26 vessel ranged from 0 to 19 psi and averaged 7 psi. The inlet pressure of
the AD26 unit ranged from 46 to 68 psi and averaged 54 psi, while the outlet pressure of the AD26 unit
ranged from 36 to 59 psi and averaged 47 psi. The average differential pressure for the AD26 unit was 7
psi. Pressure loss across each E33 vessel ranged from 0 to 12 psi and averaged 4 psi. The inlet pressure
of the E33 unit ranged from 37 to 59 psi and averaged 47 psi, while the outlet pressure of the E33 unit
ranged from 30 to 59 and averaged 43 psi. The average differential pressure for the E33 unit was 4 psi.
4.4.2 Chlorine Injection. As described in Section 4.2, a 12.5% NaOCl solution was used to
oxidize As(III) and Fe(II). The chlorine injection system experienced several operational irregularities
during the performance evaluation study, as reflected by the variation of free and total chlorine residuals
measured at the entry point to the distribution system (Figure 4-17). During the site visit by Battelle staff
for system inspections and operator training, chlorine residuals measured in the treated water were higher
than the upper limit of a chlorine test kit, i.e., 5.5 mg/L (as C12). At this time, the NaOCl solution in the
chlorine feed tank had been diluted 1:1 from the 12.5% NaOCl concentrate and the chlorine pump had
been set to 70%. To reduce chlorine residuals in the treated water, the chlorine solution in the feed tank
was further diluted for a 3:1 ratio and the chlorine pump setting was reduced to 40%. The chlorine pump
setting was further reduced to 30% on June 20, 2008, when the residual chlorine level in the treated water
was measured at 2.5 mg/L (as C12). Although a reduction in free chlorine residuals was seen over time to
1.8 mg/L (as C12) by June 27, 2008, chlorine residuals were still above the target level of 0.2 mg/L (as
C12) required by IDEM. The pump setting was further reduced to 25% on July 21, 2008 and free chlorine
residuals levels were reduced correspondingly to 0.4 mg/L (as C12) by August 13, 2008, to 0.1 mg/L (C12)
by September 14, 2008.
Chlorine dosages to the treatment system were carefully monitored by measuring solution levels in the
chlorine feed tank. During the performance evaluation study, the average dosage was 4.0 mg/L (as C12),
which was about 67% higher than the target dosage of 2.4 mg/L (as C12) as shown in Table 4-6.
Several steps were taken to rectify the problem of having lower-than-the-target level of total and free
chlorine residuals in the treated water. These included reducing the total volume of chlorine replenished
into the chlorine feed tank and disposing of the remaining chlorine solution in the chlorine feed tank
before refilling. Both of these measures were taken because chlorine is known to decompose over time
and continually adding fresh chlorine to a decomposed chlorine solution may eventually cause the
chlorine dosage to the treatment system to be lower than expected. Despite these measures, chlorine
residual levels in the treated water were below the IDEM-required level at times.
4.4.3 Backwash. AD 26 media backwash times, backwash frequencies, and amounts of backwash
wastewater produced during the 1-year demonstration study were tabulated and are attached as Appendix
C. Table 4-10 summarizes key parameters for both AD26 and E33 media. The three AD26 vessels were
backwashed 105, 105, and 103 times, respectively. Among the backwash events, four were performed
34
-------
3.0
o
I/)
us
d 2.0
c>
tn
§ 1.5
^
o 1.0
O 0.5
Free chlorine
Total chlorine
IDEM required residual (0.2 mg/L)
0.0
X
-»V*»
Date
Figure 4-17. Total and Free Chlorine Residuals at Entry Point
manually on each vessel on June 6, 2008 (during Battelle's site visit for system inspections and operator
training); July 3 and 4, 2008; and August 20, 2008. Because of the low demand during these summer
months when the school was not in session, the backwash frequency was set to every 99 days, the
maximum backwash time. The operator manually initiated backwash when the pressure difference across
the vessels increased to 7 psi. The backwash frequency was returned to every 72 hr on August 20, 2008,
after the school was back in session. The 105, 105, and 103 backwash counts also included (1) 22, 22,
and 24 events (denoted by "V" in Table C-l [Appendix C]) believed to have taken place based on
circumstantial evidence (since no field data were collected) such as amounts of wastewater produced
during the respective time periods, and (2) 19, 20, and 19 events (shaded in grey in Table C-l) thought to
have had incomplete backwash cycles due to clogging of bag filters on the discharge line. Backwash
flowrate on one occasion had been reduced to 0 gpm, compared to the design value of 18.4 gpm.
Backwash frequencies (or time elapsed between two consecutive backwash events) ranged from 25 to 94
hr and averaged 70.8 hr for Vessel A, from 31 to 102 hr and averaged 70.3 hr for Vessel B, and from 48
to 96 hr and averaged 72.1 hr for Vessel C. While the average frequencies were very close to the set
value of once every 72 hr, actual backwash times varied extensively, deviating significantly from the
would-be setting of initiating, at midnight, a backwash event with Vessel A followed by backwashing
Vessels B and C at 1 and 2 a.m., respectively. In particular, Vessel A's backwash took place mostly
between 11:00 a.m. through 1:00 p.m. from August 2008 to mid-January 2009 (see Table C-l). Since
then, adjustments were made to the programmable logic controller (PLC), which changed backwash times
to mostly between 11:00 p.m. through 3:00 a.m. For Vessel B, backwash took place mostly at midnight
(24 out 79 recorded events [see Table 4-10]) and between 1:00 a.m. through 4:00 a.m. (48 out of 79
recorded events). For Vessel C, backwash occurred mostly between 1:00 a.m. through 4:00 a.m. (60 out
of 74 recorded events). As shown in Table C-l, except for a few occasions (most likely due to recording
errors), only one vessel was backwashed at a time throughout the entire study period.
35
-------
Table 4-10. Summary of System Backwash Operations
No. of Backwashes
Time Elapsed Between
Two Consecutive
Backwash Events
No. of Times
Backwashing taking
place at
Amount of Wastewater
Produced (gal)
Manual
Automatic(a'b)
Range (hr(c)
orday(d))
Average (hr(c)
orday(d))
Hour
11:00
12:00
13:00
Subtotal
23:00
00:00
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
Subtotal
Others
Subtotal
Total
Total
Per Vessel per
backwash
cycle
AD26 Unit
Vessel
A
4
101
25-94
70.8
Vessel
B
4
101
31-102
70.3
Vessel
C
4
99
48-96
72.1
9
12
9
30
8
4
10
12
5
0
0
39
10
10
79
0
0
2
2
0
24
13
18
11
6
0
72
5
5
79
0
1
0
;
0
2
16
13
18
13
4
66
7
7
74
56,810
226
E33 Unit
Vessel
D
2
6
30-45
39.0
0
1
0
;
0
i
0
2
2
0
0
5
2
2
8
Vessel
E
3
4
35-55
43.5
0
1
0
;
2
i
0
2
1
0
0
6
0
0
7
NA
NA
(a) Including 22, 22, and 24 backwashes, as denoted by "V" in Table C-l, for Vessels A, B,
and C, respectively. Although data were lacking, these backwash events most likely had
taken place based on circumstantial evidence such as amounts of wastewater produced.
(b) Including 19, 20, and 19 backwashes, as shaded in grey in Table C-l, for Vessels A, B,
and C, respectively. Although triggered, these backwashes mostly likely failed to
complete because little or no wastewater was produced during these backwash events.
(c) For AD26 unit.
(d) For E3 3 unit.
NA = not available
Backwashing the three AD26 vessels produced approximately 56,810 gal of wastewater, based on
readings of the totalizer installed on the wastewater discharge line between the bag filter assembly and the
GAC tanks. Excluding the 62 events that produced little or no backwash wastewater, backwashing one
AD26 vessel would produce 226 gal of wastewater, compared to the 245 gal shown in Table 4-7.
Throughout the 1-year performance evaluation study, the two E33 vessels were backwashed eight and
seven times. Although set to backwash every 45 days, Vessel D was backwashed every 30 to 45 days (or
39 days [on average]) and Vessel E every 35 to 55 days (or 43.5 days [on average]). Backwash was
initiated mostly between 11:00 p.m. through 3:00 a.m., even though it was set to begin for Vessel D at
3:00 a.m. and then for Vessel E at 4:00 a.m. Starting from mid-February 2009, the hour counter since the
last backwash would stall and blink at 600 hr just before the time for automatic backwash. The operator
36
-------
reported that the blinking would stop and the hour counter would reset when the vessel was backwashed
manually. As a result, manual backwash was performed two and three times for Vessels D and E,
respectively.
Because the same totalizer on the waste discharge line was used to track wastewater production from both
AD26 and E33 backwashes, the amounts of wastewater produced by the two E33 vessels might not be
accurately quantified. Based on the backwash flowrate and backwash duration, backwashing each E33
vessel would produce only 230 gal of wastewater. As such, about 3,450 gal of wastewater would be
produced from backwashing the two E33 vessels throughout the performance evaluation study.
4.4.4 Residual Management. Residuals expected by the operation of the system included
backwash wastewater, spent bag filters, and spent media. Neither the oxidation/filtration media (AD26)
nor the adsorptive media (E33) were replaced during the study period; therefore, the residuals produced
were backwash wastewater and spent bag filters. Initially, backwash wastewater was stored in a 1,200-
gal storage tank placed in the treatment building (Figure 4-18) before being transferred weekly to a
vacuum truck for offsite disposal. On October 2, 2008, the school received the NPDES permit that
allowed the wastewater to be discharged via a drain line behind the treatment building to Rock Run
Creek. Spent bag filters were disposed of in the municipal trash.
Figure 4-18. Temporary Storage Tank for Backwash Wastewater
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. The main operational issues affecting the
system were (1) maintaining chlorine residual levels above the IDEM-required 0.2 mg/L (as C12), (2) a
short in wiring connected to a motorized ball valve for backwashing Vessel A, and (3) stalling and
37
-------
blinking of the E33 backwash hour counter just before the time for automatic backwash. The issue
related to maintaining required chlorine residuals was addressed using the step discussed in Section 4.4.2.
The wiring issue that prevented Vessel A from being backwashed was repaired on August 13, 2008, and
the problem appeared to not have occurred again. The issue associated with the blinking hour counter
was never resolved during the performance evaluation study.
The system O&M and operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to pre- and post-
treatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventative
maintenance activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pretreatment included chlorination and AD26 treatment.
Chlorination oxidized arsenic, iron, and manganese in source water and maintained 0.2 mg/L (as C12) of
free chlorine residuals in treated water for disinfection. AD26 filtered arsenic-laden iron and/or
manganese solids and oxidized any remaining reduced metals, such as Mn(II). Post-treatment was not
needed for this system.
System Automation. The AD26/E33 system included automated controls, which interlocked the well
pump alternating on/off controls. The system also was equipped with an automated chlorine feed system,
which was set to continually chlorinate raw water. In addition, the system was fitted with automated
controls to allow for automatic backwash for both AD26 and E33 vessels.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to operate the
AD26/E33 system were minimal. Operator's duties were to monitor and refill the chlorine tank; change
the chlorine pump dial, when necessary, to adjust the dosage; change the backwash setting as water usage
changed during the school year, and initiate manual backwash when necessary.
All Indiana public water systems (both community and non-transient/non-community) serving more than
250 people must have a certified operator. Operator certifications are granted by the State of Indiana after
passing an exam and maintaining a minimum amount of continuing education hours at professional
training events. The number of continuing education hours required depends on the type of distribution
and water treatment systems. Operator certifications are classified by the type of systems: for distribution
systems they are classified by small, medium, or large (DSS, DSM, DSL); for water treatment systems
they are classified from Classes 1 to 6 (WT1 to WT6). A DSS/WT2 certification is required to operator
the treatment system at Clinton Christian School.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. The only regularly scheduled maintenance activity required for the
operation of the AD26/E33 system was replacing bag filters on the backwash wastewater discharge line.
This was done every 3 weeks. Other than that, the operator visited the plant approximately three times a
week to record flow, volume, and pressure readings and measure chlorine concentrations.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. The only chemical required for the system
operation was the NaOCl solution used for chlorination. The 75-gal chlorine tank was filled with a
diluted NaOCl solution using a 3:1 water to 12.5% NaOCl (as C12) ratio. This was done by adding 8 gal
of the chlorine concentrate to 24 gal of water.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the AD26/E33 system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected
from the treatment plant, the media backwash, and distribution system.
38
-------
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-11 summarizes the analytical results of arsenic, iron,
and manganese measured at the four sampling locations across the treatment train. Table 4-12
summarizes the results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of
analytical results for the demonstration study. The results of the analysis of the water samples collected
throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
Table 4-11. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
Sample
Count
27
26(a)
27
26(b)
13
12oo
13
13
13
12oo
13
12(b)
12oo
12(a)
13
13
12oo
12(a)
13
13
26(d)
25
-------
Table 4-12. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
(DO)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
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
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HS/L
Hg/L
HS/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count(a)
26
25
26
26
26
25
26
26
12
11
12
12
12
11
12
12
12
11
12
12
27
26
27
26
26
25
26
26
26
25
26
26
9
8
9
9
8
7
8
8
3
-------
Table 4-12. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
OT
TT
AC
OT
TT
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
Unit
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
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
9
8
9
9
88
87
87
88
88
87
12
11
12
12
12
11
12
12
12
11
12
12
Concentration
Minimum
41.5
345
354
365
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.0
190
190
193
190
134
136
139
131
56.4
53.3
54.3
52.9
Maximum
509
886
871
763
3.6
1.4
0.8
5.1
1.9
1.1
335
335
336
321
204
194
207
205
186
186
194
183
Average
324
561
553
538
0.9
0.3
0.1
1.4
0.5
0.2
263
263
270
271
164
163
169
169
98.9
98.9
101
102
Standard
Deviation
153
181
171
146
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.3
0.2
34.8
34.5
35.0
32.2
18.7
16.4
18.8
19.7
29.8
31.8
32.3
29.5
(a) AC sample tap installed after first sampling event.
(b) Outliers for 01/08/09 on DO at IN (28.2 mg/L), AC (26.7 mg/L), OT (13.6 mg/L), and TT (14.4 mg/L)
removed.
Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the arsenic removal system was the
concentration of arsenic in treated water. Water samples were collected on 27 occasions, including three
duplicates, with field speciation performed during 13 occasions at IN, AC, OT, and TT sampling
locations. Three of the 13 speciation sampling events took place after June 19, 2009, when logging of
operation data officially ended. The AC sample tap was installed after the first sampling event so there
were only 26 sampling events at the AC location.
Figure 4-19 contains four bar charts showing concentrations of total arsenic, particulate arsenic, As(III),
and As(V) at the IN, AC, OT, and TT locations for each of the 13 speciation events. Total arsenic
concentrations in raw water ranged from 22.2 to 33.4 |o,g/L and averaged 28.6 |og/L (Table 4-11). Of the
soluble fraction, As(III) was the predominating species, with concentrations ranging from 16.3 to 25.6
(ig/L and averaging 20.2 |o,g/L. Particulate arsenic concentrations were low, averaging 3.2 (ig/L. The
presence of As(III) as the predominating arsenic species was consistent with the low DO concentrations,
averaging 2.4 mg/L (Table 4-12) measured during the performance evaluation study. (Note that only four
sets of DO readings were taken during the entire study period, including one showing unrealistically high
concentrations across the treatment train [i.e., from 13.6 to 28.2 mg/L on March 4, 2009]). These
obviously were the results of erroneous measurements. In fact, the operator had had difficulties in using
the VWR Symphony SP90M5 handheld meter with the original and several replacement probes. As a
result, the measurements had to be discontinued about halfway through the study. The ORP readings,
however, were high, averaging 324 mV in raw water. The higher than expected ORP readings might have
been caused by aeration of water during sampling or instrumental errors.
41
-------
40.0
0.0
Arsenic Speciation at Wellhead (IN)
DAs(V)
• As (III)
D As (particulate) I
» >
Date
40.0
30.0
o
+j
re
i 20.0
o
o
o
o
m 10.0
0.0
Arsenic Speciation after Chlorination (AC)
DAs(V)
• As (III)
D As (particulate)
<
Date
Figure 4-19. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AC, OT and
TT Sampling Locations
42
-------
Arsenic Speciation after Oxidation/nitration (OT)
40
30
2 20
o
10
DAs(V)
• As (III)
D Arsenic (particulate)
VH.D
n n n
Date
40
30
re
-g 20
o
o
o
o
« 10
Arsenic Speciation after Adsorption (TT)
DAs(V)
• As (III)
D Arsenic (particulate)
Date
Figure 4-19. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AC, OT and
TT Sampling Locations (Continued)
43
-------
Chlorination oxidized As(III) to As(V), which, in turn, was adsorbed onto and/or co-precipitated with iron
solids also formed upon chlorination. This was evidenced by a decrease in soluble arsenic concentration
from 25.9 |o,g/L (on average) in raw water to 7.7 |o,g/L at the AC location and a corresponding increase in
particulate arsenic concentration from 3.2 to 21.0 (ig/L. The majority of particulate arsenic was filtered
out by the AD26 oxidation/filtration media, leaving only 1.2 to 5.0 (ig/L of total arsenic, existing mainly
as soluble As(V), to be further removed by E33 adsorptive media. By the end of the performance
evaluation study, total arsenic concentrations in treated water after the E33 adsorption vessels were
reduced to less than 0.5 (ig/L. Figure 4-20 presents arsenic breakthrough curves from the AD26
oxidation/filtration and E33 adsorption units.
Total arsenic Breakthrough Curves for E33 Adsorption Systems
45
40
10
-After Chlorination (AC)
-After Oxidation nitration (OT)
-After Adsorption Vessels (TT)
-AsMCL=10
T-
=^-*—A-
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Bed Volume (103)
5,000
6,000
Figure 4-20. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves from AD26 and E33 Vessels
Free and total chlorine were monitored at the AC, OT, and TT sampling locations to ensure that the target
level of free chlorine residuals (0.2 mg/L [as C12]) was properly maintained. As shown in Table 4-12,
free chlorine levels at the AC location ranged from 0.2 to 3.6 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 0.9 mg/L (as
C12); total chlorine levels ranged from 0.3 to 5.1 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 1.4 mg/L (as C12). Chlorine
residual levels measured at the OT and TT locations were noticeably lower than those at the AC location
(i.e., 0.9 vs. 0.3 and 0.1 mg/L [as C12], respectively, for free chlorine and 1.4 vs. 0.5 and 0.2 mg/L [as
C12], respectively, for total chlorine), indicating some chlorine demands through the AD26 and E33
vessels. Free chlorine residual levels in the system effluent often were lower than the 0.2 mg/L required
by IDEM. Repeated attempts were made to increase the levels of free and total chlorine in the treated
water.
After chlorination, DO concentrations remained essentially unchanged; however, ORP readings increased
significantly to 561, 553, and 538 mV, on average, at the AC, OT, and TT locations, respectively, despite
the fact that the residual levels were low.
44
-------
Iron. Total iron concentrations at the wellhead ranged from 560 to 863 (ig/L and averaged 741 (ig/L,
existing almost entirely as soluble iron. Following chlorination, soluble iron was precipitated to become
iron solids, with its concentration remained essentially unchanged at 733 (ig/L (on average). Arsenic-
laden iron solids were removed by the AD26 media to the MDL of 25 (ig/L. The data indicated that
chlorine effectively oxidized soluble iron to form iron solids, which were then effectively filtered by the
AD26 oxidation/filtration media. The backwash frequency of once every 3 days appeared to be adequate
without having any iron leakage between backwash cycles.
Manganese. Total manganese levels in source water ranged from 58.3 to 97.5 (ig/L and averaged 81.5
(ig/L, which existed almost entirely in the soluble form. After chlorination, over 53% (on average) of
soluble manganese was precipitated to form, presumably, MnO2 solids, which, along with the unoxidized
Mn2+, were removed by the AD26 media to 1.1 (ig/L (on average). Total manganese concentrations were
further reduced to <0.1 (ig/L after the E33 adsorptive media.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Raw water pH values measured at the IN location varied from 7.0 to
7.6. This near neutral pH is desirable for arsenic adsorption onto iron solids. The pH values remained
essentially unchanged after the AD26 and E33 vessels. Alkalinity values ranged from 256 to 301 mg/L
(as CaCO3) across the treatment train. The results indicate that the adsorptive media did not affect the
amount of alkalinity in water after treatment. The treatment plant samples were analyzed for hardness
only when arsenic speciation was performed except during the last sampling event when the number of
parameters analyzed was reduced. Concentrations of total hardness, existing primarily as calcium
hardness (about 64%), ranged from 190 to 336 mg/L (as CaCO3), and remained essentially unchanged
throughout the treatment train. Sulfate levels were low ranging from 1.8 to 4.5 mg/L and remained
constant throughout the treatment train. Silica (as SiO2) concentrations ranged from 16.3 to 23.8 mg/L
and appeared unaffected by the chlorine injection and the AD26 and E33 media. Fluoride results ranged
from 0.2 to 0.8 mg/L and did not appear to be affected by the E33 media. Total phosphorous levels
ranged from <10 to 36.3 (ig/L and were below the MDL of 10 (ig/L (as PO4) during most sampling
events. Ammonia concentrations ranged from <0.05 to 0.2 mg/L (as N) and averaged 0.1 mg/L (as N),
which would react with 0.76 mg/L of chlorine to reach breakpoint chlorination. Following chlorination,
ammonia levels were reduced to below or near the MDL of 0.05 mg/L (as N).
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling. Table 4-13 presents the analytical results of backwash
wastewater sampling. Backwash wastewater samples were collected 10 times from each of the three
AD26 oxidation/filtration vessels. pH values of backwash wastewater ranged from 7.4 to 7.9 and
averaged 7.6, which was 0.3 pH units higher than that of E33-treated water. TDS concentrations ranged
from 192 to 282 mg/L and averaged 258 mg/L. TSS concentrations ranged from <4 to 28 mg/L and
averaged 10 mg/L. The low TSS values measured during backwash of each oxidation/filtration vessel
were probably caused by insufficient mixing of solids/water mixtures in the collection container.
As expected, the majority of the total arsenic, iron, and manganese in the backwash wastewater were in
the particulate form. Assuming that 10 mg/L of TSS was produced in 56,810 gal of wastewater (Table 4-
10), 4.7 Ib of solids would be discharged in one year. The solids discharged would be composed of
0.039, 1.5, and 0.21 Ib of arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively, assuming 82 (ig/L of particulate
arsenic, 3,133 (ig/L of particulate iron, and 440 (ig/L of particulate manganese in the backwash
wastewater.
Table 4-14 presents the results of total metals analysis for one set of backwash solid samples collected on
January 12, 2009, and analyzed in duplicate. Iron levels in the solids ranged from 88,199 to 171,489 (ig/g
and averaged 128,592 (ig/g; arsenic levels ranged from 1,010 to 4,452 (ig/g and averaged 2,703 (ig/g.
This yields an Fe:As ratio of 48:1, which is 60% higher than the 30:1 ratio when considering the amounts
of iron and arsenic removed by the AD26 vessels (see Table 4-11).
45
-------
Table 4-13. Oxidation/Filtration Vessels Backwash Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
Date
M
n.
S.U.
!/5
0
H
mg/L
!/5
!/5
H
mg/L
r-\
CS
-^-i
§
5«
•<
iig/L
As (soluble)
iig/L
As (particulate)
iig/L
13
•^
o
-*^
0)
U.
Hg/L
Fe (soluble)
iig/L
"3
-*^
§
I
iig/L
Mn (soluble)
Hg/L
Oxidation/Filtration Vessel A
10/02/08
12/18/08
01/22/09
02/18/09
03/18/09
04/15/09
05/14/09
06/10/09
07/28/09
09/15/09
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
250
280
240
270
238
268
258
270
258
264
10
28
<4
6
7
20
6
6
7
8
85.6
236
46.7
NA
111
202
84.9
34.9
9.0
119
6.5
10.4
6.2
NA
9.4
14.6
6.5
6.4
2.5
12.6
79.2
226
40.5
NA
101
187
78.4
28.5
6.4
106
2,197
8,706
1,296
NA
2,914
7,960
3,472
1,259
1,706
4,302
<25
89
<25
NA
124
359
43
<25
<25
174
346
855
388
NA
309
542
498
364
431
329
3.1
6.9
7.1
NA
7.8
23.8
5.7
4.8
5.1
13.7
Oxidation/Filtration Vessel B
10/02/08
12/18/08
01/22/09
02/18/09
03/18/09
04/15/09
05/14/09
06/10/09
07/28/09
09/15/09
7.7
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
256
278
254
244
252
276
192
258
272
256
8
14
4
6
5
15
9
5
<4
11
69.9
112
96.9
NA
98.5
93.7
83.9
36.7
2.8
129
6.4
8.2
6.7
NA
10.8
6.9
6.7
5.6
2.6
9.7
63.5
104
90.2
NA
87.8
86.7
77.2
31.2
0.2
119
1,951
3,026
2,386
NA
2,706
3,834
3,334
1,408
1,356
4,573
<25
42
38.9
NA
202
72
48
<25
<25
91
395
486
500
NA
326
387
421
447
426
307
3.4
4.5
6.5
NA
13.5
7.9
5.9
4.1
4.1
9.1
Oxidation/Filtration Vessel C
10/02/08
12/18/08
01/22/09
02/18/09
03/18/09
04/15/09
05/14/09
06/10/09
07/28/09
09/15/09
7.7
7.9
7.9
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
254
282
260
266
248
270
266
244
256
258
8
10
20
22
5
5
11
5
4
13
53.9
53.8
224
NA
79.6
122
94.9
34.5
11.0
158
6.2
5.4
8.5
NA
8.5
9.1
9.0
5.3
1.3
21.3
47.7
48.4
215
NA
71.0
113
85.9
29.2
9.7
137
1,599
1,726
6,567
NA
2,159
5,100
3,706
1,296
1,740
5,570
<25
<25
124
NA
98.5
183
150
<25
825
480
383
559
728
NA
302
557
451
501
548
378
3.6
3.3
11.1
NA
6.3
18.8
12.4
4.3
92.4
31.5
NA = not analyzed
TDS = total dissolved solids
TSS = total suspended solids
When using the metals results presented in Table 4-14, the amounts of arsenic, iron, and manganese
discharged could be estimated to be 0.013, 0.60, and 0.19 Ib, respectively (compared to 0.039, 1.5, and
0.21 Ib, respectively), assuming 10 mg/L of TSS in 56,810 gal of wastewater.
No backwash wastewater or solids sample was collected from sampling of the E33 tanks.
46
-------
Table 4-14. Oxidation/Filtration Vessels Backwash Solid Sample Total Metal Results
Sample
Vessel AD26-
A-Solids-A
Vessel AD26-
A-Solids-B
Vessel AD26-
A-Average
Vessel AD26-
B-Solids-A
Vessel AD26-
B-Solids-B
Vessel AD26-
B- Average
Vessel AD26-
C-Solids-A
Vessel AD26-
C-Solids-B
Vessel AD26-
C-Average
Unit
ug/g
ug/g
ug/g
ug/g
ug/g
^g/g
ug/g
ug/g
lig/g
Mg
28,371
29,932
29,151
45,207
41,718
43,462
45,927
43,750
44,838
Al
4,524
4,734
4,629
5,850
5,411
5,631
6,991
7,490
7,241
Si
28,664
31,001
29,832
33,136
28,601
30,869
21,417
25,800
23,608
P
7,067
7,490
7,278
7,336
6,694
7,015
6,572
6,454
6,513
Ca
149,572
154,400
151,986
173,168
175,294
174,231
168,062
176,042
172,052
Fe(a)
162,312
171,489
166,900
137,990
123,185
130,587
88,199
88,382
88,290
Mn
39,255
41,145
40,200
33,567
34,026
33,797
47,890
42,270
45,080
Ni
88.4
90.3
89
104
102
103
119
118
119
Cu
198
211
205
194
180
187
195
191
193
Zn
381
384
382
335
317
326
334
338
336
As(a)
4,307
4,452
4,379
2,800
2,576
2,688
1,074
1,010
1,042
Cd
5.1
4.8
5
1.2
1.2
1
1.4
1.3
1
Ba
1,581
1,639
1,610
1,741
1,547
1,644
1,458
1,514
1,486
Pb
51.6
48.4
50
49.2
46.1
48
47.3
55.8
52
UgAs/
mgFe
26.5
25.9
26.2
20.3
20.9
20.6
12.2
11.4
11.8
Analyzed On 1/12/09.
(a) It is not clear why arsenic and iron concentrations became progressively lower from Vessels A to C.
-------
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment
system, four first draw baseline distribution system water samples were collected from the bathroom sink
tap on February 7, 13, 21, and 23, 2008. Following the installation of the treatment system, distribution
water sampling continued on a monthly basis except for July and August 2008, February 2009 and
August 2009. Table 4-15 presents the results of the distribution system sampling.
Table 4-15. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
02/07/08
02/13/08
02/21/08
02/23/08
06/18/08
09/14/08
10/30/08
11/12/08
12/18/08
01/22/09
03/19/09
04/15/09
05/14/09
06/10/09
07/28/09
09/15/09
0
'•i
B a>
§f !
£H
hr
NA
7.5
NA
NA
48.0
NA
9.0
12.0
13.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M
8.
S.U.
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.5
7.8
8.2
7.4
7.3
7.6
7.8
7.5
7.5
7.5
Alkalinity
mg/L
273
273
271
271
211
270
269
267
270
278
271
267
298
280
272
267
5«
<
Hg/L
20.0
24.1
7.9
18.4
5.9
7.9
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.6
<0.1
2.4
0.4
4.9
1.3
9.2
0)
u.
Hg/L
323
384
<25
<25
134
30
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
66
<25
68
1
Hg/L
85.6
88.5
82.3
84.9
2.5
0.7
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
4.9
<0.1
6.8
.a
a.
Hg/L
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.6
10.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
0.2
1.4
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
6.7
U
Hg/L
5.5
2.4
24.5
43.0
304
43.0
0.2
0.7
0.6
27.0
0.4
3.6
0.3
231
0.2
7.1
BL = baseline sampling; NA = not available
Lead action level = 15 ng/L; copper action level =1.3 mg/L
The unit for analytical parameters is ng/L except for alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3).
The most noticeable change in the distribution samples since system startup was a decrease in arsenic,
iron, and manganese concentrations. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged from 7.9 to 24.1 (ig/L and
averaged 17.6 (ig/L. After system startup, arsenic concentrations were reduced to less than 0.1 to 9.2
(ig/L (averaged 2.8 (ig/L). The baseline iron concentrations ranged from less than the MDL of 25 (ig/L to
384 (ig/L, and averaged 183 (ig/L. After system startup, iron concentrations decreased to less than the
MDL of 25 (ig/L in all samples except for four at 134, 30, 66 and 68 (ig/L. Manganese had a similar
trend with baseline concentrations averaging 85.3 (ig/L and after-startup concentrations at <0.1 (ig/L
except for four samples at 2.5, 0.7, 4.9 and 6.8 (ig/L on the same dates when the exceptions for iron
concentration were observed.
Lead concentrations of all water samples collected before and after the installation of the treatment
system were less than 1 (ig/L, except for three instances at 10.3, 1.4, and 6.7 (ig/L. All of the lead values
were, therefore, below the action level of 15 (ig/L. Copper concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 304 (ig/L
across all sampling locations, with no samples exceeding the 1,300 (ig/L action level both before and after
system startup. The arsenic treatment system did not have an effect on the lead or copper concentration in
the distribution system.
48
-------
Measured pH values ranged from 7.3 to 8.2 and averaged 7.6. Alkalinity levels ranged from 267 to
298 mg/L (as CaCO3). The arsenic treatment system did not affect these water quality parameters of the
distributed water.
4.6 System Cost
The cost of the treatment system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design
capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This required tracking of the capital cost for
the equipment, site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal,
chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation for the
25-gpm treatment system was $55,423 (Table 4-16). The equipment cost was $31,735 (or 57.3% of the
total capital investment). The breakdowns for the 25-gpm system provided by the vendor included
$14,251 for the AD26 system, $15,811 for the E33 system, and $1,673 for freight. The cost for each
AD26 and E33 vessel was $2,325 and $4,497.50, respectively. The unit cost for AD26 and E33 media
was $218 and $265/ft3, respectively. A prechlorination module and one year of O&M support were
$1,978 and $1,320, respectively.
The site engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of a process flow diagram and relevant
mechanical drawings of the treatment system, piping, valves, and a backwash discharge line, as well as
submission of a permit application package to IDEM for approval. The site engineering cost was
$11,278, or 20.3% of the total capital investment. Most of the site engineering cost (i.e., $8,425) went to
LJB, Inc., a subcontractor to AdEdge, for labor and travel.
The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the units, perform piping tie-
ins and electrical work, and load and backwash the media. The installation was performed by AdEdge
and Hawkins Water, a local contractor subcontracted by AdEdge. The installation cost was $12,410, or
22.4% of the total capital investment.
The capital cost of $55,423 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 25 gpm (or 36,000 gpd),
which results in $2,216/gpm (or $1.54/gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $5,231/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate
and a 20-yr return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at the design flowrate
of 25 gpm to produce 36,000 gal/day, the unit capital cost would be $0.39/1,000 gal. During the year
long demonstration, the system produced approximately 517,000 gal of water (see Table 4-9); at this
reduced rate of usage, the unit capital cost increased to $10.12/1,000 gal.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost includes media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electricity, and labor, as summarized in Table 4-17. Although media
replacement did not occur during the demonstration study, the media replacement cost would represent
the majority of the O&M cost. The vendor estimated that the AD26 media would have a life expectancy
of 8.7 yr. It was estimated that it would cost $2,593 to replace 6.9 ft3 of AD26 media in three vessels. At
the current water use rate (i.e., 517,000 gal for one year), the system would treat 4,500,000 gal of water in
a 8.7-yr period. Therefore, the AD26 media replacement cost would be equivalent to $0.58/1,000 gal of
water treated.
It also was estimated that it would cost $3,951 to change out 10.5 ft3 of E33 media; that estimate included
the cost for media, freight, labor, travel expenses, and media 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 4-21).
49
-------
Table 4-16. Capital Investment Cost for AdEdge Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
%of
Capital
Investment
Cost
Equipment Costs
Three 13 -in Diameter AD26 Fiberglass Vessels
AD26 Media (ft3)
Process Valves and Piping
Instrumentation and Controls
Totalizer for Backwash Line
O&M Manuals
1-year O&M Support
Pre chlorination Module
Subtotal
Two 18-in Diameter E3 3 Fiberglass Vessels
E33 Media (ft3)
Process Valves and Piping
Instrumentation and Controls
Additional Sample Taps
Additional storage (bladder tanks)
Subtotal
Shipping
Subtotal
Equipment Total
1
6.9
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
10.5
1
1
2
3
-
$6,975
$1,508
$250
$990
$430
$800
$1,320
$1,978
$14,251
$8,995
$2,738
$250
$900
$210
$2,718
$15,811
$1,673
$1,673
$31,735
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
57.3%
Engineering Cost
Vendor Labor
Subcontractor Labor
Subcontractor Travel
Engineering Total
-
-
-
$2,853
$7,475
$950
$11,278
-
-
-
20.3%
Installation Cost
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Subcontractor Material
Subcontractor Labor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
-
$720
$120
$5,300
$6,270
$12,410
$55,423
-
-
-
-
22.4%
100%
A 12.5% NaOCl solution was used for chlorination. The cost associated with chlorination was
approximately $169 during this demonstration study, which translated into a chemical cost of $0.33/1,000
gal of water treated.
Comparison of electrical bills provided by the school prior to system installation and since startup did not
indicate any noticeable increase in power consumption by the treatment system. Therefore, electrical cost
associated with operation of the AD26/E33 system was assumed to be negligible. Under normal
operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed 20 min per
day, which translates into 1.6 hr/wk. Therefore, the estimated labor cost would be $2.57/1,000 gal of
water treated.
50
-------
Table 4-17. Operation and Maintenance Cost for AdEdge Treatment System
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Value
517,000
Assumptions
Through June 19,2009
Media Replacement and Disposal
AD26 Media Cost ($)
AD26 Media Volume (ft3)
Subcontractor Labor Cost ($)
Freight ($)
Waste Disposal ($)
Waste Analysis ($)
Subtotal ($)
AD26 Media Replacement and Disposal
cost ($71,000 gal)
ADS 3 Media Cost ($)
ADS 3 Media Volume (ft3)
Subcontractor Labor Cost ($)
Freight ($)
Waste Disposal ($)
Waste Analysis ($)
Subtotal ($)
AD-33 Media Replacement and Disposal
cost ($71,000 gal)
$1,380
6.9
$540
$303
$255
$115
$2,593
$0.58
$2,738
10.5
$540
$303
$255
$115
$3,951
See Figure
4-22
Vendor quote
To fill three 13 -in diameter vessels
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Assume 8.7-year media life
treating 4,500,000 gal of water
Vendor quote
To fill two 18-in diameter vessels
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
One TCLP test
Chemical Usage
Chemical Cost ($71,000)
$0.33
Approximately $169 for one year
Electricity
Electricity Cost ($71,000 gal)
Negligible
Electrical costs assumed
negligible
Labor
Average Weekly (5 day) Labor (hr)
Labor cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
1.6
$2.57
See Figure
4-21
20 mm/day
Labor rate = $16/hr
Total O&M cost = $0.58 + E33
adsorptive media replacement cost
+ $0.33 + $2.57
51
-------
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
" $6.00
o
O
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
E33 Media Replacement Cost
O&Mcost
\
20
40 60 80 100
Media Working Capacity (x1,000 BV)
120
140
160
Figure 4-21. Media Replacement Cost Curves for Clinton Christian School System
52
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2007. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology (QAPP
ID 355-Q-6-0). Prepared under Contract No.EP-C-05-057. Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. EPA
NRMRL. August 15.
Battelle. 2008. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology Round 2a at Clinton Christian School in Goshen, Indiana. Prepared under
Contract No. EP-C-05-057, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
LJB Inc. 2007. Water Treatment System Improvements. Clinton Christian School PWS ID# 2200025.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
53
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goshen, IN- Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Date
06/06/08
06/06/08
06/11/08
06/13/08
06/25/08
06/27/08
06/30/08
07/02/08
07/05/08
07/07/08
07/09/08
07/11/08
07/16/08
07/22/08
07/29/08
08/05/08
08/07/08
08/12/08
08/13/08
08/18/08
08/20/08
08/25/08
08/29/08
09/01/08
09/02/08
9/3/2008
09/06/08
Well Pumps
Operating
time'"
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.8
5.7
39.9
3.1
1.2
2
1.0
2.7
2.4
6.7
9.5
2.3
1.7
1.5
8.8
Cumulative
hours
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.8
20.5
60.4
63.5
64.7
66.8
67.8
70.5
72.9
79.6
89.1
91.4
93.1
94.6
103.4
AD26
Combined
Instantaneous
Flowrate1"1
(gpm)
17.33
15.85
17.01
12.34
16.37
16.95
14.82
17.20
15.29
17.29
14.78
16.90
16.97
16.24
15.04
9.01
8.69
10.94
NA
14.02
15.21
15.22
14.26
14.18
14.88
16.26
13.12
Combined
Calculated
Flowrate
(gpm)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.01
12.41
12.16
10.08
9.3
NA
NA
12.51
14.14
14.46
15.53
15.01
14.91
14.25
E33
Combined
Instantaneous
Flowrate1"1
(gpm)
16.67
16.46
16.55
13.05
16.17
16.17
14.60
17.51
14.53
14.53
15.00
17.02
16.82
16.58
14.49
12.48
13.25
16.40
14.50
15.12
14.61
14.63
13.77
14.19
13.54
16.59
12.64
Combined
Calculated
Flowrate
(gpm)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.58
12.45
13.00
12
13.55
10.77
14.13
13.40
12.67
13.34
14.65
13.43
13.56
13.84
Backwash
Totalizer
Readings
(gal)
NA
6,299
NA
6,985
7,210
7,211
7,211
7,211
NA
NA
9,214
NA
NA
9,409
9,409
9,409
9,410
9,410
9,430
9,430
NA
10,320
1 1 ,340
11,418
1 1 ,564
11,700
1 1 ,949
AD 26
Inlet
Pressure
(psi)
53
68
60
60
48
50
52
52
50
50
50
50
52
52
52
58
60
52
63
54
55
52
55
56
52
52
56
Outlet
Pressure
psi
48
53
44
55
40
42
41
40
49
49
43
42
41
44
40
47
43
42
NA
38
47
47
48
53
46
46
50
E33
Outlet
Pressure
psi
43.0
46.0
40
54
36
38
38
36
46
46
40
38
38
40
38
44
38
37
NA
35
44
42
45
50
42
43
47
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goshen, IN- Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
Date
09/08/08
09/09/08
09/10/08
09/11/08
09/13/08
09/14/08
09/1 7/08
09/19/08
09/23/08
09/29/08
09/30/08
10/02/08
10/08/08
10/12/08
10/14/08
10/16/08
11/05/08
11/06/08
11/11/08
11/12/08
11/13/08
11/14/08
11/17/08
11/19/08
11/21/08
11/25/08
11/26/08
12/01/08
Well Pumps
Operating
time'"
(hr)
3.8
0.3
4.7
1.2
6.1
0.4
5.6
2.2
12.9
6.2
1.5
2.5
6.3
2.2
1.6
3.7
47.5
2.1
11.0
2.9
6.6
0.9
23
6.1
1.8
6.0
1.8
4.1
Cumulative
hours
(hr)
107.2
107.5
112.2
113.4
119.5
119.9
125.5
127.7
140.6
146.8
148.3
150.8
157.1
159.3
164.2
167.9
215.4
217.5
228.5
231.4
238.0
238.9
261.9
268.0
269.8
275.8
277.6
281.7
AD26
Combined
Instantaneous
Flowrate1"1
(gpm)
16.32
13.41
18.81
18.85
16.71
18.63
18.03
20.16
14.34
17.25
17.26
13.32
18.88
15.36
11.66
14.59
15.31
14.68
18.23
13.10
14.08
14.70
15.23
12.74
17.73
14.74
18.07
14.21
Combined
Calculated
Flowrate
(gpm)
14.22
18.72
13.96
15.24
14.14
17.12
13.95
16.11
14.60
15.41
15.41
15.07
16.10
15.70
16.07
14.96
14.65
14.27
14.71
13.84
13.95
15.20
13.88
13.63
15.51
14.60
14.85
14.88
E33
Combined
Instantaneous
Flowrate1"1
(gpm)
14.51
6.36
18.77
19.06
16.31
18.98
17.75
19.28
13.16
18.52
17.14
13.14
19.46
14.80
12.55
15.05
15.75
14.47
17.96
12.22
14.82
13.98
15.60
12.06
18.03
14.98
18.22
13.30
Combined
Calculated
Flowrate
(gpm)
14.14
18.67
14.01
15.08
14.29
17.21
14.09
12.45
13.26
6.87
37.66
11.49
11.90
11.95
13.83
12.91
13.26
13.88
14.41
13.63
13.79
10.22
13.44
13.37
15.18
14.22
14.67
14.32
Backwash
Totalizer
Readings
(gal)
1 1 ,968
11,970
11,981
11,981
1 1 ,994
1 1 ,994
11,997
12,733
13,667
14,932
14,932
14,932
17,164
17,670
18,627
18,627
23,257
23,257
23,477
23,477
23,487
23,487
24,361
24,389
24,440
24,448
24,448
24,460
AD 26
Inlet
Pressure
(psi)
56
51
54
51
47
52
54
58
54
48
47
54
46
50
62
56
56
56
55
56
57
54
56
58
56
56
50
54
Outlet
Pressure
psi
47
45
44
43
40
45
40
59
47
39
42
50
39
48
59
52
49
49
46
50
50
47
48
52
50
51
40
49
E33
Outlet
Pressure
psi
40
41
38
38
36
43
32
59
44
32
38
46
30
42
58
48
46
45
39
47
47
42
45
48
46
47
38
45
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goshen, IN- Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Date
12/02/08
12/03/08
12/05/08
12/08/08
12/10/08
12/12/08
12/15/08
12/17/08
12/19/08
12/23/08
12/26/08
01/02/08
01/05/09
01/07/09
01/09/09
01/12/09
01/14/09
01/16/09
01/19/09
01/21/09
01/23/09
01/26/09
01/28/09
01/30/09
02/04/09
02/06/09
02/10/09
02/11/09
02/13/09
Well Pumps
Operating
time'"
(hr)
1.7
0.8
3.5
6.2
6.4
6.5
12.1
11.9
3.2
4.0
3.4
7.0
2.4
2.9
3.4
3.3
2.0
3.3
2.1
10.0
3.8
10.3
2.1
4.5
16.0
6.5
4.3
2.1
2.3
Cumulative
hours
(hr)
283.4
284.2
287.7
293.9
300.3
306.8
318.9
330.8
334.0
338.0
341.4
348.4
350.8
353.7
357.1
360.4
362.4
365.7
367.8
377.8
381.6
391.9
394.0
398.5
414.5
421.0
425.3
427.4
429.7
AD26
Combined
Instantaneous
Flowrate1"1
(gpm)
12.00
18.53
17.07
16.82
17.92
18.04
17.58
15.46
16.08
17.94
17.80
17.93
17.90
16.10
16.47
17.63
17.46
14.65
19.29
16.63
18.85
12.44
19.36
14.50
16.28
16.45
16.99
17.37
15.20
Combined
Calculated
Flowrate
(gpm)
14.66
16.50
14.06
14.45
14.20
13.89
14.37
14.09
15.68
15.18
15.15
15.77
15.74
14.74
15.64
15.56
15.97
15.42
16.30
14.53
16.27
14.88
15.99
15.05
14.52
14.95
15.48
15.16
15.33
E33
Combined
Instantaneous
Flowrate1"1
(gpm)
12.25
17.95
17.25
16.99
17.40
18.20
17.99
15.75
15.39
18.12
17.44
17.21
17.99
15.60
15.03
16.90
17.05
14.50
18.60
16.37
17.31
12.51
15.83
12.62
15.58
15.88
16.79
17.68
15.44
Combined
Calculated
Flowrate
(gpm)
14.40
14.87
14.06
14.12
13.93
13.69
13.14
13.04
12.51
12.34
11.19
12.09
11.98
13.45
13.70
13.17
11.83
12.62
10.22
13.38
11.07
13.32
12.19
13.92
13.08
14.18
14.09
14.65
13.89
Backwash
Totalizer
Readings
(gal)
24,461
24,461
24,461
24,461
24,466
24,466
25,170
25,813
26,357
26,954
27,712
29,284
29,793
29,963
30,268
30,659
31,110
31,608
32,332
32,743
33,897
34,753
35,171
35,360
36,330
36,403
36,599
36,599
36,673
AD 26
Inlet
Pressure
(psi)
62
52
56
54
55
54
54
60
54
52
52
53
56
56
53
53
54
56
52
54
53
62
54
62
55
54
54
55
56
Outlet
Pressure
psi
59
42
50
44
46
42
49
53
48
42
46
45
52
49
45
47
47
54
44
49
46
58
48
57
50
49
48
49
50
E33
Outlet
Pressure
psi
56
40
45
40
42
36
37
49
44
37
40
39
48
45
39
42
42
50
38
44
39
54
43
53
46
45
44
44
47
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goshen, IN- Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
38
39
40
41
43
44
46
47
48
49
Date
02/16/09
02/18/09
02/20/09
02/23/09
02/25/09
02/27/09
03/02/09
03/04/09
03/06/09
03/09/09
03/11/09
03/12/09
03/23/09
03/25/09
03/27/09
03/30/09
04/01/09
04/03/09
04/13/09
04/15/09
04/1 7/09
04/21/09
04/22/09
04/24/09
05/04/09
05/07/09
05/10/09
05/11/09
05/14/09
Well Pumps
Operating
time'"
(hr)
2.0
0.5
4.3
2.9
4.4
2.6
2.9
6.7
3.2
2.6
1.5
2.6
14.6
2.6
1.4
2.4
3.6
1.2
5.8
11.6
8.5
1.4
1.9
4.6
19.7
5.5
2.7
0.9
2.4
Cumulative
hours
(hr)
431.7
432.2
436.5
439.4
443.8
446.4
449.3
456.0
459.2
461.8
463.3
465.9
480.5
483.1
484.5
486.9
490.5
491.7
496.3
507.9
516.4
517.8
519.7
524.3
544.0
549.5
552.2
553.1
555.5
AD26
Combined
Instantaneous
Flowrate1"1
(gpm)
17.88
11.97
17.52
17.73
13.02
17.14
17.14
15.39
18.52
17.86
18.71
18.49
18.65
15.57
17.77
0.00
20.25
17.36
17.72
16.83
18.83
16.51
18.09
15.06
16.82
18.64
16.51
17.09
18.18
Combined
Calculated
Flowrate
(gpm)
16.64
71.73
8.95
14.78
15.43
15.78
16.30
14.56
15.93
16.04
17.11
15.59
15.70
15.61
15.85
17.21
15.75
16.25
14.10
14.66
10.45
28.71
30.15
15.26
15.35
15.67
16.35
12.91
16.71
E33
Combined
Instantaneous
Flowrate1"1
(gpm)
16.81
12.17
17.02
17.14
12.40
16.52
16.62
14.74
17.68
17.18
18.00
17.44
17.86
14.61
17.02
NA
16.14
14.08
18.28
10.76
18.26
15.74
17.76
15.53
15.98
18.00
15.74
16.02
17.57
Combined
Calculated
Flowrate
(gpm)
14.88
68.60
8.04
13.87
12.39
10.97
11.94
14.12
11.60
11.83
9.70
14.92
12.32
13.07
13.50
13.65
13.42
12.78
10.80
13.96
7.62
18.85
29.21
12.47
13.38
11.77
16.75
11.96
12.88
Backwash
Totalizer
Readings
(gal)
36,718
36,744
36,827
36,852
37,563
38,271
38,967
38,967
39,640
40,297
40,941
41,312
43,733
44,058
44,215
44,771
45,166
45,371
46,416
46,444
47,844
48,531
48,531
49,201
51,189
NA
NA
52,198
52,828
AD 26
Inlet
Pressure
(psi)
53
58
54
55
63
54
55
56
55
54
56
54
51
57
54
53
54
54
52
60
58
58
54
53
58
53
57
54
54
Outlet
Pressure
psi
47
54
48
49
58
49
49
49
49
48
53
47
44
52
NA
46
46
48
45
56
47
54
46
48
54
47
48
48
46
E33
Outlet
Pressure
psi
41
50
43
44
56
44
45
45
44
43
49
41
38
49
NA
40
40
43
39
53
52
52
40
42
50
40
51
43
41
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goshen, IN- Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
50
51
52
53
54
Date
05/1 7/09
05/19/09
05/22/09
05/24/09
05/26/09
05/27/09
06/01/09
06/03/09
06/08/09
06/10/09
06/14/09
06/15/09
06/19/09
Well Pumps
Operating
time'"
(hr)
3.6
11.5
3.8
1.7
1.4
1.5
5.6
17.1
7.9
1.3
2.4
4.2
4.1
Cumulative
hours
(hr)
559.1
570.6
574.4
576.1
577.5
579.0
584.6
601.7
609.6
610.9
613.3
617.5
621.6
AD26
Combined
Instantaneous
Flowrate1"1
(gpm)
19.31
19.78
18.21
17.80
17.06
17.99
19.37
15.64
17.82
17.39
18.06
18.06
18.54
Combined
Calculated
Flowrate
(gpm)
16.62
14.57
15.58
16.87
16.13
17.31
16.50
14.35
15.12
17.86
17.76
14.74
16.53
E33
Combined
Instantaneous
Flowrate1"1
(gpm)
18.81
18.64
17.72
17.24
16.56
16.97
18.58
16.88
17.20
16.58
17.36
15.26
17.80
Combined
Calculated
Flowrate
(gpm)
10.73
13.82
12.18
9.62
10.39
13.79
11.96
13.59
12.31
8.86
6.51
14.17
11.65
Backwash
Totalizer
Readings
(gal)
53,986
54,223
54,933
55,600
56,090
56,650
58,076
58,298
59,576
60,432
62,001
62,001
63,109
AD 26
Inlet
Pressure
(psi)
53
48
54
54
54
54
52
56
54
54
54
56
67
Outlet
Pressure
psi
46
37
47
48
48
47
44
46
47
48
47
49
48
E33
Outlet
Pressure
psi
39
30
41
43
43
42
38
41
42
44
42
46
44
System started on May 1 2008
NA = not available
(a) Hour meter was not installed at wellhead at time of system start-up.
(b) AD26C flow meter was replaced on 08/18/08.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goshen, IN
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10J
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
06/06/08
IN
OT
-
277
-
0.1
-
0.3
2.1
<0.05
11.4
-
20.0
-
9.5
-
7.4
13.1
0.9
278
-
-
300
204
95.8
32.2
-
30.1
2.1
25.6
4.5
851
-
887
97.5
-
107
286
-
<0.05
-
0.3
2.1
0.2
<10
-
19.6
-
<0.1
-
7.5
13.1
2.3
753
-
-
318
207
111
1.7
-
1.6
<0.1
0.4
1.3
29
-
<25
1.0
-
0.4
TT
0.0
280
-
O.05
-
0.3
2.1
<0.05
<10
-
16.5
-
0.1
-
7.4
13.1
1.6
763
5.5
5.5
321
205
116
4.9
-
0.6
4.2
0.4
0.3
207
-
<25
0.5
-
<0.1
06/27/08
IN
AC
OT
-
271
-
NA
-
-
-
-
<10
-
18.3
-
8.9
-
7.0
NA
NA
509
-
-
-
-
-
27.4
-
-
-
-
-
770
-
-
87.8
-
-
273
-
NA
-
-
-
-
<10
-
18.1
-
0.5
-
7.5
NA
NA
886
-
-
-
-
-
27.2
-
-
-
-
-
751
-
-
86.8
-
-
271
-
NA
-
-
-
-
<10
-
18.1
-
0.1
-
7.5
NA
NA
871
-
-
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
TT
0.3
282
-
NA
-
-
-
-
<10
-
16.3
-
0.1
-
7.0
NA
NA
655
1.8
2.1
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
08/13/08
IN
AC
OT
-
278
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
12.1
-
20.0
-
8.3
-
7.4
17.5
3.1
463
-
-
-
-
-
28.8
-
-
-
-
-
804
-
-
85.8
-
-
276
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
10.4
-
19.9
-
0.5
-
7.4
17.8
2.4
682
-
-
-
-
-
28.6
-
-
-
-
-
781
-
-
85.5
-
-
276
-
O.05
-
-
-
-
<10
-
19.6
-
0.1
-
7.4
18.0
2.4
523
-
-
-
-
-
3.6
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
1.2
-
-
TT
1.0
270
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<10
-
18.0
-
0.1
-
7.3
17.8
1.5
653
0.4
0.6
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.3
-
-
08/20/08
IN
AC
OT
-
279
-
0.2
-
0.2
2.0
0.1
<10
-
20.5
-
8.0
-
7.4
17.5
3.1
463
-
-
262
165
97.2
28.9
-
21.7
7.2
18.6
3.1
809
-
260
90.1
-
88.9
277
-
<0.05
-
0.2
1.9
<0.05
<10
-
20.9
-
0.5
-
7.4
17.8
2.4
682
-
-
256
167
88.7
29.2
-
5.4
23.7
0.3
5.1
885
-
<25
88.1
-
2.8
273
-
O.05
-
0.2
1.9
<0.05
<10
-
20.2
-
0.1
-
7.4
18.0
2.4
523
-
-
264
175
89.5
4.9
-
2.0
2.9
0.3
1.7
61
-
<25
14.4
-
<0.1
TT
1.1
286
-
O.05
-
0.2
2.0
0.1
<10
-
19.3
-
0.1
-
7.3
17.8
1.5
653
0.6
0.8
269
175
93.8
0.1
-
0.2
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
NA = not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goshen, IN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10a
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
09/14/08
IN
AC
OT
-
267
265
0.2
0.1
-
-
-
11.7
11.3
20.8
21.0
8.8
8.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
31.9
31.5
-
-
-
-
773
763
-
81.1
80.6
-
267
267
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
11.3
12.1
20.9
20.8
0.5
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
0.9
-
-
-
31.9
31.9
-
-
-
-
748
769
-
79.8
79.9
-
267
270
O.05
<0.05
-
-
-
<10
<10
20.3
20.4
0.2
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
2.7
2.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
TT
1.6
270
265
O.05
<0.05
-
-
-
<10
<10
20.1
20.0
0.1
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
0.2
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
10/09/08
IN
AC
OT
-
270
-
0.1
-
0.3
2.1
<0.05
12.7
-
20.8
-
8.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
267
169
98.0
29.1
-
29.0
0.1
8.2(fl)
20.7(a)
709
-
724
76.0
-
79.5
275
-
0.1
-
0.2
2.1
O.05
13.3
-
20.2
-
0.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.6
5.1
278
176
102
29.7
-
8.5
21.3
0.3
8.2
711
-
<25
77.0
-
28.2
277
-
O.05
-
0.2
2.2
O.05
<10
-
20.1
-
0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.4
1.9
277
174
103
3.4
-
3.1
0.4
0.3
2.8
<25
-
<25
0.2
-
0.3
TT
1 .9(a)
273
-
O.05
-
0.2
2.0
O.05
<10
-
20.1
-
0.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2(B)
1.1
277
175
102
0.3
-
0.2
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
11/06/08
IN
AC
OT
-
274
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
14.2
-
18.7
-
9.8
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
28.1
-
-
-
-
-
667
-
-
80.1
-
-
272
-
O.05
-
-
-
-
15.7
-
18.8
-
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.4
1.9
-
-
-
29.4
-
-
-
-
-
677
-
-
81.2
-
-
272
-
O.05
-
-
-
-
<10
-
18.4
-
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
0.6
-
-
-
3.6
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.2
-
-
TT
2.5
265
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
<10
-
17.9
-
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3 (c)
0.4
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
11/19/08
IN
AC
OT
-
263
-
0.2
-
0.2
1.9
O.05
11.2
-
20.1
-
8.4
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
265
171
94.3
33.4
-
29.6
3.9
20.8
8.8
744
-
708
77.6
-
73.0
270
-
O.05
-
0.3
2.0
O.05
10.8
-
20.0
-
0.7
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.1
2.2
266
170
95.9
33.4
-
6.2
27.1
0.6
5.6
717
-
<25
75.3
-
17.5
263
-
O.05
-
0.2
2.0
O.05
<10
-
19.9
-
0.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.9
1.2
263
169
94.2
3.8
-
3.6
0.2
0.5
3.0
<25
-
<25
0.3
-
0.2
TT
3.1
265
-
O.05
-
0.3
2.0
O.05
<10
-
19.6
-
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
0.7
267
172
95.2
0.2
-
0.2
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
-
<25
0.2
-
<0.1
(a) Bed volume from 10/02/08
(b) Free & Total Chlorine from 10/10/08
(c) Free & Total Chlorine from 11/05/08
(d) Samples probably switched by operator
(e) Free & Total Chlorine from 12/10/08
(f) Water quality parameters and chlorine measured on 01/07/09.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goshen, IN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10J
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
12/09/08
IN
AC
OT
-
271
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
15.0
-
20.0
-
8.8
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
31.4
-
-
-
-
-
813
-
-
72.5
-
-
269
-
0.07
-
-
-
-
16.0
-
20.3
-
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.9
1.5
-
-
-
32.2
-
-
-
-
-
810
-
-
71.1
-
-
271
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
<10
-
19.7
-
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.3
-
-
-
3.5
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
TT
3.4(fl)
273
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
<10
-
19.8
-
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1 (e)
0.1
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
01/08/09
IN
AC
OT
-
270
-
0.2
-
0.2
1.9
<0.05
33.2
-
19.0
-
8.8
-
7.4
12.1
28.2
209
-
-
335
149
186
33.0
-
29.6
3.4
24.2
5.4
580
-
551
58.3
-
57.5
267
-
<0.05
-
0.2
1.9
<0.05
36.3
-
18.8
-
0.5
-
7.4
11.1
26.7
516
0.5
0.9
332
138
195
32.3
-
6.9
25.4
0.8
6.1
567
-
<25
54.2
-
17.7
267
-
<0.05
-
0.3
2.1
<0.05
17.2
-
18.9
-
<0.1
-
7.3
12.5
13.6
635
0.2
0.3
336
141
194
4.1
-
4.0
<0.1
0.8
3.2
<25
-
<25
0.2
-
0.2
TT
4.0
270
-
0.1
-
0.3
2.1
<0.05
13.5
-
18.2
-
<0.1
-
7.4
16.4
14.4
367
0.0
0.1
314
131
183
0.4
-
0.4
<0.1
0.8
<0.1
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
01/22/09
IN
AC
OT
-
270
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
13.2
-
19.4
-
9.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
27.0
-
-
-
-
-
674
-
-
74.9
-
-
270
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
13.0
-
19.1
-
0.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.9
0.7
-
-
-
26.7
-
-
-
-
-
670
-
-
75.3
-
-
270
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
<10
-
19.2
-
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
3.5
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.3
-
-
TT
4.2
265
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
<10
-
18.1
-
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.04(a)
0.0
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
02/04/09
IN
AC
OT
-
277
-
0.2
-
0.4
2.0
<0.05
<10
-
20.6
-
8.4
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
257
167
90.0
32.0
-
27.2
4.9
20.4
6.8
748
-
767
82.2
-
82.6
270
-
0.1
-
0.3
2.0
0.2
<10
-
20.5
-
1.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
0.7
261
169
91.6
31.4
-
7.8
23.6
0.3
7.5
758
-
<25
78.5
-
43.5
277
-
<0.05
-
0.8
2.3
<0.05
<10
-
20.1
-
0.9
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
0.2
268
175
92.2
4.0
-
3.6
0.5
0.3
3.3
<25
-
<25
0.3
-
0.2
TT
4.5
274
-
<0.05
-
0.4
2.1
<0.05
<10
-
20.1
-
0.7
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.1
268
173
95.8
0.1
-
0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
(a) Chlorine measured on 01/23/09.
(b) Water quality parameters and bed volume taken on 03/23/09.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goshen, IN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10J
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
02/18/09
IN
AC
OT
-
287
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
11.5
-
18.5
-
9.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
25.6
-
-
-
-
-
684
-
-
70.9
-
-
287
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
12.2
-
18.9
-
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
26.6
-
-
-
-
-
683
-
-
68.9
-
-
287
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
<10
-
18.5
-
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
0.2
-
-
-
3.3
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.2
-
-
TT
4.8
283
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
<10
-
18.0
-
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.0
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
03/04/09
IN
AC
OT
-
270
-
0.1
-
0.2
1.9
0.2
15.3
-
20.0
-
10.0
-
7.2
9.1
NA
41.5
-
-
190
134
56.4
24.0
-
23.3
0.7
16.3
7.0
560
-
566
77.2
-
76.7
272
-
<0.05
-
0.3
2.8
<0.05
17.2
-
20.6
-
0.5
-
7.2
9.8
NA
361
0.8
1.6
190
136
53.3
25.4
-
5.3
20.1
0.5
4.8
559
-
<25
75.0
-
47.0
270
-
0.1
-
0.3
2.0
<0.05
<10
-
20.0
-
<0.1
-
7.1
10.6
NA
414
0.3
0.4
193
138
54.3
3.1
-
3.1
<0.1
0.5
2.6
<25
-
<25
0.6
-
0.4
TT
5.0
280
-
<0.05
-
0.3
2.0
<0.05
<10
-
20.0
-
<0.1
-
7.1
10.7
NA
413
0.2
0.3
190
137
52.9
0.2
-
0.2
<0.1
0.5
<0.1
<25
-
<25
0.2
-
0.1
03/19/09(b|
IN
AC
OT
-
272
284
0.2
0.1
-
-
-
12.2
11.5
19.7
19.9
7.7
9.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
28.3
27.0
-
-
-
-
769
746
-
84.8
83.9
-
272
284
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
11.4
11.3
19.8
19.6
0.8
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.4
-
-
-
28.0
27.9
-
-
-
-
770
765
-
84.1
85.1
-
276
278
<0.05
0.1
-
-
-
<10
<10
20.1
20
0.3
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
3.8
4.3
-
-
-
-
<25
27
-
0.6
1.6
-
TT
5.2(B)
280
278
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
<10
<10
20.0
19.5
0.3
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
03/31/09(a|
IN
AC
OT
-
285
-
0.1
-
0.3
2.0
<0.05
<10
-
18.1
-
8.8
-
7.3
10.0
NA
411
-
-
243
147
96.1
26.5
-
25.9
0.6
18.9
7.1
<25
-
<25
96.8
-
92.5
281
-
0.1
-
0.3
2.1
0.1
<10
-
18.4
-
0.9
-
7.3
9.7
NA
523
0.5
0.7
249
154
95.0
25.8
-
9.5
16.3
0.6
8.9
<25
-
<25
89.8
-
55.0
276
-
<0.05
-
0.3
2.1
0.2
<10
-
18
-
0.5
-
7.3
12.2
NA
502
0.1
0.3
254
157
97.0
3.8
-
3.8
<0.1
0.5
3.3
<25
-
<25
0.8
-
0.2
TT
5.3
281
-
<0.05
-
0.3
2
<0.05
<10
-
17.8
-
0.5
-
7.2
14.7
NA
494
0.0
0.0
268
168
99.7
0.4
-
0.3
<0.1
0.5
<0.1
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
(a) Water quality parameters and bed volume taken on 04/01/09.
(b) Water quality parameters taken on 04/17/09.
(c) Water quality parameters taken on 04/24/09.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goshen, IN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10J
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
4/15/09(b|
IN
261
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<10
-
20.1
-
8.0
-
7.6
9.8
NA
212
-
-
-
-
-
22.2
-
-
-
-
-
643
-
-
64.5
-
-
AC
256
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<10
-
22.5
-
0.6
-
7.5
9.9
NA
492
0.3
0.9
-
-
-
21.9
-
-
-
-
-
649
-
-
64.2
-
-
OT
265
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
<10
-
20
-
0.7
-
7.3
10.8
NA
402
0.1
0.2
-
-
-
3.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.8
-
-
TT
267
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
<10
-
20.8
-
0.2
-
7.4
10.9
NA
479
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.3
-
-
04/29/09(c|
IN
271
-
0.1
-
0.2
2.0
<0.05
14.9
-
23.3
-
7.6
-
7.3
11.6
NA
330
-
-
252
154
98.7
23.9
-
21.3
2.6
18.5
2.8
798
-
213
87.5
-
85.9
AC
271
-
0.1
-
0.3
2.0
<0.05
14.3
-
23.2
-
0.7
-
7.4
12.5
NA
345
0.7
0.8
263
162
101
25.0
-
11.3
13.7
0.2
11.1
810
-
156
89.9
-
52.0
OT
271
-
<0.05
-
0.2
2.0
<0.05
<10
-
22.8
-
0.8
-
7.3
13.6
NA
354
0.2
0.5
262
162
99.5
3.5
-
3.6
<0.1
0.1
3.5
<25
-
<25
0.4
-
0.4
TT
275
-
<0.05
-
0.2
2.0
0.4
<10
-
23.8
-
0.8
-
7.3
14.1
NA
365
0.1
0.2
272
171
101
<0.1
-
0.3
<0.1
0.1
0.2
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
05/14/09
IN
296
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
12.3
-
21.5
-
7.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
26.4
-
-
-
-
-
824
-
-
88.9
-
-
AC
293
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
13.8
-
21.6
-
0.4
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
0.6
-
-
-
26.7
-
-
-
-
-
833
-
-
88.0
-
-
OT
293
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
<10
-
21.4
-
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
0.2
-
-
-
3.8
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.3
-
-
TT
296
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
<10
-
21.6
-
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.1
-
-
06/04/09
IN
282
-
0.1
-
0.3
1.9
0.1
11.3
-
21.1
-
8.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
241
157
83.7
30.9
-
26.0
4.9
22.6
3.3
754
-
724
89.0
-
86.1
AC
295
-
0.1
-
0.3
1.8
<0.05
11.7
-
20.8
-
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
247
163
83.7
29.6
-
8.9
20.7
0.3
8.6
748
-
<25
85.3
-
38.7
OT
274
-
<0.05
-
0.3
2.0
<0.05
<10
-
20.9
-
0.8
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
256
170
86.2
4.2
-
3.7
0.6
0.3
3.3
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
TT
280
-
<0.05
-
0.2
2.0
<0.05
<10
-
20.7
-
0.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
258
170
87.6
0.2
-
0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goshen, IN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10J
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
06/10/09
IN
AC
OT
-
289
291
0.2
0.13
-
-
-
<10
<10
20.6
21.1
8.5
8.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
29.3
28.0
-
-
-
-
755
732
-
89.0
85.0
-
293
293
0.1
0.08
-
-
-
<10
<10
20.4
20.8
0.9
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
29.0
29.0
-
-
-
-
731
725
-
84.5
85.4
-
291
289
<0.05
O.05
-
-
-
<10
<10
20.6
20.7
0.2
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
4.9
5.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
2.0
2.0
-
TT
-
284
282
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
-
<10
<10
20.5
20.5
0.2
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.2
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
07/01/09
IN
AC
OT
-
301
-
0.2
-
0.2
1.9
<0.05
<10
-
20.2
-
4.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
284
188
95.4
26.8
-
24.1
2.6
17.2
6.9
863
-
788
74.0
-
74.7
294
-
0.1
-
0.3
2.1
<0.05
<10
-
20.1
-
0.9
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
287
194
93.2
25.2
-
5.2
20.0
0.2
5.0
740
-
39.3
70.1
-
23.7
292
-
<0.05
-
0.4
2.0
<0.05
<10
-
19.9
-
0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
283
190
92.5
4.4
-
4.0
0.4
0.2
3.9
40
-
35.5
1.8
-
1.6
TT
-
283
-
<0.05
-
0.2
2.0
<0.05
<10
-
19.7
-
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
285
189
95.8
<0.1
-
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
-
<25
0.7
-
0.9
07/28/09
IN
AC
OT
-
274
-
0.2
-
0.3
2.1
0.1
12.6
-
20.4
-
5.9
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
263
167
95.3
25.6
-
21.5
4.2
17.7
3.7
695
-
546
78.2
-
79.6
274
-
0.1
-
0.2
2.4
<0.05
14.7
-
20.4
-
0.9
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
258
161
96.9
26.9
-
6.7
20.2
<0.1
6.6
717
-
111
78.6
-
51.0
272
-
<0.05
-
0.2
4.5
<0.05
<10
-
20.6
-
0.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
263
164
98.2
2.5
-
2.2
0.4
<0.1
2.1
<25
-
<25
0.3
-
0.4
TT
-
281
-
<0.05
-
0.3
2.3
<0.05
<10
-
18.3
-
0.4
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
262
161
102
<0.1
-
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
-
<25
0.2
-
0.2
09/15/09
IN
AC
OT
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
13.5
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
32.2
-
27.7
4.5
21.8
6.0
736
-
724
85.3
-
89.2
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
11.9
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
30.1
-
10.3
19.8
0.8
9.5
746
-
108
84.2
-
51.5
-
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
<10
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
4.6
-
4.2
0.4
0.7
3.6
<25
-
<25
1.1
-
0.3
TT
-
-
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
<10
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.5
-
1.0
<0.1
0.7
0.3
<25
-
<25
1.0
-
0.2
-------
APPENDIX C
AD26 MEDIA BACKWASH DATA
-------
Table C-l. Backwash Times, Backwash Frequency, and Amounts of Wastewater
Produced During AD26 Backwash
Date
06/06/08
07/03/08
07/04/08
08/20/08
08/25/08
08/26/08
08/27/08
08/28/08
08/29/08
08/30/08
08/31/08
09/01/08
09/02/08
09/03/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
09/06/08
09/07/08
09/08/08
09/09/08
09/10/08
09/11/08
09/12/08
09/13/08
09/14/08
09/15/08
09/16/08
09/17/08
09/18/08
09/19/08
09/20/08
09/21/08
09/22/08
09/23/08
09/24/08
09/25/08
09/26/08
09/27/08
09/28/08
09/29/08
09/30/08
10/01/08
10/02/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
10/05/08
10/06/08
10/07/08
10/08/08
10/09/08
10/10/08
10/11/08
10/12/08
10/13/08
10/14/08
10/15/08
10/16/08
Vessel A
Time
Backw ashed
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
Vessel B
Time
Backwashed
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
Vessel C
Time
Backwashed
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
All three vessels backwash once manually
All three vessels backwash once manually
All three vessels backwash once manually
All three vessels backwash once manually
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
11:00
V
13:00
13:00
V
22:00
14:00
15:00
00:00
48
72
72
73
72
96
72
72
94
-
-
72
-
-
84
25
57
01:00
01:00
01:00
02:00
02:00
02:00
02:00
02:00
02:00
00:00
V
02:00
02:00
08:00
V
13:00
13:00
72
72
73
72
72
72
72
72
70
-
-
72
102
-
-
72
00:00
02:00
03:00
03:00
03:00
03:00
03:00
03:00
01:00
V
03:00
03:00
V
12:00
14:00
14:00
98
73
72
72
72
72
72
94
-
-
72
-
-
74
72
Amounts
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
890
1,020
78(?)
146
136
249(?)
19(?)
2(?)
11(?)
0
13(?)
0
3(?)
736
934
1,265
0
2,232
506
218
0(?)
C-l
-------
Table C-l. Backwash Times, Backwash Frequency, and Amounts of Wastewater
Produced During AD26 Backwash (Continued)
Date
10/17/08
10/18/08
10/19/08
10/20/08
10/21/08
10/22/08
10/23/08
10/24/08
10/25/08
10/26/08
10/27/08
10/28/08
10/29/08
10/30/08
10/31/08
11/01/08
11/02/08
1 1/03/08
1 1/04/08
1 1/05/08
11/06/08
11/07/08
1 1/08/08
1 1/09/08
11/10/08
11/11/08
11/12/08
11/13/08
11/14/08
11/15/08
11/16/08
11/17/08
11/18/08
11/19/08
11/20/08
11/21/08
11/22/08
1 1/23/08
1 1/24/08
11/25/08
11/26/08
11/27/08
1 1/28/08
1 1/29/08
11/30/08
12/01/08
12/02/08
12/03/08
12/04/08
12/05/08
12/06/08
12/07/08
12/08/08
12/09/08
12/10/08
12/11/08
12/12/08
12/13/08
12/14/08
12/15/08
Vessel A
Time
Backw ashed
V
V
V
V
V
12:00
11:00
12:00
12:00
11:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
V
11:00
11:00
02:00
18:00
15:00
12:00
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
-
-
-
-
-
-
71
73
72
71
73
72
72
-
-
72
75
64
93
69
Vessel B
Time
Backwashed
V
V
V
V
V
V
01:00
00:00
01:00
00:00
00:00
01:00
00:00
00:00
00:00
00:00
01:00
00:00
00:00
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
73
71
72
73
71
72
72
72
73
71
72
Vessel C
Time
Backwashed
V
V
V
V
V
V
02:00
V
02:00
02:00
01:00
02:00
02:00
01:00
01:00
16:00
01:00
00:00
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
72
71
73
-
-
72
63
81
72
Amounts
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
4,630
0(?)
220(?)
0(?)
10(?)
0(?)
874
28(?)
51
8(?)
0(?)
12(?)
1(?)
0(?)
0(?)
5(?)
0(?)
704
643
C-2
-------
Table C-l. Backwash Times, Backwash Frequency, and Amounts of Wastewater
Produced During AD26 Backwash (Continued)
Date
12/16/08
12/17/08
12/18/08
12/19/08
12/20/08
12/21/08
12/22/08
12/23/08
12/24/08
12/25/08
12/26/08
12/27/08
12/28/08
12/29/08
12/30/08
12/31/08
01/01/09
01/02/09
01/03/09
01/04/09
01/05/09
01/06/09
01/07/09
01/08/09
01/09/09
01/10/09
01/11/09
01/12/09
01/13/09
01/14/09
01/15/09
01/16/09
01/17/09
01/18/09
01/19/09
01/20/09
01/21/09
01/22/09
01/23/09
01/24/09
01/25/09
01/26/09
01/27/09
01/28/09
01/29/09
01/30/09
01/31/09
02/01/09
02/02/09
02/03/09
02/04/09
02/05/09
02/06/09
02/07/09
02/08/09
02/09/09
02/10/09
02/1 1/09
02/12/09
02/13/09
02/14/09
Vessel A
Time
Backw ashed
08:00
12:00
V
11:00
V
11:00
11:00
13:00
13:00
11:00
23:00
00:00
15:00
23:00
23:00
V
23:00
23:00
23:00
00:00
23:00
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
68
52
-
-
-
-
72
74
72
70
60
73
87
56
72
-
-
72
72
74
71
Vessel B
Time
Backwashed
01:00
08:00
01:00
00:00
V
V
00:00
00:00
00:00
01:00
00:00
00:00
01:00
00:00
15:00
00:00
00:00
V
00:00
00:00
00:00
01:00
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
73
31
65
71
-
-
-
72
72
73
47
48
73
71
39
57
72
-
-
72
72
73
Vessel C
Time
Backwashed
02:00
09:00
02:00
01:00
V
V
01:00
01:00
01:00
02:00
01:00
02:00
01:00
02:00
01:00
01:00
V
01:00
V
01:00
02:00
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
74
55
65
71
-
-
-
72
72
73
71
73
71
73
71
72
-
-
-
-
73
Amounts
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
544
597
758
1,572
509
170
305
391
451
498
724
411
1,154(?)
856
418
189
970
73(?)
196(?)
0
74(?)
45(7)
C-3
-------
Table C-l. Backwash Times, Backwash Frequency, and Amounts of Wastewater
Produced During AD26 Backwash (Continued)
Date
02/15/09
02/16/09
02/17/09
02/18/09
02/19/09
02/20/09
02/21/09
02/22/09
02/23/09
02/24/09
02/25/09
02/26/09
02/27/09
02/28/09
03/01/09
03/02/09
03/03/09
03/04/09
03/05/09
03/06/09
03/07/09
03/08/09
03/09/09
03/10/09
03/11/09
03/12/09
03/13/09
03/14/09
03/15/09
03/16/09
03/17/09
03/18/09
03/19/09
03/20/09
03/21/09
03/22/09
03/23/09
03/24/09
03/25/09
03/26/09
03/27/09
03/28/09
03/29/09
03/30/09
03/31/09
04/01/09
04/02/09
04/03/09
04/04/09
04/05/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
04/08/09
04/09/09
04/10/09
04/11/09
04/12/09
04/13/09
04/14/09
04/15/09
04/16/09
Vessel A
Time
Backw ashed
23:00
02:00
01:00
02:00
01:00
01:00
01:00
03:00
V
V
V
02:00
02:00
02:00
01:00
V
V
V
03:00
22:00
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
72
75
71
73
71
72
72
74
-
-
-
-
72
72
71
-
-
-
-
-
Vessel B
Time
Backwashed
00:00
00:00
03:00
02:00
03:00
02:00
02:00
02:00
04:00
V
V
V
03:00
03:00
03:00
02:00
03:00
V
V
04:00
04:00
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
71
72
75
71
73
71
72
72
74
-
-
-
-
72
72
71
73
-
-
-
72
Vessel C
Time
Backwashed
01:00
10:00
04:00
03:00
04:00
03:00
03:00
03:00
05:00
V
V
V
04:00
04:00
04:00
03:00
04:00
V
V
05:00
05:00
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
71
57
66
71
73
71
72
72
74
-
-
-
-
72
72
71
73
-
-
-
72
Amounts
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
269?)
83(?)
25(?)
711
708
696
0
673
657
644
371(?)
2,421
325
157
556
395
205
1,045
28
1,400(?)
C-4
-------
Table C-l. Backwash Times, Backwash Frequency, and Amounts of Wastewater
Produced During AD26 Backwash (Continued)
Date
04/17/09
04/18/09
04/19/09
04/20/09
04/21/09
04/22/09
04/23/09
04/24/09
04/25/09
04/26/09
04/27/09
04/28/09
04/29/09
04/30/09
05/01/09
05/02/09
05/03/09
05/04/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
05/07/09
05/08/09
05/09/09
05/10/09
05/11/09
05/12/09
05/13/09
05/14/09
05/15/09
05/16/09
05/17/09
05/18/09
05/19/09
05/20/09
05/21/09
05/22/09
05/23/09
05/24/09
05/25/09
05/26/09
05/27/09
05/28/09
05/29/09
05/30/09
05/31/09
06/01/09
06/02/09
06/03/09
06/04/09
06/05/09
06/06/09
06/07/09
06/08/09
06/09/09
06/10/09
06/11/09
06/12/09
06/13/09
06/14/09
06/15/09
06/16/09
Vessel A
Time
Backw ashed
V
02:00
02:00
V
V
02:30
14:30
03:00
02:00
03:00
02:00
02:00
02:00
03:00
V
01:00
01:00
01:00
01:00
V
01:00
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
-
-
48
-
-
-
84
60.5
71
-
71
72
72
73
-
-
72
72
72
-
-
Vessel B
Time
Backwashed
V
03:00
04:00
V
V
03:30
15:30
04:00
03:00
V
03:00
03:00
03:00
04:00
V
02:00
02:00
02:00
02:00
02:00
V
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
-
-
49
-
-
-
84
60.5
71
-
-
72
72
73
-
-
72
96
72
72
-
Vessel C
Time
Backwashed
V
04:00
04:00
V
V
04:30
16:30
05:00
04:00
V
04:00
04:00
04:00
04:00
V
03:00
03:00
03:00
03:00
03:00
V
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
-
-
48
-
-
-
84
60.5
71
-
-
72
72
72
-
-
72
96
72
72
-
Amounts
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
687
0
670
1,988
1,009
630
1,158(?)
237(?)
667
490
560(?)
1,426
222(7)
1,278
856
1,569
1,108
C-5
-------
Table C-l. Backwash Times, Backwash Frequency, and Amounts of Wastewater
Produced During AD26 Backwash (Continued)
Date
06/17/09
06/18/09
06/19/09
Vessel A
Time
Backw ashed
00:00
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
71
Vessel B
Time
Backwashed
01:00
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
-
Vessel C
Time
Backwashed
02:00
No. of Hours
from Last
Backwash
-
Amounts
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
V = data not available but believed that vessel had been backwashed;
- = hours from last backwash could not be calculated;
(?) = data questionable.
C-6
------- |