EPA/600/R-11/025 

March 2011 

Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal

U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at

Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City, IN

Final Performance Evaluation Report

by

Ryan J. Stowe§ 

Abraham S.C. Chen‡ 

Lili Wang‡ 

§

Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693 

‡

ALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43219-6093

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
ii

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. 
iii

FOREWORD

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation’s 

land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to 

formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability 

of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA’s research program is 

providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science 

knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect 

our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future. 

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency’s center for investigation 

of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that 

threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory’s research program is on 

methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and 

subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated 

sites, sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of 

ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that 

reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL’s research provides 

solutions to environmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve 

the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy 

decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of 

environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels. 

This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory’s strategic long-term research plan. 

It is published and made available by EPA’s Office of Research and Development to assist the user 

community and to link researchers with their clients.

Sally Gutierrez, Director

National Risk Management Research Laboratory
iv

ABSTRACT

This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained from the arsenic removal 

treatment technology demonstration project at Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City, IN. The 

main objective of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of US Water Systems’ iron removal (IR) 

system in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 μg/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 types of data collected include system operation, water quality 

(both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), process residuals, and capital and O&M 

cost.

The system consisted of four 36-in × 72-in composite poly-glass vessels configured in parallel. Each 

vessel contained 17.7 ft3 of G2® media consisting of a granular, calcined diatomite substrate coated with 

ferric hydroxide developed by ADI. The treatment system was designed for a peak flowrate of 60 gal/min 

(gpm) (15 gpm per vessel), which corresponds to a hydraulic loading rate of 2.1 gpm/ft2

. Over the 

performance evaluation period, the actual average flowrates were 11.3, 11.3, 11.4, and 13.1 gpm for 

Vessels A, B, C, and D, respectively, based on readings from the flow meter/totalizer installed on each 

vessel. The average hydraulic loading rates for Vessels A, B, C, and D were 1.6, 1.6, 1.6, and 1.8 

gpm/ft2

, respectively.

The pre-existing chlorination system was replaced with a new Stenner Model 85MPHP5 peristaltic pump, 

a 30-gal chemical feed tank, an injector, and 2-in inline mixer. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) was 

injected prior to the filtration vessels to oxidize As(III) to As(V) and form arsenic-laden iron solids, 

which were then filtered by G2® media. The chlorination system also was used to maintain a target 

combined chlorine residual of 1.0 mg/L (as Cl2) in the distribution system for disinfection. 

From September 22, 2008, through the end of the performance evaluation study on October 29, 2009, the 

treatment system operated for a total of 349.1 hr, treating approximately 941,500 gal of water. The 

average daily operation time was 1.4 hr/day when the school was in session and 0.3 hr/day when the 

school was out of session. The average system flowrate was 47.1 gpm. 

Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 24.0 to 39.3 μg/L and averaged 29.4 μg/L. Soluble 

As(III) was the predominating arsenic species with concentrations ranging from 10.8 to 23.9 μg/L and 

averaging 17.7 μg/L. Total iron concentrations in raw water averaged 1,865 μg/L, while soluble iron 

concentrations averaged 1,058 μg/L, which was over 52 times the average soluble arsenic concentration 

(20.2 μg/L) in raw water. Therefore, supplemental iron addition was not necessary for arsenic removal. 

Following chlorination, over 85% of arsenic existed as particulate arsenic (23.8 μg/L [on average]), which 

was removed by the pressure filters to an average concentration of 3.6 μg/L. The system also reduced 

total iron concentrations to 99 μg/L (on average), while total manganese concentrations remained 

relatively unchanged. 

During the performance evaluation period, the vessels were backwashed eight times. Backwash might be 

triggered manually or automatically with either a time, a throughput, or a pressure differential (Δp) as a 

setpoint. Throughput was chosen as the setpoint to initiate backwash. To give the operator better control 

over when backwash would occur, the throughput was set to 90,000 gal. Each backwash cycle lasted 26 

min, including 14 min for counter-current backwash, 5 min for co-current slow rinse, and 7 min cocurrent fast rinse. Each vessel generated 1,137 gal of wastewater (on average), or 4,548 gal per event. 

Assuming an average of 677 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS) in 1,137 gal of wastewater produced 
v

by backwashing one vessel, 2,914 g of solids would be discharged to the sewer. The solids were 

composed of 2.2, 396, and 1.6 g of arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively. 

Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after the system startup showed a 

significant decrease in arsenic concentration (i.e., from 17.0 to 5.2 μg/L [on average]). Arsenic 

concentrations in the distribution system were slightly higher than those in the system effluent. Iron was 

significantly reduced in the distribution system, while manganese remained relatively unchanged. Copper 

levels in the distribution system increased after the system was put into service, but their concentrations 

were always below their respective action levels. 

The capital investment cost for the system was $128,118, including $103,118 for equipment, $7,500 for 

site engineering, and $17,500 for installation. Using the system’s rated capacity of 60 gpm (86,400 

gal/day [gpd]), the normalized capital cost was $2,135/gpm ($1.48/gpd). The O&M cost was $2.26/1,000 

gal of water treated and only included the cost associated with labor. 
vi

CONTENTS

DISCLAIMER .............................................................................................................................................. ii

FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................. iv

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ vii

FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................... vii

TABLES ..................................................................................................................................................... vii

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 .............................................................................. 9

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 ...................................................................................................................... 11

3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits ............................................................................. 11

3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers ...................................................................................... 11

3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling ........................................................................................ 11

3.5 Analytical Procedures ................................................................................................................. 12

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure ..................................... 13

4.1.1 Source Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 14

4.1.2 Distribution System .......................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Treatment Process Description ................................................................................................... 17

4.2.1 Technology Description .................................................................................................... 17

4.2.2 System Design and Treatment Process ............................................................................. 18

4.3 System Installation ...................................................................................................................... 23

4.3.1 Permitting.......................................................................................................................... 23

4.3.2 Building Preparation ......................................................................................................... 23

4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup ................................................................................ 23

4.4 System Operation ........................................................................................................................ 26

4.4.1 Operational Parameters ..................................................................................................... 26

4.4.2 Chlorine Injection ............................................................................................................. 29

4.4.3 Backwash .......................................................................................................................... 30

4.4.4 Residual Management ....................................................................................................... 32

4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity ................................................................... 32
vii

4.5 System Performance ................................................................................................................... 33

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling................................................................................................. 33

4.5.2 Backwash Water and Solids Sampling ............................................................................. 40

4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling ............................................................................... 41

4.6 System Cost ................................................................................................................................ 44

4.6.1 Capital Cost....................................................................................................................... 44

4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost ...................................................................................... 44

5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 46

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA

APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA

APPENDIX C: BACKWASH DATA

FIGURES

Figure 4-1. Pre-existing Water System at Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City, IN ......... 13

Figure 4-2. Chlorination Pump and Injection Port .................................................................................. 14

Figure 4-3. Water Softener (left) and Water Heater (right) .................................................................... 15

Figure 4-4. Simplified Schematic of US Water Systems’ Iron Removal System ................................... 19

Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations .................................................................. 20

Figure 4-6. Chlorine Addition System .................................................................................................... 21

Figure 4-7. Magnum IT Valves and Logix 764 Controllers on G2® Filtration Vessels ......................... 22

Figure 4-8. Treatment System Installed .................................................................................................. 24

Figure 4-9. Conditioning of G2® Media ................................................................................................. 25

Figure 4-10. Treatment System Daily Operating Times ........................................................................... 28

Figure 4-11. Comparison of Instantaneous Flowrate Readings and Calculated Flowrate Values ............ 28

Figure 4-12. Differential Pressures Across Filtration Vessels .................................................................. 29

Figure 4-13. System Control Panel with Logix 764 Controllers .............................................................. 32

Figure 4-14. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Locations .......... 38

Figure 4-15. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train ........................................................ 39

Figure 4-16. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train ............................................................. 39

Figure 4-17. Chlorine Residuals Measured at AC and TT ....................................................................... 40

TABLES

Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations, 

Technologies, and Source Water Quality ............................................................................... 3

Table 1-2. Number of Demonstration Sites Under Each Arsenic Removal Technology ........................ 5

Table 3-1. Demonstration Activities and Completion Dates ................................................................... 7

Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities ........................................ 8

Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes ......................................................................................... 10

Table 4-1. Source Water Data for Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City, IN ................... 16

Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of G2 Media Provided by ADI .................................... 18

Table 4-3. Key System Design Parameters ........................................................................................... 19

Table 4-4. Freeboard Measurements and Media Volumes Before and After Backwash (or 

Media Conditioning) ............................................................................................................ 25
viii

Table 4-5. Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions ............................................................................ 26

Table 4-6. Summary of Treatment System Operational Parameters ..................................................... 27

Table 4-7. Summary of Backwash Events ............................................................................................. 30

Table 4-8. Summary of System Backwash Operations ......................................................................... 31

Table 4-9. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results ........................................... 34

Table 4-10. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results .......................................................... 35

Table 4-11. Filtration Vessel Backwash Sampling Results ..................................................................... 41

Table 4-12. Backwash Solids Sampling Results ..................................................................................... 42

Table 4-13. Distribution System Sampling Results ................................................................................. 43

Table 4-14. Capital Investment Cost for US Water Systems’ Treatment System ................................... 45

Table 4-15. Operation and Maintenance Cost for AdEdge Treatment System ....................................... 45
ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Δp differential pressure 

AAL American Analytical Laboratories

Al aluminum 

AM adsorptive media 

As arsenic

ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems

BL baseline sampling

Ca calcium

Cl chloride

C/F coagulation/filtration 

CRF capital recovery factor

DBP disinfection byproduct 

DO dissolved oxygen 

EBCT empty bed contact time 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

F fluoride

Fe iron 

gpd gallons per day

gpm gallons per minute 

HAA5 haloacetic acids

HCl hydrochloric acid 

HIX hybrid ion exchanger 

hp horsepower 

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry

i.d. inner diameter 

ID identification

IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

IR iron removal

IX ion exchange 

LCR Lead and Copper Rule 

MCL maximum contaminant level

MDL method detection limit

MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.

Mg magnesium 
x

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)

Mn manganese

MRDL maximum residual disinfectant level

MRDLG maximum residual disinfectant level goal

mV millivolts

Na sodium 

NA not analyzed

NaOCl sodium hypochlorite 

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory

NS not sampled 

NTNC non-transient, non-community 

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit 

O&M operation and maintenance 

OIT Oregon Institute of Technology 

ORD Office of Research and Development

ORP oxidation-reduction potential 

PCM pump control module 

psi pounds per square inch 

PO4 orthophosphate 

POU point-of-use 

PVC polyvinyl chloride 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

RO reverse osmosis

RFP Request for Proposal 

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

TDS total dissolved solids

TOC total organic carbon

TSS total suspended solids

TTHM total trihalomethanes

VOC volatile organic compound
xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Mr. Steve Burge and Mr. Mac Wicker at 

Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City for their assistance in monitoring the treatment system 

and collecting samples from the treatment and distribution systems throughout this study period. This 

performance evaluation would not have been possible without their efforts. 
1

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 μg/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community 

and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006. 

In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective 

technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard, 

and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems to reduce compliance costs. As part of 

this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) 

proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal 

technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly 

thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in 

participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their 

water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies. 

In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic 

removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host 

sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel 

reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined 

were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical 

reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information 

provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of 

the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site. 

In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with 

Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration 

sites. In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic 

removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site 

receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to 

review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging 

from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the 

sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state 

regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program, 

reducing the number of sites to 28. 

With additional funding from Congress, EPA selected 10 more sites for demonstration under Round 2a. 

Somewhat different from the Round 1 and Round 2 selection process, Battelle, under EPA’s guidance, 

issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on February 14, 2007, to solicit technology proposals from vendors 

and engineering firms. Upon closing of the RFP on April 13, 2007, Battelle received from 14 vendors a 

total of 44 proposals, which were subsequently reviewed by a three-expert technical review panel 

convened at EPA on May 2 and 3, 2007. Copies of the proposals and recommendations of the review 
2

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 60-gal/min (gpm) iron removal (IR) system fabricated by US Water 

Systems in Indianapolis, IN was selected for demonstration at Northeastern Elementary School in 

Fountain City, IN. The system used ADI’s G2® media for filtration of arsenic-laden iron particles. 

As of January 2011, 49 of the 50 systems were operational and the performance evaluations of all 49 

systems were completed.

1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal

Technologies selected for Rounds 1, 2, and 2a demonstration included adsorptive media (AM), 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 US Water Systems’ IR system at Northeastern Elementary 

School in Fountain City, IN, from September 22, 2008, through, October 29, 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. 
3

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

(μg/L)

Fe

(μg/L)

pH

(S.U.)

Northeast/Ohio

Carmel, ME Carmel Elementary School RO Norlen’s Water 1,200 gpd 21 <25 7.9

Wales, ME Springbrook Mobile Home Park AM (A/I Complex) ATS 14 38(a) <25 8.6

Bow, NH White Rock Water Company AM (G2) ADI 70(b) 39 <25 7.7

Goffstown, NH Orchard Highlands Subdivision AM (E33) AdEdge 10 33 <25 6.9

Rollinsford, NH Rollinsford Water and Sewer District AM (E33) AdEdge 100 36(a) 46 8.2

Dummerston, VT Charette Mobile Home Park AM (A/I Complex) ATS 22 30 <25 7.9

Houghton, NY(c) Town of Caneadea IR (Macrolite) Kinetico 550 27(a) 1,806(d) 7.6

Woodstock, CT Woodstock Middle School AM (Adsorbsia) Siemens 17 21 <25 7.7

Pomfret, CT Seely-Brown Village AM (ArsenXnp) SolmeteX 15 25 <25 7.3

Felton, DE Town of Felton C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 375 30(a) 48 8.2

Stevensville, MD Queen Anne’s County AM (E33) STS 300 19(a) 270(d) 7.3

Conneaut Lake, PA Conneaut Lake Park IR (Greensand Plus) with ID AdEdge 250 28(a) 157(d) 8.0

Buckeye Lake, OH Buckeye Lake Head Start Building AM (ARM 200) Kinetico 10 15(a) 1,312(d) 7.6

Springfield, OH Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park IR & AM (E33) AdEdge 250(e) 25(a) 1,615(d) 7.3

Great Lakes/Interior Plains

Brown City, MI City of Brown City AM (E33) STS 640 14(a) 127(d) 7.3

Pentwater, MI Village of Pentwater IR (Macrolite) with ID Kinetico 400 13(a) 466(d) 6.9

Sandusky, MI City of Sandusky IR (Aeralater) Siemens 340(e) 16(a) 1,387(d) 6.9

Delavan, WI Vintage on the Ponds IR (Macrolite) Kinetico 40 20(a) 1,499(d) 7.5

Goshen, IN Clinton Christian School IR & AM (E33) AdEdge 25 29(a) 810(d) 7.4

Fountain City, IN Northeastern Elementary School IR (G2) US Water 60 27(a) 1,547(d) 7.5

Waynesville, IL Village of Waynesville IR (Greensand Plus) Peerless 96 32(a) 2,543(d) 7.1

Geneseo Hills, IL Geneseo Hills Subdivision AM (E33) AdEdge 200 25(a) 248(d) 7.4

Greenville, WI Town of Greenville IR (Macrolite) Kinetico 375 17(a) 7,827(d) 7.3

Climax, MN City of Climax IR (Macrolite) with ID Kinetico 140 39(a) 546(d) 7.4

Sabin, MN City of Sabin IR (Macrolite) Kinetico 250 34(a) 1,470(d) 7.3

Sauk Centre, MN Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park IR (Macrolite) Kinetico 20 25(a) 3,078(d) 7.1

Stewart, MN City of Stewart IR &AM (E33) AdEdge 250 42(a) 1,344(d) 7.7

Lidgerwood, ND City of Lidgerwood Process Modification Kinetico 250 146(a) 1,325(d) 7.2

Lead, SD Terry Trojan Water District AM (ArsenXnp) SolmeteX 75 24 <25 7.3

Midwest/Southwest

Willard, UT Hot Springs Mobile Home Park IR & AM (Adsorbsia) Filter Tech 30 15.4(a) 332(d) 7.5

Arnaudville, LA United Water Systems IR (Macrolite) Kinetico 770(e) 35(a) 2,068(d) 7.0

Alvin, TX Oak Manor Municipal Utility District AM (E33) STS 150 19(a) 95 7.8

Bruni, TX Webb Consolidated Independent School District AM (E33) AdEdge 40 56(a) <25 8.0

Wellman, TX City of Wellman AM (E33) AdEdge 100 45 <25 7.7

Anthony, NM Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water Consumers AM (E33) STS 320 23(a) 39 7.7
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration 

Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)

4

Demonstration

Location Site Name Technology (Media) Vendor

Design

Flowrate

(gpm)

Source Water Quality

As

(μg/L)

Fe

(μg/L)

pH

(S.U.)

Association

Nambe Pueblo, NM Nambe Pueblo Tribe AM (E33) AdEdge 145 33 <25 8.5

Taos, NM Town of Taos AM (E33) STS 450 14 59 9.5

Rimrock, AZ Arizona Water Company AM (E33) AdEdge 90(b) 50 170 7.2

Tohono O'odham 

Nation, AZ

Tohono O’odham Utility Authority AM (E33) AdEdge 50 32 <25 8.2

Valley Vista, AZ Arizona Water Company AM (AAFS50/ARM 200) Kinetico 37 41 <25 7.8

Far West

Three Forks, MT City of Three Forks C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 250 64 <25 7.5

Fruitland, ID City of Fruitland IX (A300E) Kinetico 250 44 <25 7.4

Homedale, ID Sunset Ranch Development POU RO(f) Kinetico 75 gpd 52 134 7.5

Okanogan, WA City of Okanogan C/F (Electromedia-I) Filtronics 750 18 69(d) 8.0

Klamath Falls, OR Oregon Institute of Technology POE AM (Adsorbsia/

ARM 200/ArsenXnp) 

and POU AM (ARM 200)(g)

Kinetico 60/60/30 33 <25 7.9

Vale, OR City of Vale IX (Arsenex II) Kinetico 525 17 <25 7.5

Reno, NV South Truckee Meadows General Improvement 

District

AM (GFH) Siemens 350 39 <25 7.4

Susanville, CA Richmond School District AM (A/I Complex) ATS 12 37(a) 125 7.5

Lake Isabella, CA Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A AM (HIX) VEETech 50 35 125 7.5

Tehachapi, CA Golden Hills Community Service District AM (Isolux) MEI 150 15 <25 6.9

AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HIX = 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 Arnaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm. 

(f) Including nine residential units.

(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
5 

Table 1-2. Number of Demonstration Sites Under Each Arsenic 

Removal Technology 

Technologies

Number 

of Sites

Adsorptive Media(a) 26

Adsorptive Media with Iron Removal Pretreatment 4

Iron Removal (Oxidation/Filtration) 8

Iron Removal with Supplemental Iron Addition 4

Coagulation/Filtration 3

Ion Exchange 2

Reverse Osmosis 1

Point-of-use Reverse Osmosis(b) 1

System/Process Modifications 1

(a) Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) site at Klamath 

Falls, OR, had three AM systems and eight POU AM 

units.

(b) Including nine under-the-sink RO units. 
6 

2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

US Water Systems’ IR treatment system using ADI’s G2® media was installed and has operated at 

Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City, IN since September 22, 2008. 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:

• Chlorination effectively oxidized As(III) and Fe(II) and formed arsenic-laden particles that 

were filtered by G2® media. Total arsenic concentrations were reduced from 29.4 μg/L (on 

average) in raw water to 3.6 μg/L (on average) in treated water. 

• Iron concentrations were reduced from 1,865 μg/L (on average) in raw water to 99 μg/L (on 

average) in treated water. Manganese concentrations were unaffected by the IR process. 

• The operation of the treatment system significantly lowered arsenic concentrations in the 

distribution system (i.e., from 17.0 to 5.2 μg/L [on average]). Although lead and copper 

concentrations were always below their respective action levels, somewhat elevated copper 

levels were observed in the distribution system water after system startup. 

Required system O&M and operator skill levels:

• The daily demand on the operator was typically 20 min to visually inspect the system and 

record operational parameters. 

Process residuals produced by the technology: 

• Residuals produced by the operation of the treatment system consisted of only backwash 

wastewater. 

• Backwashing produced 1,137 gal of wastewater per vessel, which contained 2,914 g of solids 

composed of 2.2, 396, and 1.6 g of arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively.

 

Capital and O&M cost of the technology: 

• The capital investment for the system was $128,118, including $103,118 for equipment, 

$7,500 for site engineering, and $17,500 for installation, shakedown, and startup.

• The unit capital cost was $2,135/gpm (or $1.48 gpd) based on a 60-gpm design capacity. 

• The increased O&M cost was $2.26/1,000 gal of water treated consisting entirely of labor.
7 

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 General Project Approach

Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of 

US Water Systems’ iron removal system began on September 22, 2008, and ended on October 29, 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 μg/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. Demonstration Activities and Completion Dates 

Activity Date

Introductory Meeting Held September 26, 2006

Technology Selection Meeting Held May 23, 2007

Project Planning Meeting Held August 10, 2007

Draft Letter of Understanding Issued August 27, 2007

Final Letter of Understanding Issued September 10, 2007

Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor October 8, 2007

Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle December 3, 2007

Building Construction Began December 26, 2007

Building Construction Completed December 28, 2007

Purchase Order Completed and Signed January 29, 2008

Letter Report Issued January 29, 2008

Engineering Package Submitted to IDEM April 22, 2008

System Permit Issued by IDEM May 29, 2008

Equipment Arrived at Site July 23, 2008

Study Plan Issued July 25, 2008

System Installation Completed August 20, 2008

System Shakedown Completed September 2, 2008

Performance Evaluation Began September 22, 2008

Sampling Completed September 29, 2009

Performance Evaluation Completed October 29, 2009

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. 
8 

Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 

Evaluation Objectives Data Collection

Performance –Ability to consistently meet 10 μg/L of arsenic MCL in treated water

Reliability –Unscheduled system downtime

–Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems 

encountered, materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost 

incurred

System O&M and Operator 

Skill Requirements

–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 

Residual Management –Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by 

system operation

Cost-Effectiveness –Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation

–O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor

The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (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. 

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 (see Appendix A) 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. During each sampling event, 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 IR 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 demonstrationrelated 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.
9 

3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules

To evaluate system performance, samples were collected from the wellhead, 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 26, 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 tap was 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 for onsite and offsite analyses. The Battelle 

Study Plan called for biweekly sampling, alternating between “regular” and “speciation” sampling. 

Regular sampling involved taking samples at the wellhead (IN), after chlorination (AC), and after Vessels 

A, B, C, and D (TA, TB, TC, and TD) and having them analyzed for the analytes listed under regular 

sampling in Table 3-3. Speciation sampling involved collecting and speciating samples at IN and AC and 

after effluent from the four vessels was combined (TT) and having them analyzed for the analytes listed 

under speciation sampling in Table 3-3. The actual sampling frequency varied from 3.5 to eight weeks 

for regular sampling and from two to seven weeks for speciation sampling. On August 31, 2009 when the 

speciation sampling was performed, regular samples also were taken from TA through TD. 

3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids. The plant operator collected backwash wastewater 

samples from each vessel on four occasions. Over the duration of backwash for each vessel, a side stream 

of backwash wastewater was directed from the tap on the backwash wastewater discharge line to a clean, 

32-gal plastic container at approximately 1 gpm. After the contents in the container were thoroughly 

mixed, one aliquot was collected as is and the other filtered with 0.45-μm disc filters. The samples were 

analyzed for analytes listed in Table 3-3. 

Once during the 13-month study period, the contents in a 32-gal plastic container were allowed to settle 

and the supernatant was removed by siphoning using a piece of plastic tubing. Care was taken to avoid 

agitating the settled solids in the container. The remaining solids/water mixture was then transferred to a 

1-gal plastic jar. After the 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 vessels was not replaced, therefore, no 

spent media was 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 start-up from April to August 2008, 

four sets of baseline distribution system water samples were collected at the kitchen sink (DS1), which 

was one of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) locations used by the school for LCR sampling. On August 

14, 2008, two additional distribution locations were added: north water fountain (DS2) and south water 

fountain (DS3). Only one set of distribution system water samples was collected from DS2 and DS3 
10 

Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes

Sample 

Type

Sample 

Locations(a)

No. of 

Samples Frequency Analytes Sampling Date

Source 

Water

IN 1 Once 

(During

initial site 

visit)

Onsite: pH and

temperature

Offsite: As (III), As(V),

As (total and soluble),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble),

V (total), Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, 

F, NO3, NO2, NH3, SO4, 

SiO2, PO4, P (total), 

turbidity, alkalinity, TDS, 

and TOC 

09/26/06

Treatment 

Plant Water

(Speciation)

IN, AC, and 

TT 

3 Every 2 to 7 

weeks

Onsite: pH, temperature, 

DO, ORP, and total 

and/or free Cl2

(c,d)

Offsite: As(III), As(V),

As (total and soluble),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble),

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, 

SO4, SiO2, P (total), 

turbidity, alkalinity, and 

TOC

10/09/08, 11/06/08, 

12/04/08, 01/07/09, 

02/11/09, 03/03/09, 

03/31/09, 04/28/09, 

05/12/09, 06/09/09, 

07/30/09, 08/31/09,

09/15/09

(see Appendix B)

Treatment 

Plant Water 

(Regular)

IN, AC, 

TA, TB, 

TC, and TD

6 Every 3.5 to 

8 weeks

Onsite: : pH, temperature, 

DO, ORP, and total 

and/or free Cl2

(e)

Offsite: As (total), Fe 

(total), Mn (total), NH3, 

SiO2, turbidity, alkalinity, 

and TOC 

10/22/08, 11/20/08, 

12/29/08, 01/22/09, 

02/23/09, 03/17/09, 

04/14/09, 05/26/09, 

07/06/09, 

08/31/09(f), 

09/29/09

(see Appendix B)

Distribution 

System 

Water(b)

Kitchen 

Sink (DS1), 

North 

Water 

Fountain 

(DS2), and 

South 

Water 

Fountain 

(DS3)

3 Monthly As (total), Fe (total), Mn

(total), Cu, Pb, pH, and 

alkalinity

Baseline Sampling:

04/01/08, 06/10/08,

07/01/08, 

08/07/08(g)

 

10/22/08, 11/20/08, 

12/17/08, 01/22/09, 

02/23/09, 03/17/09, 

04/14/09, 05/12/09, 

06/09/09, 07/06/09, 

08/31/09, 09/29/09

Backwash 

Wastewater

Backwash 

Discharge 

Line (BW)

2 Every 3 to 4 

months

As (total and soluble),

Fe (total and soluble), 

Mn (total and soluble), 

pH, TDS, TSS, and SiO2,

12/03/08, 04/08/09, 

07/06/09, 10/13/09

Backwash 

Solids

Wastewater 

Container 

from Each 

Vessel

4 Once Total Al, As, Ba, Ca, Cd, 

Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, 

Pb, Si, Zn

07/06/09

(a) Abbreviations in parenthesis corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-5, i.e., IN = at 

wellhead; AC = after chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B; TC = after Vessel C; 
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes (Continued)

11 

TD = after Vessel D; TT = after total combined effluent; BW = backwash discharge line; DS1 = 

distribution system sampling location 1; DS2 = distribution system sampling location 2; DS3 =

distribution system sampling location 3. 

(b) Four baseline sampling events taking place from April through August 2009 prior to system startup. 

(c) Free chlorine measurements discontinued on April 28, 2009.

(d) Total and free chlorine measured at IN location during some sampling events.

(e) Except for two occasions on October 22, 2008, and January 22, 2009, measurements were made at IN, 

AC, and TT locations.

(f) Samples also taken at TA, TB, TC, and TD locations during speciation sampling event.

(g) DS2 and DS3 samples collected on August 14, 2008.

DO = dissolved oxygen; ORP = oxidation-reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total 

organic carbon; TSS = total suspended solids

prior to system startup. Following system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly 

basis at the three aformentioned sampling locations. 

The plant operator collected the samples following an instruction sheet developed in accordance with 

the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). 

The date and time of last water usage before sampling and of actual sample collection were recorded 

for calculation of stagnation time. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not 

been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled.

3.4 Sampling Logistics

3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion 

exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998). 

Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories in accordance with the procedures 

detailed in Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2007). 

3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared 

with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample 

bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a preprinted, color-coded label consisting of sample identification (ID), date and time of sample collection, 

collector’s name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The sample ID 

consisted of a two-letter code for a specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code for a specific 

sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if necessary). The 

sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The labeled bottles for 

each sampling location were placed in separate zip-lock bags and packed in the cooler. 

In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling 

instructions, chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included. 

The chain-of-custody forms and air bills were complete except for the operator’s signature and the sample 

dates and times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following 

week’s sampling event. 

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. 
12 

Samples for metals analyses were stored at Battelle’s inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry 

(ICP-MS) laboratory. Samples for other water analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up by 

couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH, which was under contract with 

Battelle for this demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the 

time of preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate 

laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter. 

3.5 Analytical Procedures

The analytical procedures described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2007) 

were followed by Battelle’s ICP-MS laboratory and AAL. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control 

(QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy, 

method detection limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative 

percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The QA data 

associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared 

under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.

Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a 

VWR Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use 

following the procedures provided in the user’s manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy 

by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator 

collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Symphony SP90M5 probe in the beaker 

until a stable value was obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements 

using Hach chlorine test kits following the user’s manual. 
13 

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure

Northeastern Elementary School is located at 7295 U.S. 27 North in Fountain City, IN. The facility is 

classified as a non-transient, non-community (NTNC) water system, which, per EPA definition, serves at 

least the same 25 non-resident individuals during six months of the year. Prior to the performance 

evaluation study, the facility supplied water to approximately 600 students and staff members during the 

academic year. Located in the school’s mechanical room, the pre-existing water system included inlet 

piping, a chlorine addition system, a bulk storage tank, and a water softener (Figure 4-1). The water 

system was supplied by a single well, i.e., Well No. 1, which is 8-in in diameter and approximately 126 ft 

deep. The well was equipped with a three-phase, 460-volt, 5-horsepower (hp) submersible pump rated for 

50 gpm. The submersible well pump typically operated 2 hr/day to meet the average daily demand of 

approximately 5,000 gal. 

Figure 4-1. Pre-existing Water System at Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City, IN 

(Storage Tank [top left], Water Softener [top right], and Chlorine Addition System [bottom])
14 

Source water was piped from the supply well to the school’s mechanical room where it was first 

chlorinated with a sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution to maintain a target free chlorine residual level 

of 0.2 mg/L (as Cl2). Following chlorination the water was stored in a 750-gal, vertical, bulk storage tank 

constructed of carbon steel. Figure 4-2 shows a detailed view of the existing chlorination pump and 

injection port prior to the storage tank. Following the storage tank, water was divided into two separate 

streams for cold and hot water distribution. The stream dedicated for hot water distribution was further 

treated by a water softener prior to heating. Figure 4-3 shows the water softener and water heater. 

Figure 4-2. Chlorination Pump and Injection Port 

4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on September 26, 2006, when 

a Battelle staff member traveled with EPA to the site for an introductory meeting for this demonstration 

project. Table 4-1 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. Historic total arsenic concentrations in Well No. 1 water ranged from 2.7 to 27.0 μg/L. Based 

on the speciation results obtained by Battelle on September 26, 2006, out of 26.9 μg/L of total arsenic, 

8.8 μg/L existed as particulate arsenic. For the soluble fraction, 12.6 and 5.5 μg/L existed as As(III) and 

As(V), respectively. Therefore, chlorination was used to oxidize soluble As(III) to soluble As(V). The 

As(V) formed co-precipitated with and/or adsorbed onto iron solids to form As(V)-laden iron particles 

prior to pressure filtration.
15 

Figure 4-3. Water Softener (left) and Water Heater (right)

Ammonia and Total Organic Carbon. Well No. 1 water contained between 0.7 to 1.0 mg/L of 

ammonia (as N) and 1.6 to 2.8 mg/L of organic carbon (as C). When in contact with chlorine, ammonia 

will react with chlorine to form chloramines, which most likely will not react with organic carbon, to the 

extent as chlorine does, to form disinfection byproducts (DBPs), such as total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) 

and haloacetic acids (HAA5). The stoichiometric quantity of chlorine consumed by the reaction with 

ammonia is 5:1 (w/w) with chlorine expressed as Cl2 and ammonia as N. The stoichiometric quantity of 

chlorine consumed to completely oxidize the chloramines formed, or to reach the breakpoint chlorination, 

is 7.6:1 (w/w). From the metal data presented in Table 4-1, 0.7 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2) will be required 

to oxidize reduced metals, including As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II). To achieve the target free chlorine 

residual level of 0.2 mg/L (as Cl2), 6.2 to 8.5 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2) will be needed, including:

• 0.7 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2) to react with 12.6 μg/L of As(III), 855 μg/L of Fe(II), and 53.1 

μg/L of Mn(II)

• 5.3 to 7.6 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2) to completely oxidize 0.7 to 1.0 mg/L of ammonia (as N) 

at the breaking point

• 0.2 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2) to provide the required 0.2 mg/L of free chlorine residual. 

The use of 6.2 to 8.5 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2) will add to the chemical cost, increase the formation 

potential of DBPs, and exceed the maximum residual disinfectant level (MRDL) and maximum residual 

disinfectant level goal (MRDLG) of 4 mg/L (as Cl2) as stipulated in the Stage 1 Disinfectants and 

Disinfection Byproducts Rule (http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/mdbp/dbp1.html). 
16 

Table 4-1. Source Water Data for Northeastern Elementary School in 

Fountain City, IN 

Parameter Unit

EPA

Data

Battelle

Data

IDEM

Data

Date 02/07/06 09/26/06 09/93–09/06

pH S.U. NA NA 7.5 NA

Temperature °C NA NA 25.0 NA

Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L NA 317 337 NA

Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 234 218 255 NA

Turbidity NTU NA NA 5.8 NA

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L NA NA 304 NA

Total Organic Carbon mg/L 2.8 NA 1.6 NA

Nitrate (as N) mg/L NA NA <0.05 0.28–0.95

Nitrite (as N) mg/L NA NA <0.05 <0.01–0.09

Ammonia (as N) mg/L NA 1.0 0.7 NA

Chloride mg/L NA <5 2 NA

Fluoride mg/L NA NA 1.5 1.6–2.2

Sulfate mg/L 2.1 2.4 2.0 <5

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 13.5 13.4 13.9 NA

Orthophosphate (as PO4) mg/L NA 0.01 <0.1 NA

P (as PO4) mg/L <0.2 <0.2 <0.03 NA

Al (total) μg/L <25 <25 NA NA

As (total) μg/L 20.0 19.0 26.9 2.7–27.0

As (soluble) μg/L NA NA 18.1 NA

As (particulate) μg/L NA NA 8.8 NA

As(III) μg/L NA NA 12.6 NA

As(V) μg/L NA NA 5.5 NA

Fe (total) μg/L 1,292 1,114 1,547 NA

Fe (soluble) μg/L NA NA 855 NA

Mn (total) μg/L 49.4 49.6 53.5 NA

Mn (soluble) μg/L NA NA 53.1 NA

Sb (total) μg/L <25 <25 NA <1–6

V (total) μg/L NA NA <0.1 NA

Na (total) mg/L 27.8 26.9 29.0 21–26

Ca (total) mg/L 54.6 51.2 57.9 NA

Mg (total) mg/L 23.8 21.9 26.7 NA

IDEM = Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

NA = Not Available

Therefore, the chlorine dosage must be significantly reduced to levels such as 1 mg/L (as Cl2), by adding 

only 1.7 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2): 

• 0.7 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2) to react with 12.6 μg/L of As(III), 855 μg/L of Fe(II), and 

53.1 μg/L of Mn(II),

• 1.0 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2) to react with 0.2 mg/L of ammonia (as N) and form 1.0 mg/L of 

combined chlorine (existing primarily as monochloramine). 

Although less effective, the 1 mg/L combined chlorine residuals will provide the needed disinfection in

the distribution system and will not cause damages to the cationic exchange resin in the softening unit 

located downstream from the treatment system and pressure tank. The untreated ammonia at 0.5 to 

0.8 mg/L (as N) can be further removed by the softener. 
17 

Iron and Manganese. Total iron concentrations in Well No. 1 water ranged from 1,114 to 1,547 μg/L, 

which exceeded the 300-μg/L secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL). Battelle’s speciation 

results indicated that, out of 1,547 μg/L of total iron, 855 μg/L (or 55%) existed as soluble iron, which is 

47 times the soluble arsenic level (i.e., 18.1 μg/L) mentioned above. EPA’s February 7 and September 

26, 2006 total iron results, i.e., 1,292 and 1,114 μg/L, respectively, were slightly lower than Battelle’s 

total iron result. No historical iron data were available from IDEM. The presence of soluble iron in 

source water will help remove arsenic once an oxidant, such as chlorine, is introduced to raw water. The 

use of chlorination prior to the G2® media would oxidize and precipitate iron, enabling removal of 

arsenic-laden iron solids via filtration through the media. 

Total manganese concentrations ranged from 49.4 to 53.5 μg/L, which, based on the data obtained by 

Battelle on September 26, 2006, existed almost entirely as soluble manganese.

 

Competing Anions Based on the results shown in Table 4-1, concentrations of silica (13.4 to 13.9 mg/L) 

and phosphate (less than the MDL) in raw water do not appear to be high enough to impact the IR 

process.

Other Water Quality Parameters. Battelle’s data indicate a pH value of 7.5, which is within the 

commonly-agreed target range of 5.5 to 8.5 for arsenic removal via IR. The raw water samples also were 

analyzed for additional parameters as listed in Table 4-1. Collectively, total hardness concentrations 

ranged from 218 to 255 mg/L (as CaCO3); nitrate from <0.05 to 0.95 mg/L (as N); nitrite from <0.01 to 

0.09 mg/L (as N), and sodium from 21 to 29.0 mg/L. Turbidity was 5.8 nephelometric turbidity unit 

(NTU) and total dissolved solids (TDS) were 304 mg/L. All other analytes were below detection limits 

and/or anticipated to be low enough not to adversely affect the arsenic removal process.

4.1.2 Distribution System. Based on the information provided by the facility, the distribution 

system was comprised of a combination of copper, galvanized, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping. The 

pipe material between the supply well and the mechanical room was a combination of galvanized and 

PVC piping and the piping within the building was primarily copper. Three locations within the school 

(kitchen sink, north water fountain, and south water fountain) were selected for monthly baseline and 

distribution system water sampling to evaluate the effect of the treatment system on the distribution 

system water quality.

Northeastern Elementary School samples water periodically 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 (SOC), and inorganic compounds (IOCs). 

Distribution system water samples are collected yearly for HAA5 and TTHMs, once every three years 

under 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 US Waters Systems’ IR

system using ADI’s G2® as a filtration media.

4.2.1 Technology Description. Developed by ADI, G2® is an adsorptive/filtration media 

consisting of a granular, calcined diatomite substrate coated with ferric hydroxide. Because of the 

presence of elevated levels of soluble iron in raw water and because of the addition of chlorine to raw 

water to oxide As(III), arsenic-laden iron solids were formed and had to be removed via filtration. 

Therefore, G2® media acted more like a filtration media than an adsorptive media. Table 4-2 presents 

physical and chemical properties of G2® media. G2® is delivered in dry, granular form and has NSF 

International (NSF) Standard 61 approval for use in drinking water. The G2® media require a pre- 
18 

Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of G2 Media Provided by ADI 

Physical Properties

Parameter Value

Matrix Diatomite impregnated with 

ferric hydroxide

Physical Form Dry granules

Color Dark brown

Bulk Density (lb/ft3) 47

Specific Gravity (dry) 0.75

Hardness (lb/in2) 210

Effective Size (mm) 0.32

Uniformity Coefficient 1.8–2.0

Bulk Relative Density 1.073

Adsorption (%) 51.1

Chemical Analysis

Constituents Weight %

Fe 5– 30

Na 9–10

Al 0.5

Diatomaceous Earth (a silica-based material) Balance

Trace Elements < 0.1

conditioning step prior to use. Details concerning the pre-conditioning step are presented in Section 

4.2.2. 

The IR system is a fixed-bed, down-flow filtration system. Water with arsenic-laden iron particles was 

pumped through four G2® filtration vessels to remove the solids. Solids accumulated in the vessels were

then removed from the media beds via backwash. Backwash wastewater generated was discharged to the 

sanitary sewer. 

4.2.2 System Design and Treatment Process. The treatment system consisted of a chlorine 

injection system (pre-existing), four parallel filtration vessels (with a balance header to ensure equal flows 

to the four vessels), and a pressure tank (pre-existing) prior to the distribution system. Figure 4-4 presents 

a simplified system schematic showing only one filtration vessel and associated instrumentation. Table 4-

3 specifies key system design parameters. Figure 4-5 presents a process flowchart along with the 

sampling/analysis schedule. Key process components of the treatment system are discussed as follows:

• Intake – Raw water was pumped from Well No. 1 and fed to the treatment system via a 3-in

copper pipe. The well pump was rated at 50 gpm, which could not be verified due to the lack 

of a flow meter at the wellhead. 

• Pre-chlorination – Chlorine was added to raw water using a chlorine addition system (Figure 

4-6) consisting of a 5-gal/day (gpd) Stenner peristaltic pump (Model 85MPHP5), a Stenner 

pump control module (PCM), a SeaMetrics pulse meter (MJ-Series), a chlorine injection tap, 

a 30-gal polyethylene chemical feed tank (containing a 12.5% NaOCl solution), and a 2-in inline mixer. When water flowed through the SeaMetrics pulse meter, a signal was sent to the 

PCM, which, in turn, sent a signal to the Stenner pump to dose NaOCl through the injection 

tap. The PCM was set at 55% based on calculations using equations provided by the 

manufacturer. Chemical consumption was monitored by visually inspecting and measuring 

levels of NaOCl in the day tank on a daily basis and recording the levels on field log sheets. 
19 

Figure 4-4. Simplified Schematic of US Water Systems’ Iron Removal System 

Table 4-3. Key System Design Parameters 

Parameter Value Remarks

Prechlorination

Target Dose (mg/L [as Cl2]) 1.7 –

Target Combined Residual (mg/L [as Cl2]) 1.0 –

G2® Filtration Vessels

No. of Vessels 4 –

Configuration Parallel –

Vessel Size (in) 36 D × 72 H Composite poly-glass

Vessel Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 7.1 –

Media Quantity (ft3) 100 Four vessels; 25 ft3 in each vessel

Media Bed Depth (in) 42 –

Design Flowrate (gpm/vessel) 15 60 gpm total

Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) 2.1 –

EBCT (min) 12.5 15 gpm flowrate through each vessel

Average Use Rate (gal/day) 5,000 Facility estimated

Backwash

Backwash Flowrate (gpm) 40 –

Backwash Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) 5.7 –

Backwash Duration (min/vessel) 18 –

Backwash Wastewater Generated (gal/vessel) 720 2,880 gal per event

Design Backwash Frequency (times/month) 2 –
20 

INFLUENT

(WELL #1)

Regular Sampling

Every 3.5 to 8 Weeks

Speciation Sampling

Every 2 to 7 Weeks

Northeastern 

Elementary School 

Fountain City, IN

US Water Systems' G2® Arsenic 

Removal System 

Design Flow: 60 gpm

DISTRIBUTION 

SYSTEM

Footnote

(a) Onsite analyses

pH(a), temperature(a), DO/ORP(a),

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, alkalinity, TOC

As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total), 

NH3, SiO2, turbidity, alkalinity, 

TOC

PRESSURE TANK

(750 GAL)

TANK

B

TANK

C

TANK

A

TANK

D

AC

IN

TA TB TC TD

pH(a), temperature(a), DO/ORP(a),

total and free Cl2

(a), 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, alkalinity, TOC

pH(a), temperature(a), DO/ORP(a), 

total and free Cl2

(a), As (total),

Fe (total), Mn (total), NH3, SiO2, 

turbidity, alkalinity, TOC

pH(a), temperature(a), 

DO/ORP(a), As (total), Fe 

(total), Mn (total), NH3, SiO2, 

turbidity, alkalinity, TOC

pH(a), temperature(a), DO/ORP(a),

total and free Cl2

(a), 

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, alkalinity, TOC

DA: Cl2

TT

pH(a), temperature(a), DO/ORP(a), 

total and free Cl2

(a), As (total),

Fe (total), Mn (total), NH3, SiO2, 

turbidity, alkalinity, TOC

BW

LEGEND

At Wellhead

After Individual 

Vessels (TA-TD)

INFLUENT

Chemical Addition

Unit Process

Process Flow

Water Sampling Locations

IN

TT

TA

After Vessels A-D 

Combined

AC After Chlorination

DA: Cl2

BW Backwash

Backwash Flow

Every 6-8 Weeks

pH, TDS, TSS, SiO2, 

As (total and soluble),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble)

Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
21 

Figure 4-6. Chlorine Addition System

(Stenner Pump and 30-gal Day Tank [top left], Stenner Pump Control Module [top right], 

SeaMetrics Pulse Meter [bottom left], and 2-in inline mixer [bottom right]) 

Since raw water contained 0.7 to 1.0 mg/L (as N) of ammonia, it was necessary to add 

enough chlorine (i.e., 7.6 times of 0.7 to 1.0 mg/L plus the amount required to oxidize all 

reducing species) to reach the breakpoint. Breakpoint chlorination would ensure complete 

removal of ammonia and chloramines and leave free chlorine residuals in the treated water. 

Due to the high levels of chlorine that would be required to reach the breakpoint, only the 

amount of chlorine necessary to oxidize reducing metals (i.e., 0.7 mg/L [as Cl2]) and to 

produce 1.0 mg/L of combined chlorine residuals (i.e., 1.0 mg/L [as Cl2]) was added to the 

water. This resulted in a total chlorine dose of 1.7 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2). 

The water system was required to test for total and free chlorine residuals on days that school 

was in session. Meanwhile, total chlorine residuals were controlled to <1 mg/L (as Cl2) in 

order to minimize any adverse effect on the resin in the downstream softener. 
22 

• Filtration – The treatment system consisted of four 36-in × 72-in composite poly-glass 

vessels configured in parallel, each containing 25 ft3 of G2® media (100 ft3 total) underlain 

by washed gravel. Each vessel had a 6-in flange opening on the top for loading media and 

assessing vessel contents. A GE Magnum IT valve and GE Logix 764 controller were

installed on each vessel. The GE Logix 764 controllers were used for setting custom 

parameters such as backwashing frequency, external notifications for alarm conditions, and 

other inputs and outputs. Through 2-in piping, water flowed in parallel into the vessels, from 

upper distributors downward though the media and then collected at the bottom through highflow slotted hub and lateral assemblies. The treated water then traveled up through 1.5-in 

riser piping in the vessels before it exited at the outlet of the Magnum IT valves. 

Based on a design flowrate of 15 gpm/vessel (60 gpm total), the empty bed contact time 

(EBCT) was 12.5 min and the hydraulic loading rate on each filter was 2.1 gpm/ft2

. The 

anticipated pressure drop across a clean bed was approximately 2 lb/in2

 (psi), and the 

anticipated pressure differential across the whole system was 10 psi. The flow through each 

vessel was monitored using a flow meter and totalizer that was built in to the GE Magnum IT 

valve. Figure 4-7 shows filter vessels, Magnum IT valves, and the Logix 764 controller.

Before the system could be put into service, the media had to be conditioned to lower its pH, 

from as high as 11.5 to less than 8. Details on the conditioning procedure are discussed in 

Section 4.3.3. 

Figure 4-7. Magnum IT Valves and Logix 764 Controllers on G2® Filtration Vessels
23 

• Filter Backwash – Due to accumulation of iron solids in the media, the filter beds needed to 

be backwashed to remove the solids and fluff the media to minimize channeling. 

Backwashing might be performed manually or automatically with either time, throughput, or 

pressure differential (Δp) setpoint. The vessels were backwashed individually with treated 

water from the 750-gal pressure tank and supplemental well water when the pressure tank 

reached its low-pressure setpoint. US Water Systems recommended that backwash be 

performed every two to three weeks at a flowrate of 40 gpm for 18 min. The amount of 

wastewater produced was 720 gal/vessel (or 2,880 gal per event), which was discharged 

directly into the sump and then to the sanitary sewer. Under IDEM regulations, no permit 

was necessary for the discharge. 

4.3 System Installation 

US Water Systems completed system installation and shakedown on September 2, 2008. The following 

briefly summarizes system installation activities, including permitting, building preparation, and system 

installation, shakedown, and startup. 

4.3.1 Permitting. Design drawings and a process description of the proposed treatment system 

were submitted to IDEM by Ladd Engineering on April 22, 2008. IDEM did not have any review 

comments and the permit was issued on May 29, 2008. 

4.3.2 Building Preparation. The pre-existing system was located on an elevated concrete pad in 

the school’s utility room. To accommodate the new treatment system, an extension to the pre-existing 

concrete pad was poured to bring the floor level to that of the pre-existing pad. The construction was 

funded by the school and took approximately three days to complete (i.e., December 26 to 28, 2007). 

4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. System components and materials were delivered 

by US Water Systems to the school starting the week of July 28, 2008. The system was built onsite (not 

prefabricated). System fabrication and installation took place over the next three weeks and were

completed on August 20, 2008. Installation activities included placing the vessels, building all connective 

piping between vessels (including a backwash discharge line to the sanitary sewer), connecting the system 

to tie-in points, and assembling the chlorine injection system. Figure 4-8 shows photographs of the 

treatment system. 

Upon completion of system installation and prior to media loading, the system was tested hydraulically 

for pressure losses and leaks on August 20, 2008. Minimal pressure losses (≤ 2 psi) were observed across 

each vessel and no leaks were detected in any piping or joints. After the vessels were drained, 500 lb of 

washed gravel underbedding and 20 ft3 of G2® media were loaded into each vessel on August 25, 2008. 

Freeboard measurements were taken following gravel underbedding and G2® media loading. The amount 

of G2® media loaded (20 ft3

/vessel) was less than the design value of 25 ft3/vessel. After the control 

valves were reinstalled on the vessels, the system was re-pressurized. 

On August 28, 2008, the media in each vessel was backwashed (or “conditioned” per vendor) at 42 gpm 

for approximately 25 min. The wastewater produced was collected in a 500-gal holding tank. Once the 

holding tank was full, backwash was temporarily suspended and the pH of the wastewater was measured 

and adjusted, if needed, using hydrochloric acid (HCl) before being discharged to the sanitary sewer. 

This process was repeated until the wastewater pH was less than 8 and until the wastewater was free of 

particulate. Approximately 1,000 gal of wastewater was produced from each vessel (or 4,500 gal from all 

four vessels). Figure 4-9 presents pictures of G2® media conditioning. Upon completion of media 

conditioning, the control valves were removed from the vessels for freeboard measurements again. Based 

upon these measurements, media volume in each vessel was calculated to be 17.7 ft3

/vessel (or 70.8 ft3
24 

Figure 4-8. Treatment System Installed

(Filtration Vessels with Magnum IT Valves and Logix 764 Controllers [top left], 

Backwash Discharge Line [top right], Flowmeter/Totalizer on Backwash 

Discharge Line [bottom])

total). Table 4-4 presents freeboard measurements before and after media backwashing (or media 

conditioning) along with calculated media volumes.

On September 5, 2008, the treatment system was disinfected by increasing the chlorine dosage at the 

system inlet to approximately 40 mg/L (as Cl2). The system was allowed to sit for 24 hr before being 

flushed of residual chlorine. After flushing, the chlorine dosage was reset for 0.5 mg/L (as Cl2) of 

residuals at the system outlet. An initial bacteria sample collected by US Water Systems on September 

10, 2008, returned negative. Per IDEM request, two additional bacteria samples were collected on 

October 9, 2008, with both results returning negative. The results from the three bacteria tests were 

submitted to IDEM on October 21, 2008. 
25 

Figure 4-9. Conditioning of G2® Media

Table 4-4. Freeboard Measurements and Media Volumes Before and After 

Backwash (or Media Conditioning)

Measurement Vessel A Vessel B Vessel C Vessel D

To Top of Gravel (in) 63 63 63 63

Before Backwash (or Media Conditioning)

To Top of Media (in) 29.5 29.25 29.5 29.5

Bed Depth (in) 33.5 33.75 33.5 33.5

Media Volume (ft3) 19.7 19.9 19.7 19.7

Total Volume (ft3) 79.0

After Backwash (or Media Conditioning)

To Top of Media (in) 33 33 33 33

Bed Depth (in) 30 30 30 30

Media Volume (ft3) 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7

Total Volume (ft3) 70.8
26 

On September 22, 2008, two Battelle staff members visited the school to inspect the system. After 

inspections, several installation/operational issues were identified. Table 4-5 summarizes the punch-list 

items and corrective actions taken. One Battelle staff member returned to the school on October 9, 2008, 

to provide sample collection training to the operator and inspect changes made to the punch-list items. 

Table 4-5. Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions

Date(s)

Issues/Problems

Encountered Corrective Action Taken

Work Performed 

by

09/22/08 –

10/02/08

Total combined effluent (TT)

sample tap not installed as 

requested in RFQ 

TT sample tap installed on 

combined effluent line before 

entering pressure tank

US Water Systems

09/22/08 –

10/02/08

Backwash (BW) sample tap 

not installed as requested in 

RFQ

BW sample tap installed on 

backwash discharge line

US Water Systems

09/22/08 –

10/02/08 

Pressure gauges on filtration 

vessels not as specified in 

RFQ (0-200 psi)

Pressure gauges on vessels 

replaced with 0-100 psi gauges as 

specified on RFQ

US Water Systems

09/22/08 –

10/02/08

Well pump hour meter not 

reliable and needed to be 

replaced 

New hour meter installed on well 

pump

US Water Systems

09/22/08 –

10/02/08

Backwash flowmeter/totalizer 

not functioning properly

Backwash flowmeter/totalizer 

replaced with new version of the 

same model

US Water Systems

09/22/08 –

10/31/08

Each Logix 764 controller 

controls two Magnum IT 

valves; displays hard to read 

due to location on top of 

vessels

Two additional Logix 764 

controllers purchased for Magnum 

IT valves by EPA; all four Logix 

764 controllers relocated to 

mounted panel for easier use

US Water Systems

4.4 System Operation

4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the one-year performance 

evaluation study were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in 

Table 4-6. From September 22, 2008, through October 29, 2009, the system operated for a total of 279 

days, excluding weekends and Thanksgiving (from November 28 through 29, 2008) and Christmas 

holidays (from December 22, 2008, through January 2, 2009). Based on the wellhead hour meter, the 

system operated for 349.1 hr. Daily operating times fluctuated between 0 to 6.7 hr (Figure 4-10) and 

averaged 1.4 hr/day when the school was in session and 0.3 hr/day when the school was out of session 

(from June 3, 2009, through August 16, 2009). 

The system treated approximately 941,500 gal of water based on totalizer readings from the Magnum IT 

valves installed on each filter vessel. This throughput value matches well with that (941,142 gal) based 

on a SeaMetrics MJR-200-2P totalizer installed at the wellhead. Imbalanced flows were observed among 

the four vessels, with throughput values ranging from 21.5% to 27.8% of the total flow. 

Flowrates through the four vessels (Figure 4-11) were tracked by both instantaneous readings from the 

flowmeters on the vessels and calculated values by dividing incremental volume throughputs recorded 

from each vessel totalizer by incremental operating times. As shown in Table 4-6, instantaneous flowrate
27 

Table 4-6. Summary of Treatment System Operational Parameters

Operational Parameter Value/Condition

Duration 09/22/08–10/29/09

Average Daily Run Time 

(hr/day)

1.4 (When school was in session)

0.3 (When school was out of session) 

Total Operating Time (hr) 349.1

Throughput (gal)(a) & 

Hydraulic Loading Rate 

(gpm/ft2

) 

Vessel 09/22/08–10/29/09 Hydraulic Loading Rate

A 241,900 1.6 (0.8–1.8)

B 202,500 1.6 (0.7–2.1)

C 235,800 1.6 (1.1–1.8)

D 261,300 1.8 (1.3–2.3)

System 941,500 –

Instantaneous Flowrate (gpm) Vessel Range Average

A 6–13(c) 11.3

B 5–15(c) 11.3

C 8–13(c) 11.4

D 9–16(c) 13.1

System 28–50 (c) 47.1

Calculated Flowrate (gpm)(b) Vessel Range Average

A 0.9–20.0(d) 12.0

B 0.7–23.6(e) 11.7

C 0.7–25.9(f) 11.8

D 0.8–27.8(g) 13.4

System 22.7–66.7(h) 49.4

Operational Pressures (psi) Vessel Inlet Outlet Δp

A 43 (32–56) 38 (28–54) 5 (0–10)(i)

B 43 (32–54) 38 (28–56) 5 (0–10)(j)

C 43 (30–56) 39 (28–57) 5 (0–12)(k)

D 43 ( 32–56) 39 (28–57) 5 (0–12)(l)

System 63 (30–80) 38 (30–58) 25 (0–43)(m)

(a) Including amount of treated and source water used for backwashing filtration vessels. 

(b) Data calculated by dividing incremental throughput by incremental hour meter readings 

recorded during 09/22/08 through 10/29/09. 

(c) Excluding all instantaneous flowrate data from 09/22/08 through 10/31/08 due to 

configuration of Logix 764 controllers, which provided flowrate readings only for combined 

flows.

(d) Excluding four outliers on 10/13/08, 04/02/09, 08/11/09, and 08/12/09. 

(e) Excluding all calculated flowrate data from 09/22/08 through 10/31/08 due to malfunctioning 

valve; excluding seven outliers on 02/23/09, 03/31/09, 04/02/09, 06/30/09, 08/11/09, 

08/12/09, and 10/12/09.

(f) Excluding five outliers on 10/13/08, 01/20/09, 04/02/09, 07/23/09, and 08/12/09.

(g) Excluding two outliers on 04/02/09 and 08/12/09.

(h) Excluding data from 09/22/08 through 10/31/08 as noted under footnote e and outliers on 

12/03/08, 01/20/09, 02/23/09, 02/25/09, 03/31/09, 04/02/09, 06/30/09, 07/13/09, 07/23/09, 

08/11/09, 08/12/09, and 10/12/09.

(i) Excluding three outliers from 11/12/08, 11/21/08, and 11/26/08.

(j) Excluding two outliers from 11/21/08 and 11/26/08.

(k) Excluding six outliers from 09/22/08, 10/13/08, 10/14/08, 10/16/08, 11/21/08, and 12/05/08.

(l) Excluding four outliers from 09/22/08, 10/09/08, 10/14/08, and 11/21/08.

(m) Excluding two outliers from 10/09/08 and 11/04/08.

 
28 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

09/19/08 10/29/08 12/08/08 01/17/09 02/26/09 04/07/09 05/17/09 06/26/09 08/05/09 09/14/09 10/24/09

Daily Operating Time (hr)

Figure 4-10. Treatment System Daily Operating Times

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Flowrate (gpm)

System Instantaneous System Calculated Vessel A Instantaneous Vessel A Calculated Vessel B Instantaneous

Vessel B Calculated Vessel C Instantaneous Vessel C Calculated Vessel D Instantaneous Vessel D Calculated

Figure 4-11. Comparison of Instantaneous Flowrate Readings and Calculated Flowrate Values
29 

readings for Vessels A, B, C, and D averaged 11.3, 11.3, 11.4, and 13.1 gpm, respectively; calculated 

flowrates for the same vessels averaged 12.0, 11.7, 11.8, and 13.4 gpm, respectively. Instantaneous 

system flowrates ranged from 28 to 50 gpm and averaged 47.1 gpm, while calculated system flowrates 

ranged from 22.7 to 66.7 gpm and averaged 49.4 gpm. Based upon these flowrates, the system operated 

at approximately 80% of the design value of 60 gpm. While these two sets of flowrate data were 

comparable to each other, the calculated values appeared to be scattered somewhat more than the 

instantaneous readings (Figure 4-11). As such, only instantaneous readings were used for hydraulic 

loading rate calculations. 

Based on the instantaneous flowrates to the individual vessels, hydraulic loading rates for Vessels A, B, 

C, and D ranged from 0.7 to 2.3 gpm/ft2 and averaged 1.6, 1.6, 1.6, and 1.8 gpm/ft2

, respectively. The 

hydraulic loading rates on the vessels were 14% to 24% lower than the design value of 2.1 gpm/ft2

(Table 4-3). 

Δp across each vessel ranged from 0 to 12 psi and averaged 5 psi (Figure 4-12). The inlet pressure of the 

system ranged from 30 to 80 psi and averaged 63 psi, while the outlet pressure of the system ranged from 

30 to 58 psi and averaged 38 psi. The average system differential pressure was 25 psi.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

09/19/08 11/08/08 12/28/08 02/16/09 04/07/09 05/27/09 07/16/09 09/04/09 10/24/09

Differential Pressure (psi)

Date

Vessel A

Vessel B

Vessel C

Vessel D

Figure 4-12. Differential Pressures Across Filtration Vessels

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 no operational irregularities during 

the performance evaluation study. The PCM was set at approximately 55% by the vendor during system 

startup and remained at that level throughout the entire duration of the study. 

Chlorine dosages to the treatment system were carefully monitored by measuring solution levels in the 

chlorine feed tank on a daily basis. The average dosage during the entire study period was 4.0 mg/L (as 

Cl2), which was about 2.3 times higher than the target dosage of 1.7 mg/L (as Cl2) as shown in Table 4-3. 
30 

Since free and total chlorine residual levels at the TT location were satisfactory and the average dose was 

at the MDRL level, no adjustments were made to the pump or PCM during the study. 

4.4.3 Backwash. As mentioned in Section 4.2.2, backwash can be performed manually or 

automatically with either a time-, a throughput-, or a Δp-setpoint. Throughput was chosen as the setpoint 

while the time and Δp setpoints were disabled. The Logix 764 controller on each vessel was set to 

backwash after 90,000 gal of water had been processed with the controller starting at 90,000 gal and 

counting down. The value was intentionally set high to allow the operator more control over when a 

backwash was to occur. Due to the design of the system, a valve had to be manually opened to allow 

treated water from the pressure tank to be used for backwash. 

A total of eight backwash events occurred during the entire study period (Table 4-7). All but one of the 

events were engaged manually by the operator. The only event initiated automatically occurred on 

February 20, 2009, when the operator noticed that Vessel D had just been backwashed (as indicated by 

the throughput counter that had been reset to 90,000 gal). Upon noticing this, Vessel B began to go into 

backwash even though the throughput counter was far from reaching 0 gal. The operator aborted the 

backwash and notified the Battelle Study Lead, who, in turn, contacted US Water Systems because none 

of the throughput counters on the vessels was near 0 gal when backwash was initiated. Upon checking 

the valve programming, it was determined that the “reserve capacity” on the valve was set at 30% of the 

total capacity (i.e., 90,000 gal), causing the vessel to backwash at 27,000 gal. To prevent this from 

happening again, the reserve capacity was set to 0% to allow the total capacity to be utilized before 

backwash. After the adjustment, all vessels, including Vessel D, were backwashed by the operator on 

February 25, 2009. (Because the valve to the pressure tank was not open during the automatic backwash 

of Vessel D, the vessel was backwashed with insufficient pressure and flow. Therefore, Vessel D was 

backwashed again.) According to the operator, wastewater from Vessel D was still “very dirty” during its 

second backwash.

Table 4-7. Summary of Backwash Events 

Event 

No. Date(s)

Vessel(s) 

Backwashed Remarks

1 09/22/08 A (×2)

B (×1)

Initiated to demonstrate valve controls during Battelle’s 

site visit; each backwash was aborted after initiation

2 10/02/08 A, B, C, D Taking place during operator training by US Water 

Systems

3 10/31/08 A, B, C, D Initiated by US Water Systems after installation and 

relocation of Logix 764 controllers

4 12/03/08 A, B, C, D Initiated by operator at request of Battelle for backwash 

wastewater sample collection

5 02/20/09–

02/25/09

A, B, C, D (×2) Vessel D automatically backwashed on 02/20/09; 

Vessel B automatically backwashed on 02/23/09, but 

backwash aborted by operator; all vessels backwashed 

by operator on 02/25/09

6 04/08/09 A, B, C, D Initiated by operator at request of Battelle for backwash 

wastewater sample collection

7 07/06/09 A, B, C, D Initiated by operator at request of Battelle for backwash 

wastewater sample collection

8 10/13/09 A, B, C, D Initiated by operator at request of Battelle for backwash 

wastewater sample collection
31

Backwash wastewater samples were collected during four of seven manually initiated backwash events. 

Backwash start/end times, durations, flowrates, and volumes of wastewater generated were tabulated and 

are attached as Appendix C. Table 4-8 summarizes key parameters from the four backwash events. The 

vessels were backwashed on an as-needed basis by the operator at the request of Battelle. The need for 

backwash was primarily based on iron and arsenic levels in the finished water with volume processed and 

time since last backwash being taken into consideration.

Table 4-8. Summary of System Backwash Operations

Vessel Date

Instantaneous 

Flowrate 

(gpm)

Duration 

(min)

Wastewater 

Generated

(gal)

A 

12/03/08 50.1 26 1,196.2

04/08/09 52.0 26 1,027.1

07/06/09 55.0 26 944.0

10/13/09 47.0 26 866.6

Average 51.0 Total 4,033.9

B 

12/03/08 46.8 26 1,119.3

04/08/09 43.0 26 1,098.9

07/06/09 54.2 26 1,150.0

10/13/09 54.0 26 1,142.6

Average 49.5 Total 4,510.8

C 

12/03/08 51.0 26 1,282.1

04/08/09 46.4 26 1,087.5

07/06/09 55.0 26 1,227.0

10/13/09 56.0 26 1,259.3

Average 52.1 Total 4,855.9

D 

12/03/08 48.0 26 1,210.0

04/08/09 55.7 26 1,194.0

07/06/09 54.0 26 1,201.7

10/13/09 58.0 26 1,180.1

Average 53.9 Total 4,785.8

Average Wastewater per Vessel (gal) 1,137

Combined Total Wastewater (gal) 18,186

The four filters were backwashed one at time for 26 min. The backwash process consisted of countercurrent backwash for 14 min, co-current slow rinse for 5 min, and co-current fast rinse (7 min). During 

Battelle’s site visit on September 22, 2008, valve backwash settings were programmed for a 20 min 

counter-current backwash followed by a 15 min co-current fast rinse. After the two additional Logix 764 

controllers were installed on October 31, 2008, the backwash settings were inadvertently reset to their 

default settings (i.e., backwash for 14 min, slow rinse for 5 min, and fast rinse for 7 min). Because 

backwash results at these settings appeared to be satisfactory, these settings remained unchanged during 

the remainder of the study. 

Instantaneous backwash flowrates averaged 51.0, 49.5, 52.1, and 53.9 gpm for Vessels A, B, C, and D, 

respectively; total amounts of backwash wastewater generated were 4,034, 4,511, 4,856, and 4,786 gal, 

respective. The total volume of wastewater produced from the four vessels was 18,186 gal. The flowrate 

and volume of the wastewater were recorded by a flowmeter/totalized located on the backwash discharge 

line. 
32

4.4.4 Residual Management. Residuals expected by the operation of the system included 

backwash wastewater and spent media. The G2® media was not replaced during the study period; 

therefore, the only residual produced was backwash wastewater. Backwash wastewater was discharged to 

the sanitary sewer via a sump. No permits were required by IDEM for discharging to the sewer. 

4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. There was no downtime for the treatment 

system during the performance evaluation study. Minor control issues with the Logix 764 controllers had 

been experienced before two additional controllers were purchased and mounted on an easily accessible 

panel (Figure 4-13) on October 31, 2008. Before the two additional controllers were installed, one 

controller was responsible for controlling two valves. Due to this configuration, only combined flowrates 

could be read from the display, making it difficult to determine flowrates through each vessel. In 

addition, when backwash was initiated manually by pressing the backwash button on the controller, the 

vessel that had not been backwashed previously would undergo backwash. The vessel undergoing 

backwash was not indicated on the display, therefore, the vessel that was being backwashed had to be 

determined by other methods. After all the remaining items on the system inspection punch list 

(Section 4.3.3, Table 4-5) were fixed, no operational problems were encountered. 

Figure 4-13. System Control Panel with Logix 764 Controllers

The system O&M and operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to pre- and posttreatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventive maintenance 

activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
33

Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pretreatment consisted of chlorination using a 12.5% NaOCl 

solution to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II), and provide chlorine residuals to the distribution system. In 

addition to tracking levels of the NaOCl solution in the chemical feed tank, the operator measured 

chlorine concentrations to ensure that residuals existed throughout the treatment train. Post-treatment was 

not needed for this system. 

System Automation. On and off of the treatment system was controlled by the 750-gal pressure tank 

located downstream of the treatment system. When the pressure in the tank reached its low pressure 

setpoint, the well pump was turned on. The well pump provided the necessary flow and pressure to move 

chlorinated water through the filter vessels to the pressure tank, which would turn off the well pump when 

the high pressure setpoint was reached. Chlorine injection was automated and would only occur when 

flow was sensed by the SeaMetrics pulse meter. As previously mentioned, the pulse meter would send a 

signal to the PCM, which, in turn, signaled the pump to inject the NaOCl solution. In addition, the 

system was fitted with automated controls to allow for automatic backwash of the vessels based on time, 

throughput, or Δp. 

 

Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the daily demand on the operator was 

about 20 min for visual inspection of the system and recording of operational parameters such as pressure, 

volume, flowrate, and chemical usage on field log sheets. The operator’s duties were to monitor and refill 

the chlorine feed tank, adjust the chlorine dosage via the PCM, if necessary, and ensure that the valve to 

the pressure tank was open during backwash. The operator’s knowledge of the system limitations and 

typical operational parameters were key to achieve the system performance objectives. The basis for the 

operator’s skills began with onsite training and a thorough review of the system operations manual; 

however, increased knowledge and system troubleshooting skills were gained through hands-on 

operational experience. 

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: distribution 

systems are classified as small, medium, or large (DSS, DSM, DSL); water treatment systems are 

classified from Classes 1 to 6 (WT1 to WT6). A DSS/WT2 certification is required to operate the 

treatment system at Northeastern Elementary School. The school operator had a DSS/WT3 certification. 

Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventative maintenance tasks included inspecting the system 

piping and monitoring NaOCl levels in the chemical feed tank. Periodically, the operator checked and 

cleaned, if needed, the paddlewheel in the flowmeter/totalizer on the backwash discharge line. 

Particulates in backwash wastewater could build up on the paddles and impede and/or stop its rotation.

Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. The only chemical required for system 

operation was the NaOCl solution used for chlorination. A 12.5% NaOCl solution, supplied by 

Environmental Management and Development, Inc., was purchased as needed in 5-gal increments. The 

solution was transferred via a hand pump to the day tank and injected without dilution. 

4.5 System Performance

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-9 summarizes analytical results of arsenic, iron, and 

manganese measured at all sampling locations across the treatment train. Table 4-10 summarizes results 

of other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results for the 

demonstration study. The treatment plant results are discussed below.
34

Table 4-9. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results

Parameter

Sampling 

Location

Sample 

Count

Concentration (μg/L) Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

As (total) IN 26 24.0 39.3 29.4 3.3

AC 26 20.2 36.1 28.1 3.2

TA 14 0.8 9.1 3.7 1.9

TB 14 0.8 7.9 4.1 1.8

TC 14 0.7 11.2 4.1 2.9

TD 14 1.9 9.4 3.8 2.0

TT 19 1.9 6.2 3.6 1.4

As (soluble) IN 13 14.0 26.4 20.2 3.2

AC 13 2.1 4.9 3.0 0.7

TT 13 1.5 3.1 2.3 0.4

As (particulate) IN 13 4.8 15.7 8.2 3.4

AC 13 17.3 27.4 23.8 3.1

TT 13 <0.1 3.9 1.3 1.4

As (III) IN 13 10.8 23.9 17.7 3.8

AC 13 <0.1 0.8 0.4 0.2

TT 13 <0.1 0.8 0.4 0.2

As (V) IN 13 0.8 10.7 2.5 2.6

AC 13 1.5 4.8 2.6 0.8

TT 13 1.3 2.6 1.9 0.4

Fe (total) IN 26 1,418 2,333 1,865 250

AC 26 1,206 2,369 1,762 270

TA 14 <25 466 100 131

TB 14 <25 422 142 135

TC 14 <25 661 141 210

TD 14 <25 556 136 152

TT 19 <25 291 99 89.6

Fe (soluble) IN 12(a) 407 1,491 1,058 326

AC 13 <25 219 53 61.9

TT 13 <25 34 <25 5.9

Mn (total) IN 26 41.8 59.7 51.3 4.6

AC 26 40.0 62.3 51.5 4.8

TA 14 29.6 71.0 50.1 11.1

TB 14 28.9 71.9 49.8 11.2

TC 14 33.2 71.3 50.4 10.6

TD 14 27.2 69.0 48.6 12.0

TT 19 19.5 72.7 52.0 13.3

Mn (soluble) IN 13 46.5 58.8 52.3 3.3

AC 13 26.1 59.0 41.6 10.4

TT 13 20.1 73.2 51.1 16.1

(a) One outlier (i.e., 33 μg/L) on 04/28/09 was omitted.

Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the IR system was arsenic concentration 

in treated water. Treatment plant water samples were collected on 26 occasions (including three set of 

duplicate samples taken on December 29, 2008, March 17, 2009, and July 6, 2009) with field speciation 

performed during 13 occasions at IN, AC, and TT sampling locations.
35 

Table 4-10. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 

Parameter

Sampling 

Location Unit

Sample 

Count

Concentration Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

Alkalinity 

(as CaCO3) 

IN mg/L 26 309 361 328 14.0

AC mg/L 26 309 357 328 12.6

TA mg/L 14 309 359 329 14.9

TB mg/L 14 307 355 329 14.4

TC mg/L 14 312 355 329 12.2

TD mg/L 14 309 356 330 12.5

TT mg/L 19 304 350 329 11.8

Ammonia 

(as N)

IN mg/L 26 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.0

AC mg/L 26 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.0

TA mg/L 14 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.1

TB mg/L 14 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.0

TC mg/L 14 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.0

TD mg/L 14 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.1

TT mg/L 19 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.1

Fluoride IN mg/L 13 1.4 2.4 1.8 0.2

AC mg/L 13 1.6 2.6 1.8 0.2

TT mg/L 13 1.6 1.8 1.7 0.1

Sulfate IN mg/L 13 1.5 2.4 2.0 0.2

AC mg/L 13 1.4 2.3 2.0 0.2

TT mg/L 13 1.6 2.4 2.1 0.2

Nitrate (as N) IN mg/L 13 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -

AC mg/L 13 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -

TT mg/L 13 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -

Total P (as P) IN μg/L 13 <10 22.3 11.0 6.8

AC μg/L 13 <10 17.5 <10 4.4

TT μg/L 13 <10 19.7 <10 5.3

Silica

(as SiO2) 

IN mg/L 26 13.6 17.0 15.2 0.7

AC mg/L 26 13.2 17.6 15.3 0.8

TA mg/L 14 15.7 30.6 19.5 4.6

TB mg/L 14 15.6 29.3 18.8 4.5

TC mg/L 14 15.5 28.6 18.7 4.2

TD mg/L 14 15.6 29.8 19.1 4.6

TT mg/L 19 16.0 25.6 18.6 2.5

Turbidity IN NTU 26 11.0 24.0 16.8 3.4

AC NTU 26 1.3 12.0 3.5 2.2

TA NTU 14 <0.1 1.2 0.5 0.4

TB NTU 14 0.1 1.6 0.6 0.4

TC NTU 14 <0.1 2.0 0.6 0.6

TD NTU 14 0.2 2.1 0.6 0.5

TT NTU 19 0.1 2.8 0.7 0.6

TOC IN mg/L 25 1.4 7.7 1.8 1.2

AC mg/L 25 1.3 2.6 1.7 0.3

TA mg/L 13 1.3 1.9 1.5 0.2

TB mg/L 13 1.3 2.1 1.5 0.3

TC mg/L 13 1.3 1.9 1.5 0.2

TD mg/L 13 1.3 1.9 1.6 0.2

TT mg/L 18 1.3 1.9 1.5 0.2
Table 4-10. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results (Continued) 

36

Parameter

Sampling 

Location Unit

Sample 

Count

Concentration Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

pH IN S.U. 22 7.4 7.7 7.6 0.1

AC S.U. 22 7.4 7.6 7.5 0.1

TT S.U. 20 7.4 7.6 7.5 0.1

Temperature IN °C 22 10.6 19.2 15.3 2.0

AC °C 22 11.9 18.4 15.3 1.8

TT °C 20 10.0 21.2 15.9 2.3

Dissolved 

Oxygen (DO)

IN mg/L 13 1.6 4.5 2.9 1.0

AC mg/L 13 1.4 3.6 2.3 0.7

TT mg/L 12 0.9 6.4 2.2 1.6

OxidationReduction 

Potential (ORP)

IN mV 22 148 353 238 44.6

AC mV 22 214 418 275 44.2

TT mV 20 242 409 284 40.3

Free Chlorine 

(as Cl2) 

IN mg/L 12 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0

AC mg/L 12 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.3

TT mg/L 10 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.3

Total Chlorine 

(as Cl2) 

IN mg/L 12 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

AC mg/L 22 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.4

TT mg/L 20 0.0 1.4 0.5 0.4

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) 

IN mg/L 13 210 303 259 28.2

AC mg/L 13 206 298 258 26.7

TT mg/L 13 208 289 257 23.4

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) 

IN mg/L 13 120 179 152 18.4

AC mg/L 13 122 189 153 18.9

TT mg/L 13 121 182 152 15.4

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) 

IN mg/L 13 70.9 153 106 20.3

AC mg/L 13 65.7 139 105 18.1

TT mg/L 13 73.2 143 105 19.2

Figure 4-14 contains three bar charts showing concentrations of particulate arsenic, As(III), and As(V) at 

the IN, AC, and TT sampling locations for each of the 13 speciation events. Total arsenic concentrations 

in raw water ranged from 24.0 to 39.3 μg/L and averaged 29.4 μg/L (Table 4-9). Of the soluble fraction, 

As(III) was the predominating species, with concentrations ranging from 10.8 to 23.9 μg/L and averaging 

17.7 μg/L. Soluble As(V) concentrations were low, ranging from 0.8 to 10.7 μg/L and averaging 2.5

μg/L. Particulate arsenic concentrations ranged from 4.8 to 15.7 μg/L and averaged 8.2 μg/L. The 

arsenic concentrations were consistent with those collected previously during source water sampling 

(Table 4-1). 

Following chlorination (AC), total arsenic concentrations remained essentially unchanged at 28.1 μg/L 

(on average). Arsenic, however, existed mostly as particulate arsenic (23.8 μg/L [on average]) with only 

a small fraction remaining in the soluble form (3.0 μg/L). Of the soluble fraction, 0.4 μg/L (on average) 

existed as As(III) and 2.6 μg/L (on average) as As(V), indicating effective oxidation of As(III) by 

chlorine.

The oxidized arsenic was adsorbed onto and/or co-precipitated with iron solids, which also formed upon 

chlorination. The solids were filtered out by the G2® media, reducing the average total arsenic 

concentration from 29.4 μg/L in raw water to 3.6 μg/L in the system effluent at the TT sampling location. 

Total arsenic concentrations after each vessel ranged from 0.7 to 11.2 μg/L and averaged 4.1, 4.1, 3.8, and 

3.6 μg/L for Vessels A, B, C, and D, respectively. 
37 

As shown in Figure 4-14, arsenic concentrations at the TT sampling location never exceeded the 10 μg/L 

arsenic MCL during the 13 speciation sampling events. Effluent samples from the four filter vessels 

exceeded the MCL only once during the 14 regular, non-speciation sampling events: on February 23, 

2009, Vessel C had an effluent concentration of 11.2 μg/L (see Figure 4-15). 

Iron. Total iron concentrations at the wellhead ranged from 1,418 to 2,333 μg/L and averaged 

1,865 μg/L. About 57% (on average) of iron existed as soluble iron. Following chlorination, the average 

total iron concentration remained essentially unchanged at 1,762 μg/L with iron existing almost entirely 

as iron solids. Arsenic-laden iron solids were removed by the four G2® media filters to levels that ranged 

from <MDL of 25 μg/L to 661 μg/L. Average effluent iron concentrations in the vessel effluent were

100, 142, 141, and 136 μg/L following Vessels A, B, C, and D, respectively. Due to infrequent 

backwash, iron concentrations greater than the 300 μg/L SMCL were measured from at least one vessel 

on October 22, 2008, November 20, 2008, and February 23, 2009 (see Figure 4-16). After the 

performance evaluation period, Battelle recommended that all four vessels be backwashed at least once a 

month to avoid elevated iron and/or arsenic breakthrough. 

Manganese. Total manganese levels in source water ranged from 41.8 to 59.7 μg/L and averaged 51.3 

μg/L, which existed almost entirely in the soluble form. After chlorination, only 19% (on average) of the 

soluble manganese was precipitated, presumably, to form MnO2 solids. Based on the data, essentially no 

manganese was removed by the filters. Total manganese concentrations in the combined effluent ranged 

from 19.5 to 72.7 μg/L and averaged 52.0 μg/L, which is above its 50 μg/L SMCL. 

Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity, ammonia, fluoride, sulfate, silica, total organic carbon 

(TOC), and hardness levels remained relatively constant across the treatment train and were not affected 

by the treatment process (Table 4-10). Total phosphorus levels (on average) in the combined effluent 

were always less than the MDL of 10 μg/L; nitrate levels at every stage of treatment were less than the 

MDL of 0.05 mg/L. Turbidity decreased significantly with treatment (i.e., from 16.8 to 0.7 NTU on 

average). 

pH, DO, and ORP. pH values of source water ranged from 7.4 to 7.7 and averaged 7.6. This range was 

consistent with the pH measurements taken by Battelle during source water sampling on September 26, 

2006 (i.e., 7.5 in Table 4-1). DO levels in source water ranged from 1.6 from 4.5 mg/L and averaged 2.9 

mg/L. DO levels remained steady across the treatment train, with average values of 2.3 and 2.2 mg/L at 

AC and TT respectively. Due to difficulties experienced by the operator using the VWR Symphony 

SP90M5 handheld meter, DO was measured only 13 times while pH and ORP were each measured 22 

times. Throughout the study, the operator was supplied with several replacement DO probes. ORP 

readings of source water ranged from 148 to 353 mV and averaged 238 mV. After chlorination (AC), 

average ORP readings increased to 275 mV. Because almost all of the chlorine existed in the combined 

form, a significant increase in the ORP was not observed. Average ORP readings for the combined 

effluent (TT) remained essentially unchanged at 284 mV. 

Chlorine. Figure 4-17 presents total and free chlorine residuals measured after chlorination (AC) and 

after the combined effluent at TT. As shown in the figure, data for AC and TT were scattered 

extensively. At AC, total chlorine residuals ranged from 0 to 1.4 mg/L (as Cl2) and averaged 0.7 mg/L 

(as Cl2) while free chlorine residuals ranged from 0 to 0.9 mg/L (as Cl2) and averaged 0.4 mg/L (as Cl2). 

Total and free residuals at TT were almost identical to those at AC. Due to the presence of ammonia in 

source water (i.e., ~1 mg/L [as N]), chlorine at AC and TT should be present as combined chlorine. 

Residual measurements also were made for source water at the wellhead (see Table 4-10), but were not 

plotted in Figure 4-17 due to the expected absence of chlorine in source water. Any reported values at the 

IN location were assumed to be “background noise” from the VWR Symphony SP90M5 handheld meter 

used by the operator. 
38

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

As Concentration (μg/L)

Arsenic Species at Inlet (IN)

As (Particulate) Soluble As(V) Soluble As(III)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

As Concentration (μg/L)

Arsenic Species After Chlorination (AC)

As (Particulate) Soluble As(V) Soluble As(III)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

As Concentration (μg/L)

Arsenic Species at Total Combined Effluent (TT)

As (Particulate) Soluble As(V) Soluble As(III)

Figure 4-14. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT

Sampling Locations 
39

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

10/4/2008 11/3/2008 12/3/2008 1/2/2009 2/1/2009 3/3/2009 4/2/2009 5/2/2009 6/1/2009 7/1/2009 7/31/2009 8/30/2009 9/29/2009

As Concentration (μg/L)

At Inlet (IN) After Chlorination (AC) After Tank A (TA) After Tank B (TB) After Tank C (TC) After Tank D (TD) Total Combined Effluent (TT)

MCL

Figure 4-15. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train

0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2,250

2,500

10/4/2008 11/3/2008 12/3/2008 1/2/2009 2/1/2009 3/3/2009 4/2/2009 5/2/2009 6/1/2009 7/1/2009 7/31/2009 8/30/2009 9/29/2009

Fe Concentration (μg/L)

At Inlet (IN) After Chlorination (AC) After Tank A (TA) After Tank B (TB) After Tank C (TC) After Tank D (TD) Total Combined Effluent (TT)

Figure 4-16. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train
40

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

10/4/2008 11/3/2008 12/3/2008 1/2/2009 2/1/2009 3/3/2009 4/2/2009 5/2/2009 6/1/2009 7/1/2009 7/31/2009 8/30/2009 9/29/2009

Chlorine Residual (mg/L as Cl2)

Date

Total (AC) Total (TT)

Free (AC) Free (TT)

Free chlorine measurements at AC 

and TT discontinued after 

04/14/09 

Figure 4-17. Chlorine Residuals Measured at AC and TT

4.5.2 Backwash Water and Solids Sampling. Table 4-11 presents analytical results of backwash 

wastewater sampling. Backwash wastewater samples were collected by the operator from each of the 

four G2® filtration vessels under four separate occasions. pH values of backwash wastewater ranged from 

7.7 to 7.8 and averaged 7.7, which was approximately 0.2 pH units higher than that of the treated water. 

TDS concentrations ranged from 288 to 420 mg/L and averaged 320 mg/L. TSS concentrations ranged 

from 252 to 1,040 mg/L and averaged 677 mg/L. Concentrations of total arsenic, iron, and manganese 

ranged from 92 to 1,081 μg/L (averaged 521 μg/L), 20,528 to 145,337 μg/L (averaged 92,030 μg/L), and 

136 to 563 μg/L (averaged 373 μg/L), respectively.

As expected, total arsenic, iron, and manganese were present mostly as particulate in backwash 

wastewater. Assuming that 1,137 gal of backwash wastewater would be generated (on average) from 

each vessel during each backwash event (see Table 4-8) and that 677 mg/L of TSS would be produced, 

approximately 2,914 g of solids were generated from each filtration vessel during each backwash event 

and were discharged to the sewer. Based on the average particulate metal data in Table 4-11, 

approximately 2.2 g of arsenic (i.e. 0.08% by weight), 396 g of iron (i.e. 13.6 % by weight), and 1.6 g of 

manganese (i.e. 0.05 % by weight) were generated from each vessel during each backwash event. 

Solids loadings to the sewer also were monitored through collection of backwash solids (Section 3.3.3). 

Table 4-12 presents analytical results of the solid samples collected on July 6, 2009. Arsenic, iron, and 

manganese levels in the solids averaged 1,120 μg/g (or 0.1% by weight), 176,582 μg/g (or 17.7% by 

weight), and 429 μg/g (or 0.04 % by weight), respectively. These amounts were comparable to those 

derived from the backwash wastewater metal analysis (i.e. 0.08%, 13.6%, and 0.05%, respectively). 
41

Table 4-11. Filtration Vessel Backwash Sampling Results

Sampling 

Event

pHTDSTSSSilica (as SiO2)(a)

As (total)As (soluble)As (Particulate)Fe (total)Fe (soluble)Mn (Total)Mn (soluble)

Date S.U. mg/L mg/L mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L

Filtration Vessel A

12/03/08 7.7 320 755 NA 526 4.0 522 97,012 53 437 44.6

04/08/09 7.7 320 660 67.3 531 4.2 527 117,322 144 443 64.6

07/06/09 7.7 326 552 92.2 421 3.8 417 68,262 105 242 53.7

10/13/09 7.8 294 984 79.9 1,081 1.9 1,079 145,337 78 479 46.7

Filtration Vessel B

12/03/08 7.7 314 930 NA 536 3.6 533 111,983 35 563 47.1

04/08/09 7.7 318 675 85.9 435 3.5 432 101,975 100 412 62.0

07/06/09 7.7 320 638 81.2 409 2.8 406 84,209 <25 288 53.8

10/13/09 7.8 304 700 94.7 825 1.9 823 113,067 72 392 48.7

Filtration Vessel C

12/03/08 7.8 320 970 NA 628 3.7 625 113,839 37 524 48.2

04/08/09 7.7 322 395 71.6 242 3.7 238 54,886 114 239 58.2

07/06/09 7.7 314 344 70.2 302 3.3 299 49,439 54 190 52.3

10/13/09 7.8 300 575 156 828 2.6 825 110,581 134 389 47.6

Filtration Vessel D

12/03/08 7.7 320 1,040 NA 428 3.8 424 91,379 48 466 43.5

04/08/09 7.7 420 535 79.7 272 4.0 268 79,411 167 349 54.9

07/06/09 7.8 324 252 56.5 92.1 2.8 89.3 20,528 <25 136 49.9

10/13/09 7.7 288 820 125 777 1.5 775 113,245 <25 417 49.8

(a) Silica added after 12/03/08 sampling event. 

NA = not analyzed; TDS = total dissolved solids; TSS = total suspended solids

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 kitchen sink 

tap on April 1, 2008, June 10, 2008, July 1, 2008, and August 7, 2008. Prior to system installation, two 

additional distribution locations were added – north water fountain and south water fountain. One 

baseline sample was collected from each water fountain on August 14, 2008. Following the installation 

of the treatment system, distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis from October 2008 

through September 2009. Table 4-13 presents the results of the distribution system sampling. 

The most noticeable change in the distribution water samples since system startup was a decrease in 

arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged from 4.7 to 37.6 

μg/L and averaged 17.0 μg/L. After system startup, arsenic concentrations ranged from 2.1 to 10.9 μg/L 

and averaged 5.2 μg/L. Out of the 10 distribution samplings only one location (i.e, DS1 – kitchen sink) 

had an arsenic concentration above the 10 μg/L MCL (i.e., 10.9 μg/L), which occurred on July 6, 2009. 

The baseline iron concentrations ranged from less than the MDL of 25 μg/L to 2,013 μg/L, and averaged 

986. After system startup, iron concentrations ranged from less than the MDL of 25 μg/L to 375 and 

averaged 84 μg/L. Reduction in manganese levels was less significant than arsenic or iron with baseline 

concentrations averaging 61.7 μg/L and after-startup concentrations averaging 50.5 μg/L, which is just 

above the SMCL of 50 μg/L. 
42

Table 4-12. Backwash Solids Sampling Results

Sample Unit Mg Al Si P Ca Fe Mn Ni Cu Zn As Cd Ba Pb

Vessel A-Solids-A μg/g 2,396 11,864 32,153 648 18,845 187,512 467 25.0 61.7 760 1,223 <15 757 20.2

Vessel A-Solids-B μg/g 2,518 13,639 39,008 668 19,143 194,741 468 26.2 65.1 795 1,246 <15 769 20.7

Average μg/g 2,457 12,751 35,580 658 18,994 191,127 468 25.6 63.4 777 1,234 <15 763 20.4

Vessel B-Solids-A μg/g 2,097 12,104 19,120 577 17,466 193,821 434 25.3 59.1 756 1,269 <15 807 19.2

Vessel B-Solids-B μg/g 1,994 12,071 18,829 560 16,772 183,901 418 25.2 54.0 713 1,242 <15 779 19.5

Average μg/g 2,045 12,087 18,975 569 17,119 188,861 426 25.3 56.5 734 1,256 <15 793 19.3

Vessel C-Solids-A μg/g 2,943 11,577 20,576 527 16,363 187,162 391 26.9 52.7 736 1,305 <15 768 18.6

Vessel C-Solids-B μg/g 2,365 11,223 18,632 549 17,075 186,555 404 26.4 54.4 781 1,252 <15 754 18.8

Average μg/g 2,654 11,400 19,604 538 16,719 186,858 398 26.7 53.5 759 1,278 <15 761 18.7

Vessel D-Solids-A μg/g 3,647 13,435 9,012 394 15,241 136,932 416 28.9 57.4 618 719 <15 709 21.8

Vessel D-Solids-B μg/g 3,549 14,019 13,045 411 15,978 142,033 437 27.8 56.0 708 706 <15 712 21.6

Average μg/g 3,598 13,727 11,029 403 15,610 139,482 426 28.4 56.7 663 713 <15 710 21.7

Overall Average μg/g 2,689 12,492 21,297 542 17,110 176,582 429 26 58 733 1,120 <15 757 20

Collected on 07/06/09.
43

Table 4-13. Distribution System Sampling Results

BL = Baseline Sampling; NA = not available; NS = not sampled

Lead action level = 15 μg/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L

The unit for analytical parameters is μg/L except for alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3).

(a) Additional sampling locations added on 07/17/08.

(b) DS1 sample collected on 08/07/08; DS2 and DS3 collected on 08/14/08.

Address

Sample Type

Flushed / 1st Draw

Sampling Date

Stagnation Time pHAlkalinityAsFeMnPbCuStagnation Time pHAlkalinityAsFeMnPbCuStagnation Time pHAlkalinityAsFeMnPbCu

No. Date hrs S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L hrs S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L hrs S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L

BL1 04/01/08 89.5 7.5 318 4.7 <25 59.1 2.0 66.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

BL2 06/10/08 18.0 7.6 328 6.8 49 60.1 0.8 44.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

BL3 07/01/08 26.0 7.7 317 37.6 2,013 67.9 0.7 61.4 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

BL4 08/07/08 & 08/14/08(b) 3.0 7.8 326 6.5 61 63.5 0.2 87.8 NA 7.8 323 22.4 1,390 59.9 0.4 6.5 NA 7.8 320 24.0 1,439 60.1 0.4 6.7

1 10/22/08 NA 7.8 326 8.6 183 31.4 5.9 520 NA 7.8 326 5.3 100 27.0 0.3 261 NA 7.8 324 6.1 93 28.2 1.1 527

2 11/20/08 NA 7.7 309 5.1 96 29.9 0.6 130 NA 7.7 307 5.6 93 30.1 0.2 210 NA 7.7 309 5.5 122 30.8 <0.1 67.1

3 12/17/08 16.8 7.8 319 4.1 <25 35.8 3.9 532 16.8 7.9 323 4.4 33 36.4 2.8 667 16.8 7.8 321 4.5 <25 34.4 1.3 399

4 01/22/09 24.5 7.6 319 3.7 45 41.7 0.4 29.1 24.5 7.7 317 9.9 298 38.0 1.5 387 18.5 7.7 319 4.3 59 43.7 <0.1 72.0

5 02/23/09 2.5 7.8 347 3.3 <25 50.8 0.1 73.0 2.5 7.7 342 4.7 <25 45.8 0.1 145 2.5 7.7 349 4.0 <25 56.3 <0.1 79.1

6 03/17/09 0.0 7.9 337 3.4 <25 46.3 0.7 130 0.0 7.7 346 4.1 <25 43.2 0.9 183 0.0 7.6 348 3.2 <25 49.7 0.4 106

7 04/14/09 0.0 7.7 327 5.3 <25 43.1 2.0 151 0.0 7.8 327 5.4 <25 37.6 0.8 134 0.0 8.0 325 4.8 <25 41.5 0.5 115

8 05/12/09 9.0 8.1 341 4.1 89 56.1 0.9 36.7 10.0 7.8 344 5.1 111 49.8 0.6 128 9.0 7.7 346 4.7 102 55.4 0.2 71.2

9 06/09/09 5.0 7.7 331 4.4 <25 61.7 0.2 269 5.0 7.6 337 4.9 <25 62.1 <0.1 206 5.0 7.6 335 4.9 66 4.9 <0.1 231

10 07/06/09 18.0 7.6 352 10.9 375 197 2.3 282 17.5 7.7 355 5.3 <25 148 0.6 291 17.5 7.6 352 9.7 296 123 2.6 297

11 08/31/09 0.5 7.6 327 2.1 <25 61.3 0.6 33.8 2.0 7.6 325 2.4 <25 39.9 0.3 122 2.0 7.6 330 2.5 26 52.1 0.1 83.0

12 09/29/09 8.0 7.6 326 8.2 338 50.5 1.0 27.5 8.0 7.7 324 6.7 160 22.2 1.3 314 8.0 7.6 330 6.6 132 13.9 0.5 143

LCR LCR LCR

No. of 1st Draw 1st Draw 1st Draw

Sampling 

Events

DS1 DS2(a) DS3(a)

Kitchen Sink North Water Fountain South Water Fountain
44 

Lead concentrations within the distribution system increased slightly from baseline levels while a 

significant increase in the copper concentration was observed. Baseline lead concentrations ranged from 

0.2 to 2.0 μg/L and averaged 0.8 μg/L; baseline copper concentrations ranged from 6.5 to 87.8 μg/L and 

averaged 45.5 μg/L. After system startup, lead levels increased slightly to 1.1 μg/L (on average) with no 

samples exceeding the action level of 15 μg/L. Copper concentrations increased significantly to an 

average of 207 μg/L with no samples exceeding the 1,300 μg/L action level. 

Measured pH values ranged from 7.6 to 8.1 and averaged 7.7. Alkalinity levels ranged from 307 to 

355 mg/L (as CaCO3) and averaged 331 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, 

electricity consumption, and labor. 

4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation for the 

60-gpm treatment system was $128,118 (Table 4-14). The equipment cost was $103,118 (or 80% of the 

total capital investment), which included $19,200 for four media vessels, $19,250 for 100 ft3

 of G2®

media ($192.50/ft3 or $4.10/lb), $20,314 for process valves and piping, $22,950 for instrumentation and 

controls, $2,250 for additional sample taps, $2,780 for the totalizer on the backwash discharge line and 

$3,400 for shipping. Three O&M manuals and one-year O&M support were $256 and $6,000, 

respectively. A change order for $2,118 was issued to the vendor on October 28, 2008 for the purchase of 

two additional Logix 764 controllers, a mounting panel, and an hour meter. 

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 $7,500, 

or 6% of the total capital investment. Site engineering was performed by Ladd Engineering, a 

subcontractor for US Water Systems.

The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the system, perform piping 

tie-ins and electrical work, load and backwash the media, perform system shakedown and startup, and 

conduct operator training. The installation was performed by US Water Systems and cost $17,500, or 

14% of the total capital investment.

The capital cost of $128,118 was normalized to the system’s rated capacity of 60 gpm (or 86,400 gpd), 

which results in $2,135/gpm (or $1.48 gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted to an 

annualized cost of $12,093/year using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest 

rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at the design 

flowrate of 60 gpm to produce 86,400 gal/day, the unit capital cost would be $0.38/1,000 gal. During the 

13-month demonstration period, the system produced approximately 941,500 gal of water (see Table 4-6) 

or 844,600 gal from October 30, 2008 through October 29, 2009; at this reduced rate of usage, the unit 

capital cost increased to $14.32/1,000 gal. 

4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included cost for electricity and labor 

for a combined unit cost of $2.26/1,000 gal as summarized in Table 4-15. Chlorination using NaOCl 

existed prior to the installation of the treatment system for disinfection purposes. Because the presence of 

the system did not affect the use rate of the NaOCl solution, the incremental chemical cost for 
45 

Table 4-14. Capital Investment Cost for US Water Systems’ Treatment System

Description Quantity Cost

% of 

Capital 

Investment

Equipment Cost

Media Vessel (36-in ×72-in) 4 $19,200 -

G2® Media (ft3) 100 $19,250 -

Process Valves and Piping - $20,314 -

Instrumentation and Controls - $22,950 -

Additional Sample Taps - $2,250 -

Totalizer on Backwash Line - $2,780 -

O&M Manuals - $256 -

One-Year O&M Support - $6,000 -

Labor - $4,600 -

Shipping - $3,400 -

subtotal - $101,000 -

Controller Panel (Change Order) - $1,858 -

Hour Meter (Change Order) - $260 -

subtotal - $2,118 -

Equipment Total - $103,118 80%

Engineering Cost

Subcontractor Material -

$7,500

-

Subcontractor Labor - -

Subcontractor Travel - -

Engineering Total - $7,500 6%

Installation Cost

Vendor Material - $9,500 -

Vendor Labor - $8,000 -

Installation Total - $17,500 14%

Total Capital Investment - $128,118 100%

chlorination was negligible. Electrical power consumption was calculated based on the difference 

between the average monthly cost from electric bills before and after system startup. The difference in 

cost was negligible. The routine, non-demonstration related labor activities consumed approximately 20 

min/day (Section 4.4.5). Based on this time commitment and a labor rate of $22/hr, the labor cost was 

$2.26/1,000 gal of water treated. 

 

Table 4-15. Operation and Maintenance Cost for AdEdge Treatment System 

Cost Category Value Remarks

Volume Processed (gal) 844,600 From 10/30/08 through 10/29/09

Electricity Cost

Electricity Cost ($/month) Negligible –

Electricity Cost ($/1,000 gal) Negligible –

Labor Cost

Labor (hr/wk) 1.67 20 min/day; 5 days/wk

Labor Cost ($/1,000 gal) $2.26 Labor rate = $22/hr

Total O&M Cost ($/1,000 gal) $2.26 Electricity Cost ($) + Labor Cost ($)
46

5.0 REFERENCES

AdEdge. 2005. Operation and Maintenance Manual for Groundwater Treatment System: APU and 

AD26 Package Units for Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Reduction. 

Battelle. 2007. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology (QAPP 

ID 355-Q-6-0). Prepared under Contract No.EP-C-05-057. Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, 

OH. 

Battelle. 2008. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic 

Removal Technology Round 2a at Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City, IN. 

Prepared under Contract No. EP-C-05-057, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal 

Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. 

EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998. 

“Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation.” J AWWA, 90(3): 103-113. 

EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance 

and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142. 

EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems. 

EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 

EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. 

Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141. 

Wang, L., W.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.
APPENDIX A

OPERATIONAL DATA
Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Fountain City, IN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet

A-1

NaOCl Addn.

Daily Op 

Hours

Incremental 

Volume

Calculated 

Flowrate

Wellhead 

Pressure

Instant. 

Flowrate 

A

Incremental 

Volume A

Calculated 

Flowrate A

Pressure 

Before 

Vessel A

Pressure 

After 

Vessel A

Instant. 

Flowrate 

B

Incremental 

Volume B

Calculated 

Flowrate B

Pressure 

Before 

Vessel B

Pressure 

After 

Vessel B

Instant. 

Flowrate 

C

Incremental 

Volume C

Calculated 

Flowrate C

Pressure 

Before 

Vessel C

Pressure 

After Vessel 

C

Instant. 

Flowrate 

D

Incremental 

Volume D

Calculated 

Flowrate D

Pressure 

Before 

Vessel D

Pressure 

After 

Vessel D 

Instant. 

System 

Flowrate 

(A+B+C+D)

System 

Calculated 

Flowrate 

(A+B+C+D)

Inlet 

Pressure

Outlet 

Pressure

Solution Tank 

Level

hr/day gal gpm psi gpm gal gpm psi psi gpm gal gpm psi psi gpm gal gpm psi psi gpm gal gpm psi psi gpm gpm psi psi in

09/22/08 16:22 - - 48 0 - - 44 44 0 - - 45 44 0 - - 42 45 0 - - 42 44 0 - 48 48 26 gal

09/23/08 10:10 2.4 4,700 44.3 46 16 NA NA 44 42 17 NA NA 44 42 17 NA NA 44 42 17 NA NA 44 42 34 NA 46 42 26 gal

09/24/08 10:25 1.3 3,000 38.0 48 17 NA NA 45 43 16 NA NA 45 43 18 NA NA 45 41 18 NA NA 45 41 35 NA 48 41 25.5 gal

09/25/08 10:10 1.4 4,400 54.3 55 18 3,500 13.2 40 40 17 0 0.0 40 40 18 2,100 25.9 40 40 18 1,800 22.2 40 40 36 61 55 40 25.5 gal

09/26/08 10:30 1.3 3,700 46.3 50 18 1,600 20.0 48 48 17 0 0.0 50 48 20 900 11.3 50 50 17 700 8.8 48 45 36 40 50 48 25 gal

10/01/08 NA NA 10,600 44.7 55 16 4,400 18.6 50 50 16 0 0.0 50 50 18 2,200 9.3 50 50 16 2,200 9.3 50 50 33 37 55 45 25 gal

10/02/08 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/09/08 8:30 NA 36,900 67.6 54 13 NA NA 40 38 13 NA NA 43 40 24 NA NA 42 42 24 NA NA 42 43 37 NA 54 42 24 gal

10/09/08 16:00 1.0 3,224 44.8 50 12 7,300 11.8 56 54 13 100 0.2 NA 56 22 7,400 12.0 NA 57 24 7,600 12.3 NA 58 36 36 56 58 NA

10/10/08 15:48 2.2 NA NA NA NA 1,400 10.6 NA NA NA 0 0.0 NA NA NA 1,400 10.6 NA NA NA 1,400 10.6 NA NA NA 32 NA NA 18.1875

10/13/08 9:00 0.8 NA NA 52 0 2,400 66.7 46 42 0 0 0.0 42 42 0 2,100 58.3 42 44 0 1,000 27.8 45 42 0 153 52 46 24 gal

10/14/08 9:30 2.4 14,476 46.4 50 13 500 3.5 42 38 13 0 0.0 42 38 24 300 2.1 38 42 24 1,800 12.5 38 42 37 18 50 44 23.75 gal

10/15/08 10:00 2.0 5,200 43.3 48 13 1,600 13.3 40 35 13 0 0.0 40 36 24 1,600 13.3 42 37 24 1,400 11.7 40 37 37 38 48 40 18.25

10/16/08 10:10 1.7 4,500 44.1 52 12 1,300 12.7 42 38 12 0 0.0 44 40 23 1,300 12.7 38 42 23 1,200 11.8 42 39 35 37 52 38 18

10/17/08 12:15 2.1 6,500 47.1 52 7 1,800 13.0 43 38 2 0 0.0 42 38 25 1,900 13.8 48 40 24 1,600 11.6 44 40 29 38 52 42 17.875

10/20/08 12:30 3.9 10,598 45.3 52 10 2,900 12.4 36 30 10 0 0.0 38 32 25 3,000 12.8 40 33 25 2,800 12.0 40 35 35 37 52 36 17.625

10/21/08 12:45 1.9 4,997 43.8 48 13 1,400 12.3 42 38 12 0 0.0 42 36 24 1,500 13.2 40 35 24 1,300 11.4 43 38 37 37 48 46 17.5

10/22/08 14:30 1.4 4,248 47.2 48 12 1,300 14.4 42 36 12 0 0.0 44 38 23 1,300 14.4 46 38 23 1,100 12.2 46 42 35 41 48 44 17.375

10/23/08 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/24/08 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/27/08 12:30 0.6 4,534 44.4 52 13 1,300 12.7 42 38 13 0 0.0 42 36 24 1,300 12.7 42 36 25 1,100 10.8 42 38 38 36 52 38 17.25

10/28/08 9:30 0.9 2,286 47.6 54 12 600 12.5 38 30 12 0 0.0 38 30 23 700 14.6 38 30 23 500 10.4 38 32 35 38 54 39 17.25

10/29/08 14:15 1.8 5,602 44.5 48 12 1,700 13.5 40 36 12 0 0.0 40 34 25 1,600 12.7 40 32 25 1,600 12.7 40 36 37 39 48 42 17.125

10/30/08 12:30 1.1 2,725 45.4 50 12 700 11.7 46 38 12 0 0.0 46 38 26 800 13.3 46 36 26 700 11.7 46 36 38 37 50 44 17.125

10/31/08 14:00 1.2 3,473 44.5 48 12 900 11.5 44 34 12 0 0.0 44 38 24 1,000 12.8 42 38 24 900 11.5 44 35 36 36 48 44 17

11/03/08 14:30 1.6 4,136 43.1 46 12 1,200 12.5 46 38 12 1,200 12.5 46 38 10 1,000 10.4 46 40 10 1,000 10.4 46 38 44 46 46 42 16.75

11/04/08 14:45 1.2 3,221 44.7 40 9 1,000 13.9 44 36 5 1,000 13.9 44 36 12 1,000 13.9 44 38 12 900 12.5 44 38 38 54 40 42 16.75

11/05/08 13:55 1.1 2,994 45.4 58 12 800 12.1 44 34 13 900 13.6 44 36 10 600 9.1 44 36 10 700 10.6 42 38 45 45 58 44 16.625

11/06/08 13:30 1.6 4,925 51.3 42 12 900 9.4 42 41 12 900 9.4 42 40 12 1,500 15.6 42 40 12 1,400 14.6 42 40 48 49 42 42 16.5

11/07/08 14:00 1.2 2,744 38.1 38 12 1,300 18.1 36 28 12 1,300 18.1 36 28 12 600 8.3 36 28 11 700 9.7 36 28 47 54 38 30 16.25

11/10/08 9:15 0.9 1,701 40.5 34 13 500 11.9 38 30 12 400 9.5 38 32 13 500 11.9 38 30 12 400 9.5 40 34 50 43 34 30 16.375

11/11/08 10:30 1.6 4,868 47.7 46 12 1,300 12.7 44 38 12 700 6.9 46 38 12 1,800 17.6 46 40 12 1,200 11.8 46 40 48 49 46 42 16.25

11/12/08 12:30 1.6 4,182 41.0 52 12 1,200 11.8 36 38 12 1,200 11.8 36 30 13 1,300 12.7 38 30 13 1,200 11.8 38 32 50 48 52 36 16.125

11/13/08 13:30 1.4 4,030 44.8 40 12 1,200 13.3 44 36 12 1,200 13.3 44 38 12 1,200 13.3 44 38 11 1,100 12.2 44 40 47 52 40 38 16

11/14/08 14:00 1.4 3,767 44.8 50 11 1,100 13.1 36 30 12 1,000 11.9 38 30 13 1,100 13.1 38 32 11 900 10.7 38 28 47 49 50 30 16

11/17/08 14:30 1.6 4,184 43.6 42 12 1,200 12.5 40 34 12 1,200 12.5 42 34 12 1,300 13.5 42 36 12 1,100 11.5 42 38 48 50 42 38 15.875

11/18/08 10:30 0.7 1,753 48.7 50 12 500 13.9 40 30 13 400 11.1 38 30 12 500 13.9 38 30 13 400 11.1 40 32 50 50 50 40 15.875

11/19/08 13:30 1.5 4,609 45.2 30 13 1,300 12.7 40 30 12 1,300 12.7 38 30 12 1,300 12.7 38 30 11 1,200 11.8 40 32 48 50 30 30 15.75

11/20/08 13:00 1.1 3,224 48.8 30 12 900 13.6 34 30 12 800 12.1 34 30 13 900 13.6 34 30 13 800 12.1 34 30 50 52 30 30 15.75

11/21/08 14:00 1.2 3,068 42.6 50 12 1,000 13.9 38 40 12 1,300 18.1 36 42 12 1,300 18.1 36 40 13 700 9.7 36 40 49 60 50 40 15.75

11/24/08 10:30 1.6 3,745 44.6 58 12 900 10.7 40 30 11 600 7.1 40 30 13 800 9.5 40 30 13 1,200 14.3 42 30 49 42 58 40 15.625

11/25/08 9:30 1.3 3,079 42.8 48 12 900 12.5 44 42 13 800 11.1 44 42 12 900 12.5 44 42 13 900 12.5 44 42 50 49 48 44 15.5

11/26/08 10:30 1.3 3,415 40.7 52 12 1,100 13.1 42 44 11 900 10.7 42 44 13 1,100 13.1 44 38 12 1,000 11.9 44 38 48 49 52 40 15.5

11/27/08 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/28/08 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

12/01/08 14:30 2.4 6,681 46.4 50 12 1,700 11.8 50 40 11 1,800 12.5 50 44 12 1,800 12.5 50 44 13 1,700 11.8 50 44 48 49 50 42 15.375

12/02/08 14:00 1.2 3,225 44.8 52 12 900 12.5 40 32 12 900 12.5 40 32 12 1,000 13.9 40 32 13 1,000 13.9 40 32 49 53 52 40 15.375

12/03/08 9:00 2.3 1,961 18.2 46 12 500 4.6 40 31 12 600 5.6 40 32 12 500 4.6 42 32 13 500 4.6 42 32 49 19 46 40 15.25

12/04/08 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

12/05/08 11:30 2.0 14,211 56.4 48 6 3,200 12.7 32 30 5 2,400 9.5 32 30 8 2,900 11.5 30 32 9 2,600 10.3 32 30 28 44 48 30 15

12/08/08 15:30 1.7 5,599 46.7 34 10 1,600 13.3 32 30 10 1,200 10.0 32 30 11 1,700 14.2 32 30 12 1,700 14.2 32 30 43 52 34 30 14.5

12/09/08 12:30 1.1 2,561 42.7 52 10 700 11.7 34 30 11 500 8.3 34 30 10 600 10.0 34 30 12 700 11.7 34 30 43 42 52 37 14.375

12/10/08 13:00 1.5 4,019 44.7 48 10 1,200 13.3 42 42 11 1,100 12.2 42 40 9 1,100 12.2 42 40 11 1,200 13.3 41 41 41 51 48 45 14.375

12/11/08 13:30 1.1 3,008 45.6 44 11 900 13.6 40 36 12 800 12.1 40 36 10 700 10.6 40 36 12 900 13.6 40 36 45 50 44 40 14.25

12/12/08 13:00 1.1 2,912 44.1 40 11 800 12.1 42 38 11 900 13.6 42 38 11 900 13.6 42 38 12 900 13.6 42 38 45 53 40 38 14.25

12/15/08 10:30 1.3 3,227 44.8 50 12 1,100 15.3 42 38 12 1,700 23.6 42 38 10 800 11.1 44 36 12 700 9.7 42 40 46 60 50 45 14.125

12/16/08 14:45 1.6 3,847 33.7 40 11 1,500 13.2 38 30 12 600 5.3 38 30 10 1,200 10.5 38 30 11 1,400 12.3 38 30 44 41 40 35 14.125

12/17/08 14:00 1.5 5,282 58.7 48 11 1,200 13.3 46 42 12 1,300 14.4 46 42 11 1,000 11.1 46 42 11 1,300 14.4 46 42 45 53 48 40 14.125

01/06/09 10:30 0.9 34,620 44.0 44 10 9,000 11.5 44 40 12 9,800 12.5 44 40 11 8,800 11.2 44 40 13 11,100 14.1 44 40 46 49 44 40 13.5

01/07/09 10:00 0.7 2,034 48.4 62 10 200 4.8 50 44 12 300 7.1 50 44 10 200 4.8 50 44 13 400 9.5 50 44 45 26 62 45 13.375

01/08/09 13:00 1.2 3,521 41.9 40 11 1,200 14.3 38 32 12 1,300 15.5 38 32 12 1,200 14.3 38 32 14 1,500 17.9 38 32 49 62 40 35 13.25

01/09/09 11:00 0.9 2,273 47.4 42 11 500 10.4 42 38 13 600 12.5 42 38 11 600 12.5 42 38 14 700 14.6 42 38 49 50 42 40 13.25

01/12/09 14:30 1.3 3,751 41.7 56 11 900 10.0 42 36 11 1,100 12.2 42 36 13 1,000 11.1 42 36 13 1,200 13.3 42 36 48 47 56 40 13.125

01/13/09 10:00 0.7 1,654 45.9 40 10 400 11.1 42 36 13 500 13.9 42 38 11 400 11.1 44 38 13 500 13.9 42 38 47 50 40 35 13

01/14/09 11:30 1.4 3,958 44.0 42 10 1,100 12.2 42 36 13 1,200 13.3 46 40 10 1,000 11.1 44 38 13 1,300 14.4 42 38 46 51 42 35 13

01/15/09 12:00 1.3 3,509 45.0 54 10 800 10.3 54 48 12 1,000 12.8 54 48 10 800 10.3 54 48 13 1,100 14.1 54 48 45 47 54 45 12.875

01/20/09 9:40 0.3 2,483 46.0 70 11 300 5.6 44 38 10 300 5.6 44 40 12 2,200 40.7 44 37 15 800 14.8 44 38 48 67 70 42 13

01/21/09 8:30 1.3 2,954 41.0 66 11 1,100 15.3 42 36 12 1,300 18.1 44 38 10 200 2.8 46 36 13 1,000 13.9 42 38 46 50 66 35 12.875

01/22/09 13:00 1.5 4,815 44.6 74 11 1,200 11.1 52 46 12 1,400 13.0 52 46 11 200 1.9 52 46 13 1,500 13.9 52 46 47 40 74 45 12.875

01/23/09 9:30 1.1 2,195 40.6 74 11 600 11.1 44 38 13 700 13.0 46 40 11 600 11.1 44 38 13 700 13.0 44 38 48 48 74 42 12.75

01/26/09 13:00 1.7 5,290 46.4 70 11 1,300 11.4 40 34 13 1,500 13.2 40 34 12 1,300 11.4 40 34 13 1,600 14.0 40 34 49 50 70 40 12.5

01/27/09 10:00 0.8 1,765 42.0 72 12 400 9.5 42 36 14 500 11.9 44 38 10 400 9.5 46 38 14 500 11.9 42 38 50 43 72 40 12.5

01/29/09 13:30 0.7 4,351 45.3 76 10 1,200 12.5 48 40 13 1,400 14.6 50 42 10 1,000 10.4 48 40 13 1,400 14.6 45 40 46 52 76 45 12.375

02/02/09 14:30 6.7 36,131 44.3 68 10 9,600 11.8 44 38 15 10,900 13.4 46 40 12 9,800 12.0 44 38 10 9,700 11.9 46 40 47 49 68 40 11.75

02/03/09 13:30 1.1 2,859 43.3 74 10 700 10.6 42 36 13 1,000 15.2 42 36 12 800 12.1 44 38 12 800 12.1 45 40 47 50 74 45 11.75

02/04/09 10:45 0.8 1,994 47.5 70 12 500 11.9 42 36 12 500 11.9 46 40 12 500 11.9 46 38 14 500 11.9 44 38 50 48 70 35 11.5

02/05/09 13:00 1.6 4,350 42.6 68 10 1,000 9.8 40 34 13 1,400 13.7 40 34 12 1,200 11.8 42 36 13 1,400 13.7 42 36 48 49 68 35 11.5

02/06/09 14:30 1.7 4,696 43.5 76 10 1,200 11.1 48 42 11 1,300 12.0 48 42 12 1,300 12.0 50 42 13 1,400 13.0 50 44 46 48 76 40 11.5

20

17

18

19

System

1

2

Week No. Date

12

Time

Vessel D

3

4

5

7

Supply Well Vessel A

8

Vessel B

6

13

16

Vessel C

9

10

11
Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Fountain City, IN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

A-2

NaOCl Addn.

Daily Op 

Hours

Incremental 

Volume

Calculated 

Flowrate

Wellhead 

Pressure

Instant. 

Flowrate 

A

Incremental 

Volume A

Calculated 

Flowrate A

Pressure 

Before 

Vessel A

Pressure 

After 

Vessel A

Instant. 

Flowrate 

B

Incremental 

Volume B

Calculated 

Flowrate B

Pressure 

Before 

Vessel B

Pressure 

After 

Vessel B

Instant. 

Flowrate 

C

Incremental 

Volume C

Calculated 

Flowrate C

Pressure 

Before 

Vessel C

Pressure 

After Vessel 

C

Instant. 

Flowrate 

D

Incremental 

Volume D

Calculated 

Flowrate D

Pressure 

Before 

Vessel D

Pressure 

After 

Vessel D 

Instant. 

System 

Flowrate 

(A+B+C+D)

System 

Calculated 

Flowrate 

(A+B+C+D)

Inlet 

Pressure

Outlet 

Pressure

Solution Tank 

Level

hr/day gal gpm psi gpm gal gpm psi psi gpm gal gpm psi psi gpm gal gpm psi psi gpm gal gpm psi psi gpm gpm psi psi in

02/09/09 12:30 1.3 3,415 47.4 66 10 800 11.1 42 34 11 900 12.5 48 40 12 1,000 13.9 46 38 13 1,000 13.9 42 38 46 51 66 35 11.375

02/10/09 13:00 1.5 3,787 42.1 64 10 900 10.0 40 32 12 1,000 11.1 40 32 12 1,100 12.2 44 36 13 1,200 13.3 42 38 47 47 64 30 11.375

02/11/09 12:30 1.3 3,637 46.6 70 11 900 11.5 48 40 11 900 11.5 48 40 11 1,000 12.8 48 40 12 1,100 14.1 48 40 45 50 70 40 11.25

02/12/09 13:00 1.4 5,455 64.9 68 10 900 10.7 44 36 12 1,100 13.1 46 38 12 1,100 13.1 46 38 12 1,100 13.1 44 38 46 50 68 35 11.25

02/13/09 15:00 1.2 1,654 21.2 72 11 800 10.3 44 38 12 900 11.5 44 40 13 1,000 12.8 44 38 12 1,000 12.8 44 38 48 47 72 40 11.125

02/17/09 9:30 0.3 1,333 44.4 72 10 400 13.3 44 36 12 400 13.3 44 36 13 400 13.3 46 38 12 400 13.3 42 36 47 53 72 35 10.875

02/18/09 9:30 1.6 4,155 43.3 74 10 1,000 10.4 48 40 10 1,100 11.5 50 40 12 1,300 13.5 50 38 12 1,200 12.5 48 40 44 48 74 45 10.75

02/19/09 15:00 1.9 6,220 45.1 72 10 1,600 11.6 46 38 10 1,500 10.9 48 40 12 1,800 13.0 50 38 12 1,800 13.0 48 40 44 49 72 45 10.75

02/20/09 11:30 0.9 2,088 43.5 68 10 500 10.4 46 40 12 700 14.6 46 40 12 700 14.6 48 40 12 500 10.4 48 40 46 50 68 40 10.625

02/23/09 14:45 1.8 5,390 42.8 70 9 1,300 10.3 46 40 14 100 0.8 48 40 12 1,500 11.9 50 40 11 1,600 12.7 50 44 46 36 70 40 10.5

02/24/09 10:30 0.7 1,414 39.3 76 11 400 11.1 56 50 12 500 13.9 52 44 12 400 11.1 56 50 12 400 11.1 56 50 47 47 76 45 10.375

02/25/09 12:30 3.0 8,877 46.2 70 13 800 4.2 40 38 10 400 2.1 40 38 12 700 3.6 40 38 13 1,000 5.2 40 38 48 15 70 45 10.25

02/26/09 13:30 1.2 3,247 41.6 68 13 1,000 12.8 38 34 11 800 10.3 40 38 13 1,000 12.8 42 36 13 1,000 12.8 38 36 50 49 68 35 10.25

02/27/09 12:30 1.0 2,856 47.6 70 12 900 15.0 42 42 11 700 11.7 44 42 12 800 13.3 44 42 12 700 11.7 44 42 47 52 70 40 10.25

03/02/09 15:15 1.7 4,836 42.4 76 11 1,400 12.3 50 46 13 1,200 10.5 50 46 12 1,400 12.3 50 46 11 1,500 13.2 50 46 47 48 76 45 10.125

03/03/09 13:15 1.0 2,753 51.0 74 12 800 14.8 48 46 10 800 14.8 48 46 11 700 13.0 48 46 12 800 14.8 48 46 45 57 74 45 10.125

03/04/09 13:00 1.2 3,024 42.0 68 12 800 11.1 38 34 12 800 11.1 40 36 12 900 12.5 40 38 13 900 12.5 40 38 49 47 68 35 10.125

03/05/09 12:30 1.2 3,182 44.2 70 11 900 12.5 46 42 11 800 11.1 48 42 12 800 11.1 48 44 12 1,000 13.9 48 46 46 49 70 40 10

03/06/09 13:00 1.2 3,059 42.5 70 12 900 12.5 44 40 12 900 12.5 44 40 12 900 12.5 44 40 12 1,100 15.3 44 40 48 53 70 40 10

03/09/09 9:30 1.1 2,436 45.1 66 12 600 11.1 40 36 12 600 11.1 42 38 12 600 11.1 42 38 13 500 9.3 40 36 49 43 66 35 10

03/10/09 15:30 1.6 5,518 46.0 70 13 1,500 12.5 40 36 12 1,500 12.5 40 38 12 1,600 13.3 42 38 13 1,600 13.3 42 40 50 52 70 35 9.875

03/11/09 14:30 1.3 3,130 43.5 78 12 900 12.5 40 38 12 900 12.5 42 38 11 900 12.5 44 38 12 1,000 13.9 44 40 47 51 78 35 9.875

03/12/09 10:30 0.7 1,653 45.9 64 12 400 11.1 36 32 12 400 11.1 36 32 11 400 11.1 38 36 13 400 11.1 38 34 48 44 64 30 9.75

03/16/09 10:00 1.2 6,025 43.7 68 13 1,800 13.0 36 32 12 1,600 11.6 38 34 12 1,600 11.6 40 36 13 1,900 13.8 36 32 50 50 68 40 9.625

03/17/09 10:00 1.2 3,139 43.6 70 13 900 12.5 42 38 11 800 11.1 42 32 12 900 12.5 44 40 12 900 12.5 42 40 48 49 70 35 9.625

03/18/09 16:00 1.4 4,401 43.1 72 12 1,300 12.7 50 46 11 1,200 11.8 50 46 12 1,200 11.8 50 46 12 1,300 12.7 50 46 47 49 72 45 9.5

03/20/09 12:30 1.2 6,409 46.4 70 12 1,800 13.0 46 40 10 1,500 10.9 46 40 12 1,700 12.3 46 40 13 1,900 13.8 46 40 47 50 70 40 9.5

03/23/09 12:00 1.3 3,336 42.8 72 11 1,000 12.8 46 40 12 900 11.5 46 40 12 900 11.5 46 40 13 1,000 12.8 46 40 48 49 72 45 9.25

03/24/09 9:00 0.7 1,642 45.6 70 12 500 13.9 42 38 11 400 11.1 44 38 12 500 13.9 44 40 13 500 13.9 42 40 48 53 70 40 9.25

03/25/09 11:00 1.5 4,301 44.8 74 12 1,100 11.5 48 42 12 1,100 11.5 48 42 12 1,200 12.5 48 42 12 1,300 13.5 48 42 48 49 74 45 9.125

03/26/09 14:00 1.2 3,671 43.7 74 12 1,100 13.1 52 48 11 1,000 11.9 52 48 11 1,000 11.9 52 48 12 1,000 11.9 52 48 46 49 74 45 9.125

03/27/09 10:00 0.6 1,299 43.3 66 13 300 10.0 38 34 12 300 10.0 42 38 12 300 10.0 42 34 13 400 13.3 44 40 50 43 66 35 9.125

03/30/09 14:00 0.3 1,089 60.5 66 13 300 16.7 38 32 12 300 16.7 38 32 11 300 16.7 40 36 12 300 16.7 40 36 48 67 66 30 9

03/31/09 10:00 0.1 35 5.8 70 11 100 16.7 48 42 12 0 0.0 50 44 12 100 16.7 50 44 12 100 16.7 48 42 47 50 70 40 9

04/01/09 15:00 0.2 579 48.3 74 12 100 8.3 44 38 11 200 16.7 48 42 11 100 8.3 48 48 12 100 8.3 46 40 46 42 74 45 9

04/02/09 7:30 0.0 0 0.0 40 12 0 0.0 40 36 11 0 0.0 42 38 11 0 0.0 44 38 12 0 0.0 42 38 46 0 68 40 9

04/03/09 8:00 0.1 223 37.2 70 12 100 16.7 46 40 12 100 16.7 50 44 12 100 16.7 48 40 12 100 16.7 52 48 48 67 70 45 9

04/06/09 10:00 0.5 1,367 45.6 75 12 400 13.3 48 40 12 300 10.0 48 42 11 400 13.3 50 44 12 400 13.3 50 46 47 50 75 40 9

04/07/09 9:30 1.1 2,953 44.7 80 11 900 13.6 46 40 12 800 12.1 48 42 13 800 12.1 50 44 12 800 12.1 52 48 48 50 80 40 8.875

04/08/09 9:00 1.3 3,292 42.2 80 12 1,000 12.8 48 42 12 900 11.5 50 44 11 800 10.3 50 42 12 1,000 12.8 52 46 47 47 80 45 8.875

04/10/09 7:00 2.0 10,687 45.7 68 12 1,800 7.7 40 36 12 1,600 6.8 40 36 10 1,700 7.3 40 38 15 2,000 8.5 40 38 49 30 68 35 8.75

04/13/09 15:00 1.0 3,506 45.0 70 11 1,000 12.8 44 40 10 900 11.5 44 40 10 800 10.3 44 40 15 1,200 15.4 44 40 46 50 70 40 8.5

04/16/09 7:00 0.9 6,108 44.3 70 12 1,600 11.6 46 42 11 1,500 10.9 46 42 11 1,600 11.6 48 44 12 2,200 15.9 48 44 46 50 70 40 8.25

04/17/09 15:30 1.8 6,578 45.7 70 11 1,700 11.8 44 42 11 1,700 11.8 46 42 12 1,700 11.8 48 44 12 2,300 16.0 48 44 46 51 70 40 8.25

04/20/09 10:00 0.8 1,659 46.1 70 11 400 11.1 44 40 11 400 11.1 46 42 11 400 11.1 46 42 15 500 13.9 44 40 48 47 70 40 8

04/21/09 12:00 1.6 4,337 42.5 66 11 1,100 10.8 46 42 12 1,400 13.7 48 44 12 1,200 11.8 46 40 15 1,400 13.7 48 44 50 50 66 40 8

04/22/09 15:00 1.4 4,326 45.1 66 11 1,200 12.5 40 36 11 900 9.4 42 38 12 1,200 12.5 42 38 15 1,600 16.7 41 38 49 51 66 38 7.875

04/23/09 13:30 1.4 3,296 42.3 70 11 800 10.3 46 42 11 800 10.3 46 42 12 800 10.3 46 42 14 1,000 12.8 46 42 48 44 70 40 7.75

04/24/09 7:30 0.5 1,209 50.4 66 11 400 16.7 40 36 12 400 16.7 40 36 12 400 16.7 40 36 13 400 16.7 40 36 48 67 66 35 7.75

04/27/09 14:30 2.5 8,658 45.1 68 11 2,200 11.5 40 34 12 2,200 11.5 40 38 11 2,300 12.0 40 38 14 2,900 15.1 40 38 48 50 68 34 7.5

04/28/09 10:30 0.7 1,663 46.2 68 11 400 11.1 40 38 11 400 11.1 42 38 12 500 13.9 42 38 13 500 13.9 40 38 47 50 68 36 7.5

04/29/09 11:00 1.6 4,239 44.2 70 12 1,200 12.5 44 40 10 1,100 11.5 44 40 12 1,100 11.5 44 40 14 1,400 14.6 44 40 48 50 70 40 7.25

04/30/09 12:00 1.4 3,806 42.3 72 11 1,000 11.1 50 48 11 1,000 11.1 50 48 11 1,100 12.2 50 48 13 1,200 13.3 50 48 46 48 72 45 7.25

05/01/09 14:30 3.9 11,271 43.7 74 12 3,300 12.8 50 48 12 3,200 12.4 50 48 11 3,000 11.6 52 48 12 3,400 13.2 52 48 47 50 74 45 7.125

05/04/09 13:00 1.5 3,640 43.3 74 11 900 10.7 48 42 12 1,000 11.9 48 42 12 1,000 11.9 48 44 13 1,100 13.1 48 44 48 48 74 38 6.875

05/05/09 13:00 1.2 3,103 43.1 68 11 900 12.5 42 38 12 900 12.5 42 38 11 900 12.5 42 38 13 1,000 13.9 42 38 47 51 68 35 6.75

05/06/09 14:00 1.4 4,145 46.1 72 11 1,000 11.1 46 42 11 1,100 12.2 46 42 11 1,100 12.2 46 42 12 1,300 14.4 46 42 45 50 72 40 6.75

05/07/09 10:30 0.8 1,826 43.5 64 11 500 11.9 38 34 12 400 9.5 38 34 11 500 11.9 38 34 12 500 11.9 38 34 46 45 64 30 6.625

05/08/09 16:00 1.3 4,144 43.2 62 12 1,100 11.5 38 32 11 1,100 11.5 38 32 12 1,200 12.5 38 32 13 1,400 14.6 38 32 48 50 62 30 6.5

05/11/09 15:00 1.5 3,747 44.6 72 11 1,100 13.1 46 40 12 1,000 11.9 46 40 11 1,000 11.9 48 42 12 1,200 14.3 48 42 46 51 72 40 6.375

05/12/09 15:30 1.4 3,658 43.6 70 11 1,000 11.9 42 38 12 1,000 11.9 42 38 11 1,000 11.9 42 38 13 1,200 14.3 42 38 47 50 70 38 6.375

05/13/09 15:30 1.3 3,214 41.2 64 12 900 11.5 38 34 12 900 11.5 38 34 12 900 11.5 38 34 13 1,000 12.8 38 34 49 47 64 30 6.25

05/14/09 15:00 1.4 3,780 45.0 68 12 1,000 11.9 44 38 10 900 10.7 44 38 12 1,000 11.9 44 38 13 1,200 14.3 44 38 47 49 68 37 6.25

05/15/09 15:00 1.2 3,336 46.3 72 12 900 12.5 48 42 11 900 12.5 48 42 11 800 11.1 48 42 13 1,100 15.3 48 42 47 51 72 45 6.125

05/18/09 15:00 1.6 3,971 41.4 70 12 1,100 11.5 46 40 11 1,000 10.4 46 40 10 1,100 11.5 46 40 13 1,300 13.5 46 40 46 47 70 40 6.125

05/19/09 11:30 0.8 1,855 44.2 70 11 500 11.9 42 38 11 500 11.9 42 38 11 500 11.9 42 38 14 600 14.3 42 38 47 50 70 35 6

05/20/09 15:00 1.7 5,093 44.7 68 12 1,300 11.4 40 36 11 1,400 12.3 42 38 10 1,300 11.4 42 38 14 1,700 14.9 42 38 47 50 68 35 6

05/21/09 14:30 1.4 3,180 37.9 66 11 1,000 11.9 40 34 12 900 10.7 40 34 11 900 10.7 40 34 15 1,200 14.3 40 34 49 48 66 30 5.875

05/22/09 14:30 1.2 3,636 50.5 76 11 900 12.5 50 44 10 900 12.5 50 44 10 900 12.5 50 44 14 1,200 16.7 50 44 45 54 76 40 5.875

05/26/09 14:00 0.7 3,612 43.0 68 11 900 10.7 42 36 11 1,000 11.9 42 36 11 900 10.7 42 36 15 1,200 14.3 42 36 48 48 68 35 5.75

05/27/09 15:00 1.4 4,095 45.5 66 11 1,100 12.2 40 34 11 1,000 11.1 40 34 11 1,100 12.2 40 34 15 1,400 15.6 40 34 48 51 66 35 5.75

05/28/09 12:30 1.0 2,299 42.6 76 11 600 11.1 52 46 12 600 11.1 52 46 11 600 11.1 52 46 14 800 14.8 52 46 48 48 76 45 5.5

05/29/09 14:30 1.5 4,052 42.2 72 10 1,100 11.5 48 42 10 1,100 11.5 48 42 11 1,100 11.5 48 42 14 1,500 15.6 48 42 45 50 72 40 5.5

06/01/09 16:00 1.5 4,110 42.8 66 11 1,000 10.4 40 34 11 1,000 10.4 40 34 11 1,100 11.5 42 36 14 1,400 14.6 42 36 47 47 66 33 5.25

06/03/09 10:00 1.1 5,324 44.4 78 10 1,400 11.7 52 46 10 1,400 11.7 52 46 10 1,400 11.7 52 46 16 1,800 15.0 52 46 46 50 78 45 5.25

38 06/09/09 16:00 0.3 3,013 45.7 70 11 800 12.1 46 40 11 800 12.1 46 40 11 800 12.1 46 40 13 1,000 15.2 46 40 46 52 70 40 5

06/16/09 5:30 0.2 1,931 40.2 74 10 500 10.4 48 42 11 600 12.5 48 42 11 500 10.4 48 42 14 700 14.6 48 42 46 48 74 40 5

06/17/09 12:00 0.2 673 56.1 66 11 100 8.3 40 34 11 100 8.3 40 34 11 100 8.3 40 34 15 200 16.7 40 34 48 42 66 35 5

06/18/09 11:00 0.2 213 17.8 64 11 100 8.3 38 32 12 100 8.3 38 32 11 100 8.3 38 32 15 100 8.3 38 32 49 33 64 30 5

06/23/09 6:30 0.1 1,174 48.9 76 11 300 12.5 50 44 11 300 12.5 50 44 12 300 12.5 50 44 14 400 16.7 50 44 48 54 76 45 5

06/24/09 12:30 0.2 536 44.6 74 10 200 16.7 46 40 10 200 16.7 46 40 10 200 16.7 46 40 14 200 16.7 46 40 44 67 74 40 4.875

06/25/09 16:00 0.3 1,177 49.0 64 12 200 8.3 40 32 11 200 8.3 40 32 12 300 12.5 40 32 15 400 16.7 40 32 50 46 64 30 4.875

35

36

37

39

40

21

22

34

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Week No.

Vessel C Vessel D System

Date Time

Supply Well Vessel A Vessel B
Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Fountain City, IN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

A-3

NaOCl Addn.

Daily Op 

Hours

Incremental 

Volume

Calculated 

Flowrate

Wellhead 

Pressure

Instant. 

Flowrate 

A

Incremental 

Volume A

Calculated 

Flowrate A

Pressure 

Before 

Vessel A

Pressure 

After 

Vessel A

Instant. 

Flowrate 

B

Incremental 

Volume B

Calculated 

Flowrate B

Pressure 

Before 

Vessel B

Pressure 

After 

Vessel B

Instant. 

Flowrate 

C

Incremental 

Volume C

Calculated 

Flowrate C

Pressure 

Before 

Vessel C

Pressure 

After Vessel 

C

Instant. 

Flowrate 

D

Incremental 

Volume D

Calculated 

Flowrate D

Pressure 

Before 

Vessel D

Pressure 

After 

Vessel D 

Instant. 

System 

Flowrate 

(A+B+C+D)

System 

Calculated 

Flowrate 

(A+B+C+D)

Inlet 

Pressure

Outlet 

Pressure

Solution Tank 

Level

hr/day gal gpm psi gpm gal gpm psi psi gpm gal gpm psi psi gpm gal gpm psi psi gpm gal gpm psi psi gpm gpm psi psi in

06/29/09 9:30 0.2 966 40.3 70 11 100 4.2 42 36 11 300 12.5 42 36 11 200 8.3 42 36 15 300 12.5 42 36 48 37 70 35 4.875

06/30/09 7:00 0.1 120 20.0 66 11 100 16.7 42 42 11 0 0.0 40 34 11 100 16.7 40 34 15 100 16.7 40 34 48 50 66 30 4.875

07/01/09 16:00 0.2 989 55.0 70 11 200 11.1 42 36 11 300 16.7 42 36 11 200 11.1 42 36 14 300 16.7 42 36 47 56 70 35 4.875

07/02/09 14:30 0.1 263 43.8 74 11 100 16.7 48 42 10 100 16.7 48 42 10 100 16.7 48 42 14 100 16.7 48 42 45 67 74 40 4.875

07/13/09 16:00 2.0 37,780 44.0 64 12 800 0.9 36 34 11 600 0.7 36 34 11 600 0.7 36 34 14 700 0.8 36 34 48 3 64 30 3.875

07/14/09 16:00 0.3 1,083 60.2 68 12 300 16.7 42 40 10 300 16.7 42 40 10 300 16.7 42 40 14 300 16.7 42 40 46 67 68 35 3.875

07/15/09 16:00 0.4 1,429 59.5 68 12 200 8.3 42 40 10 200 8.3 42 40 10 200 8.3 42 40 14 300 12.5 42 40 46 37 68 40 3.875

07/16/09 17:30 0.5 698 23.3 64 12 400 13.3 40 38 11 400 13.3 40 38 10 300 10.0 40 38 15 500 16.7 40 38 48 53 64 35 3.75

07/21/09 16:00 0.3 2,355 49.1 62 12 600 12.5 36 34 10 500 10.4 36 34 10 600 12.5 36 34 15 800 16.7 36 34 47 52 62 30 3.75

07/22/09 16:00 0.1 219 36.6 66 11 100 16.7 38 34 11 100 16.7 38 34 10 100 16.7 38 34 14 100 16.7 38 34 46 67 66 35 3.75

07/23/09 16:00 0.2 331 27.6 64 12 100 8.3 38 34 10 100 8.3 38 34 10 0 0.0 38 34 15 100 8.3 38 34 47 25 64 35 3.75

44 07/27/09 15:30 0.2 809 45.0 74 12 300 16.7 48 44 10 200 11.1 48 44 10 200 11.1 48 44 15 300 16.7 48 44 47 56 74 45 3.75

08/04/09 16:30 0.1 2,366 49.3 66 12 600 12.5 40 36 11 600 12.5 40 36 11 600 12.5 40 36 15 800 16.7 40 36 49 54 66 35 3.625

08/05/09 16:00 0.4 967 40.3 64 12 200 8.3 38 34 11 200 8.3 38 38 11 200 8.3 38 34 15 300 12.5 38 34 49 37 64 35 3.625

08/10/09 16:00 0.2 1,474 40.9 72 11 500 13.9 50 46 10 400 11.1 50 46 10 400 11.1 50 46 15 600 16.7 50 46 46 53 72 45 3.5

08/11/09 15:00 0.1 312 52.1 60 12 0 0.0 34 30 11 0 0.0 34 30 11 100 16.7 34 30 16 100 16.7 34 30 50 33 60 30 3.5

08/12/09 16:30 0.1 652 108.6 72 12 200 33.3 48 44 10 200 33.3 48 44 10 200 33.3 48 44 15 200 33.3 48 44 47 133 72 40 3.5

08/13/09 16:00 0.3 475 26.4 70 12 100 5.6 46 42 10 100 5.6 46 42 10 100 5.6 46 42 15 200 11.1 46 42 47 28 70 40 3.5

08/17/09 16:00 0.3 1,710 47.5 62 12 500 13.9 36 32 10 500 13.9 36 32 12 400 11.1 36 32 15 600 16.7 36 32 49 56 62 30 3.5

08/18/09 16:00 1.5 3,934 43.7 66 12 1,100 12.2 38 36 11 1,000 11.1 38 36 12 1,100 12.2 38 36 13 1,300 14.4 38 36 48 50 66 35 3.5

08/19/09 16:00 1.6 4,217 43.9 68 11 1,100 11.5 42 38 12 1,200 12.5 42 38 12 1,200 12.5 42 38 13 1,300 13.5 42 38 48 50 68 35 3.25

08/20/09 15:00 1.7 4,206 43.8 62 12 1,200 12.5 36 32 12 1,000 10.4 36 32 12 1,100 11.5 36 32 14 1,400 14.6 36 32 50 49 62 30 3.25

08/21/09 15:30 1.5 4,030 44.8 72 11 1,000 11.1 36 34 12 1,000 11.1 36 34 12 1,100 12.2 36 34 13 1,300 14.4 36 34 48 49 72 35 3.25

08/24/09 16:00 1.9 5,078 44.5 66 12 1,400 12.3 40 36 12 1,400 12.3 40 36 11 1,400 12.3 40 36 14 1,600 14.0 40 36 49 51 66 35 14.75

08/25/09 15:00 1.5 3,572 42.5 62 11 1,000 11.9 36 32 12 1,000 11.9 36 32 11 900 10.7 36 32 15 1,300 15.5 36 32 49 50 62 30 14.5

08/26/09 15:30 1.6 4,448 46.3 68 11 1,100 11.5 44 40 11 1,100 11.5 44 40 11 1,200 12.5 44 40 14 1,400 14.6 44 40 47 50 68 40 14.5

08/27/09 15:30 1.6 4,080 42.5 66 11 1,100 11.5 42 38 12 1,100 11.5 42 38 11 1,000 10.4 42 38 15 1,400 14.6 42 38 49 48 66 35 14.25

08/28/09 15:00 1.2 3,195 44.4 72 11 800 11.1 48 44 11 900 12.5 48 44 11 900 12.5 48 44 14 1,100 15.3 48 44 47 51 72 40 14.25

08/31/09 16:00 2.4 2,196 14.6 70 11 2,000 13.3 46 42 12 1,900 12.7 46 42 11 2,300 15.3 46 42 14 2,600 17.3 46 42 48 59 70 40 14.125

09/01/09 15:00 1.6 8,560 95.1 62 11 1,000 11.1 44 40 11 700 7.8 44 40 11 400 4.4 44 40 13 1,100 12.2 44 40 46 36 62 30 14.125

09/02/09 15:00 1.6 4,119 42.9 64 12 1,200 12.5 42 38 12 1,200 12.5 42 38 11 1,100 11.5 42 38 13 1,400 14.6 42 38 48 51 64 35 14.125

09/03/09 15:30 1.5 4,033 44.8 72 10 1,000 11.1 48 44 12 1,000 11.1 48 44 11 1,100 12.2 48 44 13 1,300 14.4 48 44 46 49 72 45 14

09/04/09 14:30 1.5 3,602 42.9 70 11 900 10.7 44 40 11 1,000 11.9 44 40 12 1,000 11.9 44 40 14 1,200 14.3 44 40 48 49 70 45 14

09/08/09 15:00 0.8 4,598 45.1 72 11 1,300 12.7 44 40 11 1,200 11.8 44 40 12 1,300 12.7 44 40 13 1,400 13.7 44 40 47 51 72 40 13.75

09/10/09 11:30 1.3 6,600 44.0 64 13 1,900 12.7 38 34 11 1,700 11.3 38 34 12 1,800 12.0 38 34 13 2,100 14.0 38 34 49 50 64 35 13.5

09/11/09 10:00 1.4 3,410 43.7 70 12 1,000 12.8 42 38 11 800 10.3 42 38 11 900 11.5 42 38 13 1,100 14.1 42 38 47 49 70 40 13.25

09/14/09 10:30 1.7 4,313 42.3 70 11 1,200 11.8 46 42 11 1,100 10.8 46 42 12 1,200 11.8 46 42 13 1,300 12.7 46 42 47 47 70 40 13.25

09/15/09 15:30 2.0 6,507 45.2 70 11 1,700 11.8 46 42 11 1,700 11.8 46 42 11 2,000 13.9 46 42 13 2,100 14.6 46 42 46 52 70 40 13.125

09/16/09 15:00 1.5 3,742 41.6 62 11 1,100 12.2 38 34 12 1,000 11.1 38 34 12 1,100 12.2 38 34 13 1,200 13.3 38 34 48 49 62 30 13

09/17/09 15:00 2.0 5,153 42.9 66 12 1,500 12.5 42 36 10 1,200 10.0 42 36 12 1,500 12.5 42 36 12 1,500 12.5 42 36 46 48 66 35 12.75

09/18/09 15:00 1.4 3,893 46.3 62 13 1,100 13.1 38 32 10 900 10.7 38 32 13 1,100 13.1 38 32 13 1,200 14.3 38 32 49 51 62 30 NA

09/21/09 8:30 0.5 969 40.4 68 12 400 16.7 42 38 10 300 12.5 42 38 12 300 12.5 42 38 13 300 12.5 42 38 47 54 68 35 12.75

09/22/09 9:00 1.6 3,713 38.7 70 11 1,100 11.5 46 40 10 1,000 10.4 46 40 12 1,200 12.5 46 40 13 1,200 12.5 46 40 46 47 70 40 12.5

09/23/09 9:00 1.6 4,659 48.5 66 11 1,200 12.5 42 36 11 1,100 11.5 42 36 12 1,300 13.5 42 36 13 1,400 14.6 42 36 47 52 66 35 12.375

09/24/09 9:00 1.4 3,639 43.3 64 12 1,000 11.9 40 34 12 900 10.7 40 34 12 1,000 11.9 40 34 14 1,200 14.3 40 34 50 49 64 30 12.25

09/25/09 10:30 1.8 5,115 44.9 64 12 1,300 11.4 40 34 12 1,400 12.3 40 34 12 1,400 12.3 40 34 13 1,600 14.0 40 34 49 50 64 30 12.125

09/28/09 13:00 2.0 5,636 42.7 72 12 1,600 12.1 46 40 11 1,500 11.4 46 40 10 1,500 11.4 46 40 13 1,800 13.6 46 40 46 48 72 45 12

09/29/09 10:30 1.0 2,297 42.5 64 12 600 11.1 38 32 11 600 11.1 38 32 12 700 13.0 38 32 13 800 14.8 38 32 48 50 64 30 11.875

09/30/09 10:00 1.5 3,958 44.0 68 11 1,100 12.2 42 36 11 1,000 11.1 42 36 12 1,000 11.1 42 36 13 1,200 13.3 42 36 47 48 68 35 11.75

10/01/09 10:30 1.5 4,114 45.7 74 11 1,100 12.2 52 46 11 1,100 12.2 52 46 10 1,100 12.2 52 46 13 1,300 14.4 52 46 45 51 74 45 11.625

10/02/09 9:00 1.4 3,076 39.4 70 11 900 11.5 44 38 11 900 11.5 44 38 11 1,000 12.8 44 38 12 1,100 14.1 44 38 45 50 70 40 11.5

10/05/09 12:30 2.1 6,414 44.5 78 11 1,700 11.8 50 48 10 1,800 12.5 50 48 11 1,600 11.1 50 48 12 2,000 13.9 50 48 44 49 78 45 11.5

10/06/09 13:00 1.6 4,143 43.2 70 11 1,100 11.5 44 38 11 1,100 11.5 44 38 11 1,100 11.5 44 38 13 1,400 14.6 44 38 46 49 70 40 11.375

10/07/09 11:00 1.1 2,863 47.7 68 11 800 13.3 42 36 12 700 11.7 42 36 12 800 13.3 42 36 14 900 15.0 42 36 49 53 68 40 11.25

10/08/09 10:30 1.4 3,432 40.9 64 11 900 10.7 38 32 11 1,000 11.9 38 32 12 1,000 11.9 38 32 13 1,100 13.1 38 32 47 48 64 30 11.25

10/09/09 10:30 1.6 4,259 44.4 70 11 1,100 11.5 44 38 11 1,000 10.4 44 38 12 1,200 12.5 44 38 13 1,300 13.5 44 38 47 48 70 35 11.125

10/12/09 10:00 1.5 3,876 43.1 70 11 1,100 12.2 44 38 11 3,400 37.8 44 38 11 800 8.9 44 38 13 1,300 14.4 44 38 46 73 70 40 11.0625

10/13/09 9:00 1.5 3,703 44.1 72 11 1,000 11.9 50 46 11 1,000 11.9 50 46 12 1,000 11.9 50 46 13 1,100 13.1 50 46 47 49 72 45 11

10/14/09 10:00 3.2 8,854 44.7 70 12 1,300 6.6 42 40 11 1,100 5.6 42 40 11 1,100 5.6 42 40 13 1,000 5.1 42 40 47 23 70 40 10.625

10/15/09 15:00 2.4 8,354 48.0 72 12 2,400 13.8 44 42 11 2,100 12.1 44 42 11 1,900 10.9 44 42 12 2,400 13.8 44 42 46 51 72 40 10.5

10/16/09 14:30 1.7 3,831 37.6 60 12 1,300 12.7 36 32 12 1,200 11.8 36 32 12 1,200 11.8 36 32 13 1,200 11.8 36 32 49 48 60 30 10.375

10/26/09 15:00 1.1 17,256 43.6 74 11 5,000 12.6 45 44 10 4,700 11.9 48 44 11 4,600 11.6 48 44 13 5,400 13.6 48 44 45 50 74 45 10.25

10/27/09 15:00 1.5 4,056 45.1 66 12 1,200 13.3 38 34 12 1,100 12.2 38 34 11 1,100 12.2 38 34 13 1,200 13.3 38 34 48 51 66 35 10.125

10/28/09 15:00 3.2 8,537 44.5 62 13 2,500 13.0 36 30 11 2,400 12.5 36 30 12 2,200 11.5 36 30 13 2,600 13.5 36 30 49 51 62 30 10

10/29/09 15:00 1.5 4,112 45.7 65 12 1,100 12.2 40 36 11 900 10.0 40 36 11 1,000 11.1 40 36 13 1,100 12.2 40 36 47 46 65 30 9.875

NOTE:

NA = not available

Tank: 1 BV = 17.7 ft3, 17.7 ft3 = 132 gal

System has 4 Tanks in parallel configuration.

System: 1 BV = 70.7 ft3, 70.7 ft3 = 528 gal

(a) Water used since last regeneration in gallons

(b) 1st reading from all four valve displays & countdown reset to 90,000

55

57

49

50

51

52

53

54

48

41

42

43

45

46

47

Vessel C Vessel D System

Week No. Date Time

Supply Well Vessel A Vessel B
APPENDIX B 

ANALYTICAL DATA
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Fountain City, IN

B-1

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 103 - - 0.1 - - 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 - - 0.2 - - 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3

319 321 321 324 322 322 328 328 328 315 317 310 309 309 312 307 312 309 NA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.0 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 NA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L 1.7 1.7 1.6 - - - - - - 1.6 1.7 1.7 - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L 2.3 2.3 2.2 - - - - - - 2.1 2.2 2.2 - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - -

<10 <10 <10 - - - - - - <10 11.1 19.7 - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

15.9 15.8 19.7 15.3 15.3 20.0 18.8 18.3 19.9 14.2 14.0 18.8 15.2 15.3 20.7 19.6 19.3 20.4 NA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

12.0 3.5 0.3 11.0 1.9 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.6 19.0 2.4 0.9 13.0 12.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 NA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.9 2.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 NA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.4 NA 7.4 NA 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.6 NA NA NA NA 7.6

Temperature °C 15.0 15.4 15.3 14.0 15.7 14.7 NA 14.6 NA 19.2 18.4 19.2 16.2 15.4 NA NA NA NA 16.1

DO mg/L 4.2 1.8 0.9 2.1 1.8 1.8 NA 1.8 NA 2.2 2.0 2.5 NA(b) NA(b) NA NA NA NA NA (b)

ORP mV 254 262 294 241 259 270 NA 265 NA 197 266 269 204 214 NA NA NA NA 252

Free Chlorine (as Cl 2) mg/L 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 NA 0.3 NA 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 NA NA NA NA 0.8

Total Chlorine (as Cl 2) mg/L 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.3 NA 1.3 NA 0.0 1.2 1.1 0.1 1.0 NA NA NA NA 0.9

Total Hardness mg/L(a) 247 258 260 - - - - - - 210 214 208 - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness mg/L(a) 147 154 156 - - - - - - 120 122 121 - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness mg/L(a) 101 103 104 - - - - - - 89.6 92.1 87.5 - - - - - - -

29.0 28.9 2.2 28.0 27.6 5.2 5.9 5.9 3.9 26.8 28.4 6.0 31.2 36.1 9.1 7.9 9.3 9.4 NA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 23.4 2.7 2.0 - - - - - - 19.9 2.1 2.2 - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L 5.6 26.1 0.2 - - - - - - 6.9 26.2 3.7 - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L 21.8 0.3 0.4 - - - - - - 16.3 0.6 0.6 - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L 1.7 2.4 1.6 - - - - - - 3.7 1.5 1.6 - - - - - - -

1,466 1,558 <25 1,570 1,442 254 314 287 154 1,606 1,828 286 1,532 1,849 466 422 527 556 NA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L 1,085 <25 <25 - - - - - - 812 <25 <25 - - - - - - -

49.8 50.4 19.5 59.7 62.3 29.6 28.9 33.2 27.2 52.8 53.1 27.8 47.6 48.6 34.6 34.1 35.1 30.1 NA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 51.5 26.1 20.1 - - - - - - 52.1 31.8 26.8 - - - - - - -

(a) As CaCO 3 (b) DO measurement not taken due to probe calibration error

Sampling Date 10/09/08 10/22/08 11/06/08 11/20/08

Ammonia mg/L

AC TA TB TC TD IN AC TT IN Sampling Location IN AC TT IN TC TD TT

Alkalinity mg/L(a)

AC TA TB

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Mn (total) μg/L

TOC mg/L

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Fountain City, IN (Continued)

B-2

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 103 - - 0.4 - - 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 - - 0.5 - - 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6

332 334 330 312 309 309 316 316 318 NA 312 310 321 317 319 319 317 315 321 NA

- - - 314 312 316 316 316 318 NA - - - - - - - - - NA

1.0 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 NA 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 NA

- - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 NA - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L 1.7 1.7 1.7 - - - - - - - 1.8 1.8 1.8 - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L 2.1 2.1 2.1 - - - - - - - 2.0 2.0 2.0 - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - -

22.3 11.5 <10 - - - - - - - 22.3 13.5 10.3 - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

15.2 16.3 20.8 15.6 15.4 30.6 29.3 28.6 28.9 NA 14.3 14.5 17.1 14.0 14.9 18.6 16.7 17.2 18.1 NA

- - - 15.5 15.3 29.3 28.9 27.9 29.8 NA - - - - - - - - - -

19.0 2.7 0.3 22.0 4.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 NA 12.0 6.3 0.4 15.0 2.7 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.6 NA

- - - 24.0 3.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.5 NA - - - - - - - - - -

1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 2.4 1.7 2.1 1.8 1.8 NA 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 NA

- - - 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.8 NA - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 NA NA NA NA 7.4 7.6 7.5 7.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Temperature °C 14.8 14.4 14.6 12.0 17.5 NA NA NA NA 17.8 13.8 14.2 14.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DO mg/L NA(b) NA(b) NA(b) NA(b) NA(b) NA NA NA NA NA (b) NA(b) NA(b) NA(b) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ORP mV 207 285 283 148 270 NA NA NA NA 242 207 271 274 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Free Chlorine (as Cl 2) mg/L 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.5 NA NA NA NA 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total Chlorine (as Cl 2) mg/L 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 NA NA NA NA 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total Hardness mg/L(a) 286 286 280 - - - - - - - 303 284 286 - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness mg/L(a) 167 167 164 - - - - - - - 150 145 143 - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness mg/L(a) 119 118 116 - - - - - - - 153 139 143 - - - - - - -

31.0 29.2 2.7 34.3 28.1 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.3 NA 39.3 30.2 3.4 29.8 29.8 3.9 4.5 3.9 4.4 NA

- - - 34.3 32.1 3.4 3.3 3.0 3.4 NA - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 22.8 2.4 2.4 - - - - - - - 26.4 2.8 2.2 - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L 8.2 26.8 0.2 - - - - - - - 12.9 27.4 1.2 - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L 21.3 0.6 0.7 - - - - - - - 23.9 0.4 0.5 - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L 1.4 1.8 1.8 - - - - - - - 2.5 2.4 1.8 - - - - - - -

1,945 1,797 <25 1,980 1,671 <25 54 <25 37 NA 1,786 1,206 57 1,677 1,429 116 186 136 191 NA

- - - 1,980 1,767 <25 <25 <25 40 NA - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L 1,282 <25 <25 - - - - - - - 1,395 <25 <25 - - - - - - -

52.5 53.2 41.9 42.0 43.2 40.1 38.3 39.7 35.3 NA 41.8 40.0 35.3 50.9 49.5 49.3 50.5 48.9 48.2 NA

- - - 42.0 42.1 36.7 37.6 36.9 34.7 NA - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 52.2 39.8 42.7 - - - - - - - 46.5 29.7 37.2 - - - - - - -

(a) As CaCO 3 (b) DO measurement not taken due to probe calibration error

(c) Bed volumes from 01/06/09

(d) Water quality measurements were not taken on 01/22/09

NTU

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

Alkalinity mg/L(a)

Ammonia mg/L

01/07/09 1/22/09(d)

IN AC TT IN TT

Mn (total) μg/L

12/04/08 12/29/08(c)

TOC mg/L

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity

AC TA TB TC TD IN AC TT IN AC TA TB TC TD TT
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Fountain City, IN (Continued)

B-3

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 103 - - 0.7 - - 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 - - 0.8 - - 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.9

331 340 338 342 344 340 340 344 356 NA 324 328 330 341 337 328 337 331 337 331

- - - - - - - - - NA - - - 339 335 341 339 331 337 344

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 NA 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Fluoride mg/L 2.0 1.8 1.8 - - - - - - - 1.9 1.8 1.8 - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L 2.2 2.1 2.1 - - - - - - - 2.1 2.2 2.1 - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - -

13.4 13.7 <10 - - - - - - - 16.4 10.5 <10 - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

15.1 15.6 18.1 14.6 15.0 17.1 16.4 16.7 16.2 NA 15.8 15.4 17.0 15.2 14.6 16.5 16.2 16.2 16.5 17.0

- - - - - - - - - NA - - - 14.7 14.5 16.0 16.3 15.8 16.3 16.7

14.0 2.7 1.0 18.0 2.3 0.5 0.8 2.0 0.8 NA 11.0 2.7 0.2 17.0 2.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2

- - - - - - - - - NA - - - 19.0 2.9 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3

1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 NA 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

pH S.U. 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.6 7.4 NA NA NA NA NA(e) 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.6 7.5 NA NA NA NA 7.4

Temperature °C 16.5 16.8 16.8 13.1 13.0 NA NA NA NA NA (e) 10.6 11.9 10.0 15.3 13.8 NA NA NA NA 12.8

DO mg/L NA(b) NA(b) NA(b) NA(b) NA(b) NA NA NA NA NA (e) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ORP mV 327 324 325 213 242 NA NA NA NA NA(e) 266 261 257 220 247 NA NA NA NA 256

Free Chlorine (as Cl 2) mg/L 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.6 NA NA NA NA NA (e) 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.6 NA NA NA NA 0.7

Total Chlorine (as Cl 2) mg/L 0.0 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.7 NA NA NA NA NA (e) 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.6 NA NA NA NA 0.7

Total Hardness mg/L(a) 260 266 258 - - - - - - - 215 206 221 - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness mg/L(a) 157 163 158 - - - - - - - 144 140 148 - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness mg/L(a) 103 104 100 - - - - - - - 70.9 65.7 73.2 - - - - - - -

29.4 29.7 6.2 31.9 27.6 4.5 5.9 11.2 6.0 NA 27.1 25.1 1.9 31.2 30.5 2.8 4.4 2.2 2.2 3.2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 31.1 29.9 2.8 4.7 2.3 2.2 3.1

As (soluble) μg/L 18.2 2.9 2.4 - - - - - - - 22.0 3.2 1.8 - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L 11.2 26.8 3.9 - - - - - - - 5.2 21.9 0.1 - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L 17.5 0.8 0.8 - - - - - - - 20.9 0.4 0.4 - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L 0.8 2.1 1.6 - - - - - - - 1.1 2.8 1.3 - - - - - - -

1,601 1,611 291 1,773 1,433 197 312 661 313 NA 1,418 1,310 <25 2,062 1,800 33 188 <25 41 96

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,101 1,888 32 188 32 41 90

Fe (soluble) μg/L 407 <25 <25 - - - - - - - 1,035 43.9 <25 - - - - - - -

47.9 49.8 49.8 50.9 48.9 50.3 51.8 52.1 53.2 NA 52.5 49.3 53.0 54.0 54.5 54.9 55.2 55.7 55.3 55.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 54.8 53.7 54.0 54.8 55.3 55.2 55.3

Mn (soluble) μg/L 46.5 29.9 48.2 - - - - - - - 53.2 50.2 51.3 - - - - - - -

(a) As CaCO 3 (b) DO measurement not taken due to probe calibration error

(e) TT water quality measurements not taken on 02/23/09

NTU

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

Alkalinity mg/L(a)

Ammonia mg/L

03/03/09 03/17/09

IN AC TT IN TT

Mn (total) μg/L

02/11/09 02/23/09

TOC mg/L

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity

AC TA TB TC TD IN AC TT IN AC TA TB TC TD TT
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Fountain City, IN (Continued)

B-4

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 103 - - 0.9 - - 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0 - - 1.1 - - 1.1 - - 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.2

329 329 334 332 334 329 325 332 323 NA 332 332 344 346 341 346 332 332 329 332 329 329 329

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 NA 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L 1.7 1.7 1.8 - - - - - - - 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.8 - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L 1.8 1.8 2.1 - - - - - - - 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.1 - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - -

<10 12.8 <10 - - - - - - - 10.2 <10 <10 10.5 <10 <10 - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

13.6 13.2 18.9 14.5 14.6 18.3 18.0 17.8 17.9 NA 17.0 17.6 18.5 16.0 16.5 19.1 15.6 15.6 19.1 18.3 18.9 18.0 18.7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

19.0 5.3 2.8 16.0 3.6 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.6 NA 19.0 2.4 1.6 19.0 2.4 1.0 21.0 6.1 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4 NA 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.6 NA NA NA NA 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.6 7.5 NA NA NA NA 7.5

Temperature °C 13.7 13.7 13.7 17.1 17.1 NA NA NA NA 17.1 15.2 15.2 15.1 14.8 13.0 14.8 15.7 13.5 NA NA NA NA 17.0

DO mg/L NA NA NA 2.0 2.1 NA NA NA NA 1.9 1.6 3.6 6.4 2.1 1.5 0.9 3.5 2.8 NA NA NA NA 1.4

ORP mV 212 253 255 215 255 NA NA NA NA 270 272 278 275 217 283 280 224 242 NA NA NA NA 281

Free Chlorine (as Cl 2) mg/L NA NA NA 0.1 0.7 NA NA NA NA 0.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total Chlorine (as Cl 2) mg/L NA 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.8 NA NA NA NA 0.6 NA 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.3 NA 0.5 NA NA NA NA 0.3

Total Hardness mg/L(a) 266 249 240 - - - - - - - 271 273 261 222 236 260 - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness mg/L(a) 163 156 150 - - - - - - - 164 164 159 121 130 143 - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness mg/L(a) 103 92.3 90.0 - - - - - - - 107 108 102 100 105 117 - - - - - - -

24.5 20.2 2.8 28.0 27.0 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 NA 26.7 27.2 2.4 26.4 24.5 3.9 31.7 32.3 3.6 3.8 3.2 4.8 4.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 19.2 2.9 2.4 - - - - - - - 16.9 3.3 3.0 21.6 3.6 2.5 - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L 5.4 17.3 0.4 - - - - - - - 9.8 23.9 <0.1 4.8 21.0 1.4 - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L 16.6 0.5 0.4 - - - - - - - 16.2 0.4 0.4 20.3 0.3 0.1 - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L 2.6 2.5 1.9 - - - - - - - 0.8 2.9 2.6 1.3 3.2 2.3 - - - - - - -

2,049 1,579 27 2,228 2,255 <25 <25 <25 <25 NA 2,076 1,955 54 2,110 1,826 192 2,333 2,369 97 112 79 225 135

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L 1,241 107 <25 - - - - - - - 33 46 <25 1,491 112 34 - - - - - - -

50.5 53.1 49.8 53.8 54.7 55.6 54.8 55.4 54.7 NA 58.1 58.9 58.3 56.6 54.6 57.8 53.0 51.3 54.6 54.7 53.3 53.2 54.0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 51.3 48.4 51.3 - - - - - - - 55.6 38.7 59.8 55.0 53.0 58.7 - - - - - - -

(a) As CaCO 3 (f) bed volumes from 04/13/09

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

Alkalinity mg/L(a)

Ammonia mg/L

μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Mn (total) μg/L

03/31/09 4/14/09(f) 04/28/09

TT IN AC TT

TOC mg/L

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Total P (as P )

05/26/09

IN AC TT IN AC TA TB TC TD

05/12/09

IN AC TT IN AC TA TB TC TD TT
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Fountain City, IN (Continued)

B-5

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 103 - - 1.3 - - 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 - - 1.3 - - 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.4

333 329 329 359 350 355 355 341 346 350 320 322 320 325 327 325 323 325 325 325

- - - 361 357 359 355 355 340 330 - - - - - - - - - -

1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

- - - 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L 1.8 2.0 1.7 - - - - - - - 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.4 2.6 - - - - 1.8

Sulfate mg/L 1.8 1.9 1.8 - - - - - - - 1.5 1.4 1.6 2.4 2.2 - - - - 2.4

Nitrate (as N) mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - <0.05

<10 <10 <10 - - - - - - - 17.8 17.5 18.5 <10 <10 - - - - <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

15.5 15.3 23.5 15.7 16.1 16.6 16.3 16.7 16.5 16.7 15.1 14.9 25.6 15.4 15.3 15.7 15.6 15.5 15.6 16.0

- - - 15.9 15.9 17.5 16.2 16.4 16.3 16.8 - - - - - - - - - -

18.0 3.9 0.9 17.0 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 18.0 4.4 0.2 13.0 1.9 0.1 1.6 <0.1 0.2 1.0

- - - 18.0 1.3 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 - - - - - - - - - -

1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 7.7 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.5 NA NA NA NA 7.4 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.6 7.4 NA NA NA NA 7.4

Temperature °C 16.2 16.0 16.2 15.2 14.1 NA NA NA NA 16.6 17.5 17.5 21.2 15.1 15.1 NA NA NA NA 15.1

DO mg/L 2.0 1.4 1.4 3.8 3.0 NA NA NA NA 2.2 3.6 1.8 1.1 4.5 3.5 NA NA NA NA 2.2

ORP mV 288 287 285 235 247 NA NA NA NA 274 248 256 267 250 258 NA NA NA NA 270

Free Chlorine (as Cl 2) mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total Chlorine (as Cl 2) mg/L 0.0 0.2 0.0 NA 0.6 NA NA NA NA 0.5 NA 0.0 0.1 NA 0.6 NA NA NA NA 1.1

Total Hardness mg/L(a) 267 264 251 - - - - - - - 271 260 265 - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness mg/L(a) 175 173 166 - - - - - - - 137 131 134 - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness mg/L(a) 92 91 85 - - - - - - - 134 128 132 - - - - - - -

26.1 22.5 4.0 28.5 26.2 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.8 29.6 29.7 3.4 28.3 24.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.9 1.9

- - - 28.7 27.5 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.4 - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 18.1 2.2 2.6 - - - - - - - 14.0 4.9 2.0 21.5 3.0 - - - - 1.5

As (particulate) μg/L 8.0 20.4 1.5 - - - - - - - 15.7 24.8 1.3 6.8 21.9 - - - - 0.4

As (III) μg/L 16.3 0.4 0.3 - - - - - - - 12.6 <0.1 <0.1 10.8 <0.1 - - - - <0.1

As (V) μg/L 1.8 1.8 2.3 - - - - - - - 1.3 4.8 1.9 10.7 2.9 - - - - 1.4

2,255 1,896 148 1,758 1,895 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 1,827 1,816 54 1,898 1,708 <25 <25 <25 125 82

- - - 1,945 1,850 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L 1,167 <25 <25 - - - - - - - 571 219 <25 - - - - - - -

53.8 53.9 56.3 49.7 50.7 55.7 54.7 55.1 54.7 52.6 57.8 56.9 72.7 51.4 51.9 71.0 71.9 71.3 69.0 71.8

- - - 48.8 50.6 55.8 54.5 55.5 53.7 54.6 - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 53.9 51.4 57.5 - - - - - - - 58.8 59.0 73.2 - - - - - - -

(a) As CaCO 3 (g) bed volumes from 07/13/09

(h) bed volume from 07/27/09

NTU

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

Alkalinity mg/L(a)

Ammonia mg/L

07/30/09(h) 08/31/09

IN AC TT IN TT

Mn (total) μg/L

06/09/09 07/06/09(g)

TOC mg/L

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity

AC TA TB TC TD IN AC TT IN AC TA TB TC TD TT
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Fountain City, IN (Continued)

B-6

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 103 - - 1.5 - - 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.6

309 317 304 322 320 326 322 324 326 324

- - - - - - - - - -

1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9

- - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L 1.5 1.6 1.6 - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L 2.0 2.1 1.9 - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - -

<10 <10 <10 - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

15.3 15.1 17.1 15.1 15.2 17.6 17.0 17.0 17.2 17.3

- - - - - - - - - -

15.3 15.1 17.1 17.0 2.6 0.6 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.8

- - - - - - - - - -

1.7 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

- - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.4 NA NA NA NA 7.4

Temperature °C 18.3 18.3 18.3 16.8 15.8 NA NA NA NA 16.0

DO mg/L 3.6 2.1 1.2 2.9 2.6 NA NA NA NA 4.0

ORP mV 243 365 365 353 418 NA NA NA NA 409

Free Chlorine (as Cl 2) mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total Chlorine (as Cl 2) mg/L NA 0.6 0.9 NA 0.8 NA NA NA NA 0.4

Total Hardness mg/L(a) 283 298 289 - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness mg/L(a) 179 189 182 - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness mg/L(a) 104 109 107 - - - - - - -

24.0 27.2 6.2 27.3 27.9 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.6 5.4

- - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 18.4 2.7 3.1 - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L 5.6 24.5 3.0 - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L 16.1 0.4 0.7 - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L 2.3 2.3 2.4 - - - - - - -

1,814 2,050 108 1,694 2,024 134 147 167 135 205

- - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L 953 <25 <25 - - - - - - -

51.7 53.8 64.4 49.3 50.1 58.9 55.4 57.8 56.3 57.8

- - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 52.1 37.2 65.9 - - - - - - -

(a) As CaCO 3

Turbidity NTU

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

Alkalinity mg/L(a)

Ammonia mg/L

09/15/09 09/29/09

IN AC TT IN AC TA TB TC TD TT

Mn (total) μg/L

TOC mg/L

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L
APPENDIX C

BACKWASH DATA
C-1 

 

Backwash 

Flowrate

Backwash 

Duration

Wastewater 

Generated

Time gal x100 Time gal x100 gpm min gal

12/03/08 9:00 AM 686 9:26 AM 899 50.1 26 1,196.2

04/08/09 9:30 AM 664 10:00 AM 899 52.0 26 1,027.1

07/06/09 8:00 AM 488 8:26 AM 899 55.0 26 944.0

10/13/09 10:30 AM 0 10:59 AM 867 47.0 26 866.6

Backwash 

Flowrate

Backwash 

Duration

Wastewater 

Generated

Time gal x100 Time gal x100 gpm min gal

12/03/08 9:30 AM 696 9:56 AM 899 46.8 26 1,119.3

04/08/09 10:00 AM 682 10:30 AM 899 43.0 26 1,098.9

07/06/09 8:30 AM 495 8:56 AM 899 54.2 26 1,150.0

10/13/09 11:03 AM 0 11:33 AM 1143 54.0 26 1,142.6

Backwash 

Flowrate

Backwash 

Duration

Wastewater 

Generated

Time gal x100 Time gal x100 gpm min gal

12/03/08 10:10 AM 680 10:36 AM 899 51.0 26 1,282.1

04/08/09 10:30 AM 674 10:55 AM 899 46.4 26 1,087.5

07/06/09 9:00 AM 490 9:26 AM 899 55.0 26 1,227.0

10/13/09 11:33 AM 0 12:00 PM 1259 56.0 26 1,259.3

Backwash 

Flowrate

Backwash 

Duration

Wastewater 

Generated

Time gal x100 Time gal x100 gpm min gal

12/03/08 10:45 AM 700 11:11 AM 899 48.0 26 1,210.0

04/08/09 11:00 AM 655 11:30 AM 899 55.7 26 1,194.0

07/06/09 9:30 AM 391 9:56 AM 899 54.0 26 1,201.7

10/13/09 12:07 PM 0 12:33 PM 1180 58.0 26 1,180.1

Backwash End

Backwash Start Backwash End

Date

Date

Date

Date

Tank A "TA" Backwash

Tank B "TB" Backwash

Tank C "TC" Backwash

Tank D "TD" Backwash

Backwash Start Backwash End

Backwash Start Backwash End

Backwash Start