EPA/600/R-11/002

January 2011

Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media

U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at

LEADS Head Start Building in Buckeye Lake, OH

Final Performance Evaluation Report

by

Abraham S.C. Chen‡

Jody P. Lipps§

Ryan J. Stowe§

Brian J. Yates§

Vivek Lal§

Lili Wang‡

§

Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693

‡

ALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43219-6093

Contract No. 68-C-00-185

Task Order No. 0029

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 (TO) 0029 of Contract No. 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the 

Agency’s peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. 

Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official 

positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute 

recommendation for use by the EPA.
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 ground water; 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 for the arsenic removal treatment 

technology demonstration project at Licking Economic Action Development Study (LEADS) Head Start 

School in Buckeye Lake, Ohio. The objectives of the project were to evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of a 

Kinetico arsenic removal system using Engelhard/BASF’s ARM 200 media in removing arsenic (As) to 

meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 μg/L, (2) the reliability of the treatment 

system, 3) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skills, and 4) the capital 

and O&M cost of the technology. The project also characterized water in the distribution system and 

residuals produced by the treatment process.

The Kinetico system consisted of two 18-in × 65-in sealed vessels connected in series to treat up to 10

gal/min (gpm) of water. Water supplied from a well was temporarily stored in a 120-gal pressure tank, 

softened through a water softener, chlorinated with a sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution, and retained 

in a 120-gal contact tank. Following the contact tank, chlorinated water flowed through the two 

adsorption vessels, each loaded with 4.5 ft3 of ARM 200, an iron oxide/iron hydroxide media. At the 

design flowrate of 10 gpm, the system would yield a hydraulic loading rate of 5.6 gpm/ft2 and an empty 

bed contact time (EBCT) of 3.3 min in each vessel. Because of on-demand operation of the system, 

actual flowrates through the treatment system could not be measured. Based on visual observations 

during site visits, it was determined that the actual flowrates were much lower than 10 gpm. Therefore,

the actual hydraulic loading rates were much lower and the actual EBCTs were much longer than the 

design values.

The system operated from June 28, 2006, to February 24, 2010, treating approximately 303,200 gal (or 

9,000 bed volumes [BV]) of water. Daily use rates averaged 450 gal, compared to 675-gal rate provided 

by the school. Source water contained 5.5 to 20.5 μg/L of arsenic, existing predominately as soluble 

As(III), averaging 79% of the soluble arsenic. Ten-μg/L arsenic breakthrough following the two

adsorption vessels did not occur during the almost 4 years of operation. The highest arsenic concentration 

measured after treatment was 1.4 μg/L.

Significantly elevated total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic acids (HAA5) were measured in the 

vessel effluent soon after system startup. Examination of system operating conditions and disinfectant 

byproduct (DBP) data revealed that the exceedances coincided with elevated chlorine residuals levels at 

or above 4.4 mg/L (as Cl2). The results of laboratory column studies suggested that ARM 200 media had 

the ability to promote TTHM and HAA5 formation, but only with the presence of chlorine and total 

organic carbon (TOC) in its influent. The increase found in the laboratory was not on the same order as 

observed onsite. Therefore, the results of the column studies did not totally explain the elevated DBP 

concentrations observed onsite. 

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

significant decrease in arsenic concentration at the two sampling locations during the 12 monthly 

sampling events. Arsenic concentrations were reduced from an average baseline level of 15.2 μg/L to an 

average of 1.3 μg/L. In general, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system water were somewhat 

higher than those measured in the treatment system effluent. Some dissolution and/or resuspension of 

arsenic might have occurred in the distribution system. Lead and copper levels were well below their 

respective action levels in the distribution system water both before and after system startup.

The capital investment cost included $10,435 for equipment, $11,000 for site engineering, and $5,820 for 

installation. Using the system’s rated capacity of 10 gpm (or 14,400 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was 

$2,725/gpm (or $1.89/gpd). The annualized capital cost was $2,572/yr based upon a 7% interest rate and 
v

a 20-year return. The unit capital cost was $0.49/1,000 gal assuming the system operated continuously 24 

hr/day, 7 days a week at 10 gpm. At the current use rate of approximately 82,500 gal per year, the unit 

capital cost increased to $31.36/1,000 gal.

The O&M cost included only incremental cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media 

replacement and disposal (for adsorptive media), electricity consumption, and labor. The unit O&M cost 

was driven by the cost to replace the spent media as a function of the media run length. Because the 

media was not replaced during the performance evaluation study, the O&M cost to supply water to the 

Head Start Building in one year when using ARM 200 media was estimated based on an assumed 

rebedding cost for the lead vessel.
vi

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................viii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...........................................................................................................................xi

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background...................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal.............................................................................2

1.3 Project Objectives.........................................................................................................................2

2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................5

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS...........................................................................................................6

3.1 General Project Approach.............................................................................................................6

3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection.......................................................................................7

3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules..............................................................................8

3.3.1 Source Water ...................................................................................................................8

3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water.....................................................................................................8

3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater...................................................................................................11

3.3.4 Spent Media...................................................................................................................11

3.3.5 Distribution System Water ............................................................................................11

3.3.6 Disinfection Byproducts................................................................................................11

3.4 Sampling Logistics.....................................................................................................................16

3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits..........................................................................16

3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers...................................................................................16

3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling .....................................................................................16

3.5 Analytical Procedures.................................................................................................................17

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................................18

4.1 Facility Description ....................................................................................................................18

4.1.1 Source Water Quality ....................................................................................................19

4.1.2 Distribution System.......................................................................................................20

4.2 Treatment Process Description...................................................................................................20

4.3 System Installation .....................................................................................................................24

4.4 System Operation .......................................................................................................................25

4.4.1 Operational Parameters..................................................................................................25

4.4.2 Chlorine Addition..........................................................................................................26

4.4.3 Media Replacement .......................................................................................................26

4.4.4 Residual Management ...................................................................................................26

4.4.5 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation.........................................................................27

4.5 System Performance ...................................................................................................................28

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling .............................................................................................28

4.5.2 Disinfection Byproducts................................................................................................37

4.5.3 Backwash Wastewater Sampling...................................................................................54

4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling ............................................................................55
vii

4.6 System Cost ................................................................................................................................55

4.6.1 Capital Cost ...................................................................................................................57

4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost...................................................................................58

5.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................60

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA................................................................................................A-1

APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL RESULTS............................................................................................B-1

APPENDIX C: COLUMN STUDIES ANALYTICAL RESULTS ........................................................C-1

FIGURES

Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations.................................................................. 10

Figure 3-2. Column Study Apparatus..................................................................................................... 14

Figure 3-3. Glass Column Schematic ..................................................................................................... 14

Figure 3-4. Floating Teflon® Lid ............................................................................................................ 15

Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Treatment System Components at Head Start Building.................................. 18

Figure 4-2. Schematic of Arsenic Removal System with Series Configuration..................................... 22

Figure 4-3. Adsorptive Media Arsenic Removal System ....................................................................... 24

Figure 4-4. Total and Free Chlorine Residuals Measured at Kitchen Sink ............................................ 27

Figure 4-5. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species Across Treatment Train.................................. 32

Figure 4-6. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves..................................................................................... 33

Figure 4-7. Total Phosphorus Concentrations Across Treatment Train ................................................. 34

Figure 4-8. Silica Concentrations Across Treatment Train .................................................................... 35

Figure 4-9. TTHM Concentrations at Kitchen Sink ............................................................................... 39

Figure 4-10. HAA5 Concentrations at Kitchen Sink................................................................................ 41

Figure 4-11. Formation of TTHM Across Treatment Train and Distribution System.............................. 42

Figure 4-12. Formation of HAA5 Across Treatment Train and Distribution System .............................. 42

Figure 4-13. Effects of Water Temperature on TTHM and HAA5 Concentrations at AC 

Location ............................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 4-14. Correlation of TTHM/HAA5 with Free Chlorine Residuals Measured After Contact 

Tank ..................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 4-15. Correlation of TTHM/HAA5 with Free Chlorine Residuals Measured at Kitchen 

Sink ...................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 4-16. TTHM Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water) ......................................................... 48

Figure 4-17. HAA5 Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water).......................................................... 48

Figure 4-18. THM Formation Potential Test Results in Chlorinated AS Water....................................... 49

Figure 4-19. Formation Potential Test Results of HAAs in Chlorinated AS Water................................. 50

Figure 4-20. Column A ARM 200 Chlorine Demand and pH.................................................................. 52

Figure 4-21. TOC Breakthrough from Column A .................................................................................... 53

Figure 4-22. TTHM and HAA5 Concentrations in Feed and Column A Effluent ................................... 53

Figure 4-23. Comparison of Arsenic Concentrations in System Effluent and Distribution System......... 57

Figure 4-24. Total O&M and Media Replacement Cost Curves .............................................................. 59
viii

TABLES

Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites.............................................................. 3

Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates.................................................. 6

Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities........................................ 7

Table 3-3. Sampling Schedules and Analyses......................................................................................... 9

Table 3-4. Experimental Parameters for DBP Formation Potential Study............................................ 12

Table 3-5. Experimental Matrices for DBP Formation Potential Study................................................ 13

Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for New Well........................................................................................ 19

Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of Adsorptive Media...................................................... 20

Table 4-3. Design Specifications of Arsenic Removal System............................................................. 23

Table 4-4. System Punch-List/Operational Issues and Corrective Action ............................................ 25

Table 4-5. Summary of System Operations........................................................................................... 25

Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results........................................... 29

Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements......................................................... 30

Table 4-8. Silica Removal by Adsorptive Media Observed at EPA Arsenic Removal 

Demonstration Sites............................................................................................................. 36

Table 4-9. Summary of TTHM Concentrations in Water Samples....................................................... 38

Table 4-10. Summary of HAA5 Concentrations in Water Samples........................................................ 40

Table 4-11. Chlorine Demand Test Results (AS Water)......................................................................... 46

Table 4-12. THM Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water)............................................................ 46

Table 4-13. HAA Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water)............................................................ 47

Table 4-14. TTHM and HAA5 Concentrations Measured During Column A (Phases II and III) 

and Column C Studies.......................................................................................................... 51

Table 4-15. TTHM and HAA5 Concentrations Measured During Column B Studies............................ 51

Table 4-16. Backwash Water Analytical Results.................................................................................... 55

Table 4-17. Distribution System Sampling Results................................................................................. 56

Table 4-18. Summary of Capital Investment Cost .................................................................................. 58

Table 4-19. Summary of O&M Cost....................................................................................................... 58
ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Δp differential pressure

AAL American Analytical Laboratories

AM adsorptive media

As arsenic

ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems

BDCM bromodichloromathanes

bgs below ground surface

BV bed volume(s)

Ca calcium

CDBM chlorodibromomathane

C/F coagulation/filtration

Cu copper

DBP disinfection byproduct

DBA dibromoacetic acid

DCA dichloroacetic acid

DI deionized water

DO dissolved oxygen

DOM dissolved organic matter

EBCT empty bed contact time

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

F fluoride

Fe iron

GFH granular ferric hydroxide

gpd gallons per day

gpm gallons per minute

HAA5 haloacetic acid

HIX hybrid ion exchanger

Hp horsepower

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry

ID identification

IX ion exchange

LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule

LEADS Licking Economic Action Development Study

LOU letter of understanding

MCA monochloroacetic acid

MBA monobromoacetic acid

MCL maximum contaminant level
x

MDL method detection limit

MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.

Mg magnesium

Mn manganese

N/A not analyzed

Na sodium

NaOCl sodium hypochlorite

ND non detect

NH3 ammonia

NO3 nitrate

NPT National Pipe Thread

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory

NSF NSF International

O&M operation and maintenance

OEPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

OIT Oregon Institute of Technology

ORD Office of Research and Development

ORP oxidation-reduction potential

P phosphorus

Pb lead

POU point-of-use

PRD percent relative difference

psi pounds per square inch

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

RO reverse osmosis

RPD relative percent difference

RFQ request for quotation

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SiO2 silica

SO4 sulfate

SS stainless steel

STS Severn Trent Services

TCA trichloroacetic acid

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

TDS total dissolved solids

TOC total organic carbon

TTHM total trihalomethane

VOC volatile organic compound
xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the operator of LEADS Head Start in Buckeye 

Lake, Ohio. The operator monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the treatment 

system and distribution system on a regular schedule throughout this reporting period. This performance 

evaluation would not have been possible without his 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 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). To clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule 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 nontransient, 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 for reducing compliance cost. 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 published in the Federal Register requested 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 one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel 

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

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. The water system at Licking Economic Action Development Study (LEADS) Head Start Building

in Buckeye Lake, Ohio, was one of those selected.

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 two to eight proposals. In April 2004, EPA convened another technical panel to review the 

proposals and provide recommendations to EPA; the number of proposals per site ranged from none (for 

two sites) to a maximum of four. Final selection of the treatment technology at sites receiving 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. 

Kinetico’s ARM 200 arsenic removal system was selected for demonstration at the LEADS Head Start

building in September 2004.

As of December 2010, 39 of the 40 systems were operational and the performance evaluation study of all 

39 systems was completed.
2

1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal

The technologies selected for the Rounds 1 and 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive media 

(AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13 

coagulation/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, 17 point-of-use (POU) units 

(including nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and 

eight AM units at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, 

technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, iron 

[Fe], and pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. 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/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html. 

1.3 Project Objectives

The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic treatment technology 

demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific objectives are 

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 costs of the technologies.

This report summarizes the performance of the Kinetico system at the LEADS Head Start building in 

Buckeye Lake, OH, from June 28, 2006, through February 24, 2010. The types of data collected included 

system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, 

and capital and O&M cost.
3

Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites

Demonstration 

Location Site Name Technology (Media) Vendor

Design 

Flowrate 

(gpm)

Source Water Quality

As 

(μg/L)

Fe

(μg/L)

pH

(S.U.)

Northeast/Ohio

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

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(c) 7.3

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

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

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

Great Lakes/Interior Plains

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

Pentwater, MI Village of Pentwater C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 400 13(a) 466(c) 6.9

Sandusky, MI City of Sandusky C/F (Aeralater) Siemens 340(e) 16(a) 1,387(c) 6.9

Delavan, WI Vintage on the Ponds C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 40 20(a) 1,499(c) 7.5

Greenville, WI Town of Greenville C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 375 17 7827(c) 7.3

Climax, MN City of Climax C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 140 39(a) 546(c) 7.4

Sabin, MN City of Sabin C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 250 34 1,470(c) 7.3

Sauk Centre, MN Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 20 25(a) 3,078(c) 7.1

Stewart, MN City of Stewart C/F&AM (E33) AdEdge 250 42(a) 1,344(c) 7.7

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

Midwest/Southwest

Arnaudville, LA United Water Systems C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 770(e) 35(a) 2,068(c) 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 Association AM (E33) STS 320 23(a) 39 7.7

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
4

Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)

Demonstration 

Location Site Name Technology (Media) Vendor

Design 

Flowrate 

(gpm)

Source Water Quality

As 

(μg/L)

Fe

(μg/L)

pH

(S.U.)

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(c) 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/Kemiron) 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; C/F = coagulation/filtration; GFH = granular ferric hydroxide; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange; 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% after system was switched from parallel to serial configuration. 

(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).

(d) Withdrew from program in 2007. Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006.

(e) Faculties upgraded Springfield, OH system from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI system from 210 to 340 gpm, and Arnaudville, LA system from 385 to 770 gpm. 

(f) Including nine residential units.

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

2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on the information collected during the almost four years of 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:

• ARM 200 adsorptive media was effective in removing arsenic to below its MCL. After 9,000 

bed volumes (BV) of system operation, the arsenic concentration remained below the method 

detection limit (MDL) of 0.1 μg/L. The run length to 10 μg/L could not be determined in the 

duration of this study. 

• Sodium hypochlorite was effective in converting soluble As(III) to soluble As(V).

Formation of disinfection byproducts (DBPs) during treatment:

• Above MCL levels of total trihalomethane (TTHM) and haloacetic acid (HAA5) were 

detected soon after system startup.

• Formation of DBPs was believed to have been caused by high levels of chlorine residuals in 

the AM system. There was evidence to suggest that ARM 200 media had the ability to 

enhance DBP formation but only with the presence of chlorine and total organic carbon 

(TOC) in its influent.

Simplicity of required system O&M and operator skill levels:

• Very little attention was needed to operate and maintain the system. The weekly demand on 

the operator was typically 15 min to visually inspect the system and record operational 

parameters. 

• Operation of the treatment system did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to 

operate the existing water supply equipment. 

Process residuals produced by the technology:

• The system did not need to be backwashed on a regular basis.

Technology Costs:

• Using the system’s rated capacity of 10 gal/min (gpm) (or 14,400 gal/day [gpd]), the capital 

cost was $2,725/gpm (or $1.89/gpd).

• The actual O&M cost to supply water to the Head Start building in one year when using 

ARM 200 media could not be determined because the media was not exhausted during the 

almost four year evaluation.
6

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 General Project Approach

Table 3-1 summarizes pre-demonstration activities and completion dates. The original plan was to install 

systems in two separate buildings that shared a well. The main building was the LEADS Head Start 

building, which was estimated to have a peak flowrate of 9 gpm. The second building was a library,

which was estimated to have a peak flowrate of 3 gpm. The plan as set forth in the letter of understanding 

(LOU), request for quotation (RFQ), and engineering plan was to have two appropriately sized systems 

designed by Kinetico for each of the buildings. Because of concerns over liability issues between the 

management of the LEADS Head Start Program and the library, the Head Start management decided to 

drill a new well on January 25, 2006, and to separate its water distribution from the library. Only one 10-

gpm system was placed in the Head Start building. 

The performance evaluation study of the 10-gpm system began on June 28, 2006, and ended on February

24, 2010. 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. This was monitored through the collection of water 

samples across the treatment train, as described in a revised study plan for the one 10-gpm treatment 

system (Battelle, 2005). The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking 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. Pre-Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates

Activity Date

Introductory Meeting Held August 18, 2004

Project Planning Meeting Held October 4, 2004

Final Letter of Understanding Issued(a) November 1, 2004

Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor(a) November 5, 2004

Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle(a) November 15, 2004

Purchase Order Completed and Signed(a) December 22, 2004

Engineering Plan Submitted to OEPA(a) February 24, 2005

Final Study Plan Issued(a) March 3, 2005

Comments Received from OEPA(a) March 17, 2005

Sampling of New Well January 25, 2006

Revised Engineering Plan Submitted to OEPA(b) April 5, 2006

System Permit Issued by OEPA(b) April 10, 2006

New Well Permit Issued by OEPA May 17, 2006

Purchase Order Revised and Issued(b) May 23, 2006

System Installation Completed(b) June 2, 2006

System Shakedown Completed(b) June 23, 2006

Performance Evaluation Begun June 28, 2006

OEPA = Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

(a) For two treatment systems in Head Start and library buildings.

(b) For one treatment system in Head Start building.
7

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, 

materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost

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 of relevant chemical processes and health 

and safety practices

Residual 

Management

-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated 

by system process

System Cost -Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation

-O&M cost for media replacement, electricity usage, and labor

O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through a combination of quantitative data and 

qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation, 

extent of preventive maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory, 

and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and safety practices. 

The staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. 

The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and 

the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital cost for equipment, 

site engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical 

supplies, electrical power use, and labor. 

3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection

The operator performed system O&M and data collection following the instructions provided by the 

vendor and Battelle. On a regular basis, the operator recorded system operational data, such as pressure 

and totalizer readings on a System Operation Log Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure 

normal system operations. If any problems occurred, the operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who 

then determined if Kinetico should be contacted for troubleshooting. The operator recorded all relevant 

information, including problems encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and 

associated cost and labor incurred on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a monthly basis, the 

operator measured several water quality parameters onsite, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen 

(DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded the data on an Onsite 

Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet. 

The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and 

system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for media replacement, electricity consumption, 

and labor. Labor for various activities, such as the routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and 

demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system

O&M included activities such as completing field logs, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, 

and others as recommended by the vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities 
8

such as performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the 

Battelle Study Lead and the vendor, was recorded, but not used for cost analysis.

3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules

To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the treatment plant, and 

from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides sampling schedules and analytes measured during each 

sampling event. Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the treatment system along with the analytes and 

schedules at each sampling location. 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, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is 

described in Appendix A of the QAPP.

3.3.1 Source Water. Source water samples from the well shared by the Head Start and library 

buildings were collected and speciated during the initial site visit on August 18, 2004. Because a new 

well was drilled for the Head Start building, samples of the new well were collected and speciated on 

January 25, 2006. Speciation was performed using arsenic speciation kits (see Section 3.4.1). Before 

sampling, sample taps were flushed for several minutes; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which 

could cause unwanted oxidation. The samples were analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. 

3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the first six months of system opertion, the operator

collected treatment plant water samples every other week (except for four sampling events that took place 

once every one, three, or four weeks) at four locations across the treatment train, including at the wellhead 

(IN), after chlorination (AC), and after adsorption vessels (TA and TB). Due to low water usage, 

sampling frequency was reduced to monthly after December 19, 2006. In February 2007, a sampling tap 

was added after the water softener (AS) and water samples were collected at five locations from this point

forward. Sampling frequency was further reduced to quarterly from May 1, 2007, through the end of the 

evaluation period. Two Battelle staff members traveled to the site each quarter to collect quarterly 

samples. 

Because analytical data contained a number of inconsistencies during the first several months of system 

operation (perhaps due to a large water holding capacity [300 to 400 gal] in the treatment system and a 

small water use rate [675 gpd]), beginning in May 2007, the following steps were taken to ensure that 

new well water was flowing through the treatment system and that more representative samples were 

collected during sampling:

• Sampling to be conducted in the middle of the week to avoid any issues with stagnant water

in the treatment system on weekends.

• Before sampling, the treatment system to be flushed with approximately 400 gal of water 

(considering the combined water holding capacity in all system components, including a 

pressure tank, a water softener, a contact tank, two adsorption vessels, and associated piping) 

by turning on a mop sink and a kitchen sink at a combined flowrate of approximately 4 gpm. 

Speciation samples were taken during every other sampling event for the first six months of system

operation. Beginning on December 19, 2006, speciation samples were collected during each sampling 

event. Initially, samples taken during the speciation sampling events were analyzed for total and soluble 

arsenic (including As[III] and As[V]), total and soluble iron, and total and soluble manganese (except for 

two sampling events on June 28 and August 30, 2006, when other analytes listed under non-speciation 

events as shown below also were analyzed). Samples taken during the non-speciation events were 

analyzed for total arsenic, total iron, total manganese, calcium, magnesium, fluoride, nitrate, sulfate, 
9

Table 3-3. Sampling Schedules and Analyses

Sample 

Type

Sample 

Locations(a)

No. of 

Samples Frequency Analytes

Collection 

Date(s)

Source 

Water

IN 1 Once (after 

new well 

installation)

Offsite: 

As (total and soluble), 

As(III), As(V), 

Fe (total and soluble), 

Mn (total and soluble), 

Ca, Mg, NH3, TOC, and 

alkalinity,

08/18/04(b)

01/25/06(c)

Treatment 

Plant Water

IN, AS, AC, 

TA, TB

5(d) Biweekly to 

Quarterly(e)

Onsite: pH, temperature, 

DO, ORP, and/or Cl2

(total and free)

Offsite: 

As (total and soluble), 

As(III), As(V), 

Fe (total and soluble), 

Mn (total and soluble), 

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3,

SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, 

turbidity, alkalinity, 

TTHM, and/or HAA5

See Appendix B 

Backwash 

Wastewater

Backwash 

Wastewater 

Discharge 

Line

1 Once pH, TDS, TSS, 

As(total and soluble),

Fe (total and soluble), and

Mn (total and soluble)

12/13/06

Distribution 

Water

Two LCR

and one nonLCR sinks

3 Monthly(f) Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu, and 

Pb, pH and alkalinity

See Table 4-17

(a) Abbreviations corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 3-1 (IN = at wellhead, AS =

after water softener, AC = after chlorination, and TA and TB = after adsorption vessels A and B).

(b) From well shared by Head Start and library buildings.

(c) From new well installed by Head Start.

(d) AS sampling location was added in February 2007.

(e) Biweekly sampling from June 28, 2006, through December 19, 2006; monthly sampling from 

January 5, 2007, through May 1, 2007; and quarterly sampling from September 19, 2007, through

February 24, 2010.

(f) Four baseline sampling events performed before system startup. After system startup, 12 monthly 

sampling events conducted between August 23, 2006, and September 12, 2007. The non-LCR 

sampling location in the library building removed from monthly sampling due to removal of that

building from demonstration project. 

LCR = lead and copper rule

silica, phosphorus, turbidity, and alkalinity. pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were measured onsite during 

all sampling events. A number of exceptions occurred during sampling and are summarized as follows: 

• Starting from December 19, 2006, with the beginning of monthly sampling, all analytes listed 

above were analyzed during each sampling event.

• Starting from April 5, 2007, ammonia was analyzed for samples collected during each 

sampling event.
10

INFLUENT Unit Process

AC After Conditioning

BW Backwash Sampling Location

AS After Softening

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

DA: Cl2 Chlorine Disinfection

TB After Vessel B

TA After Vessel A

Water Sampling Locations

LEGEND

IN Influent

SEWER

INFLUENT

(WELL #1)

WATER SOFTENING/

IRON REMOVAL

Biweekly to Quarterly

Buckeye Lake, OH

UltrAsorb-F® Technology

Design Flow: 10 gpm

DA: Cl2

Footnote

(a) On-site analyses

BW

pH, TSS, TDS,

As (total and soluble),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble)

pH(a)

, temperature(a)

, DO(a)

, ORP(a)

, As(III), As(V),

As (total and/or soluble), Fe (total and/or soluble),

Mn (total and/or soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, 

SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, turbidity, alkalinity, TTHM, 

and/or HAA5

DISTRIBUTION

SYSTEM

MEDIA 

VESSEL 

B

MEDIA 

VESSEL 

A

TA

TB

AS

120-GAL

CONTACT TANK

120-GAL

PRESSURE TANK

AC

IN

pH(a)

, temperature(a)

, DO(a)

, ORP(a)

, As(III), As(V), 

As (total and/or soluble), Fe (total and/or soluble),

Mn (total and/or soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, 

SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, turbidity, alkalinity, TTHM, 

and/or HAA5

pH(a)

, temperature(a)

, DO(a)

, ORP(a)

, As(III), As(V), 

Cl2 (total and free), As (total and/or soluble),

Fe (total and/or soluble), Mn (total and/or soluble), 

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, turbidity, 

alkalinity, TTHM, and/or HAA5

pH(a)

, temperature(a)

, DO(a)

, ORP(a)

, As(III), As(V), 

Cl2 (total and free), As (total and/or soluble),

Fe (total and/or soluble), Mn (total and/or soluble), 

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, turbidity, 

alkalinity, TTHM, and/or HAA5

pH(a)

, temperature(a)

, DO(a), ORP(a), As(III), As(V), 

Cl2 (total and free), As (total and/or soluble),

Fe (total and/or soluble), Mn (total and/or soluble), 

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, turbidity, 

alkalinity, TTHM, and/or HAA5

INFLUENT Unit Process

AC After Conditioning

BW Backwash Sampling Location

AS After Softening

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

DA: Cl2 Chlorine Disinfection

TB After Vessel B

TA After Vessel A

Water Sampling Locations

LEGEND

IN Influent

INFLUENT Unit Process

AC After Conditioning

BW Backwash Sampling Location

AS After Softening

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

DA: Cl2 Chlorine Disinfection

TB After Vessel B

TA After Vessel A

Water Sampling Locations

LEGEND

IN Influent

SEWER

INFLUENT

(WELL #1)

WATER SOFTENING/

IRON REMOVAL

Biweekly to Quarterly

Buckeye Lake, OH

UltrAsorb-F® Technology

Design Flow: 10 gpm

DA: Cl2

Footnote

(a) On-site analyses

BW

pH, TSS, TDS,

As (total and soluble),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble)

pH(a)

, temperature(a)

, DO(a)

, ORP(a)

, As(III), As(V),

As (total and/or soluble), Fe (total and/or soluble),

Mn (total and/or soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, 

SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, turbidity, alkalinity, TTHM, 

and/or HAA5

DISTRIBUTION

SYSTEM

MEDIA 

VESSEL 

B

MEDIA 

VESSEL 

A

TA

TB

AS

120-GAL

CONTACT TANK

120-GAL

PRESSURE TANK

AC

IN

pH(a)

, temperature(a)

, DO(a)

, ORP(a)

, As(III), As(V), 

As (total and/or soluble), Fe (total and/or soluble),

Mn (total and/or soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, 

SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, turbidity, alkalinity, TTHM, 

and/or HAA5

pH(a)

, temperature(a)

, DO(a)

, ORP(a)

, As(III), As(V), 

Cl2 (total and free), As (total and/or soluble),

Fe (total and/or soluble), Mn (total and/or soluble), 

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, turbidity, 

alkalinity, TTHM, and/or HAA5

pH(a)

, temperature(a)

, DO(a)

, ORP(a)

, As(III), As(V), 

Cl2 (total and free), As (total and/or soluble),

Fe (total and/or soluble), Mn (total and/or soluble), 

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, turbidity, 

alkalinity, TTHM, and/or HAA5

pH(a)

, temperature(a)

, DO(a), ORP(a), As(III), As(V), 

Cl2 (total and free), As (total and/or soluble),

Fe (total and/or soluble), Mn (total and/or soluble), 

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, turbidity, 

alkalinity, TTHM, and/or HAA5

Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
11

• Starting from September 19, 2007, TTHM and TOC were analyzed for samples taken from 

all sampling locations across the treatment train and at the kitchen sink in the distribution 

system (DIST). HAA5 also were added to the list of analytes on March 19, 2008. 

3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater. The treatment system was backwashed once on December 13, 

2006, after approximately six months of system operation. (The operator tried to backwash in September 

after 3 months of operation; however, because it was not done correctly, the filters were not backwashed). 

Backwash wastewater samples were collected by directing a portion of backwash wastewater at 

approximately 1 gpm to a clean, 32-gal container over the duration of backwash for each vessel. This 

sidestream was produced via plastic tubing connected to a tap on the backwash wastewater discharge line. 

After the content in the container was thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected and/or filtered 

onsite with 0.45-μm disc filters. Analytes for the backwash wastewater samples are listed in Table 3-3. 

Because there was no pressure loss across the treatment train, backwashing was not necessary. Therefore, 

no additional backwashing was done after December 2006. 

3.3.4 Spent Media. The media did not reach breakthrough for arsenic during the almost four years 

of operation. Therefore, no sampling or analysis was performed for spent media. 

3.3.5 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to 

determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system, 

specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to system startup from January 2005 to March

2005, four sets of baseline samples were collected from three sampling locations, including two sinks in 

the Head Start building that were part of the historic sampling network under the Lead and Copper Rule 

(LCR) and one sink in the library building that was not part of the LCR network. Because the library

building was removed from the system performance evaluation study prior to system startup, sampling in 

the library building was discontinued after completion of baseline sampling. Therefore, only two LCR

locations were sampled for distribution system water sampling after system startup. Distribution system 

water sampling continued on a monthly basis from August 23, 2006, through September 12, 2007. 

The distribution system water samples were collected following an instruction sheet developed by 

Battelle according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems

(EPA, 2002). For the baseline sampling and first four monthly sampling events after system startup, both

first draw and flushed samples were collected from the sink faucets. Afterwards, only first draw samples 

were taken. For the first draw samples, stagnant water was collected from faucets that had not been used 

for at least six hours. Because the time water was last used before sampling was not known in the Head 

Start building, staganation time typically could not be determined. The samples were analyzed for the 

analytes listed in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not performed on the distribution water samples.

3.3.6 Disinfection Byproducts. In September 2007, the operator and Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency (OEPA) informed Battelle that TTHM and HAA5 had been exceeding their MCL of 

80 μg/L and 60 μg/L, respectively, on several occasions after the treatment system was installed. TTHM 

concentrations ranged from 37.3 to 220 μg/L from June 2006 through December 2007 and HAA5 

concentrations ranged from 39 to 262 μg/L during the same period.

Several steps were taken to define the extent of and determine the cause of the DBP formation, including: 

(1) sampling across the treatment train for DBPs, (2) conducting a DBP formation potential study on the 

influent (taken from the AS sampling location) to the adsorption vessels, and (3) conducting a column 

study. The methods are described below and can be found in greater details in a letter report (Chen and 

Yates, 2009) and a Test Plan to EPA (Chen et al., 2009b).
12

Onsite Disinfection Byproducts Sampling. As described in Section 3.3.2, TOC, TTHM, and/or HAA5 

were added to the analyte list starting from September 19, 2007, and March 19, 2008, respectively. In 

addition, historical TTHM, HAA5, and chlorine data were evaluated to assess the cause of the high DBP 

levels observed in the distribution system.

DBP Formation Potential Study. The formation potential of softened water taken at the AS location 

was examined following the procedures developed by Summers et al. (1996). Softened water was used 

for the study because it did not contain soluble iron, which would precipitate during sampling and transit, 

causing unwanted incidental removal of arsenic and dissolved organic matter (DOM). 

Four chlorine doses and four reaction times were tested (Table 3-4). Assuming 0.5-mg/L chlorine 

demand, 1.5, 2.5, and 4.5 mL of a 1.02 g/L (as Cl2) NaOCl stock solution was spiked into appropriate 

amounts of the AS water to achieve target free chlorine residual levels of 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 mg/L (as Cl2). 

The actual chlorine doses were verified by spiking 1.5, 2.5, and 4.5 mL of the stock solution into three 1-

L amber bottles filled with deionized (DI) water. Free chlorine concentrations as measured by Hach free 

chlorine test kits were 1.6, 2.6, and 4.8 mg/L, which were within +4.0 to +6.7% of the target levels. Thus, 

these spiking amounts were used for the formation potential experiments.

Table 3-4. Experimental Parameters for DBP Formation Potential Study

Parameter/Condition(a) Unit Values

Chlorine Dosage mg/L (as Cl2) 0, 1.6, 2.6, and 4.8

Reaction Time hr 0, 12, 24, and 48

Temperature °C Ambient

(a) Duplicate samples at 48-hr contact time taken for TTHM and 

HAA5 analyses.

Table 3-5 presents the experimental matrix for the formation potential study. Appropriate aliquots (i.e., 

1.5, 2.5, or 4.5 mL) of the NaOCl stock solution were spiked into a series of 1 L, pre-labeled, pre-cleaned 

amber bottles (i.e., five bottles per chlorine dosage) filled with the AS water. Care was taken to ensure no 

head-space as the bottles were capped with Teflon®-lined caps. Five additional bottles that did not 

receive any chlorine were used as controls. The analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, 

preservation, and holding times are discussed in a letter report to EPA (Chen and Yates, 2009). 

Column Study. A series of columns was used to re-create the conditions seen at Buckeye Lake in the 

laboratory. Columns were loaded separately with:

(1) Virgin ARM 200 media and fed with a softened water, taken at the AS location, chlorinated 

with approximately 4 mg/L of NaOCl (as Cl2) – Column A. This column was used to

simulate the conditions observed at the Head Start building, examine the TOC breakthrough 

behavior, and determine if ARM 200 media was indeed responsible for the elevated DBPs 

observed.

(2) Partially spent ARM 200 media taken from Vessel A and fed with a chlorinated DI water 

(approximately 4 mg/L of NaOCl [as Cl2] in DI water) – Column B. This column was used

to determine if pre-adsorbed TOC on the media could lead to continued formation of DBPs.

(3) Partially spent ARM 200 media taken from Vessel A and fed with a chlorinated AS water 

(similar to that described under Column A) – Column C. This column was used to recreate 

conditions seen at the site.
13

Table 3-5. Experimental Matrices for DBP Formation Potential Study

Chlorine

Dose

(mg/L [as Cl2])

Reaction 

Time

(hr)

Reaction

Bottle

ID

Measurements

Cl2 pH Temp THMs HAA5

0 0 1 × × ×

12 2 × × ×

24 3 × × ×

48 4 × × × × ×

48 (Dup) 5 × × ×

1.6 0(a) 6 × × ×

12 7 × × × × ×

24 8 × × × × ×

48 9 × × × × ×

48 (Dup) 10 × × × × ×

2.6 0(a) 11 × × ×

12 12 × × × × ×

24 13 × × × × ×

48 14 × × × × ×

48 (Dup) 15 × × × × ×

4.8 0(a) 16 × × ×

12 17 × × × × ×

24 18 × × × × ×

48 19 × × × × ×

48 (Dup) 20 × × × × ×

(a) Time-0 measurements taken about 10 to 20 min after chlorine addition.

The apparatus used for the column studies (see Figure 3-2) consisted of one 5-gal straight-wall 

polypropylene reservoir (for chlorinated AS water), one 5-gal plastic bucket (for chlorinated DI water), 

three FMI Q pumps (Model QG50 MB), three 1-in × 12-in glass columns (Ace Glass, Vineland, NJ), and 

two 5-gal buckets for effluent collection. The glass column assembly was constructed of glass, Teflon®, 

and stainless steel (SS). Figure 3-3 shows the schematic of a glass column, which had two threaded

Teflon® end caps, each fitted with a 1⁄4-in National Pipe Thread (NPT) to 1⁄8-in compression fitting. 

Teflon® tubing (1⁄8 in) and SS Swaglok® fittings were used to make connections to the FMI pumps and 

waste buckets.

After thoroughly rinsed with DI water to remove fines, a 10-in section of ARM 200 media was packed 

into a glass column and secured between two glass wool/glass bead end plugs. Before media packing, the 

bottom end cap was connected to the discharge side of an FMI pump, which was used to fill the column 

half-way with DI water. Special care was taken to avoid trapping any air bubbles in the Teflon® tubing 

and, especially, the bottom glass wool/glass bead plug. During media packing, media granules were

dispensed slowly into the column using a spatula and the column was tapped to ensure that there were no 

air bubbles in the media bed. After placing the top end cap, the exit tubing was directed to a 5-gal waste 

bucket.
14

Figure 3-2. Column Study Apparatus

Figure 3-3. Glass Column Schematic
15

The chlorinated AS water was prepared and stored in 5-gal straight-wall reservoirs. To minimize 

volitalization of DBPs formed from chlorination, a floating Teflon® lid at 1/64-in thickness (and a 

diameter just less than that of the reservoir) was placed on the top of the reservoir and allowed to move 

vertically along with the water level (see Figure 3-4). Efforts were made to ensure that the lid rested flush 

to the surface of water in the reservoir. A 1⁄4-in opening was drilled in the center of the lid to allow the 1⁄8-

in influent line to pass through. The reservoir was replenished by carefully moving the Teflon® lid aside 

and slowly pouring in the replenishment solution along the wall of the reservoir. The reservoir and the 

glass columns were covered in aluminum foil to prevent incident light from entering the apparatus.

Figure 3-4. Floating Teflon® Lid

The columns were operated upflow with a design EBCT of 30 min, which yielded a flowrate of 

4.3 mL/min. The upflow configuration was used to avoid accumulation of air bubbles in the coloumn. 

The target flowrate was attained by adjusting the pump to decrease or increase the flow as necessary.

Before the column studies began, Column A was conditioned with a chlorinated water (approximately 4 

mg/L of chlorine [Cl2] in DI water). Upon chlorine breakthrough at 1.6 mg/L (as Cl2), samples were 

collected and analyzed for TOC, TTHM, and HAA5 to determine if the media itself could promote DBP 

formation in the presence of chlorine. After sample collection, the chlorinated DI water was replaced 

with a chlorinated AS water. Periodic samples were collected subsequently to evaluate the formation of 

DBPs due to the presence of TOC and chlroine in the influent water.
16

Columns B and C were not conditioned as they were loaded with partially spent media from Vessel A, 

which had already been exposed to chlorine for an extended period prior to media sampling. Samples 

also were collected periodically from these two columns and analyzed for TOC, TTHM, and HAA5 to 

evaluate DBP formation.

Effluent samples were collected by placing an effluent tubing into a clean 250-mL Erlenmeyer flask, 

allowing it to overflow for 10 to 15 min, and quickly filling sample bottles free of headspace with the 

water in the flask. In this way, potential loss of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) would be diffusionlimited to a small layer near the air/water interface at the top of the flask. One 250-mL flask was 

sufficient to fill all sample containers required by the studies. Influent samples were collected directly 

from the plastic bucket by using a 25 mL disposable pipette or from the straight-wall polyethylene (PE)

reservoir by inserting the tip of a pipette into the opening in the center of the Teflon® lid (so the lid would 

not be unnecessarily disturbed). Sampling schedule, sample volumes, containers, preservatives, and hold 

times for each relevant analyte are discussed in greater detail in the column study test plan (Chen et al., 

2009b).

3.4 Sampling Logistics

All demonstration-related sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kits preparation, sample cooler 

preparation, and sampling shipping and handling are discussed as follows:

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

exchange resin column to separate soluble arsenic species, i.e., 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, 2004).

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, colored-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 the 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

were separated by sampling location, placed in 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 placed in each cooler. 

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. For the sampling events conducted by Battelle staff, all sampling-related materials 

were taken to the site by the Battelle staff member.

3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were 

packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped or driven 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.
17

Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle’s inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICPMS) laboratory. Samples for other water quality parameters were packed in separate coolers and picked 

up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, Ohio, Belmont Labs in 

Englewood, Ohio, and TCCI Laboratories in New Lexington, Ohio, all of which were under contract with

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

time of preparation through collection, 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 Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were 

followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, Belmont Labs, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality 

assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms 

of precision, accuracy, 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 or Battelle 

staff member 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. 
18

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Facility Description

The LEADS Head Start building is located at 5312 Walnut Rd. SE, Buckeye Lake, Ohio, approximately 

30 miles east of Columbus, Ohio. LEADS Head Start is a preschool with approximately 60 students and 

staff members. A new well was installed on January 25, 2006, to supply water to the Head Start building. 

The well was installed to a depth of 125 ft below ground surface (bgs) with a screen set from 121 to 125 ft 

bgs. Groundwater was delivered at 12 gpm with a 1⁄2-horsepower (hp) submersible pump (Aeromotor 

model A50S-12) set at 100 ft bgs. Figure 4-1 shows the treatment room, which housed a pressure tank

(installed when the new well was installed), a water softener, a chlorination module, and a retention tank. 

The average daily use rate was estimated to be 675 gpd according to the school. 

Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Treatment System Components at Head Start Building

(From left to right: Pressure Tank, Chlorination Module, Retention Tank, and Softening Unit)

Pre-existing treatment at the facility included a dual column IX softening module in series configuration

and a chlorination system using dilute sodium hypochlorite solution for disinfection. Water from the well

was pumped directly to a 120-gal hydropneumatic tank located in the treatment room prior to the 

treatment system. After the hydropneumatic tank, water was softened and then chlorinated. Chlorinated 

water was held in a 120-gal contact tank prior to going to the distribution system.
19

4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples from the well shared by the Head Start and 

the library buildings were collected during the initial site visit on August 18, 2004. Installation of the

new well for the Head Start building was completed on January 25, 2006, so another set of samples was

collected on that day. Because the new well was installed approximately five months before system 

startup, little historical data were available. Table 4-1 presents the results of source water analyses and 

those obtained from OEPA for the new well. 

Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for New Well

Parameter Unit

OEPA 

Raw Water

Data

Battelle 

Raw Water 

Data

Date 01/25/06 01/25/06

pH 7.6 N/A

Total Alkalinity(as CaCO3) mg/L 309 343

Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 266 298

TDS mg/L 359 N/A

TOC mg/L N/A 2.0

Nitrate (as N) mg/L <0.1 N/A

Nitrite (as N) mg/L <0.1 N/A

Ammonia (as N) mg/L N/A 0.9

Chloride mg/L <5 N/A

Fluoride mg/L 0.9 N/A

Sulfate mg/L 24 N/A

As(total) μg/L 17.0 15.2

As (soluble) μg/L N/A 14.5

As (particulate) μg/L N/A 0.7

As(III) μg/L N/A 12.1

As(V) μg/L N/A 2.4

Fe (total) μg/L 1,216 1,312

Fe (soluble) μg/L N/A 1,241

Mn (total) μg/L 70.9 83.4

Mn (soluble) μg/L N/A 80.3

Na (total) mg/L 36.3 N/A

Ca (total) mg/L 70 80.4

Mg (total) mg/L 22.1 23.5

Pb (total) μg/L <5 N/A

Cu (total) μg/L <40 N/A

N/A= not available; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total 

organic carbon

Total arsenic concentrations ranged from 15.2 to 17.0 μg/L. Based on the January 25, 2006, sampling 

results obtained by Battelle, 14.5 μg/L (or 95%) of total arsenic existed as soluble arsenic and 83% of 

soluble arsenic was present as As(III). 

The pH of source water was 7.6, which is within the acceptable range of 5.5 to 8.0 for arsenic removal by

adsorptive media. Therefore, pH adjustment was not required. 

Iron concentrations in raw water ranged from 1,216 to 1,312 μg/L, existing mostly as soluble iron. The 

pre-existing water softener reduced iron concentrations to near or below the MCL of 30 μg/L, as shown 
20

by the data provided by the Head Start, EPA, and vendor (Battelle, 2005). This softening unit was placed 

upstream of the arsenic removal system. 

Manganese concentrations in raw water were high, ranging from 70.9 to 83.4 μg/L. Manganese existed 

almost entirely as soluble manganese. As much as 0.9 mg/L of ammonia was detected in source water. 

Soluble manganese and ammonia should be removed by the water softener.

The TOC concentration in source water was 2.0 mg/L, which can react with chlorine to form DBPs. 

Because the treatment system has a relatively large water holding capacity and a relatively small use rate

as noted in Section 3.3.2, resulting residence times after chlorination can be long. Long residence times

can contribute to higher DBP concentrations (Rathbun, 1997; Summers et al., 1996).

Other water quality parameters presented in Table 4-1 had sufficiently low concentrations and, therefore, 

were not expected to affect arsenic adsorption on adsorptive media.

4.1.2 Distribution System. Installed in 1990, the distribution system was constructed primarily of 

1-/1.5-in Schedule 80/40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and 0.75-in copper pipe. There are no lead pipes or 

known lead solder in the distribution system. Nonetheless, samples are collected from five taps within 

the Head Start building every three years under the EPA LCR. Other compliance samples collected from 

the distribution system include those collected quarterly for bacterial analysis and every three years for 

VOCs. 

4.2 Treatment Process Description

The Kinetico arsenic removal system uses ARM 200, a granular ferric hydroxide media developed by

Engelhard Corporation specifically for arsenic adsorption. Table 4-2 lists physical properties of the 

media. The media has NSF International (NSF) Standard 61 approval for use in drinking water. 

Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of Adsorptive Media

Parameter

ARM 200

Physical Properties

Physical Form Dry granular media

Matrix ferric oxide/hydroxide

Color (Dark) brown

Bulk Density (g/cm3) [lb/ft3] 0.80(a) [50(a)]

BET area (m2/g) 225

Sieve size (U.S. Standard) 20 × 40 mesh

Moisture Content (%) 8

Attrition (%) <1

(a) As measured by Battelle
21

The Kinetico arsenic removal system is a fixed-bed adsorption system consisting of two pressure vessels 

containing ARM 200 media. Figure 4-2 shows a system schematic. Operation of the system involves 

routine sampling and periodic backwashing of the adsorptive media. When arsenic reaches 10 μg/L 

following the lag vessel, the media in the lead vessel is replaced with virgin media. The newly-rebedded 

lead vessel is then placed at the lag position via valving adjustment. Spent media, which is expected to 

pass the EPA’s Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test, can be disposed of as

nonhazardous waste.

The arsenic removal system was constructed using Schedule 80 PVC piping and fittings. Table 4-3 

summarizes the design features of the system. Figure 4-3 shows a photograph of the system. The major 

system components/treatment steps are described as follows:

• Intake and Pressure Tank. Raw water pumped from the well was fed to the pre-existing,

120-gal WX-350 Well-X-Trol (by Amtrol) pressure tank via a 1-in copper pipe. The pressure 

tank operated with low- and high-pressure triggers at 40 and 60 psi, respectively, such that 

when the pressure fell below 40 psi, the well pump was turned on and when the pressure 

reached 60 psi, the well pump was turned off. 

• Water Softener. One CSI Water Treatment Systems dual column IX softening module in 

series configuration was located after the 120-gal pressure tank. The softener was used to

remove calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese, and ammonia from the well water. The water 

softener was set to regenerate every 300 gal using raw water from the 120-gal pressure tank.

• Pre-chlorination/Oxidation. Chlorine was added prior to the arsenic removal system to 

oxidize As(III) to As(V). The chlorine addition system consisted of a Liquid Metronics UniDose Model U021-281 metering pump with a maximum capacity of 12 gpd, a chlorine 

injection tap, a flow switch, and a 10-gal polyethylene chemical feed tank (containing a 

solution of 1 gal of 5.75% NaOCl with 9 gal of water). The flow switch was installed in the 

water piping and would turn on the pump to inject chlorine when water flow was detected. 

Because As(III) levels in raw water were typically low (<15 μg/L) and because reducing 

species such as iron, manganese, and ammonia had already been removed by the softener, the 

chlorine demand was low. The dosage was based on the state-required total and free residual 

levels of 1 and 0.2 mg/L (as Cl2), respectively, in the distribution system and the target dose

was set at 1 mg/L (as Cl2). Because the injection rate did not vary with varying flowrates, 

this pump could not provide a constant residual level throughout the study period. 

To resolve the problem of fluctuating residual levels in the distribution system, a Pulsafeeder 

Pulsatron E-Plus flow-paced pump and seaMetrics MJ series pulse meter were installed to 

gain better control over chlorine dosage on November 2, 2009. After installation, chlorine 

dosage was better controlled, but still fluctuated between 0.7 to 4.9 mg/L (as Cl2) (with the 

use of approximately 2,000 to 5,000 mg/L (as Cl2) of NaOCl solutions). The resulting total 

and free chlorine residual levels averaged 0.9 and 0.75 mg/L (as Cl2), respectively. 

• Retention Tank. Once the water was chlorinated, it was stored in a 120-gal Well-Mate 

contact tank to ensure sufficient contact times for oxidation and disinfection.

• ARM 200 Adsorption. The ARM 200 adsorption system consisted of two Pentair 18 in × 

65-in sealed polyethylene vessels in series, each containing 4.5 ft3 of ARM 200 media. The 

media (30.5 in) was placed over the bottom distributor. Each vessel had approximately 25 in

of freeboard and an upper distributor. The softened and chlorinated water entered the top of
22

Figure 4-2. Schematic of Arsenic Removal System with Series Configuration
23

Table 4-3. Design Specifications of Arsenic Removal System

Parameter Value Remarks

Adsorption

Vessel Size (in) 18 D × 65 H –

Number of Vessels 2 –

Configuration Series –

Media Type ARM 200 Iron oxide/hydroxide

Media Quantity (lb/vessel) 225 –

Media Volume (ft3/vessel) 4.5 –

Design Flowrate (gpm) 10 –

Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2) 5.6 –

EBCT (min/vessel) 3.3 6.6 min for both vessels

Maximum Use Rate (gpd) 675 Estimate provided by Head Start

Estimated Working Capacity (BV) 35,000 Vendor estimated bed volumes to 

breakthrough at 10 μg/L from lead tank

Throughput to Breakthrough (gal) 1,179,500 Vendor estimated throughput to 

breakthrough at 10 μg/L from lead tank

(1 bed volume = 4.5 ft3 or 33.7 gal)

Estimated Media Life (month) 57 Estimated frequency of media changeout in 

lead tank based on throughput of 675 gpd

Backwash

Backwash (time/month) 1 Based on pressure drop

Initiating ∆p (psi) 6–7 –

Number of Vessels for Backwash 2 –

Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2) 5.6–7.3 –

Backwash Flowrate (gpm) 10–13 –

Backwash Duration (min) 15–20 –

Wastewater Production (gal/vessel) 200 –

Wastewater Production (gal/event) 400 –

the vessel and flowed down through the media and exited the bottom of the vessel. Based on 

a design flowrate of 10 gpm, the hydraulic loading to the vessels was 5.6 gpm/ft2 and the 

EBCT for each vessel was 3.3 min. The vessels were valved so that the positions of the lead 

and lag vessels could be reversed after the media in the lead vessel was replaced. 

Based on the average daily total use rate of about 675 gpd, size of the adsorption vessels, and 

chemistry of source water, it was expected that the media would last for approximately 57 

months before requiring vessel rotation and changeout of the lead vessel. Factors anticipated 

to play a role in system performance include arsenic concentration, arsenic species, pH, 

natural organic matter, and concentrations of competing ions present in source water.

• Backwash Operation. Backwash piping was installed so that the media could be 

backwashed to remove particles and fluff the media beds to minimize channeling. The 

operator monitored inlet and outlet pressure of both vessels and could manually initiate 

backwashing if differential pressure (∆p) readings across a vessel had increased to about 6 to 

7 psi. During the performance evaluation study, ∆p readings across the vessels never reached 

6 to 7 psi. 
24

Figure 4-3. Adsorptive Media Arsenic Removal System

• Media Disposal. When ARM 200 media exhausts its capacity, the spent media will be 

removed from the vessels and disposed of at a sanitary landfill after successfully passing 

EPA’s TCLP test. Virgin media will then be loaded into the lead vessel. During the almost 

four years of system operations, the media did not reach exhaustion.

4.3 System Installation

Engineering plans for the treatment system in the Head Start building were prepared by Kinetico. The 

plans consisting of a schematic and a written description of the arsenic removal system were submitted to 

OEPA for approval on April 5, 2006. The approval was granted on April 10, 2006. 

The system was installed in the existing treatment room, shown in Figure 4-1, without any addition or 

modifications. The system consisting of two adsorption vessels, media, piping, valves, gauges, and 

sample taps was delivered to the site on May 19, 2006. Kinetico met with a subcontractor on May 19, 

2006, to plan for system installation. The subcontractor installed the system to the tie-ins at the inlet and 

entry point to the distribution system. System installation was completed on June 2, 2006, and system 

shakedown was completed by Kinetico on June 23, 2006. 

A Battelle staff member was onsite on June 28, 2006, to inspect the system and train the operator for 

sampling and data collection. No operational issues were identified during the system inspection. 
25

However, shortly after system startup, the operator identified several issues, which were quickly resolved 

by the vendor. Table 4-4 summarizes the items identified and corrective actions taken.

Table 4-4. System Punch-List/Operational Issues and Corrective Action

Item 

No.

Punch List/

Operational Issues Corrective Action Taken

Resolution

Date

1 Pressure Readings higher after 

Vessels A and B as compared to 

influent pressure readings

Three new replacement gauges 

(0-100 psi) shipped by vendor 

and installed by operator

09/14/06

2 Leak at one pressure gauge Leak fixed by a vendor’s local 

contractor

09/13/06

4.4 System Operation

4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters of the system are tabulated and 

attached as Appendix A and summarized in Table 4-5. The performance evaluation study began on June

28, 2006, and ended on February 24, 2010, for a total of 1,343 days. Approximately half of the days fell 

on weekends or during school breaks when there was little or no water usage. 

Table 4-5. Summary of System Operations

Operational Parameter Value/Condition

Performance Evaluation Duration 06/28/06–02/24/10

Daily Run Time (hr/day) Unknown(a)

Total System Operating Time (hr) Unknown(a)

Total Throughput (gal) 303,200

Average Daily Use Rate (gpd) 450

Instantaneous Flowrate (gpm) <2 (most of times)

EBCT (min/vessel) >16.8 (most of times)

Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2) <1.1 (most of times)

Δp Across System (psi) Negligible

(a) System operated on demand.

The system treated approximately 303,200 gal of water during the study. Based on the total throughput 

and the estimated number of days the school was in session, the daily use rate averaged 450 gpd, 

compared to the 675-gpd rate provided by the school.

The system operated on demand at varying flowrates. Instantaneous flowrates were typically showing 0 

gpm on the flow meter when the operator was onsite. This also was observed when Battelle staff was 

onsite collecting water samples each quarter. The flow meter would not register flow less than 2 gpm and 

there were many situations when water was flowing at a rate less than 2 gpm. Based on site observations, 

the flowrate was typically below 2 gpm for the majority of the day.

Due to low flow through the system, EBCT values were at least five times greater than the designed 

EBCT of 3.3 min per vessel for the majority of the day. On June 17, 2009, the pressure tank, which was 

located upstream of the treatment system, was re-piped to the end of the treatment train. This was done 

so the system would no longer be on demand to gain better control over the chlorine injection system. 
26

The water softener used raw water from the pressure tank for regeneration. When the pressure tank was 

placed at the end of the treatment train, the softener could not be regenerated. Therefore, the pressure 

tank was placed back before the treatment train on September 14, 2009. 

No pressure loss across the system was commonly found throughout the system evaluation study. 

Because the system did not lose pressure, it was not necessary to backwash the media.

4.4.2 Chlorine Addition. The pre-existing chlorine addition system consisted of a day tank filled 

with a NaOCl solution, a metering pump, a flow switch, and an injection port. When the chlorine tank 

was replenished, 1 gal of a 5.75% NaOCl solution was mixed with 9 gal of tap water. The metering pump 

operated at one speed and was turned on when the flow switch detected water flow. Presumably, the 

same amount of chlorine was injected into the on-demand water stream, thus causing a large variation in 

chlorine residuals in the treatment and distribution systems.

The operator visited the site once per week and measured chlorine concentrations from the kitchen sink. 

If the chlorine concentrations were high, he would dilute the chlorine solution in the day tank and if they 

were low, he would add more NaOCl concentrate to the day tank. This and abovementioned on-demand 

flow resulted in highly fluctuating chlorine residuals in the treatment and distribution systems as seen in 

Figure 4-4.

To better control chlorine residuals in the treatment and distribution system, a Battelle staff member 

began to visit the Head Start building in July 2009 at least once a week to check on chlorine consumption; 

adjust the metering pump; replenish the chemical day tank, if necessary; and measure chlorine residuals at 

the AC and/or DIST locations. It was also decided that a paced pump would be better for controlling the 

chlorine dosage and was installed on November 2, 2009. The NaOCl solution in the day tank was 

prepared at a chlorine concentration of approximately 4,000 mg/L (as Cl2). The metering pump was set at 

10 pulses per gal of water at 40% and the target dosage was 1 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2).

Chlorine concentrations in the distribution system continued to fluctuate after the installation of the paced 

pump; however, the fluctuation was less than when the metering pump was in operation. From July 2006 

through October 2009 during operation of the metering pump, total chlorine concentrations measured at 

the kitchen sink ranged from 0.0 to 3.5 mg/L (as Cl2) and averaged 0.8 mg/L (as Cl2); free chlorine

concentrations ranged from 0.0 to 3.4 mg/L (as Cl2) and averaged 0.8 mg/L (as Cl2). From November 

2009 through February 2010 during operation of the paced pump, total chlorine concentrations ranged 

from 0.03 to 1.4 mg/L (as Cl2) and averaged 0.5 mg/L (as Cl2); free chlorine concentrations ranged from 

0.01 to 1.4 mg/L (as Cl2) and averaged 0.4 mg/L (as Cl2). Although the average total chlorine residual 

was below the target of 1.0 mg/L (as Cl2), the average free chlorine residual was slightly higher than the 

target of 0.2 mg/L (as Cl2). In addition, there was no chlorine measurement in the distribution that was 

above 2 mg/L (as Cl2), which is believed to attribute to the much lower TTHM and HAA5 concentrations

measured in samples collected after November 2009.

4.4.3 Media Replacement. The media did not reach exhaustion during the performance evaluation

study and, therefore, it was not replaced.

4.4.4 Residual Management. The only solid residuals produced were backwash wastewater 

solids. The system was backwashed once on December 13, 2006, after approximately six months of 

operation. Backwash wastewater collected in a 33-gal drum was given time to settle. The supernatant 

was then decanted off the top and the solids were collected in a 1-gal container. These solids were not 

analyzed because less than 1,400 BV of water had been treated at the time of the backwash. 
27

Figure 4-4. Total and Free Chlorine Residuals Measured at Kitchen Sink

During backwash, the lead vessel (Vessel A) was backwashed for approximately 20 min at 10 gpm and 

the lag vessel (Vessel B) was backwashed for approximately 15 min at a 13 gpm. A total of 200 gal of 

wastewater was produced through each vessel. The wastewater produced was sent directly to the sewer. 

Because there was very little pressure drop across the system, backwash was no longer performed during 

the remainder of the performance evaluation study.

4.4.5 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation. The system required very little effort by the 

operator. The only problem encountered was the pressure gauges, which read a lower pressure at the 

influent of the treatment system than after each adsorption vessel. Kinetico installed new pressure gauges 

on September 14, 2006. Additional discussion regarding system operation and operator skill 

requirements is provided below.

Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pretreatment included water softening and chlorination. Both 

of these pre-treatments existed prior to the installation of the arsenic removal system. Therefore, there 

were no additional requirements for pre- and post-treatment after the installation of the arsenic removal 

system.

System Automation. The Kinetico adsorptive media arsenic removal system was a passive system, 

requiring only the operation of the supply well pump to send groundwater to the pressure tank at the 

system inlet and through the adsorption vessels to the distribution system. The media vessels themselves 

did not have automated parts and all valves were manually activated. The only electrical power required 

was that needed to run the well pump, water softener, and chlorination pump. All of these components 

were in place prior to the installation of the Kinetico treatment system. The system operation was 

controlled by the pressure switches in the pressure tank at the system inlet. 
28

Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to operate the 

Kinetico arsenic removal system were minimal. The operation of the system did not appear to require

additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the existing system in place at the site.

The level of operator certification is determined by the type and class of the public drinking water 

systems. OEPA’s drinking water rules require all community and non-transient, non-community public 

drinking water and distribution systems to be classified based on potential health risks. Classifications 

range from “Class I” (lowest) to “Class IV” (highest) for treatment systems and from “Class I” to “Class 

II” for distribution systems, depending on such factors as the system’s complexity, size, and source water 

(OEPA, 2006). The Head Start water system is classified as a “Class I” treatment and distribution 

system. The operator has a “Class IV” license, which is higher than what is need to operate the system.

Preventative Maintenance Activities. The only regularly scheduled preventative maintenance activity 

recommended by Kinetico was to watch the pressure across the system and backwash the filters as 

needed. The treatment system operator visited the site approximately once per week for approximately 15 

min each visit to check the system for leaks, and record flow, volume, and pressure readings.

4.5 System Performance

The system performance was evaluated based on analyses of samples collected across the treatment train 

and distribution system. The system ran from June 23, 2006, through February 24, 2010. After almost 

four years of operation, the system had not reached 10-μg/L breakthrough due mainly to the low water 

use rate. Arsenic concentrations stayed below 1.5 μg/L following both the lead and lag vessels 

throughout the entire evaluation period.

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 28 occasions 

including one duplicate and 22 speciation sampling events. Appendix B contains a complete set of 

analytical results through the almost four years of system operation. Table 4-6 summarizes the arsenic, 

iron, and manganese results from samples collected across the treatment plant. Table 4-7 summarizes the 

results of other water quality parameters. The results of the treatment plant sampling are discussed below. 

Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the treatment system was the 

concentration of arsenic in the treated water. 

Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 5.5 to 20.5 μg/L and averaged 15.4 μg/L (Table 4-

6). Soluble As(III) was the predominating species, with concentrations ranging from 2.2 to 16.6 μg/L and 

averaging 11.3 μg/L. Soluble As(V) also was present, averaging 3.0 μg/L. Particulate As was low, 

averaging 1.8 μg/L. Influent arsenic concentrations measured during the almost four-year study period 

were consistent with that in the raw water sample collected prior to the study on January 25, 2006.

Figure 4-5 contains four bar charts each showing the concentrations of total As, particulate As, As(III), 

and As(V) across the treatment train. Because arsenic concentrations remained relatively unchanged 

between the IN and AS locations, only the IN sampling results are presented in the figure. With the

exception of September 28, 2006, March 19, 2008, and September 23, 2009, soluble As(III) was 

effectively oxidized to soluble As(V) by chlorination. Residual chlorine concentrations were not 

measured during the September 28, 2006, sampling event. During the September 23, 2009 sampling 

event, free and total chlorine concentrations were below the MDL at both the AC and DIST locations. 

This explains why the As(III) concentration remained high at the AC location. 

The majority of the arsenic detected after treatment (at the TA and TB locations) was in the soluble As(III) 

form. This is expected since adsorptive media has been shown to have a higher adsorptive
29

Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results

Parameter

(Figure, if any)

Sampling 

Location

Number of 

Samples

Concentration (μg/L) Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

As (total)

(Figure 4-6)

IN 28 5.5 20.5 15.4 4.0

AS 13 13.4 20.1 17.6 2.0

AC 28 9.2 22.4 17.2 2.9

TA 26 <0.1 1.4 –(a)

TB 26 <0.1 1.4

As (soluble)

IN 22 4.1 17.8 14.3 3.6

AS 13 13 17.7 15.9 1.2

AC 22 11.4 19.5 16.0 1.8

TA 20 <0.1 1.8 - -

TB 20 <0.1 1.4 - -

As (particulate)

(Figure 4-5)

IN 22 <0.1 3.7 1.8 1.0

AS 13 <0.1 3.5 1.8 1.3

AC 22 <0.1 2.9 1.5 0.9

TA 20 <0.1 1.0 –(a)

TB 20 <0.1 0.9

As (III)

(Figure 4-5)

IN 22 2.2 16.6 11.3 4.9

AS 13 12.9 17.2 15.3 1.6

AC 20(b) <0.1 2.4 0.7 0.5

TA 20 <0.1 2.0 –(a)

TB 20 <0.1 1.9

As (V)

(Figure 4-5)

IN 22 0.3 9.1 3.0 2.9

AS 13 <0.1 3.8 0.7 1.3

AC 20(b) 12.3 18.7 15.2 1.8

TA 20 <0.1 0.2 –(a)

TB 20 <0.1 0.1

Fe (total)

IN 28 855 5,365 2,290 1,204

AS 13 <25 69 <25 15.7

AC 28 <25 367 41.9 72.3

TA 26 <25 86 <25 15.8

TB 26 <25 48 <25 9.2

Fe (soluble)

IN 21 381 3,882 1,717 832

AS 12 <25 <25 <25 0.0

AC 21 <25 369 32.2 77.7

TA 19 <25 <25 <25 0.0

TB 19 <25 <25 <25 0.0

Mn (total)

IN 28 61 125 85.7 18.7

AS 13 <0.1 0.7 0.2 0.2

AC 28 <0.1 18.4 1.1 3.5

TA 26 <0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1

TB 26 <0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1

Mn (soluble)

IN 22 61.9 117 79.8 16.8

AS 13 <0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1

AC 22 <0.1 19.2 1.0 4.1

TA 20 <0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1

TB 20 <0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1

(a) Statistics not meaningful for data related to breakthrough; see Figure 4-6 for breakthrough curves.

(b) Outliers on 09/28/06 and 09/23/09 not included in calculation.

IN = at wellhead; AS = after softener; AC = after chlorination; TA/TB = after lead/lag vessel

One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for 

calculations; duplicate samples included in calculations.
30

Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements

Parameter

Sampling 

Location Unit

Number of 

Samples

Concentration Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

Alkalinity

(as CaCO3)

IN Mg/L 24 299 361 333 16.8

AS Mg/L 13 312 354 335 13.9

AC Mg/L 24 306 373 342 16.6

TA(a) Mg/L 22 305 395 346 24.0

TB Mg/L 23 134 423 337 52.3

Ammonia

(as N)

IN Mg/L 12 0.8 1.2 1.0 0.1

AS Mg/L 12 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 0.02

AC Mg/L 12 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 0.02

TA Mg/L 12 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 0.02

TB Mg/L 12 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 0.02

Fluoride

IN Mg/L 24 0.7 1.8 1.1 0.2

AS Mg/L 13 0.7 1.2 1.0 0.2

AC(a) Mg/L 23 0.8 1.3 1.0 0.1

TA(a) Mg/L 22 0.7 1.3 1.0 0.2

TB Mg/L 23 0.9 2.4 1.2 0.4

Sulfate

IN Mg/L 24 33 44 37 2.7

AS Mg/L 13 33 38 36 1.4

AC Mg/L 24 32 43 37 2.4

TA Mg/L 23 32 42 37 2.4

TB Mg/L 23 33 160 43 25.7

Phosphorus

(as P)

IN(b) μg/L 23 <10 <10 <10 0.0

AS μg/L 13 <10 147 36.6 48.7

AC μg/L 24 <10 187 57.4 51.6

TA μg/L 23 <10 <10 <10 0.0

TB μg/L 23 <10 <10 <10 0.0

Silica

(as SiO2)

IN Mg/L 24 13.9 17.7 15.3 0.9

AS Mg/L 13 13.0 15.5 14.4 0.7

AC Mg/L 24 12.9 16.1 14.5 0.8

TA Mg/L 23 <0.2 13.4 -

(d) -(d)

TB(c) Mg/L 22 <0.2 11.6 -

(d) -(d)

Nitrate (as N)

IN Mg/L 24 <0.05 0.4 0.05 0.1

AS Mg/L 13 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.0

AC Mg/L 24 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 0.02

TA Mg/L 23 <0.05 0.2 0.05 0.04

TB Mg/L 23 <0.05 0.3 0.08 0.1

Temperature

IN °C 22 13.5 23.8 16.9 2.6

AS °C 11 13.9 19.5 15.4 1.6

AC °C 22 14.0 21.4 17.4 2.2

TA °C 11 14.8 25.0 17.1 2.9

TB °C 19 14.3 21.1 17.6 1.9

TOC

IN Mg/L 8 1.7 2.6 2.0 0.3

AS Mg/L 8 1.8 2.5 2.0 0.3

AC Mg/L 8 1.7 2.4 2.0 0.2

TA Mg/L 8 1.4 1.9 1.7 0.2

TB Mg/L 8 1.3 2.4 1.8 0.3

Turbidity

IN NTU 24 7.5 41 22 9.9

AS NTU 13 0.1 3.9 0.7 1.0

AC NTU 24 0.2 2.7 0.7 0.5

TA NTU 23 <0.1 5.3 0.8 1.0

TB NTU 23 <0.1 6.4 1.0 1.4
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements (Continued)

31

Parameter

Sampling 

Location Unit

Number of 

Samples

Concentration Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

pH

IN S.U. 20 6.9 7.7 7.4 0.2

AS S.U. 9 7.2 8.2 7.7 0.3

AC S.U. 20 7.5 8.0 7.8 0.2

TA(b) S.U. 8 7.2 8.1 7.7 0.3

TB S.U. 17 7.4 8.1 7.7 0.2

DO

IN Mg/L 19 1.3 3.6 2.0 0.6

AS Mg/L 8 0.7 1.9 1.2 0.4

AC Mg/L 19 0.8 4.5 2.0 0.9

TA Mg/L 8 1.1 3.0 1.8 0.8

TB Mg/L 17 0.8 2.0 1.5 0.4

ORP

IN mV 20 -79 447 115 199

AS mV 9 20 439 188 135

AC mV 19 -50 867 645 181

TA mV 9 103 741 638 202

TB mV 17 -54 990 559 254

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3)

IN Mg/L 23 260 488 303 45

AS Mg/L 12 <0.3 2.0 0.8 0.6

AC Mg/L 23 <0.3 1.6 0.7 0.4

TA Mg/L 22 <0.3 13.6 2.4 3.8

TB(e) Mg/L 21 <0.3 22.1 5.8 6.4

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3)

IN Mg/L 23 166 354 205 38

AS Mg/L 12 <0.25 1.8 0.7 0.6

AC Mg/L 23 <0.25 1.5 0.6 0.4

TA Mg/L 22 <0.25 11.1 1.8 3.2

TB(e) Mg/L 21 <0.25 20.9 4.6 5.8

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3)

IN Mg/L 23 81.5 134 98.3 10.6

AS Mg/L 12 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.06

AC Mg/L 23 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.04

TA Mg/L 22 <0.1 3.6 0.6 1.0

TB(e) Mg/L 21 <0.1 7.0 1.3 2.0

(a) Outlier on 2/24/10 not included in calculations.

(b) Outlier on 11/4/09 not included in calculations.

(c) Outlier on 02/15/07 not included in calculations.

(d) Statistics not meaningful for data related to breakthrough; see Figure 4-8 for breakthrough curves.

(e) Outlier on 10/11/06 not included in calculations.

IN = at wellhead; AS = after water softener; AC = after chlorination; TA/TB = after lead/lag vessel

One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for calculations;

Duplicate samples included in calculations.

capacity for soluble As(V) than soluble As(III). Nonetheless, the elevated soluble As(III) detected at the 

AC location on September 28, 2006, and September 23, 2009, was almost completely removed by the 

media (to <0.4 μg/L).

Figure 4-6 presents total arsenic breakthrough curves. The breakthrough curves indicate that ARM 200 

media removed arsenic to levels well below the 10-μg/L MCL. Effluent samples collected during the 

final sampling event on February 24, 2010, contained <0.1 μg/L of total arsenic. The highest total arsenic 

concentration measured during the almost four-year study period was 1.4 μg/L. The low arsenic 

concentrations observed were attributed to the low water use rate. Throughout the performance 

evaluation study, the system treated only 303,200 gal (or 9,000 BV) of water, which was much less than 

the vendor’s estimate of 1,179,500 gal (or 35,000 BV) to reach the MCL. Therefore, it could not be 

determined if the vendor’s estimate was accurate. 
32

0

5

10

15

20

25

Arsenic concentration (μg/L)

Date

Arsenic Species at Wellhead (IN)

As (particulate)

soluble As(III)

soluble As(V)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Arsenic concentration (μg/L)

Date

Arsenic Species After Chlorination (AC)

As (particulate)

soluble As(III)

soluble As(V)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Arsenic concentration (μg/L)

Date

Arsenic Species at After Vessel A (TA)

As (particulate)

soluble As(III)

soluble As(V)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Arsenic concentration (μg/L)

Date

Arsenic Species at After Vessel B (TB)

As (particulate)

soluble As(III)

soluble As(V)

Figure 4-5. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species Across Treatment Train
33

Note: Breakthrough curves based upon BV of 4.5 ft3 for each column

Figure 4-6. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves

Iron and Manganese. Total iron levels in source water ranged from 855 and 5,365 μg/L and averaged

2,290 μg/L (Table 4-6). Total iron concentrations were reduced to below the MDL after softening for the 

majority of sampling events. In the case that iron did show up in one of the sampling locations after the 

softener (i.e., AS, AC, TA or TB), it was below 200 μg/L in all but one occasion (i.e., iron concentration

at the AC location on September 28, 2006, was 367 μg/L). Iron levels remained below the MDL in the 

treatment system effluent in all but two occasions.

Total manganese levels in source water ranged from 61 and 125 μg/L and averaged 85.7 μg/L (Table 4-6). 

Similar to iron, manganese also was removed to near completion by the water softener. Concentrations 

detected after the water softener (AS) ranged from <0.1 to 0.7 μg/L and averaged 0.2 μg/L. 

Concentrations in the system effluent (TB) were similar to those after the softener (AS).

Competing Anions. Phosphorus and silica, which can adversely affect arsenic adsorption onto adsorptive 

media, were monitored at sampling locations across the treatment train. Total phosphorus concentrations 

at the wellhead were below detection (<10 μg/L [as P]) throughout the performance evaluation study. 

Phosphorus, however, was measured in nine of the 13 samples collected at the AS location and 22 out of 

24 samples collected at the AC location. Concentrations at these locations ranged from <10 μg/L to 187 

μg/L, which was removed by ARM 200 media to below the MDL as seen at TA and TB (Figure 4-7).

Silica concentrations in source water ranged from 13.9 to 17.7 mg/L (as SiO2) and averaged 15.3 mg/L (as 

SiO2). Silica concentrations remained essentially unchanged, averaging 14.4 and 14.5 mg/L (as SiO2) after 

softening and chlorination, respectively. ARM 200 media removed silica from the AC water for the first 

2,000 BV before silica began to break through. After 9,000 BV, the silica concentration at TA was 
34

Note: Breakthrough curves based upon BV of 4.5 ft3 for each tank

Figure 4-7. Total Phosphorus Concentrations Across Treatment Train

13.4 mg/L (as SiO2), which was very close to the source water concentration of 16.2 mg/L (as SiO2). The 

silica concentration at TB was 11.6 mg/L (as SiO2) after 9,000 BV (Figure 4-8).

Silica adsorption has been observed at a number of arsenic demonstration sites using adsorptive media

(Table 4-8). At Valley Vista, AZ (Valigore et al,, 2007), where ARM 200 also was evaluated, 52% silica 

removal was observed after treating approximately 800 BV of water. The removal was reduced to 3% at 

4,900 BV. Silica removal by iron-based E33 media can be as high as 37% at 800 BV as observed at 

Brown City, MI (Chen et al., 2008). No additional removal was observed after treating 20,000 BV at 

Brown City; 2,800 BV at Bruni, TX (Williams et al., 2010); and 900 BV at Wellman, TX (Williams et al., 

2009). 

A/P 2002 oxidizing media and A/I 2000 adsorptive media, both alumina-based and manufactured by ATS, 

were observed to remove silica at Dummerston, VT (Lipps et al., 2008), Susanville, CA (Chen et al.,

2009a), and Wales, ME (Lipps et al., 2010), with reduction as high as 60% reported at Dummerston. The 

removal was reduced to 6.5% to near exhaustion after treating approximately 22,600 BV at Susanville, 

18,700 BV at Wales, and 16,300 BV at Dummerston. Another alumina-based media, AAFS50, also 

removed silica at Valley Vista. Removal of two separate adsorption runs did not reach exhaustion until 

34,300 or 24,800 BV. The run with high influent pH (i.e., 7.7 vs. 6.9 [on average]) appeared to remove 

more silica. 

At Reno, NV (Cumming et al., 2009), iron-based GFH media reduced silica concentrations from 68.5 to 

<48.8 mg/L (as SiO2) at 2,400 BV and reached exhaustion at 5,000 BV. The Reno source water had the 

highest silica concentration (i.e., 72.6 mg/L as SiO2 [on average]) measured among the 39 demonstration 

sites.
35

Note: Breakthrough curves based upon BV of 4.5 ft3 for each tank

Figure 4-8. Silica Concentrations Across Treatment Train

Other Water Quality Parameters. Water pH increased from an average of 7.4 in source water to an 

average of 7.7 after softening. pH values remained essentially unchanged throughout the rest of the 

treatment train. DO concentrations ranged from 0.7 to 4.5 mg/L and averaged 1.7 mg/L throughout the

treatment train. This value is within a tight range of 1.2 and 2.0 mg/L for average DO concentrations 

across the treatment train. ORP readings varied greatly in raw water, ranging from -79 to 447 mV and 

averaging 115 mV. Fluctuating ORP readings most likely were caused by the field meter used. ORP 

readings increased slightly to an average of 188 mV after softening and, as expected, much greater to an 

average of 645 mV after chlorination. ORP readings decreased slightly after each adsorption vessel, 

averaging 638 and 559 mV at TA and TB, respectively. 

Total hardness (consisting of calcium and magnesium) in source water ranged from 260 to 488 mg/L (as 

CaCO3) and averaged 303 mg/L (as CaCO3). The water softener removed the majority of the hardness, 

reducing its concentrations to <0.3 to 2 mg/L (as CaCO3). Total hardness concentrations remained low 

throughout the remainder of the treatment train. 

Nitrate concentrations were typically below detection in source water and throughout the treatment train. 

Ammonia concentrations in source water ranged from 0.8 to 1.2 mg/L (as N) and averaged 1.0 mg/L (as 

N). Similar to calcium and magnesium, ammonia was removed by the softener to below the MCL and 

remained below the MDL throughout the rest of the treatment train.

TOC concentrations in source water ranged from 1.7 to 2.6 mg/L and averaged 2.0 mg/L. As expected, 

TOC concentrations remained unchanged after chlorination. Following Vessels A and B, 0.2 to 0.3 mg/L 

of TOC (on average) was removed by ARM 200. Alkalinity, fluoride, and sulfate concentrations 

remained rather constant across the treatment train.
36

Table 4-8. Silica Removal by Adsorptive Media Observed at EPA Arsenic Removal 

Demonstration Sites

Demonstration 

Site

Adsorptive

Media

Average 

(Range) 

of Silica 

Concentration

in 

Source 

Water

(mg/L)

Average 

(Range) 

of pH 

in 

Source 

Water

(S.U.) Observed Silica Reduction Reference

Brown City, 

MI

E33 9.0

(6.5–14.6)

7.9

(7.6–8.5)

37% reduction at 800 BV(a)

Exhaustion at 20,000 BV(a)

Chen, et al.,

2008

Bruni, TX E33 41.5

(39.1–43.9)

7.4

(7.1–8.1)(b)

19% reduction at 600 BV(c)

7% reduction at 1,200 BV(c)

Exhaustion at 2,800 BV(c)

Williams, 

et al., 2010

Dummerston, 

VT

A/I 2000 12.6

(10.6–16.8)

7.7

(7.0–8.4)

60% reduction at 800 BV(c)

Exhaustion at 16,300 BV(c)

Lipps, et al.,

2008

Reno, NV GFH 72.6

(51.5–95.1)

7.1

(6.5–7.9)

30% reduction at 2,400 BV(d)

Exhaustion at 5,000 BV(d)

Cumming, 

et al., 2009

Susanville, CA A/P 2002(e) 14.1

(12.8–15.7)

8.1

(7.7–8.4)

56% reduction at 3,700 BV(c)

5% reduction at end of run at 

22,600 BV(c)

Chen, et al., 

2009

Valley Vista, 

AZ

AAFS50

AAFS50 

ARM 200

19.0

(15.7–21.2)

7.7

(7.5–8.4)

6.9

(6.6–7.6)(a)

7.7

(7.5–8.4)

19% reduction at 2,500 BV(c)

2% reduction at 34,300 BV(c)

14% reduction at 2,700 BV(c)

3% reduction at 24,800 BV(c)

52% reduction at 800 BV(c)

3% reduction at 4,900 BV(c)

Exhaustion at 14,200 BV(c)

Valigore,

et al., 2007

Wales, ME A/P 2002(e) 10.5

(9.6–13.3)

8.5

(7.3–8.8)

38% reduction at 2,000 BV(c)

6.5% reduction at end of run 

at 18,700 BV(c)

Lipps, et al., 

2010

Filox-R(e)

CFH-12 

GFH

No reduction

41% reduction at 4,500 BV(c)

Exhaustion at 13,900 BV(c)

42% reduction at 3,500 BV(c)

Exhaustion at 10,700 BV(c)

Wellman, TX E33 46.8

(42.1–62.1)

7.8

(7.6–8.0)

44% reduction at system 

startup

Exhaustion at 900 BV(f)

Williams, 

et al., 2007

(a) Bed volumes calculated based on media volume in four adsorption vessels in parallel.

(b) After pH adjustment.

(c) Bed volumes calculated based on media volume in lead vessel.

(d) Bed volumes calculated based on media volume in three adsorption vessels in parallel.

(e) Oxidizing media.

(f) Bed volumes calculated based on media volume in two adsorption vessels in parallel.
37

4.5.2 Disinfection Byproducts. Prior to installation of the arsenic removal system, the water 

system at the Head Start building was required to collect distribution system water samples for DBPs 

because the pre-existing treatment included chlorination. DBPs are a large and diverse class of 

halogenated organic compounds formed, as first described by Rook (1974), mainly through interaction of 

chlorine, bromine, and iodine with natural organic matter present in source water. The two classes of 

DBPs that receive most attention are THMs and HAAs. THMs include chloroform, bromoform, 

chlorodibromomathane (CDBM), and bromodichloromathanes (BDCM), collectively known as total 

trihalomethane (TTHM). HAAs include monochloroacetic acid (MCA), dichloroacetic acid (DCA), 

trichloroacetic acid (TCA), monobromoacetic acid (MBA), and dibromoacetic acid (DBA), collectively 

known as HAA5. These chemicals were regulated by EPA with an MCL of 80 μg/L for TTHM and 60 

μg/L for HAA5. DBPs are found in the finished water from water treatment plants employing 

chlorination through the introduction of either chlorine gas or sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl).

After system startup, exceedances of TTHM and HAA5 were noticed. Historical DBP data were obtained 

from OEPA to facilitate the evaluation of conditions before and after system startup. For TTHM, eight 

compliance samples were collected before system startup and 12 compliance and eight non-compliance 

samples collected after system startup (see Table 4-9 and Figure 4-9). For HAA5, seven compliance 

samples were collected before system startup and 12 compliance and seven non-compliance samples

collected after system startup (see Table 4-10 and Figure 4-10). Compliance samples were collected at 

the kitchen sink (DIST) by the Head Start operator and analyzed by AAL. Non-compliance samples were 

collected across the treatment train at IN, AS, AC, TA, and TB and the kitchen sink (DIST) by Battelle 

staff members and analyzed by either AAL or EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

(NRMRL). Non-compliance samples collected by Battelle are denoted by “*”in Figures 4-9 and 4-10. 

Where applicable, total and free chlorine concentrations measured at the AC location are noted along with 

the TTHM and/or HAA5 data in the figures. 

Before installation of the arsenic removal system, source water was softened and chlorinated. TTHM 

concentrations measured at the kitchen sink ranged from 7.0 to 86.1 μg/L and averaged 30.1 μg/L; HAA5 

concentrations ranged from 6.3 to 42.0 μg/L and averaged 24.4 μg/L. Except for one TTHM sample 

taken on July 28, 2004, all TTHM and HAA5 results were below the respective MCLs of 80 and 60 μg/L. 

The formation of TTHM and HAA5 was the result of interaction between NaOCl and approximately 2 

mg/L of natural organic matter in source water after some periods of reaction time (Rathbun, 1997; 

Summers et al., 1996). 

After system startup on June 23, 2006, TTHM concentrations at the kitchen sink drastically increased to 

87.4, 179, and 220 μg/L on July 5, 2006; October 5, 2006; and January 31, 2007, respectively; HAA5 

concentrations also increased to 187 and 262 μg/L on October 5, 2006, and January 31, 2007. On April 4, 

2007, the TTHM concentration decreased to 63.2 μg/L but the HAA5 concentration remained above the 

MCL at 81.3 μg/L. On September 19, 2007, and March 19, 2008, Battelle began to collect samples 

across the treatment train and at the kitchen sink for TTHM and HAA5 analyses, respectively. Since then 

through June 2009 when the system configuration was modified in an effort to curb excessive DBP 

formation, TTHM and HAA5 concentrations at the kitchen sink had been fluctuating between 23.5 and

278 μg/L and between 13.1 and 489 μg/L, respectively. Among the samples collected since system 

startup until June 2009, 11 out 16 TTHM samples and 12 out of 15 HAA5 samples exceeded their 

respective MCLs.

 
38

Table 4-9. Summary of TTHM Concentrations in Water Samples

Sampling 

Date

TTHM Concentration (μg/L) Data

IN AS AC TA TB DIST Source

07/28/04 NA NA NA NA NA 86.1 OEPA/AAL

12/14/04 NA NA NA NA NA 13.9 OEPA/AAL

03/09/05 NA NA NA NA NA 7.0 OEPA/AAL

04/13/05 NA NA NA NA NA 33.0 OEPA/AAL

07/06/05 NA NA NA NA NA 26.3 OEPA/AAL

10/05/05 NA NA NA NA NA 16.9 OEPA/AAL

01/18/06 NA NA NA NA NA 30.4 OEPA/AAL

04/05/06 NA NA NA NA NA 26.8 OEPA/AAL

07/05/06 NA NA NA NA NA 87.4 OEPA/AAL

10/05/06 NA NA NA NA NA 179 OEPA/AAL

01/31/07 NA NA NA NA NA 220 OEPA/AAL

04/04/07 NA NA NA NA NA 63.2 OEPA/AAL

09/19/07 8.5 <2 10.8 28.2 49.5 112 Battelle/NRMRL

10/03/07 NA NA NA NA NA 128 OEPA/AAL

12/18/07 <2 <2 10.8 30.5 43.9 37.3 Battelle/NRMRL

01/09/08 NA NA NA NA NA 62.8 OEPA/AAL

03/19/08 5.6 2.1 16.3 37.1 39.5 49.6 Battelle/AAL

04/09/08 NA NA NA NA NA 88.8 OEPA/AAL

07/09/08 NA NA NA NA NA 90.3 OEPA/AAL

10/01/08 <2 <2 7.9 18.3 29.2 120 Battelle/AAL

01/21/09 NA NA NA NA NA 278 OEPA/AAL

01/23/09 <2 <2 20.1 51.0 152 234 Battelle/AAL

04/15/09 NA NA NA NA NA 96.7 OEPA/AAL

05/07/09 <2 <2 7.0 20.4 49.3 23.5 Battelle/AAL

07/29/09 NA NA NA NA NA 4.5 OEPA/AAL

11/04/09 <2 <2 11.8 31.5 44.8 46.1 Battelle/AAL

12/29/09 NA NA NA NA NA 58.6 OEPA/AAL

02/24/10 <2 <2 6.7 9.2 14.1 13.1 Battelle/AAL

Shading indicates samples collected after system startup.

Bold values are MCL exceedances.

IN = at wellhead; AS = after water softener; AC = after chlorination; TA and TB 

= after adsorption vessels A and B; DIST = kitchen sink

AAL = American Analytical Laboratories; NA = not analyzed; NRMRL = 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory; OEPA = Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Figures 4-11 and 4-12 plot TTHM and HAA5 concentrations, respectively, in samples taken across the 

treatment train and at the kitchen sink by Battelle. From September 19, 2007, through May 7, 2009, 

TTHM concentrations after chlorination and detention (AC) ranged from 7.0 to 20.1 μg/L and averaged 

12.2 μg/L; HAA5 concentrations ranged from 4.1 to 19.4 μg/L and averaged 12.2 μg/L. After adsorption, 

TTHM concentrations increased significantly to between 18.3 and 51.0 μg/L (30.9 μg/L [on average]) 

following Vessel A and to between 29.2 and 152 μg/L (60.6 μg/L [on average]) following Vessel B. 

Similarly, HAA5 concentrations increased to between 11.9 and 55.4 μg/L (28.5 μg/L [on average])

following Vessel A and to between 25.9 and 197 μg/L (81.7 μg/L [on average]) following Vessel B. The 

use of ARM 200 media appears to have promoted TTHM and HAA5 formation in the presence of TOC 

and chlorine; prolonged contact with the media appeared to have further enhanced the formation. As 

noted above, out of the 2.0 mg/L of TOC in source water, about 0.2 to 0.3 mg/L (on average) was 

removed by ARM 200. 
39

Figure 4-9. TTHM Concentrations at Kitchen Sink
40

Table 4-10. Summary of HAA5 Concentrations in Water Samples

Sampling

Date

HAA5 Concentration (μg/L) Data

IN AS AC TA TB DIST Source

07/28/04 NA NA NA NA NA 32.6 OEPA/AAL

03/09/05 NA NA NA NA NA 6.3 OEPA/AAL

04/13/05 NA NA NA NA NA 11.9 OEPA/AAL

07/06/05 NA NA NA NA NA 27.1 OEPA/AAL

10/05/05 NA NA NA NA NA 42.0 OEPA/AAL

01/18/06 NA NA NA NA NA 27.0 OEPA/AAL

04/05/06 NA NA NA NA NA 24.0 OEPA/AAL

07/05/06 NA NA NA NA NA 39.0 OEPA/AAL

10/05/06 NA NA NA NA NA 187 OEPA/AAL

01/31/07 NA NA NA NA NA 262 OEPA/AAL

04/04/07 NA NA NA NA NA 81.3 OEPA/AAL

10/03/07 NA NA NA NA NA 223 OEPA/AAL

01/09/08 NA NA NA NA NA 244 OEPA/AAL

03/19/08 <2 <2 10.9 13.7 25.9 28.6 Battelle/AAL

04/09/08 NA NA NA NA NA 122 OEPA/AAL

07/09/08 NA NA NA NA NA 188 OEPA/AAL

07/09/08 <2 <2 19.4 55.4 94 193 Battelle/AAL

10/01/08 <2 <2 10.6 19.1 36.6 107 Battelle/AAL

01/21/09 NA NA NA NA NA 489 OEPA/AAL

01/23/09 <2 <2 16.1 42.6 197 279 Battelle/AAL

04/15/09 NA NA NA NA NA 86.1 OEPA/AAL

05/07/09 <2 <2 4.1 11.9 55.1 13.1 Battelle/AAL

07/29/09 NA NA NA NA NA 8.7 OEPA/AAL

11/04/09 <2 <2 3.0 9.5 13.0 12.6 Battelle/AAL

12/29/09 NA NA NA NA NA 75.3 OEPA/AAL

02/24/10 <2 <2 7.3 12.1 20.3 13.8 Battelle/AAL

Shading indicates samples collected after system startup.

Bold values are MCL exceedances.

IN = at wellhead; AS = after water softener; AC = after chlorination; TA and TB 

= after adsorption vessels A and B; DIST = kitchen sink

AAL = American Analytical Laboratories; NA = not analyzed; NRMRL = 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory; OEPA = Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Following the adsorption vessels, the treated water entered the distribution system constructed of PVC 

and copper. Significant increases in DBP concentrations at the kitchen sink were observed during two 

sampling events on October 1, 2008, and January 23, 2009, with TTHM and HAA5 concentrations spiked 

o as high as 234 and 279 μg/L, respectively. Piping leading from the outlet of the arsenic removal system 

to the kitchen sink included 12.6, 4.6, and 32.6 ft of 1.5 in PVC Schedule 80, 1.0 in PVC Schedule 40, 

and 0.75 in copper pipe, respectively, which could hold only 2.1 gal of water combined. As such, the 

extra contact time in the distribution piping would not have contributed to the significant increase in DBP 

concentrations observed. Water temperature also was contemplated as a potential factor; however, its 

effect was soon ruled out as shown by Figure 4-13, which plots TTHM and HAA5 concentrations against 

temperature at the AC sampling location. 
41

32.6

6.3 11.9

27.1 42

27 24

39

187

262

81.3

22.1

223

244

28.6

122

188

193

107

489

279

86.1

13.1 8.7

12.6

75.3

13.8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

06/12/04 12/09/04 06/07/05 12/04/05 06/02/06 11/29/06 05/28/07 11/24/07 05/22/08 11/18/08 05/17/09 11/13/09 05/12/10

HAA5 Concentration (μg/L)

Date

MCL=60 μg/L

New Well

Drilled

(01/25/06)

System

Installed

(06/23/06)

New Well 

Permit 

Approved 

(05/17/06)

Free Cl: 2.2 mg/L

Total Cl: 2.2 mg/L

New Well

Free Cl: 0.03 mg/L

Total Cl: 0.26 mg/L

Note: Samples denoted by "*" collected by Battelle. Other samples taken by operator for State compliance. Sample was collected by both Battelle for EPA and the 

operator for State Compliance on 07/09/08. July 2007 data not valid due to system bybpass.

Free Cl: 0.00 mg/L

Total Cl: 0.06 mg/L

*

*

Old Well

*

*

Free Cl: 2.2 mg/L

Total Cl: 2.2 mg/L

Free Cl: 2.2 mg/L

Total Cl: 2.2 mg/L

Free Cl: 0.1 mg/L

Total Cl: 0.2 mg/L

Free Cl: 0.1 mg/L

Total Cl: 0.1 mg/L

Free Cl: 0.0 mg/L

Total Cl: 0.1 mg/L

Free Cl: 1.3 mg/L

Total Cl: 1.4 mg/L

Free Cl: 2.9 mg/L

Total Cl: 3.4 mg/L

* Total Cl: 0.9 mg/L * *

Free Cl: 0.2 mg/L

Total Cl: 0.3 mg/L

Free Cl: 1.2 mg/L

Total Cl: 1.3 mg/L

Figure 4-10. HAA5 Concentrations at Kitchen Sink
42

Figure 4-11. Formation of TTHM Across Treatment Train and Distribution System

Figure 4-12. Formation of HAA5 Across Treatment Train and Distribution System
43

Figure 4-13. Effects of Water Temperature on TTHM and HAA5 Concentrations at AC Location

Differences in water temperature of the samples collected at the kitchen sink might have been caused by 

how the samples were collected using a single-lever faucet during sampling. It was conceivable that 

some hot water could have been dispensed depending on the lever position of the faucet. To alleviate any 

concern, TTHM and HAA5 samples were collected from the kitchen sink in May 2009, with the lever 

positioned for either hot or cold water. The hot water sample, after being flushed long enough to get the 

water hot at 44.1oC, had a TTHM concentration of 5.8 μg/L and a HAA5 concentration of 5.8 μg/L. The 

cold water sample at 21.8oC had a TTHM concentration of 40.6 μg/L and a HAA5 concentration was 

25.9 μg/L. Therefore, it appears that water temperature did not have much of an effect on TTHM and 

HAA5 concentrations.

High total and free chlorine residual concentrations were measured at the kitchen sink (DIST) on a 

number of occasions as shown in Figures 4-9 and 4-10. Even higher total and free chlorine residual levels 

(with some above the MDL of 4.4 mg/L [as Cl2]) were measured after the contact tank (AC). (Higher 

levels of chlorine residuals at AC compared to those at TA and TB indicate chlorine demand across the 

media beds.) Measured values of TTHM and HAA5 at DIST were correlated to free chlorine residual 

levels at both AC and DIST and these correlations are presented in Figures 4-14 and 4-15. A linear 

regression was fit over both sets of data forcing the origin to the fit. These regressions yielded R2 values 

of 0.64 and 0.66 for TTHM and 0.62 and 0.26 for HAA5. The low R2 value of 0.26 was caused mainly 

by a single data point, i.e., 193 μg/L of HAA5 at 0 mg/L free chlorine residuals, at the kitchen sink. 

Except for two data points at DIST, higher-than-MCL levels of TTHM and HAA5 occurred only when 

free chlorine residual levels were over 2 mg/L (as Cl2). 

As noted above, system modifications were implemented as an attempt to curb excessive DBP formation. 

The first modification involved moving the 120-gal pressure tank from the head to the end of the 

treatment train to gain better control over chlorine dosing. This modification, completed on June 17, 

2009, allowed the system to operate with a constant water flowrate (10 gpm) and a constant chlorine 
44

y = 33.199x

R2 = 0.6354

y = 40.829x

R2 = 0.6208

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 1 2 3 4 5

DBP Concentration (μg/L)

Free Chlorine (mg/L)

DBPs vs Free Chlorine after Contact Tank

TTHM HAA5 Linear (TTHM) Linear (HAA5)

Figure 4-14. Correlation of TTHM/HAA5 with Free Chlorine Residuals

Measured After Contact Tank

y = 70.976x

R2 = 0.6623

y = 79.021x

R2 = 0.2578

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 1 2 3 4 5

DBP Concentration (μg/L)

Free Chlorine (mg/L)

DBPs vs Free Chlorine at Kitchen Sink

TTHM HAA5 Linear (TTHM) Linear (HAA5)

Figure 4-15. Correlation of TTHM/HAA5 with Free Chlorine Residuals

Measured at Kitchen Sink
45

dose rate whenever the well pump was on. (Before this modification, the system was operating ondemand with varying water flowrates and one chlorine dose rate). This, in conjunction with better O&M

on the chlorine addition system by a designated Battelle staff member as discussed in Section 4.4.2,

allowed the chlorine residuals at AC and DIST to become more constant as shown in Figure 4-4. 

However, it was discovered soon after the modification that this new system configuration would not 

allow the water softener to be regenerated properly due to lack of water during most regeneration cycles. 

(Note that during softener regeneration, water needed for regeneration would be supplied from the 

pressure tank.) After system reconfiguration, the softener would be regenerated only when the well pump 

was triggered by low pressure in the pressure tank. Otherwise, the softener would not be regenerated

even though the system would still go through the regeneration cycle as though it had. Therefore, the 

pressure tank was returned to the beginning of the treatment train on September 14, 2009, so that the 

water softener could be regenerated properly.

The second system modification involved replacing the pre-existing metering pump with a flow-paced 

pump. This allowed the amount of chlorine addition to be paced with varying water flowrates to the 

system. This modification, completed on November 2, 2009, resulted in a better control over chlorine 

dosing, which appeared to help reduce DBP concentrations as shown in Figures 4-9 through 4-12. From 

November 2, 2009, through the end of DBP sampling on February 24, 2010, TTHM concentrations 

ranged from 14.1 to 44.8 μg/L following the treatment system and from 13.1 to 58.6 μg/L at the kitchen 

sink; HAA5 concentrations ranged from 13.0 to 20.3 μg/L following the treatment system and 8.7 to 75.3 

μg/L at the kitchen sink. Except for one HAA5 exceedance (75.3 μg/L on December 29, 2009), all DBP 

measurements were below the respective MCLs of 80 and 60 μg/L. 

In summary, exceeded levels of TTHM and HAA5 are thought to be caused by elevated free chlorine

residuals in the ARM 200 adsorptive media system. In general, TTHM and HAA5 exceeded the MCL 

when free chlorine residuals were above approximately 2 mg/L (as Cl2). Additional testing was 

conducted in the laboratory to better understand the processes involved in the DBP formation.

Formation Potential Tests. Formation potential tests were conducted in the laboratory on the water 

collected after softening (from AS location). As noted above, the formation of DBPs requires the 

presence of organic matter, chlorine and some contact time. Under these conditions, concentrations of 

DBPs can be quantified and the water can be assigned the so-called “formation potential,” given a 

specific dose of NaOCl and a specific reaction time. The formation potential of a source water also is 

dictated by the amount and type of oxidizable organic matter (often measured as TOC or via UV 254 nm) 

in the water. Many types of organic matter are present in natural waters and extensive efforts have been 

made to identify specific moieties of organic carbon responsible for the formation of DBPs (Joll et al.,

2010; Quintana et al., 2010; Bond et al., 2009; Fang et al., 2009; Huang, 2009; Kristiana, 2009; Zhang, 

2009; Marhaba, 2000; Oliver, 1980). No attempts were made to identify the types of organic matter for 

this study. The formation potential also may be affected by the amount of reducing species present in the 

water and, to a greater extent, the ammonia content of the water (Amy et al., 1984). The presence of 

ammonia can significantly reduce the DBP formation and ammonia addition has even been suggested as a 

mitigating action for the formation of DBPs (Bougeard et al., 2010). 

Table 4-11 summarizes residual chlorine concentrations in the chlorinated AS water at 0, 12, 24, and 48 

hr. The 0-hr measurements were performed approximately 10 to 20 min after 1.6, 2.6, and 4.8 mg/L of 

chlorine (as Cl2) had been spiked into respective sample bottles. Thus, the initial chlorine demand of the 

AS water, measured at 10 min, was 0.78 mg/L (as Cl2). The 1.6 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2) spiked was 

completely consumed in 48 hr. The 2.6 and 4.8 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2) spiked were consumed to close 

to 0.6 and 2.4 mg/L (as Cl2), respectively, in 48 hr.
46

Table 4-11. Chlorine Demand Test Results (AS Water)

Reaction Time

(hr)

Chlorine Dosage (mg/L [as Cl2])

0 1.6 2.6 4.8

0 <0.05 0.82 1.80 3.06

12 <0.05 0.27 ± 0.00 1.14 ± 0.02 2.71 ± 0.01

24 <0.05 0.13 ± 0.01 0.83 ± 0.06 2.76 ± 0.03

48 <0.05 <0.05 0.60 ± 0.02 2.38 ± 0.10

Tables 4-12 and 4-13 summarize concentrations of four THMs and five HAAs in the chlorinated AS 

water. All TTHM and HAA5 concentrations were well below the respective MCL of 60 and 80 μg/L, 

with TTHM concentrations ranging from 14.9 to 36.8 μg/L and HAA5 concentrations from 7.4 to 19.0 

μg/L. These values are rather close to the results of non-compliance sampling conducted by Battelle at 

AC (which ranged from 7.0 to 20.1 μg/L for TTHM and 4.1 to 19.4 μg/L for HAA5), but somewhat lower 

than the results of compliance sampling conducted by the Head Start operator before system startup 

(which ranged from 7.0 to 86.1 μg/L for TTHM and 6.3 to 42.0 μg/L for HAA5). Chloroform was the 

most abundant THM in the chlorinated AS water while TCA and DCA were the most abundant HAAs. 

Duplicate samples collected at 48 hr yielded consistent results for both THMs and HAAs with the percent 

relative difference (PRD) ranging from 0.23 to 15%. 

Figures 4-16 and 4-17 presents 3-D plots of TTHM and HAA5 concentrations, respectively, at three 

chlorine dosages over four reaction times. Figure 4-18 presents concentrations of chloroform, BDCM, 

DBCM, and TTHM in the chlorinated AS water as a function of reaction time. Figure 4-19 presents 

concentrations of DCA, TCA, and HAA5 in the chlorinated AS water as a function of reaction time. In 

general, concentrations of individual THMs/TTHM and individual HAAs/HAA5 increase with chlorine 

dosage and reaction time. 

Table 4-12. THM Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water)

Chlorine 

Dosage

(mg/L 

[as Cl2])

Reaction 

Time

(hr)

Compounds (μg/L)

Chloroform BDCM DBCM Bromoform TTHM

1.6 12 10.7 3.3 1.0 <0.5 14.9

24 13.9 4.5 1.4 <0.5 19.8

48 14.0 5.3 1.5 <0.5 20.6

48 (Dup) 14.5 5.4 1.7 <0.5 21.5

2.6 12 15.2 4.5 1.2 <0.5 20.9

24 18.8 6.2 1.8 <0.5 26.8

48 22.2 7.5 1.9 <0.5 31.6

48 (Dup) 22.1 7.6 2.0 <0.5 31.7

4.8 0 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2

12 15.3 5.3 1.3 <0.5 21.9

24 17.8 6.0 1.6 <0.5 25.4

48 27.5 7.7 1.7 <0.5 36.8

48 (Dup) 25.7 7.2 1.9 <0.5 34.8

BDCM = bromodichloromethane; DBCM = dibromochloromethane;

TTHM = total THMs
47

Table 4-13. HAA Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water)

Chlorine 

Dosage

(mg/L 

[as Cl2])

Reaction 

Time

(hr)

Compounds (μg/L)

DBA DCA MBA MCA TCA HAA5

1.6 12 <1 3.3 <1 <2 4.1 7.4

24 <1 4.0 <1 <2 4.8 8.8

48 1.1 4.4 <1 <2 5.2 10.6

48 (Dup) 1.1 4.4 <1 <2 5.3 10.8

2.6 12 <1 3.7 <1 <2 6.3 10.1

24 <1 5.3 <1 <2 8.3 13.6

48 1.0 5.4 <1 <2 7.8 14.2

48 (Dup) 1.0 6.3 <1 <2 8.5 15.8

4.8 0 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <5

12 <1 4.8 <1 <2 8.6 13.4

24 <1 6.2 <1 <2 11.3 17.5

48 <1 7.1 <1 <2 11.9 19.0

48 (Dup) <1 6.8 <1 <2 11.0 17.8

DBA = dibromoacetic acid; DCA = dichloroacetic acid;

MBA = monobromoacetic acid; MCA = monochloroacetic acid; 

TCA = trichloroacetic acid; HAA5 = sum of all five HAAs

Because the highest concentrations of TTHM and HAA5 formed were 36.8 and 19.0 μg/L, respectively, 

the elevated DBP concentrations observed in the system effluent and kitchen sink must have been 

contributed by factors other than TOC concentration, chlorine dosage, and chlorine reaction time. 

Therefore, additional laboratory tests were conducted to recreate field conditions in the laboratory to 

determine the cause of the elevated DBP concentrations observed.

Column Studies. A series of column studies was carried out in an attempt to simulate onsite conditions 

under a controlled laboratory setting. The column studies were divided into three phases for Column A 

and two phases for Columns B and C. Appendix C contains a complete set of analytical results. 

Tables 4-14 and 4-15 summarize TTHM and HAA5 results measured during each of the three column 

studies. 

Column A, packed with virgin ARM 200 media, received DI water spiked with 2.4 to 5.4 mg/L of 

chlorine (as Cl2) during Phase I of the study (see Figure 4-20). After feeding the column with 

approximately 2,000 BV of chlorinated DI water, pH values of the column effluent, after initial dips to as 

low as 4.1, began to approach those of the feed at 7.5 (on average). After that time, total chlorine 

residuals in the column effluent were still at levels below 1.6 mg/L (as Cl2), indicating chlorine demand 

by the media. (Note that because ammonia had been removed by the softener prior to chlorination, total 

chlorine residuals were at about the same levels as free chlorine residuals.) A sample was then collected 

and analyzed for DBPs. The results showed only 1.7 and 5.8 μg/L of TTHM and HAA5, respectively, in 

the column effluent, indicating little or no DBP precursor associated with the media. 
48

THM-0 h

THM-12 h

THM-24 h

THM-48 h

1.6 mg/L

2.6 mg/L

4.8 mg/L

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Concentration, ng/mL

1.6 mg/L

2.6 mg/L

4.8 mg/L

Figure 4-16. TTHM Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water)

HAA-0 h

HAA-12 h

HAA-24 h

HAA-48 h

1.6 mg/L

2.6 mg/L

4.8 mg/L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Concentration, ng/mL

1.6 mg/L

2.6 mg/L

4.8 mg/L

Figure 4-17. HAA5 Formation Potential Test Results (AS Water)
49

THM Formation in 1.6 mg/L Chlorinated Water

0

5

10

15

20

25

0-hr 12-hr 24-hr 48-hr

Reaction Time, hr

Concentration, ng/mL

Chloroform

BDCM

DBCM

THMs

THM Formation in 2.6 mg/L Chlorinated Water

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0-hr 12-hr 24-hr 48-hr

Reaction Time, hr

Concentration, ng/mL

Chloroform

BDCM

DBCM

THMs

THM Formation in 4.8 mg/L Chlorinated Water

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0-hr 12-hr 24-hr 48-hr

Reaction Time, hr

Concentration, ng/mL

Chloroform

BDCM

DBCM

THMs

Figure 4-18. THM Formation Potential Test Results in Chlorinated AS Water
50

HAA Formation in 1.6 mg/L Chlorinated AS Water

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0-hr 12-hr 24-hr 48-hr

Reaction Time, hr

Concentration, ng/mL

DCA

TCA

HAAs

HAA Formation in 2.6 mg/L Chlroinated AS Water

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0-hr 12-hr 24-hr 48-hr

Reaction Time, hr

Concentration, ng/mL

DCA

TCA

HAAs

HAA Formation in 4.8 mg/L Chlorinated Water

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0-hr 12-hr 24-hr 48-hr

Reaction Time, hr

Concentration, ng/mL

DCA

TCA

HAAs

Figure 4-19. Formation Potential Test Results of HAAs in Chlorinated AS Water
51

Table 4-14. TTHM and HAA5 Concentrations Measured During 

Column A (Phases II and III) and Column C Studies

Date

Influent

Effluent

Column A(b) Column C(c)

TTHM 

(μg/L)

HAA5 

(μg/L)

Total/Free 

Chlorine 

(mg/L)

TTHM 

(μg/L)

HAA5 

(μg/L)

TTHM 

(μg/L)

HAA5 

(μg/L)

08/28/09 NA NA 3.3/NA <2.0 5.8 - -

09/10/09 (a) <2.0 1.9 4.1/0.8 <2.0 3.9 - -

09/25/09 25.4 13.1 3.3/3.7 73.2 58.3 40.4 24.1

10/09/09 34.5 9.3 4.4/3.8 65.1 24.1 40.6 14.0

10/23/09 29.9 9.8 4.0/3.5 52.6 19.1 35.4 12.3

11/06/09 35.1 10.3 4.2/4.0 51.6 20.2 40.0 12.1

11/13/09 30.0 10.0 4.2/4.4 43.3 16.4 36.2 12.8

11/20/09 40.8 12.2 4.4/4.1 66.9 26.7 53.5 9.2

12/4/09 (d) 39.6 12.4 11.1/10.9 55.3 21.4 45.2 17.1

01/15/10 33.4 17.3 10.0/9.5 49.2 22.0 41.3 17.3

(a) Influent to column on September 10, 2009, contained ammonia, which reacted 

with chlorine to form combined chlorine. 

(b) Phase II of Column A began operation on August 28, 2009; influent to column 

contained 4.0 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2).

(c) Column C began operation on September 21, 2009.

(d) Phase III of Column A began operation on December 2, 2009; influent to 

column contained 10 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2).

NA = not available

Table 4-15. TTHM and HAA5 Concentrations Measured

During Column B Studies

Date

Influent Effluent

TTHM

(μg/L)

HAA5

(μg/L)

Total/Free 

Chlorine 

(mg/L)

TTHM 

(μg/L)

HAA5 

(μg/L)

09/25/09 0.8 0.0 4.7/4.6 2.2 1.5

10/09/09 0.9 0.0 4.3/4.1 3.9 0.0

10/23/09 0.0 0.0 4.0/3.8 0.0 0.0

11/06/09 1.1 0.0 4.4/4.2 5.2 2.4

11/13/09 0.0 0.0 3.5/3.9 2.3 0.0

11/20/09 0.7 0.0 5.4/5.3 3.3 1.9

12/4/09 (a) 0.9 0.0 10.4/10.3 3.6 2.3

01/15/10 2.3 0.0 9.9/8.5 2.3 0.0

(a) Chlorine concentrations in feed increased to 10 mg/L (as Cl2).
52

Column A ARM 200 Chlorine Demand and pH

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Bed Volumes

Total Chlorine (mg/L)

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Feed and Effluent pH (S.U)

Reservoir Total Chlorine Effluent Total Chlorine Reservoir pH Effluent pH

Switched from DI to AS 

water at 1,996 BV

Chlorine concentration in 

feed increased to 10 mg/L (as 

Cl2) after 4,516 BV

Figure 4-20. Column A ARM 200 Chlorine Demand and pH

During Phase II, the feed to Column A was switched from chlorinated DI water to chlorinated softened

water (softened water was taken at AS containing 1.3 to 2.1 mg/L of TOC), but maintained the target total 

chlorine dose of 4.0 mg/L (as Cl2). From the formation potential study, it was determined that TOC 

present in the influent acted as a DBP precursor. Observations made during onsite sampling indicated 

that ARM 200 might be playing a role in increasing DBP concentrations following the adsorption vessels. 

The hypothesis was that interaction of chlorine and TOC in the presence of ARM 200 media would 

increase DBP concentrations above the levels indicated by the formation potential study. This indeed was 

the case except for one instance on September 10, 2009, when the feed water contained combined 

chlorine (see Table 4-14) due to the presence of NH3 in the feed water. The presence of combined

chlorine apparently inhibited the formation of TTHM and HAA5, resulting in only <2.0 and 3.9 μg/L of 

TTHM and HAA5, in the column effluent. Also of note is that the presence of NH3 in AS water was 

caused by improper softener regeneration due to the system reconfiguration as described on page 45. 

After switching the column influent to chlorinated AS water, some TOC was removed by ARM 200 

media during the first 1,500 BV (i.e., from approximately 2,000 to 3,500 BV) but effluent TOC levels

reached influent levels throughout the remainder of the column test (Figure 4-21). Meanwhile, TTHM 

and HAA5 concentrations increased to 73.2 and 58.3 μg/L, respectively (Figure 4-22). The increase in 

DBP concentration was offset by the increase in DBP formation in the feed itself, which ranged from 25.4 

to 40.8 μg/L for TTHM and from 9.3 to 17.3 μg/L for HAA5 during the study. Therefore, net increases

in concentration ranged from 13.3 to 47.8 μg/L for TTHM and from 6.1 to 14.6 μg/L for HAA5. 

Although ARM 200 did increase the DBP concentration as the feed passed through the column, the

increase was not of the same magnitude observed at the Head Start building.
53

TOC vs. Throughput for Column A

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Bed Volumes

TOC (mg/L)

Influent to Column A

Column A Effluent

Switched from DI water 

with 4 mg/L NaOCl (CL2) to 

AS water on 08/28/09 

Figure 4-21. TOC Breakthrough from Column A

Column A with Virgin ARM 200 Media

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1,800 2,300 2,800 3,300 3,800 4,300 4,800

Bed Volume

 Concenttration (μg/L)

Influent TTHM Effluent TTHM Influent HAA5 Effluent HAA5

Feed switched from DI 

to AS water at 1,996 

BV; chlorine levels 

maintained at 4 mg/L 

(as Cl2)

Chlorine concentration feed 

increased to 10 mg/L (as Cl2) after 

4,516 BV

HAA5 MCL 60 μg/L

TTHM MCL 80 μg/L

Figure 4-22. TTHM and HAA5 Concentrations in Feed and Column A Effluent
54

The literature has reported enhanced formation of DBPs in a chlorinated system of organic polymer and 

clay (Lee et al., 1998). The enhanced formation was thought to be caused by the presence of metal 

cations on the clay surface. In follow-up work (Lee et al., 2004), DBP formation in the presence of 

metal-doped montmorillonite was enhanced five times during a 2-hr reaction time and four to 10 times 

during a 24-hr reaction time. It was hypothesized that the acidic cation-exchanged montmorillonite 

served as an effective catalyst for the electrophilic organic substitution reaction, which ultimately led to 

the formation of DBPs. It is not clear if any metal cations on ARM 200 media played a role in increased 

production of TTHM and HAA5.

During Phase III of the study, chlorine dosages were increased to between10.0 and 10.3 mg/L (as Cl2)

(see Figure 4-20). Net increases in DBP formation after the switch to 10.0 mg/L (as Cl2) ranged from 

15.7 to 15.8 μg/L for TTHM and from 4.6 to 9.0 μg/L for HAA5, which were less than expected. 

Column B was packed with the media taken from the top of Vessel A at the Head Start building and was 

fed with DI water spiked with an average of 4.1 (Phase I) or 10.4 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2) (Phase II) 

throughout the study. As shown in Table 4-15, concentrations in the column effluent were measured from 

<MDL to 5.2 μg/L for TTHM and from <MDL to 2.4 μg/L for HAA5. These concentrations were only 

slightly higher than those measured in the chlorinated DI water (i.e., from <MDL to 0.9 μg/L for TTHM 

and <MDL for HAA5), indicating that adsorbed TOC did not react with chlorine to form DBPs. 

Increasing chlorine concentrations from 4.1 to 10.4 mg/L (as Cl2) only slightly increased HAA5 

concentrations to 2.3 μg/L. 

Packed with the same media as Column B and fed with the chlorinated AS water used for Phases II and 

III of Column A study, Column C was used to simulate the conditions at the Head Start building. During 

Phase I with a target chlorine residual level of 4.0 mg/L (as Cl2), effluent concentrations were measured 

from 35.4 to 53.5 for TTHM and from 9.2 to 24.1 for HAA5 (Table 4-14). These results were just 

slightly lower than those seen in Column A when fed with chlorinated AS water. During Phase II, the 

target chlorine concentration was increased to 10.0 mg/L (as Cl2). The resulting TTHM and HAA5 

concentrations were within the ranges measured during Phase I (4.0 mg/L of chlorine [as Cl2] in the 

influent). Therefore, elevated concentrations seen in samples collected at the kitchen sink were unable to 

be replicated in the laboratory. One factor could be the contact time. The column studies used an EBCT 

of approximately 30 min, which might have been lower than the reaction times typically observed at the 

Head Start building. Note that due to low water usage, low flowrates, and high storage capacity after 

chlorination, a set of procedures had been developed to avoid excessive contact prior to each sampling 

event as described in Section 3.3.2.

In summary, the results of the laboratory column studies suggest that ARM 200 media with the presence 

of TOC and free chlorine in the influent has the ability to increase DBP formation. However, this 

increase was not on the same order as what was observed onsite, even with an influent chlorine 

concentration of 10.0 mg/L (as Cl2). Therefore, the results of the column studies cannot explain the 

elevated DBP concentrations observed at the site. The onsite results seem to indicate that exceeded levels 

of DBPs can be avoided if levels of chlorine residuals are controlled to below 2 mg/L (as Cl2). 

4.5.3 Backwash Wastewater Sampling. The two adsorption vessels were backwashed once on 

December 13, 2006, after six months of operation. Table 4-16 presents the analytical results. The 

wastewater contained 74 to 125 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS), which was composed mostly of 

particulate iron (28 to 54 mg/L). Because iron in source water had already been removed to below the 

MDL by the water softener as demonstrated by the results of most sampling events, the particulate iron 

found in the backwash wastewater were assumed to be primarily media fines. A small amount of 

manganese also was washed off the media beds during backwashing. 
55

Table 4-16. Backwash Water Analytical Results

Analytes Unit Vessel A Vessel B

pH S.U. 7.8 7.5

TDS mg/L 482 482

TSS mg/L 125 74

As (total) μg/L 8.2 1.7

As (soluble) μg/L 4.6 0.8

As (particulate) μg/L 3.7 0.9

Fe (total) μg/L 54,469 28,036

Fe (soluble) μg/L 721 35.0

Mn (total) μg/L 317 43.0

Mn (soluble) μg/L 30.0 0.4

4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. Table 4-17 presents the results of the distribution 

system water sampling. As expected, prior to system startup, arsenic concentrations in the distribution 

system were similar to those measured in raw water, ranging from 12.8 to 18.3 μg/L and averaging 15.2

μg/L. After system startup, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were reduced significantly to 

<0.1 to 5.0 μg/L and averaged 1.3 μg/L.

During the first 13 months of system operation when distribution system water samples were collected, 

arsenic concentrations in the distribution system water were somewhat higher than those measured in 

treatment system effluent (see Figure 4-23). Some dissolution and/or resuspension of arsenic might have 

occurred in the distribution system. 

Lead levels ranged from <0.1 to 0.6 μg/L and averaged 0.3 μg/L in the baseline samples and ranged from 

<0.1 to 3.4 μg/L and averaged 0.8 μg/L in the samples collected after system startup (excluding the 

September 13, 2006, sample when the lead level spiked to 8.5 μg/L at the DS3 sampling location). All 

lead measurements were below the lead action level of 15 μg/L. Copper concentrations ranged from 104 

to 796 μg/L and averaged 356 μg/L in the baseline samples and ranged from 11 to 299 μg/L and averaged 

90 μg/L in the samples taken after system startup. All copper concentrations measured were below the 

copper action level of 1,300 μg/L. Lead concentrations in the distribution system water were generally 

slightly higher than before system startup. Copper concentrations in the distribution system water were

significantly lower than those before system startup.

Similar to those in softened water, iron concentrations were below the MDL in the distribution system

water samples. Manganese concentrations also were low, averaging 0.5 and 0.8 μg/L before and after 

system startup. pH values ranged from 7.4 to 8.2, which were similar to the pH values measured after 

Vessels A and B. Alkalinity values remained rather constant throughout the distribution system.

4.6 System Cost

The cost of the treatment system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design 

capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking capital cost for the 

equipment, site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, 

replacement parts, chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor. The cost associated with 

improvements to the building and any other infrastructure was not included in the capital cost. These 

activities were funded separately by the facility.
56

Table 4-17. Distribution System Sampling Results

Address

Sample Type

Flushed / 1st Draw

Analytes

Stagnation TimepHAlkalinityAsFeMnAlPbCuStagnation TimepHAlkalinityAsFeMnAlPbCuStagnation TimepHAlkalinityAsFeMnAlPbCuStagnation TimepHAlkalinityAsFeMnAlPbCu

No. Date hr S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L hr S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L hr S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L hr S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L

BL1 01/07/05 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NA 7.9 343 13.9 <25 5.0 <10 0.2 219 NA 7.8 318 13.1 <25 <0.1 15.2 0.6 796 NA 7.7 322 14.4 <25 <0.1 12.6 0.3 184

BL2 01/28/05 13 7.8 334 12.8 <25 0.5 <10 0.3 619 NA 7.9 326 13.7 <25 0.1 <10 0.1 645 13.17 8.0 334 16.2 <25 <0.1 <10 0.2 199 NA 7.7 334 17.3 <25 <0.1 <10 0.1 121

BL3 02/25/05 15.3 7.8 351 14.3 <25 0.4 <10 0.4 483 NA 7.6 320 14.9 <25 0.1 <10 0.1 551 15.30 7.6 338 14.5 <25 <0.1 <10 0.2 261 NA 7.6 338 15.4 <25 0.2 <10 <0.1 111

BL4 03/21/05 72.0 7.5 326 18.3 <25 <0.1 NA 0.6 405 NA 7.6 343 17.3 <25 <0.1 NA 0.2 400 72 7.5 334 15.7 <25 <0.1 NA 0.4 237 NA 7.6 334 16.2 <25 <0.1 NA 0.1 104

1 08/23/06 NA 8.1 312 1.2 <25 0.2 NA 1.1 40.3 NA 8.1 314 1.0 <25 0.2 NA 1.1 37.1 NA 8.1 318 1.4 <25 <0.1 NA 1.9 28.6 NA 8.1 314 0.9 <25 <0.1 NA 1.9 26.3

2 09/13/06 NA 8.2 358 5.0 <25 4.5 NA 1.1 149 NA 8.2 360 0.4 <25 0.4 NA 3.4 10.7 NA 8.2 358 0.9 <25 0.6 NA 8.5 27.3 NA 8.2 365 1.2 <25 1.4 NA 2.1 29.5

3 10/19/06 NA 7.4 360 1.0 <25 0.4 NA 2.2 61.2 NA 7.6 374 2.0 <25 0.5 NA 0.8 251 NA 7.6 376 0.8 27.1 <0.1 NA 0.8 62.2 NA 7.6 370 0.5 <25 0.2 NA 0.9 60.0

4 11/09/06 NA 7.6 361 2.6 <25 1.4 NA 0.4 183 NA 7.7 355 1.2 <25 2.5 NA 2.9 43.6 NA 7.6 365 0.6 <25 0.2 NA 0.4 51.0 NA 7.7 357 0.9 <25 0.1 NA 0.4 78.6

5 12/19/06 NA 7.9 409 0.5 <25 0.5 NA 0.2 14.7 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NA 7.5 393 2.4 <25 0.1 NA 0.2 79.2 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

6 01/25/07 NA 7.6 324 1.5 <25 1.0 NA <0.1 66.8 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NA 7.6 314 1.0 <25 0.2 NA 0.3 49.3 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

7 02/15/07 NA 7.6 356 3.6 <25 1.4 NA 0.3 163 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NA 7.7 359 2.9 <25 0.4 NA 0.8 96.8 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

8 03/14/07 NA 7.7 389 1.4 <25 0.9 NA 0.1 166 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NA 7.7 369 1.1 <25 <0.1 NA 0.3 101 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

9 04/11/07 NA 7.6 360 <0.1 <25 0.8 NA 0.2 152 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NA 7.7 353 <0.1 <25 0.3 NA 0.3 52.9 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

10 05/08/07 NA 7.6 369 2.1 <25 0.6 NA 0.5 228 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NA 7.6 345 0.6 <25 0.2 NA 0.3 20.8 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

11 06/06/07 NA 7.4 316 1.2 <25 0.7 NA <0.1 53.7 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NA 7.4 313 0.4 <25 0.7 NA <0.1 51.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

12 09/12/07 NA 7.9 341 1.3 <25 4.4 NA 0.7 299 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NA 7.9 346 0.6 <25 0.5 NA 0.7 161 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Sampling 

Event

DS2 DS3

Kitchen Sink Men's Sink

LCR LCR

1st Draw Flushed 1st Draw Flushed

BL = Baseline Sampling; NS = not sampled

Lead action level = 15 μg/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L
57

Figure 4-23. Comparison of Arsenic Concentrations in System Effluent and Distribution System

4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation was 

$27,255 (see Table 4-18). The equipment cost was $10,435 (or 38% of the total capital investment),

which included $4,435 for the treatment system mechanical hardware, $4,000 for 9 ft3 of ARM 200 media 

(i.e., $445/ft3 or $8.89/lb), and $2,000 for the vendor’s labor and shipping cost.

The engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of the system layout and footprint, design of the 

piping connections to the entry and distribution tie-in points, and assembly and submission of the 

engineering plans for the permit application (Section 4.3). The engineering cost was $11,000, or 40% of 

the total capital investment.

The installation cost included the cost of labor and materials to unload and install the treatment system, 

complete the piping installation and tie-ins, and perform the system startup and shakedown (Section 4.3). 

The installation was performed by Kinetico. The installation cost was $5,820, or 22% of the total capital 

investment.

The total capital cost of $27,255 was normalized to $2,725/gpm ($1.89/gpd) of design capacity using the 

system’s rated capacity of 10 gpm (or 14,400 gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an annualized 

cost of $2,572/yr using a capital recovery factor 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/week at the design flowrate of 10 gpm 

to produce 5,256,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.49/1,000 gal. However, the 

system processed 303,200 gal of water in 44 months or approximately 82,500 gal/yr. At this reduced rate 

of operation, the unit capital cost increased to $31.36/1,000 gal of water treated.
58

Table 4-18. Summary of Capital Investment Cost

Description Quantity Cost

% of Capital 

Investment Cost

Equipment Cost

Adsorption Vessels 2 $1,450 –

ARM 200 Adsorptive Media (ft3) 9 $4,000 –

Piping and Valves 1 $2,105 –

Flow Totalizers/Meters 2 $880 –

Procurement, Assembly, Labor 1 $2,000 –

Equipment Total – $10,435 38%

Engineering Cost

Design/Scope of System (hr) 88 $11,000 –

Engineering Total – $11,000 40%

Installation Cost

Mechanical Materials 1 $400 –

Vendor Installation Labor - $1,000

Mechanical Subcontractor Labor - $4,000

Vendor Travel - $420 –

Installation Total – $5,820 22%

Total Capital Investment – $27,255 100%

4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost for the Kinetico arsenic removal system 

included only the incremental cost associated with the treatment system, such as media replacement and 

disposal, chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor, as presented in Table 4-19. 

In general, for a two-vessel system operating in series, the media in the lead vessel is replaced when the 

effluent arsenic concentration following the lag vessel reaches the 10-μg/L MCL. Once the lead vessel is 

rebedded, it is valved into the lag position and the lag vessel becomes the lead vessel. This method 

allows the media’s capacity to be fully utilized before its replacement. 

Table 4-19. Summary of O&M Cost

Cost Category Media Run Remarks

Volume Processed (gal) 303,200 To end of evaluation period in 44 

months

Media Replacement and Disposal

Unit Media Cost ($/ft3) $300 4.5 ft3 of E33 in lead vessel

Subtotal ($) $4,049 Including media, underbedding, 

freight, labor, travel, and spent 

media analysis and disposal

Media Replacement Cost ($/1,000 gal) See Figure 4-24

Chemical Usage

Chemical ($) $0.0 No additional chemical required

Electricity

Electricity ($/1,000 gal) $0.0 No additional electricity required

Labor

Average Weekly Labor (hr) 0.25 15 min/day, 1 day/week

Labor Cost ($/yr) $260 $20/hr

Labor Cost ($/1,000 gal) $3.17 82,000 gal/yr of water treated

Total O&M cost ($/1,000 gal) See Figure 4-24
59

Because the media was not replaced at the Head Start building during the performance evaluation study

and because ARM 200 media was no longer available, it was assumed that it would cost $4,049 to change 

out and dispose of 4.5 ft3 of media in the lead vessel. This media change-out cost was derived from the 

cost for rebedding 5 ft3 of E33 media in the lead vessel at Goffstown, NH, where a similar lead/lag 

adsorptive media system was evaluated under this demonstration program (McCall, et al., 2009). The 

$4,049 included the cost for 4.5 ft3 of E33 media, freight, labor, travel, spent media analysis, and media 

disposal fee. By averaging the media replacement cost of $4,049 over the media life, the unit cost per 

1,000 gal of water treated is plotted as a function of the media life, as shown in Figure 4-24. 

There were no additional electricity requirements associated with the treatment system. The well pump 

and chlorine injection pump were pre-existing and the only equipment present that required electricity. 

Routine, non-demonstration-related labor activities consumed about 15 min/week as noted in 

Section 4.4.4. Depending on how the system performs and if any additional troubleshooting is required, 

the labor incurred will vary. The estimated labor cost for operating and maintaining the arsenic removal 

system was $3.17/1,000 gal of water treated.

Figure 4-24. Total O&M and Media Replacement Cost Curves
60

5.0 REFERENCES

Amy, G.L., P.A. Chadik, and P.H. King. 1984. “Chlorine Utilization During Trihalomethane Formation 

in the Presence of Ammonia and Bromide.” Environ. Sci. Technol., 18:781-786.

Battelle. 2004. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology. 

Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Battelle. 2005. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic 

Removal Technology at the LEADS Head Start Site in Buckeye Lake, OH. Prepared under 

Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Bond, T., O. Henriet, E.H. Goslan, S.A. Parsons, and B. Jefferson. 2009. “Disinfection Byproduct 

Formation and Fractionation Behavior of Natural Organic Matter Surrogates.” Environ. Sci. 

Technol. 43: 5982-5989.

Bougeard, C.M.M., E.H. Goslan, B. Jefferson, and S.A. Parsons. 2010. “Comparison of the Disinfection 

By-product Formation Potential of Treated Waters Exposed to Chlorine and Monochloramine,” 

Water Research, 44: 729-740. 

Chen, A.S.C. V. Lal, R.J. Stowe, and B.J. Yates. 2009b. Test Plan: Disinfection Byproducts Column 

Studies. U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration – Round 2a at Head Start 

Program Building in Buckeye Lake, OH. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order 

No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research 

Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Chen, A.S.C., J.P. Lipps, S.E. McCall, and L. Wang. 2009a. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by 

Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in 

Susanville, CA. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-09/067. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Chen, A.S.C. and B.J. Yates. 2009. Letter Report: Disinfection Byproducts Formation Potential of 

Softened Inlet Water at Buckeye Lake Head Start Program Building. Prepared under Contract 

No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National 

Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Chen, A.S.C., W.E. Condit, L. Wang, and A.Wang. 2008. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by 

Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI. Final Performance 

Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-08/142. 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.

Cumming, L.J., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2009. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive 

Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at South Truckee Meadows General Improvement 
61

District (STMGID), NV. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-09/016. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, 

OH.

Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 

1998. “Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation.” J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.

EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance 

and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.

EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems. 

EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. 

Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.

Fang, J., J. Ma, X. Yang, and C. Shang, C. 2009. “Formation of Carbonaceous and Nitrogenous 

Disinfection Byproducts from the Chlorination of Microcyistis aeruginosa.” Water Research,

44(6): 1934-1940.

Huang, J., N. Graham, M.R. Templeton, Y. Zhang, C. Collins, and M. Nieuwenhuijsen. 2009. “A 

Comparison of the Role of Two Blue-Green Algae in THM and HAA Formation.” Water 

Research, 43:3009-3018. 

Joll, C.A., M.J. Alessandrino, and A. Heitz. 2010. “Disinfection Byproducts Formation from 

Halogeation of Aqueous Solutions of Terpenoids.” Water Research, 44: 232-242.

Kristiana, I., H. Gallard, C. Joll, and J.-P. Croue. 2009. “The Formation of Halogen-specific TOX from 

Chlorination and Chloramination of Natural Organic Matter Isolates.” Water Research, 43:4177-

4186.

Lee, J.F., P.M. Liao, C.K. Lee, H.P. Chao, C.L. Peng, and C.T. Chiu. 2004. “Clay-catalyzed Reactions 

of Coagulant Polymers During Water Chlorination.” J. Coll. Int. Sci. 270: 381-387.

Lee, J.F., P.M. Liao, D.H. Tseng, and P.T. Wen. 1998. “Behavior of Organic Polymers in Drinking 

Water Purification.” Chemosphere. 37: 1045-1061

Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, A. Wang, and S.E. McCall. 2010. Arsenic Removal from Drinking 

Water by Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Spring Brook Mobile Home 

Park in Wales, ME. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-10/012. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, 

OH. 

Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, S.E. McCall, and L.Wang. 2008. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by 

Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Dummerston, VT. Final Performance 

Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-08/081. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk 

Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Marhaba, T.F. and V. Doanh. 2000. “The Variation of Mass and Disinfection By-product Formation 

Potential of Dissolved Organic Matter Fractions Along a Conventional Surface Water Treatment 

Plant,” J. Haz. Mat., 74: 133-147.
62

McCall, S.E., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2009. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive 

Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH. Final Performance Evaluation 

Report. EPA/600/R-09/015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Ohio EPA. 2006. Chapter 3745-7: Operator Certification for Public Water Systems and Wastewater 

Treatment Works. Ohio Revised Code. December 21.

Oliver, B.G. and D.B. Shindler. 1980. “Trihalomethane from the Chlorination of Aquatic Algae.” 

Environ. Sci. Technol., 14:1502-1505.

Quintana, J.B., R. Rodil, P. Lopez-Mahia, S. Muniategui-Lorenzo, and D. Prada-Rodreguez. 2010. 

“Investigating the Chlorination of Acidic Pharmaceuticals and By-product Formation Aided by 

an Experimental Design Methodology.” Water Research. 44:243-255.

Rook, J.J. 1974. “Formation of Haloforms During Chlorination of Natural Waters.” Water Treat Exam, 

23: 234-243. 

Rathbun, R.E. 1997. “Effect of Reaction Time on the Formation of Disinfection Byproducts.” 

Chemosphere. 34(12): 2699-2713.

Summers, R.S., S.M. Hooper, H.M. Shukairy, G. Solarik, and D. Owen. 1996. “Assessing DBP Yield: 

Uniform Formation Conditions,” J. AWWA. 88: 80-93.

Valigore, J.M., A.S.C. Chen, and L.Wang. 2007. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive 

Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Valley Vista, AZ. Final Performance Evaluation 

Report. EPA/600/R-07/133. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

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.

Williams, S., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2010. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive 

Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Webb Consolidated Independent School District in 

Bruni, TX. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-10/040. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Williams, S., A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, and A.M. Paolucci. 2009. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by 

Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX. Final Performance 

Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-09/145. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk 

Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Zhang, Q., W.-F. Kuang, L.-Y. Liu, K. Li, K.-H. Wong, A.T. Chow, and P.-K. Wong. 2009. 

“Trihalomethane, Haloacetonitrile and Chloral Hydrate Formation Potentials of Organic Carbon 

Fractions from Sub-tropical Forest Soils.” J. Haz. Mat., 172: 880-887.
APPENDIX A

OPERATIONAL DATA
A-1

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start in Buckeye Lake, OH – Daily System Operational Data 

ΔP Chlorine

Flowrate Totalizer

 Cum. 

Bed 

Volume

Usage

Inlet

After 

Vessel 

A

After 

Vessel 

B

Across 

Vessel A

Across 

Vessel B

Across 

System

Chlorine 

Tank 

Level

Chlorine 

Solution 

Feed 

Rate

gpm gal BVs gal psig psig psig psi psi psi gal L/min

0 Sat 06/24/06 10:00 0 400 12 400 43 38 42 5 -4 1 8 35

Mon 06/26/06 9:30 0 400 12 0 45 41 45 4 -4 0 7.5 35

Wed 06/28/06 11:45 0 599 18 199 47 42 47 5 -5 0 7 31

2 Wed 07/05/06 14:30 0 700 21 101 48 43 49 5 -6 -1 7 35

3 Sun 07/16/06 9:30 0 1,200 36 500 40 36 41 4 -5 -1 12 40

Wed 07/26/06 9:47 0 1,400 42 200 44 42 47 2 -5 -3 12 40

Sun 07/30/06 12:00 0 1,700 51 300 37 38 43 -1 -5 -6 11.5 40

6 Wed 08/02/06 17:00 0 1,900 56 200 36 37 43 -1 -6 -7 11 40

7 Wed 08/09/06 18:15 0 2,100 62 200 31 33 41 -2 -8 -10 10 40

8 Wed 08/16/06 17:00 0 2,300 68 200 33 36 43 -3 -7 -10 9 40

9 Wed 08/23/06 10:00 0 3,100 92 800 44 47 54 -3 -7 -10 8 40

11 Wed 09/06/06 20:00 0 4,300 128 1,200 23 34 41 -11 -7 -18 14 40

12

Thur 09/14/06 15:15 0 5,900 175 1,600 61 62 62 -1 0 -1 11 50

13 Wed 09/20/06 20:00 0 26,400 784 20,500 50 52 52 -2 0 -2 3 50

14 Thur 09/28/06 6:00 0 27,900 829 1,500 49 51 50 -2 1 -1 0 48

15 Thur 10/05/06 5:15 0 29,400 873 1,500 46 48 47 -2 1 -1 13 40

17 Wed 10/18/06 17:00 0 31,900 948 2,500 42 43 42 -1 1 0 8 40

18 Tues 10/24/06 22:00 0 32,900 977 1,000 55 60 61 -5 -1 -6 7 40

19 Wed 11/01/06 16:45 0 35,200 1,046 2,300 50 52 50 -2 2 0 2 40

20 Wed 11/08/06 18:00 0 36,700 1,090 1,500 40 42 42 -2 0 -2 15 40

21 Wed 11/15/06 13:00 0 40,000 1,188 3,300 50 49 48 1 1 2 8 30

23 Wed 11/29/06 20:00 0 42,300 1,257 2,300 50 51 51 -1 0 -1 6 30

24 Wed 12/06/06 17:30 0 43,600 1,295 1,300 45 47 46 -2 1 -1 14 30

26 Wed 12/19/06 10:00 0 46,000 1,367 2,400 54 56 55 -2 1 -1 7 30

27 Wed 12/27/06 11:30 0 46,100 1,370 100 61 62 62 -1 0 -1 7 30

28 Wed 01/03/07 20:30 0 46,800 1,390 700 46 47 45 -1 2 1 15 30

ΔP

1

5

Week 

No.

Day 

of 

Week

Date Time

ARM 200 System Pressure
A-2

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start in Buckeye Lake, OH – Daily System Operational Data 

(Continued)

ΔP Chlorine

Flowrate Totalizer

 Cum. 

Bed 

Volume

Usage

Inlet

After 

Vessel 

A

After 

Vessel 

B

Across 

Vessel A

Across 

Vessel B

Across 

System

Chlorine 

Tank 

Level

Chlorine 

Solution 

Feed 

Rate

gpm gal BVs gal psig psig psig psi psi psi gal L/min

Wed 01/17/07 21:00 0 49,200 1,462 2,400 46 48 47 -2 1 -1 13 30

Thur 01/18/07 13:00 0 49,400 1,468 200 35 35 35 0 0 0 12 30

Mon 01/22/07 12:00 0 49,800 1,480 400 42 35 35 7 0 7 11.5 30

Thur 01/25/07 6:00 0 50,700 1,506 900 56 58 57 -2 1 -1 11.25 30

Mon 01/29/07 8:00 0 51,400 1,527 700 40 40 40 0 0 0 10.5 30

Wed 01/31/07 11:00 0 51,700 1,536 300 64 65 65 -1 0 -1 10.25 30

33 Wed 02/07/07 17:00 0 52,800 1,569 1,100 41 42 42 -1 0 -1 15 30

34 Thur 02/15/07 18:00 0 54,100 1,607 1,300 44 46 45 -2 1 -1 14 30

35 Wed 02/21/07 20:30 0 54,800 1,628 700 46 47 46 -1 1 0 13 30

36 Wed 02/28/07 19:30 0 57,000 1,693 2,200 56 58 58 -2 0 -2 12 30

37 Wed 03/07/07 15:00 0 58,500 1,738 1,500 51 52 52 -1 0 -1 15 30

38 Wed 03/14/07 21:00 0 61,100 1,815 2,600 36 35 35 1 0 1 13 30

39 Wed 03/21/07 19:30 0 63,100 1,875 2,000 44 46 45 -2 1 -1 37 30

40 Wed 03/28/07 20:00 0 63,700 1,892 600 51 52 52 -1 0 -1 35 30

41 Wed 04/04/07 19:00 0 64,700 1,922 1,000 60 62 62 -2 0 -2 14 30

42 Wed 04/11/07 19:30 0 66,100 1,964 1,400 48 49 48 -1 1 0 13 30

43 Wed 04/18/07 10:00 0 67,400 2,002 1,300 51 53 52 -2 1 -1 10 30

44 Wed 04/25/07 20:30 0 69,700 2,071 2,300 49 51 50 -2 1 -1 7 30

Tues 05/01/07 14:15 0 70,900 2,106 1,200 45 46 46 -1 0 -1 6 30

Wed 05/02/07 20:30 0 71,300 2,118 400 47 48 47 -1 1 0 5 30

46 Tues 05/08/07 9:30 0 72,400 2,151 1,100 59 61 61 -2 0 -2 15 30

47 Wed 05/16/07 10:30 0 74,400 2,210 2,000 48 49 49 -1 0 -1 12 30

48 Wed 05/23/07 18:30 0 76,200 2,264 1,800 41 43 43 -2 0 -2 10 30

49 Wed 05/30/07 20:45 0 76,400 2,270 200 56 57 57 -1 0 -1 9 30

50 Wed 06/06/07 13:00 0 76,500 2,273 100 46 48 47 -2 1 -1 15 30

51 Wed 06/13/07 9:00 0 77,200 2,294 700 42 44 43 -2 1 -1 14 30

31

32

45

ΔP

30

Week 

No.

Day 

of 

Week

Date Time

ARM 200 System Pressure
A-3

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start in Buckeye Lake, OH – Daily System Operational Data 

(Continued)

ΔP Chlorine

Flowrate Totalizer

 Cum. 

Bed 

Volume

Usage

Inlet

After 

Vessel 

A

After 

Vessel 

B

Across 

Vessel A

Across 

Vessel B

Across 

System

Chlorine 

Tank 

Level

Chlorine 

Solution 

Feed 

Rate

gpm gal BVs gal psig psig psig psi psi psi gal L/min

52 Wed 06/20/07 20:00 0 77,200 2,294 0 58 59 59 -1 0 -1 14 30

53 Wed 07/04/07 9:45 0 77,200 2,294 0 49 50 50 -1 0 -1 14 30

54 Wed 07/11/07 5:30 0 77,200 2,294 0 47 48 48 -1 0 -1 14 30

55 Wed 07/18/07 5:30 0 77,200 2,294 0 47 48 48 -1 0 -1 14 30

56 Wed 07/25/07 19:15 0 77,300 2,296 100 59 61 61 -2 0 -2 14 30

57 Wed 08/01/07 13:15 0 77,500 2,302 200 51 52 52 -1 0 -1 13 30

59 Wed 08/15/07 7:30 0 78,100 2,320 600 55 54 55 1 -1 0 13 35

60 Thur 08/23/07 8:15 0 78,700 2,338 600 45 48 46 -3 2 -1 12 35

61 Wed 08/29/07 19:15 0 79,000 2,347 300 53 54 54 -1 0 -1 11 35

62 Wed 09/05/07 19:30 0 80,300 2,386 1,300 50 52 52 -2 0 -2 13 35

63 Wed 09/12/07 20:15 0 83,300 2,475 3,000 41 42 42 -1 0 -1 28 35

64 Wed 09/19/07 15:00 0 85,200 2,531 1,900 57 58 58 -1 0 -1 18 35

65 Wed 09/26/07 9:00 0 86,500 2,570 1,300 57 58 58 -1 0 -1 5 30

66 Wed 10/03/07 22:00 0 88,600 2,632 2,100 42 44 43 -2 1 -1 14 30

67 Wed 10/10/07 7:30 0 89,900 2,671 1,300 45 47 46 -2 1 -1 13 30

68 Wed 10/17/07 12:30 0 91,200 2,709 1,300 51 53 52 -2 1 -1 12 30

69 Wed 10/24/07 20:15 0 93,200 2,769 2,000 42 43 44 -1 -1 -2 8 30

70 Wed 10/31/07 21:00 0 95,000 2,822 1,800 53 54 54 -1 0 -1 5 30

71 Wed 11/07/07 20:00 0 96,600 2,870 1,600 55 56 57 -1 -1 -2 14 30

72 Wed 11/14/07 20:30 0 97,800 2,906 1,200 46 48 47 -2 1 -1 12 30

73 Tues 11/20/07 20:00 0 99,100 2,944 1,300 48 50 49 -2 1 -1 10 35

74 Wed 11/28/07 19:45 0 100,500 2,986 1,400 61 63 63 -2 0 -2 8 35

75 Wed 12/05/07 21:00 0 101,700 3,021 1,200 51 53 52 -2 1 -1 15 35

76 Tues 12/11/07 14:00 0 102,800 3,054 1,100 43 44 43 -1 1 0 13 35

77 Tues 12/18/07 9:30 0 104,100 3,093 1,300 54 55 55 -1 0 -1 12 35

78 Wed 12/19/07 19:30 0 105,200 3,125 1,100 47 48 48 -1 0 -1 10 35

ΔP

Week 

No.

Day 

of 

Week

Date Time

ARM 200 System Pressure
A-4

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start in Buckeye Lake, OH – Daily System Operational Data 

(Continued)

ΔP Chlorine

Flowrate Totalizer

 Cum. 

Bed 

Volume

Usage

Inlet

After 

Vessel 

A

After 

Vessel 

B

Across 

Vessel A

Across 

Vessel B

Across 

System

Chlorine 

Tank 

Level

Chlorine 

Solution 

Feed 

Rate

gpm gal BVs gal psig psig psig psi psi psi gal L/min

79 Wed 12/26/07 9:15 0 105,900 3,146 700 51 53 53 -2 0 -2 9 35

80 Wed 01/02/08 21:00 0 106,300 3,158 400 44 46 45 -2 1 -1 8 35

81 Wed 01/09/08 18:30 0 107,500 3,194 1,200 53 54 54 -1 0 -1 12 35

82 Wed 01/16/08 19:00 0 109,100 3,241 1,600 57 58 59 -1 -1 -2 11 35

83 Wed 01/23/08 22:00 0 110,100 3,271 1,000 62 64 64 -2 0 -2 10 35

85 Wed 02/06/08 19:00 0 113,700 3,378 3,600 44 46 45 -2 1 -1 7 35

86 Wed 02/13/08 18:30 0 114,600 3,405 900 46 48 47 -2 1 -1 13 35

87 Wed 02/20/08 19:30 0 115,700 3,437 1,100 58 60 60 -2 0 -2 12 35

88 Wed 02/27/08 18:30 0 117,000 3,476 1,300 44 45 45 -1 0 -1 10 35

89 Wed 03/05/08 19:45 0 118,600 3,523 1,600 48 50 49 -2 1 -1 15 35

90 Wed 03/12/08 19:30 0 120,200 3,571 1,600 44 46 46 -2 0 -2 13 35

91 Wed 03/19/08 10:00 0 121,513 3,610 1,313 58 58 58 0 0 0 11.5 35

92 Wed 03/26/08 20:00 0 122,000 3,624 487 44 46 45 -2 1 -1 10 35

93 Wed 04/02/06 20:30 0 123,200 3,660 1,200 57 58 58 -1 0 -1 8 35

94 Wed 04/09/08 20:30 0 124,700 3,705 1,500 62 64 64 -2 0 -2 13 35

95 Wed 04/16/08 20:30 0 126,100 3,746 1,400 45 46 46 -1 0 -1 11 35

96 Wed 04/23/08 20:00 0 127,700 3,794 1,600 47 49 48 -2 1 -1 8 35

97 Thur 05/01/08 19:00 0 129,200 3,838 1,500 47 49 48 -2 1 -1 5 35

98 Wed 05/07/08 20:30 0 131,100 3,895 1,900 51 52 52 -1 0 -1 3 35

99 Wed 05/14/08 20:15 0 132,800 3,945 1,700 50 52 52 -2 0 -2 14 35

100 Wed 05/21/08 22:45 0 134,400 3,993 1,600 52 54 54 -2 0 -2 12 35

101 Wed 06/04/08 20:30 0 136,600 4,058 2,200 58 60 60 -2 0 -2 15 35

102 Wed 06/11/08 18:30 0 137,800 4,094 1,200 59 62 62 -3 0 -3 13 35

103 Wed 06/18/08 21:10 0 138,900 4,127 1,100 49 51 50 -2 1 -1 11 35

104 Wed 06/25/08 20:00 0 139,800 4,153 900 57 58 59 -1 -1 -2 9 35

105 Wed 07/02/08 18:00 0 140,700 4,180 900 44 45 45 -1 0 -1 8 35

ΔP

Week 

No.

Day 

of 

Week

Date Time

ARM 200 System Pressure
A-5

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start in Buckeye Lake, OH – Daily System Operational Data 

(Continued)

ΔP Chlorine

Flowrate Totalizer

 Cum. 

Bed 

Volume

Usage

Inlet

After 

Vessel 

A

After 

Vessel 

B

Across 

Vessel A

Across 

Vessel B

Across 

System

Chlorine 

Tank 

Level

Chlorine 

Solution 

Feed 

Rate

gpm gal BVs gal psig psig psig psi psi psi gal L/min

106 Wed 07/09/08 10:00 0 141,270 4,197 570 43 44 45 -1 -1 -2 15 35

107 Wed 07/16/08 20:30 0 142,400 4,231 1,130 45 46 45 -1 1 0 12.5 35

108 Wed 07/23/08 18:00 0 143,800 4,272 1,400 61 62 63 -1 -1 -2 10 35

110 Wed 08/06/08 19:30 0 145,700 4,329 1,900 42 43 42 -1 1 0 7 35

111 Wed 08/13/06 21:30 0 146,500 4,352 800 49 50 50 -1 0 -1 14 35

112 Wed 08/20/08 19:45 0 146,900 4,364 400 55 56 57 -1 -1 -2 13 35

113 Wed 08/27/08 20:00 0 148,200 4,403 1,300 48 50 49 -2 1 -1 12 35

114 Wed 09/03/08 19:30 0 149,000 4,427 800 48 51 49 -3 2 -1 15 35

115 Wed 09/10/08 19:15 0 150,900 4,483 1,900 43 45 44 -2 1 -1 11 35

116 Wed 09/17/08 20:30 0 152,400 4,528 1,500 52 54 54 -2 0 -2 8 35

117 Wed 09/24/08 20:45 0 154,800 4,599 2,400 60 62 62 -2 0 -2 5 35

118 Wed 10/01/08 10:15 0 156,468 4,648 1,668 45 42 40 3 2 5 2 35

119 Wed 10/08/08 20:00 0 159,100 4,727 2,632 63 64 65 -1 -1 -2 0 35

120 Wed 10/15/08 20:30 0 160,500 4,768 1,400 62 64 64 -2 0 -2 12 35

121 Wed 10/22/08 20:20 0 162,100 4,816 1,600 47 48 48 -1 0 -1 8 35

123 Wed 11/05/08 19:30 0 165,800 4,926 3,700 59 62 62 -3 0 -3 0 35

124 Wed 11/12/08 20:00 0 167,700 4,982 1,900 49 50 50 -1 0 -1 15 35

125 Wed 11/19/08 20:15 0 169,400 5,033 1,700 44 46 45 -2 1 -1 10 35

126 Tues 11/25/08 20:15 0 170,800 5,074 1,400 60 62 62 -2 0 -2 7 35

127 Wed 12/03/08 19:15 0 172,400 5,122 1,600 51 53 52 -2 1 -1 5 35

128 Wed 12/10/08 19:00 0 174,600 5,187 2,200 53 55 55 -2 0 -2 12 35

129 Wed 12/17/08 19:00 0 195,400 5,805 20,800 53 55 55 -2 0 -2 5 35

130 Wed 12/23/08 19:45 0 196,700 5,844 1,300 46 48 48 -2 0 -2 2 35

131 Wed 01/07/09 19:15 0 198,500 5,897 1,800 52 54 53 -2 1 -1 0 35

132 Wed 01/14/09 15:00 0 200,200 5,948 1,700 50 52 52 -2 0 -2 13 35

133 Wed 01/21/09 21:15 0 201,700 5,992 1,500 64 66 66 -2 0 -2 10 35

ΔP

Week 

No.

Day 

of 

Week

Date Time

ARM 200 System Pressure
A-6

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start in Buckeye Lake, OH – Daily System Operational Data 

(Continued)

ΔP Chlorine

Flowrate Totalizer

 Cum. 

Bed 

Volume

Usage

Inlet

After 

Vessel 

A

After 

Vessel 

B

Across 

Vessel A

Across 

Vessel B

Across 

System

Chlorine 

Tank 

Level

Chlorine 

Solution 

Feed 

Rate

gpm gal BVs gal psig psig psig psi psi psi gal L/min

133 Fri 01/23/09 9:30 0 202,152 6,006 452 45 44 44 1 0 1 10 35

134 Wed 01/28/09 7:00 0 202,900 6,028 748 52 54 54 -2 0 -2 8 35

135 Wed 02/04/09 20:15 0 204,500 6,075 1,600 61 62 63 -1 -1 -2 15 35

136 Wed 02/11/09 19:30 0 206,900 6,147 2,400 51 53 52 -2 1 -1 12 35

137 Wed 02/18/09 19:00 0 207,700 6,171 800 39 38 37 1 1 2 11 35

138 Wed 02/25/09 18:30 0 208,700 6,200 1,000 43 45 45 -2 0 -2 9 35

139 Wed 03/04/09 19:00 0 210,700 6,260 2,000 47 49 49 -2 0 -2 6 35

140 Wed 03/11/09 19:30 0 212,400 6,310 1,700 50 52 51 -2 1 -1 15 30

141 Wed 03/18/09 20:30 0 214,400 6,370 2,000 54 56 56 -2 0 -2 12 30

142 Wed 03/25/09 20:18 0 216,400 6,429 2,000 51 52 52 -1 0 -1 11 30

143 Wed 04/01/09 21:30 0 216,900 6,444 500 53 56 56 -3 0 -3 11 30

144 Wed 04/08/09 20:30 0 218,200 6,482 1,300 51 53 52 -2 1 -1 13 30

145 Wed 04/15/09 19:30 0 221,700 6,586 3,500 62 64 65 -2 -1 -3 25 35

146 Wed 04/22/09 20:00 0 223,200 6,631 1,500 43 45 44 -2 1 -1 15 35

147 Thur 04/30/09 9:30 0 224,890 6,681 1,690 42 44 44 -2 0 -2 0 35

148 Wed 05/06/09 19:00 0 226,500 6,729 1,610 47 48 48 -1 0 -1 15 35

149 Wed 05/13/09 19:30 0 228,400 6,786 1,900 47 49 48 -2 1 -1 12 35

150 Wed 05/20/09 20:00 0 230,000 6,833 1,600 47 49 49 -2 0 -2 12 35

151 Wed 05/27/09 21:00 0 230,800 6,857 800 58 60 60 -2 0 -2 8 35

152 Wed 06/03/09 20:30 0 231,100 6,866 300 63 65 65 -2 0 -2 8 35

153 Wed 06/10/09 20:00 0 231,500 6,878 400 57 59 59 -2 0 -2 10 35

154 Wed 06/17/09 19:30 0 232,000 6,892 500 47 49 49 -2 0 -2 13 35

155 Wed 06/24/09 20:00 0 232,600 6,910 600 50 51 51 -1 0 -1 14 35

156 Wed 07/01/09 21:00 0 233,100 6,925 500 46 48 47 -2 1 -1 13 35

157 Wed 07/08/09 20:30 0 233,400 6,934 300 42 44 43 -2 1 -1 13 35

158 Wed 07/15/09 21:30 0 234,100 6,955 700 61 63 63 -2 0 -2 12 -

ΔP

Week 

No.

Day 

of 

Week

Date Time

ARM 200 System Pressure
A-7

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start in Buckeye Lake, OH – Daily System Operational Data 

(Continued)

ΔP Chlorine

Flowrate Totalizer

 Cum. 

Bed 

Volume

Usage

Inlet

After 

Vessel 

A

After 

Vessel 

B

Across 

Vessel A

Across 

Vessel B

Across 

System

Chlorine 

Tank 

Level

Chlorine 

Solution 

Feed 

Rate

gpm gal BVs gal psig psig psig psi psi psi gal L/min

159 Wed 07/22/09 20:30 0 235,100 6,985 1,000 44 45 44 -1 1 0 12 -

161 Wed 08/05/09 21:30 0 236,400 7,023 1,300 54 56 56 -2 0 -2 10 -

Tues 08/11/09 21:30 0 241,400 7,172 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 -

Wed 08/12/09 20:30 0 242,200 7,195 800 43 45 44 -2 1 -1 4 -

164 Wed 08/26/09 20:00 0 243,300 7,228 1,100 49 51 50 -2 1 -1 3 -

165 Wed 09/02/09 20:30 0 244,200 7,255 900 60 62 62 -2 0 -2 10 -

166 Wed 09/09/09 20:30 0 245,500 7,294 1,300 49 51 50 -2 1 -1 8 -

167 Wed 09/16/09 20:00 0 249,200 7,403 3,700 52 54 54 -2 0 -2 3 -

168 Wed 09/23/09 13:30 0 253,000 7,516 3,800 44 50 49 -6 1 -5 10 -

169 Tues 10/01/09 7:15 0 255,600 7,594 2,600 44 46 46 -2 0 -2 10 -

162

ΔP

Week 

No.

Day 

of 

Week

Date Time

ARM 200 System Pressure

NOTE: BV calculation assumes 4.5 ft3 of media per vessel.
APPENDIX B

ANALYTICAL RESULTS
IN = At Wellhead, AS = After Water Softener, AC = After Chlorination, TA = After Tank A, TB = After Tank B, DIST = Distribution

B-1

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Buckeye Lake, OH

Parameter Unit

Bed Volumes 10^3 - - 0.0 - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - - - 0.1 - - - - 0.1 - - - 0.2

318 335 19 322 331 314 134 - - - 325 331 348 322 344 353 360 366 369 344 355 371 346

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 344 355 367 351

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.9 0.9 0.9 1.8 0.9 1.3 2.4 - - - 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0

34 35 131 37 32 35 160 - - - 40 43 42 43 39 38 41 34(a) 43 33 35 35 34

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35 35 34 36

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.4 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - <0.05 <0.05 0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.2

<10 187 <10 <10 36.8 <10 <10 - - - <10 72.6 <10 <10 <10 57.2 <10 <10 <10 <10 14.4 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <10 14.7 <10 <10

15.1 15.2 <0.2 14.4 13.5 <0.2 <0.2 - - - 13.9 14.7 <0.2 <0.2 14.4 14.1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 14.5 14.7 0.5 <0.2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.0 15.1 0.8 <0.2

39.0 1.3 1.0 41.0 0.9 0.4 0.4 - - - 34.0 0.5 0.2 0.4 39.0 1.1 0.3 <0.1 0.2 15.0 0.6 0.5 0.2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.0 0.6 0.6 2.0

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. 7.4 7.5 7.0 7.6 7.9 - 7.9 7.5 8.0 8.0 - - - - 7.4 7.6 - - 7.5 - - - -

Temperature °C 19.8 21.4 25.0 20.0 20.3 - 20.0 17.8 19.9 20.4 - - - - 19.8 20.0 - - 24.0 - - - -

DO mg/L 2.4 1.3 1.4 2.6 2.0 - 1.5 3.6 4.5 1.7 - - - - 1.6 2.1 - - 1.0 - - - -

ORP mV -54 546 375 -36 -50 - -54 -47 667 420 - - - - -74 603 - - 433 - - - -

Free Chlorine mg/L - - - - - - 0.1 - - 0.2 - - - 0.8 - - - - 0.1 - - - 0.0

Total Chlorine mg/L - - - - - - 0.5 - - 0.9 - - - 0.6 - - - - 0.1 - - - 0.0

289 0.9 1.0 268 0.3 <0.35 <0.35 - - - 294 0.4 0.3 0.3 299 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 303 0.6 0.3 0.3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 306 0.6 0.3 0.3

189 0.8 0.9 178 0.3 <0.25 <0.25 - - - 204 0.3 0.3 0.3 199 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 212 0.6 <0.25 <0.25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 213 0.6 <0.25 0.3

99.7 0.1 0.1 90.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - 89.5 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 101 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 90.7 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 92.9 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

9.7 16.4 0.4 9.3 9.2 <0.1 <0.1 12.4 13.5 4.7 11.7 18.6 0.2 0.2 11.6 14.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 13.1 13.9 0.2 0.2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.0 13.8 <0.1 0.2

As (soluble) μg/L 8.4 15.3 4.1 - - - - 8.7 11.4 4.3 - - - - 9.5 12.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L 1.3 1.1 <0.1 - - - - 3.7 2.0 0.4 - - - - 2.1 1.6 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - -

As (III) μg/L 7.0 0.2 0.2 - - - - 6.0 0.6 0.5 - - - - 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 - - - -

As (V) μg/L 1.4 15.1 3.9 - - - - 2.7 10.9 3.8 - - - - 6.5 12.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - -

3,974 142 <25 5,365 40 <25 <25 2,495 <25 <25 3,738 29 <25 26 4,840 100 <25 <25 <25 1,600 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,614 <25 <25 <25

Fe (soluble) μg/L 3,161 47 <25 - - - - 875 <25 <25 - - - - 3,882 <25 <25 <25 <25 - - - -

112 1.3 2.1 114 0.9 <0.1 <0.1 93.9 0.4 0.2 110 0.3 <0.1 0.1 118 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.5 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 77.7 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mn (soluble) μg/L 114 0.4 1.6 - - - - 92.9 0.4 <0.1 - - - - 117 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 - - - -

Alkalinity 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Fluoride

Sulfate

Ammonia (as N) mg/L

mg/L

08/30/06

IN AC TA TB TT

07/12/06

IN AC TA TB

07/25/06

IN AC TT

Mn (total) μg/L

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

mg/L

mg/L

Total P (as P) μg/L

Nitrate (as N)

TT

Sampling Date 06/28/06

Sampling Location IN AC IN AC

09/13/06

IN AC TA TB

08/23/06

TA TB

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

(a) Reanalysis conducted outside of hold time.
IN = At Wellhead, AS = After Water Softener, AC = After Chlorination, TA = After Tank A, TB = After Tank B, DIST = Distribution

B-2

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Buckeye Lake, OH (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volumes 10^3 - - - 0.8 - - - 0.9 - - - 1.0 - - - 1.2 - - - 1.3

- - - - 358 373 388 423 - - - - 343 361 371 365 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.1 - - - - 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - 38 37 35 47 - - - - 38 37 36 39 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - 0.2 <0.05 <0.05 0.2 - - - - <0.05 <0.05 0.1 0.3 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - <10 176 <10 <10 - - - - <10 26.9 <10 <10 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - 14.7 14.9 0.8 0.7 - - - - 14.8 14.7 <0.2 0.5 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - 37.0 1.1 1.1 0.5 - - - - 18.0 1.1 0.6 1.1 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. - - - - 7.5 7.9 - 7.4 - - - - 7.6 7.9 - 7.9 - - - -

Temperature °C - - - - 19.6 19.6 - 19.3 - - - - 15.9 15.9 - 16.2 - - - -

DO mg/L - - - - 2.3 2.6 - 2.0 - - - - 1.7 3.5 - 1.5 - - - -

ORP mV - - - - -56 700 - 485 - - - - 447 716 - 689 - - - -

Free Chlorine mg/L - - - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - - - 2.2 - - - 2.2

Total Chlorine mg/L - - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - - - - 2.2 - - - 2.2

- - - - 295 1.6 1.4 67.8 - - - - 265 0.5 <0.3 17.5 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - 192 1.4 1.3 48.1 - - - - 166 0.5 <0.25 17.1 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - 103 0.2 <0.1 19.6 - - - - 98.7 0.04 <0.04 0.4 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16.6 18.6 0.2 <0.1 11.6 22.4 0.4 0.4 17.6 20.6 0.3 0.2 19.2 19.4 0.3 1.0 13.3 14.1 <0.1 0.9

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 14.6 16.9 0.2 <0.1 - - - - 16.0 18.7 0.3 0.2 - - - - 12.7 14.2 <0.1 0.7

As (particulate) μg/L 2.0 1.7 0.1 <0.1 - - - - 1.6 1.9 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.2

As (III) μg/L 8.6 10.7 0.2 0.1 - - - - 11.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 - - - - 6.8 0.6 <0.1 0.8

As (V) μg/L 6.0 6.2 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 4.1 17.9 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 5.9 13.6 <0.1 <0.1

2,667 367 <25 47 4,058 118 <25 <25 2,352 46 <25 <25 2,117 46 <25 48 1,738 26 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L 2,585 369 <25 <25 - - - - 2,154 <25 <25 <25 - - - - 1,653 <25 <25 <25

91.7 18.4 0.2 0.1 125 3.6 0.1 <0.1 87.5 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 82.9 0.5 <0.1 0.2 80.9 0.3 <0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 93.8 19.2 0.2 <0.1 - - - - 85.4 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 80.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

11/29/06

IN AC TA TB

11/15/06

IN AC TA TB

10/24/06

IN AC TA TB

10/11/06

IN AC TA TB

09/28/06

IN AC TA TB

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

Nitrate (as N)

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Mn (total) μg/L

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Total P (as P) μg/L

Alkalinity 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Fluoride

Sulfate

Ammonia (as N) mg/L
IN = At Wellhead, AS = After Water Softener, AC = After Chlorination, TA = After Tank A, TB = After Tank B, DIST = Distribution

B-3

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Buckeye Lake, OH (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volumes 10^3 - - - 1.4 - - - 1.5 - - - - 1.6 - - - 1.7

361 363 395 415 299 306 305 308 352 352 349 361 352 354 361 353 366

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

44 42 38 46 39 40 39 40 37 33 37 34 35 36 37 36 36

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<0.05 <0.05 0.1 0.2 <0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 65.6 <10 <10 <10 49.7 <10 <10 <10 140 115 <10 <10 <10 142 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

15.2 14.0 <0.2 0.7 14.8 14.6 <0.2 0.6 15.3 14.8 16.1 <0.2 12.1 15.0 14.6 <0.2 0.7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

37.0 0.8 1.2 1.5 18.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 7.5 0.6 0.9 1.0 2.4 19.0 0.8 0.7 1.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. 7.6 7.9 - 7.8 7.3 7.5 - 7.4 7.5 - 7.7 - 7.7 7.5 7.8 - 7.5

Temperature °C 19.5 19.0 - 18.5 14.6 15.8 - 17.2 16.6 - 17.9 - 17.8 18.0 19.8 - 19.5

DO mg/L 1.6 2.3 - 2.0 2.5 1.7 - 1.6 1.6 - 1.9 - 1.1 2.1 2.2 - 1.4

ORP mV -47 625 - 990 405 681 - 501 345 - 683 - 647 438 694 - 535

Free Chlorine mg/L - - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - 0.2 - - - NA

Total Chlorine mg/L - - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - 0.1 - - - NA

301 0.5 0.3 7.0 307 0.7 3.0 13.6 295 0.6 0.6 1.9 7.9 297 1.1 2.4 10.9

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

200 0.4 0.3 6.9 207 0.6 0.6 8.2 204 0.5 0.5 0.1 5.4 195 1.0 1.2 8.0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

101 0.1 <0.04 0.1 100 0.1 2.4 5.4 90.8 0.1 0.1 1.8 2.5 102 0.1 1.3 2.9

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

13.9 17.1 0.2 0.2 20.3 20.4 0.3 0.2 5.5 16.5 18.6 1.4 0.8 20.5 17.9 <0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 12.0 16.5 0.2 0.2 17.8 19.5 0.3 0.2 4.1 16.3 17.2 0.6 0.5 16.8 17.0 <0.1 <0.1

As (particulate) μg/L 1.9 0.6 0.1 <0.1 2.4 0.8 <0.1 <0.1 1.3 0.2 1.4 0.8 0.3 3.7 0.9 <0.1 <0.1

As (III) μg/L 5.0 0.5 0.5 0.3 8.7 0.8 0.5 0.4 2.2 13.1 1.3 1.1 1.9 10.4 0.7 0.4 0.4

As (V) μg/L 7.0 16.0 <0.1 <0.1 9.1 18.8 <0.1 <0.1 1.9 3.3 15.9 <0.1 <0.1 6.4 16.3 <0.1 <0.1

4,057 <25 <25 <25 1,401 <25 86 <25 855 69 <25 48 <25 1,365 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L 3,124 <25 <25 <25 1,451 <25 <25 <25 381 <25 <25 <25 <25 1,343 <25 <25 <25

117 0.3 <0.1 0.3 66.2 0.2 0.4 <0.1 68.9 0.7 0.3 0.4 <0.1 68.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 117 0.2 <0.1 0.3 68.8 0.2 0.4 0.3 67.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 <0.1 68.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

12/19/06(a)

IN AC TA TB AS TA

02/15/07(c)

IN AC TB

Total P (as P) μg/L

Alkalinity 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Fluoride

Sulfate

Ammonia (as N) mg/L

03/08/07(d)

IN AC TA TB

01/25/07(b)

IN AC TA TB

Mn (total) μg/L

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

Nitrate (as N)

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

(a) Onsite measurements taken on 12/27/06. (b) Onsite measurements taken on 01/31/07. (c) Onsite measurements taken on 02/28/07. (d) Onsite measurements taken on 03/28/07.
IN = At Wellhead, AS = After Water Softener, AC = After Chlorination, TA = After Tank A, TB = After Tank B, DIST = Distribution

B-4

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Buckeye Lake, OH (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volumes 10^3 - - - - 1.9 - - - - 2.1 - - - - 2.5 - - - - - 3.1 -

331 340 352 338 338 345 354 352 352 335 350 346 352 354 352 - 322 320 327 320 324 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.9 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.8 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 1.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.1 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 - 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

37 37 39 39 37 35 36 37 37 36 36 36 36 37 37 - 37 37 36 35 36 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.2 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 147 59.7 <10 <10 <10 23.6 18.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 - <10 24.0 28.7 <10 <10 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14.5 13.9 13.9 <0.2 0.9 15.6 15.5 15.8 <0.2 1.2 15.3 15.1 15.1 0.7 1.2 - 17.7 14.3 14.3 3.1 1.2 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

19.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.8 11.0 0.7 0.3 1.1 1.8 22.0 3.9 2.7 5.3 6.4 - 17.0 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.4 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.4 1.3 1.0 4.3 1.9 1.8 1.7 5.9 8.7

Total HAA5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total THM - - - - - - - - - - 8.5 ND 10.8 28.2 49.5 112 ND ND 10.8 30.5 43.9 37.3

pH S.U. 7.5 - 7.7 - 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.8 7.7 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.8 7.7 7.5 - 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.9 -

Temperature °C 16.4 - 17.5 - 17.4 15.3 15.2 15.5 16.0 16.7 15.0 19.5 15.8 15.9 21.1 - 13.5 14.1 15.3 15.2 16.5 -

DO mg/L 1.4 - 2.5 - 1.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 1.8 1.0 1.9 1.2 1.7 1.1 2.0 - 2.1 1.6 1.6 3.0 1.0 -

ORP mV 391 - 704 - 722 175 439 738 712 263 251 271 721 741 736 - 228 225 644 691 681 -

Free Chlorine mg/L - - - - - 0.1 0.0 3.5 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 >4.4 >4.4 3.4 - - - 1.7 2.1 1.2 -

Total Chlorine mg/L - - - - - 0.1 0.0 4.4 1.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 >4.4 >4.4 3.5 - - - 1.8 2.2 1.4 -

273 0.9 0.9 0.9 5.0 296 0.5 0.3 0.8 2.6 260 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 - 290 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.8 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

176 0.9 0.8 0.6 3.7 193 0.4 0.3 <0.3 2.1 171 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 - 192 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

97.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.2 103 0.1 <0.04 0.8 0.5 88.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 - 97.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16.7 18.3 19.3 1.4 1.4 19.5 19.6 19.1 0.3 0.1 18.1 18.1 19.0 0.8 0.5 - 17.8 19.7 18.4 0.8 0.7 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 15.1 16.8 18.0 1.8 1.4 17.5 16.4 16.5 0.3 <0.1 16.5 15.0 16.1 0.6 0.5 - 15.7 16.2 15.6 0.1 0.1 -

As (particulate) μg/L 1.6 1.5 1.3 <0.1 <0.1 2.0 3.2 2.6 <0.1 0.1 1.6 3.1 3.0 0.2 <0.1 - 2.2 3.5 2.8 0.6 0.6 -

As (III) μg/L 7.9 13.0 2.4 2.0 1.8 16.3 16.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 15.3 15.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 - 15.3 16.6 0.9 0.8 0.8 -

As (V) μg/L 7.1 3.8 15.6 <0.1 <0.1 1.2 <0.1 15.9 <0.1 <0.1 1.2 <0.1 15.5 0.2 <0.1 - 0.4 <0.1 14.7 <0.1 <0.1 -

1,800 <25 <25 <25 <25 1,489 <25 <25 <25 <25 2,170 <25 <25 <25 <25 - 2,630 <25 <25 <25 <25 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L 1,760 <25 <25 <25 <25 1,345 <25 <25 <25 <25 1,295 <25 <25 <25 <25 - 1,411 <25 <25 <25 <25 -

74.7 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 74.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 97.7 <0.25 <0.25 0.4 <0.25 - 92.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 75.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 74.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 69.0 <0.25 0.4 0.5 0.5 - 73.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -

AS AC IN TB

05/01/07

AS AC TA TB DIST

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

Nitrate (as N)

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Mn (total) μg/L

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Total P (as P) μg/L

Alkalinity 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Fluoride

Sulfate

Ammonia (as N) mg/L

04/05/07(a)

IN AS AC TA TB

09/19/07(b)

IN TA TB

12/18/07

IN AS AC TA DIST

(a) Onsite measurements taken on 04/25/07. (b) TOC samples were collected on 10/10/07.
IN = At Wellhead, AS = After Water Softener, AC = After Chlorination, TA = After Tank A, TB = After Tank B, DIST = Distribution

B-5

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Buckeye Lake, OH (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volumes 10^3 - - - - 3.6 - - - - - 4.2 - - - - - 4.6 - - - - - 6.0 -

321 329 331 323 325 - 325 328 339 325 323 - 308 312 314 314 314 - 310 319 326 342 333 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.9 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 1.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 - 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 - 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

43.1 37.8 36.2 37.5 37.5 - 32.7 33.6 32.5 31.7 32.8 - 36.4 35.4 37.3 37.1 37.2 - 34.6 36.3 34.5 35.0 37.1 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 21.4 36.6 <10 <10 - <10 44.5 102 <10 <10 - <10 <10 23.8 <10 <10 - <10 16.5 48.2 <10 <10 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

15.4 15.2 15.4 8.8 1.5 - 16.8 14.3 13.9 9.7 1.6 - 16.0 14.3 14.0 11.2 2.6 - 15.5 13.0 12.9 9.0 7.5 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

20.0 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 - 19.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 - 17.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 - 26.0 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L 2.6 2.5 2.4 1.6 2.4 2.2 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) 2.1 2.1 2.2 1.6 1.7 - 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 -

Total HAA5 μg/L <2 <2 10.9 13.7 25.9 28.6 <2 <2 19.4 55.4 94.0 193 <2 <2 10.6 19.1 35.6 107 <2 <2 16.1 42.6 197 279

Total THM μg/L 5.6 2.1 16.3 37.1 39.5 49.6 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) <2 <2 7.9 18.3 29.2 119 <2 <2 20.1 51.0 152 234

pH S.U. 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.2 7.5 7.2 NA(b) NA(b) NA(b) NA(b) NA(b) NA(b) 7.5 8.2 7.8 7.8 8.1 7.9 NA (c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c)

Temperature °C 15.6 16.9 15.5 16.0 17.7 15.3 23.8 15.8 19.2 19.2 19.9 22.7 16.2 15.0 15.6 16.5 17.3 22.3 14.8 14.4 18.2 18.3 19.4 19.3

DO mg/L 1.8 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.4 1.3 2.1 1.7 1.1 2.0 1.2 1.1 2.9 1.7 1.3 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.0

ORP mV 130 232 661 684 505 583 9.4 269 697 709 548.2 328 -60.6 111 693 696 708 527 -49 20.1 737 737 754 756

Free Chlorine mg/L - - 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.0 - - 4.0 3.4 0.2 0.0 - - >4.4 >4.4 >4.4 1.3 - - 4.18 >4.4 3.34 2.9

Total Chlorine mg/L - - 1.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 - - >4.4 1.8 0.2 0.1 - - >4.4 >4.4 >4.4 1.4 - - 4.32 3.22 3.24 3.4

262 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 - 351 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 - NA NA NA NA NA - 302 0.9 0.8 11.3 8.1 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

174 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 - 269 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 - NA NA NA NA NA - 207 0.8 0.7 7.7 1.1 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

88.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - 81.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - NA NA NA NA NA - 95 <0.1 <0.1 3.6 7.0 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

19.5 18.2 18.8 1.0 0.9 - 18.3 20.1 16.9 0.2 <0.1 - 19.1 17.2 17.4 0.3 0.2 - 17.1 14.6 17.6 0.2 0.2 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 16.9 16.4 16.4 <0.1 <0.1 - 16.2 17.7 15.3 0.1 <0.1 - 16.8 15.1 15.7 0.2 0.1 - 15.2 14.6 16.1 0.2 0.2 -

As (particulate) μg/L 2.7 1.9 2.4 0.9 0.8 - 2.1 2.5 1.6 <0.1 <0.1 - 2.3 2.1 1.7 <0.1 <0.1 - 1.9 <0.1 1.5 <0.1 <0.1 -

As (III) μg/L 16.6 16.5 1.0 <0.1 0.9 - 15.7 17.2 0.5 0.4 <0.1 - 16.2 15.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 - 14.3 13.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 -

As (V) μg/L 0.2 <0.1 15.4 <0.1 <0.1 - 0.5 0.5 14.9 <0.1 <0.1 - 0.6 <0.1 15.4 <0.1 <0.1 - 0.9 0.8 15.7 <0.1 <0.1 -

1,911 <25 <25 <25 <25 - 1,432 <25 <25 <25 <25 - 1,280 <25 <25 <25 <25 - 1,654 <25 <25 <25 <25 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L 1,351 <25 <25 <25 <25 - NA NA NA NA NA - 1,245 <25 <25 <25 <25 - 1,632 <25 <25 <25 <25 -

81.9 <0.1 1.5 <0.1 <0.1 - 74.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - 66.5 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - 77.8 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 73.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - 74.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - 66.6 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - 77.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -

Sampling Date

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

Sampling Location

Nitrate (as N)

mg/L

Ammonia (as N)

Total P (as P) μg/L

Alkalinity 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Fluoride

Sulfate

Mn (total) μg/L

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

mg/L

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Silica (as SiO2)

IN AS AC TA TB

07/09/08

IN AS AC TA TB DIST

03/19/08

DIST

10/01/08

IN AS AC TA TB DIST

01/23/09

IN AS AC TA TB DIST

(a) Sample pH too low to conduct TOC and Total THM analysis, (b) measurements not taken due to meter error (ERR 107), (c) measurements not taken due to calibration error.
IN = At Wellhead, AS = After Water Softener, AC = After Chlorination, TA = After Tank A, TB = After Tank B, DIST = Distribution

B-6

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Buckeye Lake, OH (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volumes 10^3 - - - - 6.7 - - - - - 7.5 - - - - - 7.9 - - - - - 9.0 -

344 351 349 349 344 - 318 324 324 332 332 - 332 341 341 339 343 - 331 334 336 34 341 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 0.9 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 - 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 - 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.0 - 1.2 1.2 5.0 3.3 1.9 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

36.9 37.3 37.8 39.9 37.6 - 36.7 36.1 36.6 36.3 36.9 - 39.0 36.0 39.9 38.3 36.3 - 37.3 37.8 41.0 37.5 38.1 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 16.7 57.5 <10 <10 - <10 21.9 20.7 <10 <10 - 62.4 <10 <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 15.1 <10 <10 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

17.1 14.3 13.6 12.6 7.0 - 15.2 14.8 15.1 12.7 8.3 - 15.6 13.6 13.2 12.9 9.4 - 16.2 14.2 14.1 13.4 11.6 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

15.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 - 14.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 - 18.0 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 - 16.0 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.7 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.3 2.4 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8

Total HAA5 μg/L <2 <2 4.1 11.9 55.1 13.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS 0.0 0.0 3.0 9.5 13.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 7.3 12.1 20.3 13.8

Total THM μg/L <2 <2 7.0 20.4 49.3 23.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS 0.0 0.0 11.8 31.5 44.8 46.1 0.0 0.0 6.7 9.2 14.1 13.1

pH S.U. 7.2 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.5 6.9 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.0 7.1 7.7 7.8 6.4 7.7 - 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.6 -

Temperature °C 15.0 14.8 15.2 15.3 15.5 18.4 16.1 15.5 15.3 16.1 15.2 19.5 14.2 14.5 15.1 14.8 15.0 - 14.4 13.9 14.0 25.0 14.3 -

DO mg/L NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) 1.3 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.8 -

ORP mV NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) NA(c) -12.0 99.1 NA(c) 103.2 114.7 125.5 -105.3 109.1 553.2 597.3 298.1 - -78.5 30.2 603.9 671.4 671.3 -

Free Chlorine mg/L - - - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - - 1.8 - - 0.2 - - 1.8 - - 1.2

Total Chlorine mg/L - - 0.69 0.82 0.82 0.9 - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - - 1.8 1.0 0.1 0.3 - - 1.9 - - 1.3

15.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 - 293 0.6 0.6 13.5 12.4 - 488 2.1 1.7 8.8 22.1 - 311 1.6 1.5 3.2 6.0 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

205 1.2 1.1 4.0 6.3 - 194 0.5 0.5 11.1 8.5 - 354 1.8 1.5 8.5 20.9 - 210 1.5 1.4 3.1 5.8 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

116 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 - 99 0.1 0.1 2.5 3.9 - 134 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.2 - 102 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

18.2 18.5 18.1 0.3 0.2 - 19.6 18.7 18.9 0.3 0.3 - 14.5 13.4 13.4 <0.1 <0.1 - 16.7 16.2 17.1 <0.1 <0.1 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 16.5 16.4 16.4 0.3 0.2 - 16.9 16.0 16.2 0.1 <0.1 - 14.0 13.0 13.3 <0.1 <0.1 - 17.0 16.7 16.5 <0.1 <0.1 -

As (particulate) μg/L 1.7 2.1 1.8 <0.1 <0.1 - 2.7 2.7 2.7 0.2 0.2 - 0.5 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 -

As (III) μg/L 15.4 16.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 - 16.0 15.7 15.7 0.4 0.3 - 13.7 12.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - 16.4 16.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 -

As (V) μg/L 1.1 <0.1 15.9 <0.1 <0.1 - 0.8 0.4 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 - 0.3 <0.1 13.2 <0.1 <0.1 - 0.6 <0.1 16.1 <0.1 <0.1 -

1,736 <25 <25 26 <25 - 1,125 <25 35 <25 <25 - 1,462 <25 <25 <25 <25 - 1,202 <25 <25 <25 <25 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L 1,500 <25 <25 <25 <25 - 1,129 <25 <25 <25 <25 - 1,544 <25 <25 <25 <25 - 1,228 <25 <25 <25 <25 -

73.8 <0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 - 61.0 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 - 69.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.14 - 63.5 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 70.7 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 - 61.9 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 - 71.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 - 64.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -

mg/L

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Silica (as SiO2)

Mn (total) μg/L

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Total P (as P) μg/L

Alkalinity 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Fluoride

Sulfate

Sampling Date

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

Sampling Location

Nitrate (as N)

mg/L

Ammonia (as N)

05/07/09

IN AS AC TA TB DIST

09/23/09

IN AS AC TA TB DIST

11/04/09

IN AS AC TA TB DIST

02/24/10(a)

IN AS AC TA TB DIST

(a) Total THM & HAA5 re-collected on 03/22/10.
APPENDIX C

COLUMN STUDIES ANALYTICAL RESULTS
C-1

Table C-1. Concentrations of Arsenic, TOC, Ammonia, THMs, and HAAs in Columns A and C Feed Prepared with AS 

Water and 4 or 10 mg/L of Chlorine (as Cl2)

Date

Total 

Arsenic 

(μg/L)

Soluble 

Arsenic 

(μg/L)

TOC 

(mg/L)

Ammonia -

Hach 

(mg/L)(a)

Ammonia 

(mg/L)(a)

Chloroform 

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane 

(μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane (μg/L)Bromoform 

(μg/L)

TTHM 

(μg/L)

8/28/2009(c) NA NA <1.00(b) NA 0.61 NA NA NA NA NA

8/31/2009 NA NA NA NA 0.65 NA NA NA NA NA

9/1/2009 NA NA 1.37 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

9/3/2009 NA NA NA NA 1.34 NA NA NA NA NA

9/4/2009 NA NA 1.33 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

9/10/2009 (d) NA NA 2.11 NA NA 1.68 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00

9/11/2009 8.28 NA 1.96 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

9/25/2009 15.40 NA 1.65 NA <0.05 18.60 5.60 1.24 <0.500 25.40

9/30/2009 NA NA 1.63 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/2/2009 NA NA 1.63 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/6/2009 NA NA 1.68 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/9/2009 14.20 NA 1.42 NA NA 25.50 7.41 1.62 <0.500 34.53

10/13/2009 NA NA 1.45 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/16/2009 NA NA 1.53 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/20/2009 NA NA 1.62 0.06 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/23/2009 15.90 15.50 1.65 NA NA 21.89 6.49 1.52 <0.500 29.90

10/27/2009 NA NA 1.65 0.01 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/30/2009 NA NA 1.65 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/3/2009 NA NA 1.81 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/6/2009 16.70 16.20 1.92 0.01 NA 25.30 8.05 1.70 <0.500 35.05

11/10/2009 NA NA 2.01 0.02 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/13/2009 15.70 16.10 1.81 0.00 NA 21.11 7.41 1.52 <0.500 30.04

11/17/2009 NA NA 1.83 0.36 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/20/2009 15.50 16.20 1.57 0.01 NA 27.69 10.46 2.69 <0.500 40.84

11/24/2009 NA NA 1.65 0.11 NA NA NA NA NA NA

12/4/2009 (e) 16.00 16.10 1.42 0.11 NA 29.18 8.77 1.67 <0.500 39.62

1/15/2010 16.2 16.6 1.65 NA NA 24.63 7.22 1.54 <0.500 33.39
C-2

Table C-1. Concentrations of Arsenic, TOC, Ammonia, THMs, and HAAs in Columns A and C Feed Prepared with AS 

Water and 4 or 10 mg/L of Chlorine (as Cl2) (Continued)

Date

THM Plus 

(μg/L as CHCl3)

Dibromoacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Dichloroacetic 

Acid

(μg/L)

Monobromoacetic 

Acid

(μg/L)

Monochloroacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Trichloroacetic 

Acid

(μg/L)

HAA5

(μg/L)

(b)

8/28/2009(c) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

8/31/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

9/1/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

9/3/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

9/4/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

9/10/2009(d) NA <1.00 1.92 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 1.92

9/11/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

9/25/2009 26 <1.00 5.47 <1.00 <2.00 7.64 13.11

9/30/2009 26 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/2/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/6/2009 34 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/9/2009 10 <1.00 4.61 <1.00 <2.00 4.70 9.31

10/13/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/16/2009 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/20/2009 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/23/2009 0 <1.00 4.64 <1.00 <2.00 5.17 9.81

10/27/2009 37 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/30/2009 11 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/3/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/6/2009 NA <1.00 5.42 <1.00 <2.00 4.85 10.27

11/10/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/13/2009 NA <1.00 5.33 <1.00 <2.00 4.69 10.02

11/17/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/20/2009 NA <1.00 5.22 <1.00 <2.00 6.93 12.15

11/24/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

12/4/2009 (e) NA <1.00 5.37 <1.00 <2.00 7.04 12.41

1/15/2010 NA <1.00 7.61 <1.00 <2.00 9.70 17.32

(a) Ammonia samples taken during AS water sampling at Head Start building.

(b) Sum of concentrations of individual acids.

(c) Feed changed from DI to AS water; continued to maintain 4 mg/L Cl2 in water.

(d) As water contained ammonia from 08/28/09 through 09/11/09 due to improper regeneration of softener; ammonia reacted with chlorine to form combined 

chlorine, which inhibited DPB formation. 

(e) On 12/2/09, chlorine concentration in feed increased to 10 mg/L (as Cl2).

NA = Not Analyzed

Questionable results flagged in red
C-3

Table C-2. Concentrations of Arsenic, TOC, Ammonia, THMs, and HAAs in Column B Feed Prepared with DI water and 

4 or 10 mg/L of Chlorine (as Cl2) 

Date

Total 

Arsenic 

(μg/L)

Soluble 

Arsenic 

(μg/L)

TOC 

(mg/L)

Ammonia -

Hach 

(mg/L)(a)

Ammonia 

(mg/L)(a)

Chloroform 

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane 

(μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane 

(μg/L)

Bromoform 

(μg/L)

9/25/2009 0.18 NA <1.00 NA NA 0.80 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500

9/30/2009 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/2/2009 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/6/2009 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/9/2009 <0.10 NA <1.00 NA NA 0.91 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500

10/13/2009 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/16/2009 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/20/2009 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/23/2009 <0.1 <0.1 <1.00 NA NA <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500

10/27/2009 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/30/2009 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/3/2009 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/6/2009 0.50 0.17 <1.00 NA NA 1.08 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500

11/10/2009 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/13/2009 0.16 0.13 <1.00 NA NA <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500

11/17/2009 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/20/2009 0.13 0.11 <1.00 NA NA 0.66 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500

11/24/2009 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

12/4/2009(c) 0.13 0.20 < 1.00 NA NA 0.85 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500

1/15/2010 0.3 0.1 <1.00 NA NA 2.30 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500
C-4

Table C-2. Concentrations of Arsenic, TOC, Ammonia, THMs, and HAAs in Column B Feed Prepared with DI water and 

4 or 10 mg/L of Chlorine (as Cl2) (Continued)

Date

TTHM 

(μg/L)

THM Plus 

(μg/L as 

CHCl3)

Dibromoacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Dichloroacetic 

Acid (μg/L)

Monobromoacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Monochloroacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Trichloroacetic 

Acid (μg/L)

HAA5 

(μg/L)(b)

9/25/2009 0.80 0 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 0.00

9/30/2009 NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/2/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/6/2009 NA 13 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/9/2009 0.91 0 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 0.00

10/13/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/16/2009 NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/20/2009 NA 8 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/23/2009 0.00 0 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 0.00

10/27/2009 NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/30/2009 NA 29 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/3/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/6/2009 1.08 NA <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 0.00

11/10/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/13/2009 0.00 NA <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 0.00

11/17/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/20/2009 0.66 NA <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 0.00

11/24/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

12/4/2009(c) 0.85 NA <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 0.00

1/15/2010 2.30 NA <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 0.00

(a) Ammonia samples are taken before use from the buckets brought from Buckeye Lake, not the reservoir itself. Ammonia values represent maximum values 

applicable between ammonia samples.

(b) Sum of HAA-5 calculated as sum of values of individual components. Values BRL are treated as nil (as per EPA 552.2).

(c) On 12/2/09, chlorine concentration in feed increased to 10 mg/L (as Cl2).

NA = Not Analyzed.

Questionable results flagged in red.
C-5

Table C-3. Arsenic, TOC, THMs, and HAAs Concentrations in Effluent from Column A Packed with Virgin ARM 200 Media 

Date

Total 

Throughput 

(BV)

AS Water 

Throughput 

(BV)

Total 

Arsenic 

(μg/L)

Soluble 

Arsenic 

(μg/L)

TOC 

(mg/L)

Chloroform 

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane 

(μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane 

(μg/L)

Bromoform 

(μg/L)

TTHM 

(μg/L)

8/28/2009(a) 1996 0 <0.1 NA <1.00 1.74 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00

9/1/2009 2135 139 NA NA 1.37 NA NA NA NA NA

9/4/2009 2243 247 NA NA 1.33 NA NA NA NA NA

9/10/2009(c) 2497 501 NA NA NA 1.81 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00

9/11/2009 2536 540 0.45 NA 1.15 NA NA NA NA NA

9/25/2009 2814 818 0.31 NA 1.22 60.20 10.90 2.12 <0.500 73.20

9/30/2009 2851 855 NA NA 2.51 NA NA NA NA NA

10/2/2009 2981 985 NA NA 1.35 NA NA NA NA NA

10/6/2009 3056 1060 NA NA 1.44 NA NA NA NA NA

10/9/2009 3181 1185 <0.10 NA 1.25 53.24 9.98 1.90 <0.500 65.12

10/13/2009 3229 1233 NA NA 1.23 NA NA NA NA NA

10/16/2009 3358 1362 NA NA 1.42 NA NA NA NA NA

10/20/2009 3414 1418 NA NA 1.59 NA NA NA NA NA

10/23/2009 3547 1551 0.11 <0.1 1.71 42.29 8.56 1.71 <0.50 52.56

10/27/2009 3599 1603 NA NA 1.71 NA NA NA NA NA

10/30/2009 3733 1737 NA NA 1.70 NA NA NA NA NA

11/3/2009 3792 1796 NA NA 1.86 NA NA NA NA NA

11/6/2009 3934 1938 0.88 0.67 1.88 39.82 9.70 2.06 <0.500 51.58

11/10/2009 3997 2001 NA NA 2.09 NA NA NA NA NA

11/13/2009 4136 2140 0.40 0.35 1.70 32.73 8.94 1.62 <0.500 43.29

11/17/2009 4193 2197 NA NA 1.37 NA NA NA NA NA

11/20/2009 4333 2337 2.47 0.28 1.30 50.85 13.18 2.87 <0.500 66.90

11/24/2009 4403 2407 NA NA 1.68 NA NA NA NA NA

12/4/2009(d) 4604 2608 0.47 0.45 1.56 43.07 10.51 1.73 <0.500 55.31

1/15/2010 4770 2774 0.4 0.5 1.58 38.32 9.17 1.67 <0.500 49.16
C-6

Table C-3. Arsenic, TOC, THMs, and HAAs Concentrations in Effluent from Column A Packed with 

Virgin ARM 200 Media (Continued)

Date

THM Plus 

(μg/L as 

CHCl3)

Dibromoacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Dichloroacetic 

Acid (μg/L)

Monobromoacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Monochloroacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Trichloroacetic 

Acid (μg/L)

HAA5 

(μg/L)(b)

8/28/2009(a) NA 1.19 2.20 <1.00 <1.00 2.39 5.78

9/1/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

9/4/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

9/10/2009(c) NA <1.00 3.89 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 3.89

9/11/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

9/25/2009 0 <1.00 32.70 <1.00 <2.00 25.60 58.30

9/30/2009 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/2/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/6/2009 15 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/9/2009 20 <1.00 13.76 <1.00 <2.00 10.36 24.12

10/13/2009 20 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/16/2009 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/20/2009 14 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/23/2009 2 <1.00 10.50 <1.00 <2.00 8.63 19.12

10/27/2009 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/30/2009 46 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/3/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/6/2009 NA <1.00 11.67 <1.00 <2.00 8.52 20.20

11/10/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/13/2009 NA <1.00 9.39 <1.00 <2.00 7.02 16.41

11/17/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/20/2009 NA <1.00 15.76 <1.00 <2.00 10.96 26.71

11/24/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

12/4/2009(d) NA <1.00 10.34 <1.00 <2.00 11.03 21.37

1/15/2010 NA <1.00 12.04 <1.00 <2.00 9.91 21.95

(a) Ammonia samples taken during AS water sampling at Head Start building.

(b) Sum of concentrations of individual acids.

(c) As water contained ammonia from 08/28/09 through 09/11/09 due to improper regeneration of softener; ammonia reacted with chlorine to form combined 

chlorine,which inhibited DPB formation. 

(d) On 12/2/09, chlorine concentration in feed increased to 10 mg/L (as Cl2).

NA = Not Analyzed

Questionable results are flagged in red
C-7

Table C-4. Arsenic, TOC, THMs, and HAAs Concentrations in Effluent from Column B Packed with ARM 200 Media 

Taken from System in Head Start Building

Date

Total 

Throughput 

(BV)

Total 

Arsenic 

(μg/L)

Soluble 

Arsenic 

(μg/L)

TOC 

(mg/L)

Chloroform 

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane (μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane 

(μg/L)

Bromoform 

(μg/L)

9/25/2009 174 36.00 NA <1.00 2.21 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500

9/30/2009 263 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA

10/2/2009 346 NA NA <5.00 NA NA NA NA

10/6/2009 407 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA

10/9/2009 544 9.27 NA <1.00 3.93 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500

10/13/2009 597 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA

10/16/2009 732 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA

10/20/2009 786 NS NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA

10/23/2009 925 0.17 0.16 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500

10/27/2009 980 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA

10/30/2009 1117 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA

11/3/2009 1173 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA

11/6/2009 1306 0.97 0.56 <1.00 5.19 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500

11/10/2009 1363 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA

11/13/2009 1498 0.52 0.68 <1.00 2.30 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500

11/17/2009 1555 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA

11/20/2009 1693 0.51 0.59 <1.00 3.27 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500

11/24/2009 1802 NA NA <1.00 NA NA NA NA

12/4/2009(b) 1992 0.60 0.61 < 1.00 3.61 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500

1/15/2010 2164 1.4 1.4 <1.00 2.30 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500
C-8

Table C-4. Arsenic, TOC, THMs, and HAAs Concentrations in Effluent from Column B Packed with ARM 200 Media 

Taken from System in Head Start Building (Continued)

Date

TTHM 

(μg/L)

THM Plus 

(μg/L as 

CHCl3)

Dibromoacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Dichloroacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Monobromoacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Monochloroacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Trichloroacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

HAA5 

(μg/L)(a)

9/25/2009 2.21 23 <1.00 1.52 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 1.52

9/30/2009 NA 23 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/2/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/6/2009 NA 54 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/9/2009 3.93 13 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 0.00

10/13/2009 NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/16/2009 NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/20/2009 NA 48 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/23/2009 0.00 0 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 0.00

10/27/2009 NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/30/2009 NA 38 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/3/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/6/2009 5.19 NA <1.00 2.39 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 2.39

11/10/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/13/2009 2.30 NA <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 0.00

11/17/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/20/2009 3.27 NA <1.00 1.90 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 1.90

11/24/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

12/4/2009(b) 3.61 NA <1.00 2.29 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 2.29

1/15/2010 2.30 NA <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 0.00

(a) Sum of concentrations of individual acids.

(b) On 12/2/09, chlorine concentration in feed increased to 10 mg/L (as Cl2).

NA = Not Analyzed.

Questionable results are flagged in red.
C-9

Table C-5. Arsenic, TOC, THMs, and HAAs Concentrations in Effluent from Column C Packed with ARM 200 Media 

Taken from System in Head Start Building

Date

Total 

Throughput 

(BV)

Total 

Arsenic 

(μg/L)

Soluble 

Arsenic 

(μg/L)

TOC 

(mg/L)

Chloroform 

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane (μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane 

(μg/L)

Bromoform 

(μg/L)

9/25/2009 168 13.60 NA 1.63 30.50 8.21 1.74 <0.500

9/30/2009 287 NA NA 1.72 NA NA NA NA

10/2/2009 373 NA NA 2.35 NA NA NA NA

10/6/2009 423 NA NA 1.66 NA NA NA NA

10/9/2009 555 21.50 NA 1.41 30.85 7.94 1.81 <0.500

10/13/2009 607 NA NA 1.44 NA NA NA NA

10/16/2009 745 NA NA 1.41 NA NA NA NA

10/20/2009 799 NS NA 1.58 NA NA NA NA

10/23/2009 936 21.70 21.90 1.61 26.95 6.90 1.58 <0.50

10/27/2009 991 NA NA 1.65 NA NA NA NA

10/30/2009 1131 NA NA 1.72 NA NA NA NA

11/3/2009 1187 NA NA 1.85 NA NA NA NA

11/6/2009 1322 22.30 22.30 1.82 29.82 8.44 1.76 <0.500

11/10/2009 1380 NA NA 1.97 NA NA NA NA

11/13/2009 1516 18.80 17.90 1.78 26.53 8.05 1.63 <0.500

11/17/2009 1571 NA NA 1.64 NA NA NA NA

11/20/2009 1695 5.33 6.21 1.28 38.73 12.00 2.80 <0.500

11/24/2009 1755 NA NA 1.57 NA NA NA NA

12/4/2009(b) 1941 12.50 12.30 1.39 34.19 9.40 1.63 <0.500

1/15/2010 2104 15.0 15.1 1.58 31.32 8.20 1.73 <0.500
C-10

Table C-5. Arsenic, TOC, THMs, and HAAs Concentrations in Effluent from Column C Packed with ARM 200 Media 

Taken from System in Head Start Building (Continued)

Date

TTHM 

(μg/L)

THM Plus 

(μg/L as 

CHCl3)

Dibromoacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Dichloroacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Monobromoacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Monochloroacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

Trichloroacetic 

Acid 

(μg/L)

HAA5 

(μg/L)(a)

9/25/2009 40.40 31 <1.00 12.70 <1.00 <2.00 11.40 24.10

9/30/2009 NA 34 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/2/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/6/2009 NA 30 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/9/2009 40.60 38 <1.00 7.07 <1.00 <2.00 6.89 13.96

10/13/2009 NA 17 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/16/2009 NA 29 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/20/2009 NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/23/2009 35.43 0 <1.00 6.05 <1.00 <2.00 6.23 12.28

10/27/2009 NA 41 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/30/2009 NA 31 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/3/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/6/2009 40.02 NA <1.00 7.80 <1.00 <2.00 6.26 12.06

11/10/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/13/2009 36.21 NA <1.00 7.10 <1.00 <2.00 5.73 12.82

11/17/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11/20/2009 53.53 NA <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 9.17 9.17

11/24/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

12/4/2009(b) 45.22 NA <1.00 8.17 <1.00 <2.00 8.89 17.09

1/15/2010 41.25 NA <1.00 7.61 <1.00 <2.00 9.70 17.32

(a) Sum of concentrations of individual acids.

(b) On 12/2/09, chlorine concentration in feed increased to 10 mg/L (as Cl2).

NA = Not Analyzed.

Questionable results are flagged in red.