EPA/600/R-10/167

December 2010

Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Oxidation/Filtration

and Adsorptive Media

U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at

Clinton Christian School in Goshen, IN

Final Performance Evaluation Report

by

Ramona Darlington§

Abraham S.C. Chen‡

Lili Wang‡

§

Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693

‡

ALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43219-0693

Contract No. EP-C-05-057

Task Order No. 0019

for 

Thomas J. Sorg

Task Order Manager

Water Supply and Water Resources Division

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Office of Research and Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
ii

DISCLAIMER

The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) under Task Order 0019 of Contract EP-C-05-057 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency’s 

peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any 

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

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

recommendation for use by the EPA. 
iii

FOREWORD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, 

sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. 

NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the 

cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL’s research provides solutions to environmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; 

advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations 

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

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

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

community and to link researchers with their clients.

Sally Gutierrez, Director

National Risk Management Research Laboratory
iv

ABSTRACT

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

treatment technology demonstration project at the Clinton Christian School in Goshen, IN. The 

objectives of the project were to evaluate the effectiveness of AdEdge Technologies’ AD26/E33 media in 

removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 μg/L. Additionally, 

this project evaluated (1) the reliability of the treatment system, (2) the required system operation and 

maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels, and (3) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The 

project also characterized the water in the distribution system and process residuals produced by the 

treatment process.

The 25 gal/min (gpm) AD26/E33 modular arsenic treatment system consisted of two integrated units. 

The AD26 oxidation/filtration unit consisted of three 13-in × 54-in vessels, each loaded with 2.3 ft3 of 

AD26 media. The E33 adsorption unit consisted of two 18-in × 65-in vessels, each loaded with 5.3 ft3 of 

E33 media. AD26 media is a manganese dioxide granular mineral commonly used for iron and 

manganese removal. E33 is an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG for arsenic removal. 

Operation of the AD26/E33 system began on May 1, 2008, but logging of operational data did not begin 

until June 6, 2008. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality (both across the 

treatment train and in the distribution system), process residuals, and capital and O&M cost. Through the 

performance evaluation study period from June 6, 2008, through June 19, 2009, the system treated 

approximately 517,000 gal (or 6,522 bed volumes [BV]) of water. (Note that BV was calculated based on 

5.3 ft3 of E33 in each adsorption vessel.) Daily run times averaged 1.9 hr/day when the school was in 

session or 1.5 hr/day when the school was not in session. The AD26 unit operated at 16.4 gpm (on 

average), with an equal amount of water flowing through each of the three oxidation/filtration vessels. 

The E33 unit operated at 16.0 gpm (on average), with 7.7 and 8.3 gpm of water flowing through each of 

the two adsorption vessels. Based on the flowrates to the E33 unit, empty bed contact times (EBCTs) 

varied from 4.1 to 7.3 min and averaged 5.0 min. This average EBCT was over 61% higher than the 

vendor recommended EBCT of 3.1 min for E33 media. 

Arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 22.2 to 33.4 μg/L and averaged 28.6 μg/L. Soluble 

As(III) was the predominating arsenic species, with concentrations ranging from 16.3 to 25.6 μg/L and 

averaging 20.2 μg/L. Upon chlorination, soluble As(III) was oxidized to soluble As(V), which was then 

adsorbed onto and/or co-precipitated with iron solids. The majority of arsenic (existing mainly in the

particulate form) was removed by AD26 media, leaving only 1.2 to 5.0 μg/L (existing mainly as As[V)) 

to be further removed by E33 media. The system also reduced total iron concentrations from an average 

of 741 μg/L in raw water to below the method detection limit (MDL) of 25 μg/L. Total manganese 

concentrations were reduced from an average of 81.5 to <0.1 μg/L. 

The AD26 unit was backwashed every 70.3 to 72.1 hr, producing 56,810 gal of wastewater (or 226 gal 

per vessel per backwash cycle). During the summer months when the school was not in session and the 

water use rate was low, the system was backwashed manually when the pressure difference across the 

AD26 vessels rose to approximately 7 psi. The E33 vessels were backwashed every 39 to 44 days, 

producing 3,450 gal of wastewater. Assuming 10 mg/L of total suspended solid (TSS) in 56,810 gal of 

backwash wastewater produced in one year, approximately 4.7 lb of solids (including 0.039, 1.5, and 0.21

lb of arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively) would be discharged annually.

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

significant decrease in arsenic concentration from an average of 17.6 to 2.8 μg/L. The arsenic 

concentrations in the distribution system were either similar to or somewhat higher than those in the 
v

system effluent. Iron and manganese also were significantly reduced in the distribution system. Neither 

lead nor copper concentrations appeared to have been affected by the operation of the system.

The most significant operational issue observed during the performance evaluation study was related to 

maintaining a target level of free chlorine residuals. In spite of repeated efforts to increase chlorine doses, 

free chlorine residuals were often below the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)-

required level of 0.2 mg/L (as Cl2). 

The capital investment cost for the system was $55,423, including $31,735 for equipment, $11,278 for 

site engineering, and $12,410 for installation. Using the system’s rated capacity of 25 gpm (36,000 

gal/day [gpd]), the normalized capital cost was $2,216/gpm ($1.54/gpd). 

The O&M cost included the cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical supply, electricity 

consumption, and labor. Although media replacement did not occur during the demonstration period, the 

media replacement and disposal cost would represent the majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to 

be $2,593 for AD26 and $3,951 for E33. The vendor estimated that both media would have a life 

expectancy of 8.7 yr, which could not be confirmed during the 1-year performance evaluation study. 
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 .................................................................................................... 6

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS........................................................................................................... 7

3.1 General Project Approach............................................................................................................. 7

3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection ....................................................................................... 8

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

3.3.1 Source Water....................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water........................................................................................................ 9

3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids ...................................................................................... 9

3.3.4 Spent Media ........................................................................................................................ 9

3.3.5 Distribution System Water.................................................................................................. 9

3.4 Sampling Logistics........................................................................................................................ 9

3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits............................................................................... 9

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

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

3.5 Analytical Procedures................................................................................................................. 11

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure..................................... 12

4.1.1 Source Water Quality........................................................................................................ 15

4.1.2 Predemonstration Treated Water Quality ......................................................................... 16

4.1.3 Distribution System .......................................................................................................... 17

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

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

4.2.2 AD26 Media ..................................................................................................................... 17

4.2.3 E33 Media......................................................................................................................... 17

4.2.4 System Design and Treatment Process............................................................................. 17

4.3 System Installation...................................................................................................................... 27

4.3.1 Permitting.......................................................................................................................... 27

4.3.2 Building Preparation ......................................................................................................... 27

4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup................................................................................ 27

4.4 System Operation........................................................................................................................ 31

4.4.1 Operational Parameters..................................................................................................... 31

4.4.2 Chlorine Injection ............................................................................................................. 34

4.4.3 Backwash.......................................................................................................................... 34
vii

4.4.4 Residual Management....................................................................................................... 37

4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity ................................................................... 37

4.5 System Performance ................................................................................................................... 38

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling ................................................................................................ 39

4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling...................................................................................... 45

4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling ............................................................................... 48

4.6 System Cost ................................................................................................................................ 49

4.6.1 Capital Cost....................................................................................................................... 49

4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost...................................................................................... 49

5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 53

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA

APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA

APPENDIX C: AD26 MEDIA BACKWASH DATA

FIGURES

Figure 4.1. Clinton Christian School Location....................................................................................... 12

Figure 4-2. Myers Model J1525 Submersible Pump Curve.................................................................... 13

Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Boiler Room that Housed Piping and Water System Equipment .................... 14

Figure 4-4. Pre-existing Water System Bladder Tanks........................................................................... 14

Figure 4-5. P&ID of AD26/E33 Arsenic Removal System at Clinton Christian School ....................... 19

Figure 4-6. Process Flow Diagram ......................................................................................................... 21

Figure 4-7. Chlorine Addition System.................................................................................................... 22

Figure 4-8. Headers, Fleck Controllers, and Piping/Valves on AD26 Vessels....................................... 23

Figure 4-9. Fleck Controllers and Piping/Valves Connected to One AD26 (left) and One E33 

(right) Vessels...................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 4-10. ProFlo PF119 Pressure Tanks.............................................................................................. 25

Figure 4-11. Bag Filter Assembly and GAC Tank ................................................................................... 27

Figure 4-12. Layout of Backwash Discharge Drain Line at Clinton Christian School............................. 28

Figure 4-13. New Boiler Room Attached to Existing School Building.................................................... 29

Figure 4-14. Treatment System Installed.................................................................................................. 30

Figure 4-15. Comparison of Instantaneous Flowrate Readings and Calculated Flowrate Values 

for AD26 Vessels................................................................................................................. 33

Figure 4-16. Comparison of Instantaneous Flowrate Readings and Calculated Flowrate Values 

to E33 Vessels...................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 4-17. Total and Free Chlorine Residuals at Entry Point................................................................ 35

Figure 4-18. Temporary Storage Tank for Backwash Wastewater........................................................... 37

Figure 4-19. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AC, OT and TT Sampling 

Locations.............................................................................................................................. 42

Figure 4-20. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves from AD26 and E33 Vessels...................................... 44

Figure 4-21. Media Replacement Cost Curves for Clinton Christian School System.............................. 52
viii

TABLES

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

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

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

Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates.................................................... 7

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

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

Table 4-1. Flowrate Data Collected by Hawkins Water Tech, Inc., in August 2007 ............................ 13

Table 4-2. Clinton Christian School Source Water Data....................................................................... 15

Table 4-3. Clinton Christian School Historic Water Quality Data (1993 to 2006) ............................... 16

Table 4-4. Properties of AD26 Media ................................................................................................... 18

Table 4-5. Properties of E33 Media....................................................................................................... 18

Table 4-6. Design Features of AD26/E33 Arsenic Removal System.................................................... 20

Table 4-7. Backwash Settings and Amounts of Wastewater Production .............................................. 26

Table 4-8. Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions ............................................................................ 30

Table 4-9. Summary of AD26/E33 System Operation.......................................................................... 31

Table 4-10. Summary of System Backwash Operations......................................................................... 36

Table 4-11. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results........................................... 39

Table 4-12. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results.......................................................... 40

Table 4-13. Oxidation/Filtration Vessels Backwash Sampling Results.................................................. 46

Table 4-14. Oxidation/Filtration Vessels Backwash Solid Sample Total Metal Results ........................ 47

Table 4-15. Distribution System Sampling Results................................................................................. 48

Table 4-16. Capital Investment Cost for AdEdge Treatment System ..................................................... 50

Table 4-17. Operation and Maintenance Cost for AdEdge Treatment System ....................................... 51
ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Δp differential pressure 

AAL American Analytical Laboratories

Al aluminum

AM adsorptive media 

As arsenic

ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems

bgs below ground surface

BL baseline sampling

BV bed volume

Ca calcium

Cl chloride

C/F coagulation/filtration 

CRF capital recovery factor

DO dissolved oxygen

EBCT empty bed contact time

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

F fluoride

Fe iron

GAC granular activated carbon

GFH granular ferric hydroxide

gpd gallons per day

gph gallons per hour

gpm gallons per minute

HIX hybrid ion exchanger

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry

ID identification

IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management

IOCs inorganic compounds

IR Iron Removal

IX ion exchange

LCR Lead and Copper Rule

lph liter per hour

MCL maximum contaminant level

MDL method detection limit

MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.;

Mg magnesium

Mn manganese
x

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)

mV millivolts

Na sodium

NA not analyzed

NaOCl sodium hypochlorite

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory

NS not sampled

NSF NSF International

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit

O&M operation and maintenance

OIT Oregon Institute of Technology

ORD Office of Research and Development

ORP oxidation-reduction potential

P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram

PO4 orthophosphate

PLC programmable logic controller

POU point-of-use

psi pounds per square inch 

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

RFP Request for Proposal

RO reverse osmosis

RPD relative percent difference

Sb antimony

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SiO2 silica

SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level

SO42- sulfate

SOC synthetic organic compound

STS Severn Trent Services

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

TDS total dissolved solids

TOC total organic carbon

TSS total suspended solids

VOC volatile organic compound
xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Clinton Christian School in Goshen, IN, for 

monitoring operation of the arsenic removal system and collecting samples from the treatment and 

distribution systems throughout the performance evaluation study. 
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that 

are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA 

established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the 

SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the 

arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA, 

2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25, 

2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 μg/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reducing the number of sites to 28.

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

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

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

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

total of 44 proposals, which were reviewed by a three-expert technical review panel convened at EPA on 

May 2 and 3, 2007. Copies of the proposals and recommendations of the review panel were later
2

provided to and discussed with representatives of the 10 host sites and state regulators in a technology 

selection meeting held at each host site during April through August 2007. The final selections of the 

treatment technology were made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the respective state regulators, and 

the host sites. A 25-gal/min (gpm) AdEdge AD26/E33 hybrid modular treatment system was selected for 

demonstration at Clinton Christian School in Goshen, IN.

As of December 2010, 49 of the 50 systems were operational and the performance evaluations of 48

systems were completed.

1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal

Technologies selected for Rounds 1, 2, and 2a demonstration included adsorptive media (AM), iron 

removal (IR), coagulation/filtration (C/F), ion exchange (IX), reverse osmosis (RO), point-of-use (POU) 

RO, and system/process modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, system 

flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, iron [Fe], and pH). Table 1-2 presents 

the number of sites for each technology. AM technology was demonstrated at 30 sites, including four 

with IR pretreatment. IR technology was demonstrated at 12 sites, including four with supplemental iron 

addition. C/F, IX, and RO technologies were demonstrated at three, two, and one sites, respectively. The 

Sunset Ranch Development site that demonstrated POU RO technology had nine under-the-sink RO 

units. The Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) site classified under AM had three AM systems and 

eight POU AM units. The Lidgerwood site encompassed only system/process modifications. An 

overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the 

associated capital costs is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are 

posted on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/resource.htm. 

1.3 Project Objectives

The objective of the arsenic demonstration program was to conduct full-scale performance evaluations of 

treatment technologies for arsenic removal from drinking water supplies. The specific objectives were to:

• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small systems.

• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels.

• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.

• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.

This report summarizes the performance of the AdEdge system at the Clinton Christian School in 

Goshen, IN, from May 1, 2008, through June 19, 2009. The types of data collected included system 

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

capital and O&M cost. 
3

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

Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality

Demonstration

Location Site Name Technology (Media) Vendor

Design

Flowrate

(gpm)

Source Water 

Quality

Fe

(μg/L)

pH

(S.U.)

As 

(μg/L)

Northeast/Ohio

Carmel, ME Carmel Elementary School RO Norlen’s

Water

1,200 

gpd

21 <25 7.9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newark, OH Buckeye Lake Head Start 

Building

AM (ARM 200) Kinetico 10 15(a) 1,312(d) 7.6

Springfield, OH Chateau Estates Mobile Home 

Park

IR & AM (E33) AdEdge 250(e) 25(a) 1,615(d) 7.3

Great Lakes/Interior Plains

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sauk Centre, MN Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home 

Park

IR (Macrolite) Kinetico 20 25(a) 3,078(d) 7.1

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

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

Lead, SD Terry Trojan Water District AM (ArsenXnp) SolmeteX 75 24 <25 7.3
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration 

Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)

4

Demonstration

Location Site Name Technology (Media) Vendor

Design

Flowrate

(gpm)

Source Water 

Quality

Fe

(μg/L)

pH

(S.U.)

As 

(μg/L)

Midwest/Southwest

Willard, UT Hot Springs Mobile Home Park IR & AM (Adsorbsia) Filter 

Tech

30 15.4(a) 332(d) 7.5

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

Alvin, TX Oak Manor Municipal Utility 

District

AM (E33) STS 150 19(a) 95 7.8

Bruni, TX Webb Consolidated Independent 

School District

AM (E33) AdEdge 40 56(a) <25 8.0

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

Anthony, NM Desert Sands Mutual Domestic 

Water Consumers 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

Far West

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

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

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

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

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

ARM 200/ArsenXnp) 

and POU AM (ARM 200)(g)

Kinetico 60/60/30 33 <25 7.9

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

Reno, NV South Truckee Meadows General 

Improvement District

AM (GFH) Siemens 350 39 <25 7.4

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

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

Tehachapi, CA Golden Hills Community Service 

District

AM (Isolux) MEI 150 15 <25 6.9

AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger; IR = iron removal; IR with ID = iron removal with iron addition; IX = ion exchange 

process; RO = reverse osmosis

ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services

(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).

(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.

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

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

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

(f) Including nine residential units.

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

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

Removal Technology

Technologies

Number 

of Sites

Adsorptive Media(a) 26

Adsorptive Media with Iron Removal Pretreatment 4

Iron Removal (Oxidation/Filtration) 8

Iron Removal with Supplemental Iron Addition 4

Coagulation/Filtration 3

Ion Exchange 2

Reverse Osmosis 1

Point-of-use Reverse Osmosis(b) 1

System/Process Modifications 1

(a) OIT site at Klamath Falls, OR had three AM systems and 

eight POU AM units.

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

2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on the information collected during the one year of system operation, the following conclusions 

were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.

Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:

• Chlorine was effective in oxidizing As(III) and Fe(II) and forming arsenic-laden iron

particles. 

• AD26 media was capable of removing the arsenic-laden particles formed, reducing arsenic 

and iron concentrations to <5.0 and <25 μg/L, respectively, presumably via filtration. 

• AD26 media was effective in removing both particulate (53%) and soluble manganese (47%), 

reducing its concentrations from an average of 79.5 μg/L (after chlorination) to 1.1 μg/L. 

• Backwashing once every 72 hr was adequate, resulting in no iron particle breakthrough from 

the AD26 media beds. This backwash frequency allowed an average system run time of 5.7 

hr when the school was in session or 4.5 hr when the school was not in session. 

Required system O&M and operator skill levels:

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

record operational parameters. 

Process residuals produced by the technology: 

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

wastewater. 

• Assuming an average of 10 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS) in 56,810 gal of wastewater

produced by backwashing the three AD26 vessels in one year, approximately 4.7 lb of solids 

would be discharged annually. The solids were composed of 0.039, 1.5, and 0.21 lb of 

arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively. 

Capital and O&M cost of the technology:

• The unit capital cost was $0.39/1,000 gal of water treated if the system operated at a 100% 

utilization rate. The system’s real unit cost was $10.12/1,000 gal, based on 517,000 gal of 

water production (i.e., about 4% utilization). 
7

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 General Project Approach

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

AdEdge’s AD26/E33 arsenic removal system began on May 1, 2008, and ended on June 19, 2009. Table 

3-2 summarizes the types of data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. 

The overall system performance was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to 

below the MCL of 10 μg/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train, as 

described in the Study Plan (Battelle, 2008). The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the 

unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The plant operator 

recorded unscheduled downtime and repair information on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.

Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates

Activity Date

Introductory Meeting Held September 27, 2006

Technology Selection Meeting Held May 11, 2007

Project Planning Meeting Held June 13th 2007

Draft Letter of Understanding Issued June 21, 2007

Final Letter of Understanding Issued July 3, 2007

Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor August 13, 2007

Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle August 31, 2007

Purchase Order Completed and Signed September 18, 2007

Engineering Package Submitted to IDEM November 19, 2007

Permit Issued by IDEM January 10, 2008

Equipment Arrived at Site February 6, 2008

System Installation and Shakedown Completed February 27, 2008

Final Study Plan Issued April 15, 2008

Performance Evaluation Begun June 6, 2008

Discharge Permit Obtained September 23, 2008

IDEM = Indiana Department of Environmental Management

The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data 

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

automation, extent of preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling 

and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and 

safety practices. The staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor 

Hour Log Sheet. 

The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash 

wastewater produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water and solids were sampled and 

analyzed for chemical characteristics. 

The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (or gal/day [gpd]) of design 

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

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

chemical supply, electrical usage, and labor. 
8

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

Evaluation Objectives Data Collection

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

Reliability –Unscheduled system downtime

–Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems

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

incurred

System O&M and Operator 

Skill Requirements

–Pre- and post-treatment requirements

–Level of automation for system operation and data collection

–Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers

–Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, and 

complexity of tasks

–Chemical handling and inventory requirements 

–General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and 

safety practices 

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

system operation

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

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

3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection

The plant operator performed daily, biweekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to

instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a regular basis, the plant operator recorded system 

operational data such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a System Operation Log 

Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred, 

the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted 

for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information, including the problems 

encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred 

on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. Occasionally, the plant operator also measured temperature, 

pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and chlorine residuals and recorded the 

data on an Onsite Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet. 

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

system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical 

supply, electricity consumption, and labor. Labor for various activities, such as the routine system O&M, 

troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour 

Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as completing field logs, ordering supplies, 

performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the vendor. The labor for demonstrationrelated work, including activities such as performing field measurements, collecting and shipping 

samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the vendor, was recorded, but not used for 

cost analysis.

3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules

To evaluate system performance, samples were collected from the wellheads, across the treatment plant, 

during the oxidation/filtration vessel backwash, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 presents the 

sampling schedules and analytes measured during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements 

for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in 

Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2007). The procedure 

for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
9

3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit on September 27, 2006, one set of source water 

samples from Well No. 1 was collected and speciated using an arsenic specitation kit (see Section 3.4.1). 

The sample taps were flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid 

agitation, which might cause unwanted oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in 

Table 3-3. 

3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, the plant 

operator collected water samples across the treatment train once every one to four weeks. In general, 

sampling alternated between regular and speciation sampling. Regular sampling involved taking samples 

at the wellhead (IN), after chlorination (AC), after oxidation/filtration vessels (OT), and after adsorption 

vessels (TT) and having them analyzed for the analytes listed under regular sampling in Table 3-3. 

Speciation sampling involved collecting and speciating samples at the same four locations onsite and 

having them analyzed for the analytes listed under speciation sampling in Table 3-3. 

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

samples from each oxidation/filtration vessel on 10 occasions. Over the duration of backwash for each 

vessel, a side stream of backwash wastewater was directed from the tap on the backwash water discharge 

line to a clean, 32-gal plastic container at approximately 1 gpm. After the content in the container was 

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

samples were analyzed for analytes listed in Table 3-3.

Once during the 1-year study period, the content in the 32-gal plastic container was allowed to settle and 

the supernatant was carefully siphoned using a piece of plastic tubing to avoid agitation of settled solids 

in the container. The remaining solids/water mixture was then transferred to a 1-gal plastic jar. After 

solids in the jar were settled and the supernatant was carefully decanted, one aliquot of the solids/water 

mixture was air-dried before being acid-digested and analyzed for the metals listed in Table 3-3.

3.3.4 Spent Media. The media in the oxidation/filtration and adsorption vessels were not replaced, 

therefore, no spent media were produced as residual solids during this demonstration study. 

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

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

specifically, the arsenic, lead and copper levels. Prior to the system startup from February 7 to 23, 2008, 

four sets of baseline distribution system water samples were collected at the bathroom sink, which was 

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

system startup, distribution system sampling continued periodically at the same sampling location. 

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

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

and time of last water usage before samploing and of acutual sample collection were recorded for 

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

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

3.4 Sampling Logistics

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

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

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

detailed in Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2007). 
10

Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes

Sample 

Type

Sample 

Locations(a)

No. of 

Samples Frequency Analytes Sampling Date

Source 

Water

IN 1 Once 

(during 

initial site 

visit)

Onsite: pH, temperature, 

DO, and ORP

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

As (total and soluble),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble),

Sb (total and soluble),

V (total and soluble),

Na, Ca, Mg, Al, Cl, F, 

NO3, NO2, NH3, SO4, 

SiO2, PO4, P, turbidity, 

alkalinity, TDS, and TOC 

09/27/06 and 

06/17/05

Treatment 

Plant Water

IN, AC, OT, 

and TT

4 Speciation

sampling

Onsite: pH, temperature, 

DO, ORP, and/or total and 

free Cl2 (except for IN)

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

As (total and soluble),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble),

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, 

SO4, SiO2, P, turbidity, 

and alkalinity 

6/6/2008(b), 

08/20/08, 10/09/08, 

11/19/08, 01/08/09, 

02/04/09, 03/04/09, 

03/31/09, 04/29/09, 

06/04/09, 07/01/09, 

07/28/09, 09/15/09

Regular

sampling

Onsite: Same as above

Offsite: As (total), Fe 

(total), Mn (total), NH3, 

SiO2, P, turbidity, and 

alkalinity

06/27/08, 08/13/08, 

09/14/08, 11/06/08, 

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

02/18/09, 03/19/09, 

04/15/09, 05/14/09, 

06/10/09 

Distribution 

System 

Water(c)

Tap in 

school (DS)

1 Varying Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu, and 

Pb, pH, and alkalinity

02/07/08, 02/13/08, 

02/21/08, 02/23/08, 

06/18/08, 09/14/08, 

10/30/08, 11/12/08, 

12/18/08, 01/22/09, 

03/19/09, 04/15/09,

05/14/09, 06/10/09,

07/28/09, 09/15/09

Backwash 

Water

Backwash 

discharge 

line (BW)

2 Varying pH, TDS, TSS, turbidity, 

As (total and soluble),

Fe (total and soluble), and 

Mn (total and soluble)

10/02/08, 12/18/08, 

01/22/09, 02/18/09, 

03/18/09, 04/15/09, 

05/14/09, 06/10/09, 

07/28/09, 09/15/09

Backwash 

Solids

Wastewater

container

2 Once Al, As, Ba, Ca, Cd, Cu, 

Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb, Si, 

Zn

12/18/08

(a) Abbreviations in parenthesis corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-6, i.e., AC = after 

chlorination; BW = backwash discharge line; DS = distribution system; IN = at wellhead; OT = after 

oxidation/filtration vessels; TT = after adsorption vessels. 

(b) Sample taken at IN, OT and TT locations. Sample tap was not yet installed at AC.

(c) Four baseline sampling events taking place in February 2009 before system startup.

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

organic carbon; TSS = total suspended solids
11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

week’s sampling event. 

3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for offsite analyses were 

packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample 

custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact. 

Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the 

laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant 

operator by the Battelle Study Lead. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.5 Analytical Procedures

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

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

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

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

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

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

under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

using Hach chlorine test kits following the user’s manual. 
12

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure

Clinton Christian School is located at 61763 County Road 35 in Goshen, IN. Figure 4-1 shows the 

location of the school in relation to downtown Goshen, IN. The non-transient, non-community water 

system at the school supplied water to approximately 130 students and 12 staff members during the 

academic year. The water system was supplied by a single well, i.e., Well No. 1, which was 4-in in 

diameter and 166 ft deep. The well was equipped with a Myers 1.5-horsepower (hp) submersible pump 

set at a depth of 145 ft below ground surface (bgs). Based on the pump curve shown in Figure 4-2, the 

pump yielded an average production rate of 18 gpm and a maximum production rate of 25 gpm. After 

installing a totalizer/ flow meter and an hour meter at the wellhead, Hawkins Water Tech, Inc., a local 

contractor subcontracted to AdEdge, took a series of readings to confirm pump flowrates from August 17 

through 24, 2007. Table 4-1 summarizes the results. Instantaneous flowrates recorded from the flow 

meter ranged from 10.7 to 19.5 gpm and averaged 16.9 gpm, comparable to those (i.e., 7.5 to 20.1 gpm) 

calculated based on wellhead totalizer and corresponding hour meter readings. These flowrate readings 

were within the maximum flowrate of 25 gpm while maintaining a wellhead pressure of 20 lb/in2 (psi). 

The well turned on and off by a hydopneumatic tank, which was set to operate between 40 and 70 psi. 

According to the engineering report prepared by LJB Inc., the well had an average daily flow of 1,155 

gal/day (gpd) and a weekday average flow of 1,620 gpd (LJB Inc., 2007).

 

Figure 4.1. Clinton Christian School Location (LJB Inc., 2007)

Clinton Christian School
13

Figure 4-2. Myers Model J1525 Submersible Pump Curve

Table 4-1. Flowrate Data Collected by Hawkins 

Water Tech, Inc., in August 2007

Cumulative

Totalizer 

Reading

Cumulative

Hour 

Meter 

Reading

Calculated 

Flowrate 

(gpm)

Instantaneous 

Flowrate 

(gpm)

Influent 

Pressure 

(psi)

1 2,244 NA NA 16.8 44.0

2 3,185 NA NA 10.7 71.0

3 8,960 4.8 20.1 14.6 58.0

4 10,823 6.9 14.8 17.0 54.0

5 13,308 9.7 14.8 18.5 46.0

6 13,647 10.5 7.5 17.8 51.0

7 14,012 10.9 14.8 19.5 49.0

8 14,487 NA NA 18.9 50.0

9 15,407 1.2 12.9 18.6 48.0

NA = Not Available

Prior to the new boiler room construction and repiping for this project, raw water was piped from the 

supply well to four 20-gal steel bladder tanks in the school’s old boiler room. Figure 4-3 is a photograph 

of the boiler room that housed the piping and water system equipment. Figure 4-4 is a photograph of the 

old bladder tanks. Following the bladder tanks, water was divided into two streams, each for cold or hot 

water distribution. The stream dedicated for hot water distribution was treated with a water softener prior 

to heating.
14

Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Boiler Room that Housed Piping and Water System Equipment

Figure 4-4. Pre-existing Water System Bladder Tanks
15

4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on September 27, 2006, when 

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

project. Table 4-2 presents the analytical results along with the data provided by EPA and Indiana 

Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). Overall, Battelle’s data are comparable to those 

provided by EPA and IDEM. 

Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 21.0 to 28.7 μg/L. Based on the 

speciation results obtained by Battelle on September 27, 2006, of the 28.7 μg/L total arsenic, 14.7 μg/L 

existed as As(III) and 11.6 μg/L as As(V). Therefore, chlorination was needed to oxidize As(III) to 

As(V) for more effective arsenic removal. 

Table 4-2. Clinton Christian School Source Water Data

Parameter Unit EPA Data

Battelle 

Data

IDEM 

Data

Date 05/08/06 09/27/06 06/17/05

pH S.U. NA NA 7.4 NA

Temperature °C NA NA 17.0 NA

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA

ORP mV NA NA NA NA

Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 273 NA 291 270

Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 256 255 255 291

Turbidity NTU NA NA 5.3 NA

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L NA NA 274 NA

Total Organic Carbon mg/L NA NA <1.0 0.773

Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.02 NA <0.05 NA

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

Ammonia (as N) mg/L 0.2 NA 0.2 NA

Chloride mg/L NA NA 6 2.8

Fluoride mg/L NA NA 0.2 NA

Sulfate mg/L 2.0 2.1 2.0 5.0

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 18.4 18.0 18.1 18

Orthophosphate (as PO4) mg/L <0.005 NA <0.1 NA

P (total) mg/L <0.2 <0.2 <0.03 0.05

Al (total) μg/L <25 <25 NA NA

As (total) μg/L 24.0 21.0 28.7 24.2

As (soluble) μg/L NA NA 26.3 NA

As (particulate) μg/L NA NA 2.4 NA

As(III) μg/L NA NA 14.7 9.2

As(V) μg/L NA NA 11.6 15.0

Fe (total) μg/L 800 807 810 1,300

Fe (soluble) μg/L NA NA 758 NA

Mn (total) μg/L 90.0 92.4 95.4 92

Mn (soluble) μg/L NA NA 97.4 NA

Sb (total) μg/L <25 <25 NA NA

V (total) μg/L NA NA <0.1 NA

V (soluble) μg/L NA NA <0.1 NA

Na (total) mg/L 8.1 8.1 8.0 NA

Ca (total) mg/L 65.4 65.7 63.4 NA

Mg (total) mg/L 22.5 22.2 23.4 NA

IDEM = Indiana Department of Environmental Management; NA = not available
16

Ammonia. The presence of 0.2 mg/L of NH3 (as N) in raw water, as shown by the data collected by EPA 

on May 8, 2006, and by Battelle on September 27, 2006, would consume chlorine especially if breakpoint 

chlorination was required. The IDEM rule requires at least 0.2 mg/L of free chlorine (as Cl2) in the 

treated water. To reach breakpoint, approximately 1.5 mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2) was needed to react with 

0.2 mg/L of NH3 (as N).

Iron and Manganese. Battelle’s speciation results indicated that, out of 810 μg/L of iron measured 

(which is significantly over the 300-μg/L secondary maximum contaminant level [SMCL]), 758 μg/L (or 

94%) existed as soluble iron, which is about 29 times the soluble arsenic level at 26.3 μg/L. EPA’s May 

8 and September 27, 2006, sampling results also showed 800 and 807 μg/L of total iron in raw water, 

respectively, which are very close to Battelle’s results. The presence of soluble iron in raw water helps

remove arsenic once an oxidant, such as chlorine, is introduced to raw water. The use of chlorination 

prior to AD26 media oxidizes and precipitates iron, enabling removal of arsenic-laden iron solids via 

filtration through AD26 media. It is important to note that, when using chlorine, total chlorine residuals 

must be controlled to <1 mg/L (as Cl2) to minimize any adverse effect on the resin in the softener units, 

which are located downstream in the new wing of the school building.

Manganese concentrations of 92.4 and 95.4 μg/L obtained on September 27, 2006 by EPA and Battelle, 

respectively, also exceeded the SMCL of 50 μg/L. Manganese concentrations at these levels could 

impact performance of adsorptive media. 

Competing Anions. Adsorptive media potentially can be affected by competing anions such as silica and 

phosphate. Based on the results shown in Table 4-2, concentrations of silica (18.0-18.4 mg/L) and 

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

adsorption process.

Other Water Quality Parameters. Battelle’s data indicate a pH value of 7.4, which is within the 

commonly-agreed target range of 5.5 to 8.5 for arsenic removal via IR and adsorption. Total hardness 

concentrations ranged from 255 to 291 mg/L (as CaCO3); turbidity was 5.3 nephelometric turbidity unit 

(NTU); total dissolved solids (TDS) was 274 mg/L; nitrate ranged from less than the MDL to 0.02 mg/L; 

and sodium ranged from 8.0 to 8.1 mg/L. All other analytes were below MDLs and/or anticipated to be 

low enough to not adversely affect the arsenic removal process.

4.1.2 Predemonstration Treated Water Quality. As shown in Table 4-3, the treated water 

quality for samples taken by IDEM was similar to raw water quality except for the slightly lower arsenic 

levels in treated water. Treated water samples were not collected by Battelle or EPA at the time of source 

water sampling. 

Table 4-3. Clinton Christian School Historic Water Quality Data (1993 to 2006)

Parameter Unit Well No. 1

Sampling Date 09/20/93 10/23/96 05/25/99 03/11/03 05/20/03 03/20/06 05/01/06 07/10/06 10/16/06

Nitrate(a) mg/L 0.1 NS 0.2 NS 0.2 NS <0.1 NS NS

Nitrite(a) mg/L 0.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Fluoride mg/L 0.26 NS NS NS NS 0.23 NS NS NS

Arsenic μg/L 22.0 21.2 22.3 26.0 NS 20.0 17.0 23.0 20.0

Antimony μg/L <5 NS NS NS NS <5 NS NS NS

Source: IDEM

NS = not sampled

(a) as N.
17

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

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

material between the supply well and the boiler room was galvanized piping. The pipe material within 

the boiler room and of the distribution system was copper and PVC, respectively. 

For compliance purposes, Clinton Christian School periodically samples water for several parameters. 

Raw water samples are collected quarterly for arsenic; yearly for nitrate; once every three years for 

cyanide, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), synthetic organic compounds (SOCs), and inorganic 

compounds (IOCs). Distribution system water samples are collected once every three years under the 

LCR; and once every nine years for asbestos.

4.2 Treatment Process Description

This section provides a general technology description and site-specific details on the AD26/E33 modular 

arsenic removal system for arsenic, iron, and manganese removal.

4.2.1 Technology Description. The AD26/E33 system consisted of three parallel AD26 

oxidation/filtration vessels and two parallel E33 adsorption vessels. AD26 was designed to remove iron 

and manganese prior to E33 arsenic adsorption. Because chlorine was added prior to AD26, some arsenic 

was removed along with precipitated iron solids via filtration across AD26, leaving remaining soluble 

As(V) to be further treated by E33. 

The treatment system was a fixed-bed, downflow system. Groundwater was pumped from the wellhead 

and oxidized with chlorine added in the form of liquid sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). Chlorinated water 

then flowed through the AD26 vessels, which removed arsenic-laden iron solids and, perhaps,

manganese. The filtered water flowed through the E33 vessels where the remaining arsenic, existing 

primarily as soluble As(V), was removed before entering the distribution system. Both AD26 and E33 

vessels needed to be backwashed regularly. The backwash wastewater was filtered through bag filters

before being discharged to Rock Run Creek. 

4.2.2 AD26 Media. AD26 media is a manganese dioxide granular media that oxidizes and filters 

out iron and manganese. This process is enhanced by chlorination, which oxidizes and precipitates 

As(III), Fe(II), and, possibly, Mn(II). Once precipitated, solids are filtered out by the media. After 

reaching a set differential pressure, solids accumulated in the media beds are removed via backwashing. 

AD26 media has NSF International (NSF)-61 approval for use in drinking water applications. Table 4-4

provides the physical properties of AD26 media. 

4.2.3 E33 Media. Bayoxide E33 is an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Lanxess 

(formerly Bayer AG) for removal of arsenic from drinking water. E33 media has NSF-61 approval for 

use in drinking water applications. Table 4-5 provides the physical properties of E33 media. 

4.2.4 System Design and Treatment Process The treatment processes at Clinton Christian 

School included prechlorination, AD26 oxidation/filtration, and E33 adsorption. Figure 4-5 shows the 

piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) of the system. Table 4-6 specifies the key system design 

parameters of the treatment system. Figure 4-6 presents a process flowchart, along with the 

sampling/analysis schedule, for the system.
18

Table 4-4. Properties of AD26 Media

Property Value

Physical Form and Appearance

Black, dry granular media 

Matrix Manganese dioxide (>80% 

active ingredient)

Bulk Density (lb/ft3) 125 

Moisture Content (% by wt.) < 0.5

Particle Size Distribution 

(U.S. standard mesh)

20 × 40

Effective Size 0.40

Uniformity Coefficient 1.54

Specific Gravity (g/cm3) 3.8

Oxidant NaOCl (12.5%)

Operating pH Range 6–9

Operating Flowrate (gpm) 8–15

Source: AdEdge Technologies, Inc.

Table 4-5. Properties of E33 Media

Property Value

Physical Form and Appearance

Amber, dry granular media

Matrix Iron oxide composite

Bulk Density (lb/ft3) 28

Moisture Content (%) <15% by weight

Base Polymer Macroporous polystyrene

Particle Size Distribution 

(U.S. standard mesh)

10 × 35

Crystal Size (Å) 70

Crystal Phase α-FeOOH

Source: Bayer AG
19

Figure 4-5. P&ID of AD26/E33 Arsenic Removal System at Clinton Christian School
20

Table 4-6. Design Features of AD26/E33 Arsenic Removal System

Parameter Value Remarks

Influent Specifications

Design Peak Flowrate (gpm) 25 –

Arsenic Concentration (μg/L) 28.7 Based on 09/27/06 source water results

Iron Concentration (μg/L) 810 Based on 09/27/06 source water results

Manganese Concentration (μg/L) 95.4 Based on 09/27/06 source water results

Pretreatment

NaOCl Strength (%) 12.5

NaOCl Dosage (mg/L [as Cl2]) 2.4 –

Estimated Chlorine Usage (gph [gpy]) 0.03 [13.7] Based on a design flowrate of 25 gpm, a dosage of 

2.4 mg/L (as Cl2), a NaOCl solution strength of 

12.5%, and a daily operating time of 1.3 hr/day

AD26 Oxidation/Filtration Unit

No. of Vessels 3 –

Configuration Parallel –

Vessel Size (in) 13 D × 54 H –

Vessel Cross-sectional Area (ft2) 0.9 –

Media Volume (ft3/tank) 2.3 6.9 ft3 total media volume in 3 vessels

Media Depth (in) 30 –

Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) 9.0 Based on 8.3 gpm/tank flowrate

EBCT (min/vessel) 2.1 –

Differential Pressure across Clean Bed (psi/vessel) 3 Vendor specified

Backwash Flowrate (gpm) 18.4 At 20 gpm/ft2 backwash rate

Backwash Duration (min) 12 –

Fast Rinse Duration (min) 2 At 12 gpm flowrate

Backwash Frequency (day) 2–4 –

E33 Adsorption Unit

No. of Vessels 2 –

Configuration Parallel –

Vessel Size (in) 18 D × 65 H –

Vessel Cross-sectional Area (ft2) 1.8 –

Media Volume (ft3/vessel) 5.25 10.5 ft3 total media volume in 2 vessels 

Media Depth (in) 35 –

Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) 7.1 Based on 12.5gpm/vessel flowrate

EBCT (min/vessel) 3.1 –

Differential Pressure across Clean Bed (psi/tank) 2–3 Vendor specified

Backwash Flowrate (gpm) 16 At 8.9 gpm/ft2 backwash rate

Backwash Duration (min) 13 –

Fast Rinse Duration (min) 2 At 11 gpm flowrate

Backwash Frequency (day) 45–60 –

Effluent Specifications

Arsenic Concentration (μg/L) <10 –

Iron Concentration (μg/L) <25 –

Manganese Concentration (μg/L) <0.1 –

Average Daily Production (gpd) 2,000 Based on average throughput during school year

Daily System Operation (hr/day) 1.3 Based on 25 gpm flowrate

Hydraulic Utilization (%) 5.6 Typical system operation of 1.3 hr/day

Throughput to 10-μg/L As Breakthrough (gal) 6,366,060 Vendor estimate

Throughput for Three AD26 Vessels (BV/day) 38.8 Based on 2,000 gpd water usage

Projected AD26 Media Run Length (BV) 123,763 Based on 6,366,060 gal of throughput and 51.6 gal 

for 3 vessels

Projected AD26 Media Life (years) 8.7 Based on 38.8 BV treated/day

Throughput for Two E33 Vessels (BV/day) 25.5 Based on 2,000 gpd water usage

Projected E33 Media Run Length to 10-μg/L As 

Breakthrough (BV)

81,055 Based on 6,366,060 gal to breakthrough and 78.5 

gal for 2 tanks

Projected E33 Media Life (years) 8.7 Based on 81,055 BV to breakthrough and 25.5 BV 

treated/day
21

LEGEND

LEGEND

INFLUENT Unit Process

IN Influent

Backwash Sampling BW Location

TT Total Combined Effluent

AC After Chlorination

Water Sampling Locations

Combined Effluent

OT from AD26 Vessels

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

INFLUENT Goshen, IN

AD26/E33 Technology

Design Flow: 25 gpm

TO DISCHARGE POINT

BAG FILTERS

DISTRIBUTION 

SYSTEM

Regular

Sampling

Speciation

Sampling

Footnote

a) On-site analyses

IN

CHLORINE ADDITION

OT

TT

AD26

VESSEL

A

AD26

VESSEL

C

E33

ADSORPTION

VESSEL

A

E33

ADSORPTION

VESSEL

B

AD26

VESSEL

B

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

As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble),

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, SO4, SiO2,

P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), 

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

Mn (total), NH3, SiO2,

P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity

GAC A

GAC B

BW

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

Cl2 (total and free)(a),

As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble),

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, SO4, SiO2,

P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity

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

,

Cl2 (total and free)(a),

As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble),

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, SO4, SiO2,

P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity

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

,

Cl2 (total and free)(a),

As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble),

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3, SO4, SiO2,

P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity

AC

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), 

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

Mn (total), NH3, SiO2,

P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), 

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

Mn (total), NH3, SiO2,

P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), 

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

Mn (total), NH3, SiO2,

P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity

Figure 4-6. Process Flow Diagram
22

• Intake – Raw water pumped from Well No. 1 was fed to the treatment system via a 2-in PVC 

pipe to a tie-in point, where connection was made to the system piping.

• Prechlorination/Oxidation – Chlorine was added prior to the AD26/E33 arsenic treatment 

system to oxidize As(III) to As(V) and Fe(II) to Fe(III). The chlorine addition system 

(Figure 4-7) consisted of a Stenner single-head peristaltic pump (Model No. 45 

MHP10*45M2) with a maximum capacity of 0.13 gal/hr (gph) or 0.48 L/hr (lph), a chlorine 

injection tap, a 15-gal polyethylene chemical feed tank (containing a 12.5% NaOCl solution), 

a 1.5-in in-line mixer, and a control relay box for chlorine pump control. Chlorine addition 

was synchronized with the well pump. 

Figure 4-7. Chlorine Addition System

The chlorine dosage required was estimated to be 2.4 mg/L (of Cl2) based on concentrations 

of As(III), Fe(II), Mn(II), and NH3 in source water. To reach “breakpoint” chlorination, 1.5 

mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2) was needed to react with 0.2 mg/L of NH3 (as N). An additional 0.7 

mg/L of chlorine (as Cl2) was needed to meet the chlorine demand for reducing species, such 

as As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II). Further, the IDEM rule required at least 0.2 mg/L of free 

chlorine (as Cl2) in the treated water. The actual target chlorine dosage was determined 

during system startup and adjusted manually on pump settings. Proper operation of the 

chlorine feed system was tracked through tank level measurements.

To meet the 0.2 mg/L (as Cl2) free chlorine requirement, water system operators are required 

to test for total and free chlorine residuals daily on days when the system is in operation. 
23

The results obtained are recorded on a Monthly Report of Operations, which must be 

submitted monthly to IDEM’s Drinking Water Branch.

To minimize any adverse effect on the resin in the softener units located downstream in the 

new wing of the school building, the total chlorine residual level must not exceed 1 mg/L (as 

Cl2).

• AD26 Oxidation/Filtration – The AD26 oxidation/filtration unit consisted of three parallel, 

13-in × 54-in composite vessels, each containing 2.3 ft3 of AD26 media supported by 47 lb of 

quartz gravel underbedding (with a size distribution of 1⁄8-in × 1/16-in and a bulk density of 

100 lb/ft3

). Three smaller vessels (compared to the dimensions of E33 vessels) were selected

to allow enough flow from the pressure tanks to lift the heavy AD26 media during backwash. 

The quartz gravel was placed over the lower hub and lateral system below the oxidizing

media. The vessels had a 4-in threaded opening at the top for loading media and accessing 

tank intervals. The flow entered the top of the vessels through a 1.5-in diameter header

(Figure 4-8). When water reached the tank bottom and screened laterals, it flowed up through 

a center riser tube back to the top of the valve before exiting the AD26 module. 

Figure 4-8. Headers, Fleck Controllers, and Piping/Valves on AD26 Vessels

Based on a design flowrate of 25 gpm, the empty bed contact time (EBCT) for each tank was 

about 2.1 min and the hydraulic loading rate to each vessel was 9.0 gpm/ft2

. The anticipated 

pressure drop across each tank for a clean bed was approximately 3 psi. Standard operation 

had three vessels online running parallel, treating a total flow of 25 gpm. The flow through 
24

each vessel was regulated to about 8.3 gpm by an outlet valve after each vessel. Each vessel

also had a Fleck 2750 automatic controller with a side-mounted 3200NT timer for setting 

backwash. The piping used for the system was Schedule 80 PVC.

 

• E33 Adsorption – The E33 adsorption unit consisted of two parallel, 18-in × 65-in 

composite vessels, each containing 5.25 ft3 of E33 media supported by 80 lb of quartz gravel 

underbedding (with a size distribution of 1⁄4-in × 1⁄8-in and a bulk density of 100 lb/ft). The 

quartz gravel was placed over the lower hub and lateral system below the adsorption media. 

The vessels had a 4-in threaded opening at the top for loading media and accessing tank 

intervals. The flow entered the top of the vessels through a 1.5-in diameter header. When 

water reached the vessel bottom and screened laterals, it flowed up through a center riser tube 

back to the top of the valve before exiting the E33 module. 

Based on a design flowrate of 25 gpm, the EBCT for each tank was 3.1 min. The anticipated 

pressure drop across each train was approximately 2 to 3 psi. Standard operation had two 

vessels online running parallel, treating a total flow of 25 gpm. The flow through each tank 

was regulated to about 12.5 gpm by an outlet valve after each vessel. In addition, each vessel

had a Fleck 2750 automatic controller with a side-mounted 3200NT timer for setting

backwash. The piping used for the unit was Schedule 80 PVC. Figure 4-9 shows Fleck 

controllers and associated piping/valves connected from AD26 vessels to E33 vessels.

Figure 4-9. Fleck Controllers and Piping/Valves Connected to One AD26 (left) and 

One E33 (right) Vessel
25

• Pressure Tanks – The treatment system was equipped with three newly installed and one 

pre-existing 119-gal ProFlo PF119 pressure tanks (Figure 4-10) prior to entering the 

distribution system. The pressure tanks operated with low- and high-pressure triggers at 40 

and 60 psi, respectively, such that when the pressure fell below 40 psi, the well pump was 

turned on and when the pressure reached 60 psi, the well pump was turned off. In addition to 

supplying treated water to the distribution system, the pressure tanks also provided needed 

capacities for backwashing the AD26 and E33 vessels, i.e., 220 gal per AD26 vessel and 208 

gal per E33 vessel (see more detailed discussions under Filter Backwash Operation below). 

Figure 4-10. ProFlo PF119 Pressure Tanks 

• Filter Backwash Operation – All AD26 and E33 vessels required backwashing to remove 

particles and fluff the media beds to minimize channeling. Backwashing was initiated either 

by pre-setting the time (in days) between backwashes or by manually pressing the recycle 

button for 3 sec on the 3200NT display. The vendor recommended that the AD26 vessels be 

backwashed once every 2 to 4 days and the E33 vessels once every 45 to 60 days. 

Backwashing for each vessel lasted for either 12 (AD26) or 13 min (E33), followed by 2-min 

of forward rinse. Upon completion, the vessels were put online for normal operation. Table 

4-7 summarizes backwash settings and amounts of wastewater generated. 

The three AD26 vessels were backwashed once every 3 days with backwashing of the first 

vessel initiated at 12 a.m. and the second and third vessels at 1 and 2 a.m., respectively. The

1-hr lag time between two consecutive backwashes allowed the four pressure tanks to be 

refilled, such that sufficient treated water might be drawn from the pressure tanks during each 
26

Table 4-7. Backwash Settings and Wastewater Production

Parameter AD26 E33 

Initiating Pressure (psi) 6–7 6–7

Initiating Standby Time (days) 2–4 45–60

Number of Tanks for Backwash 3 2

Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2) 20 9

Backwash Flowrate (gpm) 18.4 16.0

Backwash Duration (min) 12 13

Fast Rinse Flowrate (gpm) 12 11

Fast Rinse Duration (min) 2 2

Wastewater Production (gal/tank) 245 230

Wastewater Production (gal/event) 735 460

backwash. The two E33 vessels were backwashed every 45 days, with backwashing of the

first and second vessels initiated at 3 and 4 a.m., respectively. These backwash initiation

times were chosen in case that backwashing of the AD26 and E33 vessels occurred on the 

same day. 

During the summer months when school was not in session and the vessels did not require 

backwashing as frequently, the backwash frequency was set to 99 days, the maximum time 

allowed. The operator monitored the inlet and outlet pressure of all vessels and manually 

initiated backwash when differential pressure (∆p) across a vessel had increased to about 6 to 

7 psi. If backwash was triggered manually, the backwash standby time to the next backwash 

event would be reset. 

Treated water was used for backwash and fast rinse. A separate backwash line was used to 

draw treated water from the four pressure tanks to the head of the treatment train for AD26 

backwashing. Although treated water was preferred, source water also was used to

supplement backwash when pressure in the pressure tanks dropped to below 40 psi. When 

backwashing the E33 vessels, treated water drawn from the pressure tanks flowed through the 

AD26 vessels before being used for E33 backwash. If the well pump was triggered during 

backwash (when pressure in the pressure tanks dropped to below 40 psi), source water was 

first flowed through (and treated by) the AD26 vessels and then used for E33 backwash.

Wastewater produced from backwash was processed through one 1-μm bag filter assembly to 

remove arsenic-laden particles and other particulate matter and two granular activated carbon 

(GAC) tanks to remove chlorine before discharge as required by IDEM (see Figure 4-11). 

Processed wastewater was temporarily stored in a 1,200-gal holding tank until a discharge 

permit was received. After receipt of the discharge permit, the wastewater was discharged

directly to an 8-in drain line leading to Rock Run Creek approximately 700 ft from the school 

property. Figure 4-12 shows the location of the backwash discharge line. The totalizer on 

each AD26 and E33 vessel registered both raw water and backwash water; therefore, the 

amount of backwash water used was subtracted when determining the total amount of water 

treated. 

• Media Regeneration/Disposal – AD26 media is regenerated during chlorination and 

backwashing. E33 media, when exhausted, is removed from the vessels and disposed of at a 

sanitary landfill if successfully passing EPA’s Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

(TCLP) tests. Virgin media is then loaded into the vessels. Based on the source water data
27

Figure 4-11. Bag Filter Assembly and GAC Tank

and an average daily throughput of 2,000 gpd, the vendor estimated a media life of 8.7 years 

for E33, which could not be confirmed during the 1-year performance evaluation study.

4.3 System Installation

AdEdge and Hawkins Water, a subcontractor to AdEdge, completed installation and shakedown of the 

system on February 27, 2008. The following briefly summarizes system/building installation activities, 

including permitting, building preparation, system offloading, installation, shakedown, and startup.

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

were submitted to IDEM by LJB Inc. on November 19, 2007. IDEM did not have any review comments 

and the permit was issued on January 10, 2008.

4.3.2 Building Preparation. The building housing the pre-existing hydropneumatic tanks and 

water softener was demolished and a new 28 ft × 28 ft boiler room attached to the existing school 

building (see Figure 4-13) was built to house the new treatment equipment with funds provided by the 

Indiana State Revolving Fund Loan Program. Piping from the wellhead and to the distribution system 

was laid to the tie-in points in the building to facilitate system installation and piping connection. 

4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. System components were delivered to Hawkins 

Water during the week of January 28, 2008, and arrived at the school on February 6, 2008. The system 

was installed during the weeks of February 7 and 14, 2008, with installation completed on February 18, 

2008. Installation activities included offloading, placing, and connecting the AD26/E33 system vessels 

and three new hydropneumatic tanks, connecting the system at the tie-in points, completing
28

Figure 4-12. Layout of Backwash Discharge Drain Line at Clinton Christian School (LJB Inc., 2007)
29

Figure 4-13. New Boiler Room Attached to Existing School Building

electrical wiring, and assembling the chlorine injection system. Figure 4-14 shows a photograph of the 

treatment system.

Upon completion of system installation, the vendor and its subcontractor met on February 25, 2008, to 

inspect the system and associated piping connections, verify electrical wiring and relays, and perform 

hydraulic testing before media loading. System shakedown and startup continued on February 26, 2008. 

Underbedding and 2.3 ft3 of AD26 were loaded into each of the three AD26 vessels and underbedding 

and 5.3 ft3 of E33 were loaded into each of the two E33 vessels. Freeboards above the underbedding and 

media bed were measured to ensure proper loading of individual media in each vessel. After control 

heads were reinstalled, the system plumbing was re-pressurized. Each AD26 vessel was then backwashed 

individually for 50 to 60 min at a maximum flowrate of 18.4 gpm and each E33 vessel was backwashed 

individually for 50 to 60 min at a maximum flowrate of 16 gpm. Afterwards, the control heads were 

disassembled to measure the freeboards again. 

The treatment system was disinfected by increasing chlorine residual levels at the system outlet to 

approximately 50 mg/L (as Cl2). The system was allowed to sit for 24 hr before being flushed of residual 

chlorine to below 0.5 mg/L (as Cl2). Bacterial samples were collected by Hawkins Water on March 3 and 

4, 2008, and the results received on March 20, 2008, were negative. 

The system remained offline while LJB, Inc., under contract with the school, prepared for a construction

and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the treatment and discharge 

of backwash wastewater. The applications were submitted on April 21, 2008. During this time, the 

school contracted with a drainage contractor to install an 8-in main drainline to discharge backwash 

wastewater to Rock Run Creek. To allow the system to be operated before the NPDES permit was 

granted, a holding tank was installed to store backwash wastewater. With the storage tank installed, the 

system was put online on May 1, 2008. 

On June 6, 2008, two Battelle staff members visited the school to inspect the system and provide operator 

training. Table 4-8 summarizes the punch-list items and corrective actions taken. 
30

Figure 4-14. Treatment System Installed

(From left to right: AD26 Vessels, E33 Vessels, and GAC Vessels; One AD26 

Vessel and One Bag Filter Assembly not Shown)

Table 4-8. Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions

Date(s) Issues/Problems

Encountered Corrective Action Taken

Work Performed 

by

06/06/08 –

06/18/08

Raw water (IN) sample tap

too close to chlorine 

injection point

IN sample tap moved 10 ft 

upstream of chlorine injection point 

Hawkins Water

06/06/08 –

06/18/08

After chlorination (AC)

sample tap not installed as 

shown on P&ID

AC sample tap installed after 

chlorine injection point but before 3-

way split to AD26 vessels 

Hawkins Water

06/06/08 –

06/18/08

Sample tap on AD26 

combined effluent line 

(OT) not installed as shown 

on P&ID

OT sample tap installed on 

combined effluent line after AD26 

vessels but before 2-way split to E33 

vessels

Hawkins Water

06/06/08 Chlorine residuals in 

distribution system water 

contained >5.5 mg/L of 

chlorine (as Cl2)

Instructions provided for chlorine 

stock solution preparation and feed 

pump operation to achieve a 0.30 

mg/L (as Cl2) target residual level

AdEdge

06/06/08 –

06/25/08

Backwash flowrate too low, 

i.e., 15.4 gpm (or 17 

gpm/ft2

) vs. design value of 

18.4 gpm (or 20 gpm/ft2

)

Adjusted diaphragm flow control 

valve (DV111) to achieve a flow of 

18 gpm for AD26

AdEdge
31

4.4 System Operation

4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the 1-year demonstration study

were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Table 4-9 summarizes key parameters. The system 

began to operate on May 1, 2008, but logging of operational data did not begin until June 6, 2008, when 

two Battelle staff members visited the site to inspect the system and provide operator training. Also, 

because an hour meter was not installed until June 30, 2008, recording of hour meter readings did not 

begin until July 16, 2008. From June 30, 2008, through the end of the performance evaluation study on 

June 19, 2009, the system operated for 621.6 hr. Daily system run times averaged 1.9 hr/day when the 

school was in session and 1.5 hr/day when the school was not in session. Before installation of the hour 

meter, the system had operated for 90 hr since May 1, 2008, or 36 hr since June 6, 2008, assuming 1.5 h 

of daily run time. The total system operating time was estimated to be 712 hr starting from May 1, 2008, 

or 658 hr starting from June 6, 2008. 

From June 6, 2008, through June 19, 2009, the system treated 529,192 gal of water based on readings of 

the totalizers installed on the influent side of each of the three AD26 vessels, or 517,174 gal based on 

readings of the totalizers installed on the influent side of each of the two E33 vessels (Table 4-9). 

Because the flow meters/totalizers were installed at the influent side of the AD26 and E33 vessels, 

throughput values registered by these totalizers reflect not only the amount of water treated by the 

AD26/E33 vessels, but also the amount of water used for backwashing A26 and E33 vessels (as read by 

the AD26 totalizers), or for backwashing E33 vessels (as read by the E33 totalizers). Between June 6, 

2008, and June 19, 2009, the two E33 vessels were backwashed seven and eight times, using just over 

3,450 gal of water for backwash. Therefore, the 517,174 gal registered by the E33 totalizers was 

considered the amount of water treated by the E33 vessels and used to calculate the number of bed 

volumes (BV) treated by the vessels.

Table 4-9. Summary of AD26/E33 System Operation

Operational Parameter Value/Condition

Duration 06/06/08–06/19/09

Well Pump

Average daily Run Time 

(hr/day)

1.9 (When school was in session)

1.5 (When school was out of session) 

Total Operating Time (hr) 658 (since 06/06/08) or 712 (since 05/01/08)

AD-26 Oxidation/Filtration Unit

Throughput (gal)(a) Vessel 06/06/08–06/19/09

A 195,142

B 192,775

C 141,275

Combined 529,192

Instantaneous Flowrate (gpm) Vessel Range Average

A 1.8–7.4 5.4

B 3.0–9.9 5.6

C 2.9–8.1 5.5

Combined 8.7–20.3 16.4

Calculated Flowrate (gpm)(b) Vessel Range Average

A 2.2–9.9(c) 5.1

B 3.0–10.2(d) 5.3

C 2.9–10.1(e) 5.1

Combined 9.3–20.2(f) 15.2
Table 4-9. Summary of AD26/E33 System Operation (Continued)

32

Operational Parameter Value/Condition

Vessel/System Pressure and Δp 

(psi) 

Vessel Inlet Outlet ΔP

A 54 (46–68) 47 (36–58) 7 (0– 19)

B 54 (46–68) 47 (38–59) 7 (0– 19)

C 54 (46–68) 47 (37–59) 7 (1– 19)

E-33 Adsorption Unit

Throughput (gal)(g) Vessel 06/06/08–06/19/09

D 248,371

E 268,803

Combined 517,174

Bed Volume (BV) 6,522

Instantaneous Flowrate (gpm) Vessel Range Average

D 5.1–9.4 7.7

E 5.7–10.1 8.3

Combined 10.8–19.5(h) 16.0

Calculated Flowrate (gpm)(b) Vessel Range Average

D 3.1–9.1(i) 7.4

E 3.4–10.9(j) 6.7

Combined 6.5–18.9(k) 12.9

EBCT (min)(l) Vessel Range Average

D 4.2–7.8 5.1

E 3.9–7.0 4.8

Combined 4.1–7.3 5.0

Vessel/System Pressure and Δp 

(psi)

Vessel Inlet Outlet Δp

D 47 (37–59) 43 (30–58) 4 (1–12)

E 47 (37–59) 43 (30–59) 4 (0–12)

(a) Including amount of treated and source water used for backwashing AD26 and E33 vessels. 

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

during July 16, 2008, through June 19, 2009. 

(c) Three outliers (0.8, 1.1, and 23.4 gpm) omitted.

(d) Two outliers (1.1 and 24.1 gpm) omitted.

(e) Five outliers (0.7, 1.2, 1.6, 1.6, and 24.3 gpm) omitted.

(f) One outlier (71.7 gpm) omitted. 

(g) Including amount of treated and source water used for backwashing E33 vessels.

(h) One outlier (6.4 gpm) omitted

(i) Four outliers (0.6, 13.8, 29.8, and 32.4 gpm) omitted.

(j) Two outliers (15.4 and 36.2 gpm) omitted.

(k) Three outliers (29.2, 37.7, and 68.6 gpm) omitted.

(l) Calculated based on 5.3 ft3 of media in each adsorption vessel and corresponding instantaneous 

flowrate readings. 

Based on the rationale discussed above, 6,522 BV of water were treated by the E33 unit from June 6, 

2008, through June 19, 2009. BV calculations were based on 10.5 ft3 of media in the two adsorption 

vessels.

Flowrates through the three AD26 (Figure 4-15) and two E33 vessels (Figure 4-16) were tracked with 

both instantaneous readings of the flow meters installed at the inlet to the AD26/E33 vessels and 

calculated values by dividing volume throughputs recorded from respective totalizers by incremental 

operating times. As shown in Table 4-9, instantaneous readings of each of the three AD26 flow meters 

averaged 5.4, 5.6, and 5.5 gpm; calculated values for each of these flow meters averaged 5.1, 5.3, and 
33

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

06/01/08 07/31/08 09/29/08 11/28/08 01/27/09 03/28/09 05/27/09 07/26/09

Flow rate (gpm)

Date

Inst. A Calc. A

Inst. B Calc.B

Inst. C Calc. C

Inst. Combined Calc. Combined 

Figure 4-15. Comparison of Instantaneous Flowrate Readings and 

Calculated Flowrate Values for AD26 Vessels

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

06/01/08 07/31/08 09/29/08 11/28/08 01/27/09 03/28/09 05/27/09 07/26/09

Flow rate (gpm)

Date 

Inst. D

Calc. D

Inst. E

Calc. E

Inst. Combined

Calc. Combined

Figure 4-16. Comparison of Instantaneous Flowrate Readings and 

Calculated Flowrate Values to E33 Vessels
34

5.1 gpm. While these two sets of flowrate data were comparable to each other, the calculated values 

appeared to scatter somewhat more than the instantaneous readings (Figure 4-15). Instantaneous readings 

of each of the two E33 flow meters averaged 7.7 and 8.3 gpm and calculated values averaged 7.4 and 

6.7 gpm. The calculated values were more scattered and, again, resulted in lower combined flowrates 

than the instantaneous readings (i.e., 12.9 gpm vs. 16.0 gpm [for E33 unit] or 16.5 gpm [for AD26 unit]). 

Thus, only instantaneous readings were used for EBCT calculations. 

Based on the flowrates to the individual E33 vessels and the adsorption unit, EBCTs for the individual 

vessels varied from 3.9 to 7.8 min and averaged 5.0 min; EBCTs for the unit varied from 4.1 to 7.3 min

and averaged 5.0 min. This average EBCT is over 61% higher than the vendor-recommended EBCT of 

3.1 min for E33 media.

Pressure loss across each AD26 vessel ranged from 0 to 19 psi and averaged 7 psi. The inlet pressure of 

the AD26 unit ranged from 46 to 68 psi and averaged 54 psi, while the outlet pressure of the AD26 unit

ranged from 36 to 59 psi and averaged 47 psi. The average differential pressure for the AD26 unit was 7

psi. Pressure loss across each E33 vessel ranged from 0 to 12 psi and averaged 4 psi. The inlet pressure 

of the E33 unit ranged from 37 to 59 psi and averaged 47 psi, while the outlet pressure of the E33 unit

ranged from 30 to 59 and averaged 43 psi. The average differential pressure for the E33 unit was 4 psi.

4.4.2 Chlorine Injection. As described in Section 4.2, a 12.5% NaOCl solution was used to 

oxidize As(III) and Fe(II). The chlorine injection system experienced several operational irregularities 

during the performance evaluation study, as reflected by the variation of free and total chlorine residuals 

measured at the entry point to the distribution system (Figure 4-17). During the site visit by Battelle staff 

for system inspections and operator training, chlorine residuals measured in the treated water were higher 

than the upper limit of a chlorine test kit, i.e., 5.5 mg/L (as Cl2). At this time, the NaOCl solution in the 

chlorine feed tank had been diluted 1:1 from the 12.5% NaOCl concentrate and the chlorine pump had 

been set to 70%. To reduce chlorine residuals in the treated water, the chlorine solution in the feed tank 

was further diluted for a 3:1 ratio and the chlorine pump setting was reduced to 40%. The chlorine pump 

setting was further reduced to 30% on June 20, 2008, when the residual chlorine level in the treated water 

was measured at 2.5 mg/L (as Cl2). Although a reduction in free chlorine residuals was seen over time to 

1.8 mg/L (as Cl2) by June 27, 2008, chlorine residuals were still above the target level of 0.2 mg/L (as 

Cl2) required by IDEM. The pump setting was further reduced to 25% on July 21, 2008 and free chlorine 

residuals levels were reduced correspondingly to 0.4 mg/L (as Cl2) by August 13, 2008, to 0.1 mg/L (Cl2) 

by September 14, 2008. 

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

chlorine feed tank. During the performance evaluation study, the average dosage was 4.0 mg/L (as Cl2), 

which was about 67% higher than the target dosage of 2.4 mg/L (as Cl2) as shown in Table 4-6. 

Several steps were taken to rectify the problem of having lower-than-the-target level of total and free 

chlorine residuals in the treated water. These included reducing the total volume of chlorine replenished 

into the chlorine feed tank and disposing of the remaining chlorine solution in the chlorine feed tank 

before refilling. Both of these measures were taken because chlorine is known to decompose over time 

and continually adding fresh chlorine to a decomposed chlorine solution may eventually cause the 

chlorine dosage to the treatment system to be lower than expected. Despite these measures, chlorine 

residual levels in the treated water were below the IDEM-required level at times.

4.4.3 Backwash. AD 26 media backwash times, backwash frequencies, and amounts of backwash 

wastewater produced during the 1-year demonstration study were tabulated and are attached as Appendix 

C. Table 4-10 summarizes key parameters for both AD26 and E33 media. The three AD26 vessels were 

backwashed 105, 105, and 103 times, respectively. Among the backwash events, four were performed
35

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

06/25/08

08/29/08

09/17/0810/16/0812/17/0801/19/09

02/11/0903/06/09

04/15/09

Date

Chlorine Residuals (mg/L as Cl2)

Free chlorine

Total chlorine

IDEM required residual (0.2 mg/L)

07/21/08

11/26/0805/17/09

06/01/09

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

06/25/08

08/29/08

09/17/0810/16/0812/17/0801/19/09

02/11/0903/06/09

04/15/09

Date

Chlorine Residuals (mg/L as Cl2)

Free chlorine

Total chlorine

IDEM required residual (0.2 mg/L)

07/21/08

11/26/0805/17/09

06/01/09

Figure 4-17. Total and Free Chlorine Residuals at Entry Point

manually on each vessel on June 6, 2008 (during Battelle’s site visit for system inspections and operator 

training); July 3 and 4, 2008; and August 20, 2008. Because of the low demand during these summer 

months when the school was not in session, the backwash frequency was set to every 99 days, the 

maximum backwash time. The operator manually initiated backwash when the pressure difference across 

the vessels increased to 7 psi. The backwash frequency was returned to every 72 hr on August 20, 2008,

after the school was back in session. The 105, 105, and 103 backwash counts also included (1) 22, 22, 

and 24 events (denoted by “√” in Table C-1 [Appendix C]) believed to have taken place based on 

circumstantial evidence (since no field data were collected) such as amounts of wastewater produced

during the respective time periods, and (2) 19, 20, and 19 events (shaded in grey in Table C-1) thought to 

have had incomplete backwash cycles due to clogging of bag filters on the discharge line. Backwash 

flowrate on one occasion had been reduced to 0 gpm, compared to the design value of 18.4 gpm. 

Backwash frequencies (or time elapsed between two consecutive backwash events) ranged from 25 to 94 

hr and averaged 70.8 hr for Vessel A, from 31 to 102 hr and averaged 70.3 hr for Vessel B, and from 48 

to 96 hr and averaged 72.1 hr for Vessel C. While the average frequencies were very close to the set 

value of once every 72 hr, actual backwash times varied extensively, deviating significantly from the 

would-be setting of initiating, at midnight, a backwash event with Vessel A followed by backwashing 

Vessels B and C at 1 and 2 a.m., respectively. In particular, Vessel A’s backwash took place mostly 

between 11:00 a.m. through 1:00 p.m. from August 2008 to mid-January 2009 (see Table C-1). Since 

then, adjustments were made to the programmable logic controller (PLC), which changed backwash times 

to mostly between 11:00 p.m. through 3:00 a.m. For Vessel B, backwash took place mostly at midnight 

(24 out 79 recorded events [see Table 4-10]) and between 1:00 a.m. through 4:00 a.m. (48 out of 79 

recorded events). For Vessel C, backwash occurred mostly between 1:00 a.m. through 4:00 a.m. (60 out 

of 74 recorded events). As shown in Table C-1, except for a few occasions (most likely due to recording 

errors), only one vessel was backwashed at a time throughout the entire study period.
36

Table 4-10. Summary of System Backwash Operations

AD26 Unit E33 Unit

Vessel

A

Vessel

B

Vessel

C

Vessel

D

Vessel

E

No. of Backwashes Manual 4 4 4 2 3

Automatic(a,b) 101 101 99 6 4

Time Elapsed Between 

Two Consecutive 

Backwash Events 

Range (hr(c)

or day(d))

25–94 31–102 48–96 30–45 35–55

Average (hr(c)

or day(d))

70.8 70.3 72.1 39.0 43.5

No. of Times 

Backwashing taking 

place at

Hour

11:00 9 0 0 0 0

12:00 12 0 1 1 1

13:00 9 2 0 0 0

Subtotal 30 2 1 1 1

23:00 8 0 0 0 2

00:00 4 24 2 1 1

01:00 10 13 16 0 0

02:00 12 18 13 2 2

03:00 5 11 18 2 1

04:00 0 6 13 0 0

05:00 0 0 4 0 0

Subtotal 39 72 66 5 6

Others 10 5 7 2 0

Subtotal 10 5 7 2 0

Total 79 79 74 8 7

Amount of Wastewater 

Produced (gal)

Total 56,810 NA

Per Vessel per 

backwash 

cycle 

226 NA

(a) Including 22, 22, and 24 backwashes, as denoted by “√” in Table C-1, for Vessels A, B, 

and C, respectively. Although data were lacking, these backwash events most likely had 

taken place based on circumstantial evidence such as amounts of wastewater produced. 

(b) Including 19, 20, and 19 backwashes, as shaded in grey in Table C-1, for Vessels A, B, 

and C, respectively. Although triggered, these backwashes mostly likely failed to 

complete because little or no wastewater was produced during these backwash events.

(c) For AD26 unit.

(d) For E33 unit.

NA = not available

Backwashing the three AD26 vessels produced approximately 56,810 gal of wastewater, based on 

readings of the totalizer installed on the wastewater discharge line between the bag filter assembly and the 

GAC tanks. Excluding the 62 events that produced little or no backwash wastewater, backwashing one 

AD26 vessel would produce 226 gal of wastewater, compared to the 245 gal shown in Table 4-7. 

Throughout the 1-year performance evaluation study, the two E33 vessels were backwashed eight and 

seven times. Although set to backwash every 45 days, Vessel D was backwashed every 30 to 45 days (or 

39 days [on average]) and Vessel E every 35 to 55 days (or 43.5 days [on average]). Backwash was 

initiated mostly between 11:00 p.m. through 3:00 a.m., even though it was set to begin for Vessel D at 

3:00 a.m. and then for Vessel E at 4:00 a.m. Starting from mid-February 2009, the hour counter since the 

last backwash would stall and blink at 600 hr just before the time for automatic backwash. The operator
37

reported that the blinking would stop and the hour counter would reset when the vessel was backwashed

manually. As a result, manual backwash was performed two and three times for Vessels D and E, 

respectively. 

Because the same totalizer on the waste discharge line was used to track wastewater production from both 

AD26 and E33 backwashes, the amounts of wastewater produced by the two E33 vessels might not be 

accurately quantified. Based on the backwash flowrate and backwash duration, backwashing each E33 

vessel would produce only 230 gal of wastewater. As such, about 3,450 gal of wastewater would be 

produced from backwashing the two E33 vessels throughout the performance evaluation study.

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

backwash wastewater, spent bag filters, and spent media. Neither the oxidation/filtration media (AD26)

nor the adsorptive media (E33) were replaced during the study period; therefore, the residuals produced 

were backwash wastewater and spent bag filters. Initially, backwash wastewater was stored in a 1,200-

gal storage tank placed in the treatment building (Figure 4-18) before being transferred weekly to a 

vacuum truck for offsite disposal. On October 2, 2008, the school received the NPDES permit that 

allowed the wastewater to be discharged via a drain line behind the treatment building to Rock Run 

Creek. Spent bag filters were disposed of in the municipal trash.

Figure 4-18. Temporary Storage Tank for Backwash Wastewater

4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. The main operational issues affecting the 

system were (1) maintaining chlorine residual levels above the IDEM-required 0.2 mg/L (as Cl2), (2) a 

short in wiring connected to a motorized ball valve for backwashing Vessel A, and (3) stalling and 
38

blinking of the E33 backwash hour counter just before the time for automatic backwash. The issue 

related to maintaining required chlorine residuals was addressed using the step discussed in Section 4.4.2. 

The wiring issue that prevented Vessel A from being backwashed was repaired on August 13, 2008, and 

the problem appeared to not have occurred again. The issue associated with the blinking hour counter 

was never resolved during the performance evaluation study.

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

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

Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pretreatment included chlorination and AD26 treatment. 

Chlorination oxidized arsenic, iron, and manganese in source water and maintained 0.2 mg/L (as Cl2) of 

free chlorine residuals in treated water for disinfection. AD26 filtered arsenic-laden iron and/or

manganese solids and oxidized any remaining reduced metals, such as Mn(II). Post-treatment was not 

needed for this system. 

System Automation. The AD26/E33 system included automated controls, which interlocked the well 

pump alternating on/off controls. The system also was equipped with an automated chlorine feed system, 

which was set to continually chlorinate raw water. In addition, the system was fitted with automated 

controls to allow for automatic backwash for both AD26 and E33 vessels. 

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

AD26/E33 system were minimal. Operator’s duties were to monitor and refill the chlorine tank; change

the chlorine pump dial, when necessary, to adjust the dosage; change the backwash setting as water usage 

changed during the school year, and initiate manual backwash when necessary. 

All Indiana public water systems (both community and non-transient/non-community) serving more than 

250 people must have a certified operator. Operator certifications are granted by the State of Indiana after 

passing an exam and maintaining a minimum amount of continuing education hours at professional 

training events. The number of continuing education hours required depends on the type of distribution 

and water treatment systems. Operator certifications are classified by the type of systems: for distribution 

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

they are classified from Classes 1 to 6 (WT1 to WT6). A DSS/WT2 certification is required to operator 

the treatment system at Clinton Christian School.

Preventive Maintenance Activities. The only regularly scheduled maintenance activity required for the 

operation of the AD26/E33 system was replacing bag filters on the backwash wastewater discharge line. 

This was done every 3 weeks. Other than that, the operator visited the plant approximately three times a 

week to record flow, volume, and pressure readings and measure chlorine concentrations. 

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

operation was the NaOCl solution used for chlorination. The 75-gal chlorine tank was filled with a 

diluted NaOCl solution using a 3:1 water to 12.5% NaOCl (as Cl2) ratio. This was done by adding 8 gal 

of the chlorine concentrate to 24 gal of water. 

4.5 System Performance

The performance of the AD26/E33 system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected 

from the treatment plant, the media backwash, and distribution system.
39

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-11 summarizes the analytical results of arsenic, iron,

and manganese measured at the four sampling locations across the treatment train. Table 4-12

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

analytical results for the demonstration study. The results of the analysis of the water samples collected 

throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.

Table 4-11. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results

Parameter

Sampling 

Location

Sample 

Count

Concentration (μg/L) Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

As (total)

IN 27 22.2 33.4 28.6 3.0

AC 26(a) 21.9 33.4 28.5 2.8

OT 27 1.2 5.0 3.6 0.9

TT 26(b) <0.1 0.5 -

(f)

As (soluble)

IN 13 21.3 30.1 25.9 3.3

AC 12(a) 5.2 11.3 7.7 2.0

OT 13 1.6 4.2 3.3 0.8

TT 13 <0.1 1.0 -

(f)

As (particulate)

IN 13 0.1 7.2 3.2 2.0

AC 12(a) 13.7 27.1 21.0 3.7

OT 13 <0.1 2.9 0.4 0.8

TT 12(b) <0.1 <0.1 -

(f)

As (III)

IN 12(c) 16.3 25.6 20.2 2.9

AC 12(a) <0.1 0.8 0.4 0.2

OT 13 <0.1 0.8 0.4 0.2

TT 13 <0.1 0.8 -

(f)

As (V)

IN 12(c) 2.8 8.8 5.4 1.9

AC 12(a) 4.8 11.1 7.3 2.0

OT 13 1.3 3.9 2.9 0.8

TT 13 <0.1 0.3 -

(f)

Fe (total)

IN 26(d) 560 863 741 75.0

AC 25(a,d) 559 886 733 73.1

OT 27 <25 61.1 <25 <25

TT 26(b) <25 <25 <25 0.0

Fe (soluble)

IN 11(d,e) 213 887 654 181

AC 12(a) <25 156 42.8 51.4

OT 13 <25 35.5 <25 <25

TT 13 <25 <25 <25 0.0

Mn (total)

IN 27 58.3 97.5 81.5 8.9

AC 26(a) 54.2 89.9 79.5 8.6

OT 27 <0.1 14.4 1.1 2.7

TT 27 <0.1 1.0 <0.1 0.2

Mn (soluble)

IN 13 57.5 107 82.5 11.7

AC 11(a,e) 17.5 55.0 38.7 14.4

OT 13 <0.1 1.6 0.4 0.4

TT 13 <0.1 0.9 0.1 0.2

(a) AC sample tap installed after first sampling event on 06/06/08.

(b) Outliers for 06/06/08 on total As (4.9 μg/L), particulate As (4.2μg/L), and total Fe (207 μg/L) at 

TT removed.

(c) Outliers for 10/09/08 on As(III) (8.2 μg/L) and As(V) (20.7 μg/L) at IN removed.

(d) Outliers for 03/31/09 on total Fe (<25 μg/L) and soluble Fe (<25 μg/L) at IN and total Fe (<25 

μg/L) at AC removed.

(e) Outliers for 08/20/08 on soluble Fe (260 μg/L) at IN and soluble Mn (2.8 μg/L) at AC removed.

(f) Statistics not provided; see arsenic breakthrough curves.
40

Table 4-12. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results

Parameter

Sampling 

Location Unit

Sample 

Count(a)

Concentration Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

Alkalinity 

(as CaCO3)

IN mg/L 26 261 301 277 10.1

AC mg/L 25 256 295 277 10.5

OT mg/L 26 263 293 276 8.6

TT mg/L 26 265 296 276 7.9

Ammonia 

(as N)

IN mg/L 26 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0

AC mg/L 25 <0.05 0.1 0.1 0.0

OT mg/L 26 <0.05 0.09 <0.05 <0.05

TT mg/L 26 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 <0.05

Fluoride

IN mg/L 12 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1

AC mg/L 11 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0

OT mg/L 12 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.2

TT mg/L 12 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1

Sulfate

IN mg/L 12 1.9 2.1 2.0 0.1

AC mg/L 11 1.8 2.8 2.1 0.3

OT mg/L 12 1.9 4.5 2.3 0.7

TT mg/L 12 2.0 2.3 2.0 0.1

Nitrate 

(as N)

IN mg/L 12 <0.05 0.2 0.1 0.1

AC mg/L 11 <0.05 0.2 0.05 0.06

OT mg/L 12 <0.05 0.2 0.1 0.1

TT mg/L 12 <0.05 0.4 0.1 0.1

Phosphorus 

(as P)

IN μg/L 27 <10 33.2 11.1 <10

AC μg/L 26 <10 36.3 11.4 <10

OT μg/L 27 <10 17.2 <10 <10

TT μg/L 26 <10 13.5 <10 <10

Silica 

(as SiO2)

IN mg/L 26 18.1 23.3 20.1 1.1

AC mg/L 25 18.1 23.2 20.2 1.2

OT mg/L 26 18.0 22.8 19.9 1.0

TT mg/L 26 16.3 23.8 19.4 1.6

Turbidity

IN NTU 26 4.6 10.0 8.3 1.1

AC NTU 25 0.4 1.1 0.7 0.2

OT NTU 26 <0.1 0.9 0.2 0.3

TT NTU 26 <0.1 0.8 0.2 0.2

pH

IN S.U. 9 7.0 7.6 7.3 0.2

AC S.U. 8 7.2 7.5 7.4 0.1

OT S.U. 9 7.1 7.5 7.3 0.1

TT S.U. 9 7.0 7.4 7.3 0.1

Temperature

IN °C 8 9.1 17.5 12.6 3.3

AC °C 7 9.7 17.8 12.7 3.6

OT °C 8 10.6 18.0 13.6 2.9

TT °C 8 10.7 17.8 14.4 2.8

Dissolved 

Oxygen

(DO)

IN mg/L 3(b) 0.9 3.1 2.4 1.3

AC mg/L 2(b) 2.4 2.4 2.4 0.0

OT mg/L 3(b) 2.3 2.4 2.4 0.1

TT mg/L 3(b) 1.5 1.6 1.5 0.1
41

Table 4-12. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)

Parameter

Sampling 

Location Unit

Sample 

Count

Concentration Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

ORP

IN mV 9 41.5 509 324 153

AC mV 8 345 886 561 181

OT mV 9 354 871 553 171

TT mV 9 365 763 538 146

Free Chlorine 

(as Cl2)

AC mg/L 88 0.2 3.6 0.9 0.6

OT mg/L 87 0.1 1.4 0.3 0.2

TT mg/L 87 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.1

Total Chlorine 

(as Cl2)

AC mg/L 88 0.3 5.1 1.4 0.8

OT mg/L 88 0.1 1.9 0.5 0.3

TT mg/L 87 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.2

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3)

IN mg/L 12 190 335 263 34.8

AC mg/L 11 190 335 263 34.5

OT mg/L 12 193 336 270 35.0

TT mg/L 12 190 321 271 32.2

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3)

IN mg/L 12 134 204 164 18.7

AC mg/L 11 136 194 163 16.4

OT mg/L 12 139 207 169 18.8

TT mg/L 12 131 205 169 19.7

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3)

IN mg/L 12 56.4 186 98.9 29.8

AC mg/L 11 53.3 186 98.9 31.8

OT mg/L 12 54.3 194 101 32.3

TT mg/L 12 52.9 183 102 29.5

(a) AC sample tap installed after first sampling event.

(b) Outliers for 01/08/09 on DO at IN (28.2 mg/L), AC (26.7 mg/L), OT (13.6 mg/L), and TT (14.4 mg/L) 

removed.

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

concentration of arsenic in treated water. Water samples were collected on 27 occasions, including three 

duplicates, with field speciation performed during 13 occasions at IN, AC, OT, and TT sampling 

locations. Three of the 13 speciation sampling events took place after June 19, 2009, when logging of 

operation data officially ended. The AC sample tap was installed after the first sampling event so there 

were only 26 sampling events at the AC location.

Figure 4-19 contains four bar charts showing concentrations of total arsenic, particulate arsenic, As(III), 

and As(V) at the IN, AC, OT, and TT locations for each of the 13 speciation events. Total arsenic 

concentrations in raw water ranged from 22.2 to 33.4 μg/L and averaged 28.6 μg/L (Table 4-11). Of the 

soluble fraction, As(III) was the predominating species, with concentrations ranging from 16.3 to 25.6 

μg/L and averaging 20.2 μg/L. Particulate arsenic concentrations were low, averaging 3.2 μg/L. The 

presence of As(III) as the predominating arsenic species was consistent with the low DO concentrations, 

averaging 2.4 mg/L (Table 4-12) measured during the performance evaluation study. (Note that only four 

sets of DO readings were taken during the entire study period, including one showing unrealistically high 

concentrations across the treatment train [i.e., from 13.6 to 28.2 mg/L on March 4, 2009]). These 

obviously were the results of erroneous measurements. In fact, the operator had had difficulties in using 

the VWR Symphony SP90M5 handheld meter with the original and several replacement probes. As a 

result, the measurements had to be discontinued about halfway through the study. The ORP readings, 

however, were high, averaging 324 mV in raw water. The higher than expected ORP readings might have 

been caused by aeration of water during sampling or instrumental errors.
42

Arsenic Speciation at Wellhead (IN)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

06/06/0808/20/0810/09/0811/19/0801/08/0902/04/0903/04/0903/31/0904/29/0906/04/0907/01/0907/28/0909/15/09

Date

As Concentration (ug/L)

As (V)

As (III)

As (particulate)

Arsenic Speciation after Chlorination (AC)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

06/06/0808/20/0810/09/0811/19/0801/08/0902/04/0903/04/0903/31/0904/29/0906/04/0907/01/0907/28/0909/15/09

Date

As Concentration (ug/L)

As (V)

As (III)

As (particulate)

Figure 4-19. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AC, OT and 

TT Sampling Locations
43

Arsenic Speciation after Oxidation/Filtration (OT)

0

10

20

30

40

06/06/0808/20/0810/09/0811/19/0801/08/0902/04/09

03/04/09

03/31/0904/29/0906/04/09

07/01/0907/28/09

09/15/09

Date

As Concentration (ug/L)

As (V)

As (III)

Arsenic (particulate)

Arsenic Speciation after Adsorption (TT)

0

10

20

30

40

06/06/0808/20/08

10/09/0811/19/0801/08/09

02/04/09

03/04/0903/31/0904/29/09

06/04/09

07/01/0907/28/09

09/15/09

Date

As Concentration (ug/L)

As (V)

As (III)

Arsenic (particulate)

Figure 4-19. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AC, OT and 

TT Sampling Locations (Continued)
44

Chlorination oxidized As(III) to As(V), which, in turn, was adsorbed onto and/or co-precipitated with iron 

solids also formed upon chlorination. This was evidenced by a decrease in soluble arsenic concentration 

from 25.9 μg/L (on average) in raw water to 7.7 μg/L at the AC location and a corresponding increase in 

particulate arsenic concentration from 3.2 to 21.0 μg/L. The majority of particulate arsenic was filtered 

out by the AD26 oxidation/filtration media, leaving only 1.2 to 5.0 μg/L of total arsenic, existing mainly 

as soluble As(V), to be further removed by E33 adsorptive media. By the end of the performance 

evaluation study, total arsenic concentrations in treated water after the E33 adsorption vessels were 

reduced to less than 0.5 μg/L. Figure 4-20 presents arsenic breakthrough curves from the AD26 

oxidation/filtration and E33 adsorption units. 

Total arsenic Breakthrough Curves for E33 Adsorption Systems

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Bed Volume (103)

As Concentration (ug/L)

After Chlorination (AC)

After Oxidation Filtration (OT)

After Adsorption Vessels (TT)

As MCL = 10

Figure 4-20. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves from AD26 and E33 Vessels

Free and total chlorine were monitored at the AC, OT, and TT sampling locations to ensure that the target

level of free chlorine residuals (0.2 mg/L [as Cl2]) was properly maintained. As shown in Table 4-12, 

free chlorine levels at the AC location ranged from 0.2 to 3.6 mg/L (as Cl2) and averaged 0.9 mg/L (as 

Cl2); total chlorine levels ranged from 0.3 to 5.1 mg/L (as Cl2) and averaged 1.4 mg/L (as Cl2). Chlorine

residual levels measured at the OT and TT locations were noticeably lower than those at the AC location

(i.e., 0.9 vs. 0.3 and 0.1 mg/L [as Cl2], respectively, for free chlorine and 1.4 vs. 0.5 and 0.2 mg/L [as 

Cl2], respectively, for total chlorine), indicating some chlorine demands through the AD26 and E33 

vessels. Free chlorine residual levels in the system effluent often were lower than the 0.2 mg/L required 

by IDEM. Repeated attempts were made to increase the levels of free and total chlorine in the treated 

water.

After chlorination, DO concentrations remained essentially unchanged; however, ORP readings increased 

significantly to 561, 553, and 538 mV, on average, at the AC, OT, and TT locations, respectively, despite 

the fact that the residual levels were low.
45

Iron. Total iron concentrations at the wellhead ranged from 560 to 863 μg/L and averaged 741 μg/L, 

existing almost entirely as soluble iron. Following chlorination, soluble iron was precipitated to become 

iron solids, with its concentration remained essentially unchanged at 733 μg/L (on average). Arsenicladen iron solids were removed by the AD26 media to the MDL of 25 μg/L. The data indicated that 

chlorine effectively oxidized soluble iron to form iron solids, which were then effectively filtered by the 

AD26 oxidation/filtration media. The backwash frequency of once every 3 days appeared to be adequate 

without having any iron leakage between backwash cycles. 

Manganese. Total manganese levels in source water ranged from 58.3 to 97.5 μg/L and averaged 81.5

μg/L, which existed almost entirely in the soluble form. After chlorination, over 53% (on average) of 

soluble manganese was precipitated to form, presumably, MnO2 solids, which, along with the unoxidized 

Mn2+, were removed by the AD26 media to 1.1 μg/L (on average). Total manganese concentrations were 

further reduced to <0.1 μg/L after the E33 adsorptive media. 

Other Water Quality Parameters. Raw water pH values measured at the IN location varied from 7.0 to 

7.6. This near neutral pH is desirable for arsenic adsorption onto iron solids. The pH values remained 

essentially unchanged after the AD26 and E33 vessels. Alkalinity values ranged from 256 to 301 mg/L

(as CaCO3) across the treatment train. The results indicate that the adsorptive media did not affect the 

amount of alkalinity in water after treatment. The treatment plant samples were analyzed for hardness 

only when arsenic speciation was performed except during the last sampling event when the number of 

parameters analyzed was reduced. Concentrations of total hardness, existing primarily as calcium 

hardness (about 64%), ranged from 190 to 336 mg/L (as CaCO3), and remained essentially unchanged

throughout the treatment train. Sulfate levels were low ranging from 1.8 to 4.5 mg/L and remained 

constant throughout the treatment train. Silica (as SiO2) concentrations ranged from 16.3 to 23.8 mg/L

and appeared unaffected by the chlorine injection and the AD26 and E33 media. Fluoride results ranged 

from 0.2 to 0.8 mg/L and did not appear to be affected by the E33 media. Total phosphorous levels 

ranged from <10 to 36.3 μg/L and were below the MDL of 10 μg/L (as PO4) during most sampling 

events. Ammonia concentrations ranged from <0.05 to 0.2 mg/L (as N) and averaged 0.1 mg/L (as N), 

which would react with 0.76 mg/L of chlorine to reach breakpoint chlorination. Following chlorination, 

ammonia levels were reduced to below or near the MDL of 0.05 mg/L (as N). 

4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling. Table 4-13 presents the analytical results of backwash 

wastewater sampling. Backwash wastewater samples were collected 10 times from each of the three 

AD26 oxidation/filtration vessels. pH values of backwash wastewater ranged from 7.4 to 7.9 and 

averaged 7.6, which was 0.3 pH units higher than that of E33-treated water. TDS concentrations ranged 

from 192 to 282 mg/L and averaged 258 mg/L. TSS concentrations ranged from <4 to 28 mg/L and 

averaged 10 mg/L. The low TSS values measured during backwash of each oxidation/filtration vessel 

were probably caused by insufficient mixing of solids/water mixtures in the collection container.

As expected, the majority of the total arsenic, iron, and manganese in the backwash wastewater were in 

the particulate form. Assuming that 10 mg/L of TSS was produced in 56,810 gal of wastewater (Table 4-

10), 4.7 lb of solids would be discharged in one year. The solids discharged would be composed of 

0.039, 1.5, and 0.21 lb of arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively, assuming 82 μg/L of particulate 

arsenic, 3,133 μg/L of particulate iron, and 440 μg/L of particulate manganese in the backwash 

wastewater. 

Table 4-14 presents the results of total metals analysis for one set of backwash solid samples collected on 

January 12, 2009, and analyzed in duplicate. Iron levels in the solids ranged from 88,199 to 171,489 μg/g 

and averaged 128,592 μg/g; arsenic levels ranged from 1,010 to 4,452 μg/g and averaged 2,703 μg/g. 

This yields an Fe:As ratio of 48:1, which is 60% higher than the 30:1 ratio when considering the amounts 

of iron and arsenic removed by the AD26 vessels (see Table 4-11).
46

Table 4-13. Oxidation/Filtration Vessels Backwash Sampling Results

Sampling 

Event

pHTDSTSSAs (total)As (soluble)As (particulate)Fe (total)Fe (soluble)Mn (total)Mn (soluble)

Date S.U. mg/L mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L

Oxidation/Filtration Vessel A

10/02/08 7.7 250 10 85.6 6.5 79.2 2,197 <25 346 3.1

12/18/08 7.6 280 28 236 10.4 226 8,706 89 855 6.9

01/22/09 7.5 240 <4 46.7 6.2 40.5 1,296 <25 388 7.1

02/18/09 7.4 270 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

03/18/09 7.5 238 7 111 9.4 101 2,914 124 309 7.8

04/15/09 7.7 268 20 202 14.6 187 7,960 359 542 23.8

05/14/09 7.6 258 6 84.9 6.5 78.4 3,472 43 498 5.7

06/10/09 7.6 270 6 34.9 6.4 28.5 1,259 <25 364 4.8

07/28/09 7.6 258 7 9.0 2.5 6.4 1,706 <25 431 5.1

09/15/09 7.6 264 8 119 12.6 106 4,302 174 329 13.7

Oxidation/Filtration Vessel B

10/02/08 7.7 256 8 69.9 6.4 63.5 1,951 <25 395 3.4

12/18/08 7.5 278 14 112 8.2 104 3,026 42 486 4.5

01/22/09 7.6 254 4 96.9 6.7 90.2 2,386 38.9 500 6.5

02/18/09 7.5 244 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

03/18/09 7.5 252 5 98.5 10.8 87.8 2,706 202 326 13.5

04/15/09 7.6 276 15 93.7 6.9 86.7 3,834 72 387 7.9

05/14/09 7.6 192 9 83.9 6.7 77.2 3,334 48 421 5.9

06/10/09 7.6 258 5 36.7 5.6 31.2 1,408 <25 447 4.1

07/28/09 7.6 272 <4 2.8 2.6 0.2 1,356 <25 426 4.1

09/15/09 7.6 256 11 129 9.7 119 4,573 91 307 9.1

Oxidation/Filtration Vessel C

10/02/08 7.7 254 8 53.9 6.2 47.7 1,599 <25 383 3.6

12/18/08 7.9 282 10 53.8 5.4 48.4 1,726 <25 559 3.3

01/22/09 7.9 260 20 224 8.5 215 6,567 124 728 11.1

02/18/09 7.5 266 22 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

03/18/09 7.5 248 5 79.6 8.5 71.0 2,159 98.5 302 6.3

04/15/09 7.6 270 5 122 9.1 113 5,100 183 557 18.8

05/14/09 7.6 266 11 94.9 9.0 85.9 3,706 150 451 12.4

06/10/09 7.6 244 5 34.5 5.3 29.2 1,296 <25 501 4.3

07/28/09 7.6 256 4 11.0 1.3 9.7 1,740 825 548 92.4

09/15/09 7.5 258 13 158 21.3 137 5,570 480 378 31.5

NA = not analyzed

TDS = total dissolved solids

TSS = total suspended solids

When using the metals results presented in Table 4-14, the amounts of arsenic, iron, and manganese 

discharged could be estimated to be 0.013, 0.60, and 0.19 lb, respectively (compared to 0.039, 1.5, and 

0.21 lb, respectively), assuming 10 mg/L of TSS in 56,810 gal of wastewater. 

No backwash wastewater or solids sample was collected from sampling of the E33 tanks.
47

Table 4-14. Oxidation/Filtration Vessels Backwash Solid Sample Total Metal Results

Sample Unit Mg Al Si P Ca Fe(a) Mn Ni Cu Zn As(a) Cd Ba Pb

μg As/

mg Fe

Vessel AD26-

A-Solids-A μg/g 28,371 4,524 28,664 7,067 149,572 162,312 39,255 88.4 198 381 4,307 5.1 1,581 51.6 26.5

Vessel AD26-

A-Solids-B μg/g 29,932 4,734 31,001 7,490 154,400 171,489 41,145 90.3 211 384 4,452 4.8 1,639 48.4 25.9

Vessel AD26-

A-Average μg/g 29,151 4,629 29,832 7,278 151,986 166,900 40,200 89 205 382 4,379 5 1,610 50 26.2

Vessel AD26-

B-Solids-A μg/g 45,207 5,850 33,136 7,336 173,168 137,990 33,567 104 194 335 2,800 1.2 1,741 49.2 20.3

Vessel AD26-

B-Solids-B μg/g 41,718 5,411 28,601 6,694 175,294 123,185 34,026 102 180 317 2,576 1.2 1,547 46.1 20.9

Vessel AD26-

B-Average μg/g 43,462 5,631 30,869 7,015 174,231 130,587 33,797 103 187 326 2,688 1 1,644 48 20.6

Vessel AD26-

C-Solids-A μg/g 45,927 6,991 21,417 6,572 168,062 88,199 47,890 119 195 334 1,074 1.4 1,458 47.3 12.2

Vessel AD26-

C-Solids-B μg/g 43,750 7,490 25,800 6,454 176,042 88,382 42,270 118 191 338 1,010 1.3 1,514 55.8 11.4

Vessel AD26-

C-Average μg/g 44,838 7,241 23,608 6,513 172,052 88,290 45,080 119 193 336 1,042 1 1,486 52 11.8

Analyzed On 1/12/09.

(a) It is not clear why arsenic and iron concentrations became progressively lower from Vessels A to C. 
48

4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment 

system, four first draw baseline distribution system water samples were collected from the bathroom sink

tap on February 7, 13, 21, and 23, 2008. Following the installation of the treatment system, distribution 

water sampling continued on a monthly basis except for July and August 2008, February 2009 and 

August 2009. Table 4-15 presents the results of the distribution system sampling. 

Table 4-15. Distribution System Sampling Results

Sampling 

Event

Stagnation TimepHAlkalinityAsFeMnPbCu

No. Date hr S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L

BL1 02/07/08 NA 7.6 273 20.0 323 85.6 0.5 5.5

BL2 02/13/08 7.5 7.5 273 24.1 384 88.5 0.8 2.4

BL3 02/21/08 NA 7.5 271 7.9 <25 82.3 0.2 24.5

BL4 02/23/08 NA 7.5 271 18.4 <25 84.9 0.6 43.0

1 06/18/08 48.0 7.5 277 5.9 134 2.5 10.3 304

2 09/14/08 NA 7.7 270 7.9 30 0.7 <0.1 43.0

3 10/30/08 9.0 7.5 269 0.1 <25 <0.1 <0.1 0.2

4 11/12/08 12.0 7.8 267 0.2 <25 <0.1 0.2 0.7

5 12/18/08 13.0 8.2 270 0.2 <25 <0.1 0.2 0.6

6 01/22/09 NA 7.4 278 0.6 <25 <0.1 1.4 27.0

7 03/19/09 NA 7.3 271 <0.1 <25 <0.1 <0.1 0.4

8 04/15/09 NA 7.6 267 2.4 <25 <0.1 <0.1 3.6

9 05/14/09 NA 7.8 298 0.4 <25 <0.1 <0.1 0.3

10 06/10/09 NA 7.5 280 4.9 66 4.9 <0.1 231

11 07/28/09 NA 7.5 272 1.3 <25 <0.1 <0.1 0.2

12 09/15/09 NA 7.5 267 9.2 68 6.8 6.7 7.1

BL = baseline sampling; NA = not available

Lead action level = 15 μg/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L

The unit for analytical parameters is μg/L except for alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3).

The most noticeable change in the distribution samples since system startup was a decrease in arsenic, 

iron, and manganese concentrations. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged from 7.9 to 24.1 μg/L and 

averaged 17.6 μg/L. After system startup, arsenic concentrations were reduced to less than 0.1 to 9.2 

μg/L (averaged 2.8 μg/L). The baseline iron concentrations ranged from less than the MDL of 25 μg/L to 

384 μg/L, and averaged 183 μg/L. After system startup, iron concentrations decreased to less than the 

MDL of 25 μg/L in all samples except for four at 134, 30, 66 and 68 μg/L. Manganese had a similar 

trend with baseline concentrations averaging 85.3 μg/L and after-startup concentrations at <0.1 μg/L

except for four samples at 2.5, 0.7, 4.9 and 6.8 μg/L on the same dates when the exceptions for iron 

concentration were observed.

Lead concentrations of all water samples collected before and after the installation of the treatment 

system were less than 1 μg/L, except for three instances at 10.3, 1.4, and 6.7 μg/L. All of the lead values 

were, therefore, below the action level of 15 μg/L. Copper concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 304 μg/L

across all sampling locations, with no samples exceeding the 1,300 μg/L action level both before and after 

system startup. The arsenic treatment system did not have an effect on the lead or copper concentration in 

the distribution system. 
49

Measured pH values ranged from 7.3 to 8.2 and averaged 7.6. Alkalinity levels ranged from 267 to 

298 mg/L (as CaCO3). The arsenic treatment system did not affect these water quality parameters of the 

distributed water.

4.6 System Cost

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

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

the equipment, site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, 

chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor. 

4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation for the 

25-gpm treatment system was $55,423 (Table 4-16). The equipment cost was $31,735 (or 57.3% of the 

total capital investment). The breakdowns for the 25-gpm system provided by the vendor included 

$14,251 for the AD26 system, $15,811 for the E33 system, and $1,673 for freight. The cost for each 

AD26 and E33 vessel was $2,325 and $4,497.50, respectively. The unit cost for AD26 and E33 media 

was $218 and $265/ft3

, respectively. A prechlorination module and one year of O&M support were

$1,978 and $1,320, respectively. 

The site engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of a process flow diagram and relevant 

mechanical drawings of the treatment system, piping, valves, and a backwash discharge line, as well as 

submission of a permit application package to IDEM for approval. The site engineering cost was

$11,278, or 20.3% of the total capital investment. Most of the site engineering cost (i.e., $8,425) went to 

LJB, Inc., a subcontractor to AdEdge, for labor and travel. 

The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the units, perform piping tieins and electrical work, and load and backwash the media. The installation was performed by AdEdge 

and Hawkins Water, a local contractor subcontracted by AdEdge. The installation cost was $12,410, or 

22.4% of the total capital investment.

The capital cost of $55,423 was normalized to the system’s rated capacity of 25 gpm (or 36,000 gpd), 

which results in $2,216/gpm (or $1.54/gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted to an 

annualized cost of $5,231/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate 

and a 20-yr return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at the design flowrate 

of 25 gpm to produce 36,000 gal/day, the unit capital cost would be $0.39/1,000 gal. During the year 

long demonstration, the system produced approximately 517,000 gal of water (see Table 4-9); at this 

reduced rate of usage, the unit capital cost increased to $10.12/1,000 gal.

4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost includes media replacement and 

disposal, chemical supply, electricity, and labor, as summarized in Table 4-17. Although media 

replacement did not occur during the demonstration study, the media replacement cost would represent 

the majority of the O&M cost. The vendor estimated that the AD26 media would have a life expectancy 

of 8.7 yr. It was estimated that it would cost $2,593 to replace 6.9 ft3 of AD26 media in three vessels. At 

the current water use rate (i.e., 517,000 gal for one year), the system would treat 4,500,000 gal of water in 

a 8.7-yr period. Therefore, the AD26 media replacement cost would be equivalent to $0.58/1,000 gal of 

water treated. 

It also was estimated that it would cost $3,951 to change out 10.5 ft3 of E33 media; that estimate included 

the cost for media, freight, labor, travel expenses, and media disposal fee. This cost was used to estimate 

the media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water treated as a function of the projected media run length 

to the 10-μg/L arsenic breakthrough (Figure 4-21). 
50

Table 4-16. Capital Investment Cost for AdEdge Treatment System

Description Quantity Cost

% of 

Capital 

Investment 

Cost

Equipment Costs

Three 13-in Diameter AD26 Fiberglass Vessels 1 $6,975 –

AD26 Media (ft3) 6.9 $1,508 –

Process Valves and Piping 1 $250 –

Instrumentation and Controls 1 $990 –

Totalizer for Backwash Line 1 $430 –

O&M Manuals 3 $800 –

1-year O&M Support 1 $1,320 –

Pre chlorination Module 1 $1,978 

Subtotal $14,251 –

Two 18-in Diameter E33 Fiberglass Vessels 1 $8,995 –

E33 Media (ft3) 10.5 $2,738 –

Process Valves and Piping 1 $250 –

Instrumentation and Controls 1 $900 –

Additional Sample Taps 2 $210 –

Additional storage (bladder tanks) 3 $2,718 

Subtotal $15,811 –

Shipping $1,673 

Subtotal $1,673 

Equipment Total – $31,735 57.3%

Engineering Cost

Vendor Labor - $2,853 –

Subcontractor Labor – $7,475 –

Subcontractor Travel $950 –

Engineering Total – $11,278 20.3%

Installation Cost

Vendor Labor – $720 –

Vendor Travel – $120 –

Subcontractor Material – $5,300 –

Subcontractor Labor – $6,270 –

Installation Total – $12,410 22.4%

Total Capital Investment – $55,423 100%

A 12.5% NaOCl solution was used for chlorination. The cost associated with chlorination was 

approximately $169 during this demonstration study, which translated into a chemical cost of $0.33/1,000

gal of water treated. 

Comparison of electrical bills provided by the school prior to system installation and since startup did not 

indicate any noticeable increase in power consumption by the treatment system. Therefore, electrical cost 

associated with operation of the AD26/E33 system was assumed to be negligible. Under normal 

operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed 20 min per

day, which translates into 1.6 hr/wk. Therefore, the estimated labor cost would be $2.57/1,000 gal of 

water treated.
51

Table 4-17. Operation and Maintenance Cost for AdEdge Treatment System

Cost Category Value Assumptions

Volume Processed (gal) 517,000 Through June 19, 2009

Media Replacement and Disposal

AD26 Media Cost ($) $1,380 Vendor quote

AD26 Media Volume (ft3) 6.9 To fill three 13-in diameter vessels

Subcontractor Labor Cost ($) $540 Vendor quote

Freight ($) $303 Vendor quote

Waste Disposal ($) $255 Vendor quote

Waste Analysis ($) $115 Vendor quote

Subtotal ($) $2,593

AD26 Media Replacement and Disposal 

cost ($/1,000 gal) $0.58

Assume 8.7-year media life

treating 4,500,000 gal of water

AD33 Media Cost ($) $2,738 Vendor quote

AD33 Media Volume (ft3) 10.5 To fill two 18-in diameter vessels

Subcontractor Labor Cost ($) $540 Vendor quote

Freight ($) $303 Vendor quote

Waste Disposal ($) $255 Vendor quote

Waste Analysis ($) $115 One TCLP test

Subtotal ($) $3,951

AD-33 Media Replacement and Disposal 

cost ($/1,000 gal)

See Figure 

4-22

Chemical Usage

Chemical Cost ($/1,000) $0.33 Approximately $169 for one year

Electricity

Electricity Cost ($/1,000 gal) Negligible

Electrical costs assumed 

negligible

Labor

Average Weekly (5 day) Labor (hr) 1.6 20 min/day

Labor cost ($/1,000 gal) $2.57 Labor rate = $16/hr

Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal

See Figure 

4-21

Total O&M cost = $0.58 + E33 

adsorptive media replacement cost 

+ $0.33 + $2.57
52

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Media Working Capacity (x1,000 BV)

Cost ($/1,000 gal)

E33 Media Replacement Cost

O&M cost

Figure 4-21. Media Replacement Cost Curves for Clinton Christian School System
53

5.0 REFERENCES

Battelle. 2007. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology (QAPP 

ID 355-Q-6-0). Prepared under Contract No.EP-C-05-057. Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. EPA 

NRMRL. August 15.

Battelle. 2008. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic 

Removal Technology Round 2a at Clinton Christian School in Goshen, Indiana. Prepared under 

Contract No. EP-C-05-057, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal 

Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. 

EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998. 

“Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation.” J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.

EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance

and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.

EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems. 

EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. 

Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141. 

LJB Inc. 2007. Water Treatment System Improvements. Clinton Christian School PWS ID# 2200025.

Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA 

Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, 

OH.
APPENDIX A

OPERATIONAL DATA
A-1

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goshen, IN- Daily System Operation Log Sheet

Week 

No. Date

Well Pumps AD26 E33 AD 26 E33

Operating 

time(a)

Cumulative

hours

Combined 

Instantaneous

Flowrate(b)

Combined 

Calculated 

Flowrate

Combined 

Instantaneous

Flowrate(b)

Combined 

Calculated 

Flowrate

Backwash 

Totalizer

Readings

Inlet 

Pressure

Outlet 

Pressure

Outlet 

Pressure

(hr) (hr) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gal) (psi) psi psi

1

06/06/08 NA NA 17.33 NA 16.67 NA NA 53 48 43.0

06/06/08 NA NA 15.85 NA 16.46 NA 6,299 68 53 46.0

2

06/11/08 NA NA 17.01 NA 16.55 NA NA 60 44 40

06/13/08 NA NA 12.34 NA 13.05 NA 6,985 60 55 54

4

06/25/08 NA NA 16.37 NA 16.17 NA 7,210 48 40 36

06/27/08 NA NA 16.95 NA 16.17 NA 7,211 50 42 38

5

06/30/08 NA NA 14.82 NA 14.60 NA 7,211 52 41 38

07/02/08 NA NA 17.20 NA 17.51 NA 7,211 52 40 36

07/05/08 NA NA 15.29 NA 14.53 NA NA 50 49 46

6

07/07/08 NA NA 17.29 NA 14.53 NA NA 50 49 46

07/09/08 NA NA 14.78 NA 15.00 NA 9,214 50 43 40

07/11/08 NA NA 16.90 NA 17.02 NA NA 50 42 38

7 07/16/08 14.8 14.8 16.97 NA 16.82 NA NA 52 41 38

8 07/22/08 5.7 20.5 16.24 14.01 16.58 13.58 9,409 52 44 40

9 07/29/08 39.9 60.4 15.04 12.41 14.49 12.45 9,409 52 40 38

10

08/05/08 3.1 63.5 9.01 12.16 12.48 13.00 9,409 58 47 44

08/07/08 1.2 64.7 8.69 10.08 13.25 12 9,410 60 43 38

11

08/12/08 2 66.8 10.94 9.3 16.40 13.55 9,410 52 42 37

08/13/08 1.0 67.8 NA NA 14.50 10.77 9,430 63 NA NA

12

08/18/08 2.7 70.5 14.02 NA 15.12 14.13 9,430 54 38 35

08/20/08 2.4 72.9 15.21 12.51 14.61 13.40 NA 55 47 44

13

08/25/08 6.7 79.6 15.22 14.14 14.63 12.67 10,320 52 47 42

08/29/08 9.5 89.1 14.26 14.46 13.77 13.34 11,340 55 48 45

14

09/01/08 2.3 91.4 14.18 15.53 14.19 14.65 11,418 56 53 50

09/02/08 1.7 93.1 14.88 15.01 13.54 13.43 11,564 52 46 42

9/3/2008 1.5 94.6 16.26 14.91 16.59 13.56 11,700 52 46 43

09/06/08 8.8 103.4 13.12 14.25 12.64 13.84 11,949 56 50 47
Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goshen, IN- Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

A-2

Week 

No. Date

Well Pumps AD26 E33 AD 26 E33

Operating 

time(a)

Cumulative

hours

Combined 

Instantaneous

Flowrate(b)

Combined 

Calculated 

Flowrate

Combined 

Instantaneous

Flowrate(b)

Combined 

Calculated 

Flowrate

Backwash 

Totalizer

Readings

Inlet 

Pressure

Outlet 

Pressure

Outlet 

Pressure

(hr) (hr) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gal) (psi) psi psi

15

09/08/08 3.8 107.2 16.32 14.22 14.51 14.14 11,968 56 47 40

09/09/08 0.3 107.5 13.41 18.72 6.36 18.67 11,970 51 45 41

09/10/08 4.7 112.2 18.81 13.96 18.77 14.01 11,981 54 44 38

09/11/08 1.2 113.4 18.85 15.24 19.06 15.08 11,981 51 43 38

09/13/08 6.1 119.5 16.71 14.14 16.31 14.29 11,994 47 40 36

16

09/14/08 0.4 119.9 18.63 17.12 18.98 17.21 11,994 52 45 43

09/17/08 5.6 125.5 18.03 13.95 17.75 14.09 11,997 54 40 32

09/19/08 2.2 127.7 20.16 16.11 19.28 12.45 12,733 58 59 59

17 09/23/08 12.9 140.6 14.34 14.60 13.16 13.26 13,667 54 47 44

18

09/29/08 6.2 146.8 17.25 15.41 18.52 6.87 14,932 48 39 32

09/30/08 1.5 148.3 17.26 15.41 17.14 37.66 14,932 47 42 38

10/02/08 2.5 150.8 13.32 15.07 13.14 11.49 14,932 54 50 46

19

10/08/08 6.3 157.1 18.88 16.10 19.46 11.90 17,164 46 39 30

10/12/08 2.2 159.3 15.36 15.70 14.80 11.95 17,670 50 48 42

20

10/14/08 1.6 164.2 11.66 16.07 12.55 13.83 18,627 62 59 58

10/16/08 3.7 167.9 14.59 14.96 15.05 12.91 18,627 56 52 48

23

11/05/08 47.5 215.4 15.31 14.65 15.75 13.26 23,257 56 49 46

11/06/08 2.1 217.5 14.68 14.27 14.47 13.88 23,257 56 49 45

24

11/11/08 11.0 228.5 18.23 14.71 17.96 14.41 23,477 55 46 39

11/12/08 2.9 231.4 13.10 13.84 12.22 13.63 23,477 56 50 47

11/13/08 6.6 238.0 14.08 13.95 14.82 13.79 23,487 57 50 47

11/14/08 0.9 238.9 14.70 15.20 13.98 10.22 23,487 54 47 42

25

11/17/08 23 261.9 15.23 13.88 15.60 13.44 24,361 56 48 45

11/19/08 6.1 268.0 12.74 13.63 12.06 13.37 24,389 58 52 48

11/21/08 1.8 269.8 17.73 15.51 18.03 15.18 24,440 56 50 46

26

11/25/08 6.0 275.8 14.74 14.60 14.98 14.22 24,448 56 51 47

11/26/08 1.8 277.6 18.07 14.85 18.22 14.67 24,448 50 40 38

27 12/01/08 4.1 281.7 14.21 14.88 13.30 14.32 24,460 54 49 45
Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goshen, IN- Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

A-3

Week 

No. Date

Well Pumps AD26 E33 AD 26 E33

Operating 

time(a)

Cumulative

hours

Combined 

Instantaneous

Flowrate(b)

Combined 

Calculated 

Flowrate

Combined 

Instantaneous

Flowrate(b)

Combined 

Calculated 

Flowrate

Backwash 

Totalizer

Readings

Inlet 

Pressure

Outlet 

Pressure

Outlet 

Pressure

(hr) (hr) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gal) (psi) psi psi

12/02/08 1.7 283.4 12.00 14.66 12.25 14.40 24,461 62 59 56

12/03/08 0.8 284.2 18.53 16.50 17.95 14.87 24,461 52 42 40

12/05/08 3.5 287.7 17.07 14.06 17.25 14.06 24,461 56 50 45

28

12/08/08 6.2 293.9 16.82 14.45 16.99 14.12 24,461 54 44 40

12/10/08 6.4 300.3 17.92 14.20 17.40 13.93 24,466 55 46 42

12/12/08 6.5 306.8 18.04 13.89 18.20 13.69 24,466 54 42 36

29

12/15/08 12.1 318.9 17.58 14.37 17.99 13.14 25,170 54 49 37

12/17/08 11.9 330.8 15.46 14.09 15.75 13.04 25,813 60 53 49

12/19/08 3.2 334.0 16.08 15.68 15.39 12.51 26,357 54 48 44

30

12/23/08 4.0 338.0 17.94 15.18 18.12 12.34 26,954 52 42 37

12/26/08 3.4 341.4 17.80 15.15 17.44 11.19 27,712 52 46 40

31 01/02/08 7.0 348.4 17.93 15.77 17.21 12.09 29,284 53 45 39

32

01/05/09 2.4 350.8 17.90 15.74 17.99 11.98 29,793 56 52 48

01/07/09 2.9 353.7 16.10 14.74 15.60 13.45 29,963 56 49 45

01/09/09 3.4 357.1 16.47 15.64 15.03 13.70 30,268 53 45 39

33

01/12/09 3.3 360.4 17.63 15.56 16.90 13.17 30,659 53 47 42

01/14/09 2.0 362.4 17.46 15.97 17.05 11.83 31,110 54 47 42

01/16/09 3.3 365.7 14.65 15.42 14.50 12.62 31,608 56 54 50

34

01/19/09 2.1 367.8 19.29 16.30 18.60 10.22 32,332 52 44 38

01/21/09 10.0 377.8 16.63 14.53 16.37 13.38 32,743 54 49 44

01/23/09 3.8 381.6 18.85 16.27 17.31 11.07 33,897 53 46 39

35

01/26/09 10.3 391.9 12.44 14.88 12.51 13.32 34,753 62 58 54

01/28/09 2.1 394.0 19.36 15.99 15.83 12.19 35,171 54 48 43

01/30/09 4.5 398.5 14.50 15.05 12.62 13.92 35,360 62 57 53

36

02/04/09 16.0 414.5 16.28 14.52 15.58 13.08 36,330 55 50 46

02/06/09 6.5 421.0 16.45 14.95 15.88 14.18 36,403 54 49 45

37

02/10/09 4.3 425.3 16.99 15.48 16.79 14.09 36,599 54 48 44

02/11/09 2.1 427.4 17.37 15.16 17.68 14.65 36,599 55 49 44

02/13/09 2.3 429.7 15.20 15.33 15.44 13.89 36,673 56 50 47
Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goshen, IN- Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

A-4

Week 

No. Date

Well Pumps AD26 E33 AD 26 E33

Operating 

time(a)

Cumulative

hours

Combined 

Instantaneous

Flowrate(b)

Combined 

Calculated 

Flowrate

Combined 

Instantaneous

Flowrate(b)

Combined 

Calculated 

Flowrate

Backwash 

Totalizer

Readings

Inlet 

Pressure

Outlet 

Pressure

Outlet 

Pressure

(hr) (hr) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gal) (psi) psi psi

38

02/16/09 2.0 431.7 17.88 16.64 16.81 14.88 36,718 53 47 41

02/18/09 0.5 432.2 11.97 71.73 12.17 68.60 36,744 58 54 50

02/20/09 4.3 436.5 17.52 8.95 17.02 8.04 36,827 54 48 43

39

02/23/09 2.9 439.4 17.73 14.78 17.14 13.87 36,852 55 49 44

02/25/09 4.4 443.8 13.02 15.43 12.40 12.39 37,563 63 58 56

02/27/09 2.6 446.4 17.14 15.78 16.52 10.97 38,271 54 49 44

40

03/02/09 2.9 449.3 17.14 16.30 16.62 11.94 38,967 55 49 45

03/04/09 6.7 456.0 15.39 14.56 14.74 14.12 38,967 56 49 45

03/06/09 3.2 459.2 18.52 15.93 17.68 11.60 39,640 55 49 44

41

03/09/09 2.6 461.8 17.86 16.04 17.18 11.83 40,297 54 48 43

03/11/09 1.5 463.3 18.71 17.11 18.00 9.70 40,941 56 53 49

03/12/09 2.6 465.9 18.49 15.59 17.44 14.92 41,312 54 47 41

43

03/23/09 14.6 480.5 18.65 15.70 17.86 12.32 43,733 51 44 38

03/25/09 2.6 483.1 15.57 15.61 14.61 13.07 44,058 57 52 49

03/27/09 1.4 484.5 17.77 15.85 17.02 13.50 44,215 54 NA NA

44

03/30/09 2.4 486.9 0.00 17.21 NA 13.65 44,771 53 46 40

04/01/09 3.6 490.5 20.25 15.75 16.14 13.42 45,166 54 46 40

04/03/09 1.2 491.7 17.36 16.25 14.08 12.78 45,371 54 48 43

46

04/13/09 5.8 496.3 17.72 14.10 18.28 10.80 46,416 52 45 39

04/15/09 11.6 507.9 16.83 14.66 10.76 13.96 46,444 60 56 53

04/17/09 8.5 516.4 18.83 10.45 18.26 7.62 47,844 58 47 52

47

04/21/09 1.4 517.8 16.51 28.71 15.74 18.85 48,531 58 54 52

04/22/09 1.9 519.7 18.09 30.15 17.76 29.21 48,531 54 46 40

04/24/09 4.6 524.3 15.06 15.26 15.53 12.47 49,201 53 48 42

48

05/04/09 19.7 544.0 16.82 15.35 15.98 13.38 51,189 58 54 50

05/07/09 5.5 549.5 18.64 15.67 18.00 11.77 NA 53 47 40

05/10/09 2.7 552.2 16.51 16.35 15.74 16.75 NA 57 48 51

49

05/11/09 0.9 553.1 17.09 12.91 16.02 11.96 52,198 54 48 43

05/14/09 2.4 555.5 18.18 16.71 17.57 12.88 52,828 54 46 41
Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goshen, IN- Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

A-5

Week 

No. Date

Well Pumps AD26 E33 AD 26 E33

Operating 

time(a)

Cumulative

hours

Combined 

Instantaneous

Flowrate(b)

Combined 

Calculated 

Flowrate

Combined 

Instantaneous

Flowrate(b)

Combined 

Calculated 

Flowrate

Backwash 

Totalizer

Readings

Inlet 

Pressure

Outlet 

Pressure

Outlet 

Pressure

(hr) (hr) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gal) (psi) psi psi

05/17/09 3.6 559.1 19.31 16.62 18.81 10.73 53,986 53 46 39

50

05/19/09 11.5 570.6 19.78 14.57 18.64 13.82 54,223 48 37 30

05/22/09 3.8 574.4 18.21 15.58 17.72 12.18 54,933 54 47 41

51

05/24/09 1.7 576.1 17.80 16.87 17.24 9.62 55,600 54 48 43

05/26/09 1.4 577.5 17.06 16.13 16.56 10.39 56,090 54 48 43

05/27/09 1.5 579.0 17.99 17.31 16.97 13.79 56,650 54 47 42

52

06/01/09 5.6 584.6 19.37 16.50 18.58 11.96 58,076 52 44 38

06/03/09 17.1 601.7 15.64 14.35 16.88 13.59 58,298 56 46 41

53

06/08/09 7.9 609.6 17.82 15.12 17.20 12.31 59,576 54 47 42

06/10/09 1.3 610.9 17.39 17.86 16.58 8.86 60,432 54 48 44

06/14/09 2.4 613.3 18.06 17.76 17.36 6.51 62,001 54 47 42

54

06/15/09 4.2 617.5 18.06 14.74 15.26 14.17 62,001 56 49 46

06/19/09 4.1 621.6 18.54 16.53 17.80 11.65 63,109 67 48 44

System started on May 1st 2008

NA = not available

(a) Hour meter was not installed at wellhead at time of system start-up.

(b) AD26C flow meter was replaced on 08/18/08.
APPENDIX B

ANALYTICAL DATA
B-1

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goshen, IN

Sampling Date 06/06/08 06/27/08 08/13/08 08/20/08

Sampling Location IN OT TT IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 103 - 0.0 - 0.3 - 1.0 - 1.1

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 277 286 280 271 273 271 282 278 276 276 270 279 277 273 286

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ammonia (as N) mg/L 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 NA NA NA NA 0.2 0.1 <0.05 0.1 0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L 0.3 0.3 0.3 - - - - - - - - 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Sulfate mg/L 2.1 2.1 2.1 - - - - - - - - 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.0

Nitrate (as N) mg/L <0.05 0.2 <0.05 - - - - - - - - 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 0.1

Total P (as P) μg/L 11.4 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 12.1 10.4 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 20.0 19.6 16.5 18.3 18.1 18.1 16.3 20.0 19.9 19.6 18.0 20.5 20.9 20.2 19.3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Turbidity NTU 9.5 <0.1 0.1 8.9 0.5 0.1 0.1 8.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 8.0 0.5 0.1 0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.0 7.5 7.5 7.0 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.3

Temperature °C 13.1 13.1 13.1 NA NA NA NA 17.5 17.8 18.0 17.8 17.5 17.8 18.0 17.8

DO mg/L 0.9 2.3 1.6 NA NA NA NA 3.1 2.4 2.4 1.5 3.1 2.4 2.4 1.5

ORP mV 278 753 763 509 886 871 655 463 682 523 653 463 682 523 653

Free Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - - 5.5 - - - 1.8 - - - 0.4 - - - 0.6

Total Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - - 5.5 - - - 2.1 - - - 0.6 - - - 0.8

Total Hardness (as 

CaCO3) mg/L 300 318 321 - - - - - - - - 262 256 264 269

Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 204 207 205 - - - - - - - - 165 167 175 175

Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 95.8 111 116 - - - - - - - - 97.2 88.7 89.5 93.8

As (total) μg/L 32.2 1.7 4.9 27.4 27.2 1.2 0.1 28.8 28.6 3.6 0.2 28.9 29.2 4.9 0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 30.1 1.6 0.6 - - - - - - - - 21.7 5.4 2.0 0.2

As (particulate) μg/L 2.1 <0.1 4.2 - - - - - - - - 7.2 23.7 2.9 <0.1

As (III) μg/L 25.6 0.4 0.4 - - - - - - - - 18.6 0.3 0.3 0.3

As (V) μg/L 4.5 1.3 0.3 - - - - - - - - 3.1 5.1 1.7 <0.1

Fe (total) μg/L 851 29 207 770 751 <25 <25 804 781 <25 <25 809 885 61 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L 887 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - 260 <25 <25 <25

Mn (total) μg/L 97.5 1.0 0.5 87.8 86.8 <0.1 <0.1 85.8 85.5 1.2 0.3 90.1 88.1 14.4 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 107 0.4 <0.1 - - - - - - - - 88.9 2.8 <0.1 <0.1

NA = not available
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goshen, IN (Continued)

B-2

Sampling Date 09/14/08 10/09/08 11/06/08 11/19/08

Sampling Location IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 103 - 1.6 - 1.9(a) - 2.5 - 3.1

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 267 267 267 270 270 275 277 273 274 272 272 265 263 270 263 265

265 267 270 265 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ammonia (as N) mg/L 0.2 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

0.1 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 - - - - 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3

Sulfate mg/L - - - - 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.0 - - - - 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0

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

Total P (as P) μg/L 11.7 11.3 <10 <10 12.7 13.3 <10 <10 14.2 15.7 <10 <10 11.2 10.8 <10 <10

11.3 12.1 <10 <10 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 20.8 20.9 20.3 20.1 20.8 20.2 20.1 20.1 18.7 18.8 18.4 17.9 20.1 20.0 19.9 19.6

21.0 20.8 20.4 20.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Turbidity NTU 8.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 8.2 0.6 0.1 0.3 9.8 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 8.4 0.7 0.2 <0.1

8.2 0.5 0.2 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Temperature °C NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ORP mV NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Free Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 - 3.6 1.4 0.2(b) - 1.4 0.4 0.3 (c) - 2.1 0.9 0.4

Total Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 - 5.1 1.9 1.1 - 1.9 0.6 0.4 - 2.2 1.2 0.7

Total Hardness (as 

CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 267 278 277 277 - - - - 265 266 263 267

Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 169 176 174 175 - - - - 171 170 169 172

Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 98.0 102 103 102 - - - - 94.3 95.9 94.2 95.2

As (total) μg/L 31.9 31.9 2.7 0.2 29.1 29.7 3.4 0.3 28.1 29.4 3.6 0.4 33.4 33.4 3.8 0.2

31.5 31.9 2.6 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - 29.0 8.5 3.1 0.2 - - - - 29.6 6.2 3.6 0.2

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - 0.1 21.3 0.4 <0.1 - - - - 3.9 27.1 0.2 <0.1

As (III) μg/L - - - - 8.2(d) 0.3 0.3 0.3 - - - - 20.8 0.6 0.5 0.3

As (V) μg/L - - - - 20.7(d) 8.2 2.8 <0.1 - - - - 8.8 5.6 3.0 <0.1

Fe (total) μg/L 773 748 <25 <25 709 711 <25 <25 667 677 <25 <25 744 717 <25 <25

763 769 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - 724 <25 <25 <25 - - - - 708 <25 <25 <25

Mn (total) μg/L 81.1 79.8 <0.1 <0.1 76.0 77.0 0.2 <0.1 80.1 81.2 0.2 <0.1 77.6 75.3 0.3 0.2

80.6 79.9 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - 79.5 28.2 0.3 <0.1 - - - - 73.0 17.5 0.2 <0.1

(a) Bed volume from 10/02/08 

(b) Free & Total Chlorine from 10/10/08

(c) Free & Total Chlorine from 11/05/08

(d) Samples probably switched by operator

(e) Free & Total Chlorine from 12/10/08

(f) Water quality parameters and chlorine measured on 01/07/09.
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goshen, IN (Continued)

B-3

Sampling Date 12/09/08 01/08/09 01/22/09 02/04/09

Sampling Location

IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 103 - 3.4(d) - 4.0 - 4.2 - 4.5

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 271 269 271 273 270 267 267 270 270 270 270 265 277 270 277 274

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ammonia (as N) mg/L 0.1 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 0.2 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.2 0.1 <0.05 <0.05

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 - - - - 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.4

Sulfate mg/L - - - - 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.1 - - - - 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.1

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - <0.05 0.2 <0.05 <0.05

Total P (as P) μg/L 15.0 16.0 <10 <10 33.2 36.3 17.2 13.5 13.2 13.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 20.0 20.3 19.7 19.8 19.0 18.8 18.9 18.2 19.4 19.1 19.2 18.1 20.6 20.5 20.1 20.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Turbidity NTU 8.8 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 8.8 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 9.2 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 8.4 1.1 0.9 0.7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. NA NA NA NA 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Temperature °C NA NA NA NA 12.1 11.1 12.5 16.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA 28.2 26.7 13.6 14.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ORP mV NA NA NA NA 209 516 635 367 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Free Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - 0.9 0.2 0.1(e) - 0.5 0.2 0.0 - 0.9 0.2 0.04(a) - 1.0 0.3 0.2

Total Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - 1.5 0.3 0.1 - 0.9 0.3 0.1 - 0.7 0.2 0.0 - 0.7 0.2 0.1

Total Hardness (as 

CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 335 332 336 314 - - - - 257 261 268 268

Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 149 138 141 131 - - - - 167 169 175 173

Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 186 195 194 183 - - - - 90.0 91.6 92.2 95.8

As (total) μg/L 31.4 32.2 3.5 0.2 33.0 32.3 4.1 0.4 27.0 26.7 3.5 0.2 32.0 31.4 4.0 0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - 29.6 6.9 4.0 0.4 - - - - 27.2 7.8 3.6 0.1

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - 3.4 25.4 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 4.9 23.6 0.5 <0.1

As (III) μg/L - - - - 24.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 - - - - 20.4 0.3 0.3 0.3

As (V) μg/L - - - - 5.4 6.1 3.2 <0.1 - - - - 6.8 7.5 3.3 <0.1

Fe (total) μg/L 813 810 <25 <25 580 567 <25 <25 674 670 <25 <25 748 758 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - 551 <25 <25 <25 - - - - 767 <25 <25 <25

Mn (total) μg/L 72.5 71.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.3 54.2 0.2 <0.1 74.9 75.3 0.3 <0.1 82.2 78.5 0.3 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - 57.5 17.7 0.2 <0.1 - - - - 82.6 43.5 0.2 <0.1

(a) Chlorine measured on 01/23/09.

(b) Water quality parameters and bed volume taken on 03/23/09.
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goshen, IN (Continued)

B-4

Sampling Date 02/18/09 03/04/09 03/19/09(b) 03/31/09(a)

Sampling Location IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 103 - 4.8 - 5.0 - 5.2(b) - 5.3

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 287 287 287 283 270 272 270 280 272 272 276 280 285 281 276 281

- - - - - - - - 284 284 278 278 - - - -

Ammonia (as N) mg/L 0.2 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 0.2 0.1 <0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.05 <0.05

- - - - - - - - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 - - - - 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Sulfate mg/L - - - - 1.9 2.8 2.0 2.0 - - - - 2.0 2.1 2.1 2

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - 0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - <0.05 0.1 0.2 <0.05

Total P (as P) μg/L 11.5 12.2 <10 <10 15.3 17.2 <10 <10 12.2 11.4 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - 11.5 11.3 <10 <10 - - - -

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 18.5 18.9 18.5 18.0 20.0 20.6 20.0 20.0 19.7 19.8 20.1 20.0 18.1 18.4 18 17.8

- - - - - - - - 19.9 19.6 20 19.5 - - - -

Turbidity NTU 9.0 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 10.0 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 7.7 0.8 0.3 0.3 8.8 0.9 0.5 0.5

- - - - - - - - 9.3 0.9 0.4 0.3 - - - -

pH S.U. NA NA NA NA 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.1 NA NA NA NA 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.2

Temperature °C NA NA NA NA 9.1 9.8 10.6 10.7 NA NA NA NA 10.0 9.7 12.2 14.7

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ORP mV NA NA NA NA 41.5 361 414 413 NA NA NA NA 411 523 502 494

Free Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - 0.6 0.3 0.1 - 0.8 0.3 0.2 - 0.2 0.1 0.1 - 0.5 0.1 0.0

Total Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - 0.6 0.2 0.0 - 1.6 0.4 0.3 - 0.4 0.1 0.1 - 0.7 0.3 0.0

Total Hardness (as 

CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 190 190 193 190 - - - - 243 249 254 268

Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 134 136 138 137 - - - - 147 154 157 168

Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 56.4 53.3 54.3 52.9 - - - - 96.1 95.0 97.0 99.7

As (total) μg/L 25.6 26.6 3.3 0.3 24.0 25.4 3.1 0.2 28.3 28.0 3.8 <0.1 26.5 25.8 3.8 0.4

- - - - - - - - 27.0 27.9 4.3 <0.1 - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - 23.3 5.3 3.1 0.2 - - - - 25.9 9.5 3.8 0.3

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - 0.7 20.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 0.6 16.3 <0.1 <0.1

As (III) μg/L - - - - 16.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 - - - - 18.9 0.6 0.5 0.5

As (V) μg/L - - - - 7.0 4.8 2.6 <0.1 - - - - 7.1 8.9 3.3 <0.1

Fe (total) μg/L 684 683 <25 <25 560 559 <25 <25 769 770 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - 746 765 27 <25 - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - 566 <25 <25 <25 - - - - <25 <25 <25 <25

Mn (total) μg/L 70.9 68.9 0.2 <0.1 77.2 75.0 0.6 0.2 84.8 84.1 0.6 <0.1 96.8 89.8 0.8 <0.1

- - - - - - - - 83.9 85.1 1.6 <0.1 - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - 76.7 47.0 0.4 0.1 - - - - 92.5 55.0 0.2 <0.1

(a) Water quality parameters and bed volume taken on 04/01/09.

(b) Water quality parameters taken on 04/17/09.

(c) Water quality parameters taken on 04/24/09.
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goshen, IN (Continued)

B-5

Sampling Date 4/15/09(b) 04/29/09(c) 05/14/09 06/04/09

Sampling Location IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 103 - - - - - - - -

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 261 256 265 267 271 271 271 275 296 293 293 296 282 295 274 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ammonia (as N) mg/L 0.1 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 0.1 <0.05 <0.05

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 - - - - 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2

Sulfate mg/L - - - - 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 - - - - 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.0

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.4 - - - - 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Total P (as P) μg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 14.9 14.3 <10 <10 12.3 13.8 <10 <10 11.3 11.7 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 20.1 22.5 20 20.8 23.3 23.2 22.8 23.8 21.5 21.6 21.4 21.6 21.1 20.8 20.9 20.7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Turbidity NTU 8.0 0.6 0.7 0.2 7.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 7.6 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 8.1 0.5 0.8 0.6

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. 7.6 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Temperature °C 9.8 9.9 10.8 10.9 11.6 12.5 13.6 14.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ORP mV 212 492 402 479 330 345 354 365 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Free Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - 0.3 0.1 0.0 - 0.7 0.2 0.1 - 1.0 0.3 0.2 - NA NA NA

Total Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - 0.9 0.2 0.1 - 0.8 0.5 0.2 - 0.6 0.2 0.2 - NA NA NA

Total Hardness (as 

CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 252 263 262 272 - - - - 241 247 256 258

Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 154 162 162 171 - - - - 157 163 170 170

Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 98.7 101 99.5 101 - - - - 83.7 83.7 86.2 87.6

As (total) μg/L 22.2 21.9 3.1 <0.1 23.9 25.0 3.5 <0.1 26.4 26.7 3.8 0.2 30.9 29.6 4.2 0.2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - 21.3 11.3 3.6 0.3 - - - - 26.0 8.9 3.7 0.1

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - 2.6 13.7 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 4.9 20.7 0.6 <0.1

As (III) μg/L - - - - 18.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 - - - - 22.6 0.3 0.3 0.3

As (V) μg/L - - - - 2.8 11.1 3.5 0.2 - - - - 3.3 8.6 3.3 <0.1

Fe (total) μg/L 643 649 <25 <25 798 810 <25 <25 824 833 <25 <25 754 748 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - 213 156 <25 <25 - - - - 724 <25 <25 <25

Mn (total) μg/L 64.5 64.2 0.8 0.3 87.5 89.9 0.4 <0.1 88.9 88.0 0.3 0.1 89.0 85.3 <0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - 85.9 52.0 0.4 <0.1 - - - - 86.1 38.7 <0.1 <0.1
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goshen, IN (Continued)

B-6

Sampling Date 06/10/09 07/01/09 07/28/09 09/15/09

Sampling Location IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT IN AC OT TT

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 103 - - - - - - - -

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 289 293 291 284 301 294 292 283 274 274 272 281 - - - -

291 293 289 282 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ammonia (as N) mg/L 0.2 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 0.2 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 0.2 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 0.2 0.1 <0.05 <0.05

0.13 0.08 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.4 4.5 2.3 - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - -

Total P (as P) μg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 12.6 14.7 <10 <10 13.5 11.9 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 20.6 20.4 20.6 20.5 20.2 20.1 19.9 19.7 20.4 20.4 20.6 18.3 - - - -

21.1 20.8 20.7 20.5 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Turbidity NTU 8.5 0.9 0.2 0.2 4.6 0.9 0.1 <0.1 5.9 0.9 0.2 0.4 - - - -

8.4 0.9 0.2 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Temperature °C NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ORP mV NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Free Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - NA NA NA - NA NA NA - NA NA NA - NA NA NA

Total Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - NA NA NA - NA NA NA - NA NA NA - NA NA NA

Total Hardness (as 

CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 284 287 283 285 263 258 263 262 - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 188 194 190 189 167 161 164 161 - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 95.4 93.2 92.5 95.8 95.3 96.9 98.2 102 - - - -

As (total) μg/L 29.3 29.0 4.9 0.2 26.8 25.2 4.4 <0.1 25.6 26.9 2.5 <0.1 32.2 30.1 4.6 0.5

28.0 29.0 5.0 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - 24.1 5.2 4.0 <0.1 21.5 6.7 2.2 <0.1 27.7 10.3 4.2 1.0

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - 2.6 20.0 0.4 <0.1 4.2 20.2 0.4 <0.1 4.5 19.8 0.4 <0.1

As (III) μg/L - - - - 17.2 0.2 0.2 <0.1 17.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 21.8 0.8 0.7 0.7

As (V) μg/L - - - - 6.9 5.0 3.9 <0.1 3.7 6.6 2.1 <0.1 6.0 9.5 3.6 0.3

Fe (total) μg/L 755 731 <25 <25 863 740 40 <25 695 717 <25 <25 736 746 <25 <25

732 725 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - 788 39.3 35.5 <25 546 111 <25 <25 724 108 <25 <25

Mn (total) μg/L 89.0 84.5 2.0 <0.1 74.0 70.1 1.8 0.7 78.2 78.6 0.3 0.2 85.3 84.2 1.1 1.0

85.0 85.4 2.0 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - 74.7 23.7 1.6 0.9 79.6 51.0 0.4 0.2 89.2 51.5 0.3 0.2
APPENDIX C

AD26 MEDIA BACKWASH DATA
C-1

Table C-1. Backwash Times, Backwash Frequency, and Amounts of Wastewater 

Produced During AD26 Backwash

Date

Vessel A Vessel B Vessel C Amounts 

Wastewater

Produced

(gal)

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

06/06/08 All three vessels backwash once manually

07/03/08 All three vessels backwash once manually

07/04/08 All three vessels backwash once manually

08/20/08 All three vessels backwash once manually 890 08/25/08 12:00

08/26/08 01:00 00:00

1,020 08/27/08 12:00 48

08/28/08

08/29/08 01:00 72

08/30/08 12:00 72

08/31/08 02:00 98 78(?)

09/01/08 01:00 72

09/02/08 12:00 72 146

09/03/08 03:00 73 136

09/04/08 02:00 73

09/05/08 13:00 73 249(?)

09/06/08 03:00 72

09/07/08 02:00 72 19(?) 09/08/08 13:00 72

09/09/08 03:00 72 2(?)

09/10/08 02:00 72 11(?)

09/11/08 0

09/12/08 13:00 96 03:00 72 13(?) 09/13/08 02:00 72

09/14/08 0

09/15/08 13:00 72 03:00 72

09/16/08 02:00 72 3(?)

09/17/08

09/18/08 13:00 72 03:00 72 736 09/19/08 02:00 72

09/20/08

934 09/21/08

09/22/08 11:00 94 00:00 70 01:00 94

09/23/08

09/24/08

1,265

09/25/08 √ - √ - √ -

09/26/08

09/27/08

09/28/08 13:00 - 02:00 - 03:00 -

09/29/08

09/30/08 0

10/01/08 13:00 72 02:00 72 03:00 72

2,232

10/02/08

10/03/08

10/04/08 √ - √ -

10/05/08 08:00 102

10/06/08

10/07/08 22:00 - 12:00 -

10/08/08 √ -

10/09/08

506 10/10/08 14:00 74

10/11/08 14:00 84 13:00 -

10/12/08 15:00 25

10/13/08 14:00 72 218

10/14/08 13:00 72

10/15/08 00:00 57 0(?)

10/16/08
Table C-1. Backwash Times, Backwash Frequency, and Amounts of Wastewater 

Produced During AD26 Backwash (Continued)

C-2

Date

Vessel A Vessel B Vessel C Amounts 

Wastewater

Produced

(gal)

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

10/17/08 √ -

4,630

10/18/08 √ -

10/19/08 √ -

10/20/08 √ -

10/21/08 √ -

10/22/08 √ -

10/23/08 √ -

10/24/08 √ -

10/25/08 √ -

10/26/08 √ -

10/27/08 √ -

10/28/08 √ -

10/29/08 √ -

10/30/08 √ -

10/31/08 √ -

11/01/08 √ -

11/02/08 √ -

11/03/08 12:00 -

11/04/08 02:00 -

11/05/08 01:00 -

11/06/08 11:00 71 0(?)

11/07/08 √ -

220(?)

11/08/08

11/09/08 12:00 73

11/10/08 02:00 -

11/11/08 00:00 -

11/12/08 12:00 72 0(?)

11/13/08 02:00 72 10(?)

11/14/08 01:00 73 0(?)

11/15/08 11:00 71

11/16/08 01:00 71 874

11/17/08 00:00 71

11/18/08 12:00 73 28(?) 11/19/08 02:00 73

11/20/08 00:00 72 51

11/21/08 12:00 72

8(?)

11/22/08

11/23/08 01:00 73

11/24/08 12:00 72

11/25/08 02:00 -

11/26/08 00:00 71 0(?)

11/27/08 √ -

12(?)

11/28/08

11/29/08 00:00 72

11/30/08 11:00 -

12/01/08 01:00 -

12/02/08 00:00 72 1(?)

12/03/08 11:00 72

12/04/08 01:00 72 0(?)

12/05/08 00:00 72

12/06/08 02:00 75 16:00 63

12/07/08 0(?)

12/08/08 18:00 64 01:00 73

12/09/08 5(?) 12/10/08 01:00 81

12/11/08 00:00 71 0(?)

12/12/08 15:00 93

12/13/08 00:00 72 704

12/14/08 00:00 72

12/15/08 12:00 69 643
Table C-1. Backwash Times, Backwash Frequency, and Amounts of Wastewater 

Produced During AD26 Backwash (Continued)

C-3

Date

Vessel A Vessel B Vessel C Amounts 

Wastewater

Produced

(gal)

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

12/16/08 02:00 74

12/17/08 01:00 73

12/18/08 08:00 68 08:00 31 09:00 55 544 12/19/08

12/20/08 12:00 52

597 12/21/08 01:00 65 02:00 65

12/22/08

12/23/08 √ -

12/24/08 00:00 71 01:00 71

12/25/08 758

12/26/08 11:00 -

12/27/08 √ - √ -

1,572

12/28/08

12/29/08 √ -

12/30/08 √ - √ -

12/31/08

01/01/09 11:00 -

01/02/09 00:00 - 01:00 -

01/03/09

01/04/09 11:00 72 509

01/05/09 00:00 72 01:00 72

01/06/09 170 01/07/09 13:00 74

01/08/09 00:00 72 01:00 72 305 01/09/09

01/10/09 13:00 72

01/11/09 01:00 73 02:00 73 391

01/12/09

01/13/09 11:00 70 00:00 47 451 01/14/09 01:00 71

01/15/09 23:00 60 00:00 48 498 01/16/09

01/17/09 02:00 73

01/18/09 01:00 73 724

01/19/09 00:00 73

01/20/09 01:00 71 411 01/21/09 00:00 71

01/22/09 15:00 87 15:00 39 1,154(?) 01/23/09 02:00 73

01/24/09 23:00 56

01/25/09 00:00 57 856

01/26/09 01:00 71

01/27/09 23:00 72 418 01/28/09 00:00 72

01/29/09 01:00 72 189 01/30/09 √ -

01/31/09 √ -

970

02/01/09 √ -

02/02/09 23:00 -

02/03/09 00:00 -

02/04/09 01:00 -

02/05/09 23:00 72 73(?) 02/06/09 00:00 72

02/07/09 √ -

196(?) 02/08/09 23:00 72

02/09/09 00:00 72

02/10/09 01:00 -

02/11/09 0

02/12/09 00:00 74 01:00 73 74(?) 02/13/09 02:00 73

02/14/09 23:00 71 45(?)
Table C-1. Backwash Times, Backwash Frequency, and Amounts of Wastewater 

Produced During AD26 Backwash (Continued)

C-4

Date

Vessel A Vessel B Vessel C Amounts 

Wastewater

Produced

(gal)

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

02/15/09 00:00 71

02/16/09 01:00 71

02/17/09 23:00 72 269?) 02/18/09 00:00 72 10:00 57

02/19/09 83(?) 02/20/09

02/21/09 02:00 75 03:00 75 04:00 66

02/22/09 25(?)

02/23/09

02/24/09 01:00 71 02:00 71 03:00 71 711 02/25/09

02/26/09 708 02/27/09 02:00 73 03:00 73 04:00 73

02/28/09

03/01/09 696

03/02/09 01:00 71 02:00 71 03:00 71

03/03/09 0 03/04/09

03/05/09 01:00 72 02:00 72 03:00 72 673 03/06/09

03/07/09

03/08/09 01:00 72 02:00 72 03:00 72 657

03/09/09

03/10/09 644 03/11/09 03:00 74 04:00 74 05:00 74

03/12/09 371(?)

03/13/09

2,421

03/14/09 √ - √ - √ -

03/15/09

03/16/09 - √ - √ -

03/17/09 √

03/18/09

03/19/09 √ - √ -

03/20/09 √ -

03/21/09

03/22/09 03:00 - 04:00 -

03/23/09 02:00 -

03/24/09 325 03/25/09 03:00 72 04:00 72

03/26/09 02:00 72 157 03/27/09

03/28/09 03:00 72 04:00 72

03/29/09 02:00 72 556

03/30/09

03/31/09 02:00 71 03:00 71 395 04/01/09 01:00 71

04/02/09 205 04/03/09 03:00 73 04:00 73

04/04/09 √ -

1,045

04/05/09

04/06/09 √ - √ -

04/07/09 √ -

04/08/09

04/09/09 √ - √ -

04/10/09 √ -

04/11/09

04/12/09 04:00 - 05:00 -

04/13/09 03:00 -

04/14/09 28

04/15/09 22:00 - 04:00 72 05:00 72 1,400(?) 04/16/09
Table C-1. Backwash Times, Backwash Frequency, and Amounts of Wastewater 

Produced During AD26 Backwash (Continued)

C-5

Date

Vessel A Vessel B Vessel C Amounts 

Wastewater

Produced

(gal)

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

04/17/09

04/18/09 √ - √ - √ -

687 04/19/09

04/20/09

04/21/09 02:00 - 03:00 - 04:00 -

04/22/09 0

04/23/09 02:00 48 04:00 49 04:00 48 670 04/24/09

04/25/09

1,988

04/26/09 √ - √ - √ -

04/27/09

04/28/09

04/29/09 √ - √ - √ -

04/30/09

05/01/09

05/02/09

05/03/09 02:30 - 03:30 - 04:30 -

05/04/09

05/05/09

1,009

05/06/09 14:30 84 15:30 84 16:30 84

05/07/09

05/08/09

05/09/09 03:00 60.5 04:00 60.5 05:00 60.5

05/10/09

05/11/09

05/12/09 02:00 71 03:00 71 04:00 71

05/13/09

05/14/09

05/15/09 03:00 - √ - √ -

05/16/09 630

05/17/09 03:00 - 04:00 -

05/18/09 02:00 71 1,158(?) 05/19/09

05/20/09 03:00 72 04:00 72

05/21/09 02:00 72 237(?)

05/22/09

05/23/09 03:00 72 04:00 72 667 05/24/09 02:00 72

05/25/09 490 05/26/09 04:00 73 04:00 72

05/27/09 03:00 73 560(?)

05/28/09

1,426 05/29/09 √ - √ - √ -

05/30/09

05/31/09 01:00 - 02:00 - 03:00 -

06/01/09

06/02/09 222(?)

06/03/09 01:00 72 02:00 72 03:00 72

06/04/09

1,278 06/05/09

06/06/09 01:00 72

06/07/09 02:00 96 03:00 96

06/08/09

06/09/09 01:00 72 856

06/10/09 02:00 72 03:00 72

06/11/09

1,569 06/12/09 √ -

06/13/09 02:00 72 03:00 72

06/14/09 01:00 -

06/15/09 1,108 06/16/09 √ - √ -
Table C-1. Backwash Times, Backwash Frequency, and Amounts of Wastewater 

Produced During AD26 Backwash (Continued)

C-6

Date

Vessel A Vessel B Vessel C Amounts 

Wastewater

Produced

(gal)

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

Time 

Backwashed

No. of Hours 

from Last 

Backwash

06/17/09 00:00 71

06/18/09

06/19/09 01:00 - 02:00 -

√ = data not available but believed that vessel had been backwashed;

- = hours from last backwash could not be calculated; 

(?) = data questionable.