EPA/600/R-09/145

December 2009

Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media

U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX

Final Performance Evaluation Report

by

T. Shane Williams

Abraham S.C. Chen

Lili Wang

Angela M. Paolucci

Battelle

Columbus, OH 43201-2693

Contract No. 68-C-00-185

Task Order No. 0029

for 

Thomas J. Sorg

Task Order Manager

Water Supply and Water Resources Division

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Cincinnati, OH 45268

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Office of Research and Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cincinnati, OH 45268
ii

DISCLAIMER

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

(EPA) under Task Order 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency’s 

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

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

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

recommendation for use by the EPA. 
iii

FOREWORD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

community and to link researchers with their clients.

Sally Gutierrez, Director

National Risk Management Research Laboratory
iv

ABSTRACT

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

treatment technology demonstration project in the City of Wellman, TX. The main objective of the 

project was to evaluate the effectiveness of AdEdge Technologies’ AD-33 media in removing arsenic to 

meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 μg/L. This project also evaluated (1) the 

reliability of the treatment system (Arsenic Package Unit [APU]-100CS-S-2-AVH); (2) the required 

system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skills; and (3) the capital and O&M cost of the 

technology. The project also characterized the water in the distribution system and any residuals 

produced by the treatment process. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality 

parameters (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), and capital and O&M cost.

The Wellman water system is supplied by five groundwater wells. Four are located in close proximity to 

a 110,000-gal water tank and an underground well-manifold vault, and the fifth is located approximately 

3 miles southwest. The combined flowrate from the first four wells is 50 gal/min (gpm), and the flowrate 

from the fifth is 40 gpm. Therefore, the total flowrate is approximately 90 gpm. Operating

simultaneously 4 to 6 hr at a time, the wells are used to meet the average daily demand of approximately

26,000 gal in the winter and 50,000 gal in the summer. 

The newly constructed treatment building is located adjacent to the water tank and underground vault.

The treatment system consisted of two 48-in-diameter, 72-in-tall carbon steel vessels in parallel 

configuration, each containing approximately 38 ft3 of E33 pelletized media – an iron-based adsorptive 

media developed by Bayer AG and marketed by AdEdge Technologies under the name of AD-33. The 

treatment system was designed for a maximum flowrate of 100 gpm and an empty bed contact time 

(EBCT) of approximately 5.7 min.

Over the performance evaluation period, the average calculated flowrate was 118 gpm, based on readings 

of two electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers installed on the adsorption vessels and an hour meter

interconnected to the flow meters/totalizers. This average calculated flowrate (118 gpm) was 

significantly greater than that of a master totalizer (91 gpm) installed at the common well manifold and 

the design flowrate value of 100 gpm. Based on a one-day flowrate test using a portable ultrasonic flow 

meter and statistical analysis, it was determined that the electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers were the 

least accurate of the available meters. Therefore, the master totalizer was used to track the amount of 

water treated during the performance evaluation study.

The AdEdge treatment system began regular operation on August 10, 2006. Between August 10, 2006,

and April 17, 2008, the system operated an average of 5.9 hr/day, treating approximately 14,744,962 gal 

of water or 25,938 bed volumes (BV) based on the 76 ft3 of media in both adsorption vessels.

Total arsenic concentrations measured at the common well manifold (IN) varied significantly, ranging 

from 6.0 to 50.6 μg/L. Soluble As(V) was the predominating species, ranging from 6.1 to 43.8 μg/L; 

soluble As(III) concentrations ranged from less than the method detection limit (MDL) to 6.0 μg/L. A 

review of the significant variations measured in the IN samples indicated that system operations and 

sampling techniques were likely contributing to the variations in concentration. In fact, the after 

chlorination (AC) sample results provided concentrations in a more representative range of the true water 

quality based on historical sampling events. The total arsenic concentrations in the AC samples ranged 

from 37.5 to 50.0 μg/L. Soluble As(V) in the AC samples remained predominant, ranging from 35.2 to 

42.9 μg/L; soluble As(III) concentrations ranged from less than the MDL to 11.4 μg/L. At the end of this 
v

performance evaluation study on April 17, 2008, total arsenic concentrations in the treated water were 6.8 

and 2.3 μg/L from Vessels A and B, respectively, – less than the target 10-μg/L MCL. 

Concentrations of vanadium, phosphate, and silica, which could adversely affect arsenic adsorption by 

competing with arsenate for adsorption sites, averaged 136 μg/L, <10 μg/L (as P), and 46.2 mg/L (as 

SiO2), respectively, in the AC samples. Vanadium existed entirely in the soluble form, some of which 

was removed during the first 10,000 BV. Concentrations of iron, manganese, and other ions in raw water 

were not considered significant enough to impact arsenic removal by the adsorptive media.

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

significant decrease in arsenic concentration (from an average of 38.9 μg/L to an average of 3.2 μg/L). 

The arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were similar to those in the system effluent. Lead 

and copper concentrations in the distribution system remained below their respective action levels of 15 

and 1,300 μg/L. Overall, their concentrations were not adversely affected by system operation. 

The capital investment cost of $149,221 included $103,897 for equipment, $25,310 for site engineering, 

and $20,014 for installation. Using the system’s rated capacity of 100 gpm (or 144,000 gal/day [gpd]), 

the capital cost was $1,492/gpm (or $1.04/gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted to 

an annualized cost of $14,085/yr, using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest 

rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr a day, 7 days a week at the 

system design flowrate of 100 gpm to produce 52,560,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost 

would be $0.27/1,000 gal. Because the system actually operated an average of 5.9 hr/day at an average 

flowrate of approximately 91 gpm, the approximate annual water production was 11,758,000 gal, and the

actual unit capital cost was $1.20/1,000 gal of water. 

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

replacement and disposal, chlorine usage, electricity consumption, and labor. Although media 

replacement did not occur during the evaluation period, the media replacement cost would represent the 

majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to be $30,010 to change out both vessels (including 76 ft3

AD-33 media and associated labor for media changeout and disposal).
vi

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................ x

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

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

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

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

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

3.0: MATERIALS AND METHODS.......................................................................................................... 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 ................................................................................................................. 10

3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water................................................................................................... 10

3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater/Solids and Spent Media Samples ............................................. 10

3.3.4 Distribution System Water ............................................................................................ 10

3.4 Sampling Logistics...................................................................................................................... 10

3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits.......................................................................... 10

3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers................................................................................... 12

3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling ..................................................................................... 12

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

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

4.1 Facility Description and Preexisting Treatment System Infrastructure ...................................... 13

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

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

4.1.3 Distribution System....................................................................................................... 16

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

4.3 System Installation...................................................................................................................... 21

4.3.1 Permitting ...................................................................................................................... 22

4.3.2 Building Preparation...................................................................................................... 22

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

4.4 System Operation........................................................................................................................ 23

4.4.1 Operational Parameters.................................................................................................. 23

4.4.2 Residual Management ................................................................................................... 26

4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity ................................................................ 26

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

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

4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling................................................................................... 36

4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling ............................................................................ 36
vii

4.6 System Cost ................................................................................................................................ 36

4.6.1 Capital Cost ................................................................................................................... 38

4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost................................................................................... 38

5.0: REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 41

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Operational Data

APPENDIX B: Analytical Data

FIGURES

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

Figure 4-1. Water Tank and Chlorination Shed...................................................................................... 13

Figure 4-2. Vault Containing Supply Well Manifold, Sampling Tap, and Master Totalizer.................. 14

Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Chlorine Addition System ............................................................................... 14

Figure 4-4. Water Treatment Facility in Wellman, TX .......................................................................... 19

Figure 4-5. pH Adjustment System and Chemical Injection Valves...................................................... 21

Figure 4-6. Adsorption System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration................................................... 22

Figure 4-7. Calculated Flowrate Values from Electromagnetic Flow Meter/Totalizer and 

Master Totalizer................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 4-8. Treatment System Operational Pressure Readings .............................................................. 26

Figure 4-9. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Location......................... 32

Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves..................................................................................... 33

Figure 4-11. Total Arsenic and Vanadium Concentrations at IN and AC Sampling Locations............... 34

Figure 4-12. Total Vanadium Breakthrough Curves ................................................................................ 35

Figure 4-13. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost ................................................. 40

TABLES

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

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

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

Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for Wellman, TX ................................................................................... 15

Table 4-2. TCEQ Treated Water Quality Data ....................................................................................... 17

Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of Bayoxide E33 (or AD-33) Pelletized Media............... 18

Table 4-4. Design Specifications of AdEdge Arsenic Removal System ................................................ 20

Table 4-5. System Punch-List/Operational Issues and Corrective Action.............................................. 23

Table 4-6. Summary of APU-100CS-S-2-AVH System Operation........................................................ 24

Table 4-7. Flowrates Measured by Various Flow Meters/Totalizers on October 9, 2006 ...................... 25

Table 4-8. Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Vanadium......................................... 29

Table 4-9. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results...................................................... 30

Table 4-10. Distribution System Sampling Results.................................................................................. 37

Table 4-11. Capital Investment Cost for APU System ............................................................................. 38

Table 4-12. Operation and Maintenance Cost for APU System ............................................................... 39
viii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Δp differential pressure

AAL American Analytical Laboratories

AM adsorptive media

APU arsenic package unit

As arsenic

ATS Aquatic Treatment System

BET Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller 

BV bed volume

Ca calcium

C/F coagulation/filtration process

Cl chlorine

CRF capital recovery factor

Cu copper

DO dissolved oxygen

EBCT empty bed contact time

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

F fluorine

Fe iron

GFH granular ferric hydroxide

gpd gallons per day

gpm gallons per minute

HCl hydrochloric acid

HDPE high-density polyethylene

HIX hybrid ion exchange

hp horsepower

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry

ID identification

IX ion exchange

LCR Lead and Copper Rule

LOU Letter of Understanding

MCL maximum contaminant level

MDL method detection limit

MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.

Mg magnesium

Mn manganese

mV millivolts
ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)

Na sodium

NA not analyzed

NaOCl sodium hypochlorite

ND not detectable

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units

O&M operation and maintenance

OIT Oregon Institute of Technology

ORD Office of Research and Development

ORP oxidation-reduction potential

PLC programmable logic controller

psi pounds per square inch 

PO4 orthophosphate

POE point of entry

POU point of use

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QA quality assurance

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

RO reverse osmosis

RPD relative percent difference

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SiO2 silica

SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level

SO4

2- sulfate

STS Severn Trent Services

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

TDS total dissolved solids

TOC total organic carbon

U uranium

V vanadium

VOC volatile organic compounds

WTW Wissenschaftlich-Technische-Werkstätten
x

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the City of Wellman and Mr. Marvin Crutcher, 

who monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the treatment and distribution systems 

throughout this study period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without his

efforts.
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

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

identify and regulate-drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and 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 at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the 

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

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

2001). To clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule 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 nontransient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006. 

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

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

and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance cost. As 

part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA’s Office of Research and Development 

(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, onsite 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 of the 115 candidate sites to host the demonstration 

studies. 

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

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

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

reviewed the proposals and provided 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 program. Using the information 

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

the respective states selected one technical proposal for each site. 

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 and the City of Wellman, TX, was one of those selected.

In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenicremoval technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site 

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

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

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

proposal was made 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. AdEdge 

Technologies’ (AdEdge) Bayoxide E33 granular media (developed by Bayer AG) was selected for 

demonstration at the Wellman site. 

As of December 2009, 39 of the 40 systems were operational, and the performance evaluation of 34

systems was completed.
2

1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal

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

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

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

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

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

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

and pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 

12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital cost is provided in two EPA reports (Wang, et 

al., 2004; Chen, et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA Web site at

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.

1.3 Project Objectives

The objective of the Rounds 1 and 2 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic 

treatment technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking-water supplies. The 

specific objectives are to:

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

systems

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

levels

• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies

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

This report summarizes the performance of the AdEdge system at the City of Wellman, TX, from August 

10, 2006, through April 17, 2008. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality 

(both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and capital and preliminary 

O&M cost. 
3

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

Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality

Demonstration 

Location Site Name Technology (Media) Vendor

Design 

Flowrate 

(gpm)

Source Water Quality

As 

(μg/L)

Fe

(μg/L)

pH

(S.U.)

Northeast/Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Lakes/Interior Plains

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Midwest/Southwest

Arnaudville, LA United Water Systems C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 770(e) 35(a) 2,068(c) 7.0

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

Bruni, TX

Webb Consolidated Independent School 

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

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

Anthony, NM

Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water 

Consumers Association AM (E33) STS 320 23(a) 39 7.7

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

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

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

Tohono O'odham 

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

Valley Vista, AZ Arizona Water Company AM (AAFS50/ARM 200) Kinetico 37 41 <25 7.8
4

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

Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)

Demonstration 

Location Site Name Technology (Media) Vendor

Design 

Flowrate 

(gpm)

Source Water Quality

As 

(μg/L)

Fe

(μg/L)

pH

(S.U.)

Far West

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

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

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

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

Klamath Falls, OR Oregon Institute of Technology

POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp) 

and POU AM (ARM 200)(g) Kinetico 60/60/30 33 <25 7.9

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

Reno, NV

South Truckee Meadows General 

Improvement District AM (GFH/Kemiron) Siemens 350 39 <25 7.4

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

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

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

AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger; 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) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).

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

(e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH, from 150 to 250 gal/min (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

2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

AdEdge’s Arsenic Package Unit [APU]-100CS-S-2-AVH treatment system with AD-33 pelletized media 

was installed and has operated in the City of Wellman, TX, since August 10, 2006. Based on the 

information collected during the system evaluation period, the following summary and conclusion 

statements are provided.

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

• The AD-33 media was effective at removing soluble As(V), the predominating arsenic 

species in raw water. During the evaluation period from August 10, 2006, through April 17, 

2008, it was estimated that the system treated 14,744,962 gal or 25,938 bed volumes (BV) of 

water, leaving <3.3 μg/L (on average) of total arsenic in the treated water. 

• The arsenic treatment system significantly reduced arsenic concentrations (from 38.9 to 

3.2 μg/L, on average) in the distribution system. Impact of the treatment on lead and copper

concentrations, however, was less significant, with lead concentrations remaining relatively 

unchanged from 0.2 to 0.4 μg/L (on average) and copper concentrations decreasing from 115 

to 81.7 μg/L (on average). 

Required system O&M and operator skill levels:

• The system was easy to operate and maintain. The daily demand on the operator was 15 min 

after system startup, but progressively decreased to only 3 min by the end of the evaluation 

period. 

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

the existing water supply equipment, with the exception of the pH adjustment system. The 

pH adjustment system required additional operator training and safety awareness.

• The pre-existing master turbine flow meter/totalizer was used for flow measurements,

because the electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer installed on the treatment system was

determined to be inaccurate due to out-of-spec piping configuration. 

Process residuals produced by the technology: 

• The treatment system did not require backwash (because differential pressure [Δp] measured 

across the media vessels did not reach 10 pounds per square inch [psi], the Δp set point) and 

therefore did not produce any backwash residuals. Also, the system did not require a media

changeout during the evaluation period because the effluent arsenic concentration did not 

reach 10 μg/L.

Cost-effectiveness of the technology:

• Based on the system’s rated capacity of 100 gal/min (gpm) (or 144,000 gal/day [gpd]), the 

capital cost was $1,492/gpm (or $1.04/gpd) of design capacity. Assuming that the system 

operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/week at its rated capacity, the unit capital cost would be 

$0.27/1,000 gal. However, because the system actually operated an average of 5.9 hr/day at 

an average flowrate of approximately 91 gpm, the actual unit capital cost was $1.20/1,000 gal

of water. 
6

• Media replacement and subsequent disposal did not occur during the system evaluation 

period. The cost to change out two vessels (76 ft3 AD-33 media) was estimated to be 

$30,010, which included the replacement media, spent media disposal, shipping, labor, and 

travel.

• The O&M cost did not include chemical cost for pH adjustment because acid was not used 

during the demonstration study. 
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 the AdEdge treatment system began on August 10, 2006, and ended on April 17, 2008. Table 3-2 

summarizes the types of data collected and/or considered as part of the technology evaluation process. 

The overall performance of the system was determined based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic 

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

as described in a Performance Evaluation Study Plan (Battelle, 2005). 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 November 18, 2004

Project Planning Meeting Held March 22, 2005

Draft LOU Issued March 29, 2005

Final LOU Issued April 12, 2005

Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor April 20, 2005

Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle May 30, 2005

Purchase Order Completed and Signed June 28, 2005

Exception Request Submitted to TECQ July 11, 2005

Engineering Plans Submitted to TCEQ August 25, 2005

APU System Shipped and Arrived October 14, 2005

Exception Request Granted by TCEQ October 31, 2005

System Permit Issued by TCEQ February 2, 2006

System Installation Completed June 20, 2006

System Shakedown Completed August 9, 2006

Final Study Plan Issued December 28, 2005

Performance Evaluation Begun August 10, 2006

LOU = letter of understanding; TCEQ = Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality

The required system O&M and operator skill levels were evaluated through quantitative data and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

consumption, electrical power usage, and labor. Data on Wellman O&M cost were limited to electricity 

usage and labor because media replacement did not take place during the evaluation period and chlorine

injection was part of the pre-existing treatment process.
8

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

Evaluation Objective Data Collection

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

Reliability Unscheduled system downtime

Frequency and extent of repairs, including a description of problems, 

materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost

System O&M and Operator 

Skill Requirements

Pre- and post-treatment requirements

Level of automation for system operation and data collection 

Staffing requirements, including number of operators and laborers

Task analysis of preventive 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

System Cost Capital cost for equipment, site 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. The plant operator recorded system operational data, 

such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a Daily System Operation Log Sheet; 

checked the sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) tank level; and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal 

system operations. In the event of problems, 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 problem encountered, course of action taken, materials and supplies 

used, and associated cost and labor incurred, on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. Every other 

week, the plant operator measured pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction 

potential (ORP), and recorded the data on a Bi-Weekly 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 spent-media disposal, 

chemical and electricity consumption, and labor. The NaOCl consumption was tracked on the Daily 

System Operation Log Sheet. Because the chemical addition system was pre-existing, chlorine 

consumption was not counted toward the O&M cost. Electricity consumption was tracked through the 

onsite electric meter. Labor for various activities, such as routine system O&M, troubleshooting and 

repairs, and demonstration-related work, was tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The 

routine O&M included activities such as completing field logs, replenishing chemical solutions, ordering 

supplies, performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the vendor. The demonstrationrelated labor, 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 

the cost analysis.

3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules

To evaluate the system’s performance, samples were collected from a common manifold containing raw

water from five wells, across the treatment train, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3
9

Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes

Sample 

Type

Sample 

Locations(a)

No. of

Samples Frequency Analytes Collection Date(s)

Source 

Water

Well 1 and IN(b) 2 Once 

(during 

initial site 

visit)

Onsite: pH, temperature, 

DO, and ORP

Offsite: 

As (total and soluble), 

As(III) & As(V),

Fe (total and soluble), 

Mn (total and soluble),

Sb (total and soluble),

U (total and soluble),

V (total and soluble), 

Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NO3, 

NO2, NH3, SO4, SiO2, PO4, 

turbidity, alkalinity, TDS, 

and TOC

11/18/04

Treatment 

Plant Water 

IN, AC, TA, 

and TB

4 Regular 

Sampling 

Events:

Monthly

Onsite(c): pH, temperature, 

DO, ORP, and Cl2 (free and 

total)

Offsite: total As, Fe, Mn, P, 

and V, SiO2, turbidity, and 

alkalinity

08/30/06, 09/20/06, 

10/19/06, 11/15/06, 

01/03/07, 02/06/07, 

03/01/07, 03/28/07, 

04/25/07, 05/24/07, 

06/28/07, 07/23/07, 

08/21/07, 09/27/07, 

11/08/07(d)

, 12/05/07, 

01/13/08, 02/20/08, 

03/12/08, 04/17/08 

IN, AC, and TT 3 Speciation

Sampling 

Events:

Monthly

Same as above plus the

following:

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

Fe (soluble), Mn (soluble), 

V (soluble), Ca, Mg, F, 

NO3, SO4, and TOC

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

10/02/06, 11/02/06, 

11/28/06, 12/14/06, 

01/18/07, 02/13/07, 

03/14/07, 04/18/07, 

05/08/07, 06/14/07, 

07/09/07, 08/14/07, 

09/11/07, 10/10/07 

Distribution 

Water

Three 

residences

(including two 

Lead and 

Copper Rule 

[LCR]

residences)

3 Monthly Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu, V 

(total and soluble) and Pb, 

pH, and alkalinity

Baseline sampling(e):

06/22/05, 07/14/05, 

08/18/05, 09/14/05

Monthly sampling:

09/06/06, 10/10/06, 

11/15/06, 12/14/06, 

01/18/07, 02/21/07, 

03/20/07, 04/18/07, 

05/24/07, 06/14/07, 

07/12/07, 08/22/07, 

09/11/07

(a) Abbreviation (IN = at common well manifold; AC = after chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after 

Vessel B; TT = after Vessels A and B combined) corresponding to sample location in Figure 3-1.

(b) Speciation not performed at IN. 

(c) Onsite measurements of chlorine not collected at IN.

(d) Starting November 8, 2007, treatment plant samples were analyzed only for total phosphate, arsenic, iron, 

manganese, and vanadium at locations IN, AC, TA, and TB.

(e) Sampling events performed before system startup.
10

provides the sampling schedule and analytes measured during each sampling event. In addition, 

Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the treatment system, along with the analytes and schedules at each

sampling location. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, 

preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of an EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project 

Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of the 

QAPP. 

3.3.1 Source Water. During the site visit on November 18, 2004, source-water samples were 

collected from Well 1 and a common well manifold (IN) containing water from all five wells and

analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. Speciation was performed for Well 1 water using an arsenic 

speciation kit described in Section 3.4.1. The sample tap was flushed for several minutes before 

sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted oxidation. 

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

water samples were collected every other week for the onsite and offsite analyses shown in Table 3-3. 

For the speciation sampling events, samples were taken at IN, after chlorination (AC), and after Vessels A 

and B combined (TT); speciation was performed onsite during these events. For the regular sampling 

events, samples were collected at IN, AC, after Vessel A (TA), and after Vessel B (TB) without onsite 

speciation. Starting from November 8, 2007, only regular sampling was performed and the samples 

collected were analyzed only for total arsenic, iron, manganese, vanadium, and phosphorus.

3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater/Solids and Spent Media Samples. Because the system did not 

require backwash during the evaluation period, no backwash residuals were produced. Furthermore, no 

spent-media samples were collected, because media replacement was not necessary durng the 

performance evaluation study.

3.3.4 Distribution System Water. The plant operator collected samples 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. From June to September 2005, prior to the 

startup of the treatment system, four baseline distribution sampling events were conducted at three 

locations within the distribution system. Following startup of the arsenic adsorption system, monthly 

distribution system sampling continued at the same three locations. 

The three locations selected were sample taps within the City of Wellman. Two of the locations had been 

included in the LCR sampling in the past. The baseline and monthly distribution system samples were 

collected following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and 

Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The homeowners recorded the dates and 

times of last water usage before sampling and the dates and times of sample collection 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. Table 3-3 lists analytes for the baseline and monthly 

sampling. Arsenic speciation was not performed for the distribution system water samples.

3.4 Sampling Logistics

All sampling logistics are discussed below, including preparation of arsenic speciation kits and sample 

coolers, as well as sample shipping and handling.

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

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

Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in 

Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004). 
11

Backwash Flow

LEGEND

Influent

After Chlorination

Media Vessel Effluent

(TA and TB)

DA: NaOCl

INFLUENT

Chlorine Disinfection

Unit Process

Process Flow

AC

SS

BW

Water Sampling Locations

IN

TT

TA

Total Combined Effluent

Backwash Sampling Location

Sludge Sampling Location

BACKWASH

STORAGE

TANK

INFLUENT

Monthly (Regular Sampling)

Monthly (Speciation Sampling)

Wellman, TX

AD-33® Technology

Design Flow: 100 gpm

DISTRIBUTION 

SYSTEM

DA: NaOCl

Footnote

(a) On-site analyses

IN

AC

pH(a), temperature(a)

,

DO/ORP(a)

, Cl2 (free and total),

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

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

Mn (total and soluble),

V (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, 

NO3, SO4, SiO2, P (total), TOC, 

turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a)

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

As (total and soluble),

As (III), As (V),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble),

V (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, 

NO3, SO4, SiO2, P (total), TOC, 

turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a)

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

Cl2 (free and total), As (total),

Fe (total), Mn (total), V (total), 

SiO2, P (total), turbidity, 

alkalinity

pH(a)

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

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

V (total), SiO2, P (total), 

turbidity, alkalinity

STORAGE TANK

(110,000 GAL)

SS

TO SEWER/

DISPOSAL

MEDIA 

VESSEL 

A

MEDIA 

VESSEL 

B

TA

TT

TB

BW

pH(a), temperature(a),

DO/ORP(a)

, Cl2 (free and total),

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

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

Mn (total and soluble),

V (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, 

NO3, SO4, SiO2, P (total), TOC, 

turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a)

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

Cl2 (free and total), As (total),

Fe (total), Mn (total), V (total), 

SiO2, P (total), turbidity, 

alkalinity

Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations
12

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 waterproof label, consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of 

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

The sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter 

code for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if 

necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. For 

example, red, orange, yellow, and blue were used to designate sampling locations for IN, AC, TA, and 

TB, respectively. The pre-labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate Ziploc® bags 

and packed in the cooler. When needed, the sample cooler also included bottles for the distribution system 

water sampling. 

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

chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/pre-addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were placed in each 

cooler. The chain-of-custody forms and FedEx air bills were completed except for the operator’s 

signature and the sample dates and times. After preparation, the sample coolers were sent to the facility 

via FedEx approximately 1 week prior to the scheduled sampling date. 

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, sample 

custodians checked sample IDs against the chain-of-custody forms and verfied that all samples indicated 

on the forms were included and intact. Battelle Study Lead address discrepancies noted by the sample 

custodian with the plant operator. The shipment and receipt of all coolers by Battelle were recorded on a 

cooler tracking log. 

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

picked up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and Belmont

Laboratories in Englewood, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration 

study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through 

analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the 

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

3.5 Analytical Procedures

The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were 

followed by Battelle’s ICP-MS Laboratory, AAL, and Belmont Laboratories. Laboratory quality 

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

of precision, accuracy, method detection limit (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the 

QAPP, i.e., relative percent difference (RPD) of 20%, percent recovery of 80% to 120%, and completeness 

of 80%. The quality assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a 

QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic 

Demonstration Project.

The plant operator conducted field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP using a 

Wissenschaftlich-Technische-Werkstätten (WTW) Multi 340i handheld meter, which was calibrated for 

pH and DO prior to use following the procedures provided in the user’s manual. The ORP probe also was 

checked for accuracy by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected 

value. The plant operator collected a water sample in a clean 400-mL plastic beaker and placed the Multi 

340i probe in the beaker until a stable value was obtained. The plant operator also performed free and 

total chlorine measurements using HachTM chlorine test kits, following procedures in the user’s manual. 
13

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure

Supplied by five groundwater wells located along U.S. Highway 385, the community water system in the 

City of Wellman distributes water to approximately 225 community members via 95 service connections. 

Of the five supply wells, Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4 are located in relatively close proximity to the 110,000-gal 

water tank (Figure 4-1) and underground vault that houses the well manifold (Figure 4-2). Well 5 is 

located approximately 3 miles southwest. The five supply wells range in size from 6 to 8 in, each 

equipped with a submersible pump of 7 to 15 horsepower (hp). The combined flowrate from the first four 

wells is estimated to be 40 gpm, and the flowrate from the fifth is 50 gpm. Therefore, the total flowrate is

approximately 90 gpm. Operating simultaneously 4 to 6 hr at a time, the well pumps are typically on 

twice per day in the summer and once per day in the winter to meet the average daily demand of

approximately 50,000 and 26,000 gal, respectively. The on/off of the well pumps is controlled by 

pressure switches located on the manifold piping at each wellhead, set at 40/54 psi. After chlorination 

with a 12.5% NaOCl solution (injected at the Well 1 manifold as shown in Figure 4-3), water is sent to 

the water tank for storage and distribution. The target free-chlorine residual level in the distribution 

system is 1.0 mg/L (as Cl2).

Figure 4-1. Water Tank and Chlorination Shed (Small Grey 

Structure Left of Truck) 

Water Tank

Chlorination Shed

Non-Active 

Water Tower
14

Figure 4-2. Vault Containing Supply Well Manifold, Sampling Tap, and

Master Totalizer

Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Chlorine Addition System
15

4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Two sets of source-water samples were collected on November 18, 

2004, for on- and offsite analyses by Battelle. One set was collected from Well 1 and the other set from 

the common manifold containing water from all five wells after chlorination. Well 1 water was speciated. 

The results are presented in Table 4-1 and compared to those taken by the facility for the EPA 

demonstration site selection.

Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for Wellman, TX

Parameter Unit

Facility

Source 

Water

Data(a)

Battelle Data

TCEQ 

Treated Water 

Data

Well 1

Source 

Water

Five Wells 

Combined, 

Chlorinated

Date - NA 11/18/04 04/27/98–11/10/04

pH S.U. 7.8 8.2 7.7 7.5

Temperature °C NA 15.6 NA NA

DO mg/L NA 6.6 NA NA

ORP mV NA 741 NA NA

Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 246; 302* 369 250 246–248

Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 406 442 446 686

Turbidity NTU NA 0.6 0.9 NA

TDS mg/L NA 1,690 806 823

TOC mg/L NA 5.2 3.4 NA

Nitrate (as N) mg/L NA 0.6 5.4 5.3–5.6

Nitrite (as N) mg/L NA 0.04 <0.01 NA

Ammonia (as N) mg/L NA <0.05 <0.05 NA

Chloride mg/L 102; 131* 590 75 103–108

Fluoride mg/L NA 5.0 5.3 0.6–6.1

Sulfate mg/L 217; 224* 240 240 241–256

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 19.5* 45.5 45.9 NA

Orthophosphate (as P) mg/L 0.096* <0.06 <0.06 NA

As (total) μg/L 39; 33* 62.0 45.4 16.5–39.3

As (soluble) μg/L NA 50.2 NA NA

As (particulate) μg/L NA 11.8 NA NA

As(III) (soluble) μg/L NA 2.8 NA NA

As(V) (soluble) μg/L NA 38.4 NA NA

Fe (total) μg/L 24; 55* <25 <25 <10

Fe (soluble) μg/L NA <25 NA NA

Mn (total) μg/L 6; <0.4 1.6 2.0 <2

Mn (soluble) μg/L NA 0.4 NA NA

U (total) μg/L NA 10.0 10.1 NA

U (soluble) μg/L NA 10.1 NA NA

V (total) μg/L NA 165 145 NA

V (soluble) μg/L NA 151 NA NA

Sb (total) μg/L NA <0.1 <0.1 NA

Sb (soluble) μg/L NA <0.1 NA NA

Na (total) mg/L 107; 172* 403 112 140

Ca (total) mg/L 64; 58* 47.5 50.6 73.7

Mg (total) mg/L 60; 61* 78.5 77.6 122

(a) Provided by facility to EPA for demonstration site selection.

NA = not analyzed; NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units; TCEQ = Texas Commission of 

Environmental Quality; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon.

* EPA data.
16

Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 33 to 62 μg/L. Based on the 

November 18, 2004, sampling results of Well 1, out of 62 μg/L of total arsenic, 50.2 μg/L existed as 

soluble arsenic and 11.8 μg/L as particulate arsenic. Of the 50.2 μg/L of soluble arsenic, 38.4 μg/L 

existed as As(V) and 2.8 μg/L as As(III). The existence of As(V) as the predominant species is consistent 

with the relatively oxidizing condition at the wellhead as reflected by the high DO (i.e., 6.6 mg/L) and 

ORP (i.e., 741 mV) levels measured during sampling. 

Iron and Manganese. Iron concentrations were generally low, ranging from its MDL of 25 μg/L to 

55 μg/L. In general, AM technologies are best suited for sites with relatively low iron levels in source 

water (i.e., less than 300 μg/L, the secondary maximum contaminant level [SMCL] for iron). Above 300 

μg/L, taste, odor, and color problems can occur in treated water, along with an increased potential for 

fouling of the adsorption system components with iron particulates. Manganese concentrations also were 

low, ranging from <0.4 to 6 μg/L.

pH. The pH range of 7.7 to 8.2 was at the upper end of the target range of 6.0 to 8.5 for optimal arsenic 

adsorption onto the AD-33 media. At pH values greater than 8.0 to 8.5, the vendor recommended that pH 

adjustment be implemented to maintain the capacity of the adsorption media. Although pH adjustment

was not included in the original system design, a pH adjustment system was later required by TCEQ (see 

Section 4.2). However, the facility chose not to use the system because of safety concerns. Disinfection 

byproducts were not measured under the arsenic demonstration program.

Competing Anions. Silica, phosphate, and vanadium may compete with arsenic for available adsorptive 

sites on the AD-33 media. The silica level in the source water sample collected by Battelle was 

45.5 mg/L, and the orthophosphate level was below detection (<0.06 mg/L). High levels of silica could 

adversely affect the adsorptive capacity of the AD-33 media. Vanadium concentrations were high, 

ranging from 145 to 165 μg/L in the source water samples collected by Battelle. 

Other Water-Quality Parameters. The majority of water-quality parameters analyzed in source water 

were below their respective primary MCLs. Fluoride levels were measured as high as 5.3 mg/L, 

exceeding the MCL of 4 mg/L. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and chloride also were observed to exceed 

their respective SMCLs of 500 mg/L and 250 mg/L, respectively, in at least one source-water sample. 

Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations also were high, ranging from 3.4 to 5.2 mg/L.

4.1.2 Treated Water Quality. In addition to the source water data, Table 4-1 also presents 

historic treated-water quality data taken by the TCEQ from April 1998 through November 2004. The 

treated-water quality data obtained from TCEQ were similar to the City of Wellman and Battelle test 

results. Total arsenic concentrations of the treated water ranged from 16.5 to 39.3 μg/L. Although no 

arsenic speciation data were available for the water following chlorination, it was assumed that arsenic 

was present as As(V) because of the addition of chlorine. The average pH value of the treated water was 

7.5, slightly lower than that of raw water. Additional analytes (including several metals and 

radionuclides) were included in the historical data provided by TCEQ. These data are summarized in 

Table 4-2.

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

water distribution system in the City of Wellman are constructed of 6-in cast iron. Connections within 

the distribution system include 3- to 6-in polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Piping within the homes is PVC and 

copper; neither lead pipe nor lead solder are thought to be present.

The three locations selected for distribution-system water sampling before and after system startup were

representative of the distribution system overall. Two of the locations were also part of the city’s historic
17

Table 4-2. TCEQ Treated Water Quality Data

Parameter Unit TCEQ Treated Water Data

Aluminum μg/L <20

Antimony μg/L <3

Barium μg/L 28.8

Beryllium μg/L <1

Cadmium μg/L <1

Chromium μg/L <10

Copper μg/L 6.6

Iron μg/L <10

Lead μg/L <1

Mercury μg/L <0.4

Nickel μg/L 1.1

Selenium μg/L 43.2

Silver μg/L <10

Thallium μg/L <1

Zinc μg/L 7.1

Gross Alpha pCi/L 8.8

Gross Beta pCi/L 15.2

Radium 226/228 pCi/L 0.3/<1

sampling network for the LCR. The facility also samples water for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

inorganics, nitrate, and radionuclides as directed by the TCEQ, typically once every 2 to 3 years.

4.2 Treatment Process Description

The APU marketed by AdEdge is a fixed-bed, downflow adsorptive media system used for small water 

systems in the flow range of up to 100 gpm. The system uses Bayoxide E33 media (branded as AD-33 by 

AdEdge) – an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Lanxess (formerly Bayer AG) for removing 

arsenic from drinking-water supplies. Table 4-3 presents physical and chemical properties of the AD-33

media. The media, available in both granular and pelletized forms, is delivered in a dry crystalline form 

and listed by NSF International (NSF) under Standard 61 for use in drinking-water applications. The 

pelletized media, which is 25% denser than its granular counterpart (i.e., 35 vs. 28 lb/ft3

), was used for the

demonstration at Wellman.

As groundwater is pumped through the fixed-bed pressure vessels, dissolved arsenic is adsorbed onto the 

media, thus reducing the dissolved arsenic concentration in the treated water. When the media reaches its 

capacity (effluent water ≥10 μg/L total arsenic), the spent media is removed and disposed of as a nonhazardous waste after passing the EPA’s Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. The 

media life depends on the arsenic concentration, empty bed contact time (EBCT), mode or variability of 

operation (on-off), pH, and concentrations of competing ions in source water.

Both chlorination and pH adjustment equipment were included at the Wellman demonstration site. 

Chlorination had already been used prior to the demonstration study. Because As(V) was the 

predominant species and the As(III) concentration was low (i.e., 2.8 μg/L based on November 18, 2004, 

data), chlorination was used primarily to maintain a chlorine residual in the distribution system. As 

described in Section 4.1, source water pH ranged from 7.7 to 8.2. A pH adjustment system required by 

TCEQ was installed to lower source-water pH values to a target value of 7.2. Although installed, the pH 

adjustment system was not used because of the operator’s safety concerns.
18

Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of Bayoxide 

E33 (or AD-33) Pelletized Media

Physical Properties

Parameter Values

Matrix Iron oxide composite

Physical Form Dry pelletized media

Color Amber

Bulk Density (lb/ft3; g/cm3) 35; 0.56

BET Surface Area (m2/g) 142

Attrition (%) 0.3

Moisture Content (%, by wt.) ~5

Particle Size Distribution (mm) 1.0–1.4 (14×18 mesh)

Crystal Size (Å) 70

Crystal Phase α – FeOOH

Chemical Analysis

Constituents Weight %

FeOOH 90.1

CaO 0.27

SiO2 0.06

MgO 1.00

Na2O 0.12

SO3 0.13

Al2O3 0.05

MnO 0.23

TiO2 0.11

P2O5 0.02

Cl 0.01

Data Source: Bayer AG.

BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller.

The arsenic treatment system (specifically referred to as the APU-100CS-S-2-AVH system) consisted of 

two pressure vessels (Vessels A and B) operating in parallel. The system was in a newly constructed 

treatment building located next to the pre-existing water tank and underground vault along U.S. Highway 

385 (Figure 4-4). Table 4-4 presents key system design parameters.

The major process components of the arsenic treatment system are:

• Intake. Raw water was pumped from the five supply wells and fed to the treatment system. 

Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4 were triggered to operate by a single pressure switch, and Well 5, which 

provided nearly half the water supply, was triggered by a separate pressure switch. The two 

pressure switches were configured to allow for simultaneous operation of all five wells. The 

raw water from each of the supply wells was piped through a common PVC manifold that 

combined raw water from all five wells just prior to entering the underground vault that 

housed a master totalizer and raw water sample tap (IN). 

• Prechlorination. The pre-existing chlorination system, shown in Figure 4-3, injected a 

12.5% NaOCl solution directly into Well 1. During installation of the arsenic treatment 

system, the prechlorination equipment was relocated inside the new treatment building, and a 

new chlorination injection point was installed on the raw water influent line, downstream of

the common well manifold (IN) and prior to the AC sampling location. 
19

Figure 4-4. Water Treatment Facility in Wellman, TX

The chlorination system was used primarily to provide a target free-chlorine residual level of 

1.0 mg/L (as Cl2) for disinfection purposes. The added benefit was to oxidize any As(III) to 

As(V) prior to the adsorption vessels. Operation of the chlorine feed system was linked to the 

well pumps such that chlorine was injected only when the wells were operating. The system 

operator monitored chlorine consumption weekly by recording the chlorine levels in the

chlorine supply tank and by measuring the volume of chlorine added to the tank.

• pH Adjustment. A pH adjustment system was installed (but not used) inside the new 

treatment building, along with the arsenic treatment system. The pH adjustment system 

consisted of a solenoid-driven diaphragm metering chemical feed pump (ProMinent®, 

beta/4®), a 50-gal, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) chemical feed tank (to store a 31% 

hydrochloric acid [HCl] solution), tubing to transfer the acid from the tank to injection valve,

an in-line mixer, and a pH probe and monitor (Figure 4-5). The acid injection point was just 

after the chlorine injection point. Figure 4-5 identified the chemical injection points (chlorine 

and acid), and Figure 4-6 identified the treatment train sample collection points, with the 

exception of the IN sample location, which is in the vault outside the new treatment building. 

• Adsorption. The arsenic treatment system consisted of two 48-in × 72-in pressure vessels 

configured in parallel, each containing 38 ft3 of pelletized AD-33 media. The skid-mounted

vessels were of carbon steel construction and rated for 100-psi working pressure (Figure 4-6). 

At a design flowrate of 50 gpm for each vessel (or 100 gpm for the whole system), the EBCT 

was 5.7 min. The hydraulic loading rate to each vessel was approximately 4.0 gpm/ft2

. 

Each pressure vessel was interconnected with schedule 80 PVC piping and five electrically 

actuated butterfly valves, which made up the valve tree as shown in Figure 4-6. In addition,

the system had two manual diaphragm valves on the backwash line and two manual lug-style

butterfly valves to divert raw water flow into each vessel. Each valve operated
20

Table 4-4. Design Specifications of AdEdge Arsenic Removal System

Parameter Value Remarks

Adsorption Vessels

Vessel Size (in) 48 D × 72 H –

Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/vessel) 12.6 –

No. of Vessels 2 –

Configuration Parallel –

AD-33 Adsorptive Media

Media Type AD-33 (pelletized) –

Media Volume (ft3/vessel) 38 –

Media Bed Depth (in) 36 –

Media Weight (lb/vessel) 1,330 2,660 lb for both vessels

Pretreatment

Free Chlorine Residual (mg/L [as Cl2]) 1.0 Using 12.5% NaOCl

Target pH Value (S.U.) 7.2 pH adjustment not implemented during 

performance evaluation study

Service

Design Flowrate (gpm/vessel) 50 100 gpm for both vessels

Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2) 4.0 –

EBCT (min) 5.7 –

Estimated Working Capacity (BV) 17,240 Bed volumes to 10 μg/L total As breakthrough 

from each vessel based on vendor estimate

Estimated Throughput to Breakthrough (gal) 9,800,000 1 BV = 568 gal

Average Use Rate (gal/day) 31,860 Based on 5.9 hr of daily operation at 90 gpm

Estimated Media Life (day) 308 (10.1 months) Estimated frequency of media changeout

based on average throughput to system

Backwash

Pressure Differential Setpoint 10 psi –

Backwash Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2) 9 –

Backwash Frequency (per month) Once System not backwashed during performance 

evaluation study

Backwash Flowrate (gpm) 113 –

Backwash Duration (min/vessel) 20 –

Fast Rinse Flowrate (gpm) 113 –

Fast Rinse Duration (min/vessel) 1 to 4 –

Wastewater Production (gal/vessel) 2,710 Assuming 4-min fast rinse

independently, and the butterfly valves were controlled by a Square D Telemechanique 

programmable logic controller (PLC) with a Magelis XBT G2220 color touch-interface 

screen.

• Backwash. The vendor recommended that the adsorption vessels be backwashed regularly to 

remove particulates and media fines that accumulated in the media beds. The system can be 

backwashed automatically based on Δp across the individual pressure vessels, time of 

operation, or volume of water treated. The vendor recommended a backwash flowrate of 113

gpm to achieve a backwash hydraulic loading rate of approximately 9 gpm/ft2

. Because the 

incoming flowrate from the supply well is insufficient to provide the
21

Figure 4-5. pH Adjustment System and Chemical Injection Valves

necessary flow for backwash, supplemental water would be supplied from the treated-water 

storage tank to the head of the system. Each backwash cycle is set to last about 21 to 24 min 

per vessel (including rinse to waste for up to 4 min) and would generate a total of 5,420 gal 

for the two vessels. The backwash wastewater produced would be pumped to a 5,000-gal 

polyethylene storage tank located next to the treatment system. From the backwash storage

tank, the backwash wastewater would be either discharged to a local sewer or collected and 

used for irrigation purposes. However, due to the minimal pressure drop across the vessels 

throughout the performance evaluation study, system backwash was never performed. 

• Media Replacement. Based on the final sampling event at Wellman, total arsenic 

concentrations in the treated water were 6.8 and 2.3 μg/L from TA and TB, respectively. The 

total arsenic concentration did not exceed the MCL of 10 μg/L; therefore, media replacement 

did not occur during the study period. Based on the estimate provided by the vendor, 

breakthrough of arsenic was expected after about 17,240 BV of water treated or about 12

months of system operation.

• Water Storage. Treated water from the APU system was sent to the 110,000-gal water tank

located at the site and used to supply treated water to the distribution system.

4.3 System Installation

The vendor and its subcontractor completed installation of the APU system on July 20, 2006. The 

following sections summarize some of the pre-demonstration activities, including permitting, building 

preparation, and system installation, shakedown, and startup.

Chlorine Injection Valve

Acid Injection Valve

Raw Water Influent Pipe
22

Figure 4-6. Adsorption System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration

4.3.1 Permitting. A pre-permit package submitted to TCEQ by the City of Wellman on July 11, 

2005, requested an exception to use data from an alternative site in lieu of conducting an onsite pilot 

study as required under 30 TAC §290.42(g). The exception request included a written description of the 

treatment technology, along with a schematic of the system and relevant pilot- and full-scale data. On 

August 25, 2005, a permit application package, including a process flow diagram of the treatment system, 

mechanical drawings of the treatment equipment, and a schematic of the building footprint and equipment 

layout, was submitted to TCEQ for permit approval. TCEQ granted the exception request on October 31, 

2005, and granted a conditional approval for construction on February 2, 2006. The conditional approval 

required that the loading rate, media depth, and pH adjustment comply with the requirements outlined in 

the TCEQ exception request response letter dated October 31, 2005. A final response to the TCEQ 

conditional approval was submitted by Oller Engineering, Inc. (the engineer of record) on June 26, 2006, 

ensuring that the system installation would be in accordance to the guidance provided by the TCEQ. 

4.3.2 Building Preparation. Construction of a new building to house the planned arsenic 

treatment system began on January 20, 2006, and was completed on February 6, 2006. The building is a 

single-story metal structure with concrete flooring, as shown in Figure 4-4. Additional preparation 

required reconfiguration of the chlorination system from the previous treatment facility to the new 

building.

AC Sample Port

In-line pH Probe

TA Sample Port

TB Sample Port
23

4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The treatment system arrived onsite on October 14, 

2005. The electrical and plumbing hookups were completed by the vendor’s subcontractor during the 

week of March 6, 2006. During the week of August 9, 2006, the vendor completed the arsenic treatment 

system installation and shakedown work, which included hydraulic testing, media loading, and media 

backwash. Two Battelle staff members were onsite on August 9, 2006, to inspect the system and to train

the operator for sampling and data collection. The system officially went online and was put into regular 

service on August 10, 2006. As a result of the system inspections, a punch-list of items was identified, 

some of which were quickly resolved and did not affect system operations or data collection, although 

problems related to the media vessel flow meters could not be resolved immediately and resurfaced

throughout the evaluation. The issues associated with the flow meters are further discussed in Section 

4.4.3. Table 4-5 summarizes the items identified and corrective actions taken. 

Table 4-5. System Punch-List/Operational Issues and Corrective Action

Item 

No.

Punch-List/

Operational Issues Corrective Action(s) Taken

Resolution 

Date

1 No backwash flow for 

Vessel A

Malfunctioning actuator on valve BV014A replaced8/11/2006

2 Relocate acid and chlorine 

injection points

Acid and chlorine injection points moved 

to inside of treatment building prior to 

treatment system

8/14/2006

3 Install inline mixer after acid 

and chlorine injection points 

Vendor notified but no action taken to 

date 

8/14/2006

4 Install second chlorine 

injection point after 

treatment

Vendor supplied two additional 4-in PVC 

saddles to site; no additional action taken 

to date

8/14/2006

5 Install “IN” sampling point 

on raw water line in vault 

Sample tap installed on combined well 

manifold in vault

8/14/2006

6 Calibrate and evaluate 

pressure gauges on system 

for accuracy

Gauges functioning properly after 

malfunctioning actuator was replaced on 

valve BV-014A

8/14/2006

7 Replace backwash line 

sampling port with larger 

port

Larger sampling port provided to facility 8/14/2006

8 Confirm Vessels A and B 

flow meters for proper 

calibration and 

measurements 

Flow coefficients in software checked and 

correct setting confirmed per factory 

specifications; Battelle sent portable flow 

meter to site to verify flow meter reading

8/15/2006

10/9/2006

4.4 System Operation

4.4.1 Operational Parameters. System operational parameters recorded during the performance 

evaluation study are tabulated and attached as Appendix A; key parameters are summarized in Table 4-6. 

From August 10, 2006, through April 17, 2008, the system operated for 3,615 hr, equivalent to 5.9 hr/day 

and a utilization rate of 24%. The operating hours were tracked by the hour meter interlocked with the 

electromagnetic flow totalizers installed on the adsorption vessels.

The system treated 14,744,962 gal (or 25,938 BV) of water based on true readings of the turbine master 

totalizer from August 10, 2006, through November 30, 2007, and on estimated values from November 30, 

2007, through the remainder of the performance evaluation study. Because the master totalizer began to 

malfunction on November 30, 2007, amounts of water produced by the wells were estimated using 

historically measured values. In comparison, the two electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers installed as
24

Table 4-6. Summary of APU-100CS-S-2-AVH System Operation

Operational Parameter Value/Condition

Duration 08/10/06–04/17/08

Cumulative Operating Time (hr) 3,615

Average Daily Operating Time (hr) 5.9

Flow Meter/Totalizer Electromagnetic(a) Turbine(b)

Throughput (gal) 18,498,848(e) 14,744,962

Throughput (BV)(c) 32,541(e) 25,938

Average (Range of) Calculated Flowrate (gpm)(d) 118 (18–323) 91 (21–372)

Average (Range of) EBCT for System (min)(c) 4.8 (1.8–31.1) 6.2 (1.5–27.4)

Average (Range of) Inlet Pressure (psi) 46.4 (36–54)

Average (Range of) Outlet Pressure (psi) 45.9 (33–54)

Average (Range of) ∆p across System (psi) 1.1 (0–4)

Average (Range of) ∆p across Vessel A (psi) 0.6 (0–2)

Average (Range of) ∆p across Vessel B (psi) 0.6 (0–13)

(a) Flow meter installed on each adsorption vessel.

(b) Master flow meter installed at combined manifold of five supply wells.

(c) Calculated based on 76 ft3 of media in both vessels.

(d) Rosner’s outliers test used to determine flowrate average and range from data 

collected between 08/10/06 and 11/30/07.

(e) Value based on true measurements from 08/10/06 through 11/30/07 and estimated 

values, based on historical data from 11/30/07 through 04/17/08.

part of the treatment system on the two adsorption vessels reported 18,498,848 gal of water treated. Bed 

volumes were calculated based on the 76 ft3 of media in both vessels.

System flowrates were tracked by instantaneous flowrate readings from the electromagnetic flow 

meter/totalizer on each adsorption vessel, and on calculated flowrate values based on readings of the hour 

meter and the same electromagnetic meters/totalizers. Over the system evaluation period, the calculated 

system flowrates varied from 18 to 323 gpm and averaged 118 gpm (not including the data collected after 

November 30, 2007, when the Well 5 pump was shut down due to pump- and piping-related issues). This 

calculated average flowrate is significantly greater than that of the pre-existing turbine master totalizer

(i.e., 91 gpm) and the system design value of 100 gpm. Figure 4-7 compares calculated system flowrates

of the electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer and the master totalizer throughout the performance evaluation

study.

To determine a more representative average and range of flowrate values, the Rosner’s outlier test was 

used for statistical analysis and elimination of erroneous values collected from both the electromagnetic 

flow meter/totalizer and turbine master totalizer. Based on the test results, the average electromagnetic

totalizer flowrate through the adsorption vessels was consistently greater than the average master totalizer 

flowrate by approximately 30%.

Because of this large discrepancy, a one-day flowrate test was performed on October 9, 2006, using a 

portable ultrasonic flow meter to establish an alternate reference for evaluating the accuracy of the 

electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers and turbine master totalizer. Table 4-7 summarizes the results of 

the one-day flowrate test. In general, the one-day flowrate test results were more comparable with the 

master totalizer; therefore, the master totalizer values (provided in Table 4-6) were used for the purposes 

of this performance evaluation study and reported throughout this document. Section 4.4.3 further 

examines inconsistent flowrates among the treatment system flow meters/totalizers, master totalizer, and 

portable flow meter.
25

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

08/11/06 11/19/06 02/27/07 06/07/07 09/15/07 12/24/07 04/02/08

Date

Average Flowrate (GPM)

Master Totalizer Average Flowrate"

APU Totalizer Average Flowrate"

Master Totalizer 

malfunctioned on 

11/30/07

The pump for well 5, 

which supplied about 

50% of the flow shut 

down in early 

December.

Figure 4-7. Calculated Flowrate Values from Electromagnetic Flow

Meter/Totalizer and Master Totalizer

Table 4-7. Flowrates Measured by Various Flow 

Meters/Totalizers on October 9, 2006

Flow Meter/Totalizer

Type of Flow 

Meter/Totalizer

Average 

Flowrate

(gpm)

Difference

(%)

Master Totalizer Turbine 92 0

Portable Flow Meter Ultrasonic 101 +10

APU System Totalizer Electromagnetic 128 +39

As noted in Table 4-6, a statistical analysis was used to eliminate erroneous flowrate values collected 

from both the electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer and the turbine master totalizer to determine a more 

representative average and range of values. Specifically, Rosner’s outlier test was employed because 

there were more than 25 independent observations and because it was believed that there were multiple 

outliers in both datasets (Rosner, 1975). Overall, there were two outliers from the turbine master totalizer 

(on February 22 and July 12, 2007) and five outliers from the electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer (on 

October 2, 2006, and on July 12, August 30, September 4, and September 6, 2007). Following removal of 

the outliers, based on Rosner’s outlier test, the turbine master totalizer average flowrate was 91 gpm and 

the electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer average flowrate was 118 gpm, a 30% variance in flowrate 

averages.
26

It is also possible that there was serial correlation between the almost daily observations; therefore, 

autocorrelation (i.e., correlation between consecutive observations) was calculated for both totalizers. It 

was found that the master turbine totalizer values were not autocorrelated but that the electromagnetic

flow meter/totalizer values were autocorrelated. This observation was confirmed by performing a 

Durbin-Watson test for autocorrelation (Durbin and Watson, 1950). Overall, the methods and results for

the master turbine totalizer are statistically acceptable, while the presence of autocorrelation affects the 

results for the electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer.

The treatment system pressure readings were monitored at the system inlet and outlet and between both 

Vessels A and B. Figure 4-8 is a histogram of inlet, outlet, and differential pressures for the system and 

each vessel over the system evaluation period. The average Δp across the system, Vessel A, and Vessels 

B was 1.1, 0.6, and 0.6 psi, respectively, and remained relatively low. As such, no significant pressure 

increases were observed after 3,615 hr of system operation. Several pressure spikes were observed; 

however, none of these spikes caused a significant increase across the system or adsorption vessels that

would have required backwashing of the media during the evaluation period.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

07/27/06 11/04/06 02/12/07 05/23/07 08/31/07 12/09/07 03/18/08

Date

Pressure (psi)

Vessel A Inlet Pressure Vessel A Outlet Pressure Vessel A Differential Pressure

Vessel B Inlet Pressure Vessel B Outlet Pressure Vessel B Differential Pressure

System Inlet Pressure System Outlet Pressure System Differential Pressure

Figure 4-8. Treatment System Operational Pressure Readings

4.4.2 Residual Management. No residuals were produced, because neither backwash nor media 

replacement was required during the evaluation period.

4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. The only operational irregularity 

experienced during the evaluation period was related to the electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers on the

arsenic treatment system. Over the system evaluation period, the electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers 
27

installed with the treatment system had been reporting flowrates significantly greater than the design 

value and master totalizer values. Because of this, a one-day flowrate test was performed on October 9, 

2006, using a portable ultrasonic flow meter to determine the accuracy of the electromagnetic flow 

meters/totalizers and turbine master totalizer. 

Each type of totalizer operates differently; hence, several different variables could influence the actual 

flow measurement. The master totalizer is a turbine flow meter, which is most often used for water 

distribution systems. Turbine meters are less accurate than positive displacement and jet meters, although 

turbine meters allow for higher flow rates and less pressure loss than displacement-type meters. The 

portable flow meter is ultrasonic, which requires known values to be preset prior to use. The portable 

flow meter reports an accuracy of ±1% to 3% within a velocity range of ±0.1 m/sec under ideal flow 

conditions in 4-in PVC piping. The treatment system flow meter/totalizer is an electromagnetic flow 

meter, which requires a minimum of 10 straight pipe diameters upstream and a minimum of five straight 

pipe diameters downstream of the flow meters/totalizers. At Wellman, neither upstream nor downstream 

specifications were met. Upstream from the flow meters/totalizers there should have been a minimum of 

30 in of straight pipe, and downstream there should have been a minimum of 15 in of straight pipe. For 

both flow meters/totalizers installed, there were only 21 in upstream and 6 in downstream, a difference of 

30% and 60%, respectively, and less than the minimum requirements.

Based on the one-day flow rate test, it was concluded that the APU system flow meters are the least 

accurate of the meters due to the current piping configuration and that results from the master totalizer 

and portable flow meter are within an acceptable margin of error (Battelle, 2008). As such, the master 

turbine totalizer was used for demonstration purposes and the use of the electromagnetic flow 

meters/totalizers was discontinued until the factory-set K-factors were adjusted to compensate for the 

inaccuracy (i.e., piping configuration). Unfortunately, the vendor was unable to recalibrate the K-factor 

during the evaluation period; therefore, the master turbine totalizer was used for the demonstration study 

until it began to malfunction on November 30, 2007. Following the malfunction of the master totalizer on 

November 30, 2007, flowrate values were estimated, based on historically measured values, through the 

completion of the performance evaluation study on April 17, 2008. 

Once the master totalizer readings were no longer reliable, subsequent flowrate values were calculated 

using adjusted historical APU system flowrates (i.e., values from August 10, 2006 through November 27, 

2007). These historical values were adjusted based on the percentage of water flowing through each 

vessel and then the adjusted historical values were used to calculate subsequent flowrate values through 

April 17, 2008 (see Appendix A). 

Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Two pretreatments were required at the Wellman site:

chlorination and pH adjustment. A chlorination step was required to provide a chlorine residual in the 

distribution system and to oxidize As(III) to As(V). The existing chlorination system was relocated from 

the pre-existing chlorination shed into the new treatment building and reconfigured to inject solution after 

the combined raw-water sampling location (IN) (as opposed to directly into Well 1) but prior to the AC 

sampling location. The chlorination system, as discussed in Section 4.2 and shown in Figure 4-3, used a 

12.5% NaOCl solution to reach a target free-residual level of 1.0 mg/L (as Cl2). The reconfigured 

chlorination system did not require additional maintenance or skills, other than those required by the 

previous system. The operator monitored chlorine solution consumption rates (gal/week) and residual 

chlorine levels.

A pH adjustment system was installed to reduce the pH to 7.2 (TCEQ permit requirement); however, it 

was never used because of the operator’s safety concerns. Throughout the evaluation period, pH values 

ranged from 7.6 to 8.0 for the IN samples (i.e., raw water); 7.4 to 7.8 for the AC samples; and 7.4 to 7.7 

for the TT samples (i.e., treated water). 
28

System Automation. The system was fitted with automated controls for automatic backwash. Each 

media vessel was equipped with five electrically actuated butterfly valves, which were controlled by a 

Square D Telemechanique PLC with a Magelis G2220 color touch-interface screen. The automated 

portion of the system did not require regular O&M; however, operator awareness and an ability to detect 

unusual system measurements were necessary when troubleshooting system automation failures. The 

equipment vendor provided the operator with hands-on training and a supplemental operations manual.

Operator Skill Requirements. The operation of the adsorption system demanded a higher level of 

awareness and attention than the previous system. The system required increased monitoring of system 

parameters. The operator’s knowledge of the system limitations and typical operational parameters was

critical in achieving system performance objectives. The operator was onsite typically three times per

week and spent approximately 3 to 15 min each time performing visual inspections and recording the 

system operating parameters on the daily log sheets. Operator training began with onsite training and a 

thorough review of the system operations manual. However, over the system evaluation period, the 

operator found that invaluable system troubleshooting skills were gained through hands-on operational 

experience. 

TCEQ requires that treatment-system operator hold at least a Class D TCEQ waterworks operator license. 

The TCEQ public water system operator certifications are classified as A through D. Licensing eligibility 

requirements are based on education, experience, and related training. The minimum requirements for a 

Class D license are a high school diploma or GED, as well as 20 hr of related training. Licensing 

requirements incrementally increase with each licensing level, with Class A being the highest and

requiring the most education, experience, and training.

Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included periodic checks of flow

meters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. The prechlorination tank and 

supply lines also were checked for leaks and adequate pressure. Typically, the operator performed these 

duties when onsite for routine activities. 

Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. NaOCl was used for prechlorination. The 

operator ordered chemicals as had been done prior to treatment-system’s installation. HCl was intended 

to be used for pH adjustment, but it was not incorporated into the water treatment system and therefore 

not handled by the operator. 

4.5 System Performance

The performance of the arsenic treatment system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples 

collected from the treatment facility and distribution system.

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 41 occasions,

including five duplicate and 16 speciation sampling events. Appendix B provides a complete set of 

tabulated results. Table 4-8 summarizes the results for arsenic, iron, manganese, and vanadium across the 

treatment train. Table 4-9 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters. The results of the 

water samples collected throughout the treatment train are discussed below.

Arsenic. As shown in Table 4-8, total arsenic concentrations at the combined manifold (IN) varied 

considerably, ranging from 6.0 to 50.6 μg/L and averaging 36.0 μg/L. The predominant soluble species 

was As(V), ranging from 6.1 to 43.8 μg/L and averaging 29.0 μg/L. Low levels of soluble As(III) and 

particulate arsenic also were present, averaging 1.3 and 4.2 μg/L, respectively. A review of the 

significant concentration variations at the IN sampling location identified that system operations and

sampling techniques most likely were contributing to these variations. In fact, samples collected after 
29

Table 4-8. Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Vanadium

Parameter

Sample 

Location Unit

Sample 

Count

Concentration Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

As (total)

IN μg/L 41 6.0 50.6 36.0 11.4

AC μg/L 41 37.5 50.0 42.9 3.4

TA μg/L 25 0.1 7.5 -

(a) -(a)

TB μg/L 25 0.7 7.6 -

(a) -(a)

TT μg/L 16 0.4 7.9 -

(a) -(a)

As (soluble)

IN μg/L 16 8.8 44.2 30.3 13.2

AC μg/L 16 35.9 48.6 41.3 2.8

TT μg/L 16 0.4 7.8 -

(a) -(a)

As (particulate)

IN μg/L 16 <0.1 18.5 4.2 4.9

AC μg/L 16 <0.1 9.2 3.2 2.6

TT μg/L 16 <0.1 0.6 -

(a) -(a)

As (III)

IN μg/L 16 <0.1 6.0 1.3 1.4

AC μg/L 16 <0.1 11.4 1.8 2.7

TT μg/L 16 <0.1 8.7 -

(a) -(a)

As (V)

IN μg/L 16 6.1 43.8 29.0 13.8

AC μg/L 16 35.2 42.9 39.6 2.0

TT μg/L 16 <0.1 5.5 -

(a) -(a)

Fe (total)

IN μg/L 41 <25 131 <25 21.4

AC(b) μg/L 40 <25 51.9 <25 9.3

TA μg/L 25 <25 <25 <25

TB μg/L 25 <25 <25 <25

TT μg/L 16 <25 <25 <25

Fe (soluble)

IN μg/L 16 <25 <25 <25

AC μg/L 16 <25 <25 <25

TT μg/L 16 <25 <25 <25

Mn (total)

IN μg/L 41 <0.1 2.2 0.6 0.4

AC μg/L 41 <0.1 2.0 0.4 0.4

TA μg/L 25 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 0.1

TB μg/L 25 <0.1 0.5 <0.1 0.1

TT μg/L 16 <0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1

Mn (soluble)

IN μg/L 16 0.3 1.3 0.7 0.3

AC μg/L 16 <0.1 0.9 0.4 0.2

TT μg/L 16 <0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1

V (total)

IN μg/L 41 17.5 167 112 36.5

AC μg/L 41 105 174 136 15.8

TA μg/L 25 0.7 133 -

(a) -(a)

TB μg/L 25 0.7 136 -

(a) -(a)

TT μg/L 16 0.6 132 -

(a) -(a)

V (soluble)

IN μg/L 16 28.7 156 100 46.9

AC μg/L 16 112 169 143 15.2

TT μg/L 16 0.5 139 -

(a) -(a)

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

(a) Average and standard deviation calculations were not meaningful due to breakthrough of respective 

contaminants from adsorption vessels; see breakthrough curves in Figure 4-10 for total arsenic;

Figure 4-9 for particulate arsenic, As(III), and As(V); and Figure 4-12 for vanadium. 

(b) Analytical results from April 17, 2008, were not used in statistical calculations due to abnormally 

high results (1,516 μg/L) and were considered erroneous.
30

Table 4-9. Summary of Water-Quality Parameter Sampling Results

Parameter

Sample 

Location Unit

Sample 

Count

Concentration Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

Alkalinity 

(as CaCO3)

IN mg/L 34 232 301 262 11.2

AC mg/L 34 239 273 255 9.6

TA mg/L 18 252 275 261 6.8

TB mg/L 18 246 276 260 7.0

TT mg/L 16 243 272 259 7.9

Fluoride(a)

IN mg/L 15 0.4 7.6 5.5 1.6

AC mg/L 15 3.6 6.8 5.3 0.9

TT mg/L 15 4.5 7.8 5.8 0.9

Sulfate

IN mg/L 16 70.0 318 240 57.1

AC mg/L 16 218 470 299 77.6

TT mg/L 16 230 380 272 45.1

Nitrate (as N)

IN mg/L 16 3.5 7.2 5.1 1.0

AC mg/L 16 3.5 7.2 5.1 1.1

TT mg/L 16 3.9 7.3 5.1 1.0

Total P (as P)

IN μg/L 41 <10 33.6 <10 6.8

AC μg/L 41 <10 34.9 <10 7.1

TA μg/L 25 <10 17.4 <10 2.5

TB μg/L 25 <10 25.4 <10 4.1

TT μg/L 16 <10 27.7 <10 6.3

Silica (as SiO2)

IN mg/L 34 42.1 62.1 46.8 4.0

AC mg/L 34 42.6 60.8 46.2 3.3

TA mg/L 18 41.3 61.5 47.3 4.5

TB mg/L 18 42.8 64.2 47.9 4.8

TT mg/L 16 24.4 50.6 45.2 6.0

Turbidity

IN NTU 34 0.2 2.6 0.6 0.5

AC NTU 34 0.1 2.4 0.7 0.6

TA NTU 18 0.1 2.7 0.5 0.6

TB NTU 18 0.1 3.4 0.5 0.7

TT NTU 16 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.2

Total Organic 

Carbon

IN mg/L 15 1.0 1.9 1.3 0.2

AC mg/L 15 1.1 1.7 1.3 0.2

TT mg/L 15 1.1 1.6 1.3 0.1

pH

IN S.U. 13 7.6 8.0 7.8 0.1

AC S.U. 13 7.4 7.8 7.6 0.1

TT S.U. 12 7.4 7.7 7.5 0.1

Temperature

IN °C 13 8.1 22.3 15.9 4.8

AC °C 13 9.7 23.8 16.3 4.5

TT °C 12 10.1 23.8 16.4 4.3

DO

IN mg/L 11 4.7 7.1 5.7 0.7

AC mg/L 11 4.1 7.0 5.5 0.8

TT mg/L 9 4.6 6.3 5.5 0.6

ORP

IN mV 12 178 612 477 112

AC mV 12 185 676 503 129

TT mV 11 271 726 557 133

Free Cl2 (as Cl2) TT mg/L 3 0.8 1.4 1.0 0.3

Total Cl2 (as Cl2) TT mg/L 5 0.2 2.2 0.9 0.8
31

Table 4-9. Summary of Water-Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)

Parameter

Sample 

Location Unit

Sample 

Count

Concentration Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3)

IN mg/L 15 333 604 410 78.3

AC mg/L 15 349 668 458 99.7

TT mg/L 15 351 557 417 59.6

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3)

IN mg/L 16 101 187 133 21.1

AC mg/L 16 100 187 136 20.3

TT mg/L 16 105 182 142 20.7

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3)

IN mg/L 15 195 474 276 71.4

AC mg/L 15 227 507 322 91.6

TT mg/L 15 212 401 275 50.6

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

(a) Analytical results from June 14, 2007 at IN and July 9, 2007 at AC and TT were not used in statistical 

calculations because they were determined to be outliers.

chlorination (AC) provided concentrations in a more reasonable range and are believed to be more 

representative of the true water quality. Total arsenic concentrations in the AC samples ranged from 37.5 

to 50.0 μg/L and averaged 42.9 μg/L. In the AC samples, soluble As(V) remained predominant, ranging 

from 35.2 to 42.9 μg/L and averaging 39.6 μg/L. Soluble As(III) concentrations averaged 1.8 μg/L, and 

particulate arsenic concentrations averaged 3.2 μg/L.

The presence of As(V) as the predominant species in raw water was consistent with the high DO and ORP 

levels/readings, which averaged 5.7 mg/L and 477 mV, respectively (Table 4-9). After prechlorination, 

DO levels remained rather unchanged, averaging 5.5 mg/L at both AC and TT sampling locations. 

However, ORP readings increased significantly to levels averaging 503 and 557 mV at the AC and TT 

locations, respectively. The increase in ORP was caused by the presence of up to 1.0 mg/L (as Cl2) of 

free-chlorine residuals in the chlorinated water.

Figure 4-9 presents the results of the 16 arsenic speciation events measured at the IN, AC, and TT

locations. Beginning March 14, 2007, As(V) concentrations from the combined effluent began to 

increase gradually along with the volume of water treated, indicating that the media was becoming 

exhausted (however, breakthrough at 10 μg/L was never reached during the evaluation period). As(III)

levels at the IN, AC, and TT locations were similar, averaging 1.3, 1.8, and 1.5 μg/L, respectively. The 

measurements of As(III) at AC and TT are most likely due to the limitation of the speciation method,

since as much as 1.0 mg/L (as Cl2) of free-chlorine residuals were measured in the combined effluent.

Figure 4-10 illustrates total arsenic concentrations measured across the treatment train as a function of 

throughput in bed volumes. The total arsenic breakthrough curves indicate that the AD-33 media 

removed arsenic to levels well below the MCL of 10 μg/L. The final sampling event, April 17, 2008, 

measured the total arsenic concentration at the TA and TB sampling locations at 6.8 and 2.3 μg/L, 

respectively. Throughout the evaluation period, the system treated an estimated 25,938 BV (14,744,962 

gal) of water with treated water containing <6.8 μg/L of arsenic. This volume of treated water surpassed

the vendor’s estimate of 17,240 BV (9,800,000 gal) by 50%. 
32

Arsenic Speciation at the Wellhead (IN)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

08/10/0609/06/0610/02/0611/02/0611/28/0612/14/0601/18/0702/13/0703/14/0704/18/0705/08/0706/14/0707/09/0708/14/0709/11/0710/10/07

Date

As Concentration (μg/L)

As (particulate)

As(III)

As(V)

Arsenic Speciation after Chlorination (AC)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

08/10/0609/06/0610/02/0611/02/0611/28/0612/14/0601/18/0702/13/0703/14/0704/18/0705/08/0706/14/0707/09/0708/14/0709/11/0710/10/07

Date

As Concentration (μg/L)

As (particulate)

As(III)

As(V)

Arsenic Speciation after Total Combined Effluent (TT)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

08/10/0609/06/0610/02/0611/02/0611/28/0612/14/0601/18/0702/13/0703/14/0704/18/0705/08/0706/14/0707/09/0708/14/0709/11/0710/10/07

Date

As Concentration (μg/L)

As (particulate)

As(III)

As(V)

Figure 4-9. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Locations
33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Estimated Bed Volumes (103)

As Concentration (μg/L)

At Wellhead (IN)

After Chlorination (AC)

After Vessel A (TA)

After Vessel B (TB)

After Total Combined Effluent (TT)

As MCL = 10 μg/L

Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves

As indicated earlier, total arsenic concentrations (along with concentrations of various other analytical 

parameters, including total vanadium) unexpectedly increased from the IN to the AC sampling location 

on 12 occasions (see Figure 4-11). During these sampling events, the average total arsenic concentration 

at the IN and AC sampling locations was 19.8 and 40.9 μg/L, respectively. Repeat analysis of these 

samples and discussions with the operator did not reveal an explanation. One factor that was most likely 

the cause of this inconsistency was the intermittent operation of the wells and the possibility of samples 

being collected while the system was not operating. The system treats water based on demand, and the 

water is supplied by five wells. Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4 are operated by a single pressure switch and Well 5, 

which produces nearly half the treated water, is operated by a separate pressure switch. This type of 

pressure switch configuration might have allowed some wells to operate somewhat longer than others,

thereby producing inconsistencies in water quality and analytical results. In fact, in some cases, if one of 

the pressure switches was delayed, pressure could build in the pipeline and prevent the delayed well pump 

or pumps from being switched on. 

In an effort to evaluate this possibility, the operator was instructed to collect samples only while the 

system was operating and producing the average flow expected from all five supply wells. Since that 

time, the average total arsenic concentrations at the IN and AC sampling locations were 42.3 and 

43.5 μg/L, respectively. Overall, the analytical results indicate that once the operator began collecting 

samples while the system was operating, the total arsenic concentrations (along with various other 

analytical parameters) became more consistent between the IN and AC sampling locations. 
34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Bed Volumes (103

)

As Concentration (μg/L)

0

40

80

120

160

200

V Concentration (μg/L)

Arsenic at the Wellhead

Arsenic after Chlorination

Vanadium at the Wellhead

Vanadium after Chlorination

Figure 4-11. Total Arsenic and Vanadium Concentrations at IN and AC Sampling Locations

Iron, Manganese, and Vanadium. Total iron levels at the wellhead averaged below the MDL of 25 μg/L 

(Table 4-8). However, iron was detected during the first three sampling events, on July 23, 2007 and on

April 17, 2008. Total iron concentrations after chlorination were below the MDL, except on October 19, 

2006, February 13, 2007, July 23, 2007, and April 17, 2008. Iron levels consistently remained below the 

detection limit in the treatment system effluent. 

Total manganese levels at the wellhead averaged 0.6 μg/L (Table 4-8). Total manganese in the system 

effluent decreased to levels below the detection limit of 0.1 μg/L at the TA and TB sampling locations 

and averaged 0.1 μg/L from the total combined effluent (TT). Soluble manganese concentrations were 

similar to total concentrations, averaging 0.7, 0.4, and 0.1 μg/L at the IN, AC, and TT locations, 

respectively. 

Total vanadium levels varied significantly in the IN samples, ranging from 17.5 to 167 μg/L, with 89% 

existing in the soluble form (Table 4-8). Figure 4-12 illustrates the vanadium breakthrough curves at 

sampling locations across the treatment train. Over the evaluation period, total vanadium concentrations 

were reduced to <133 μg/L in the treatment system effluent.

As discussed previously, total vanadium concentrations unexpectedly increased from the wellhead to the 

after-chlorination sampling location – similar to total arsenic levels – on 12 occasions. Figure 4-11 

illustrates the similarities at the IN and AC sampling locations between total arsenic and total vanadium 

concentrations. During these sampling events, the average total vanadium concentration at the IN and AC

sampling locations was 61.7 and 142 μg/L, respectively. As indicated previously, this variation was most
35

0

40

80

120

160

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Estimated Bed Volumes (103)

V Concentration (μg/L)

At Wellhead (IN)

After Chlorination (AC)

After Vessel A (TA)

After Vessel B (TB)

After Total Combined Effluent (TT)

Figure 4-12. Total Vanadium Breakthrough Curves

likely caused by inconsistent operations of pressure switches and well pumps used to supply water to the 

treatment system. Once the operator began collecting samples while the treatment system was operating, 

the analytical results were more consistent, as demonstrated by the average total vanadium concentrations

of 133 and 135 μg/L at the IN and AC sampling locations, repectively.

Total vanadium concentrations at the TB sampling location were consistently higher than those at the TA 

sampling location, at corresponding sampling intervals. This noticeable trend also was present with total 

arsenic concentrations at the TA and TB sampling locations. It is not clear what caused the differences 

observed. Figures 4-10 and 4-12 illustrate these trends.

Competing Anions. Phosphate and silica, which can adversely affect arsenic adsorption onto the AD-33 

media, were measured at sampling locations across the treatment train. Total phosphorous concentrations 

remained low throughout the treatment train, averaging <10 μg/L (as P); therefore, it was not expected to 

affect system performance. Silica concentrations remained relatively constant across the treatment train, 

averaging from 45.2 mg/L at the TT location to 47.9 mg/L at the TB location (Table 4-9). Some silica 

was removed during the first 2,000 BV; similar removal by AD-33 media was observed elsewhere during 

the arsenic demonstration studies (McCall, et al., 2007; Williams, et al., 2007).

Other Water Quality Parameters. As shown in Table 4-9, pH values of raw water ranged from 7.6 to 8.0

and averaged 7.8. After chlorination, pH values ranged from 7.4 to 7.8 and averaged 7.6. This pH range 

of 7.4 to 7.8 after chlorination, but prior to the adsorption vessels, is lower than that for which pH 
36

adjustment should be implemented. As discussed previously, pH adjustment was required by TCEQ, but 

was not implemented because of the operator’s safety concerns. 

Alkalinity levels averaged 262 mg/L (as CaCO3) in raw water and 260 mg/L (as CaCO3) in system

effluent. Total hardness levels ranged from 333 to 604 mg/L (as CaCO3) in raw water and from 351 to 

557 mg/L (as CaCO3) in the treated water. Average fluoride results ranged from 5.3 to 5.8 mg/L at all 

sampling locations. The fluoride levels were higher than the fluoride MCL of 4 mg/L. Average nitrate 

concentrations were 5.1 mg/L at all sampling locations. Average sulfate concentrations ranged from 240 

to 299 mg/L at all sampling locations. The results indicated that the AD-33 media did not affect the 

amount of alkalinity, total hardness, fluoride, nitrate, and sulfate in the treated water. 

4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling. The arsenic treatment system was not backwashed 

during the evaluation period due to the minimal pressure drop across the vessels. 

4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation and operation of the arsenic 

treatment system, baseline distribution system water samples were collected on June 22, July 14, August 

18, and September 14, 2005, at three residences, including two that had been included for the city’s LCR 

sampling in the past. Following installation of the treatment system, distribution water sampling 

continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations, with samples collected on 13 occasions from 

September 6, 2006, through September 11, 2007. Table 4-10 summarizes the results of the distribution 

system sampling. 

The most significant change in the distribution system water since the system began operation was a 

decrease in arsenic concentration. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged from 33.2 to 44.7 μg/L and 

averaged 38.9 μg/L for all three locations. After treatment began, arsenic concentrations decreased at all 

three locations, averaging 3.2 μg/L. Distribution system samples collected on September 6, 2006, and 

February 21, 2007 contained relatively high arsenic concentrations ranging from 7.0 to 11.4 and 6.0 to 

14.1 μg/L, respectively. The remaining samples contained lower arsenic concentrations ranging from 

<0.1 to 3.9 μg/L and averaging 2.0 μg/L for all three locations.

After treatment began, average lead concentrations remained relatively constant, ranging from 0.3 to 0.4

μg/L at the three locations, with no samples exceeding the action level of 15 μg/L. Average copper 

concentrations varied significantly, ranging from 17.0 to 115 μg/L at the three locations, with no samples 

exceeding the 1,300 μg/L action level. Overall, operation of the arsenic treatment system did not 

adversely affect the lead or copper concentrations in the distribution system. 

After treatment began, measured pH values averaged 7.7, which is consistent with the values measured 

before the system became operational (pH was 7.6) and with the average values measured after the 

adsorption vessels (pH was 7.5). Average alkalinity levels ranged from 261 to 271 mg/L (as CaCO3), iron 

was not detected in any of the samples, and average manganese concentrations ranged from 0.3 to 

0.4 μg/L at all three locations. Overall, the arsenic treatment system did not appear to affect these water 

quality parameters in the distribution system.

4.6 System Cost

The system cost is presented on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design capacity and the O&M 

cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The capital cost includes the cost for equipment, site engineering, and 

installation; the O&M cost includes media replacement and disposal, chemical usage, electrical power 

use, and labor.
37

Table 4-10. Distribution System Sampling Results

Event No.

Location DS1 DS2 DS3

Sample

Type LCR LCR Residence Sampling Date Stagnation Time pHAlkalinity As Fe Mn PbCu Stagnation Time pHAlkalinity As Fe Mn PbCu Stagnation Time pH

AlkalinityAsFeMnPbCu

No. Date hr S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L hr S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L hr S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L

BL1 06/22/05 11.3 7.6 242 40.6 <25 0.3 0.2 62.3 8.8 7.6 242 42.3 <25 0.2 <0.1 73.0 6.5 8.2 242 40.5 <25 0.5 0.3 275

BL2 07/14/05 10.5 7.5 246 39.4 <25 0.9 0.4 67.0 6.4 7.6 251 39.7 <25 0.2 0.4 65.8 7.1 7.6 251 38.5 <25 0.3 0.2 139

BL3 08/18/05 6.5 7.5 242 38.3 <25 0.3 0.3 51.1 8.4 7.5 246 37.9 <25 0.1 0.1 97.2 8.3 7.6 NA(a) 44.7 <25 0.3 0.2 197

BL4 09/14/05 8.5 7.5 264 33.2 <25 <0.1 0.3 67.5 7.8 7.6 264 36.2 <25 0.3 0.1 126 7.4 7.5 264 35.1 <25 <0.1 0.2 153

1 09/06/06 6.5 7.7 263 7.0 <25 <0.1 <0.1 3.0 7.5 7.6 367 11.4 <25 <0.1 <0.1 74.4 7.9 7.8 272 11.4 <25 <0.1 <0.1 72.9

2 10/10/06 9.3 7.6 258 1.4 <25 <0.1 0.4 10.1 6.5 7.6 260 2.4 <25 <0.1 <0.1 78.0 7.5 7.7 271 1.8 <25 <0.1 0.3 190

3 11/15/06 6.5 7.5 254 1.1 <25 <0.1 0.5 7.8 8.5 7.5 258 2.1 <25 <0.1 0.2 129 7.3 7.5 258 1.4 <25 0.1 0.3 182

4 12/14/06 6.5 7.6 268 1.1 <25 <0.1 <0.1 5.2 11.0 7.5 262 2.5 <25 0.3 0.5 141 8.1 7.7 266 1.3 <25 0.2 0.2 94.8

5 01/18/07 6.5 7.8 265 2.1 <25 <0.1 <0.1 134 7.8 7.6 272 1.4 <25 0.1 0.2 139 8.2 7.7 272 1.1 <25 <0.1 0.3 13.4

6 02/21/07 6.5 7.8 264 6.0 <25 0.7 1.0 9.5 9.0 7.7 267 7.3 <25 0.8 1.2 141 6.6 7.8 269 14.1 <25 1.7 1.8 120

7 03/20/07 7.5 7.9 271 0.9 <25 0.3 0.6 7.8 7.5 7.7 273 1.7 <25 0.3 0.5 112 7.5 7.9 276 <0.1 <25 <0.1 0.2 196

8 04/18/07 6.5 7.8 276 0.4 <25 0.1 0.3 6.3 8.0 7.7 260 1.1 <25 0.2 0.3 99.0 7.3 7.7 264 0.6 <25 0.2 0.2 111

9 05/24/07 6.5 7.8 261 1.2 <25 <0.1 0.2 5.8 7.0 7.7 257 1.8 <25 <0.1 0.2 139 7.0 7.7 257 1.3 <25 <0.1 0.2 28.7

10 06/14/07 6.5 7.8 247 2.0 <25 <0.1 0.2 7.7 8.8 8.0 262 2.5 <25 <0.1 0.1 113 7.6 8.0 274 2.4 <25 <0.1 0.1 124

11 07/12/07 7.5 8.0 252 3.5 <25 <0.1 <0.1 6.3 8.8 7.8 256 3.7 <25 <0.1 <0.1 70.7 6.8 7.7 249 3.9 <25 0.4 <0.1 167

12 08/22/07 6.5 7.8 259 2.9 <25 <0.1 0.2 8.4 7.5 7.7 265 3.2 <25 <0.1 0.1 117 7.0 7.7 263 3.9 <25 0.1 0.2 157

13 09/11/07 6.5 7.9 260 3.2 <25 <0.1 0.3 8.3 8.3 7.8 264 3.5 <25 0.4 0.3 118 7.0 7.7 262 3.3 <25 <0.1 0.3 37.9

(a) Insufficient sample for analysis due to loss during shipment.

BL = Baseline Sampling; NA = not analyzed; NS = not sampled.

Lead action level = 15 μg/L; copper action level = 1,300 μg/L.
38

4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation of the 

arsenic treatment system was $149,221 (see Table 4-11). The equipment cost was $103,897 (or 70% of 

the total capital investment), which included $76,254 for the skid-mounted APU-100CS-S-2-AVH unit, 

$21,280 for the AD-33 media (i.e., $280/ft3 to fill two vessels with 76 ft3 of media), $2,851 for the pH 

adjustment system, and $3,512 for shipping. 

Table 4-11. Capital Investment Cost for APU System

Description Quantity Cost

% of Capital 

Investment

Equipment Cost

APU Skid-Mounted System (Unit) 1 $76,254 –

AD-33 Media (ft3) 76 $21,280 –

pH Adjustment System – $2,851 –

Shipping – $3,512 –

Equipment Total – $103,897 70%

Engineering Cost

Vendor Material/Labor/Travel – $11,660 –

Subcontractor Labor/Travel – $13,650 –

Engineering Total – $25,310 17%

Installation Cost

Vendor Labor/Travel – $6,374 –

Subcontractor Labor/Travel – $13,640 –

Installation Total – $20,014 13%

Total Capital Investment – $149,221 100%

The engineering cost included the cost for preparing one submittal package for the exception request and 

permit application and for obtaining the required permit in addition to labor and travel (see Section 4.3.1). 

The engineering cost was $25,310, or 17% of the total capital investment.

The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted unit, 

perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, load and backwash the media, perform system shakedown and 

startup, and conduct operator training. The installation cost was $20,014, or 13% of the total capital 

investment.

The total capital cost of $149,221 was normalized to the system’s rated capacity of 100 gpm (144,000 

gpd), which resulted in $1,492/gpm ($1.04/gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted 

to an annualized cost of $14,085/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% 

interest rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/week at the 

system design flowrate of 100 gpm to produce 52,560,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost 

would be $0.27/1,000 gal. Because the system only operated an average of 5.9 hr/day at 91 gpm (see 

Table 4-6), producing approximately 11,758,000 gal of water over a 1 year period, the unit capital cost 

increased to $1.20/1,000 gal of water at this reduced rate of use.

4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost includes the cost for items such as 

media replacement and disposal, chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor. Although media 

replacement did not occur during the evaluation period, the media replacement cost would represent the 

majority of the O&M cost and is estimated to be $30,010 to change out both vessels (Table 4-12). This 

media changeout cost would include the cost for media, freight, labor, travel, spent-media analysis, and 

media disposal fee. This cost was used to estimate the media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water 
39

Table 4-12. Operation and Maintenance Cost for APU System

Cost Category Value Assumptions

Volume Processed (gal) 14,744,962 Through April 17, 2008

Media Replacement and Disposal Cost

Media and Underbedding 

Replacement

$22,420 Vendor quote; $295/ft3 for 76 ft3 (two media 

vessel)

Shipping $983 Vendor quote

Vendor Labor/Travel $3,717 Vendor quote

Subcontractor Labor $1,890 Vendor quote

Media Analysis and Disposal $1,000 Vendor quote

Subtotal $30,010 Vendor quote plus spent-media analysis

Media Replacement and Disposal 

($/1,000 gal)

See Figure 4-13 Based upon both vessels’ media run length 

at 10 μg/L arsenic breakthrough

Electricity Cost

Electricity ($/1,000 gal) $0.001 Electrical costs assumed negligible

Labor Cost

Average Weekly Labor (min) 45 15 min/day, 3 day/week

Annual Labor Cost ($/yr( $234 Labor rate = $6.00/hr; 52 week/yr

Labor ($/1,000 gal) $0.02 Annual system throughput = 11,758,000 gal

Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal See Figure 4-13 Based on both vessels’ media run length at 

10 μg/L arsenic breakthrough

treated as a function of the projected media run length in bed volumes to 10 μg/L arsenic breakthrough 

(Figure 4-13).

The chemical cost associated with the treatment system’s operation included the use of hydrochloric acid

for pH adjustment and sodium hypochlorite for chlorination. The pH adjustment system was not 

operated; therefore, no cost accrued for acid consumption. Sodium hypochlorite was already being used 

at the site prior to installation of the APU system for disinfection purposes. The operation of the APU 

system did not affect the use of sodium hypochlorite; therefore, the incremental chemical cost for chlorine 

was negligible and not included in O&M costs. 

Electrical bills prior to and after installation showed no indication of an increase in power consumption. 

Therefore, electrical cost associated with operation of the system was assumed to be negligible.

Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed 

up to 15 min/day, 3 day/week, as noted in Section 4.4.3. Based on this time commitment, a labor rate of 

$6.00/hr, and an annual system throughput of 11,758,000 gal, the estimated labor cost was 

$0.02/1,000 gal of water treated. 
40

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

$9.00

$10.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (∗103)

Cost ($/1,000 gal)

Media Replacement Cost

O&M Cost

Note: One bed volume equals 568 gallons 

.

Figure 4-13. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost
41

5.0 REFERENCES

Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology. 

Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Battelle. 2005. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic 

Removal Technology at the Webb Consolidated Independent School District in Bruni, Texas. 

Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029 for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal

Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. 

EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Durbin, J. and G.S. Watson. 1950. “Testing for Serial Correlation in Least Squares Regression I,” 

Biometrika 37: 409-428.

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.” Fed. Register, 66:14:6975, 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, DC. 

EPA. 2003. “Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.” 

Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.

McCall, S.E., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive 

Media. EPA Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH. Six-Month Evaluation Report. 

EPA/600/R-06/125. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Rosner, B. 1975. “On the Detection of Many Outliers.” Technometrics, 17: 221-227.

Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA 

Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, 

OH.

Williams. S., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2007. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive 

Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Webb Consolidated Independent School District in 

Bruni, TX. Six-Month Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-07/049. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
42

Williams. S., A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, and A. Paolucci. 2008. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by 

Adsorptive Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX. Six-Month Evaluation

Report. EPA/600/R-08/080. 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 Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
A-2

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
A-3

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
A-4

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
A-5

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
A-6

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
A-7

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
A-8

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
A-9

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
A-10

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

NA = not available (in most cases, system not in operation when operator was on-ite; therefore, data not available).

1 BV = 38 ft3

/vessel = 284 gal/vessel (or 568 gal for whole system)

System is in parallel configuration.

Master totalizer down on 11/30/07; cumulative volume treated during remainder of performance evaluation estimated from historical data on 12/05/07, 01/14/08, 

02/20/08, 02/12/08, and 04/17/08.
APPENDIX B

ANALYTICAL DATA
B-1

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 10^3 - - NA - - 0.9 0.9 - - 1.2 - - 1.8 1.7 - - 2.3

232 248 248 266 255 255 266 265 254 265 255 239 255 261 301 258 258

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L 5.0(a) 6.8 7.0 - - - - 6.0 4.9 6.0 - - - - 0.4 5.8 5.6

Sulfate mg/L 245 305(a) 302(a) - - - - 244 218 249 - - - - 70 260 265

Nitrate (as N) mg/L 5.2 4.3 4.1 - - - - 4.0 3.5 3.9 - - - - 3.5 4.3 4.6

25.4 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

43.5 43.8 24.4 42.1 43.6 41.3 42.8 42.1 42.6 42.0 48.2 46.6 45.4 48.5 57.6 47.5 45.8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - 1.3 1.3 1.2 - - - - 1.3 1.3 1.3

pH S.U. 7.7 7.7 7.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.9 7.6 7.6

Temperature °C 22.3 23.8 23.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20.0 20.0 21.3 21.0 18.9 17.0 17.0

DO mg/L 5.4 5.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.7 5.0 4.6 5.0 6.2 5.6 5.5

ORP mV 178 352 271 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 483 569 475 524 500 574 585

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 604 422 415 - - - - 387 521 395 - - - - 410 418 434

Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 130 131 133 - - - - 128 136 130 - - - - 134 137 140

Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 474 291 282 - - - - 258 385 265 - - - - 277 281 295

45.9 46.4 0.4 6.0 43.7 0.7 0.7 15.4 37.7 1.1 14.7 40.5 2.0 2.3 42.1 43.7 0.8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 42.0 43.6 0.4 - - - - 14.6 39.2 0.9 - - - - 40.3 40.5 0.7

As (particulate) μg/L 3.9 2.8 <0.1 - - - - 0.8 <0.1 0.1 - - - - 1.7 3.2 <0.1

As (III) μg/L 0.8 0.7 0.4 - - - - 1.0 1.4 0.9 - - - - 0.7 0.9 0.8

As (V) μg/L 41.2 42.9 <0.1 - - - - 13.6 37.9 <0.1 - - - - 39.6 39.6 <0.1

131 <25 <25 52 <25 <25 <25 39 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L <25 <25 <25 - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - - <25 <25 <25

1.8 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 0.8 0.3 0.2 - - - - 0.4 0.3 0.2 - - - - 0.3 0.2 <0.1

157 136 0.7 17.5 135 0.8 0.8 53.4 152 1.4 44.7 138 0.7 0.7 139 137 0.9

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

V (soluble) μg/L 154 134 0.5 - - - - 51.8 154 1.1 - - - - 138 143 1.0

(a) Parameter analyzed outside of hold time. (b) Water quality measurements taken on 09/27/06. (c) Water quality measurements taken on 10/10/06. 

NOTE:Varying arsenic and vanadium concentrations at the wellhead (IN), occationally lower than after chlorination (AC), have been investigated by Battelle. 

10/02/06(c)

IN

V (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Mn (total) μg/L

As (total) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Sampling Date 08/10/06

Sampling Location IN AC

08/30/06

IN AC TA TB

09/06/06

IN AC TT

09/20/06(b)

IN AC TA TB AC TT

Total P (as P) μg/L

TT

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)

B-2

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 3.2 3.0 - - 3.7 - - 4.4 4.1 - - 4.8 - - 5.4

256 240 260 260 267 246 261 258 246 254 246 259 245 259 258 243 252

258 244 260 258 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - 4.6 3.6 4.6 - - - - 7.6 4.4 6.2 5.1 3.8 4.8

Sulfate mg/L - - - - 221 427 272 - - - - 308 470 379 318 400 380

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - 4.2 5.3 4.6 - - - - 5.6 6.1 6.1 4.8 5.2 4.4

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

46.3 45.8 47.1 47.6 45.7 43.0 44.4 44.7 42.7 44.2 46.6 45.5 43.3 45.4 43.3 42.8 43.3

46.7 46.7 47.2 48.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.6 3.4 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.5 1.6 0.4

0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - 1.1 1.5 1.2 - - - - 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.4

pH S.U. NA NA NA NA 7.9 7.7 7.7 NA NA NA NA 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.9 7.8 7.6

Temperature °C NA NA NA NA 13.1 11.5 11.2 NA NA NA NA 15.2 15.6 15.9 12.4 13.1 13.4

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA 5.7 6.0 6.3 NA NA NA NA 6.5 5.8 5.9 5.7 5.6 5.2

ORP mV NA NA NA NA 477 522 603 NA NA NA NA 479 481 492 529 514 529

Free Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - NA NA NA - NA 0.4 - NA NA NA - NA 0.2 - NA 1.4

Total Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - NA NA NA - NA NA - NA NA NA - NA NA - NA NA

Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 350 668 395 - - - - 423 608 527 489 593 557

Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 155 161 159 - - - - 147 148 164 136 143 155

Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 195 507 236 - - - - 276 460 364 353 450 401

29.5 37.5 1.0 0.8 22.7 39.2 0.5 22.6 38.7 1.2 1.1 19.7 47.2 1.4 10.7 38.9 1.1

29.2 38.3 1.2 0.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - 24.9 39.2 0.4 - - - - 12.6 43.1 1.4 12.6 38.1 1.0

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 7.2 4.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.8 <0.1

As (III) μg/L - - - - 0.4 0.7 0.4 - - - - 1.4 1.4 1.6 0.7 0.8 0.7

As (V) μg/L - - - - 24.5 38.6 <0.1 - - - - 11.2 41.6 <0.1 11.9 37.3 0.3

<25 52 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

<25 46 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - - <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

0.7 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 0.3 <0.1 1.0 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.8 0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.4 <0.1

0.6 0.2 <0.1 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - 0.5 0.3 <0.1 - - - - 1.2 0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.4 <0.1

92.1 135 0.9 0.8 71.8 156 0.6 77.7 168 1.0 1.1 56.7 161 3.2 41.2 159 2.0

90.0 143 1.0 0.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

V (soluble) μg/L - - - - 82.1 161 0.5 - - - - 41.7 160 3.7 47.7 160 1.9

IN AC TT

11/15/06 11/28/06 12/14/06

TB IN AC TT IN AC TA TB IN AC TT

11/02/06

V (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Mn (total) μg/L

As (total) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

10/19/06

IN

Total P (as P) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L

AC TA
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)

B-3

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 10^3 - - NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) - - 7.7 6.9 - - 7.6 - - 8.6 7.8

268 272 270 262 263 248 263 281 256 263 268 263 256 265 262 262 267 262

268 270 258 276 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - 5.7 4.7 5.5 - - - - 6.3 5.8 7.8 - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - 272 381 273 - - - - 223 305 257 - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - 4.8 5.5 4.9 - - - - 4.4 4.7 4.6 - - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 29.0 33.2 27.7 <10 10.0 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

45.6 45.1 45.2 45.4 45.4 45.3 47.6 42.5 42.7 44.6 43.8 49.7 50.0 50.6 46.8 47.8 47.6 46.7

44.8 45.7 44.7 45.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.5 2.3 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.3

0.5 2.4 1.2 0.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - 1.2 1.5 1.2 - - - - 1.0 1.3 1.2 - - - -

pH S.U. NA NA NA NA 8.0 7.8 7.7 NA NA NA NA 7.9 7.6 7.6 NA NA NA NA

Temperature °C NA NA NA NA 8.1 9.8 10.1 NA NA NA NA 8.6 9.7 12.5 NA NA NA NA

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA NA(b) NA(b) NA(b) NA NA NA NA NA(b) NA(b) NA(b) NA NA NA NA

ORP mV NA NA NA NA 535 512 659 NA NA NA NA 468 502 726 NA NA NA NA

Free Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - NA NA NA - NA NA - NA NA NA - NA NA - NA NA NA

Total Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - NA NA NA - 1.0 NA - NA NA NA - NA 2.2 - NA NA NA

Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 372 503 371 - - - - 406 422 435 - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 113 118 114 - - - - 162 153 162 - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 259 385 257 - - - - 244 270 273 - - - -

45.4 44.6 0.8 0.7 21.2 44.0 1.4 40.3 41.6 1.2 1.8 24.3 43.8 7.9 40.2 41.7 1.3 1.7

45.1 46.6 0.8 0.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - 19.2 41.4 1.4 - - - - 22.4 48.6 7.8 - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - 2.1 2.6 <0.1 - - - - 1.9 <0.1 0.2 - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - 1.6 2.0 1.8 - - - - 6.0 11.4 8.7 - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - 17.6 39.4 <0.1 - - - - 16.4 37.2 <0.1 - - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 35 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

<25 <25 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - -

0.3 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.5 <0.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.9 2.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - 0.6 0.7 <0.1 - - - - 1.0 0.7 0.5 - - - -

142 139 0.9 3.1 64.3 145 3.1 111 112 1.5 10.8 50.7 105 11.0 109 110 0.7 15.3

143 141 0.9 3.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

V (soluble) μg/L - - - - 62.2 142 3.8 - - - - 42.7 121 10.3 - - - -

(a) Operational data not taken. (b) DO probe not operational. 

03/01/07

IN AC TT IN AC TA TB

02/06/07 02/13/07

IN AC TT IN AC TA TB

01/03/07 01/18/07

IN AC TA TB

V (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Mn (total) μg/L

As (total) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

Total P (as P) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)

B-4

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 8.8 - - 9.8 8.9 - - 10.2 - - 10.9 9.9 - - 11.2

273 273 268 266 261 268 259 260 260 262 270 268 275 262 270 258 265

- - - - - - - - - - 270 268 268 265 - - -

Fluoride mg/L 5.2 5.2 5.8 - - - - 5.4 5.5 5.5 - - - - 5.3 5.4 4.5

Sulfate mg/L 251 245 252 - - - - 251 258 261 - - - - 165 239 241

Nitrate (as N) mg/L 4.0 3.7 4.3 - - - - 5.0 4.9 5.0 - - - - 4.4 4.5 4.6

16.0 24.8 16.8 33.6 34.9 17.4 25.4 17.8 16.1 11.5 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - <10 <10 <10 <10 - - -

46.2 45.6 46.9 44.5 45.6 45.4 46.1 48.5 47.3 49.1 47.0 46.9 46.8 47.7 48.2 46.4 49.3

- - - - - - - - - - 46.9 47.1 47.0 47.3 - - -

1.3 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2

- - - - - - - - - - 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 - - -

TOC mg/L 1.9 1.7 1.6 - - - - 1.3(a) 1.3(a) 1.3(a) - - - - 1.5 1.2 1.3

pH S.U. 7.9 7.6 7.6 NA NA NA NA 8.0 7.7 7.6 NA NA NA NA 7.8 7.5 7.5

Temperature °C 12.9 14.7 15.4 NA NA NA NA 14.4 15.5 16.1 NA NA NA NA 17.5 17.8 18.2

DO mg/L 7.1 7.0 6.2 NA NA NA NA 5.9 5.8 5.6 NA NA NA NA 5.0 4.6 4.6

ORP mV 413 504 563 NA NA NA NA 443 185 404 NA NA NA NA NA(b) NA(b) NA(b)

Free Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - NA NA - NA NA NA - NA 0.8 - NA NA NA - NA NA

Total Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - NA 1.1 - NA NA NA - NA NA - NA NA NA - NA NA

Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 547 474 471 - - - - 386 399 385 - - - - 333 359 351

Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 187 187 182 - - - - 101 99.5 105 - - - - 124 126 139

Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 361 287 289 - - - - 285 300 281 - - - - 209 233 212

27.3 45.6 3.9 46.5 48.3 3.2 5.2 45.3 43.2 1.2 39.4 38.9 2.0 3.1 44.1 42.4 2.9

- - - - - - - - - - 38.0 38.2 1.7 2.7 - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 8.8 43.3 3.8 - - - - 39.2 40.8 1.0 - - - - 44.2 35.9 2.5

As (particulate) μg/L 18.5 2.3 0.2 - - - - 6.2 2.4 0.2 - - - - <0.1 6.5 0.5

As (III) μg/L 2.7 3.1 2.9 - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 0.5 0.7 1.1

As (V) μg/L 6.1 40.2 0.9 - - - - 39.1 40.7 0.9 - - - - 43.8 35.2 1.4

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 <25 - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L <25 <25 <25 - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - - <25 <25 <25

0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.4 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - 0.4 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 0.5 0.1 <0.1 - - - - 0.8 0.4 0.2 - - - - 0.3 0.4 <0.1

79.9 111 22.8 108 107 1.3 30.7 167 174 44.2 138 136 1.1 55.7 131 137 70.8

- - - - - - - - - - 133 137 1.0 55.5 - - -

V (soluble) μg/L 28.7 112 23.1 - - - - 156 169 44.0 - - - - 120 135 69.3

(a) TOC samples were analyzed outside of hold time. (b) ORP probe not operational.

04/25/07

IN AC TA TB

04/18/07

IN AC TT

03/28/07

IN AC TA TB

V (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Mn (total) μg/L

As (total) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

03/14/07

Total P (as P) μg/L

IN AC TT

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L

IN AC TT

05/08/07
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)

B-5

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 12.1 11.0 - - 12.7 - - 13.8 12.3 - - 13.7 - - 15.1 13.3

252 254 259 254 257 259 259 264 264 267 262 256 249 252 260 260 255 255

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 255 252 252 252

Fluoride mg/L - - - - 29.2 6.0 6.5 - - - - 6.5 30.5 14.2 - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - 268 287 250 - - - - 261 254 259 - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - 4.9 4.2 4.4 - - - - 6.4 6.0 5.5 - - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <10 <10 <10 <10

45.9 46.4 47.0 47.6 47.3 47.0 48.1 62.1 60.8 61.5 64.2 47.1 47.1 46.2 45.8 45.6 47.3 46.4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 46.4 45.5 46.7 46.3

0.4 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.3 1.5 1.5 2.7 0.8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.6 1.3 0.6 0.3

TOC mg/L - - - - 1.4 1.3 1.4 - - - - 1.3 1.3 1.3 - - - -

pH S.U. NA NA 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 NA NA

DO mg/L NA NA 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 NA NA

Free Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - NA 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 NA

Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 337 349 362 - - - - 360 369 385 - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 116 122 132 - - - - 126 126 119 - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 222 227 230 - - - - 234 244 266 - - - -

42.0 41.5 0.2 1.7 45.3 47.4 2.5 39.8 40.8 0.1 2.5 50.6 50.0 3.7 42.3 42.9 1.1 4.3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43.3 43.1 1.2 4.4

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - 40.7 42.6 2.4 - - - - 40.1 40.8 3.2 - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - 4.6 4.7 0.2 - - - - 10.5 9.2 0.5 - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - 0.7 0.7 0.6 - - - - 1.1 1.3 1.3 - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - 40.0 41.9 1.8 - - - - 38.9 39.5 1.9 - - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 28 29 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25 29 <25 <25

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - -

0.3 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 2.2 1.8 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 1.0 0.1 1.1 0.9 <0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.0 0.9 <0.1 <0.1

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - 0.5 0.1 <0.1 - - - - 1.3 0.9 0.4 - - - -

145 143 1.8 86.4 144 143 98.3 136 134 1.1 116 140 138 114 122 124 15.1 110

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 125 126 15.0 110

V (soluble) μg/L - - - - 138 144 101 - - - - 137 138 112 - - - -

IN AC TA TB

07/23/07

IN AC TA TB

06/28/07 07/09/07

TT IN AC TT

05/24/07

IN AC TA TB

V (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Mn (total) μg/L

As (total) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

Total P (as P) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L

06/14/07

IN AC
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)

B-6

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 15.4 - - NA(a) 13.9 - - NA(a) - - 18.9 15.0 - - 18.4

267 272 272 250 248 252 250 255 251 251 262 258 260 258 245 245 243

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L 5.2 5.3 5.4 - - - - 6.1 6.1 6.2 - - - - 7.4 6.3 6.0

Sulfate mg/L 240 230 230 - - - - 250 250 240 - - - - 258 253 245

Nitrate (as N) mg/L 6.0 5.9 6.0 - - - - 7.2 7.2 7.3 - - - - 6.6 7.0 6.9

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

45.4 45.2 48.4 52.5 52.4 55.3 55.2 44.7 45.0 45.9 47.6 47.7 47.1 47.1 45.3 45.4 46.3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.0 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.5 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L 1.2 1.2 1.3 - - - - 1.1 1.1 1.1 - - - - 1.1 1.1 1.1

pH S.U. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.8 7.6 7.4 NA NA NA NA 7.6 7.4 7.4

Temperature °C NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 21.6 21.5 21.8 NA NA NA NA 21.1 21.3 21.4

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6.1 5.1 5.4 NA NA NA NA 4.8 4.1 4.6

ORP mV NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 612 645 584 NA NA NA NA 610 676 714

Free Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - NA NA - NA NA NA - NA NA - NA NA NA - NA 0.9

Total Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - NA NA - NA NA NA - NA NA - NA NA NA - NA 0.7

Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 365 380 375 - - - - 377 390 402 - - - - NA NA NA

Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 117 118 148 - - - - 131 144 161 - - - - 122 130 138

Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 248 261 227 - - - - 246 246 241 - - - - NA NA NA

39.0 43.9 5.1 45.6 45.7 1.5 1.3 43.1 44.6 5.9 39.6 40.4 1.4 6.1 47.8 48.6 7.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 41.2 42.0 4.9 - - - - 39.6 40.8 5.7 - - - - 42.1 41.5 6.5

As (particulate) μg/L <0.1 1.9 0.3 - - - - 3.5 3.7 0.2 - - - - 5.7 7.1 0.6

As (III) μg/L 1.5 1.8 1.8 - - - - 0.7 0.7 0.6 - - - - 0.8 0.8 0.9

As (V) μg/L 39.8 40.2 3.0 - - - - 38.9 40.1 5.1 - - - - 41.3 40.7 5.5

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L <25 <25 <25 - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - - <25 <25 <25

0.6 0.5 <0.1 0.9 0.8 <0.1 <0.1 0.8 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.3 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 0.9 0.4 <0.1 - - - - 0.9 0.6 <0.1 - - - - 0.9 0.3 0.3

127 134 128 127 126 30.8 30.3 139 141 132 136 134 31.9 130 134 138 132

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

V (soluble) μg/L 132 133 126 - - - - 140 142 139 - - - - 134 136 135

(a) Bed volume calculations not accurate due to malfunctioning totalizer. 

IN AC TT

09/11/07

V (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Mn (total) μg/L

As (total) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

Total P (as P) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L

IN

08/14/07 08/21/07

AC TT IN AC TA TB

09/27/07 10/10/07

IN AC TA TB IN AC TT
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)

B-7

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 21.8 17.2 - - 22.4(a) 17.9(a) - - 23.8(a) 19.1(a) - - 25.4(a) 20.5(a) - - 26.4(a) 21.4(a)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. NA NA NA NA 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 NA NA NA NA

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA 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 NA NA NA NA

Free Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - NA NA NA - 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 - NA NA NA

Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

44.3 44.4 1.4 6.4 44.8 43.9 2.0 6.8 41.7 43.1 2.3 6.8 42.5 41.8 7.5 3.0 33.7 39.3 3.1 7.6

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33.9 38.9 2.1 6.7

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 <25

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.4 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

143 142 37.7 136 131 127 39.3 119 124 127 53.2 120 125 122 127 70.6 123 125 87.0 127

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 121 125 87.4 128

V (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(a) Bed volumes estimated by taking bed volumes calculated from the Master Totalizer readings from the previous year and adding onto the last available data (11/27/08).

12/05/07 02/20/08

IN AC TA TB

01/13/08

IN AC TA

V (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Mn (total) μg/L

As (total) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

Total P (as P) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L

11/08/07

IN AC TA TB TB IN AC TA TB

03/12/08

IN AC TA TB
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)

B-8

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 27.6(a) 22.5(a)

- - - -

- - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10

- - - -

- - - -

- - - -

- - - -

- - - -

TOC mg/L - - - -

pH S.U. NA NA NA NA

Temperature °C NA NA NA NA

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA

ORP mV NA NA NA NA

Free Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - NA NA NA

Total Chlorine (as Cl2) mg/L - NA NA NA

Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - -

39.7 49.0 6.8 2.3

- - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - -

69 1,516 <25 <25

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - -

0.2 0.9 <0.1 <0.1

- - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - -

140 163 133 107

- - - -

V (soluble) μg/L - - - -

 

V (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Mn (total) μg/L

As (total) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

Total P (as P) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L

04/17/08

IN AC TA TB

(a) Bed volumes estimated by taking bed volumes calculated from the Master Totalizer readings from the previous year and adding onto the last available 

data (11/27/08).