EPA/600/R-09/017 

February 2009 

Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media 

U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH 

Final Performance Evaluation Report 

by 

Lydia J. Cumming 

Abraham S.C. Chen 

Lili Wang 

Battelle 

Columbus, OH 43201-2693 

Contract No. 68-C-00-185 

Task Order No. 0037 

for 

Thomas J. Sorg 

Task Order Manager 

Water Supply and Water Resources Division 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Office of Research and Development 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 
ii

DISCLAIMER 

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

(EPA) under Task Order 0037 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. 
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

iii
ABSTRACT 

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

treatment technology demonstration project at Rollinsford, New Hampshire. The objectives of the project 

were to evaluate: 1) the effectiveness of AdEdge Technologies’ AD -33TM media in removing arsenic to 

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

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

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

process residuals produced by the treatment system. 

The Rollisford, NH demonstration project consisted of two study phases. The source water for both 

studies consisted of water from two wells having a flow capacity of 95 to 112 gal/min (gpm). Phase 1 of 

the study utilized an Arsenic Package Unit (APU)-100 system designed for a flowrate of 100 gpm. 

Because higher flowrates up to 112 gpm were experienced in Phase 1, a 120-gpm APU-RWS system was 

designed and installed for Phase 2 of the study. Both packages units contained the AdEdge AD-33TM

media, which is an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG under the brand name of 

Bayoxide 33. 

The Phase 1 APU-100 system consisted of two 36-in-diameter, 72-in-tall pressure vessels in parallel 

configuration, each initially containing 27 ft3

 of AD-33TM media supported by a gravel underbed. Empty 

bed contact time (EBCT) for the system was approximately 4.0 min per vessel. Hydraulic loading to each 

vessel based on a design flowrate of 100 gpm was approximately 7 gpm/ft2

. The Phase 2 APU-RWS 

system consisted of two 48-in-diameter, 72-in-tall pressure vessels in parallel configuration, each initially 

containing 30 ft3

 of AD-33TM media also supported by a gravel underbed. EBCT for the APU-RWS 

system was approximately 3.7 min based on a media volume of 30 ft3

 per vessel. Hydraulic loading to 

each vessel based on a design flowrate of 120 gpm was about 4.8 gpm/ft2

. 

The APU-100 system included a carbon dioxide (CO2) injection module with manual controls for pH 

adjustment prior to arsenic adsorption. Contributing, in part, by mechanical problems, the CO2 system 

failed to consistently adjust pH to the target value of 7.0. Attempts were made to upgrade the manual pH 

control system for automatic operation to provide for better control for Phase 2; however, the system 

automation was never completed because the CO2 injection membrane was subject to fouling that could 

not be resolved. As a result, pH adjustment was not performed during the Phase 2 study. 

Two system performance runs were conducted in the Phase 1 APU-100 treatment system. Run 1 

operating from February 9, 2004, through October 27, 2004, and Run 2 from November 3, 2004, through 

January 15, 2005. The replacement system, APU-RWS, was evaluated under Phase 2 from June 13, 

2005, through May 8, 2006. During Phase 1, the system was sometimes operated with only one supply 

well to reduce the flowrate to the system, thereby reducing the inlet pressure and differential pressure (p) 

in order to extend the time between backwash events. During Phase 2, the system also was operated with 

one supply well to reduce the flowrate to the system to try to improve arsenic removal performance. 

Run 1 of the system treated approximately 11,926,000 gal of water based on totalizer readings from each 

vessel, operating 11.6 hr/day with an average flowrate of 95 (with both supply wells operating) or 60 gpm 

(with one supply well operating). Run 2 of the system treated approximately 3,921,000 gal of water 

operating 10.5 hr/day with an average flowrate of 112 gpm (with both supply wells operating). During 

Phase 2, the APU-RWS system treated approximately 12,881,000 gal of water, operating 9.7 hr/day with 

an average flowrate of 97 (with both supply wells operating) or 58 gpm (with one supply well operating). 

The EBCTs for Run 1 in each vessel ranged from 3.0 to 7.0 min with both wells running and from 4.3 to 

9.5 min with only one well running. During Run 2, the EBCTs ranged from 2.5 to 3.9 min. The EBCTs 

iv
in Phase 2 ranged from 4.0 to 5.6 min with both wells running and from 4.0 to 10.0 min with only one 

well running. 

During Phase 1, higher than normal system p and inlet pressures were experienced. Consequently, the 

operator conducted frequent backwashes and worked with the vendor to troubleshoot, modify, and replace 

several system components. The aggressive and frequent backwashing resulted in high media loss – up to 

46 to 59% by the end of the study. The system design for Phase 2 successfully addressed the elevated 

pressure and eliminated the need for frequent backwashes. 

Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 28.7 to 52.4 μg/L with As(III) comprising a 

significant portion of the total soluble arsenic, with concentrations ranging from 7.6 to 28.8 μg/L. After 

one and one half months of Run 1 operation, the preexisting chlorine injection system was used to 

prechlorinate the source water and effectively oxidized the As(III) to As(V). The prechlorination step 

continued throughout the remainder of the study. 

Breakthrough of total arsenic at concentrations above the 10 μg/L target MCL was first observed after the 

APU-100 system had processed between 12,500 and 17,000 bed volumes (BV) of water, representing 

about 17 to 23% of the estimated working capacity of 74,000 BV. The media performed similarly during 

the Phase 2 operation of the APU-RWS system. Although the re-design of the system helped alleviate 

both inlet pressure and Δp problems, it did not improve the media performance in terms of its run length. 

 

Backwash wastewater contained soluble arsenic concentrations ranging from 9.5 to 33.8 μg/L. Soluble 

iron and soluble manganese concentrations ranged from <25 to 115 and 3.3 to 75.7 μg/L, respectively. 

As expected, total arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations were considerably higher than the soluble 

concentrations, indicating the presence of particulate material in the backwash wastewater. Particulate 

arsenic might be associated with either iron particles filtered out by the media beds during the service 

cycle or the media fines. Based on the total suspended solids (TSS) values, approximately 8 lb of 

suspended solids would be produced in 1,890 gal of backwash wastewater from the vessels for Phase 1 

and approximately 25 lb of solids would be produced in 4,200 gal of backwash wastewater for Phase 2. 

The spent media passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Toxicity Characteristic 

Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test for all metals, with only barium showing detectable concentrations 

ranging from 0.95 and 0.96 mg/L. The average arsenic loading on the spent media based on the 

inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) results was 1.88 mg/g or 0.188%. This 1.88 

mg/g loading compared well (98%) with the average adsorptive capacity of 1.93 mg/g measured by 

dividing the area between the influent and effluent breakthrough curves by the amount of dry media in 

each tank. 

Distribution system water samples were collected before and after the installation of the treatment system 

to determine any impact of arsenic treatment on the lead and copper level and water chemistry in the 

distribution system. However, because the distribution system in place was a looped system that included 

water from a third untreated well (General Sullivan Well), the impact of the treated water could not be 

exactly determined. 

The capital investment cost for the re-designed APU-RWS system was $131,692, which included 

$105,805 for equipment, $4,672 for engineering, and $21,215 for installation. Using the system’s rated 

capacity of 120 gpm (172,800 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $1,097/gpm ($0.76/gpd). These 

calculations do not include the cost of a building to house the treatment system. The unit annualized 

capital cost is $0.20/1,000 gal, assuming the system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at the system 

design flowrate of 120 gpm. The system operated only 10 hr/day, producing 21,243,000 gal of water per 

v
vi

year with both wells operating. At this reduced usage rate, the unit annualized capital cost increased to 

$0.59/1,000 gal. 

The O&M cost for the APU-RWS system was estimated at $3.59/1,000 gal, which included media 

replacement and disposal, electricity consumption, and labor. Chlorination was not included in the O&M 

cost calculation because it was part of the existing treatment system. 
CONTENTS

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

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

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

FIGURES...................................................................................................................................................viii

TABLES ......................................................................................................................................................ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .....................................................................................................x

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..........................................................................................................................xii

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 ....................................................................................................4

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater.....................................................................................................8

3.3.4 Residual Solids ................................................................................................................8

3.3.5 Distribution System Water ............................................................................................10

3.4 Sampling Logistics .....................................................................................................................11

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

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

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

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

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

4.1 Existing Facility Description ......................................................................................................13

4.1.1 Source Water Quality ....................................................................................................13

4.1.2 Predemonstration Treated Water Quality ......................................................................15

4.1.3 Distribution System .......................................................................................................15

4.2 Treatment Process Description...................................................................................................15

4.3 System Installation .....................................................................................................................26

4.3.1 Permitting ......................................................................................................................26

4.3.2 Building Construction....................................................................................................26

4.3.3 APU-100 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup ............................................................26

4.3.4 APU-RWS Installation, Shakedown, and Startup .........................................................27

4.4 System Operation .......................................................................................................................27

4.4.1 Operational Parameters..................................................................................................28

4.4.2 Differential Pressure......................................................................................................31

4.4.3 CO2 Injection .................................................................................................................35

4.4.4 Backwash.......................................................................................................................38

4.4.5 Media Loading and Removal ........................................................................................39

4.4.6 Residual Management ...................................................................................................39

4.4.7 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity ................................................................40

vii
4.5 System Performance ...................................................................................................................41

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling .............................................................................................41

4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling...................................................................................52

4.5.4 Spent Media Sampling...................................................................................................56

4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling ............................................................................57

4.6 System Conversion to Coagulation/Filtration ............................................................................57

4.7 System Costs...............................................................................................................................59

4.7.1 Capital Cost ...................................................................................................................59

4.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost...................................................................................60

5.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................63

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

APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA ............................................................................................... B-1 

FIGURES 

Figure 4-1. Preexisting Porter Well House – Prior to Building Construction and Treatment 

System Installation............................................................................................................... 13

Figure 4-2. Schematic Diagrams for APU-100 (top) and APU-RWS Systems (bottom)....................... 18

Figure 4-3. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations and Schedules.......................................... 19

Figure 4-4. Diagram of CO2 pH Adjustment System (top) and pH/PID Control Panel(bottom) ........... 20

Figure 4-5. Carbon Dioxide Gas Flow Control System for pH Adjustment........................................... 21

Figure 4-6. APU-100 Treatment System Front and Side View (top) with a Close-up View of 

Fleck Controller Valve (bottom).......................................................................................... 24

Figure 4-7. APU-RWS Treatment System (top left) with Valve Tree (bottom) and Backside of 

System Piping including Backwash Sight Glass (top right)................................................. 25

Figure 4-8. Porter Well House Area after Building Construction and Treatment System 

Installation............................................................................................................................ 26

Figure 4-9. Flowrate Measurement Data for Phase 1, APU 100, Runs 1 and 2 ..................................... 30

Figure 4-10. Flowrate Measurements for Phase 2, APU-RWS System.................................................... 31

Figure 4-11. System Flowrate and Differential Pressure (p) across Vessel A of APU-100 

System.................................................................................................................................. 32

Figure 4-12. System Flowrate and Differential Pressure (p) across Vessel B of APU-100 

System.................................................................................................................................. 33

Figure 4-13. Differential Pressure (p) across Vessels A (top) and B (bottom) of APU-RWS 

System.................................................................................................................................. 36

Figure 4-14. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AP, and TT Sampling Locations........................ 46

Figure 4-15. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves..................................................................................... 47

Figure 4-16. Total Manganese Concentrations Measured during Phases 1 and 2 Studies ....................... 48

Figure 4-17. Concentrations of Manganese Species at IN, AP, and TT Sampling Locations .................. 49

Figure 4-18. pH Values Measured during Phases 1 and 2 Studies ........................................................... 50

Figure 4-19. Total Phosphorus (as P) Breakthrough Curve...................................................................... 53

Figure 4-20. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost ................................................. 62

viii
TABLES 

Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Technologies and Source 

Water Quality......................................................................................................................... 2

Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates .................................................... 6

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

Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses ............................................................................ 9

Table 4-1. Rollinsford, NH Water Quality Data ................................................................................... 14

Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33TM Media ........................................................ 16

Table 4-3. Design Specifications of APU-100 and RWS Systems ....................................................... 17

Table 4-4. Properties of Celgard, Microporous Hollow Fiber Membrane ............................................ 22

Table 4-5. Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates....................................................... 27

Table 4-6. Key Operational Parameters ................................................................................................ 29

Table 4-7. Summary of pH Readings after pH Adjustment .................................................................. 37

Table 4-8. APU-100 System Media Loading, Removal, and Freeboard Measurements....................... 39

Table 4-9. Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese after Relocation of 

Chlorination Point Upstream of Adsorption Vessels for Phase 1 and Phase 2 

Studies.................................................................................................................................. 43

Table 4-10. Analytical Results of Other Water Quality Parameter after Relocation of 

Chlorination Point Upstream of Adsorption Vessels for Phase 1 and Phase 2 

Studies.................................................................................................................................. 44

Table 4-11. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results ............................................................................ 54

Table 4-12. Backwash Solid Total Metal Results under Phase 1 Run 1 ................................................. 55

Table 4-13. TCLP Results for Spent Media under Phase 1 Run 1 .......................................................... 56

Table 4-14. Total Metals Analysis Results for Virgin and Spent Media*............................................... 56

Table 4-15. Distribution System Sampling Results................................................................................. 58

Table 4-16. Treatment Train Sampling Results after Conversion to Coagulation/Filtration .................. 59

Table 4-17. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results after Conversion to Coagulation/Filtration ........ 59

Table 4-18. Capital Investment Cost for APU-RWS System.................................................................. 60

Table 4-19. O&M Cost for APU-RWS System ...................................................................................... 61

ix
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

p differential pressure 

AAL American Analytical Laboratories 

Al aluminum 

AM adsorptive media process 

APU arsenic package unit 

As arsenic 

ASTI Applied Technology System, Inc. 

BET Brunauer, Emmett and Teller 

BV bed volume 

Ca calcium 

Cl chloride 

C/F coagulation/filtration 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CRF capital recovery factor 

Cu copper 

DO dissolved oxygen 

EBCT empty bed contact time 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Fe iron 

FeCl3 ferric chloride 

FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic 

gpd gallons per day 

gpm gallons per minute 

HCl hydrochloric acid 

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

H2SO4 sulfuric acid 

HTA Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. 

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry 

ID identification 

ISFET ion sensitive field effect transistor 

IX ion exchange 

LCR Lead and Copper Rule 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

MDL method detection limit 

MDWCA Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association 

Mg magnesium 

Mn manganese 

x
mV millivolts 

NA not applicable 

Na sodium 

NaOCl sodium hypochlorite 

NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

NS not sampled 

NSF NSF International 

O&M operation and maintenance 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

ORP oxidation-reduction potential 

Pb lead 

PID Proportional Integral Derivative 

PM process modification 

psi pounds per square inch 

PO4 orthophosphate 

PVC polyvinyl chloride 

QA quality assurance 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

RCRA Resource conservation and Recovery Act 

RPD relative percent difference 

Sb antimony 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SiO2 silica 

SM system modification 

SO42- sulfate 

STMGID South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District 

STS Severn Trend Services 

TBD to be determined 

TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TOC total organic carbon 

TSS total suspended solids 

WRWC White Rock Water Company 

xi
xii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of the Rollinsford Water and Sewer 

District in New Hampshire. Mr. Jack Hladick and his staff monitored the treatment system daily and 

collected samples from the treatment system and distribution system on a regular schedule throughout this 

reporting period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without their efforts. 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rollinsford Water and Sewer District (the District) in New Hampshire was selected as one of the 17 

Round 1 host sites for the demonstration program. 

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

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

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

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

were acceptable for 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. AdEdge Technologies’ (AdEdge) 

adsorptive media process was selected for the Rollinsford facility. Designated as AD-33TM by AdEdge, 

the process uses the Bayoxide E33 media developed by Bayer AG. 

The Rollinsford, NH study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 of the study utilized an Arsenic 

Package Unit (APU)-100 system designed for a maximum flowrate of 100 gal/min (gpm). Because 

higher flowrates up to 112 gpm (100 gpm average) were experienced in Phase 1, a 120-gpm APU-RWS 

system was designed and installed in Phase 2 to replace the APU-100. Following a series of 

predemonstration activities, including engineering design, permitting, and system installation, startup and 

shakedown, the Phase 1 performance evaluation began on February 9, 2004, and was completed on 

January 16, 2005. After state approval and installation of the APU-RWS system, the Phase 2 

performance evaluation was conducted from June 13, 2005, to May 8, 2006. After the demonstration 

project, the District converted the adsorptive media system to a coagulation/filtration (C/F) system. 

1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 

The technologies selected for the 12 Round 1 EPA arsenic removal demonstration host sites include nine 

adsorptive media systems, one ion exchange system, one coagulation/filtration system, and one process 

modification with iron addition. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, and key 

source water quality parameters (including arsenic, iron, and pH) of the 12 demonstration sites. An 

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

capital cost was provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on 

the EPA Website (http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html). As of November 

2008, all 12 systems have been operational and 11 performance evaluations have been completed. 

Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 Arsenic Removal Demonstration 

Technologies and Source Water Quality 

Source Water Quality

Demonstration Site

Technology 

(Media) Vendor

Design 

Flowrate As 

(μg/L)

Fe 

(gpm) (μg/L) pH

WRWC (Bow), NH AM (G2) ADI 70(a) 39 <25 7.7 

Rollinsford, NH AM (E33) AdEdge 100 36(b) 46 8.2

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

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

Climax, MN C/F Kinetico 140 39(b) 546(c) 7.4 

Lidgerwood, ND PM Kinetico 250 146(b) 1,325(c) 7.2 

Desert Sands MDWCA, NM AM (E33) STS 320 23(b) 39 7.7 

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

Rimrock, AZ AM (E33) AdEdge 90(d) 50 170 7.2 

Valley Vista, AZ AM (AAFS50) Kinetico 37 41 <25 7.8 

Fruitland, ID IX Kinetico 250 44 <25 7.4 

STMGID, NV AM (GFH) USFilter 350 39 <25 7.4

AM = adsorptive media; C/F = coagulation/filtration; IX = ion exchange; MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water 

Consumer’s Association; PM = process modification; STMGID = South Truckee Meadows General Improvement 

District; STS = Severn Trent Services; WRWC = White Rock Water Company 

(a) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to a lower flowrate of 40 gpm at WRWC site 

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

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

(d) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to a reduced flowrate of 30 gpm. 

1.3 Project Objectives 

The objective of the Round 1 arsenic demonstration program was to conduct full-scale arsenic removal 

technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies at 12 

demonstration host sites. The specific objectives of the demonstration study in Rollinsford, NH were to: 

 Evaluate the performance of AD-33TM arsenic removal technology for use on 

small systems. 

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

skill levels. 

 Characterize process residuals produced by the technology. 

 Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technology. 

2
This report summarizes the performance of AdEdge’s APU-100 and APU-RWS systems at Rollinsford 

Water and Sewer District in New Hampshire from February 9, 2004, through January 16, 2005, and from 

June 13, 2005, through May 8, 2006, respectively. The types of data collected included system operation, 

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

and capital and O&M cost. 

3
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Based on the information collected during two years of system operation, the following observations were 

summarized and conclusions drawn relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology 

demonstration study. 

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

 The AD-33TM media was not effective at removing As(III). Breakthrough of arsenic at 7.7 

g/L occurred after only 2,700 bed volumes (BV) of throughput. 

 Chlorine was effective at oxidizing As(III) to As(V), reducing As(III) concentrations from 

17.6 g/L (on average) in raw water to 1.1 g/L (on average) after chlorination. 

 Prechlorination significantly improved arsenic removal by the media. However, 

breakthrough of total arsenic at 10 g/L occurred between 12,500 and 17,000 BV, 

representing only 17 to 23% of the vendor-projected media run length. 

 The short run length observed was caused, in part, by the manganese (Mn) removed by the 

media. Manganese removal increased significantly with the presence of chlorine. For 

example, without chlorine, manganese reached about 100% “breakthrough” from the media 

beds after treating only about 3,700 BV of water. Following implementation of 

prechlorination, manganese, existing mostly in the soluble form, was removed almost 

entirely, presumably via precipitation on the media surface. Removal of manganese was 

supported by the chemical analysis of the spent media, which showed significantly higher 

manganese concentrations in the spent media than in the virgin media. 

 Over 46 to 59% media loss was observed during the two media runs using the APU-100 

system. The media loss was likely caused by frequent aggressive backwashing, which was 

used to address elevated differential pressure (p) and inlet pressure problems. 

Required system O&M and operator skill levels: 

 The operator typically spent only 20 min per day operating and maintaining the system. On 

days when the system was backwashed, the operator could spend as much as two hours 

completing the process. 

 During Phase 1, the operator spent much more time troubleshooting operational issues, such 

as elevated p and inlet pressure, than would normally be expected. The operator also 

conducted frequent backwashes and worked with the vendor to troubleshoot, modify, and 

replace several system components. 

 Changing the system design from controller valves to a valve tree prior to Phase 2 successfully 

addressed the p and elevated inlet pressure problems and eliminated the need for frequent 

backwashes. 

 Due to mechanical problems associated with the carbon dioxide (CO2) pH control system, the 

system failed to consistently reduce the pH to the target value of 7.0. Attempts were made to 

upgrade the manual pH control system for automatic operation to provide for better control in 

Phase 2; however, the system automation was never completed because the CO2 injection 

membrane was subject to fouling. 

Characteristics of residuals produced by the technology: 

 During Phase 1, each backwash event produced 1,890 gal, on average, of wastewater. In 

Phase 2, each backwash event produced 4,200 gal, on average, of wastewater. 

 Backwash wastewater contained less soluble arsenic than raw water, indicating removal of 

arsenic by the media during backwashing. High total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations 

(i.e., 308 to 788 mg/L) indicated removal of media fines during backwashing, which is 

4
supported by the similar chemical composition of the backwash solids and spent media and 

by the observations of significant media loss in the vessels during operation. 

 Approximately 1.88 mg of arsenic was loaded per gram of dry media, equivalent to about 

0.19% arsenic loading. The spent media was non-hazardous and could be disposed of at a 

lined, permitted sanitary landfill per requirements by the State of New Hampshire. 

Capital and O&M cost of the technology: 

 The unit annualized capital cost is $0.20/1,000 gal if the system operates at a 100% utilization 

rate. The system’s actual unit annualized capital cost is $0.59/1,000 gal, based on 10 hr/day 

of system operation and 21,243,000 gal of water production. The unit O&M cost is 

$3.59/1,000 gal, based on media replacement and disposal, electricity consumption, and 

labor. 

5
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 

3.1 General Project Approach 

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

of AdEdge’s APU-100 system began on February 9, 2004. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data 

collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The study was intended initially to 

take place over a one-year period; however, because of several performance- and operational issues, the 

technology evaluation was extended for one additional year to evaluate a redesigned system, APU-RWS, 

which replaced the APU-100 system. Both systems are fixed-bed, down-flow adsorption systems using 

the AD-33TM media for the adsorption of dissolved arsenic. The APU-RWS system was designed to 

provide a higher treatment capacity and alleviate some of the operational problems experienced by the 

APU-100 system. 

The overall performance of the systems was evaluated based on their ability to consistently remove 

arsenic to below the MCL of 10 g/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment trains. 

The reliability of the systems was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency 

and extent of repair and replacement. The unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded 

by the plant operator on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. 

Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 

Activity Date 

Introductory Meeting Held August 5, 2003 

Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor August 7, 2003 

Draft Letter of Understanding Issued August 13, 2003 

Final Letter of Understanding Issued September 9, 2003 

Vendor Quotation Received September 10, 2003 

Purchase Order Completed and Signed October 6, 2003 

Letter Report Issued October 17, 2003 

Building Construction Began November 3, 2003 

Draft Study Plan Issued November 26, 2003 

Engineering Package Submitted to NHDES December 19, 2003 

Building Construction Completed December 22, 2003 

APU-100 Shipped by AdEdge December 23, 2003 

APU-100 Delivered to Site and System Installation Began January 8, 2004 

Permit for APU-100 Treatment System Issued by NHDES January 12, 2004 

Final Study Plan Issued January 21, 2004 

APU-100 System Installation Completed January 23, 2004 

APU-100 System Shakedown Completed January 30, 2004 

APU-100 Performance Evaluation Began February 9, 2004 

NHDES = New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 

The O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through quantitative data and qualitative 

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

the 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. 

6
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 

Evaluation Objectives Data Collection 

Performance -Ability to consistently meet 10 g/L of arsenic in effluent 

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 system automation for system operation and data collection 

-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers 

-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, 

and complexity of tasks 

-Chemical handling and inventory requirements 

-General knowledge needed of relevant chemical processes and health 

and safety practices 

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

system operation 

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

-O&M cost for chemical and/or media usage, electricity, and labor 

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

wastewater produced during each backwash cycle and the need to replace the media upon arsenic 

breakthrough. Backwash wastewater and spent media were sampled and analyzed for chemical 

characteristics. 

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

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

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

and disposal, chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor. 

3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 

The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection following the 

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

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

Operation Log Sheet; checked sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) drum levels; checked CO2 consumption 

levels used for pH adjustment; and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operation. If 

any problem occurred, the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor 

and its subcontractors should be contacted for troubleshooting. Once a week, the plant operator measured 

water quality parameters, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO)/oxidation-reduction 

potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, using field meters and recorded the data on a Weekly Water 

Quality Parameters Log Sheet. Backwash events also were recorded on a Backwash 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 cost for media replacement and spent media disposal, 

chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor. Consumption of NaOCl, CO2, and electricity was 

tracked using the Daily System Operation Log Sheet. Labor for various activities, such as the routine 

system O&M, troubleshooting and repair, and demonstration-related work, was tracked using an Operator 

Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine O&M included activities such as completing the daily field logs, 

replenishing the NaOCl solution, replacing CO2 tanks, performing system inspection, and other 

miscellaneous routine requirements as recommended by the vendor. The demonstration-related labor, 

7
including activities such as performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and 

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

the cost analysis. 

3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 

To evaluate the system performance, samples were collected routinely from the wellhead, treatment plant, 

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

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

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

Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2003). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of 

the QAPP. 

3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial visit to the site on August 5, 2003, one set of source water 

samples was collected for detailed water quality analyses. The source water also was speciated for 

particulate and soluble As, iron (Fe), Mn, aluminum (Al), and As(III) and As(V) 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. Two media runs (i.e., Runs 1 and 2) were performed in Phase 1. 

Water samples were collected by the plant operator weekly, on a four-week cycle, for on- and off-site 

analyses. For the first week of each four-week cycle, water samples were collected at the wellhead (IN), 

after pH adjustment but before splitting to the two adsorption vessels (AP), and from the combined 

effluent of Vessels A and B (TT) and analyzed for the monthly treatment plant analyte list shown in 

Table 3-3. For the second, third, and fourth week of each cycle, water samples were collected at four 

locations across the treatment train, including IN, AP, after Vessel A (TA), and after Vessel B (TB) and 

analyzed for the weekly treatment plant analyte list shown in Table 3-3. After the APU-100 system was 

replaced with the redesigned, larger capacity APU-RWS system, the weekly sampling frequency was 

reduced to biweekly during the second year of system operation. After the system was converted into a 

coagulation/filtration (C/F) treatment system, several biweekly samples were collected for total As, Fe, 

and Mn to evaluate the effectiveness of the new treatment system at meeting the target MCL. 

3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater. From April 26, 2004, through January 31, 2006, backwash 

wastewater was sampled and analyzed during nine backwash events. During the first eight events, grab 

samples were collected from the sample tap on the backwash wastewater discharge line from each vessel 

and filtered onsite with 0.45-μm disc filters. During the last event, composite samples were collected 

following a modified procedure to allow for more representative characterization of the wastewater. 

Tubing directed a portion of backwash water from the sample tap at approximately 1 gpm into a clean 

plastic container over the duration of the backwash for each vessel. After the content in the container was 

thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected and/or filtered onsite with 0.45-μm disc filters. 

Analytes for the backwash samples are listed in Table 3-3. Unfiltered samples were analyzed for pH, 

turbidity, and TSS. Filtered samples were analyzed for soluble As, Fe, and Mn, and total dissolved solids 

(TDS). Arsenic speciation was not performed for the backwash wastewater samples. 

3.3.4 Residual Solids. Residual solids included backwash solids and spent media. Backwash 

solid samples were collected twice on September 8 and 30, 2004. Backwash solids were taken from 1-gal 

plastic jars containing mixtures of backwash wastewater and solids. After solids in the jars were settled 

and the supernatant was carefully decanted, residual solids samples were air-dried, acid-digested, and 

analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. 

8
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses 

Sample 

Type 

Sample 

Locations(a)

No. of 

Samples Frequency Analytes 

Date(s) Samples 

Collected 

Source 

Water 

Wellhead (IN) 1 Once (during 

initial site 

visit) 

Off-Site: As (total and 

soluble), As(III), As(V), 

Fe (total and soluble), 

Mn (total and soluble), 

Al (total and soluble), 

V (total and soluble), 

Mo (total and soluble), 

Sb (total and soluble), 

Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, SO4, 

SiO2, PO4, TOC, 

alkalinity, turbidity, and 

pH 

08/05/03 

Wellhead (IN), after 

pH adjustment (AP), 

after Vessel A (TA), 

and after Vessel B 

(TB) 

4 Weekly 

(second, 

third, and 

fourth weeks 

of every fourweek cycle)

On-Site: pH, temperature, 

DO, ORP, and chlorine 

(free and total at AP, TA, 

and TB only) 

Off-Site: As (total), Fe 

(total), Mn (total), SiO2, 

P, alkalinity, and turbidity 

Phase 1 Run 1(b): 

See Appendix B 

Phase 1 Run 2(b): 

See Appendix B 

Phase 2(c): 

See Appendix B 

Other(d)(e): 

See Appendix B 

Treatment 

Plant 

Water

Wellhead (IN), after 

pH adjustment (AP), 

and combined 

effluent (TT) 

3 Monthly 

(first week of 

every fourweek cycle)

On-Site: pH, temperature, 

DO, ORP, and chlorine 

(free and total at AP and 

TT only) 

Off-Site: As (total and 

soluble), As(III), As(V), 

Fe (total and soluble), 

Mn (total and soluble), 

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, 

SiO2, PO4

(f), P, alkalinity, 

and turbidity 

Phase 1 Run 1(b): 

See Appendix B

Phase 1 Run 2(b): 

See Appendix B 

Phase 2(c): 

See Appendix B 

Other(d)(e): 

See Appendix B 

Distribution 

Water 

One home (a nonLCR sampling 

location) and two 

non-residences 

within area served 

by Wells No. 3 and 

No. 4 

3 Monthly As, pH, alkalinity, Cu, Pb, 

Fe, and Mn 

Baseline sampling(g): 

See Table 4-15 

Phase 1(b): 

See Table 4-15 

Phase 2(c):

 

See Table 4-15 

Backwash 

Wastewater 

From backwash 

discharge line 

2 Monthly As (soluble), Fe (soluble), 

Mn (soluble), TDS, TSS, 

turbidity, and pH 

Phase 1(b): 

See Table 4-11 

Phase 2(c):

See Table 4-11 

Other(d): 05/08/06(h)

9
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses (Continued) 

Sample 

Type 

Sample 

Locations(a)

No. of 

Samples Frequency Analytes 

Date(s) Samples 

Collected 

Backwash 

Solids 

From backwash 

discharge line 

4 Twice Total Al, As, Ca, Cd, Cu, 

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

and Zn 

09/08/04, 09/30/04 

Spent 

Media 

From spent media in 

vessel 

2 Once during 

media 

changeout

Phase 1(b) TCLP metals : 10/27/04 

Total Al, As, Ca, Cd, Cu, 

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

and Zn 

(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-2. 

(b) APU-100 system operating. 

(c) APU-RWS system operating. 

(d) System converted into a C/F system. 

(e) Samples analyzed for total metals only. 

(f) PO4 replaced with P (total) analysis beginning January 10, 2006. 

(g) Three baseline sampling events performed before system became operational. 

(h) Modified sampling procedure to also include total metals on January 31, 2006. 

LCR = Lead and Copper Rule; TCLP = toxicity characteristic leacing procedure 

During the first media changeout on October 27, 2004, three spent media samples were collected from 

each adsorption vessel that contained approximately 12 to 15 ft3

 of AD-33TM media with a bed depth of 

20.5 to 25 in. Spent media was removed from the top (0 to 4 in depth), middle (10 to 14 in depth), and 

bottom (19 to 25 in depth) of the bed in each vessel using a 5-gal wet/dry shop vacuum, which was 

thoroughly cleaned and disinfected. Using a garden spade, the media from each layer was well-mixed in 

a clean 5-gal pail prior to being filled in an unpreserved 1-gal wide-mouth high-density polyethylene 

(HDPE) bottle. One aliquot of each sample was sent to TCCI Laboratories in New Lexington, OH, for 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests and another aliquot was air dried for metal 

analyses at Battelle’s inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) laboratory. 

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

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

specifically, arsenic, lead (Pb) and copper (Cu) levels. In December 2003 and January 2004, prior to the 

startup of the treatment system, three baseline sampling events were conducted at three locations per 

sampling event within the distribution system. Following startup of the APU-100 and APU-RWS 

systems, distribution system sampling continued at the same three locations for eigh sampling events 

from March through December 2004 and for four sampling events from July 2005 through January 2006, 

respectively. 

Baseline and monthly distribution system samples were collected by the plant operator and by one homeowner. Samples were collected at one home, not included as a Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling 

residence, as well as two non-residences. The locations were selected to maximize the likelihood that the 

water supplied to these locations was produced by Wells No. 3 and No. 4, which were treated by the 

arsenic removal system. With a looped system being served by additional wells besides Wells No. 3 and 

No. 4, it was possible that water collected from the distribution system was from a source other than 

Wells No. 3 and No. 4 (see Section 4.1). Analytes for the baseline samples coincided with the monthly 

distribution water samples as described in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not performed on the 

distribution water samples. The samples were collected following an instruction sheet developed 

according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 

2002). Sampling at the two non-residence locations was performed with the first sample taken at the first 

10
draw and the second sample taken after flushing the sample tap for several minutes. The first draw 

sample was collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least six hours to ensure that 

stagnant water was sampled. The sampler recorded the date and time of last water use before sampling 

and the date and time of sample collection for calculation of the stagnation time. 

3.4 Sampling Logistics 

All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kits preparation, sample cooler preparation, and 

sample shipping and handling are discussed below: 

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, 2003). 

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

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

were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-printed, 

colored-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 for 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 green were used to designate sampling locations for IN, TA, TB, and 

TT, respectively. The labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in a ziplock bag (each 

corresponding to a specific sample location) and packed in the cooler. On a monthly basis, the sample 

cooler also included bottles for the distribution system sampling. 

All sampling and shipping-related supplies, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions, chain-ofcustody forms, prepaid/pre-addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were placed in each cooler. The 

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

date and time. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following week’s 

sampling event. 

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

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

custodian checked sample IDs against the chain-of-custody forms and verified that all samples indicated 

on the forms were included and intact. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with 

the plant operator by the Battelle Study Lead. 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 ICP-MS laboratory. Samples for other water quality 

analyses by Battelle’s subcontract laboratories, including American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in 

Columbus, OH, and TCCI Laboratories, were packed in coolers and picked up by couriers. The chain-ofcustody 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. 

11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 

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

followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI 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., 20% relative 

percent difference (RPD), 80 to 120% percent recovery, and 80% completeness. 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. 

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

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, plastic beaker and placed the WTW probe in the beaker until a stable value was 

obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine 

test kits following the user’s manual. 

12
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

4.1 Existing Facility Description 

The Rollinsford water system supplied water to approximately 450 connections. The water source was 

from three bedrock wells, two of which, Wells No. 3 and No. 4, were controlled through the Porter well 

house shown in Figure 4-1. The Porter well house was located in a wooded area approximately 1⁄4 of a 

mile south of the town of Rollinsford. Water from these two wells were combined and chlorinated before 

being sent to the distribution system. The third supply well, the General Sullivan well, was located 

approximately 1.5 miles north of the Porter well house. Because the General Sullivan well was 

completely separated from the Porter well house, this well was not treated by either APU treatment 

system. 

Figure 4-1. Preexisting Porter Well House – Prior to Building 

Construction and Treatment System Installation 

4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected at a sampling tap inside the 

Porter well house with water coming from both Wells No. 3 and No. 4 on August 5, 2003, and subsequently analyzed for the analytes presented in Table 3-3. The results of the source water analyses, along 

with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those independently 

collected and analyzed by EPA, are presented in Table 4-1. 

Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 33.8 to 55.9 g/L. Based on the August 5, 

2003, sampling results, total arsenic concentration in source water was 36.2 g/L, of which 33.9 g/L was 

present in the soluble form and 2.3 g/L in the particulate form. Of the soluble fraction, 20.1 g/L (or 

59%) existed as As(III) and 13.9 g/L (or 41%) as As(V). 

pH values of raw water ranged between 7.4 and 8.4. At pH values greater than 8.0, AdEdge 

recommended that the water pH be adjusted to increase media adsorptive capacity and prolong media run 

length. Therefore, the treatment process included a pH adjustment step prior to the arsenic adsorption 

system using a CO2 injection module. The target pH value after adjustment was 7.0. 

13
Table 4-1. Rollinsford, NH Water Quality Data 

Parameter Unit 

Utility 

Raw 

Water 

Data(a)

EPA 

Raw 

Water 

Data(b) 

EPA 

Raw 

Water 

Data(c) 

Battelle 

Raw 

Water 

Data(a)

NHDES 

Raw 

Water 

Data(a)

NHDES 

Treated 

Water 

Data(d) 

Sampling Date NA 09/16/02 09/16/02 08/05/03 2000–2003 2000–2003

pH – 8.4 NS NA 7.4 8.4(f) 8.6(g)

Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 176 179 189 171 176(f) 110(g)

Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 50.0 46.6 40.9 50.9 49.7(f) 24.2–26.1 

Turbidity mg/L NS NS NS NS NS NS 

Chloride mg/L 42.0 42.3 47.7 48.0 42.0(f) 8.7(g)

Fluoride mg/L NS NS NS 0.8 0.57(f) 0.37–0.38 

Sulfate mg/L 38.0 40.5 29.0 36.0 38.0 21.0 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 13.7 14.3 13.1 13.6 NS NS 

Orthophosphate (as P) mg/L 0.07(e) NS NS <0.10 NS NS 

TOC mg/L NS NS NS <1.0 NS NS 

As(total) g/L 34.0–55.0 39.0 45.0 36.2 33.8–55.9 19.6–24.0 

As (soluble) g/L NS NS NS 33.9 NS NS 

As (particulate) g/L NS NS NS 2.3 NS NS 

As(III) g/L NS NS NS 20.1 NS NS 

As(V) g/L NS NS NS 13.9 NS NS 

Fe (total) g/L 206 189 114 46.3 206(f) <50(g)

Fe (soluble) g/L NS NS NS <30 NS NS 

Al (total) g/L NS <25 <25 <10 NS NS 

Al (soluble) g/L NS NS NS <10 NS NS 

Mn (total) g/L 88.0 100.5 56.7 70.8 88.2(f) 20.0–20.8 

Mn (soluble) g/L NS NS NS 68.6 NS NS 

V (total) g/L NS NS NS <0.1 NS NS 

V (soluble) g/L NS NS NS <0.1 NS NS 

Mo (total) g/L NS NS NS <0.1 NS NS 

Mo (soluble) g/L NS NS NS <0.1 NS NS 

Sb (total) g/L NS <25 <25 <0.1 <2(f) <2(g)

Sb (soluble) g/L NS NS NS <0.1 NS NS 

Na (total) mg/L 93.0 109 98.8 101.8 93.2(f) 50.8–52.0 

Ca (total) mg/L 10.0(e) 9.9 10.1 11.6 NS NS 

Mg (total) mg/L 5.0(e) 5.3 3.8 5.3 NS NS 

(a) Collected from combined flow from Wells No. 3 and No. 4. 

(b) Well No. 3. 

(c) Well No. 4. 

(d) Treated water data collected at residences. 

(e) Data provided by EPA. 

(f) Only one data point available for this time period for this parameter (Sample date – 11/19/01). 

(g) Only one data point available for this time period for this parameter (Sample date – 04/12/00). 

NS = not sampled 

Iron levels in source water ranged from 46.3 to 206 g/L; manganese levels ranged from 56.7 to 

100.5 μg/L. At these levels, pretreatment for iron and manganese removal prior to adsorption was not 

considered necessary. Competing anions, such as orthophosphate and silica, were at levels sufficiently 

low (i.e., <0.1 mg/L and <14.3 mg/L, respectively) to not have any effect on arsenic adsorption. Other 

analytes also were at levels not expected to impact arsenic adsorption. 

14
4.1.2 Predemonstration Treated Water Quality. During 2000 to 2003, the New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) collected and analyzed chlorinated water samples from 

the combined flow of Wells No. 3 and No. 4 for the constituents shown in Table 4-1. The concentrations 

were somewhat lower than those of the raw water samples analyzed by the utility, EPA, and Battelle, with 

the exception of pH, which was slightly higher at 8.6 (versus 8.4 in raw water). Arsenic concentrations 

remained high at 19.6 to 24 μg/L. 

4.1.3 Distribution System. The town of Rollinsford received its water via a looped water 

distribution system, with water supplied from the three wells described in Section 4.1. Wells No. 3 and 

No. 4 were combined and sent to the distribution system from the Porter well house shown in Figure 4-1. 

Excess water generated by the supply wells was sent under pressure to an elevated storage tank. The 

water distribution mains were constructed of asbestos cement, cast iron, or ductile iron. The connections 

to the water system and piping within the residences themselves were primarily copper or polyvinyl 

chloride (PVC) pipe. The Rollinsford Water and Sewer District sampled water from the distribution 

system for various parameters. Each month, two locations within the distribution system were sampled 

for bacterial analyses including E. coli and total coliform. The Porter well water was sampled quarterly at 

the wellhead for total arsenic. Under the LCR, samples were collected from customer taps at 25 

residences every three years. 

4.2 Treatment Process Description 

Two AdEdge APUs were installed at the Rollinsford demonstration site. Both systems used Bayoxide 

E33 media (labeled as AD-33TM by AdEdge), an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG, 

for arsenic removal from drinking water supplies. The first treatment system, APU-100, was designed for 

a flow of 100 gpm. The redesigned system, APU-RWS, was intended for a maximum flow of 120 gpm. 

Both APUs were fixed-bed, down-flow adsorption systems. When the media reached its capacity, the 

spent media was removed and disposed of after being tested for EPA’s TCLP. Table 4-2 presents the 

physical and chemical properties of the media. AD-33TM media was delivered in a dry crystalline form 

and listed by NSF International (NSF) under Standard 61 for use in drinking water applications. E33 

media is available in both granular and pelletized forms, with the pelletized media being about 25% 

denser than its granular counterpart (i.e., 35 lb/ft3

 vs. 28 lb/ft3). The media installed in the replacement 

system (i.e., APU-RWS) was the granular media, similar to that used for the original system (i.e., APU100). 

Table 4-3 presents the key system design parameters for the two systems. Figure 4-2 shows a simplified 

process flow diagram of the APU-100 and APU-RWS systems. Figure 4-3 is a generalized process flow 

diagram along with the sampling/analysis schedule. Both systems consisted of two pressure vessels 

operating in parallel. Key design changes for the replacement system included the use of larger diameter 

adsorption vessels (i.e., 48 vs. 36 in) with top/bottom openings and a valve tree design (vs. riser tubes and 

Fleck controller valves). The APU-RWS system also included larger diameter (3-in) piping and 

connections. Due to high pH values of the raw water (above 8), a CO2 pH control system with manual 

controls was included as part of the original system. After the installation of the APU-RWS system, 

attempts were made to upgrade the manual pH control system for automatic operations. However, system 

automation was never completed, as discussed in Section 4.4.3, and not used during the operation of the 

APU-RWS operation. Key process components for each system include: 

15
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33TM Media(a) 

Physical Properties 

Parameter Value 

Matrix Iron oxide composite 

Physical Form Dry granular media 

Color Amber 

Bulk Density (lb/ft3) 28.1 

BET Area (m2/g) 142 

Attrition (%) 0.3 

Moisture Content (%) <15% (by weight) 

Particle Size Distribution 10 × 35 mesh 

Crystal Size (Å) 70 

Crystal Phase α – FeOOH 

Chemical Analysis 

Constituents Weight %

FeOOH 90.1 

CaO 0.27 

MgO 1.00 

MnO 0.11 

SO3 0.13 

Na2O 0.12 

TiO2 0.11 

SiO2 0.06 

Al2O3 0.05 

P2O5 0.02 

Cl 0.01 

(a) Provided by Bayer AG. 

BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller 

 Intake. Raw water was pumped from Wells No. 3 and No. 4 and combined at the Porter 

well house before feeding the APU treatment system. 

 pH Adjustment Prior to Adsorption. The pH of the feed water was adjusted to a target pH 

value of approximately 7.0 (±0.2 pH units) using CO2. CO2 was selected for pH adjustment 

because 1) it is less corrosive than mineral acids, such as sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and 

hydrochloric acid (HCl), and 2) when the treated water is depressurized, some CO2 will 

degas, thereby raising the pH of the treated water and reducing its corrosivity. 

A manual CO2 gas flow control system manufactured by Applied Technology Systems, Inc. 

(ATSI, Souderton, PA), was used for pH adjustment. Designed to introduce gaseous CO2

into the water in a side-stream configuration, or a CO2 loop (see a process diagram in Figure 

4-4 and a composite of photographs in Figure 4-5), the system consisted of a liquid CO2

supply assembly, a manual pH control panel, a CO2 membrane assembly, and a pH probe: 

 The liquid CO2 supply assembly consisted of two 50-lb cylinders and a feed vaporizer, 

which allowed liquid CO2 to vaporize into gaseous CO2 prior to entering the pH control 

panel. 

16
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of APU-100 and RWS Systems 

Parameter APU-100 APU-RWS 

Adsorption Vessels

Vessel Size (in) 36 D × 72 H 48 D × 72 H 

Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/vessel) 7.1 12.6 

No. of Vessels 2 2 

Configuration Parallel Parallel 

Adsorption Media Bed

1,517(a)/1,236(b) Media Weight (lbs) 1,680 

Media Volume (ft3) 54(a)/44(b) 60 

3.8(a)/3.1(b) Media Bed Depth (ft) 2.4 

Service

Design Flowrate (gpm) 100 120 

Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2) 7.0 4.8 

4.0(a)/3.3(b) EBCT (min/vessel) 3.7 

Estimated Working Capacity (BV)(c) 74,000(a) 44,000 

Throughput to Breakthrough (gal)(c) 29,890,000(a) 19,747,000 

60,000(a) Average Use Rate (gal/day) 60,000 

16.8(a) Estimated Media Life (months) 11 

Pre-treatment pH adjustment CO2 CO2 (never used) 

Pre-treatment Prechlorination NaClO NaClO 

Pressure Differential Set Point (psi) 10 10 

Backwash 

Backwash Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2) 6.0 9.9 

Backwash Frequency (per month) 1 (or as needed) As needed 

Backwash Flowrate (gpm) 42 125 

Backwash Duration (min/vessel) 20–25 20 

Wastewater Production (gal/vessel) 840–1,050 1,500–2,700 

(a) Phase 1 Run 1. 

(b) Phase 1 Run 2. 

(c) Bed volumes/throughput to 10-g/L total arsenic breakthrough. 

 The pH control panel housed a pH controller that provided gas flow control via a 

solenoid valve (to interlock with the well pump to allow gas flow only when the well 

pump was on) and a rotameter (for flowrate adjustment). 

 After exiting the control panel, CO2 was introduced into the water through a Celgard 

microporous hollow fiber membrane module contained within a stainless steel sanitary 

cross (see properties and specifications in Table 4-4). The sanitary cross was located in a 

side stream from the main water line to allow only a portion of water to flow through the 

membrane module to minimize the pressure drop. CO2 gas entered into the top of the 

membrane module with water passing through the membrane module in a direction 

perpendicular to the gas flow. The membrane dispersed CO2 gas into water, forming fine 

bubbles for rapid mixing to achieve a quick pH change. 

 Located downstream from the sanitary cross was a Cole Palmer Model A-27011-01 glass 

pH probe, which read pH levels of the treated water. The pH controller monitored 

signals from the pH probe and set off alarms if the readings were ±0.5 pH units outside of 

the target set point. When the alarm was triggered, the solenoid valve in the panel shut 

off the flow of CO2 gas. 

17
Backwash sample

BV-113

Backwash water

AD33

Media

Backwash

Automated valve

Package

Strainers

PDG FQI FI Sight Tube (Clear PVC)

Sight Tube

(Clear PVC)

Restrictive

Orifice

Sight Tube

(Clear PVC)

Process Flow Diagram

AdEdge Arsenic Reduction System w/ pH Control

APU-100 System

A

Rollinsford, New Hampshire

Well

Pump 

Sample valve

BV-110 

Feed water

Feed

AD33

Media

FQI PDG FI

Feed

Automated valve

Package

Backwash

Treated Water

To Storage

or Distribution

Skid Battery 

Limits

B

Skid Battery

Limits

Sample valve

BV-111 

Pre-chlorination Feed 

point (if used) 

Sample valve

BV-112A 

Sample valve

BV-112B 

To on-site 

septic 

system

pHC

CO2

Storage / Feed

System, 

Control panel

Backwash sample

BV-113

Backwash water

AD33

Media

Backwash

Automated valve

Package

Strainers

PDG FQI FI Sight Tube (Clear PVC)

Sight Tube

(Clear PVC)

Restrictive

Orifice

Sight Tube

(Clear PVC)

Process Flow Diagram

AdEdge Arsenic Reduction System w/ pH Control

APU-100 System

A

Rollinsford, New Hampshire

Well

Pump 

Sample valve

BV-110 

Feed water

Feed

AD33

Media

FQI PDG FI

Feed

Automated valve

Package

Backwash

Treated Water

To Storage

or Distribution

Skid Battery 

Limits

B

Skid Battery

Limits

Sample valve

BV-111 

Pre-chlorination Feed 

point (if used) 

Sample valve

BV-112A 

Sample valve

BV-112B 

To on-site 

septic 

system

pHC

CO2

Storage / Feed

System, 

Control panel

Figure 4-2. Schematic Diagrams for APU-100 (top) and APU-RWS Systems (bottom)

18
MEDIA 

VESSEL 

A

MEDIA 

VESSEL 

B

SURFACE

DRAINAGE/

LEACH FIELD

BACKWASH

DISPOSAL

INFLUENT

(PORTER WELL HOUSE)

pH ADJUSTMENT –

CO2 INJECTION

Weekly Monthly

Rollinsford, NH

AD-33® Technology

Design Flow: 100 gpm

DISTRIBUTION 

SYSTEM

DA: Cl2

Footnote

(a) On-site analyses

BW

IN

AP

pH, TDS, turbidity,

As (soluble),

Fe (soluble),

Mn (soluble)

TA TB

TT

TCLP

SS

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), Ca, Mg,

F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,

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),

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

PO4, turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a),

DO/ORP(a), Cl2 (free and total), 

As, Fe, Mn, SiO2, PO4, turbidity, 

alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a), 

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

SiO2, PO4, turbidity, alkalinity

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

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

SiO2, PO4, turbidity, alkalinity

LEGEND

LEGEND

Influent

After pH Adjustment

and Chlorination

Vessel A Effluent

DA: Cl2

INFLUENT

Chlorine Disinfection

Unit Process

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

AP

SS

BW

Water Sampling Locations

IN

TB

TA

Vessel B Effluent

Backwash Sampling Location

Sludge Sampling Location

TT Total Combined Effluent

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), Ca, Mg,

F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,

turbidity, alkalinity

MEDIA 

VESSEL 

A

MEDIA 

VESSEL 

B

SURFACE

DRAINAGE/

LEACH FIELD

BACKWASH

DISPOSAL

INFLUENT

(PORTER WELL HOUSE)

pH ADJUSTMENT –

CO2 INJECTION

Weekly Monthly

Rollinsford, NH

AD-33® Technology

Design Flow: 100 gpm

DISTRIBUTION 

SYSTEM

DA: Cl2

Footnote

(a) On-site analyses

BW

IN

AP

pH, TDS, turbidity,

As (soluble),

Fe (soluble),

Mn (soluble)

TA TB

TT

TCLP

SS

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), Ca, Mg,

F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,

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),

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

PO4, turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a),

DO/ORP(a), Cl2 (free and total), 

As, Fe, Mn, SiO2, PO4, turbidity, 

alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a), 

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

SiO2, PO4, turbidity, alkalinity

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

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

SiO2, PO4, turbidity, alkalinity

LEGEND

LEGEND

Influent

After pH Adjustment

and Chlorination

Vessel A Effluent

DA: Cl2

INFLUENT

Chlorine Disinfection

Unit Process

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

AP

SS

BW

Water Sampling Locations

IN

TB

TA

Vessel B Effluent

Backwash Sampling Location

Sludge Sampling Location

TT Total Combined Effluent

LEGEND

LEGEND

Influent

After pH Adjustment

and Chlorination

Vessel A Effluent

DA: Cl2

INFLUENT

Chlorine Disinfection

Unit Process

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

AP

SS

BW

Water Sampling Locations

IN

TB

TA

Vessel B Effluent

Backwash Sampling Location

Sludge Sampling Location

TT Total Combined Effluent

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), Ca, Mg,

F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,

turbidity, alkalinity

Figure 4-3. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations and Schedules 

19
Source: AdEdge Technologies, Inc.

Figure 4-4. Diagram of CO2 pH Adjustment System (top) and 

pH/PID Control Panel (bottom)

20
 

Figure 4-5. Carbon Dioxide Gas Flow Control System for pH Adjustment 

(From Left to Right: Liquid CO2 Supply Assembly; pH Control Panel; 

 Sanitary Cross Containing CO2 Membrane Module; 

Vault with CO2 Injection Loop; Port for pH Probe) 

21
Table 4-4. Properties of Celgard, Microporous 

Hollow Fiber Membrane 

Parameter Value 

Porosity (%) 40 

Pore Dimensions (μm) 0.04 × 0.10 

Effective Pore Size (μm) 0.04 

Minimum Burst Strength (psi) 400 

Tensile Break Strength (g/filament) ≥ 300 

Average Resistance to Air Flow (Gurley sec) 50 

Axial Direction Shrinkage (%) ≤ 5 

Fiber Internal Diameter, nominal (μm) 220 

Fiber Wall Thickness, nominal (μm) 40 

Fiber Outer Diameter, nominal (μm) 300 

Module Dimensions (in) 4.0 ×9.0 

Data Source: Celgard® 

 The CO2 pH control system supplied CO2 at approximately 1 to 8 ft3

/hr, using about 1 to 

9 lb/day (based on a gas density of 0.117 lb/ft3

 and an average operating time of 10 

hr/day). The CO2 gas supplied from two 50-lb cylinders provided CO2 for about 4 to 30 

days (average 19 days) before requiring change-out. 

Prior to Phase 2 work, attempts were made to upgrade the CO2 control system for automatic, 

feedback-based pH control in conjunction with the use of a more durable Sentron Ion 

Sensitive Field Effect Transistor (ISFET) type silicon chip sanitary pH probe as opposed to 

the original glass probe. Specific modifications to the CO2 control system included 

retrofitting the pH control panel with a JUMO pH/Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) 

controller, an Alicat mass flow meter, a modulating valve, a control module, a ball valve, and 

stainless steel fittings to enable automatic pH control, and installing a Sentron pH probe, 

holder, and cable box assembly to allow for more accurate in-line pH monitoring. 

As CO2 gas flowed to the pH control panel, its flowrate was automatically controlled and 

adjusted by the PID controller and mass flow meter to reach a desired pH setpoint. The 

Sentron ISFET-type pH probe with automatic temperature compensation continuously 

monitored pH levels of the treated water and sent signals back to the pH/PID controller for 

pH control. 

The retrofitted pH adjustment system was never fully functional during operation of the 

APU-RWS system due to fouling of two membrane modules and relocation of the 

underground wire for the pH probe control, which was originally installed too close to an 

electrical line (which, as indicated by the installer, could cause interference in pH readings). 

Because pH values of the inlet water to the system were lower than what were previously 

observed in Phase 1 (i.e., from 7.2 to 7.9 during Phase 2 versus 7.4 to 8.1 during Phase 1, Run 

2), the operation continued without pH adjustment. Similar automatic pH control systems 

were used successfully at several arsenic demonstration sites in Taos, NM, Bruni, Texas, and 

Nambe Pueblo Tribe, NM. Details regarding their construction and performance are 

described in an EPA report (Williams et al., 2007). 

 Chlorination. The existing chlorine injection system was used to chlorinate source water. 

During the first one and a half months of operation, chlorine was added to the treated water 

following the APU-100 adsorption system. In March 2004, total arsenic levels in the treated 

22
water measured as high as 7.7 g/L, much earlier than projected, and the majority of arsenic 

was As(III). In late March 2004, the chlorine addition point was moved upstream of the 

adsorption vessels and after the CO2 injection point. With this prechlorination step, As(III) 

was oxidized to As(V) and a target chlorine residual level of 0.1 to 0.5 mg/L (as Cl2) was 

maintained in the treated water for disinfection purposes. The chlorine feed system included 

a 25 mL/min-rated chlorine metering pump and a 50-gal HDPE chemical feed tank to store a 

4% NaOCl solution. NaOCl was injected into the raw water line following the CO2 system 

for pH adjustment, and upstream of the pH probe and AP sampling location. Operation of the 

chlorine feed system was tied to the well pumps so that the chlorine was injected only when 

the wells were operating. Chlorine consumption was measured using volumetric markings on 

the outside of the feed tank. Prechlorination continued during operation of the APU-RWS 

system. 

 Arsenic Adsorption (APU-100 and APU-RWS). The APU-100 system consisted of two 

36-in-diameter, 72-in-tall pressure vessels in parallel configuration, each initially containing 

27 ft3

 of AD-33TM media supported by a gravel underbed. The delivery system components 

included inlet piping, two electrically actuated diaphragm valves (to control flow), two 

strainers, two programmable Fleck controller valves (to switch flow from a service to a 

backwash mode), two tanks (each with a top diffuser and a bottom lateral), two restrictive 

orifices, and outlet piping. The vessels were fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) construction, 

rated for 150 pounds per square inch (psi) working pressure, skid-mounted, and piped to a 

valve rack mounted on a polyurethane-coated, welded frame. Empty bed contact time 

(EBCT) for the system was approximately 4.0 min based on a media volume of 27 ft3

 per 

vessel under Run 1 or 3.3 min on 22 ft3

 of media per vessel under Run 2. Hydraulic loading 

to each vessel based on a design flowrate of 100 gpm (50 gpm to each vessel) was about 7 

gpm/ft2

. Figure 4-6 shows the installed APU-100 system. 

The APU-RWS system consisted of two 48-in-diameter, 72-in-tall pressure vessels in parallel 

configuration, each initially containing 30 ft3

 of AD-33TM media supported by a gravel 

underbed. The vessels also were FRP construction, rated for 150 psi working pressure, and 

piped to a valve rack mounted on a polyurethane-coated, steel frame. The APU-RWS system 

plumbing design eliminated the diaphragm valves, Fleck controller valves, and restrictive 

orifices, and replaced them with a nested system of fully ported actuated butterfly valves and 

a new control panel. The APU-RWS valve-tree design was based on a series of systematic 

hydraulic tests on similar, but larger-capacity systems at STS’s Torrance, CA, fabrication 

shop and at the Brown City, MI, arsenic removal demonstration site in March and April 2004. 

The test results indicated that the fleck controller valves and restrictive orifices were the main 

sources of excessive pressure loss experienced at Desert Sands, NM, Brown City, MI, and 

Queen Anne’s County, MD, arsenic removal demonstration sites. A summary of the 

hydraulic test results are provided in the Six Month Reports for the Desert Sands, Brown 

City, and Queen Anne’s County sites (Coonfare et al., 2005; Condit et al., 2006; Oxenham et 

al., 2006). 

EBCT for the APU-RWS system was approximately 3.7 min based on a media volume of 30 

ft3

 per vessel (compared to 4 min EBCT for the APU-100 system). The hydraulic loading to 

each vessel based on a design flowrate of 120 gpm (60 gpm to each vessel) was about 4.8 

gpm/ft2

 (compared to 7 gpm/ft2 for the APU-100 system). Figures 4-7 shows the installed 

APU-RWS system. 

 Backwash. Based upon reaching a pressure differential of 10 psi across each vessel, the 

adsorption vessels were taken offline manually, one at a time, for backwashing using raw 

23
water from the source well supplemented with treated water from the distribution system. 

The purpose of the backwash was to remove particulates and media fines accumulating in the 

beds. Backwash wastewater produced was discharged to an on-site subsurface infiltration 

area for disposal. 

Figure 4-6. APU-100 Treatment System Front and Side View (top) with a 

Close-up View of Fleck Controller Valve (bottom) 

24
Figure 4-7. APU-RWS Treatment System (top left) with Valve Tree (bottom) and Backside 

of System Piping Including Backwash Sight Glass (top right) 

25
4.3 System Installation 

The installation of the APU-100 and APU-RWS systems was completed in January 2004 and May 2005, 

respectively. The system installation was completed by Waterline Services, a construction subcontractor 

to AdEdge. The building construction activities were carried out primarily by the local plant operator. 

4.3.1 Permitting. Two permits were applied for and received from the NHDES. In late September 

2003, a system permit application consisting of design drawings for the proposed APU-100 treatment 

system, new treatment building, and subsurface disposal area was submitted to the NHDES by Hoyle, 

Tanner, & Associates (HTA), the District’s engineering consultant. An application for nondomestic 

wastewater discharge to groundwater also was submitted for backwash disposal into the subsurface 

infiltration area. NHDES granted the discharge permit on December 30, 2003, and the treatment system 

permit on January 12, 2004. 

Prior to installing the APU-RWS system, AdEdge submitted a site layout and a letter of explanation of 

intensions to NHDES in order to obtain regulatory approval. 

4.3.2 Building Construction. Building construction began on November 3, 2003, and was completed on December 22, 2003. The 33-ft × 13-ft building had a concrete foundation and floor and a wood 

frame with vinyl siding. It included two 10-ft roll-up doors on the front allowing access to the treatment 

equipment, and one walk-through door on the end of the building (Figure 4-8). Additionally, the Water 

and Sewer District installed a subsurface drainage structure in the parking area in front of the building to 

handle the disposal of backwash water generated by the treatment system. 

Figure 4-8. Porter Well House Area after Building Construction and 

Treatment System Installation (Large Treatment Building Addition 

in Background, Fenced Parking Area, and 

EPA Demonstration Project Sign to left of Gated Entrance)

4.3.3 APU-100 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The APU-100 system was shipped on 

December 23, 2003, and arrived at the site on January 8, 2004. Waterline Services began system installation 

that same day. AdEdge and Waterline completed system installation on January 16, 2004, and system 

shakedown and startup on January 29 and 30, 2004. During the first day, the media in both vessels was 

26
backwashed and the flows to each vessel adjusted so that they were balanced. Meanwhile, Battelle 

provided operator training on data and sample collection and conducted an inspection of the system. 

On January 30, 2004, the system was put into service mode for the first time. While operating, leaks were 

detected in the CO2 injection system caused by cracks in plastic seals in the piping joints. Because of 

these leaks and required repairs, the system was not put into regular service until February 9, 2004. 

4.3.4 APU-RWS Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. After the Phase 1 study, two options 

were considered to address the need for a larger capacity treatment system: 1) add a third vessel of similar 

design to the two existing vessels in the APU-100 treatment train and 2) remove the APU-100 and replace 

it with the higher-capacity APU-RWS system. A cost proposal was received from AdEdge on February 

4, 2005, for these two options. For the second option, the new system would include larger vessels with 

top and bottom openings and a valve tree arrangement. Based on the costs of each option and 

consideration of the past operational difficulties with the existing system, the second option was selected. 

Prior to installation, hydraulic testing was conducted on the APU-RWS system at the manufacturer’s 

facility. Total pressure drop across the system was measured at 3 psi with a differential pressure across 

each vessel of 0.5 psi at a flow rate of 80 gpm through each vessel. The APU-RWS system was installed 

in May 2005 and operation commenced on June 13, 2005. 

4.4 System Operation 

Table 4-5 presents timelines of key activities/events that occurred during the system performance 

evaluation. These demonstration activities are described in more detail in the following sections. 

Table 4-5. Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 

Activity/Event Date 

APU-100 Run 1 System Performance Evaluation Began (Start of Phase 1) February 9, 2004 

APU-100 System Retrofit Completed for Higher Flowrate during Backwash August 4, 2004 

APU-100 Run 1 Arsenic Breakthrough at 10 μg/L August 17, 2004 

Media Changeout October 27–28, 2004 

APU-100 Run 2 System Performance Evaluation Began November 3, 2004 

Pre-chlorination Temporarily Changed to Post-chlorination(a) December 2, 2004 

APU-100 System Shutdown (End of Phase 1) January 16, 2005 

APU-RWS System Proposed February 4, 2005 

APU RWS System Hydraulic Testing Completed Prior to Shipment April 27, 2005 

APU-100 System Removed Week of May 16, 2005 

APU-RWS System Installed Week of May 23, 2005 

APU-RWS System On-site Hydraulic Testing Completed May 31, 2005 

APU-RWS System Shakedown and Startup Completed (b) (Start of Phase 2) June 13, 2005 

CO2 Injection System Permanently Taken Off-line(c) July 25, 2005 

APU-RWS Arsenic Breakthrough at 10 μg/L November 30, 2005 

December 14, 2005 

Decision on Converting System to Coagulation/Filtration Made (End of Phase 2) March 2006 

APU-RWS System Converted to coagulation/Filtration May 8, 2006 

APU-RWS Property Transfer Completed October 24, 2006 

(a) Due to elevated pressure on inlet side of system. 

(b) Shakedown and startup delayed due to previously scheduled well maintenance. 

(c) pH adjustment system not functional during entire length of APU-RWS operation. 

27
28

4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the entire duration of system 

operation are tabulated and attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-6. The 

APU-100 system as originally designed was evaluated under Phase 1 with Run 1 operating from February 

9, 2004, through October 27, 2004, and Run 2 from November 3, 2004, through January 16, 2005. The 

replacement system, APU-RWS, was evaluated under Phase 2 from June 13, 2005, through May 8, 2006. 

Relevant system operational parameters are discussed in detail as follows: 

Phase 1 Run 1. The APU-100 system with 27 ft3

 of media loaded in each vessel began its operation on 

February 9, 2004. In 2004, the system was shut down from March 13 through March 25 for CO2 system 

repairs, from May 31 to June 1, June 5 to June 6, June 16 to June 18, and June 24 to July 8 for 

replacement of inlet diaphragm valves with true union ball valves, and on October 27 for media 

rebedding. The system operated 222 days for a total of 2,577 hr with an average daily operating time of 

11.6 hr. The total run time was tracked by hour meter readings collected daily. The well pumps were 

controlled by separate timers that normally came on in the evenings at about 10:00 p.m. and went off in 

the mornings at about 8:00 a.m. 

The system treated approximately 11,926,000 gal of water, with 47 and 53% flowing through Vessels A 

and B, respectively, based on totalizer readings from each vessel. This amount was 14% lower than that 

(i.e., 13,835,000 gal) recorded from the master flow meter at the Porter well house. These discrepancies 

were discussed with the vendor, but never properly addressed during the demonstration study. The 

11,926,000 gal of water treated corresponded to 32,500 BV, based on 49 ft3

, instead of 54 ft3, of media in 

both vessels. Per the vendor, close to 3 ft3

 of media in Vessel A, and possibly 2 ft3 from Vessel B might 

have been washed away during the initial system backwash and follow-on media conditioning prior to 

system startup in February 2004. The original system design provided less than 15 in of freeboard in each 

vessel, which could accommodate no more than 30% bed expansion during media backwash. More 

detailed discussions about backwash and media loss can be found in Section 4.4.4. 

As shown in Figure 4-9, the combined flowrates to the system, denoted by “×,” as measured by individual 

flow meters installed on Vessels A and B (with respective flowrates denoted by “■” and “▲”) varied 

widely from 47 to 112 gpm due mainly to operation of only one supply well during 28% of the system 

run time. (As discussed in Section 4.4.2, at times one supply well was operated to reduce the flowrate, thus 

reducing the inlet pressure and p levels in the system.) With both wells running, flowrates ranged from 

72 to 112 and averaged 95 gpm. With either Well No. 3 or 4 running, flowrates ranged from 47 to 75 and 

averaged 60 gpm. Therefore, the EBCTs in each vessel ranged from 3.0 to 7.0 min with both wells 

running and from 4.3 to 9.5 min with only one well running (assuming that the amount of media in each 

vessel remained unchanged at 24.5 ft3

). As also shown in Figure 4-9, calculated flowrates based on the 

daily mass flow meter and pump hour meter readings, denoted as “♦,” ranged from 83 to 115 gpm (and 

averaged 102 gpm) with both wells running and from 33 to 86 gpm (and averaged 59 gpm) with only one 

well running. These flowrates were somewhat higher than those recorded from the individual flow meters 

and the discrepancies again were never reconciled during the demonstration studies. 

Phase 1 Run 2. After media changeout, Run 2 began on November 3, 2004, with a less amount of media 

in each vessel (i.e., 22 ft3

). The run was discontinued 73 days later on January 16, 2005. The system 

operated for 765 hr with an average daily operating time of 10.5 hr. The system was taken offline only 

one day, treating approximately 3,921,000 gal of water with flow equally split between Vessels A and B. 

The master flow meter again registered more flow (i.e., 13%) than the individual flow meters/totalizers on 

the vessels combined. The amount of water treated based on the combined total of the individual flow 

meters corresponded to 11,920 BV, which was based on 44 ft3 of media in both vessels. During this run, 

both wells were on whenever the system was operating, resulting in a relatively tight flowrate range (i.e., 

from 97 to 118 gpm) based on the individual flow meters installed on Vessels A and B. Assuming that 

the media volume in each vessel remained unchanged at 22 ft3

, EBCTs would range from 2.5 to 3.9 min. 
Table 4-6. Key Operational Parameters 

Values/Conditions 

Operational Parameter APU-100 Run 1 APU-100 Run 2 AP

Duration 02/09/04–10/27/04 

(Weeks 1–38) 

11/03/04 – 01/16/05 

(Weeks 39–49) 

06/13/0

(We

Cumulative Operating Time (hr) 2,577 765 Days of System Operations (day) 222(a) 73 Average Daily Operating Time (hr)(c) 11.6 10.5 pH Adjustment (f) Pre/Post Range Average

 Pre 7.0–8.3 7.8  Post 6.8–7.9 7.4 

Pre/Post Range Average

 Pre 7.4- 8.1 7.7 

Post 7.2–8.1 7.6 

Pre/Post R

 Pre 7. Post N

Throughput (kgal) Vessel A Vessel B Total Vessel A Vessel B Total Vessel A V

 (g)

5,580 6,346 11,926 1,952 1,969 3,921 6,360 

Well(s) Range Average Well(s) Range Average Well(s) R

Two 72–112 95 Two 97–118 112 Two 8

Flowrate (gpm)(g)

One 47–75 60 One NA NA One 4

Well(s) Range Average Well(s) Range Average Well(s) R

Two 3.0 – 7.0 3.9 Two 2.5–3.9 3.2 Two 4.

EBCT (min)(h)

One 4.3 – 9.5 

29

6.2 One NA NA One 4.

Pressure Loss across System (psi) 6–36+(d) 10–31 Time Elapsed between Consecutive Backwash Events (day) (e)

1–22 (8) 1–28 (4) 7–

(a) Sixty-four out of 222 days with system operating with only one supply well. 

(b) Sixty out of 263 days with system operating with only one supply well. 

(c) Average daily operating times include only those days when treatment system was in operation. 

(d) “+” denoting readings that passed highest values on gauges. 

(e) Number in parentheses corresponding to average number of operating days between backwashes. 

(f) Field probe readings (g) Combined total of individual flow meters/totalizer readings. 

(h) Calculated based on 49 and 60 ft3 of media in APU-100 and APU-RWS systems, respectively. 

NA = not applicable 
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

01/14/04 03/04/04 04/23/04 06/12/04 08/01/04 09/20/04 11/09/04 12/29/04 02/17/05

Measurement Date

Flow Rates (gpm)

Calc Avg Flowrate at Pumphouse

Calc Avg Flowrate at Instrument Panel

Flow Totalizer A Reading

Flow Totalizer B Reading

Totalizer A + B

Phase 1, Run 1 Phase 1, Run 2

Figure 4-9. Flowrate Measurement Data for Phase 1, APU 100, Runs 1 and 2

Phase 2. The re-designed APU-RWS system became operational on June 13, 2005. The system operated 

263 days for a total of 2,561 hr with an average daily operating time of 9.7 hr. The system was taken 

offline from August 5 through September 26, 2005, due to a ruptured pipe connection; from October 7 

through 10 and, again, from October 17 through 20, 2005, while the operator attempted to find the source 

of entrained air in the distribution system (the APU-RWS system was not the cause); and from February 

18 through 19, 2006, due to a power outage. On May 8, 2006, the demonstration project ended and the 

District began to add iron at the head of the treatment as part of its ongoing effort to improve arsenic 

removal. 

Based on the individual flow meter on each vessel, the system treated approximately 12,881,000 gal of 

water with about even split (i.e., 49.4 and 50.6%) between the two vessels. This throughput value was 

23% lower than the cumulative volume registered by the master flow meter, indicating even worse 

correlation between the master flow meter and the flow meters installed on the APU-RWS system. 

Assuming negligible media loss during the run, 12,881,000 gal corresponded to 28,700 BV, calculated 

based on 60 ft3

 of media in both vessels. 

Similar to Run 1 under Phase 1, combined flowrates (denoted by “×” in Figure 4-10) to the system varied 

significantly from 48 to 106 gpm due, again, to operation of only one supply well during 23% of the 

system run time. Operation of only one well was done at the request of the NHDES as an attempt to 

improve system performance for arsenic removal. With both wells running, flowrates ranged from 80 to 

106 and averaged 97 gpm. With either Well No. 3 or 4 running, flowrates ranged from 48 to 105 and 

averaged 58 gpm. With 30 ft3

 of media in each vessel, EBCTs ranged from 4.0 to 5.6 min with both wells 

running and from 4.0 to 10.0 min with only one well running. 

30
-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

5/28/05 7/17/05 9/5/05 10/25/05 12/14/05 2/2/06 3/24/06 5/13/06 7/2/06

Measurement Date

Flow Rates (gpm)

Calc Avg Flowrate at Pumphouse

Calc Avg Flowrate at Instrument Panel

Flow Totalizer A Reading

Flow Totalizer B Reading

Totalizer A + B

System off

Note. Alternating the 2 wells on daily basis 

caused flowrates to fluctuate up and down 

depending upon which well was operating.

Figure 4-10. Flowrate Measurements for Phase 2, APU-RWS System 

4.4.2 Differential Pressure. The APU-100 system experienced elevated inlet pressure and higher 

than expected differential pressure across each adsorption vessel. There were periods when the system was 

bypassed due to elevated pressure conditions at the system inlet. Extensive troubleshooting was performed 

and removal and/or replacement of several system components did not appear to be useful for solving the 

problems. Ultimately, the APU-100 system was replaced with the completely re-designed APU-RWS 

system. The following summarizes the differential pressure issues experienced:

Phase 1 Run 1. Figures 4-11 and 4-12 present histograms of p readings measured across Vessels A and 

B, respectively, and total well flowrates calculated based on master flow meter and well hour meter 

readings recorded at the wellheads. Based on the vendor, p across each vessel should be no more than 2 

to 3 psi when operating the system at the design flowrate of 100 gpm and backwash should be performed 

when the p across each vessel had reached 10 psi. However, as shown in Figures 4-11 and 4-12, p 

consistently exceeded 10 psi for the majority of time the system operated. 

During the first month of operation, the system was backwashed five times when p readings across each 

vessel reached approximately 15 psi, the upper limit of the pressure gauges originally installed on the 

system. p readings returned to 10 to 11.5 psi following each backwash. In order to extend the time 

between backwashes, the operator sometimes had to operate only one supply well to reduce the flowrate to 

the system, thereby reducing the inlet pressure and p levels in the system. 

The vendor speculated at the time that elevated p levels were caused by media fines present at the 

laterals that had not been removed during initial backwash. A series of aggressive backwashes were,

31
0

5

101520253035

2/1/04

2/19/04

3/8/04

3/26/04

4/13/04

5/1/04

5/19/04

6/6/04

6/24/04

7/12/04

7/30/04

8/17/04

9/4/04

9/22/04

10/10/04

10/28/04

11/15/04

12/3/04

12/21/04

1/8/05

Date

Differential Pressure Reading (psi)

Differential pressure gauges graduated 

for readings of 0 - 15 psi 

Differential pressure gauges graduated

 for readings of 0 - 30 psi 

System 

Down

3/12 3/24

System

Down

 5/30 6/7

System

Down

6/24

7/9

Extended

Backwash

Replace Differential

Pressure 5/7

Well #4 Down

Replace inlet/differential Pressure 6/17

7/2 

Well#4

Fixed

7/1-7/2 Diaphragm valves replaced

Orifice Plate removed

7/12 

Well #3 Down

7/31

Well#3

Fixed

8/4, 8/18

Aggressive

Backwash

9/8, 9/29

Aggressive 

Backwash

10/27-11/02 System 

Down; 11/02 

Aggressive Backwash

System B

Press

Delta PSystem Flowrate

Figure 4-11. System Flowrate and Differential Pressure (p) across Vessel A of APU-100 Syste

32
0

5

101520253035

2/1/04

2/19/04

3/8/04

3/26/04

4/13/04

5/1/04

5/19/04

6/6/04

6/24/04

7/12/04

7/30/04

8/17/04

9/4/04

9/22/04

10/10/04

10/28/04

11/15/04

12/3/04

12/21/04

1/8/05

Date

Differential Pressure Reading (psi)

Differential pressure gauges graduated 

for readings of 0 - 15 psi 

Differential pressure gauges graduated for readings 

of 0 - 30 psi 

System 

Down

3/12 3/24

System

Down

5/30 6/7

SystemDown

6/24

7/9

ExtendedBackwash

Replace Differential

Pressure 5/7

Well #4 Down

Replace inlet/differential Pressure 6/17

7/2 Well#4

Fixed

7/1-7/2 Diaphragm valves replaced

Orifice Plate removed

7/12 

Well #3 Down

7/31

Well#3

Fixed

8/4, 8/18

Aggressive

Backwash

9/8, 9/29

Aggressive 

Backwash

10/27-11/02System Down

System 

High P

System Flowrate

Delta P

Figure 4-12. System Flowrate and Differential Pressure (p) across Vessel B of APU-100 Syste

33
therefore, performed at increased hydraulic loading rates of 8 to 9 gpm/ft2

. These backwashes, however, 

did not appear to be effective at reducing p across the vessels, restoring p to only 9 to 9.5 psi 

immediately following backwash. Furthermore, the p readings rose to approximately 14 psi within one 

week of operation. Six weeks following the aggressive backwashes, the system was backwashed once per 

week with p being reduced from 15 psi to about 10 to 12 psi after each backwash. 

On May 7, 2004, the two differential pressure gauges installed on the vessels were replaced with those 

that read up to 30 psi. Meanwhile, Well No. 4 was shut down on May 9, 2004, and remained inoperable 

through July 2, 2004. With only Well No. 3 operating at flowrates typically <60 gpm, the system 

continued to experience elevated pressure conditions. On May 30, 2004, the system was shut down due 

to excessive pressure of over 100 psi at the inlet. During the next two weeks, backwash was performed 

five times, but failed to lower inlet pressure and p levels as shown in Figures 4-11 and 4-12. 

On June 17, 2004, the vendor returned to the site to replace the inlet pressure and p gauges with new 

ones to ensure that the high readings observed were not the result of faulty gauges. The vendor also 

inspected two variable diaphragm valves installed upstream of each vessel for flow control. The 

diaphragm valves were determined to be in good working condition and re-installed back to the system. 

The system was put back into service and the inlet pressure was observed to be lower at 80 psi. Within 

five days, the inlet pressure levels again increased to over 90 psi and the p levels to above what the 

gauges were able to read at 30+ psi. 

Due to the continuing high pressure conditions, the system was taken offline between June 24 and July 9, 

2004, and the two diaphragm valves were replaced with simple non-actuated valves on July 1 and 2, 

2004. In addition, the two orifice plates that controlled and balanced the flows to the two vessels were 

removed from the discharge side of the vessels to help reduce flow restriction. The system was put back 

online on July 9, 2004, and operated at lower pressure for a few days before the system pressure began to 

steadily rise to the same level of approximately 100 psi at the inlet and 30+ psi p across each vessel by 

July 22, 2004. During July 10 through 22, 2004, Well No. 3 was down, causing the system to operate at a 

reduced flowrate of approximately 60 gpm. After Well No. 3 was back in service on July 22, 2004, the 

inlet pressure and p for both vessels rose to 100+ and 30+ psi, respectively, exceeding the measurable 

levels on all three gauges. 

The system was operating under these conditions for the next eight days before being bypassed again on 

August 2, 2004. On August 4, 2004, the vendor returned to the site to replace the 1-in diameter backwash 

flowmeter with a 2-in one in order to allow for an even higher loading rate (i.e., 10 to 11 gpm/ft2

) for 

backwash. Following the backwash, the inlet pressure fell to 76 psi and p to 12 to 13 psi across each 

vessel. Over the next 12 weeks, the system was backwashed five times using the elevated loading rate of 

approximately 11 gpm/ft2

. Each time, p was reduced from 20–23 psi to 12–13 psi, with the inlet 

pressure staying at about 90 to 100 psi. Meanwhile, the inlet pressure gauge was replaced again on 

September 1, 2004. Comparison of pressure readings indicated that the replaced gauge functioned 

normally; therefore, high pressure conditions were not the results of erroneously high readings from 

faulty gauges. 

Phase 1 Run 2. After the media replacement (with only 22 ft3

 of media in each vessel) in late October 

2004, the system operated very similarly to what was observed during Run 1. During the first month of 

system operation, p increased relatively slowly from the baseline level of 10.5 psi to about 19 to 20 psi 

across the vessels and the inlet pressure increased slightly from about 80 to 85 psi. Since then, p and 

inlet pressure continued to increase significantly (see Figures 4-11 and 4-12) even after repeated 

backwashes on November 30, 2004, December 7, 13, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30, and 31, 2004, and January 2, 3, 

and 4, 2005. On December 2, 2004, the chlorine injection point had to be relocated from the inlet side to 

34
the exit side of the system because the hose connected to the prechlorination injection point kept popping 

off due to elevated pressure on the inlet side of the system. 

In early January 2005, the operator and the vendor’s subcontractor, Waterline Services, conducted a series 

of system inspections to attempt to troubleshoot the elevated pressure conditions. Without any success, 

the system was bypassed on January 16, 2005. 

Phase 2. Figures 4-13 and 4-14 present p readings measured across Vessels A and B, respectively, 

during operation of the re-designed system. As shown in the figures, the p readings ranged from 0 to 13 

psi, significantly less than those measured during Phase 1. In addition, the system was first backwashed 

after 31⁄2 weeks of operation on July 8, 2005, as the pressure drop across each vessel had exceeded 12 psi 

(that was 2+ psi over the target backwash trigger). Afterwards, the system operated for another 31⁄2 weeks 

before reaching the 10-psi backwash trigger on August 1, 2005. The system was shut down for 

approximately seven weeks beginning August 5, 2005 due to a ruptured pipe connection on the inlet side 

of Vessel A (apparently caused by a factory defect in the union). In response to some media loss, 

approximately 1 ft3

 of media was added to each of the vessels, the system piping was reconnected, and a 

backflow preventor was installed. After being restarted on September 26, 2005, the system operated for 

3.5 months without any backwash because the Δp across the vessels rose at an uncharacteristically slow 

rate to only <6 psi. During this period, the conditions of all pressure gauges were examined repeatedly by 

the operator and all readings were believed to be accurate. It is not known why the p behavior across 

the vessels changed so drastically. 

The system was backwashed on January 18, 2006, and the differential pressure across each vessel 

dropped from <6 to about 1 psi after backwash. The system was backwashed again on January 31, 2006, 

at a flowrate of 116 gpm for 22 min for each vessel. The operator reported that the backwash wastewater 

was clear by the end of backwash, indicating thorough removal of accumulated particulates and media 

fines. The system did not reach the target backwash trigger until the end of the study on May 8, 2005. 

4.4.3 CO2 Injection. The manual CO2 gas flow control system used for pH adjustment 

experienced operational irregularities throughout Phase 1 of the demonstration study. Attempts were 

made to improve the system in preparation for the Phase 2 study; however, as discussed previously and 

below, the system experienced additional operational problems. Therefore, pH adjustment was not 

performed during operation of the APU-RWS system.

Phase 1. The CO2 gas flow control system experienced several operational problems soon after system 

startup. Leaks were detected in the CO2 system, resulting in frequent change-outs of the CO2 gas 

cylinders during the first few weeks of system operation. A faulty gas regulator and a damaged O-ring at 

the CO2 injection point also were identified, causing the system to function improperly. Following 

troubleshooting and repairs, the system appeared to function more consistently with the cylinder changeout frequency being extended to once every 2 to 3 weeks. 

Contributed, in part, by the mechanical problems, the CO2 system failed to consistently adjust pH to the 

target value of 7.0. pH values of the CO2-treated water as measured by the inline pH probe varied widely 

between 4.7 and 9.1, although the average pH value was 6.9, just slightly below the target value of 7.0. 

Significant differences were noted between pH readings measured by the inline pH probe and a laboratory 

pH probe (with samples taken from the AP [after pH adjustment] sampling location). As noted above and 

shown in Table 4-7, the readings by the inline probe varied from 4.7 to 9.1, while the readings by the 

laboratory pH probe varied only from 6.8 to 7.9. Therefore, the differences between the two set of 

readings ranged from -1.9 to 2.8 pH units. Some of the variation in the inline readings might have been 

caused by manual adjustments to the CO2 gas flowrate, although a similar swing should have been 

35
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

6/12/056/26/057/10/057/24/05

8/7/05

8/21/05

9/4/05

9/18/0510/2/05

10/16/0510/30/0511/13/0511/27/0512/11/0512/25/05

1/8/06

1/22/06

2/5/06

2/19/06

3/5/06

3/19/06

4/2/06

4/16/064/30/065/14/06

Date

Differential Pressure Reading (psi)

Backwash - 

08/01/05

System Not 

Operating

Backwash - 

01/18/06

Backwash - 

01/31/06

02/07/06

Backwash - 

03/13/06

Backwash - 

05/08/06

Backwash - 

07/08/05

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

6/12/056/26/057/10/057/24/05

8/7/05

8/21/05

9/4/05

9/18/0510/2/05

10/16/0510/30/0511/13/0511/27/0512/11/0512/25/05

1/8/06

1/22/06

2/5/06

2/19/06

3/5/06

3/19/06

4/2/06

4/16/064/30/065/14/06

Date

Differential Pressure Reading (psi)

Backwash -

08/01/05

System Not 

Operating

Backwash -

07/08/05

Backwash - 

01/18/06

Backwash - 

01/31/06

02/07/06

Backwash - 

03/13/06

Backwash - 

05/08/06

Figure 4-13. Differential Pressure (p) across Vessels A (top) and B (bottom) of 

APU-RWS System 

36
observed in the AP readings. Another possible explanation for the variation was degassing of dissolved 

CO2 from water during sampling and analysis because the laboratory measurements generally resulted in 

higher pH readings than the inline measurements. Further, buildup of a white film on the probe, first 

observed near the end of April 2004, also might have affected the inline probe performance, as elevated 

pH readings (see Table 4-7 for inline probe readings for April 19 and 29, 2004) were recorded during this 

period. Following cleaning, the inline readings returned to below 6.8 on May 7, 2004. Since then, the 

probe was removed every one to two weeks for cleaning. During the October 27 to 28, 2004, media 

changeout, it was noted by the vendor that the inline pH probe did not appear to be operating correctly. 

The inline pH probe was replaced then with a spare pH probe, which was kept on site. 

Table 4-7. Summary of pH Readings after pH Adjustment 

Date 

pH Reading of Sample 

Taken at AP Sampling 

Location Using a 

Laboratory pH Probe 

pH Reading 

by Inline 

pH Probe Difference 

01/30/04 7.3 – – 

02/16/04 6.8 7.3 -0.5 

02/24/04 7.4 6.8 0.6 

03/02/04 7.5 6.5 1.0 

03/10/04 7.5 7.1 0.4 

04/06/04 7.5 6.5 1.0 

04/13/04 7.3 7.0 0.3 

04/19/04 7.2 9.1 -1.9 

04/29/04 7.1 8.1 -1.0 

05/07/04 7.6 6.8 0.8 

05/18/04 7.5 6.5 1.0 

05/25/04 7.5 4.7 2.8 

06/09/04 7.0 7.1 -0.1 

07/13/04 NM 7.4 – 

07/20/04 7.2 7.7 -0.5 

08/04/04 7.6 6.2 1.4 

08/10/04 7.4 7.4 0.0 

08/17/04 7.8 6.6 1.2 

08/24/04 7.0 7.1 -0.1 

09/09/04 7.7 7.0 0.7 

09/14/04 7.5 7.0 0.5 

09/22/04 7.1 6.6 0.5 

09/28/04 7.2 7.2 0.0 

10/06/04 7.2 7.4 -0.2 

10/12/04 7.8 6.6 1.2 

10/21/04 7.9 6.6 1.3 

11/04/04 7.7 7.0 0.7 

11/10/04 8.1 7.1 1.0 

12/08/04 7.8 7.1 0.7 

12/13/04 7.2 7.0 0.2 

01/05/05 7.4 7.0 0.4 

Average 7.43 6.98 

37
Based on the operational issues experienced during Phase 1, it was decided to upgrade the CO2 pH control 

system for Phase 2. Proposed upgrades included utilizing an active PID-based control instead of a 

manual control and a more durable ISFET-type pH probe as opposed to the conventional glass probe to 

reduce the need to clean and handle the glass probe. 

Phase 2. After APU-RWS system installation in June 2005, the CO2 system vendor, ATSI, was on site to 

upgrade the system for automatic operation during the week of July 25, 2005. The vendor discovered 

several problems with the original system, including 1) improper installation of an underground wire 

connecting the control panel and inline pH probe (i.e., the wire was too close to another electrical line, 

which could cause interference to the pH readings), 2) extensive biological growth in the CO2 membrane 

module, and 3) damaged O-rings at the injection point on the CO2 loop. The vendor indicated that some 

site re-work and additional parts would be required before the new CO2 system installation could be 

completed and the pH adjustment put back online. 

ATSI returned to the site on September 21, 2005 to complete CO2 system modifications and parts 

replacement. Prior to its arrival, the underground line was relocated by a local subcontractor. ASTI 

replaced the CO2 injection membrane, upgraded the control panel, installed a new pH probe, and left the 

CO2 system online with the adsorption system. Upon checking the system, however, it was discovered 

that the CO2 system was not operating correctly and the pH adjustment was discontinued. After being 

contacted, AdEdge made arrangements with ATSI to return to the site on October 4 through 5, 2005. 

While on site, ATSI and the facility operator observed the accumulation of a black silty material on the 

membrane module, indicating fouling. No further action was taken to resolve the operational problems 

because the cause of the membrane fouling had to be eliminated prior to installing another CO2 

membrane. With the raw water pH values ranging between 7.5 to 7.9 since startup of the new system, the 

need for pH adjustment diminished and pH adjustment was discontinued for the remainder of the Phase 2 

study. 

4.4.4 Backwash. AdEdge recommended that the APU system be backwashed, either manually or 

automatically, approximately once per month. Automatic backwash could be initiated by either a timer or 

a Δp setpoint. However, due to the ongoing problems with elevated Δp and inlet pressure (see 

Section 4.4.2), the APU-100 system was backwashed far more frequently than was originally anticipated. 

The need for frequent, aggressive backwashing was eliminated with the installation of the APU-RWS 

system. A brief description of the backwash events follows: 

Phase 1. For Run 1, backwash events occurred 28 times during 33 weeks of system operation (not 

including the system downtime from March 13 to 25, 2004, and from June 24 to July 8, 2004), with the 

interval between two consecutive backwash events varying between 1 and 22 days (see Table 4-6). As 

discussed in Section 4.4.2, in an attempt to address the elevated pressure issues, the backwash flowrate 

was increased from 30 to 35 gpm (or approximately 4 to 5 gpm/ft2

) to 55 to 65 gpm (or 8 to 9 gpm/ft2) in 

late March 2004, and then to 75 to 77 gpm (or 10 to 11 gpm/ft2

) following system retrofit with a larger 

diameter backwash flowmeter. Depending on the flowrate, a single 20-min backwash cycle for one vessel 

produced between 600 and 1,500 gal of water. 

 

Following the media replacement in the APU-100 system in October 2004, the first backwash occurred 

after approximately 31⁄2 weeks of system operation. However, after November 30, 2004, the system 

experienced elevated inlet pressure of near 100 psi or greater and elevated Δp (between 23 to 30 psi) 

requiring backwash on December 7, 13, and 20, 2004, and every other day during the period from 

December 22 through 30, 2004. Backwash frequency even increased to once a day in early January 2005. 

Δp readings did not return to the expected levels of 10 to 12 psi following the respective backwash cycles. 

38
Phase 2. As discussed in Section 4.2, the APU-RWS system plumbing design eliminated the use of 

diaphragm valves, Fleck controller valves, and restrictive orifices; they were replaced with a nested 

system of fully ported actuated butterfly valves and a new control panel. The problems associated with 

the pressure losses were resolved with system retrofitting, resulting in far less frequent backwashing (i.e., 

seven times during 47 weeks of operation). The interval between two consecutive backwash events 

varied between 7 and 109 days (see Table 4-6). As discussed in Section 4.4.2 and shown in Figures 4-13 

and 4-14, the system was manually backwashed on several occasions even though the Δp readings were 

less than the 10-psi backwash trigger. Depending on the flowrate, a single 20-min backwash cycle for one 

vessel produced between 1,500 and 2,700 gal of water. 

4.4.5 Media Loading and Removal. The media was loaded on-site during the installation of each 

system (i.e., January 16, 2004, for the APU-100 system and June 13, 2005, for the APU-RWS system). 

In addition, one media changeout was performed during the APU-100 system operation between October 

27 and 28, 2004. Before the removal of spent media, the heights of the freeboard were measured from the 

flange at the top of the vessels to the top of the media beds and summarized in Table 4-8. The spent media 

then was sampled and removed from each vessel as described in Section 3.3.4. As shown in Table 4-8, 

significant amounts (i.e., 39 to 53%) of the media were lost during Run 1 of the APU-100 system 

operation, based on the freeboard heights estimated/measured at media loading (i.e., <15 in) and before 

media changeout (i.e., 39 and 33 in for Vessels A and B, respectively). This loss of media apparently 

occurred during backwashing, especially after a more aggressive backwash procedure with approximately 

11 gpm/ft2

 of hydraulic loading rate was implemented in August 2004. This observation was supported 

by much shorter freeboard heights (i.e., 25 and 20 in) measured in July 2004 during a vendor site visit 

than in October 2004 before the media changeout. 

The APU-100 system was removed from the site during the week of May 16, 2005. During the 

decommissioning of the old system, freeboard heights were measured to be 42 and 38 in. Comparing to 

the freeboard heights recorded following the media replacement in October 2004 (i.e., 18.5 in), 13.9 and 

11.5 ft3

 of the media (or 63 and 52%) were lost from Vessels A and B, respectively, over 2.5 months of 

system operations (i.e., from late October 2004 to mid January 2005). The aggressive backwash 

flowrates (75 to 77 gpm or 11 gpm/ft2

) again were thought to have caused the media to be washed away. 

Note that the system was backwashed at these flowrates 19 times during this adsorption run. 

Table 4-8. APU-100 System Media Loading, Removal, and Freeboard Measurements 

Tank 

Freeboard 

Height 

at Media 

Loading 

Freeboard 

Height 

Media 

Volume 

at Media 

Removal 

Difference 

of 

Freeboard 

Height 

Amount 

of 

Media 

Lost 

Media 

Run 

No. 

Media 

Loading 

Date (A/B) (ft3

) (in) 

Media 

Removal 

Date (in) (in) (ft3

)/% 

01/16/04 A 27 <15(a)/25(b) 10/27/04 39 >24 14.2/53 1 01/16/04 B 27 <15(a)/20(b) 10/27/04 33 >18 10.7/39 

10/28/04 A 22 18.5 05/16/05 42 23.5 13.9/59 2 10/28/04 B 22 18.5 05/16/05 38 19.5 11.5/46 

(a) Estimated measurements (see Section 4.4.1 on page 28). 

(b) Field measurements made in July 2004. 

4.4.6 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the APU-100 and APURWS systems included backwash wastewater and spent media. Piping for discharging backwash 

wastewater from both vessels was combined aboveground inside the treatment building before exiting the 

building through the floor. Piping then traveled underground to a subsurface drainage structure located 

39
beneath a parking area in front of the treatment building. The backwash wastewater then infiltrated to the 

ground from this disposal structure. Particles or fines carried in backwash wastewater remained in the 

drainage structure. 

4.4.7 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. The operational issues related to the elevated 

p and inlet pressure and the operation of the CO2 gas flow control system were the primary factors 

affecting system reliability and operation simplicity. 

Unscheduled downtime during the APU-100 system operation was caused by the need to address the 

elevated pressures and operational problems with the CO2 injection system. As described in 

Section 4.4.1, the system was bypassed between March 13 to March 25, 2004, due to damaged parts in 

the CO2 gas flow control system. Unscheduled downtime due to the elevated inlet pressure and p issues 

occurred from May 31 through June 1, June 5 and 6, June 16 through 18, June 24 through July 8, and 

August 2, 2004. During the first 261 days of operation, the system was down for a total of 36 days, 

representing 14% downtime. Following the media replacement in October 2004, the system ran almost 

on a daily basis. The replacement of the APU -100 system with the APU-RWS system eliminated 

downtime caused by elevated pressure. 

The APU-RWS system ran on a daily basis except for an extended period from August 5 through 

September 26, 2005, when the system was shut down due to a ruptured pipe at the inlet side of Vessel A. 

On August 6, the operator discovered the pipe break and immediately shut down the well pumps. Due to 

backflow from the elevated storage tank through the system, a small amount of media was washed out of 

the adsorption vessels to the treatment building. AdEdge’s local subcontractor, Waterline Services, was 

on site during the week of August 15 to fix the broken pipe connection and install a backflow preventer. 

Waterline Services opened the vessels and measured freeboard heights at 26 in for both vessels, which 

were very similar to those measured during system startup. This confirmed that only a small amount of 

media (estimated to be <1 ft3

) was lost during the pipe break. 

In addition to the extended system shutdown from August 5 through September 26, 2005, the APU-RWS 

system was bypassed on October 7, 2005, due to air in the distribution system. Entrained air in the 

distribution system caused water to appear milky as it came from taps, resulting in some complaints from 

customers. Although the cause for this entrained air was not clear, the operator decided to temporarily 

bypass the APU unit. The unit was placed back online on October 10, 2005, because bypassing it did not 

appear to help solve the problem. The two supply wells at the Porter well house were turned off during 

the week of October 17, 2005, when the operator attempted to isolate the source of the entrained air in the 

system. The wells were back in operation by October 24, 2005, and it appeared that there was less air in 

the distribution system than previously observed. During the 328 days of operation, the system was down 

for a total of 59 days, equivalent to 18% downtime. 

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

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

Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Initially, the only pre-treatment performed was pH adjustment 

using CO2. The raw water sample tap was relocated further upstream of the CO2 injection point in late 

March 2004 to avoid possible influence by the CO2 injection. During the first one and one half months of 

system operation, chlorine was added at the end of the treatment train to provide chlorine residuals as was 

performed prior to the arsenic demonstration study. In late March 2004, the chlorination point was 

moved upstream of the adsorption vessels and after the CO2 injection point to oxidize As(III) to As(V) 

and improve arsenic removal efficiency. Post-chlorination was not required because as much as 0.6 mg/L 

40
(as Cl2) of free chlorine residuals (on average) remained in the treated water before entering the 

distribution system. 

System Automation. Both APU systems were fitted with automated controls that would allow for the 

backwash cycle to be controlled automatically; however, due to the pressure problems these automated 

controls were not used. Instead, the operator performed backwashes manually. The APU-100 CO2 gas 

control flow was designed for manual operation in Phase 1. Attempts were made to upgrade the system 

for automatic flow control, which, however, was subject to CO2 membrane fouling and other problems 

and pH adjustment was discontinued. 

Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the 

APU systems were minimal. The daily demand on the operator was typically 15 to 20 min to perform 

daily checks of the system, visual inspections, and record the system operating parameters on the daily 

log sheets. Normal operation of the system did not appear to require additional skills beyond those 

necessary to operate the existing water supply equipment. On days when the systems were backwashed, 

the operator typically spent about two hours on site to complete this process. 

Due to recurring problems with elevated Δp and inlet pressure and the CO2 gas flow control system, the 

operator spent much more time troubleshooting the operation of the treatment system than would 

normally be expected. As requested by the vendor, the operator conducted backwash far more frequently 

than originally anticipated and worked with the vendor to troubleshoot, modify, and replace several system 

components. The majority of the labor to modify or replace system components was performed by the 

installation subcontractor hired by the vendor; however, all of the additional visits and coordination of 

additional work required the plant operator to be on site on several occasions for periods of two to four 

hours or more, depending on the type of work being conducted. 

Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included such items as periodic checks 

of the flowmeters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. As mentioned in 

Section 4.4.3, weekly cleaning of the inline pH probe was found to be necessary to remove the buildup of 

a film on the probe. The vendor suggested inspection of the vessel internals, including adsorber laterals 

and replacement of the underbedding gravel during media replacement. Due to the operational issues, the 

operator spent additional time troubleshooting and working with AdEdge technicians during their return 

visits to the site. Typically, the operator was onsite an additional 30 min to as much as two to three hours 

per week working to address these issues. Under normal operation, it is not expected that this additional 

time would be required. 

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

operation included the NaOCl solution used for chlorination, which was already in use at the site, and the 

CO2 gas cylinders used for pH adjustment. The CO2 cylinders required change-out typically once every 

two to three weeks, and the 50-gal drums of 4% chlorine solution required refilling once every two to 

three weeks. 

4.5 System Performance 

The performance of the APU systems was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected from 

the treatment plant, the system backwash, and the distribution system. 

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Treatment plant water samples were collected at five locations 

through the treatment process, including IN, AP, TA, TB, and TT (see Table 3-3). During operation of 

the APU-100 system with prechlorination (excluding the six-week period when chlorine was added after 

the APU-100 system), water samples were collected on 37 occasions (including four sampling events 

41
42

with duplicate samples taken) with field speciation performed on eight occasions. Raw water from the IN 

location was sampled at each of the 37 occasions. AP was sampled 36 times, TA and TB 29 times, and 

TT eight times. During operation of the APU-RWS system, treatment plant water samples were collected 

on 11 occasions, with field speciation performed on six occasions. Water from the IN and AP locations 

were sampled at each of the 11 sampling occasions. TA and TB were sampled five times and TT six 

times. 

Table 4-9 provides a summary of analytical results for arsenic, iron, and manganese after relocation of the 

chlorination point upstream of the adsorption vessels during APU-100 system operation from March 30, 

2004, through January 5, 2005, and during APU-RWS system operation from June 13, 2005, through 

May 8, 2006. Table 4-10 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters during the same 

periods of time. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results during the operation of each 

system. The results of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.

Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of APU systems was arsenic concentrations 

in the treated water. As shown by the comparison of the results, which are shown side by side in Tables 

4-9 and 4-10, as well as in Figures 4-14 through 4-18, the behavior of the adsorptive media was very 

similar between the two systems. 

Figure 4-14 contains three bar charts showing the concentrations of total arsenic, particulate arsenic, and 

soluble arsenic (including As[III] and As[V]) at the IN, AP, and TT sampling locations for each 

speciation event. Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 28.7 to 52.4 g/L and averaged 

37.0 g/L during APU-100 system operation (excluding the six-week period when chlorine was added 

after the adsorption system) and ranged from 31.6 to 51.1 g/L (average 37.7 g/L) during APU-RWS 

system operation. Particulate arsenic concentrations averaged 6.2 and 3.4 g/L during APU-100 and 

APU-RWS system operations, respectively. Typically, As (III) comprised a significant portion of total 

soluble arsenic with its concentrations averaging 18.3 and 16.8 g/L, respectively. The remainder of 

soluble arsenic was As(V) with concentrations averaging 15.7 and 18.2 g/L, respectively. The arsenic 

concentrations measured in raw water were consistent with those collected previously during the source 

water sampling (Table 4-1). 

During the first six-weeks of APU-100 system operation, chlorine was added at the end of the treatment 

train. In March 2004, total arsenic levels in the treated water, existing primarily as As(III) as shown in 

Figure 4-14, increased to as high as 7.7 g/L after only about 2,700 BV of throughput. This early arsenic 

breakthrough prompted relocation of the chlorine injection point to upstream of the adsorption vessels so 

that As(III) might be oxidized to As(V) before coming in contact with the adsorptive media. When 

prechlorination was performed, samples collected downstream of the chlorine injection/pH adjustment 

point (AP) had As(III) and As(V) concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 and 30.3 to 37.6 g/L, 

respectively, indicating oxidation of As(III) by chlorine. Before the December 2, 2004, sampling event, 

the line that delivered chlorine to the chlorine injection point bursted due to high inlet pressure; therefore, 

prechlorination was not performed during sampling and a mix of As(III) and As(V) at 14.4 and 21.7 g/L, 

respectively, was observed at the AP location. 

The arsenic breakthrough curves for each media run are shown in Figure 4-15. As shown in the top 

graph, breakthrough of total arsenic at concentrations above the 10 g/L target MCL was first observed at 

the TT location after the APU-100 system processed approximately 12,500 BV of water. Arsenic 

concentrations returned to below 10 g/L at the TA/TB locations the following week at approximately 

13,300 and 13,600 BV, respectively, but increased to over 10 g/L again at the TA location at 14,300 BV. 

Samples of treated water collected at the TA location at 15,000 BV and at the TT location at 15,200 BV 

were again below 10 g/L; however, the concentration was above 10 g/L at the TB location at 17,400
Table 4-9. Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese after Relocation of Chlorination 

Point Upstream of Adsorption Vessels for Phases 1 and 2 Studies 

Parameter 

Sampling 

Location(a) Unit 

Number of 

Samples 

Phase 1/ 

Phase 2 

Minimum 

Concentration

Phase 1/ 

Phase 2 

Maximum 

Concentration

Phase 1/ 

Phase 2 

Average 

Concentration 

Phase 1/ 

Phase 2 

Standard 

Deviation 

Phase 1/ 

Phase 2 

IN g/L 37/11 28.7/31.6 52.4/51.1 37.0/37.7 6.0/6.4 

AP g/L 36/11 23.3/28.5 75.2/48.6 38.1/37.5 8.6/5.6 

-

(b) TA g/L 29/5 1.0/1.0 40.5/20.3 -(b)

-

(b) TB g/L 29/5 1.4/1.0 30.0/19.5 -(b)

As 

(total) 

TT g/L 8/6 1.1/1.5 20.8/16.5 -

(b) -(b)

IN g/L 8/6 29.8/30.3 36.4/45.0 34.0/35.0 2.3/5.3 

AP g/L 7/6 30.7/30.8 39.1/37.2 35.5/33.5 2.8/2.2 

As 

(total 

soluble) TT g/L 8/6 <0.1/1.2 19.1/16.3 - - 

IN g/L 8/6 <0.1/<0.1 17.6/6.6 6.2/3.4 7.2/3.2 

AP g/L 7/6 <0.1/<0.1 7.1/10.5 2.7/3.1 2.6/4.1 As 

(particulate) TT g/L 8/6 <0.1/<0.1 2.3/0.5 - - 

IN g/L 8/6 12.4/7.6 25.8/28.8 18.3/16.8 4.3/8.2 

AP g/L 6/6 0.5/0.4 1.5(c)/2.3 0.9/1.2 0.4/0.7 As (III) 

(soluble) TT g/L 7/6 0.3/0.5 0.8/1.3 - - 

IN g/L 8/6 4.1/11.1 19.1/25.3 15.7/18.2 5.0/5.0 

AP g/L 6/6 30.3(d)/29.6 37.6/35.9 34.9/32.3 2.9/2.1 As (V) 

(soluble) TT g/L 7/6 0.2/<0.1 18.3/15.6 - - 

IN g/L 37/11 37/77 1,120(e)/799 208/297 209/213 

AP g/L 36/11 <25/56 898/555 185/239 176/163 

TA g/L 29/5 <25/<25 131/165 22.9/43 24/68 

TB g/L 29/5 <25/<25 280/64 33/23 50/23 

Fe 

(total) 

TT g/L 8/6 <25/<25 78/72 23/30 23/27 

IN g/L 8/6 <25/<25 183/158 42/72 58/49 

AP g/L 7/6 <25/<25 41/68 17/24 11/22 Fe 

(soluble) TT g/L 8/6 <25/<25 <25/79 <25/24 0/27 

IN g/L 37/11 51.9/59.7 245.0/175.5 100.4/106.3 43.9/37.3 

AP g/L 36/11 53.1/55.6 240.7/192.0 100.2/109.3 37.9/44.7 

-

(b) TA g/L 29/5 0.5/0.5 50.5/19.7 -(b)

-

(b) TB g/L 29/5 0.8/0.5 69.6/11.2 -(b)

Mn 

(total) 

TT g/L 8/6 0.6/0.5 9.7/23.6 -

(b) -(b)

IN g/L 8/6 48.9/57.6 235.3/181.6 97.9/128.2 58.9/47.7 

AP g/L 7/6 50.2/55.1 104.9/147.7 76.8/82.7 18.5/33.0 Mn 

(soluble) TT g/L 8/6 0.6/0.5 2.7/15.3 - - 

(a) See Table 3-3 and Figure 4-2. 

(b) Average concentration and standard deviation not calculated; see Figures 4-15 and 4-16 for total As and total 

Mn breakthrough curves. 

(c) Omitted one outlying datum at 34.5 g/L; also omitted 12/02/07 result at 14.4 g/L due to a broken 

prechlorination line. 

(d) Omitted one outlying datum at <0.1 g/L; also omitted 12/02/07 result at 21.7 g/L due to a broken 

prechlorination line. 

(e) Omitted one outlying datum at 4,645 g/L. 

Phase 1 = APU-100 Run 1 from 03/30/04 through 10/27/04 and Run 2 from 11/03/04 through 01/05/05; Phase 2 = 

APU-RWS from 06/13/05 through 05/08/06 

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

Duplicate samples were included in calculations. 

43
Table 4-10. Analytical Results of Other Water Quality Parameters after Relocation of Chlorination 

Point Upstream of Adsorption Vessels for Phases 1 and 2 Studies

Parameter 

Sampling 

Location(a)

Number 

of 

Samples 

Phase 1/ 

Phase 2 

Minimum 

Concentration

Phase 1/ 

Phase 2 

Maximum 

Concentration

Phase 1/ 

Phase 2 

Average 

Concentration 

Phase 1/ 

Phase 2 

Standard 

Deviation

Unit 

Phase 1/ 

Phase 2 

IN mg/L 37/11 162/158 259/198 184.7/179.9 18.2/12.5 

AP mg/L 36/11 162/172 236/198 182.4/184.0 14.9/9.8 

TA mg/L 29/5 160/172 219/189 182.0/179.6 11.7/7.1 

TB mg/L 29/5 163/172 

Alkalinity 

207/185 181.3/177.0 9.2/4.8 (as CaCO3) 

TT mg/L 8/6 160/172 196/198 179.3/187.0 12.8/10.9 

IN mg/L 8/6 0.5/0.3 1.5/0.6 0.7/0.5 0.3/0.1 

Fluoride AP mg/L 7/6 0.5/0.4 1.7/0.6 0.8/0.5 0.4/0.0 

TT mg/L 8/6 0.5/0.4 1.6/0.6 0.7/0.5 0.4/0.1 

IN mg/L 8/6 35.0/27.7 72.0/59.0 44.8/40.5 11.6/12.8 

Sulfate AP mg/L 7/6 33.0/28.6 46.0/56.0 41.3/39.9 4.2/9.6 

TT mg/L 8/6 33.0/30.8 80.0/76.0 44.8/44.5 14.6/17.3 

IN mg/L 34/4 <0.06/<0.05 2.3/0.1 0.1/0.00 0.4/0.00 

AP mg/L 33/4 < 0.06/<0.05 0.1/0.1 0.00/0.00 0.00/0.00 

TA mg/L 26/1 <0.06/<0.05 0.1/<0.05 0.1/<0.05 0.00/0.00 

TB mg/L 26/1 <0.06/<0.05 0.2/<0.05 0.1/<0.05 0.00/0.00 

Orthophosphate 

(as P)(b)

TT mg/L 8/3 <0.06/<0.05 0.1/0.1 0.00/0.1 0.00/0.1 

IN μg/L 0/6 NS/72.8 NS/100.6 NS/81.5 NS/10.4 

AP μg/L 0/6 NS/71.4 NS/94.2 NS/82.9 NS/7.8 

TA μg/L 0/3 NS/5.0 -

(c) NS/86.2 -(c)

TB μg/L 0/3 NS/5.0 NS/72.9 -

(c) -(c)

Total P 

(as P) 

TT μg/L 0/3 NS/15.3 -

(c) NS/50.3 -(c)

IN mg/L 37/11 13.6/13.9 16.7/17.0 15.0/15.3 0.7/0.9 

AP mg/L 36/11 13.7/14.0 16.5/16.4 14.9/15.0 0.6/0.8 

TA mg/L 29/5 13.8/13.5 15.9/15.6 15.0/14.7 0.5/0.9 

TB mg/L 29/5 13.5/13.1 16.1/15.4 15.0/14.6 0.6/0.9 

Silica (as SiO2) 

TT mg/L 8/6 9.9/1.6 15.3/15.5 14.1/12.6 1.8/5.4 

IN mg/L 8/6 <0.04/<0.05 0.1/0.1 0.00/<0.05 0.00/0.00 

Nitrate (as N) AP mg/L 7/6 <0.04/<0.05 0.1/0.5 0.00/0.10 0.00/0.2 

TT mg/L 8/6 <0.04/<0.05 0.1/0.4 0.00/0.10 0.00/0.1 

IN NTU 37/11 0.3/0.5 36.0/5.1 3.8/2.0 7.7/1.6 

AP NTU 36/11 0.2/0.2 14.0/5.0 1.2/1.7 2.2/1.6 

TA NTU 29/5 0.2/0.2 7.4/2.7 0.8/1.1 1.4/1.0 

TB NTU 29/5 0.3/0.2 2.1/1.3 0.6/0.5 0.4/0.5 

Turbidity 

TT NTU 8/6 0.2/0.2 1.3/1.4 0.6/0.6 0.3/0.5 

IN S.U. 35/8 7.4/7.2 8.2/7.9 7.9/7.7 0.2/0.2 

AP S.U. 34/8 7.0/7.6 8.1/8.1 7.5/7.8 0.3/0.2 

TA S.U. 27/5 7.1/7.8 8.0/8.1 7.5/7.9 0.3/0.1 

TB S.U. 26/5 7.1/7.8 8.0/8.1 7.5/7.9 0.3/0.1 

pH 

TT S.U. 8/4 7.0/7.8 8.0/8.3 7.5/8.1 0.3/0.2 

IN °C 24/8 8.3/5.6 19.5/19.7 13.6/11.7 2.6/3.9 

AP °C 23/8 7.6/6.5 17.7/18.7 13.1/11.6 2.4/3.4 

TA °C 17/5 9.0/5.9 16.4/12.2 13.2/10.0 1.9/2.4 

TB °C 16/5 9.1/7.0 17.5/11.6 13.4/10.1 2.1/1.8 

Temperature 

TT °C 7/4 7.8/7.0 16.0/18.3 12.5/12.2 2.7/4.6 

44
Table 4-10. Analytical Results of Other Water Quality Parameters after Relocation of Chlorination 

Point Upstream of Adsorption Vessels for Phase 1 and Phase 2 Studies (Continued)

Parameter 

Sampling 

Location(a)

Number 

of 

Samples 

Phase 1/ 

Phase 2 

Minimum 

Concentration

Phase 1/ 

Phase 2 

Maximum 

Concentration

Phase 1/ 

Phase 2 

Average 

Concentration 

Standard 

Deviation

Phase 1/ 

Unit Phase 2 

Phase 1/ 

Phase 2 

IN mg/L 24/7 3.2/3.5 5.5/7.8 4.2/5.3 0.7/1.4 

AP mg/L 23/7 2.0/4.1 4.2/9.4 3.3/6.3 0.6/1.9 

TA mg/L 17/4 1.9/6.4 4.4/9.6 3.3/7.6 0.6/1.4 

TB mg/L 16/4 2.2/6.2 5.4/9.5 3.4/7.1 0.8/1.6 

DO 

TT mg/L 7/4 2.0/3.3 3.5/5.9 2.7/4.0 0.6/1.1 

IN mV 24/8 -70.0/164 234/224 46/198 133/20 

AP mV 23/8 -47.0/158 434/436 71/213 136/91 

TA mV 17/5 -54.0/159 437/336 77/201 144/76 

TB mV 16/5 -54.0/157 466/314 86/196 151/67 

ORP 

TT mV 7/4 -50.0/151 262/201 39/172 125/24 

Free Chlorine AP mg/L 20/6 0.0/0.0 1.8/0.4 0.2/0.1 0.4/0.1 

(as Cl2) TT mg/L 6/3 0.0/0.0 3.2/0.1 0.6/0.0 1.3/0.1 

Total Chlorine AP mg/L 19/6 0.0/0.1 3.8/0.6 0.7/0.3 1.1/0.2 

(as Cl2) TT mg/L 5/3 0.1/0.0 3.2/0.3 0.8/0.2 1.4/0.1 

IN mg/L 8/6 47.8/53.4 101.0/87.7 67.7/66.9 17.6/13.1 

AP mg/L 7/6 48.9/46.4 81.4/83.0 61.5/62.6 10.9/13.7 Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) TT mg/L 8/6 54.7/48.7 103.1/92.0 70.1/68.5 16.1/18.0 

IN mg/L 8/6 28.2/29.5 52.8/47.6 39.8/38.4 9.2/7.0 

AP mg/L 7/6 28.5/25.1 51.0/46.6 37.0/35.4 7.6/8.6 Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) TT mg/L 8/6 31.1/27.8 53.4/52.2 39.8/39.0 7.8/11.3 

IN mg/L 8/6 19.6/22.3 48.2/29.2 29.2/27.1 9.0/6.7 

AP mg/L 7/6 20.4/21.2 30.4/26.1 26.1/25.6 3.9/5.8 Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) TT mg/L 8/6 22.1/19.6 49.7/31.1 31.1/28.7 9.0/7.1 

(a) See Table 3-3 and Figure 4-2. 

(b) Orthophosphate (as P) data generated between 1/1/05 to 10/3/05 was considered unusable and was removed 

from data set. 

(c) See Figure 4-19 for total P breakthrough curve. 

Phase 1 = APU-100 Run 1 from 03/30/04 through 10/27/04 and Run 2 from 11/03/04 through 01/05/05; Phase 2 = 

APU-RWS from 06/13/05 through 05/08/06 

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

Duplicate samples included in calculations. 

Only samples collected after switched to prechlorination, beginning with samples collected on 03/30/04. 

BV. Total arsenic concentrations measured at the AP location at about 13,500 BV and at the TT location 

at about 12,500 BV were unusually high at 75.2 and 20.3 g/L, respectively. It was not clear why these 

concentrations were higher than the other relevant data points. Based on these data, breakthrough of 

arsenic at 10 g/L occurred somewhere between 12,500 and 17,000 BV, representing about 17 to 23% of 

the vendor-estimated working capacity of 74,000 BV. 

After the media was changed out, the APU-100 system processed approximately 10,000 BV before it was 

bypassed due to unacceptably high inlet pressure. Breakthrough of arsenic at this time was at about 4 

μg/L (middle graph in Figure 4-15), which comprised primarily As(III) (see Figure 4-14) following the 

switch back of the chlorine injection point to after the adsorption vessels on December 2, 2004, due to 

elevated inlet pressure problems as discussed in Section 4.4.2. 

45
As Species at the Inlet (IN)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1/30/2004

3/9/2004

4/19/2004

5/25/2004

7/13/2004

8/10/2004

9/9/2004

10/6/2004

11/4/2004

12/2/2004

6/13/2005

7/19/2005

9/28/2005

11/2/2005

11/30/2005

1/18/2006

Date

As Concentration (μg/L)

APU-100 APU-RWS 

Postchlorination Pre-chlorination

Run 1 Run 2

As Species after pH Adjustment and Pre-Chlorination (AP)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1/30/2004

3/9/2004

4/19/2004

5/25/2004

7/13/2004

8/10/2004

9/9/2004

10/6/2004

11/4/2004

12/2/2004

6/13/2005

7/19/2005

9/28/2005

11/2/2005

11/30/2005

1/18/2006

Date

As Concentration (μg/L)

(a) Pre-chlorination not performed

(b) As (III) and (V) data not available

(c) Sample not taken 

(b)

(c)

APU-100 APU-RWS

(a)

(a)

(a) (b)

Run 1 Run 2

Postchlorination Pre-chlorination

As Species after Vessels Combined (TT)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1/30/2004

3/9/2004

4/19/2004

5/25/2004

7/13/2004

8/10/2004

9/9/2004

10/6/2004

11/4/2004

12/2/2004

6/13/2005

7/19/2005

9/28/2005

11/2/2005

11/30/2005

1/18/2006

Date

As Concentration (μg/L)

As (III) As (V) As (particulate)

APU-100 System Operating APU-RWS System Operating

Run 1 Run 2

Postchlorination Pre-chlorination

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

46
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Bed Volumes (^103

)

As Concentration (μg/L)

Inlet

After Pre-Chlorination

Vessel A

Vessel B

Vessels A/B combined

10-g/L MCL

PostchlorinationPre-chlorination

APU-100, Run 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Bed Volumes (^103

)

As Concentration (μg/L)

Inlet

After Pre-Chlorination

Vessel A

Vessel B

Vessels A/B combined

10-g/L MCL

APU-100, Run 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Bed Volumes (^103

)

As Concentration (μg/L)

Inlet

After Pre-Chlorination

Vessel A

Vessel B

Vessels A/B combined

10-g/L MCL

APU-RWS 

Figure 4-15. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves 

47
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Bed Volumes (^103

)

Mn Concentration (μg/L)

Inlet

After Pre-Chlorination

Vessel A

Vessel B

Vessels A/B combined Postchlorination

Pre-chlorination

APU-100, Run 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Bed Volumes (^103

)

Mn Concentration (μg/L)

Inlet

After Pre-Chlorination

Vessel A

Vessel B

Vessels A/B combined

APU-100, Run 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Bed Volumes (^103

)

Mn Concentration (μg/L)

Inlet

After Pre-Chlorination

Vessel A

Vessel B

Vessels A/B combined

APU-RWS 

Figure 4-16. Total Manganese Concentrations Measured during Phases 1 and 2 Studies 

48
Manganese Species at Inlet (IN) at Rollinsford, NH

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1/30/2004

3/9/2004

4/19/2004

5/25/2004

7/13/2004

8/10/2004

9/9/2004

10/6/2004

11/4/2004

12/2/2004

6/13/2005

7/19/2005

9/28/2005

11/2/2005

11/30/2005

1/18/2006

Date

Mn Concentration (μg/L)

APU-100 System Operating APU-RWS System Operating

Postchlorination

Prechlorination

Run 1 Run 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1/30/2004

3/9/2004

4/19/2004

5/25/2004

7/13/2004

8/10/2004

9/9/2004

10/6/2004

11/4/2004

12/2/2004

6/13/2005

7/19/2005

9/28/2005

11/2/2005

11/30/2005

1/18/2006

Date

Mn Concentration (μg/L)

(a) Pre-chlorination not performed

(b) Sample not taken

(b)

Manganese Species after pH Adjustment and Pre-Chlorination (AP)

(a)

APU-100 System Operating APU-RWS System Operating

(a)

(a)

Run 1 Run 2

Postchlorination

Prechlorination

Manganese Species after Vessels Combined (TT) 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1/30/2004

3/9/2004

4/19/2004

5/25/2004

7/13/2004

8/10/2004

9/9/2004

10/6/2004

11/4/2004

12/2/2004

6/13/2005

7/19/2005

9/28/2005

11/2/2005

11/30/2005

1/18/2006

Date

Mn Concentration (μg/L)

Mn (soluble) Mn (particulate)

APU-100 System Operating APU-RWS System Operating

Run 1 Run 2

Postchlorination

Prechlorination

Figure 4-17. Concentrations of Manganese Species at IN, AP, and 

TT Sampling Locations 

49
6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Bed Volumes (^103

)

pH (S.U.)

Inlet

After Pre-Chlorination

Vessel A

Vessel B

Vessels A/B combined

Postchlorination

Pre-chlorination

APU-100 System, Run 1

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Bed Volumes (^103

)

pH (S.U.)

Inlet

After Pre-Chlorination

Vessel A

Vessel B

Vessels A/B combined

APU-100, Run 2

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Bed Volumes (^103

)

pH (S.U.)

Inlet

After Pre-Chlorination

Vessel A

Vessel B

Vessels A/B combined

APU-RWS

Figure 4-18. pH Values Measured During Phases 1 and 2 Studies 

50
The media performed similarly with prechlorination as the only pretreatment step during the operation of 

the APU-RWS system. Breakthrough of arsenic above the 10 g/L MCL occurred at approximately 

12,500 BV (bottom graph of Figure 4-15), similar to that observed for the APU-100 system. Although it 

helped alleviate both inlet pressure and Δp problems, re-design of the system did not improve the media 

performance in terms of its run length. 

Iron. Total iron concentrations in raw water ranged from 37.1 to 1,120 g/L and averaged 208 g/L 

during the operation of the APU-100 system and ranged from 77 to 799 g/L and averaged 297 g/L 

during the operation of the APU-RWS system. Iron concentrations following pH adjustment and 

prechlorination at the AP location ranged from <25 to 898 g/L and averaged 185 g/L during APU-100 

system operation and ranged from 56 to 555 g/L and averaged 239 g/L during APU-RWS system 

operation. Total iron concentrations following the adsorption vessels at the TA and TB locations ranged 

from <25 g/L to 280 g/L and averaged 23 and 33 g/L, respectively, for the APU-100 system, and 

ranged from <25 to 165 with an average of 43 and 23 g/L, respectively, for the APU-RWS system. Out 

of 34 sampling occasions (including duplicates) after relocating the chlorination point upstream of 

adsorption vessels, only 14 had concentrations higher than the method detection limit of 25 μg/L in the 

treated water. Soluble iron levels ranged from <25 to 183 g/L at the inlet (IN), and were almost always 

<25 g/L at the AP and TT locations. These data indicate that the majority of iron entering the adsorption 

vessels existed in the particulate form, and that iron particles were mostly captured by the media beds. 

Manganese. The treatment plant water samples were analyzed for total manganese at each sampling 

event and soluble manganese during speciation sampling. Total manganese concentrations at the various 

sampling locations are plotted over time in Figure 4-16. Total and soluble manganese concentrations are 

shown in Figure 4-17. Total manganese levels in raw water ranged from 51.9 to 245.0 g/L and averaged 

100.4 g/L during the operation of the APU-100 system, and ranged from 59.7 to 175.5 and averaged 

106.3 g/L during the operation of the APU-RWS system (Table 4-9). As shown in Figure 4-17, 

manganese existed almost entirely in the soluble form. In contrast to complete iron precipitation, 

chlorination precipitated less than 20% of soluble manganese before water entered the adsorption vessels. 

This observation was consistent with previous findings that free chlorine was relatively ineffective at 

oxidizing Mn(II) at pH values less than 8.5 (Knocke et al., 1987 and 1990). 

Prior to switching to prechlorination, manganese, existing primarily as soluble manganese based on the 

use of 0.45-μm disc filters, quickly broke through the AD-33TM adsorbers and reached about 100% 

breakthrough after only about 3,700 BV of throughput. However, after prechlorination was implemented, 

total manganese concentrations at the TA, TB, and TT locations were typically reduced to <10 g/L, 

indicating removal of manganese within the adsorption vessels. Knocke et al. (1990) reported that the 

presence of free chlorine promoted Mn(II) removal on MnOx-coated media, and that in the absence of 

free chlorine, Mn(II) removal was by adsorption only. In the absence of free chlorine, AD-33TM media 

apparently had a limited adsorptive capacity for Mn(II). The presence of 0.1 to 0.2 mg/L (as Cl2) of free 

chlorine (Table 4-10) apparently was enough to promote the removal of manganese by the AD-33TM 

media presumably via a mechanism similar to that proposed by Knocke et al. 

The removal of manganese was supported by the observation of a black coating on the spent media 

retrieved from the top several inches of the media bed during media changeout in October 2004. 

Furthermore, the ICP-MS result of the spent media (see Table 4-14) showed samples collected from the 

top layer contained notably more manganese than the samples collected from deeper depths. 

Other Water Quality Parameters. In addition to arsenic analyses, other water quality parameters were 

analyzed to provide insight into the chemical processes occurring within the treatment system. 

51
Table 4-10 provides a summary of analytical results during APU-100 system operation from March 30, 

2004, through January 5, 2005, and during APU-RWS system operation from June 13, 2005, through 

May 8, 2006. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results during the operation of each 

system. 

pH values of raw water measured at the IN location throughout the study varied from 7.2 to 8.2 and 

averaged 7.8. As noted in Section 4.4.3, pH values of the pH-adjusted water taken at the AP location and 

measured with a laboratory probe were generally higher than those measured with the inline probe. 

Possible explanations for the differences were provided in Section 4.4.3. pH values of the treated water 

taken from TA, TB, and TT locations ranged from 7.0 to 8.3 and averaged 7.6. Considering degassing of 

CO2 during sampling and analysis, the actual pH values of the treated water might have been lower than 

what were measured in the laboratory. Figure 4-18 plotted pH values at the various sampling locations 

throughout the treatment train over time. 

Chlorine residuals were monitored at the AP and TT sampling locations to ensure that the target residual 

levels were properly maintained. Chlorine residuals measured at the AP location throughout the study 

ranged from 0.0 to 1.8 mg/L (as Cl2) and averaged 0.2 mg/L (as Cl2) for free chlorine and from 0.0 to 3.8 

mg/L (as Cl2) and averaged 0.7 mg/L (as Cl2) for total chlorine. The free and total chlorine levels 

measured at the TT location were similar to those measured at the AP location, indicating little or no 

chlorine consumption through the AD-33TM media beds. 

Sulfate concentrations at the IN location ranged from 27.7 to 72 mg/L, and remained unchanged across 

the treatment train throughout the study with concentrations at the AP and TT locations ranging from 28.6 

to 80.0 mg/L. Alkalinity, measured as CaCO3, ranged from 158 to 259 mg/L. The results indicated that 

alkalinity was not affected by prechlorination, pH adjustment, or the media, with concentrations at the AP 

and TT locations ranging from 160 to 236 mg/L. Again, degassing of CO2 during sampling and analysis 

might have played a role. The treatment plant samples were analyzed for hardness only during speciation 

events. Total hardness at the IN sampling location ranged from 47.8 to 101.0 mg/L (as CaCO3) and 

remained constant throughout the treatment train. 

Fluoride levels ranged from 0.3 to 1.7 mg/L in all samples throughout the study. Fluoride was measured 

only during speciation events and did not appear to be affected by the AD-33TM media. Orthophosphate 

was below or very near the method detection limit of 0.10 mg/L for all samples. Total phosphorus (as P), 

which was measured during operation of the APU-RWS system, ranged between 71.4 and 94.2 g/L prior 

to the adsorption vessels (AP location) and was initially removed by the media and reached complete 

breakthrough at approximately 15,000 BV (Figure 4-19). Silica concentrations in the AP location ranged 

from 13.7 to 16.5 mg/L (as SiO2), and quickly reached breakthrough, as indicated by the low 

concentrations at the TT location measured once at the beginning of the Phase 2 performance evaluation. 

DO levels measured at the IN sampling location ranged from 3.2 to 7.8 mg/L, which were 

uncharacteristically high for water containing significant amounts of As(III) and Fe(II). Errors associated 

with sampling and the handheld meter might have been the contributing factors. ORP readings were 

consistently lower in the raw water sample collected at the IN sample location than those from AP or the 

treated water samples. There did not appear to be a significant difference in the ORP readings between 

the AP samples and the treated water samples (TA, TB, TT), indicating that the AD-33TM media did not 

have an effect on ORP values. 

4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling. Backwash wastewater samples were collected 

periodically from the sample ports located in the backwash effluent discharge lines from each vessel. 

Backwash was performed using raw water (non-chlorinated). The unfiltered samples were analyzed for 

pH, turbidity, and TDS/TSS. Filtered samples using 0.45-m disc filters were analyzed for soluble 

52
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Bed Volumes of Water Treated (^103

)

Total P Concentration (μg/L)

After Pre-Chlorination

Outlet

APU-RWS System Operating

*

* Includes data collected at TA and TB

 in addition to TT

Figure 4-19. Total Phosphorus (as P) Breakthrough Curve 

arsenic, iron, and manganese. For the last backwash wastewater sampling event taking place during the 

APU-RWS system operation in Phase 2, total As, Fe, and Mn concentrations also were measured. The 

analytical results are summarized in Table 4-11. As shown in the table, most results for the September 8, 

2004, sample were uncharacteristically higher than the rest of the data and, therefore, are not included in 

the following discussion. 

pH values of backwash wastewater ranged from 7.2 to 8.4, similar to those of raw water. Soluble arsenic 

concentrations ranged from 9.5 to 33.8 g/L, which were somewhat lower than those in raw water. Some 

soluble arsenic might have been removed by the media during backwash. Soluble iron and soluble 

manganese concentrations ranged from <25 to 115 and from 3.7 to 118 g/L (omitting data for July 22, 

2004, Vessel A sample and data for September 8, 2004, Vessel B sample), respectively. As expected, 

total arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations were considerably higher than the soluble 

concentrations, indicating the presence of particulate metals in the backwash wastewater. Particulate 

arsenic might be associated with either iron particles filtered out by the media beds during the service 

cycle or the media fines. Assuming that 521 mg/L of TSS (average of TSS values measured during Phase 

1 APU-100 system operation) was produced in 1,890 gal of backwash wastewater from the vessels, 

approximately 8.2 lb of solids would be discharged during each backwash event in Phase 1. Assuming 

that 724 mg/L of TSS (average of TSS values measured during Phase 2 APU-RWS system operation) was 

produced in 4,200 gal of backwash wastewater from the vessels, approximately 25.4 lb of solids would be 

discharged during each backwash event in Phase 2. Based on the total metal (or, more correctly, digested 

metal) data collected during the last backwash event, the solids discharged would be composed of 0.05, 

0.38, and 0.05 lb of arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively, assuming 132 μg/L of particulate arsenic, 

10,869 μg/L of particulate iron, and 1,535 μg/L of particulate manganese in the backwash wastewater. 

These amounts, even after being converted to the weights of corresponding metal oxides, apparently were 

much lower than those estimated based on TSS. Challenges associated with sampling and sample 

digestion were believed to have contributed to the discrepancies observed. 

Table 4-12 presents the total metal results of two backwash solid samples (one each from Vessels A and 

B backwash) collected on September 8 and 30, 2004 and analyzed in triplicate. Iron levels in the solids 

53
54

Table 4-11. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results 

Vessel A 

Sampling 

Event 

pH Turbidity TDS TSS As (total) As (soluble) Fe (total) Fe (soluble) Mn (total) Mn (soluble) 

No Date S.U. NTU mg/L mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L 

APU-100 Phase 1 Run 1 

1 04/26/04 7.4 470 NS 734 NS 18.9 NS <25 NS 20.9 

2 06/08/04 7.2 110 320 NS NS 21.3 NS <25 NS 22.9 

3 07/22/04 7.3 23(a) 402 NS NS 

33.4 

33.8 NS 

47 

34 NS 

240(b)

246(b)

4 09/08/04 8.8(b) 120 1,040(b) NS NS 70.9(b) NS 28 NS 3.7 

5 09/30/04 7.5 620 406 NS NS 26.3 NS 85 NS 11.7 

APU-100 Phase 1 Run 2 

6 11/30/04 7.7 390 278 NS NS 9.5 NS 27 NS 24.4 

7 12/13/04 7.7 140 348 NS NS 13.5 NS <25 NS 55.6 

APU-RWS Phase 2 

1 08/01/05 8.2 620 398 NS NS 10.8 NS <25 NS 3.3 

2 01/31/06(d) 8.2 NS 300 788 166 19.8 3,008 53 401 33.5 

Vessel B 

Sampling Event 

pH Turbidity TDS TSS As (total) As (soluble) Fe (total) Fe (soluble) Mn (total) Mn (soluble) 

No Date S.U. NTU mg/L mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L 

APU-100 Phase 1 Run 1 

1 04/26/04 7.4 360 NS 308 NS 21.8 NS <25 NS 27.7 

2 06/08/04 7.2 260 352 NS NS 17.5 NS <25 NS 12.5 

3 07/22/04 7.2 820 450 NS NS 11.1 NS 83 NS 32.3 

4 09/08/04 8.4 1,400(b) 386 NS NS 

191(b) 

193(b) NS 

11,130(b) 

11,130(b) NS 

744(b) 

744(b)

5 09/30/04 7.4 1,100(b) 342 NS NS 22.8 NS 113 NS 118 

APU-100 Phase 1 Run 2 

6 11/30/04 7.6 220 310 NS NS 10.8 NS 67 NS 14.9 

7 12/13/04 7.7 190 374 NS NS 11.8 NS <25 NS 75.7 

APU-RWS Phase 2 

1 08/01/05 8.4 180 392 NS NS 14.2 NS <25 NS 3.9 

2 01/31/06(d) 8.2 NS 304 660 136 18.2 18,897 115 2,776 74.1 

(a) Sample analyzed outside of hold time. 

(b) Data questionable. 

(c) Data in boldface indicating re-run results. 

(d) Modified backwash procedures used (see Section 3.3.3). 

NS = not sampled 

ranged from 556 to 641 mg/g (of dry media) and averaged 590 mg/g (or 59%). Arsenic levels ranged 

from 2.1 to 3.7 mg/g and averaged 2.7 mg/g (or 0.27%). This yields an Fe:As ratio of 152:1 to 290:1, 

which, as expected, is much higher than the rule-of-thumb ratio of 20:1 for the removal of natural iron 

(EPA, 2001; Sorg, 2002). These solids likely contained some media fines accounting for the higher 

ratios. 
Table 4-12. Backwash Solid Total Metal Results under Phase 1 Run 1 

Sample ID Unit Mg Al Si P Ca Fe Mn Ni Cu Zn As Cd 

RF-09-08-04-BW1a μg/g 2,271 397 89.8 5,703 6,742 587,491 12,409 156 24.0 904 2,356 0.08 RF-09-08-04-BW1b μg/g 2,472 431 109 6,262 7,415 641,332 13,414 173 25.0 930 2,676 0.07 RF-09-08-04-BW1c μg/g 2,363 410 84.0 5,942 7,065 616,609 13,084 164 23.7 918 2,434 0.07 Vessel 1 Average μg/g 2,369 413 94.1 5,969 7,074 615,144 12,969 164 24.2 917 2,489 0.07 RF-09-08-04-BW2a μg/g 1,639 403 136 4,588 4,778 587,864 10,053 165 25.0 837 2,080 0.07 RF-09-08-04-BW2b μg/g 1,633 406 97.8 4,568 4,711 597,157 10,256 163 22.6 848 2,058 0.08 RF-09-08-04-BW2c μg/g 1,626 401 199 4,552 4,570 579,148 10,129 163 21.4 846 2,063 0.09 Vessel 2 Average μg/g 1,633 403 144 4,570 4,686 588,057 10,146 164 23.0 844 2,067 0.08 RF-09-30-04-BW1a μg/g 1,922 441 72.3 6,291 6,264 597,885 14,345 161 21.7 910 2,747 0.07 RF-09-30-04-BW1b μg/g 1,967 448 72.3 6,251 6,217 587,580 14,251 166 21.5 906 2,740 0.06 RF-09-30-04-BW1c μg/g 1,932 437 70.3 5,936 5,975 574,195 13,992 165 21.1 897 2,687 0.07 Vessel 1 Average μg/g 1,940 442 71.6 6,159 6,152 586,553 14,196 164 21.4 904 2,725 0.06 RF-09-30-04-BW2a μg/g 2,216 668 81.5 9,494 9,943 569,533 23,940 150 25.5 1134 3,538 0.06 RF-09-30-04-BW2b μg/g 2,224 668 85.2 9,143 9,601 556,097 22,829 153 25.7 1141 3,648 0.06 RF-09-30-04-BW2c μg/g 2,261 669 87.2 9,219 9,809 584,040 23,597 157 24.3 1080 3,709 0.06 Vessel 2 Average μg/g 2,234

55 668 84.6 9,285 9,784 569,890 23,456 153 25.2 1,118 3,632 0.06 

(a) No unit. 
4.5.3 Spent Media Sampling. On October 27, 2004, spent media samples were collected for 

metals and TCLP analysis (Section 3.3.4). The results from TCLP analysis (Table 4-13) indicated that 

the media was non-hazardous and could be disposed of in a lined, permitted sanitary landfill. Only 

barium was detected at 0.96 and 0.95 mg/L for the spent media taken from Vessels A and B, respectively; 

the other Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals were at concentrations less than the 

respective method detection limits. 

Table 4-13. TCLP Results for Spent Media under Phase 1 Run 1 

Concentration 

Parameter Unit Method Tank A Tank B 

Arsenic mg/L EPA 200. 7 <0.05 <0.05 

Barium mg/L EPA 200. 7 0.96 0.95 

Cadmium mg/L EPA 200. 7 <0.05 <0.05 

Chrome mg/L EPA 200. 7 <0.05 <0.05 

Lead mg/L EPA 200. 7 <0.1 <0.1 

Mercury mg/L EPA 245.1 <0.003 <0.003 

Selenium mg/L EPA 200.7 <0.3 <0.3 

Silver mg/L EPA 200. 7 <0.05 <0.05 

The ICP-MS results of the spent media were compared to ICP-MS results of the virgin media. The virgin 

media contained mostly iron at 570 mg/g (as Fe) or 907 mg/g (as FeOOH), which compares closely to the 

90.1% (by weight) specified by Bayer AG (Table 4-2). The spent media also contained mostly iron at a 

higher concentration, i.e., 675 mg/g (as Fe). The metals results indicate that, when compared with the 

virgin media, the spent media contained higher concentrations of nearly every metal analyzed, including 

even cations, such as Al, Ca, Cd, Cu, Mg, Mn, Ni, Pb, and Zn. These cationic and anionic metals 

apparently were removed by the AD-33TM media, as evident by the decreasing concentrations from top to 

bottom of the media beds. The mechanisms that govern the removal of the cations by this positively 

charged media is unknown. 

The arsenic loading on the spent media based on the ICP-MS results was 1.88 mg/g or 0.188% (average 

across bed from Table 4-14). The adsorptive capacity also was calculated by dividing the arsenic mass 

represented by the area between the influent (AP) and effluent (TT) breakthrough curves, as shown in 

Figure 4-15, by the amount of dry media in each tank. Assuming no media loss, the calculated dry weight 

of the media, i.e., 1,170 lb, was based on a wet weight of 1,380 lb (i.e., 49 ft3

 of media at 28.1 lb/ft3) and a 

maximum moisture content of 15% (Table 4-2). Using this approach, the arsenic loading for the spent 

media was 1.93 mg/g. 

Table 4-14. Total Metals Analysis Results for Virgin and Spent Media* 

Analyte Mg Al Si P Ca Fe Mn Ni Cu Zn As Cd Pb 

Unit g/g g/g g/g g/g g/g mg/g mg/g g/g g/g g/g g/g g/g g/g

Virgin Media 766 166 96.3 <25.4 1,678 570 1.4 89.5 5.4 9.9 0.9 <0.13 0.52 

Top of Tank A 2,088 414 8.9 3,779 5,687 643 27.3 213 14.7 2,550 2,515 0.09 2.9 

Middle of Tank A 2,134 314 8.1 3,761 4,335 663 11.1 163 13.5 906 1,831 0.05 1.0 

Bottom of Tank A 2,044 309 13.2 3,495 3,680 642 4.8 138 10.4 321 1,392 0.06 0.5 

Top of Tank B 2,138 407 11.2 3,706 5,750 654 26.7 217 11.0 2,424 2,475 0.16 2.6 

Middle of Tank B 2,245 446 8.0 3,840 3,399 689 7.8 154 9.7 626 1,644 0.17 2.0 

Bottom of Tank B 2,186 276 7.9 3,529 2,867 759 5.1 140 8.7 326 1,421 0.07 0.7 

*Average compositions calculated from triplicate analyses.

56
57

The ICP-MS result of the spent media (see Table 4-14) showed samples collected from the top layer 

contained notably more manganese than the samples collected from deeper depths. As discussed in 

Section 4.5.1, it appears that the presence of free chlorine prompted Mn(II) removal on the AD-33TM 

media. This phenomenon was observed on MnOx-coated media in a report by Knocke et al. (1990), and 

likely a similar mechanism resulting from prechlorination occurred in this study. 

The chemical composition of the spent media is similar to that of the backwash solids (see Table 4-12), 

indicating that the backwash solids is comprised mostly of spent media. 

4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. Distribution system water samples were collected to 

determine if the arenic treatment would impact the lead and copper level and water chemistry in the 

distribution system. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment system, baseline distribution water 

samples were collected on December 10, 2003, and January 6, and 21, 2004. Following the installation of 

the treatment system, distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis (except during Phase 2) at 

the same three locations. 

The samples were analyzed for pH, alkalinity, arsenic, iron, manganese, lead, and copper. First draw 

samples were collected at the three sampling locations according to the procedure noted in Section 3.3.5. 

In addition, flushed samples also were collected at the DS2 and DS3 locations, which were nonresidences. 

Results of the distribution samples from all three locations following installation of the treatment system 

were similar to the results from the baseline sampling (Table 4-15). Copper levels did seem to fluctuate 

slightly more than the other metals analyzed, especially at the DS3 location; however, there was no 

discernable trend in any of the distribution sampling results collected. It was not possible to determine 

the effect of the treatment system on the water quality in the distribution system. The distribution system 

in place was a looped system, combining water from Wells No. 3 and No. 4 at the Porter well house, 

which typically operated at 100 gpm for about 10 hr/day with the APU-100 system online, and water 

from the General Sullivan Well, which typically operates at 80 to 100 gpm for about 12 hr/day (see 

Section 4.1). The blending of the treated water with the untreated water from General Sullivan might 

have masked any detectable effects of the APU systems on the water quality in the distribution system. 

4.6 System Conversion to Coagulation/Filtration 

As the longevity of the media did not meet expectations, the NHDES and District made a decision to 

convert the adsorption system into a C/F system. The conversion was achieved by adding ferric chloride 

(FeCl3) to raw water to remove soluble As(V) and filtering particles, including arsenic-laden iron solids, 

using the existing AD-33TM media beds. Specific steps included 1) adding a static in-line mixer where the 

CO2 was previously introduced into water at the stainless steel sanitary cross; 2) adding two new 

chemical feed taps upstream of the static mixer, with one for NaOCl followed by another one for FeCl3; 

and 3) using existing adsorptive vessels as filters pending evaluation of alternatives. NaOCl was added at 

a rate similar to that during the adsorption study. FeCl3 was added at a target dose rate of 1 mg/L (as Fe). 

Contact time prior to entering the media beds was estimated at 1 to 2 min based on a flowrate of 100 gpm 

and the freeboard height. Treatment plant water samples were collected across the treatment train during 

four sampling events in May and June 2006, and analyzed for total and/or soluble arsenic, iron, and 

manganese (including two speciation events). The results, as shown in Appendix B and summarized in 

Table 4-16, were sporadic and did not show satisfactory treatment results. Backwash sampling results, as 

presented in Table 4-17, were similar to those for APU-RWS operation except that total metal 

concentrations were consistently higher as would be expected. 
Table 4-15. Distribution System Sampling Results 

DS1 DS2 DS3

No. of 

Sampling 

Events

Address 50 Water Street Silver St. (Town Garage) 679 Main S

Sample Type Non-LCR Non-Residence Non-Resi

Flushed / 1st Draw 1st Draw 1st Draw Flushed 1st Draw 

ion 

hrs)

lin ty

ion 

hrs)

lin ty

ion 

hrs)

lin ty

ion 

hrs)

lin ty

ion 

Sampling Date

t

Time (

pH

Alka i

As

Fe

Mn

Pb

Cu

t

Time (

pH

Alka i

As

Fe

Mn

Pb

Cu

t

Time (

pH

Alka i

As

Fe

Mn

Pb

Cu

t

Time (

pH

Alka i

As

Fe

Mn

Pb

Cu

t

BL1BL2BL3

12/10/03

01/06/04

01/21/04

Stagna

6.2

6

18

8.6

7.7

8.1

35

41

49

3.3

3.9

4.4

53

100

149

7.1

8.5

13.0

0.3

1.4

2.1

7.2

200.0

187.7

20.2

14.3

288

Stagna

7.6

6.9

7.8

27

29

35

1.0

0.6

0.6

<25

<25

<25

4.8

8.6

8.0

6.2

8.8

1.2

70.7

103

95.6

NS

NA

NA

Stagna

NS

7.6

7.9

NS

31

29

NS

0.5

0.5

NS

<25

<25

NS

8.9

7.9

NS

3.1

0.6

NS

44.5

41.5

20.2

9.75

14.5

Stagna

7.6

7.3

7.8

27

66

31

3.5

7.1

2.7

108

<25

<25

13.0

6.5

5.8

0.9

2.2

3.5

290

326

869

Stagna

APU-100 Operating

123

34

5678

03/03/0404/09/04

5/26/2004(a)

5/26/2004(a) rerun

7/27/2004(b)

8/25/04(c)

09/29/04

10/28/04

12/9/2004(d)

6.5

7.06.07.0

18.1

7.0

NA6.0

7.27.8NA

7.2

7.5

7.8NA

7.0

110

98

NA

77

120123

NA

106

6.6

6.7

3.0

3.96.6

8.3

NA

8.5

46

<25

74

108

<25

130

NA

99

10.3

12.1

8.9

6.8

3.5

10.9

NA

4.4

1.9

0.7

1.2

2.3

1.6

2.5

NA

1.6

192.0

130.5

192.0186.0

165.0

118.0

NA

93.2

144

571

9.5

77

552

13.9

14.0

10.7

6.9

7.8

NA

6.8

6.9

7.4

7.1

7.1

25

16

NA

32

32

41

36

40

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.8

1.0

1.0

2.4

1.0

<25

<25

<25

<25

<25

<25

<25

<25

6.3

9.2

4.1

7.2

6.4

4.9

8.0

9.0

3.6

1.5

2.7

7.4

9.9

3.5

3.4

22.1

77.2

148

377(e)

439.1

61.5

102

322

42.1

110

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

6.8

7.7

NA

6.9

7.3

7.6

8.0

7.2

23

26

NA

20

30

31

164

37

0.3

0.6

0.4

0.6

0.8

2.5

1.60.5

<25

<25

<25

<25

<25

31

<25<25

6.5

8.1

7.4

8.8

13.0

12.1

6.99.1

0.5

0.3

0.9

0.9

2.7

2.5

0.91.0

12.4

22.8

79.1

31.2

35.1

32.0

128

19.7

14.5

14.8

12.8

13.8

12.5

13.8

13.7

15.3

7.0

7.6

NA

NA

7.5

7.7

7.8

7.1

88

90

NA

NA

116

123

115106

5.6

8.8

2.8

6.0

6.0

6.9

9.7

5.4

<25

<25

<25

<25

<25

<25

<25

<25

5.6

4.4

4.1

5.3

3.3

3.4

1.8

3.7

4.3

3.1

9.4

9.5

7.0

5.8

2.4

4.6

531

528

830

709

771

641

234

698

APU-RWS Operating

1234

7/27/2005

11/3/2005

12/14/2005

1/26/2006

7.5

8.5

6.1

12.8

8.27.8

8.5

8.3

106

110

114

180

13.0

9.09.1

19.1

60

<25

<25

<25

2.5

1.9

2.2

2.7

0.8

0.2

0.2

0.5

28.0

8.6

4.0

8.7

NA9.5

13.0

8.0

7.5

6.6

7.7

7.9

33

44

43

40

0.5

2.2

0.7

1.1

<25

<25

<25

<25

6.3

4.8

5.9

9.2

4.0

3.8

2.7

3.0

23.8

38.7

6.8

9.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

7.5

6.5

7.7

7.9

136

3242

40

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.7

<25

<25

<25

<25

12.4

5.4

6.8

12.1

1.9

1.0

1.0

0.7

25.1

66.0

8.0

8.2

NA

15.0

14.0

NA

8.2

7.6

8.2

8.3

106

110

114

104

8.5

5.8

6.3

9.1

<25

<25

<25

<25

3.1

3.4

3.3

5.1

3.7

3.9

1.62.5

67.9

67.8

42.1

20.7

(a) DS1 sampled on May 27, 2004. (b) DS1 and DS4 sampled on July 26, 2004. (c) DS2 sampled on August 26, 2004. (d) DS3 sampled on December 8, 2004. (e) Data questionable. BL = baseline sampling; NA = not analyzed; NS = not sampled Lead action level = 15 μg/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L μg/L as units for all analytical parameters except for alkalinity, which is mg/L (as CaCO3). 

58
Table 4-16. Treatment Train Sampling Results after Conversion to Coagulation/Filtration 

Sampling Date 05/08/06 05/17/06 06/07/06 06/22/06 

Parameter Unit IN AP TT IN AP TT IN AP TT IN AP TT 

pH S.U. 7.7 7.4 7.3 7.8 7.8 7.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.5 6.9 7.4 

Temperature 0C 12.4 12.6 12.2 12.7 12.5 12.5 12.1 12.9 12.9 20.4 16.0 15.6 

Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.3 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.3 0.1 

Total Chlorine mg/L - 0.6 0.1 - 0.4 0.1 - 0.4 0.0 - 0.6 0.1 

As (total) μg/L 43.0 9.9 12.4 31.8 6.1 7.2 33.0 34.7 15.7 30.9 24.6 11.3 

As (soluble) μg/L - - - 27.3 3.7 4.5 - - - 27.4 0.6 10.6 

As 

(particulate) μg/L - - - 4.4 2.3 2.7 - - - 3.5 24.0 0.7 

As (III) μg/L - - - 13.6 0.4 0.4 - - - 14.7 0.4 10.4 

As (V) μg/L - - - 13.8 3.3 4.1 - - - 12.7 0.2 0.2 

Fe (total) μg/L 556 349 722 399 231 217 273 181 <25 185 10,915 <25 

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - 512 <25 <25 - - - 72 <25 <25 

Mn (total) μg/L 115 41.0 51.4 280 4.0 9.3 98.4 121 8.5 160 209 1.1 

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - 281 1.3 1.3 - - - 148 153 1.3 

Table 4-17. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results after Conversion to Coagulation/Filtration 

Vessel A Vessel B 

pH TDS(a)

Soluble 

As(b)

Soluble 

Fe(b)

Soluble 

Mn(b) pH TDS 

Soluble 

As(b)

Soluble 

Fe(b)

Soluble 

Mn(b)

Date S.U. mg/L g/L g/L g/L S.U. mg/L g/L g/L g/L 

05/08/06 7.5 288 4.8 93.3 4.3 7.6 308 5.9 86.1 6.3 

[142] (233) (19,762) (1,416) [182] (171) (20,298) (1,286)

(a) Values in brackets are TSS results. 

(b) Values in parentheses are total metals results. 

4.7 System Cost 

The cost of the Phase 2 APU-RWS system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of 

the design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The capital and O&M cost for the 

APU-100 system was evaluated previously and reported in the six-month report (Battelle, 2005). 

4.7.1 Capital Cost. The capital cost for equipment, site engineering, and installation was $131,692 

(see Table 4-18). The equipment cost was $105,805 (or 80% of the total capital investment), which 

included $30,970 for the skid-mounted APU-RWS unit, $25,100 for the CO2 gas flow control system and 

field upgrade, $14,700 for the AD-33TM media ($245/ft3

 to fill both vessels), and $35,035 for 

miscellaneous materials and labor for system fabrication. 

The engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of the engineering plans, system layout and 

footprint, drawings of site and piping plans, and equipment cut sheets for the permit application submittal 

(see Section 4.3.1). The engineering cost was $4,672, which was 4% of the total capital investment. 

The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted unit, 

perform the piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and backwash the media (see Section 4.3.3). The 

installation was performed by AdEdge and Waterline Services, a local contractor subcontracted by 

AdEdge to perform the installation. The installation cost was $21,215, or 16% of the total capital 

investment. 

59
Table 4-18. Capital Investment Cost for APU-RWS System 

Description Quantity Cost 

% of Capital 

Investment Cost 

Equipment Cost

APU Skid-Mounted System 1 unit $30.970 – 

AD-33TM Media 60 ft3 $14,700 – 

pH Adjustment Module 1 $25,100 – 

Miscellaneous Materials and Labor – $35,035 – 

Equipment Total – $105,805 80% 

Engineering Cost

Material – $98 – 

Vendor Labor – $2,935 – 

Vendor Travel – $1,640 – 

Engineering Total – $4,672 4% 

Installation Cost

Material – $240 – 

Subcontractor – $17,215 – 

Vendor Labor – $2,160 – 

Vendor Travel – $1,600 – 

Installation Total – $21,215 16% 

Total Capital Investment – $131,692 100% 

The Rollinsford Water and Sewer District constructed a new treatment building next to the existing Porter 

well house. The wood frame structure measures 33 ft × 13 ft and has a concrete foundation and floor. 

The building cost was approximately $57,000, including design and construction of the subsurface leach 

field directly adjacent to the building, used for disposing of the backwash water from the system. 

The capital cost of $131,692 was normalized to $1,097/gpm ($0.76/gpd) of design capacity using the 

system’s design flowrate of 120 gpm (or 172,800 gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an 

annualized cost of $12,431/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest 

rate and a 20-year return period. If the system had operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/week at the 120-gpm design 

flowrate to produce 63,072,000 gal/yr, the unit capital cost would have been $0.20/1000 gal. Because the 

system operated only about 10 hr/day (see Table 4-6), producing approximately 21,243,000 gal of water 

in one year, the unit annualized capital cost increased to $0.59/1,000 gal at this reduced rate of usage. 

4.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included media replacement and 

disposal, chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor (Table 4-19). The media replacement cost 

represented the majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to be $19,520 to change out both vessels. 

This media change-out cost included costs for media, freight, labor, travel expenses, and media profiling 

and disposal fee. This cost was used to estimate the media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water treated 

as a function of the projected media run length to the 10 g/L arsenic breakthrough (Figure 4-20). Based 

on a breakthrough of 12,500 BV, the media replacement and disposal cost was $3.48/1,000 gal of water 

treated. As shown in Figure 4-20, the unit O&M cost can be significantly lower if the media run length is 

longer. 

The chemical cost associated with the operation of the treatment system included the use of NaOCl for 

prechlorination, which had already been used prior to this demonstration study. The APU-RWS system 

did not affect the use rate of the NaOCl solution, therefore, the incremental chemical cost for chlorine was 

negligible. As discussed in Section 4.4.3, the CO2 gas flow control system was not used during operation 

of the APU-RWS system. 

60
Comparison of electrical bills supplied by the District prior to system installation and since system startup 

did not indicate a noticeable increase in power consumption. Therefore, electrical cost associated with 

APU system operation was assumed to be negligible. 

Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system required 

only 15 to 20 min/day, as noted in Section 4.4.7. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $0.11/1,000 gal 

of water treated, based on operating 10 hours per day, 7 days per week, at 97 gpm. Thus, the total O&M 

cost, including media replacement, is $3.59/1,000 gal of water treated. 

Table 4-19. O&M Cost for the APU-RWS System 

Cost Category Value Assumptions 

Volume processed (kgal) 5,613 12,500 BV treatment capacity 

Media Replacement and Disposal

Media cost ($/ft3) $245 Vendor quote 

Total media volume (ft3) 60 Both vessels 

Media replacement cost $14,700 Vendor quote 

Under-bedding replacement cost $350 Vendor quote 

Freight $450 Vendor quote 

Labor cost $3,120 Vendor quote 

Waste analysis $450 Vendor quote 

Media disposal fee $450 Vendor quote 

Subtotal $19,520 Vendor quote 

Media replacement and disposal cost 

($/1,000 gal) 3.48 

Based upon media run length at 10-g/L 

arsenic breakthrough 

Chemical Usage

Chemical cost ($/1,000 gal) $0 No additional costs for chlorination 

Electricity

Electricity cost ($/1,000 gal) $0.001 Electrical costs assumed negligible 

Labor

Average weekly labor (hr) 2.3 20 min/day, 7 day/week 

Labor cost ($/1,000 gal) $0.11 Labor rate $20/hr, 407,400 gal/wk 

Based upon media run length at 10-g/L 

Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal 3.59 arsenic breakthrough 

61
$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (x1000)

Cost ($/1,000 gal)

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

SystemThroughput (X 1000 gal)

Total O&M cost

Media replacement cost

Figure 4-20. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost

62
5.0 REFERENCES 

Battelle. 2003. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology. 

Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Battelle. 2004. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic 

Removal Technology at Rollinsford, New Hampshire. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, 

Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Oxenham, J.L., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2005. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive 

Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH, Six-Month Evaluation Report. 

EPA/600/R-05/005. 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. 

Condit, W.E. and A.S.C. Chen. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media, U.S. 

EPA Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI, Six-Month Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R06/004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research 

Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Coonfare, C.T., A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, and J.M. Valigore. 2005. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water 

by Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Desert Sands, MDWCA, NM, SixMonth Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-06/004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National 

Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998. 

“Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation.” J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113. 

Knocke, W.R., Hoehn, R. C.; Sinsabaugh, R. L. 1987. “Using Alternative Oxidants to Remove Dissolved 

Manganese from Waters Laden with Organics.” J. AWWA, 79(3): 75. 

Knocke, W.R., Van Benschoten, J.E., Kearney, M., Soborski, A., and Reckhow, D.A., 1990. Alternative 

Oxidants for the Remove of Soluble Iron and Manganese. Final report prepared for the AWWA 

Research Foundation, Denver, CO. 

EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance 

and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142. 

EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems. 

EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 

EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. 

Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141. 

Oxenham, J.L., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive 

Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Queen Anne’s County, Maryland, Six-Month 

Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-06/007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk 

Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Sorg, T.J. 2002. “Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected.” Opflow, AWWA, 28(11): 15. 

63
64

Wang, L., W. 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., L. Wang, and A.S.C. Chen. 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. 
APPENDIX A 

OPERATIONAL DATA 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation 

Pump House Instrument Panel 

A-1

Avg Head Loss 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed Volumes 

Treated (a)(b) 

Tank 

A 

Tank 

Week B 

No. Date hr hr gal Kgal kgal kgal gpm No. psi psi 

2/9/2004 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

2/10/2004 0.0 0.0 36,690 NA NA NA NA NA 8.2 7.4 2/11/2004 16.5 16.5 36,793 27 29 56 56 151 9.1 7.5 2/12/2004 10.1 26.6 36,853 55 61 116 101 317 12.0 9.4 2/13/2004 9.9 36.5 36,913 80 92 172 94 470 13.0 9.8 2/14/2004 0.6 37.1 36,917 83 95 178 NA 485 0.0 0.0 

1 

2/15/2004 0.1 37.2 36,917 83 96 179 NA 487 12.5 11.2 

2/16/2004 10.1 47.3 36,981 112 126 238 98 649 10.5 9.0 2/17/2004 10.0 57.3 37,044 139 157 296 97 807 11.7 9.7 2/18/2004 10.0 67.3 37,105 167 187 354 97 964 12.5 10.2 2/19/2004 9.9 77.1 37,165 193 216 410 94 1,116 13.2 11.2 2/20/2004 9.9 87.1 37,225 220 246 466 94 1,269 14.4 12.2 2/21/2004 9.9 97.0 37,285 246 276 522 95 1,422 15+ 14.4 

2 

2/22/2004 10.3 107.3 37,343 272 304 577 88 1,571 15+ 15+ 

2/23/2004 10.0 117.3 37,400 297 332 629 89 1,715 15+ 15+ 2/24/2004 10.5 127.8 37,462 325 362 687 92 1,873 13.5 11.8 2/25/2004 11.8 139.7 37,523 352 392 744 80 2,028 13.5 11.4 2/26/2004 8.3 148.0 37,580 378 420 797 106 2,172 15.0 13.0 

3 

2/27/2004 9.7 157.7 37,615 392 437 829 55 2,260 10.4 9.6 

2/28/2004 11.9 169.5 37,678 428 461 889 84 2,423 13.4 14.6 

2/29/2004 10.7 180.2 37,738 460 485 945 87 2,575 14.0 15+ 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-2

Instrument Panel Pump House 

Avg Head Loss 

Operatio

n Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Amount 

Treated(a)(b)

Tank 

A 

Tank 

Week B 

No. Date hr hr gal kgal kgal kgal gpm BV psi psi 

03/01/04 7.2 187.4 37,775 481 499 980 81 2,670 7.8 8.5 03/02/04 10.0 197.4 37,812 501 513 1014 56 2,762 11.8 11.8 03/03/04 11.6 209.0 37,877 533 542 1075 89 2,930 9.6 9.5 03/04/04 9.4 218.4 37,938 563 569 1132 100 3,083 12.0 11.2 

4 

03/05/04 11.4 229.9 37,999 593 596 1188 82 3,238 13.0 12.6 

03/06/04 8.9 238.7 38,060 632 623 1255 126 3,420 15+ 14.6 

03/07/04 10.0 248.7 38,096 639 640 1278 39 3,484 11.2 10.2 

03/08/04 9.8 258.5 38,122 657 656 1313 58 3,577 9.6 9.6 03/09/04 10.1 268.6 38,170 674 672 1347 56 3,670 10.0 9.8 03/10/04 11.4 280.0 38,242 708 705 1414 98 3,852 11.5 10.2 03/11/04 10.1 290.1 38,304 736 734 1470 93 4,005 12.6 11.4 03/12/04 9.9 300.0 38,365 764 762 1526 94 4,158 14.2 13.0 

5 

System Not Operating 

6 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-3

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Avg Head Loss 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed Volumes 

Treated (a)(b) 

Tank 

A 

Tank 

Week B 

No. Date hr hr gal kgal kgal kgal gpm No. psi psi 

39,302 

3/26/2004 11.3 311.4 39,367 827 827 1654 NA 4,508 10.6 11.2 3/27/2004 10.1 321.4 39,420 852 851 1704 81 4,642 10.6 11.0 

7 

3/28/2004 10.1 331.6 39,475 877 876 1753 81 4,776 11.8 11.8 

3/29/2004 10.1 341.7 39,529 901 901 1802 81 4,910 10.6 10.8 3/30/2004 10.0 351.7 39,581 925 926 1851 82 5,044 11.9 11.6 3/31/2004 10.5 362.3 39,637 951 952 1903 82 5,186 13.0 12.5 

4/1/2004 9.8 372.1 39,690 975 977 1952 83 5,319 13.4 13.4 4/2/2004 10.0 382.1 39,743 999 1,003 2002 83 5,455 14.2 14.0 4/3/2004 11.0 393.1 39,802 1,027 1,030 2057 84 5,606 11.8 12.3 

8 

4/4/2004 10.1 403.2 39,858 1,053 1,055 2108 84 5,744 12.5 12.8 

4/5/2004 10.2 413.4 39,911 1,078 1,080 2159 83 5,882 14.0 14.6 4/6/2004 10.1 423.4 39,965 1,103 1,106 2209 83 6,018 13.2 13.8 4/7/2004 11.0 434.4 40,025 1,130 1,133 2263 82 6,167 13.3 13.6 4/8/2004 9.8 444.3 40,077 1,154 1,158 2312 83 6,300 14.0 13.9 

9 

4/9/2004 10.2 454.4 40,131 1,179 1,183 2362 82 6,437 15+ 15+ 

4/10/2004 11.0 465.4 40,190 1,207 1,210 2418 84 6,588 11.2 11.7 

4/11/2004 10.2 475.7 40,246 1,233 1,236 2469 84 6,728 12.5 12.8 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-4

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Avg Head Loss 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulativ

e Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed Volumes 

Treated (a)(b) 

Tank 

A 

Tank 

Week B 

No. Date hr hr gal k gal k gal k gal gpm No. psi psi 

4/12/2004 10.1 485.8 40,300 1,259 1,261 2520 84 6,866 13.8 14.5 4/13/2004 10.1 495.9 40,354 1,283 1,286 2570 83 7,002 12.8 13.0 4/14/2004 10.0 505.9 40,407 1,308 1,312 2620 83 7,138 12.8 12.8 4/15/2004 9.9 515.8 40,461 1,333 1,336 2669 82 7,272 14.5 14.7 4/16/2004 10.0 525.8 40,514 1,357 1,361 2719 83 7,407 15.0 15+ 4/17/2004 12.6 538.4 40,583 1,391 1,394 2784 87 7,586 9.6 10.4 

10 

4/18/2004 18.9 557.2 40,680 1,436 1,438 2874 79 7,831 11.4 11.6 

4/19/2004 10.0 567.2 40,731 1,460 1,462 2922 80 7,961 11.2 11.7 4/20/2004 10.8 578.0 40,788 1,486 1,488 2974 81 8,103 12.0 11.8 4/21/2004 9.9 587.9 40,841 1,510 1,508 3018 74 8,225 12.6 12.7 4/22/2004 10.0 597.9 40,894 1,534 1,538 3072 90 8,371 13.4 13.2 4/23/2004 11.1 609.0 40,953 1,562 1,566 3128 83 8,522 12.9 14.0 4/24/2004 10.1 619.2 41,007 1,586 1,592 3178 83 8,660 15+ 15+ 

11 

4/25/2004 11.3 630.4 41,068 1,615 1,619 3234 83 8,812 12.2 12.8 

4/26/2004 10.0 640.4 41,122 1,640 1,644 3284 84 8,949 13.6 14.6 4/27/2004 10.0 650.4 41,178 1,666 1,669 3334 84 9,085 14.8 15+ 4/28/2004 10.0 660.4 41,229 1,690 1,694 3384 82 9,220 15.0 15+ 4/29/2004 10.1 670.5 41,282 1,715 1,719 3434 83 9,356 15+ 15+ 4/30/2004 11.3 681.8 41,338 1,740 1,745 3486 76 9,497 15+ 15+ 

5/1/2004 10.1 691.9 41,400 1,770 1,773 3543 95 9,654 12.6 13.2 

12 

5/2/2004 10.0 701.9 41,455 1,796 1,798 3594 85 9,793 12.2 13.2 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-5

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Avg Head Loss 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed Volumes 

Treated (a)(b) 

Tank 

A 

Tank 

Week B 

No. Date hr hr gal kgal kgal kgal gpm No. psi psi 

5/3/2004 9.9 711.8 41,509 1,821 1,823 3644 84 9,930 12.8 12.4 5/4/2004 10.0 721.8 41,563 1,846 1,848 3694 83 10,067 15.0 15+ 5/5/2004 10.1 731.9 41,617 1,871 1,873 3745 83 10,203 15.0 15.0 5/6/2004 10.4 742.3 41,671 1,896 1,898 3794 79 10,338 15+ 15+ 5/7/2004 9.8 752.1 41,724 1,919 1,924 3843 84 10,472 15+ 15+ 5/8/2004 12.1 764.2 41,735 1,926 1,930 3855 NA 10,505 10.5 18.0 

13 

5/9/2004 10.1 774.3 41,771 1,941 1,948 3889 55 10,596 11.5 20.0 

5/10/2004 9.7 783.9 41,807 1,957 1,966 3923 58 10,688 18.0 26.5 5/11/2004 10.3 794.3 41,843 1,973 1,983 3956 53 10,778 19.0 27.5 5/12/2004 10.1 804.3 41,879 1,988 2,000 3988 53 10,866 20.0 27.5 5/13/2004 24.9 829.3 41,963 2,023 2,043 4065 52 11,077 20.0 27.0 5/14/2004 23.6 852.8 42,040 2,055 2,083 4138 51 11,275 21.0 27.5 5/15/2004 25.5 878.3 42,121 2,089 2,124 4213 49 11,480 23.0 29.5 

14 

5/16/2004 6.2 884.5 42,147 2,101 2,135 4236 62 11,543 6.5 15.0 

5/17/2004 10.7 895.3 42,183 2,118 2,152 4270 52 11,634 10.0 14.0 5/18/2004 10.0 905.3 42,219 2,135 2,168 4303 56 11,725 10.0 16.0 5/19/2004 10.6 915.8 42,257 2,153 2,186 4339 56 11,823 11.5 18.5 5/20/2004 0.8 916.6 42,260 2,155 2,187 4342 NA 11,831 13.0 21.5 

15 

5/21/2004 10.0 926.6 42,298 2,172 2,205 4376 57 11,924 13.5 21.0 

5/22/2004 25.0 951.6 42,387 2,213 2,246 4459 55 12,150 13.0 21.0 

5/23/2004 24.6 976.3 42,471 2,251 2,285 4536 52 12,360 13.0 21.0 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-6

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Avg Head Loss 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed Volumes 

Treated (a)(b) 

Tank 

A 

Tank 

Week B 

No. Date hr hr gal kgal kgal kgal gpm No. psi psi 

5/24/2004 10.0 986.3 42,506 2,268 2,302 4570 57 12,452 12.5 20.5 5/25/2004 20.4 1,006.7 42,579 2,284 2,319 4603 27 12,542 13.5 21.0 5/26/2004 NA NA NA 2,302 2,336 4638 NA 12,636 15.0 25.0 5/27/2004 10.0 1,016.7 42,615 2,317 2,353 4671 55 12,726 14.0 20.5 5/28/2004 10.0 1,026.7 42,649 2,332 2,372 4703 55 12,816 25.0 30.0 5/29/2004 11.2 1,037.9 42,687 2,350 2,390 4740 55 12,915 14.0 23.0 

16 

5/30/2004 10.3 1,048.2 42,713 2,360 2,405 4765 41 12,984 25.0 30.0 

5/31/2004 0.0 1,048.2 42,714 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

6/1/2004 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6/2/2004 9.9 1,058.1 42,752 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6/3/2004 10.1 1,068.2 42,792 2,363 2,407 4770 NA 12,996 20.0 30.0 6/4/2004 11.0 1,079.2 42,823 2,378 2,421 4799 45 13,078 25.0 30.0 6/5/2004 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

17 

6/6/2004 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

6/7/2004 32.5 1,111.7 42,938 2,431 2,474 4905 NA 13,365 25.0 30+ 6/8/2004 9.9 1,121.6 42,971 2,447 2,490 4937 54 13,452 11.0 20.0 6/9/2004 11.1 1,132.7 43,009 2,462 2,510 4972 53 13,548 25.0 30+ 

6/10/2004 23.8 1,156.5 43,086 2,497 2,550 5046 52 13,750 25.0 30+ 

18 

6/11/2004 24.0 1,180.5 43,167 2,524 2,599 5123 53 13,959 25.0 30+ 

6/12/2004 18.4 1,198.9 43,227 2,545 2,637 5182 54 14,121 25.0 30+ 

6/13/2004 10.2 1,209.1 43,260 2,554 2,657 5211 47 14,200 25.0 30+ 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-7

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Avg Head Loss 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed Volumes 

Treated (a)(b) 

Tank 

A 

Tank 

B 

Week 

No. Date hr hr gal kgal kgal kgal gpm No. psi psi 

6/14/2004 10.3 1,219.40 43,291 2,567 2,685 5252 66 14,310 28 30+ 6/15/2004 21.6 1,241.00 43,371 6/16/2004 6/17/2004 

System Not Operating 

6/18/2004 6/19/2004 75.3 1,316.30 43,636 2,586 2,699 5285 NA 14,402 17 17 

19 6/20/2004 10.1 1,326.40 43,669 2,599 2,718 5316 51 14,486 26 26 

6/21/2004 10 1,336.40 43,702 2,620 2,737 5357 68 14,598 29 29 6/22/2004 10 1,346.40 43,722 2,623 2,755 5378 35 14,655 30+ 30+ 6/23/2004 10.1 1,356.50 43,763 2,635 2,769 5404 43 14,725 30+ 30+ 6/24/2004 6/25/2004 6/26/2004 

20 6/27/2004 

6/28/2004 6/29/2004 

System Not Operating 

6/30/2004 

7/1/2004 7/2/2004 7/3/2004 

21 7/4/2004 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-8

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Head Loss 

Avg 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed 

Volumes 

Treated 

(a)(b) 

Tank 

A 

Tank 

Week B 

No. Date hr hr gal kgal kgal kgal gpm No. psi psi 

7/5/2004 7/6/2004 7/7/2004 

System Not Operating 

7/8/2004 7/9/2004 96.4 1,452.8 44,474 2,657 2,793 5450 NA 14,851 10.0 7.5 

7/10/2004 10.1 1,462.9 44,512 2,673 2,814 5487 60 14,951 10.0 7.5 

22 

7/11/2004 10.1 1,473.0 44,550 2,693 2,834 5526 65 15,058 11.0 9.0 

7/12/2004 10.2 1,483.2 44,587 2,706 2,854 5560 55 15,149 11.5 8.0 7/13/2004 10.1 1,493.3 44,625 2,722 2,874 5596 60 15,248 13.0 10.0 7/14/2004 10.4 1,503.7 44,664 2,739 2,894 5633 60 15,349 15.0 12.0 7/15/2004 10.0 1,513.7 44,700 2,754 2,914 5668 58 15,444 17.5 14.0 

23 

7/16/2004 9.9 1,523.6 44,737 2,770 2,934 5703 60 15,541 18.0 14.5 

7/17/2004 10.0 1,533.6 44,776 2,786 2,954 5740 61 15,640 11.0 9.0 

7/18/2004 10.3 1,543.9 44,813 2,802 2,974 5775 58 15,737 15.0 13.0 

7/19/2004 10.1 1,554.0 44,850 2,817 2,993 5811 58 15833 20.0 15.0 7/20/2004 10.1 1,564.1 44,887 2,835 3,010 5846 58 15,928 21.0 16.0 7/21/2004 10.3 1,574.4 44,924 2,853 3,028 5881 57 16,024 25.0 17.0 7/22/2004 12.3 1,586.7 44,991 2,883 3,055 5939 78 16,181 30+ 30+ 

24 

7/23/2004 10.3 1,597.0 45,058 2,916 3,086 6003 104 16,356 30+ 30+ 

7/24/2004 10.8 1,607.8 45,128 2,940 3,109 6049 71 16,482 30+ 30+ 

7/25/2004 10.2 1,618.0 45,192 2,963 3,137 6100 84 16,622 30+ 30+ 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-9

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Avg Head Loss 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed Volumes 

Treated (a)(b) 

Tank 

A 

Tank 

Week B 

No. Date hr hr gal kgal kgal kgal gpm No. psi psi 

7/26/2004 10.1 1,628.1 45,255 2,991 3,156 6148 78 16,751 30+ 30+ 7/27/2004 10.9 1,639.0 45,327 3,015 3,190 6204 87 16,906 19.0 18.0 7/28/2004 10.7 1,649.7 45,393 3,036 3,221 6256 81 17,047 22.0 21.5 7/29/2004 16.0 1,665.7 45,496 3,066 3,268 6334 81 17,260 30+ 30+ 7/30/2004 10.8 1,676.5 45,567 3,094 3,298 6392 89 17,417 20.0 19.0 7/31/2004 10.0 1,686.6 45,633 3,116 3,329 6445 87 17,561 20.0 19.0 

25 

8/1/2004 14.8 1,701.3 45,727 3,147 3,372 6519 83 17,762 22.0 22.0 

8/2/2004 0.0 1,701.3 45,792 3,167 3,402 6569 NA 17,899 23.5 23.0 8/3/2004 20.2 1,721.5 45,854 3,188 3,431 6619 41 18,035 25.0 24.0 8/4/2004 10.0 1,731.5 45,921 3,207 3,461 6668 82 18,169 25.0 25.0 8/5/2004 12.0 1,743.5 46,001 3,242 3,497 6739 98 18,362 13.0 12.0 8/6/2004 9.9 1,753.4 46,067 3,270 3,527 6797 98 18,520 14.0 12.0 8/7/2004 10.1 1,763.5 46,134 3,300 3,558 6857 100 18,685 16.0 15.0 

26 

8/8/2004 10.2 1,773.7 46,201 3,329 3,588 6917 97 18,847 16.0 16.5 

8/9/2004 9.7 1,783.4 46,267 3,356 3,619 6975 100 19,006 17.0 16.0 

8/10/2004 0.0 1,783.4 46,267 3,356 3,619 6975 NA 19,006 17.0 17.0 8/11/2004 11.6 1,795.0 46,342 3,387 3,654 7041 95 19,185 16.5 16.0 8/12/2004 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

27 

8/13/2004 19.7 1,814.7 46,477 3,439 3,718 7158 99 19,503 19.0 18.0 

8/14/2004 10.1 1,824.8 46,546 3,465 3,752 7217 98 19,664 21.0 20.0 

8/15/2004 10.3 1,835.0 46,613 3,489 3,785 7274 93 19,821 21.0 20.0 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-10

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Avg Head Loss 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed Volumes 

Treated (a)(b) 

Tank 

A 

Tank 

Week B 

No. Date hr hr gal kgal kgal kgal gpm No. psi psi 

8/16/2004 10.2 1,845.2 46,679 3,514 3,818 7331 93 19,977 22.0 21.0 8/17/2004 10.3 1,855.6 46,748 3,543 3,853 7396 105 20,154 17.0 17.0 8/18/2004 10.5 1,866.0 46,817 3,574 3,886 7460 102 20,328 19.0 19.0 8/19/2004 10.7 1,876.7 46,889 3,608 3,919 7526 103 20,508 12.0 11.0 8/20/2004 10.0 1,886.7 46,955 3,639 3,949 7588 102 20,675 12.0 13.0 8/21/2004 10.1 1,896.8 47,023 3,670 3,981 7651 104 20,847 14.0 14.0 

28 

8/22/2004 10.2 1,907.0 47,090 3,700 4,012 7713 101 21,016 15.0 15.0 

8/23/2004 10.0 1,917.0 47,157 3,730 4,044 7774 103 21,183 15.5 15.5 8/24/2004 10.1 1,927.1 47,224 3,760 4,076 7836 102 21,351 16.0 16.0 8/25/2004 10.3 1,937.3 47,291 3,789 4,110 7899 102 21,522 15.5 15.0 8/26/2004 10.0 1,947.3 47,358 3,817 4,141 7959 100 21,687 16.0 16.0 8/27/2004 10.0 1,957.3 47,424 3,846 4,173 8020 101 21,852 16.5 16.0 8/28/2004 10.2 1,967.5 47,492 3,875 4,206 8081 101 22,020 17.5 17.0 

29 

8/29/2004 10.1 1,977.6 47,559 3,904 4,239 8143 102 22,188 17.0 17.0 

8/30/2004 10.0 1,987.6 47,625 3,932 4,272 8204 101 22,354 18.0 17.0 8/31/2004 10.1 1,997.6 47,691 3,959 4,305 8264 100 22,517 18.0 17.0 

9/1/2004 10.8 2,008.4 47,762 3,988 4,340 8328 100 22,693 18.0 17.0 9/2/2004 10.3 2,018.7 47,830 4,016 4,374 8390 100 22,862 18.5 17.5 

30 

9/3/2004 9.9 2,028.6 47,895 4,043 4,407 8450 100 23,023 19.0 18.5 

9/4/2004 10.2 2,038.8 47,962 4,069 4,441 8510 99 23,188 20.5 20.0 9/5/2004 10.3 2,049.0 48,028 4,095 4,476 8571 99 23,354 21.0 20.0 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-11

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Head Loss 

Flow

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed Volumes 

Treated 

(a)(b) 

Tank 

A 

Tank 

B I

Avg 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Week Meter 

No. Date hr hr gal kgal kgal kgal gpm No. psi psi 

9/6/2004 9.9 2,058.9 48,094 4,120 4,511 8631 101 23,517 21.5 20.5 9/7/2004 9.9 2,068.9 48,159 4,145 4,546 8691 100 23,680 22.0 22.0 9/8/2004 10.2 2,079.1 48,225 4,175 4,576 8751 98 23,844 27.0 17.0 9/9/2004 11.1 2,090.2 48,298 4,208 4,609 8818 101 24,026 11.5 13.0 

9/10/2004 10.8 2,101.0 48,369 4,240 4,642 8882 100 24,203 12.0 12.0 9/11/2004 10.1 2,111.1 48,436 4,270 4,673 8943 101 24,369 14.0 14.0 

31 

9/12/2004 10.1 2,121.2 48,503 4,300 4,705 9004 101 24,535 15.0 15.0 

9/13/2004 10.0 2,131.2 48,569 4,328 4,737 9065 101 24,700 15.0 15.0 9/14/2004 10.2 2,141.4 48,636 4,355 4,767 9122 93 24,855 15.0 14.0 9/15/2004 11.0 2,152.3 48,707 4,384 4,802 9187 99 25,032 15.0 15.0 9/16/2004 9.9 2,162.2 48,772 4,411 4,835 9246 101 25,194 17.0 17.0 9/17/2004 10.0 2,172.2 48,837 4,437 4,869 9306 99 25,356 17.0 17.0 9/18/2004 10.2 2,182.4 48,903 4,463 4,903 9366 98 25,520 18.0 18.0 

32 

9/19/2004 10.0 2,192.4 48,968 4,488 4,945 9433 112 25,703 18.0 17.0 

9/20/2004 10.0 2,202.4 49,033 4,514 4,971 9485 86 25,844 18.0 18.0 9/21/2004 10.0 2,212.4 49,099 4,539 5,006 9545 101 26,009 20.0 19.0 9/22/2004 9.9 2,222.3 49,165 4,567 5,038 9605 101 26,172 20.0 18.0 9/23/2004 11.0 2,233.3 49,233 4,593 5,075 9668 96 26,344 19.0 19.0 

33 

9/24/2004 9.9 2,243.2 49,298 4,618 5,109 9727 99 26,503 20.0 20.0 

9/25/2004 10.3 2,253.4 49,363 4,642 5,144 9786 97 26,665 20.0 20.0 

9/26/2004 10.1 2,263.6 49,429 4,667 5,180 9846 99 26,829 20.5 21.0 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-12

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Head Loss 

Flow

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed Volumes 

Treated 

(a)(b) 

Tank 

A 

Tank 

B 

Avg 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Week Meter 

No. Date hr hr gal kgal kgal kgal gpm No. psi psi 

9/27/2004 10.1 2,273.6 49,493 4,691 5,215 9906 99 26,992 20.0 20.0 9/28/2004 10.0 2,283.6 49,558 4,715 5,250 9966 99 27,154 22.0 22.0 9/29/2004 10.2 2,293.8 49,624 4,740 5,286 10025 98 27,317 23.0 23.0 9/30/2004 10.0 2,303.8 49,688 4,763 5,321 10084 97 27,476 23.0 22.0 10/1/2004 10.7 2,314.6 49,759 4,786 5,353 10139 85 27,626 12.0 12.5 10/2/2004 10.1 2,324.7 49,825 4,826 5,383 10209 116 27,818 13.0 12.5 

34 

10/3/2004 10.1 2,334.8 49,892 4,856 5,414 10270 101 27,984 14.0 14.0 

10/4/2004 10.0 2,344.8 49,957 4,885 5,445 10330 100 28,147 15.0 15.0 10/5/2004 9.8 2,354.6 50,022 4,912 5,478 10389 101 28,309 16.0 16.0 10/6/2004 10.1 2,364.7 50,088 4,938 5,511 10449 98 28,471 16.5 16.0 10/7/2004 10.1 2,374.7 50,154 4,964 5,544 10508 99 28,633 18.0 17.0 10/8/2004 10.2 2,384.9 50,219 4,988 5,579 10568 97 28,795 18.0 17.5 10/9/2004 10.0 2,394.9 50,284 5,012 5,614 10627 98 28,956 18.0 17.5 

35 

10/10/2004 10.1 2,405.0 50,349 5,036 5,650 10686 98 29,116 18.5 18.0 

10/11/2004 10.0 2,415.0 50,414 5,059 5,685 10744 98 29,276 19.5 18.5 10/12/2004 10.0 2,425.0 50,478 5,083 5,720 10803 97 29,436 20.0 19.0 10/13/2004 10.4 2,435.4 50,545 5,107 5,756 10863 96 29,599 19.0 18.0 10/14/2004 10.0 2,445.4 50,609 5,130 5,791 10921 98 29,758 20.0 20.0 

36 

10/15/2004 10.7 2,456.1 50,680 5,162 5,818 10980 92 29,918 12.0 12.0 

10/16/2004 10.5 2,466.6 50,747 5,193 5,854 11047 106 30,101 13.0 13.0 

10/17/2004 10.1 2,476.6 50,813 5,222 5,885 11107 100 30,265 14.0 13.5 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-13

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Avg Head Loss 

Operation 

Hours 

Avg 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed Volumes 

Treated (a)(b) 

Tank 

A 

Tank 

Week B 

No. Date hr hr gal kgal kgal kgal gpm No. psi psi 

10/18/2004 10.1 2,486.7 50,878 5,250 5,916 11167 99 30,427 14.0 14.0 10/19/2004 8.9 2,495.6 50,935 5,275 5,944 11219 99 30,571 15.0 15.0 10/20/2004 11.2 2,506.7 51,007 5,305 5,980 11285 97 30,748 15.0 15.0 10/21/2004 10.0 2,516.8 51,072 5,331 6,012 11344 98 30,909 16.0 16.0 10/22/2004 10.4 2,527.1 51,138 5,358 6,046 11404 97 31,072 16.0 16.0 10/23/2004 10.1 2,537.2 51,203 5,384 6,079 11463 98 31,234 16.0 16.0 

37 

10/24/2004 10.0 2,547.2 51,268 5,410 6,112 11521 98 31,393 18.0 18.0 

10/25/2004 10.0 2,557.3 51,333 5,439 6,144 11584 103 31,563 18.0 18.0 10/26/2004 10.0 2,567.3 51,396 5,460 6,178 11638 90 31,710 18.0 18.0 10/27/2004 10.0 2,577.3 51,462 5,485 6,212 11697 100 31,873 17.0 17.0 10/28/2004 10/29/2004 10/30/2004 

38 

10/31/2004 

System Not Operating 

11/1/2004 11/2/2004 11/3/2004 72.9 2,650.1 51,942 37 36 73 NA 223 10.5 10.5 11/4/2004 10.0 2,660.1 52,004 67 64 132 98 401 10.5 10.5 

39 

11/5/2004 10.4 2,670.5 52,075 94 94 188 89 570 11.0 11.0 

11/6/2004 10.3 2,680.8 52,140 130 122 252 105 767 11.5 12.0 

11/7/2004 10.1 2,690.9 52,204 161 150 311 97 946 12.0 12.0 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-14

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Head Loss 

Flow

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulativ

e Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed 

Volumes 

Treated 

(a)(b) Tank A 

Tank 

B 

Cumulat

ive 

Operatio

n Hours 

Avg 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Week Meter 

No. Date hr hr gal kgal kgal kgal gpm No. psi psi 

11/8/2004 9.9 2,700.8 52,268 191 179 369 99 1,123 12.0 12.0 11/9/2004 10.1 2,710.9 52,332 221 207 428 96 1,300 12.0 12.0 

11/10/2004 10.1 2,721.0 52,397 251 235 486 97 1,478 12.0 12.0 11/11/2004 10.3 2,731.3 52,464 282 265 546 97 1,660 12.0 12.0 11/12/2004 10.1 2,741.4 52,528 312 293 605 97 1,839 12.0 12.0 11/13/2004 10.1 2,751.5 52,593 342 322 664 97 2,018 12.0 12.5 

40 

11/14/2004 10.1 2,761.6 52,658 372 350 722 96 2,196 12.5 12.5 

11/15/2004 10.0 2,771.6 52,721 402 379 781 98 2,374 12.5 12.0 11/16/2004 10.0 2,781.6 52,786 432 407 840 98 2,552 12.5 12.5 11/17/2004 10.1 2,791.7 52,850 462 436 898 96 2,730 12.5 12.5 

11/18/2004(c

) 10.5 2,802.2 52,916 493 465 958 95 2,911 12.5 12.5 

11/19/2004 10.3 2,812.5 52,981 523 494 1017 96 3,092 13.0 13.0 11/20/2004 10.1 2,822.6 52,982 524 494 1018 NA 3,095 14.0 14.0 

41 

11/21/2004 10.2 2,832.8 53,051 555 525 1080 101 3,283 14.0 14.5 

11/22/2004 10.0 2,842.8 53,118 586 555 1141 101 3,468 15.0 14.5 11/23/2004 10.2 2,853.0 53,187 617 585 1202 100 3,654 15.0 15.0 11/24/2004 12.3 2,865.3 53,268 658 621 1279 105 3,888 14.0 14.0 11/25/2004 10.7 2,876.0 53,338 685 654 1339 93 4,070 18.0 16.5 

42 

11/26/2004 10.2 2,886.2 53,405 720 685 1405 108 4,269 18.0 17.0 

11/27/2004 10.1 2,896.3 53,471 743 715 1459 89 4,434 20.0 19.0 

11/28/2004 10.1 2,906.4 53,537 773 746 1520 51 4,619 NA NA 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-15

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Avg Head Loss 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed Volumes 

Treated (a)(b) 

Tank 

A 

Tank 

Week B 

No. Date hr hr gal kgal kgal kgal gpm No. psi psi 

11/29/2004 8.9 2,915.4 53,596 799 781 1580 NA 4,803 20.0 15.0 11/30/2004 9.1 2,924.5 53,657 826 802 1629 89 4,950 13.5 13.5 

12/1/2004 System Not Operating

12/2/2004 1.6 2,926.1 53,667 831 807 1638 NA 4,979 13.5 13.5 

43 

12/3/2004 9.6 2,935.7 53,732 862 835 1697 102 5,158 15.5 15.5 

12/4/2004 8.9 2,944.6 53,795 891 863 1754 106 5,331 16.0 16.0 

12/5/2004 9.1 2,953.6 53,856 920 890 1810 103 5,501 17.0 16.5 

12/6/2004 9.0 2,962.7 53,916 949 916 1865 102 5,669 18.0 18.0 12/7/2004 9.0 2,971.7 53,977 977 943 1920 101 5,835 21.0 21.0 12/8/2004 9.9 2,981.6 54,045 1,008 973 1981 103 6,022 14.5 14.5 12/9/2004 9.3 2,990.9 54,108 1,038 1,000 2038 101 6,194 15.5 15.5 

12/10/2004 9.1 3,000.0 54,169 1,067 1,000 2067 102 6,282 16.5 16.0 12/11/2004 9.1 3,009.1 54,231 1,096 1,027 2122 102 6,451 17.0 16.5 

44 

12/12/2004 9.1 3,018.2 54,292 1,124 1,054 2178 101 6,620 18.0 18.0 

12/13/2004 9.0 3,027.2 54,353 1,152 1,081 2233 102 6,788 20.0 20.0 12/14/2004 10.1 3,037.3 54,422 1,185 1,108 2292 98 6,968 14.5 14.5 12/15/2004 9.2 3,046.5 54,484 1,214 1,138 2351 107 7,147 15.5 15.0 12/16/2004 9.1 3,055.6 54,546 1,242 1,165 2407 101 7,316 18.0 17.5 

45 

12/17/2004 9.1 3,064.7 54,608 1,268 1,193 2462 100 7,482 19.0 18.5 

12/18/2004 9.1 3,073.8 54,670 1,296 1,221 2517 102 7,651 20.5 20.0 

12/19/2004 9.2 3,083.0 54,732 1,321 1,250 2572 98 7,816 22.0 22.0 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-16

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Avg Head Loss 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed Volumes 

Treated (a)(b) 

Tank 

A 

Tan

Week k B 

No. Date hr hr gal kgal kgal kgal gpm No. psi psi 

12/20/2004 9.0 3,092.1 54,792 1,347 1,279 2626 101 7,983 26.0 26.0 12/21/2004 9.9 3,102.0 54,859 1,381 1,309 2689 106 8,174 17.0 17.0 12/22/2004 8.9 3,110.9 54,922 1,409 1,336 2745 103 8,342 20.0 20.0 12/23/2004 10.0 3,120.9 54,991 1,442 1,362 2804 99 8,524 16.5 16.5 12/24/2004 9.1 3,130.0 55,053 1,470 1,390 2859 101 8,691 22.0 21.5 12/25/2004 9.9 3,139.9 55,121 1,502 1,417 2919 101 8,873 18.0 18.0 

46 

12/26/2004 9.1 3,149.0 55,182 1,524 1,446 2970 92 9,026 22.0 22.0 

12/27/2004 9.9 3,158.9 55,250 1,552 1,477 3029 100 9206 18.0 18.0 12/28/2004 9.0 3,167.9 55,311 1,572 1,510 3082 98 9,367 24.0 24.0 12/29/2004 10.1 3,178.0 55,380 1,598 1,541 3139 94 9,540 18.0 18.5 12/30/2004 9.1 3,187.1 55,442 1,621 1,575 3195 104 9,712 22.0 22.0 12/31/2004 9.9 3,197.1 55,511 1,648 1,606 3253 97 9,889 21.0 21.0 

1/1/2005 9.9 3,206.9 55,580 1,677 1,638 3316 106 10,079 17.5 18.0 

47 

1/2/2005 9.0 3,215.9 55,643 1,701 1,668 3369 98 10,240 25.0 25.0 

1/3/2005 9.9 3,225.8 55,711 1,730 1,697 3427 98 10,417 26.0 26.0 1/4/2005 11.1 3,236.9 55,784 1,733 1,727 3460 50 10,518 28.0 28.0 1/5/2005 9.9 3,246.8 55,861 1,763 1,730 3493 54 10,616 23.0 22.5 1/6/2005 10.3 3,257.1 55,933 1,791 1,765 3556 103 10,809 18.0 18.0 1/7/2005 9.6 3,266.8 56,000 1,820 1,798 3619 108 10,999 16.5 17.0 1/8/2005 8.6 3,275.4 56,063 1,847 1,827 3673 105 11,164 20.0 20.5 

48 

1/9/2005 10.4 3,285.8 56,132 1,874 1,853 3728 88 11,330 13.5 17.5 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-100 System Operation (Continued) 

A-17

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Avg Head Loss 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Bed Volumes 

Treated (a)(b) 

Tank 

A 

Tank 

Week B 

No. Date hr hr gal kgal kgal kgal gpm No. psi psi 

1/10/2005 8.5 3,294.3 56,193 1,896 1,884 3781 104 11,492 24.0 25.0 1/11/2005 10.6 3,305.0 56,263 1,927 1,914 3842 96 11,677 26.0 26.5 1/12/2005 9.0 3,314.0 56,324 1,952 1,943 3895 98 11,838 26.0 27.5 1/13/2005 9.0 3,323.0 56,384 1,952 1,969 3922 49 11,920 30.0 30.0 1/14/2005 9.1 3,332.1 56,450 NA NA NA NA NA Off Off 1/15/2005 10.0 3,342.1 56,524 1,979 NA NA NA NA 27.0 27.0 

49 

1/16/2005 NA NA Off NA NA NA NA NA Off Off 

NA = Not Applicable (a) Initial Bed Volume = 49 cu.ft. or 367 gal total for both vessels (b) Media change on 10/27/04. New bed volume = 44 cu. ft. (22 cu. ft. for each vessel) or 329 gal total for both vessels 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-RWS System Operation 

Pump House Instrument Panel 

A-18

Cumulative Head Loss 

Total Bed 

Volumes 

Treated(a)

Average 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Week Flowrate Tank A Tank B 

No. Date hr hr gal gal gal gal gpm No. psi psi 

6/13/2005 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N6/14/2005 NA NA 65,033 33 37 NA NA NA 0.0 06/15/2005 10.0 10.0 65,103 62 67 60 99 133 2.0 16/16/2005 18.0 28.0 65,223 113 121 164 97 366 2.5 26/17/2005 17.4 45.4 65,343 163 169 263 95 585 3.5 36/18/2005 10.1 55.5 65,413 193 198 321 97 715 4.0 3

1 

6/19/2005 10.1 65.6 65,483 223 227 340 97 846 4.5 3

6/20/2005 10.2 75.8 65,553 253 256 439 96 977 4.5 36/21/2005 10.0 85.8 65,621 283 285 498 99 1,109 5.0 46/22/2005 10.0 95.8 65,683 312 315 557 98 1,240 5.5 46/23/2005 10.1 105.9 65,764 341 346 617 99 1,375 6.0 56/24/2005 10.1 116.0 65,835 371 375 676 97 1,505 6.5 56/25/2005 10.1 126.1 65,906 401 404 735 98 1,638 7.0 6

2 

6/26/2005 10.1 136.2 65,976 432 433 794 97 1,769 7.5 7

6/27/2005 10.0 146.2 66,045 462 461 853 97 1,899 8.5 76/28/2005 10.2 156.4 66,116 493 489 911 97 2,031 9.0 86/29/2005 13.7 170.1 66,211 531 526 988 92 2,200 10.0 96/30/2005 NA NA 66,233 544 534 1001 NA 2,246 10.0 8

7/1/2005 15.6 185.7 66,268 562 548 1040 33 2,316 10.0 8

3 

7/2/2005 10.1 195.8 66,306 580 562 1071 53 2,387 10.5 10

7/3/2005 10.1 205.9 66,344 599 575 1104 53 2,459 11.0 10
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-RWS System Operation (Continued) 

Pump House Instrument Panel 

A-19

Cumulative Head Loss 

Total Bed 

Volumes 

Treated(a)

Average 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Week Flowrate Tank A Tank 

No. Date hr hr gal gal gal gal gpm No. psi psi 

7/4/2005 10.2 216.1 66,383 616 590 1136 52 2,530 11.0 107/5/2005 10.0 226.1 66,421 639 604 1173 62 2,613 11.5 107/6/2005 10.1 236.2 66,492 667 631 1228 90 2,734 11.5 107/7/2005 10.1 246.3 66,564 700 657 1286 97 2,866 12.0 117/8/2005 10.0 256.3 66,634 731 684 1345 97 2,996 12.5 117/9/2005 10.6 266.9 66,710 765 718 1413 107 3,147 2.0 1

4 

7/10/2005 11.1 278.0 66,782 795 748 1473 90 3,280 2.0 1

7/11/2005 9.2 287.2 66,854 826 777 1533 108 3,413 2.0 27/12/2005 10.1 297.3 66,925 856 806 1592 98 3,545 3.0 27/13/2005 10.1 307.4 66,996 886 843 1660 112 3,696 3.5 37/14/2005 10.9 318.3 67,065 910 856 1696 56 3,778 4.0 37/15/2005 9.6 328.0 67,123 940 885 1756 102 3,910 4.5 37/16/2005 13.1 341.1 67,170 959 905 1794 50 3,997 5.0 4

5 

7/17/2005 7.1 348.2 67,217 978 926 1835 94 4,086 5.5 4

7/18/2005 10.6 358.8 67,290 1006 958 1893 92 4,216 6.0 47/19/2005 9.9 368.7 67,360 1032 989 1951 98 4,345 6.0 57/20/2005 10.4 379.1 67,433 1060 1021 2011 96 4,479 6.5 57/21/2005 10.2 389.3 67,504 1087 1053 2070 96 4,609 7.0 57/22/2005 10.1 399.4 67,574 1114 1084 2128 96 4,740 7.5 6

6 

7/23/2005 10.1 409.5 67,645 1142 1114 2185 94 4,867 7.5 6

7/24/2005 10.2 419.7 67,715 1169 1144 2243 94 4,995 8.0 7
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-RWS System Operation (Continued) 

Pump House Instrument Panel 

A-20

Cumulative Head Loss 

Total Bed 

Volumes 

Treated(a)

Average 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Week Flowrate Tank A Tank 

No. Date hr hr gal gal gal gal gpm No. psi psi 

7/25/2005 10.1 429.8 67,785 1194 1173 2297 89 5,115 8.5 7/26/2005 10.1 439.8 67,854 1225 1201 2356 99 5,247 8.5 7/27/2005 10.1 449.9 67,924 1255 1229 2413 94 5,374 9.0 7/28/2005 10.2 460.1 67,995 1284 1256 2470 94 5,502 9.0 7/29/2005 10.4 470.5 68,068 1315 1284 2529 94 5,632 9.5 7/30/2005 10.1 480.6 68,138 1344 1312 2585 93 5,758 9.5 

7 

7/31/2005 10.2 490.8 68,209 1372 1340 2642 93 5,884 9.5 

8/1/2005 10.1 500.8 68,280 1400 1367 2698 93 6,008 10.0 8/2/2005 5.4 506.3 68,319 1418 1384 2733 107 6,086 2.0 28/3/2005 10.1 516.3 68,390 1450 1411 2791 96 6,215 2.5 28/4/2005 10.4 526.7 68,464 1480 1439 2850 95 6,347 3.0 2

8/5/2005(b) 10.1 536.8 68,536 1509 1468 2908 95 6,476 3.5 2

8/6/2005 

8 

8/7/2005 

8/8/2005 8/9/2005 

8/10/2005 8/11/2005 8/12/2005 

System Offline Between August 5, 2005 

9 and September 26, 2005. 

8/13/2005 8/14/2005 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-RWS System Operation (Continued) 

Pump House Instrument Panel 

A-21

Cumulative Head Loss 

Total Bed 

Volumes 

Treated(a)

Average 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Tank

Week A Tank B 

No. Date hr hr gal gal gal gal gpm No. psi psi 

9/26/2005(d)

9/27/2005 1647 1603 NA NA 2.0 0.0 9/28/2005 NA 536.8 72,285 1675 1630 2962 6,596 2.5 0.0 9/29/2005 10.8 547.7 72,361 1704 1659 3020 90 6,727 2.5 0.0 9/30/2005 10.2 557.8 72,432 1731 1687 3075 89 6,848 2.5 0.5 10/1/2005 10.2 568.0 72,503 1757 1715 3129 89 6,969 2.5 0.5 

16 

10/2/2005 10.1 578.1 72,574 1784 1742 3183 90 7,090 2.0 0.5 

10/3/2005 11.0 589.1 72,645 1810 1770 3237 82 7,210 1.5 0.0 10/4/2005 9.2 598.3 72,716 1837 1797 3291 97 7,329 1.5 0.0 10/5/2005 10.0 608.3 72,786 1863 1824 3344 89 7,449 1.5 0.0 10/6/2005 13.8 622.1 72,882 1899 1861 3417 87 7,610 1.5 0.0 10/7/2005 12.6 634.7 72,968 1930 1893 3481 84 7,752 1.5 0.0 10/8/2005 10.2 644.9 73,039 

17 

10/9/2005 10.0 654.9 73,109 

10/10/2005 10.0 664.9 73,180 

System Not Operating 

10/11/2005 0.0 664.9 73,180 10/12/2005 0.0 664.9 73,180 1931 1894 3481 NA 7,753 2.0 1.0 10/13/2005 9.5 674.4 73,256 1959 1922 3537 98 7,877 2.0 1.0 10/14/2005 10.9 685.4 73,331 1986 1950 3592 85 8,001 2.0 1.0 

18 

10/15/2005 22.3 707.7 73,486 2043 2008 3707 86 8,257 2.0 1.0 

10/16/2005 24.2 731.9 73,639 2099 2064 3819 77 8,506 2.5 1.5 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-RWS System Operation (Continued) 

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Head Loss 

Average 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Total Bed 

Volumes 

Treated(a) Week Tank A Tank 

No. Date hr hr gal gal gal gal gpm No. psi ps

10/17/2005 10/18/2005 

A-22

10/19/2005 

System Not Operating 

10/20/2005 10/21/2005 NA 731.9 73,786 2153 2118 NA NA NA 2.0 10/22/2005 15.8 747.7 73,852 

19 

10/23/2005 10.0 757.7 73,893 

System Not Operating 

10/24/2005 10.0 767.7 73,935 2153 2119 NA NA NA 1.0 10/25/2005 10.3 778.0 73,977 2169 2135 3851 52 8,578 3.0 10/26/2005 13.0 791.0 74,080 2205 2174 3927 96 8,745 2.0 10/27/2005 10.1 801.2 74,158 2232 2204 3984 93 8,872 2.0 10/28/2005 10.3 811.5 74,237 2260 2235 4041 94 9,001 2.0 10/29/2005 10.1 821.6 74,314 2286 2265 4098 94 9,127 2.5 

20 

10/30/2005 10.1 831.7 74,391 2313 2294 4154 93 9,252 2.5 

10/31/2005 10.2 841.9 74,468 2339 2324 4210 91 9,377 3.0 

11/1/2005 10.1 851.9 74,544 2365 2353 4266 93 9,501 3.0 11/2/2005 9.9 861.9 74,617 2392 2383 4321 93 9,624 3.0 11/3/2005 10.6 872.5 74,699 2419 2413 4380 92 9,754 3.0 11/4/2005 11.3 883.7 74,774 2445 2442 4435 82 9,877 3.0 

21 

11/5/2005 9.6 893.3 74,850 2471 2471 4490 96 10,000 3.0 

11/6/2005 14.0 907.3 74,925 2498 2500 4545 65 10,122 3.0 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-RWS System Operation (Continued) 

Pump House Instrument Panel 

A-23

Cumulative Head Loss 

Total Bed 

Volumes 

Treated(a)

Average 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Week Flowrate Tank A Tank B 

No. Date hr hr gal gal gal gal gpm No. psi psi 

11/7/2005 10.1 917.4 75,002 2524 2529 4600 91 10,245 3.0 2.11/8/2005 10.0 927.4 75,077 2550 2557 4655 91 10,368 3.0 2.11/9/2005 10.1 937.5 75,153 2577 2586 4710 91 10,491 3.0 2.

11/10/2005 10.1 947.6 75,229 2604 2615 4766 91 10,614 3.0 2.11/11/2005 17.8 965.4 75,359 2649 2662 4860 88 10,824 4.0 3.11/12/2005 10.0 975.4 75,433 2675 2692 4914 90 10,944 3.0 3.

22 

11/13/2005 10.1 985.5 75,508 2701 2720 4968 90 11,065 3.5 3.

11/14/2005 10.2 995.7 75,583 2727 2748 5023 89 11,186 3.5 2.11/15/2005 10.0 1,005.8 75,656 2753 2777 5077 91 11,308 3.5 2.11/16/2005 10.0 1,015.8 75,732 2779 2804 5131 90 11,428 3.5 2.11/17/2005 24.1 1,039.9 75,900 2839 2867 5253 84 11,699 3.5 2.11/18/2005 11.9 1,051.8 75,984 2868 2898 5313 84 11,832 3.5 2.11/19/2005 10.6 1,062.4 76,060 2895 2926 5368 88 11,957 3.5 2.

23 

11/20/2005 10.0 1,072.4 76,135 2920 2954 5422 88 12,075 3.5 2.

11/21/2005 10.1 1,082.6 76,210 2946 2982 5476 88 12,195 3.5 3.11/22/2005 10.2 1,092.7 76,285 2972 3010 5529 89 12,315 3.5 3.11/23/2005 10.0 1,102.7 76,360 2998 3038 5583 89 12,434 3.5 3.11/24/2005 9.6 1,112.4 76,435 3024 3066 5637 93 12,554 3.5 3.11/25/2005 12.1 1,124.4 76,528 3056 3100 5703 92 12,703 3.5 3.

24 

11/26/2005 11.0 1,135.5 76,603 3082 3128 5757 81 12,823 3.5 3.

11/27/2005 10.1 1,145.6 76,679 3108 3156 5811 89 12,942 3.5 3.
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-RWS System Operation (Continued) 

Pump House Instrument Panel 

A-24

Cumulative Head Loss 

Total Bed 

Volumes 

Treated(a)

Average 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Week Flowrate Tank A Tan

No. Date hr hr gal gal gal gal gpm No. psi ps

11/28/2005 10.1 1,155.7 76,754 3134 3183 5865 89 13,062 3.5 11/29/2005 10.0 1,165.7 76,829 3160 3211 5918 89 13,181 4.0 11/30/2005 10.1 1,175.7 76,903 3186 3239 5972 89 13,301 4.0 

12/1/2005 12.1 1,187.9 76,993 3217 3272 6037 89 13,444 4.0 12/2/2005 9.1 1,197.0 77,060 3241 3297 6085 89 13,553 4.0 12/3/2005 9.1 1,206.1 77,127 3265 3322 6134 89 13,662 4.0 

25 

12/4/2005 9.1 1,215.2 77,194 3289 3349 6185 93 13,774 4.0 

12/5/2005 9.1 1,224.3 77,261 3313 3372 6232 87 13,880 4.0 12/6/2005 9.1 1,233.4 77,327 3337 3396 6281 89 13,989 4.0 12/7/2005 9.1 1,242.5 77,393 3361 3421 6330 90 14,098 4.0 12/8/2005 9.6 1,252.1 77,463 3387 3447 6382 90 14,213 4.0 12/9/2005 9.1 1,261.2 77,512 3406 3466 6419 68 14,296 4.5 

12/10/2005 9.0 1,270.2 77,578 3430 3491 6469 91 14,407 4.5 

26 

12/11/2005 9.2 1,279.4 77,623 3450 3508 6504 67 14,489 4.5 

12/12/2005 9.1 1,288.6 77,689 3472 3533 6553 86 14,594 4.5 12/13/2005 9.0 1,297.6 77,754 3497 3557 6601 90 14,702 4.5 12/14/2005 9.0 1,306.6 77,808 3517 3578 6642 76 14,794 4.5 12/15/2005 9.5 1,316.1 77,876 3543 3604 6694 91 14,909 4.5 12/16/2005 9.1 1,325.2 77,942 3567 3629 6743 90 15,018 4.5 

27 

12/17/2005 9.1 1,334.2 78,008 3591 3654 6793 91 15,128 4.5 

12/18/2005 9.1 1,343.4 78,075 3616 3679 6842 90 15,238 4.5 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-RWS System Operation (Continued) 

Pump House Instrument Panel 

A-25

Cumulative Head Loss 

Total Bed 

Volumes 

Treated(a)

Average 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Week Flowrate Tank A Tank 

No. Date hr hr gal gal gal gal gpm No. psi ps

12/19/2005 9.1 1,352.5 78,141 3640 3704 6891 90 15,348 4.5 12/20/2005 9.1 1,361.6 78,208 3665 3729 6941 91 15,458 4.5 12/21/2005 9.0 1,370.6 78,273 3688 3754 6990 90 15,567 4.5 12/22/2005 9.1 1,379.7 78,339 3713 3779 7039 90 15,676 4.5 12/23/2005 9.1 1,388.8 78,405 3737 3804 7088 90 15,786 4.5 12/24/2005 9.1 1,397.9 78,471 3761 3829 7137 90 15,896 4.5 

28 

12/25/2005 9.1 1,407.1 78,536 3785 3854 7186 89 16,005 4.5 

12/26/2005 9.1 1,416.2 78,602 3809 3879 7236 90 16,115 5.0 12/27/2005 9.1 1,425.3 78,668 3833 3905 7285 90 16,225 5.0 12/28/2005 9.1 1,434.4 78,733 3857 3930 7334 89 16,334 5.0 12/29/2005 9.1 1,443.5 78,798 3880 3955 7383 89 16,442 5.0 12/30/2005 9.1 1,452.6 78,864 3904 3980 7432 90 16,551 5.0 12/31/2005 9.1 1,461.7 78,929 3928 4006 7481 90 16,661 5.0 

29 

1/1/2006 9.2 1,470.8 78,995 3951 4030 7529 88 16,769 5.0 

1/2/2006 9.0 1,479.9 79,060 3976 4055 7578 91 16,878 5.0 1/3/2006 9.0 1,488.9 79,126 3999 4080 7626 88 16,985 5.0 1/4/2006 9.0 1,497.9 79,191 4022 4105 7674 89 17,092 5.0 1/5/2006 9.0 1,506.9 79,256 4045 4130 7722 89 17,199 5.0 1/6/2006 9.0 1,515.9 79,321 4069 4154 7770 89 17,306 5.5 

30 

1/7/2006 9.1 1,525.1 79,387 4093 4179 7819 89 17,415 5.5 

1/8/2006 9.0 1,534.1 79,452 4117 4204 7868 90 17,523 5.5 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-RWS System Operation (Continued) 

Pump House Instrument Panel 

A-26

Cumulative Head Loss 

Total Bed 

Volumes 

Treated(a)

Average 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Week Flowrate Tank A Tank B 

No. Date hr hr gal gal gal gal gpm No. psi psi 

1/9/2006 9.2 1,543.3 79,518 4140 4229 7916 88 17,631 5.5 4

1/10/2006 9.0 1,552.3 79,582 4164 4253 7964 89 17,738 5.5 41/11/2006 9.0 1,561.3 79,647 4187 4277 8012 88 17,844 5.5 41/12/2006 9.1 1,570.4 79,712 4211 4303 8061 90 17,953 5.5 41/13/2006 9.1 1,579.5 79,777 4235 4327 8110 89 18,061 5.5 41/14/2006 9.1 1,588.6 79,842 4259 4352 8158 89 18,170 5.5 4

31 

1/15/2006 9.1 1,597.7 79,907 4283 4377 8207 89 18,278 5.5 4

1/16/2006 9.1 1,606.8 79,972 4306 4401 8255 88 18,385 5.5 41/17/2006 9.0 1,615.8 80,037 4329 4426 8303 88 18,491 5.5 41/18/2006 9.0 1,624.8 80,101 4353 4451 8351 90 18,599 5.5 41/19/2006 10.2 1,635.0 80,176 4382 4477 8407 91 18,723 1.0 51/20/2006 9.1 1,644.1 80,243 4405 4504 8456 90 18,832 2.0 11/21/2006 9.1 1,653.2 80,309 4428 4530 8505 90 18,941 2.5 2

32 

1/22/2006 9.0 1,662.2 80,375 4451 4555 8554 91 19,051 2.5 2

1/23/2006 8.1 1,670.3 80,442 4475 4580 8603 100 19,160 2.5 21/24/2006 9.6 1,679.9 80,508 4500 4604 8651 84 19,268 3.0 21/25/2006 9.6 1,689.5 80,574 4524 4629 8700 85 19,377 3.0 21/26/2006 9.0 1,698.5 80,640 4549 4653 8749 90 19,486 3.0 21/27/2006 9.2 1,707.7 80,707 4573 4678 8798 89 19,595 3.0 2

33 

1/28/2006 9.1 1,716.8 80,773 4598 4701 8847 90 19,704 3.0 21/29/2006 9.0 1,725.8 80,840 4623 4725 8896 90 19,813 3.0 2
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-RWS System Operation (Continued) 

Pump House Instrument Panel 

A-27

Cumulative Head Loss 

Total Bed 

Volumes 

Treated(a)

Average 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Week Flowrate Tank A Tank B 

No. Date hr hr gal gal gal gal gpm No. psi psi 

1/30/2006 9.1 1,734.9 80,906 4649 4749 8945 89 19,921 3.0 3.1/31/2006 9.0 1,744.0 80,972 4674 4771 8993 89 20,029 3.0 3.

2/1/2006 9.9 1,753.9 81,044 4700 4800 9048 92 20,151 1.5 0.2/2/2006 9.1 1,763.0 81,111 4725 4824 9096 89 20,259 2.0 1.2/3/2006 9.1 1,772.1 81,178 4749 4849 9146 91 20,369 2.0 1.2/4/2006 9.1 1,781.2 81,244 4773 4874 9195 90 20,478 2.5 1.

34 

2/5/2006 9.1 1,790.3 81,311 4797 4900 9244 90 20,587 2.5 1.

2/6/2006 9.2 1,799.5 81,378 4820 4926 9293 88 20,696 2.5 2.2/7/2006 9.2 1,808.7 81,446 4843 4952 9343 90 20,807 2.5 2.2/8/2006 9.0 1,817.7 81,511 4866 4977 9391 90 20,915 2.5 2.2/9/2006 9.1 1,826.8 81,578 4889 5003 9440 89 21,023 2.5 2.

2/10/2006 9.1 1,835.9 81,645 4913 5028 9488 89 21,132 2.5 2.2/11/2006 9.0 1,844.9 81,711 4935 5054 9537 90 21,240 3.0 2.

35 

2/12/2006 9.1 1,854.0 81,777 4959 5080 9585 89 21,348 3.0 2.

2/13/2006 9.0 1,863.1 81,843 4981 5105 9634 89 21,456 3.0 2.2/14/2006 9.0 1,872.1 81,909 5004 5131 9682 89 21,564 3.0 2.2/15/2006 22.8 1,894.8 82,065 5059 5192 9798 85 21,823 5.0 3.2/16/2006 9.1 1,903.9 82,129 5081 5218 9846 87 21,928 3.5 2.2/17/2006 9.1 1,913.0 82,193 5104 5243 9894 88 22,035 3.5 2.

36 

2/18/2006(e) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

2/19/2006 0.1 1,913.1 82,194 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-RWS System Operation (Continued) 

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Cumulative Head Loss 

Total Bed 

Volumes 

Treated(a) Tank A Tank 

Average 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Week Flowrate 

No. Date hr hr gal gal gal gal gpm No. psi psi 

2/20/2006 9.1 1,922.2 82,261 5128 5268 9944 91 22,146 3.0 22/21/2006 9.0 1,931.2 82,327 5150 5296 9993 91 22,256 3.0 22/22/2006 9.0 1,940.3 82,393 5173 5323 10043 92 22,367 3.0 22/23/2006 9.1 1,949.4 82,459 5197 5348 10092 90 22,477 3.0 22/24/2006 9.1 1,958.5 82,524 5222 5372 10142 91 22,587 3.0 22/25/2006 9.1 1,967.6 82,590 5247 5397 10191 90 22,697 3.0 2

37 

2/26/2006 9.1 1,976.7 82,655 5271 5421 10240 90 22,806 3.0 2

2/27/2006 9.1 1,985.8 82,720 5295 5446 10289 90 22,915 3.0 22/28/2006 10.0 1,995.8 82,785 5319 5471 10337 81 23,023 3.0 2

3/1/2006 8.0 2,003.8 82,849 5343 5496 10386 101 23,131 3.0 23/2/2006 9.1 2,012.9 82,915 5367 5521 10435 90 23,241 3.0 23/3/2006 9.1 2,022.0 82,980 5390 5546 10484 89 23,349 3.0 23/4/2006 9.0 2,031.1 83,045 5414 5572 10533 90 23,458 3.0 2

38 

A-28

3/5/2006 9.0 2,040.1 83,081 5427 5586 10561 52 23,520 3.5 3

3/6/2006 -0.4 2,039.7 83,082 5428 5586 10561 NA 23,521 3.0 23/7/2006 9.3 2,049.0 83,149 5452 5612 10611 88 23,632 3.0 23/8/2006 9.8 2,058.8 83,221 5478 5639 10665 92 23,752 1.5 13/9/2006 9.1 2,067.9 83,287 5502 5664 10714 91 23,862 2.0 1

3/10/2006 9.0 2,076.9 83,353 5526 5690 10763 91 23,972 2.0 1

39 

3/11/2006 9.1 2,086.0 83,390 5540 5704 10792 52 24,035 1.5 0

3/12/2006 9.1 2,095.1 83,421 5552 5717 10816 45 24,089 1.0 0
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-RWS System Operation (Continued) 

Pump House Instrument Panel 

A-29

Cumulative Head Loss 

Total Bed 

Volumes 

Treated(a)

Average 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Week Flowrate Tank A Tank 

No. Date hr hr gal gal gal gal gpm No. psi psi 

3/13/2006 9.2 2,104.3 83,458 5566 5730 10844 51 24,152 2.8 23/14/2006 9.9 2,114.2 83,496 5581 5746 10874 51 24,219 0.0 03/15/2006 9.2 2,123.4 83,534 5594 5762 10903 52 24,283 0.0 03/16/2006 9.1 2,132.5 83,565 5605 5775 10928 45 24,338 0.0 03/17/2006 9.1 2,141.6 83,598 5616 5789 10953 46 24,393 0.0 03/18/2006 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N

40 

3/19/2006 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N

3/20/2006 18.3 2,159.9 83,703 5655 5832 11035 75 24,576 0.5 03/21/2006 9.1 2,169.0 83,736 5667 5845 11059 45 24,631 1.0 03/22/2006 9.0 2,178.0 83,774 5681 5860 11088 54 24,695 1.0 03/23/2006 9.1 2,187.1 83,806 5693 5873 11113 45 24,750 1.0 03/24/2006 9.1 2,196.2 83,844 5707 5888 11142 53 24,815 1.0 03/25/2006 9.0 2,205.2 83,876 5718 5901 11167 46 24,870 1.0 0

41 

3/26/2006 9.1 2,214.3 83,914 5732 5916 11196 53 24,935 1.0 0

3/27/2006 9.1 2,223.4 83,946 5744 5929 11220 45 24,990 1.0 03/28/2006 9.0 2,232.4 83,984 5757 5945 11249 54 25,054 1.0 03/29/2006 9.1 2,241.5 84,016 5779 5958 11284 64 25,132 1.0 03/30/2006 9.1 2,250.6 84,054 5782 5974 11303 35 25,174 1.0 03/31/2006 9.1 2,259.7 84,086 5794 5987 11328 45 25,229 1.1 1

42 

4/1/2006 9.1 2,268.8 84,124 5807 6002 11357 53 25,294 1.0 1

4/2/2006 9.1 2,277.9 84,156 5819 6016 11382 45 25,349 1.2 1
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-RWS System Operation (Continued) 

Pump House Instrument Panel 

A-30

Cumulative Head Loss 

Total Bed 

Volumes 

Treated(a)

Average 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Week Flowrate Tank A Tank 

No. Date hr hr gal gal gal gal gpm No. psi psi 

4/3/2006 9.1 2,287.0 84,195 5832 6031 11411 53 25,414 1.2 4/4/2006 9.0 2,296.0 84,226 5843 6045 11435 45 25,469 1.5 4/5/2006 21.9 2,317.9 84,318 5877 6081 11505 53 25,624 2.5 24/6/2006 9.1 2,327.0 84,349 5888 6094 11530 45 25,679 1.5 4/7/2006 9.3 2,336.3 84,389 5903 6109 11560 54 25,745 1.5 4/8/2006 9.2 2,345.5 84,421 5915 6121 11584 44 25,799 2.0 

43 

4/9/2006 9.1 2,354.6 84,459 5930 6135 11612 53 25,864 2.0 

4/10/2006 9.1 2,363.7 84,491 5942 6147 11637 45 25,918 1.5 4/11/2006 9.1 2,372.8 84,529 5957 6161 11666 53 25,983 1.8 4/12/2006 9.0 2,381.8 84,561 5970 6173 11690 45 26,037 1.8 4/13/2006 9.0 2,390.8 84,599 5985 6187 11719 53 26,101 2.0 4/14/2006 9.1 2,399.9 84,631 5997 6199 11744 45 26,155 2.0 4/15/2006 9.0 2,408.9 84,670 6012 6213 11773 54 26,220 2.0 

44 

4/16/2006 9.1 2,418.0 84,701 6025 6225 11797 45 26,274 2.0 

4/17/2006 9.1 2,427.1 84,740 6041 6238 11826 53 26,339 2.1 24/18/2006 9.0 2,436.1 84,771 6053 6250 11850 45 26,393 2.9 24/19/2006 9.1 2,445.2 84,810 6068 6263 11879 53 26,457 2.9 24/20/2006 9.0 2,454.2 84,842 6082 6275 11904 46 26,512 2.9 24/21/2006 9.1 2,463.3 84,881 6097 6288 11933 54 26,577 2.5 2

45 

4/22/2006 9.1 2,472.4 84,913 6110 6300 11957 45 26,631 2.9 2

4/23/2006 9.1 2,481.5 84,951 6126 6313 11987 53 26,696 2.5 2
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH – Daily System Operation Log Sheet 

APU-RWS System Operation (Continued) 

A-31

Pump House Instrument Panel 

Head Loss 

Average 

Operation 

Hours 

Cumulative 

Operation 

Hours 

Master 

Flow 

Meter 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel A 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Vessel B 

Cumulative 

Flow 

Totalizer 

Avg 

Flowrate 

Cumulative 

Total Bed 

Volumes 

Treated(a) Week Tank A Tank 

No. Date hr hr gal gal gal gal gpm No. psi psi 

4/24/2006 9.1 2,490.6 84,983 6139 6325 12011 45 26,750 2.6 24/25/2006 9.0 2,499.6 85,021 6154 6338 12040 53 26,814 3.0 34/26/2006 9.0 2,508.6 85,053 6167 6349 12064 45 26,869 3.0 24/27/2006 19.3 2,527.9 85,134 6201 6377 12125 53 27,005 5.0 54/28/2006 9.1 2,537.0 85,173 6217 6390 12154 53 27,070 3.0 24/29/2006 9.0 2,546.0 85,211 6232 6404 12183 54 27,134 3.5 3

46 

4/30/2006 9.1 2,555.1 85,250 6247 6418 12212 53 27,199 3.5 3

5/1/2006 9.1 2,564.2 85,288 6262 6432 12241 53 27,264 3.5 35/2/2006 9.0 2,573.2 85,326 6277 6446 12270 53 27,328 3.5 35/3/2006 18.1 2,591.3 85,388 6302 6469 12318 44 27,434 5.0 55/4/2006 0.0 2,591.3 85,389 6301 6469 12318 NA 27,434 7.0 55/5/2006 9.0 2,600.3 85,427 6317 6483 12347 54 27,499 5.0 45/6/2006 9.1 2,609.4 85,465 6332 6497 12376 53 27,564 5.0 4

47 

5/7/2006 9.1 2,618.5 85,503 6347 6510 12405 53 27,628 5.0 4

NA = Not Applicable (a) Bed volume = 60 cu.ft. or 449 gallons total for both vessels (b) System down since August 5, 2005. (c) CO2 shut off because it was adding air bubbles to the system. 

(d) Unit bypassed on September 26, 2005. (e) Power outage between February 18-19, 2006. (f) Week of 6/12/2006 through 6/18/2006 used 6% chlorine solution. (g) Operational data from pump house was not collected from 7/3/2006 to 7/9/2006. 

(h) Operational data was not collected from 7/10/2006 to 7/23/2006. 

(i) Operational data was not collected from 8/7/2006 to 8/13/2006. 
APPENDIX B 

ANALYTICAL DATA 
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) 

Sampling Date 02/10/04(c) 02/17/04(d) 02/24/04 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AP TT IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN 

Bed Volume   0   759 855   1,773 1,972  Alkalinity mg/L(a) 165 165 161 149 174 170 170 176 176 185 189 164 Fluoride mg/L 0.6 0.6 0.6          Sulfate mg/L 40 40 45          Orthophosphate mg/L(b) <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 13.9 13.7 6.6 15.0 15.2 15.2 15.1 15.5 15.4 14.4 14.6 14.1 NO3-N mg/L   <0.08          Turbidity NTU 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.8 pH S.U. 8.3 7.3 7.5 7.0 6.8 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.4 7.3 7.4 8.0 Temperature oC 10.6 11.3 11.1 10.0 10.2 10.6 11.5 9.8 11.6 11.8 11.8 12.8 DO mg/L 2.2 1.0 2.0 4.7 3.1 2.8 2.8 4.5 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.4 ORP mV -86 -28 -25 0 7 -2 -4 4 24 18 18 -60 Free Chlorine mg/L            

B-1

Total Chlorine mV             Total Hardness mg/L(a) 73.0 78.4 93.5          Ca Hardness mg/L(a) 40.5 42.4 51.8          Mg Hardness mg/L(a) 32.5 36.0 41.7          As (total) g/L 39.5 40.8 0.5 35.5 37.0 3.1 2.2 45.8 47.7 3.3 3.1 46.6 As (total soluble) g/L 34.9 35.7 0.4          As (particulate) g/L 4.6 5.1 0.1          As (III) g/L 22.6 23.3 0.5          As (V) g/L 12.3 12.4 <0.1          Total Fe g/L 170 166 45 236 148 105 51 100 120 <25 <25 166 Dissolved Fe g/L 74 81 <25          Total Mn g/L 147 149 5.8 169 119 83.9 92.3 120 118 68.9 69.5 133 Dissolved Mn g/L 147 149 5.7          (a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) Water quality parameters and metals were sampled on January 30, 2004. (d) On-site water quality measurements sampled on FebIN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined. NA = data not available. 
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH(APU-100) (Continued

Sampling Date 03/09/04(c) 03/30/04(h) 04/06/04(h) 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AP TT IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN 

Bed Volume   3,670   5,043 5,045   6,012 6,025  Alkalinity mg/L(a) 164 156 160 175 167 165 163 176 180 180 176 182 Fluoride mg/L 0.6 0.6 0.6          Sulfate mg/L 37 35 38          Orthophosphate mg/L(b) <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 13.3 13.4 13.2 14.1 14.1 13.8 13.5 16.0 16.5 15.1 15.7 15.2 NO3-N mg/L <0.04 <0.04 <0.04          Turbidity NTU 1.0 1.6 0.4 1.0 2.0(f) 0.8 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.4 pH  8.0 7.5 7.5 NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) 8.1 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.8 Temperature oC 10.4 10.5 10.3 NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) 12.5 12.4 12.4 12.4 10.1 DO mg/L 4.7 3.5 2.0 NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) 4.2 3.2 2.9 3.4 4.5 ORP mV -59 -29 -27 NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) -64 -31 -32 -33 -51 Free Chlorine mg/L             Total Chlorine mV             Total Hardness mg/L(a) 80.1 83.3 82.4          

B-2Ca Hardness mg/L(a) 51.4 52.8 53.4          

Mg Hardness mg/L(a) 28.7 30.5 29.0          As (total) g/L 38.5 42.1 5.5 35.9 37.8 2.1 1.7 46.3 50.5 4.5 3.3 45.2 As (total soluble) g/L 36.7 36.4 4.1          As (particulate) g/L 1.8 5.7 1.4          As (III) g/L 20.7 NA(d) 4.1          As (V) g/L 16.0 NA(d) <0.1          Total Fe g/L 127 485(f) <25 130 359(f) <25 <25 97 133 <25 <25 75 Dissolved Fe g/L 22 51 <25          Total Mn g/L 137 138 142 78.1 104.3 14.2 15.2 96.5 96.3 6.9 3.5 109.7 Dissolved Mn g/L 99.1 132 99.2          (a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) On-site water quality parameters were sampled on March 10, 2004. (d) Re-run was done for AP sample but the As sample value e

(likely due to contamination of ion exchange resin). (e) On-site water quality measurements were sampled on April 13, 2004. (f) Data is questionable. (g) Operator did 

measurements. (h) Pre-chlorination started on March 30, 2004. IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined. NA = data not available. 
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continue

Sampling Date 04/19/04 04/29/04 05/05/04 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AP TT IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN 

Bed Volume 103   8.0   9.3 9.4   10.2 10.2  Alkalinity mg/L(a) 188 196 195 191 187 171 259 231 219 207 176 197 

188 

Fluoride mg/L 0.6 0.6 0.6          Sulfate mg/L 46 46 40          Orthophosphate mg/L(b) <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 NA(e) NA(e) NA(e) NA(e) 0.11 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.12 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 15.3 15.6 15.3 14.0 14.2 15.1 15.2 15.6 15.4 15.3 15.7 14.2 14.7 NO3-N mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05          Turbidity NTU 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.4 0.7 0.7 1.3 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.7 2.4 

0.4 

pH  7.9 7.2 7.5 7.8 7.1 7.2 7.2 8.0 7.6 7.5 7.5 8.2 Temperature oC 12.4 12.5 13.5 13.6 12.8 12.6 12.5 14.8 14.2 14.3 13.9 14.8 

B-3

DO mg/L 5.4 3.3 2.0 4.3 2.0 1.9 2.3 4.3 3.6 3.4 4.1 3.9 ORP mV -64 -16 -33 -50 -7 -10 -11 -56 -30 -27 -26 -66 Free Chlorine mg/L     0.40    0.06    Total Chlorine mV     0.60    0.30    Total Hardness mg/L(a) 54.9 54.3 64.6          Ca Hardness mg/L(a) 30.2 29.7 35.4          Mg Hardness mg/L(a) 24.7 24.6 29.2          As (total) g/L 42.5 6.1 36.3 37.4 3.5 3.3 39.9 42.9 5.6 5.5 38.3 37.0 

41.3 

As (total soluble) g/L 35.5 35.4 5.1          As (particulate) g/L 5.8 7.1 1.0          As (III) g/L 18.1 0.5 0.5          As (V) g/L 17.4 34.9 4.6          Total Fe g/L 53 <25 115 214(d) <25 <25 211 144 <25 <25 83 89 

68 

Dissolved Fe g/L 29 <25 <25          Total Mn g/L 109 1.5 85.1 93.4 3.3 2.7 102 114 4.1 2.2 58.9 58.1 

112 

Dissolved Mn g/L 112 105 1.0          (a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) (/) indicates re-run data with original result/re-run result. (d) Data is questionable. (e) Laboratory did not analyze sample because 

IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined. NA = data not available. 
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continue

Sampling Date 05/25/04(c) 06/08/04(c)(d) 06/22/04(c) 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AP TT IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB 

Bed Volume 103   12.5   13.3 13.6   14.3 15.0 Alkalinity mg/L(a) 182 186 190 240 236 203 199 179 162 162 171 Fluoride mg/L 0.6 0.6 0.6         Sulfate mg/L 37 40 40         Orthophosphate mg/L(b) <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 15.0 14.9 13.9 15.0 14.8 15.1 15.0 16.1 15.2 14.9 15.6 NO3-N mg/L <0.04 <0.04 <0.04         Turbidity NTU 3.3 1.0 1.3 0.5 1.3 3.1 0.7 2.6 14(e) 0.7 1.6 pH  8.0 7.5 8.0 7.9 7.0 7.1 7.1 NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) Temperature oC 10.9 11.0 10.7 17.2 16.0 15.9 16.0 NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) DO mg/L 4.6 4.1 2.2 4.4 2.8 2.6 3.1 NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) ORP mV -58 -25 -50 -48 1 -2 -3 NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) NA(g) Free Chlorine mg/L  1.75 3.20  0.28    NA(g)   Total Chlorine mV  2.52 3.24  0.58    NA(g)   Total Hardness mg/L(a) 54.1 53.9 54.7         Ca Hardness mg/L(a) 31.9 32.1 32.6       

B-4  

Mg Hardness mg/L(a) 22.2 21.8 22.1         As (total) g/L 41.9 40.0 20.3/ 17.8(e) 38.5 75.2/ 67.6(e) 3.9 4.5 39.1 45.6 10.6/ 19.4 5.0 As (total soluble) g/L 35.7 35.5 19.1(e)         As (particulate) g/L 6.2 4.5 1.2         As (III) g/L 16.9 0.8 0.8         As (V) g/L 18.8 34.7 18.3         Total Fe g/L 489/ 484(e) 36 <25/ <25 37 898/ 911(e) <25 <25 175 624 <25 29 Dissolved Fe g/L <25 <25 <25         Total Mn g/L 95.1/ 92.9 79.1 0.6/ 0.6 104.0 135.7/ 134.1 1.0 1.1 79.1 106.8 8.5 2.3 Dissolved Mn g/L 83.7 69.6 0.6         

(a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) (/) indicates re-run data with original result/re-run result. (d) On-site water quality parameters were sampled on Jun

(e) Data is questionable. (f) AP sample tap removed during system maintenance on July 1-2 and later re-installed. (g) Operator did not take on-site water qIN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined. NA = data not available. 
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continue

Sampling Date 07/20/04 07/29/04(c) 08/04/04(c) 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB 

Bed Volume 103   15.5 16.4   16.4 17.4   17.4 18.7 Alkalinity mg/L(a) 164 164 160 172 177 177 177 181 192 188 184 180 Fluoride mg/L             Sulfate mg/L             Orthophosphate mg/L(b) <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 13.9 13.9 14.3 14.2 15.2 14.9 14.7 15.0 14.7 15.3 15.0 14.7 NO3-N mg/L             Turbidity NTU 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 36(d) 2.3 7.4 2.1 0.7 0.3 0.3 13(d) pH  7.5 7.2 7.2 7.1 NA(e) NA(e) NA(e) NA(e) 8.0 7.6 7.7 7.6 Temperature oC 14.1 13.6 13.6 14.1 NA(e) NA(e) NA(e) NA(e) 19.5 17.7 16.4 17.5 DO mg/L 3.4 2.7 3.8 2.2 NA(e) NA(e) NA(e) NA(e) 3.2 2.8 2.6 3.2 ORP mV -30 -17 -13 -11 NA(e) NA(e) NA(e) NA(e) -61 -44 -41 -43 Free Chlorine mg/L  0.07    NA(e)    0.21   Total Chlorine mV  0.71    NA(e)    0.44   Total Hardness mg/L(a)             

B-5Ca Hardness mg/L(a)             

Mg Hardness mg/L(a)             As (total) g/L 30.0 2.3 2.9 36.1 42.7 8.8/ 7.9 12.5/ 11.9 42.7 42.4 17.2/ 17.2 21.9/ 16.6 28.7 As (total soluble) g/L             As (particulate) g/L             As (III) g/L             As (V) g/L             Total Fe g/L 171 <25 <25 260 373 32/ 37.5 <25/ <25 99 146 131/ 125 280/ 186 178 Dissolved Fe g/L             Total Mn g/L 196 4.3 5.2 226 241.0 11.8/ 12.3 8.0/ 7.4 127 163 24.2/ 27.7 65.3/ 69.6 196 Dissolved Mn g/L             

(a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) (/) indicates re-run data with original result/re-run result. (d) Data is questionable. (e) Operator did not take on-site water quality 

IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined NA = data not available. 
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continue

Sampling Date 08/17/04(c) 08/24/04(d) 8/31/04 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB 

Bed Volume 103   19.3 21.0   20.5 22.2   21.6 23.5 Alkalinity mg/L(a) 172 168 180 180 172 176 180 172 186 186 186 186 188 188 188 184 Fluoride mg/L             Sulfate mg/L             Orthophosphate mg/L(b) <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 14.9 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.6 14.8 15.0 14.7 15.0 15.6 15.5 15.2 15.1 15.1 15.9 15.4 NO3-N mg/L             Turbidity NTU 2.4 1.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.8 0.8 0.2 0.4 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 pH  7.9 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.0 7.5 7.5 NA(h) NA(h) NA(h) NA(h) Temperature oC 18.1 16.0 16.2 16.2 11.7 11.6 11.9 12.2 NA(h) NA(h) NA(h) NA(h) DO mg/L 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 5.0 3.9 4.4 4.5 NA(h) NA(h) NA(h) NA(h) ORP mV -66 -40 -54 -54 -61 -10 -34 -34 NA(h) NA(h) NA(h) NA(h) 

B-6Free Chlorine mg/L  0.00    0.00    NA(h)   

Total Chlorine mV  0.20    0.00    NA(h)   Total Hardness mg/L(a)             Ca Hardness mg/L(a)             Mg Hardness mg/L(a)             As (total) g/L 30.6 30.9 30.7 30.3 10.4 10.6 12.3 12.6 31.1 34.1 12.9 14.1 38.8 38.9 17.6 18.8 As (total soluble) g/L             As (particulate) g/L             As (III) g/L             As (V) g/L             Total Fe g/L 285 225 142 130 40 40 57 58 89 122 46 67 65 42 <25 <25 Dissolved Fe g/L             Total Mn g/L 84.4 84.3 78.7 78.3 3.8 3.5 6.7 4.0 104 122 6.0 14.5 101 101 12.1 14.0 Dissolved Mn g/L             (a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) On-site water quality measurements were sampled on August 18, 2004. (d) On-site water quality measurements were sampled on August 26, 2004. 

(e) Not enough sample for re-analysis. (f) (/) indicates re-run data w/original result/re-run result. (g) Data is questionable. (h) Operator did not take on-site water quality measurements. 

IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined. 
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continue

Sampling Date 09/14/04(c) 09/22/04 09/28/04(e) 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB 

Bed Volume 103   23.7 26.0   24.9 27.5   25.7 28.6 Alkalinity mg/L(a) 182 186 182 186 166 166 170 174 176 172 185 172 Fluoride mg/L             Sulfate mg/L             Orthophosphate mg/L(b) 0.06 <0.06 0.10 0.08 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 0.09 0.10 <0.06 0.08 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 15.5 15.1 15.5 14.9 15.2 14.9 15.1 15.1 14.3 14.3 15.2 14.9 NO3-N mg/L             Turbidity NTU 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.3 pH  7.9 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.9 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.8 7.2 7.3 7.3 Temperature oC 11.9 10.7 11.1 10.9 15.3 15.0 13.3 13.5 15.8 13.3 13.3 13.3 DO mg/L 4.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.4 5.4 4.0 3.4 3.4 3.0 ORP mV 201 212 210 209 233 247 251 254 197 210 207 214 Free Chlorine mg/L  0.05    0.16    0.10   Total Chlorine mV  2.70    3.80    0.18   Total Hardness mg/L(a)             

B-7Ca Hardness mg/L(a)             

Mg Hardness mg/L(a)             

As (total) g/L 38.9/ 36.7 31.7 40.5 18.2 32.7 34.1 13.6 12.0 39.7 35.5 34.5 17.5 As (total soluble) g/L             As (particulate) g/L             As (III) g/L             As (V) g/L             Total Fe g/L 1120/ 1225(d) 47 <25 32 54 92 <25 <25 217 128 52 27 Dissolved Fe g/L             Total Mn g/L 93.9/ 89.3 85.5 3.9 1.3 79.3 95.3 4.3 4.0 85.6 81.6 7.6 3.2 Dissolved Mn g/L             (a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) (/) indicates re-run data with original result/re-run result. (d) Data is questionable. 

(e) On-site water quality measurements were sampled on September 29, 2004. (f) Operator did not take measurement. IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined. 

NA = data not available. 
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continue

Sampling Date 10/12/04 10/21/04 10/26/04 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB 

Bed Volume 103   27.7 31.2   29.1 32.8   29.8 33.7 Alkalinity mg/L(a) 183 183 183 185 185 185 181 185 185 181 181 191 172 172 172 172 Fluoride mg/L             Sulfate mg/L             Orthophosphate mg/L(b) <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 2.30 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 0.10 <0.06 0.08 <0.06 <0.06 0.12 0.23 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 15.3 14.7 15.2 7.5(f) 7.4 7.8(f) 7.3 7.6(f) 7.6 7.7(f) 7.8 16.7 14.5 14.5 14.4 14.2 NO3-N mg/L             Turbidity NTU 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.3 6.4 1.8 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.3 pH  8.0 7.8 7.7 7.7 NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) Temperature oC 13.2 12.5 12.5 12.6 NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) DO mg/L 4.4 2.8 3.3 2.9 NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) ORP mV 220 434 437 466 NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) 

B-8 Free Chlorine mg/L  0.40    NA(d)    NA(d)   

Total Chlorine mV  0.50    NA(d)    NA(d)   Total Hardness mg/L(a)             

Ca Hardness mg/L(a)             Mg Hardness mg/L(a)             

As (total) g/L 39.6 34.1 23.1 31.0 32.0 38.0 35.0 20.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 34.2 32.0 31.0 29.6 30.0 As (total soluble) g/L             As (particulate) g/L             As (III) g/L             As (V) g/L             Total Fe g/L 142 25 <25 204(f) 133 327(f) 222 <25 <25 25(f) 39 133 119 95 <25 28 Dissolved Fe g/L             Total Mn g/L 125.0 99.1 8.3 14.9 67.0 67.0 120.0(f) 81.0 3.8(f) 1.4 3.8(f) 6.9 63.0 72.0 0.9 1.7 Dissolved Mn g/L             (a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) On-site water quality measurements were sampled on November 5, 2004. (d) Operator did not take weekly on-site water quality m

(e) Media change on October 27, 2004. Bed volume = 44 cu. ft. (22 cu. ft. for each vessel) or 329 gallons for both vessels. (f) Data is questionable. IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined. NA = data not available.
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continue

Sampling Date 11/10/04 11/17/04(d) 12/02/04(d) 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TT IN 

Bed Volume 103   1.5 1.4   2.8 2.6   5.0  Alkalinity mg/L(a) 185 184 181 185 185 185 185 185 162 166 162 191 Fluoride mg/L         0.7 0.6 0.6  Sulfate mg/L         41.0 42.0 38.0  Orthophosphate mg/L(b) <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 15.3 15.1 14.4 14.4 14.9 15.0 15.4 15.4 13.9 13.8 14.8 16.0 NO3-N mg/L         <0.04 <0.04 <0.04  Turbidity NTU 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.7 18(c) 0.7 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.5 2.8 pH  8.1 8.1(c) 7.8 7.8 NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) 7.8 Temperature oC 13.6 13.8 13.9 14.3 NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) 10.9 DO mg/L 3.6 3.6 3.4 4.6 NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) 4.9 ORP mV 234 238(c) 227 220 NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d)

B-9 223 

Free Chlorine mg/L  0.20    NA(d)    NA(d) NA(d)  Total Chlorine mV  0.40    NA(d)    NA(d) NA(d)  Total Hardness mg/L(a)         73.9 81.3 76.4  

Ca Hardness mg/L(a)         45.9 51.0 46.8  Mg Hardness mg/L(a)         28.0 30.3 29.6  

As (total) g/L 32.3 32.9 1.0 1.4 32.2 23.3 1.3 1.6 51.7 37.4 2.5 45.3 As (total soluble) g/L         34.2 36.1 2.4  As (particulate) g/L         17.5 1.3 0.1  As (III) g/L         15.4 14.4 2.5  As (V) g/L         18.8 21.7 <0.1  Total Fe g/L 164 176 <25 51 190 92 <25 <25 4645(c) 144 <25 372 Dissolved Fe g/L         <25 <25 <25  Total Mn g/L 81.8 87.5 3.1 8.1 78.8 53.1 0.5 0.9 64.0 66.4 2.8 141 

Dissolved Mn g/L         56.7 62.5 2.7  

(a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) Data is questionable. (d) Operator did not take weekly on-site water quality measurements. 

IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined. NA = data not available. 
Table 1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-100) (Continue

Sampling Date 12/13/04 01/05/05(d)

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB 

Bed Volume 103   7.0 6.6   10.7 10.5 Alkalinity mg/L(a) 203 191 195 191 174 174 174 174 182 186 186 186 Fluoride mg/L        Sulfate mg/L        Orthophosphate mg/L(b) <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 16.1 15.9 15.3 16.1 15.1 14.8 14.4 14.5 15.9 15.8 15.8 15.8 NO3-N mg/L        Turbidity NTU 3.7 2.0 0.9 0.7 2.4 8.0 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 pH  7.7 7.2 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.4 7.6 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.6 Temperature oC 11.3 11.2 11.0 11.8 NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d)DO mg/L 4.8 4.2 3.7 3.4 NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d)ORP mV 210 81 86 88 NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d)Free Chlorine mg/L 

B-10 0.01   NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) Total Chlorine mV  0.03   NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d)

Total Hardness mg/L(a)        

Ca Hardness mg/L(a)        Mg Hardness mg/L(a)        

As (total) g/L 41.9 35.7 3.4 3.4 31.2 31.6 31.5 31.8 4.1 3.5 4.7 4.7 As (total soluble) g/L        As (particulate) g/L        As (III) g/L        As (V) g/L        Total Fe g/L 492 333 36 37 96 60 47 70 <25 <25 <25 <25 Dissolved Fe g/L        Total Mn g/L 151 127 26.7 26.5 65.1 69.0 15.4 69.1 71.1 12.9 12.5 12.5 Dissolved Mn g/L        

(a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) On-site water quality measurements taken on December 14, 2004. (d) On-site water quality 

measurements not taken. (d) The pH was measured at the laboratory and not on-site. (e) System bypassed due to high pressure conditions. IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combine
Table 2. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-RWS) 

Sampling Date 6/13/2005(c) 6/28/2005(c) 7/19/2005(c) 8

Sampling Location 

B-11

Parameter Unit 

IN AP TT IN AP TA TB PT IN AP TT PT IN AP 

Bed Volume 10^3 - - NA - - 2.0 - - - 4.1 - - - 

mg/L(a) Alkalinity 198 198 198 176 176 176 176 - 180 176 176 - 167 180 

Fluoride mg/L 0.5 0.5 0.5 - - - - - 0.6 0.5 0.5 - - - 

Sulfate mg/L 54 56 76 - - - - - 59 46 53 - - - 

mg/L(b) Orthophosphate <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 

Total P (as PO4) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 17.0 16.4 1.6 15.6 15.0 15.4 15.4 - 15.4 14.0 14.8 - 14.6 14.5 

Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - 0.1 0.5 0.4 - - - 

Turbidity NTU 0.5 0.5 0.3 5.1 5.0 2.7 0.3 - 1.7 1.0 1.0 - 0.6 0.2 

pH S.U. 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.4 7.9 7.6 7.8 7.4 7.7 7.8 

0 Temperature C NA NA NA 12.7 12.9 12.2 11.6 13.0 19.7 18.7 18.3 13.0 10.6 10.1 

DO mg/L NA NA NA 7.8 9.4 9.6 9.5 - 4.3 4.4 3.3 - 5.6 6.4 

ORP mV NA NA NA 196 180 159 168 - 164 158 151 - 199 161 

Free Chlorine mg/L - - - - - - - 0.20 - - - 0.20 - - 

Total Chlorine mg/L - - - - - - - 0.30 - - - 0.30 - - 

mg/L(a) Total Hardness 87.7 83.0 92.0 - - - - - 74.6 72.5 84.6 - - - 

mg/L(a) Ca Hardness 47.6 46.6 52.2 - - - - - 46.2 45.3 51.7 - - - 

mg/L(a) Mg Hardness 40.1 36.4 39.8 - - - - - 28.3 27.1 32.9 - - - 

As (total) μg/L 35.2 43.0 1.7 34.1 33.8 1.0 1.0 - 51.1 35.9 1.6 - 31.9 39.5 

As (soluble) μg/L 35.2 32.5 1.2 - - - - - 45.0 30.8 1.5 - - - 

As (particulate) μg/L <0.1 10.5 0.5 - - - - - 6.1 5.1 0.1 - - - 

As (III) μg/L 24.1 1.6 1.1 - - - - - 28.8 1.1 0.5 - - - 

As (V) μg/L 11.1 30.9 <0.1 - - - - - 16.3 29.6 1.0 - - - 

Total Fe μg/L 203 470 72 77 121 <25 <25 - 798 211 <25 - 140 555 

Soluble Fe μg/L 158 68 79 - - - - - 50 <25 <25 - - - 

Total Mn μg/L 176 192 7.2 97.2 106 0.5 0.5 - 157 107 0.7 - 78.8 191 

Soluble Mn μg/L 182 148 4.0 - - - - - 158 74.3 0.6 - - - 

(a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) as P. (c) pH adjustment not yet working since system start-up. (d) On-site water quality measurements were taken on August 2, 2005. 

IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined; PT = plant tap; CA = after ca

NA = data not available. 
Table 2. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-RWS) (Continu

9/28/2005 Sampling Date (e)(f) 10/13/2005 11/2/20

Sampling Location IN AC TT CA IN AP TA TB CA IN AP 

Parameter Unit 

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 6.4 - - - 7.7 - - - 

Alkalinity mg/L(a) 194 194 198 - 198 189 189 185 - 158 176 

Fluoride mg/L 0.6 0.6 0.6 - - - - - - 0.4 0.5 

Sulfate mg/L 28 29 31 - - - - - - 33 37 

Orthophosphate mg/L(b) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 0.1 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 - <0.05 <0.05 

Total P (as PO4) μg/L - - - - 83.2 83.2 <10 <10 - 72.8 87.9 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 16.4 16.3 13.8 - 13.9 14.1 13.5 13.1 - 14.4 15.0 

Nitrate (as N) mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - 0.1 <0.05 

Turbidity NTU 0.6 0.4 0.6 - 1.0 2.3 0.2 0.2 - 2.2 1.0 

pH S.U. 7.8 7.9 7.7 NA(f) 6.8 7.4 7.7 7.7 NA(g) 7.6 7.9 

Temperature 0C 14.6 14.5 14.7 NA(f) 12.9 12.4 13.2 13.3 NA(g) 10.0 9.0 

DO mg/L 4.3 4.2 4.4 - 3.9 4.5 4.7 4.1 - 4.0 4.1 

ORP mV 144 168 192 - -19 132 135 144 - 187 

B-12192 

Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.02 0.05 - - 0.05 - - - - 0.28 

Total Chlorine mg/L - 0.20 0.25 - - 0.27 - - - - 0.46 

Total Hardness mg/L(a) 55.5 52.4 48.7 - - - - - - 70.0 65.8 

Ca Hardness mg/L(a) 33.3 31.0 29.1 - - - - - - 46.0 40.6 

Mg Hardness mg/L(a) 22.3 21.4 19.6 - - - - - ` 24.0 25.1 

As (total) μg/L 32.1 34.7 1.5 - 38.7 42.7 2.9 2.4 - 31.6 32.6 

As (soluble) μg/L 32.9 34.6 1.3 - - - - - - 30.3 32.9 

As (particulate) μg/L <0.1 <0.1 0.2 - - - - - - 1.4 <0.1 

As (III) μg/L 7.6 2.3 1.1 - - - - - - 10.4 0.4 

As (V) μg/L 25.3 32.3 0.2 - - - - - - 19.9 32.5 

Total Fe μg/L 167 56 <25 - 167 344 <25 <25 - 347 169 

Soluble Fe μg/L <25 <25 <25 - - - - - - 86 28 

Total Mn μg/L 59.8 55.6 0.5 - 59.7 83.3 1.2 1.2 - 132 91.2 

Soluble Mn μg/L 57.6 55.1 0.5 - - - - - - 109 80.0 

(a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) pH adjustment not yet working since system start-up. (d) On-site water quality measurements were taken on August 2, 2005. (e) Sy

September 26, 2005. (f) CO2 system was down therefore caustic addition was not needed to raise the pH of the treated water. (g) CO2 system is down therefore caustic a

pH of the treated water. IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined; CA = after caustic addition. NA = 
Table 2. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (APU-RWS) (Continu

Sampling Date 11/30/2005 12/14/2005 1/18/2006 

B-13

Sampling Location IN AP TT CA IN AP TA TB CA IN AP TT CA IN A

Parameter Unit 

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 13.3 - - - 14.8 - - - 18.6 - - - 

Alkalinity mg/L(a) 176 198 189 - 176 172 185 176 - 180 189 189 - 176 17

Fluoride mg/L 0.4 0.5 0.4 - - - - - - 0.3 0.4 0.4 - - - 

Sulfate mg/L 35 36 34 - - - - - - 35 36 36 - - - 

Orthophosphate mg/L(b) 0.1 0.1 0.1 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - 

Total P (as PO4) μg/L 82.3 94.2 48.5 - 101 71.7 86.2 72.9 - 77.3 77.4 50.3 - 72.8 83

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 15.0 14.4 15.1 - 14.2 14.4 15.1 14.6 - 15.7 15.3 15.5 - 15.6 15

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

Turbidity NTU 1.3 0.8 0.2 - 4.2 4.4 1.0 1.3 - 3.4 1.5 1.4 - 1.5 1.

pH S.U. 7.8 8.0 8.1 NA(c) 7.5 7.7 8.0 8.0 NA(c) 7.9 8.1 8.3 NA(c) 7.7 7.

Temperature 0C 10.3 11.3 11.5 NA(c) 11.5 11.1 11.4 11.2 NA(c) 12.1 11.8 12.1 NA(c) 11.3 10

DO mg/L 3.9 4.1 3.5 - 4.8 6.2 5.2 6.3 - 3.5 5.5 3.6 - NA(d) NA

ORP mV 178 179 180 - 195 436 176 314 - 224 192 201 - 210 20

Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.15 0.03 - - 0.41 - - - - 0.1 0.1 - - 0.

Total Chlorine mg/L - 0.28 0.24 - - 0.63 - - - - 0.2 0.3 - - 0.

Total Hardness mg/L(a) 53.4 46.4 52.1 - - - - - - 60.1 55.3 58.3 - - - 

Ca Hardness mg/L(a) 29.5 25.1 27.8 - - - - - - 36.3 33.2 32.6 - - - 

Mg Hardness mg/L(a) 23.9 21.2 24.3 - - - - - - 23.9 22.2 25.7 - - - 

As (total) μg/L 41.2 37.6 11.8(d) - 34.2 28.5 13.9 10.1 - 38.0 35.6 16.5 - 46.8 48

As (soluble) μg/L 34.7 37.2 11.8(d) - - - - - - 31.8 33.0 16.3 - - - 

As (particulate) μg/L 6.6 0.5 <0.1 - - - - - - 6.2 2.6 0.2 - - - 

As (III) μg/L 13.2 1.2 1.3 - - - - - - 16.6 0.6 0.7 - - - 

As (V) μg/L 21.4 35.9 10.5 - - - - - - 15.2 32.4 15.6 - - - 

Total Fe μg/L 322 62 <25 - 201 120 165 64 - 570 278 55 - 271 24

Soluble Fe μg/L 48 <25 <25 - - - - - - 79 <25 <25 - - - 

Total Mn μg/L 97.5 69.7 2.5 - 91.8 126 19.7 9.1 - 126 94.3 23.6 - 95.1 86

Soluble Mn μg/L 97.5 65.8 0.8 - - - - - - 165 73.5 15.3 - - - 

(a)Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) CO2 system is down therefore caustic addition is not needed to raise the pH of the treated water. (d) DO probe not working. 

IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined; CA = after caustic addition. NA = 
B-14

Table 3. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rollinsford, NH (After Conversion to Coagulatio

Sampling Date 5/8/2006 5/17/2006(e) 6/7/2006 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AP TA TB TT CA IN AP TT CA IN AP TT CA IN 

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 26.9 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Alkalinity mg/L(a) - - - - - - 186 165 - - - - - - 18

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - 0.3 0.4 - - - - - - 0.5 

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - 85 59 - - - - - - 59 

Orthophosphate mg/L(b) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Total P (as PO4) μg/L - - - - - - 49.6 <10 13.7 - - - - - 55.

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L - - - - - - 16.3 15.6 15.6 - - - - - 15.

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - <0.0

Turbidity NTU - - - - - - 1.3 0.6 0.9 - - - - - 0.7 

pH S.U. 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.3 7.3 NA(c) 7.8 7.8 7.1 NA(c) 7.8 7.9 7.8 NA(c) 7.5 

Temperature 0C 12.4 12.6 12.0 12.0 12.2 NA(c) 12.7 12.5 12.5 NA(c) 12.1 12.9 12.9 NA(c) 20.

DO mg/L 3.5 4.5 3.7 6.0 4.3 - NA(f) NA(f) NA(f) - NA(f) NA(f) NA(f) - NA

ORP mV NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) - NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) - NA(d) NA(d) NA(d) - NA

Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.3 - - 0.0 - - 0.1 0.1 - - 0.0 0.0 - - 

Total Chlorine mg/L - 0.6 - - 0.1 - - 0.4 0.1 - - 0.4 0.0 - - 

Total Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - 120 108 97.0 - - - - - - 

Ca Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - 64.6 58.3 54.8 - - - - - - 

Mg Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - 55.7 50.1 42.3 - - - - - - 

As (total) μg/L 43.0 9.9 - - 12.4 - 31.8 6.1 7.2 - 33.0 34.7 15.7 - 30.

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 27.3 3.7 4.5 - - - - - 27.

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - 4.4 2.3 2.7 - - - - - 3.5 

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - 13.6 0.4 0.4 - - - - - 14.

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - 13.8 3.3 4.1 - - - - - 12.

Total Fe μg/L 556 349 - - 722 - 399 231 217 - 273 181 <25 - 18

Soluble Fe μg/L - - - - - - 512 <25 <25 - - - - - 72 

Total Mn μg/L 115 41.0 - - 51.4 - 280 4.0 9.3 - 98.4 121 8.5 - 160

Soluble Mn μg/L - - - - - - 281 1.3 1.3 - - - - - 14

(a) Measured as CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) CO2 system is down therefore caustic addition is not needed to raise the pH of the treated water. (d) ORP measurements will no lo

quality measurements were taken on May 19, 2006. (f) DO measurements will no longer be taken. IN = inlet; AP = after pH adjustment and after pre-chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after the tank B; TT = after tanks combined; CA = after caustic addition. NA =