• Skip to main content
itrc_logo

Managed Aquifer Recharge

MAR Home
About ITRC
Navigating this Website
1 Introduction
1 Introduction Overview
1.1 What Is MAR?
1.2 Purpose/Scope of MAR Guidance
1.3 Key Terms and Definitions
1.4 State Survey Results
1.5 Document Organization
2 Project Planning
2 Project Planning Overview
2.1 Project Team
2.2 Feasibility
2.3 Economics
2.4 Stakeholder Engagement and Environmental Justice
2.5 Regulatory Considerations and Permitting
2.6 Pilot Testing
2.7 Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring (OM&M
3 Managed Aquifer Recharge
3 Managed Aquifer Recharge Overview
3.1 Intended Use of MAR
3.2 Source Water
3.3 Receiving Aquifer
3.4 Recharge Technologies
3.5 Water Quality Considerations
3.6 Data and Modeling
4 Recharge Technologies 
4 Recharge Technologies Overview
4.1 Surface Recharge Technologies Overview
4.2 Subsurface Recharge Technologies Overview
Recharge Technology Fact Sheets
Infiltration Basin Fact Sheet
Retention Structures Fact Sheet
Injection Well Fact Sheet
Dry Well Fact Sheet
Infiltration Gallery Fact Sheet
5 Case Studies
5 Case Studies Overview
5.1 HRSD Sustainable Water Initiative for Tomorrow (SWIFT) Program
5.2 Using a Simple, Low-Cost Injection Water Pretreatment System to Reduce the Concentration of Naturally Occurring Arsenic and Other Trace Metals in Recovered Water during ASR Operations 
5.3 Seawater Intrusion/Replenishment in Southern Los Angeles County 
5.4 San Antonio Water System H2Oaks Center ASR Project 
5.5 Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin 
5.6 Idaho’s Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer MAR Program 
5.7 Pilot Study for the Injection of Highly Treated Reclaimed Water to Create Saltwater Intrusion Barriers and Enhance Groundwater Supplies, Hillsborough County, Florida 
5.8 Mustang Creek Watershed Dry Well Pilot Study  
5.9 Walla Walla Basin Watershed 
5.10 Clark Fork River Basin MAR Modeling 
5.11 Army Post Road ASR Well 
5.12 South Metro Water Supply Authority Regional ASR Groundwater Model Scope of Work 
References
Appendices
APPENDIX A. Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) Team State Survey 
Appendix B. Water Quality Parameters
APPENDIX C. State, Territory, and Tribe Contacts for Managed Aquifer Recharge
Appendix D. Team Contacts 
Appendix E. Glossary
Appendix F. Acronyms
Acknowledgments
Document Feedback

 

Managed Aquifer Recharge
HOME

5.2 Using a Simple, Low-Cost Injection Water Pretreatment System to Reduce the Concentration of Naturally Occurring Arsenic and Other Trace Metals in Recovered Water during ASR Operations 

Author: Gregg Jones 

Site Name: City of DeLand, Florida, Airport ASR Facility 

Location: Deland, Florida 

Operator(s): City of DeLand 

Permitting Agency(s): Florida Department of Environmental Protection, St. Johns River Water Management District, Volusia County Health Department 

Current MAR Status: Pilot test. System no longer in service. 

Year Constructed: 2005 

Costs: A conservative cost estimate for the system is approximately $42,000. Operation and maintenance costs (O&M) were very minimal. The cost of the sodium hydrosulfide pretreatment chemical (NaSH) depends on the volume of water to be injected and its dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration. Based on typical DO concentrations in treated surface water, the annual cost of NaSH will range from approximately $9,000 to $18,000.  

Project Contact Information: Gregg Jones, chief hydrogeologist, Brown and Caldwell ([email protected]) 

Project Website/Publication Links: N/A 

Purpose of MAR:  

  • Water supply resilience  
  • Improving groundwater quality  

Source Water: 

  • Not applicable 

Water Quality: 

  • Pretreatment required 

Recharge Technology(s):  

  • ASR well 

Project Description 

Elevated levels of arsenic in water recovered in many ASR systems in Florida became a serious concern to regulatory agencies and water supply utilities following the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s decision to reduce the arsenic drinking water standard from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb in 2006. Studies showed that mobilization of arsenic and other trace metals into stored waters occurred as oxygenated surface water was injected for storage into the low-oxygen environment of the Floridan aquifer. This caused minute quantities of naturally occurring arsenopyrite in the limestone matrix of the aquifer to become unstable and dissolve, which resulted in release of arsenic into the stored water. 

A collaborative research effort in Florida that involved universities, state and federal agencies, and consultants determined that the mobilization of arsenic and other trace metals into stored waters could be significantly reduced by removing the oxidants from the water prior to injection/recharge. Methods investigated to remove oxidants from water involved relatively expensive technologies such as membranes and other gas stripping systems that experienced significant problems, including rapid membrane fouling.   

A relatively simple and inexpensive process was eventually developed by (Pearce, Waldron, and Horvath 2009) that eliminated leaching of arsenic during ASR cycles by adding a sulfide compound into the injection-flow stream that maintained the low-oxygen conditions of the natural aquifer environment.  

The process involves the mixing of sodium hydrosulfide (NaSH) into the recharge water prior to injection using standard chemical metering and mixing equipment at low concentrations (3–6 parts per million). The sulfide in the NaSH chemical combines with oxygen to form sulfate, which effectively removes free oxygen from the water to be injected. Upon injection, the low-oxygen environment in the Floridan Aquifer is preserved, which results in an arsenic concentration in recovered water that is well below the drinking water standard and will require little to no additional treatment prior to distribution. 

Project Planning/Implementation 

The NaSH process was tested at an ASR facility owned by the City of DeLand in 2009. Pilot testing involved ASR cycles of 5 million and 20 million gallons of recharge, storage, and recovery. Results of the testing showed that for both operational cycles, the concentration of arsenic in the recovered water was less than 1 ppb, much lower than the 10 ppb drinking water standard. Figure 1 is a photograph of the system including the totes that contain the NaSH chemical. The process has since been successfully employed at additional ASR sites in Florida, including the City of North Port and the City of Sanford.  

The addition of NaSH to aquifers containing potable water has been accepted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and has received National Sanitation Foundation certification for use in drinking water systems. The NaSH process is low cost compared to other pretreatment processes that prevent arsenic mobilization. Components of the system include only standard chemical feed equipment, controls, and metering. Maintenance is very limited because there is no need for prefiltration or chemical cleaning systems, such as those necessary for membrane processes. The cost of chemicals is also relatively low, resulting in very significant savings over alternative treatment methods. 

Figure 1. Photograph of the entire NaSH pretreatment system including the NaSH totes. 

image_pdfPrint this page/section
MAR Full PDF
glossaryGlossary
referencesReferences
acronymsAcronyms
ITRC
Contact Us
About ITRC
Visit ITRC
social media iconsClick here to visit ITRC on FacebookClick here to visit ITRC on TwitterClick here to visit ITRC on LinkedInITRC on Social Media
about_itrc
Permission is granted to refer to or quote from this publication with the customary acknowledgment of the source (see suggested citation and disclaimer). This web site is owned by ITRC • 1250 H Street, NW • Suite 850 • Washington, DC 20005 • (202) 266-4933 • Email: [email protected] • Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Usage Policy ITRC is sponsored by the Environmental Council of the States.