EPA/600/R-09/066
August 2009
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Vintage on the Ponds in Delavan, WI
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
Wendy E. Condit
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
A-ii
-------
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 sub-
surface 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 envi-
ronmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provid-
ing 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
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained for the arsenic removal treatment
technology demonstration project at Vintage on the Ponds in Delavan, WI. The objectives of the project
were to evaluate 1) the effectiveness of a Kinetico Macrolite® pressure filtration system in removing
arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |og/L, 2) the reliability of the
treatment system; 3) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels; and
4) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The project also characterized water in the distribution
system and process residuals produced by the treatment system.
The Macrolite® pressure filtration system removed arsenic via iron removal from source water. The
system consisted of one 21-in x 62-in contact tank and two 21-in x 62-in pressure vessels, each
containing 4.8 ft3 of Macrolite® filter media, a spherical, low-density ceramic media manufactured by
Kinetico for high-flow filtration. The treatment process included chlorine addition to oxidize As(III) to
As(V) and Fe(II) to Fe(III), adsorption and/or coprecipitation of As(V) onto/with iron solids, filtration of
As(V)-laden particles with the Macrolite® media, and softening (preexisting). The design flowrate was 45
gal/min (gpm) based on the well capacity, which yielded 1.8 min of contact time prior to filtration and 9.4
gpm/ft2 of hydraulic loading to the filters. Because the actual flowrates fluctuated with the water demand
from the distribution system and never exceeded 20 gpm, the minimum contact time and the maximum
hydraulic loading rate would be 4.1 min and 4.2 gpm/ft2, respectively. From July 12, 2005, through
September 3, 2006, the well operated for a total of 1,072 hr at 2.6 hr/day (on average). The treatment
system processed approximately 2,500,200 gal of water with an average daily demand of 5,981 gal during
the study period.
Source water at Vintage on the Ponds contained 14.3 to 29.0 |o,g/L of total arsenic with As(III) as the
predominating species at an average concentration of 16.3 |o,g/L. Source water also contained 997 to
2,478 |og/L of total iron present mostly in the soluble form. The average soluble iron concentration was
80 times the average soluble arsenic concentration and thus was sufficient for effective arsenic removal
via iron removal.
Due to the presence of approximately 2.9 mg/L of ammonia (as N) in source water, chloramines were
formed upon chlorination. Breakpoint chlorination was not performed because it would require a
unrealistically high chlorine dosage (i.e., up to 22 mg/L [as C12]) to obtain free chlorine and because
ammonia could be easily removed by the preexisting softener units located downstream from the pressure
filters.
For the first three months of system operation, little or no chlorine residual was detected in the treated
water due to repeated operational problems with the chlorine feed system. After the working condition of
the chlorine feed system was established in late October 2005, both chlorine dosing rates (based on
chlorine tank level measurements) and total chlorine residuals (measured in the system effluent) varied
widely from 1.3 to 5.9 mg/L and from <0.1 to 4.7 mg/L (as C12), respectively. These values were much
higher than the 1-mg/L target level recommended for the downstream softener units. The erratic chlorine
residuals observed might have been caused, in part, by the on-demand system operation, which made it
difficult to adjust the dosing rates.
The working condition of the chlorine addition system had direct effects on the effectiveness of the
treatment system. Of the 14 arsenic speciation sampling events that took place, there were two where the
chlorine injection system did not work properly. Under the circumstances, soluble Fe(II) and As(III)
were either not oxidized or only partially oxidized, resulting in elevated soluble iron and soluble As(III)
IV
-------
levels after Macrolite® filtration. For the other 12 events where the chlorine addition system was in good
working order, soluble As(III) concentrations were reduced to 4.6 |o,g/L after the contact tank and then to
2.9 |og/L after the pressure filters. Meanwhile, particulate arsenic concentrations increased to 10.8 |og/L
after the contact tank and then decreased to 1.2 |o,g/L after the pressure filters (except for one sampling
event where particulate arsenic breakthrough was observed due to a system backwash failure). As
expected, total arsenic concentrations increased with total iron concentrations in the filter effluent.
Soluble iron levels were reduced to an average of 39 |o,g/L after the pressure filters.
Due to the presence of chloramines, incomplete As(III) and Fe(II) oxidation was observed, with as much
as 4.6 and 429 |o,g/L (on average) of As(III) and Fe(II), respectively, measured after the contract tank.
Additional contact time in the pressure filters appeared to have enhanced oxidation of As(III) and Fe(II),
reducing their concentrations to 2.9 and 39 |o,g/L (on average), respectively, in the filter effluent.
Total manganese concentrations averaged 19.2 (ig/L in source water, existing primarily in the soluble
form as Mn(II). Manganese remained in the soluble form in the treated water at levels ranging from 16.1
to 20.8 (ig/L, indicating insignificant oxidation of manganese by chloramines. Soluble Mn(II) was almost
completely removed by the downstream softener units.
During the performance evaluation study, the pressure filters were backwashed 102 times using
chlorinated water from the contact tank. Each backwash generated approximately 360 gal of wastewater.
Backwash wastewater was sampled nine times, including two grab samples and seven composite samples.
The composite samples were taken from a side stream of the backwash effluent, which, presumably, was
more representative of the overall wastewater quality. The analyses of the composite samples showed
11.7 to 322 (ig/L of total arsenic, 0.27 to 37.1 mg/L of total iron, and 16.5 to 32.9 (ig/L of total
manganese. Total suspended solids (TSS) levels in the backwash wastewater were uncharacteristically
low at 13.2 mg/L (on average), most likely due to insufficient mixing of solids/water mixtures before
sampling.
Comparison of the distribution system water sampling results before and after system startup showed a
decrease in arsenic, iron, and manganese levels at all three sampling locations. Total arsenic levels in the
distribution system ranged from 3.1 to 23.3 (ig/L, which, although slightly higher, mirrored the total
arsenic levels in filter effluent. Neither lead nor copper concentrations appeared to have been affected by
the operation of the system.
The capital investment cost was $60,500, which included $19,790 for equipment, $20,580 for
engineering, and $20,130 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 45 gal/min (gpm) (64,800
gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $l,344/gpm ($0.93/gpd).
The O&M cost for the system included only incremental cost associated with the chemical supply,
electricity consumption, and labor. The O&M cost was estimated at $0.26/1,000 gal.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
Section 1.0: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
Section 2.0: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
Section 3.0: MATERIALS AND METHODS 7
3.1 General Project Approach 7
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 8
3.3.1 Source Water 11
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 11
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater 11
3.3.4 Residual Solids 11
3.3.5 Distribution System Water 11
3.4 Sampling Logistics 12
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 12
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 12
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 12
3.5 Analytical Procedures 13
Section 4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 14
4.1 Facility Description and Preexisting Treatment System Infrastructure 14
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 14
4.1.2 Distribution System and Treated Quality 18
4.2 Treatment Process Description 18
4.3 System Installation 22
4.3.1 Permitting 22
4.3.2 Building Construction 24
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 25
4.4 System Operation 26
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 26
4.4.2 Chlorine Addition 28
4.4.3 Residual Management 31
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 31
4.5 System Performance 32
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 32
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling 39
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 40
VI
-------
4.6 System Cost 43
4.6.1 Capital Cost 43
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 44
Section 5.0 REFERENCES 46
APPENDICES
Appendix A: OPERATIONAL DATA
Appendix B: ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 10
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Well No. 1 Pump House 15
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Well Piping and Pressure Tanks 15
Figure 4-3. Preexisting Softener System 16
Figure 4-4. Process Schematic of Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System 19
Figure 4-5. Chlorine Addition System 20
Figure 4-6. Contact Tank 21
Figure 4-7. Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System 22
Figure 4-8. Backwash Flow Paths for Both Tanks A and B and a Throughput of 18,000 gal
Between Backwash Cycles 23
Figure 4-9. Photographs of System Components 24
Figure 4-10. Equipment Off-loading 25
Figure 4-11. Close-up View of Insite® PX-50 GPM-12-V-F Flow Meter 26
Figure 4-12. Ap Across Pressure Filtration Vessels A and B and Entire System 28
Figure 4-13. Total Chlorine Residuals at AC and TT Locations 29
Figure 4-14. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Locations 36
Figure 4-15. Total Arsenic Concentrations at IN, AC, TA, TB, and TT Sampling Locations 37
Figure 4-16. Total Iron Concentrations at IN, AC, TA, TB, and TT Sampling Locations 37
Figure 4-17. Total Manganese Concentrations at IN, AC, TA, TB, and TT Sampling Locations 39
TABLES
Table 1 -1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 3
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses 9
Table 4-1. Vintage on the Ponds, WI Water Quality Data 17
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media 18
Table 4-3. Design Specifications for Macrolite® PM2162D6 Pressure Filtration System 19
Table 4-4. System Operation from July 12, 2005 to September 3, 2006 27
Table 4-5. Summary of Problems Encountered and Corrective Actions Taken for Chorine
Injection System 30
Table 4-6: Correlations Between Pump Stroke Length and C12 Dosage 31
Table 4-7. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 33
vn
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Analytical Results of Other Water Quality Parameters 34
Table 4-9: Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results 41
Table 4-10. Backwash Solids Sample ICP/MS Results 41
Table 4-11. Distribution Sampling Results 42
Table 4-12. Summary of Capital Investment for Vintage on the Ponds Treatment System 44
Table 4-13. O&M Cost for the Vintage on the Ponds Treatment System for One Year 45
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
AWWA American Water Works Association
bgs below ground surface
C/F coagulation/filtration
Ca calcium
Cl chlorine
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
DPD N,N-diethyl-p-phenylene diamine
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
gpd gal per day
gpm gal per minute
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
hp horsepower
HR high range
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.;
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet
Na sodium
NA not applicable
NaCIO sodium hypochlorite
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
IX
-------
O&M operation and maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagrams
POU point-of-use
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QAPP quality assurance project plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
STS Severn Trent Services
SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
TDH total dynamic head
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
U uranium
V vanadium
WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Ms. Deborah Ismail, Manager of Vintage on the
Ponds in Delavan, WI. Ms. Ismail monitored the treatment system daily during the week and collected
samples from the treatment and distribution systems on a regular schedule throughout this reporting
period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without her efforts.
Ms. Tien Shiao, who is currently pursuing a Master's degree at Yale University, was the Battelle Study
Lead for this demonstration project.
XI
-------
Section 1.0: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/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.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the community water system at Vintage on the Ponds in Delavan, WI was one of those selected.
In September 2003, EPA, again, solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28. Kinetico's Macrolite® Arsenic Removal Technology was selected for
demonstration at the Vintage on the Ponds facility in September 2004.
As of April 2009, 39 of the 40 systems were operational and the performance evaluation of 32 systems
was completed.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13 coagula-
tion/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, and 17 point-of-use (POU) units (including
nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and eight AM units
at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors,
system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, Fe, and pH) at the 40
demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 Round 1
demonstration sites and the associated capital costs is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004;
Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA website at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 40 full-scale arsenic treatment
technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific
objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small
systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill
levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the Kinetico Macrolite® Arsenic Removal system at Vintage
on the Ponds in Delavan, WI from July 12, 2005, through September 3, 2006. The types of data collected
included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system),
residuals, and capital and preliminary O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NY(d)
Newark, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (ARM 200)
AM (E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70(b)
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250W
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19(a)
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,806(c)
1,312W
1,615W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM (E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14W
13w
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127(c)
466W
1,387W
l,499(c)
7827W
546(c)
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
1,344W
1,325W
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770W
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(b)
50
37
35W
19w
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
Source Water Quality
As
Oig/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service
District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)®
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HDQ
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69w
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; EHX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) Withdrew from program in 2007. Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Amaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
Section 2.0: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the first six months of system operation, the following
conclusions were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• The Macrolite® pressure filters effectively removed arsenic to below the 10-(ig/L
MCL provided that the chlorine addition system was in good working condition.
Occasional exceedances were observed in the filter effluent due mainly to particulate
arsenic and particulate iron breakthrough from the filters. Due to the on-demand
system configuration, the pressure filters operated at a maximum hydraulic loading
rate of 4.2 gpm/ft2, about 45% of the design value.
• The presence of 2.9 mg/L of ammonia (as N) in source water presented a challenge to
soluble As(III) and soluble Fe(II) oxidation with chlorine. Formation of chloramines
significantly hampered their oxidation, leaving as much as 4.6 and 429 (ig/L (on
average) of As(III) and Fe(II), respectively, after the contact tank. (Note that,
depending on on-demand flowrates, the contact tank provided at least 4.1 min of
contact time before entering the pressure filters.) Prolonged contact times through
the pressure filters appeared to be useful in improving As(III) and Fe(II) oxidation,
reducing their concentrations to 2.9 and 39 (ig/L (on average), respectively, after the
pressure filters.
• Arsenic speciation was a valuable tool to assess the effectiveness of As(III)
oxidation.
• Manganese was not removed by the Macrolite® pressure filters. Soluble Mn(II)
remained to be soluble upon chlorination, indicating ineffective oxidation by
chloramines.
• Decreases in arsenic, iron, and manganese levels were observed at all three
distribution system sampling locations. Total arsenic levels in the distribution system
mirrored those in the filter effluent. Neither lead nor copper concentrations were
affected by the operation of the system.
Required system O&Mand operator skill levels:
• Repeated operational problems with the chlorine addition system were encountered
during the first three months of system operation. The problems encountered included
failures of the feed pump and the chlorine injector, leaks of copper pipe due to its
incompatibility with the 12.5% NaOCl solution, and erratic and inconsistent chlorine
residual measurements.
• The Macrolite® filtration system had no unscheduled downtime; however, it was
operated without any chlorine addition for 63 days.
• The typical daily demand on the operator to maintain the system was about 5 min.
However, the chlorine feed system had to be constantly monitored and adjusted to
ensure proper working conditions. Additional time was required to troubleshoot and
maintain the chemical feed system.
-------
• Operating the chlorine feed system required skills to handle NaOCl solutions,
chemical feed pump, and chlorine residual measurements, and may be challenging to
persons with no prior experience.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• Depending on water demand, the pressure filters were backwashed approximately
once a day to once several days. Backwashing was triggered by a throughput setting
of 18,000 gal; however, some variations were observed during the study period.
• Each backwash produced approximately 360 gal of wastewater per vessel.
Cost of the technology:
• The unit capital cost was $0.24/1,000 gal if the system operates at 100% utilization rate. The
system's real unit cost was $2.61/1,000 gal, based on an annual production of 2,200,000 gal
of water by the system.
• The O&M cost was $0.26/1,000 gal, based on labor, chemical usage, and electricity
consumption.
-------
Section 3.0: MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation of the
Macrolite® treatment system began on July 12, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected
and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance was
evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the target MCL of 10 |o,g/L through
the collection of water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the system 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
Introductory Meeting Held
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received
Purchase Order Established
Letter of Understanding Issued
Letter Report Issued
Engineering Package Submitted WDNR
Permit Issued by WDNR
Study Plan Issued
Macrolite® Unit Shipped by Kinetico
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
09/20/04
02/22/05
03/03/05
03/30/05
02/16/05
05/24/05
04/25/05
06/10/05
06/21/05
06/17/05
07/01/05
07/12/05
07/12/05
WDNR = Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objective
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
Cost-Effectiveness
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10-|j,g/L arsenic MCL in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems,
materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventive maintenance including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
-------
The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data
and qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system
automation, extent of preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling
and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and
safety practices. The staffing requirements for system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
water produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water was 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 the capital
cost for equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for chemical supply, electricity
usage, 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 according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis, with the exception of Saturdays and
Sundays, the plant operator recorded system operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and
hour meter readings on a Daily System Operation Log Sheet; checked the sodium hypochlorite (NaCIO)
tank level; and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problems
occurred, the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be
contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information, including the
problem encountered, course of action taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor
incurred, on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly basis, the plant operator measured
several water quality parameters on-site, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-
reduction potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded the data on an On-Site Water Quality
Parameters Log Sheet. Monthly backwash data 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 the cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and
labor. Consumption of NaCIO was tracked on the Daily System Operation Log Sheet. Electricity
consumption was determined from utility bills. Labor for various activities, such as routine system
O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, was tracked using an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as completing field logs, replenishing
the NaOCl solution, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the
vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as performing field
measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the
vendor, was recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the treatment system,
during Macrolite® filter backwash, and from the distribution system. The sampling schedules and
analytes measured during each sampling event are listed in Table 3-3. In addition, Figure 3-1 presents a
flow diagram of the treatment system along with the analytes and schedules at each sampling location.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Backwash
Wastewater
Backwash
Solids
Distribution
Water
Sample
Locations'3'
IN
IN, AC, TA, TB
IN, AC, TT
BW
BW
Two LCR and One
non-LCR Locations
No. of
Samples
1
4
3
2
1
3
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Once
Monthly
Analytes
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off-site: As(III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NO3,
NO2, NH3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity, TDS,
and TOC
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (total
andfree)(b)
Off-site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), SiO2,
PO4/P (total), turbidity, and
alkalinity
Same as weekly analytes
shown above plus the
following:
Off-site: As (soluble),
As(III), As(V), Fe
(soluble), Mn (soluble), Ca,
Mg, F, NO3, NH3, SO4, and
TOC
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
pH, turbidity ,TDS, and
TSS
Total Al, As, Ba, Ca, Cd,
Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb,
Sb, Si, V, and Zn
As (total), Fe (total), Mn
(total), Cu, Pb, pH,
alkalinity
Date(s) Samples
Collected
Table 4-1
Appendix B
Appendix B
Table 4-9
Table 4-10
Table 4- 11
(a) Abbreviation corresponding to sample location in Figure 3-1, i.e., IN = at wellhead; AC = after contact tank;
TA = after Vessel A, TB = after Vessel B; TT = after Vessels A and B combined; BW = at backwash
discharge line.
(b) Only taken at AC, TA, TB, and TT.
-------
Monthly
pH'", temperature1", DO1", ORP1",
As speciation, Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NH3, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
PO/PO (total),
pH'", temperature'", DO(", ORP(",
C12 (free and total), As speciation,
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F,
NH3, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
PO4/PO (total), turbidity,
alkalinity, TOC
pH, TSS, IDS,
turbidity,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble)
SS J >- TCLP (metals)
~x
BW
Delavan, WI
Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: 45 gpm
Weekly
pH1", temperature'", DO(", ORP(",
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2,
PO/P (total), turbidity, alkalinity
pH(", temperature'", DO'"', ORP'",
C12 (free and total)'",
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2,
PO4/P (total), turbidity, alkalinity
rfl'", temperature'", DO1", ORP'",
C12 (free and total)'",
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2,
PO/P (total), turbidity, alkalinity
pH'", temperature'", DO'", ORP1",
C12 (free and total), As speciation,
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca,
Mg, F, NH3, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
PO4/PO (total), turbidity,
alkalinity, TOC
LEGEND
At Wellhead
AC 1 After Contact Tank
TA) After Tank A
><
TB } After Tank B
After Tanks A and B Combined
lackwash Sampling Location
SS 1 Sludge Sampling Location
Unit Process
DA: C12 | Chlorine Disinfection
Process Flow
lackwash Flow
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
10
-------
Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and
holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
(Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial visit to the site, one set of source water samples was
collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit. Additional samples were collected after the
softeners to assess the working condition of the softener. Each sample tap was flushed for several
minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted
oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation, the plant operator
collected samples weekly, on a four-week cycle, for on- and off-site analyses. For the first week of each
four-week cycle, samples taken at the wellhead (IN), after the contact tank (AC), and after Vessels A and
B combined (TT), were speciated on-site and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for monthly
treatment plant water. For the next three weeks, samples were collected at IN, AC, after Vessel A (TA),
and after Vessel B (TB) and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for the weekly treatment plant
water.
Treatment plant water samples were not taken during the weeks of November 21 and December 19 and
26, 2005, due to Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. Treatment plant water samples were not taken,
either, during the weeks of July 3 and 24 and August 7 and 21, 2006, due to reduced sampling efforts by
the end of the study period.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater. Backwash wastewater samples were collected on nine occasions
monthly from each pressure filter by the plant operator. The samples taken on November 29, 2005, were
not representative of the actual backwash wastewater quality because the pressure filters had just been
backwashed three times in a row due to an operational error (see Section 4.5.2) and, therefore, not
included in this report.
For the first two sampling events, one grab sample was collected during the backwash of each pressure
filter from the sample tap located on the backwash wastewater discharge line, but before the backwash
totalizer. Unfiltered samples were measured on-site for pH and off-site for total dissolved solids (TDS)
and turbidity. Filtered samples using 0.45-(im disc filters were analyzed for soluble arsenic, iron, and
manganese. Starting in November 2005, the backwash wastewater sampling procedure was modified to
include the collection of composite samples for total As, Fe, and Mn as well as total suspended solids
(TSS) analyses. This modified procedure involved diverting a portion of backwash wastewater at
approximately 1 gpm into a clean, 32-gal plastic container over the duration of the backwash for each
filter. After the content in the container was thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected and/or
filtered on-site with 0.45-(im filters. Analytes for the backwash wastewater samples are listed in
Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Residual Solids. Residual solids produced from backwash were collected once from the
backwash discharge line for Vessel B on July 13, 2006 and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.5 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system by the
plant operator to determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the
distribution system, specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to system startup from March
to June 2005, four sets of monthly baseline water samples were collected from three sampling locations
within the distribution system. The three sampling locations selected initially included one tap each in the
dining room, the shower room in A Wing, and the large suite in B Wing, which were among the five Lead
and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling locatioins at Vintage on the Ponds. However, due to water usage at
11
-------
night from the tap in the dining room, this sampling location was replaced with a tap in the second floor
guest room (which is a non-LCR location) starting from the second baseline sampling event. Following
system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations.
Note that all sampling locations were located downstream from two water softeners both before and after
the startup of the Macrolite® pressure filters.
The operator collected samples following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and
Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The dates and times
of last water usage before sampling and sample collection were recorded for calculations of the stagnation
time. All first draw samples were collected from respective cold-water faucets that had not been used for
at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. Analytes for the baseline samples coincided with
the monthly distribution system water samples as described in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not
performed for the distribution water samples.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, colored-coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample
collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The
sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code
for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The
labeled bottles for each sampling locations were placed in separate Ziplock™ bags and packed in the
cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included. The chain-of-
custody forms and air bills were complete except for the operator's signature and the sample dates and
times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following week's
sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-
MS) Laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up
by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and TCCI Laboratories in
New Lexington, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration study. The
chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final
12
-------
disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the
required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, 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 limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative
percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The 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
VWR Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use
following the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy
by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator
collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Symphony SP90M5 probe in the beaker
until a stable value was obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements
using Hach chlorine test kits following the user's manual.
13
-------
Section 4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Facility Description and Preexisting Treatment System Infrastructure
Vintage on the Ponds is a nursing home facility located at N4901 Dam Road, Delavan, WI. Well No. 1
(see Figure 4-1 for the preexisting pump house) supplies water to approximately 52 residents. Based on
the water usage data recorded from November 12, 2003, through February 21, 2005, the average daily
demand was approximately 6,400 gpd and the peak daily demand was 23,500 gpd.
Well No. 1 went online on October 15, 1995, with a depth of 350 ft below ground surface (bgs) in a
limestone formation. It had a 10-in-diameter borehole lined with a 6-in-diameter casing extending from
the ground surface to 244 ft bgs and a 6-in-diameter unlined borehole extending from 244 to 350 ft bgs.
The static water level was measured at approximately 45 ft bgs based on the water level readings taken at
the time of well installation in 1995. Installed on a 105-ft drop pipe, a 5-horsepower (hp) submersible
pump supplied water at 41.5 gpm against a 115.4-ft (or 50-lb/in2 [psi]) total dynamic head (TDH). To
meet the daily demand, the well pump was operated intermittently based on the high and low pressure
settings in a set of four pressure tanks, with the well pump on at 40 psi and off at 60 psi. Figure 4-2
shows the piping from the wellhead to the four pressure tanks located within the basement of the nursing
home.
Water from the pressure tanks was treated with a 29TMDM-300 softener system consisting of two 24-in
x 72-in tanks each containing 10 ft3 of lonac C-249 cation exchange resin manufactured by Sybron
Chemicals (see Figure 4-3). The system was designed for a flowrate of 68 gpm and a peak flowrate of
91 gpm. The two softener units operated alternately, i.e., one unit was in service while the other was on
standby. Each softener unit was regenerated after treating about 6,000 gal of water (approximately daily),
which was tracked by a 2-in mechanical meter located upstream of the softener unit. When the meter
called for regeneration, the unit in service went into regeneration, and the unit on standby came online.
Upon completion of regeneration, the unit went into standby until another 6,000 gal of water had been
treated. Prior to this demonstration project, there was no chlorination at the wellhead.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on September 20, 2004, before
and after the softeners, as discussed in Section 3.3.1. The results of 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, WDNR, and the vendor are presented in Table 4-1.
As shown in Table 4-1, total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 16.0 to 25.0 (ig/L. Based
on September 20, 2004, results, approximately 95% (i.e., 17.7 (ig/L) of the total arsenic existed as soluble
As(III). The presence of As(III) as the predominating arsenic species was consistent with the low DO and
ORP readings of 1.2 mg/L and -123 mV, respectively. Iron concentrations in source water ranged from
1,499 to 2,300 (ig/L with almost all existing in the soluble form. A rule of thumb is that the soluble iron
concentration should be at least 20 times the soluble arsenic concentration for effective arsenic removal
via iron removal (Sorg, 2002). The results from the September 20, 2004, sampling event indicated that
the soluble iron level was approximately 68 times the soluble arsenic level. Therefore, no supplemental
iron addition was planned. The manganese levels ranged from 19.0 to 20.2 (ig/L, existing almost entirely
in the soluble form. pH values of source water ranged from 7.3 to 7.7, which were within the target range
of 5.5 to 8.5 for the iron removal process. Hardness ranged from 291 to 346 mg/L, silica from 14.2 to
14.6 mg/L, and sulfate from <1 mg/L to 10 mg/L.
14
-------
-i ;;
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Well No. 1 Pump House
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Well Piping and Pressure Tanks
15
-------
f I •>> " '^ , 1T7
:^« „ j* •'• •. '"••"•:'-,' "i.',",'
«•«
Figure 4-3. Preexisting Softener System
Ammonia was measured at 2.8 mg/L (as N) in raw water and reduced to 0.4 mg/L after softening. Since
the treatment system was to be placed upstream of the softener, the presence of ammonia in raw water
had a significant impact on chlorination. When chlorine is added to raw water, it oxidizes Fe(II), As(III),
and other reducing species and reacts with ammonia to form chloramines according to the following
equations:
HOC1 + NH3 -> NH2C1 (monochloramine) + H2O
HOC1 + NH2C1 -»• NHC12 (dichloramine) + H2O
HOC1 + NHC12 -> NC13 (trichloramine) + H2O
The formation of chloramines depends upon water pH, ammonia concentration, and temperature (Clark et
al., 1977). In the pH range of 4.5 to 8.5, both mono and dichloramine are formed as combined chlorine.
Based on stoichiometric calculations, 1 mg/L of NH3 (as N) reacts with 5 mg/L of HOC1 (as C12) to form
5 mg/L of NH2C1 (as C12). As such, 14 mg/L of HOC1 (as C12) would be required to react with 2.8 mg/L
of NH3 (as N) to form chloramines. Chlorine added beyond this point further oxidizes chloramines to
form oxidized nitrogen compounds, such as nitrous oxide, nitrogen, and nitrogen trichloride. Upon
complete oxidation of all chloramines, a "breakpoint" is reached and any additional chlorine added is
present as free chlorine.
For Vintage on the Ponds, "breakpoint" chlorination was not performed because 1) it would require up to
23 mg/L of HOC1 (as C12), which would be expensive, and 2) any unreactive ammonia would be removed
16
-------
by the existing softener units before entering the distribution system. Another consideration was the
adverse effect of chlorine residuals on the cationic exchange resin in the softener units. According to the
manufacturer, resin life would be significantly reduced if it is exposed to over 1 mg/L of chlorine (mostly
chloramines in this case). Therefore, the chlorine dosage must be carefully controlled to ensure, on one
hand, effective oxidation of Fe(II) and As(III), and on the other hand, no harmful effect on the resin.
Table 4-1. Vintage on the Ponds, WI Water Quality Data
Parameter
Unit
Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as P)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (soluble)
Mg (total)
Radium-226
Radium-228
°C
Mg/L
mV
Mg/L
Mg/L
NTU
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
Utility
Source
Water
Data(tt)
Not
specified
7.6
NS
NS
NS
188
291
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
15
NS
10
NS
NS
25.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
1,500
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
10
NS
NS
NS
NS
Kinetico
Source
Water
Data
10/29/03
7.3
NS
NS
NS
344
312
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
1.9
0.20
<4.0
14.2
<0.5
19.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
1,600
NS
20.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
11.0
62.5
36.0
NS
NS
Battelle
Source
Water
Data
09/20/04
7.5
12.7
1.2
-123
384
346
20.0
330
1.8
O.04
<0.01
2.8
<1.0
0.27
<1.0
14.3
<0.06
20.1
20.5
0.1
19.1
1.4
1,499
1,400
20.2
18.3
0.1
O.I
0.3
0.1
12.4
71.4
40.7
NS
NS
Battelle
Softened
Water
Data
09/20/04
NS
NS
NS
NS
371
4.1
0.5
358
1.8
O.04
O.01
0.4
<1.0
0.33
<1.0
14.6
O.06
19.1
18.7
0.4
17.7
1.0
<25
<25
0.3
O.I
0.1
O.I
0.4
0.1
181
0.4
0.08
NS
NS
WDNR
Source
Water
Data(b)
08/08/00-
02/23/05
7.7
NS
NS
NS
320
336-340
NS
NS
NS
O.04
O.01
NS
<1.0
0.26-0.31
NS
NS
NS
16.0-23.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
2,300
NS
19.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
12.0-160
72.0
38.0
0.6
0.9
(a) Provided to EPA
(b) Both compliance
NS = not sampled
for site selection.
and source water samples collected before the softener.
17
-------
4.1.2 Distribution System and Treated Water Quality. The distribution system was supplied by
Well No. 1 only. According to a certified utility operator, the distribution system consisted primarily of
copper piping ranging from !/> to 2-in in size. Under the LCR, samples are collected from five customer
taps every year. Vintage on the Ponds also collected water samples periodically for nitrate and monthly
for bacterial analysis.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The treatment process at Vintage on the Ponds included prechlorination/oxidation, detention, and
Macrolite® pressure filtration. Macrolite® is a spherical, low-density, ceramic media manufactured by
Kinetico for filtration rates at least two times higher than those of conventional gravity filters. The media
is approved for use in drinking water applications under NSF International (NSF) Standard 61. The
physical properties of the media are summarized in Table 4-2. The vendor considers Macrolite®
chemically inert and compatible with chemicals such as oxidants and ferric chloride.
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media
Property
Color
Thermal Stability (°C)
Sphere Size (U.S. standard mesh)
Sphere Size Range (mm)
Sphere Size Range (in)
Uniformity Coefficient
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Particle Density (g/cm3)
Particle Density (lb/ft3)
Value
Taupe, brown to grey
1,100
40x60
0.35-0.25
0.0165-0.0098
1.2
0.86
54
2.05
129
Source: Kinetico
Figure 4-4 is a schematic of the Macrolite® PM2162D6 pressure filtration system. The system consisted
of four preexisting pressure tanks, one HOC1 feed system, one contact tank, two pressure filtration vessels
(configured in parallel), two preexisting softener units, and associated instrumentation for pressure and
flowrate.
Because the filtration system was placed after the four pressure tanks, it operated at variable flowrates
based on instantaneous demand from the distribution system. Backwash of the Macrolite® system was
triggered by an 18,000-gal throughput setting for each vessel. All plumbing for the system was Schedule
80 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and the skid-mounted unit was pre-plumbed with the necessary isolation
valves, check valves, sampling ports, and other features. Table 4-3 summarizes the design features of the
system. The major process steps and system components are presented as follows:
• Intake - Raw water was pumped from Well No. 1 at approximately 45 gpm into a series of
four 120-gal Well-X-Trol pressure tanks (Model No. WX-350), which controlled the well
pump on/off with pressure settings at 40/60 psi and served as temporary water storage. Each
pressure tank was individually connected to a 2-in copper header pipe. Upon a call from the
distribution system, the pressure tanks supplied raw water to the Macrolite® filtration system
and the downstream softener. After the pressure tanks were gradually emptied and the tank
pressure was reduced to 40 psi, the well pump was turned on to refill the tanks and supply the
water demand. The well pump was turned off as the tank pressure reached the high pressure
setting of 60 psi.
18
-------
Well
Existing
Pressure Tanks
VV V V
Macro lite 2162 Arsenic Removal System
Ms taring
Pump
I Contact
1 Vessel
Ftaw/
Totalizing
Meter
r ~\ /""*""\ nr Initiating
Ffcww
Totalizing
Meter
I—©
Filtered Water to
Softeni ng
Figure 4-4. Process Schematic of Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System
Table 4-3. Design Specifications for Macrolite® PM2162D6 Pressure Filtration System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
Target Prechlorination Dosage (mg/L as
C12)
3.0
1 mg/L of chlorine demand estimated for As(III),
Fe(II), and Mn(II); Total chlorine residuals of 1.0
mg/L (as C12) targeted after pressure filters to protect
cationic ion exchange resin in softeners
Detention
Tank Quantity
Tank Size (in)
Tank Volume (gal)
Contact Time (min)
1
21 D x62H
82.4
1.8
-
-
-
Actual contact time based on on-demand flowrates
Filtration
Vessel Quantity
Vessel Size (in)
Vessel Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/vessel)
Media Volume (ft3/vessel)
Peak Flowrate (gpm)
Filtration Rate (gpm/ft2)
Ap across vessel (psi)
Maximum Daily Production (gpd)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
2
21 D x62H
2.4
4.8
45
9.4
15
64,800
36
Parallel configuration
-
-
24-in bed depth in each vessel
Actual flowrate based on on-demand flowrates
Actual filtration rates based on on-demand flowrates
Across a clean bed
Based on 45 gpm operating at 24 hr/day
Estimated based on peak daily demand of 23,500 gal
Backwash
Frequency (gal/vessel)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Duration (min)
Service-to-Waste Duration (min)
Wastewater Production (gal/vessel)
18,000
25
12
4
360
Throughput between two consecutive backwash cycles
-
15 gpm flowrate
Including 60 gal/vessel from service-to-waste rinse
19
-------
Prechlorination/Oxidation - NaCIO was injected into a 2-in PVC "tee" to oxidize As(III)
and Fe(II) before entering the contact tank. The chemical feed system consisted of a 15-gal
polyethylene day tank with secondary containment and a Pulsatron Plus Series E Model
LPA2 flow-paced metering pump with a maximum capacity of 6 gpd (or 0.9 L/hr). The
metering pump was adjusted automatically based on the pulse signals received from a Multi-
jet Cold Water flow meter located between the contact tank and the filtration vessels. A
5.25% NaCIO solution was originally used from the system startup on July 12, but was
switched to a 12.5% NaCIO solution on October 26, 2005 to increase the chlorine dosage.
The operation of the NaCIO feed system was monitored daily by measuring chlorine residuals
and chlorine consumption in the day tank. Figure 4-5 is a composite of photographs of the
chlorine feed system and its components.
The target chlorine residual after the pressure filters was 1 mg/L of total chlorine (as C12) to
minimize any adverse effect on the resin in the softener units. According to WDNRS' permit
approval letter dated June 10, 2005, the chlorine residual through the softening system was
limited to 1 mg/L of free chlorine (as C12). However, free chlorine was not expected to be
present due to the high ammonia level in source water. Upon further consultation with the
resin manufacturer, combined chlorine also would have, perhaps to a lesser extent, adverse
impacts on the resin.
Figure 4-5. Chlorine Addition System
(Clockwise from top: Chlorine Injection Point; Chemical Day Tank and Secondary
Containment; Flow-paced Chemical Metering Pump; Chlorine Addition System)
20
-------
Detention - One 21-in x 62-in fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) tank (see Figure 4-6) was
designed to provide 1.8 min of contact time at the peak flowrate of 45 gpm. The actual
contact time varied based on the instantaneous water demand from the distribution system.
The on-demand flowrates observed were much lower than the peak flowrate during the
performance evaluation. The detention was designed to aid in the formation of iron floes
prior to filtration.
Figure 4-6. Contact Tank
Pressure Filtration - The Macrolite® filtration system involved downflow filtration through
two pressure filters arranged in parallel (see Figure 4-7). Mounted on a polyurethane-coated
steel frame, the filtration system consisted of two 21-in x 62-in FRP pressure vessels, each
equipped with an upper 0.5-in slotted plastic diffuser, a lower 0.01-in slotted polyethylene
hub and lateral, and 6-in top and bottom flanges. Each vessel was filled with approximately
24 in (4.8 ft3) of 40/60 mesh Macrolite® media, supported by 6 in of 30/40 mesh garnet
underbedding. The standard operation had both vessels on-line with each vessel treating a
maximum of 22.5 gpm for a hydraulic loading rate of 9.4 gpm/ft2. However, because the
system was operated "on-demand", the actual flowrate through the system varied based on
water demand.
Backwash Operations - Backwash was a fully automated process pre-set on the backwash
timer assembly for a throughput of 18,000 gal (through each vessel) determined by a flow
totalizer installed on the treated water line (see Figure 4-7). The spent filtration vessel was
backwashed with water from the contact tank and the resulting wastewater sent to a septic
system. The backwash duration for each vessel was 16 min from start to finish, including 12
min of backwash at 25 gpm and 4 min of service-to-waste rinse at 15 gpm, producing
21
-------
4.3
Figure 4-7. Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System
(Clockwise from Left: Pressure Filters; Backwash Timer Assembly;
Totalizer on Treated Waterline)
approximately 360 gal of wastewater per vessel. Both backwash wastewater and filter-to-
waste rinse water were discharged to a nearby sanitary sewer line for disposal. Figure 4-8
shows the backwash flow paths for both Vessels A and B, which were backwashed on an
alternating basis, i.e., one vessel was backwashed while the other continued to provide treated
water to the distribution system. The backwash cycles were repeated as shown in Steps 4
through 6 during system operation. Therefore, the filtration vessels, if viewed as one unit,
always had a filtration capacity between 25% (immediately after backwash of one vessel at
Step 4) and 75% (immediately before backwash of the other vessel at Step 5).
Softening - Downstream from the pressure filters, the treated water was routed to an Addie
Model No. 29TDM-300 water softening system composed of two 24-in-diameter by 48-in-
tall softener vessels and one 1,200-lb salt capacity brine tank (Figure 4-3). The water
softening system operated with one vessel while the other vessel was in standby mode.
Section 4.1 provides additional details of the softening process.
System Installation
This section summarizes system/building installation activities, including permitting, building
preparation, and system offloading, installation, shakedown, and startup.
4.3.1 Permitting. The engineering plans, prepared by Kinetico, included diagrams and
specifications for the Macrolite® PM2162D6 arsenic removal system, as well as drawings detailing the
connections to the preexisting facility infrastructure. The engineering plans were certified by a
22
-------
Vessel A
Throughput
Gal
9,000
18,000
9,000
Key:
Vessel B
Throughput
gal
9,000
9,000
System startup with automatic
backwash geared to backwash after
18,000 gal of throughput, based on
totalizer on treated water line
Step 1. Backwash of Vessel A
required after 18,000 gal of combined
throughput from both Vessels A and B
Step 2. Vessel A backwashed with
360 gal of water from contact tank
Step 3. Backwash of Vessel B
required after 18,000 gal of combined
throughput from both Vessels A and B
Step 4. Vessel B backwashed with
360 gal of water from contact tank
Step 5. Backwash of Vessel A
required after 18,000 gal of combined
throughput from both Vessels A and B
Step 6. Vessel A backwashed with
360 gal of source water
Service/backwash cycles continued as
depicted above
Throughput through Vessels A and B before Vessel A Was Backwashed
Throughput through Vessels A and B before Vessel B Was Backwashed
Clean Bed
Figure 4-8. Backwash Flow Paths for Both Vessels A and B and a
Throughput of 18,000 gal Between Backwash Cycles
Professional Engineer registered in the State of Ohio and submitted to WDNR on April 25, 2005.
WDNR's preliminary review comments, received on April 29, 2005, requested a summary table of all
design parameters and a chemical feeder submittal checklist. In addition, WDNR requested the facility to
provide the design information for the existing softener system and a reporting schedule for the analytical
and operational data collected during the one year demonstration project. After incorporating responses
to comments, the engineering plans were resubmitted to WDNR on May 24, 2005. WDNR granted the
23
-------
system permit on June 10, 2005 with, among others, two approval conditions related to system
installation:
• The discharge piping for the spent brine from the softener units and the backwash wastewater
from the Macrolite® filters should have a "2D" (two times the diameter of the discharge
piping) air gap. A vacuum breaker tee was actually installed instead of the "2D" air gap,
which also prevents a sewer backup from entering the water system (Figure 4-9).
• The 15-gal NaCIO chemical day tank should be graduated using a maximum of 0.5 gal
increments (Figure 4-9).
In addition, WDNR verbally requested during its startup inspection site visit that the NaCIO feed pump be
remounted above the solution level to avoid any siphoning of the chemical (Figure 4-9).
On August 29, 2005, WDNR granted approval to relocate the NaCIO injection point and the contact flow
meter from before to after the four pressure tanks. The request was made because prolonged contact with
over 1 mg/L (as C12) of total chlorine potentially could damage butyl rubber in the pressure tanks.
Further, WDNR granted approval on October 21, 2005 to the use of a 12.5% NaCIO solution to replace
the previously approved 5.25% solution in order to meet the higher chlorine demand due to the presence
of about 3.0 mg/L of NH3 (as N) in raw water.
Figure 4-9. Photographs of System Components
(Clockwise from Top: Vacuum Breaker Tee; Chlorine Day Tank with Required Graduation;
Pump Relocated from below to above Chlorine Tank Level; Chlorine Injection before Pressure Tanks;
Chlorine Injection Point Relocated to after Pressure Tanks; Flow Meter on Treated Water Line)
4.3.2 Building Construction. The existing basement had an adequate footprint to house the
arsenic removal system and did not require any modifications before system installation.
24
-------
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The Macrolite® system was installed by a
vendor subcontractor, LTM Water Treatment, beginning on June 17, 2005. The installation activities,
which lasted about two weeks, included offloading the arsenic removal system (Figure 4-10), connecting
system piping at the tie-in points (including the tie-ins from the discharge piping with the required
vacuum breaker tee), completing electrical wiring and connections, and assembling the chlorine addition
system. System installation was completed by July 1, 2005.
Figure 4-10. Equipment Off-loading
Upon completion of system installation, the pressure filtration vessels were tested hydraulically before
media loading. The Macrolite® filtration media was then backwashed thoroughly to remove media fines
and the contact tank and filtration vessels were disinfected according to the applicable American Water
Works Association (AWWA) procedures. The chemical feed pump was fine tuned for a target total
chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L (as C12) after the filtration vessels. A water sample was collected for
bacteria analysis on July 5, 2006, and the system was bypassed until the result for the bacteria analysis
was received on July 7, 2006, and faxed to WDNRthe same day.
Two Battelle staff members arrived at the site on July 12, 2005, to inspect the system and conduct
operator training for system sampling and data collection. Upon completion of the operator training, a set
of samples was collected across the treatment train by the operator with the assistance of Battelle staff
members. Under Battelle staff guidance, the operator performed arsenic speciation and onsite
measurements for pH, temperature, DO, and ORP using a handheld field meter (see Section 3.5). After
careful inspections of the system, a punch list was developed and summarized as follows:
• Remount the chlorine feed pump to above the chlorine tank level to avoid potential siphoning
of the chemical (Figure 4-9)
• Install a backwash sample tap
• Install an hour meter
• Install a flow meter on the treated water line and backwash line (Figure 4-9 shows the flow
meter on the treated water line)
• Relocate the chlorine injection point and the contact flow meter to after the four pressure
tanks to avoid using the pressure tanks as settling tanks and prevent butyl rubber in the
pressure tanks from being damaged by chlorine. In addition, moving the chlorine injection
25
-------
point increase the distance between source water sample tap (denoted as "IN" in Table 3-3)
and the chlorine injection point to over 10 ft to avoid any cross contamination (Figure 4-9).
On August 19, 2005, a vendor subcontractor remounted the chlorine feed pump, installed a backwash
sample tap, and increased the setting of the chlorine feed pump to achieve the target chlorine residual. On
September 14 and then from September 19 to 20, 2005, one Insite® PX-50 GPM-12-V-F flow meter
(Figure 4-11) was installed each on the treated water line and the backwash line. On September 22, 2005,
the chlorine injection point and the contact flow meter were relocated from before to after the pressure
tanks. All action items were completed after the vendor had installed the hour meter in the pump house
during the subcontractor's October 25, 2005 site visit.
4.4
Figure 4-11. Close-up View of Insite® PX-50 GPM-12-V-F Flow Meter
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. Table 4-4 summarizes the operational parameters for the 14-
months of system operation, including operational time, throughput, flowrate, and pressure. Detailed
daily operational information also is provided in Appendix A.
Between July 12, 2005, and September 3, 2006, the well operated for approximately 1,072 hr with an
average daily operating time of 2.6 hr. Because of lack of an hour meter from startup to October 25,
2005, the well operating time for this period was estimated based on the total throughput through the raw
water line and a well pump flowrate of 40 gpm (the average of three values measured by the totalizer on
the raw water line and a stopwatch). Although installed on October 25, 2005, hour meter readings were
not taken until July 11, 2006. Since then, the readings were recorded only on a quarterly basis. Readings
of the hour meter and the totalizer to the treatment system confirmed that the well pump flowrate was
indeed 40 gpm, therefore, this value was used to calculate the daily well operating time even after the
hour meter had been installed.
During the 14-months of system operation, the system treated approximately 2,500,200 gal of water. The
average daily demand was 5,981 gal/day, compared to 6,400 gal/day estimated by the facility operator
prior to the demonstration study. The peak daily demand occurred on August 10, 2006, at 19,100 gal,
compared to 23,500 gpd provided by the facility. Due to the on-demand system configuration, the total
and daily system operating times were not tracked. The on-demand flowrates through the system varied
26
-------
Table 4-4. System Operation from July 12, 2005 to September 3, 2006
Parameter
Values
Well Pump (Well No. 1)
Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Average Flowrate (gpm)
1,072
2.6
40
System Throughput/Demand
Throughput to Distribution (gal)
Average Daily Demand (gpd)
Peak Daily Demand (gpd)
Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
2,500,200(a)
5,981
19,100(a)
System on demand
System on demand
System - Service Mode
Flowrate (gpm)
Contact Times (min)
Hydraulic Loading Rates to Filters (gpm/ft2)
Range (Average) of System Inlet Pressure(b) (psi)
Range (Average) of System Outlet Pressure (psi)
Range (Average) of Ap across Filtration Vessels (psi)
Range (Average) of Ap across System (psi)
20 (max.)
4.1 (min.)
4.2 (max.)
42 to 60 (51)
10 to 40 (24)
5 to 30 (19)(c)
19 to 42 (27)
System - Backwash Mode
Number of Backwash Cycles (time)
102(d,i)
(a) Based on totalizer on treated water line.
(b) Based on readings from pressure gauge installed on four pressure tanks.
(c) Excluding two readings at 1 and 33 psi.
(d) Excluding manual backwash cycles for sampling purposes and abnormal
multiple backwash events taking place daily on September 30, November
29, 2005, May 3, and July 11, 2006.
and were tracked by an Insite® PX-50 GPM-12-V-F flow meter installed on the treated water line.
Because the flow meter installed had 2.5-gpm increments up to 50 gpm, accurate flowrate data were not
attainable especially over the lower end of the applicable range. Nonetheless, examination of all flowrate
data revealed that the maximum flowrate recorded throughout the study period was approximately
20 gpm. Using this value as a basis, the minimum contact time in the contact tank was 4.1 min
(compared to the design value of 1.8 min) and the maximum hydraulic loading rate to the Macrolite®
filters was 4.2 gpm/ft2 (compared to the design value of 9.4 gpm/ft2).
At flowrates of less than 20 gpm, system inlet pressure readings to the system ranged from 42 to 60 psi,
which, as expected, were within the operating range of 40 to 60 psi for the pressure tanks. System outlet
pressure readings to the downstream softener units ranged from 10 to 40 psi. Differential pressure (Ap)
readings across Vessels A and B ranged from 5 to 30 psi (excluding two readings at 1 and 33 psi). As
shown in Figure 4-12, Ap readings across Vessels A and B rose gradually from 5-9 psi immediately after
system startup and were stabilized at about 15-25 psi approximately one month into system operation.
Because the Ap readings were recorded at different stages of various service cycles, the spikes shown in
the figure most likely represent the times when the filters were about to be backwashed. Ap readings
across the system ranged from 19 to 42 psi.
During the study period, 102 backwash cycles took place. The throughput between two consecutive
backwash cycles should have been constant at 18,000 gal; however, some variations were observed
throughout. Depending on the daily water usage, the backwash frequency varied from daily to once every
several days.
27
-------
45.0
40.0
35.0
Pressure gauge located at the pressure
tanks and prior to the treatment system
was not operational until 08/31/08
07/12/05 08/21/05 09/30/05 11/09/05 12/19/05 01/28/06 03/09/06 04/18/06 05/28/06 07/07/06 08/16/06
Date
Figure 4-12. Ap Across Vessels A and B and Entire System
4.4.2 Chlorine Addition. As described in Section 4.2., chlorine was added to oxidize Fe(II) and
As(III) prior to filtration. Due to the presence of 2.9 mg/L of ammonia, total chlorine residuals measured
in the water comprised of primarily mono and dichloramines with little or no free chlorine (since
breakpoint chlorination was not performed). As such only total chlorine residual data are discussed
herein. Figure 4-13 presents total chlorine residuals measured after the contact tank (AC) and in the plant
effluent (TT). The erratic chlorine residual values shown in the figure reflect the many operational
difficulties experienced with the chlorine injection system. The problems encountered and corrective
actions taken are summarized in Table 4-5 and discussed below.
For the first three months of system operation through October 2005, except for a few occasions, little or
no chlorine residuals were measured after the contact tank and in the system effluent. Failures to detect
chlorine residuals were attributed to factors such as problems with the chlorine test kit, chlorine feed
pump, and chlorine injector, and insufficient chlorine dosage with the use of a 5.25%NaClO solution.
Initial attempts to correct the problems included replacing a potentially malfunctioning N,N diethyl-p-
phenylene diamine (DPD) reagent dispenser with DPD pillows for chlorine residual measurements and
increasing the chlorine injection rate by stepping up the stroke length of the chlorine feed pump from 70
to 83.5%. Since August 23, 2005, the operator noticed no change in the chlorine tank level, indicating no
chlorine addition. A broken compression fitting on the chlorine feed pump was later identified as the root
cause and replaced on September 19-20, 2005. Two days later, the chlorine injection point was relocated
from before to after the pressure tanks to prevent the butyl rubber diaphragms in the pressure tanks from
being damaged. After relocation, the chlorine injector did not bleed properly and had to be repaired by
the vendor's subcontractor a week later.
28
-------
8.0
7.0
_ 6.0-
w
U
tfl
re
J5.0H
"re
| 4.0 H
o:
0)
c
o 3.0
£
U
"~ 2.0
1.0
08/23/05-09/20/05
Pump broken
^ ^ ^
09/22/05-09/29/05
CI2 injector not working
properly
»AC
DTT
10/27/05 - 09/03/06
NaCIO increased from 5.25 to 12.5%
•
I LloAOoooooooAoo^—o
• »
D
•
-B—Or
6 BH DP
ggg
o.o
07/12/05 08/21/05 09/30/05 11/09/05 12/19/05 01/28/06 03/09/06 04/18/06 05/28/06 07/07/06 08/16/06
Date
Figure 4-13. Total Chlorine Residuals at AC and TT Locations
After switching to a 12.5% NaCIO solution on October 27, 2005, both chlorine dosages and chlorine
residuals were increased significantly, as shown in Figure 4-13. The actual chlorine dosages based on
chlorine tank level measurements ranged from 1.3 to 5.9 mg/L (as C12). With approximately 1 mg/L (as
C12) of chlorine demand for Fe(II), Mn(II), and As(III) and an unknown amount for the organic matter in
raw water, total chlorine residuals in the treated water should have been no more than 0.3 to 4.9 mg/L (as
C12), a range that covered the majority of the measured residual data points as shown in Figure 4-13. It is
suspected that the measured total chlorine residual data might be somewhat higher than the actual
concentrations due to the inadvertent use of high range (HR) test kits designed for a higher concentration
range (i.e., from 0.1 to 8.0 mg/L [as C12]). During a site visit in July 2006, a Battelle staff member
measured a set of samples using both the high and low range (designed for 0.02 to 2.0 mg/L [as C12]) test
kits and obtained 0.2-0.3 and 0.4-1.4 mg/L (as C12) of total chlorine residuals, respectively. Therefore,
the use of HR test kits could have skewed the test results to some extent.
Leaks were developed after switching from 5.25 to 12.5 % NaCIO solution due to incompatibility of the
plumbing material with the stronger NaCIO solution. A leak was first discovered between the !/2-in
copper chlorine injector and 2-in copper "tee" on November 4, 2005. After being patched, the leak
continued at the 2-in copper "tee". The !/2-in copper chlorine injector and 2-in copper "tee" were then
replaced with the equivalent PVC parts on November 7, 2005. A leak was discovered again on the 2-in
PVC "tee" on November 11, 2005, caused by a cracked plastic fitting, and was fixed on the same day.
Since then, no more repairs have been performed on the chlorine addition system, except for the pump's
(losing prime) periodically due to airlocks, causing little or no consumption of the chlorine solution.
29
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of Problems Encountered and Corrective Actions Taken
for Chlorine Injection System
Duration
07/12/05-
08/23/05
08/23/05-
09/20/05
07/12/05-
09/22/05
09/22/05-
09/29/05
09/29/05-
10/27/05
11/04/05
11/07/05
11/11/05
Problem(s) Encountered
Little or no chlorine residuals
measured
No change in chlorine tank
level and no chlorine
residuals measured
Chlorine injection point
installed before pressure tanks
No chlorine residuals
measured
No chlorine residuals
measured
Leaks between Vi-in copper
chlorine injector and 2-in
copper pipe
Leaks between Vi-in copper
chlorine injector and 2-in
copper pipe
Leaks on 2-in PVC pipe
observed
Corrective Action(s) Taken
• Examined Hach test kit and switched
from DPD reagent dispenser to DPD
reagent powder pillows since
07/19/05
• Remounted pump and increased
pump stroke length from 70 to 83.5%
on 08/1 9/05
• Replaced broken compression fitting
on pump
• Relocated Vi-in copper injection point
from before to after pressure tanks
• Fixed chlorine injector that did not
bleed properly after its relocation on
09/22/05
• Adjusted pump stroke length to 62%
• Adjusted pump stroke length to 74%,
then 76%
• Cleaned pump injection fitting
• Replaced chlorine stock solution
from 5.25 to 12.5%
• Patched leaks between Vi-in copper
chlorine injector and 2-in copper pipe
• Replaced Vi-in copper chlorine
injector and 2-in copper "tee" with
equivalent PVC injector and "tee"
• Replaced a cracked PVC fitting on 2-
in PVC "tee" installed on 11/07/05
Work Performed
by/on
• Operator
• Vendor's subcontractor
on 08/19/05
• Vendor's subcontractor
on 09/19-20/05
• Vendor's subcontractor
on 09/22/05
• Vendor's subcontractor
on 09/29/05
• Operator and vendor's
subcontractor on
10/11/05
• Vendor's subcontractor
on 10/18-19/05
followed by vendor
technician on 10/25-
27/05
• Vendor's subcontractor
on 11/04/05
• Vendor's subcontractor
on 11/07/05
• Vendor's subcontractor
on 11/1 1/05
To limit the total chlorine residual to not exceed 1 mg/L (as C12) before entering the downstream softener,
constant adjustments had to be made to the pump stroke length (see Table 4-6). However, the resulting
chlorine dosage based on the day tank measurements did not appear to respond to the stroke length
adjustment. For example, when the stroke length was reduced from 80 to 68%, the chlorine dosage, in
effect, increased from 3.4 to 3.6 mg/L. (Note that the dosages based on the pump rated capacity at 80 and
68% stroke lengths were 3.2 and 2.7 mg/L [as C12], respectively.) The reasons that might have
contributed to such discrepancies include: (1) difficulties to accurately measure the chlorine dosages by
reading tank levels with 0.5-gal graduations, (2) leaks, airlocks, and varying injection rates by the paced
pump that affected the amount of chlorine metered into the water, and (3) improper calibration of the
metering pump so the flow sensor might not have generated correct pulse signals at varying flowrates and
the pulse signals might not have properly converted to the pump speed.
30
-------
Table 4-6. Correlations Between Pump Stroke Length and C12 Dosage
Duration
07/12/05 to 08/18/05
08/19/05 to 09/28/05
09/29/05 to 10/10/05
10/1 1/05 to 10/26/05
10/27/05 to 11/03/05
11/04/05 to 11/20/05
11/2 1/05 to 11/28/05
11/29/05 to 12/04/05
12/05/05 to 12/06/05
12/07/05 to 12/13/05
12/14/05 to 01/26/05
01/27/06 to 02/12/06
02/23/06 to 03/19/06
03/20/06 to 03/23/06
03/24/06 to 09/03/06
Stroke
Length
(%)
70
83.5
62
74
82
80
78
75
72
65
68
66
68
66
62
Average C12
Dosage
(HS/L)
1.4
NA
0.5
0.7
2.3
3.5
2.1
2.4
4.1
3.4
3.6
1.5
3.2
1.7
2.4
4.4.3 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the Macrolite® system
consisted of only backwash wastewater, which was discharged to a nearby sanitary sewer line. Backwash
frequency and quantities of backwash wastewater generated are discussed in Section 4.4.1.
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. During the 14 months of system operation, a
total of nine visits were made by the vendor and/or its subcontractor to fix the chlorine addition system
and leaks at the chlorine injection point as described in Section 4.4.2. There was no unscheduled system
downtime, but the system was allowed to operate without the use of chlorine for 63 days from August 23
through September 20, 2005, and from September 22 through October 27, 2005. In addition, another visit
was made by the subcontractor to replace the piston located in the control valve near the top of Vessel A.
The broken piston prevented the vessels from being backwashed from April 20 to May 3, 2006, leading to
particulate breakthrough.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The only pretreatment required was prechlorination for the
oxidation of arsenic and iron. However, as noted in Section 4.4.2, issues related to the chemical feed
pump prevented chlorine from being added to the water before October 27, 2005. Specific chemical
handling requirements are further discussed below under chemical handling and inventory requirements.
The post-treatment included preexisting softening.
System Automation. All major functions of the treatment system were automated and required only
minimal operator oversight and intervention if all functions were operating as intended. Automated
processes included turning on and off the well pump based on the low and high pressure settings of the
pressure tanks, feeding chlorine to raw water using a paced-chemical feed pump according to the demand
in the distribution system, and initiating filter backwash and fast rinse based on a preset throughput value.
The flow-paced chemical feed pump, although automatically triggered by the contact meter, had to be
frequently monitored for airlocks after it was repaired on October 27, 2005. Air bubbles in the pump
head were discharged through an air bleed valve and a return line to the chemical day tank. No other
issues arose with the automated backwash and associated equipment throughout the performance
evaluation.
31
-------
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to operate the
Macrolite® pressure filtration system included maintaining proper operation of the process equipment;
observing and recording associated operating parameters, such as pressure, flow, and chlorine residuals;
keeping track of the NaCIO solution consumption and replenishing the chemical day tank, when
necessary; performing on-site chlorine residual measurements to help meet the target total chlorine
residual after the pressure filters; and working with the vendor to troubleshoot and perform minor on-site
repairs. Difficulties were encountered when trying to maintain proper operation of the chemical feed
pump (as discussed in Section 4.4.2), taking the flow readings due to normally low on-demand flowrates
and the oversized flow-meter installed (as discussed in Section 4.3.3), and performing routine on-site
chlorine residual measurements. Because the certified operator retained by Vintage of the Ponds was
located one and a half hours away from the site, all O&M activities were performed by the nursing home
manager (referred to, in this report, as the operator), who had very little prior experience of operating a
water treatment system.
According to the plant operator, daily demand on the operator was about 5 min to visually inspect the
system and record the operating parameters on the log sheets. Additional time was required for
troubleshooting and maintaining proper operation of the chemical feed system.
Operator certifications in Wisconsin consist of one class and five subclasses, i.e., O, Z, I, L, and V, which
are classified based on types of treatment (http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/opcert). Subclass O
certification is for those who operate general water treatment systems; Subclass Z for zeolite and resin
treatment; Subclass I for oxidation and filtration treatment; Subclass L for lime-soda ash treatment; and
Subclass V for specialized treatment. The certified operator for Vintage on the Ponds has a Subclass O
certificate. Each subclass requires a high school or equivalent diploma, at least two years of experience
operating a water system prior to December 1, 2000, and successful completion of application and
examination for that specific subclass.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks recommended by the vendor included
daily to monthly visual inspections of the piping, valves, tanks, flow meters, and other system
components. Specific O&M activities performed by the vendor for this reporting period are summarized
in Table 4-5.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. With the assistance of the certified operator,
all personal protective equipment, including neoprene rubber gloves, chemical safety goggles, a
protective apron, and an emergency shower and eyewash station, was supplied by the facility, satisfying
the safety requirements for the NaCIO chemical handling as specified in the NaCIO Material Safety Data
Sheet (MSDS). The operator refilled the chemical day tank with a handheld pump to 15-gal every time
the volume was down to 10-gal, which occurred approximately once every four weeks. Refilling the
chlorine took about 10 min to complete. The chemical consumption in the day tank, along with total
chlorine residuals in the filter effluent at the TT sampling location, were checked daily as part of the
routine operational data collection as required by WDNR.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the Macrolite® PM2162D6 Arsenic Removal System was evaluated based on
analyses of water samples collected from the treatment plant, backwash lines, and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Water samples were collected at five locations (i.e., IN, AC,
TA, TB, and TT) across the treatment train. Table 4-7 summarizes the arsenic, iron, and manganese
analytical results. Table 4-8 summarizes the results of the other water quality parameters. Appendix B
32
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results(a)
Parameter
As
(total)
As
(soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe
(total)
Fe
(soluble)
Mn
(total)
Mn
(soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
^g/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
Hg/L
Sample
Count
56™
48 [9]
36 [7]
36 [7]
12 [2]
14
12 [2]
12 [2]
14
12 [2]
12 [2]
14
12 [2]
12 [2]
14
12 [2]
12 [2]
56™
48 [9]
36 [7]
36 [7]
12 [2]
14
12 [l(c)]
ll(d)[2]
56™
48 [9]
36 [7]
36 [7]
12 [2]
14
12 [2]
12 [2]
Concentration
Minimum
14.3
15.1 [14.0]
2.3 [8.1]
2.4 [7.8]
2.6 [12.7]
15.7
5.6 [12.6]
2.5 [11.6]
<0.1
2.6 [3.2]
<0.1 [0.1]
14.0
1.9 [8.0]
1.1 [9.9]
<0.1
2.7 [0.1]
0.5 [1.8]
997
1,072 [1,232]
<25 [537]
<25 [448]
<25 [834]
996
130 [1,131]
<25 [832]
15.4
15.7 [16.1]
9.5 [15.9]
14.0 [15.9]
15.7 [19.2]
17.0
16.1 [11.8]
15.6 [20.8]
Maximum
29.0
27.6 [20.5]
16.7 [19.9]
7.3 [21.0]
16.5 [16.7]
19.6
15.5 [15.1]
7.7 [16.8]
13.3
20.0 [4.9]
11.3 [1.1]
18.6
9.7 [13.6]
5.9 [15.1]
3.7
8.5 [7.1]
3.9 [1.8]
2,478
2,170 [1,602]
1,280 [1,499]
397 [1,525]
1,400 [1,596]
1,846
1,120 [1,131]
157 [1,417]
36.7
21.2 [19.2]
23.4 [19.5]
23.0 [19.7]
20.4 [21.0]
32.4
20.8 [18.7]
21.5 [20.8]
Average
18.9
19.1 [17.3]
5.2 [13.3]
4.5 [13.1]
6.0 [14.7]
17.7
9.5 [13.9]
4.9 [14.2]
2.4
10.8 [4.0]
1.2 [0.6]
16.3
4.6 [10.8]
2.9 [12.5]
1.4
4.9 [3.6]
1.9 [1.8]
1,392
1,384 [1,443]
158 [1,039]
100 [1,010]
235 [1,215]
1,423
429 [1,131]
39 [1,125]
19.2
18.2 [17.8]
17.4 [17.4]
17.7 [17.5]
18.4 [20.1]
20.1
18.1 [15.2]
18.8 [20.8]
Standard
Deviation
2.8
2.9 [2.4]
2.7 [5.0]
1.5 [5.5]
3.8 [2.8]
1.2
2.8 [1.8]
1.8 [3.7]
3.5
4.5 [1.3]
3.2 [0.7]
1.3
2.0 [3.9]
2.0 [3.7]
1.0
1.4 [5.0]
1.0 [-]
211
202 [131]
281 [420]
124 [467]
484 [539]
208
263 [-]
58 [414]
4.1
1.3 [1.1]
2.4 [1.2]
1.9 [1.3]
1.5 [1.2]
3.9
1.4 [4.9]
1.8 [-]
(a)
Numbers in parentheses representing data compiled from sampling events having problems with
chlorine addition system on 08/30/05, 09/06/05, 09/13/05, 09/27/05, 10/04/05, 10/11/05, 10/18/05,
and 10/25/05.
08/30/05 results considered as outliers and not included in calculations.
09/27/05 result considered as outliers and not included in calculations.
03/28/06 result considered as outliers and not included in calculations.
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect samples for calculations.
Duplicate samples are included in calculations.
(b)
(c)
(d)
33
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Analytical Results of Other Water Quality Parameters
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Nitrate
(asN)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
Number
of
Samples
57
57
43
43
14
38(a)
38
29
29
9
17
17
20(b)
17
17
20(b)
44
44
33
33
11
57
57
43
43
14
17
17
20(b)
57
57
4200
43
14
51
51
38
38
13
51
51
38
38
13
Minimum
Concentration
330
334
349
347
351
2.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
2.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
<1
<1
<1
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
13.0
13.0
13.3
13.1
13.1
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
10.0
1.4
<0.1
0.1
0.1
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.4
11.8
10.9
11.6
11.2
12.1
Maximum
Concentration
384
378
374
392
390
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.6
2.9
0.3
0.3
0.3
<1
<1
<1
91.2
110
58.0
58.0
69.1
16.7
16.8
16.8
16.5
16.0
0.11
0.11
0.24
22.0
18.0
20.4
19.0
20.0
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
16.3
16.0
15.5
15.3
15.4
Average
Concentration
359
360
361
364
360
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
0.2
0.2
0.2
<1
<1
<1
69.6
70.4
<10
<10
11.7
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.4
14.3
O.05
<0.05
0.06
16.2
4.8
3.8
3.4
4.0
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
13.9
13.4
13.3
13.2
13.4
Standard
Deviation
10.3
9.6
7.9
9.9
10.6
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.03
0.04
0.03
-
-
-
13.5
15.8
11.5
11.1
19.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.02
0.03
0.06
2.7
4.4
5.7
5.4
6.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
34
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Analytical Results of Other Water Quality Parameters (Continued)
Parameter
Total
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Minimum
Concentration
262
281
258
132
143
132
117
117
123
Maximum
Concentration
510
357
365
260
195
191
172
172
173
Average
Concentration
322
311
311
172
167
166
144
144
145
Standard
Deviation
58.2
22.8
27.4
29.3
15.2
17.7
12.8
12.8
13.3
(a) 08/15/06 result considered an outlier and not included in calculations.
(b) Including TA and TB locations for samples taken on 07/19/05, 07/26/05, and 08/02/05.
(c) 01/24/06 result considered an outlier and not included in calculations.
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect samples for calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
contains a complete set of analytical results through the 14-month duration of system operation. The
results of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
Arsenic and Iron. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the Macrolite® filtration system
was the concentration of total arsenic in the treated water. The treatment plant water was sampled on 57
occasions (including four duplicate sampling events) throughout the study period, with field speciation
performed 14 times. Figure 4-14 shows the arsenic speciation results across the treatment train.
Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 14.3 to 29.0 |o,g/L and averaged 18.9 |o,g/L
(Table 4-7). Soluble As(III) was the predominant species in source water, ranging from 14.0 to 18.6 |o,g/L
and averaging 16.3 |o,g/L. Only trace amounts of particulate arsenic and soluble As(V) existed, with
concentrations averaging 2.4 and 1.4 ng/L, respectively. The arsenic concentrations measured during this
14-month study period were consistent with those in source water sample collected on September 20,
2004 (Table 4-1).
Total iron concentrations in source water ranged from 997 to 2,478 (ig/L and averaged 1,392 (ig/L, which
existed primarily in the soluble form with an average value of 1,422 (ig/L (Table 4-7). The soluble iron to
soluble arsenic ratio was 80:1 given the average soluble iron and soluble arsenic levels in source water.
As shown in Figure 4-14, for the 14 speciation sampling events, 11 TT samples were below 10 |o,g/L of
arsenic. For the other three events, the two on September 27 and October 25, 2005, had insufficient
chlorine addition due to problems with the chlorine addition system, as discussed in Section 4.4.2, and the
one on April 25, 2006, had particulate arsenic breakthrough due to failure to backwash at the specified
throughput setting caused by malfunctioning of Vessel B, as discussed in Section 4.4.4. Problems with
the chlorine addition system resulted in elevated soluble As(III) and iron concentrations in the treated
water. For example, total arsenic concentrations at the TT location were 16.6 and 12.7 (ig/L, respectively,
with most existing as As(III) at 15.1 and 9.9 (ig/L, respectively (data shown in parentheses in Table 4-7).
The corresponding total iron concentrations were 1,596 and 834 (ig/L, with most existing in the soluble
form at 1,417 and 832 (ig/L, respectively. These elevated results were consistent with the results of five
of six other regular sampling events taking place on August 30, September 6 and 13, and October 4, 11,
and 18, 2005 (Figures 4-15 and 4-16) when insufficient chlorine was added due to the problems with the
35
-------
I
Samplm
•
n
Chlonne addition system repaired
events w h insuffic^nt chlonnation
F
•: p
n n n H
DAs ( parti cul ate)
• As(V)
• As (III)
|— |
1=1
LQJJJ
Figure 4-14. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Locations
36
-------
30.0
0.0
07/12/05 08/21/05 09/30/05 11/09/05 12/19/05 01/28/06 03/09/06 04/18/06 05/28/06 07/07/06 08/16/06
Date
—*—Inlet (IN) —A—After Contact Tank and Chlorine Addition (AC) —A— After Tank A (TA) —»—After Tank B (TB) —X— After Total Combined Effluent (TT)
Figure 4-15. Total Arsenic Concentrations at IN, AC, TA, TB, and TT Sampling Locations
3,000
07/12/05 08/21/05 09/30/05 11/09/05 12/19/05 01/28/06 03/09/06 04/18/06 05/28/06 07/07/06 08/16/06
Date
—•—Inlet (IN) —A—After Contact Tank and Chlorine Addition (AC) A After Tank A (TA) —•—After Tank B (TB) —X— After Total Combined Effluent (TT)
Figure 4-16. Total Iron Concentrations at IN, AC, TA, TB, and TT Sampling Locations
37
-------
chlorine injection system. For these five events, total arsenic concentrations ranged from 9.4 to 21.0 (ig/L
and total iron concentrations ranged from 856 to 1,525 (ig/L at the TA, TB, and TT sampling locations.
For the 12 speciation sampling events having sufficient chlorine addition (including the one with
particulate breakthrough on April 25, 2006), As(III) concentrations were reduced from an average of
16.3 |o,g/L in raw water to 4.6 |o,g/L after the contact tank. Correspondingly, particulate arsenic
concentrations were increased from an average of 2.4 to 10.8 |og/L. This, along with the moderate
increase in As(V) concentration following the contact tank (i.e., from 1.4 to 4.9 ng/L), confirmed that
As(V) formed via oxidation of As(III) adsorbed onto and/or co-precipitated with iron solids and formed
arsenic-laden particles. As(III) concentrations after the pressure filters averaged 2.9 (ig/L, suggesting
additional As(III) oxidation through the filters. As(V) concentrations after the filters were further reduced
to 1.9 |og/L, suggesting additional As(V) removal via adsorption onto iron solids intercepted by the filters.
Particulate arsenic levels after the pressure filters averaged 1.2 |og/L, indicating effective particulate
removal by the filters. Note that, in addition to the April 25, 2006 speciation sampling event mentioned
above, two other regular sampling events on January 24 and May 2, 2006 (after the chlorine addition
system had been fixed), also had higher than 10-(ig/L arsenic breakthrough in the filter effluent (Figure 4-
15). In each event, a high total iron concentration was measured (Figure 4-16), indicating particulate
breakthrough from the filters.
Decreases in As(III) concentration after the contact tank were not as significant as those observed at many
other demonstration sites, where As(III) was almost completely converted to either As(V) and particulate
arsenic (Condit et al., 2006). Most of these sites had little or no ammonia in raw water, suggesting that
presence of ammonia in the Vintage's raw water impacted As(III) oxidation. Ghurye and Clifford (2001)
reported that pre-formed monochloramines were ineffective for As(III) oxidation and that limited
oxidation could be achieved when monochloramine was formed in situ. The injected chlorine probably
reacted with both As(III) and ammonia before being quenched by ammonia to form chloramines.
Incomplete iron oxidation also was observed after the contact tank. For the 12 speciation events where
sufficient chlorine was added, as much as 429 |o,g/L of dissolved iron (on average) was measured after
chlorine addition and contact tank. The chlorine added might have reacted with both soluble iron and
ammonia before being quenched by ammonia to form chloramines. Soluble iron concentrations were
reduced to an average of 39 (ig/L after the pressure filters, suggesting more complete oxidation of soluble
iron with prolonged contact times (Vikesland and Valentine, 2002). After filtration, total iron
concentrations ranged from <25 to 1,400 (ig/L (not including data in parentheses in Table 4-7) and
averaged 158, 100, and 235 (ig/L at the TA, TB, and TT sampling locations, respectively. As discussed
above, particulate iron breakthrough was observed in a number instances as evidenced by the spikes
shown in Figure 4-16.
Manganese. Total manganese levels in source water ranged from 15.5 to 36.7 |o,g/L and averaged
19.2 |og/L (Table 4-7), which were below the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 50
(ig/L. Manganese in source water existed almost entirely in the soluble form at levels ranging from 17.0
to 32.4 |o,g/L and averaging 20.1 |og/L. For the two speciation events without sufficient chlorine addition,
soluble manganese concentrations after the contact tank ranged from 11.8 to 18.7 (ig/L and averaged 15.2
(ig/L. For the 12 speciation events with sufficient chlorine addition, soluble manganese concentrations
after the contact tank were at similar levels, ranging from 16.1 to 20.8 |o,g/L and averaging 18.1 |o,g/L.
Chloramines formed during prechlorination apparently were ineffective at oxidizing Mn(II).
Manganese after chlorination remained in the soluble form, which was not filtered out by the pressure
filters. Soluble manganese in the treated water averaged 20.8 and 18.8 |o,g/L for the sampling events
without and with sufficient chlorine addition (Figure 4-17).
38
-------
40.0
35.0 -
30.0 -
3) 25.0 -
20.0
15.0 -
10.0 -
07/12/05 08/21/05 09/30/05 11/09/05 12/19/05 01/28/06 03/09/06 04/18/06 05/28/06 07/07/06 08/16/06
-After Contact Tank and Chlorine Addition (AC)
Date
-After Tank A (TA)
-After Tank B (TB)
-After Total Combined Effluent (TT)
Figure 4-17. Total Manganese Concentrations at IN, AC, TA, TB, and TT Sampling Locations
Other Water Quality Parameters. In addition to the arsenic, iron, and manganese analyses, other water
quality parameters were analyzed to provide insight into the chemical processes occurring with the
treatment systems. As shown in Table 4-8, ammonia concentrations in source water ranged from 2.3 to
3.9 mg/L (as N) and averaged 2.9 mg/L (as N). Upon chlorination, 0.2 mg/L of ammonia (as N), on
average, reacted with chlorine to form combined chlorine, leaving the rest to be removed by the
downstream softener units before entering the distribution system.
Average total hardness results ranged from 311 to 322 mg/L (as CaCO3) across the treatment train; total
hardness is the sum of calcium hardness and magnesium hardness. The water had an almost equal split
between calcium and magnesium hardness. Average fluoride concentrations were 0.2 mg/L in source
water and after contact tank and were not affected by the Macrolite® filtration. Average nitrate
concentrations ranged from <0.05 to 0.06 mg/L (as N) and phosphorus concentrations ranged from <10 to
70.4 |o,g/L (as P) across the treatment train. Silica concentrations remained unchanged at approximately
14.4 mg/L (as SiO2). Turbidity values ranged from 10.0 to 22.0 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) and
averaged 16.2 NTU in source water and ranged from <0.1 to 20.0 NTU and averaged 3.7 NTU in the
filter effluent. Turbidity in the filter effluent was attributable to either the particles that broke through the
filters or the soluble iron that precipitated following sampling. No significant levels of sulfate were
detected in source water or across the treatment train.
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. Table 4-9 summarizes the analytical results from nine
backwash wastewater sampling events taking place from September 20, 2005, through July 13, 2006.
The samples collected on November 29, 2005 were not included in the table due to three consecutive
backwash cycles inadvertently triggered by the operator prior to sampling. For the first two sampling
events, grab samples were taken for pH, turbidity, TDS, and soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese
39
-------
analyses. Soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations ranged from 6.3 to 12.2 (ig/L, from <0.025
to 0.59 mg/L, and from 14.9 to 22.6 (ig/L, respectively, which, in general, were similar to those in the
contact tank water used for backwashing.
Starting from November 15, 2005, backwash wastewater samples were collected using the modified
sampling procedure discussed in Section 3.3.4. Turbidity was replaced by TSS, and total arsenic, iron,
and manganese were added to the analyte list. Total arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations in
backwash wastewater ranged from 11.7 to 322 (ig/L, from 0.27 to 37.1 mg/L, and from 16.5 to 32.9
(ig/L, and averaged 97.6 (ig/L, 9.8 mg/L, and 22.6 (ig/L, respectively. The TSS levels ranged from 2.0 to
70.0 mg/L and averaged 13.2 mg/L. The uncharacteristically low TSS levels in the backwash wastewater
samples were thought to have been caused, and confirmed by the operator, by insufficient mixing of
solids/water mixtures in the 32-gal container before sampling. The operator believed, however, that the
contents in the containers were thoroughly mixed before sampling for total arsenic, iron, and manganese.
Assuming 70.0 mg/L of TSS in 300 gal of backwash wastewater produced by one vessel, approximately
79 g (0.18 Ib) of solids would have been discharged to the septic system, with the solids containing 111
mg of arsenic, 11.1 g of iron, and 25.7 mg of manganese. The soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese
concentrations were similar to those prior to November 15, 2005.
Table 4-10 presents the total metal results of backwash solid samples collected from Vessel B on July 13,
2006. Arsenic, iron, and manganese levels averaged 3.6 mg/g, 282 mg/g, and 0.2 mg/g, respectively.
Assuming that 79 g of solids was produced by each vessel, the amount of arsenic, iron, and manganese
existed in the solids would be 284 mg, 22.3 g, and 15.8 mg, respectively, which were within the ballpark
of the values calculated based on the analysis of backwash wastewater samples. Total phosphorous in the
backwash solids also was noteworthy at an average of 25.7 mg/g.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Table 4-11 summarizes the results of the
distribution system water sampling events. The water quality was similar among the three sampling
locations in the distribution system. As shown in the table, the stagnation times before the samples were
taken averaged 10.1 hr. There was no major change in pH values before (i.e., average 7.4) and after (i.e.,
average 7.5) the system became operational. Alkalinity levels also remained approximately the same
before (i.e., average 374 mg/L [as CaCO3]) and after (i.e., average 360 mg/L [as CaCO3]) system startup.
Arsenic concentrations in the baseline samples ranged from 9.5 to 18.0 (ig/L and averaged 15.0 (ig/L.
These values were slightly lower than those in the historical raw water samples (i.e., from 16.0 to 25.0
(ig/L and averaged 20.4 (ig/L) shown in Table 4-1. After system startup, total arsenic concentrations in
the samples collected from August 30 through October 18, 2005, (i.e., Events 2 to 4) were high, ranging
from 11.9 to 23.3 (ig/L and averaging 17.9. These high values were attributed to malfunctioning of the
chlorine addition system during this time period and that arsenic concentrations following the pressure
filters also were high. For the samples collected with proper operation of the chlorine addition system
(i.e., Events 1, 5-13 ), arsenic concentrations were reduced to <10 (ig/L at each of the three sampling
locations, except for two outliers at DS1 on December 13, 2005, and January 17, 2006. In general, total
arsenic levels in the distribution system mirrored those in the treated water. Excluding the data points
taken during Events 2 to 4 and Events 6 and 7 at DS1, the average arsenic level in the distribution system
was slightly higher than that at the entry point (i.e., 7.1 versus 4.3 (ig/L), suggesting some solubilization,
destabilization, and/or desoprtion of arsenic-laden particles/scales in the distribution system (Lytle, 2005).
Average iron concentrations remained below the MDL of 25 |o,g/L, before and after the baseline samples.
Before system startup, iron, existing mostly in the soluble form, was removed by the softener units before
entering the distribution system. After system startup, iron, existing mostly in the particulate form, was
filtered by the pressure filters and, possibly, the softener units. The manganese levels averaged 1.4 |o,g/L
40
-------
Table 4-9. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
1
O
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Date"1
09/20/05
10/11/05
01/10/06(b)
02/07/06
03/07/06
04/04/06
05/24/06
06/06/06
07/13/06
BWl(TankA)
K
S.U.
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.8
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.5
NA
Turbidity
NTU
150
68.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
«
Q
mg/L
358
386
320
314
314
304
328
314
NA
%
mg/L
NA
NA
12.0
4.0
25.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
NA
Total As
Hg/L
NA
NA
121
77.8
163
73.2
11.7
15.4
NA
Soluble As
Hg/L
7.0
7.9
6.7
7.3
4.9
6.5
8.2
7.6
NA
:>articulate As
Hg/L
NA
NA
114
70.6
158
66.7
3.5
7.8
NA
&
"S
•g
Hg/L
NA
NA
13,543
5,199
23,077
4,373
405
742
NA
Soluble Fe
Hg/L
<25
593
141
<25
150
58.6
142
156
NA
Total Mn
Hg/L
NA
NA
25.7
20.3
25.8
21.7
17.1
21.2
NA
Soluble Mn
Hg/L
14.9
22.6
20.6
18.8
19.4
20.1
16.5
21.5
NA
BW2 (Tank B)
K
S.U.
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.5
Turbidity
NTU
20.0
4.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
«
Q
mg/L
356
332
304
304
304
306
324
304
380
%
mg/L
NA
NA
5.0
8.0
23.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
70.0
Total As
Hg/L
NA
NA
45.5
191
132
13.4
36.3
66.5
322
Soluble As
Hg/L
6.3
12.2
9.6
8.2
7.9
9.3
9.1
7.7
3.8
:*articulate As
Hg/L
NA
NA
35.9
183
124
4.1
27.2
58.8
318
&
"S
•g
Hg/L
NA
NA
4,486
9,494
19,191
265
2,390
6,564
37,099
Soluble Fe
Hg/L
<25
116
223
141
561
128
130
362
47.3
Total Mn
Hg/L
NA
NA
22.1
23.3
23.9
20.6
16.5
23.1
32.9
Soluble Mn
Hg/L
15.0
15.3
20.1
18.5
18.1
20.5
16.2
19.9
14.0
(a) Backwash wastewater samples not taken in July and Au£
(b) Modified backwash procedures implemented since November
TDS = total dissolved solids; NS = not sampled
;ust 2005 due to lack of a sample tap, or in December 2005 due to Christmas holidays.
15, 2005.
Table 4-10. Backwash Solids Sample ICP/MS Results
Date: Location'3'
07/13/06: VesselB
Mg
mg/g
17.0
Al
mg/g
1.2
Si
Mg/g
9,698
P
mg/g
25.7
Ca
mg/g
59.9
V
Mg/g
<5
Mn
mg/g
0.2
Fe
mg/g
282
Ni
Mg/g
5.0
Cu
Mg/g
8,832
Zn
Mg/g
936
As
mg/g
3.6
Cd
Mg/g
<5
Sb
Mg/g
<5
Ba
mg/g
4.6
Pb
Mg/g
13.3
Fe/As
Ratio
78
(a) Solid samples not taken for Vessel A.
Note: Data representing averages of triplicate analyses.
-------
Table 4-11. Distribution Sampling Results
Sampling
Date
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
Date
03/23/05
04/20/05
05/31/05
06/21/05
Average
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
07/27/05
08/30/05(a)
09/28/05(a)
10/18/05(a)
11/29/05
12/13/05
01/17/06
02/14/06
03/13/06
04/11/06
05/09/06
06/12/06
07/18/06
Average
As after TT
Ug/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.0
18.000
16.6°°
10.9°°
2.6
3.2
2.9
3.9
2.9
6.4
6.6
5.4
4.5
DS1
Second Floor Suite
non-LCR
Stagnation
Time
hrs
NA
11.0
NA
9.2
10.1
9.0
9.3
10.0
9.0
9.2
9.2
9.6
12.3
9.8
9.6
9.7
9.1
NA
4.3 ||9.6
B,
S.U.
NA
7.6
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.7
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.4
Alkalinity
mg/L
NA
386
381
330
366
352
361
365
360
352
370
365
358
360
378
347
364
347
360
Mg/L
NA
14.7
9.5
13.9
12.7
5.9
18.0°°
n.900
15.50"
6.9
18.600
17.7°°
6.3
3.9
6.0
6.4
6.9
4.7
5.9
Mg/L
NA
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
33
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
i
Mg/L
NA
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
Mg/L
NA
<0.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
1.1
<0.1
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.9
<0.1
0.3
0.8
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
0.4
U
Mg/L
NA
51.9
103
15.2
56.8
111.0
29.6
57.9
33.1
54.6
49.8
95.7
61.3
223
58.5
30.7
152
49.1
DS2
Shower Room A Wing
LCR
ta
Be §
ca B
£ H
hrs
NA
11.0
NA
9.1
10.1
9.0
9.0
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.0
9.7
9.3
9.0
9.4
9.5
9.0
9.8
77.4 || 9.2
B.
S.U.
7.2
7.6
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.6
7.3
7.6
7.5
Alkalinity
mg/L
367
395
385
365
378
361
370
374
365
352
365
356
358
351
369
343
360
363
361
Mg/L
14.8
15.6
14.8
18.0
15.8
5.4
18.200
16.9°°
16.9°°
3.6
6.7
3.1
5.8
3.9
4.3
6.0
5.1
5.1
4.9
Mg/L
37
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
89
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Mg/L
14.2
0.1
<0.1
0.2
3.6
<0.1
0.2
0.4
<0.1
0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
Mg/L
5.4
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.4
0.1
0.1
0.6
<0.1
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.2
8.3
0.1
<0.1
0.2
0.7
d
Mg/L
126
13.8
4.4
13.9
39.5
7.2
6.6
23.6
4.7
23.5
29.0
160
23.6
148
36.3
13.6
39.2
74.5
DS3
Large Suite B Wing
LCR
ta
S s
ca B
£ H
hrs
NA
11.0
NA
9.3
10.2
9.0
9.2
9.3
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.8
9.5
9.8
9.5
9.6
9.2
9.7
0.9 | 45.3 1| 9.3
a
s.u.
7.2
7.6
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.8
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.5
Alkalinity
mg/L
376
382
381
361
375
352
352
374
361
352
374
356
354
356
369
351
351
363
359
Mg/L
17.1
16.8
15.2
14.3
15.8
6.6
16.2W
17.103'
23.303'
7.5
6.2
8.8
8.2
7.0
5.3
6.4
6.3
5.7
6.8
Mg/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Mg/L
0.6
0.1
<0.1
0.5
0.3
<0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.2
<0.1
0.5
0.4
0.3
Mg/L
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.4
1.0
0.4
1.7
0.8
2.5
0.2
1.6
0.5
0.2
1.9
2.3
1.0
u
Mg/L
93.3
38.2
77.1
4.1
53.2
17.9
38.4
49.2
14.2
45.7
41.9
38.6
28.6
131
232
17.8
199
67.3
71.0
to
(a) Chlorine pump not operational through 11/07/05 resulting in incomplete treatment.
(b) Results excluded from "average" calculations.
Lead action level = 15 ug/L; copper action level = 1,300 ug/L.
LCR = lead and copper rule sampling location; BL = Baseline Sampling; NA = not analyzed.
Note: 11 samples taken after softening system.
-------
in the baseline samples and decreased to an average of 0.2 |o,g/L after system startup. Although little was
removed by the pressure filters, manganese existing almost entirely in the soluble form was removed by
the softener units.
Lead levels in the distribution system ranged from less than the method reporting limit of 0.1 |o,g/L to
8.3 |o,g/L both before and after system startup. Copper concentrations before system startup ranged from
4.1 to 126 |og/L; copper concentrations after system startup ranged from 4.7 to 232 |o,g/L. None of the
lead and copper results exceeded the corresponding action levels of 15 and 1,300 |o,g/L. Factors that may
increase the solubility of lead and copper in the distribution system include low pH, high temperature, and
soft water with fewer dissolved minerals. The arsenic removal system did not appear to have exerted any
impact on the lead and copper levels in the distribution system.
4.6 System Cost
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The evaluation required the tracking of the capital cost for
equipment, site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for chemical supply, electrical power use,
and labor. However, the cost associated with the installation of an emergency shower and an eyewash
station required for NaCIO chemical handling as part of building improvements was paid for by Vintage
on the Ponds and, therefore, not included in the treatment system.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment was $60,500, which included $19,790 for equipment,
$20,580 for site engineering, and $20,130 for installation. Table 4-12 presents the breakdown of the
capital cost provided by the vendor in its proposal to Battelle dated March 15, 2005. The equipment cost
was about 33% of the total capital investment for a contact tank, two pressure filtration vessels,
Macrolite® media, distributors, process valves and piping, instrumentation and controls, a chemical feed
system (including a flow-paced pump and a tapered chemical storage tank with a secondary containment),
additional sample taps, totalizer/meters, shipping, and equipment assembly labor.
The engineering cost included the cost for preparing a process design report and required engineering
plans, including a general arrangement drawing, piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs),
interconnecting piping layouts, tank fill details, an electrical on-line diagram, and other associated
drawings. After certification by an Ohio-registered professional engineer, the plans were submitted to
WDNR for permit review and approval (Section 4.3.1). The engineering cost was $20,580, which was
34% of the total capital investment.
The installation cost included the cost for labor and materials for system unloading and anchoring,
plumbing, and mechanical and electrical connections (Section 4.3.3). The installation cost was $20,130,
or 33% of the total capital investment.
Using the system's rated capacity of 45 gpm (or 64,800 gpd), the capital cost was normalized to be
$l,344/gpm (or $0.93/gpd). The capital cost of $60,500 was converted to an annualized cost of
$5,710/year using a capital recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a 20-year return.
Assuming that the system was operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at the design flow rate of 45 gpm
to produce 23,600,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.24/1,000 gal. However,
since the system treated 2,500,000 gal in a 14-month period (see Table 4-4), corresponding to an annual
production of 2,200,000 gal, the unit capital cost was increased to $2.61/1,000 gal at this reduced rate of
production.
43
-------
Table 4-12. Summary of Capital Investment for Vintage on the Ponds Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Cost
Tanks
Media
Distributors
Process Valves and Piping
Chemical Feed System
Instrumentation and Controls
Additional Flow meters/Totalizers
Shipping
Labor
Equipment Total
3
3. 5 if/vessel
2
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
$2,500
$1,540
$175
$2,100
$2,405
$2,500
$2,400
$1,000
$5,170
$19,790
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33%
Engineering Cost
Labor
Travel
Engineering Total
-
-
-
$19,080
$1,500
$20,580
-
34%
Installation Cost
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
$6,380
$2,500
$11,250
$20,130
$60,500
-
-
-
33%
100%
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. O&M cost includes chemical supply, electricity
consumption, and labor (Table 4-13). The actual consumption rate for the 12.5% NaCIO stock solution
was 52.9 gal for the entire study period. Incremental electricity power consumption was calculated for
the chemical feed pump. The power demand was calculated based on the total operational hours of the
well pump adjusted for one year, the additional power demand needed to cover the pressure loss across
the filter beds, the chemical feed pump horsepower, and the unit cost from the utility bills. The routine,
non-demonstration related labor activities consumed about 5 min/day, 5 days a week, as noted in Section
4.4.4. Based on this time commitment and a labor rate of $10.75/hr, the labor cost was $0.11/1,000 gal of
water treated. In summary, the total O&M cost was approximately $0.26/1,000 gal.
44
-------
Table 4-13. O&M Cost for the Vintage on the Ponds Treatment System for One Year
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Value
2,500,200
Assumption
Chemical Cost
Chemical Unit Price ($/gal)
Total Chemical Consumption (gal)
Chemical Usage (gal/1,000 gal)
Total Chemical Cost ($)
Unit Chemical Cost ($71,000 gal)
$4.14
52.9
0.02
$219.00
$0.09
12.5% NaCIO in a 5-gal drum
Electricity Cost
Electricity Unit Cost ($/kwh)
Estimated Electricity Usage (kwh)
Estimated Electricity Cost ($)
Estimated Power Use ($71,000 gal)
0.067
2,082
$139.49
$0.063
Calculated based on:
• 16 hr/day of operation of a 0. 17-hp
chemical feed pump
• Additional power used by well pump to
overcome pressure loss across filters with
pumps operating 2.4 hr/day at 40 gpm
Calculated based on annual volume
processed of 2,200,000
Labor Cost
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Total Labor (hr)
Total Labor Cost ($)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
0.42
22
$234.78
$0.11
$0.26
5 min/day; 5 day/wk
52 weeks
Labor rate = $10.75/hr
Calculated based on annual volume
processed of 2,200,000
45
-------
Section 5.0: REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
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.
Clark, J.W., W. Viessman, and M.J. Hammer. 1977. Water Supply and Pollution Control. IEP, a Dun-
Donnelley Publisher, New York, NY.
Condit, W.E. and A.S.C. Chen. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal, U.S.
EPA Demonstration Project at Climax, MN, Final Performance Evaluation Report. 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.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Ghurye, G.. and D. Clifford. 2001. Laboratory Study on the Oxidation of Arsenic III to Arsenic V.
EPA/600/R-01/021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Lytle, D. 2005. Coagulation/Filtration: Iron Removal Processes Full-Scale Experience. EPA Workshop
on Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water in Cincinnati, OH.
Sorg, T.J. 2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, AWWA, 28(11): 15.
Vikesland, P.J. and R.L. Valentine. 2002. "Modeling the Kinetics of Ferrous Iron Oxidation by
Monochloramine."£'«v/ro«. Sci. and Technol. 36(4):662-668.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
46
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Date
07/13/05
07/14/05
07/15/05
07/16/05
07/17/05
07/18/05
07/19/05
07/20/05
07/21/05
07/22/05
07/23/05
07/24/05
07/25/05
07/26/05
07/27/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
07/30/05
07/31/05
08/01/05
08/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
08/05/05
08/06/05
08/07/05
08/08/05
08/09/05
08/10/05
08/11/05
08/12/05
08/13/05
08/14/05
08/15/05
08/16/05
08/17/05
08/18/05
08/19/05
08/20/05
08/21/05
08/22/05
08/23/05
08/24/05
08/25/05
08/26/05
08/27/05
08/28/05
Time
15:00
NM
14:30
NM
NM
14:15
13:20
15:00
NM
14:00
NM
NM
16:30
16:40
15:30
NM
09:35
NM
NM
15:10
13:00
13:30
12:40
15:03
NM
NM
16:05
14:05
15:30
14:00
15:05
NM
NM
16:05
14:30
14:35
08:00
13:00
NM
NM
15:50
15:35
10:00
NM
15:15
NM
NM
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gai)
84,200
NM
93,100
NM
NM
109,900
116,300
120,000
NM
132,800
NM
NM
151,500
156,600
160,800
NM
169,900
NM
NM
188,800
194,600
199,300
203,700
208,500
NM
NM
223,900
234,500
241,200
246,200
251,200
NM
NM
268,300
273,000
278,500
NM
288,900
NM
NM
305,400
310,900
314,100
NM
326,100
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gai)
NA
NA
8,900
NA
NA
16,800
6,400
3,700
NA
12,800
NA
NA
18,700
5,100
4,200
NA
9,100
NA
NA
18,900
5,800
4,700
4,400
4,800
NA
NA
15,400
10,600
6,700
5,000
5,000
NA
NA
17,100
4,700
5,500
NA
10,400
NA
NA
16,500
5,500
3,200
NA
12,000
NA
NA
Pressure
Pressure
Tanks
(psi)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
After
Contact
Tank
(psi)
39
NM
49
NM
NM
39
49
41
NM
42
NM
NM
43
43
41
NM
39
NM
NM
39
41
43
43
41
NM
NM
42
39
49
48
39
NM
NM
43
39
44
NM
39
NM
NM
42
43
44
39
40
NM
NM
After
Filters
(psi)
30
NM
40
NM
NM
30
29
36
NM
37
NM
NM
31
31
29
NM
17
NM
NM
38
33
25
30
30
NM
NM
29
12
31
32
22
NM
NM
23
20
24
NM
28
NM
NM
23
23
24
NM
21
NM
NM
AP
across
System
(psi)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AP
across
Filters
(psi)
9
NA
9
NA
NA
9
20
5
NA
5
NA
NA
12
12
12
NA
22
NA
NA
1
8
18
13
11
NA
NA
13
27
18
16
17
NA
NA
20
19
20
NA
11
NA
NA
19
20
20
NA
19
NA
NA
Volume to Distribution
Totalizer
(kgal)
13,967.2
NM
13,976.1
NM
NM
13992.4
13998.7
14002.0
NM
14014.7
NM
NM
14032.9
14037.9
14042.1
NM
14050.8
NM
NM
14,069.4
14,074.8
14,079.5
14,083.8
14,088.6
NM
NM
14,103.5
14,114.0
14,120.2
14,125.2
14,130.1
NM
NM
14,146.6
14,151.7
14,156.8
NM
14,166.8
NM
NM
14,183.1
14,188.2
14,191.3
NM
14,203.2
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gai)
NA
NA
8,900
NA
NA
16,300
6,300
3,300
NA
12,700
NA
NA
18,200
5,000
4,200
NA
8,700
NA
NA
18,600
5,400
4,700
4,300
4,800
NA
NA
14,900
10,500
6,200
5,000
4,900
NA
NA
16,500
5,100
5,100
NA
10,000
NA
NA
16,300
5,100
3,100
NA
11,900
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(gai)
3,650
NM
3,650
NM
NM
4,020
4,020
4,370
NM
4,370
NM
NM
4,730
4,730
4,730
NM
5,090
NM
NM
5,090
5,440
5,440
5,440
5,440
NM
NM
5,790
5,790
6,150
6,150
6,150
NM
NM
6,500
6,500
6,500
NM
6,860
NM
NM
6,860
7,220
7,220
NM
7,220
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gai)
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
370
0
350
NA
0
NA
NA
360
0
0
NA
360
NA
NA
0
350
0
0
0
NA
NA
350
0
360
0
0
NA
NA
350
0
0
NA
360
NA
NA
0
360
0
NA
0
NA
NA
NaOCI A
NaOCI
Tank
Level
(gai)
1.00
NM
0.30
NM
NM
0.30
0.30
0.20
NM
0.30
NM
NM
0.50
0.10
0.10
NM
0.19
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
0.30
0.30
0.10
NM
0.10
NM
NM
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
NM
NM
0.20
0.00
0.00
NM
0.00
NM
NM
iplication
Average
CI2
Dose
(mg/L)
NA
NA
1.7
NA
NA
0.9
2.4
2.7
NA
1.2
NA
NA
1.3
1.0
1.2
NA
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
1.4
0.8
NA
1.0
NA
NA
1.2
2.1
1.8
NA
0.5
NA
NA
0.6
0.0
0.0
NA
0.0
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Date
08/29/05
08/30/05
08/31/05la)
09/01/05
09/02/05
09/03/05
09/04/05
09/05/05™
09/06/05
09/07/05
09/08/05
09/09/05
09/10/05
09/11/05
09/12/05
09/13/05
09/14/05
09/15/05
09/16/05
09/17/05
09/18/05
09/19/05
09/20/05
09/21/05
09/22/05
09/23/05
09/24/05
09/25/05
09/26/05
09/27/05
09/28/05
09/29/05
09/30/05
10/01/05
10/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
10/05/05
10/06/05
10/07/05
10/08/05
10/09/05
10/10/05
10/11/05
10/12/05
10/13/05
10/14/05
10/15/05
10/16/05
Time
15:40
16:40
15:30
13:15
16:15
NM
NM
NM
12:30
16:30
16:20
15:35
NM
NM
16:40
14:30
15:00
14:30
16:00
NM
NM
03:45
03:20
03:30
NM
NM
NM
NM
11:30
02:30
03:30
09:10
04:45
NM
NM
16:50
15:00
16:00
12:50
15:40
NM
NM
16:00
15:40
11:30
14:05
15:00
NM
NM
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gal)
343,600
349,300
354,100
358,200
364,600
NM
NM
NM
388,000
396,400
403,500
409,100
NM
NM
430,700
436,800
443,900
450,500
456,000
NM
NM
471,000
476,600
481,100
NM
490,400
NM
NM
503,400
509,200
514,200
518,600
526,900
NM
NM
541,200
546,200
552,500
557,500
563,600
NM
NM
576,900
581,600
585,100
590,600
595,500
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
17,500
5,700
4,800
4,100
6,400
NA
NA
NA
23,400
8,400
7,100
5,600
NA
NA
21,600
6,100
7,100
6,600
5,500
NA
NA
15,000
5,600
4,500
NM
9,300
NA
NA
13,000
5,800
5,000
4,400
8,300
NA
NA
14,300
5,000
6,300
5,000
6,100
NA
NA
13,300
4,700
3,500
5,500
4,900
NA
NA
Pressure
Pressure
Tanks
(psi)
NM
NM
47
55
48
NM
NM
NM
48
48
48
51
NM
NM
47
54
53
44
53
NM
NM
47
49
49
NM
50
NM
NM
52
49
48
52
53
NM
NM
52
57
50
55
48
NM
NM
53
50
48
52
54
NM
NM
After
Contact
Tank
(psi)
39
44
40
48
40
NM
NM
NM
43
40
40
42
NM
NM
39
43
43
39
43
NM
NM
44
43
41
NM
43
NM
NM
44
43
41
49
44
NM
NM
43
45
41
48
41
NM
NM
44
42
40
48
44
NM
NM
After
Filters
(psi)
21
24
23
24
21
NM
NM
NM
24
19
20
23
NM
NM
22
25
23
22
22
NM
NM
22
22
22
NM
18
NM
NM
23
18
22
25
24
NM
NM
24
25
23
20
18
NM
NM
20
23
22
20
25
NM
NM
AP
across
System
(psi)
NA
NA
24
31
27
NA
NA
NA
24
29
28
28
NA
NA
25
29
30
22
31
NA
NA
25
27
27
NM
32
NA
NA
29
31
26
27
29
NA
NA
28
32
27
35
30
NA
NA
33
27
26
32
29
NA
NA
AP
across
Filters
(psi)
18
20
17
24
19
NA
NA
NA
19
21
20
19
NA
NA
NA
18
20
17
21
NA
NA
22
21
19
NM
25
NA
NA
21
25
19
24
20
NA
NA
19
20
18
28
23
NA
NA
24
19
18
28
19
NA
NA
Volume to Distribution
Totalizer
(kgal)
14,220.2
14,225.8
14,230.6
14,234.3
14,240.7
NM
NM
NM
14,263.4
14,271.7
14,278.4
14,284.0
NM
NM
14,305
14,311
14,318
14,325
14,330
NM
NM
14,344.6
14,349.4
14,353.9
NM
14,362.4
NM
NM
14,375.0
14,380.9
14,385.9
14,390.3
14,396.6
NM
NM
14,411.1
14,415.7
14,420.7
14,425.7
14,431.8
NM
NM
14,444.8
14,448.7
14,452.2
14,457.8
14,462.6
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
17,000
5,600
4,800
3,700
6,400
NA
NA
NA
22,700
8,300
6,700
5,600
NA
NA
21,000
6,000
7,100
6,600
5,100
NA
NA
14,800
4,800
4,500
NM
8,500
NA
NA
12,600
5,900
5,000
4,400
6,300
NA
NA
14,500
4,600
5,000
5,000
6,100
NA
NA
13,000
3,900
3,500
5,600
4,800
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
7,570
7,570
7,570
7,920
7,920
NM
NM
NM
8,300
8,300
8,650
8,650
NM
NM
9,010
9,010
9,010
9,370
9,370
NM
NM
9,370
10,080
10,080
NM
10,080
NM
NM
10,430
10,430
10,430
10,430
12,210
NM
NM
12,210
12,560
12,560
12,560
12,560
NM
NM
12,910
13,630
13,630
13,630
13,630
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
350
0
0
350
0
NA
NA
NA
380
0
350
0
NA
NA
NA
360
0
360
0
NA
NA
720
710
0
NM
0
NA
NA
350
0
0
0
1,780
NA
NA
0
350
0
0
0
NA
NA
350
720
0
0
0
NA
NA
NaOCI A
NaOCI
Tank
Level
(gal)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NM
NM
NM
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NM
NM
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NM
NM
0.40
0.20
0.00
NM
0.30
NM
NM
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
NM
NM
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
NM
NM
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
NM
NM
oplication
Average
CI2
Dose
(mg/L)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
1.3
1.8
0.0
NM
1.6
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
NA
NA
0.4
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.0
NA
NA
0.8
1.1
1.4
0.9
0.0
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
10/17/05
10/18/05
10/19/05
10/20/05
10/21/05
10/22/05
10/23/05
10/24/05
10/25/05
10/26/05
10/27/05
10/28/05™
10/29/05
10/30/05
10/31/05™
11/01/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
1 1/04/05
1 1/05/05
11/06/05
11/07/05
11/08/05
11/09/05
11/10/05
11/11/05
11/12/05
11/13/05
11/14/05
11/15/05
11/16/05
11/17/05
11/18/05
11/19/05
11/20/05
11/21/05
11/22/05
11/23/05
1 1/24/05
1 1/25/05
1 1/26/05
11/27/05
11/28/05
11/29/05
11/30/05
12/01/05
12/02/05
12/03/05
12/04/05
Time
15:40
16:50
15:15
14:25
13:45
NM
NM
16:10
12:00
14:00
NM
14:40
NM
NM
15:50
16:20
15:20
15:50
15:40
NM
NM
16:00
12:00
15:20
14:05
15:40
NM
NM
15:45
16:15
15:30
14:10
15:05
NM
NM
15:10
15:45
15:30
NM
15:10
NM
NM
15:45
12:40
15:45
15:45
15:40
NM
NM
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gal)
610,800
616,100
619,800
624,600
629,500
NM
NM
642,500
646,600
653,900
NM
664,800
NM
NM
681,200
686,800
696,300
711,400
715,800
NM
NM
731,000
735,000
739,900
744,000
749,700
NM
NM
762,200
767,700
772,200
776,600
781,200
NM
NM
793,600
798,500
802,700
NM
814,000
NM
NM
830,500
835,600
840,200
844,800
850,700
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
15,300
5,300
3,700
4,800
4,900
NA
NA
13,000
4,100
7,300
NA
10,900
NA
NA
16,400
5,600
9,500
15,100
4,400
NA
NA
15,200
4,000
4,900
4,100
5,700
NA
NA
12,500
5,500
4,500
4,400
4,600
NA
NA
12,400
4,900
4,200
NA
11,300
NA
NA
16,500
5,100
4,600
4,600
5,900
NA
NA
Pressure
Pressure
Tanks
(psi)
48
45
48
50
56
NM
NM
55
47
45
NM
48
NM
NM
52
49
56
55
53
NM
NM
53
45
52
47
55
NM
NM
49
51
56
50
49
NM
NM
53
57
45
NM
46
NM
NM
53
55
50
47
48
NM
NM
After
Contact
Tank
(psi)
40
39
40
42
45
NM
NM
44
40
40
NM
40
NM
NM
43
42
43
48
40
NM
NM
50
38
44
40
50
NM
NM
40
43
49
44
43
NM
NM
47
44
38
NM
40
NM
NM
45
44
43
40
40
NM
NM
After
Filters
(psi)
20
20
22
25
25
NM
NM
30
20
19
NM
23
NM
NM
21
22
28
30
19
NM
NM
29
20
24
19
32
NM
NM
19
22
25
26
23
NM
NM
29
24
20
NM
20
NM
NM
22
30
23
20
19
NM
NM
AP
across
System
(psi)
28
25
26
25
31
NA
NA
25
27
26
NA
25
NA
NA
31
27
28
25
34
NA
NA
24
25
28
28
23
NA
NA
30
29
31
24
26
NA
NA
24
33
25
NA
26
NA
NA
31
25
27
27
29
NA
NA
AP
across
Filters
(psi)
20
19
18
17
20
NA
NA
14
20
21
NA
17
NA
NA
22
20
15
18
21
NA
NA
21
18
20
21
18
NA
NA
21
21
24
18
20
NA
NA
18
20
18
NA
20
NA
NA
23
14
20
20
21
NA
NA
Volume to Distribution
Totalizer
(kgal)
14,477.8
14,483.1
14,486.8
14,491.5
14,496.5
NM
NM
14,509.2
14,513.4
14,520.1
NM
14,530.2
NM
NM
14,546.8
14,551.6
14,556.9
14,560.8
14,565.2
NM
NM
14,579.8
14,584.0
14,588.8
14,592.9
14,597.8
NM
NM
14,610.8
14,615.9
14,620.4
14,624.5
14,629.2
NM
NM
14,641.7
14,646.3
14,650.5
NM
14,661.9
NM
NM
14,678.2
14,682.1
14,686.9
14,691.5
14,697.4
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
15,200
5,300
3,700
4,700
5,000
NA
NA
12,700
4,200
6,700
NA
10,100
NA
NA
16,600
4,800
5,300
3,900
4,400
NA
NA
14,600
4,200
4,800
4,100
4,900
NA
NA
13,000
5,100
4,500
4,100
4,700
NA
NA
12,500
4,600
4,200
NA
11,400
NA
NA
16,300
3,900
4,800
4,600
5,900
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
13,980
13,980
13,980
13,980
13,980
NM
NM
14,330
14,330
14,330
NM
14,700
NM
NM
14,700
15,050
15,050
15,050
15,050
NM
NM
15,410
15,410
15,410
15,410
16,100
NM
NM
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,460
16,460
NM
NM
16,460
16,830
16,830
NM
16,830
NM
NM
17,190
18,230
18,230
18,230
18,230
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
350
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
350
0
0
NA
370
NA
NA
0
350
0
0
0
NA
NA
360
0
0
0
690
NA
NA
0
0
0
360
0
NA
NA
0
370
0
NA
0
NA
NA
360
1,040
0
0
0
NA
NA
NaOCI A
NaOCI
Tank
Level
(gal)
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.10
0.10
NM
NM
0.20
0.10
0.10
NM
14.50
NM
NM
14.00
14.00
13.50
13.50
13.50
NM
NM
13.25
13.00
12.75
12.50
12.50
NM
NM
12.00
12.00
12.00
11.75
11.75
NM
NM
11.25
11.25
11.00
NM
10.75
NM
NM
10.25
10.50
14.50
14.50
14.25
NM
NM
oplication
Average
CI2
Dose
(mg/L)
0.0
0.0
2.7
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
0.8
1.2
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.7
NA
NA
4.8
NA
NA
1.6
NA
NA
2.9
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Date
12/05/05
12/06/05
12/07/05
12/08/05
12/09/05
12/10/05
12/11/05
12/12/05
12/13/05
12/14/05
12/15/05
12/16/05
12/17/05
12/18/05
12/19/05
12/20/05
12/21/05
12/22/05
12/23/05
12/24/05
12/25/05
12/26/05
12/27/05
12/28/05
12/29/05
12/30/05
12/31/05
01/01/06
01/02/06
01/03/06
01/04/06
01/05/06
01/06/06
01/07/06
01/08/06
01/09/06
01/10/06
01/11/06
01/12/06
01/13/06
01/14/06
01/15/06
01/16/06
01/17/06
01/18/06
01/19/06
01/20/06
01/21/06
01/22/06
Time
16:40
13:35
15:30
14:25
15:00
NM
NM
15:30
13:00
15:00
12:55
12:30
NM
NM
14:10
14:05
14:30
14:40
14:25
NM
NM
15:00
14:35
15:00
14:25
14:00
NM
NM
16:00
14:00
15:00
14:30
15:30
NM
NM
15:00
15:55
16:30
14:30
15:45
NM
NM
16:00
16:30
16:00
14:25
15:20
NM
NM
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gal)
865,200
869,000
879,600
889,700
894,700
NM
NM
911,600
916,500
923,600
930,200
937,100
NM
NM
960,300
968,800
975,500
981,600
987,400
NM
NM
1,007,000
1,012,500
1,018,400
1,028,500
1,036,000
NM
NM
1,055,300
1,061,800
1,068,400
1,072,700
1,079,500
NM
NM
1,098,900
1,107,000
1,113,100
1,118,200
1,127,200
NM
NM
1,147,200
1,155,100
1,161,000
1,166,500
1,172,800
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
14,500
3,800
10,600
10,100
5,000
NA
NA
16,900
4,900
7,100
6,600
6,900
NA
NA
23,200
8,500
6,700
6,100
5,800
NA
NA
19,600
5,500
5,900
10,100
7,500
NA
NA
19,300
6,500
6,600
4,300
6,800
NA
NA
19,400
8,100
6,100
5,100
9,000
NA
NA
20,000
7,900
5,900
5,500
6,300
NA
NA
Pressure
Pressure
Tanks
(psi)
51
54
53
54
55
NM
NM
45
49
49
51
54
NM
NM
59
46
51
57
52
NM
NM
52
50
50
46
53
NM
NM
52
47
47
56
49
NM
NM
53
56
57
55
58
NM
NM
52
55
48
53
48
NM
NM
After
Contact
Tank
(psi)
43
44
44
48
45
NM
NM
39
43
41
42
48
NM
NM
51
41
45
50
43
NM
NM
48
42
43
40
43
NM
NM
45
40
39
50
40
NM
NM
44
50
40
40
50
NM
NM
43
50
39
49
40
NM
NM
After
Filters
(psi)
23
24
21
30
30
NM
NM
18
23
23
23
25
NM
NM
30
25
22
32
10
NM
NM
27
27
24
24
18
NM
NM
23
21
22
30
22
NM
NM
29
32
20
22
32
NM
NM
22
30
20
30
22
NM
NM
AP
across
System
(psi)
28
30
32
24
25
NA
NA
27
26
26
28
29
NA
NA
29
21
29
25
42
NA
NA
25
23
26
22
35
NA
NA
29
26
25
26
27
NA
NA
24
24
37
33
26
NA
NA
30
25
28
23
26
NA
NA
AP
across
Filters
(psi)
20
20
23
18
15
NA
NA
21
20
18
19
23
NA
NA
21
16
23
18
33
NA
NA
21
15
19
16
25
NA
NA
22
19
17
20
18
NA
NA
15
18
20
18
18
NA
NA
21
20
19
19
18
NA
NA
Volume to Distribution
Totalizer
(kgal)
14,711.7
14,715.6
14,726.3
14,736.0
14,741.2
NM
NM
14,757.9
14,762.9
14,770.0
14,776.3
14,783.3
NM
NM
14,806.3
14,814.6
14,821.4
14,827.5
14,833.5
NM
NM
14,852.8
14,858.4
14,864.0
14,873.7
14,881.0
NM
NM
14,900.4
14,906.6
14,913.4
14,917.6
14,924.6
NM
NM
14,943.8
14,950.4
14,956.7
14,961.8
14,970.8
NM
NM
14,990.8
14,998.4
15,004.4
15,009.9
15,015.8
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
14,300
3,900
10,700
9,700
5,200
NA
NA
16,700
5,000
7,100
6,300
7,000
NA
NA
23,000
8,300
6,800
6,100
6,000
NA
NA
19,300
5,600
5,600
9,700
7,300
NA
NA
19,400
6,200
6,800
4,200
7,000
NA
NA
19,200
6,600
6,300
5,100
9,000
NA
NA
20,000
7,600
6,000
5,500
5,900
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
18,580
18,580
18,580
18,930
18,930
NM
NM
19,220
19,220
19,220
19,630
19,630
NM
NM
19,980
20,330
20,330
20,330
20,330
NM
NM
20,680
20,680
21,040
21,040
21,380
NM
NM
21,380
21,730
21,730
21,730
21,730
NM
NM
22,100
23,350
23,350
23,350
23,550
NM
NM
23,720
24,080
24,080
24,080
24,430
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
350
0
0
350
0
NA
NA
290
0
0
410
0
NA
NA
350
350
0
0
0
NA
NA
350
0
360
0
340
NA
NA
0
350
0
0
0
NA
NA
370
1,250
0
0
200
NA
NA
170
360
0
0
350
NA
NA
NaOCI A
NaOCI
Tank
Level
(gal)
14.00
13.75
13.50
13.00
13.00
NM
NM
12.50
12.50
12.25
12.00
12.00
NM
NM
11.25
11.00
10.75
10.50
10.25
NM
NM
10.00
14.25
14.00
13.75
13.50
NM
NM
13.00
13.00
12.75
12.50
12.50
NM
NM
12.00
11.75
11.50
11.25
11.28
NM
NM
10.50
10.25
14.75
14.50
14.25
NM
NM
oplication
Average
CI2
Dose
(mg/L)
4.0
NA
NA
2.3
NA
NA
4.4
NA
NA
3.1
NA
NA
2.5
NA
NA
3.0
NA
NA
3.5
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Date
01/23/06
01/24/06
01/25/06
01/26/06
01/27/06
01/28/06
01/29/06
01/30/06
01/31/06
02/01/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
02/04/06
02/05/06
02/06/06
02/07/06
02/08/06
02/09/06
02/10/06
02/11/06
02/12/06
02/13/06
02/14/06
02/15/06
02/16/06
02/17/06
02/18/06
02/19/06
02/20/06
02/21/06
02/22/06
02/23/06
02/24/06
02/25/06
02/26/06
02/27/06
02/28/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
03/05/06
03/06/06
03/07/06
03/08/06
03/09/06
03/10/06
03/11/06
03/12/06
Time
15:20
15:00
17:15
14:25
15:10
NM
NM
15:25
14:00
15:30
14:40
15:20
NM
NM
15:20
13:10
15:30
14:05
15:30
NM
NM
15:45
15:25
15:55
14:25
15:40
NM
NM
16:15
15:00
15:30
14:30
14:30
NM
NM
15:30
14:15
15:15
14:15
13:30
NM
NM
16:30
09:10
15:30
15:10
15:20
NM
NM
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gal)
1,190,600
1,195,900
1,203,000
1,211,100
1,219,400
NM
NM
1,235,800
1,241,800
1,247,800
1,255,300
1,262,100
NM
NM
1,278,000
1,283,300
1,292,000
1,298,000
1,303,200
NM
NM
1,318,900
1,324,000
1,328,700
1,332,300
1,339,600
NM
NM
1,356,000
1,361,700
1,370,600
1,377,800
1,384,700
NM
NM
1,405,200
1,410,300
1,415,500
1,421,300
1,427,200
NM
NM
1,443,400
1,446,700
1,454,100
1,459,200
1,464,800
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
17,800
5,300
7,100
8,100
8,300
NA
NA
16,400
6,000
6,000
7,500
6,800
NA
NA
15,900
5,300
8,700
6,000
5,200
NA
NA
15,700
5,100
4,700
3,600
7,300
NA
NA
16,400
5,700
8,900
7,200
6,900
NA
NA
20,500
5,100
5,200
5,800
5,900
NA
NA
16,200
3,300
7,400
5,100
5,600
NA
NA
Pressure
Pressure
Tanks
(psi)
52
46
54
51
54
NM
NM
55
56
45
47
48
NM
NM
49
58
47
55
56
NM
NM
44
55
45
48
53
NM
NM
50
48
59
58
49
NM
NM
56
52
58
45
46
NM
NM
56
58
46
46
48
NM
NM
After
Contact
Tank
(psi)
43
39
45
45
44
NM
NM
46
48
38
40
40
NM
NM
42
50
40
48
48
NM
NM
37
48
38
40
45
NM
NM
43
46
50
51
42
NM
NM
50
44
50
40
39
NM
NM
49
50
38
40
40
NM
NM
After
Filters
(psi)
23
21
30
21
28
NM
NM
30
30
18
22
20
NM
NM
24
28
19
28
30
NM
NM
22
31
20
24
21
NM
NM
26
28
31
32
20
NM
NM
32
22
33
18
20
NM
NM
30
30
20
21
18
NM
NM
AP
across
System
(psi)
29
25
24
30
26
NA
NA
25
26
27
25
28
NA
NA
25
30
28
27
26
NA
NA
22
24
25
24
32
NA
NA
24
20
28
26
29
NA
NA
24
30
25
27
26
NA
NA
26
28
26
25
30
NA
NA
AP
across
Filters
(psi)
20
18
15
24
16
NA
NA
16
18
20
18
20
NA
NA
18
22
21
20
18
NA
NA
15
17
18
16
24
NA
NA
17
18
19
19
22
NA
NA
18
22
17
22
19
NA
NA
19
20
18
19
22
NA
NA
Volume to Distribution
Totalizer
(kgal)
15,033.2
15,038.8
15,045.9
15,052.4
15,060.3
NM
NM
15,076.9
15,082.3
15,088.2
15,093.9
15,100.9
NM
NM
15,116.4
15,121.8
15,129.9
15,135.9
15,141.1
NM
NM
15,156.6
15,161.8
15,166.5
15,169.9
15,177.2
NM
NM
15,193.3
15,199.1
15,208.0
15,215.0
15,222.0
NM
NM
15,242.20
15,247.40
15,252.70
15,258.20
15,264.20
NM
NM
15,280.10
15,283.50
15,290.30
15,295.40
15,301.00
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
17,400
5,600
7,100
6,500
7,900
NA
NA
16,600
5,400
5,900
5,700
6,960
NA
NA
15,540
5,400
8,100
6,000
5,200
NA
NA
15,500
5,200
4,700
3,400
7,300
NA
NA
16,100
5,800
8,900
7,000
7,000
NA
NA
20,200
5,200
5,300
5,500
6,000
NA
NA
15,900
3,400
6,800
5,100
5,600
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
24,430
24,780
24,780
24,780
25,130
NM
NM
25,130
25,480
25,480
25,480
25,480
NM
NM
25,830
25,830
26,460
26,460
26,660
NM
NM
26,810
26,810
26,810
27,170
27,170
NM
NM
27,520
27,520
27,520
27,880
27,880
NM
NM
28,230
28,230
28,230
28,580
28,580
NM
NM
28,930
28,930
29,570
29,570
29,570
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
0
350
0
0
350
NA
NA
0
350
0
0
0
NA
NA
350
0
630
0
200
NA
NA
150
0
0
360
0
NA
NA
350
0
0
360
0
NA
NA
350
0
0
350
0
NA
NA
350
0
640
0
0
NA
NA
NaOCI A
NaOCI
Tank
Level
(gal)
14.00
13.75
13.50
13.50
13.25
NM
NM
13.00
12.75
12.50
12.50
12.25
NM
NM
12.00
11.75
11.50
11.25
11.25
NM
NM
10.75
10.50
10.50
10.25
10.00
NM
NM
14.25
14.00
13.75
13.50
13.25
NM
NM
12.75
12.50
12.50
12.25
12.25
NM
NM
11.75
11.50
11.25
11.00
11.00
NM
NM
oplication
Average
CI2
Dose
(mg/L)
3.1
NA
NA
3.4
NA
NA
3.5
NA
NA
4.3
NA
NA
4.2
NA
NA
2.7
NA
NA
4.2
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Date
03/13/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
03/16/06
03/17/06
03/18/06
03/19/06
03/20/06
03/21/06
03/22/06
03/23/06
03/24/06
03/25/06
03/26/06
03/27/06
03/28/06
03/29/06
03/30/06
03/31/06
04/01/06
04/02/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
04/05/06
04/06/06
04/07/06
04/08/06
04/09/06
04/10/06
04/11/06
04/12/06
04/13/06
04/14/06
04/15/06
04/16/06
04/17/06
04/18/06
04/19/06
04/20/06
04/21/06
04/22/06
04/23/06
04/24/06
04/25/06
04/26/06
04/27/06
04/28/06
04/29/06
04/30/06
Time
15:20
14:45
11:00
14:05
15:15
NM
NM
15:15
13:45
15:20
13:30
15:00
NM
NM
10:30
10:00
15:45
14:20
15:45
NM
NM
13:30
08:30
15:20
11:50
14:10
NM
NM
14:15
14:00
15:16
11:15
14:45
NM
NM
14:30
15:00
15:30
02:00
14:15
NM
NM
15:10
13:10
15:35
02:00
15:10
NM
NM
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gal)
1,481,500
1,486,700
1,490,500
1,497,100
1,504,000
NM
NM
1,521,000
1,527,100
1,534,100
1,539,000
1,544,600
NM
NM
1,562,100
1,566,700
1,573,400
1,577,800
1,582,700
NM
NM
1,597,200
1,599,700
1,607,800
1,612,500
1,620,700
NM
NM
1,637,000
1,642,600
1,649,600
1,653,300
1,660,400
NM
NM
1,675,500
1,680,900
1,686,200
1,690,300
1,695,100
NM
NM
1,710,000
1,714,400
1,722,500
1,728,900
1,735,100
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
16,700
5,200
3,800
6,600
6,900
NA
NA
17,000
6,100
7,000
4,900
5,600
NA
NA
17,500
4,600
6,700
4,400
4,900
NA
NA
14,500
2,500
8,100
4,700
8,200
NA
NA
16,300
5,600
7,000
3,700
7,100
NA
NA
15,100
5,400
5,300
4,100
4,800
NA
NA
14,900
4,400
8,100
6,400
6,200
NA
NA
Pressure
Pressure
Tanks
(psi)
47
58
56
59
52
NM
NM
51
58
46
52
51
NM
NM
53
47
58
45
57
NM
NM
50
48
47
47
50
NM
NM
46
48
53
54
52
NM
NM
46
46
55
45
48
NM
NM
48
48
53
49
53
NM
NM
After
Contact
Tank
(psi)
40
50
50
50
46
NM
NM
42
50
40
43
43
NM
NM
46
40
50
39
50
NM
NM
41
41
40
40
43
NM
NM
39
40
43
48
45
NM
NM
38
37
50
40
40
NM
NM
40
41
48
41
43
NM
NM
After
Filters
(psi)
21
24
22
28
28
NM
NM
21
28
21
22
24
NM
NM
23
22
30
19
23
NM
NM
20
22
21
21
23
NM
NM
20
20
30
29
29
NM
NM
20
20
30
20
20
NM
NM
22
22
28
24
30
NM
NM
AP
across
System
(psi)
26
34
34
31
24
NA
NA
30
30
25
30
27
NA
NA
30
25
28
26
34
NA
NA
30
26
26
26
27
NA
NA
26
28
23
25
23
NA
NA
26
26
25
25
28
NA
NA
26
26
25
25
23
NA
NA
AP
across
Filters
(psi)
19
26
28
22
18
NA
NA
21
22
19
21
19
NA
NA
23
18
20
20
27
NA
NA
21
19
19
19
20
NA
NA
19
20
13
19
16
NA
NA
18
17
20
20
20
NA
NA
18
19
20
17
13
NA
NA
Volume to Distribution
Totalizer
(kgal)
15,317.5
15,322.8
15,326.6
15,332.9
15,339.9
NM
NM
15,356.7
15,362.0
15,369.1
15,373.7
15,379.3
NM
NM
15,396.3
15,401.0
15,407.7
15,412.1
15,417.1
NM
NM
15,431.4
15,433.0
15,441.4
15,446.1
15,454.4
NM
NM
15,470.5
15,476.2
15,482.9
15,486.6
15,493.8
NM
NM
15,508.7
15,514.2
15,519.4
15,523.3
15,528.2
NM
NM
15,543.2
15,547.6
15,554.0
15,559.4
15,565.7
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
16,500
5,300
3,800
6,300
7,000
NA
NA
16,800
5,300
7,100
4,600
5,600
NA
NA
17,000
4,700
6,700
4,400
5,000
NA
NA
14,300
1,600
8,400
4,700
8,300
NA
NA
16,100
5,700
6,700
3,700
7,200
NA
NA
14,900
5,500
5,200
3,900
4,900
NA
NA
15,000
4,400
6,400
5,400
6,300
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
29,850
29,850
29,850
30,130
30,130
NM
NM
30,420
30,420
30,420
30,770
30,770
NM
NM
31,460
31,460
31,460
31,460
31,460
NM
NM
31,810
31,810
32,410
32,410
32,410
NM
NM
32,770
32,770
33,120
33,120
33,120
NM
NM
33,480
33,480
33,480
33,840
33,840
NM
NM
33,840
33,840
33,840
33,840
33,840
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
280
0
0
280
0
NA
NA
290
0
0
350
0
NA
NA
690
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
350
0
600
0
0
NA
NA
360
0
350
0
0
NA
NA
360
0
0
360
0
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NaOCI A
NaOCI
Tank
Level
(gal)
10.50
10.25
10.25
14.50
14.25
NM
NM
13.75
13.75
13.50
13.50
13.25
NM
NM
13.00
12.75
12.75
12.50
12.50
NM
NM
12.25
12.25
12.00
11.75
11.75
NM
NM
11.25
11.25
11.00
10.75
10.75
NM
NM
10.50
10.50
10.25
10.25
10.25
NM
NM
9.75
14.25
14.00
13.75
13.75
NM
NM
oplication
Average
CI2
Dose
(mg/L)
4.0
NA
NA
2.5
NA
NA
2.9
NA
NA
2.5
NA
NA
2.5
NA
NA
1.5
NA
NA
3.6
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Date
05/01/06
05/02/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
05/05/06
05/06/06
05/07/06
05/08/06
05/09/06
05/10/06
05/11/06
05/12/06
05/13/06
05/14/06
05/15/06
05/16/06
05/17/06
05/18/06
05/19/06
05/20/06
05/21/06
05/22/06
05/23/06
05/24/06
05/25/06
05/26/06
05/27/06
05/28/06
05/29/06
05/30/06
05/31/06
06/01/06
06/02/06
06/03/06
06/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
06/07/06
06/08/06
06/09/06
06/10/06
06/11/06
06/12/06
06/13/06
06/14/06
06/15/06
06/16/06
06/17/06
06/18/06
Time
16:00
11:50
15:45
14:00
15:40
NM
NM
16:00
14:45
14:50
13:50
15:05
NM
NM
14:00
13:00
13:20
12:40
14:00
NM
NM
10:30
13:20
13:10
13:10
14:18
NM
NM
NM
14:10
15:30
14:20
15:20
NM
NM
NM
14:10
15:30
14:20
15:20
NM
NM
14:00
14:10
15:40
13:50
15:00
NM
NM
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gal)
1,748,900
1,753,500
1,759,600
1,763,300
1,769,200
NM
NM
1,784,300
1,788,900
1,795,200
1,800,100
1,806,900
NM
NM
1,822,900
1,828,100
1,832,900
1,837,800
1,843,000
NM
NM
1,859,200
1,867,500
1,874,700
1,884,300
1,891,400
NM
NM
NM
1,911,500
1,917,200
1,924,900
1,931,400
NM
NM
1,949,300
1,953,200
1,961,500
1,966,600
1,974,700
NM
NM
1,998,900
2,014,100
2,024,300
2,029,600
2,036,900
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
13,800
4,600
6,100
3,700
5,900
NA
NA
15,100
4,600
6,300
4,900
6,800
NA
NA
16,000
5,200
4,800
4,900
5,200
NA
NA
16,200
8,300
7,200
9,600
7,100
NA
NA
NA
20,100
5,700
7,700
6,500
NA
NA
17,900
3,900
8,300
5,100
8,100
NA
NA
24,200
15,200
10,200
5,300
7,300
NA
NA
Pressure
Pressure
Tanks
(psi)
48
50
52
52
48
NM
NM
54
48
53
45
50
NM
NM
55
54
58
45
56
NM
NM
48
48
52
50
48
NM
NM
NM
58
54
54
54
NM
NM
55
48
48
49
55
NM
NM
47
52
51
55
48
NM
NM
After
Contact
Tank
(psi)
40
43
42
44
40
NM
NM
45
40
46
39
42
NM
NM
48
48
46
38
49
NM
NM
40
40
42
42
40
NM
NM
NM
50
45
48
48
NM
NM
48
40
40
42
49
NM
NM
39
46
44
50
40
NM
NM
After
Filters
(psi)
22
25
22
28
21
NM
NM
30
20
30
19
24
NM
NM
21
28
28
22
30
NM
NM
20
20
19
24
21
NM
NM
NM
30
23
28
24
NM
NM
28
20
20
20
30
NM
NM
18
26
24
28
20
NM
NM
AP
across
System
(psi)
26
25
30
24
27
NA
NA
24
28
23
26
26
NA
NA
34
26
30
23
26
NA
NA
28
28
33
26
27
NA
NA
NA
28
31
26
30
NA
NA
27
28
28
29
25
NA
NA
29
26
27
27
28
NA
NA
AP
across
Filters
(psi)
18
18
20
16
19
NA
NA
15
20
16
20
18
NA
NA
27
20
18
16
19
NA
NA
20
20
23
18
19
NA
NA
NA
20
22
20
24
NA
NA
20
20
20
22
19
NA
NA
21
20
20
22
20
NA
NA
Volume to Distribution
Totalizer
(kgal)
15,579.7
15,584.3
15,590.1
15,593.9
15,599.4
NM
NM
15,614.7
15,619.4
15,625.8
15,630.8
15,637.3
NM
NM
15,653.5
15,658.3
15,663.2
15,668.2
15,673.5
NM
NM
15,689.6
15,697.9
15,704.9
15,713.9
15,721.1
NM
NM
NM
15,741.1
15,746.9
15,754.3
15,760.9
NM
NM
15,778.7
15,782.7
15,790.3
15,795.5
15,803.7
NM
NM
15,827.5
15,842.9
15,852.8
15,858.3
15,865.7
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
14,000
4,600
5,800
3,800
5,500
NA
NA
15,300
4,700
6,400
5,000
6,500
NA
NA
16,200
4,800
4,900
5,000
5,300
NA
NA
16,100
8,300
7,000
9,000
7,200
NA
NA
NA
20,000
5,800
7,400
6,600
NA
NA
17,800
4,000
7,600
5,200
8,200
NA
NA
23,800
15,400
9,900
5,500
7,400
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
33,840
33,840
34,170
34,170
34,170
NM
NM
34,520
34,520
34,520
34,520
34,870
NM
NM
34,870
35,240
35,240
35,240
35,240
NM
NM
35,590
35,590
35,930
36,600
36,600
NM
NM
NM
36,940
36,940
37,280
37,280
NM
NM
37,620
37,620
38,240
38,240
38,240
NM
NM
38,930
38,930
39,270
39,270
39,270
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
0
0
330
0
0
NA
NA
350
0
0
0
350
NA
NA
0
370
0
0
0
NA
NA
350
0
340
670
0
NA
NA
NA
340
0
340
0
NA
NA
340
0
620
0
0
NA
NA
690
0
340
0
0
NA
NA
NaOCI A
NaOCI
Tank
Level
(gal)
13.50
13.25
13.25
13.00
13.00
NM
NM
12.75
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
NM
NM
12.25
12.25
11.75
11.75
11.75
NM
NM
11.50
11.50
11.25
10.75
10.50
NM
NM
NM
10.25
10.25
10.00
10.00
NM
NM
9.50
9.50
14.00
13.75
13.50
NM
NM
13.25
12.75
12.75
12.25
12.25
NM
NM
oplication
Average
CI2
Dose
(mg/L)
2.9
NA
NA
1.3
NA
NA
3.0
NA
NA
3.7
NA
NA
1.5
NA
NA
3.5
NA
NA
3.1
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
>
oo
Week
No.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Date
06/19/06
06/20/06
06/21/06
06/22/06
06/23/06
06/24/06
06/25/06
06/26/06
06/27/06
06/28/06
06/29/06
06/30/06
07/01/06
07/02/06
07/03/06
07/04/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
07/07/06
07/08/06
07/09/06
07/10/06
07/11/06
07/12/06
07/13/06
07/14/06
07/15/06
07/16/06
07/17/06
07/18/06
07/19/06
07/20/06
07/21/06
07/22/06
07/23/06
07/24/06
07/25/06
07/26/06
07/27/06
07/28/06
07/29/06
07/30/06
07/31/06
08/01/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
08/04/06
08/05/06
08/06/06
Time
15:15
13:20
15:30
14:15
14:10
NM
NM
15:30
15:05
15:35
14:45
NM
NM
NM
16:00
NM
15:40
13:10
15:30
NM
NM
13:50
15:15
07:50
09:15
11:20
NM
NM
14:30
10:30
15:25
14:00
13:40
NM
NM
15:20
15:50
15:30
14:15
15:40
NM
NM
16:10
13:50
14:15
14:00
14:00
NM
NM
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gal)
2,053,000
2,059,500
2,066,200
2,081,800
2,087,600
NM
NM
2,116,600
2,121,600
2,128,000
2,135,400
NM
NM
NM
2,162,100
NM
2,179,800
2,186,600
2,195,800
NM
NM
2,217,800
2,231,700
2,240,100
2,253,900
2,271,500
NM
NM
2,290,500
2,294,800
2,302,900
2,308,500
2,316,800
NM
NM
2,335,100
2,340,800
2,346,400
2,353,200
2,362,600
NM
NM
2,390,500
2,400,100
2,408,800
2,420,800
2,427,900
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
16,100
6,500
6,700
15,600
5,800
NA
NA
29,000
5,000
6,400
7,400
NA
NA
NA
26,700
NA
17,700
6,800
9,200
NA
NA
22,000
13,900
8,400
13,800
17,600
NA
NA
19,000
4,300
8,100
5,600
8,300
NA
NA
18,300
5,700
5,600
6,800
9,400
NA
NA
27,900
9,600
8,700
12,000
7,100
NA
NA
Pressure
Pressure
Tanks
(psi)
50
58
48
56
50
NM
NM
52
57
55
47
NM
NM
NM
52
NM
58
45
53
NM
NM
52
52
53
60
52
NM
NM
50
54
48
46
49
NM
NM
52
49
47
52
52
NM
NM
54
55
51
46
52
NM
NM
After
Contact
Tank
(psi)
42
50
44
49
42
NM
NM
43
49
50
38
NM
NM
NM
53
NM
47
39
44
NM
NM
42
44
43
50
42
NM
NM
40
48
40
40
40
NM
NM
44
40
38
45
42
NM
NM
44
48
38
39
44
NM
NM
After
Filters
(psi)
23
31
29
30
21
NM
NM
28
32
30
16
NM
NM
NM
23
NM
30
21
30
NM
NM
22
16
24
29
24
NM
NM
24
30
22
20
10
NM
NM
30
20
18
21
23
NM
NM
24
29
25
20
19
NM
NM
AP
across
System
(psi)
27
27
19
26
29
NA
NA
24
25
25
31
NA
NA
NA
29
NA
28
24
23
NA
NA
30
36
29
31
28
NA
NA
26
24
26
26
39
NA
NA
22
29
29
31
29
NA
NA
30
26
26
26
33
NA
NA
AP
across
Filters
(psi)
19
19
15
19
21
NA
NA
15
17
20
22
NA
NA
NA
30
NA
17
18
14
NA
NA
20
28
19
21
18
NA
NA
16
18
18
20
30
NA
NA
14
20
20
24
19
NA
NA
20
19
13
19
25
NA
NA
Volume to Distribution
Totalizer
(kgal)
15,881.6
15,887.8
15,893.6
15,898.9
15,904.9
NM
NM
15,933.4
15,938.4
15,945.0
15,952.2
NM
NM
NM
15,978.6
NM
15,996.2
16,003.1
16,012.3
NM
NM
16,034.3
16,045.5
16,055.5
16,068.5
16,085.8
NM
NM
16,104.8
16,109.2
16,117.5
16,123.1
16,131.2
NM
NM
16,149.3
16,155.2
16,160.8
16,167.3
16,176.8
NM
NM
16,204.8
16,211.9
16,220.5
16,231.8
16,239.0
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
15,900
6,200
5,800
5,300
6,000
NA
NA
28,500
5,000
6,600
7,200
NA
NA
NA
26,400
NA
17,600
6,900
9,200
NA
NA
22,000
11,200
10,000
13,000
17,300
NA
NA
19,000
4,400
8,300
5,600
8,100
NA
NA
18,100
5,900
5,600
6,500
9,500
NA
NA
28,000
7,100
8,600
11,300
7,200
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
39,620
39,970
39,970
39,970
39,970
NM
NM
40,650
40,650
40,650
40,970
NM
NM
NM
41,370
NM
41,670
41,670
41,670
NM
NM
42,010
43,682
43,682
44,033
44,347
NM
NM
44,700
44,700
44,700
44,700
45,030
NM
NM
45,380
45,380
45,380
45,730
45,730
NM
NM
46,080
46,400
46,740
46,740
46,740
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
350
350
0
0
0
NA
NA
680
0
0
320
NA
NA
NA
400
NA
300
0
0
NA
NA
340
1,672
0
351
314
NA
NA
354
0
0
0
330
NA
NA
350
0
0
350
0
NA
NA
350
320
340
0
0
NA
NA
NaOCI A
NaOCI
Tank
Level
(gal)
12.25
12.25
1.00
11.75
11.50
NM
NM
11.25
11.25
11.00
10.75
NM
NM
NM
10.75
NM
10.75
10.75
10.75
NM
NM
10.75
9.50
14.50
14.00
13.75
NM
NM
13.50
13.25
13.25
13.00
12.75
NM
NM
12.50
12.50
12.25
12.00
11.75
NM
NM
11.25
11.00
10.50
10.25
10.00
NM
NM
oplication
Average
CI2
Dose
(mg/L)
2.6
NA
NA
3.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.5
NA
NA
3.4
NA
NA
3.2
NA
NA
4.0
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
57
58
59
60
Date
08/07/06
08/08/06
08/09/06
08/10/06
08/11/06
08/12/06
08/13/06
08/14/06
08/15/06
08/16/06
08/17/06
08/18/06
08/19/06
08/20/06
08/21/06
08/22/06
08/23/06
08/24/06
08/25/06
08/26/06
08/27/06
08/28/06
08/29/06
08/30/06
08/31/06
09/01/06
09/02/06
09/03/06
Time
14:00
14:10
15:00
14:55
15:40
NM
NM
NM
13:30
16:00
13:50
NM
NM
NM
16:10
15:15
15:45
14:15
14:55
NM
NM
15:45
14:00
15:15
14:05
13:40
NM
NM
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gai)
2,453,700
2,467,800
2,479,400
2,498,600
2,504,000
NM
NM
NM
2,530,900
2,537,300
2,542,800
NM
NM
NM
2,569,900
2,579,800
2,590,800
2,597,900
2,605,900
NM
NM
2,630,500
2,635,600
2,643,400
2,649,600
2,655,900
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gai)
25,800
14,100
1 1 ,600
19,200
5,400
NA
NA
NA
26,900
6,400
5,500
NA
NA
NA
27,100
9,900
1 1 ,000
7,100
8,000
NA
NA
24,600
5,100
7,800
6,200
6,300
NA
NA
Pressure
Pressure
Tanks
(psi)
45
48
48
53
43
NM
NM
NM
52
54
50
NM
NM
NM
51
51
55
42
50
NM
NM
44
50
47
53
50
NM
NM
After
Contact
Tank
(psi)
38
40
40
47
38
NM
NM
NM
41
44
40
NM
NM
NM
42
41
48
35
40
NM
NM
37
40
39
45
42
NM
NM
After
Filters
(psi)
21
21
18
30
18
NM
NM
NM
19
23
25
NM
NM
NM
28
23
26
20
25
NM
NM
18
21
19
21
22
NM
NM
AP
across
System
(psi)
24
27
30
23
25
NA
NA
NA
33
31
25
NA
NA
NA
23
28
29
22
25
NA
NA
26
29
28
32
28
NA
NA
AP
across
Filters
(psi)
17
19
22
17
20
NA
NA
NA
22
21
15
NA
NA
NA
14
18
22
15
15
NA
NA
19
19
20
24
20
NA
NA
Volume to Distribution
Totalizer
(kgal)
16,264.6
16,278.2
16,290.1
16,309.2
16,314.7
NM
NM
NM
16,341.7
16,348.1
16,353.8
NM
NM
NM
16,381.2
16,391.3
16,402.4
16,409.4
16,417.2
NM
NM
16,441.9
16,447.0
16,454.7
16,461.0
16,467.4
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gai)
25,640
13,580
1 1 ,880
19,100
5,500
NA
NA
NA
27,000
6,400
5,700
NA
NA
NA
27,400
10,100
11,100
7,000
7,800
NA
NA
24,700
5,100
7,700
6,300
6,400
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(gai)
46,900
47,420
47,730
48,050
48,050
NM
NM
NM
48,380
48,380
48,380
NM
NM
NM
48,380
48,380
48,380
48,670
48,990
NM
NM
49,320
49,320
49,630
49,630
49,630
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gai)
160
520
310
320
0
NA
NA
NA
330
0
0
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
290
320
NA
NA
330
0
310
0
0
NA
NA
NaOCI A
NaOCI
Tank
Level
(gai)
10.00
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
12.25
12.00
11.75
NM
NM
NM
11.25
10.75
10.50
10.25
10.00
NM
NM
8.25
13.25
12.75
12.50
12.25
NM
NM
iplication
Average
CI2
Dose
(mg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.0
NA
NA
NA
4.1
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
Note:
(a) On 08/31/05, pressure reading of the four pressure tanks started being recorded.
(b) Labor day holiday.
(c) Change in NaOCI tank level recorded up to 10/28/06 when actual NaOCI tank level started being recorded.
(d) Flow meters, one on treated water line and one on backwash line, installed on 09/20/06 but readings not recorded until 10/31/06.
NM = not measureed; NA = not available.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Delavan, WI
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
rluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
rree Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
re (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
07/1 2/05
IN
352
0.2
<1
0.1
-
-
<0.05
-
13.9
14.0
-
7.4
14.1
0.8
-52
-
-
304
162
141
18.6
19.2
<0.1
18.6
0.6
1,557
1,509
19.5
19.8
AC
352
0.2
<1
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
-
14.2
1.7
-
7.4
15.5
1.9
174
-
-
318
170
148
20.5
7.7
12.8
5.0
2.7
1,419
130
18.9
18.3
TT
352
0.2
<1
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
-
13.8
0.3
-
7.5
15.4
1.7
241
<0.02
0.1
329
175
153
7.6
7.7
<0.1
5.8
1.8
<25
<25
20.4
20.3
07/19/05
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Delavan, WI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
-luoride
Sulfate
M bate (as N)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
DH
Temperature
3O
ORP
=ree Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
VI g Hardness (as CaCO3)
o,s (total)
o,s (soluble)
<\s (particulate)
o,s(lll)
<\s(V)
=e (total)
=e (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
08/16/05
IN
330
-
-
-
-
<0.05
14.6
14.0
-
7.7
13.0
3.6
-40
-
17.5
-
-
1,466
18.4
AC
352
-
-
-
-
<0.05
14.5
2.0
-
7.6
13.1
3.5
-33
<0.02
<0.1
-
16.8
-
-
1,406
17.9
TA
352
-
-
-
-
<0.05
15.0
1.4
-
7.5
13.1
1.8
-50
<0.02
<0.1
-
5.5
-
-
150
17.9
TB
356
-
-
-
-
<0.05
14.7
2.3
-
7.6
13.1
1.9
-46
<0.02
<0.1
-
6.3
-
-
219
17.9
08/23/05
IN
352
-
-
-
-
<0.05
13.8
14.7
-
7.7
13.6
2.8
-49
-
19.0
-
-
1,319
17.4
AC
352
-
-
-
-
<0.05
14.3
11.3
-
7.6
13.3
2.6
-37
<0.02
<0.1
-
19.1
-
-
1,324
18.0
TA
356
-
-
-
-
<0.05
14.4
20.4
-
7.6
13.3
2.6
-47
<0.02
<0.1
-
6.7
-
-
137
18.2
TB
356
-
-
-
-
<0.05
14.1
19.0
-
7.5
13.0
2.5
-36
<0.02
<0.1
-
6.8
-
-
202
17.9
08/30/05
IN
365
-
-
-
-
<0.05
16.6
12.0
-
7.6
15.6
2.6
-36
-
NA
-
-
NA
NA
AC
352
-
-
-
-
<0.05
16.8
13.0
-
7.5
12.6
3.7
-59
<0.02
<0.1
-
17.2
-
-
1,416
17.8
TA
352
-
-
-
-
<0.05
16.8
20.0
-
7.5
13.3
1.6
-68
<0.02
<0.1
-
17.9
-
-
1,499
17.9
TB
356
-
-
-
-
<0.05
16.2
19.0
-
7.4
12.9
1.9
-60
<0.02
<0.1
-
18.1
-
-
1,525
18.5
09/06/05
IN
352
-
-
-
-
<0.05
15.3
14.0
-
7.5
16.3
2.6
-22
-
20.7
-
-
1,350
18.5
AC
361
-
-
-
-
<0.05
14.6
13.0
-
7.5
13.9
2.0
-66
0.09
<0.1
-
19.9
-
-
1,351
17.5
TA
356
-
-
-
-
<0.05
14.9
18.0
-
7.3
14.6
2.1
-59
0.03
<0.1
-
19.9
-
-
1,418
17.8
TB
361
-
-
-
-
<0.05
14.8
17.0
-
7.5
14.2
1.9
-70
<0.02
<0.1
-
21.0
-
-
1,389
17.7
09/13/05
IN
361
-
-
-
-
<0.05
14.4
14.0
-
7.6
14.5
2.4
-68
-
16.8
-
-
1,443
17.4
AC
356
-
-
-
-
<0.05
14.7
18.0
-
7.5
13.2
2.1
-69
<0.02
<0.1
-
17.6
-
-
1,556
17.4
TA
352
-
-
-
-
<0.05
14.9
18.0
-
7.6
13.5
3.1
-51
0.12
<0.1
-
17.2
-
-
1,452
16.8
TB
361
-
-
-
-
<0.05
14.7
18.0
-
7.5
13.7
2.0
-56
<0.02
<0.1
-
17.0
-
-
1,512
17.1
Cd
to
IN = influent; AC = after chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B; TT = after combined effluent. NA = not available.
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Delavan, WI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
rluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
09/20/05
IN
352
-
-
-
<0.05
13.0
16.0
7.3
15.1
1.9
-73
-
-
15.4
-
1,449
17.0
AC
370
-
-
-
<0.05
13.0
2.2
7.2
16.0
2.7
-18
<0.02
<0.1
15.1
-
1,294
15.7
TA
374
-
-
-
<0.05
13.3
3.2
7.4
15.5
2.4
-27
<0.02
<0.1
6.1
-
291
16.2
TB
370
-
-
-
<0.05
13.1
2.0
7.4
14.9
2.1
-28
<0.02
<0.1
5.5
-
216
15.4
09/27/05
IN
361
0.2
<1
<0.05
<0.05
16.2
16.0
7.5
13.5
2.0
-81
-
-
510
260
250
29.0
15.7
13.3
14.0
1.7
2,478
1,227
32.9
19.5
AC
361
0.2
<1
<0.05
<0.05
16.3
18.0
7.5
13.4
2.0
-76
<0.02
<0.1
281
143
138
15.8
12.6
3.1
13.5
<0.1
1,602
NA
19.2
11.8
TT
365
0.2
<1
<0.05
<0.05
16.0
20.0
7.7
13.9
3.9
-67
<0.02
<0.1
283
143
141
16.6
16.8
<0.1
15.1
1.8
1,596
1417
19.2
20.8
10/04/05
IN
361
-
-
-
<0.05
14.2
20.0
7.4
14.0
2.8
-81
-
-
15.9
-
1,512
17.8
AC
374
-
-
-
<0.05
14.5
6.1
7.5
13.8
2.1
-53
<0.02
<0.1
16.2
-
1,525
17.9
TA
370
-
-
-
<0.05
13.8
7.5
7.5
13.5
2.3
-50
<0.02
<0.1
10.2
-
930
17.8
TB
374
-
-
-
<0.05
15.3
11.0
7.4
13.8
2.1
-60
<0.02
<0.1
9.4
-
874
17.4
10/11/05(a)
IN
361
361
-
-
-
-
54.5
55.0
13.6
13.6
14.0
15.0
8.1
15.1
2.7
-74
-
-
14.3
14.3
-
1,169
1,165
15.8
15.6
AC
374
370
-
-
-
-
52.5
58.8
13.3
13.8
5.3
11.0
8.0
14.4
3.1
-49
<0.02
<0.1
14.0
14.5
-
1,232
1,274
16.1
16.4
TA
361
361
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
14.2
14.7
7.2
7.0
8.0
14.0
2.9
-34
<0.02
<0.1
8.1
8.1
-
537
537
16.2
15.9
TB
356
356
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
13.6
14.0
6.8
5.5
8.1
14.1
2.9
-19
0.04
<0.1
7.8
7.8
-
469
448
16.3
15.8
1 0/1 8/05
IN
356
-
-
-
-
77.2
13.0
18.0
7.4
15.2
2.3
-74
-
-
20.7
-
1,535
19.1
AC
356
-
-
-
-
76.7
13.3
2.7
7.4
15.5
2.1
-66
<0.02
1.4
20.5
-
1,526
19.2
TA
352
-
-
-
-
41.2
14.3
11.0
7.4
15.1
2.3
-59
<0.02
<0.1
11.6
-
901
19.5
TB
365
-
-
-
-
35.8
13.4
9.9
7.4
15.3
2.3
-31
<0.02
<0.1
10.2
-
856
19.7
(a) Starting 10/11/05, total phosphorous
IN = influent; AC = after chlorination;
analyzed instead of orthophosphate.
TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B; TT = after combined effluent. NA = not available.
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Delavan, WI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
\litrate (as N)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
3H
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
re (total)
-e (soluble)
Mn (total)
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Delavan, WI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Mkalinity (as CaCO3)
rluoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
^monia (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
}H
Temperature
DO
ORP
rree Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
\/lg Hardness (as CaCO3)
^s (total)
^s (soluble)
^s (particulate)
^s (III)
*s(V)
-e (total)
re (soluble)
\/ln (total)
\/ln (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
1 2/06/05
IN
334
-
2.9
84.5
14.2
18.0
-
7.5
12.5
2.9
-46
-
-
18.6
-
-
-
-
1,388
-
35.8
AC
348
-
2.8
82.3
14.5
2.3
-
7.5
12.2
4.1
104
1.5
4.4
-
-
18.9
-
-
-
-
1,384
-
18.4
TA
356
-
2.9
<10
14.2
<0.1
-
7.4
11.8
2.8
111
3.3
2.9
-
-
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
17.7
TB
352
-
2.9
<10
14.3
0.1
-
7.5
11.6
3.8
116
1.4
4.0
-
-
2.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
17.6
12/13/05
IN
361
370
-
3.0
3.0
69.1
71.0
14.7
14.4
16.0
19.0
-
7.5
11.8
3.6
-45
-
-
17.1
17.3
-
-
-
-
1,3^3
1,445
-
18.2
19.3
AC
374
374
-
2.9
2.9
68.2
69.5
14.7
14.7
1.9
2.0
-
7.4
10.9
3.3
36
0.8
0.1
-
-
17.5
17.6
-
-
-
-
1,44b
1,407
-
18.8
18.2
TA
374
374
-
2.9
3.2
<10
<10
14.9
14.1
0.4
0.1
-
7.7
12.4
2.6
69
<0.02
0.3
-
-
3.0
3.0
-
-
-
-
<2b
<25
-
18. b
17.8
TB
370
370
-
2.9
3.1
<10
<10
14.3
14.0
0.1
0.6
-
7.5
11.2
3.9
67
<0.02
<0.1
-
-
3.3
3.3
-
-
-
-
<2b
<25
-
19.0
18.3
01/03/06'*
IN
374
0.2
<1
<0.05
-
3.2
60.7
14.4
18.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
330
174
155
17.4
17.5
<0.1
16.4
1.1
1,438
1,437
19.0
20.0
AC
374
0.2
<1
<0.05
-
2.9
59.4
13.0
10.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
327
171
156
18.1
15.5
2.6
9.7
5.8
1,265
1,120
18.1
19.2
TT
374
0.2
<1
<0.05
-
2.9
<10
14.3
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
331
175
156
4.9
4.9
<0.1
3.9
1.0
<25
<25
19.3
20.6
01/10/06
IN
370
-
3.0
<10
15.0
17.0
-
7.2
13.5
1.7
132
-
-
16.4
-
-
-
-
1,303
-
17.1
AC
334
-
2.9
<10
14.8
16.0
-
7.3
13.0
1.8
127
0.2
0.1
-
-
17.1
-
-
-
-
1,340
-
17.4
TA
370
-
2.9
<10
14.4
2.5
-
7.3
12.9
1.4
128
0.2
0.1
-
-
6.5
-
-
-
-
542
-
18.0
TB
378
-
2.8
-
<10
14.6
0.6
-
7.3
12.7
2.0
126
<0.02
<0.1
-
-
6.2
-
-
-
-
291
-
19.6
01/17/06
IN
374
-
3.0
74.2
15.3
19.0
-
7.3
13.0
1.8
60
-
-
17.5
-
-
-
-
1,267
-
18.0
AC
370
-
3.0
49.4
15.2
2.3
-
7.5
12.6
2.7
66
0.7
2.7
-
-
17.0
-
-
-
-
1,278
-
18.1
TA
374
-
2.9
<10
14.7
0.7
-
7.5
11.6
1.7
91
2.3
1.8
-
-
3.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
16.9
TB
374
-
2.9
-
<10
14.7
0.4
-
7.4
11.3
1.0
92
2.1
0.8
-
-
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
16.8
(a) Onsite water quality parameters not taken because field meter back at Battelle for troubleshooting.
IN = influent; AC = after chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B; TT = after combined effluent. NA = not available.
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Delavan, WI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
rluoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
rree Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
re (soluble)
Mn (total)
Vln (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
01/24/06
IN
383
-
-
3.1
-
75.0
14.9
19.0
-
7.2
13.4
1.0
102
-
-
-
22.0
-
-
1,278
-
18.4
-
AC
378
-
-
2.9
-
75.0
15.0
2.2
-
7.4
12.3
1.5
112
1.5
0.3
-
-
21.0
-
-
1,296
-
18.3
-
TA
374
-
-
2.9
-
<10
14.2
NA
-
7.3
13.0
4.2
123
<0.02
<0.1
-
-
10.5
-
-
897
-
13.8
-
TB
383
-
-
3.1
-
<10
14.4
0.2
-
7.2
13.8
1.4
118
<0.02
<0.1
-
-
7.3
-
-
363
-
17.2
-
01/31/06
IN
384
0.2
<1
<0.05
-
3.0
-
60.1
14.4
16.0
1.7
7.3
12.6
3.4
7
-
286
168
119
17.2
15.7
1.5
14.6
1.1
1,502
1,564
21.0
21.9
AC
359
0.2
<1
<0.05
-
3.0
-
59.2
14.0
1.9
1.7
7.4
12.0
4.0
44
2.5
3.8
285
168
117
17.1
7.7
9.4
2.6
5.1
1,495
366
21.2
20.8
TT
359
0.2
<1
<0.05
-
2.8
-
<10
13.8
0.3
1.6
7.5
12.1
5.4
69
2.2
2.7
292
169
123
3.6
3.2
0.4
1.3
1.9
<25
<25
19.2
19.8
02/07/06
IN
349
-
-
2.9
-
77.6
14.8
13.0
-
7.2
14.4
3.9
-17
-
-
-
25.1
-
-
1,304
-
17.9
-
AC
357
-
-
2.8
-
77.0
14.6
2.2
-
7.3
13.6
2.2
2
2.5
2.7
-
-
24.3
-
-
1,195
-
16.9
-
TA
349
-
-
3.0
-
<10
14.9
1.1
-
7.3
13.4
1.7
5
1.7
1.4
-
-
5.5
-
-
<25
-
18.8
-
TB
357
-
-
2.8
-
<10
14.6
0.2
-
7.2
13.1
0.9
10
2.4
2.4
-
-
3.6
-
-
<25
-
17.0
-
02/1 4/06
IN
358
-
-
2.9
-
67.8
14.2
16.0
-
7.2
12.8
2.4
-82
-
-
-
16.0
-
-
1,248
-
15.9
-
AC
354
-
-
2.5
-
66.8
14.4
4.3
-
7.3
12.1
5.0
-76
0.1
<0.1
-
-
15.4
-
-
1,241
-
16.2
-
TA
362
-
-
2.7
-
<10
14.1
2.3
-
7.4
11.9
4.0
-72
0.1
<0.1
-
-
4.2
-
-
86
-
15.7
-
TB
358
-
-
2.8
-
<10
13.8
1.8
-
7.4
11.8
1.5
-71
0.3
0.2
-
-
3.5
-
-
<25
-
16.2
-
02/21/06
IN
356
361
-
-
3.0
3.0
-
70.3
74.6
14.7
14.5
21.0
22.0
-
7.2
12.9
1.8
-87
-
-
-
18.6
19.0
-
-
1,426
1,367
-
18.7
17.9
-
AC
356
356
-
-
3.0
2.8
-
73.8
77.3
14.8
15.0
2.2
2.5
-
7.4
12.2
1.7
-22
2.1
2.9
-
-
19.7
20.6
-
-
1,437
1,407
-
20.6
19.3
-
TA
361
361
-
-
2.7
2.7
-
<10
<10
14.5
15.0
0.6
0.6
-
7.4
11.9
1.4
-10
2.8
3.2
-
-
2.6
2.7
-
-
<25
<25
-
16.7
16.6
-
TB
356
356
-
-
2.7
2.7
-
<10
<10
14.6
14.3
0.7
0.7
-
7.4
12.3
1.3
-2
1.9
3.3
-
-
2.5
2.6
-
-
<25
<25
-
16.7
17.0
-
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Delavan, WI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOG
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
02/28/06
IN
362
0.2
<1.0
<0.05
-
2.9
77.9
13.8
19.0
1.5
7.3
13.5
2.2
-48
-
297
160
137
21.0
17.9
3.1
16.9
1.0
1,252
1,296
18.7
17.7
AC
362
0.2
<1.0
<0.05
-
2.8
110
14.0
2.4
1.5
7.4
12.6
2.8
54
3.0
3.3
297
158
139
27.6
7.6
20.0
4.0
3.5
2,170
223
17.8
16.8
TT
354
0.2
<1.0
0.05
-
2.8
-
<10
14.0
1.0
1.5
7.4
12.1
1.6
66
3.3
2.8
296
159
137
2.8
2.5
0.3
1.3
1.2
<25
<25
16.7
16.8
03/07/06
IN
365
-
-
-
3.9
61.1
14.4
18.0
-
7.4
13.2
2.2
-34
-
-
18.5
-
-
-
1,420
-
19.1
-
AC
356
-
-
-
3.5
62.6
14.8
2.4
-
7.5
12.8
3.1
325
3.0
3.2
-
19.1
-
-
-
1,410
-
18.6
-
TA
356
-
-
-
3.5
<10
13.7
1.4
-
7.4
12.0
1.4
330
2.4
2.5
-
2.3
-
-
-
<25
-
18.2
-
TB
361
-
-
-
3.6
-
<10
14.0
1.1
-
7.4
11.9
1.5
336
1.2
2.5
-
2.4
-
-
-
<25
-
18.2
-
03/13/06
IN
347
-
-
-
2.3
67.3
14.2
17.0
-
7.3
13.4
1.9
-93
-
-
21.6
-
-
-
1,365
-
18.5
-
AC
356
-
-
-
2.3
61.9
14.4
2.3
-
7.4
12.7
2.6
298
3.0
3.3
-
19.5
-
-
-
1,371
-
18.3
-
TA
351
-
-
-
2.4
<10
14.3
1.6
-
7.3
12.5
2.0
333
1.0
3.3
-
2.9
-
-
-
<25
-
18.7
-
TB
364
-
-
-
2.2
-
<10
13.5
1.5
-
7.4
12.4
1.6
340
3.6
3.6
-
2.9
-
-
-
<25
-
18.3
-
03/21/06
IN
356
-
-
-
2.8
71.0
14.5
18.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
20.8
-
-
-
1,361
-
19.7
-
AC
356
-
-
-
2.7
68.8
14.3
1.7
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
20.4
-
-
-
1,376
-
19.9
-
TA
356
-
-
-
2.7
<10
15.0
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
3.4
-
-
-
<25
-
19.9
-
TB
361
-
-
-
2.5
-
<10
14.0
0.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
3.4
-
-
-
<25
-
19.5
-
03/28/06
IN
358
0.2
<1
0.05
3.4
2.7
74.5
14.7
20.0
NA
7.6
13.6
3.0
-65
-
286
154
132
19.6
17.9
1.7
16.5
1.4
1,552
1,615
36.7
32.4
AC
358
0.2
<1
0.05
3.1
2.4
74.4
14.7
3.0
NA
7.5
12.9
2.0
136
0.9
1.9
292
154
138
20.2
8.7
11.4
3.8
4.9
1,576
474
19.8
18.6
TT
358
0.2
<1
0.05
2.8
2.3
<10
14.3
16.0
NA
7.4
12.7
2.3
-52
0.1
0.1
289
151
138
7.7
6.9
0.8
5.5
1.4
1,120
NA
19.1
21.5
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Delavan, WI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
rluoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
rree Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
re (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
04/04/06
IN
349
-
2.7
3.0
-
75.4
14.9
20.0
-
7.4
12.8
4.7
-86
-
-
-
16.6
-
-
1,370
-
17.7
-
AC
353
-
2.6
2.7
-
76.5
14.2
2.1
-
7.5
12.4
3.2
195
0.1
3.5
-
-
21.4
-
-
1,286
-
17.3
-
TA
357
-
2.8
2.7
-
<10
14.4
0.5
-
7.4
12.3
1.7
185
0.02
0.1
-
-
6.5
-
-
<25
-
17.8
-
TB
361
-
3.0
2.9
-
<10
14.2
0.3
-
7.4
12.3
1.1
194
0.4
1.5
-
-
5.8
-
-
<25
-
17.6
-
04/11/06
IN
369
-
2.9
3.0
-
67.4
13.9
18.0
-
7.3
14.6
2.9
-19
-
-
-
19.7
-
-
1,448
-
18.7
-
AC
378
-
2.0
2.8
-
66.0
13.4
2.6
-
7.4
13.9
2.4
221
0.8
3.9
-
-
19.9
-
-
1,424
-
18.2
-
TA
374
-
2.8
2.8
-
<10
13.6
2.2
-
7.4
13.8
2.1
195
0.02
0.6
-
-
7.0
-
-
455
-
13.0
-
TB
374
-
3.0
2.8
-
<10
14.2
3.8
-
7.4
13.8
2.2
182
0.1
0.6
-
-
5.8
-
-
317
-
14.0
-
04/18/06
IN
378
-
3.0
3.4
-
77.0
14.4
16.0
-
7.3
12.5
1.8
190
-
-
-
18.8
-
-
1,439
-
19.1
-
AC
378
-
2.9
3.2
-
75.1
14.4
7.9
-
7.3
12.1
1.8
-51
<0.02
0.33
-
-
18.6
-
-
1,436
-
19.1
-
TA
374
-
3.1
3.1
-
<10
14.1
0.2
-
7.3
11.9
1.4
-28
0.1
0.1
-
-
5.2
-
-
<25
-
16.5
-
TB
382
-
3.1
3.0
-
<10
14.1
0.7
-
7.3
11.9
1.5
-26
0.04
0.2
-
-
4.6
-
-
102
-
16.7
-
04/25/06
IN
364
0.2
<1
<0.05
-
3.0
-
75.1
14.3
16.0
-
8.0
14.5
3.1
-50
-
310
175
135
19.5
16.1
3.4
14.2
1.9
1,525
1,403
19.9
19.1
AC
356
0.1
<1
<0.05
-
3.7
-
68.9
13.9
1.8
-
8.0
13.5
1.4
248
0.3
3.4
302
171
131
16.2
5.6
10.6
1.9
3.8
1,429
180
18.8
18.9
TT
356
0.2
<1
0.1
-
2.8
-
69.1
15.1
1.7
-
8.0
12.2
1.2
282
0.9
4.0
310
174
136
16.5
5.3
11.2
1.4
3.8
1,400
157
19.2
18.7
05/02/06
IN
362
-
-
2.9
-
59.4
15.4
12.0
-
8.1
13.4
3.4
-73
-
-
-
16.8
-
-
1,265
-
17.1
-
AC
367
-
-
2.6
-
60.1
15.1
8.8
-
8.1
12.5
3.2
-75
0.1
0.5
-
-
16.2
-
-
1,280
-
17.1
-
TA
354
-
-
2.5
-
58.0
15.3
9.1
-
8.1
12.3
3.6
-74
0.1
0.2
-
-
16.7
-
-
1,280
-
17.4
-
TB
367
-
-
2.9
-
<10
14.9
5.1
-
8.0
12.4
2.0
-71
0.1
0.1
-
-
5.1
-
-
222
-
17.6
-
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Delavan, WI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
rree Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
=e (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
05/09/06
IN
343
-
3.2
-
83.5
15.3
17.0
-
8.0
13.5
2.4
-77
-
-
19.8
-
-
1,343
21.2
-
AC
359
-
2.7
-
79.2
14.4
5.4
-
8.0
13.2
1.4
-82
<0.02
0.1
-
-
19.7
-
-
1,337
20.0
-
TA
355
-
2.8
-
<10
14.5
4.0
-
8.0
12.3
1.3
-70
0.1
0.2
-
-
7.8
-
-
495
21.4
-
TB
380
-
2.8
-
<10
15.0
0.9
-
8.0
12.1
1.1
-62
0.1
<0.1
-
-
5.3
-
-
218
22.8
-
05/15/06
IN
343
359
-
2.8
2.7
-
52.0
52.1
14.9
14.8
17.0
15.0
-
8.1
14.9
2.8
-82
-
-
16.7
16.1
-
-
1,484
1,400
18.9
18.0
-
AC
359
347
-
2.8
2.7
-
52.6
53.3
14.6
14.2
2.8
2.5
-
8.1
14.4
1.9
-21
0.3
0.7
-
-
16.4
16.7
-
-
1,377
1,314
18.1
18.3
-
TA
355
363
-
2.7
2.7
-
<10
<10
14.5
15.3
0.3
0.5
-
8.1
13.5
1.4
159
0.4
1.3
-
-
5.1
5.0
-
-
<25
<25
18.7
18.1
-
TB
372
368
-
2.7
2.7
-
<10
<10
14.9
14.5
0.6
0.4
-
8.1
13.3
1.4
236
0.1
2.4
-
-
4.5
4.3
-
-
<25
<25
18.4
18.1
-
05/23/06
IN
359
0.2
<1
<0.01
<0.05
2.4
-
65.8
14.4
14.0
-
7.4
14.7
1.9
-94
262
132
131
20.7
19.6
1.1
15.9
3.7
1,040
1,248
16.2
17.3
AC
363
0.2
<1
0.01
0.01
2.8
-
76.4
14.7
5.7
-
7.5
13.0
1.8
-25
0.2
0.7
314
162
151
21.4
13.6
7.8
5.2
8.5
1,342
661
16.5
16.1
TT
359
0.2
<1
<0.01
<0.05
2.9
-
<10
14.5
0.5
-
7.5
12.6
1.4
-22
0.1
0.1
311
158
153
6.9
6.5
0.4
3.9
2.6
<25
<25
19.6
19.6
05/30/06
IN
353
-
3.0
-
89.8
14.9
17.0
-
7.4
11.9
2.4
-80
-
-
15.1
-
-
1,176
15.4
-
AC
357
-
2.8
-
85.9
14.3
12.0
-
7.4
14.4
2.3
-82
0.03
0.3
-
-
15.9
-
-
1,163
16.1
-
TA
357
-
2.9
-
24.9
14.2
1.5
-
7.4
14.0
1.5
-45
0.1
0.1
-
-
4.6
-
-
160
15.6
-
TB
357
-
2.9
-
24.9
14.3
3.8
-
7.4
13.8
1.9
-34
0.1
0.1
-
-
6.2
-
-
312
15.1
-
06/06/06
IN
363
-
2.8
-
63.1
14.9
16.0
-
7.3
13.9
2.1
-82
-
-
18.1
-
-
1,240
18.1
-
AC
351
-
2.7
-
64.5
14.8
2.0
-
7.4
13.6
2.4
188
0.4
3.0
-
-
16.2
-
-
1,195
16.6
-
TA
359
-
2.6
-
10.5
14.8
1.3
-
7.4
13.4
2.9
145
<0.02
0.1
-
-
5.6
-
-
64
20.8
-
TB
359
-
2.6
-
<10
14.5
2.2
-
7.3
13.4
1.6
-16
<0.02
<0.1
-
-
5.6
-
-
215
19.0
-
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Delavan, WI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
rluoride
Sulfate
\litrate (as N)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
3H
Temperature
DO
ORP
rree Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
-e (total)
-e (soluble)
\Hn (total)
\/ln (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
06/12/06
IN
363
-
-
-
2.9
-
91.2
14.9
13.4
-
7.3
15.0
2.0
-76
25.3
-
-
-
-
1,184
-
18.0
AC
368
-
-
-
2.4
-
83.4
15.6
1.4
-
7.4
14.1
1.5
258
1.8
6.4
23.2
-
-
-
-
1,143
-
17.1
TA
372
-
-
-
2.5
-
<10
14.4
0.4
-
7.4
13.6
2.0
236
0.8
1.9
5.5
-
-
-
-
75
-
9.4
TB
347
-
-
-
2.1
-
<10
15.3
0.5
-
7.5
13.5
2.0
264
1.7
4.7
5.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
15.7
06/20/06
IN
359
0.2
<1
<0.05
2.4
-
73.0
15.4
11.0
-
7.4
15.9
2.1
-47
337
173
163
18.2
18.3
<0.1
15.4
2.9
1,224
1,329
16.7
17.8
AC
363
0.2
<1
<0.05
2.1
-
78.3
15.2
1.7
-
7.4
14.3
1.8
232
1.5
5.3
357
185
172
17.8
8.1
9.7
3.0
5.1
1,375
302
17.8
17.1
TT
351
0.2
<1
O.05
2.5
-
<10
15.0
1.2
-
7.4
13.7
1.4
220
<0.02
2.9
365
191
173
4.2
4.2
<0.1
1.5
2.8
164
155
15.7
15.6
06/27/06
IN
364
-
-
-
2.7
-
74.9
15.0
10.0
-
7.6
14.5
6.7
-48
18.6
-
-
-
-
1,359
-
19.8
AC
352
-
-
-
2.5
-
78.7
14.8
9.4
-
7.5
14.0
3.3
-66
0.02
0.1
19.2
-
-
-
-
1,409
-
19.4
TA
352
-
-
-
2.7
-
<10
15.8
4.9
-
7.4
13.8
4.4
-29
0.1
0.1
7.6
-
-
-
-
504
-
23.4
TB
364
-
-
-
2.8
-
<10
15.4
4.0
-
7.3
13.8
1.7
-42
0.02
0.1
6.1
-
-
-
-
397
-
23.0
07/13/06
IN
364
-
-
-
2.5
-
62.3
13.6
15.0
-
7.5
14.5
6.4
-64
18.7
-
-
-
-
997
-
19.2
AC
360
-
-
-
3.0
-
65.1
13.7
4.6
-
7.4
14.3
1.0
130
0.04
1.7
18.9
-
-
-
-
1,072
-
17.1
TA
356
-
-
-
3.0
-
<10
14.1
2.7
-
7.4
14.1
1.3
173
0.3
1.3
5.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
15.4
TB
369
-
-
-
3.0
-
<10
14.1
1.9
-
7.5
13.8
0.8
192
0.4
1.4
5.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
15.8
07/18/06
IN
353
0.2
<1
O.05
2.9
-
78.4
13.8
14.0
-
7.4
14.1
4.0
-46
322
169
153
21.3
17.5
3.9
17.5
O.1
1,142
1,353
16.5
17.0
AC
361
0.2
<1
O.05
2.7
-
74.3
13.9
1.6
-
7.4
13.6
1.5
25
0.02
0.8
297
156
141
20.5
11.4
9.1
5.6
5.8
1,155
516
17.3
16.7
TT
361
0.2
<1
O.05
2.8
-
<10
13.5
3.1
-
7.6
14.0
2.1
144
0.05
1.0
258
132
126
4.5
4.7
O.1
2.1
2.7
<25
<25
18.3
18.8
------- |