EPA/600/R-10/039
April 2010
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Coagulation/Filtration
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Town of Felton, DE
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Abraham S.C. Chen*
Gary M. Lewis§
Lili Wang*
Anbo Wang§
§Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693
JALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43219-0693
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.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the arsenic removal
treatment technology demonstration project at the Town of Felton, DE. The objectives of the project
were to evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of Kinetico's FM-348-AS coagulation/filtration (C/F) system using
Macrolite® media in removing arsenic to meet the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 (ig/L, (2) the
reliability of the C/F system for use at small water facilities, (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 residuals generated by the treatment
process. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality, process residuals, and
capital and O&M cost.
After review and approval of the engineering plan by the state, the C/F system was installed and became
operational on September 14, 2006. The system consisted of two 48-in x 72-in fiber reinforced plastic
(FRP) contact tanks and three 48-in x 72-in FRP filtration vessels configured in parallel. Each filtration
vessel was loaded with 25 ft3 of M2 Macrolite® media for a design filtration rate of 10 gpm/ft2. The
system also used two chemical addition assemblies, one each for prechlorination and iron addition. An
existing prechlorination system was used to oxidize As(III) and soluble iron (Fe[II]); an iron addition
system was installed to inject ferric chloride (FeCl3) to form arsenic-laden particles prior to Macrolite®
pressure filtration. A recycle system was incorporated into the treatment system to reclaim backwash
wastewater and eliminate the need to discharge wastewater into a sanitary sewer. The recycle system
consisted of a pump controller, two booster pumps, and a 16-ft x 6-ft x 10-ft concrete recycle tank
equipped with four float switches.
From September 14, 2006, through November 3, 2007, the treatment system operated at 263 gal/min
(gpm) for 6.5 hr/day, on average, producing 43,446,110 gal of water. This average flowrate corresponded
to a contact time of 4.3 min through the two contact tanks and a filtration rate of 7.0 gpm/ft2. The recycle
system operated for 29.4% of the time when the treatment system was in operation during the
demonstration study.
Source water had an average pH value of 8.3 and contained 27.2 to 43.3 (ig/L of total arsenic. The
predominant arsenic species was As(III) with an average concentration of 29.1 (ig/L. Total iron
concentrations ranged from <25 to 62.5 (ig/L and averaged 26.1 (ig/L, existing mostly in the soluble form.
This amount of soluble iron was not adequate for arsenic removal; therefore, ferric chloride was added to
achieve an iron concentration of 1.2 to 2.0 mg/L to effectively remove arsenic to below the MCL.
Following prechlorination, arsenic existed mostly as particulate arsenic, which was removed by the
pressure filters to levels below 7.4 (ig/L (on average). Throughout the performance evaluation study,
total arsenic concentrations in system effluent exceeded the arsenic MCL on 14 sampling occasions,
which were due to either insufficient iron addition or particulate breakthrough from the filters.
Shortening run lengths from 17.0 to 9.1 hr (by lowering the differential pressure [Ap] trigger from 25 to
18 lb/in2 [psi]) appeared to be useful for decreasing particulate breakthrough from the pressure filters.
Each filter was backwashed automatically approximately 5 time/week with the backwashing process
triggered by either high Ap, standby time, or run time. High Ap triggered approximately 94% of
backwashes. Backwash durations averaged 6.7 min, generating approximately 724 gal of wastewater per
vessel during each backwash. A total of 673,450 gal of wastewater was produced during the performance
evaluation study, equivalent to 1.6% of the total amount of water treated. The backwash wastewater
contained, on average, 336 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS), 1,229 (ig/L of arsenic, 107 mg/L of
iron, and 551 (ig/L of manganese, with the majority existing as particulates. As such, approximately 920
IV
-------
g of solids were discharged from each filtration vessel during each backwash event, including 3.4 g of
arsenic, 293 g of iron, and 1.5 g of manganese.
Comparison of the distribution system water sampling results before and after system startup
demonstrated a considerable decrease in arsenic concentration (i.e., 34.4 to 8.5 (ig/L, on average).
Arsenic levels in the distribution system were slightly higher than those in treatment system effluent,
indicating resuspension and/or redissolution of arsenic in the distribution system. Copper concentrations
decreased from an average baseline concentration of 85.6 to 44.0 (ig/L after system startup. Manganese
and lead concentrations decreased slightly from 1.7 to 0.5 (ig/L and 2.4 to 1.6 (ig/L, respectively. Iron
concentrations increased slightly from 26.9 to 38.1 (ig/L. pH and alkalinity levels did not appear to be
affected.
The capital investment for the system was $334,297, including $201,292 for equipment, $44,520 for site
engineering, and $88,485 for installation, shakedown, and startup. Using the system's rated capacity of
375 gpm (or 540,000 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $891/gpm (or $0.62/gpd). This unit cost does
not include the cost of the building to house the treatment system or the cost of the recycle system used
for reclaiming the backwash wastewater. O&M cost, estimated at $0.30/1,000 gal, included the cost for
chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 6
3.1 General Project Approach 6
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 7
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 7
3.3.1 Source Water 8
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 10
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater 10
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 10
3.3.5 Residual Solids 10
3.4 Sampling Logistics 10
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 10
3.4.2 Preparation of Sample Coolers 10
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 11
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
4.1 Site Description 12
4.1.1 Pre-existing Facility 12
4.1.2 Distribution System 12
4.1.3 Source Water Quality 13
4.1.4 Treated Water Quality 13
4.2 Treatment Process Description 14
4.3 Treatment System Installation 20
4.3.1 System Permitting 20
4.3.2 Building Construction 21
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown 21
4.4 System Operation 21
4.4.1 Service Operation 21
4.4.2 Chlorine and Iron Additions 26
4.4.3 Backwash Operation 30
4.4.3.1 PLC Settings 31
4.4.3.2 Increase in Backwash Frequency 32
4.4.3.3 Recycle System Operation 32
VI
-------
4.4.4 Residual Management 34
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 34
4.4.5.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements 34
4.4.5.2 System Automation 34
4.4.5.3 Operator Skill Requirements 34
4.4.5.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities 35
4.4.5.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements 35
4.5 System Performance 35
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 35
4.5.1.1 Arsenic 35
4.5.1.2 Iron 41
4.5.1.3 Manganese 42
4.5.1.4 pH, DO, andORP 43
4.5.1.5 Chlorine 43
4.5.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters 44
4.5.2 Backwash Water and Solids Sampling 44
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 46
4.6 System Cost 49
4.6.1 Capital Cost 49
4.6.2 O&MCost 50
5.0 REFERENCES 51
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
APPENDIX C: BACKWASH LOG SHEETS
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations 9
Figure 4-1. Pre-existing Facility 12
Figure 4-2. Schematic of Kinetico's Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System for Felton, DE, Site 16
Figure 4-3. Treatment System Components 17
Figure 4-4. Control and Instrumentation 17
Figure 4-5. Recycle System Components, Control, and Instrumentation 20
Figure 4-6. Schematic of Building and Recycle Tank 22
Figure 4-7. Schematic of Recycle Tank 23
Figure 4-8. New Building and Recycle Tank 24
Figure 4-9. Treatment System Daily Operating Time 27
Figure 4-10. Treatment System Flowrates 27
Figure 4-11. Differential Pressure Across Filtration Vessels 28
Figure 4-12. Differential Pressure vs. Filter Run Time 29
Figure 4-13. Filter Run Time Since Last Backwash 29
Figure 4-14. Chlorine Dosages over Demonstration Study Period 30
Figure 4-15. Calculated Iron Doses vs. Measured Iron Concentrations 31
Figure 4-16a. Initial Float Switch Levels in Recycle Tank 33
Figure 4-16b. Revised Float Switch Levels in Recycle Tank 34
vn
-------
Figure 4-17. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train 39
Figure 4-18. Arsenic Speciation Results 40
Figure 4-19. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train 42
Figure 4-20. Total Manganese Concentrations Across Treatment Train 43
Figure 4-21. Chlorine Residuals Measured Throughout Treatment Train 44
Figure 4-22. Effects of Treatment System on Arsenic, Manganese, and Iron in Distribution System 48
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 3
Table 3-1. Demonstration Activities and Completion Dates 6
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses 8
Table 4-1. Felton, DE, Water Quality Data 14
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of M2 Macrolite® Media 15
Table 4-3. Design Features of the Macrolite® System 18
Table 4-4. System Inspection Punch-List Items 24
Table 4-5. Treatment System Operational Parameters 26
Table 4-6. Summary of PLC Settings for Backwash Operations 32
Table 4-7. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 36
Table 4-8. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 37
Table 4-9. Ineffective Arsenic Removal Due to Inadequate Iron Addition 41
Table 4-10. Ineffective Arsenic Removal Due to Arsenic/Iron Leakage 41
Table 4-11. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results 45
Table 4-12. Backwash Solids Sampling Results 46
Table 4-13. Distribution System Sampling Results 47
Table 4-14. Capital Investment for Kinetico's C/F System 49
Table 4-15. O&M Cost for Kinetico's C/F System 50
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap
AAL
Al
AM
As
differential pressure
American Analytical Laboratories
aluminum
adsorptive media
arsenic
C/F
Ca
Cl
CRF
Cu
DO
DHSS
coagulation/filtration
calcium
chlorine
capital recovery factor
copper
dissolved oxygen
Delaware Health and Social Services
EPA
F
Fe
FeCl3
FRP
FTW
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
fluoride
iron
ferric chloride
fiber reinforced plastic
filter-to-waste
gpd gallons per day
gph gallons per hour
gpm gallons per minute
HOPE high-density polyethylene
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
Mg magnesium
jam micrometer
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
-------
NA not available
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
O&M operation and maintenance
OIP operator interface panel
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P phosphorus
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
Pb lead
pCi/L picocuries per liter
psi pounds per square inch
psig pounds per square inch gauge
PLC programmable logic controller
PO4 phosphate
POU point-of-use
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RPD relative percent difference
RO reverse osmosis
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO4 sulfate
TDH total dynamic head
TDS total dissolved solids
THM trihalomethanes
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
UPS uninterruptible power supply
V vanadium
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Mr. Ralph Hughes of the Town of Felton. Mr.
Hughes monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the treatment and distribution
systems on a regular schedule throughout the study. This performance evaluation would not have been
possible without his support and dedication.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking-water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). To clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25, 2003, to
express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 |o,g/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community and non-
transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small-community water systems (< 10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems for reducing compliance cost. As part of
this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, onsite demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement published in the Federal Register requested water utilities interested in
participating in the first Round 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 recommended to EPA the technologies they determined to be 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 in the Town of Felton, DE 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, EPA convened another technical panel to review
the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA; the number of proposals per site ranged from none
(for two sites) to four. At the sites receiving at least one proposal, the final selection of the treatment
technology was made through a joint effort by EPA, the state regulators, and the host site. Since then,
four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program, reducing the number of sites to 28.
Kinetico's Macrolite® Arsenic Removal Technology was selected for demonstration at the Felton facility.
As of April 2010, 39 of the 40 systems were operational and the performance evaluation of 36 systems
was completed.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Rounds 1 and 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive media
(AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13 coagulation/
filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, 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, iron [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 cost is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al, 2004;
Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/
NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The overall objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic treatment
technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking-water supplies. The specific
objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small systems
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the Kinetico C/F system at the Town of Felton in Delaware
from September 14, 2006, through November 3, 2007. The types of data collected included system
operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and
capital and O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
Source Water Quality
As
(Mg/L)
Fe
(Mg/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
70W
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250(e)
38W
39
33
36(a)
30
30W
19W
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270W
l,806(c)
1,312W
l,615(c)
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
39(a)
34
25W
42(a)
146W
127w
466W
l,387(c)
l,499(c)
7827(c)
546W
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
l,344(c)
1,325W
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Arnaudville, 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
770(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(b)
50
37
35W
19w
56&>
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 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
Source Water Quality
As
(Mg/L)
Fe
(ug/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)(g)
IX(ArsenexII)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM(HIX)
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.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Kinetico's C/F system using Macrolite® filtration media operated at the Town of Felton, DE, from
September 14, 2006, through November 2, 2007. Based on the overall objectives of the performance
evaluation study, the information collected is summarized and conclusions are drawn as follows.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• Chlorination was effective in oxidizing As(III) to As(V), reducing As(III) concentrations
from 29.1 (ig/L (on average) in source water to 0.7 (ig/L (on average) after the contact tanks.
• The use of supplemental iron was effective in forming arsenic-laden iron particles,
in creasing particulate arsenic concentrations from 3.4 (ig/L (on average) in source water to
26.1 (ig/L (on average) after the contact tanks.
• With proper pre-chlorination and supplemental iron addition, Macrolite® pressure filtration
effectively removed arsenic to 7.4 (ig/L (on average).
• Higher-than-the-MCL levels of arsenic were measured in system effluent during 14 sampling
events. The elevated arsenic concentrations observed were due to either insufficient iron
addition or particulate breakthrough from the pressure filters.
• Shortening filter run lengths (e.g., from 17.0 to 9.1 hr by lowering the differential pressure
(Ap) backwash trigger from 25 to 18 lb/in2 [psi]) could help reduce particulate breakthrough
from the pressure filters.
• Backwashing at 6.0 gal/min/ft2 (gpm/ft2) (or 40% lower than the design value of 10 gpm/ft2)
for 6.7 min (on average) could restore the pressure filters for subsequent service runs.
However, 20% of the Ap readings collected within 1 hr of backwashing were higher than the
clean-bed-level of 10 psi.
• The treatment system improved water quality in the distribution system by decreasing arsenic
concentrations from 34.4 to 8.5 (ig/L (on average). Little or no effect was observed for lead,
copper, or manganese. pH and alkalinity concentrations remained unchanged.
Required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• Minimal time was required to operate and maintain the system. The daily demand on the
operator to perform routine O&M was 45 min.
• The level of accumulated wastewater solids should be periodically checked and removed
when necessary to prevent solid levels above the recycle system intake line.
Characteristics of residuals produced by the technology:
• Backwash solids were the only residual produced by the treatment system, which
accumulated at the bottom of the recycle tank. Approximately 850 kg of backwash solids
were generated during the performance evaluation study, which included 0.34% (by weight)
of arsenic, 32% (by weight) of iron, and 0.2% (by weight) of manganese.
Capital and O&M cost of the technology:
• The capital investment for the system was $334,297, including $201,292 for equipment,
$44,520 for site engineering, and $88,485 for installation, shakedown, and startup.
• The unit capital cost was $891/gpm (or $0.62 gal/day [gpd]) based on a 375-gpm design
capacity. This calculation does not reflect the cost for the building and recycle system as it
was funded by the Town of Felton.
• The O&M cost was 0.30/1,000 gal, including incremental cost for chemicals, electricity, and
labor.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
the Kinetico treatment system began on September 14, 2006, and ended on November 3, 2007. Table 3-2
summarizes the types of data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The
overall system performance was based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the MCL of
10 |og/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the system
was evaluated by tracking unscheduled system downtime and frequency and the extent of repairs.
Unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a Repair and
Maintenance Log Sheet.
O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through quantitative data and qualitative
considerations, including needs 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.
Staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
wastewater produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash wastewater was sampled and analyzed for
chemical characteristics.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital cost for equipment,
engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical
supplies, electricity usage, and labor.
Table 3-1. Demonstration Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory meeting held
Project planning meeting held
Draft letter of understanding issued
Final letter of understanding issued
Request for quotation issued to vendor
Vendor quotation received
Purchase order established
Engineering package submitted to DHSS
Building construction permit granted by Kent County
System permit granted by DHSS
Building construction began
Letter report issued
FM-348-AS system delivered
Study plan issued
System installation completed
System shakedown completed
Building completed
Performance evaluation began
Performance evaluation completed
Date
October 7, 2004
December 14, 2004
December 24, 2004
January 19, 2005
January 28, 2005
February 15, 2005
February 23, 2005
April 26, 2005
April 28, 2005
May 3 1,2005
August 8, 2005
October 4, 2005
March 20, 2006
May 4, 2006
May 30, 2006
June 6, 2006
July 7, 2006
September 14, 2006
November 3, 2007
DHSS = Delaware Health and Social Services
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objective
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and operator
skill requirements
Residual management
System cost
Data Collection
Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic 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 preventative maintenance, including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
Chemical handling and inventory requirements
General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
O&M cost for chemical use, electricity consumption, and labor
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings (see Appendix A) on a
Daily System Operation Log Sheet; checked sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and ferric chloride (FeCl3)
levels; and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problem 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 actions 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 onsite, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded the data on a Weekly Onsite 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 use, electricity consumption, and
labor. Consumption of NaOCl and FeCl3 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 chemical solutions, 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 plant,
during Macrolite® filter backwash, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 shows sampling schedule
and analytes measured during each sampling event. Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the treatment
system, along with the analytes and schedule for each sampling location.
7
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
water
Treatment
Plant Water
Backwash
Wastewater
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Solids
Sample
Locations00
IN
IN, AC, TA,
TB, TC
IN, AC, TT
BW
Three LCR
Locations
BW
No. of
Samples
1
5
o
J
3
3
2
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
'\7"1Clt^
V lol v)
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Twice
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Offsite: 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, NH3,
NO2, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, TOC, TDS,
turbidity, and alkalinity
Onsite(b): pH,
temperature, DO, ORP,
and C12 (free and total)
Offsite: As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
P (total), SiO2, turbidity,
and alkalinity
Same as weekly analytes
shown above plus
following:
Offsite: As (soluble),
As(III), As(V),
Fe (soluble), Mn
(soluble), Ca, Mg, F,
NO3, and SO4
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
pH, TDS, and TSS
Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu, and
Pb, pH, and alkalinity
Total As, Ba, Ca, Fe, Mg,
Mn, P, and Si
Collection Date(s)
10/07/04
See Appendix B
See Appendix B
See Table 4- 11
See Table 4-13
See Table 4-12
(a) Abbreviations corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 3 -1: IN = at wellhead; AC = after
contact tank; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B; TC = after Vessel C; TT = after filter effluent
combined; and B W = at backwash discharge line.
(b) Onsite chlorine measurements not performed at IN.
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 site visit on October 7, 2004, one set of source water
samples was collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (Section 3.4.1). The sample tap was
flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause
unwanted oxidation. Table 3-3 lists analytes for the source water samples.
-------
Monthly
pH(a), temperature (a), DO(a), ORP(a),
As speciation, Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO 3,
SO4, SiO2, PO4, turbidity, alkalinity
pH• Total As, Ba, Ca, Fe
-^ Mg, Mn, P, and Si
W
~g-^^ J
1
/FILTER/ /FILTER/ /FILTER
••••{ TANK ••••{ TANK —( TANK
\ A / VB/VC
pH
-------
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. The plant operator collected treatment plant water samples
weekly, on a four-week cycle, for on and offsite analyses. For the first week of each four-week cycle,
samples were collected at the wellhead (IN), after the contact tank (AC), and after filter effluent combined
(TT), and speciated onsite and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. For the next three weeks,
samples were collected at IN, AC, after Vessel A (TA), after Vessel B (TB), and after Vessel C (TC) and
analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater. Monthly backwash wastewater sampling was performed by
directing a portion of backwash wastewater at approximately 1 gpm via a plastic tube connected to the tap
on the backwash wastewater discharge line into a clean, 32-gal container over the duration of the
backwash for each vessel. After the content in the container was thoroughly mixed, composite samples
were collected and/or filtered onsite with 0.45-(im disc filters. Analytes for the backwash wastewater
samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Water samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to system startup from April to July 2005, four
monthly baseline distribution water samples were collected from three locations within the distribution
system. Following system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same
locations. The three sampling locations, including the community center on Walnut Street, the Town Hall
on Sewell Street, and the Mobil Service Station on Main Street (Rte. 13), were part of the historic Lead
and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling network.
Designated individuals collected samples following an instruction sheet developed in accordance with 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 of actual sample collection were recorded for
calculation of the stagnation time. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been
used for at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled.
3.3.5 Residual Solids. Residual solids produced by the treatment process consisted of only
backwash wastewater solids. After solids in the backwash wastewater containers (Section 3.3.3) had
settled and supernatant carefully decanted, residual solids samples were collected on two separate
occasions. A portion of each of the solids/water mixtures was air-dried for metals analyses.
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 soluble arsenic species, i.e., As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories in accordance with the procedures
detailed in Appendix A of the QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sample 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, color-coded label consisting of sample identification (ID), date and time of sample collection,
collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The sample ID
consisted of a two-letter code for the demonstration site, the 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
were separated by sampling location, placed in zip-lock bags, and packed into the cooler.
10
-------
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 sam-
pling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for offsite analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped back 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; TCCI
Laboratories in New Lexington, OH; and/or Belmont Labs in Englewood, OH, which were under contract
with Battelle for this demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from
the time of preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the
appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly
thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were followed by
Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, TCCI Laboratories, and Belmont Labs. Laboratory quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision,
accuracy, method detection limits (MDLs), 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
handheld field meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the procedures provided
in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring the ORP of a standard
solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a water sample in a clean,
plastic beaker and placed the 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.
11
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Site Description
4.1.1 Pre-existing Facility. Located near the stone depot at 401 Lumbard Street, the water system
in the Town of Felton, DE, supplied water to 428 residences and businesses. Among the four production
wells, Well No. 1 was abandoned and Well No. 2 was used only for emergency purposes. Wells No. 3
and No. 4 were used for water production at a flowrate of 250 and 320 gpm, respectively. Well No. 4, a
primary production well, was designated for the performance evaluation study. Well No. 3 was not used
because it had low arsenic concentrations (but with high iron levels at as much as 4 mg/L).
Well No. 4 was 6-in in diameter and approximately 600 ft deep. Originally installed in the 1950s, the
well was refurbished in 1999 with a new screen and a new well pump. This well contained elevated
arsenic concentrations, but lower iron levels than those of Well No. 3. The well was equipped with a 40-
horsepower (hp) submersible pump rated for 320 gpm and a maximum system pressure of 55 psi. The
system typically operated 4 to 5 hr/day with an average daily demand of 100,000 gpd and an estimated
peak daily demand of 353,600 gpd.
Prior to installation of the arsenic removal system, treatment consisted of chlorine addition in the Well
No. 4 pump house (Figure 4-1). A 12.5% NaOCl solution stored in a 55-gal drum was injected at 2 to 3
mg/L using a metering pump (LMI Milton Roy Model B121-392SI rated for 2.5 gph) to attain a free
chlorine residual of 0.3 to 0.7 mg/L (as C12). Following chlorination, treated water was stored in a
200,000-gal elevated storage tank located near the center of town.
Figure 4-1. Pre-existing Facility
(From let to right: Chlorine Addition Equipment, Well No. 4 Pump House, and Water Tower)
4.1.2 Distribution System. Based on the existing utilities plan provided by the Town, the
distribution system consisted of a looped distribution line with 6- and 10-in Schedule 40 polyvinyl
12
-------
chloride (PVC), 6-in transite, and 12-in C900 piping. The distribution system was supplied directly from
the 200,000-gal elevated storage tank.
The plant operator sampled monthly for total coliform and quarterly or as directed by the Delaware
Health and Social Services (DHSS) for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), trihalomethane compounds
(THMs), inorganics, nitrate, and radionuclides. LCR samples were collected every three years from 20
locations in the town's historic LCR sampling network.
4.1.3 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected by Battelle from Well No. 4 on
October 7, 2004. Table 4-1 presents the results and compares them to those provided by the facility to
EPA for site selection and by the selected technology vendor (Kinetico).
Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 28 to 30 (ig/L. The October 7, 2004, test results
showed a total arsenic concentration of 30 (ig/L, which existed entirely in a soluble form. The soluble
fraction consisted of 25.2 (ig/L (or 84%) of As(III) and 5.2 (ig/L (or 17%) of As(V). As such, As(III) was
the predominant species. The Kinetico treatment process used prechlorination (pre-existing) to oxidize
As(III) to As(V) and subsequent adsorption and co-precipitation to form As(V)-laden iron solids prior to
pressure filtration.
Total iron concentrations in source water ranged from 48 to 110 (ig/L, which existed primarily as
particulate based on Battelle's October 7, 2004, speciation results. Therefore, an iron coagulant was
added to raw water to remove arsenic.
Although the pH of raw water was at the upper end of a commonly agreed range of 5.5 to 8.5 for iron
coagulation, no provisions were made for pH adjustment.
The October 7, 2004, test results also showed 0.32 mg/L (as N) of ammonia in source water. The
presence of ammonia will increase chlorine demand. Chlorine added to source water will oxidize As(III)
and any other reducing species such as Fe(II) and Mn(II) and react with ammonia and organic nitrogen
compounds, if any, to form combined chlorine (i.e., mono- and dichloramines within a pH range of 4.5 to
8.5). To attain the target free chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L (as C12), "breakpoint" chlorination must be
achieved with a dosage of approximately 3.0 mg/L (as C12), which consisted of
(1) the amount needed to oxidize As(III), Fe(II), Mn(II), and any other reducing species,
estimated to be 0.034 mg/L (as C12) (Ghurye and Clifford, 2001)
(2) the amount needed to oxidize ammonia and combined chlorine formed during chlorination,
estimated to be 2.45 mg/L (as C12) (Clark et al., 1977)
(3) the amount needed to provide the target free chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L (as C12).
Other source water quality parameters obtained by Battelle on October 7, 2004, were not anticipated to
adversely impact the treatment process.
4.1.4 Treated Water Quality. The pre-existing treatment consisted of only chlorination. Historic
treated water quality data collected by DHSS from February 2002 through March 2004 were similar to the
source water data provided by the facility and collected by Battelle. Total arsenic concentrations of
treated water ranged from 26 to 35.4 (ig/L. Arsenic speciation data were not available for water following
chlorination. Total iron concentrations in treated water ranged from 50 to 1,280 (ig/L, which is
significantly higher than the Well No. 4 raw water data. It was likely these samples included water from
Well No. 3, which had high iron levels. pH values ranged from 8.2 to 8.4.
13
-------
Table 4-1. Felton, DE, Water Quality Data
Parameter
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 PO4)
As(total)
As (total soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Pb
Cu
Na
Ca
Mg
Unit
-
S.U.
°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
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
HB/L
Mfi/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Facility
Source
Water
Data
NA
8.2
NA
NA
NA
285
27
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
NA
NA
9.8
NA
28
NA
NA
NA
NA
80
NA
<20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
108
7
5
Kinetico
Source
Water
Data
NA
8.3
NA
NA
NA
304
45
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.9
1.5
10
8.6
<0.5
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
110
NA
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
128
9
6
Battelle
Source
Water
Data
10/7/04
8.2
18.8
2.8
7.7
288
44
<0.1
326
0.8
<0.04
O.01
0.32
6.4
2.2
9
9.6
O.06
30
30.4
0.1
25.2
5.2
48
<25
3.4
1.5
0.1
O.I
0.53
0.16
NA
NA
138
8.0
6.0
DHSS
Treated
Water
Data
2/11/02-10/8/04
8.2-8.4
NA
NA
NA
275-295
11-24
NA
363^30
NA
O.3
O.I
NA
9.9-11.5
1.31-1.48
10.1
NA
NA
26-35.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
50-1,280
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.3-7.0
50-142
133-138
NA
NA
DHSS = Delaware Health and Social Services; DO = dissolved oxygen; NA = not available;
NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit; OPJ3 = oxidation-reduction potential; TDS = total
dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The treatment train consisted of prechlorination, iron addition, and Macrolite® pressure filtration.
Macrolite®, a spherical, low density, chemically inert, ceramic media designed for filtration rates up to 10
14
-------
gpm/ft2, is approved for use in drinking water applications under NSF International (NSF) Standard 61.
Table 4-2 presents physical properties of the M2 Macrolite® media.
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of M2 Macrolite® Media
Property
Color
Thermal Stability (°F)
Uniformity Coefficient
Sphere Size Range (mm)
Nominal Size (mm)
Bulk Density (g/cm3 or lb/ft3)
Specific Gravity (g/cm3)
Value
Taupe, Brown, Grey
2,000
1.1
0.21-0.42
0.30
0.86 or 54
2.05
The C/F system was composed of two contact tanks, three pressure filtration vessels, and associated
gauges and probes to monitor pressure, flowrate, and backwash water turbidity. The system also was
equipped with a central control panel that housed a touch-screen operator interface panel (OIP), a
programmable logic controller (PLC), a modem, and an uninterruptible power supply (UPS). The Allen
Bradley PLC automatically controlled the system by actuating PVC pneumatic valves using a 7.5-hp, 80-
gal compressor (Speedaire Model 1WD61) depending on various inputs and outputs of the system and
corresponding PLC setpoints (Section 4.4.3.1). The system also featured schedule 80 PVC solvent-
bonded plumbing and all necessary isolation and check valves and sampling ports. Figure 4-2 is a
simplified system piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID). Figures 4-3 and 4-4 contain photographs
of the key system components and control and instrumentation, respectively. The system's design
specifications are summarized in Table 4-3. The major processes included the following:
• Intake. Source water was pumped from Well No. 4 at approximately 320 gpm. The well
pump was activated and deactivated based on pressure in the water tower. Pressure in the
water tower was monitored through a pressure tank located inside the treatment building.
Once the pressure dropped to 52 psi, a mercury switch was triggered and the well pump was
energized. As treated water was supplied to the water tower, the pressure in the tower
gradually increased. Once the pressure in the water tower reached 62 psi, the mercury switch
was once again activated and the well pump was shut down. The mercury switch was
equipped with a 30 sec delay to account for any brief fluctuations in pressure. The inlet
piping from the well into the building and the secondary piping to bypass the treatment
system, if needed, are shown in Figure 4-3.
• Chlorination. The existing chlorine addition system was used to oxidize soluble As(III) and
Fe(II). The chlorine addition system consisted of a 55-gal day tank containing a 12.5%
NaOCl solution and a 2.5-gph LMI chemical feed pump with stroke and speed settings for
dosage adjustment. The target free chlorine residual was 0.5 mg/L. The feed pump was
energized only when the well pump was on. NaOCl consumption was tracked by measuring
solution levels in the day tank.
• Iron Addition. Ferric chloride (FeCl3) was added to achieve a target iron dosage of 1.2 to
2.0 mg/L to effectively remove soluble arsenic through adsorption and/or coprecipitation with
iron solids. The iron addition system included a 66-gal high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
tank with containment, an overhead mixer (Pulsafeeder Model FMTEFI/Vinyl), and a
Pulsatron Model LPH5 chemical metering pump rated at 3.1 gal/hr (gph). The working
15
-------
'A'al-r
Kinetico FM-348-A8 Arsenic Removal System •
3tSC-100p
Si <
i
c
,
1
1
»Hcs:
=c -yr-i:-
.
r
L
1
%
k k
••:--
" *"*
r
"
f
^
J
,-x
mi*.
1
BacNwa?
:oS
R
r !fe-
efe
'-••".w
Backwash
Waste to
RecycleTank
=il:erecl
Filtered Water
to Existing
Storage
Figure 4-2. Schematic of Kinetico's Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System for Felton, DE, Site
-------
Figure 4-3. Treatment System Components
(Clockwise from Top: Well No. 4 Bypass Valve; Well No. 4 Inlet with Iron Addition Point; Two Contact
Tanks and Three Filtration Vessels; and Backwash Discharge Piping to Recycle Tank)
Figure 4-4. Control and Instrumentation
(Clockwise from Left: Control Panel Housing PLC; Turbidimeter Display; Compressor; Sample Tap and
Pressure Gauge; Pressure Tank; and Mercury Switch)
17
-------
Table 4-3. Design Features of Macrolite® System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Influent Specifications
Peak Flowrate (gpm)
Arsenic Concentration (M-g/L)
Iron Concentration (|J.g/L)
375
<35
^110
-
-
-
Pretreatment
Prechlorination (mg/L [as C12])
Iron (mg/L [as Fe])
2-3
1.2-2.0
NaOCl
FeCl3
Contact
No. of Vessels
Configuration
Vessel Size (in)
Tank Volume (gal)
Contact time (min)
2
Parallel
48 D x 72 H
564
3
-
-
-
-
Filtration
No. of Vessels
Configuration
Vessel Size (in)
Vessel Cross Section (ft2)
Media Volume (ft3/vessel)
Peak Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
o
J
Parallel
48 D x 72 H
12.6
25
375
10
-
-
-
-
24-in bed depth of Macrolite®
125 gpm/vessel
Based on 125 gpm/vessel flowrate
Backwash
Frequency
Differential Pressure (psi)
Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
Wastewater Production (gpd)
Variable
10-12
8-10
Variable
Based on PLC setpoints for Ap across
tank, run time, and standby time
Across a clean bed
100-125 gpm
Based on PLC setpoints for minimum and
maximum backwash time and turbidity
Effluent Specifications
Peak Daily Demand (gpd)
Maximum Daily Production (gpd)
Peak Hydraulic Utilization (%)
353,600
540,000
65
Based on peak flow and 24 hr/day
Estimate based on peak daily demand
D = diameter; H = height
solution was prepared by adding 9 gal of a 37% FeCl3 stock solution into 57 gal of water (6:1
ratio). The consumption of the FeCl3 solution was measured based on readings of day tank
levels.
Coprecipitation/Adsorption. Two 48-in-diameter by 72-in-tall fiberglass reinforced plastic
(FRP) contact tanks (Pentair Model 31285) were used to improve the formation of iron floes
prior to pressure filtration. The contact tanks arranged in parallel were designed for 3 min of
contact time. The 463-gal tanks had 6-in top and bottom flanges connecting to the exit and
inlet piping, respectively, for an upflow configuration (Figure 4-3).
Pressure Filtration. Removal of arsenic-laden iron particles was achieved via downflow
filtration through three 48-in-diameter by 72-in-tall FRP pressure vessels (Pentair Model
31283) configured in parallel (Figure 4-2). Each pressure vessel contained 25 ft3 (or 24 in) of
M2 Macrolite® media loaded on top of fine garnet underbedding filled to 1 in above the
0.006-in slotted, stainless steel, wedge-wire underdrain (Leem/LSS Filtration model L-3230-
18
-------
60). The FRP vessels featured windows for media and backwash observation and were rated
for a working pressure of 150 psi (Figure 4-3). The vessels were floor mounted and piped to
a valve rack mounted on a welded, stainless steel frame. The flow through each vessel was
regulated to 125 gpm using a flow-limiting device (Flo-Et model PE-300-14-125) to prevent
filter overrun. System operation with all vessels in service could produce a total flowrate of
375 gpm. Effluent flowrates and throughput through each vessel were monitored using an
insertion paddle wheel flow meter/totalizer (Data Industrial model 220PVCS).
Filter Backwash. At a 10 gpm/ft2 filtration rate, anticipated pressure drop across a clean
filter bed was 10 to 12 psi. The filters were automatically backwashed in an upflow mode
based on three potential triggers: 1) differential pressure, 2) standby time, and 3) run time
(Section 4.4.3.1). The filters also could be backwashed manually. Backwash was performed
one vessel at a time. Water was drained from a filter before an air compressor (Speedaire
Model 1WD61 [Figure 4-4]) delivered a 2-min air sparge at 10 psi gauge (psig). After a 4-
min settling period, the filter was backwashed at 100 to 125 gpm with treated water produced
from the other two filters remaining in service.
The backwash duration was controlled by a minimum and a maximum backwash time per
vessel and turbidity of backwash wastewater measured using a turbidimeter (Hach™ Model
Surface Scatter 6 [Figure 4-4]). Under the factory settings, if the target turbidity threshold
was reached before the backwash time setpoint, backwash would end at the set minimum
backwash time. Otherwise, backwash continued until the target turbidity threshold was
reached. If the turbidity threshold was not reached at the end of the set maximum backwash
time, then a backwash failure would be indicated and the operator had to acknowledge the
alarm. A backwash failure resulted in a repeat backwash before the pressure filter could
resume normal operation.
Backwash wastewater was sent to a 7,180-gal recycle tank. After the backwash step, the
filter underwent a 2-min filter-to-waste (FTW) step to remove any particulate from the filter
before returning to service.
Backwash Recycle System. A recycle system was incorporated into the C/F system to
temporarily store wastewater generated during filter backwash. After settling, supernatant
was recycled back to the head of the treatment system; sludge was pumped periodically to the
local sanitary sewer.
The recycle system consisted of a pump controller, two booster pumps, and a 16-ft-long by 6-
ft-wide by 10-ft-high, 7,180-gal concrete recycle tank equipped with four float switches, an
8-in overflow pipe, and a 2-in Sch 40 PVC suction line (Figure 4-5). The recycle system
controller was linked to four float switches (i.e., low-low, low, high, and high-high) that were
placed at various heights inside the recycle tank. During filter backwash, wastewater was
discharged into the recycle tank through an 8-in PVC pipe. Once the wastewater level
reached the high-level float switch, the recycle system controller activated a single booster
pump capable of 14 gpm of flow. The booster pump continued to operate until the
wastewater level reached the low-level float switch. Once the low-level float switch was
activated, the booster pump operation was stopped until the high-level switch was activated
again. The two booster pumps alternated pumping cycles to reduce pump wear and increase
pump life span.
If a single booster pump could not keep up with the backwash flowrate during a recycling
sequence, wastewater would rise and reach the high-high level alarm located below the
overflow pipe. When the high-high level was reached, the recycle system controller would
activate both booster pumps and the flowrate would increase to 28 gpm. This alarm is in
19
-------
Figure 4-5. Recycle System Components, Control, and Instrumentation
(Clockwise from Left: Concrete Recycle Tank and Overflow Piping; Float Switches; Recycle System
Controller; Booster Pumps; and Recycle Water Injection Point)
place to minimize the amount of wastewater overflowing into the sanitary sewer. (Due to a
faulty pump, only one booster pump was used during the performance evaluation study.) The
low-low level alarm is in place as a fail safe to protect the booster pumps from operating
when the tank is dry. If the low-level alarm fails to shut down the booster pumps, the low-
low level alarm would be activated and the recycle system controller would shut down the
booster pumps.
To ensure that sludge in the recycle tank would not be recycled back to the pressure filters,
adjustments had to be made to the recycle tank (Section 4.4.3.3) and periodic checks on
sludge levels were included as part of routine O&M.
4.3 Treatment System Installation
This section provides a summary of the system installation, startup, and shakedown activities and the
associated prerequisites including permitting and building construction.
4.3.1 System Permitting. The system engineering package, prepared by Kinetico and its
subcontractor, Davis, Bowen and Friedel, Inc. of Milford, DE, included:
• A system design report
• A general arrangement and P&ID
• Electrical and mechanical drawings and component specifications
20
-------
• Building construction drawings detailing connections from the system to the inlet piping and
the town's water and sanitary sewer systems.
The engineering package was certified by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Delaware and
submitted to DHSS for review and approval on April 26, 2005. After DHSS's review comments were
addressed, the package was resubmitted, along with a permit application, on April 28, 2005. A system
construction permit was issued by DHSS on May 31, 2005, and system fabrication began thereafter.
4.3.2 Building Construction. A permit for building construction was applied for by the Town of
Felton on March 23, 2005, and issued by Kent County on April 28, 2005. An Advertisement for Bids was
sent to two Delaware newspapers on May 26, 2005, to be posted on June 1 and June 8, 2005. Bidding for
building and concrete recycle tank construction and related plumbing work was closed on July 18, 2005,
and the bid submitted by Arimore Construction Inc. was approved by the Town Council. A
preconstruction meeting was held on August 2, 2005, and water and sewer infrastructure construction
began on August 8, 2005. Due to delays with the town's subcontractor, the building was not completed
until July 7, 2006. Due to leaks in the recycle tank, system startup was further delayed until September 6,
2006. Figures 4-6 and 4-7 present schematics of the building to house the treatment system and the
recycle tank. Figure 4-8 presents a photograph of the treatment system building and recycle tank.
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown. The C/F system was delivered to the site on
March 20, 2006. The vendor, through its subcontractor, performed off-loading and began installation of
the system, including connections to the entry and distribution piping and electrical interlocking. Due to
construction delays, system installation, hydraulic testing, and media loading were not completed until
May 30, 2006. A water sample collected on May 31, 2006, passed bacteriological tests and startup and
shakedown activities were completed on June 6, 2006. Startup and shakedown activities included PLC
testing, instrument calibration, prolonged backwashing to remove Macrolite® media fines, chlorine
disinfection and residual testing, and operator training on system O&M. Due to inadequate recycle
pumps and a leak in the recycle tank, the treatment system had remained offline until new pumps arrived
and the leaky recycle tank was repaired. Upon installation of the new recycle pumps and repair of the
recycle tank, the treatment system was placed into service on September 6, 2006.
Battelle performed system inspections and operator training on sample and data collection on October 12
and 13, 2006. As a result of the system inspections, several punch-list items were identified. Table 4-4
summarizes the items identified and corrective actions taken.
4.4 System Operation
4.4.1 Service Operation. Operational parameters of the C/F system are tabulated and attached as
Appendix A with key parameters summarized in Table 4-5. The performance evaluation study began on
September 14, 2006, and ended on November 3, 2007. The system operated for a total of 2,716 hr based
on cumulative service hours of each of the three pressure filters recorded by the PLC. An hour meter also
was installed at the wellhead on March 9, 2007, to track the well pump/system operating time. In general,
the wellhead hour meter readings were in close agreement with PLC pressure filter hour meter readings,
with the wellhead hour meter registering about 0.3 hr/day (on average) more than the PLC. As shown in
Figure 4-9, daily operating times fluctuated significantly from 0 to 23.1 hr and averaged 6.5 hr. Seasonal
variations were observed with a relatively longer operating time starting from late spring through early
fall. Daily operating times through this duration averaged 8.4 hr/day (versus 6.0 hr/day for the rest of the
year) with an average daily demand of 125,100 gpd (versus 94,100 gpd). Total system throughput was
approximately 43,446,100 gal based on flow totalizer readings measured at the system outlet. The
average daily demand was approximately 107,300 gal, equivalent to 30% of the system peak daily
demand specified in Table 4-3.
21
-------
to
to
L±l
(SOURCE: DAVIS. BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC., 1999)
Not to Scale
j-
FELTON_SECT JONAA COR
Figure 4-6. Schematic of Building and Recycle Tank (provided by DB&F)
-------
to
OJ
\ V
I I
Not to Scale
(SOURCE: DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC., 1999)
NOTE: FLOOR SHALL SLOPE FROM ALL DIRECTIONS TO FLOOR
CPATf. GPATt <-HAlL Bf SET 1" .OWf.S (o7 32) THAU
ppoposri nniSH-'D FIOOR C>3 no;
FELTON SECTIONBSCDR
Figure 4-7. Schematic of Recycle Tank (provided by DB&F)
-------
Figure 4-8. New Building and Recycle Tank
Table 4-4. System Inspection Punch-List Items
Item
No.
Punch-List Item Description
Corrective Action(s) Taken
Resolution
Date
1 Small amount of water continuously flowing from
air release lines on Vessels A, B, and C while
system was in service.
• Disassemble and cleaned air
release lines
• Updated O&M manual to include
this procedure
04/04/07
A check valve and an isolation valve not installed
between pipe entering building and FeCl3 injection
point. As such, water could drain from contact
tanks through an existing spigot on inlet piping
located within well house if the spigot was left
opened inadvertently.
• Installed a check valve, a 6-in
butterfly valve, and associated
hardware kit
04/03/07
During Vessel C fast rinse, inlet pressure to system
dropped to 59 psi and flow to two vessels in service
dropped to 85 gpm, which was significantly lower
than 320 gpm flow based on pump curve. This
would equate to a fast-rinse flowrate of
approximately 235 gpm, which was well above 125
gpm design flowrate for each vessel.
• Installed an orifice plate on fast
rinse line to limit fast rinse
flowrate to 125 gpm
04/03/07
Filters backwashed at 62 gpm, significantly below
100 to 125 gpm (or 8 to 10 gpm/ft2) specifications.
Confirmed flowrate using an
ultrasonic flow meter; no further
actions taken during trip. System
operated at reduced backwash
flowrates during performance
evaluation study.
04/03/07
24
-------
Table 4-4. System Inspection Punch-List Items (Continued)
Item
No.
5
6
7
8
Punch-List Item Description
Recycle tank overflowed to sanitary sewer during a
backwash event. Maximum backwash time
incorrectly set at 40 min, which was outside range
of typical PLC setting and could result in overflow
of recycle tank should Hach turbidimeter
malfunction.
Leaking chemical feed line (over suction side).
Unclear instructions on how to change FeQ3 pump
speed (rate %) on PLC.
Short standby setpoint could trigger backwash
while system was in standby mode, thus increasing
chance to overflow recycle tank because recycle
pumps were not energized.
Corrective Action(s) Taken
• Modified setpoints via dial-in
modem by Kinetico:
- Decreased minimum backwash
time from 10 to 5 min
- Decreased maximum backwash
time from 40 to 10 min
- Increased turbidity threshold
from 10 to 20 NTU
• Installed by operator a new union
shipped from offsite
• Provided clear instruction and
demonstrated to facility operator
how to correctly adjust speed of
chemical feed pump on PLC.
• Increased standby setpoint from
48 to 96 hr
Resolution
Date
01/04/07
12/13/06
04/04/07
10/12/06
System flowrates were tracked by both instantaneous readings of the flow meter at the system outlet and
calculated flowrates based on hour-meter and flow-totalizer readings at the system outlet. As shown in
Figure 4-10, instantaneous flowrate readings ranged from 249 to 312 gpm and averaged 290 gpm, about
10% higher than calculated flowrates (which ranged from 163 to 368 gpm and averaged 263 gpm). The
average calculated flowrate corresponded to a contact time of 4.3 min through the contact tanks
(compared to the design value of 3.0 min) and a filtration rate of 7.0 gpm/ft2 over the pressure filters
(compared to the design value of 10 gpm/ft2) (Table 4-3). Flows into the treatment system also were
measured by a totalizer located at the wellhead. The cumulative throughput recorded by the wellhead
totalizer was approximately 44,377,600 gal, which was within 2% of that recorded by the totalizer at the
system outlet.
Differential pressure (Ap) readings ranged from 20 to 33 psi and averaged 25 psi across the system, and
from 4 to 27 psi and averaged 12 psi across each pressure filter (Figure 4-11). As discussed in Section
4.4.3, 94% of backwash was triggered by high Ap. The setpoint of Ap trigger was reduced from 25 to 18
psi on January 17, 2007, resulting in visible reduction in Ap values as shown in Figure 4-11. As
expected, Ap across pressure filters increased progressively with filter run time as shown in Figure 4-12.
Ap readings recorded within 1 hr after backwash ranged from 5 to 17 psi and averaged 8.5 psi, with 20%
of the readings higher than the clean-bed level of 10 psi. Lower-than-expected backwash flowrates (i.e.,
61 to 87 gpm vs. design values of 100 to 125 gpm) might be responsible for the elevated Ap readings
observed.
Filter run times between backwash cycles ranged from 7.9 to 24 hr and averaged 17 hr before January 17,
2007, and ranged from 2.0 to 24 hr and averaged 9.1 hr after January 17, 2007. On January 17, 2007, the
Ap backwash trigger was reduced from 25 to 18 psi in an attempt to reduce run times between backwash
cycles. In addition, iron dosage was increased on January 17, 2007 (Section 4.4.2), which also might
have contributed to shortened filter run times. The reduction in filter run time after January 17, 2007 can
be seen in Figure 4-13. The average throughput between backwash cycles was 89,580 gal/vessel before
25
-------
Table 4-5. Treatment System Operational Parameters
Parameter
Operating Period
Value
09/14/06-11/03/07
Pretreatment Operation
NaOCl Dosage (mg/L [as C12])
FeCl3 Dosage (mg/L [as Fe])
4.3 [2.0-9.1]
2.2 [1.0-4.8]
Service Operation
Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Throughput^ (gal)
Average Daily Demand(a) (gal)
Instantaneous Flowrate (gpm)
Calculated Flowrate(b) (gpm)
Contact Time in Contact Tanks(c) (min)
Hydraulic Loading over Pressure Filter(c) (gpm/ft2)
Ap across Each Vessel (psi)
Ap across System(d) (psi)
Filter Run Time between Backwash
Cycles (hr)(e)
Estimated Averaged Throughput between
Backwash Cycles (gal/vessel)
2,716
6.5
43,446,110
107,300
290 [249-3 12]
263 [163-368]
4.3 [3.1-6.9]
7.0 [4.3-9.7]
12[4-27]
25 [20-33]
17[7.9-24] before 01/17/07
9.1 [2.0-24] after 01/17/07
89,580 before 01/17/07
48,080 after 01/17/07
Backwash Operation
Average Frequency® (backwash/vessel/week)
Number of Backwash Cycles (Tanks A/B/C)
Flowrate(s) (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate(s) (gpm/ft2)
Duration (min/tank)
Backwash Volume (gal/vessel/cycle)
Filter-to -Waste Volume (gal/vessel/cycle)
Wastewater Produced (gal/vessel/cycle)
5
259/354/314
76 [61-87]
6.0 [4.8-6.9]
6.7 [4.3-14.6]
474 [346-907]
250
724 [596-1,157]
Note: Data presented included average and [range].
(a) Based on totalizer readings at system outlet.
(b) Calculated flowrates based on daily throughput and daily operating hours.
(c) Based on instantaneous flowrate readings.
(d) Five outliers (i.e., 5, 8, 10, 7, and 13 psi on 09/19/06, 09/20/06, 09/21/06,
09/27/06, and 10/01/06, respectively) omitted.
(e) Excluding values triggered by standby time, run time, and manual initiation.
(f) Based on number of backwash cycles and number of weeks in service.
(g) Based on monthly data from Backwash Log Sheets.
January 17, 2007 and 48,080 gal/vessel after, based on a flowrate of 87.7 gpm through each vessel (i.e.,
one-third of the 263-gpm service flow).
4.4.2 Chlorine and Iron Additions. Chemical pretreatment consisted of chlorine and iron
additions. Chlorine doses, as calculated based on daily NaOCl consumption (as measured through
solution level changes in the chemical day tank) and daily throughput (according to the system effluent
totalizer), ranged from 2.0 to 9.1 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 4.3 mg/L (as C12) (Figure 4-14). This
average dosage was higher than the design dosage of 3.0 mg/L (as C12) required to achieve a free chlorine
residual of 0.5 mg/L (as C12) as discussed in Section 4.1.3.
-------
Daily Operating Time
Figure 4-9. Treatment System Daily Operating Time
/ / / / / / /
/ / /
Figure 4-10. Treatment System Flowrates
21
-------
r^ 30
If)
CL
I" 25
"01/17/07, APTriggerreduced'
from 25 to 18 psi
— -O— -Tank A
09/01/06 10/21/06 12/10/06 01/29/07 03/20/07 05/09/07 06/28/07 08/17/07 10/06/07
n1/17/n7 AP TriggprrpHiirpH
0
09/01/06 10/21/06 12/10/06 01/29/07 03/20/07 05/09/07 06/28/07 08/17/07 10/06/07
.30
25
20
15
10
5
0
09/01/06 10/21/06 12/10/06 01/29/07 03/20/07 05/09/07 06/28/07 08/17/07 10/06/07
c
I
01/17/07, AP Trigger reduced
from 25 to 18 psi
Figure 4-11. Differential Pressure Across Filtration Vessels
28
-------
25
20
15
fc
Q
D D A A
i QUA A An
n DAO—nfciAMA—OBI—
n AA
AA AI^ O AD
D A«TA nfcdn n AD An
i DAD D& o»am
a&m» «&«
D A
A DA D
O D AD
Q-6 0
can i
D AAD o «
O D
*r
AA o o
kB» DA«« A A
o a
o
10 15
Run Time since Last Backwash (hr)
Figure 4-12. Differential Pressure vs. Filter Run Time
01/17/07, APTriafle.ried.uoed
-0-CT
-------
10 n
o
in
ro
D)
0
D)
ro
-------
14
12 • -
o
1
o
S
Strokelengthon
chemical feed
pump set at 18%;
iron dosage
targeted at
1.2mg/L(asFe).
O
-K& A
, n"
On 11/03/06,
stroke length
in creased to 25% for a
targetdosageof
1.5mg/L(asFe).
/
0
-
H^^»«r*
A ?• <-c-
^
I 5
A On 09/1 7/07, chemical feed pump
On 01/17/07, stroke length increased switched fromflow-pacedtomanua
to 32% for a target do sage of operation; stroke length and speed set
2 Omg/L(as Fe) at 75% and 50%, respectively; iron
dosaaetaraetedat 2.0ma/L(asFe).
/ \
* ^Calculated FeCIS Dosage *
-^Measured FeCLS Concentration
A
^
^
c ;
A V °/IA <> ^AA ^ A <• . ^i"6"0
-* ^ A c <* _i -* A<-
-^ A C
I , , , , , — r,
0
3$*8£
A <•-> . A <"
r -
Figure 4-15. Calculated Iron Doses vs. Measured Iron Concentrations
backwash time, then a backwash failure would be indicated and the operator would have to acknowledge
the alarm. This would result in a repeat backwash before the pressure filter could resume service. The
use of turbidity as one of the backwash setpoints was designed as a potential water-saving measure.
Backwash was followed by a 2-min FTW step to remove any particulates from the filter.
Filter Vessels A, B, and C were backwashed 259, 354, and 314 times, respectively, from September 14,
2006, to November 3, 2007. Beginning from October 10, 2006, the operator tracked the trigger that
activated each backwash. Among the 883 backwashes since then, Ap triggered 833 backwashes (or 94%);
system standby time triggered six; system run time triggered eight; and manual operation triggered 36 (for
backwash wastewater/solids sampling only).
Backwash durations ranged from 4.3 to 14.6 min and averaged 6.7 min based on monthly Backwash Log
Sheets (Appendix C). Amounts of wastewater generated during each backwash ranged from 600 to 1,160
gal/vessel and averaged 720 gal/vessel (including 250 gal/vessel produced during the 2-min FTW step).
4.4.3.1 PLCSettings. Table 4-6 summarizes the initial backwash PLC settings at system startup
and three subsequent modifications on October 12, 2006, and January 4 and 15, 2007. Initially, the PLC
was set in the field on June 6, 2006, to backwash with a standby time of 48 hr, which could result in filter
backwash while the system was not in operation. If this occurred, the recycle pumps would not be
charged and there would be an increased possibility that the recycle tank would overflow. To ensure that
a backwash would be triggered by Ap or run time while the system was in operation and to reduce the
chance of overflowing the recycle tank, the standby time was increased from 48 to 96 hr on October 12,
2006.
31
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of PLC Settings for Backwash Operations
Parameter (for Each Vessel)
Ap Trigger (psi)
Standby Time Trigger (hr)
Run Time Trigger (hr)
Drain Time (min)
Air Sparge Time (min)
Settling Time (min)
Minimum Backwash Time (min)
Maximum Backwash Time (min)
Turbidity Threshold (NTU)
Low Flowrate Threshold (gpm)
Filter-to -Waste Time (min)
Adjustment Date
06/06/06
-------
I I....
SMB
4.190 gal
71883!
96" 48' 36" 2-T / 30"
i i i i / i
~ Overflow 5o
Sanitary
Sewer
Recycle Wate
Iniaka Pom!
T
Note: Intake line 24-in
above tank bottom
Figure 4-16a. Initial Float Switch Levels in Recycle Tank
1
3'
9
.
S"R?
,
S*fi
,
7" 4 7
,
ntake *
Line!
s-
Recycle Wa!@
Note: Intake line 47. 5 -in
above tank bottom
lake
POII
T
I 60
L
I
@ t |
flT) A SJSS^aS
928 gal 2 364 gal
© *
© j
.
r
i
.,
TH-
""•"" ™**™ Overflow to
San&tary
Sewer
84~
Backwash Wastewater
Dischaftjift Lifts
^Iftto Recycle Tank)
Not to Sca/a
Figure 4-16b. Revised Float Switch Levels in Recycle Tank
33
-------
Based on the adjusted levels, the working range of the recycle system was reduced from 4,190 to 2,364
gal. These adjustments reduced the likelihood of reintroducing solids into the pressure filters, however,
increased the possibility of overflowing wastewater into the sanitary sewer in the event of sequential
backwashes.
Total operation hours of the recycle booster pump were estimated based on the total amount of
wastewater generated and the booster pump flowrate of 14 gpm, assuming the amount of wastewater
overflowing into the sanitary sewer was negligible. The total amount of wastewater generated during the
performance evaluation study was 671,148 gal, which was calculated based on the average wastewater
production rate of 724 gal/vessel/cycle and a total of 927 backwash cycles. Therefore, the recycle system
operated for 799 hr, or 29.4% of the time the treatment system was in operation.
4.4.4 Residual Management. Residual requiring disposal consisted of only backwash solids,
which accumulated at the bottom of the recycle tank. Approximately 850 kg of backwash solids were
produced during the performance evaluation study based on 927 backwash events (Table 4-5) and 920 g
of backwash solids produced per backwash event (Section 4.5.2). Sludge accumulating in the recycle
tank was pumped to the sanitary sewer.
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. There was no downtime for the treatment
system during the performance study. After all items on the system inspection punch list (Section 4.3.3,
Table 4-4) were fixed, no major operational problems were encountered. The simplicity of system
operation and operator skill requirements are discussed according to pre- and post-treatment
requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventative maintenance
activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
4.4.5.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pre-treatment consisted of chemical additions to
improve arsenic removal. A 12.5% NaOCl solution was added using the pre-existing equipment to
oxidize As(III) and Fe(II), and provide chlorine residuals to the distribution system. In addition to
tracking levels of the NaOCl solution in the day tank, the operator measured chlorine concentrations to
ensure that residuals existed throughout the treatment train. A 37% FeCl3 solution diluted six times was
added upstream of the contact tanks. Solution levels in the day tank were tracked daily. No post-
treatment was required.
4.4.5.2 System Automation. The C/F system was automatically controlled by the PLC in the central
control panel. The control panel contained a modem and a touch screen OIP that facilitated monitoring of
system parameters, changing of system setpoints, and checking the alarm status. System run time,
standby time, and Ap settings (Table 4-6) automatically determined when the pressure filters needed to be
backwashed. The touch screen OIP also enabled the operator to manually initiate a backwash sequence.
4.4.5.3 Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the daily demand on the
operator was about 45 min for visual inspection of the system and recording of operational parameters
such as pressure, volume, flowrate, and chemical usage on field log sheets. After receiving proper
training during system startup, the operator understood the PLC, knew how to use the touch screen OIP,
and was able to work with the vendor to troubleshoot problems and perform minor onsite repairs.
The State of Delaware requires all operators of public water treatment and distribution systems to have a
valid base-level license, which requires the operator to have:
• High school diploma or equivalent and one year of acceptable operating experience, or;
• Three years of acceptable operating experience, and;
• Successful completion of base-level written examination.
34
-------
4.4.5.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities. The vendor recommended several routine maintenance
activities to prolong the integrity of the treatment system (Kinetico, 2005). Daily preventative
maintenance tasks included recording pressure and flowrate readings and chemical drum levels and
visually checking for leaks, overheating components, proper manual valve positioning and pumps'
lubricant levels, and any unusual conditions. The vendor recommended weekly checking for trends in the
recorded data that might indicate a decline in system performance, and semi-annually servicing and
inspecting ancillary equipment and replacing worn components. Cleaning and replacement of sensors and
replacement of o-ring seals and gaskets of valves were performed as needed.
4.4.5.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements. Chlorine and iron additions were
required for effective arsenic removal. The operator tracked usage of the chemical solutions daily (by
solution levels), coordinated supplies, and refilled the day tanks as needed. A 12.5% NaOCl solution,
supplied in 55-gal drums by Wilbur-Ellis, was transferred to the day tank and injected without dilution. A
37% FeCl3 solution, supplied in 180-lb drums by Hawkins Chemical, was diluted by a factor of six in the
66-gal day tank prior to injection into the chlorinated water. Speed and stroke settings of the chemical
pumps were adjusted, as needed, to acquire the target chlorine residuals as measured regularly with a
Hach pocket colorimeter and iron concentrations after the contact tanks.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System was evaluated based on analyses of water
samples collected from the treatment plant, system backwash, and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Treatment plant water was sampled on 57 occasions (including
four duplicate events) during the 13.5 months of system operation. Field speciation also was performed
for 14 of the 57 occasions. Table 4-7 summarizes the analytical results for arsenic, iron, and manganese.
Five outliers with either significantly low (on November 29, 2006) or significantly high arsenic, iron,
and/or manganese concentrations (on March 21, April 18, and August 8, 2007) at the AC sampling
location were not included in statistical calculations shown in Table 4-7. These significantly elevated
arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations probably were due to introduction of backwash solids from
the recycle tank. The August 8 event took place even after the level float switches in the recycle tank and
the intake line from the recycle tank had been moved up from the bottom of the tank in May 2007
(Section 4.4.3.3). It was not clear, however, what had caused the low concentrations to be measured on
November 29, 2006. Table 4-8 summarizes the results of the other water quality parameters. Appendix B
contains a complete set of analytical results. The results of the water samples collected across the
treatment train are discussed below.
4.5.1.1 Arsenic. Figure 4-17 shows total arsenic concentrations measured across the treatment train
and Figure 4-18 presents the results of the 14 speciation events. Total arsenic concentrations in source
water ranged from 27.2 to 43.3 (ig/L and averaged 34.4 (ig/L with soluble As(III) existing as the
predominant species at 29.1 (ig/L (on average) (Table 4-7 and Figure 4-18). Low concentrations of
particulate arsenic and soluble As(V) also were present in source water, with concentrations averaging
3.4 and 2.1 (ig/L, respectively. The arsenic concentrations measured during the 13.5-month performance
evaluation study were consistent with those of source water collected during the initial site visit on
October 7, 2004.
Following prechlorination and the contact tanks, total arsenic concentrations remained essentially
unchanged at 35.1 (ig/L (on average). Arsenic, however, existed mostly as particulate arsenic (26.1 (ig/L
[on average]) with only a small fraction remaining in the soluble form (8.9 (ig/L). Of the soluble fraction,
35
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
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
TC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Number
of
Samples
57
52W
43
43
43
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
I3(b>
13(0
14
13(d)
14
57
52(e)
43
43
43
14
14
13W
14
57
52(g)
43
43
43
14
14
14
14
Minimum
Concentration
27.2
27.0
3.1
3.4
3.4
1.8
26.1
3.6
2.5
<0.1
19.5
<0.1
19.9
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
3.1
2.2
<25
704
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<0.1
5.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.3
<0.1
<0.1
Maximum
Concentration
43.3
53.7
15.9
17.2
17.6
13.4
38.1
18.1
13.0
5.8
33.6
2.5
38.3
2.2
1.8
8.8
15.9
10.6
62.5
4,699
290
327
217
148
50.0
<25
<25
2.9
23.7
1.7
1.9
1.5
1.6
3.0
1.0
1.6
Average
Concentration
34.4
35.1
7.5
7.4
7.2
8.3
31.2
8.9
7.2
3.4
26.1
1.2
29.1
0.7
0.6
2.1
8.1
6.0
26.1
1,905
45.6
48.4
37.1
37.9
21.6
<25
<25
1.4
10.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
1.7
0.3
0.3
Standard
Deviation
3.6
4.9
2.9
2.7
2.8
3.6
3.1
4.3
3.1
1.9
4.2
0.9
3.9
0.6
0.5
2.1
4.2
2.7
13.6
709
61.6
57.2
44.8
41.9
13.4
-
-
0.4
3.6
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
(a) Five outliers (i.e., 12.2 ug/L on 11/29/06, 210 and 174 ug/L on 03/21/07, 142 ug/L on 04/18/07, and 104
ug/L on 08/08/07) omitted.
(b) One outlier (i.e., 8.6 ug/L on 01/31/07) omitted.
(c) One outlier (i.e., 10.1 ug/L on 01/31/07) omitted.
(d) One outlier (i.e., 0.9 ug/L on 01/31/07) omitted.
(e) Five outliers (i.e., 279 ug/L on 11/29/06, 13,646 and 10,937 ug/L on 03/21/07, 8,962 ug/L on 04/18/07,
and 6,632 ug/L on 08/08/07) omitted.
(i) One outlier (i.e., 177 ug/L on 12/6/06) omitted.
(g) Five outliers (i.e., 1.6 ug/L on 11/29/06, 59.2 and 48.8 ug/L on 03/21/07, 37.7 ug/L on 04/18/07, and 35.2
ug/L on 08/08/07) omitted.
36
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Phosphorous
(asP)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
Number
of
Samples
57
57
43
43
43
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
57
57
43
43
43
14
57
57
43
43
43
14
57
57
43
43
43
14
39W
39(b)
29(c>
29(d)
29(e>
I0(t>
41
41
30
30
30
11
Minimum
Concentration
276
283
280
274
270
300
1.0
1.0
1.0
9.0
8.8
8.8
0.05
0.05
0.05
8.5
8.6
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.5
23.3
21.7
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.9
14.7
14.7
14.7
14.8
14.8
18.1
Maximum
Concentration
349
339
341
339
331
327
2.0
1.8
2.8
21.0
18.0
18.0
0.05
0.05
0.05
11.6
13.7
11.1
11.3
11.2
10.3
110
298
47.9
48.1
49.3
79.0
4.8
20.0
5.1
4.5
3.6
3.3
8.9
8.9
8.9
9.0
9.0
8.5
20.8
20.2
21.0
20.3
19.9
19.3
Average
Concentration
321
315
313
312
311
316
1.4
1.4
1.6
10.8
10.4
10.3
0.05
0.05
0.05
9.5
9.7
9.2
9.1
9.1
9.2
44.7
57.3
11.5
11.2
10.8
16.6
1.2
3.1
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.0
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
19.2
18.8
18.9
18.8
18.7
18.8
Standard
Deviation
11.8
11.7
10.8
12.7
11.7
8.2
0.3
0.2
0.5
3.0
2.3
2.3
-
-
-
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
13.4
48.2
9.7
9.5
8.9
19.7
1.1
3.5
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
1.1
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.4
37
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
DO
ORP
Free
Chlorine
(as C12)
Total
Chlorine
(as C12)
Total
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TT
AC
TA
TB
TC
TT
AC
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
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
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Number
of
Samples
41
41
30
30
30
11
41
41
30
30
30
11
41
30
30
30
11
41
30
30
30
11
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Minimum
Concentration
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
216
251
277
287
486
335
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
35.4
34.6
36.1
13.9
14.1
14.1
20.0
18.6
19.7
Maximum
Concentration
.4
.7
2.6
.9
.7
.1
444
630
651
652
673
572
.7
.3
.4
.4
.2
.8
.4
.4
.4
.3
41.3
42.6
40.6
19.4
20.2
19.8
25.2
24.9
23.9
Average
Concentration
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
320
456
500
536
580
490
0.8
0.7
0.74
0.77
0.83
0.83
0.76
0.76
0.81
0.86
39.3
39.1
38.6
16.8
17.0
16.8
22.4
22.1
21.8
Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
72.7
97.3
101
96.1
47.1
71.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.8
1.9
1.3
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.7
1.3
(a) Two outliers (i.e., 9.3 on 06/13/07 and 9.8 on 06/20/07) omitted.
(b) Two outliers (i.e., 9.3 on 06/13/07 and 10.0 on 06/20/07) omitted.
(c) One outlier (i.e., 9.3 on 06/13/07) omitted.
(d) One outlier (i.e., 9.4 on 06/13/07) omitted.
(e) One outlier (i.e., 9.3 on 06/13/07) omitted.
(f) One outlier (i.e., 10.0 on 06/20/07) omitted.
only 0.7 ug/L (on average) existed as As(III) (except for one data point at 8.6 (ig/L on January 31, 2007),
indicating effective oxidation of As(III) by chlorine. The reason for the exceptionally high As(III)
concentration on January 31, 2007, was unclear. Free and total chlorine concentrations measured in the
system effluent on that day were 0.8 and 0.8 mg/L, respectively, which were consistent with the
respective average values shown in Table 4-8. As much as 8.1 ug/L of As(V) was measured following
the contact tanks, suggesting the need for further increasing iron doses.
38
-------
60
50 -
40 -
20 -
10 --
11/15/06
10/18/06 11/29/06
10/25/06 AT-. , 12/20/06
702/21/07
05/02/07
04/11/071
08/22/07
10[jg/L
-------
Arsenic Species at Wellhead (IN)
AZ
As Concentration (\ig:L}
-^-"•ISJIVJWWJv-l
D010010010010C
=
=
.
-
-
-
=
-
.
=
•
nAs(particulate)
•As(V)
nAs(lll)
—
4
Arsenic Species after Conctact Tanks (AC)
v>
^x
DAs(particulate)
•As(V)
nAs(lll)
/ ^
^
„/ „/
^ ^V fV4 (V* cxl' c\3 oP* (SP csP cV r\o
J
./,/
# / A#
ANJ
<&"
0J
cr
x
\v
16
Arsenic Species after Tanks A, B, and C Combined (TT)
=d 14 -
0)
3 12 -
o 10-
S
o>
o
o
u
w
<
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
0 --
CT
. _10 ugiLMCL
s<^ .\<^ V<^ V^ A<^ v<^- x<^ ^
?3 yy -,'V ^C> r&y /^V ^ lA
/ vV ,\V \V ^\V \v \\ \^
Figure 4-18. Arsenic Speciation Results
40
-------
Table 4-9. Ineffective Arsenic Removal Due to Inadequate Iron Addition
Date
10/18/06
11/15/06
03/28/07
05/02/07
06/20/07
07/18/07
08/22/07
TA
Total
As
(MS/L)
10.6
11.8
NM
17.9
NM
10.3
NM
Total
Fe
(MS/L)
50.3
<25
NM
<25
NM
<25
NM
TB
Total
As
(MS/L)
10.4
12.2
NM
19.5
NM
11.3
NM
Total
Fe
(MS/L)
<25
<25
NM
<25
NM
<25
NM
TC
Total
As
(MS/L)
10.3
11.9
NM
19.3
NM
11.7
NM
Total
Fe
(MS/L)
<25
<25
NM
<25
NM
<25
NM
TT
Total
As
(MS/L)
NM
NM
12.8
NM
10.8
NM
12.8
As(V)
(MS/L)
NM
NM
8.5
NM
9.0
NM
10.6
Total
Fe
(MS/L)
NM
NM
<25
NM
<25
NM
<25
AC
Total
Fe
(MS/L)
1,252
1,017
788
704
1,268
1,528
1,111
Soluble
Fe
(MS/L)
NM
NM
<25
NM
<25
NM
<25
NM = not measured
species (66 to 83% of the total As), implying that more iron would need to be added for more complete
arsenic removal. Total iron concentrations measured following the contact tanks (AC) were all
significantly lower than the average concentration at AC (i.e. 1,905 (ig/L, Table 4-9), which further
supports the need for more iron addition.
Conversely, the six events shown in Table 4-10 seem to suggest particulate arsenic/iron breakthrough
being the main reason for the elevated arsenic concentrations observed. These samples were all collected
close to the end of a filter run before a backwash was triggered. As shown in Table 4-10, elevated iron
concentrations were measured in filter effluent for all samples except one on April 18, 2007, implying
particulate arsenic/iron leakage. Arsenic/iron leakage occurred occasionally even after the Ap trigger had
been decreased from 25 to 18 psi on January 17, 2007 (in an attempt to reduce run times and, therefore,
the likelihood of arsenic/iron particle breakthrough from the filters [Section 4.4.3.1]). Note that increases
in arsenic concentrations at the AC location on March 21, April 18, August 8, 2007, due to introduction
of backwash solids from the recycle tank did not cause excessive arsenic breakthrough from the pressure
filters.
Table 4-10. Ineffective Arsenic Removal Due to Arsenic/Iron Leakage
Date
10/25/06
11/29/06
12/20/06
02/21/07
04/11/07
04/18/07
TA
Total
As
(tig/L)
10.1
11.2
10.4
13.9
12.3
11.5
Total
Fe
(HB/L)
83.0
164.0
124
289
216
<25
TB
Total
As
(HB/L)
10.5
_(a)
10.2
10.3
_(a)
_(a)
Total
Fe
(HB/L)
85.1
<25
92.7
101
35.9
<25
TC
Total
As
(H8/L)
_(a)
_(a)
_(a)
12.1
_(a)
_(a)
Total
Fe
(HB/L)
57.4
<25
97.9
217
36.1
<25
(a) Data not presented since total arsenic concentration did not
exceed 10 ng/L MCL.
4.5.1.2 Iron. Figure 4-19 presents total iron concentration measured across the treatment train.
Total iron concentrations in source water ranged from <25 to 62.5 (ig/L and averaged 26.1 (ig/L, which
existed primarily in the soluble form.
41
-------
On 11/03/06 ,
stroke length
increased to 25%
fora target dosage
of 1.5 mg/L (as Fe).
On 09/17/07, chemical
feed pump switched
from flow-paced to
manual ope ration;
stroke length and speed
set at 75 & 25%,
respectively; iron
dosage targeted at
2.0 mg/L (as Fe).
On 01/17/07, stroke length
increased to 32% fora
target dosage of 2.0 mg/L
(as Fe).
# _V<*> v<$ _V<$
!\ XV rA
-•—AtWellhead (IN)
-.i-After Tank A (TA)
-6-After Tan kC(TC)
-AfterContact Tanks (AC)
-AfterTank B (TB)
-AfterTanks A, B, and C Combined (TT)
Figure 4-19. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train
Total iron concentrations after the contact tanks varied significantly, ranging from 704 to 4,699 (ig/L and
averaging 1,905 (ig/L (not including the five outliers noted in footnote e). Variations in iron
concentrations were caused primarily by the difficulties encountered operating the flow-paced iron
injection pump (Section 4.4.2). As expected, iron after the contact tanks existed solely as particulate iron
(except for one data point at 177 (ig/L on December 6, 2006).
Total iron concentrations in system effluent ranged from <25 to 327 (ig/L, and averaged 43.1 (ig/L.
Approximately 60% of the samples collected at the system outlet had total iron concentrations below the
method reporting limit of 25 (ig/L. The remaining 40% of samples had iron concentrations higher than 25
(ig/L, with one sample collected on August 29, 2007, containing 327 (ig/L. Iron in system effluent
existed only in the particulate form, indicating leakage through the pressure filters. The frequency of
particulate iron leakage did decrease after January 17, 2007, i.e. from 3 times during the initial 4 months
before January 17, 2007 to 3 times during the remaining 10 months afterwards. As described in Section
4.4.3.1, on January 17, 2007, the Ap backwash trigger was reduced to help shorten run times and reduce
iron breakthrough from the filters. As described in Section 4.5.1.1, particulate iron leakage often
occurred together with particulate arsenic leakage.
4.5.1.3 Manganese. Figure 4-20 presents total manganese concentrations measured during the
demonstration study. In source water, manganese concentrations ranged from <0.1 to 2.9 |o,g/L and
averaged 1.4 (ig/L, existing primarily in the soluble form. After chlorination, iron addition, and contact
tanks, total manganese concentrations increased significantly to an average of 10.1 (ig/L, existing
42
-------
O)
3
O
ID
O
O
O
c
10 -
5 -
' / /
•& n^ •
X X X X X
° < *>
—•—At Wellhead (IN)
— &— After Tank A (TA)
-e- After Tank C (TC)
After Contact Tanks (AC)
— Q— After Tank B (TB)
—•—After Tanks A, B, andC Combined (TT)
Figure 4-20. Total Manganese Concentrations Across Treatment Train
primarily (over 97%) as particulate manganese. The increase in manganese concentration probably was
caused by trace amounts of manganese in the pretreatment chemicals. Particulate manganese apparently
was removed by the pressure filters, leaving only trace amounts (0.3 |og/L) in filter effluent.
4.5.1.4 pH, DO, and ORP. pH values in source water ranged from 7.8 to 8.9 and averaged 8.3. This
range was consistent with the pH measurements taken by Battelle during source water sampling on
October 7, 2004 (i.e., 8.2 in Table 4-1). DO levels of source water were low, ranging from 0.5 to 1.4
mg/L and averaging 1.0 mg/L. DO levels remained low across the treatment train, with average values
ranging from 0.9 to 1.2 mg/L. ORP readings of source water were uncharacteristically high, ranging from
216 to 444 mV and averaging 320 mV. These high values most likely were caused by the handheld
meter, which tends to drift during measurements. After prechlorination, average ORP readings increased
significantly to 456 mV after the contact tanks and to 527 mV after the pressure filters.
4.5.1.5 Chlorine. Figure 4-21 presents total and free chlorine residuals measured throughout the
treatment train. As shown in the figure, data were scattered extensively, with total chlorine residuals
ranging from 0.3 to 1.8 mg/L (as C12) and free chlorine residuals ranging from 0.2 to 1.7 mg/L (as C12).
Assuming that 4.3 mg/L of NaOCl (as C12) had been applied to source water, 0.044 mg/L (as C12) would
have reacted with As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II) based on the respective average concentrations (i.e., 29.1,
21.6, and 1.7 (ig/L) in source water (Table 4-7), and 2.45 mg/L would have reacted with 0.32 mg/L of
ammonia (as N) to reach breakpoint chlorination. As such, 1.8 mg/L (as C12) would have been present as
free chlorine in treated water. These theoretical amounts appear to fall just inside (and outside) the
measured ranges for total and free residuals.
43
-------
2.0
1.6
O Total at AC
D Total at TA, TB, and TC
Total at TT
Free at AC
XFreeatTA, TB, and TC
O Free at TT
o
J
"a
1.2
1.0
I *
2
Ifl
&
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
" p A
:x a.
-tH»
X
«
» X
A*
0.0
10/01/06 10/31/06 11/30/06 12/30/06 01/29/07 02/28/07 03/30/07 04/29/07 05/29/07 06/28/07 07/28/07 08/27/07 09/26/07 10/26/07
Date
Figure 4-21. Chlorine Residuals Measured Throughout Treatment Train
4.5.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate, silica, pH,
temperature, and hardness levels remained relatively constant across the treatment train and were not
affected by the treatment process (Table 4-8). Phosphorus levels after the contact tanks were slightly
higher than those in source water (i.e., 57.3 vs. 44.7 |o,g/L [on average]), probably due to the presence of
trace quantities in the pretreatment chemicals. Phosphorus levels decreased significantly to <17.0 ng/L
(on average) after the pressure filters, indicating removal via coagulation/filtration. Turbidity also
decreased slightly with treatment (i.e., from 3.1 to <1.3 NTU on average).
4.5.2 Backwash Water and Solids Sampling. Treated water was used for backwash. Table 4-11
presents analytical results from 11 backwash wastewater sampling events starting from November 30,
2006, through October 10, 2007. Results for the November 30, 2006, sampling event are not included in
the table because these samples were collected from an incorrect sampling tap.
pH, TDS, and total suspended solids (TSS) values ranged from 7.9 to 8.1 (averaged 8.0), from 324 to
1,040 mg/L (averaged 370 mg/L), and from 125 to 685 mg/L (averaged 336 mg/L), respectively. The
average pH value of backwash wastewater (i.e., 8.0) was somewhat lower than that across the treatment
train (i.e., 8.3). Concentrations of total arsenic, iron, and manganese ranged from 371 to 2,203 |og/L
(averaged 1,229 (ig/L), 27.5 to 188 mg/L (averaged 107 mg/L), and 151 to 955 |o,g/L (averaged 551
(ig/L), respectively. Over 99% of these metals were present in the partculate form.
Assuming that 724 gal (Table 4-5) of backwash wastewater would be generated from each vessel during
each backwash event and that 336 mg/L of TSS would be produced, approximately 920 g of solids were
generated from each filtration vessel during each backwash and were discharged into and accumulated in
the recycle tank. Based on the average particulate metal data in Table 4-11, approximately 3.4 g of
44
-------
Table 4-11. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Date
11/30/2006(a)
01/03/07
02/07/07
03/07/07
04/05/07
05/09/07
06/14/07
07/11/07
08/08/07
09/05/07
10/10/07
BW1
Backwash Tank A
31
CL
s.u.
in
Q
\—
mg/L
"&
\—
mg/L
I
CO
<
M9/L
As (soluble)
M9/L
As (particulate)
M9/L
CD
§
CD
M9/L
Fe (soluble)
M9/L
I
£=
^
M9/L
Mn (soluble)
M9/L
BW2
Backwash Vessel Tank B
m
o
S.U.
in
Q
mg/L
%
\—
mg/L
I
CO
<
M9/L
As (soluble)
M9/L
As (particulate)
M9/L
ro
§
CD
M9/L
Fe (soluble)
M9/L
S3
a
c=
^
M9/L
Mn (soluble)
M9/L
BW3
Backwash Tank C
m
o
S.U.
if>
Q
mg/L
%
\—
mg/L
I
CO
<
M9/L
As (soluble)
M9/L
As (particulate)
M9/L
ro
§
CD
LL
M9/L
Fe (soluble)
M9/L
I
c=
S
M9/L
Mn (soluble)
M9/L
Samples were collected from the wrong sample taps during the first sample collection on 1 1 /30/06; data was not reported.
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.0
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.0
8.0
328
332
344
344
352
358
356
354
360
356
190
266
410
265
155
335
420
195
390
205
800
1,108
1,656
765
769
1,559
1,997
876
1,039
716
9.6
6.7
7.6
5.7
6.9
6.3
6.3
7.0
3.4
3.0
790
1,101
1,648
759
762
1,553
1,990
869
1,036
713
73,404
90,169
135,760
62,605
54,835
121,064
187,504
64,893
131,939
76,129
<25
85.3
<25
29.0
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
364
398
592
320
316
616
955
364
686
392
0.2
0.5
<0.1
1.4
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.0
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.0
8.0
324
338
348
336
354
342
352
324
370
358
430
450
635
685
215
195
330
125
420
190
1,462
1,518
2,049
1,679
750
627
1,309
371
761
618
15.2
5.9
7.7
5.7
6.4
5.7
6.6
7.1
3.9
3.3
1,447
1,512
2,041
1,674
744
621
1,302
364
757
615
130,280
117,655
165,859
135,388
62,365
51,888
113,355
27,492
114,914
83,641
78.1
37.2
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
621
545
800
708
375
274
611
151
595
449
0.4
0.3
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
326
334
354
346
362
1,040
362
334
360
358
285
515
590
565
240
255
320
250
220
345
1,247
2,061
2,203
1,848
1,021
1,347
1,495
1,434
601
1,191
15.6
6.8
8.1
6.2
6.3
6.2
6.8
7.0
5.5
2.9
1,231
2,054
2,195
1,842
1,015
1,341
1,488
1,427
596
1,188
124,876
151,885
171,373
148,509
84,375
83,132
131,067
108,815
64,245
140,627
76.8
69.0
<25
30.6
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
584
745
829
735
500
439
706
601
327
929
0.3
0.5
<0.1
1.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
(a) November 2006 results omitted since samples collected from an incorrect tap.
-------
arsenic (i.e. 0.4% by weight), 293 g of iron (i.e. 31.8 % by weight), and 1.5 g of manganese (i.e. 0.2 % by
weight) were generated from each vessel during each backwash event.
Solids loadings to the recycle tank also were monitored through collection of backwash solids (Section
3.3.5). Table 4-12 presents analytical results of the solid samples collected in May and October 2007.
Arsenic, iron, and manganese levels in the solids averaged 3.4 mg/g (or 0.34% by weight), 324 mg/g (or
32.4% by weight), and 2.0 mg/g (or 0.2 % by weight), respectively. These amounts matched very well
with those derived from the backwash wastewater metal analysis (i.e. 0.4%, 31.8%, and 0.2%,
respectively).
Table 4-12. Backwash Solids Sampling Results
Date: Location
05/09/07: Vessel A
05/09/07: Vessel B
05/09/07: Vessel C
10/10/07: Vessel A
10/10/07: Vessel B
10/10/07: Vessel C
Mg
mg/g
4.8
5.4
4.5
4.5
4.2
3.9
Si
ug/g
681
558
372
126
244
393
P
mg/g
5.1
4.5
6.4
6.2
5.3
6.0
Ca
mg/g
19.8
24.1
23.3
17.4
14.1
15.2
Fe
mg/g
245
311
344
343
303
400
Mn
mg/g
1.7
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.3
As
mg/g
3.2
3.6
4.5
3.2
2.8
3.3
Ba
ug/g
45.9
43.5
37.7
24.6
31.6
20.6
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Table 4-13 summarizes results of the distribution
system sampling. The stagnation times for the samples ranged from 6.0 to 18.0 hr and averaged 9.5 hr,
which is 58% longer than the 6-hr minimum stagnation time required by LCR.
There was no change in pH values before and after system startup. pH values before startup ranged from
7.6 to 8.3 and averaged 8.0; pH values after system startup ranged from 7.7 to 8.1 and averaged 8.0.
Alkalinity levels stayed essentially unchanged, with concentrations ranging from 304 to 326 mg/L (as
CaCO3) before startup and from 301 to 332 mg/L (as CaCO3) after startup.
Arsenic concentrations in the baseline samples were similar among the three LCR locations, ranging from
24.8 to 47.0 (ig/L and averaging 34.4 (ig/L. These concentrations were consistent with those in source
water (i.e., 27.2 to 43.3 (ig/L and averaged 34.4 (ig/L) as shown in Table 4-7. After system startup,
arsenic concentrations decreased significantly to an average of 8.5 ug/L. Arsenic levels in the distribution
system were slightly higher than those in treatment system effluent (i.e., 8.3 ug/L [on average] in Table 4-
7), indicating some resuspension and redissolution of arsenic in the distribution system. Figure 4-22
illustrates the effect of the treatment system on As, Fe, and Mn concentrations in the distribution system.
Iron concentrations in the baseline samples were low, ranging from <25 to 47.0 ug/L and averaging 26.9
ug/L. These concentrations were consistent with those in source water (i.e., ranging from <25 to 62.5
ug/L and averaging 26.1 ug/L in Table 4-7). After system startup, the average iron concentration
increased slightly to 38.1 ug/L, which was consistent with the average iron concentration of 43.7 ug/L in
system effluent (Table 4-7). The slight increase in iron levels was likely due to instances of iron
breakthrough from the pressure filters. For the most part, iron concentrations in the distribution system
mirrored those in treatment system effluent (Figure 4-22).
Total manganese concentrations in the distribution system averaged 1.7 and 0.5 ug/L before and after
system startup. Total manganese levels in the distribution system were consistent with those measured in
system effluent (i.e., 0.3 ug/L [on average] at TT location).
46
-------
Table 4-13. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
DS1
24 E. Sewell St.
LCR
1st draw
Stagnation Time
Date | hrs
04/13/05
05/11/05
06/15/05
07/13/05
11/08/06
12/20/07
01/17/07
02/14/07
03/14/07
04/11/07
05/09/07
06/14/07
07/19/07
08/15/07
09/12/07
7.5
6.0
18.0
7.5
9.0
8.0
10.0
7.4
7.6
9.0
8.0
7.9
8.0
8.0
6.3
X
Q.
s.u.
8.3
7.8
8.2
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.0
8.1
Alkalinity
in
-------
Arsenic in Treated Water and Distribution System
O2/O8/O5 O5/O9/O5 O8/O7/O5 11/O5/O5 O2/O3/O6 O5/O4/O6 O8/O2/O6 1O/31/O6 O1/29/O7 O4/29/O7 O7/28/O7 1O/26/O7
Iron in Treated Water and Distribution System
02/08/05 05/09/05 O8/O7/O5 11/O5/O5 O2/O3/O6 O5/O4/O6 O8/O2/O6 1O/31/O6 O1/29/O7 O4/29/O7 O7/28/O7 1O/26/O7
Manganese in Treated Water and Distribution System
02/08/05 05/09/05 O8/O7/O5 11 /O5/O5 O2/O3/O6 O5/O4/O6 O8/O2/O6 10/31 /O6 01/29/O7 O4/29/O7 O7/28/O7 10/26/O7
-DS1
-DS2
-DS3
Treated Water
Figure 4-22. Effects of Treatment System on Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese in Distribution System
48
-------
Lead and copper concentrations within the distribution system decreased slightly from baseline levels.
Baseline lead concentrations ranged from 1.2 to 7.7 (ig/L and averaged 2.4 (ig/L; baseline copper
concentrations ranged from 33.9 to 162 (ig/L and averaged 85.6 (ig/L. After system startup, lead levels
decreased slightly to 1.6 (ig/L (on average) with no samples exceeding the action level of 15 (ig/L.
Copper concentrations decreased to 44.0 (ig/L with no samples exceeding the 1,300 (ig/L action level.
4.6
System Cost
The system cost 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. Capital cost of the C/F system included cost for equipment, site
engineering, and system installation, shakedown, and startup. O&M cost included cost for chemicals,
electricity, and labor. Cost associated with the building, including the recycle system, sanitary sewer
connections, and water system telemetry, was not included in the capital cost because it was not included
in the scope of this demonstration project and was funded separately by the Town of Felton.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for the Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System was $334,297
(Table 4-14). The equipment cost was $201,292 (or 60% of the total capital investment), which included
cost for an iron addition system, two contact tanks, three pressure vessels, 75 ft3 of Macrolite®,
instrumentation and controls, miscellaneous materials and supplies, labor, and system warranty. The
system warranty cost covered the cost for repair and replacement of defective system components and
installation workmanship for 12 months after system startup.
Table 4-14. Capital Investment for Kinetico's C/F System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment
Welded stainless steel frame
Fiberglass pressure vessel
Fiberglass contact tank
Wedge wire distributors
Macrolite® media (75 ft3)
Process valves and piping
Air scour system
Chemical feed equipment
Instrumentation and controls
Turbidimeter
Additional sample taps/totalizer/meters
Shipping
Labor
Equipment Total
1
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
1
1
-
$12,500
$24,426
$16,284
$9,909
$18,750
$26,278
$6,300
$6,402
$18,723
$6,612
$1,700
$2,600
$50,808
$201,292
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
60%
Engineering
Labor 1 1
Engineering Total | -
$44,520
$44,520
-
13%
Installation, Shakedown, and Startup
Labor
Subcontractor
Travel
Installation, Shakedown, and Startup
Total Capital Investment
1
1
1
-
-
$15,400
$68,300
$4,785
$88,485
334,297
-
-
-
27%
100%
49
-------
The site engineering cost covered the cost for preparing the required permit application submittal
(including a process design report, a general arrangement drawing, P&IDs, electrical diagrams,
interconnecting piping layouts, tank fill details, and a schematic of the PLC panel) and obtaining the
required permit approval from DHSS. The engineering cost of $44,520 was 13% of the total capital
investment. The installation, shakedown, and startup cost covered the labor and materials required to
unload, install, and test the system for proper operation. All installation activities were performed by the
vendor's subcontractor, and startup and shakedown activities were performed by the vendor with the
operator's assistance. The installation, startup, and shakedown cost of $88,485 was 27% of the total
capital investment.
The total capital cost of $334,297 was normalized to $891/gpm ($0.62/gpd) of design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 375 gpm (or 540,000 gpd). The total capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $31,554 gal/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-yr return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/week at the design
flowrate of 375 gpm to produce 197,100,000 gal/yr, the unit capital cost would be $0.16/1,000 gal.
During the 13-month demonstration study, the system produced 43,446,110 gal of water (Table 4-5),
corresponding to 38,211,600 gal/year, so the unit capital cost increased to $0.83/1,000 gal.
A38ftx 18ft building with a ceiling height of 14 ft was constructed by the Town of Felton to house the
treatment system (Section 4.3.2). In addition to the building, a recycle system was installed and included
al6ftx6ftx 10ft concrete recycle tank, recycle system controller, booster pumps, and associated
piping (Section 4.2). Not included in the capital cost, the total cost of the building, recycle system, and
supporting utilities was approximately $240,000.
4.6.2 O&M Cost. O&M costs included chemical use, electricity consumption, and labor for a
combined unit cost of $0.30/1,000 gal (Table 4-15). No cost was incurred for repairs because the system
was under warranty. Since chlorination already existed prior to the demonstration study, incremental
chemical cost for iron addition was $0.05/1,000 gal. Electrical power consumption was calculated based
on the difference between the average monthly cost from electric bills before and after building
construction and system startup. The difference in cost was approximately $150/month or $0.045/1,000
gal of water treated. The routine, non-demonstration related labor activities consumed approximately 45
min/day (Section 4.4.5.3). Based on this time commitment and a labor rate of $30/hr, the labor cost was
$0.21/1,000 gal of water treated.
Table 4-15. O&M Cost for Kinetico's C/F System
Category
Volume processed (1,000 gal)
Value
43,446
Remarks
From 09/14/06 through 11/03/07
Chemical Usage
37-42% FeCl3 unit cost ($/lb)
FeCl3 consumption (lb/1,000 gal)
Chemical cost ($/l,000 gal)
$0.99
0.049
$0.05
Supplied in 12 180-lb drums, including
cost for drum deposit and freight
-
-
Electricity Consumption
Electricity cost ($/month)
Electricity cost ($/l,000 gal)
$150.00
$0.045
Average incremental consumption
including building heating and lighting
-
Labor
Labor (hr/week)
Labor cost ($/l,000 gal)
Total O&M cost ($/l,000 gal)
5.25
$0.21
$0.30
45 min/day, 7 day/week
Labor rate = $30/hr
Including FeCl3 usage
50
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. 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, aDun-
Donnelley Publisher, New York, NY.
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. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFRPart 141.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 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.
Ghurye, G.L. and D.A. 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.
Kinetico. 2005. The Village ofPentwater, MI: Installation Manual; Suppliers Literature; and Operation
and Maintenance Manual, Macrolite FM-260-AS Arsenic Removal System. Newbury, OH.
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.
51
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Demonstration Project at Felton, DE - Daily Operational Log Sheet
Start-up Date: October 12, 2006
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Day of
Week
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
Thur
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
Date
09/14/06
09/15/06
09/16/06
09/17/06
09/18/06
09/19/06
09/20/06
09/21/06
09/22/06
09/23/06
09/24/06
09/25/06
09/26/06
09/27/06
09/28/06
09/29/06
09/30/06
10/01/06
10/02/06
10/03/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
10/06/06
10/07/06
10/08/06
10/09/06
10/10/06'"
10/11/06
10/12/06'"
10/13/06
10/14/06
10/15/06
10/16/06
10/17/06
10/18/06
10/19/06
10/20/06
10/21/06
10/22/06
10/23/06
10/24/06
10/25/06
10/26/06
10/27/06
10/28/06
10/29/06
Time
8:00
8:00
5:30
10:10
8:20
7:45
7:45
8:20
9:00
16:20
20:12
7:15
8:00
8:00
7:55
7:10
6:30
7:00
7:55
8:10
5:15
7:40
8:00
12:35
20:00
16:25
7:45
8:00
8:00
8:45
16:00
12:55
15:00
13:50
10:05
10:10
12:05
11:00
11:45
11:50
12:00
9:45
8:00
9:15
12:20
19:45
Cumulative Hrsin Service
TA
hr
72.1
77.1
84.8
87.6
95.0
00.6
06.9
13.8
17.7
29.5
36.7
36.7
42.8
47.3
53.5
60.8
66.8
73.7
82.8
90.1
93.6
200.7
207.6
213.7
223.8
228.4
234.6
241.0
244.6
250.5
261.3
262.5
269.7
276.1
281.9
286.5
294.9
299.3
306.1
312.5
318.9
326.2
330.7
337.0
344.5
358.7
TB
hr
79.3
79.3
91.4
97.1
104.4
109.6
115.9
122.8
126.3
138.1
145.3
145.3
151.4
163.7
166.0
170.2
176.1
183.0
192.0
199.3
202.8
209.8
216.7
222.8
232.8
237.5
243.6
250.1
253.7
259.7
270.5
271.7
278.9
285.3
291.1
295.8
304.1
308.5
315.3
321.6
328.0
335.3
339.7
346.0
353.5
367.7
TC
hr
111
77.7
89.8
95.5
102.8
108.0
114.3
121.2
124.7
136.5
143.7
143.7
149.8
155.1
161.4
168.6
174.5
181.4
190.4
197.7
201.2
208.2
215.1
221.2
231.2
235.9
242.0
248.5
252.1
258.1
192.3
193.5
200.6
207.2
212.9
217.5
225.8
230.3
237.1
243.5
249.9
257.1
261.5
267.8
275.2
289.5
Avg Run
Time
hr
NA
1.7
10.6
4.7
7.3
5.3
6.3
6.9
3.6
11.8
7.2
0.0
6.1
7.4
4.9
6.2
5.9
6.9
9.0
7.3
3.5
7.0
6.9
6.1
10.0
4.7
6.1
6.5
3.6
6.0
10.8
1.2
7.2
6.5
5.8
4.6
8.3
4.4
6.8
6.4
6.4
7.3
4.4
6.3
7.5
14.2
Hour
Meter
hr
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
Run
Time
hr
NA
1.7
10.6
4.7
7.3
5.3
6.3
6.9
3.6
11.8
7.2
0.0
6.1
7.4
4.9
6.2
5.9
6.9
9.0
7.3
3.5
7.0
6.9
6.1
10.0
4.7
6.1
6.5
3.6
6.0
10.8
1.2
7.2
6.5
5.8
4.6
8.3
4.4
6.8
6.4
6.4
7.3
4.4
6.3
7.5
14.2
Chlorine
Chlorine
Tank
Level
gal
36
32
27
24
19
15
12
23
21
12
25
25
21
18
14
9
25
19
13
8
6
35
30
25
17
14
10
6
36
33
26
25
21
18
14
11
8
37
33
29
25
21
19
15
28
20
Cl
dosage
mg/L
5.3
4.0
5.1
5.1
3.5
4.4
4.1
5.2
4.6
NA
5.0
4.1
4.7
5.2
NA
6.4
4.8
5.3
4.5
4.2
5.5
6.0
5.7
4.5
5.3
4.6
4.3
4.9
4.5
6.2
4.4
3.4
4.9
4.8
3.1
3.7
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.2
3.2
4.6
4.2
4.1
Totalizer to
Totalizer
kgal
24,022.8
24,105.1
24,215.2
24,302.9
24,417.5
24,509.2
24,609.8
24,715.8
24,773.5
24,975.0
25,076.3
25,076.3
25,170.7
25,256.5
25,357.3
25,469.0
25,559.5
25,669.4
25,817.0
25,927.5
25,979.8
26,092.1
26,199.1
26,296.6
26,462.0
26,540.0
26,628.1
26,729.0
26,810.0
26,882.1
27,066.0
27,085.0
27,191.4
27,293.5
27,388.3
27,461.5
27,573.2
27,668.5
27,772.7
27,874.6
27,978.0
28,090.2
28,162.4
28,263.6
28,375.8
28,607.4
Avg Flow
Rate
gpm
NA
NA
173
309
260
287
266
256
265
285
234
NA
258
194
341
299
254
265
272
252
249
266
258
266
275
279
239
260
375
201
284
264
247
263
274
263
223
358
255
267
269
257
271
268
250
271
Pressure Filtration
Influent
psg
81
82
85
80
86
63
66
68
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
62
86
90
82
69
88
86
82
81
78
NA
81
81
67
67
86
83
85
82
85
78
79
82
78
78
83
77
78
84
78
80
83
87
Outlet TA
pag
72
71
69
74
71
57
59
60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
70
71
65
73
67
71
70
73
NA
72
69
NA
NA
NA
71
70
70
68
71
71
71
72
70
71
72
70
72
72
70
70
71
Outlet TB
pag
71
70
68
70
67
56
58
59
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
56
71
68
69
65
71
65
70
68
72
NA
71
68
NA
NA
NA
70
69
69
67
70
70
69
70
68
69
70
69
69
70
68
69
69
Outlet TC
pag
71
70
68
70
68
57
60
55
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
71
68
65
60
61
73
65
72
67
NA
71
68
NA
NA
NA
69
70
69
68
71
70
70
71
69
70
71
69
71
71
68
69
69
Effluent
pag
56
62
60
60
60
58
58
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
55
62
61
58
56
60
59
59
56
55
NA
60
58
NA
NA
NA
57
59
57
55
57
57
56
55
54
57
56
57
55
57
56
55
59
Flow/Totalizer to
Flow
Rate
gpm
293
270
265
295
258
268
270
285
295
249
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
274
254
278
0.0
252
261
271
302
300
0.0
292
277
0.0
0.0
0.0
293
261
295
270
308
289
304
302
290
295
309
294
296
304
281
296
258
Totalizer
kgal
921.8
1,002.6
1,106.6
1,193.6
1,302.0
1,391.0
1,488.9
1,589.2
1,644.7
1,825.8
1,937.5
1,937.5
2,027.4
2,108.9
2,207.2
2,312.9
2,401.5
2,500.0
2,639.2
2,744.0
2,798.8
2,906.7
3,009.6
3,103.9
3,258.0
3,328.5
3,416.8
3,514.1
3,571.3
3,664.3
3,835.6
3,854.2
3,957.7
4,056.0
4,148.0
4,217.1
4,324.6
4,415.2
4,516.4
4,614.0
4,715.3
4,821.4
4,890.9
4,989.7
5,098.7
5,319.2
Avg Flow
Rate
gpm
NA
NA
163
306
246
278
259
242
255
256
259
NA
246
184
NA
283
249
238
257
239
261
256
249
257
256
252
240
251
265
260
264
258
241
253
266
249
215
341
248
256
264
243
261
261
244
258
:erric Chloride
Fed,
Tank
Level
gal
40
35
29
23
16
10
3
31
27
15
7
7
31
26
19
12
5
34
24
16
13
5
35
30
21
17
14
8
32
28
18
16
11
6
36
33
28
23
18
12
6
36
32
27
21
10
Fe
Dosage
mgIL
NA
1.8
1.6
2.0
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.1
1.8
2.4
NA
1.9
1.7
2.1
1.9
2.3
1.6
2.0
2.2
1.7
2.1
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.0
1.8
1.1
1.7
1.6
3.2
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.8
1.7
1.3
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.4
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
Tank
B
No.
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
Tank
C
No.
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
Total
kgal
10.1
10.1
10.1
12.8
12.8
16.6
16.6
16.6
18.7
18.7
21.2
21.2
21.2
23.0
23.0
23.0
24.1
24.1
25.4
26.0
27.2
27.2
28.9
28.9
30.6
30.6
30.6
31.2
32.3
32.3
34.1
34.1
34.1
36.0
36.0
36.0
38.2
38.2
38.2
40.7
40.7
40.7
43.0
43.0
43.0
45.0
Since Last BW
Run Time
Tank A
hr
0.0
5.1
12.2
2.8
10.2
0.6
6.9
13.8
0.0
11.8
6.4
6.4
11.7
0.1
6.3
13.6
5.9
12.9
5.5
12.8
0.0
7.1
0.0
6.1
3.2
7.8
14.0
20.4
3.6
9.6
10.4
11.6
18.8
1.5
7.3
11.9
1.2
5.7
12.5
0.0
6.4
13.7
0.0
6.3
13.8
9.8
TankB
hr
0.1
5.1
12.2
5.7
13.0
1.3
7.6
14.5
0.3
12.2
6.4
6.4
12.5
0.5
6.8
14.0
5.9
12.8
5.9
13.1
0.3
7.3
0.0
6.1
3.2
7.8
14.0
20.4
3.6
9.7
0.0
11.2
18.4
2.0
7.7
12.4
1.9
6.4
13.2
0.7
7.1
14.4
0.7
7.0
14.5
10.5
TankC
hr
0.0
5.1
12.1
5.7
13.0
1.0
7.2
14.1
0.0
11.9
6.4
6.4
12.5
0.8
7.1
14.4
20.6
27.6
37.1
3.2
7.1
0.0
6.9
13.0
3.5
8.1
14.3
6.5
10.1
16.2
9.6
10.8
17.9
1.3
7.0
11.6
1.5
6.0
12.8
0.3
6.7
13.9
0.3
6.6
14.0
10.1
Standby Time
Tank A
hr
NA
33.4
46.5
12.2
26.5
6.2
21.9
41.5
17.1
37.5
9.3
19.1
37.7
14.3
32.1
47.9
17.4
34.4
15.0
31.9
17.3
36.2
5.2
27.6
0.3
16.0
25.1
43.0
14.7
33.3
19.9
34.5
57.8
16.5
30.8
50.1
17.2
35.4
53.2
17.3
34.9
49.2
16.2
35.4
55.8
17.5
TankB
hr
NA
37.0
40.1
21.8
36.1
6.2
23.9
41.5
17.4
37.8
9.9
19.7
38.3
14.3
32.0
47.8
17.1
34.1
15.0
31.9
17.2
36.2
4.8
27.3
0.0
15.7
24.8
42.7
14.4
33.1
19.9
39.5
57.8
16.5
30.7
50.1
17.2
35.4
53.2
17.3
34.9
49.2
16.2
35.4
55.8
17.5
TankC
hr
NA
38.8
46.9
21.5
35.8
6.2
23.9
41.5
17.4
37.8
9.6
19.4
38.0
14.3
32.0
47.8
65.3
82.3
97.4
16.9
34.2
4.8
22.1
44.5
16.8
32.5
41.6
11.1
31.2
49.8
19.9
39.5
57.8
16.5
30.7
50.1
17.2
35.5
53.2
17.2
34.8
49.1
16.2
35.4
55.8
17.5
Actual Run Time
Between BW
Tank A
hr
12.2
15.2
17.7
12.6
16.1
13.7
16.5
16.3
14.0
13.0
20.4
10.0
23.7
19.1
18.9
18.2
21.3
TankB
hr
12.1
16.9
17.7
24.3
14.0
15.9
16.3
14.2
12.9
20.4
20.5
22.8
18.8
18.8
18.1
18.2
TankC
hr
12.1
17.2
17.6
12.7
17.C
14.1
19.5
14.3
17.2
23.2
18.4
18.£
18.C
18.2
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Demonstration Project at Felton, DE - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued)
Start-up Date: October 12, 2006
Week
No.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Day of
Week
T
W
F
Su
M
T
R
F
Sa
Su
T
W
R
F
Sa
M
T
R
F
Sa
Su
T
W
R
F
Sa
M
T
W
R
Sa
Su
T
W
R
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
Date
0/31/06
1/01/06
1/3/06(c)
1/05/06
1/06/06
1/07/06
1/09/06
1/10/06
1/11/06
1/12/06
1/14/06
1/15/06
1/16/06
1/17/06
1/18/06
1/20/06
1/21/06
1/23/06
1/24/06
1/25/06
1/26/06
1/28/06
1/29/06
1/30/06
2/01/06
2/02/06
2/04/06
2/05/06
2/06/06
2/07/06
2/09/06
2/10/06
2/12/06
2/13/06
2/14/06
2/15/06
2/17/06
2/18/06
2/19/06
2/20/06
2/21/06
2/22/06
2/23/06
2/24/06
2/25/06
2/26/06
2/28/06
2/29/06
2/30/06
2/31/06
1/01/07
1/02/07
1/03/07
/04/07(d)
1/05/07
/06/07(e)
1/07/07
Time
14:55
9:25
10:10
12:30
13:30
16:00
7:30
12:00
10:30
10:30
13:00
13:00
9:15
11:35
11:00
11:15
NM
17:00
17:00
12:00
14:10
13:45
10:25
8:10
13:50
10:40
14:15
11:25
8:00
13:30
NM
14:45
15:00
10:20
11:35
15:15
8:55
8:15
11:30
15:00
10:40
8:00
10:15
10:00
10:30
18:45
16:00
8:50
8:15
9:15
16:20
11:00
Cumulative Mrs in Service
hr
366.2
370.5
380.9
393.6
398.7
405.1
414.6
420.5
427.7
432.4
445.0
451.3
461.4
467.6
479.0
484.8
NM
503.8
509.0
514.1
524.8
531.6
535.8
540.6
546.3
557.8
564.7
570.8
575.2
589.6
NM
606.9
621.5
633.4
646.4
650.4
656.1
661.4
670.7
678.3
684.4
696.3
701.0
716.8
728.7
733.9
740.0
746.0
751.6
hr
371.8
379.0
387.5
402.1
407.2
413.6
422.9
428.8
436.0
440.7
453.3
459.4
469.5
475.7
487.0
492.8
NM
511.4
521.7
532.4
539.3
543.4
548.2
553.9
564.4
571.8
577.7
582.1
596.2
NM
612.1
621.5
633.0
646.0
649.1
654.8
660.6
669.4
676.4
683.0
692.6
697.2
712.6
725.0
730.2
736.3
742.5
747.9
hr
297.0
301.3
311.8
324.5
329.7
336.1
345.6
351.5
358.7
363.4
376.0
382.0
392.1
398.3
409.7
415.5
NM
434.2
444.6
455.3
462.1
466.3
471.1
476.8
488.1
495.0
501.2
505.7
519.8
NM
537.1
550.7
562.3
575.4
579.1
584.8
590.6
599.5
607.0
613.1
624.2
628.9
644.3
656.7
661.9
668.0
674.3
680.1
Avg Run
Time
hr
4.5
5.3
5.7
5.7
5.1
6.4
4.9
5.9
7.2
4.7
6.8
6.1
5.7
6.2
3.1
5.8
NA
12.0
5.2
6.8
6.8
4.2
4.8
5.7
3.9
7.1
6.1
4.4
8.2
NA
6.0
4.2
5.8
6.9
3.6
5.7
5.6
9.0
2.6
6.3
4.9
4.7
9.2
3.8
5.2
6.1
6.3
5.6
Hour
Meter
hr
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
NA
NA
NA
Run
Time
hr
4.5
5.3
5.7
5.7
5.1
6.4
4.9
5.9
7.2
4.7
6.8
6.1
5.7
6.2
3.1
5.8
NA
12.0
5.2
6.8
6.8
4.2
4.8
5.7
3.9
7.1
6.1
4.4
8.2
NA
6.0
4.2
5.8
6.1
6.9
3.6
5.7
5.6
9.0
2.6
6.3
4.9
4.7
6.3
9.2
3.8
5.2
6.1
6.3
5.6
Chlorine
Chlorine
Tank
gal
16
30
25
18
16
12
8
38
35
32
25
16
13
8
5
NM
27
21
16
12
10
7
38
33
29
25
2
1
NM
36
26
23
20
18
14
11
40
34
30
22
20
17
7
4
34
31
28
Cl
mg/L
4.4
5.1
2.4
3.7
2.8
4.7
3.0
6.1
3.2
4.6
3.3
3.9
3.6
2 3
3.8
NA
4.3
4.2
3.3
4.5
3.2
4.2
2.6
3.5
4.3
4.8
3.3
3.6
NA
3.6
4.5
5.2
3.8
3.4
3.3
3.9
5.2
3.7
3.4
5.1
4.8
5.9
3.1
3.6
4.0
4.1
3.6
3.5
3.8
Totalizer to
Totalizer
kgal
28,720.2
28,789.4
28,958.2
29,158.0
29,241.2
29,341.4
29,491.0
29,587.9
29,699.2
29,776.4
29,975.7
30,150.6
30,241.7
30,338.3
30 522 3
30,614.5
NM
30,911.1
31,078.7
31,248.7
31,353.0
31,425.3
31,508.8
31,600.2
31,777.8
31,886.0
31,984.4
32,056.4
32,282.0
NM
32,551.6
32,629.0
32,774.0
32,959.0
33,061.0
33,167.2
33,226.9
33,317.2
33,411.1
33,549.0
33,672.6
33,770.4
33,953.5
34,029.1
34,127.0
34,275.0
34,468.6
34,553.6
34,652.5
34,753.3
34,845.3
Avg Flow
Rate
gpm
291
219
293
280
270
261
271
274
258
274
259
285
266
260
268
265
NA
265
273
262
254
289
290
267
285
255
270
271
268
NA
270
346
267
267
277
257
276
264
278
255
291
260
274
270
259
267
283
260
259
272
270
269
274
Pressure Filtration
psig
77
77
80
80
81
81
76
84
85
78
85
81
84
80
88
80
81
NM
84
77
79
86
85
86
79
87
77
81
78
79
82
NM
79
79
79
84
79
84
85
87
79
84
89
79
80
79
80
90
84
79
84
83
79
79
84
78
psig
72
70
70
71
70
70
70
69
71
72
68
72
71
69
71
70
71
NM
72
72
72
68
71
72
71
69
69
69
73
70
71
NM
73
70
69
69
71
69
71
68
71
69
69
72
70
72
69
69
65
71
73
71
70
69
73
70
psig
71
69
68
70
68
68
68
67
68
71
67
70
69
68
67
68
69
NM
70
71
70
68
69
70
70
67
68
68
72
69
70
NM
73
72
69
69
70
67
68
66
71
68
67
70
68
71
68
67
71
67
69
67
70
69
64
71
psig
71
70
68
70
68
68
69
68
71
71
67
71
70
68
69
68
69
NM
70
71
70
67
70
71
71
68
69
69
72
69
70
NM
69
73
69
69
71
67
69
67
70
68
66
71
69
72
68
68
72
68
70
68
71
69
72
69
psig
57
57
55
58
57
57
55
57
57
56
55
58
57
56
57
57
57
NM
56
56
57
56
56
57
56
57
56
56
57
55
58
NM
57
57
56
56
56
56
56
56
57
57
56
56
57
56
57
58
55
57
55
56
55
56
56
Flow/Totalizer to
Flow
Rate
gpm
312
295
290
295
280
282
298
266
295
310
267
285
287
280
280
305
NM
301
312
295
266
295
304
306
260
293
285
310
298
295
NM
306
302
285
290
309
275
295
265
300
270
307
285
310
290
255
265
296
282
287
278
292
Totalizer
kgal
5,427.1
5,495.4
5,655.6
5,849.4
5,928.0
6,022.8
6,167.6
6,260.8
6,366.2
6,440.7
6,632.8
6,800.3
6,887.1
6,978.5
7,158.4
7,245.4
NM
7,530.0
7,609.9
7,692.8
7,854.4
7,953.2
8,025.0
8,107.7
8,194.5
8,366.0
8,468.8
8,562.7
8,634.1
8,854.1
NM
9,109.5
9,186.3
9,260.9
9,324.2
9,506.4
9,600.3
9,705.8
9,758.2
9,844.5
9,936.3
0,186.8
0,280.1
0,456.2
0,530.2
0,623.7
0,766.6
0,895.3
0,951.2
1,129.2
1,221.4
1,311.6
Avg Flow
Rate
gpm
291
216
280
278
255
247
268
263
244
264
247
274
254
246
260
250
NA
254
258
250
241
287
287
254
282
243
258
268
264
NA
265
343
270
252
270
255
255
243
252
272
289
248
284
264
247
258
246
248
264
246
:erric Chloride
FeCI3
Tank
gal
5
36
28
16
11
5
31
25
19
15
4
30
25
19
8
4
NM
28
24
18
8
3
34
29
24
13
6
37
32
19
NM
4
14
9
5
30
25
18
15
10
4
24
18
7
3
34
26
18
14
3
33
Fe
Dosage
mg/L
.1
.7
.5
.9
.8
.8
.5
.9
.6
.6
.4
.6
.6
.9
.8
.3
NA
.4
.1
.0
.4
.7
.8
.6
.8
.9
.5
.1
.8
NA
.8
.5
.9
.8
.5
.7
.9
.0
.8
.9
.6
.2
.8
.8
.5
Backwash
Tank
No.
23
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
25
26
26
27
27
27
28
28
NM
30
30
30
30
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
NM
36
36
36
36
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
40
42
43
Tank
No.
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
25
26
26
27
27
27
28
28
NM
30
30
30
30
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
NM
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
40
42
42
Tank
No.
21
21
21
22
22
22
23
23
23
24
24
25
25
25
26
26
NM
28
28
28
28
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
NM
35
36
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
40
41
42
43
kcfal
—
4 .
4 .
9.
. 9.
9.
1.
1.
1.
53.
53.5
56.3
56.3
56.3
58.3
58.3
NM
62.2
62.2
62.2
62.2
64.4
66.2
66.2
68.2
68.2
71.0
71.0
73.1
NM
5.5
6.1
6.1
6.1
8.0
8.0
80.0
80.0
82.4
82.4
84.8
84.8
84.8
86.2
89.0
89.8
Since Last BW
F
hr
0.0
4.2
14.7
2.8
7.9
14.3
0.7
6.6
13.8
0.5
13.1
4.6
10.3
16.5
5.8
11.6
NM
0.0
5.1
15.8
22.6
2.8
3.4
9.1
4.1
11.0
0.3
4.7
3.3
NM
0.0
5.6
10.4
14.6
2.2
8.3
19.2
0.7
6.5
2.8
8.9
0.9
5.6
7.8
0.0
un Tim
hr
0.0
4.2
14.7
3.1
8.2
14.6
1.4
7.3
14.5
1.2
13.8
5.3
11.0
17.2
6.5
12.3
NM
0.6
5.8
16.5
23.4
3.5
2.8
8.5
4.1
11.0
1.0
5.4
3.6
NM
0.0
0.4
9.4
2.9
9.0
15.9
19.0
0.4
6.2
3.5
9.6
1.6
6.2
3.9
6.9
13.1
hr
0.0
4.2
14.8
3.5
8.7
15.1
1.0
6.9
14.1
0.8
13.4
4.9
10.3
16.5
6.2
12.0
NM
0.3
5.5
16.2
23.0
3.2
2.0
7.7
4.0
10.9
0.7
5.2
3.2
NM
6.5
0.0
4.2
8.4
2.3
8.4
15.3
19.0
1.1
6.9
3.1
9.2
1.2
5.9
12.2
3.5
6.3
0.0
St
hr
16.2
30.4
68.3
18.3
37.3
58.0
14.8
34.8
52.7
18.7
55.8
33.6
51.1
70.1
36.0
55.0
NM
18.3
32.1
69.5
87.9
16.1
16.3
37.5
35.2
55.9
14.6
30.6
18.1
NM
9.7
35.0
53.3
68.7
18.6
32.9
56.9
69.6
17.0
37.4
58.1
30.8
50.8
15.3
35.6
56.0
75.1
36.6
20.8
ndbyTi
hr
16.8
31.0
68.4
18.3
37.3
58.0
14.8
34.8
52.7
18.7
55.7
33.6
51.1
70.2
36.0
54.9
NM
18.3
32.0
69.3
87.7
16.1
16.4
39.4
35.9
56.6
14.6
30.6
18.3
NM
10.0
23.8
42.1
57.3
18.6
32.9
56.9
69.6
17.0
37.4
58.1
30.8
50.7
15.3
35.6
56.0
19.2
36.6
57.3
ne
hr
16.5
30.7
68.6
18.3
37.4
58.1
14.8
34.8
52.7
18.7
55.8
15.3
34.0
51.5
70.5
36.0
54.9
NM
18.3
32.0
69.3
87.7
16.1
16.3
37.6
35.5
56.2
14.6
30.6
18.4
NM
15.9
18.5
36.8
52.2
19.0
33.3
57.3
70.0
17.0
37.3
58.0
30.9
50.8
15.3
35.6
56.0
19.2
39.6
55.7
36.6
20.5
Actual Run Time
Between BW
hr
—
— f^
18.0
19.2
22.2
18.6
24.0
4.2
16.5
16. E
24.2
20.1
22.1
753.8
hr
—
_^J
18.0
19.0
22.0
18.6
24.0
5.5
15.4
15.9
24.3
19.0
17.7
20.7
17.0
hr
—
_2±Q
18. C
19.2
21.7
18.7
16. S
24. C
6.C
15. C
16.4
11.7
23.6
20.2
17.8
20.S
12.6
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Demonstration Project at Felton, DE - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued)
Start-up Date: October 12, 2006
Week
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Day of
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
W
R
F
Sa
M
T
W
R
F
Su
M
T
R
F
Sa
Su
M
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
M
T
W
F
Sa
M
T
W
F
Sa
Su
01/09/07
01/10/07
01/11/07
01/12/07
01/13/07
01/14/07
01/15/07
01/16/07
01/17/07(f)
01/18/07
01/19/07
01/20/07
01/21/07
01/22/07
01/24/07
01/25/07
01/26/07
01/27/07
01/29/07
01/30/07
01/31/07
02/01/07
02/02/07
02/04/07
02/05/07
02/06/07
02/08/07
02/09/07
02/10/07
02/11/07
02/12/07
02/14/07
02/15/07
02/16/07
02/17/07
02/18/07
02/19/07
02/20/07
02/21/07
02/22/07
02/23/07
02/24/07
02/26/07
02/27/07
02/28/07
03/02/07
03/03/07
03/05/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
03/09/07(9)
03/10/07
03/11/07
15:00
11:20
10:00
13:15
16:30
18:10
16:50
:00
45
00
30
40
:00
30
40
40
i :40
:15
:35
:40
40
45
:30
:50
:15
:00
:10
:00
:30
:30
:00
45
30
:00
00
:20
00
i :15
00
:00
:00
30
30
40
:40
:40
:00
:50
30
:40
Cumulative Mrs in Service
TA
763.4
769.4
774.5
781.2
787.4
794.7
799.8
805.0
809.5
813.3
818.6
824.4
830.6
838.4
846.8
851.9
857.7
863.5
882.0
887.4
892.7
898.1
912.0
922.1
933.5
939.5
946.1
952.8
959.6
970.3
975.1
981.0
993.6
998.2
,004.8
,011.1
,015.9
,022.0
,028.4
,041.0
,063.9
,077.0
,086.1
,091.6
,104.1
,115.2
,125.8
,131.4
,138.2
TB
759.1
764.9
770.0
776.4
782.6
789.6
791.6
799.8
804.3
808.1
813.3
818.7
824.9
829.1
841.1
845.9
851.8
857.5
875.4
880.8
886.0
905.0
914.8
926.2
932.2
938.3
945.0
951.7
962.3
966.7
972.7
984.9
989.5
996.1
,002.0
,006.7
,012.9
,019.4
,031.7
,054.6
,067.4
,076.2
,082.1
,093.9
, 05.0
, 15.6
, 21.1
, 27.6
TC
690.7
696.6
698.9
705.1
711.9
719.0
724.0
729.2
737.5
742.8
748.2
754.5
758.7
770.8
781.8
787.5
805.4
810.6
815.8
835.1
845.3
856.5
862.5
868.8
875.8
882.5
893.2
897.6
903.2
915.9
920.5
927.1
937.8
943.9
950.0
962.6
985.5
998.3
,007.1
,012.6
,024.8
,035.6
,046.0
,051.2
Avg Run
Time
6.0
5.9
4.2
6.4
6.4
7.1
4.0
6.2
3.8
5.3
5.5
6.2
5.4
6.6
4.9
6.0
5.7
5.1
5.3
5.2
8.6
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.3
6.8
6.0
4.5
5.8
7.1
4.6
6.6
4.8
6.1
6.3
5.9
22.9
12.9
5.7
5.6
12.2
5.4
6.4
5.4
Hour
Meter
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
4.4
11.6
Run
Time
6.0
5.9
4.2
6.4
6.4
7.1
4.0
6.2
3.8
5.3
5.5
6.2
5.4
6.6
4.9
6.0
5.7
5.1
5.3
5.2
8.6
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.3
6.8
6.0
4.5
5.8
7.1
4.6
6.6
4.8
6.1
6.3
5.9
22.9
12.9
5.7
5.6
12.2
5.4
4.4
7.2
6.0
Chlorine
Chlorine
Tank
Level
21
18
15
12
25
20
17
14
10
8
38
35
33
26
23
20
34
24
21
18
9
36
30
27
23
19
11
9
22
15
13
10
37
34
30
24
12
38
34
30
24
18
13
11
Cl
4.7
3.5
4.5
3.4
3.6
5.1
4.5
4.0
3.7
2.6
3.8
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.6
3.6
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.3
3.8
3.6
3.5
4.7
4.0
3.6
3.1
3.5
4.1
3.0
3.3
2.9
3.5
4.4
3.5
3.8
2.2
2.5
5.1
3.5
3.8
3.5
2.5
Totalizer to
Totalizer
35,027.1
35,126.8
35,204.4
35,306.7
35,404.5
35,520.0
35,598.6
35,685.6
35,824.7
36,006.3
36,106.6
36,181.5
36,378.2
36,459.8
36,558.4
36,655.2
36,955.6
37,042.7
37,132.4
37,455.0
7,619.5
7,813.3
7,913.6
38,012.5
38,128.4
38,415.1
38,491.6
38,591.9
38,796.5
38,874.0
38,980.1
39,161.1
39,263.0
39,369.0
39,576.4
39,948.0
40,158.2
40,310.7
40,403.2
40,605.5
40,790.5
40,962.7
41,055.7
Avg Flow
Rate
276
282
310
265
255
270
325
234
278
277
268
231
281
278
275
281
278
272
286
273
275
282
279
260
284
275
269
281
287
271
281
268
285
277
279
280
270
272
276
274
277
286
383
215
Pressure Filtration
Influent
psig
86
79
81
79
80
81
81
81
82
79
80
79
81
81
81
84
8
8
8
82
80
80
78
80
80
78
82
79
81
81
84
80
82
80
78
83
80
84
77
78
81
80
81
80
81
85
83
79
Outlet TA
psig
67
70
70
73
71
65
69
70
70
70
69
71
71
66
71
72
70
72
70
71
67
72
68
69
73
69
70
73
72
69
71
72
70
71
70
68
69
69
69
69
69
71
70
71
68
72
67
69
70
Outlet TB
psig
67
70
70
67
66
70
69
69
70
66
72
69
70
67
69
69
69
70
71
68
69
72
71
70
68
67
68
70
68
69
71
68
66
71
70
69
70
71
69
68
69
62
70
71
72
70
67
66
70
Outlet TC
psig
67
70
70
67
66
70
69
69
71
68
69
72
70
71
70
65
66
70
71
68
70
72
69
68
69
71
69
68
66
67
70
72
69
67
69
70
70
66
69
67
61
69
70
68
69
66
74
67
73
69
Effluent
psig
55
56
56
55
55
56
55
57
57
56
57
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
55
55
56
56
57
56
55
56
56
56
54
57
56
56
56
56
57
56
56
56
55
56
55
51
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
Flow/Totalizer to
Flow
Rate
gpm
270
295
282
305
287
275
285
273
306
280
306
290
305
276
278
276
270
290
303
291
305
308
290
308
287
287
295
288
290
276
290
295
297
290
273
287
290
288
280
280
290
275
280
302
293
285
273
295
287
290
290
Totalizer
kgal
1,484.5
1,580.3
1,652.6
1,749.4
1,844.1
1,956.7
2,030.4
2,114.6
2,186.0
2,335.1
2,422.5
2,518.9
2,780.4
2,859.0
2,954.0
3,047.1
3,256.2
3,335.5
3,420.5
3,507.2
3,595.9
3,815.6
3,884.8
3,974.3
4,159.3
4,255.3
4,355.7
4,463.1
4,569.9
4,739.1
4,813.1
4,908.5
5,106.8
5,181.8
5,282.7
5,378.4
5,456.5
5,556.1
5,658.6
5,858.8
6,212.4
6,415.6
6,564.2
6,653.7
6,850.4
7,029.7
7,195.8
7,286.9
7,397.5
Avg Flow
Rate
gpm
265
271
289
251
247
263
305
226
264
276
263
258
272
267
265
271
NA
259
266
276
272
265
262
265
273
267
264
263
264
259
272
272
260
272
255
264
273
271
270
271
257
263
271
265
269
277
254
279
275
:erric Chloride
FeCI3
Tank
Level
gal
17
11
6
36
30
24
20
14
8
30
24
16
31
25
18
32
17
10
4
34
27
10
5
34
19
12
31
24
4
39
25
19
10
3
44
36
29
14
1
35
24
17
31
17
3
31
23
Fe
Dosage
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.2
1.8
1.6
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.3
2.3
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.3
2.5
1.8
2.4
2.0
2.1
1.0
1.7
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.1
Backwash
Tank
43
44
44
45
45
45
45
48
48
50
51
52
53
54
54
55
56
57
58
58
60
61
62
64
64
66
67
67
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
75
76
79
80
81
82
Tank
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
50
53
54
55
57
58
58
59
60
62
63
64
66
67
69
71
72
75
76
76
77
78
79
80
82
83
85
88
88
93
94
96
98
Tank
43
44
44
44
44
45
45
49
50
52
52
53
55
56
56
57
58
60
60
61
63
64
65
67
68
70
71
1
3
4
6
7
8
80
83
84
86
89
90
92
93
90.
91.
92.
92.
93.
93.
98.5
99.8
02.0
02.9
04.2
06.5
07.8
07.8
09.
0.
2.
3.
4.
16.
18.0
19.8
22.5
23.3
26.4
27.7
27.7
28.6
29.9
31.2
33.0
34.7
36.0
38.2
41.7
42.6
45.1
48.2
49.5
51.7
53.5
Since Last BW
10.1
0.0
6.2
13.5
18.6
7.2
1.6
8.5
2.8
0.7
3.1
0.1
5.4
2.2
0.8
8.8
1.7
7.5
3.8
0.0
3.4
6.1
8.0
1.4
8.0
2.3
2.6
2.2
13.7
5.3
1.3
0.1
2.2
8.1
3.9
3.9
13.3
9.0
0.0
6.2
2.9
7.9
0.3
1.3
1.7
2.5
1.0
2.8
0.3
5.7
2.7
1.4
1.6
1.4
3.3
3.2
1.6
2.1
1.6
6.1
1.2
3.8
0.2
6.8
2.6
0.4
3.7
1.3
16.2
4.1
0.0
5.9
3.2
7.3
2.9
2.2
16.4
6.9
13.7
19.9
3.2
8.2
0.0
1.4
7.6
4.2
2.5
0.1
5.3
2.4
1.1
1.6
6.2
3.6
2.6
0.8
0.0
7.0
2.5
7.3
2.6
9.2
3.6
1.1
0.0
3.1
18.2
4.7
0.8
0.9
3.0
0.0
6.5
0.3
3.1
St
70.5
32.1
15.5
41.3
59.9
77
37.9
35.1
19.0
18.8
15
17.6
35.3
17.2
18.3
16.4
NA
18.5
15.6
33.7
17.6
16.8
17.3
35.3
35.9
18.9
35.2
53.9
17.6
20.3
12.9
0.0
13.1
18.5
17.2
18.8
15.8
35.4
18.4
16.7
ndbyTi
55.7
32.0
15.7
41.6
18.6
35.7
14.8
19.4
18.5
19.0
18.8
15
17.9
35.6
17.2
18.3
16.4
NA
18.5
15.6
18.1
17.6
16.8
34.6
18.0
17.1
18.8
35.1
18.7
20.3
12.9
0.0
13.1
18.5
17.2
18.8
15.6
35.5
18.3
16.7
76.2
31.7
47.4
73.1
18.6
35.7
14.8
19.3
18.5
37.6
18.8
15
17.9
35.6
17.1
18.3
35.9
NA
18.5
15.6
18.1
35.7
16.8
34.6
18.0
35.5
18.8
35.1
18.7
17.6
20.3
12.9
0.0
13.1
8.5
7.2
8.8
5.4
5.5
8.4
6.8
Actu
Be
18.4
16.8
19.8
19.6
11.5
7.9
8.3
8.5
6.8
5.9
7.8
9.8
9.9
10.1
8.8
11.2
16.8
6.3
11.4
6.7
7.9
7.8
5.8
4.7
9.8
6.8
7.0
al Run 1
tween E
15.2
15.4
10.3
12.4
9.4
7.1
5.1
7.2
4.7
7.5
8.2
6.7
6.2
3.9
4.2
7.6
5.8
7.5
6.4
6.4
9.3
8.8
4.0
6.6
8.2
10.1
6.9
6.3
6.1
8.0
5.3
4.6
6.5
5.7
tw
17.7
23.8
10.0
7.7
9.5
7.2
9.1
7.6
7.4
8.1
6.8
6.2
8.1
4.0
7.8
7.1
9.2
7.2
9.9
6.7
6.8
9.3
11.5
7.8
5.4
5.3
3.S
4.0
5.5
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Demonstration Project at Felton, DE - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
27
29
31
32
Day of
M
T
W
R
Su
M
T
W
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
M
T
W
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
F
Sa
Su
03/13/07
03/14/07
03/15/07
03/16/07
03/18/07
03/19/07
03/20/07
03/21/07
03/23/07
03/24/07
03/25/07
03/26/07
03/27/07
03/28/07
03/29/07
03/30/07
03/31/07
04/02/07
04/03/07
04/04/07
04/06/07
04/07/07
04/08/07
04/09/07
04/10/07
04/11/07
04/12/07
04/13/07
04/14/07
04/15/07
04/17/07
04/18/07
04/19/07
04/20/07
04/21/07
04/22/07
04/23/07
04/24/07
04/25/07
04/27/07
04/28/07
04/29/07
9:30
9:00
8:20
9:15
13:00
11:00
9:15
8:20
10:10
10:10
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:00
10:00
<:30
<:00
1 :00
1 :30
1 :30
1 :00
1 :00
1 :30
<:45
1 :30
- :00
1 :55
1 :15
8:30
8:30
8:00
8:15
8:10
15:00
8:40
8:30
7:40
8:00
8:00
8:20
Cumulative Mrs in Service
TA
, 49.4
, 60.8
, 66.8
, 80.1
, 85.8
, 96.2
,206.9
,219.7
,225.4
789.7
,236.5
,242.1
,248.9
,254.3
,266.4
,275.2
,279.6
,292.7
,296.5
,301.9
,307.1
, 16.1
, 20.3
, 25.4
,335.9
,34 .0
,35 .5
,35 .8
,36 .6
,36! .3
,380.8
,382.1
,388.5
,394.4
,405.8
,411.7
TB
,138.7
,149.8
,155.9
,168.7
,174.4
,184.2
,195.1
,207.6
,213.0
,218.2
,223.7
,229.3
,236.1
,241.1
,252.3
,258.E
,266.2
,279.1
,282.8
,287.6
,292.7
,296.3
,301.1
,304.9
,309.7
,319.2
,328.7
,334.7
,339.9
,345.C
,350.4
,360.9
,361.9
,367.6
,373.5
,383.8
,389.5
TC
,068.8
,080.3
,086.3
,098.8
, 04.5
, 14.5
, 25.4
, 37.9
, 43.3
, 48.5
, 54.0
, 59.6
, 66.1
, 71.6
, 83.0
, 89.5
, 95.9
, 09.8
, 12.3
, 18.7
,223.8
,227.4
,232.6
,236.8
,242.2
,252.7
,262.4
,268.5
,274.1
,279.5
,285.5
,296.9
,298.1
,304.5
,310.4
,321.5
,327.5
Avg Run
Time
5.5
6.3
6.6
5.7
5.0
5.4
5.4
5.5
-141.8
152.6
5.6
6.7
5.3
6.3
7.3
6.1
7.9
3.3
5.5
5.1
5.0
4.1
5.1
5.8
5.1
6.2
5.4
5.4
5.7
11.1
6.2
5.9
4.7
5.9
Hour
Meter
23.6
35.8
42.3
56.0
62.1
73.3
85.0
98.6
104.8
110.4
116.6
122.6
129.8
135.6
148.6
156.1
163.0
177.0
180.8
186.7
192.3
196.6
202.2
206.8
212.7
224.1
235.0
241.5
247.5
253.8
260.3
272.8
281.3
287.9
300.0
306.8
Run
6.0
6.6
6.5
7.0
6.1
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
5.6
6.2
6.0
7.2
5.8
—
7
6
7
3
5
5
5.
4
6
5
6
6
6
12
7
6
5.3
6.8
Chlorine
Chlorine
Tank
Level
5
35
29
26
17
14
11
9
18
11
8
6
3
32
28
26
21
19
17
28
26
24
22
16
13
18
12
9
39
37
34
27
27
24
20
13
43
Cl
dosage
4.9
3.3
3.5
4.3
3.7
4.1
2.7
3.9
3.8
3.6
2.8
3.6
3.7
4.2
2.6
3.3
2.0
2.2
2.8
3.9
2.6
2.7
4.1
4.9
3.9
4.7
4.1
3.5
3.7
2.4
3.5
9.1
3.3
4.7
4.4
3.4
Totalizer to
Totalizer
,259.0
,354.7
. ,440.7
,545.9
,646.1
,860.3
,954.7
,041.4
,127.1
2,309.5
2,521.9
2,619.5
2,704.4
2,800.8
. 2,895.2
3,008.1
3,099.0
. 3,298.8
43,415.6
43,522.4
43,740.8
43,800.2
43,890.3
43,977.0
44,043.1
44,129.3
44,200.7
44,291.7
44,470.2
44,639.6
44,739.8
44,833.8
44,929.6
. 5,028.9
5,222.5
5,243.1
5,351.0
5,451.8
5,637.1
5,740.9
5,847.8
Avg Flow
Rate
NA
266
256
266
257
261
258
258
255
261
258
262
253
259
262
261
261
255
260
258
262
261
255
258
256
257
259
257
261
261
262
257
261
253
255
258
245
253
255
254
254
244
Pressure Filtration
Influent
82
80
79
82
84
82
79
84
80
82
81
80
78
82
81
81
81
83
82
80
78
80
81
81
81
81
81
81
82
80
80
80
81
83
80
83
79
84
79
81
83
82
81
Outlet TA
72
72
71
73
76
68
72
69
69
74
74
69
72
69
71
73
70
68
70
70
71
70
68
69
67
71
71
75
73
72
68
65
72
70
75
71
69
69
74
67
70
71
Outlet TB
71
68
72
70
67
67
69
67
72
69
69
71
71
71
70
65
68
71
72
68
70
68
74
70
70
69
69
68
66
71
69
71
66
70
67
73
69
72
69
69
70
70
Outlet TC
67
73
68
66
66
70
72
74
69
67
68
70
66
68
64
74
66
68
69
70
70
74
70
68
70
72
71
67
74
70
68
74
68
72
58
73
69
70
67
69
69
74
Effluent
56
56
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
55
56
56
55
55
56
56
56
55
56
55
57
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
55
56
56
56
55
56
56
56
55
55
55
55
55
56
Flow/Totalizer to
Flow
Rate
296
305
292
290
275
308
283
304
295
300
304
295
295
273
295
277
293
297
294
290
304
302
283
290
302
297
293
300
307
285
302
280
305
295
305
295
305
295
290
300
300
Totalizer
17,487.6
17,577.8
7,763.0
7,859.7
8,066.9
8,157.6
8,242.5
8,327.1
8,505.0
8,619.8
8,805.4
8,889.6
8,984.7
9,076.1
9,185.5
9,273.6
9,470.6
9,585.4
9,690.1
9,894.4
9,950.4
20,039.9
20,125.0
20,189.2
20,274.9
20,345.5
20,435.8
20,513.1
20,611.8
20,779.6
20,967.5
21,062.2
21,160.7
21,357.5
21,373.8
21,481.0
2 ,581.2
2 ,765.9
2 ,869.3
2 ,975.4
Avg Flow
Rate
273
269
267
267
265
277
278
266
287
-10
10
272
272
277
282
263
288
259
280
270
276
284
289
295
293
285
282
288
290
288
295
233
290
283
285
294
284
:erric Chloride
FeCI3
Tank
Level
8
31
24
7
9
38
17
8
35
28
20
13
3
38
22
13
5
31
26
18
11
27
21
14
7
29
15
36
29
21
8
39
31
24
8
35
27
Fe
Dosage
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.7
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.7
2.1
2.4
1.3
2.2
2.4
2.0
1.5
2.2
2.1
2.6
2.3
2.2
Backwash
Tank
A
84
86
87
88
89
90
94
96
97
98
99
00
01
03
05
06
09
09
10
11
13
14
16
17
18
20
22
23
25
28
28
30
32
34
36
39
Tank
B
100
103
104
106
109
114
118
119
121
122
123
125
12S
132
133
134
134
137
138
142
144
147
149
152
156
159
162
165
172
172
176
178
183
186
190
Tank
C
96
99
03
12
13
15
16
18
19
23
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
38
39
42
44
46
47
51
51
53
55
58
60
64
Total
156.5
160.9
166.2
176.9
178.2
180.5
181.8
183.6
185.3
189.8
193.3
194.7
196.8
197.2
199.5
200.8
204.8
206.
209.
2 1.
2 3.
2 7.
2 8,
223.
225. i
232.
232.
235.
238.
242.7
245.8
250.9
Since Last BW
1.7
0.0
1.3
1.0
1.6
2.7
1.E
1.5
0.8
3.2
1.3
2.7
7.5
11.3
2.8
1.6
1.9
0.1
0.3
1.3
3.7
9.2
1.5
0.2
0.6
1.6
0.6
0.1
2.9
,un Tim
2.9
3.8
0.9
0.3
1.3
1.1
1.4
3.4
0.4
1.0
0.4
2.4
7.0
10.7
0.1
1.3
1.5
0.4
0.7
1.0
2.2
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.1
1.0
0.1
1.4
0.0
4.7
1.8
0.6
2.0
1.9
2.3
0.1
1.3
1.6
0.9
2.0
6.5
0.0
2.0
1.0
1.2
2.9
0.1
1.7
2.6
0.1
0.4
2.3
0.3
1.3
0.3
2.0
2.1
St
9.0
8.1
7.2
5.7
7.9
7.4
7.4
8.2
8.0
6.9
5.7
5.2
2.9
3.4
6.1
7.6
7.4
8.0
9.9
6.8
7.5
6.0
8.5
7.3
0.0
6.2
6.8
6.3
8.6
ndbyTi
9.0
8.1
0.4
7.2
5.7
7.8
7.4
7.4
8.2
8.0
6.9
5.7
5.2
2.9
3.4
6.1
7.6
7.4
8.0
9.9
6.9
7.5
8.5
8.5
7.4
0.0
6.2
6.8
6.3
8.6
18.9
18.1
20.4
17.2
15.7
17.8
17.5
17.5
18.2
18.0
16. S
15.7
15.2
12.8
20.5
16.1
17.6
17.4
18. C
19.8
16.8
17.5
18.5
18.5
17.4
0.0
16.1
16.9
16.3
18.6
Actu
Be
6.2
6.4
11.6
4.5
-436.3
445.7
6.5
7.1
6.1
4.8
—
3.0
13.9
4.0
5.9
3.9
4.4
4.9
4.1
3.5
al Run 1
tween E
5.3
8.9
5.3
4.8
5.4
tw
4.0
3.8
5.6
10.4
3.4
5.3
9.C
4.4
3.6
4.2
4.C
3.7
4.5
6.2
8.6
4.4
4.1
4.2
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Demonstration Project at Felton, DE - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued)
Start-up Date: October 12, 2006
Week
34
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
Day of
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
T
W
F
Su
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
04/30/07
05/01/07
05/02/07
05/03/07
05/04/07(h)
05/05/07
05/06/07
05/07/07
05/08/07
05/09/07
05/10/07
05/11/07
05/12/07
05/13/07
05/15/07
05/16/07
05/18/07
05/20/07
05/22/07
05/23/07
05/24/07
05/25/07
05/26/07
05/27/07
05/28/07
05/29/07
05/30/07
05/31/07
06/01/07
06/03/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
06/06/07
06/07/07
06/08/07
06/09/07
06/11/07
06/13/07
06/14/07
06/15/07
06/16/07
06/17/07
06/18/07
06/19/07
06/20/07
06/21/07
06/22/07
06/24/07
06/25/07
06/26/07
06/27/07
06/28/07
06/29/07
06/30/07
07/01/07
8:00
8:00
8:00
8:45
11:00
10:20
9:00
8:45
8:20
8:00
8:00
9:30
8:30
8:00
9:15
10:00
11:00
14:00
10:00
9:15
9:00
8:30
9:15
9:45
8:00
8:00
8:00
15:00
16:00
15:35
12:40
8:00
8:00
8:00
NM
35
:25
:00
:45
:30
50
:20
:45
i :40
40
20
:35
:55
:20
:30
:00
8:45
9:30
Cumulative Mrs in Service
TA
,430.2
,436.7
,443.4
,452.5
,460.0
,467.2
,473.6
,480.7
,488.2
,501.9
,509.3
,517.9
,530.3
,538.9
,553.6
,566.3
,582.8
,588.8
,594.9
,602.7
,610.7
,620.0
,629.2
,637.6
,645.2
,659.6
,668.2
,687.5
,693.6
,699.6
,704.5
,711.0
,719.0
NM
,745.7
,752.5
,759.2
,766.1
,771.2
,779.0
,786.1
,795.5
,805.5
,811.8
,818.3
,824.4
,842.5
,853.8
,860.5
,867.7
,874.8
,889.6
,895. S
,905.2
TB
,406.4
,412.6
,418.1
,426.3
,433.5
,441.1
,447.3
,454.4
,461.6
,475.7
,482.8
,491.6
,504.1
,512.3
,526.8
,539.6
,556.0
,562.0
,567.7
,583.5
,592.7
,601.9
,618.0
,632.0
,640.7
,660.4
,666.6
,672.3
,677.2
,683.8
,691.8
NM
,718.4
,725.3
,732.0
,738.6
,742.0
,751.3
,758.3
,767. E
,777.5
,784.3
,790.5
,796.9
,814.E
,826.2
,832.6
,840.3
,847.1
,862.3
,868.7
,877.6
TC
,344.9
,351.4
,357.7
,366.2
,373.7
,380.9
,387.1
,394.5
,401.7
,415.9
,423.0
,431.7
44.2
52.5
67.4
80.1
,496.6
,502.6
,508.4
,524.6
,533.6
,542.9
,558.8
,573.2
,581.9
,601.3
,607.5
,613.6
,618.5
,625.1
,633.1
NM
,659.9
,666.4
,673.4
,679.9
,685.1
,692.5
,699.9
,709.3
,719.0
,738.2
,755.9
,767.4
,774.1
,781.4
,786.2
,803.5
,809.9
,818.9
Avg Run
Time
4.7
6.4
6.2
8.6
7.4
7.3
6.3
7.2
6.3
7.7
7.2
8.7
6.1
8.4
7.8
7.0
10.1
6.0
5.9
7.8
8.1
9.2
9.2
7.5
14.3
8.7
6.2
5.9
4.9
6.6
8.0
NA
8.0
6.7
6.8
6.7
4.6
8.2
7.2
9.4
9.8
6.2
9.8
11.4
6.6
7.4
6.2
15.8
6.4
9.1
Hour
Meter
327.0
333.4
340.0
350.1
357.6
365.3
371.8
379.4
393.8
401.6
409.1
418.2
431.2
439.8
455.2
468.5
485.5
491.6
497.7
506.0
514.4
523.8
533.6
550.2
565.1
574.2
601.0
607.1
612.5
619.1
627.6
NM
655.5
662.3
669.4
676.4
682.0
689.8
697.3
707.2
717.3
737.3
756.0
767.7
774.6
782.3
789.5
805.2
811.9
821.2
Run
Time
5.5
6.4
6.6
10.1
7.5
7.7
6.5
7.6
6.9
7.8
7.5
9.1
5.7
8.6
8.1
7.5
10.2
6.1
6.1
8.3
8.4
9.4
9.8
7.6
14.9
9.1
6.6
6.1
5.4
6.6
8.5
NA
8.4
6.8
7.1
7.0
5.6
7.8
7.5
9.9
10.1
6.5
10.3
11.7
6.9
7.7
7.2
15.7
6.7
9.3
Chlorine
Chlorine
Tank
Level
34
30
26
21
18
15
8
32
28
25
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
38
34
28
23
14
7
35
22
19
16
12
6
NM
18
15
12
8
20
16
13
9
5
10
15
9
38
34
29
15
Cl
3.0
4.7
4.2
4.2
2.9
2.9
4.0
4.9
3.3
3.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.5
4.6
3.9
3.6
4.9
4.8
2.7
3.6
4.7
3.9
4.5
3.5
4.1
4.6
3.6
4.2
4.4
5.4
5.4
3.3
3.2
4.3
4.0
3.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.3
4.6
3.6
3.8
5.5
6.8
3.6
6.8
5.6
4.0
Totalizer to
Totalizer
46,045.0
46,145.4
46,257.4
46,397.8
46,518.1
46,640.0
46,742.6
46,861.0
46,980.5
47,088.6
47,213.0
47,330.1
4 ,473.5
4 ,677.4
4 ,812.8
48,054.2
48,264.6
48,534.5
48,629.8
48,726.6
48,854.8
8,986.2
9,135.5
. 9,286.5
. 9,546.4
9,779.3
9,920.9
50,236.6
50,339.1
50,436.5
50,520.3
50,626.1
50,757.1
NA
51,193.1
51,301.2
51,412.0
51,522.1
51,610.6
51,732.7
51,849.9
52,004.0
52,162.3
52,268.6
52,474.1
52,766.5
52,949.9
53,056.8
53,126.1
53,289.2
53,531.6
53,636.5
53,783.0
Avg Flow
Rate
241
261
283
232
267
264
263
260
266
261
266
260
263
296
262
262
264
268
260
264
257
261
265
257
239
287
261
259
261
259
266
259
267
257
NA
258
265
260
262
263
261
260
259
261
257
264
259
260
261
258
150
378
257
261
263
Pressure Filtration
Influent
psig
83
78
84
75
83
80
79
79
81
77
84
84
78
81
84
81
81
80
82
78
80
81
83
80
78
82
81
82
80
81
84
77
84
80
82
81
81
81
78
81
80
77
83
80
81
79
81
81
82
80
83
81
81
83
Outlet TA
psig
69
67
71
68
69
68
70
67
69
65
69
68
66
68
72
68
67
66
68
75
68
69
74
67
69
70
75
68
67
71
73
70
68
69
72
NA
72
70
71
68
64
66
70
69
66
69
68
68
68
70
68
71
65
73
74
66
Outlet TB
psig
71
73
68
67
69
69
68
67
70
71
68
66
68
68
66
70
73
69
69
68
68
67
70
71
72
72
71
72
68
66
67
69
68
67
66
NA
69
68
68
72
68
70
72
70
73
66
72
65
68
68
73
66
68
65
68
66
Outlet TC
psig
68
69
72
72
69
67
69
71
64
68
68
67
70
71
73
76
69
69
70
68
68
72
68
68
71
68
67
70
68
73
73
67
69
70
70
NA
65
71
65
72
69
74
67
67
69
73
70
69
73
72
68
72
74
69
70
71
Effluent
psig
56
56
56
57
55
56
56
55
55
56
55
55
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
55
55
54
55
55
55
56
55
56
55
56
56
56
56
56
NA
56
55
56
56
56
56
56
55
56
55
56
55
56
56
56
55
55
55
56
56
Flow/Totalizer to
Flow
Rate
gpm
275
290
300
285
297
280
290
285
282
276
285
270
268
290
275
272
297
280
280
295
290
298
285
290
302
300
290
298
285
300
310
270
285
292
297
NA
292
300
275
300
290
293
302
290
288
298
302
283
290
292
294
295
295
268
Totalizer
kgal
22,093.6
22,171.8
22,272.0
22,383.0
22,521.3
22,634.6
22,750.1
22,845.8
22,957.3
23,171.2
23,288.6
23,398.7
23,533.6
23,728.1
23,857.4
24,087.7
24,287.3
24,542.1
24,633.1
24,726.5
24,849.1
24,974.1
25,118.8
25,262.4
25,396.7
25,511.0
25,734.1
25,871.0
26,172.5
26,271.2
26,364.9
26,445.7
26,545.1
26,670.6
NA
27,088.7
27,190.3
2 ,297.3
2 ,402.0
2 ,488.1
2 ,604.2
2 ,716.2
27,864.4
28,015.3
28,117.3
28,216.8
28,314.6
28,594.2
28,769.5
28,871.3
29,325.5
29,567.2
Avg Flow
Rate
gpm
294
279
261
300
268
255
263
255
258
268
254
255
258
261
258
259
266
257
253
265
262
256
263
259
263
254
261
263
255
267
263
275
252
262
NA
263
251
262
262
314
237
261
262
257
262
258
262
261
256
257
246
259
:erric Chloride
FeCI3
Tank
Level
pal
17
11
3
38
30
22
14
5
32
16
7
34
24
9
34
17
31
20
16
9
36
28
17
6
32
24
6
33
10
39
32
26
18
8
NM
15
6
34
26
20
11
38
27
16
8
36
29
8
24
15
15
20
Fe
Dosage
2.3
2.4
2.1
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.6
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.0
NA
1.3
2.2
2.1
1.8
2.2
2.2
2.1
1.8
2.3
1.9
1.8
2.2
2.1
2.3
2.3
NA
2.1
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.6
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.5
2.2
2.5
Backwash
Tank
42
44
45
45
46
46
47
49
50
51
51
52
53
54
55
55
56
57
57
59
60
60
61
64
64
65
65
66
NA
68
68
9
9
0
2
3
3
4
5
6
6
9
80
Tank
198
203
207
208
208
209
210
212
214
215
216
218
219
220
220
221
222
223
224
226
227
228
229
231
232
233
233
234
NA
237
237
238
239
240
241
244
244
245
245
247
248
249
251
253
Tank
1 7
1 7
1 8
1 9
1 9
181
183
184
185
186
187
188
188
189
190
190
191
193
194
195
196
199
199
200
200
201
NA
203
204
204
205
206
207
209
210
210
211
213
214
214
217
218
269.6
270.1
271.0
271.8
272.7
275.6
277.7
278.9
279.8
281.5
282.8
284.0
284.0
285.3
286.6
287.4
288.2
290.7
292.8
294.1
298.0
299.2
299.2
300.4
NA
303.3
303.7
304.6
305.4
306.7
307.5
3 0.4
3 1.2
3 1.7
3 2.5
3 4.6
3 5.8
3 6.2
3 9.6
321.7
Since Last BW
2.5
10.0
3.6
10.0
3.5
7.7
15.1
6.6
4.1
12.7
11.9
9.9
14.9
0.1
6.1
3.2
0.0
9.3
1.7
9.8
6.4
2.2
8.7
0.0
NA
7.7
8.5
1.0
7.9
4.5
12.0
4.2
10.7
3.0
8.7
6.2
12.9
0.0
1.8
0.4
8.0
4.5
1.5
8.0
5.5
4.5
8.0
6.2
0.0
3.7
10.2
16.2
3.9
4.6
4.2
3.9
0.2
1.9
4.1
1.9
8.5
6.9
NA
5.2
12.1
5.0
1.8
4.1
1.5
8.3
2.0
8.4
5.5
8.3
2.7
10.0
5.5
8.0
2.1
9.6
6.0
1.1
8.5
8.4
3.8
0.6
2.7
1.1
4.5
5.9
12.4
18.4
3.6
0.9
9.3
7.5
3.9
4.3
7.6
1.5
8.1
3.1
NA
10.1
4.2
11.2
4.2
3.6
5.5
0.0
6.6
1.9
0.7
2.2
8.9
4.6
3.3
4.1
St
9.2
6.2
7.4
6.2
2.6
0.1
5.6
6.4
4.2
3.3
5.8
0.7
4.2
1.2
5.1
5.3
0.7
3.5
1.1
9.2
5.6
3.1
5.5
NA
4.3
2.9
8.5
5.6
9.1
3.8
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
15.4
31.1
9.0
16.1
31.2
ndbyTi
19.2
17.0
34.3
16.2
16.1
32.7
17.5
15.6
33.2
17.9
16.7
17.3
30.7
452.0
17.1
15.1
15.3
15.4
13.5
11.2
12.4
15.6
33.2
15.5
NA
14.3
32.9
18.5
17.1
19.2
14.8
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
15.4
2.9
9.0
16.1
15.1
19.2
36.2
17.3
31.9
16.1
32.7
17.5
15.6
16.3
17.8
16.7
17.2
30.7
45.2
17.1
15.1
30.3
15.4
13.5
11.3
11.2
29.3
15.6
33.1
15.5
NA
28. S
18.7
37.3
17.1
19.2
14.7
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
15.5
9.1
9.0
16.1
15.1
Actu
Be
6.0
14.0
17.1
—
15.6
14.7
11.5
20.8
10.7
11.2
11.4
8.9
11.7
8.6
9.1
16.7
NA
14.2
8.5
14.1
13.8
13.8
15.9
26.1
6.1
12.4
al Run 1
tween E
8.9
9.7
8.3
9.6
9.8
8.9
10.0
10.7
9.9
18.0
7.1
8.4
9.5
11.9
4.1
15.8
7.8
11.1
12.5
6.7
7.1
9.6
NA
—
13.8
9.8
1.1
10.0
9.8
8.9
12.5
10.9
8.6
12.0
9.4
10.9
6.4
8.5
tw
4.6
10.9
11.1
10.9
9.6
11. S
9.9
10.0
20.6
10.5
10.8
11.9
9.6
4.8
16.5
8.1
10.6
5.6
11. C
13. C
NA
12.4
13.5
5.E
10.6
11.3
11. S
10. S
8.S
10. C
14.8
12.7
7.7
8.2
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Demonstration Project at Felton, DE - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued)
Start-up Date: October 12, 2006
Week
No.
43
44
45
46
48
49
SO
52
Day of
Week
M
W
R
F
Su
M
T
R
F
Sa
Su
M
W
R
F
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
T
W
F
Sa
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
M
T
W
R
Sa
Su
M
W
R
F
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Su
M
T
W
R
Sa
Su
T
W
R
F
Su
Date
07/02/07
07/04/07
07/05/07
07/06/07
07/08/07
07/09/07
07 0/07
07 2/07
07 3/07
07 4/07
07 5/07
07 6/07
07 8/07
07 9/07
0 /20/07
0 /22/07
0 /23/07
0 /24/07
0 /25/07
0 /26/07
0 /27/07
0 /28/07
0 /29/07
0 /31/07
08/01/07
08/03/07
08/04/07
08/06/07
08/07/07
08/08/07
08/09/07
08/10/07
08/11/07
08/13/07
08/14/07
08/15/07
08/16/07
08/18/07
08/19/07
08/20/07
08/22/07
08/23/07
08/24/07
08/26/07
08/27/07
08/28/07
08/29/07
09/01/07
09/02/07
09/03/07
09/04/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
09/08/07
09/09/07
09/1 1/07
09/12/07
09/13/07
09/14/07
09/16/07
Time
7:45
9:10
8:30
10:45
7:45
12:00
8:10
11:10
13:45
11:15
9:50
11:15
11:00
7:20
8:15
MM
13:20
15:20
10:05
8:00
8:00
9:30
22:10
12:45
9:05
14:10
11:00
13:20
11:40
9:50
7:45
12:30
16:50
13:55
12:45
1 :20
8 5
: 5
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 :25
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 :50
1 :20
1 5
1 0
1 :55
1 0
i 5
12:50
1 0
1 5
1 5
1 0
1 5
18:10
Cumulative Mrs in Service
hr
1,911.9
1,928.1
1,934.0
1,943.2
1,960.1
1,972.0
1,976.1
1,993.6
2,002.8
2,012.5
2,018.3
2,031.0
2,051.7
2,059.2
2,066.1
MM
2,096.2
2,105.2
2,113.9
2,120.8
2,131.3
2,139.7
2,148.1
2,158.4
2,163.5
2,185.2
2,195.7
2,214.6
2,222.7
2,230.1
2,237.7
2,246.9
2,254.8
2,271.8
2,279.6
2,289.3
2,294.6
2,310.1
2,321.8
2,327.6
2,338.5
2,343.7
2,350.0
2,362.4
2,369.9
2,377.1
2,384.6
2,398.6
2,413.5
2,420.2
2,428.5
2,432.8
2,440.1
2,454.5
2,463.7
2,476.8
2,489.1
2,496.6
2,508.1
hr
1,884.4
1,900.4
1,906.6
1,915.4
1,932.3
1,944.3
1,948.8
1,966.3
1,975.5
1,984.8
1,990.7
2,003.4
2,024.1
2,031.5
2,038.4
MM
2,068.4
2,077.1
2,085.9
2,092.8
2,103.1
2,111.6
2,120.1
2,130.5
2,136.0
2,157.7
2,167.9
2,186.9
2,195.1
2,202.2
2,210.0
2,218.9
2,226.8
2,243.9
2,251.8
2,261.5
2,266.5
2,281.9
2,293.7
2,299.1
2,309.9
2,315.1
2,321.3
2,334.3
2,341.4
2,348.3
2,356.1
2,362.3
2,369.9
2,385.1
2,392.3
2,400.2
2,404.5
2,411.9
2,426.5
2,435.7
2,448.4
2,461.0
2,468.1
2,479.6
hr
,826.0
,841.9
,848.1
,857.0
,874.0
,886.0
,890.5
,907.8
,917.0
,926.4
,932.7
,945.4
,965.8
,973.4
,980.0
MM
2,010.6
2,019.3
2,028.1
2,035.1
2,045.5
2,054.0
2,062.4
2,072.7
2,078.1
2,100.2
2,110.7
2,129.4
2,137.6
2,145.1
2,162.9
2,167.9
2,170.1
2,187.4
2,195.2
2,204.9
2,209.9
2,225.0
2,237.0
2,242.7
2,253.7
2,258.9
2,265.2
2,277.8
2,284.8
2,292.1
2,299.7
2,306.0
2,313.7
2,328.8
2,335.6
2,343.1
2,347.9
2,355.3
2,369.8
2,378.9
2,391.9
2,404.1
2,411.3
2,422.9
Avg Run
Time
hr
6.9
6.6
6.1
9.0
11.3
12.0
4.4
4.0
9.2
9.5
6.0
12.7
10.1
7.5
6.8
MA
22.4
8.8
8.8
6.9
10.4
8.5
8.4
4.8
5.3
12.2
10.4
10.5
8.2
7.3
11.1
7.7
6.0
9.4
7.8
9.7
5.1
8.2
1 .8
.6
.6
.2
.3
.1
.2
.1
.6
.2
.7
1 .1
i.9
.9
. .5
.4
.1
.2
.3
.1
.3
1 .5
Hour
Meter
hr
828.5
845.3
851.6
860.9
878.4
890.9
895.6
914.2
923.4
933.2
939.5
952.6
974.2
982.0
989.0
MM
,020.2
,029.3
,038.5
,046.0
,056.7
,065.5
,074.4
,085.2
,090.8
,113.5
,124.4
,144.2
,152.8
,160.3
,169.0
,178.1
,186.4
,204.5
,212.7
,222.9
,228.3
,244.2
,252.8
,262.6
,274.0
,279.3
,286.0
,299.5
,306.8
,314.1
,322.2
,328.8
,336.8
,352.7
,360.0
,368.3
,373.0
,380.7
,395.7
,405.3
,418.9
,431.8
,439.5
,451.5
Run
Time
hr
7.3
7.0
6.3
9.3
11.6
12.5
4.7
4.5
9.2
9.8
6.3
13.1
10.5
7.8
7.0
NA
23.1
9.1
9.2
7.5
10.7
8.8
8.9
5.0
5.6
12.6
10.9
11.1
8.6
7.5
8.7
9.1
8.3
9.8
8.2
10.2
5.4
8.4
8.6
9.8
5.8
5.3
6.7
6.7
7.3
7.3
8.1
6.6
8.0
15.9
7.3
8.3
4.7
7.7
5.2
9.6
7.6
6.4
7.7
12.0
Chlorine
Chlorine
Tank
gal
16
6
18
11
34
26
23
26
20
30
27
19
6
34
30
MM
6
34
28
24
18
1
1
1
29
20
8
33
27
21
15
24
10
5
12
8
31
27
25
17
13
8
30
23
17
13
38
32
20
15
9
38
32
21
14
4
26
20
11
Cl
dosage
mg/L
4.2
4.3
4.8
5.6
.5
.8
.9
i.8
.9
.8
.6
.6
.0
.7
.7
3.3
4.9
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.1
3.0
5.5
5.5
6.2
4.1
5.3
6.0
5.2
5.0
6.3
6.1
.6
i.O
.7
.6
.4
.6
.8
.7
.7
.7
.2
i.2
.8
.6
.6
.7
.2
.4
.0
.8
.7
.5
.9
.9
.9
.6
Totalizer to
Totalizer
kgal
53,894.2
54,155.9
54,253.7
54,401.2
54,677.0
54,870.5
54,941.6
55,230.5
55,375.1
55,521.
55,620.
55,823.3
56,156.6
56,280.7
56,381.0
NA
56,874.5
57,014.
57,158.
57,272.3
57,439.1
57,575.
57,714.3
57,883.0
57,968.7
58,313.9
58,483.0
58,788. i
58,922.2
59,039,
59,174.7
59,316,
59,446.0
59,727.
59,854.0
60,011.
60,093.9
60,341.
60,534.5
60,625.2
60,803.6
60,886,
60,990.1
6 ,199.1
6 ,313.7
6 ,427.
6 ,551.
6 ,653.9
6 ,779.2
62,026.9
62,139.5
62,270.
62,341.
62,463.;
62,696.7
62,845.8
63,056.8
63,259.0
63,377.5
63,565.9
Avg Flow
Rate
gpm
254
261
259
264
265
258
252
256
262
248
262
259
259
265
239
NA
260
257
260
254
260
25S
259
262
255
254
259
256
258
26C
25S
26C
260
26C
258
257
256
26C
374
154
264
26C
258
256
262
26C
256
258
261
260
257
262
252
265
264
259
261
264
259
256
262
Pressure Filtration
psig
81
NA
80
79
82
78
81
79
82
83
80
82
80
81
83
NA
81
79
82
80
82
82
79
78
79
79
79
79
79
83
77
81
82
81
80
81
80
82
79
81
80
81
78
82
81
83
82
78
79
NA
78
80
79
77
79
81
78
80
79
82
82
psig
71
NA
72
68
67
6S
70
6S
68
67
67
68
71
66
66
NA
74
6E
71
71
65
6E
69
68
71
67
68
6E
70
67
67
65
68
6E
73
74
66
66
71
69
70
67
68
69
70
67
71
69
65
NA
7C
7C
7C
67
73
73
71
68
70
66
69
psig
67
NA
67
69
69
71
66
69
65
70
70
68
68
71
67
NA
70
68
70
67
69
71
69
71
65
68
72
69
69
66
68
71
69
71
70
72
66
68
71
73
68
70
66
66
70
71
71
71
NA
65
70
68
68
68
68
72
69
66
70
69
psig
65
NA
66
68
68
70
64
71
66
75
65
67
73
66
74
NA
69
68
70
67
69
71
69
69
66
68
68
72
73
65
69
72
66
66
68
69
69
73
73
68
69
67
67
71
73
66
68
67
67
NA
70
74
73
68
70
70
68
72
72
73
73
psig
56
NA
54
55
57
56
55
56
55
57
55
56
56
56
55
NA
56
55
57
57
57
58
56
56
55
55
56
55
56
55
55
55
55
55
56
57
55
55
55
56
57
56
56
55
56
55
56
55
55
55
55
57
55
55
57
56
55
55
55
56
57
Flow/Totalizer to
Flow
Rate
gpm
273
NA
304
286
268
29C
282
29E
279
295
275
270
301
272
292
NA
304
29C
295
292
268
28E
312
288
285
290
283
305
302
275
29C
295
297
275
307
302
296
293
301
297
302
28C
286
290
295
285
30C
302
283
NA
285
29E
307
29C
275
298
306
296
297
293
295
Totalizer
kgal
29,674.1
29,923.9
30,017.7
30,159.3
30,423.4
30,607.6
30,674.7
30,953.4
31,090.5
31,229.4
31,325.5
31,519.6
31,839.3
31,956.9
32,059.2
NA
32,524.3
32,659.8
32,796.8
32,907.6
33,066.3
33,199.3
33,329.9
33,492.9
33,574.3
33,905.6
34,068.2
34,362.0
34,490.2
34,601.6
34,732.5
34,868.9
34,993.9
35,263.1
35,383.6
35,535.0
35,613.9
35,851.2
36,037.6
36,124.0
36,294.7
36,373.7
36,473.7
36,673.8
36,783.8
36,892.2
37,011.7
37,110.4
37,230.7
NA
37,577.3
37,701.0
37,769.7
37,888.5
38,111.5
38,254.6
38,457.1
38,555.1
38,651.3
38,764.7
38,944.9
Avg Flow
Rate
gpm
260
266
256
263
262
257
256
273
248
245
267
255
258
261
251
NA
255
257
260
266
254
262
258
266
254
252
261
257
262
253
197
295
347
262
256
26C
258
254
262
256
260
253
266
271
255
253
261
265
259
NA
NA
261
256
26S
26C
260
260
259
264
260
260
:erric Chloride
FeCI3
Tank
qal
11
24
15
5
19
4
41
20
9
35
27
11
29
20
10
NA
9
34
23
14
4
36
26
12
5
23
10
24
13
3
23
12
39
16
6
31
24
5
34
26
12
5
40
27
15
6
39
31
22
25
16
6
36
27
9
34
17
9
39
30
15
Fe
Dosage
mg/L
2.4
2.2
2.8
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.2
3.0
NA
2.2
2.1
2.3
1.8
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.4
2.2
2.3
1.9
2.5
2.6
2.2
2.3
1.8
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.0
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.0
1.2
3.1
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.3
Backwash
Tank
No.
181
182
183
184
185
186
18E
188
18E
18S
190
192
192
192
NM
195
195
196
197
19E
199
200
201
203
204
206
207
207
20S
20S
2 0
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 4
2 5
2 7
2 7
2 8
2 E
2 9
220
221
221
222
223
223
225
226
226
227
22E
22S
230
231
231
232
232
Tank
No.
254
256
256
258
259
259
262
262
263
264
265
267
268
268
NM
271
272
273
275
276
277
278
278
281
283
285
286
287
290
291
293
294
295
296
297
299
300
301
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
10
; 10
11
12
; 13
14
15
17
17
18
19
Tank
No.
219
221
221
223
224
224
227
227
228
228
229
232
232
233
NM
235
236
239
240
241
242
242
243
244
247
248
248
250
251
251
253
254
255
256
25E
26C
260
261
261
262
264
265
265
266
267
268
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
hqal
322.6
324.6
325.0
327.1
328.4
328.8
332.1
332.1
333.0
333.9
335.1
338.0
338.5
338.8
NM
342.1
342.9
346.2
347.4
348.6
349.4
350.3
352.9
358.6
362.2
363.0
365.5
366.7
367.9
368.8
370.3
372.8
373.2
3 4.5
3 4.5
3 5.7
3 7.4
3 8.6
3 9.0
382.3
384.8
385.6
386.5
387.7
388.9
390.1
391.3
393.0
393.4
394.6
Since Last BW
hr
3.7
5.7
0.0
12.1
0.3
1.9
11.1
20.8
5.7
6.5
3.3
10.8
17.7
NM
0.0
9.0
12.5
7.0
4.9
5.7
0.9
8.0
3.5
13.0
6.9
4.4
0.0
0.5
5.5
11.2
3.5
9.3
6.4
11.6
2.6
5.1
2.9
10.1
10.6
5.9
1.0
9.3
1.2
5.4
0.5
1.9
2.9
u n Tim
hr
6.3
0.1
6.2
6.5
1.1
10.3
6.0
2.5
5.0
8.6
2.9
9.9
NM
7.2
3.7
1.6
0.5
0.0
1.9
7.4
6.8
5.8
4.6
2.9
3.3
3.2
4.0
0.0
6.9
5.0
2.8
1.7
6.9
1.4
7.4
6.5
4.8
1.0
1.0
8.2
6.0
2.3
4.8
9.2
6.6
0.5
hr
11.2
4.2
10.4
7.2
0.7
9.9
1.7
8.0
10.5
0.4
8.0
2.9
NM
10.7
6.5
6.3
3.6
3.3
3.1
8.5
5.5
0.2
1.8
10.0
8.3
6.6
7.0
2.7
0.1
0.0
5.7
9.0
14.2
4.8
2.0
0.9
8.2
4.9
4.8
2.5
0.0
O.C
4.2
5.2
4.7
8.1
Sfc
hr
13.8
NM
25.8
15.6
14.7
20.3
37.9
49.7
16.3
11.7
11.9
24.4
42.3
NM
12.4
29.4
13.4
16.5
12.7
27.5
14.8
15.3
15.2
13.6
33.8
19.9
11.8
15.0
11.3
27.4
32.5
14.8
32.1
36.3
55.4
17.8
17.7
14.5
33.1
33.8
NM
13.5
25.
18.
19.2
17.
15.1
17.6
35.4
20.9
ndby Ti
hr
13.9
NM
36.8
6.6
21.3
20.3
37.9
11.8
16.3
11.8
11.9
12.5
30.4
NM
12.5
17.0
0.0
0.0
12.7
15.5
30.3
15.3
15.1
13.6
19.6
19.8
11.7
15.0
11.3
16.1
16.9
14.8
17.4
17.2
36.3
17.8
34.5
14.5
18.4
17.2
NM
32.2
11.7
18.1
19.2
34.1
15.1
17.6
35.4
20.9
ne
hr
29.0
NM
36.7
6.7
21.3
20.1
37.7
11.8
28.1
11.7
11.9
24.4
17.9
NM
12.4
17.0
13.3
0.0
12.7
15.6
30.4
15.3
15.2
13.6
27.5
19.5
39.3
11.8
15.0
11.3
16.2
16.8
14.8
32.1
36.3
55.3
17.8
17.8
14.5
33.0
17.2
NM
13.5
11.7
18.1
19.2
34.1
15.1
17.6
17.8
20.9
Actu
Be
hr
11.6
14.0
11.3
6.7
—.
20.9
11.9
13.9
18.6
10.7
13.9
10.5
9.5
9.9
7.3
10.3
11.1
11.2
14.0
10.1
12.2
9.2
9.8
13.8
15.3
9.7
11.6
19.6
11.6
12.4
3.1
7.8
13.5
al Run Time
tweenBW
hr
12.3
—
11.2
15.8
—
13.6
9.4
10.2
9.4
13.1
12.0
20.7
12.2
8.8
9.6
9.6
9.0
7.5
7.9
9.1
9.6
8.2
8.0
8.9
9.0
^^
11.7
7.0
8.0
8.6
8.7
7.4
15.2
10.1
8.0
4.9
10.2
11.8
8.3
9.2
12.1
hr
14
—
12.1
2.0
15.0
—
17.6
10.2
20.8
^^
11.7
9.5
13.3
12.9
9.3
8.3
8.8
11.2
8.7
—r~
9.1
8.7
8.9
10.6
9.5
9.3
9.3
9.5
7.6
15.7
7.7
8.1
8.9
8.4
15.2
9.1
10.0
4.8
3.2
13.5
9.6
9.6
12.0
8.1
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Demonstration Project at Felton, DE - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued)
Start-up Date: October 12, 2006
Week
No.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Day of
Week
M
T
W
R
F
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Su
M
T
W
R
F
Sa
Date
09/1 7/0701
09/18/07
09/19/07
09/20/07
09/21/07
09/23/07
09/24/07
09/25/07
09/26/07
09/27/07
09/28/07
09/29/07
09/30/07
10/01/07
10/02/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
10/05/07
10/06/07
10/07/07
10/08/07
10/09/07
10/10/07
10/11/07
10/12/07
10/14/07
10/15/07
10/16/07
10/17/07
10/18/07
10/19/07
10/20/07
10/21/07
10/22/07
1 0/23/07
10/24/07
10/25/07
10/26/07
10/27/07
10/28/07
10/29/07
10/30/07
10/31/07
1 1/01/07
1 1/02/07
11/03/07
Time
13:40
11:05
10:45
13:15
16:10
16:20
16:30
13:50
15:10
14:45
14:10
15:25
14:10
15:25
13:55
13:40
15:35
11:30
12:00
15:30
16:10
16:00
12:10
14:00
12:55
13:00
14:20
12:10
12:00
13:25
13:35
14:15
10:40
9:45
14:00
10:35
9:30
10:20
12:45
MM
13:50
11:35
10:30
11:20
11:25
8:45
Cumulative Mrs in Service
TA
hr
2,512.9
2,518.9
2,523.2
2,529.9
2,535.9
2,549.3
2,555.4
2,561.6
2,566.9
2,574.4
2,581.2
2,586.8
2,593.6
2,600.5
2,606.0
2,611.0
2,619.3
2,623.5
2,631 .5
2,639.2
2,646.2
2,653.9
2,659.4
2,663.6
2,671.2
2,682.8
2,687.4
2,695.0
2,700.4
2,706.8
2,712.7
2,718.7
2,725.9
2,729.9
2,737.8
2,745.0
2,749.2
2,755.5
2,761.4
2,767.3
2,774.1
2,780.0
2,784.2
2,791.2
2,796.9
2,804.4
TB
hr
2,484.4
2,490.5
2,494.8
2,501.1
2,507.2
2,520.5
2,527.0
2,533.3
2,538.3
2,545.8
2,552.6
2,558.3
2,565.2
2,572.1
2,577.3
2,583.5
2,590.7
2,594.9
2,603.0
2,610.7
2,617.3
2,624.9
2,630.4
2,634.7
2,642.7
2,653.7
2,658.3
2,665.9
2,671.0
2,677.5
2,683.6
2,689.6
2,696.8
2,700.5
2,708.5
2,715.8
2,720.0
2,726.0
2,731 .9
2,733.0
2,745.1
2,750.8
2,755.0
2,761.8
2,768.0
2,775.5
TC
hr
2,428.1
2,433.9
2,438.6
2,445.0
2,451.0
2,464.2
2,470.7
2,477.0
2,481.9
2,489.4
2,496.2
2,501.9
2,508.7
2,515.7
2,520.8
2,526.7
2,533.9
2,538.5
2,546.6
2,554.0
2,560.7
2,568.7
2,574.2
2,578.5
2,585.8
2,597.8
2,602.1
2,609.7
2,615.1
2,621.6
2,627.7
2,633.7
2,640.6
2,644.7
2,652.6
2,659.8
2,663.8
2,670.2
2,676.2
2,682.2
2,689.0
2,694.9
2,699.5
2,706.2
2,712.3
2,719.5
Avg Run
Time
hr
4.9
6.0
4.4
6.5
6.0
13.3
6.4
6.3
5.1
7.5
6.8
5.7
6.8
6.9
5.3
5.7
7.6
4.3
8.1
7.6
6.8
7.8
5.5
4.3
7.6
11.5
4.5
7.6
5.3
6.5
6.0
6.0
7.1
3.9
7.9
7.2
4.1
6.2
5.9
4.3
8.6
5.8
4.3
6.8
6.0
7.4
Hour
Meter
hr
1,456.8
1,462.9
1,467.7
1,474.4
1,480.9
1,494.8
1,501.4
1,508.1
1,513.5
1,521.4
1,528.2
1,534.4
1,541.6
1,549.C
1,554.6
1.560.G
1,568.4
1,573.0
1,581.5
1,589.6
1,596.7
1,604.7
1,610.7
1,615.4
1,623.1
1,635.6
1,640.2
1,648.3
1,653.8
1,660.6
1,667.1
1,673.6
1,680.8
1,685.C
1,693.3
1,701.0
1,705.2
1,711.7
1,718.1
1,724.5
1,731.7
1,738.2
1,742.G
1,749.9
1,756.1
1,764.0
Run
Time
hr
5.3
6.1
4.8
6.7
6.5
13.9
6.6
6.7
5.4
7.9
6.8
6.2
7.2
7.4
5.6
6.2
7.6
4.6
8.5
8.1
7.1
8.0
6.0
4.7
7.7
12.5
4.7
8.0
5.5
6.8
6.5
6.5
7.2
4.2
8.3
7.7
4.3
6.4
6.4
6.4
7.2
6.5
4.6
7.1
6.2
7.9
Chlorine
Chlorine
Tank
Level
gal
7
35
31
26
21
10
6
34
30
26
22
18
14
9
6
28
23
20
32
27
22
17
14
11
7
30
27
22
18
14
10
38
34
31
26
20
18
14
29
25
20
16
13
8
4
31
Cl
dosage
mg/L
5.8
6.1
6.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
4.6
5.7
5.7
.8
.4
.0
.2
.2
. .1
. .9
.0
.9
. .5
.7
.4
• .6
.9
.8
:.9
.9
. .8
• .8
.5
.4
. .7
. .7
.1
.5
.6
.9
:.e
. .7
.8
.7
.3
. .7
. .9
.3
.9
.8
Totalizer to
Totalizer
kgal
63,647.0
63,743.0
63,815.9
63,920.3
64,021.1
64,237.7
64,339.7
64,443.0
64,526.0
64,649.2
64,756.4
64,850.0
64,961.7
65,075.5
65,162.2
65,258.3
65,375.8
65,447.9
65,579.2
65,704.7
65,813.6
65,940.1
66,031.0
66,104.0
66,224.0
66,416.4
66,489.8
66,612.9
66,697.9
66,804.1
66, 903. C
67,003.1
67,116.5
67,180.4
67,309.2
67,428.5
67,494.2
67, 593. G
67,691.8
67,790.7
67,901.8
68, 002. C
68,073.2
68,183.2
68,279.8
68,400.4
Avg Flow
Rate
gpm
255
262
253
260
258
260
258
257
256
260
263
252
259
256
258
258
258
261
25G
258
256
264
252
259
260
257
260
256
258
260
25=1
257
262
254
259
258
255
259
255
258
257
257
25G
25G
259
254
Pressure Filtration
Influent
psig
80
83
81
82
80
80
82
81
81
79
82
82
82
81
80
78
82
77
MM
80
81
80
80
82
83
80
83
81
82
79
79
80
83
79
82
81
81
82
81
MM
81
84
81
81
81
MM
Outlet TA
pag
72
69
72
67
68
68
73
74
67
68
68
70
71
74
69
69
67
68
MM
7
6
7
7
6
6
7
66
71
68
69
69
74
71
66
68
71
68
67
68
MM
73
69
69
6G
72
MM
Outlet TB
pag
73
6G
69
71
73
73
68
6G
69
7C
67
68
68
71
72
65
67
68
MM
67
69
72
71
67
7C
71
74
6G
72
72
69
7C
69
7C
69
73
6G
72
72
MM
68
69
69
72
68
MM
Outlet TC
pag
69
73
67
68
69
70
68
68
69
70
67
68
68
69
71
71
73
67
MM
73
74
68
69
68
74
66
68
75
68
68
65
68
74
66
67
70
74
69
69
MM
72
74
66
70
67
MM
Effluent
pag
56
57
56
56
56
56
56
57
55
55
56
56
56
56
57
55
55
55
MM
56
55
55
57
55
5G
57
57
57
56
56
56
55
58
55
55
57
57
57
56
MM
57
57
55
56
55
MM
Flow/Totalizer to
Flow
Rate
gpm
312
293
29G
292
307
302
296
30C
296
304
280
296
296
305
31 C
285
292
290
NM
303
307
30C
301
275
29C
282
287
302
295
301
28C
307
295
286
279
300
30C
294
298
MM
306
294
276
295
295
MM
Totalizer
kgal
39,022.3
39,114.4
39,184.4
39,284.6
39,381.5
39,590.6
39,687.9
39,787.7
39,867.8
39,986.6
40,088.9
40,179.8
40,286.6
40,395.7
40,478.2
40,572.1
40,684.1
40,754.1
40,879.9
4 ,000.8
4 ,104.8
4 ,226.3
4 ,314.6
4 ,385.9
4 ,499.9
4 ,685.8
4 ,756.0
4 ,872.9
4 ,954.5
42,056.9
42,153.4
42,248.7
42,357.1
42,418.8
42,542.9
42,657.0
42,719.9
42,814.3
42,909.1
43,004.9
43,111.3
43,206.4
43,275.8
43,380.5
43,472.4
43,588.7
Avg Flow
Rate
gpm
NA
257
262
25G
268
262
NA
266
262
264
251
267
261
262
261
275
247
269
26C
265
NA
261
268
279
249
269
26C
256
257
264
267
265
254
262
261
263
252
252
266
368
207
272
267
255
255
262
=erric Chloride
FeCI3
Tank
Level
qal
8
41
33
21
10
24
13
38
29
16
5
38
26
14
4
29
17
9
40
27
16
3
29
21
9
24
16
3
15
4
38
28
17
10
33
21
14
4
35
25
13
38
30
19
9
34
Fe
Dosage
mg/L
2.6
2.8
3.3
3.4
3.3
2.9
3.2
2.9
3.2
3.2
3.1
2.9
3.2
3.2
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.3
2.3
3.1
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.3
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.1
2.7
4.8
2.9
3.3
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.0
2.7
3.0
3.2
2.7
3.4
3.0
3.1
2.5
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
234
234
235
235
236
237
238
239
239
240
240
241
242
243
243
244
244
245
246
247
247
248
249
250
250
252
252
253
253
254
255
256
256
256
257
258
258
258
259
260
261
261
262
262
263
264
Tank
B
No.
321
321
322
323
324
326
326
327
328
329
329
330
331
332
333
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
344
344
345
346
347
348
349
349
350
351
352
352
353
354
355
355
356
357
358
358
359
Tank
C
No.
281
282
282
283
284
286
286
287
288
289
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
295
296
298
299
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
305
306
307
308
309
309
310
311
312
312
313
314
315
316
316
317
317
319
Total
kcjal
397.5
397.9
398.8
399.6
400.8
402.9
403.3
404.5
405.3
406.6
406.6
407.9
409.1
410.4
411.2
412.0
412.8
413.6
414.9
416.5
417.3
418.C
419.4
420.7
421.5
423.7
424.1
425.3
425.7
427.0
428.2
429.6
430.0
430.4
431.6
432.9
433.3
433.7
436.0
436.2
437.1
437.9
438. G
439.6
440.0
441.7
Since Last BW
Run Time
Tank A
hr
2.5
8.5
1.7
8.4
5.3
9.2
3.4
0.2
5.5
5.5
12.3
4.0
2.8
0.0
5.5
2.7
10.2
3.4
1.2
1.6
8.6
6.2
2.2
3.2
10.8
3.5
8.2
3.6
9.0
4.5
2.4
0.0
7.2
11.2
6.6
4.8
9.0
15.3
5.0
4.1
0.6
6.6
3.5
10.5
3.4
2.4
TankB
hr
0.0
6.1
3.7
3.2
0.0
1.0
7.5
4.1
2.C
O.G
7.6
3.0
4.6
4.7
O.C
6.2
6.1
2.0
2.9
5.3
4.G
2.7
0.9
2.7
3.1
1.5
6.1
6.C
3.0
1.1
1.7
2.2
9.4
2.7
4.1
2.4
6.6
2.C
1.6
0.9
8.0
4.2
2.4
1.2
7.4
5.7
TankC
hr
8.5
1.9
6.6
5.6
3.8
4.0
10.5
5.5
3.8
3.6
10.4
4.9
6.0
6.3
2.7
1.1
1.4
6.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
4.4
1.8
1.0
7.0
3.1
0.0
5.4
5.8
4.2
4.9
4.3
8.4
5.7
5.9
0.0
6.4
3.8
2.9
2.8
1.9
6.4
5.1
11.2
0.0
Standby Time
Tank A
hr
14.2
29.6
19.0
38.6
20.3
34.2
17.5
14.6
34.5
15.7
32.1
19.2
17.6
15.7
32.6
17.4
35.6
15.4
NM
13.7
31.7
16.0
14.2
20.2
35.9
12.8
11.2
15.4
33.8
18.6
17.6
18.2
31.4
50.2
19.4
13.4
32.0
50.3
20.2
NM
13.9
29.5
17.5
35.9
17.5
NM
TankB
hr
14.2
29.6
19.0
19.6
20.3
13.8
31.3
14.6
193.9
15.7
32.0
19.2
17.6
15.7
16.9
34.2
18.2
15.4
NM
13.8
18.C
16.C
14.2
20.2
15.7
12.8
O.C
15.4
18.4
18.6
17.6
18.2
31.4
18.G
19.4
13.3
31.9
18.2
20.2
NM
34.7
15.6
17.5
18.4
36.0
NM
TankC
hr
28.2
1.9
34.3
19.6
20.3
13.8
31.3
14.6
19.9
15.7
32.1
19.2
17.6
15.7
16.9
17.4
18.2
33.6
NM
13.8
18.0
34.0
14.2
20.2
15.7
35.8
6.1
15.4
33.8
18.6
17.6
18.2
13.1
31.9
19.4
13.3
18.6
36.9
20.2
NM
13.9
15.6
33.2
18.4
35.9
NM
Actual Run Time
Between BW
Tank A
hr
11.1
9.1
9.5
11.9
9.4
7.5
13.9
8.0
9.7
7.G
11.0
10.2
7.2
10.1
9.5
3.2
18.9
12.2
10.9
8.0
8.4
12.5
9.0
16.2
6.8
10.3
7.2
12.G
8.5
TankB
hr
6.7
6.7
9.4
12.3
9.7
7.1
8.7
10.3
5.3
6.8
9.9
7.3
8.3
7.2
5.2
7.1
9.7
7.3
2.5
7.6
12.6
7.7
8.1
8.4
5.5
5.5
10.4
6.6
9.0
10.6
6.2
1.8
9.4
6.1
7.9
9.2
TankC
hr
12.4
7.4
7.G
13.C
11.2
e.e
7.7
11.2
5.7
6.7
8.7
7.£
6.E
9.1
12.4
6.7
9.1
6.E
8.1
6.C
8.2
10.7
6.1
7.7
5.2
7.£
10.6
7.C
9.E
s.e
6.E
6.E
6.G
8.C
18.4
(a) Operator began tracking the trigger that activated each backwash.
(b) Battelle personnel onsite for system inspection and operator training.
(c) Increased stroke on FeCIs chemical feed pump from 18 to 25. Target iron concentration of 1.5 mg/L.
(d) Minimum and maximum backwash time decreased from 10 to 5 min and 40 to 15 min, respectively. Turbidity threshold increased from 10 to 20 NTU.
(e) Cumulative hours in service for Tank A reset on its own.
(f) Differential pressure backwash trigger was reduced from 24 to 18 psi; stroke on chemical feed pump from 25 to 32 (target iron concentration of 2.0 mg/L).
(g) Hour meter installed at wellhead.
(h) Recycle system shut-off due to level of solids in recycle tank.
(i) Recycle system back on-line after solids were removed from the tank on May 11, 2007.
(j) Iron addition was switched to manual operation; FeCIS pump settings: stroke = 75 and speed = 50.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Felton, DE
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9'l_(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Felton, DE (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Felton, DE (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
(a)AsCaCOS. (b) As P.
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9'l_(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
=C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9/L
H9/L
H9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
12/14/06
IN
323
-
-
23.8
9.0
0.4
8.1
18.5
0.8
216
-
-
-
-
-
30.4
-
-
-
<25
1.5
AC
323
-
-
-
21.7
9.0
1.5
8.3
18.4
0.5
319
0.7
0.8
-
-
-
30.6
-
-
-
-
1,913
8.8
TA
317
-
-
<10
8.6
1.1
8.2
18.4
0.9
382
0.7
0.8
6.5
-
-
-
74
-
0.2
TB
317
<10
8.7
0.7
8.3
18.3
0.7
465
0.8
0.8
5.6
-
27
-
<0.1
TC
325
<10
8.5
0.3
8.3
18.4
0.5
486
0.7
0.8
-
-
-
5.2
<25
<0.1
1 2/20/06
IN
322
-
48.3
8.9
1.0
8.1
18.1
0.9
234
-
-
-
-
-
38.2
-
<25
1.3
AC
322
-
-
-
48.8
9.3
1.1
8.2
18.4
1.1
582
1.3
1.4
-
-
-
37.9
-
-
-
-
1,453
6.2
TA
316
-
-
-
15.1
8.7
0.7
8.1
18.2
1.3
574
1.3
1.4
10.4
-
-
-
-
124
-
0.6
TB
320
-
16.4
8.8
0.7
8.2
18.4
1.0
606
1.4
1.4
10.2
-
-
93
-
0.5
TC
320
14.3
8.5
0.6
8.3
18.4
0.6
617
1.4
1.4
9.9
98
-
0.5
01/03/07
IN
341
1.3
9
<0.05
40.8
9.6
0.5
8.1
17.9
1.0
277
-
40.4
18.0
22.4
36.2
32.2
4.0
29.7
2.5
32
42
1.4
1.8
AC
339
1.2
10
<0.05
39.7
9.3
1.4
8.1
18.1
1.1
305
0.6
0.7
39.6
18.0
21.6
34.9
10.3
24.6
<0.1
10.2
1,590
<25
6.1
<0.1
TT
327
1.4
9
<0.05
11.3
9.3
0.5
8.2
18.2
0.8
503
0.7
0.7
39.1
17.3
21.8
9.9
7.9
2.0
0.1
7.8
82
<25
0.4
0.4
01/10/07
IN
345
349
-
-
45.1
40.3
9.2
9.3
0.8
0.9
8.1
17.9
1.0
240
30.9
31.1
-
-
-
38
33
-
1.3
1.3
AC
328
339
-
41.0
41.9
9.3
9.1
1.8
1.7
8.3
18.3
0.7
293
0.7
0.8
32.3
31.8
-
1,810
1,811
-
6.8
6.7
TA
341
328
<10
<10
9.1
10.0
1.0
1.1
8.3
18.3
1.1
315
0.8
0.8
-
-
8.1
7.4
36
36
-
0.2
0.2
TB
339
328
-
<10
<10
9.1
8.7
0.9
0.9
8.3
18.2
1.1
325
0.8
0.8
-
-
-
7.2
6.7
-
8
7
<0.1
<0.1
TC
331
331
-
-
-
<10
<10
9.0
9.2
0.6
0.7
8.3
18.1
0.7
514
0.7
0.8
-
-
-
8.9
7.8
-
-
-
-
65
68
0.3
0.3
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Felton, DE (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9'l_(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
=C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9/L
H9/L
H9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
(a) As CaCOS. (b) As P.
01/17/07='
IN
315
-
-
28.2
9.4
1.6
8.4
18.1
1.4
222
-
-
-
-
-
27.2
-
-
38
1.0
AC
292
-
-
-
50.3
10.1
3.1
8.2
18.1
1.5
251
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
40.2
-
-
-
-
3,438
13.5
TA
310
-
-
-
<10
9.4
0.8
8.1
17.8
2.6
277
0.5
0.5
5.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
TB
299
-
<10
9.1
0.5
8.2
18.0
1.4
287
0.5
0.5
5.5
-
48
-
<0.1
TC
302
<10
8.6
0.4
8.2
18.0
1.2
527
0.8
0.9
-
-
-
4.8
<25
-
<0.1
01/24/07
IN
276
43.3
9.3
1.4
8.3
18.1
1.2
257
-
-
-
-
-
33.5
-
40
2.0
AC
283
-
-
45.3
9.5
1.9
8.3
18.3
0.7
335
0.6
0.7
-
-
-
34.7
-
-
-
1,567
8.8
TA
280
-
-
-
11.4
9.2
1.8
8.3
18.2
0.9
338
0.9
0.9
7.8
-
-
-
-
115
1.0
TB
274
-
-
12.4
9.1
1.7
8.3
18.2
0.8
582
1.3
1.4
8.3
-
-
-
159
-
1.2
TC
270
13.0
9.3
0.7
8.3
18.3
0.6
617
1.0
1.0
7.9
-
162
-
1.3
01/31/07
IN
325
1.0
10
<0.05
109.5
9.1
0.5
8.2
17.5
1.1
259
40.7
15.5
25.2
39.9
38.1
1.8
38.3
<0.1
53
50
2.9
3.0
AC
318
1.4
9
<0.05
120.1
9.1
1.8
8.2
18.2
0.8
458
0.8
1.0
40.0
15.5
24.5
39.8
9.5
30.3
8.6
0.9
1,930
<25
12.4
1.0
TT
323
1.0
10
<0.05
79.0
8.5
0.4
8.2
17.9
1.1
578
0.8
0.8
38.0
15.2
22.8
13.4
13.0
0.4
10.1
3.0
71
<25
1.6
1.6
02/07/07 (d)
IN
335
-
-
-
38.6
8.8
1.0
8.2
15.4
1.3
226
34.1
-
-
-
-
34
-
1.5
AC
325
-
40.5
9.0
3.8
7.8
15.4
1.0
295
0.6
0.7
34.5
-
-
1,553
-
8.0
TA
327
<10
8.5
0.6
7.8
15.4
0.9
326
0.6
0.6
6.1
48
-
0.2
TB
327
<10
8.4
0.8
7.9
15.5
1.4
334
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
7.0
-
69
0.4
TC
330
-
-
<10
8.7
1.4
7.9
15.5
1.5
352
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
6.7
-
-
-
69
0.3
(c) AP reduced from 24 to 18 psi; stroke increased from 25 to 32. Target iron level was 2.0 mg/L. (d) Water quality parameters taken on 02/08/07.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Felton, DE (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
(a)AsCaCOS. (b) As P.
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9'l_(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
=C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9/L
H9/L
H9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
02/14/07
IN
325
-
-
50.4
9.1
0.7
8.2
17.4
1.1
247
-
-
-
-
-
30.3
-
-
-
43
1.6
AC
315
-
-
-
53.4
9.1
1.7
8.2
17.9
1.3
284
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
30.1
-
-
-
-
1,250
6.8
TA
318
-
-
-
17.1
9.4
1.1
8.3
18.1
0.9
317
0.7
0.7
6.5
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
TB
315
-
19.2
9.4
0.6
8.3
18.2
0.7
372
0.5
0.6
6.9
-
42
-
0.3
TC
315
16.5
9.0
1.6
8.3
18.1
0.8
418
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
6.8
60
-
0.3
02/21/07
IN
332
-
74.3
9.6
0.3
8.2
18.0
1.7
242
-
-
-
-
-
38.6
-
36
1.9
AC
327
-
-
-
86.3
9.2
6.0
7.9
18.1
1.2
282
0.6
0.7
-
-
-
42.0
-
-
-
2,617
16.7
TA
322
-
-
-
47.9
8.8
1.7
7.9
18.1
0.9
298
0.6
0.6
13.9
-
-
-
-
289
1.7
TB
322
-
-
48.1
8.8
0.4
8.1
18.1
0.8
313
0.6
0.6
10.3
-
-
101
-
1.0
TC
310
49.3
9.1
0.6
8.0
18.1
1.0
541
0.8
0.8
12.1
217
-
1.5
02/28/07
IN
330
1.5
9
<0.05
52.8
9.9
0.8
8.2
16.7
1.9
479
-
38.2
16.0
22.2
34.5
30.4
4.1
28.6
1.7
33
29
1.5
1.5
AC
325
1.5
9
<0.05
51.5
9.7
2.1
8.2
18.1
1.5
531
0.6
0.6
38.8
16.2
22.6
33.9
4.3
29.5
0.6
3.7
1,871
<25
10.9
<0.1
TT
322
1.4
9
<0.05
16.1
10.3
3.3
8.2
18.1
1.2
500
0.6
0.7
39.0
16.2
22.8
7.4
5.0
2.4
0.6
4.5
148
<25
0.6
<0.1
03/07/07
IN
337
-
-
-
33.6
9.2
0.8
8.1
17.7
1.1
327
33.5
-
-
-
33
-
1.4
AC
320
-
36.1
8.9
2.0
8.4
17.8
1.0
451
0.3
0.4
33.7
-
1,314
-
7.5
TA
317
<10
8.8
2.7
8.4
17.9
0.9
465
0.4
0.5
7.4
140
-
0.6
TB
324
-
<10
9.2
2.9
8.4
17.8
0.8
497
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
6.3
-
77
0.3
TC
317
-
-
<10
8.3
3.2
8.4
17.8
0.8
547
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Felton, DE (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9'l_(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
174a>
-
-
-
-
1 3,646^
10,937C)
-
59.2(c)
48.8(c)
TA
316
316
-
-
-
19.9
17.6
9.4
9.3
1.1
0.7
8.2
17.8
1.4
492
0.4
0.4
8.8
8.2
-
-
-
76
68
0.5
0.4
TB
316
318
-
-
18.5
17.3
9.2
9.3
0.8
0.7
8.6
18.2
0.7
532
0.4
0.4
9.0
8.9
-
39
34
0.3
0.3
TC
318
316
17.4
17.1
9.1
9.4
0.9
0.3
8.6
17.5
0.8
535
0.4
0.4
7.7
7.7
38
37
0.3
0.3
03/28/07
IN
320
1.5
10
<0.05
64.2
8.5
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
40.6
16.8
23.8
37.1
32.5
4.5
31.0
1.5
<25
<25
2.1
1.8
AC
312
1.5
11
<0.05
63.8
9.0
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
42.6
17.7
24.9
37.7
18.1
19.5
2.2
15.9
788
<25
5.4
0.4
TT
310
1.6
11
<0.05
32.3
8.8
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
40.2
16.4
23.9
12.8
10.3
2.5
1.8
8.5
<25
<25
0.6
0.2
04/04/07
IN
319
-
-
-
52.8
8.8
1.1
8.2
18.3
1.1
302
-
33.5
-
-
<25
1.3
AC
307
-
55.9
8.7
2.3
8.1
18.3
0.8
332
0.6
0.6
33.3
1,952
11.3
TA
310
22.5
8.4
0.5
8.2
18.4
0.6
429
0.5
0.6
8.5
<25
<0.1
TB
307
-
18.9
8.3
0.6
8.2
18.4
0.7
440
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
6.6
-
-
-
32
-
0.4
TC
305
-
-
-
20.0
8.7
1.0
8.2
18.8
0.7
411
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
7.0
-
-
-
-
85
-
0.6
(c) Data was questionable; however, were verified through re-analysis.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Felton, DE (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
(a)AsCaCOS. (b) As P.
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9'l_(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Felton, DE (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
(a) As CaCOS. (b) As P.
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9'l_(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Felton, DE (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
(a)AsCaCOS. (b) As P.
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9'l_(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Felton, DE (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
(a) As CaCOS. (b) As P.
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9'l_(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Felton, DE (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
(a)AsCaCOS. (b) As P.
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9'l_(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Felton, DE (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
(a)AsCaCOS. (b)AsP.
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9'l_(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Felton, DE (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9'l_(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Felton, DE (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
(a) As CaCOS. (b) As P.
10/24/07
IN
306
34.3
9.1
3.2
8.3
19.7
1.1
291
30.4
<25
1.4
AC
304
-
31.5
9.1
3.7
8.4
19.1
1.0
518
0.6
0.7
-
-
27.7
-
1,248
7.7
TA
302
-
<10
8.8
5.1
8.3
19.2
1.1
515
0.7
0.7
-
-
5.1
-
-
<25
<0.1
-
TB
296
<10
8.7
4.5
8.4
19.2
1.4
453
0.7
0.7
5.7
<25
<0.1
-
TC
300
<10
9.0
3.6
8.4
19.2
1.0
563
0.8
0.8
-
-
5.2
<25
0.1
-------
APPENDIX C
BACKWASH LOG SHEETS
-------
Table C-l. Backwash Operation (Vessel A)
Sampling Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Date
1 0/1 3/06
11/30/06
01/03/07
02/07/07
03/07/07
04/05/07
05/09/07
06/05/07
06/14/07
07/11/07
08/08/07
09/05/07
1 0/1 0/07
After Filtration "TA" Backwash
Backwash Start
Time
9:18
11:48
12:28
14:11
13:14
11:59
13:57
13:01
11:44
12:12
13:26
11:51
13:20
GAL
32,311
64,414
86,882
115,268
148,208
195,528
275,107
297,955
305,409
330,885
360,213
387727
419,409
NTU
142.3
127.4
199.4
197.1
165.2
123.4
82.2
104.7
112.8
119.0
74.3
102.6
83.1
Backwash End
Time
9:29
12:58
12:38
14:18
13:21
12:05
14:02
13:06
11:49
12:17
13:31
11:56
13:25
GAL
32,944
65,044
87,520
115,730
148,630
195,874
275,552
298,389
305,847
331,300
360,649
388,094
419,849
NTU
5
4.2
4.9
17.3
16.7
14.7
10.5
9.3
14.2
15.1
10.8
15.1
7.7
Backwash
Flowrate
GPM
61.2
64.3
64.4
64.5
65.6
66.1
86.4
85.7
85.6
86.1
84.8
84.5
84.7
Backwash
Duration
Min
10.5
10.1
10.1
7.2
6.4
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.0
5.2
4.4
5.2
Wastewater
Generated
GAL
633
630
638
462
422
346
445
434
438
415
436
367
440
-------
Table C-l. Backwash Operation (Vessel B)
Sampling Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Date
1 0/1 3/06
11/30/06
01/03/07
02/07/07
03/07/07
04/05/07
05/09/07
06/05/07
06/14/07
07/11/07
08/08/07
09/05/07
10/10/07
After Filtration "TB" Backwash
Backwash Start
Time
9:40
12:30
13:18
14:50
14:02
12:29
13:37
13:20
12:15
12:59
14:00
12:26
13:54
GAL
32,944
65,044
87,520
115,730
148,630
195,874
274,683
298,389
305,847
331,300
360,649
388,094
419,849
NTU
230.2
278.2
394.7
274.2
356.7
321.2
140.1
114.6
87.1
132.1
70.2
129.7
94.8
Backwash End
Time
9:50
3:40
13:33
14:58
14:09
12:37
13:43
13:25
12:20
13:05
14:05
12:32
13:59
GAL
33,508
65,665
88,427
116,199
149,100
196,349
275,107
298,784
306,221
331,720
361,003
388,509
420,235
NTU
9.3
9.2
8
17.8
14.6
14.1
13.8
14.6
14.4
13.6
15.3
12.9
14.6
Backwash
Flowrate
GPM
60.5
63.4
64.8
64.6
66.4
66.4
85.1
83.7
84.1
84.6
83.8
83.4
83.6
Backwash
Duration
Min
10
10
14.6
7.5
7.3
7.4
5.3
4.8
4.7
5.1
4.4
5.1
4.8
Wastewater
Generated
GAL
564
621
907
469
470
475
424
395
374
420
354
415
386
C-2
-------
Table C-l. Backwash Operation (Vessel C)
Sampling Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Date
1 0/1 3/06
11/30/06
01/03/07
02/07/07
03/07/07
04/05/07
05/09/07
06/05/07
06/14/07
07/11/07
08/08/07
09/05/07
1 0/1 0/07
After nitration "TC" Backwash
Backwash Start
Time
10:08
13:18
13:55
15:22
14:40
13:01
13:14
13:45
12:44
13:43
14:32
13:01
14:46
GAL
33,508
65,665
88,427
116,199
149,100
196,349
273,995
298,784
306,221
331,720
361,003
388,509
420,235
NTU
212.2
219.8
286.8
268.3
251.9
230.3
110.5
116.1
95.8
116.3
105.3
72.3
110.1
Backwash End
Time
10:18
13:27
14:04
15:29
14:46
13:08
13:23
13:50
12:50
13:48
14:37
13:05
14:51
GAL
34,079
66,242
89,008
116,624
149,505
196,766
274,683
299,177
306,655
332,139
361,404
388,860
420,676
NTU
3.5
4
5.5
13.1
11.5
11.1
14.9
12.3
7.1
13.8
14.1
12.9
7.8
Backwash
Flowrate
GPM
61.4
64.5
65.4
65.2
66.8
67.1
86.5
85.7
85.8
86.1
84.6
84.5
84.6
Backwash
Duration
Min
10
9.4
9.3
6.6
6.2
6.5
8.4
4.8
5.2
4.9
4.8
4.3
5.3
Wastewater
Generated
GAL
571
577
581
425
405
417
688
393
444
419
401
351
441
C-3
------- |