EPA/600/R-07/083
September 2007
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Vintage on the Ponds in Delavan, WI
Six-Month Evaluation Report
by
H. Tien Shiao
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
Wendy E. Condit
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and sub-
surface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provid-
ing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained from the first six months of the
arsenic removal treatment technology demonstration project at Vintage on the Ponds at Delavan, WI. The
objectives of the project are to evaluate (1) the effectiveness of Kinetico's Macrolite® pressure filtration
process in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |o,g/L, (2)
the reliability of the treatment system; (3) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and
operator skill levels; and (4) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The project also is
characterizing water in the distribution system and process residuals produced by the treatment system.
Source water at Vintage on the Ponds contained 14.3 to 29.0 |o,g/L of total arsenic with As(III) being the
predominating species at an average concentration of 16.7 |o,g/L. The source water also contained 1,165
to 2,478 |o,g/L of total iron present mostly in the soluble form. The ratio of soluble iron to soluble arsenic
concentrations was 78:1, indicating sufficient iron present in the source water for effective arsenic
removal.
A Macrolite® PM2162D6 system was installed to remove arsenic via iron removal from source water.
The system consisted of one 21-in x 62-in contact tank and two 21-in x 62-in pressure vessels, each
containing 5 ft3 of Macrolite® filter media. The treatment process included chlorine addition to oxidize
As(III) to As(V) and Fe(II) to Fe(III), adsorption and/or coprecipitation of As(V) onto/with Fe(III) solids,
and filtration of As(V)-laden iron solids with the Macrolite® media. The design flowrate was 45 gal/min
(gpm) based on the well capacity, which yielded 1.8 min of contact time priorto filtration and 9.4 gpm/ft2
of hydraulic loading to the filters. Because the actual treatment flowrates fluctuated with the water
demand from the distribution system and never exceeded 20 gpm, the minimum contact time and the
maximum hydraulic loading rate would be 4.1 min and 4.2 gpm/ft2, respectively. From July 12, 2005,
through January 17, 2006, the well operated for a total of 446 hr at 2.4 hr/day (on average). The treatment
system processed approximately 1,031,200 gal of water with an average daily demand of 5,485 gal during
this time period.
Due to the presence of approximately 3.0 mg/L (as N) of ammonia in source water, chloramines were
formed upon chlorine addition. The breakpoint chlorination was not performed because of the
unrealistically high chlorine dosage (i.e., up to 23 mg/L [as C12]) that would be required to completely
oxidize ammonia and chloramines formed during chlorination and because ammonia could be easily
removed by the preexisting softener located downstream from the Macrolite® pressure filters, before water
entered the distribution system. For the first several months of operation, little or no chlorine residuals
were detected in the treated water due to repeated operational problems with the chlorine feed system,
including failures of the feed pump and the chlorine injector, pipe leaks due to incompatibility of
plumbing materials with a 12.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution, and difficulties associated with
chlorine residual and chorine dosage measurements. After the working condition of the chlorine feed
system was restored in late October 2005, chlorine dosing rates varied from 2.1 to 4.1 mg/L (as C12),
although <1 mg/L (as C12) of chlorine residuals (i.e., chloramines) were being targeted in order to
minimize adverse impact on the resins in the downstream softener. The erratic chlorine residual data
might have been caused by the on-demand system operation, which had made it difficult to adjust the
dosing rates.
The working condition of the chlorine addition system had direct impacts on the effectiveness of
treatment. Among the six arsenic speciation sampling events that took place, there were two events when
chlorine was not injected properly so that Fe(II) and As(III) were not oxidized or only partially oxidized,
resulting in elevated soluble Fe and As(III) levels after treatment. For the other four events when the
IV
-------
chlorine system was in good working condition, Fe(II) and As(III) were mostly oxidized and total iron
and arsenic were removed to less than 25 and 10 |og/L, respectively, after filtration. During this reporting
period, total arsenic concentrations exceeded the MCL of 10 (ig/L in seven out of the 25 sampling events,
mostly caused by poor chlorine addition.
For the four speciation events meeting the treatment goals, As(III) concentrations after the contact tank
were reduced to 5.0, 5.8, 4.1 and 9.7 |o,g/L, respectively, and averaged 6.2 |o,g/L. This average As(III)
concentration corresponded to a 63% conversion rate based on the average 16.7 |o,g/L of As(III) in raw
water. As(III) concentrations after filtration were 5.8, 5.9, 1.5, and 3.9 |o,g/L, respectively, and averaged
4.3 |o,g/L, suggesting that additional As(III) oxidation (i.e., 11%) might have occurred in the filters. The
conversion of As(III) to As(V) after the contact tank, however, was not as complete as that observed at
many other sites where little or no ammonia was present in raw water, suggesting that presence of
ammonia in the Vintage's raw water might have impacted the effectiveness of As(III) oxidation.
Although monochloramine was reported as an ineffective oxidant for As(III) by other researchers, the
observation at the Vintage suggested that when chlorine was added to the water, a fraction of the chlorine
reacted with As(III) before it was completely quenched by ammonia to form monochloramine.
Similarly, lower total and soluble iron concentrations were observed after the filtration vessels than after
the contact tank (i.e., 29 and <25 (ig/L versus 1,363 and 520 (ig/L [on average]). As expected, elevated
total arsenic concentrations were associated directly with elevated total iron concentrations in the treated
water after both filtration vessels. Total manganese concentrations averaged 19.4 (ig/L in source water,
existing primarily in the soluble form as Mn(II). Manganese remained in the soluble form in the treated
water at levels ranging from 17.0 to 20.2 (ig/L, indicating insignificant oxidation of Mn by the addition of
chlorine.
During the six-month period, the Macrolite® system was backwashed approximately 60 times using
treated water, each generating approximately 720 gal of wastewater. It processed 7,900 to 26,900 gal of
water between two consecutive backwash cycles; thus, the productivity of the filters was 91 to 97%.
Backwash wastewater was sampled three times, including two with grab samples and one with composite
samples. The composition samples were taken from a side stream of the backwash effluent, which,
presumably, was more representative of the overall wastewater quality. The analyses of the composite
samples showed 121 and 46 (ig/L of total arsenic, 13,543 and 4,486 (ig/L of total iron, and 26 and 22
(ig/L of total manganese in the samples collected from Vessels A and B, respectively. The total
suspended solids (TSS) levels in the backwash water were uncharacteristically low at 5 and 12 mg/L,
most likely due to insufficient mixing of solids/water mixtures before sample collection.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after the system operation showed a
decrease in the arsenic, iron, and manganese levels at all three sampling locations. Total arsenic levels in
the distribution system (i.e., from 3.1 to 23.3 (ig/L) although slightly higher, mirrored the total arsenic
levels in the treated water (i.e., from 2.6 to 18.0 (ig/L). Neither lead nor copper concentrations at the
sample sites appeared to have been affected by the operation of the system.
The capital investment cost was $60,500, which included $19,790 for equipment, $20,580 for
engineering, and $20,130 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 45 gal/min (gpm) (64,800
gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $l,344/gpm ($0.93/gpd).
The O&M cost for the system included only incremental cost associated with the chemical supply,
electricity consumption, and labor. The O&M cost was estimated at $0.33/1,000 gal for the first six
months of operation.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
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 7
3.1 General Project Approach 7
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 8
3.3.1 Source Water 11
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 11
3.3.3 Backwash Water 11
3.3.4 Distribution System Water Sample 11
3.3.5 Residual Solids 12
3.4 Sampling Logistics 12
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 12
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 12
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 12
3.5 Analytical Procedures 13
4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 14
4.1 Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure 14
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 14
4.1.2 Distribution System and Treated Quality 18
4.2 Treatment Process Description 18
4.3 System Installation 24
4.3.1 Permitting 24
4.3.2 Building Construction 24
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 24
4.4 System Operation 26
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 26
4.4.2 Chlorine Addition 29
4.4.3 Residual Management 32
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 32
4.5 System Performance 33
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 33
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling 40
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 40
VI
-------
4.6 System Cost 42
4.6.1 Capital Cost 42
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 44
5.0 REFERENCES 46
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA A-l
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA B-l
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 10
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Well No. 1 Pump House 15
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Well Piping and Pressure Tanks 15
Figure 4-3. Preexisting Softener System 16
Figure 4-4. Process Schematic of Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System 19
Figure 4-5. Chlorine Addition System 21
Figure 4-6. Contact Tank 22
Figure 4-7. Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System 22
Figure 4-8. Backwash Flow Paths for both Tanks A and B and a Throughput of 18,000 gal
Between Backwash Cycles 23
Figure 4-9. Photographs of System Components 25
Figure 4-10. Equipment Off-loading 26
Figure 4-11. Close-up View of Insite® PX-50 GPM-12-V-F Flow Meter 26
Figure 4-12. Ap Across Pressure Filtration Vessels A and B and Entire System 28
Figure 4-13. Throughput Between Backwash Cycles 29
Figure 4-14. Total Chlorine Residuals at AC and TT Locations 30
Figure 4-15. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Locations 37
Figure 4-16. Total Arsenic Concentrations at TA, TB, and TT Sampling Location 39
Figure 4-17. Total Iron Concentrations at TA, TB, and TT Sampling Locations 39
Figure 4-18. Total Manganese Concentrations at the TA, TB, and TT Sampling Locations 40
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 8
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses 9
Table 4-1. Vintage on the Ponds, WI Water Quality Data 17
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media 18
Table 4-3. Design Specifications for Macrolite® PM2162D6 Pressure Filtration System 20
Table 4-4. System Operation from July 12, 2005 to January 17, 2006 27
Table 4-5. Summary of Problems Encountered and Corrective Actions Taken for Chorine
Injection System 31
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results With and Without
Sufficient Chlorine Addition 34
Table 4-7. Summary of Analytical Results of Other Water Quality Parameters 35
vn
-------
Table 4-8. Backwash Water Sampling Results 41
Table 4-9. Distribution Sampling Results 43
Table 4-10. Summary of Capital Investment for Vintage on the Ponds Treatment System 44
Table 4-11. O&M Costforthe Vintage on the Ponds Treatment System 45
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
AWWA
bgs below ground surface
BTU-hr British Thermal Units per hour
C/F coagulation/filtration
Ca calcium
Cl chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
DPD N,N diethyl-p-phenylene diamine
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
gpd gal per day
gpm gal per minute
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
hp horsepower
HR high range
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MDH Minnesota Department of Health
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.;
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet
Na sodium
IX
-------
NA not applicable
NaCIO sodium hypochlorite
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagrams
POU point-of-use
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QAPP quality assurance project plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
STS Severn Trent Services
SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
TDH
TDS
TOC
TSS
V
total dynamic head
total dissolved solids
total organic carbon
total suspended solids
vanadium
WDNR
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Ms. Deborah Ismail, Manager of Vintage on the
Ponds in Delavan, WI. Ms. Ismail monitored the treatment system daily during the week and collected
samples from the treatment and distribution systems on a regular schedule throughout this reporting
period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without her efforts.
XI
-------
1.0: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) mandates that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to be the host sites for the demonstration
studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site. As of May 2007, 11 of the 12 systems
were operational and the performance evaluation of eight systems was completed.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the community water system at Vintage on the Ponds in Delavan, WI was one of those selected.
In September 2003, EPA, again, solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28. Kinetico's Macrolite® Arsenic Removal Technology was selected for
demonstration at the Vintage on the Ponds facility in September 2004.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13 coagula-
tion/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, and 17 point-of-use (POU) units (including
nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and eight AM units
at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors,
system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, Fe, and pH) at the 40
demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 Round 1
demonstration sites and the associated capital costs is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004;
Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA website at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 40 full-scale arsenic treatment
technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific
objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small
systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill
levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the Kinetico system at Vintage on the Ponds in Delavan, WI
during the first six months from July 12, 2005 through January 17, 2006. The types of data collected
included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system),
residuals, and capital and preliminary O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NY(d)
Newark, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (ARM 200)
AM (E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70TO
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250ce)
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,806(c)
1,312W
1,6 15W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM (E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14w
13W
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
m(c>
466(c)
1,387W
l,499(c)
7827W
546W
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
1,344W
1,325W
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90TO
50
37
35W
19W
56W
45
23W
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
toe/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/
ARM200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM
(ARM 200)(g)
IX (Arsenex II)
AM(GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (fflX)
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; C/F = coagulation/filtration; EHX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange; 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) Replaced 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 Arnaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the first six months of system operation, the following
conclusions were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• The Macrolite® filtration system effectively removed arsenic to less than 10 (ig/L
provided that the chlorine addition system was in good working condition. Improper
chlorine addition could result in over 80% of total arsenic, primarily As(III), passing
through the pressure filters, thus causing the effluent arsenic levels to exceed the
MCL.
• The presence of 3 mg/L of ammonia (as N) in source water presented a challenge in
determining an effective chlorine dosage for As(III) oxidation. An average of 74%
As(III) was oxidized, including 63% occurring in the contact tank and an additional
11% in the filters. This level of As(III) oxidation was better than anticipated,
considering the relatively low chlorine dosage applied (i.e., 2.1 to 4.1 mg/L as C12) in
order to protect the cation exchange resin in the downstream softener. The observed
As(III) oxidation might have resulted from As(III) reacting with a fraction of the
chlorine added and with the monochloramine formed in situ.
• Arsenic speciation is a valuable tool to assess the effectiveness of As(III) oxidation.
• The performance of the Macrolite® system was not evaluated at the design loading
rate of 9.4 gpm/ft2 because the treatment flowrate varied with water demand, which
was significantly lower than the well pump flowrate. The maximum hydraulic
loading rate achieved during the study was 4.2 gpm/ft2, which was 45% of the design
value.
Required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• Operational issues associated with the chlorine addition system included failures of the
feed pump and the chlorine injector, pipe leaks due to incompatibility of plumbing
materials with the 12.5% NaOCl solution, and erratic and inconsistent chlorine
residual measurements.
• The filtration system had no unscheduled downtime, however, it was operated
without any chlorine addition for 63 days, about one third of the study period.
• The typical daily demand on the operator to maintain the system was about 5 min.
However, the chlorine feed system had to be constantly monitored and adjusted to
ensure proper working conditions. Additional time was required to troubleshoot and
maintain the chemical feed system.
• Operating the chlorine feed system required skills to handle NaOCl solutions,
chemical feed pump, and chlorine residual measurements, and may be challenging to
person/persons with no prior experience.
-------
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• Bachwashing of the Macrolite® system occurred once every two to three days,
generating 720 gal of wastewater each time. The system processed 7,900 to 26,900
gal of water between two consecutive backwash cycles, corresponding to a
productivity of 91 to 97%.
Cost of the technology:
• The unit capital cost is $0.24/1,000 gal if the system operates at 100% utilization rate. The
system's real unit cost is $2.77/1,000 gal, based on 2.4 hr/day of system operation and
1,031,000 gal of water production for six months of system. The O&M cost is $0.33/1,000
gal, based on labor, chemical usage, and electricity consumption.
-------
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 Macrolite® treatment system began on July 12, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of
data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system
performance was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the target MCL of
10 |og/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the system
was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and
replacement. The unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a
Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data
and qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system
automation, extent of preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling
and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and
safety practices. The staffing requirements for system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
water produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water was sampled and analyzed for chemical
characteristics.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (gpm) (or gal/day [gpd]) of
design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital
cost for equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electricity usage, and labor.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received
Purchase Order Established
Letter of Understanding Issued
Letter Report Issued
Engineering Package Submitted WDNR
Permit Issued by WDNR
Study Plan Issued
Macrolite® Unit Shipped by Kinetico
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
09/20/04
02/22/05
03/03/05
03/30/05
02/16/05
05/24/05
04/25/05
06/10/05
06/21/05
06/17/05
07/01/05
07/12/05
07/12/05
WDNR = Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objective
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
Cost-Effectiveness
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10-|j,g/L arsenic MCL in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems,
materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventive maintenance including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis, with the exception of Saturdays and
Sundays, the plant operator recorded system operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and
hour meter readings on a Daily System Operation Log Sheet; checked the sodium hypochlorite (NaCIO)
level; and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred,
the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted
for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information, including the problem
encountered, course of action taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred,
on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly basis, the plant operator measured several water
quality parameters on-site, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded the data on an On-Site Water Quality Parameters
Log Sheet. Monthly backwash data also were recorded on a Backwash Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and
labor. Consumption of NaCIO was tracked on the Daily System Operation Log Sheet. Electricity
consumption was determined from utility bills. Labor for various activities, such as routine system
O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, was tracked using an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as completing field logs, replenishing
the NaOCl solution, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the
vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as performing field
measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the
vendor, was recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the treatment system,
during Macrolite® filter backwash, and from the distribution system. The sampling schedules and
analytes measured during each sampling event are listed in Table 3-3. In addition, Figure 3-1 presents a
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Backwash
Water
Distribution
Water
Residual
Solids
Sample
Locations'3*
At Wellhead (IN)
At Wellhead (IN),
After Contact Tank
(AC),
After Tank A (TA),
After Tank B (TB)
At Wellhead (IN),
After Contact Tank
(AC), and
After Tanks A and B
Combined (TT)
At Backwash
Discharge Line
Two LCR and One
non-LCR Locations
Backwash
Solids from Each
Tank
No. of
Samples
1
4
3
2
3
2
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Twice
Analytes
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off-site: As(III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NH3,
NO3, NO2, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity, TDS,
and TOC
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (total
andfree)^
Off-site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), SiO2,
PO4/P (total), turbidity, and
alkalinity
Same as weekly analytes
shown above plus the
following:
Off-site: As (soluble),
As(III), As(V), Fe
(soluble), Mn (soluble), Ca,
Mg, F, NH3, NO3, SO4, and
TOC
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
pH, TDS, TSS, and
turbidity
As (total), Fe (total), Mn
(total), Cu, Pb, pH,
alkalinity
Total As, Fe, Mn, Mg, Al,
Si, P, Ca, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd,
andPd
Date(s) Samples
Collected
09/20/04
07/19/05, 07/26/05,
08/02/05, 08/16/05,
08/23/05, 08/30/05,
09/06/05, 09/13/05,
09/20/05, 10/04/05,
10/11/05, 10/18/05,
11/01/05, 11/08/05,
11/15/05, 12/06/05,
12/13/05, 01/10/06,
01/17/06
07/12/05, 08/09/05,
09/27/05, 10/25/05,
11/29/05,01/30/06
09/20/05, 10/11/05,
11/29/05,01/10/06
Baseline Sampling(c)
03/23/05, 04/20/05,
05/31/05,06/21/05
Monthly Sampling:
07/27/05, 08/30/05
09/28/05, 10/18/05,
11/29/05, 12/13/05,
01/17/06
07/13/06
(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations in Figure 3-1.
(b) Measured at AC, TA, TB, and TT locations only.
(c) Four baseline sampling events performed before system became operational.
-------
INFLUENT
(WELL 1)
Delavan, WI
Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: 45 gpm
pH'"', temperature'"', DO'"', ORP'"',
As speciation, Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NH3, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
PO4/PO (total),
turbidity, alkalinity, TOC
pH'"', temperature'"', DO'"', ORP'"',
C12 (free and total), As speciation,
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F,
NH3, N03, S04, Si02,
PO4/PO (total), turbidity,
alkalinity, TOC
FOUR PRESSURE
TANKS
-pH'"', temperature'"', DO'"', ORP'"',
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2,
PO4/P (total), turbidity, alkalinity
pH, TSS, TDS,
turbidity,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble)
SS J >• TCLP (metals)
^^
s^
[BW
pH'", temperature'"', DO'"', ORP'"',
C12 (free and total), As speciation,
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca,
Mg, F, NH3, N03, S04, Si02,
PO4/PO (total), turbidity,
alkalinity, TOC
pH'"', temperature'"', DO1", ORP'"',
C12 (free and total)'"',
"As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2,
PO4/P (total), turbidity, alkalinity
pH'"', temperature'"', DO'"', ORP'"',
C12 (free and total)'"',
"As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2,
PO4/P (total), turbidity, alkalinity
SOFTENERS
Footnote
(a) On-site analyses
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
LEGEND
At Wellhead
AC } After Contact Tank
After Tank A
TB ) After Tank B
X
TT 1 After Tanks A and B Combined
K
BW ) Backwash Sampling Location
^—'
'"N
SS ) Sludge Sampling Location
Chlorine Disinfection
Process Flow
Backwash Flow
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
10
-------
flow diagram of the treatment system along with the analytes and schedules at each sampling location.
Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and
holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
(Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial visit to the site, one set of source water samples was
collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit. Additional samples were collected after the
softener to assess the working condition of the softener. Each sample tap was flushed for several minutes
before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted oxidation.
Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, the plant
operator collected samples weekly, on a four-week cycle, for on- and off-site analyses. For the first week
of each four-week cycle, samples taken at the wellhead (IN), after the contact tank (AC), and after Tanks
A and B combined (TT), were speciated on-site and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for
monthly treatment plant water. For the next three weeks, samples were collected at IN, AC, after Tank A
(TA), and after Tank B (TB) and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for the weekly treatment
plant water.
3.3.3 Backwash Water. Backwash water samples were collected monthly from each pressure
filter by the plant operator. Backwash water samples were not taken in July, August, and December
2005, due to the lack of a backwash sample tap and the Christmas holidays, respectively. The backwash
water samples taken on November 29, 2005, would not be representative of the actual backwash water
quality because the pressure filters had just been backwashed three times in a row due to an operational
error (see Section 4.5.2) and, therefore, not included in this report.
For the September and October 2005 sampling events, one grab sample was collected during the
backwash of each pressure filter from the sample tap located on the backwash water discharge line, but
before the backwash totalizer. Unfiltered samples were measured on-site for pH and off-site for total
dissolved solids (TDS) and turbidity. Filtered samples using 0.45-(im disc filters were analyzed for
soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese. Starting in November 2005, the backwash water sampling
procedure was modified to include the collection of composite samples for total suspended solids (TSS)
and total arsenic, iron, and manganese analyses. Tubing, connected to the tap on the discharge line,
directed a portion of backwash water at approximately 1 gpm into a clean, 32-gal container over the
duration of backwash for each filter. After the content in the container was thoroughly mixed, composite
samples were collected and/or filtered on-site with 0.45-(im filters. Analytes for the backwash samples
are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system by the
plant operator to determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the
distribution system, specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to system startup from March
to June 2005, four sets of monthly baseline water samples were collected from three sampling locations
within the distribution system. The three sampling locations selected initially included one tap each in the
dining room, the shower room in A Wing, and the large suite in B Wing, which were among the five Lead
and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling locatioins at Vintage on the Ponds. However, due to water usage at
night from the tap in the dining room, this sampling location was replaced with a tap in the second floor
guest room (which is a non-LCR location) starting from the second baseline sampling event. Following
system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations.
Note that all sampling locations were located downstream from two water softeners both before and after
the startup of the Macrolite® pressure filters.
11
-------
The operator collected samples following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and
Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The dates and times
of last water usage before sampling and sample collection were recorded for calculations of the stagnation
time. All first draw samples were collected from respective cold-water faucets that had not been used for
at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. Analytes for the baseline samples coincided with
the monthly distribution system water samples as described in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not
performed for the distribution water samples.
3.3.5 Residual Solids. Residual solids produced by the treatment process included backwash
solids, which were collected during the second half of this demonstration. The sampling procedure and
analytical results will be provided in the Final Performance Evaluation Report.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, colored-coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample
collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The
sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code
for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The
labeled bottles for each sampling locations were placed in separate Ziplock™ bags and packed in the
cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included. The chain-of-
custody forms and air bills were complete except for the operator's signature and the sample dates and
times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following week's sam-
pling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-
MS) Laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up
by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and TCCI Laboratories in
New Lexington, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration study. The
chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final
disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the
required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
12
-------
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy,
method detection limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative
percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The quality
assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary
Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
VWR Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use
following the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy
by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator
collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Symphony SP90M5 probe in the beaker
until a stable value was obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements
using Hach chlorine test kits following the user's manual.
13
-------
4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Facility Description and Preexisting Treatment System Infrastructure
Vintage on the Ponds is a nursing home facility located at N4901 Dam Road, Delavan, WI. Well No. 1
(see Figure 4-1 for the existing pump house) supplies water to approximately 52 residents. Based on the
water usage data recorded from November 12, 2003, through February 21, 2005, the average daily
demand was approximately 6,400 gpd and the peak daily demand was 23,500 gpd.
Well No. 1 was completed on October 15, 1995 with a depth of 350 ft below ground surface (bgs) in a
limestone formation. It had a 10-in-diameter borehole lined with a 6-in-diameter casing extending from
the ground surface to 244 ft bgs and a 6-in-diameter unlined borehole extending from 244 to 350 ft bgs.
The static water level was measured at approximately 45 ft bgs based on the water level readings taken at
the time of well installation in 1995. Installed on a 105-ft drop pipe, a 5-horsepower (hp) submersible
pump supplied water at 41.5 gpm against a 115.4-ft (or 50-psi) total dynamic head (TDH). To meet the
daily demand, the well pump was operated intermittently based on the high and low pressure settings in a
set of four pressure tanks, with the well pump on at 40 pounds per square inch (psi) and off at 60 psi.
Figure 4-2 shows the piping from the wellhead to the four pressure tanks located within the basement of
the nursing home.
Water from the pressure tanks was treated with a 29TMDM-300 softener system consisting of two 24-in
x 72-in softener tanks each containing 10 ft3 of lonac C-249 cation exchange resin manufactured by
Sybron Chemicals (see Figure 4-3). The system was designed to treat a continuous flowrate of 68 gpm
and a peak flowrate of 91 gpm. The two softener tanks operated alternately, i.e., one tank was in service
while the other was on standby. Each softener tank was regenerated after treating about 6,000 gal of
water (approximately daily), which was tracked by a 2-in mechanical meter located upstream of the
softener unit. When the meter called for regeneration, the tank in service went into regeneration, and the
tank on standby came online. When the regeneration process was complete, the tank went into standby
until another 6,000 gal of water had been treated. Prior to this demonstration project, there was no
chlorination at the wellhead.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on September 20, 2004, before
and after the softener, as discussed in Section 3.3.1. The results of source water analyses, along with
those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those independently
collected and analyzed by EPA, WDNR, and the vendor are presented in Table 4-1.
As shown in Table 4-1, total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 16.0 to 25.0 (ig/L.
Approximately 95% of the total arsenic, or 19.1 (ig/L, existed as As(III). The presence of As(III) as the
predominating arsenic species was consistent with the low DO and ORP readings, which were measured
at 1.2 and -123 mV, respectively. Iron concentrations in source water ranged from 1,499 to 2,300 (ig/L
with almost all existing as soluble iron based on September 20, 2004 results. A rule of thumb is that the
soluble iron concentration should be at least 20 times the soluble arsenic concentration for effective
removal of arsenic onto iron solids (Sorg, 2002). The results from the September 20, 2004, sampling
event indicated that the soluble iron level was approximately 68 times the soluble arsenic level.
Therefore, no supplemental iron addition was planned. The manganese levels ranged from 19.0 to 20.2
(ig/L, existing almost entirely in the soluble form. pH values of source water ranged from 7.3 to 7.7,
which were within the target range of 5.5 to 8.5 for the iron removal process. Hardness ranged from 291
to 346 mg/L, silica from 14.2 to 14.6 mg/L, and sulfate from <1 mg/L to 10 mg/L.
14
-------
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Well No. 1 Pump House
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Well Piping and Pressure Tanks
15
-------
Figure 4-3. Preexisting Softener System
Ammonia was measured at 2.8 mg/L (as N) in raw water and was reduced to 0.4 mg/L in the softened
water. Since the treatment system was to be placed upstream of the softeners, the presence of the elevated
level of ammonia in raw water had a significant impact on chlorination. When chlorine is added to raw
water, it oxidizies Fe(II), As(III), and other reducing agents and then reacts with ammonia to form
chloramines according to the following equations:
HOC1 + NH3 -> NH2C1 (monochloramine) + H2O
HOC1 + NH2C1 -»• NHC12 (dichloramine) + H20
HOC1 + NHC12 -»NC13 (trichloramine) + H2O
The formation of chloramines depends upon water pH, ammonia concentration, and temperature (Clark et
al., 1977). In the pH range of 4.5 to 8.5, both mono and dichloramine are formed as combined chlorine.
Based on stoichiometric calculations, 1 mg/L of NH3 (as N) will react with 5 mg/L of HOC1 (as C12) to
form 5 mg/L of NH2C1 (as C12). As such, 14 mg/L of HOC1 (as C12) would be required to oxidize 2.8
mg/L of NH3 (as N) to form chloramines. Chlorine added beyond this point will further oxidize
chloramines to form oxidized nitrogen compounds, such as nitrous oxide, nitrogen, and nitrogen
trichloride. Upon complete oxidation of all chloramines, a "breakpoint" is reached and any additional
chlorine added will be present as free chlorine. For Vintage on the Ponds, the "breakpoint" chlorination
is not necessary because (1) ammonia can be effectively removed by the existing softeners before
entering the distribution system, and ( 2) the "breakpoint" chlorination would require a high chlorine
dosage up to 23 mg/L, which will incur a high chemical cost. Another consideration was the adverse
effect of the chlorine residuals on the cationic exchange resin in the downstream softeners. According to
the manufacturer, the resin would significantly shorten its life if it is exposed to over 1 mg/L of chlorine
16
-------
Table 4-1. Vintage on the Ponds, WI Water Quality Data
Parameter
Unit
Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as P)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (soluble)
Mg (total)
Radium-226
Radium-228
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
W?/L
HB/L
^g/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
^g/L
HB/L
W?/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
Utility
Source
Water
Data(a)
Not
specified
7.6
NS
NS
NS
188
291
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
15
NS
10
NS
NS
25.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
1,500
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
10
NS
NS
NS
NS
Kinetico
Source
Water
Data
10/29/03
7.3
NS
NS
NS
344
312
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
1.9
0.20
<4.0
14.2
<0.5
19.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
1,600
NS
20.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
11.0
62.5
36.0
NS
NS
Battelle
Source
Water
Data
09/20/04
7.5
12.7
1.2
-123
384
346
20.0
330
1.8
O.04
<0.01
2.8
<1.0
0.27
<1.0
14.3
<0.06
20.1
20.5
<0.1
19.1
1.4
1,499
1,400
20.2
18.3
0.1
O.I
0.3
0.1
12.4
71.4
40.7
NS
NS
Battelle
Softened
Water
Data
09/20/04
NS
NS
NS
NS
371
4.1
0.5
358
1.8
O.04
O.01
0.4
<1.0
0.33
<1.0
14.6
O.06
19.1
18.7
0.4
17.7
1.0
<25
<25
0.3
O.I
0.1
O.I
0.4
0.1
181
0.4
0.08
NS
NS
WDNR
Source
Water
Data(b)
08/08/00-
02/23/05
7.7
NS
NS
NS
320
336-340
NS
NS
NS
O.04
O.01
NS
<1.0
0.26-0.31
NS
NS
NS
16.0-23.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
2,300
NS
19.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
12.0-160
72.0
38.0
0.6
0.9
NS = not sampled
(a) Provided to EPA
(b) Both compliance
for site selection
and source water samples collected before the softener
residuals (mostly chloramines in this case). Therefore, the chlorine dosage must be carefully controlled to
ensure effective oxidation of Fe(II) and As(III) without overdosing chlorine.
17
-------
4.1.2 Distribution System and Treated Water Quality. The distribution system is supplied by Well
No. 1 only. According to a certified utility operator, the distribution system consists primarily of copper
piping ranging from !/> to 2-in in size. Under the LCR, samples are collected from five customer taps
every year. Vintage on the Ponds also collects water samples periodically for nitrates and monthly for
bacterial analysis.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The treatment train for the Vintage on the Ponds system included prechlorination/oxidation, detention,
and Macrolite® pressure filtration. Macrolite® is a spherical, low-density, ceramic media manufactured
by Kinetico for high-flow filtration up to 10 gpm/ft2. The media is approved for use in drinking water
applications under NSF International Standard 61. The physical properties of the media are summarized
in Table 4-2. The vendor considers Macrolite® chemically inert and compatible with chemicals such as
oxidants and ferric chloride.
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media
Property
Color
Thermal Stability (°C)
Sphere Mesh Size
Sphere Size Range (mm)
Sphere Size Range (in)
Uniformity Coefficient
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Particle Density (g/cm3)
Particle Density (lb/ft3)
Value
Taupe, brown to grey
1,100
40 x60
0.35-0.25
0.0165-0.0098
1.2
0.86
54
2.05
129
Source: Kinetico
Figure 4-4 is a schematic of the Macrolite® PM2162D6 pressure filtration system. The pressure filtration
system consisted of four preexisting pressure tanks, one chemical feed system for prechlorination, one
contact tank, two pressure filtration vessels in parallel, two preexisting softener units, and associated
instrumentation for pressure and flowrate.
Because the filtration system was placed after the four pressure tanks, it operated at variable flowrates
based on instantaneous demand from the distribution system. Backwash of the Macrolite® system was
triggered by a throughput of 18,000 gal through each vessel. All plumbing for the system was Schedule
80 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and the skid-mounted unit was pre-plumbed with the necessary isolation
valves, check valves, sampling ports, and other features. Table 4-3 summarizes the design features of the
system. The major process steps and system components are presented as follows:
• Intake - Raw water was pumped from Well No. 1 at approximately 45 gpm into a series of
four 120-gal Well-X-Trol pressure tanks (Model No. WX-350), which controlled the well
pump on/off with pressure settings at 40/60 psi and served as temporary water storage. Each
pressure tank was individually connected to a 2-in copper header pipe. Upon a call from the
distribution system, the pressure tanks supplied raw water to the Macrolite® filtration system
and the downstream softener After the pressure tanks were gradually emptied and the tank
pressure was reduced to 40 psi, the well pump was turned on to refill the tanks and supply the
water demand. The well pump was turned off as the tank pressure reached the high pressure
setting of 60 psi.
18
-------
Well
Existing
Pressure Tanks
WV V
Macrollte 2162 Arsenic Removal System
Chemeal
fvtetering
Pump
f \ f ' "V | initiating
uontaci
Vessel
Filtered Water to
Softening
Figure 4-4. Process Schematic of Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System
Prechlorination/Oxidation - NaCIO was injected into a 2-in PVC "tee" to oxidize As(III)
and Fe(II) before entering the contact tank. The chemical feed system consisted of a 15-gal
polyethylene day tank with secondary containment and a Pulsatron Plus Series E Model
LPA2 flow-paced metering pump with a maximum capacity of 6 gpd (or 0.9 L/hr). The
metering pump can adjust its speed automatically based on the pulse signals received from a
Multi-jet Cold Water flow meter located between the contact tank and the filtration vessels.
A 5.25% NaCIO solution was originally used from the system startup on July 12 but was
switched to a 12.5% NaCIO solution on October 26, 2005 to increase the chlorine dosage.
The operation of the NaCIO feed system was monitored daily by measuring chlorine residuals
and the chlorine consumption in the day tank. Figure 4-5 is a composite of photographs of
the chlorine feed system and its components.
The target chlorine residual after the pressure filters was 1 mg/L of total chlorine (as C12) to
minimize any adverse impacts on the resin in the softeners. According to WDNRS's permit
approval letter dated June 10, 2005, the chlorine residual through the softening system was
limited to 1 mg/L of free chlorine (as C12). However, free chlorine was not expected to be
present due to the high ammonia level in source water. Upon further consultation with the
resin manufacturer, combined chlorine also would have, perhaps to a lesser extent, adverse
impacts on the resin.
Detention - One 21-in x 62-in fiberglass reinforced plastic (FPvP) tank (see Figure 4-6) was
designed to provide approximately 2 min of contact time at the peak flowrate of 45 gpm. The
actual contact time varied based on the instantaneous water demand from the distribution
system. The on-demand flowrates observed were much lower than the peak flowrate during
the first six months of system operation. The detention was designed to aid in the formation
of iron floes prior to filtration.
19
-------
Table 4-3. Design Specifications for Macrolite* PM2162D6 Pressure Filtration System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
Target Prechlorinaton Dosage (mg/L as
C12)
3.0
1 mg/L of chlorine demand estimated for As(III),
Fe(II), and Mn(II); actual demand could be
higher due to presence of total organic carbon
(TOC). Total chlorine residuals of 1.0 mg/L (as
C12) targeted after pressure filters to protect
cationic ion exchange resin in softeners
Detention
Tank Quantity
Tank Size (in)
Tank Volume (gal)
Contact Time (min)
1
21 D x62H
82.4
1.8
—
—
—
Based on design flowrate of 45 gpm and contact
tank volume of 82.4 gal; actual contact time
based on instantaneous on-demand flowrates
Filtration
Vessel Quantity
Vessel Size (in)
Vessel Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/vessel)
Media Volume (ftVvessel)
Peak Flowrate (gpm/ft2)
Filtration Rate (gpm/ft2)
Ap across vessel (psi)
Maximum Daily Production (gpd)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
2
21 D x62H
2.4
4.8
45
9.4
15
64,800
36
Parallel configuration
—
—
24-in bed depth of 40/60 mesh Macrolite® in
each vessel
Actual flowrate based on instantaneous on-
demand flowrates from distribution system
Based on 22.5-gpm flowrate through each
filtration vessel; actual filtration rates based on
instantaneous on-demand flowrates
Across a clean bed
Based on peak flowrate of 45 gpm operating at
24 hr/day
Estimated based on peak daily demand of 23,500
gal
Backwash
Frequency (gal/vessel)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Duration (min)
Service-to-Waste Duration (min)
Wastewater Production from Backwash
(gal/vessel)
Wastewater Production from Service-
to-waste (gal/vessel)
18,000
10
12
4
300
60
Throughput between two consecutive backwash
cycles
Based on 25 gpm backwash flowrate through
each filtration vessel
-
15 gpm flowrate
—
—
Pressure Filtration - The Macrolite® filtration system involved downflow filtration through
two pressure filters arranged in parallel (see Figure 4-7). Mounted on a polyurethane-coated
steel frame, the filtration system consisted of two 21-in x 62-in FRP pressure vessels, each
equipped with an upper 0.5-in slotted plastic diffuser, a lower 0.01-in slotted polyethylene
hub and lateral, and 6-in top and bottom flanges. Each vessel was filled with approximately
24 in (4.8 ft3) of 40/60 mesh Macrolite® media, supported by 6-in of 30/40 mesh garnet
underbedding. The standard operation had both tanks on-line with each vessel treating a
20
-------
Figure 4-5. Chlorine Addition System
(Clockwise from top: Chlorine Injection Point; Chemical Day Tank and Secondary
Containment; Flow-paced Chemical Metering Pump; Chlorine Addition System)
maximum of 22.5 gpm for a hydraulic loading rate of 9.4 gpm/ft2. However, because the
system was operated "on-demand", the actual flowrate through the system varied based on
water demand.
• Backwash Operations - Backwash was a fully automated process pre-set on the backwash
timer assembly for a throughput of 18,000 gal (through each vessel) determined by a flow
totalizer installed on the treated water line (see Figure 4-7). The spent filtration vessel was
backwashed with water from the contact tank and the resulting wastewater was sent to a
septic system. The backwash duration for each vessel was 16 min from start to finish,
including 12 min of backwash at 25 gpm and 4 min of service-to-waste rinse at 15 gpm,
producing approximately 360 gal of wastewater per vessel. Figure 4-8 depicts the backwash
flow paths for both Tanks A and B, which were backwashed on an alternating basis, i.e., one
vessel was backwashed while the other continued to provide treated water to the distribution
system. The backwash cycles were repeated as shown in Steps 4 through 6 during system
operation. Therefore, the filtration vessels, if viewed as one unit, always had a filtration
capacity between 25% (immediately after backwash of one tank at Step 4) and 75%
(immediately before backwash of the other tank at Step 5).
21
-------
Figure 4-6. Contact Tank
Figure 4-7. Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System
(Clockwise from Left: Pressure Filters; Backwash Timer Assembly,
Totalizer on Treated Waterline)
22
-------
Tank A
Throughput
Gal
0
9,000
0
9,000
9,000
18,000
0
9,000
TankB
Throughput
gal
0
9,000
9,000
18,000
0
9,000
9,000
18,000
System startup with automatic
backwash geared to backwash after
18,000 gal of throughput, based on
totalizer on treated water line
Step 1. Backwash of Tank A required
after 18,000 gal of combined
throughput from both Tanks A and B
Step 2. TankAbackwashedwith360
gal of water from contact tank
Step 3. Backwash of Tank B required
after 18,000 gal of combined
throughput from both Tanks A and B
Step 4. Tank B backwashed with 360
gal of water from contact tank
Step 5. Backwash of Tank A required
after 18,000 gal of combined
throughput from both Tanks A and B
Step 6. Tank A backwashed with 3 60
gal of source water
Servk^ackwash cycles continued as
depicted above
Key:
Throughput through Tanks A and B before Tank A Was Backwashed
Throughput through Tanks A and B before Tank B Was Backwashed
Clean Bed
Figure 4-8. Backwash Flow Paths for Both Tanks A and B and a
Throughput of 18,000 gal Between Backwash Cycles
Softening - Downstream from the pressure filters, the treated water was routed to an Addie
Model No. 29TDM-300 water softening system composed of two 24-in-diameter by 48-in-
tall softener vessels and one 1,200-lb salt capacity brine tank (Figure 4-3). The water
softening system operated with one vessel while the other vessel was in standby mode.
Section 4.1 provides additional details of the softening process.
23
-------
4.3 System Installation
This section summarizes system/building installation activities, including permitting, building
preparation, and system offloading, installation, shake down, and start up.
4.3.1 Permitting. The engineering plans, prepared by Kinetico, included diagrams and
specifications for the Macrolite® PM2162D6 arsenic removal system, as well as drawings detailing the
connections to the preexisting facility infrastructure. The engineering plans were certified by a
Professional Engineer registered in the State of Ohio and submitted to WDNR on April 25, 2005.
WDNR's preliminary review comments, received on April 29, 2005, requested a summary table of all
design parameters and a chemical feeder submittal checklist. In addition, WDNR requested the facility to
provide the design information for the existing softener system and a reporting schedule for the analytical
and operational data collected during the one year demonstration project. After incorporating responses
to comments, the engineering plans were resubmitted to WDNR on May 24, 2005. WDNR granted the
system permit on June 10, 2005 with, among others, two approval conditions related to system
installation:
• The discharge piping for the spent brine from the softeners and the backwash water from the
Macrolite® filters should have a "2D" (two times the diameter of the discharge piping) air
gap. A vacuum beaker tee was actually installed instead of the "2D" air gap, which also
prevents a sewer backup from entering the water system (Figure 4-9).
• The 15-gal NaCIO chemical day tank should be graduated using a maximum of 0.5 gal
increments (Figure 4-9).
In addition, WDNR requested verbally during its startup inspection site visit that the NaCIO feed pump be
remounted above the solution level to avoid any siphoning of the chemical (Figure 4-9).
On August 29, 2005, WDNR granted approval to the relocation of the NaCIO injection point and the
contact flow meter from before to after the four pressure tanks. The request was made because prolonged
contact with over 1 mg/L (as C12) of total chlorine potentially could damage the butyl rubber in the
pressure tanks. Further, WDNR granted approval on October 21, 2005 to the use of a 12.5% NaCIO
solution to replace the previously approved 5.25% solution in order to meet the higher chlorine demand
due to the presence of about 3.0 mg/L (as N) of NH3 in raw water.
4.3.2 Building Construction. The existing basement had an adequate footprint to house the
arsenic removal system and did not require any modifications before system installation.
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The Macrolite® system was installed by a
vendor subcontractor, LTM Water Treatment, beginning on June 17, 2005. The installation activities,
which lasted about two weeks, included offloading the Macrolite® PM2162D6 arsenic removal system
(Figure 4-10), connecting system piping at the tie-in points (including the tie-ins from the discharge
piping with the required vacuum breaker tee), completing electrical wiring and connections, and
assembling the chlorine addition system. System installation was completed by July 1, 2005.
Upon completion of system installation, the pressure filtration vessels were tested hydraulically before
media loading; the Macrolite® filtration media was backwashed thoroughly to remove media fines; the
contact and filtration tanks were disinfected according to the applicable American Water Works
Association (AWWA) procedures; and the chemical feed pump was fine tuned for a target total chlorine
residual of 0.5 mg/L (as C12) after the filtration vessels. A water sample was collected for bacteria
24
-------
Figure 4-9. Photographs of System Components
(Clockwise from Top: Vacuum Breaker Tee; Chlorine Day Tank with Required Graduation;
Pump Relocated from below to above Chlorine Tank Level; Chlorine Injection before Pressure Tanks;
Chlorine Injection Point Relocated to after Pressure Tanks; Flow Meter on Treated Water Line)
analysis on July 5, 2006, and the system was bypassed until the result for the bacteria analysis was
received on July 7, 2006, and faxed to WDNRthe same day.
Battelle arrived at the site on July 12, 2005, to perform system inspections and conduct operator training
for system sampling and data collection. Upon completion of the operator training, a set of samples was
collected across the treatment train by the operator with the assistance of Battelle's Study Lead on July
12, 2005. Meanwhile, the operator and Battelle's Study Lead performed arsenic speciation and onsite
measurements for pH, temperature, DO, and ORP using a handheld field meter (see Section 3.5).
Further, upon careful inspections of the system, a punch list was developed and summarized as follows:
• Remount the chlorine feed pump to above the chlorine tank level to avoid potential siphoning
of the chemical (Figure 4-9)
• Install a backwash sample tap
• Install an hour meter
• Install a flow meter on the treated water line and backwash line (Figure 4-9 shows the flow
meter on the treated water line)
• Relocate the chlorine injection point and the contact flow meter to after the four pressure
tanks to avoid using the pressure tanks as settling tanks and prevent butyl rubber in the
pressure tanks from being damaged due to the presence of elevated levels of chlorine in
water. In addition, moving the chlorine injection point would increase the distance between
25
-------
source water sample tap (denoted as "IN" in Table 3-3) and the chlorine injection point to
over 10 ft to avoid any cross contamination (Figure 4-9).
On August 19, 2005, a vendor subcontractor was onsite to remount the chlorine feed pump, install a
backwash sample tap, and increase the setting of the chlorine feed pump to achieve the target chlorine
residual. On September 14 and then from 19 to 20, 2005, one Insite® PX-50 GPM-12-V-F flow meter
(Figure 4-11) was installed each on the treated water line and the backwash line. On September 22, 2005,
the chlorine injection point and the contact flow meter were relocated from before to after the pressure
tanks. All action items were completed after the vendor had installed the hour meter in the pump house
during the subcontractor's October 25, 2005 site visit.
Figure 4-10. Equipment Off-loading
Figure 4-11. Close-up View of Insite® PX-50 GPM-12-V-F Flow Meter
4.4 System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. Table 4-4 summarizes the operational parameters for the first
months of system operation, including operational time, throughput, flowrate, and pressure. Detailed
daily operational information also is provided in Appendix A.
six
26
-------
Table 4-4. System Operation from July 12, 2005 to January 17, 2006
Parameter
Values
Well Pump (Well No. 1)
Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Average Flowrate (gpm)
446.2
2.4
40
System Throughput/Demand
Throughput to Distribution (gal)
Average Daily Demand (gpd)
Peak Daily Demand (gpd)
Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
1,031,200°°
5,485
10,700(a)
System on demand
System on demand
PM2162D6 System - Service Mode
Flowrate (gpm)
Contact Times (min)
Hydraulic Loading Rates to Filters (gpm/ft2)
System Inlet Pressure (psi)
System Outlet Pressure (psi)
Ap across Filtration Vessels A and B (psi)
Ap across System (psi)
20 (max.)
4.1 (min.)
4.2 (max.)
44 to 59(b)
10 to 40
5 to 28(c)
21 to 42
PM2162D6 System -Backwash Mode
Number of Backwash Cycles (times)
Throughput between Backwash Cycles (gal)
Daily Backwash Cycles (times/day)
60(d)
7,900 to 26,900(a)
0 to 2(e)
(a) Based on totalizer on treated water line
(b) Based on readings from pressure gauge installed on four pressure tanks
(c) Excluding two readings at 1 and 33 psi
(d) Based on totalizer readings on backwash discharge line and 300
gal/vessel of backwash water produced during each backwash cycle
(e) Excluding manual backwash cycles and backwash occurring on
September 30, 2005
Between July 12, 2005 and January 17, 2006, the well operated for approximately 446 hr with an average
daily operating time of 2.4 hr. Because of lack of an hour meter, the well operating time was estimated
based on the total throughput through the raw water line and a pump flowrate of 40 gpm. The pump
flowrate was the average of three values measured by the totalizer on the raw water line and a stopwatch.
The hour meter in the pump house was not installed until after the first six-month period.
During the first six months of system operation, the system treated approximately 1,031,000 gal of water.
The average daily demand was 5,485 gal/day, compared to 6,400 gal/day provided by the facility prior to
the demonstration study. The peak daily demand occurred on December 7, 2005, at 10,700 gal, compared
to 23,500 gpd provided by the facility. Due to the on-demand system configuration, the total and daily
system operating times were not tracked. The on-demand flowrates through the system varied and were
tracked by an Insite® PX-50 GPM-12-V-F flow meter installed on the treated water line. Because the
flow meter installed had 2.5-gpm increments up to 50 gpm, accurate flowrate data were not attainable
especially over the lower end of the applicable range. Nonetheless, examination of all flowrate data
reveled that the maximum flowrate recorded throughout the study period was approximately 20 gpm.
Using this value as a basis, the minimum contact time in the contact tank was 4.1 min (compared to the
design value of 1.8 min) and the maximum hydraulic loading rate to the Macrolite® filters was 4.2 gpm/ft2
(compared to the design value of 9.4 gpm/ft2).
27
-------
At flowrates of less than 20 gpm, the inlet pressure readings to the system ranged from 44 to 59 psi,
which were within the operating range from 40 to 60 psi for the pressure tanks. The outlet pressure
readings to the downstream softeners ranged from 10 to 40 psi. The pressure differential (Ap) readings
across Vessels A and B ranged from 5 to 28 psi (excluding two readings at 1 and 33 psi [note that the
33-psi reading was taken after about 18,600 gal of water had been treated]) based on readings on the inlet
and outlet pressure gauges. As shown in Figure 4-12, Ap readings rose gradually from 5 to 9 psi
immediately after system startup and stabilized at about 20 psi approximately one month into system
operation. Because the Ap readings were recorded at different stages of various service cycles, the spikes
shown in the figure most likely represented the times when the filters were about to be backwashed. The
pressure Ap readings across the system ranged from 21 to 42 psi.
07/12/05 07/26/05 08/09/05 08/23/05 09/06/05 09/20/05 10/04/05 10/18/05 11/01/05 11/15/05 11/29/05 12/13/05 12/27/05 01/10/06
Figure 4-12. Ap Across Vessels A and B and Entire System
During this time period, approximately 60 backwash cycles took place. The throughput between two
consecutive backwash cycles ranged from approximately 7,900 to 26,900 gal and averaged 18,530 gal
(Figure 4-13), compared to the design throughput of 18,000 gal. The number of backwash cycles per day
and throughput between backwash cycles excluded five manual backwash cycles triggered by the
operator for backwash water sampling on September 19 (only for a practice), September 20, October 11,
and November 29, 2005, and January 10, 2006. Since these manual backwash cycles did not reset the
respective throughput volumes, the throughput readings were not included in data calculations. In
addition, for an unknown reason, five backwash cycles took place on September 30, 2005 and also were
excluded from the data calculations.
28
-------
07/17/05 08/06/05
10/25/05
Date
Figure 4-13. Throughput Between Backwash Cycles
4.4.2 Chlorine Addition. As described in Section 4.2., chlorine was added to oxidize Fe(II) and
As(III) prior to filtration. Due to the presence of 2.8 mg/L of ammonia, total chlorine residuals measured
in the water comprised of primarily mono and dichloramines with little or no free chlorine (since
breakpoint chlorination was not performed). As such only total chlorine residual data are discussed
herein. The total chlorine residuals measured after the contact tank (AC) and in the plant effluent (TT)
are plotted in Figure 4-14. The erratic chlorine residuals measured were primarily caused by operational
difficulties encountered with the chlorine injection system, which were summarized in Table 4-5 and
discussed below.
For the first three months of system operation through late October 2005, little or no chlorine residuals
were measured except for a few sampling occasions. The difficulties of detecting chlorine residuals in the
water were attributed to several factors, including problems with the chlorine test kit, mechanical failures
of the chlorine feed pump and chlorine injector, and insufficient chlorine dosage with the use of a 5.25%
NaCIO solution. Initial attempts to correct the problems included replacing a potentially malfunctioning
N,N diethyl-p-phenylene diamine (DPD) reagent dispenser with DPD pillows for chlorine residual
measurements and increasing the chlorine injection rate by stepping up the stroke length of the chlorine
feed pump from 70 to 83.5%. Since August 23, 2005, the operator noticed no change in the chlorine tank
level, indicating no chlorine addition. A broken compression fitting on the chlorine feed pump was later
identified as the cause and was replaced on September 19 and 20, 2005. Two days later, the chlorine
injection point was relocated from before to after the pressure tanks to prevent potential damage to the
butyl rubber diaphragms in the pressure tanks. After relocation, the chlorine injector was found not to
bleed properly and had to be repaired by the vendor's subcontractor a week later.
29
-------
o.u -
7.0 -
cT 6 0 -
O
w
re
B) 5.0 -
"re
^
•§ 4.0-
0)
cc
HI
5 3.0 -
O
"re
j° 2.0 -
1 n
I .U
n n -
Pump Stroke: 70% 835% 62% 74% 76% 82% 80% 78°/j 75%, 72% jS0/^ ^ 68%
AvgCI2 Dose: 1.4 mg/L N/A *°'5 * * 0.7* 1-1 Z3 3-4 2.1,2.4,4.1 3.4 3.6
»/
08/23/05-09/20/05 09/22/05-09/29/05 °"
Pumpbroken CI2 injector networking 10/27/05-01/17/06
properly __ NaCIO increased from 5.25 to 12.5%
^
D D
D
a
D D
n
» ° ° a a n
D Dp a
a ° a a
» a ° W
o
D
a D
n n nTI ! ' fln 5VH3 ntn Wm ffrn iitiiinil • i ntm HTVD KrVn mrO r^£ n n * D 1
\C
FT
D
9
D
b D
07/12/05 07/27/05 08/11/05 08/26/05 09/10/05 09/25/05 10/10/05 10/25/05 11/09/05 11/24/05 12/09/05 12/24/05 01/08/06
Date
Figure 4-14. Total Chlorine Residuals at AC and TT Locations
After switching to a 12.5% NaCIO solution on October 27, 2005, both chlorine dosages and chlorine
residuals were increased significantly, as shown in Figure 4-14. The actual chlorine dosages based on
chlorine tank level measurements ranged from 2.1 to 4.1 mg/L (as C12). With approximately 1 mg/L (as
C12) of chlorine demand for Fe(II), Mn(II), and As(III) and an unknown amount for the organic matter in
raw water, total chlorine residuals in the treated water should be no more than 1.1 to 3.1 mg/L (as C12), a
range that covered the majority of the measured residual data points as shown in Figure 4-14. It is
suspected that the measured total chlorine residual data might be somewhat higher than the actual
concentrations due to the inadvertent use of high range (HR) test kits designed for a higher concentration
range (i.e., from 0.1 to 8.0 mg/L [as C12]). During a site visit in July 2006, Battelle's Study Lead
measured a set of samples using both the high range and low range (designed for 0.02 to 2.0 mg/L [as
C12]) test kits and obtained 0.2 to 0.3 and 0.4 to 1.4 mg/L (as C12) of total chlorine residuals, respectively.
Therefore, the use of high range test kits could have skewed the test results to some extent.
A series of leaks were developed after switching to the 12.5 % NaCIO solution due to incompatibility of
the plumbing material with the stronger NaCIO solution. A leak was first discovered between the !/2-in
copper chlorine injector and 2-in copper "tee" on November 4, 2005. After being patched, the leak
continued at the 2-in copper "tee". The !/2-in copper chlorine injector and 2-in copper "tee" were then
replaced with the equivalent PVC parts on November 7, 2005. A leak was discovered again on the 2-in
PVC "tee" on November 11, 2005, caused by a cracked plastic fitting, and was fixed on the same day.
Since then, no more repairs have been performed on the chlorine addition system, except for the pump's
[losing prime] periodically due to airlocks, causing little or no consumption of the chlorine solution.
30
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of Problems Encountered and Corrective Actions Taken
for Chlorine Injection System
Duration
07/12/05 -
08/23/05
08/23/05 -
09/20/05
07/12/05 -
09/22/05
09/22/05 -
09/29/05
09/29/05 -
10/27/05
11/04/05
11/07/05
11/11/05
Problem Encountered
Little or no chlorine
residuals measured
No change in chlorine
tank level and no
chlorine residuals
measured
Chlorine injection point
installed before pressure
tanks
No chlorine residuals
measured
No chlorine residuals
measured
Leak between Vi-in
copper chlorine injector
and 2-in copper pipe
observed
Leak between Vi-in
copper chlorine injector
and 2-in copper pipe
observed
Leak on 2-in PVC pipe
observed
Corrective Actions Taken
• Examined Hach test kit and
switched from DPD reagent
dispenser to DPD reagent
powder pillows since 07/19/05
• Remounted pump and increased
pump stroke length from 70 to
83. 5% on 08/1 9/05
• Replaced broken compression
fitting on pump
• Relocated Vi-in copper injection
point from before to after
pressure tanks
• Fixed chlorine injector that did
not bleed properly after its
relocation on 09/22/05
• Adjusted pump stroke length to
62%
• Adjusted pump stroke length to
74%, then 76%
• Cleaned pump injection fitting
• Replaced chlorine stock solution
from 5.25 to 12.5%
• Patched leaks between Vi-in
copper chlorine injector and 2-in
copper pipe
• Replaced Vi-in copper chlorine
injector and 2-in copper "tee"
with equivalent PVC injector and
"tee"
• Replaced a cracked PVC fitting
on 2-in PVC "tee" installed on
11/07/05
Work Performed
by/on
• Operator
• Vendor's Subcontractor on
08/19/05
• Vendor's Subcontractor on
09/19-20/05
• Vendor's Subcontractor on
09/22/05
• Vendor's Subcontractor on
09/29/05
• Operator and vendor's
Subcontractor on 10/1 1/05
• Vendor's Subcontractor on
10/18-19/05 followed by
vendor technician on 10/25-
27/05
• Vendor's subcontractor on
11/04/05
• Vendor's Subcontractor on
11/07/05
• Vendor's Subcontractor on
11/11/05
To control the total chlorine residuals not to exceed the 1 mg/L (as C12) target before entering the
downstream softener, constant adjustments had to be made to the pump stroke length, i.e., from 82 to 80,
78, 75, 72, 65, and 68%. However, the resulting chlorine dosage based on the day tank measurements did
not appear to respond to the stroke length adjustment. For example, when the stroke length was reduced
from 80 to 68%, the chlorine dosage, in effect, increased from 3.4 to 3.6 mg/L. (Note that the dosages
based on the pump rated capacity at 80 and 68% stroke lengths were 3.2 and 2.7 mg/L [as C12],
respectively.) The following reasons might have contributed to such discrepancies: (1) it was difficult to
accurately measure the chlorine dosages by reading tank levels with 0.5-gal graduations, (2) leaks,
airlocks, and varying injection rates by the paced pump could affect the amount of chlorine metered into
the water, and (3) the pump might not have been properly calibrated to ensure that the flow sensor,
31
-------
generated correct pulse signals at varying flowrates and that the pulse signals were properly converted to
the pump speed.
4.4.3 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the Macrolite® system
included only backwash water, which was discharged to pumped to a nearby sanitary sewer line for
disposal. Backwash frequency and quantities of backwash wastewater generated were discussed in
Section 4.4.1.
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. During the first six months of system
adflakjsdf;lakjsdf;loperation, a total of nine visits were made by the vendor and/or its subcontractor to fix
the chlorine addition system and leaks at the chlorine injection point as described in Section 4.4.2 and
summarized in Table 4-5. There was no unscheduled downtime for the system, but the system was
allowed to operate without the use of chlorine for 63 days from August 23 to September 20, 2005, and
from September 22 to October 27, 2005.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The only pretreatment required was prechlorination for the
oxidation of arsenic and iron. However, as noted in section 4.4.2, issues related to the chemical feed
pump prevented chlorine from being added to the water before October 27, 2005. Specific chemical
handling requirements are further discussed below under chemical handling and inventory requirements.
The post-treatment included preexisting 29TMDM-300 softener system located after the pressure filters.
System Automation. All major functions of the treatment system were automated and required only
minimal operator oversight and intervention if all functions were operating as intended. Automated
processes included system startup in service mode when the well was energized, filter backwash and fast
rinse based on a preset throughput value, and chemical feed. The flow-paced chemical feed pump,
although automatically triggered by the contact meter, had to be frequently monitored for airlocks after it
was repaired on October 27, 2005. Air bubbles in the pump head were discharged through an air bleed
valve and a return line to the chemical day tank. No other issues arose with the automated backwash and
associated equipment during this reporting period.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill sets required to operate the
Macrolite® pressure filtration system included maintaining proper operation of the process equipment;
observing and recording associated operating parameters, such as pressure, flow, and chlorine residuals;
keeping track of the NaCIO solution consumption and replenishing the chemical day tank, when
necessary; performing on-site chlorine residual measurements to help meet the target total chlorine
residual after the pressure filters; and working with the vendor to troubleshoot and perform minor on-site
repairs. Difficulties were encountered when trying to maintain proper operation of the chemical feed
pump (as discussed in Section 4.4.2), taking the flow readings due to normally low on-demand flowrates
and the oversized flow-meter installed (as discussed in Section 4.3.3), and performing routine on-site
chlorine residual measurements. Because the certified operator retained by Vintage of the Ponds was
located one and a half hours away from the site, all O&M activities were performed by the nursing home
manager (referred to, in this report, as the operator), who had very little prior experience of operating a
water treatment system.
According the plant operator, daily demand on the operator was about 5 min to visually inspect the
system and record the operating parameters on the log sheets. There was additional time demand for
troubleshooting and maintaining proper operation of the chemical feed system.
For operator certification in the state of Wisconsin, there is only one class and five subclasses, i.e., O, Z,
I, L, and V, which are classified based on types of treatment (http: //dnr. wi. gov/org/e s/science/opcert).
Subclass O certification is for those who operate general water treatment systems; Subclass Z for zeolite
32
-------
and resin treatment; Subclass I for oxidation and filtration treatment; Subclass L for lime-soda ash
treatment; and Subclass V for specialized treatment. The operator for Vintage on the Ponds has a
Subclass O certificate. Each subclass requires a high school or equivalent diploma, at least two years of
experience operating a water system prior to December 1, 2000, and successful completion of application
and examination for that specific subclass.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks recommended by the vendor included
daily to monthly visual inspections of the piping, valves, tanks, flow meters, and other system
components. Specific O&M activities performed by the vendor for this reporting period are summarized
in Table 4-5.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. With the assistance of the certified operator,
all personal protective equipment, including neoprene rubber gloves, chemical safety goggles, a
protective apron, and an emergency shower and eyewash station, was purchased by the facility, satisfying
the safety requirements for the NaCIO chemical handling as specified in the NaCIO Material Safety Data
Sheet (MSDS). The operator refilled the chemical day tank with a handheld pump to 15-gal every time
the volume was down to 10-gal, which occurred approximately once every four weeks. Refilling the
chlorine took about 10 min to complete. The chemical consumption in the day tank, along with total
chlorine residuals in the filter effluent at the TT sampling location, were checked daily as part of the
routine operational data collection as required by WDNR.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the Macrolite® PM2162D6 Arsenic Removal System was evaluated based on
analyses of water samples collected from the treatment plant, backwash lines, and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Water samples were collected at five locations (i.e., IN, AC,
TA, TB, and TT) across the treatment train. Table 4-6 summarizes the arsenic, iron, and manganese
analytical results. Table 4-7 summarizes the results of the other water quality parameters. Appendix B
contains a complete set of analytical results through the first six months of system operation. The results
of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
Arsenic and Iron. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the Macrolite® filtration system
was the concentration of total arsenic in the treated water. The treatment plant water was sampled on 27
occasions (including two duplicate sampling events) during this reporting period, with field speciation
performed six times. Figure 4-15 shows the arsenic speciation results across the treatment train.
Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 14.3 to 29.0 |o,g/L and averaged 18.3 |o,g/L
(Table 4-6). As(III) was the predominant species in source water, ranging from 14.0 to 18.6 |o,g/L and
averaging 16.7 |og/L. Only trace amounts of participate arsenic and As(V) existed, with concentrations
averaging 2.5 and 1.0 |o,g/L, respectively. An outlier existed on September 27, 2005, with total and
particulate arsenic concentrations at 29.0 and 13.3 |o,g/L, respectively. The arsenic concentrations
measured during this six-month period were consistent with those in source water sample collected on
September 20, 2004 (Table 4-1).
Total iron concentrations in source water ranged from 1,165 to 2,478 (ig/L and averaged 1,456 (ig/L,
which existed primarily in the soluble form with an average value of 1,377 (ig/L. The iron:arsenic ratio
was 78:1 given the average soluble iron and soluble arsenic levels in source water. An outlier existed on
September 27, 2005, with total and particulate iron at 2,478 and 1,251 (ig/L, respectively.
33
-------
Among the six speciation sampling events, four speciation events had achieved the treatment goals of less
than 10 |o,g/L of As and less than 25 |o,g/L of Fe. For the other two events occurring on September 27 and
October 25, 2005, insufficient chlorine was added due to problems with the chlorine addition system,
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results With and
Without Sufficient Chlorine Addition(a)
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
HR/L
^g/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
^g/L
Sample
Count
26(b)
18 [9]
14 [7]
14 [7]
4 [2]
4 [2]
4 [2]
4 [2]
4 [2]
4 [2]
4 [2]
4 [2]
4 [2]
4 [2]
4 [2]
4 [2]
4 [2]
26(b)
18 [9]
14 [7]
14 [7]
4 [2]
4 [2]
4 [2]
4 [2]
26(b)
18 [9]
14 [7]
14 [7]
4 [2]
4 [2]
4 [2]
4 [2]
Minimum
14.3
15.1 [14.0]
2.5 [8.1]
2.5 [7.8]
2.6 [12.7]
17.5 [15.7]
7.7 [12.6]
2.6 [11.6]
0.1 [1.0]
2.6 [3.2]
O.I [0.1]
16.4 [14.0]
4.1 [8.0]
1.5 [9.9]
0.6 [0.3]
2.7 [0.05]
0.5 [1.8]
1165
1237 [1232]
<25 [537]
<25 [448]
<25 [834]
996 [1227]
130 [12.5]
<25 [832]
15.6
15.7 [16.1]
15.8 [15.9]
15.4 [15.8]
16.2 [19.2]
17.0 [19.2]
16.3 [11.8]
16.2 [20.8]
Concentration
Maximum
29.0
22.8 [20.5]
7.2 [19.9]
6.8 [21.0]
7.6 [16.7]
19.2 [17.5]
15.5 [15.1]
7.7 [16.8]
0.7 [13.3]
12.8 [4.9]
O.I [1.1]
18.6 [17.2]
9.7 [13.6]
5.9 [15.1]
1.2 [1.7]
5.8 [7.1]
1.8 [1.8]
2478
1905 [1602]
542 [1499]
291 [1525]
39.2 [1596]
1613 [1480]
1120 [1131]
<25 [1417]
35.8
20.3 [19.2]
19.2 [19.5]
19.7 [19.7]
20.4 [21.0]
20.2 [19.5]
19.2 [18.7]
20.6 [20.8]
Average
18.3
18.1 [17.3]
4.6 [13.3]
4.4 [13.1]
5.3 [14.7]
18.3 [16.6]
10.6 [13.9]
5.4 [14.2]
0.2 [7.2]
8.4 [4.0]
O.I [0.6]
17.3 [15.6]
6.1 [10.8]
4.3 [12.5]
0.9 [1.0]
4.5 [3.6]
1.1 [1.8]
1456
1402 [1443]
107 [1039]
90.3 [1010]
<25 [1215]
1389 [1353]
520 [578]
<25[1125]
19.4
18.3 [17.8]
17.7 [17.4]
17.9 [17.5]
18.7 [20.1]
19.2 [19.3]
18.2 [15.2]
19.0 [20.8]
Standard
Deviation
3.0
2.0 [2.4]
1.6 [4.9]
1.6 [5.5]
2.1 [2.8]
0.8 [1.3]
3.5 [1.8]
2.2 [3.7]
0.3 [8.7]
4.3 [1.3]
- [0.7]
1.0 [2.3]
2.5 [3.9]
2.1 [3.7]
0.2 [0.9]
1.3 [5.0]
0.5 [0.0]
242
156 [131]
152 [420]
102 [467]
13.4 [539]
272 [179]
423 [791]
- [414]
4.6
.2 [1.1]
.1 [1.2]
.3 [1.3]
.8 [1.2]
.5 [0.2]
1.4 [4.9]
2.0 [0.0]
(a) Numbers in parentheses representing data compiled from sampling events havin
addition system on 08/30/05, 09/06/05, 09/13/05, 09/27/05, 10/04/05, 10/11/05,
(b) For samples taken on August 30, 2005, total arsenic, iron, and manganese at IN
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect samples for calculations.
Duplicate samples are included in calculations.
g problems with chlorine
10/18/05, and 10/25/05.
location not available.
34
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Analytical Results of Other Water Quality Parameters
Parameter
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
Sulfate
Total P (as P)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
Units
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
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
Number
of
Samples
27
27
21
21
6
9
8
7
7
1
9
9
3
o
3
6
9
9
3
o
3
6
14
14
11
11
3
27
27
21
21
6
9
9
3
o
J
6
27
27
21
21
6
Minimum
Concentration
330
334
352
348
352
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
13.0
13.0
13.3
13.1
13.1
<0.05
<0.05
0.05
O.05
O.05
10.0
1.7
0.1
O.I
O.I
Maximum
Concentration
374
374
374
392
374
3.2
3.0
3.2
3.1
2.9
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
84.5
92.1
41.2
35.8
14.2
16.6
16.8
16.8
16.2
16.0
0.11
0.11
0.17
0.24
0.15
20.0
18.0
20.4
19.0
20.0
Average
Concentration
358
360
362
364
359
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
65.4
64.5
8.3
8.6
8.1
14.4
14.4
14.5
14.3
14.4
0.04
0.05
0.09
0.10
0.05
16.2
6.2
5.8
5.5
5.4
Standard
Deviation
10.4
10.5
8.3
10.7
9.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.3
21.0
10.9
9.4
5.3
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.12
0.05
2.5
5.4
7.3
7.1
8.4
35
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Analytical Results of Other Water Quality Parameters (Continued)
Parameter
pH
Temperature
Total
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
Units
S.U.
s.u.
S.U.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
24
24
19
19
5
24
24
19
19
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Minimum
Concentration
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
11.8
10.9
11.6
11.2
13.0
295
281
283
147
143
143
141
138
141
Maximum
Concentration
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.1
7.7
16.3
16.0
15.5
15.3
15.4
510
338
333
260
184
177
250
156
156
Average
Concentration
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
13.9
13.6
13.5
13.5
14.0
346
311
315
181
164
166
165
147
149
Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.3
0.9
81.6
21.7
20.5
40.1
16.8
15.6
42.1
7.7
7.2
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect samples for calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
resulting in elevated soluble Fe and As concentrations after treatment. For example, total arsenic
concentrations at the TT location were 16.6 and 12.7 (ig/L, most of which existed as As(III), i.e., 15.1 and
9.9 (ig/L, respectively. The corresponding total iron concentrations were 1,596 and 834 (ig/L, and the
soluble iron concentrations were 1,417 and 832 (ig/L.
For the four events meeting the treatment goals, As(III) concentrations after the contact tank were reduced
to 5.0, 5.8, 4.1 and 9.7 |o,g/L, respectively, and averaged 6.2 |o,g/L. This average As(III) concentration
corresponded to a 63% conversion rate based on 16.7 |o,g/L of As(III) (on average) in raw water. The
As(III) concentrations after filtration were 5.8, 5.9, 1.5, and 3.9 |o,g/L, respectively, and averaged 4.3
Hg/L, suggesting that additional As(III) oxidation (i.e., 1 1%) might have occurred in the filters. The
particulate arsenic levels at the TT location remained <0. 1
The addition of chlorine decreased As(III) concentrations and increased particulate arsenic concentrations
after the contact tank. The conversion of As(III) to As(V) after the contact tank, however, was not as
significant as those observed at many other demonstration sites, where As(III) was almost completely
converted to either As(V) and/or particulate arsenic (Condit and Chen et al., 2006). Most of these sites
had little or no ammonia in raw water, suggesting that presence of ammonia in the Vintage's raw water
might have impacted the effectiveness of As(III) oxidation. Ghurye and Clifford (2001) reported that pre-
formed monochloramines were ineffective for As(III) oxidation and that limited oxidation could be
obtained when monochloramine was formed in situ. The injected chlorine probably reacted with As(III)
before being quenched by ammonia to form chloramines.
Incomplete iron oxidation also was observed after the contact tank. For the four speciation events where
total iron was removed to less than 25 (ig/L after filtration, soluble iron concentrations were measured at
36
-------
Arsenic Species at Inlet (IN)
DAs(particulate)
IAs(V)
• As(lll)
sed Chlorine Addition 11/01/05
07/12/05 08/09/05 09/27/05 10/25/05 11/29/05 01/03/06
Date
Arsenic Species after Prechlorination and Contact (AC)
07/12/05 08/09/05 09/27/05 10/25/05 11/29/05 01/03/06
Arsenic Speciation after Tanks Combined (TT)
* Chlorine feed system not in good working condition
Figure 4-15. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Locations
37
-------
130, 385, 444, and 1,120 (ig/L, respectively, after the contact tank. These elevated soluble iron
concentrations suggested that prolonged contact times might be needed to completely oxidize Fe(II) when
monochloramine was formed in situ (Vikesland and Valentine, 2002). After filtration, total iron
concentrations were <25 (ig/L (except for one at 39 (ig/L) and soluble iron concentrations were all below
25 (ig/L. The data further suggested the possibility of slower but continuing oxidation of iron after the
contact tank, similar to As(III) oxidation. Particulate As in the treated water was below the detection
limit (i.e., < 0.1 (ig/L), indicating the complete removal of iron particles by the pressure filters.
From July 12, 2005 to January 17, 2006, total arsenic concentrations in the filter effluent exceeded the
10 (ig/L MCL in seven out of 25 sampling events, all of which were probably due to improper chlorine
addition (see Figure 4-16). As expected, elevated total arsenic concentrations were associated directly
with elevated total iron concentrations in the treated water (see Figure 4-16 and 4-17).
Manganese. Total manganese levels in source water ranged from 15.6 to 35.8 |o,g/L and averaged
19.4 |o,g/L, which were below Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 50 (ig/L (see Table 4-
6). Manganese in source water existed primarily in the soluble form at levels ranging from 17.0 to 20.2
|o,g/L and averaging 19.3 |o,g/L. For the two speciation events without proper chlorine addition, soluble
manganese concentrations after the contact tank ranged from 11.8 to 18.7 (ig/L and averaged 15.2 (ig/L.
For the four speciation events with proper chlorine addition, soluble manganese concentrations after the
contact were at similar levels, ranging from 16. 3 to 19.2 |o,g/L and averaged 18.2 |o,g/L. Therefore,
chloramines formed during prechlorination apparently were ineffective for Mn(II) oxidation.
Manganese after chlorination remained in the soluble form, which was not filtered out by the Macrolite®
filters. Soluble manganese in the treated water was measured at levels averaging 20.8 |o,g/L for the
sampling events without proper chlorine addition and 19.0 |o,g/L with proper chlorine addition (Figure 4-
18). The results again suggested ineffective oxidation of Mn(II) by chloramines.
Other Water Quality Parameters. In addition to arsenic, iron, and manganese analyses, other water
quality parameters were analyzed to provide insight into the chemical processes occurring with the
treatment systems. As shown in Table 4-7, ammonia concentrations in source water ranged from 2.9 to
3.2 mg/L (as N) and averaged 3.0 mg/L (as N). The maximum amount of ammonia removed upon
chlorination, as calculated by subtracting the maximum concentration in raw water by the minimum
concentration in AC, TA, TB, or TT, was 0.5 mg/L [as N], which would result in 2.5 mg/L of total (or
combined) chlorine (as C12) in treated water. Based on the average amount of ammonia removed, i.e., 0.1
mg/L (as N) as shown in Table 4-7, only 0.5 mg/L of total (or combined) chlorine would be formed. This
level of residuals was within the range of actual measurements (see Figure 4-14). Although not
monitored, the majority of ammonia at the TT location was expected to be removed by the downstream
softener before entering the distribution system.
Average total hardness results ranged from 311 to 346 mg/L (as CaCO3) across the treatment train; total
hardness is the sum of calcium hardness and magnesium hardness. The water had an almost equal split
between calcium and magnesium hardness. Fluoride concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 0.3 mg/L in
source water and after contact tank and were not affected by the Macrolite® filtration. Average nitrate
concentrations ranged from 0.04 to 0.1 mg/L (as N) and average total phosphorus concentrations ranged
from <10 to 41.2 |o,g/L (as P) across the treatment train. Silica (as SiO2) concentration remained at
approximately 14.4 mg/L across the treatment train. Turbidity values ranged from 10.0 to 20.0
nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) (averaged 16.2 NTU) in source water to <0.1 to 20.0 NTU (averaged
5.4 NTU) in the combined filter effluent. No significant levels of sulfate were detected in source water or
across the treatment train.
38
-------
After Tank A (TA)
After Tank B (TB)
After Combined Effluent (TT)
07/12/05 07/26/05 08/09/05 08/23/05 09/06/05 09/20/05 10/04/05 10/18/05 11/01/05 11/15/05 11/29/05 12/13/05 12/27/05 01/10/06
Date
Figure 4-16. Total Arsenic Concentrations at TA, TB, and TT Sampling Location
After Tank A (TA)
After Tank B (TB)
After Combined Effluent (TT)
07/12/05 07/26/05 08/09/05 08/23/05 09/06/05 09/20/05 10/04/05 10/18/05 11/01/05 11/15/05 11/29/05 12/13/05 12/27/05 01/10/06
Figure 4-17. Total Iron Concentrations at TA, TB, and TT Sampling Locations
39
-------
•-After Tank A (TA)
•-After Tank B (TB)
* After Combined Effluent (IT)
07/12/05 07/26/05 08/09/05 08/23/05 09/06/05 09/20/05 10/04/05 10/18/05 11/01/05 11/15/05 11/29/05 12/13/05 12/27/05 01/10/06
Figure 4-18. Total Manganese Concentrations at TA, TB, and TT Sampling Locations
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. Table 4-8 summarizes the analytical results from three
backwash water sampling events which took place on September 20, 2005, October 11, 2005, and January
10, 2006. Backwash water sampling also was performed on November 29, 2005; however, due to three
consecutive backwash cycles inadvertently triggered by the operator prior to sampling, the samples
collected were not analyzed. For the first two sampling events, grab samples were taken for pH, turbidity,
TDS, and soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese analyses. The analytical results showed 6.3 to 12.2 (ig/L
of soluble arsenic, <25 to 593 (ig/L of soluble iron, and 14.9 to 22.6 (ig/L of soluble manganese, which
were similar to those in the contact tank water used for backwash.
For the third sampling event (and those taking place after November 29, 2005), composite samples were
taken for pH, turbidity, TDS, TSS, and total and soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese analyses. Total
arsenic concentrations in the backwash water ranged from 46 to 121 (ig/L; total iron concentrations
ranged from 4,486 to 13,543 (ig/L; and total manganese concentrations ranged from 22 to 26 (ig/L. The
TSS levels in the backwash water were low, ranging from 5 to 12 mg/L. The uncharacteristically low
TSS levels in the backwash water samples were thought to have been caused, and confirmed by the
operator, by insufficient mixing of solids/water mixtures in the 32-gal container before sampling. The
operator believed, however, that the contents in the containers were thoroughly mixed before sampling for
total arsenic, iron, and manganese. Assuming 300 gal of backwash water generated per vessel, about 2.1
x 10"4 Ib of arsenic, 0.02 Ib of iron, and 6.0 x 10"5 Ib of manganese were discharged into the septic system
during each backwash event.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. The results of distribution system water sampling
are summarized in Table 4-9. As shown in the table, the stagnation times before the samples were taken
ranged from 7.0 to 11.0 hr and averaged 9.3 hr. There was no major change in pH values before (i.e., 7.1
to 7.6) and after (i.e., 7.1 to 7.8) the system became operational. Alkalinity levels also remained
approximately the same before (i.e., 330 to 395 mg/L [as CaCO3]) and after (i.e. 352 to 374 mg/L [as
CaCO3]) treatment system startup.
40
-------
Table 4-8. Backwash Water Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
1
2
3
Date
09/20/05
10/11/05
01/10/06
-------
Arsenic concentrations in the baseline samples ranged from 9.5 to 18.2 (ig/L and averaged 15.2 (ig/L.
These values were slightly lower than those in the historical raw water samples (i.e. from 16.0 to 25.0
(ig/L) shown in Table 4-1, and those in the samples collected after system startup from August 30 through
September 28, 2005 (i.e., Events 2 to 4) when the chlorine addition system did not function properly (i.e.,
from 11.9 to 23.3 (ig/L). For the samples collected with proper operation of the chlorine addition system
(i.e., Events 1, 5, 6, and 7), arsenic concentrations decreased to less than 10 (ig/L at each of the three
sampling locations, except for two outliers at DS1 on December 13, 2005 and January 17, 2006. In all
cases, total arsenic levels in the distribution system mirrored those in the treated water. The average
arsenic level in the distribution system (excluding the data points taken during Events 2 to 4 and Events 6
and 7 at DS1) was slightly higher than at the entry point (i.e., 4.3 versus 3.4 (ig/L), suggesting some
solubilization, destabilization, and/or desoprtion of arsenic-laden particles/scales in the distribution
system (Lytle, 2005).
Iron concentrations remained below the method detection limit of 25 |o,g/L, except for one outlier at 37.3
(ig/L) before and after the baseline samples. Before system startup, iron, existing mostly in the soluble
form, was removed by the softeners before entering the distribution system. After system startup, iron,
existing mostly in the particulate form, was removed by the Macrolite® pressure filters. The manganese
levels averaged 1.7 |o,g/L in the baseline samples and decreased to an average of 0.4 |o,g/L after system
startup. Although little manganese was removed by the pressure filter, manganese at 19.4 |o,g/L (on
average) existing almost entirely in the soluble form, was removed by the downstream softeners.
Lead levels in the distribution system ranged from less then the method reporting limit of 0.1 |o,g/L to
5.4 |og/L both before and after system startup. Copper concentrations before system startup ranged from
4.1 to 126 |o,g/L; copper concentrations after system startup ranged from 4.7 to 160|o,g/L. None of the lead
and copper results exceeded the corresponding action levels of 15 and 1,300 |o,g/L. Factors that may
increase the solubility of lead and copper in the distribution system include low pH, high temperature, and
soft water with fewer dissolved minerals. The arsenic removal system did not appear to have exerted any
impact on the lead and copper levels in the distribution system.
4.6 System Cost
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The evaluation required the tracking of the capital cost for
equipment, engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for chemical supply, electrical power use, and
labor. However, the cost associated with the installation of an emergency shower and an eyewash station
required for NaCIO chemical handling as part of building improvements was paid for by Vintage on the
Ponds and, therefore, not included in the treatment system.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment was $60,500, which included $19,790 for equipment,
$20,580 for site engineering, and $20,130 for installation. Table 4-10 presents the breakdown of the
capital cost provided by the vendor in its proposal to Battelle dated March 15, 2005. The equipment cost
was about 33% of the total capital investment for a contact tank, two pressure filtration tanks, Macrolite®
media, distributors, process valves and piping, instrumentation and controls, a chemical feed system
(including a flow-paced pump and a tapered chemical storage tank with a secondary containment),
additional sample taps, totalizer/meters, shipping, and equipment assembly labor.
The engineering cost included the cost for preparing a process design report and required engineering
plans, including a general arrangement drawing, piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs),
interconnecting piping layouts, tank fill details, an electrical on-line diagram, and other associated
drawings. After certification by an Ohio-registered professional engineer, the plans were submitted to
42
-------
Table 4-9. Distribution Sampling Results
s
£
>
w
51
.3
"3.
3
«
CO
"8
6
Z
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sample Location
s
Q
.—
e.
si
CO
03/23/05*'
04/20/05
05/31/05
06/21/05
07/27/05™
08/30/05(tl)
09/28/05™
10/18/05(tl)
11/29/05
12/13/05
01/17/06
3"
3
-a
•s
—
£
M
«
03
•<
"o!
"o
H
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.0
18.0
16.6
10.9
2.6
3.2
2.9
DSl
^
"o
H
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
0.3
~5i)
a.
^
6u
0.2
<0.1
0.4
0.1
1.1
<0.1
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.9
_
a.
a
o
95.2
51.9
103.4
15.2
111.0
29.6
57.9
33.1
54.6
49.8
95.7
DS2(a)
Shower Room A Wing
,£,
.a,
nTime
•B
«
l=n
«
w
NA
11.0
NA
9.1
9.0
9.0
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.0
9.7
-
K
B.
7.2
7.6
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.7
7.5
7.5
0
U
O
3
1
3
•^
367
395
385
365
361
370
374
365
352
365
356
1
VI
"o
H
14.8
15.6
14.8
18.0
5.4
18.2
16.9
16.9
3.6
6.7
3.1
3-
•&i
3
v
•—
"«
"o
H
37.3
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
~5i)
A.
|
"o
H
14.2
0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.2
0.4
<0.1
0.1
0.2
<0.1
a.
^
Bu
5.4
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
<0.1
0.2
0.5
0.5
_
a.
a
o
126.0
13.8
4.4
13.9
7.2
6.6
23.6
4.7
23.5
29.0
160
DS3(a)
Large Suite B Wing
^.
.a,
nTime
•B
«
&
«
tfi
NA
11.0
NA
9.3
9.0
9.2
9.3
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.8
-
Su
B.
7.2
7.6
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.8
7.5
0
U
OS
O
T.
-.
1
=
^
•^
376
382
381
361
352
352
374
361
352
374
356
3-
•&i
3
VI
-------
Table 4-10. Summary of Capital Investment for the Vintage on the Ponds Treatment System
Description
EC
Tanks
Media
Distributors
Process Valves and Piping
Chemical Feed System
Instrumentation and Controls
Additional Flow meters/Totalizers
Shipping
Labor
Equipment Total
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
luipment Cost
3
3.5ft3/tank
2
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
$2,500
$1,540
$175
$2,100
$2,405
$2,500
$2,400
$1,000
$5,170
$19,790
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33%
Engineering Cost
Labor
Travel
Engineering Total
-
-
-
$19,080
$1,500
$20,580
-
34%
Installation Cost
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
$6,380
$2,500
$11,250
$20,130
$60,500
-
-
-
33%
100%
WDNR for permit review and approval (Section 4.3.1). The engineering cost was $20,580, which was
34% of the total capital investment.
The installation cost included the cost for labor and materials for system unloading and anchoring,
plumbing, and mechanical and electrical connections (Section 4.3.3). The installation cost was $20,130
or 33% of the total capital investment.
Using the system's rated capacity of 45 gpm (or 64,800 gpd), the capital cost was normalized to be
$l,344/gpm (or $0.93/gpd). The capital cost of $60,500 was converted to an annualized cost of
$5,710/year using a capital recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a 20-year return.
Assuming that the system was operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at the design flow rate of 45 gpm
to produce 23,600,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.24/1,000 gal. However,
since the system produced only 1,031,200 gal of water during the six-month period, the unit capital cost
was increased to $2.77/1,000 gal at this reduced rate of production.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. O&M cost includes primarily cost associated with
chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor (Table 4-11). The consumption rate for the 12.5%
NaCIO stock solution was approximately 80 gal or 79.5 Ib per year. Incremental electricity power
consumption was calculated for the chemical feed pump. The power demand was calculated based on the
total operational hours of the well pump during the six-month study, the additional power demand needed
to cover the pressure loss across the filter beds, the chemical feed pump horsepower, and the unit cost
from the utility bills. The routine, non-demonstration related labor activities consumed about 5 min/day,
5 days a week, as noted in Section 4.4.4. Based on this time commitment and a labor rate of $10.75/hr,
the labor cost was $0.11/1,000 gal of water treated. In summary, the total O&M cost was approximately
$0.33/1,000 gal. The O&M cost will be verified during the next reporting period.
44
-------
Table 4-11. O&M Cost for the Vintage on the Ponds Treatment System
Cost Category
Projected Volume Processed (gal)
Value
1,031,200
Assumption
From 07/12/05 through 01/17/06 (see Table 4-4)
Chemical Cost
Chemical Unit Price ($/gal)
Total Chemical Consumption (gal)
Chemical Usage (gal/1,000 gal)
Total Chemical Cost ($)
Unit Chemical Cost ($71,000 gal)
$4.14
40
0.04
$165.40
$0.16
12.5% NaCIO in a 5-gal drum
80 gal or 79.5 Ib of NaCIO peryear
Electricity Cost
Electricity Unit Cost ($/kwh)
Estimated Electricity Usage (kwh)
Estimated Electricity Cost ($)
Estimated Power Use ($71,000 gal)
0.067
1,041
$69.7
$0.067
Calculated based on:
• 16 hr/day of operation of a 0. 17-hp chemical
feed pump
• Additional power used by well pump to
overcome pressure loss across filters with
pumps operating 2.4 hr/day at 40 gpm
Labor Cost
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Total Labor (hr)
Total Labor Cost ($)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
0.42
11
$118.25
$0.11
$0.33
5 min/day; 5 day/wk
26 weeks
Labor rate = $10.75/hr
45
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Clark, J.W., W. Viessman, and M.J. Hammer. 1977. Water Supply and Pollution Control. IEP, aDun-
Donnelley Publisher, New York, NY.
Condit, W.E. and A.S.C. Chen. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal, U.S.
EPA Demonstration Project at Climax, MN, Final Performance Evaluation Report. Prepared
under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019 for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Ghurye, G.. and D. Clifford. 2001. Laboratory Study on the Oxidation of Arsenic III to Arsenic V.
EPA/600/R-01/021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Lytle, D. 2005. Coagulation/Filtration: Iron Removal Processes Full-Scale Experience. EPA Workshop
on Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water in Cincinnati, OH.
Sorg, T.J. 2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, AWWA, 28(11): 15.
Vikesland, P.J. and R.L. Valentine. 2002. "Modeling the Kinetics of Ferrous Iron Oxidation by
Monochloramine."£>7v/'ro«. Sci. and Technol. 36(4):662-668.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
46
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Date
07/13/05
07/14/05
07/15/05
07/16/05
07/17/05
07/18/05
07/19/05
07/20/05
07/21/05
07/22/05
07/23/05
07/24/05
07/25/05
07/26/05
07/27/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
07/30/05
07/31/05
08/01/05
08/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
08/05/05
08/06/05
08/07/05
08/08/05
08/09/05
08/10/05
08/11/05
08/12/05
08/13/05
08/14/05
08/15/05
08/16/05
08/17/05
08/18/05
08/19/05
08/20/05
08/21/05
08/22/05
08/23/05
08/24/05
08/25/05
08/26/05
08/27/05
08/28/05
Time
15:00
NM
14:30
NM
NM
14:15
13:20
15:00
NM
14:00
NM
NM
16:30
16:40
15:30
NM
09:35
NM
NM
15:10
13:00
13:30
12:40
15:03
NM
NM
16:05
14:05
15:30
14:00
15:05
NM
NM
16:05
14:30
14:35
08:00
13:00
NM
NM
15:50
15:35
10:00
NM
15:15
NM
NM
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gal)
84,200
NM
93,100
NM
NM
109,900
116,300
120,000
NM
132,800
NM
NM
151,500
156,600
160,800
NM
169,900
NM
NM
188,800
194,600
199,300
203,700
208,500
NM
NM
223,900
234,500
241,200
246,200
251,200
NM
NM
268,300
273,000
278,500
NM
288,900
NM
NM
305,400
310,900
314,100
NM
326,100
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
NA
NA
8,900
NA
NA
16,800
6,400
3,700
NA
12,800
NA
NA
18,700
5,100
4,200
NA
9,100
NA
NA
18,900
5,800
4,700
4,400
4,800
NA
NA
15,400
10,600
6,700
5,000
5,000
NA
NA
17,100
4,700
5,500
NA
10,400
NA
NA
16,500
5,500
3,200
NA
12,000
NA
NA
Pressure
Pressure
Tanks
(psi)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
After
Contact
Tank
(psi)
39
NM
49
NM
NM
39
49
41
NM
42
NM
NM
43
43
41
NM
39
NM
NM
39
41
43
43
41
NM
NM
42
39
49
48
39
NM
NM
43
39
44
NM
39
NM
NM
42
43
44
39
40
NM
NM
After
Filters
(psi)
30
NM
40
NM
NM
30
29
36
NM
37
NM
NM
31
31
29
NM
17
NM
NM
38
33
25
30
30
NM
NM
29
12
31
32
22
NM
NM
23
20
24
NM
28
NM
NM
23
23
24
NM
21
NM
NM
AP
across
System
(psi)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AP
across
Filters
(psi)
9
NA
9
NA
NA
9
20
5
NA
5
NA
NA
12
12
12
NA
22
NA
NA
1
8
18
13
11
NA
NA
13
27
18
16
17
NA
NA
20
19
20
NA
11
NA
NA
19
20
20
NA
19
NA
NA
Volume to Distribution
Totalizer
(kgal)
13,967.2
NM
13,976.1
NM
NM
13992.4
13998.7
14002.0
NM
14014.7
NM
NM
14032.9
14037.9
14042.1
NM
14050.8
NM
NM
14,069.4
14,074.8
14,079.5
14,083.8
14,088.6
NM
NM
14,103.5
14,114.0
14,120.2
14,125.2
14,130.1
NM
NM
14,146.6
14,151.7
14,156.8
NM
14,166.8
NM
NM
14,183.1
14,188.2
14,191.3
NM
14,203.2
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
NA
NA
8,900
NA
NA
16,300
6,300
3,300
NA
12,700
NA
NA
18,200
5,000
4,200
NA
8,700
NA
NA
18,600
5,400
4,700
4,300
4,800
NA
NA
14,900
10,500
6,200
5,000
4,900
NA
NA
16,500
5,100
5,100
NA
10,000
NA
NA
16,300
5,100
3,100
NA
1 1 ,900
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
3,650
NM
3,650
NM
NM
4,020
4,020
4,370
NM
4,370
NM
NM
4,730
4,730
4,730
NM
5,090
NM
NM
5,090
5,440
5,440
5,440
5,440
NM
NM
5,790
5,790
6,150
6,150
6,150
NM
NM
6,500
6,500
6,500
NM
6,860
NM
NM
6,860
7,220
7,220
NM
7,220
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
370
0
350
NA
0
NA
NA
360
0
0
NA
360
NA
NA
0
350
0
0
0
NA
NA
350
0
360
0
0
NA
NA
350
0
0
NA
360
NA
NA
0
360
0
NA
0
NA
NA
Throughput
Between
Backwash
Cycles
(gal)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10,100
NA
NA
NA
NA
31,500
NA
NA
NA
18,400
NA
NA
NA
24,700
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
29,300
NA
17,300
NA
NA
NA
NA
27,100
NA
NA
NA
20,600
NA
NA
NA
22,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NaOCI A
NaOCI Tank
Level
(galf
1.00
NM
0.30
NM
NM
0.30
0.30
0.20
NM
0.30
NM
NM
0.50
0.10
0.10
NM
0.19
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
0.30
0.30
0.10
NM
0.10
NM
NM
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
NM
NM
0.20
0.00
0.00
NM
0.00
NM
NM
ipjication
Average CI2
Dose
(mg/L)
NA
NA
1.7
NA
NA
0.9
2.4
2.7
NA
1.2
NA
NA
1.3
1.0
1.2
NA
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
1.4
0.8
NA
1.0
NA
NA
1.2
2.1
1.8
NA
0.5
NA
NA
0.6
0.0
0.0
NA
0.0
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Date
08/29/05
08/30/05
08/31 /05|al
09/01/05
09/02/05
09/03/05
09/04/05
09/05/05™
09/06/05
09/07/05
09/08/05
09/09/05
09/10/05
09/11/05
09/12/05
09/13/05
09/14/05
09/15/05
09/16/05
09/17/05
09/18/05
09/19/05
09/20/05
09/21/05
09/22/05
09/23/05
09/24/05
09/25/05
09/26/05
09/27/05
09/28/05
09/29/05
09/30/05
10/01/05
10/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
10/05/05
10/06/05
10/07/05
10/08/05
10/09/05
10/10/05
10/11/05
10/12/05
10/13/05
10/14/05
10/15/05
10/16/05
Time
15:40
16:40
15:30
13:15
16:15
NM
NM
NM
12:30
16:30
16:20
15:35
NM
NM
16:40
14:30
15:00
14:30
16:00
NM
NM
03:45
03:20
03:30
NM
NM
NM
NM
11:30
02:30
03:30
09:10
04:45
NM
NM
16:50
15:00
16:00
12:50
15:40
NM
NM
16:00
15:40
11:30
14:05
15:00
NM
NM
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gal)
343,600
349,300
354,100
358,200
364,600
NM
NM
NM
388,000
396,400
403,500
409,100
NM
NM
430,700
436,800
443,900
450,500
456,000
NM
NM
471,000
476,600
481,100
NM
490,400
NM
NM
503,400
509,200
514,200
518,600
526,900
NM
NM
541,200
546,200
552,500
557,500
563,600
NM
NM
576,900
581,600
585,100
590,600
595,500
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
17,500
5,700
4,800
4,100
6,400
NA
NA
NA
23,400
8,400
7,100
5,600
NA
NA
21,600
6,100
7,100
6,600
5,500
NA
NA
15,000
5,600
4,500
NM
9,300
NA
NA
13,000
5,800
5,000
4,400
8,300
NA
NA
14,300
5,000
6,300
5,000
6,100
NA
NA
13,300
4,700
3,500
5,500
4,900
NA
NA
Pressure
Pressure
Tanks
(PSi)
NM
NM
47
55
48
NM
NM
NM
48
48
48
51
NM
NM
47
54
53
44
53
NM
NM
47
49
49
NM
50
NM
NM
52
49
48
52
53
NM
NM
52
57
50
55
48
NM
NM
53
50
48
52
54
NM
NM
After
Contact
Tank
(PSi)
39
44
40
48
40
NM
NM
NM
43
40
40
42
NM
NM
39
43
43
39
43
NM
NM
44
43
41
NM
43
NM
NM
44
43
41
49
44
NM
NM
43
45
41
48
41
NM
NM
44
42
40
48
44
NM
NM
After
Filters
(PSi)
21
24
23
24
21
NM
NM
NM
24
19
20
23
NM
NM
22
25
23
22
22
NM
NM
22
22
22
NM
18
NM
NM
23
18
22
25
24
NM
NM
24
25
23
20
18
NM
NM
20
23
22
20
25
NM
NM
AP
across
System
(PSi)
NA
NA
24
31
27
NA
NA
NA
24
29
28
28
NA
NA
25
29
30
22
31
NA
NA
25
27
27
NM
32
NA
NA
29
31
26
27
29
NA
NA
28
32
27
35
30
NA
NA
33
27
26
32
29
NA
NA
AP
across
Filters
(PSi)
18
20
17
24
19
NA
NA
NA
19
21
20
19
NA
NA
NA
18
20
17
21
NA
NA
22
21
19
NM
25
NA
NA
21
25
19
24
20
NA
NA
19
20
18
28
23
NA
NA
24
19
18
28
19
NA
NA
Volume to Distribution
Totalizer
(kgal)
14,220.2
14,225.8
14,230.6
14,234.3
14,240.7
NM
NM
NM
14,263.4
14,271.7
14,278.4
14,284.0
NM
NM
14,305
14,311
14,318
14,325
14,330
NM
NM
14,344.6
14,349.4
14,353.9
NM
14,362.4
NM
NM
14,375.0
14,380.9
14,385.9
14,390.3
14,396.6
NM
NM
14,411.1
14,415.7
14,420.7
14,425.7
14,431.8
NM
NM
14,444.8
14,448.7
14,452.2
14,457.8
14,462.6
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
17,000
5,600
4,800
3,700
6,400
NA
NA
NA
22,700
8,300
6,700
5,600
NA
NA
21,000
6,000
7,100
6,600
5,100
NA
NA
14,800
4,800
4,500
NM
8,500
NA
NA
12,600
5,900
5,000
4,400
6,300
NA
NA
14,500
4,600
5,000
5,000
6,100
NA
NA
13,000
3,900
3,500
5,600
4,800
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
7,570
7,570
7,570
7,920
7,920
NM
NM
NM
8,300
8,300
8,650
8,650
NM
NM
9,010
9,010
9,010
9,370
9,370
NM
NM
9,370
10,080
10,080
NM
10,080
NM
NM
10,430
10,430
10,430
10,430
12,210
NM
NM
12,210
12,560
12,560
12,560
12,560
NM
NM
12,910
13,630
13,630
13,630
13,630
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
350
0
0
350
0
NA
NA
NA
380
0
350
0
NA
NA
360
0
0
360
0
NA
NA
720
710
0
NM
0
NA
NA
350
0
0
0
1,780
NA
NA
0
350
0
0
0
NA
NA
350
720
0
0
0
NA
NA
Throughput
Between
Backwash
Cycles
(gal)
32,700
NA
NA
14,600
NA
NA
NA
NA
29,800
NA
15,500
NA
NA
NA
27,200
NA
NA
19,800
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23,500
NA
NA
NA
19,300
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30,700
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NaOCIA
NaOCI Tank
Level
(gal)|c|
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NM
NM
NM
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NM
NM
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NM
NM
0.40
0.20
0.00
NM
0.30
NM
NM
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
NM
NM
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
NM
NM
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
NM
NM
plication
Average CI2
Dose
(mg/L)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
1.3
1.8
0.0
NM
1.6
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
NA
NA
0.4
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.0
NA
NA
0.8
1.1
1.4
0.9
0.0
NA
NA
>
-------
Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
10/17/05
10/18/05
10/19/05
10/20/05
10/21/05
10/22/05
10/23/05
10/24/05
10/25/05
10/26/05
10/27/05
10/28/05
10/29/05
10/30/05
10/31/05™
11/01/05
1 1/02/05
11/03/05
11/04/05
11/05/05
11/06/05
11/07/05
11/08/05
11/09/05
11/10/05
11/11/05
11/12/05
11/13/05
11/14/05
11/15/05
11/16/05
11/17/05
11/18/05
11/19/05
11/20/05
11/21/05
11/22/05
11/23/05
11/24/05
11/25/05
11/26/05
11/27/05
11/28/05
11/29/05
11/30/05
12/01/05
12/02/05
12/03/05
12/04/05
Time
15:40
16:50
15:15
14:25
13:45
NM
NM
16:10
12:00
14:00
NM
14:40
NM
NM
15:50
16:20
15:20
15:50
15:40
NM
NM
16:00
12:00
15:20
14:05
15:40
NM
NM
15:45
16:15
15:30
14:10
15:05
NM
NM
15:10
15:45
15:30
NM
15:10
NM
NM
15:45
12:40
15:45
15:45
15:40
NM
NM
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gal)
610,800
616,100
619,800
624,600
629,500
NM
NM
642,500
646,600
653,900
NM
664,800
NM
NM
681,200
686,800
696,300
711,400
715,800
NM
NM
731,000
735,000
739,900
744,000
749,700
NM
NM
762,200
767,700
772,200
776,600
781,200
NM
NM
793,600
798,500
802,700
NM
814,000
NM
NM
830,500
835,600
840,200
844,800
850,700
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
15,300
5,300
3,700
4,800
4,900
NA
NA
13,000
4,100
7,300
NA
10,900
NA
NA
16,400
5,600
9,500
15,100
4,400
NA
NA
15,200
4,000
4,900
4,100
5,700
NA
NA
12,500
5,500
4,500
4,400
4,600
NA
NA
12,400
4,900
4,200
NA
11,300
NA
NA
16,500
5,100
4,600
4,600
5,900
NA
NA
Pressure
Pressure
Tanks
(PSi)
48
45
48
50
56
NM
NM
55
47
45
NM
48
NM
NM
52
49
56
55
53
NM
NM
53
45
52
47
55
NM
NM
49
51
56
50
49
NM
NM
53
57
45
NM
46
NM
NM
53
55
50
47
48
NM
NM
After
Contact
Tank
(PSi)
40
39
40
42
45
NM
NM
44
40
40
NM
40
NM
NM
43
42
43
48
40
NM
NM
50
38
44
40
50
NM
NM
40
43
49
44
43
NM
NM
47
44
38
NM
40
NM
NM
45
44
43
40
40
NM
NM
After
Filters
(PSi)
20
20
22
25
25
NM
NM
30
20
19
NM
23
NM
NM
21
22
28
30
19
NM
NM
29
20
24
19
32
NM
NM
19
22
25
26
23
NM
NM
29
24
20
NM
20
NM
NM
22
30
23
20
19
NM
NM
AP
across
System
(PSi)
28
25
26
25
31
NA
NA
25
27
26
NA
25
NA
NA
31
27
28
25
34
NA
NA
24
25
28
28
23
NA
NA
30
29
31
24
26
NA
NA
24
33
25
NA
26
NA
NA
31
25
27
27
29
NA
NA
AP
across
Filters
(PSi)
20
19
18
17
20
NA
NA
14
20
21
NA
17
NA
NA
22
20
15
18
21
NA
NA
21
18
20
21
18
NA
NA
21
21
24
18
20
NA
NA
18
20
18
NA
20
NA
NA
23
14
20
20
21
NA
NA
Volume to Distribution
Totalizer
(kgal)
14,477.8
14,483.1
14,486.8
14,491.5
14,496.5
NM
NM
14,509.2
14,513.4
14,520.1
NM
14,530.2
NM
NM
14,546.8
14,551.6
14,556.9
14,560.8
14,565.2
NM
NM
14,579.8
14,584.0
14,588.8
14,592.9
14,597.8
NM
NM
14,610.8
14,615.9
14,620.4
14,624.5
14,629.2
NM
NM
14,641.7
14,646.3
14,650.5
NM
14,661.9
NM
NM
14,678.2
14,682.1
14,686.9
14,691.5
14,697.4
NM
NM
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
15,200
5,300
3,700
4,700
5,000
NA
NA
12,700
4,200
6,700
NA
10,100
NA
NA
16,600
4,800
5,300
3,900
4,400
NA
NA
14,600
4,200
4,800
4,100
4,900
NA
NA
13,000
5,100
4,500
4,100
4,700
NA
NA
12,500
4,600
4,200
NA
1 1 ,400
NA
NA
16,300
3,900
4,800
4,600
5,900
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
13,980
13,980
13,980
13,980
13,980
NM
NM
14,330
14,330
14,330
NM
14,700
NM
NM
14,700
15,050
15,050
15,050
15,050
NM
NM
15,410
15,410
15,410
15,410
16,100
NM
NM
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,460
16,460
NM
NM
16,460
16,830
16,830
NM
16,830
NM
NM
17,190
18,230
18,230
18,230
18,230
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
350
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
350
0
0
NA
370
NA
NA
0
350
0
0
0
NA
NA
360
0
0
0
690
NA
NA
0
0
0
360
0
NA
NA
0
370
0
NA
0
NA
NA
360
1,040
0
0
0
NA
NA
Throughput
Between
Backwash
Cycles
(gal)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31,700
NA
NA
NA
22,300
NA
NA
NA
22,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
44,200
NA
NA
NA
18,700
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
26,900
NA
NA
NA
NA
21,900
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
32,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NaOCI Application
NaOCITank
Level
(gal)"1
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.10
0.10
NM
NM
0.20
0.10
0.10
NM
14.50
NM
NM
14.00
14.00
13.50
13.50
13.50
NM
NM
13.25
13.00
12.75
12.50
12.50
NM
NM
12.00
12.00
12.00
11.75
11.75
NM
NM
11.25
11.25
11.00
NM
10.75
NM
NM
10.25
10.50
14.50
14.50
14.25
NM
NM
Average CI2
Dose
(mg/L)
0.0
0.0
2.7
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
0.8
1.2
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.7
NA
NA
4.8
NA
NA
1.6
NA
NA
2.9
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
>
-------
Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Date
12/05/05
12/06/05
12/07/05
12/08/05
12/09/05
12/10/05
12/11/05
12/12/05
12/13/05
12/14/05
12/15/05
12/16/05
12/17/05
12/18/05
12/19/05
12/20/05
12/21/05
12/22/05
12/23/05
12/24/05
12/25/05
12/26/05
12/27/05
12/28/05
12/29/05
12/30/05
12/31/05
01/01/06
01/02/06
01/03/06
01/04/06
01/05/06
01/06/06
01/07/06
01/08/06
01/09/06
01/10/06
01/11/06
01/12/06
01/13/06
01/14/06
01/15/06
01/16/06
01/17/06
Time
16:40
13:35
15:30
14:25
15:00
NM
NM
15:30
13:00
15:00
12:55
12:30
NM
NM
14:10
14:05
14:30
14:40
14:25
NM
NM
15:00
14:35
15:00
14:25
14:00
NM
NM
16:00
14:00
15:00
14:30
15:30
NM
NM
15:00
15:55
16:30
14:30
15:45
NM
NM
16:00
16:30
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gal)
865,200
869,000
879,600
889,700
894,700
NM
NM
911,600
916,500
923,600
930,200
937,100
NM
NM
960,300
968,800
975,500
981,600
987,400
NM
NM
1,007,000
1,012,500
1,018,400
1,028,500
1,036,000
NM
NM
1,055,300
1,061,800
1,068,400
1,072,700
1,079,500
NM
NM
1,098,900
1,107,000
1,113,100
1,118,200
1,127,200
NM
NM
1,147,200
1,155,100
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
14,500
3,800
10,600
10,100
5,000
NA
NA
16,900
4,900
7,100
6,600
6,900
NA
NA
23,200
8,500
6,700
6,100
5,800
NA
NA
19,600
5,500
5,900
10,100
7,500
NA
NA
19,300
6,500
6,600
4,300
6,800
NA
NA
19,400
8,100
6,100
5,100
9,000
NA
NA
20,000
7,900
Pressure
Pressure
Tanks
(PSi)
51
54
53
54
55
NM
NM
45
49
49
51
54
NM
NM
59
46
51
57
52
NM
NM
52
50
50
46
53
NM
NM
52
47
47
56
49
NM
NM
53
56
57
55
58
NM
NM
52
55
After
Contact
Tank
(PSi)
43
44
44
48
45
NM
NM
39
43
41
42
48
NM
NM
51
41
45
50
43
NM
NM
48
42
43
40
43
NM
NM
45
40
39
50
40
NM
NM
44
50
40
40
50
NM
NM
43
50
After
Filters
(PSi)
23
24
21
30
30
NM
NM
18
23
23
23
25
NM
NM
30
25
22
32
10
NM
NM
27
27
24
24
18
NM
NM
23
21
22
30
22
NM
NM
29
32
20
22
32
NM
NM
22
30
AP
across
System
(PSi)
28
30
32
24
25
NA
NA
27
26
26
28
29
NA
NA
29
21
29
25
42
NA
NA
25
23
26
22
35
NA
NA
29
26
25
26
27
NA
NA
24
24
37
33
26
NA
NA
30
25
AP
across
Filters
(PSi)
20
20
23
18
15
NA
NA
21
20
18
19
23
NA
NA
21
16
23
18
33
NA
NA
21
15
19
16
25
NA
NA
22
19
17
20
18
NA
NA
15
18
20
18
18
NA
NA
21
20
Volume to Distribution
Totalizer
(kgal)
14,711.7
14,715.6
14,726.3
14,736.0
14,741.2
NM
NM
14,757.9
14,762.9
14,770.0
14,776.3
14,783.3
NM
NM
14,806.3
14,814.6
14,821.4
14,827.5
14,833.5
NM
NM
14,852.8
14,858.4
14,864.0
14,873.7
14,881.0
NM
NM
14,900.4
14,906.6
14,913.4
14,917.6
14,924.6
NM
NM
14,943.8
14,950.4
14,956.7
14,961.8
14,970.8
NM
NM
14,990.8
14,998.4
Incremental
Volume
(gal)
14,300
3,900
10,700
9,700
5,200
NA
NA
16,700
5,000
7,100
6,300
7,000
NA
NA
23,000
8,300
6,800
6,100
6,000
NA
NA
19,300
5,600
5,600
9,700
7,300
NA
NA
19,400
6,200
6,800
4,200
7,000
NA
NA
19,200
6,600
6,300
5,100
9,000
NA
NA
20,000
7,600
Backwash
Totalizer
(gal)
18,580
18,580
18,580
18,930
18,930
NM
NM
19,220
19,220
19,220
19,630
19,630
NM
NM
19,980
20,330
20,330
20,330
20,330
NM
NM
20,680
20,680
21,040
21,040
21,380
NM
NM
21,380
21,730
21,730
21,730
21,730
NM
NM
22,100
23,350
23,350
23,350
23,550
NM
NM
23,720
24,080
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
350
0
0
350
0
NA
NA
290
0
0
410
0
NA
NA
350
350
0
0
0
NA
NA
350
0
360
0
340
NA
NA
0
350
0
0
0
NA
NA
370
1,250
0
0
200
NA
NA
170
360
Throughput
Between
Backwash
Cycles
(gal)
NA
NA
NA
24,500
NA
NA
NA
21,900
NA
NA
18,600
NA
NA
NA
30,100
8,500
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
38,200
NA
11,400
NA
17,600
NA
NA
NA
25,800
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
37,100
6,600
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20,000
7,900
NaOCI A
NaOCI Tank
Level
(gal)|c|
14.00
13.75
13.50
13.00
13.00
NM
NM
12.50
12.50
12.25
12.00
12.00
NM
NM
11.25
11.00
10.75
10.50
10.25
NM
NM
10.00
14.25
14.00
13.75
13.50
NM
NM
13.00
13.00
12.75
12.50
12.50
NM
NM
12.00
11.75
11.50
11.25
11.28
NM
NM
10.50
10.25
plication
Average CI2
Dose
(mg/L)
4.0
NA
NA
2.3
NA
NA
4.4
NA
NA
3.1
NA
NA
2.5
NA
NA
3.0
NA
NA
3.8
>
Note:
(a) On 08/31/05, pressure reading of the four pressure tanks started being recorded.
(b) Labor day holiday.
(c) Change in NaOCI tank level recorded up to 10/28/06 when actual NaOCI tank level started being recorded.
(d) Flow meters, one on treated water line and one on backwash line, installed on 09/20/06 but readings not recorded until 10/31/06.
NM = not measured; NA = not available.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Delavan, WI
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
rluoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Orthophosphate
(asP)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
3H
Temperature
DO
ORP
rree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
re(total)
re(soluble)
Mn(total)
Mn(soluble)
%
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
07/12/05
IN
AC
TT
70
352
0.2
<1
0.1
-
<0.05
13.9
14.0
7.4
14.1
0.8
-52
304
162
141
18.6
19.2
0.1
18.6
0.6
1,557
1,509
19.5
19.8
352
0.2
<1
O.05
-
O.05
14.2
1.7
7.4
15.5
1.9
174
318
170
148
20.5
7.7
12.8
5.0
2.7
1,419
130
18.9
18.3
352
0.2
<1
<0.05
-
<0.05
13.8
0.3
7.5
15.4
1.7
241
<0.02
0.1
329
175
153
7.6
7.7
0.1
5.8
1.8
<25
<25
20.4
20.3
07/19/05
IN
AC
TA
TB
70
365
0.2
<1
0.1
-
O.05
14.2
18.0
7.4
13.9
2.6
-60
-
21.7
1,471
19.0
361
0.2
<1
0.1
-
O.05
14.2
1.8
7.4
13.2
1.2
73
0.02
0.3
-
16.6
1,446
19.3
365
0.2
<1
0.1
-
O.05
14.0
0.6
7.4
13.1
3.2
221
0.02
0.2
-
3.2
<25
18.1
365
0.2
<1
0.2
-
O.05
14.2
0.2
7.5
14.5
3.9
284
0.02
0.2
-
2.9
<25
18.4
07/26/05
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Delavan, WI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Alkalinity
(as CaC03)
=luoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Orthophosphate
(asP)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
M
Temperature
DO
ORP
=ree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Vlg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
=e(total)
=e(soluble)
Vlnftotal)
Vln(soluble)
%
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
08/16/05
IN
AC
TA
TB
70
330
0.05
14.6
14.0
7.7
13.0
3.6
-40
17.5
1,466
18.4
352
<0.05
-
14.5
2.0
7.6
13.1
3.5
-33
0.02
0.1
-
-
-
16.8
-
-
1,406
17.9
-
352
-
-
-
-
0.05
-
15.0
1.4
7.5
13.1
1.8
-50
0.02
0.1
-
-
-
5.5
-
-
150
17.9
-
356
-
-
-
-
0.05
14.7
2.3
7.6
13.1
1.9
-46
0.02
0.1
6.3
219
17.9
08/23/05
IN
AC
TA
TB
83.5
352
0.05
13.8
14.7
7.7
13.6
2.8
-49
19.0
1,319
17.4
352
0.05
-
14.3
11.3
7.6
13.3
2.6
-37
0.02
0.1
-
-
-
19.1
-
-
1,324
18.0
-
356
-
-
-
-
0.05
-
14.4
20.4
7.6
13.3
2.6
-47
0.02
0.1
-
-
-
6.7
-
-
137
18.2
-
356
-
-
-
-
0.05
-
14.1
19.0
7.5
13.0
2.5
-36
0.02
0.1
-
-
-
6.8
-
-
202
17.9
-
08/30/05|a|
IN
AC
TA
TB
83.5
365
0.05
16.6
12.0
7.6
15.6
2.6
-36
NA
NA
NA
352
0.05
16.8
13.0
7.5
12.6
3.7
-59
0.02
0.1
17.2
1,416
17.8
352
-
-
-
-
0.05
-
16.8
20.0
7.5
13.3
1.6
-68
0.02
0.1
-
-
-
17.9
-
-
1,499
17.9
-
356
-
-
-
-
0.05
-
16.2
19.0
7.4
12.9
1.9
-60
0.02
0.1
-
-
-
18.1
-
-
1,525
18.5
-
09/06/05
IN
AC
TA
TB
83.5
352
0.05
15.3
14.0
7.5
16.3
2.6
-22
20.7
1,350
18.5
361
0.05
14.6
13.0
7.5
13.9
2.0
-66
0.09
0.1
19.9
1,351
17.5
356
-
-
-
-
0.05
-
14.9
18.0
7.3
14.6
2.1
-59
0.03
0.1
-
-
-
19.9
-
-
1,418
17.8
-
361
-
-
-
-
0.05
-
14.8
17.0
7.5
14.2
1.9
-70
0.02
0.1
-
-
-
21.0
-
-
1,389
17.7
-
09/13/05
IN
AC
TA
TB
83.5
361
0.05
14.4
14.0
7.6
14.5
2.4
-68
16.8
1,443
17.4
356
0.05
14.7
18.0
7.5
13.2
2.1
-69
0.02
0.1
17.6
1,556
17.4
352
-
-
-
-
0.05
-
14.9
18.0
7.6
13.5
3.1
-51
0.12
0.1
-
-
-
17.2
-
-
1,452
16.8
-
361
-
-
-
-
0.05
-
14.7
18.0
7.5
13.7
2.0
-56
0.02
0.1
-
-
-
17.0
-
-
1,512
17.1
-
Cd
to
(a) Samples sent day after sampling and some analytes may be out of hold time.
IN = influent; AC = after chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B; TT = after combined effluent. NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Delavan, WI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
rluoride
Sulfate
\litrate (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Orthophosphate
(asP)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
:H
Temperature
DO
ORP
rree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
re(total)
re(soluble)
Mn(total)
Mn(soluble)
%
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
09/20/05
IN
AC
TA
TB
83.5
352
<0.05
-
13.0
16.0
7.3
15.1
1.9
-73
-
-
15.4
1,449
17.0
-
370
<0.05
-
13.0
2.2
7.2
16.0
2.7
-18
<0.02
0.1
-
15.1
1,294
15.7
-
374
O.05
-
13.3
3.2
7.4
15.5
2.4
-27
O.02
0.1
-
6.1
291
16.2
-
370
O.05
-
13.1
2.0
7.4
14.9
2.1
-28
O.02
0.1
-
5.5
216
15.4
-
09/27/05
IN
AC
TT
83.5
361
0.2
<1
0.05
O.05
-
16.2
16.0
7.5
13.5
2.0
-81
-
510
260
250
29.0
15.7
13.3
14.0
1.7
2,478
1,227
32.9
19.5
361
0.2
<1
0.05
O.05
-
16.3
18.0
7.5
13.4
2.0
-76
O.02
0.1
281
143
138
15.8
12.6
3.1
13.5
0.1
1,602
19.2
11.8
365
0.2
<1
0.05
O.05
-
16.0
20.0
7.7
13.9
3.9
-67
O.02
0.1
283
143
141
16.6
16.8
0.1
15.1
1.8
1,596
1,417
19.2
20.8
10/04/05
IN
AC
TA
TB
62
361
O.05
-
14.2
20.0
7.4
14.0
2.8
-81
-
-
15.9
1,512
17.8
-
374
O.05
-
14.5
6.1
7.5
13.8
2.1
-53
O.02
0.1
-
16.2
1,525
17.9
-
370
O.05
-
13.8
7.5
7.5
13.5
2.3
-50
O.02
0.1
-
10.2
930
17.8
-
374
O.05
-
15.3
11.0
7.4
13.8
2.1
-60
O.02
0.1
-
9.4
874
17.4
-
10/11/05(b)
IN
AC
TA
TB
74
361
361
-
54.5
55.0
13.6
13.6
14.0
15.0
8.1
15.1
2.7
-74
-
-
14.3
14.3
1,169
1,165
15.8
15.6
-
374
370
-
52.5
58.8
13.3
13.8
5.3
11.0
8.0
14.4
3.1
-49
O.02
0.1
-
14.0
14.5
1,232
1,274
16.1
16.4
-
361
361
-
<10
<10
14.2
14.7
7.2
7.0
8.0
14.0
2.9
-34
O.02
0.1
-
8.1
8.1
537
537
16.2
15.9
-
356
356
-
<10
<10
13.6
14.0
6.8
5.5
8.1
14.1
2.9
-19
0.04
0.1
-
7.8
7.8
469
448
16.3
15.8
-
10/18/05
IN
AC
TA
TB
74
356
-
77.2
13.0
18.0
7.4
15.2
2.3
-74
-
-
20.7
1,535
19.1
-
356
-
76.7
13.3
2.7
7.4
15.5
2.1
-66
O.02
1.4
-
20.5
1,526
19.2
-
352
-
41.2
14.3
11.0
7.4
15.1
2.3
-59
O.02
0.1
-
11.6
901
19.5
-
365
-
35.8
13.4
9.9
7.4
15.3
2.3
-31
O.02
0.1
-
10.2
856
19.7
-
(a) Samples reanalyzed by laboratory showed similar results, (b) Starting 10/11/05,
IN = influent; AC = after chlorination; TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B; TT
total phosphorous analyzed instead of Orthophosphate.
= after combined effluent. NA = not availabfle.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Delavan, WI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Orthophosphate
(asP)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe(total)
Fe(soluble)
Mn(total)
Mn(soluble)
%
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
10/25/05(a)
IN
AC
TT
82
352
0.2
<1
<0.05
3.0
75.2
13.4
19.0
7.4
13.1
2.4
-71
-
328
175
153
18.5
17.5
1.0
17.2
0.3
1,530
1,480
19.1
19.2
356
0.2
<1
<0.05
79.4
13.8
6.4
7.6
13.3
3.6
-45
<0.02
<0.1
338
184
154
20.1
15.1
4.9
8.0
7.1
1,501
1,131
19.0
18.7
352
0.2
<1
<0.05
14.2
13.1
11.0
7.4
13
1.4
-32
0.03
0.2
333
177
156
12.7
11.6
1.1
9.9
1.8
834
832
21.0
20.8
11/01/05
IN
AC
TA
TB
82
352
-
-
72.6
14.3
16.0
7.5
14.6
2.9
-69
-
-
-
-
15.9
-
1,436
19.0
-
343
-
-
79.9
14.4
2.9
7.5
14.8
3.8
-8
1.5(b>
0.4(b>
-
-
-
17.0
-
1,590
20.3
-
352
-
-
<10
14.2
0.1
7.5
14.6
2.8
111
<0.02
1.2
-
-
-
3.4
-
<25
19.2
-
348
-
-
<10
14.5
0.1
7.5
15.0
2.3
113
0.7
1.0
-
-
-
2.5
-
<25
19.7
-
11/08/05
IN
AC
TA
TB
80
365
-
-
2.9
70.7
14.0
19.0
7.4
12.5
2.3
-85
-
-
-
-
22.3
-
1,542
17.5
-
361
-
-
2.7
69.3
14.5
2.6
7.6
13.6
3.2
110
0.5
2.8
-
-
-
21.6
-
1,302
17.1
-
361
-
-
2.8
<10
14.0
0.4
7.6
13.3
2.5
100
0.3
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Delavan, WI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Orthophosphate
(asP)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe(total)
Fe(soluble)
Mn(total)
Mn(soluble)
%
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
12/06/05
IN
AC
TA
TB
72
334
2.9
-
84.5
14.2
18.0
7.5
12.5
2.9
-46
-
-
-
18.6
-
-
-
-
1,388
-
35.8
348
2.8
-
82.3
14.5
2.3
7.5
12.2
4.1
104
1.5
4.4
-
18.9
-
-
-
-
1,384
-
18.4
356
2.9
-
<10
14.2
0.1
7.4
11.8
2.8
111
3.3
2.9
-
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
17.7
352
2.9
-
<10
14.3
0.1
7.5
11.6
3.8
116
1.4
4.0
-
2.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
17.6
12/13/05
IN
AC
TA
TB
65
361
370
3.0
3.0
-
69.1
71.0
14.7
14.4
16.0
19.0
7.5
11.8
3.6
-45
-
-
-
17.1
17.3
-
-
-
-
1, J/ J
1,445
-
1H.^
19.3
374
374
2.9
2.9
-
68.2
69.5
14.7
14.7
1.9
2.0
7.4
10.9
3.3
36
0.8
0.1
-
17.5
17.6
-
-
-
-
1,44(3
1,407
-
1H.H
18.2
374
374
2.9
3.2
-
<10
<10
14.9
14.1
0.4
0.1
7.7
12.4
2.6
69
<0.02
0.3
-
3.0
3.0
-
-
-
-
------- |