EPA/600/R-08/011
January 2008
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Coagulation/Filtration
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Village of Pentwater, MI
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Julia M. Valigore
Abraham S.C. Chen
Wendy E. Condit
Lili Wang
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
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the arsenic removal
treatment technology demonstration project at the Village of Pentwater, MI facility. The objectives of the
project were to evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of Kinetico's FM-260-AS treatment system using
Macrolite® media in removing arsenic to meet the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |og/L, (2) the
reliability of the treatment system for use at small water facilities, (3) the required system operation and
maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels, and (4) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The
project also characterized water in the distribution system and residuals generated by the treatment
process. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality, process residuals, and
capital and O&M cost.
After review and approval of the engineering plan by the State, the FM-260-AS treatment system was
installed and became operational on November 22, 2005. The system consisted of one 96-in x 96-in steel
contact tank and two 60-in x 96-in steel pressure tanks configured in parallel. Each pressure tank was
loaded with 40 ft3 of Macrolite® media to which filtration rates up to 9.3 gpm/ft2 were applied The
system used an existing chlorination system to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) and the contact tank to improve
the formation of As(V)-laden iron particles prior to filtration. An iron addition system was installed
midway through the study to improve arsenic removal. On average, the system operated at approximately
350 gal/min (gpm) for 5.1 hr/day, producing 39,185,000 gal of water through December 8, 2006. This
average flowrate corresponded to a contact time of 6.8 min and a filtration rate of 8.9 gpm/ft2. Several
problems were encountered during the demonstration study, including programmable logic controller
(PLC) settings, backwash and service flowrates, media loss, influent pressure spikes, and chlorine
addition. The actions taken to address these problems are detailed in the report.
Source water had an average pH value of 7.9 and contained 14.6 to 21.8 |o,g/L of total arsenic. The
predominant arsenic species was As(III) with an average concentration of 14.9 |o,g/L. Total iron
concentrations ranged from 346 to 510 |o,g/L, which mostly existed in the soluble form. Chlorine was
used to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II). Although breakpoint chlorination likely was achieved during most of
the study period, chloramines might have been formed due to the occurrence of 0.3 mg/L (as N) of
ammonia in source water, causing incomplete As(III) oxidation. As a result, as much as 1.6 (ig/L of
As(III) was measured in the treated water. Total arsenic concentrations in the treated water ranged from
7.8 to 15.6 ng/L and averaged 9.9 |o,g/L. After months of system operations, provisions were made to add
FeCl3 at an average dosage of 0.5 mg/L (as Fe) to improve As(V) removal. This pretreatment raised iron
concentrations following the contact tank to 658 to 1,638 |o,g/L, thereby lowering the average arsenic
concentration to 5.6 |o,g/L in the treated water.
The treatment system decreased arsenic levels in the distribution system from 16.5 to 7.5 |o,g/L. Iron and
manganese levels also were reduced from 192 to <25 |o,g/L and from 23.8 to 13.7 |o,g/L, respectively.
Alkalinity, pH, and lead levels did not appear to be affected.
Filters were backwashed automatically about 3 times/week triggered by 24-hr service time or 48-hr
standby time. Approximately 749,800 gal of wastewater, or 1.9% of the amount of water treated, was
generated during the study. Without iron addition, the backwash wastewater contained 252 to 646 mg/L
of total dissolved solids (TDS) and 24 to 166 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS). With iron addition,
TDS ranged from 354 to 498 mg/L and TSS from 160 to 282 mg/L with the majority exisiting as
particulates. The backwash solids contained approximately 2.10 Ib of iron, 0.03 Ib of manganese, and
0.03 Ib of arsenic.
IV
-------
The capital investment for the treatment system was $334,573, consisting of $224,994 for equipment,
$30,929 for site engineering, and $78,650 for installation, shakedown, and startup. Using the system's
rated capacity of 400 gpm (or 576,000 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $836/gpm (or $0.58/gpd). This
calculation does not include the cost of the building to house the treatment system. O&M cost, estimated
at $0.17/1,000 gal, included only the incremental cost for chemicals, electricity, and labor. Since chlorine
addition already existed prior to the demonstration study, the incremental cost for chemical usage was for
iron addition only.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xii
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
Section 2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
Section 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 6
3.1 General Project Approach 6
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 7
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 7
3.3.1 Source Water 8
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 10
3.3.3 Backwash Water 10
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 10
3.3.5 Residual Solid 10
3.4 Sampling Logistics 10
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 10
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 10
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 11
Section 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
4.1 Facility Description 12
4.1.1 Existing Facility 12
4.1.2 Distribution System 13
4.1.3 Source Water Quality 13
4.2 Treatment Process Description 15
4.3 Treatment System Installation 18
4.3.1 System Permitting 18
4.3.2 Building Construction 19
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown 19
4.3.4 Iron Addition Modification 20
4.4 System Operation 20
4.4.1 Service Operation 20
4.4.2 Chlorine and Iron Additions 23
4.4.3 Backwash Operation 24
4.4.3.1 PLC Settings 25
4.4.3.2 Backwash Flowrates and Associated Issues 26
4.4.3.3 Influent Pressure Spikes 27
VI
-------
4.4.4 Residual Management 28
4.4.5 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation 28
4.4.5.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements 29
4.4.5.2 System Automation 29
4.4.5.3 Operator Skill Requirements 29
4.4.5.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities 29
4.4.5.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements 29
4.5 System Performance 30
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 30
4.5.
4.5.
4.5.
4.5.
4.5.
4.5.
. 1 Arsenic 30
.2 Iron 33
.3 Manganese 37
.4 pH, DO, andORP 37
.5 Chlorine and Ammonia 37
.6 Other Water Quality Parameters 38
4.5.2 Backwash Water and Solids Sampling 38
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 40
4.6 System Cost 40
4.6.1 Capital Cost 40
4.6.2 O&MCost 44
5.0 REFERENCES 45
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA A-l
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES B-l
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations 9
Figure 4-1. Existing Facility and System Components 12
Figure 4-2. Schematic of Kinetico's FM-260-AS System 16
Figure 4-3. Treatment System Components 16
Figure 4-4. Control and Instrumentation 17
Figure 4-5. New Building Constructed Next to Existing Well No. 2 Pump House 19
Figure 4-6. Initial and Revised/Actual Service Flowrates 22
Figure 4-7. Differential Pressure vs. Filter Run Time 23
Figure 4-8. Chlorine and Ferric Chloride Dosages of Over Time 24
Figure 4-9. Initial and Revised/Actual Backwash Flowrates 26
Figure 4-10. Arsenic Speciation Results 34
Figure 4-11. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train 35
Figure 4-12. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train 35
Figure 4-13. Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Concentrations During a 24-hr Service Run 36
Figure 4-14. Total Manganese Concentrations Across Treatment Train 37
Figure 4-15. Chlorine Residuals Measured Throughout Treatment Train 38
Figure 4-16. Effect of Treatment System on Arsenic, Manganese, and Iron in Distribution
System 42
vn
-------
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of the Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 3
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 6
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses 8
Table 4-1. Well No. 2 Source Water Quality Data 14
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of M2 Macrolite® Media 15
Table 4-3. Design Specifications for Kinetico's FM-260-AS System 17
Table 4-4. System Inspection Punch-List Items 20
Table 4-5. FM-260-AS Treatment System Operational Parameters 21
Table 4-6. Summary of PLC Settings for Backwash Operations 25
Table 4-7. Comparison of Filter Operation during Backwash Modes 28
Table 4-8. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 31
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 32
Table 4-10. Backwash Water Sampling Results 39
Table 4-11. Backwash Solids Sampling Test Results 39
Table 4-12. Distribution System Sampling Results 41
Table 4-13. Capital Investment for Kinetico's FM-260-AS System 43
Table 4-14. O&M Costs for Kinetico's FM-260-AS System 44
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AA activated alumina
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
bgs below ground surface
C/F coagulation/filtration
Ca calcium
Cl chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DBF Disinfection Byproducts
DBPR Disinfection Byproducts Rule
DO dissolved oxygen
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
FeQ3 ferric chloride
FedEx Federal Express
FTW filter to waste
gpd gallons per day
gph gallons per hour
gpm gallons per minute
F£AA heloacetic acid
HOPE high-density polyethylene
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
IX
-------
Mg magnesium
jam micrometer
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detected
NS not sampled
NSF NSF International
NTU nephlemetric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
OIP operator interface panel
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P phosphorus
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
Pb lead
pCi/L picocuries per liter
psi pounds per square inch
psig pounds per square inch gauge
PLC programmable logic controller
PO4 phosphate
POU point-of-use
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RPD relative percent difference
RO reverse osmosis
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO4 sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TDH total dynamic head
TDS total dissolved solids
THM trihalomethanes
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
-------
UPS uninterruptible power supply
V vanadium
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Mr. Gerald Kacynski of Village of Pentwater, MI.
Mr. Kacynski monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the treatment and distribution
systems on a regular schedule throughout the study. This performance evaluation would not have been
possible without his support and dedication.
xn
-------
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 |o,g/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites, and the community water system in the Village of Pentwater, MI 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 Pentwater facility. As of December 2007, 37 of the 40 systems have been
operational, and the performance evaluation of 26 systems has been completed.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13 coagula-
tion/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, and 17 point-of-use (POU) units (including
nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and eight AM units
at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors,
system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, Fe, and pH) at the 40
demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 Round 1
demonstration sites and the associated capital cost 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 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 the Village of Pentwater in Michigan
from November 22, 2005 through December 8, 2006. The types of data collected include 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 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(Mg/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NY(d)
Newark, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (ARM 200)
AM(E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70(b)
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250te)
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,806(c)
l,312(c)
1,615W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM(E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM (E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14W
13w
16W
20W
17
39(a)
34
25W
42W
146W
127W
466(c)
l,387(c)
l,499(c)
7827(c)
546W
l,470(c)
3,078W
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
90(b)
50
37
35W
19W
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(Mg/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service
District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)®
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (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 process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; EHX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) 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 Amaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
Section 2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected from operation of Kinetico's FM-260-AS treatment system with
Macrolite® media at Village of Pentwater, MI from November 22, 2005 to December 8, 2006, the
following summary and conclusions are provided relating to the overall objectives of the treatment
technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• Chlorination was effective in oxidizing As(III) to As(V) and Fe(II) to Fe(III). However, the
presence of chloramines might have contributed to incomplete oxidation of As(III), leaving as
much as 1.6 (ig/L of As(III) in treated water.
• Supplemental iron addition at 0.5 mg/L was needed to achieve consistent arsenic removal to
• With proper operation of the chlorine addition system and supplemental iron addition, the
Macrolite® pressure filters were effective in removing arsenic and iron particles at filtration
rates ranging from 8.4 to 9.3 gpm/ft2. These filtration rates were two to three times higher
than those normally applied to gravity filters.
• Even at high filtration rates up to 9.3 gpm/ft2, the filter runs could last for 12 hr (on average),
which was substantially better than the performance of some of the other Macrolite® systems
evaluated by this demonstration project. Iron addition did not reduce the filter run length.
• Backwash was effective in restoring differential pressure (Ap) across a filter to its clean bed
level of 4 to 6 lb/in2 (psi).
• The system improved water quality in the distribution system by decreasing arsenic, iron, and
manganese concentrations. Alkalinity, pH, and lead concentrations did not appear to be
affected.
Required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• The daily demand on the operator was short, averaging 30 min for routine O&M. However, a
significant amount of time and effort was required to troubleshoot backwash-related issues.
• Incorrectly calibrated flow meters caused much confusion and resulted in erroneous service
and backwash flowrates and media loss. Flow meter readings should be verified, especially if
and when a system is performing outside of its design specifications.
Characteristics of residuals produced by the technology:
• Wastewater production was equivalent to about 1 .9% of the amount of water treated.
• Approximately 0.5 Ib of residual solids was produced during each backwash cycle prior to
iron addition. Thereafter, 2.6 Ib of solids was produced including 2.10 Ib of iron, 0.03 Ib of
manganese, and 0.03 Ib of arsenic.
Capital and O&M cost of the technology:
• The capital investment for the system was $334,573, consisting of $224,994 for equipment,
$30,929 for site engineering, and $78,650 for installation, shakedown, and startup.
• The unit capital cost was $836/gpm (or $0.58/gpd) based on a 400-gpm design capacity. This
calculation does not reflect the building cost as it was funded by the Village.
• The O&M cost was $0. 17/1,000 gal including incremental cost for chemicals, electricity, and
labor.
-------
Section 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
the Kinetico treatment system began on November 22, 2005, and ended on December 8, 2006. Table 3-2
summarizes the types of data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The
overall system performance was based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the target
MCL of 10 |o,g/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the
system was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair
and replacement. The unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator
on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
The O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through quantitative data and qualitative
considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation, extent of
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 the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
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
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received
Purchase Order Established
Letter Report Issued
Engineering Package Submitted to MDEQ
Study Plan Issued
System Permit Granted by MDEQ
Building Construction Permit Granted by Oceana County
Building Construction Began
Building Completed and FM-260-AS System Shipped
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Began
Date
August 3 1,2004
October 19, 2004
November 4, 2004
November 10, 2004
December 2, 2004
February 1, 2005
March 1, 2005
March 29, 2005
March 30, 2005
May 3 1,2005
August 17, 2005
August 19, 2005
October 2 1,2005
November 4, 2005
November 11, 2005
November 22, 2005
MDEQ = Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objective
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 ^g/L of arsenic in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems,
materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical 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, 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 (NaOCl) and ferric chloride (FeCl3) levels, and
conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problem occurred, the plant
operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted for
troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information, including the problem
encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred,
on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly basis, the plant operator measured several water
quality parameters on-site, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded them on a Weekly 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 NaOCl and FeCl3 was tracked on the Daily System Operation Log Sheet.
Electricity consumption was determined from utility bills. Labor for various activities, such as routine
system O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, was tracked using an
Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as completing field
logs, replenishing the chemical solutions, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as
recommended by the vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as
performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle
Study Lead and the vendor, was recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the treatment plant,
during Macrolite® filter backwash, and from the distribution system. The sampling schedule and analytes
measured during each sampling event are listed in Table 3-3. In addition, Figure 3-1 presents a flow
diagram of the treatment system along with the analytes and schedule for each sampling location.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Backwash
Water
Distribution
Water
Residual
Solids
Sample
Locations'3'
IN
IN, AC, TA, TB
IN, AC, TT
BW
Three Non-LCR
Residences
SS (backwash
solids)
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 (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NH3,
NO2, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
TOC, TDS, turbidity, and
alkalinity
On-site(b): pH,
temperature, DO, ORP,
C12 (free and total).
Off-site: As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
P (total), SiO2, 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, and TSS
Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu, and
Pb, pH, and alkalinity
Total Al, As, Ca, Cd, Cu,
Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb, Si,
andZn
Collection Date(s)
and Results
Table 4-1
Appendix B
Appendix B
Table 4-10
Table 4-12
Table 4- 11
(a) Abbreviation corresponding to sample location in Figure 3-1, i.e., IN = at wellhead; AC = after contact tank;
TA = after tank A; TB = after Tank B; TT = after filter tanks combined; BW = at backwash discharge line;
SS = sludge sampling location
(b) On-site chlorine measurements not collected at IN.
Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and
holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
(Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit, one set of source water samples was collected
and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (Section 3.4.1). The sample tap was flushed for several
minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted
oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
-------
INFLUENT
(WELL No. 2)
Monthly
pHW, temperature^), DO(a\
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble),^
Mn (total and soluble),
P, Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
NH3, FOC, turbidity, alkalinity
Pentwater, MI
Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: 400 gpm
pH^, temperature(a),
C12 (free and total)<3),
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble),-^-
Mn (total and soluble),
P, Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
NH3, FOC, turbidity, alkalinity
NaOCl
FeCl3(b)
CONTACT TANK
pH, FDS, FSS,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble)
Weekly
pB», temperature^), DO(a),
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
P (total), SiO2, turbidity, alkalinity
pH^), temperature^), DQ(3),
C12 (free and total)^), As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total), P (total),
SiO2, turbidity, alkalinity
Footnotes
(a) On-site analyses
(b) Not used initially
a
mpling Locatic
I
*
LEGEND
(lNj At Wellhead
(AC) After Contact Tank
(TA) After Tank A
( TB ) After Tank B
(TT) After Filter Tanks
f BW J Backwash Sampling Location
( SS j Sludge Sampling Location
INFLUENT Unit Process
NaOCl Chlorine Addition
FeCl3 Iron Addition
^ r> n
pH^, temperature^), DO
-------
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. The plant operator collected treatment plant water samples
weekly, on a four-week cycle, for on- and off-site analyses. For the first week of each four-week cycle,
samples were collected at the wellhead (IN), after the contact tank (AC), and after filter tanks combined
(TT), and speciated on-site and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. 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.
3.3.3 Backwash Water. Backwash water samples were collected monthly by the plant operator.
Connected to the tap on the discharge line, tubing directed a portion of backwash water at approximately
1 gpm into a clean, 32-gal container over the duration of the backwash for each tank. After the content in
the container was thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected and/or filtered on-site with 0.45-
(im disc filters. Analytes for the backwash samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Water samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to system startup from February to May 2005, four
monthly baseline distribution water samples were collected from three residences within the distribution
system. Following system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same
three locations.
Homeowners 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 of actual sample collection were recorded for calculation of the
stagnation time. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least 6
hours to ensure that stagnant water was sampled.
3.3.5 Residual Solids. Residual solids produced by the treatment process consisted of only
backwash water solids. After the solids in the backwash water containers (Section 3.3.3) had settled and
the supernatant was carefully decanted, residual solids samples were collected on two occasions for
processing and analysis by Battelle. A portion of each of the solids/water mixtures was air-dried for
metals analyses.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate 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 QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sample Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, 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 demonstration site, the sampling date, a two-letter code
for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The
labeled bottles were separated by sampling location, placed in Ziplock® bags, and packed into 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-
10
-------
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 back to Battelle. Upon receipt, the
sample custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and
intact. Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into
the laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the
plant operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-
MS) Laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up
by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH; TCCI Laboratories in New
Lexington, OH; and/or Belmont Labs in Englewood, OH, which were under contract with Battelle for this
demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of
preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate
laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were followed by
Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories, and Belmont Labs. Laboratory quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision,
accuracy, method detection limits (MDLs), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e.,
relative percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The
quality assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC
Summary Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration
Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
handheld field meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the procedures provided
in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring the ORP of a standard
solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a water sample in a clean,
plastic beaker and placed the probe in the beaker until a stable value was obtained. The plant operator
also performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine test kits following the user's
manual.
11
-------
Section 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Site Description
4.1.1 Existing Facility. Three wells (Wells No. 1, 2, and 3) owned by the Village of Pentwater
supplied water to a population of about 1,000, which increased during the summer months with the influx
of tourists and summer residents. Well No. 2 was primarily used to meet the village's daily demand, and
Wells No. 1 and 3 were used as backup wells to meet the peak demand of 300,000 gpd. Typical daily
operational time was 16 to 18 hr during the summer and 4 to 5 hr during the winter.
Well No. 2, selected for this demonstration study, was a 10-in-diameter, 235-ft-deep well screened from
195 to 235 ft below ground surface (bgs) with a static water level at 40 ft bgs. The well was equipped
with a 30-horsepower (hp) submersible pump rated for 250 gpm at 300 ft of total dynamic head (TDH).
Operating at a reduced TDH of 184 ft, Well No. 2 had a capacity of approximately 350 gpm, which was
notably less than the 420 gpm expected based on the pump curve.
Prior to the installation of the arsenic removal system, treatment consisted of chlorine and polyphosphate
additions in the Well No. 2 pump house (Figure 4-1). A 15% NaOCl solution stored in a 55-gal drum
was injected at 2 to 3 mg/L using a 1.0-gal/hr (gph) pump to attain a free chlorine residual of
approximately 0.5 mg/L. A phosphate mixture (i.e., 85% polyphosphate and 15% orthophosphate) also
was added at 2 mg/L using a 2.5-gph pump for iron sequestration and corrosion control. The treated
water was stored in a 150,000-gal water tower with level sensors for well pump control.
Figure 4-1. Existing Facility and System Components
(Clockwise from Top: Well No. 2 Pump House, Water Tower, Polyphosphate Drum,
Wellhead Totalizer, and Piping and Chlorine Addition Equipment)
12
-------
4.1.2 Distribution System. The distribution system consisted of a looped distribution line, with 6-
and 8-in-diameter ductile iron and sand cast iron piping, linked to the primary supply well (i.e., Well No.
2) and two backup wells (i.e., Wells No. 1 and 3). The individual service connections consisted of
primarily %- to 1-in copper lines. Three residences served by the supply wells were selected for the
distribution system sampling. These sampling locations were not part of the Village's historic sampling
network for EPA's Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) due to limited availability of such homes year-round.
The Village samples water from the distribution system monthly for bacteria analysis, semi-annually for
trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs) analysis under EPA's Disinfection Byproducts
Rule (DBPR), and once every three years for lead and copper analysis at 10 residences under EPA's LCR.
The wells also are sampled periodically for arsenic and other constituents.
4.1.3 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected by Battelle from Well No. 2 on
August 31, 2004. The results of the source water analysis are presented in Table 4-1 and compared to
those provided by the facility, vendor, and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).
Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 17 to 24 (ig/L. The August 31, 2004, test results
showed a total arsenic concentration of 13.4 (ig/L, of which 13.2 (ig/L existed as soluble arsenic and only
0.2 (ig/L as particulate arsenic. The soluble fraction consisted of 11.1 (ig/L (or 83%) of As(III) and 2.1
(ig/L (or 16%) of As(V). Because the treatment process relied upon coprecipitation and adsorption of
As(V) with/onto iron solids, prechlorination was required to oxidize As(III) to As(V).
Iron and manganese concentrations in source water ranged from 300 to 600 |o,g/L and 32.4 to 80 |o,g/L,
respectively, which exceeded the secondary MCLs (SMCLs) of 0.3 mg/L for iron and 0.05 mg/L for
manganese. Based on the August 31, 2004 results, both iron and manganese existed almost entirely in the
soluble form. This, along with the high level of As(III) measured, suggested that the source water was
under reducing conditions. These observations were consistent with the relatively low DO (at 1.3 mg/L)
and ORP (at -97 mV) readings measured on site on August 31, 2004. To achieve compliance of the
arsenic MCL, the general recommendations are that the soluble iron concentration should be at least 20
times the soluble arsenic concentration (Sorg, 2002), and that the pH value falls in the range between 5.5
and 8.5 (note that improved system performance may be observed at the lower end of this pH range). The
results obtained on August 30, 2004 indicated a soluble iron to soluble arsenic ratio of 35:1 and a pH
value of 6.9. Although the pH value measured by the vendor on November 6, 2003, was 1 unit higher at
7.9, no provisions were made for iron addition or pH adjustment.
The August 31, 2004 test results showed 0.3 mg/L (as N) of ammonia in raw water. The presence of
ammonia will increase the chlorine demand. Chlorine added to raw water will oxidize As(III) and other
reducing species, such as Fe(II) and Mn(II), and react with ammonia and organic nitrogen compounds, if
any, to form combined chlorine (i.e., mono- and dichloramines within a pH range of 4.5 to 8.5). In order
to attain the target free chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L (as C12), "breakpoint" chlorination must be achieved.
The theoretical chlorine dosage required was 3.2 mg/L (as C12), which consisted of 1) the amount needed
to oxidize As(III), Fe(II), Mn(II), and any other reducing species, estimated to be 0.4 mg/L (as C12)
(Ghurye and Clifford, 2001), 2) the amount needed to oxidize ammonia and combined chlorine formed
during chlorination, estimated to be 2.3 mg/L (as C12) (Clark et al., 1977), and 3) the amount needed to
provide the target free chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L (as C12).
Because of the addition of 3.2 mg/L (as C12) of chlorine and because of the presence of 2.5 mg/L of total
organic carbon (TOC) in raw water, a potential for the formation of disinfection byproducts (DBFs)
existed in the treated water. The formation of DBFs was monitored by the State through the collection of
samples for THMs and HAAs analyses (Section 4.1.2). Chlorine residuals, ammonia, and TOC also were
monitored during the performance evaluation study.
13
-------
Table 4-1. Well No. 2 Source Water Quality Data
Parameter
Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
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)
Ba (total)
Cr (total)
Ca (total)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mg (total)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Na (total)
Se (total)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Ra-226
Ra-228
Unit
-
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
Facility
Data
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
188
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
148
NA
<5
NA
NA
18.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
550
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kinetico
Data
11/06/03
7.9
NA
NA
NA
144
204
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
144
0.7
<4
17.1
<0.5
17.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
47.5
530
NA
21
80
NA
67
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Battelle
Data
08/31/04
6.9
13.7
1.3
-97
141
252
2.3
450
2.5
O.04
<0.01
0.3
130
0.4
1
11.1
<0.1
13.4
13.2
0.2
11.1
2.1
NA
NA
56
466
465
27
32.4
32.6
83
NA
<0.1
<0.1
1.4
1.0
NA
NA
MDEQ
Data
04/08/00-02/26/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
180-211
NA
NA
NA
<0.4
<0.05
NA
140-165
0.5-0.7
<5
NA
NA
17.0-24.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
90-110
10
NA
300-600
NA
NA
NA
NA
51-73
6-8
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
0.1
Note: MDEQ data also reported non-detect levels
TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic
of Be, Cd,Hg,Ni,
carbon; NA = not
Pb, Sb, and Tl.
analyzed
Other source water quality parameters also were analyzed (Table 4-1). Concentrations of chloride,
fluoride, nitrate, nitrite, Orthophosphate, sulfate, silica, vanadium, uranium, combined radium, and other
constituents were found to be relatively low and/or less than the respective method reporting limits and
not expected to impact the arsenic removal. The total dissolved solids (TDS) level was near the 500-
mg/L SMCL, presumably due to high concentrations of iron. Before the treatment system was installed,
the facility had added polyphosphate as a sequestering agent for iron (Section 4.1.1). Because the
treatment process was expected to significantly reduce the iron level, polyphosphate addition was
discontinued when the treatment system went online. Hardness levels measured ranged from 180 to
14
-------
252 mg/L (as CaCO3); some customers of the water system had installed point of entry softeners to lower
the hardness.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The treatment train consisted of prechlorination/oxidation, iron addition (commencing half-way through
the study), and Kinetico's Macrolite® pressure filtration. Macrolite® is a spherical, low density,
chemically inert, ceramic media designed for filtration rates up to 10 gpm/ft2. Macrolite® is approved for
use in drinking water applications under NSF International (NSF) Standard 61. The physical properties
of the M2 Macrolite® media used are summarized in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of M2 Macrolite* Media
Property
Color
Uniformity Coefficient
Sphere Size Range (mm) [mesh]
Nominal Size (mm)
Bulk Density (g/cm3) [lb/ft3]
Specific Gravity
Value
Variable
1.1
0.21-0.42 [40 >
70]
0.30
0.86 [54]
2.05
The treatment system was composed of one contact tank, two pressure filtration tanks arranged in
parallel, and associated instrumentation to monitor pressure, flowrate, and backwash water turbidity. The
system also was equipped with a central control panel that housed a touch screen operator interface panel
(OIP), a programmable logic controller (PLC), a modem, and an uninterruptible power supply (UPS).
The Allen Bradley PLC automatically controlled the system by actuating polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
pneumatic valves using a 7.5-hp compressor depending on various inputs and outputs of the system and
corresponding PLC setpoints (Section 4.4.3.1). The system also featured schedule 80 PVC solvent
bonded plumbing and all necessary isolation and check valves and sampling ports. Figure 4-2 is a
simplified system piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID). Figures 4-3 and 4-4 contain photographs
of the key system components and control and instrumentation, respectively. The system's design
specifications are summarized in Table 4-3. The major processes included the following:
• Intake. Raw water was pumped from Well No. 2 at approximately 350 gpm. The well pump
was activated and deactivated based on the preset low and high levels in the water tower.
The inlet piping from the well into the building and the secondary piping to bypass the
treatment system, if needed, are shown in Figure 4-3.
• Chlorination. The existing chlorine addition system was used to oxidize As(III) to As(V)
and Fe(II) to Fe(III). The addition system consisted of a 55-gal day tank containing a 15%
NaOCl solution and a 1.0-gph LMI chemical feed pump with stroke and speed settings for
dosage adjustment. The feed pump was energized only when the well pump was on.
• Iron Addition. Because of a soluble iron to soluble arsenic ratio of 35:1, it was anticipated
that removal of the natural iron would help remove soluble arsenic through
coprecipitation/adsorption of As(V) with/onto iron solids after chlorination. However, the
test results during the first six months of system operation showed that the levels of natural
iron were inadequate to consistently remove arsenic to <10 (ig/L. An iron addition system
was, therefore, purchased and installed in April 2006. The system included a 1.6-gph
chemical feed pump with a 4-function valve (LMI model Bl 11-94S), a 1/20-hp overhead
15
-------
Kinelico FM-260-AS Arsenic Removal System
Fee
at50-100psi
Chemical
Metering
Pumps
Backwash Waste
to Sewer
Filtered Water to
Storage / Distribution
by Others
Existing i
Figure 4-2. Schematic of Kinetico's FM-260-AS System
Figure 4-3. Treatment System Components
(Clockwise from Top: Well No. 2 Inlet and Bypass Piping with Iron Addition Point; Two Filter Tanks and
a Contact Tank; Filter Tank Laterals and View glass; and Backwash Discharge Piping to Sump)
16
-------
Figure 4-4. Control and Instrumentation
(Clockwise from Left: Control Panel Housing PLC; Turbidimeter Display; Compressor;
and Sample Tap and Pressure Gauge)
Table 4-3. Design Specifications for Kinetico's FM-260-AS System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
Chlorine Dosage (mg/L [as C12])
Iron Dosage (mg/L [as Fe])
Field
Determined
0.5
> 0.4 mg/L based on demand for As(III),
Fe(II), andMn(II) (Section 4.1. 3)
Not used until 06/1 5/06
Contact
Tank Quantity
Tank Size (in)
Tank Volume (gal)
Contact Time (min)
1
96 D x 96 H
2,400
6
-
-
-
-
Filtration
Tank Quantity
Tank Size (in)
Tank Cross Section (ft2)
Media Volume (ftVtank)
Peak Flowrate (gpm)
Filtration Rate (gpm/ft2)
Ap across Tank (psi)
Maximum Production (gpd)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
2
60 D x 96 H
19.6
40
400
10
10-12
576,000
52
Parallel configuration
-
-
24-in bed depth
200 gpm/tank
200 gpm/tank
Across one clean filter
Based on peak flowrate, 24 hr/day
Estimated based on 300,000-gal peak
daily demand in summer
Backwash
Frequency
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Wastewater Production (gpd)
Variable
8-10
Variable
Based on PLC setpoints for Ap across
tank, run time, and standby time
157-196 gpm
Based on PLC setpoints for minimum and
maximum backwash time and turbidity
D = diameter; H = height
17
-------
mixer (Pulsafeeder model FMTEH/Vinyl), a 5 5-gal high-density polyethylene (HDPE) tank
(Pulsafeeder model J40366), and a 66-gal polyethylene spill containment pallet (U.S. Plastic
model 2316). The chemical feed pump outlet was energized only when the well pump was
on, and the pump had stroke and speed settings for dosage adjustment.
• Coprecipitation/Adsorption. One 96-in x 96-in epoxy-lined steel contact tank (Arrow Tank
& Engineering), designed for 6 min of contact time, was used to improve the formation of
iron floes prior to pressure filtration. The 2,400-gal tank had 6-in top and bottom flanges
connecting to the exit and inlet piping, respectively, for an upflow configuration (Figure 4-3).
• Pressure Filtration. Removal of iron particles from the contact tank effluent was achieved
via downflow filtration through two 60-in x 96-in pressure tanks (Arrow Tank &
Engineering) configured in parallel (Figure 4-3). Each tank contained 40 ft3 (or 24 in) of M2
Macrolite® media loaded on top of fine garnet underbedding filled to 1 in above the 0.006-in
slotted, stainless steel, wedge-wire underdrain (Leem/LSS Filtration model L-3230-60). The
epoxy-lined steel pressure tanks featured windows for media and backwash observation, as
shown in Figure 4-3, and were rated for a working pressure of 150 pounds per square inch
(psi). The tanks were floor mounted and piped to a valve rack mounted on a welded, stainless
steel frame. The flow through each tank was regulated to 200 gpm using a flow-limiting
device (Flo-Et model FL-400-25-200) to prevent filter overrun. System operation with both
tanks in service could produce a total flowrate of 400 gpm. Effluent flowrates and
throughput were monitored using an insertion paddle wheel flow meter (Data Industrial
model 220PVCS).
• Filter Backwash. The filters were automatically backwashed in succession in an upflow
configuration based on service time, run time, or differential pressure (Ap) setpoints. Water
was drained from the filter tank before an air compressor (Speedaire model 1WD61
[Figure 4-4]) delivered a 2-min air sparge at 100 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). After
a 4-min settling period, the filter was backwashed with treated water from the distribution
system until reaching a turbidity threshold setpoint (e.g., 20 nephlemetric turbidity units
[NTU]) as measured using a turbidimeter (Hach™ model Surface Scatter 6 [Figure 4-4]). The
resulting wastewater was sent to a 1,500-gal underground sump that emptied into the sanitary
sewer (Figure 4-3). After the backwash step, the filter underwent a filter-to-waste (FTW)
step for 2 min before returning to feed service.
4.3 Treatment System Installation
This section provides a summary of the system installation, startup, and shakedown activities and the
associated prerequisites including permitting and building construction.
4.3.1 System Permitting. The system engineering package, prepared by Kinetico and its
subcontractor, Wade Trim of Grand Rapids, MI, included a system design report, a general arrangement
and P&ID, electrical and mechanical drawings and component specifications, and building construction
drawings detailing connections from the system to the inlet piping and the village's water and sanitary
sewer systems. The engineering package was certified by a Professional Engineer registered in the State
of Michigan and submitted to MDEQ for review and approval on March 29, 2005. After MDEQ's review
comments were addressed, the package was resubmitted along with a permit application on May 19,
2005. A water supply construction permit was issued by MDEQ on May 31, 2005, and fabrication of the
system began thereafter.
18
-------
4.3.2 Building Construction. A permit for building construction was applied for by the Village
and issued by Oceana County on August 17, 2005. Construction began on the following day and was
completed on October 21, 2005. The building was 37 ft * 33 ft with sidewall and roof peak heights of 16
and 22.7 ft, respectively. The foundation had a 42-in-depth overlain with a 6-in concrete slab. A 12-ft-
wide overhead door enabled ease of equipment placement and installation. Wastewater discharge was
facilitated with a 1,500-gal underground sump that emptied by gravity into the sanitary sewer. Figure 4-5
shows the new building constructed adjacent to the existing Well No. 2 pump house. In addition to
electrical and plumbing connections, a phone line also was installed on January 19, 2006 with service
available on February 22, 2006, to enable the equipment vendor to dial into the modem in the control
panel for any troubleshooting.
Figure 4-5. New Building Constructed Next to Existing Well No. 2 Pump House
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown. The FM-260-AS treatment system was
delivered to the site on October 21, 2005. The vendor, through its subcontractor, performed the off-
loading and installation of the system, including connections to the entry and distribution piping and
electrical interlocking. System installation, hydraulic testing, and media loading were completed on
November 4, 2005. System startup and shakedown activities that lasted until November 11, 2005,
included PLC testing, instrument calibration, prolonged backwashing to remove Macrolite® media fines,
chlorine disinfection and residual testing, and operator training on system O&M. The treatment system
remained off through November 21, 2005, pending bacteriological results.
Battelle performed system inspections and operator training on sample and data collection on November
21 and 22, 2005. As a result of the system inspections, several punch-list items were identified, some of
which appeared to fail relevant MDEQ requirements and system design specifications. Table 4-4
summarizes the items identified and corrective actions taken. While most of the items were resolved by
December 2005, several problems related to filter backwash, as discussed in Section 4.4.3, were not
corrected until June 2006.
19
-------
Table 4-4. System Inspection Punch-List Items
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Punch-List Item
Description
Elevate discharge piping to
at least 2 times piping
diameter off of floor
Provide metal, saddled
sample tap at combined
effluent location
Pipe air release valves to
drain to keep water off of
floor
Enable contact tank to be
drained
Coordinate modem/phone
line hookup with facility
Correct backwash flowrate
readings
Review/revise PLC field
settings as appropriate
Corrective Action(s) Taken
• Elevated discharge piping as required
• Provided metal sample tap at combined effluent
location with PVC saddle
• Piped air release valves to drain
• Installed ball valve between contact tank inlet (at
bottom of contact tank) and treatment system inlet
valve
• Completed modem/phone line connection (Section
4.3.2)
• Dialed into PLC for modifications (Section 4.4.3.1)
• Attempted to increase flowrate to specified range
by adjusting diaphragm valve (Section 4.4.3)
• Added tank stagger time to PLC to prevent/reduce
sump overflow (Section 4.4.3)
• Measured flowrate with portable meter, recalibrated
flow meter, and adjusted diaphragm valve (Section
4.4.3.2)
• Temporarily installed 150-gpm FTW flow
restrictors and replaced lost media (Section 4.4.3)
• Changed PLC settings (Section 4.4.3.1)
• Recommended field setting changes due to recur-
ring sump overflow (Section 4.4.3.1; Table 4-6)
Resolution
Date
12/15/05
12/15/05
12/15/05
12/15/05
01/19/06
02/22/06
12/06/05
03/10/06
05/15/06
06/14/06
12/15/05
03/10/06
4.3.4 Iron Addition Modification. Because the removal of the natural iron was not able to
consistently reduce arsenic concentrations to below 10 (ig/L, an iron addition system was requested from
the vendor on December 6, 2005, and follow-on permitting and equipment supply services on January 23,
2006. Approval for iron addition was granted by MDEQ on April 20, 2006, and the equipment was
delivered to the site and installed by the plant operator on May 8, 2006. On-going backwash problems
prevented iron addition from being initiated until June 15, 2006 (Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3).
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Service Operation. The system operational parameters are tabulated and attached as
Appendix A with the key parameters summarized in Table 4-5. The performance evaluation study began
on November 22, 2005. Between November 22, 2005, and June 14, 2006, approximately 16,175,000 gal
of water was processed whereupon iron was added at 0.5 mg/L (as Fe) to further reduce effluent arsenic
concentrations as discussed in Section 4.4.2. An additional 23,010,000 gal of water was then treated
through December 8, 2006, which marked the end of the study. The amount of water treated was based
on the readings from the flow meter/totalizer installed at the effluent side of the pressure filters.
Through the entire study period, the system operated for a total of 1,947 hr, or 5.1 hr/day, based on the
hour meter readings from the control panel. (Note that the hour meter was interlocked with the well
pump.) With 39,185,000 gal of water treated, the average daily demand was 102,800 gal, equivalent to
20
-------
Table 4-5. FM-260-AS Treatment System Operational Parameters
Parameter
11/22/05-06/14/06
(Without Iron
Addition)
06/15/06-12/08/0600
(With Iron
Addition)
ll/22/05-12/08/06(a)
(Total
Combined)
Pretreatment Operation
NaOCl Dosage (mg/L [as C12])
FeCl3 Dosage (mg/L [as Fe])
3.7 [0.0-8.8]
0
3.5 [0.0-6.3]
0.5 [0.2-1.1]
3.6 [0.0-8.8]
Not used initially
Service Operation
Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Throughput (gal)
Average Daily Demand (gal)
Flowrate (gpm)
Contact Time (min)
Filtration Rate (gpm/ft2)
Ap across Each Tank (psi)
Ap across System (psi)
Filter Run Time between Backwash
Cycles(c) (hr)
Estimated Throughput between
Cycles(c'd) (gal/tank)
742
3.6
16,175,000
79,300
352 [345-365]
6.8 [6.6-7.0]
9.0 [8.8-9.3]
6 [4-9](b)
20 [14-24]
8 [1-24]
88,900
[12,100-253,600]
1,205
6.8
23,010,000
131,000
349 [328-364]
6.9 [6.6-7.3]
8.9 [8.4-9.3]
11 [5-18]
24 [18-36]
16 [5-25]
172,600
[47,800-257,800]
1,947
5.1
39,185,000
102,800
350 [328-365]
6.8 [6.6-7.3]
8.9 [8.4-9.3]
9 [4-18]
22 [14-36]
12 [1-25]
129,100
[12,100-257,800]
Backwash Operation
Frequency(c) (cycle/tank/week)
Number of Cycles (Tank A/Tank B)
Flowrate(e) (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate(e) (gpm/ft2)
Duration® (min/tank)
Backwash Volume® (gal/tank/cycle)
Filter to Waste Volume (gal/tank/cycle)
Wastewater Produced® (gal/tank/cycle)
o
J
118/115
214 [168-291]
10.9 [8.6-14.8]
5
1,165 [840-2,100]
700
1,865 [1,540-2,800]
3
71/71
172 [153-200]
8.8 [7.8-10.2]
8 [6-10]
1,520 [1,150-1,850]
700
2,240 [1,850-2,350]
o
J
189/186
190 [153-291]
9.7 [7.8-14.8]
7 [5-10]
1,300 [840-2,100]
700
2,000 [1,540-2,800]
Note: Average and [range] of select parameters presented.
(a) Week of July 17, 2006 data omitted from range due to use of another source well.
(b) One outlier (i.e., 15 psi on 12/12/05) omitted.
(c) Based on 24-hr service time and/or 48-hr standby time since 12/15/05.
(d) Based on 175-gpm/tank for service time between cycles.
(e) Based on monthly data from Backwash Log Sheet.
(f) Based on all cycles except for two appearing to occur for <5 min and two appearing to occur for >10 min
possibly due to recording errors.
18% of the design capacity. The operational time was significantly higher during the second six months
(i.e., 6.8 versus 3.6 hr/day) due to the increased demand during the summer months.
Due to severe weather during the week of July 17, 2006, resulting in failure of the well pump, the
treatment system was temporarily supplied with water from another well (i.e., Well No. 3) and operated
without iron addition. Unrepresentative operational parameters observed due to the lower flow of this
well are not included in Table 4-5.
System flowrates were tracked by both instantaneous readings of the flow meter and calculated values
based on hour meter and flow totalizer readings on the control panel. As shown in Figure 4-6, large
21
-------
discrepancies were observed between the instantaneous readings and calculated values since the system
startup through February 22, 2006, when the hour meter display was modified to add one decimal place
for tenths of an hour. The initial calculated values, denoted as "x" in Figure 4-6, scattered extensively
from 304 to 950 gpm. After the decimal place was added, the calculated flowrates fell in a much tighter
range, with values ranging from 339 to 392 gpm and averaging 374 gpm (excluding two outliers at 198
and 449 gpm on May 12 and 15, 2006, respectively) until May 15, 2006.
The initial instantaneous flowrate readings, denoted as boxes in Figure 4-6, ranged from 382 to 405 gpm
and averaged 391 gpm from the system startup through May 15, 2006. During the vendor's site visit on
May 15, 2006 to troubleshoot "low" backwash flowrates (Section 4.4.3), it was noticed that the paddle
wheel flow meter was calibrated with an incorrect, factory-supplied K factor (i.e., 19.457), thus resulting
in erroneously high flowrate and totalizer readings during the first six months. After being recalibrated
with a revised K factor of 17.553, the flow meter read 355 gpm on May 17, 2006, compared to an average
of 391 gpm beforehand. As a result, the original and corrected calibration values were used to adjust the
previously obtained instantaneous flowrate and totalizer readings to reflect actual values. The revised and
subsequently-collected instantaneous flowrate readings, denoted as boxes, ranged from 328 to 365 gpm,
averaged 350 gpm, and were used as the system flowrates throughout this report.
X X X
xn o n
D
X
X- X V
x x D,/
Q. ° 8
*\DXXX$D ^
J^^Sj: q
JO 00 00 OO&P f fH
X D X x
a ° D
02/22/06: Tenths of an
hour added to hour
meter reading
>
f%$&&£3&?$'
a
• Initial Instaneous Flowrate
Revised/Actual Instaneous Flowrate
X Initial Calculated Flowrate
a Revised/Actual Calculated Flowrate
a
05/16/06: Flow meter
recalibrated
0
D a ° a
11/20/05 01/04/06 02/18/06 04/04/06 05/19/06 07/03/06 08/17/06 10/01/06 11/15/06
Figure 4-6. Initial and Revised/Actual Service Flowrates
Due to the changes to totalizer readings, calculated flowrates were revised and plotted in Figure 4-6. As
shown, the revised and subsequently-obtained calculated values, denoted as boxes in the figure, ranged
from 272 to 463 gpm and averaged 345 gpm (except for four outliers) since the decimal place had been
added on February 22, 2006. The revised calculated values were very close to the revised instantaneous
readings.
The 350-gpm flowrate corresponded to a contact time of 6.8 min and a filtration rate of 8.9 gpm/ft2,
which were close to the design values of 6 min and 10 gpm/ft2, respectively (Table 4-3). Ap readings
22
-------
ranged from 14 to 36 psi across the system and from 4 to 18 psi across each tank. In general, Ap
increased as the filter run length increased. As shown in Figure 4-7, as particulates in the filter influent
continued to be removed by the filters, Ap readings rose progressively from 4 to 6 psi after the beds were
freshly backwashed up to 9 psi (one outlier of 15 psi not included). Iron addition further increased the Ap
to as high as 18 psi, but not enough to affect the backwash frequency since backwashes were still initiated
based on service or standby time triggers. Since the readings shown in Figure 4-7 and summarized in
Table 4-5 could only be taken while the system was online, there are fewer readings at higher run times
without iron addition due to lower daily demand of the system during that study period as discussed in
Section 4.4.3. Ap was important to monitor because particulate breakthrough generally occurred with
increasing Ap (Section 4.5.1.2).
Filter run times between backwash cycles ranged from 1 to 25 hr and averaged 12 hr. The corresponding
throughputs ranged from 12,100 to 257,800 gal/tank and averaged 129,100 gal/tank based on a flowrate
of 175 gpm/tank (i.e., one-half of the average 350-gpm service flow). The run times and throughputs
increased once iron addition began, because higher daily demands caused the system operation to
increase, thus enabling more water to be treated between backwash cycles as discussed in Section 4.4.3.
10 15
Run Time since Last Backwash (hr)
Figure 4-7. Differential Pressure vs. Filter Run Time
4.4.2 Chlorine and Iron Additions. Chemical pretreatments consisted of chlorine and iron
additions. Chlorine dosages, as calculated based on daily NaOCl consumption (as measured through
solution level changes in the chemical day tank) and daily flow (according to the system effluent
totalizer), ranged from 0.0 to 8.8 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 3.6 mg/L (as C12) (Figure 4-8). This average
dosage was somewhat higher than the theoretical dosage of 3.2 mg/L required to achieve a free chlorine
residual of 0.5 mg/L (as C12) as discussed in Section 4.1.3. The implications of this dosage and other
confounding data are discussed in Section 4.5.1.5.
23
-------
Q
8
7
G"
I5 6
-E-
ro 5
(/>
0
Q
•^ 4
V*" x / x^ x^x ; „",* ' JS« %'
>" >« " »S "^4 - " ">< *"- " * *X """"x"""' *< X " X -
"SjS'fex ** **# >rx x xxxx K *x x ***
* Xxx »" ' ^ * X . " ,"
x x
* X
X +
*f* £ j+JW^^jpt^fyJlQ
11/22/05 01/23/06 03/26/06 05/27/06 07/28/06 09/28/06 11/29/06
Figure 4-8. Chlorine and Ferric Chloride Dosages of Over Time
Initial sampling results across the treatment train indicated a need for iron addition to reduce arsenic
concentrations below the 10-(ig/L MCL. However, several on-going backwash problems, as discussed in
Section 4.4.3, had to be resolved prior to initiation of iron addition due to the anticipated higher solids
loading to the filters and possibly more frequent backwash. Therefore, iron addition was not initiated
until June 15, 2006. Initially, the FeCl3 stock solution was diluted by a factor of four with 50% speed and
50% stroke length settings on the 1.6-gph pump. To further adjust the dosage, the speed and stroke length
settings were decreased to 30%, and the dilution factor was increased to five on June 15 and 30, 2006,
respectively. The pump settings and dilution factor remained unchanged for the remainder of the study.
Iron dosages ranged from 0.2 to 1.1 mg/L (as Fe) and averaged 0.5 mg/L (as Fe) (Figure 4-8). Similar to
the chlorine dosages, iron dosages were calculated based on daily FeCl3 consumption (by changes of
solution levels in the chemical day tank) and daily flow (according to the system effluent totalizer). The
stock solution was consumed at a rate of 0.035 lb/1,000 gal of water treated.
As shown in Figure 4-8, extensive scattering of chemical dosages was observed during both NaOCI and
FeCl3 additions. The speed and stroke settings of the pumps were seldom adjusted, so more consistent
dosages should have been achieved since the system flowrates remained fairly consistent. Because
inconsistencies or inaccuracies in solution level measurements could significantly impact the calculated
dosages, chemical consumption and dosage data could be better obtained by the use of a drum scale,
which the Village plans to purchase.
4.4.3 Backwash Operation. The Macrolite® pressure filters, Tanks A and B, were backwashed
189 and 186 times, respectively. Backwash of each filter was triggered by either standby time or service
run time setpoints based on the season. For example, during the winter and spring when water demand
was low, operational times were as low as 0.8 hr/day, thus causing backwash to be triggered primarily by
the standby time setpoint. In contrast, higher daily demands during the summer and fall resulted in longer
operational times up to 17 hr/day, prompting backwash to be triggered mainly by the service run time
setpoint. Although a Ap setpoint also was programmed into the PLC, pressure-triggered backwash
24
-------
occurred rarely, if ever. Occasionally, manual backwash cycles were initiated, but only for testing and
sampling of backwash water and solids.
The backwash duration for each tank was affected by the minimum and maximum backwash time settings
and the ability of the backwash water to meet the turbidity threshold setting as measured by an in-line
Hach™ turbidimeter (Section 4.4.3.1). If the backwash water failed to meet the set threshold prior to
reaching the maximum backwash time, the backwash failure alarm had to be acknowledged and a
successful backwash cycle had to be conducted before the tank might return to the service mode.
Backwash was followed by a 2-min FTW step to remove any particulates from the filter. The amount of
wastewater produced ranged from 1,540 to 2,800 gal/tank, including 700 gal/tank produced during the 2-
min FTW step. (Note that four backwash cycles, which appeared to occur outside of the permissible
range of 5 to 10 min, possibly due to recording errors, are not included in the wastewater production
range.) The amount of wastewater produced was equivalent to 1.9% of the total amount of water treated.
4.4.3.1 PLCSettings. Table 4-6 summarizes the initial backwash PLC settings at system startup and
two subsequent modifications on December 15, 2005, and March 10, 2006. Initially, the PLC was set in
the field to backwash with a standby time trigger of 12 hr, which resulted in frequent backwashes (i.e.,
often 2 cycle/tank/day) even though the filter service time during this 12-hr period ranged from only 1 to
5 hr/day and averaged only 2 hr/day. In addition, the field-set turbidity threshold of 65.5 NTU was
significantly higher than the factory setpoint of 20 NTU, and the low flowrate alarm level of 5 gpm was
well below the 157 to 196 gpm (8 to 10 gpm/ft2) design values.
Table 4-6. Summary of PLC Settings for Backwash Operations
Parameter (for Each Tank)
Drain Time (min)
Service Time Trigger (hr)
Standby Time Trigger (hr)
Ap Trigger (psi)
Minimum Backwash Time (min)
Maximum Backwash Time (min)
Turbidity Threshold (NTU)
Low Flowrate Threshold (gpm)
Filter-to-Waste Time (min)
Backwash Stagger Time (min)
Adjustment Date
ll/22/05(a)
4
24
12
18
5
16
65.5
5
2
-
12/15/05
2
24
48
22
5
20
20
120
2
-
03/10/06
4
24
48
-------
over recurring sump overflow problems during backwash since system startup, which were based on the
erroneous flowrate readings from the incorrectly calibrated flow meter as discussed in Section 4.4.3.2.
The low flowrate threshold also was decreased on March 10, 2006 due, in part, to a backwash alarm
experienced on March 2, 2006, caused by insufficient flow from the water tower. Previously
unacknowledged backwash alarms caused the system to remain in standby mode, which prevented the
system from supplying water to the water tower. The plant operator bypassed the treatment system,
refilled the water tower with untreated water, and restarted the system with vendor assistance on March 3,
2006. Possibly due to low water tower levels, another low backwash flow alarm occurred on July 3,
2006, without incident.
To facilitate a special study on filter leakage over 24 hr of run time between two backwash cycles, the
standby time setpoint was temporarily increased to 99 hr from October 17 through 20, 2006, and to 199 hr
from November 2 through 14, 2006. These changes were necessary due to the low demands during the
winter and the tendency to reach the maximum allowable standby time setpoint of 99 hr before the 24-hr
run time setpoint. The special study results are discussed in Section 4.5.1.2.
4.4.3.2 Backwash Flowrates and Associated Issues. Backwash flowrate readings on the touch
screen OIP were initially 60 to 104 gpm, which were substantially lower than the design values of 157 to
196 gpm. Due to the use of an incorrect K factor (i.e., 7.354) for flow meter calibration, these flowrates
were actually 168 to 291 gpm (or 8.6 to 14.8 gpm/ft2) according to readings revised using the recalibrated
flow meter's new K factor of 20.554 (Figure 4-9). This calibration problem, not identified until May 15,
2006, had created a great deal of confusion concerning the backwash flowrate, sump capacity, and media
loss. Recurring overflow was observed from the building sump at these "low" 60- to 104-gpm flowrates
300
250 -
_ 20° "
o.
ut
I
115°
1
i
100 -
50 -
Target Range: 157-196 gpm
for 8-10 gpm/ft2
05/16/06: Flow meter
recalibrated
Initial Instaneous Flowrate
Actual/Revised Instantaneous Flowrate
XInitial Calculated Flowrate
DActual/Revised Calculated Flowrate
Q Q
O O
11/20/05
01/04/06
02/18/06
04/04/06 05/19/06
07/03/06
08/17/06
10/01/06
11/15/06
Figure 4-9. Initial and Revised/Actual Backwash Flowrates
26
-------
(actually 168 to 291 gpm), which implied that the sump might have been underdesigned. The Village
Engineer, however, affirmed that the sump was sized for a discharge capacity of at least 150 gpm.
Further, some Macrolite® media was found in and around the sump after each backwash, which would not
be expected at such "low" flowrates. Several attempts were made to verify the accuracy of flowrate
readings (e.g., using a portable flow meter) and to establish strategies to overcome problems associated
with the "underdesigned" sump (e.g., PLC setting modifications [Section 4.4.3.1]).
During a site visit on May 15, 2006, the vendor recognized the calibration error, recalibrated the
backwash flow meter, and adjusted the flowrate to about 170 gpm using the diaphragm valve. It also was
determined that the FTW flowrate of the filter was approximately 350 gpm instead of the 200-gpm design
value because all of the influent flow was going through the filter during this step. The vendor measured
and confirmed media loss at 3 and 4 in (or 5 and 7 ft3) from Tanks A and B, respectively. Therefore,
contrary to the initial thoughts, sump overflow was, in fact, caused by the incorrect backwash settings due
to the erroneous flowrates and the surge experienced during the FTW rinse. Similarly, the media loss was
a result of excessive backwash flowrates experienced by the pressure filters.
The vendor made a return trip to the site from June 13 to 14, 2006, to replace the 3 and 4 in of lost M2
Macrolite® media in Tanks A and B and install, but later remove, a 150-gpm flow restrictor on each FTW
discharge line. The flow restrictors were intended to reduce the 350-gpm surge to the sump experienced
during the 2-min FTW step, but caused concerns over influent pressure spikes as discussed in Section
4.4.3.3. Even though the flow restrictors were removed, no further problems with sump overflow or
media loss occurred after correcting the target backwash flowrate following the flow meter recalibration.
Backwash flowrates (i.e., 153 to 200 gpm) also were comparable to the design values for the remainder of
the study.
4.4.3.3 Influent Pressure Spikes. The average system influent and effluent pressure readings during
service were 80 and 58 psi, respectively, giving a 22-psi Ap across the system. During backwash,
however, influent pressure could rise sharply depending on if the second filter was in standby or service
mode as summarized in Table 4-7. Since backwash was mostly triggered by the standby time setpoint
due to the low daily system run time during the winter and spring (Section 4.4.3), it was possible for one
filter to be backwashed while the other filter remained offline. Under these circumstances, backwash
obviously would not cause any influent pressure spikes because the well pump was off and because
treated water was used for backwash. During the 2-min FTW step, minor and brief pressure spikes were
observed because of the 350-gpm flowrate flowing through the FTW discharge line. In contrast, when
backwash was triggered by the service run time setpoint as the system was in service, one filter was
backwashed while the other remained in service. Backwash, therefore, caused substantial influent
pressure spikes since the normal 350-gpm service flow would be forced through one filter, resulting in an
elevated service flowrate of approximately 260 gpm. This flowrate was 85 gpm higher than the usual 175
gpm through each filter and 60 gpm higher than the permissible flowrate of the 200-gpm flow limiting
device installed on the effluent side of the filter for overrun protection. This service mode backwash
began occurring in mid-June 2006 and continued through the summer and fall due to the higher daily
system run time (Section 4.4.3).
For both backwash modes, the FTW flowrate would be the same as or close to the 350-gpm service
flowrate since the entire flow would be directed toward the sump due to substantially lower backpressure
at the FTW discharge line than that at the entry point to the distribution system. This setup added to the
concern over sump overflow (Section 4.4.3.2) and prompted the vendor to install a 150-gpm flow
restrictor on each FTW discharge line on June 13, 2006. The restrictors, however, caused even higher
influent pressure spikes (i.e., > 35 psi) during backwash with influent pressures in excess of 115 psi. Due
to concerns over the potential adverse effects on the well pump, the restrictors were removed on June 14,
2006.
27
-------
Table 4-7. Comparison of Filter Operation during Backwash Modes
Parameter
Influent Pressure Spike (psi)
Second Filter in
Standby Mode
Without FTW
Restrictor(a)
None(d)
Second Filter in
Operation Mode
Without FTW
Restrictor(b)
Not Measured(e)
With FTW
Restrictor(c)
>35(f)
Backwash Step
Service Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
0
170
260
195
280
195
FTW Step
Service Flowrate (gpm)
FTW Flowrate (gpm)
0
350
0
<350
150-200
150-200
(a) Based on data gathered by vendor on 05/15/06.
(b) Based on data gathered by operator on 06/14/06 after removal of restrictor.
(c) Based on data gathered by vendor with a restrictor temporarily installed during
06/13/06 through 06/14/06.
(d) During backwash step only; some spike observed during FTW step.
(e) Spikes observed during backwash and FTW steps.
(f) Highest spikes observed during backwash and FTW steps.
Because sump overflow did not occur after the vendor's June 2006 site visit, FTW continued to be
conducted at close to 350 gpm without the use of flow restrictors. The pressure spikes experienced during
service mode backwash, however, were still well above the recommended 100 psi system operating limit
and continued to cause apprehension regarding any adverse effects on the well pump. Therefore, a
request was made to the vendor to conduct only standby mode backwashes and delay any would-be
service mode backwashes (as triggered based on run time) until the system was offline. The vendor was
not willing to acknowledge this programming request without additional funding, but agreed to allow the
system to operate at pressures up to 125 psi. Under this maximum operating pressure, the vendor agreed
to uphold the system warranty should any problems occur as a result of the elevated pressures.
4.4.4 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System
included backwash wastewater and FTW water, which contained arsenic-laden solids as discussed in
Section 4.5.2. Wastewater from backwash was discharged to the building sump, which emptied by
gravity to the sanitary sewer. According to the backwash flow totalizer, 487,300 gal of wastewater were
produced during the entire study period. Based on a 350-gpm flowrate and a duration of 2 min for 375
backwash cycles, 262,500 gal of FTW water also were produced. (Note that a flow meter was not able to
be installed on the FTW discharge line due to anticipated complications caused by high solids content.)
Therefore, over 749,800 gal of wastewater, or 1.9% of the treated water, were generated, similar to the 1.9
to 2.4% produced (not including the FTW volume) by a smaller Macrolite® system at Climax, MN
(Condit and Chen, 2006).
4.4.5 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation. Inability to achieve acceptable arsenic removal
due to insufficient iron levels in source water (Sections 4.5.1.1 and 4.5.1.2) and backwash-related issues
including PLC settings (Section 4.4.3.1), media loss and sump overflow caused by erroneous backwash
flowrates (Section 4.4.3.2), and influent pressure spikes (Section 4.4.3.3) were the primary sources of
concern during the study. Following resolution of these major issues, system reliability and ease of
operation greatly improved. Other O&M issues encountered included problems with the existing chlorine
feed system. The total amount of system downtime for troubleshooting was no more than 1% of the
operational time.
28
-------
4.4.5.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pretreatment consisted of chemical additions to
improve arsenic removal. Chlorine in a 15% NaOCl solution was added using the existing equipment to
oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) and provide chlorine residuals to the distribution system. In addition to
tracking the depth of the NaOCl solution in the day tank, the operator measured chlorine concentrations to
ensure that residuals existed throughout the treatment train. Little or no chlorine was added to oxidize
As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II) from February 21 to March 9, 2006, due to the inadvertent use of an off-spec
solution provided by a chemical supplier and on May 23 and September 27 to 29, 2006, due to problems
with the injector. Periods of non-treatment could have been shortened through more careful monitoring
of free and total chlorine measurements and/or solution usage. Iron addition commenced on June 15,
2006, using a 37 to 42% FeCl3 solution to improve arsenic removal. Iron was added upstream of the
contact tank within the treatment plant where solution levels were tracked daily. No post-treatment was
required.
4.4.5.2 System Automation. The FM-260-AS treatment system was automatically controlled by the
PLC in the central control panel. The control panel contained a modem and a touch screen OIP that
facilitated monitoring of system parameters, changing of system setpoints, and checking the alarm status.
Service time, standby time, and Ap settings (Table 4-6) automatically determined when the tanks were
backwashed. The touch screen OIP also enabled the operator to manually initiate the backwash sequence.
4.4.5.3 Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the daily demand on the
operator was about 30 min for visual inspection of the system and recording of operational parameters,
such as pressure, volume, flowrate, and chemical usage on field log sheets. In Michigan, operator
certifications are classified on a range of 1 to 4 based upon rated treatment capacity or population served.
A level 1 certificate is for the largest treatment capacity and population served and a level 4 certificate for
the smallest treatment capacity and population served. After receiving proper training during the system
startup, the operator understood the PLC, knew how to use the touch screen OIP, and was able to work
with the vendor to troubleshoot problems and perform minor on-site repairs.
4.4.5.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities. The vendor recommended several routine maintenance
activities to prolong the integrity of the treatment system (Kinetico, 2005). Daily preventative
maintenance tasks included recording pressures, flowrates, chemical drum levels, and visually checking
for leaks, overheating components, proper manual valve positioning and pumps' lubricant levels, and any
unusual conditions. The vendor recommended weekly checking for trends in the recorded data that might
indicate a decline in system performance, and semi-annually servicing and inspecting ancillary equipment
and replacing worn components. Cleaning and replacement of sensors and replacement of o-ring seals
and gaskets of valves were performed as needed.
4.4.5.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements. Chlorine and iron addition were required
for effective arsenic removal. The operator tracked the usage of the chemical solutions daily (by volume),
coordinated the supplies, and refilled the day tanks as needed. A 15% NaOCl solution, supplied in 55-gal
drums by Wilbur-Ellis, was transferred to the day tank and injected without dilution. A 37 to 42% FeCl3
solution, supplied in 610 Ib drums by Brenntag Great Lakes, was diluted in the 55-gal day tank prior to
injection into the chlorinated water. The speed and stroke settings of the chemical pumps were adjusted,
as needed, to acquire the target chlorine residuals, as measured regularly with a Hach pocket colorimeter,
and iron concentrations after the contact tank. Although the chemical handling requirement was
increased with iron addition, the reliability and consistency of the treatment system in meeting the 10-
|o,g/L arsenic goal was paramount.
29
-------
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the Macrolite® FM-260-AS Arsenic Removal System was evaluated based on
analyses of water samples collected from the treatment plant, backwash line, and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 51 occasions
including three duplicate events and 13 speciation events during the study. Table 4-8 summarizes the
analytical results for arsenic, iron, and manganese. Table 4-9 summarizes the results of the other water
quality parameters. Five sets of samples (including four weekly and one monthly speciation sets) were
collected when an off-spec chlorine stock solution was used or when problems were encountered with the
chlorine injector and, therefore, the results for the associated AC, TA, TB, TT samples are omitted from
the statistical calculations in Tables 4-8 and 4-9. However, the data plots are all-inclusive. Appendix B
contains a complete set of analytical results. The results of the water samples collected across the
treatment plant are discussed below.
4.5.1.1 Arsenic. Figure 4-10 presents the results of 13 speciation events, and Figure 4-11 shows total
arsenic concentrations measured across the treatment train. Total arsenic concentrations in raw water
ranged from 14.6 to 21.8 |o,g/L and averaged 17.7 |o,g/L with >96% existing in the soluble form. Of the
soluble fraction, As(III) was the predominant species with concentrations averaging 14.9 |o,g/L; low levels
of As(V) also were present, averaging 2.1 |og/L. The range of total arsenic concentrations measured was
slightly higher than that of raw water collected on August 31, 2004 (i.e., 13.2 |o,g/L) (Table 4-1).
The use of an off-spec chlorine solution and problems with the chlorine injector as noted above resulted
in rather incomplete As(III) oxidation during five sampling events as shown in Figures 4-10 and 4-11.
For all other sampling events, the results obtained after prechlorination and the contact tank indicated that
As(III) was more thoroughly oxidized to an average concentration of 0.4 |o,g/L. As much as 1.6 |o,g/L of
As(III), however, was observed after chlorination. This incomplete oxidation might have been impacted
by the presence of ammonia, which forms chloramines with the addition of NaOCl. Unless breakpoint
chlorination was achieved, chloramines could play a role under the circumstances. Presumably, As(III)
oxidation occurred initially due to free chlorine before it reacted with ammonia (Frank and Clifford,
1986), since only limited oxidation of As(III) would occur due to in-situ-formed monochloramine
(Ghurye and Clifford, 2001).
Before iron addition was implemented, soluble As(III) and As(V) and particulate arsenic concentrations
in water after the contact tank averaged 0.4, 10.5, and 6.4 |o,g/L, respectively. The high soluble As(V) and
low particulate arsenic levels indicated insufficient Fe(II) in raw water. Otherwise, most of the soluble
As(V), either present in raw water or converted from As(III) upon chlorination, would have coprecipitated
with and/or adsorbed onto iron solids also formed during chlorination, leaving mostly particulate arsenic
and trace levels of soluble As(III) and As(V) in water prior to filtration. It became clear soon after system
startup that insufficient soluble iron was present in raw water to consistently remove arsenic to less than
10 |o,g/L (note that total arsenic concentrations after pressure filtration at TA, TB, and TT sampling
locations ranged from 7.8 to 15.6 |o,g/L and averaged 9.9 ng/L). Although the average ratio of total iron
to total arsenic was 24:1, the average ratio of soluble iron to soluble arsenic was about 15:1, which was
lower than the rule of thumb ratio of 20:1 needed to reduce the arsenic level to below the 10 |o,g/L MCL
(Sorg, 2002). Two weeks after the commencement of weekly sampling, planning began for iron addition.
30
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
(a)
Parameter
As (total)
(Figure 4-11)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
(Figure 4-10)
As(III)
(Figure 4-10)
As(V)
(Figure 4-10)
Fe (total)
(Figure 4-12)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
(Figure 4-14)
Mn (soluble)
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
Sample
Count
51
25 [21]
19 [15]
19 [15]
6 [6]
13
6 [6]
6 [6]
13
6 [6]
6 [6]
13
6 [6]
6 [6]
13
6 [6]
6 [6]
51
25 [21]
18(b) [15]
19 [15]
6 [6]
13
6 [6]
6 [6]
51
25 [21]
19 [15]
19 [15]
6 [6]
13
6 [6]
6 [6]
Concentration (|ig/L)
Minimum
14.6
14.4 [13.6]
7.8 [3.8]
8.0 [4.2]
8.4 [4.0]
13.9
9.2 [3.9]
8.2 [3.0]
0.1
4.9 [9.6]
0.1 [0.1]
8.7
0.1 [0.1]
0.2 [0.1]
0.1
9.1 [3.6]
7.7 [2.4]
346
344 [658]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
45.2
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
23.1
21.5 [25.6]
6.4 [10.4]
6.2 [11.7]
9.0 [12.9]
25.5
9.1 [9.4]
9.0 [12.3]
Maximum
21.8
25.4 [27.9]
15.6 [6.7]
11. 9 [7.2]
12.0 [5.8]
18.5
12.9 [6.9]
11.6 [5.6]
2.0
8.1 [14.2]
1.1 [2.0]
17.8
1.4 [0.6]
1.6 [0.6]
6.8
11.5 [6.4]
10.1 [5.0]
510
902 [1,638]
<25 [147]
102 [225]
66.2 [141]
433
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
31.7
46.3 [41.6]
17.3 [19.8]
15.6 [20.1]
22.2 [24.9]
32.9
11.6 [19.6]
22.2 [25.2]
Average
17.7
18.9 [19.3]
10.0 [5.5]
10.0 [6.0]
9.3 [5.0]
16.9
10.9 [5.6]
9.2 [4.2]
0.6
6.4 [12.0]
0.3 [0.8]
14.9
0.4 [0.4]
0.5 [0.4]
2.1
10.5 [5.3]
8.7 [3.8]
426
519 [969]
<25 [41.9]
<25 [67.8]
34.3 [49.9]
250
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
27.3
29.9 [30.8]
10.9 [15.1]
10.7 [15.7]
12.8 [19.1]
28.8
10.4 [15.9]
13.1 [18.6]
Standard
Deviation
1.4
2.9 [4.0]
.7 [0.8]
.2 [0.8]
.4 [0.8]
1.3
.2 [1.2]
.2 [0.9]
0.6
1.2 [1.8]
0.4 [0.6]
2.4
0.5 [0.2]
0.5 [0.2]
1.6
0.9 [1.1]
0.8 [1.0]
34.1
137 [3 17]
- [44.3]
20.9 [61.2]
20.2 [49.2]
126
-[-]
-[-]
1.7
5.3 [4.0]
2.6 [3.0]
2.3 [2.8]
4.7 [4.0]
1.7
0.9 [3.7]
4.6 [4.2]
(a) Five sampling events omitted from AC, TA, TB, and TT calculations due to chlorination problems.
(b) One outlier (i.e., 483 |ag/L on 11/29/05) omitted.
Data outside brackets before iron addition; data inside brackets after iron addition.
One-half of detection limit used for nondetect results and duplicate samples included for calculations.
Iron addition that started on June 15, 2006, increased the average total iron concentration from 519 to 969
Hg/L measured after the contact tank (AC location) shown in Table 4-8. This increase in iron resulted in
lowering arsenic concentrations in the treated water to a range of 3.8 to 7.2 |o,g/L. Speciation of the
treated water (TT location) indicated the presence of mostly soluble As(V) (at 3.8 |o,g/L) and some soluble
As(III) (at 0.4 ng/L) and particulate arsenic (at 0.8 |og/L).
31
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
,00
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
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
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
Sample
Count
51
46
34
34
12
6
6
6
13
12
12
13
12
12
13
12
12
51
46
33
34
12
51
46
34
34
12
51
46
34
34
12
8
7
7
40
37
28
28
10
40
37
28
28
10
Minimum
135
141
138
141
141
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
<1
<1
<1
O.05
O.05
0.05
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
10.1
9.8
10.2
10.3
10.1
1.2
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.9
1.8
1.8
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.9
11.5
11.1
11.1
10.9
12.0
Maximum
171
164
162
177
160
0.4
0.3
0.3
1.1
0.9
1.3
<1
<1
<1
<0.05
0.1
0.1
74.5
169
39.3
38.4
51.9
13.2
13.1
12.5
12.3
12.9
3.9
4.2
4.7
4.0
4.0
2.1
2.0
2.1
8.3
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
14.5
Average
150
150
150
152
150
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.6
<1
<1
<1
<0.05
O.05
0.05
57.4
75.1
17.3
18.7
17.1
11.2
11.2
11.1
11.1
11.1
2.4
1.2
0.9
0.7
1.3
2.0
1.9
1.9
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.2
12.9
12.8
13.0
13.0
13.2
Standard
Deviation
7.0
6.2
6.2
7.1
6.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
10.9
32.0
10.7
10.8
14.2
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.9
1.1
0.8
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.0
32
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results (Continued)
Parameter
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as C12)
(Figure 4-15)
Total Chlorine
(as C12)
(Figure 4-15)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
AC
TA
TB
TT
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
38
36
27
27
10
37(b)
37
28
28
10
36
28
28
9
36
28
28
9
13
12
12
13
12
12
13
12
12
Minimum
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.9
187
303
305
318
403
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.5
0.9
1.0
167
166
167
104
106
98.5
62.3
59.5
60.2
Maximum
3.7
2.0
1.9
4.1
3.7
473
523
516
523
511
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.6
223
224
223
127
124
126
103
106
105
Average
1.7
1.1
1.2
1.4
2.2
342
428
420
422
442
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
205
205
205
115
115
115
90.1
89.6
90.3
Standard
Deviation
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.9
65.2
57.9
58.3
50.4
28.9
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
16.3
15.8
17.8
6.1
5.5
7.3
11.8
12.3
12.7
(a) Five sampling events omitted from AC, TA, TB, and
(b) Two outliers (i.e., -3 mV on 11/22/05 and 91 mV on
One-half of detection limit used for nondetect results and
TT calculations due to chlorination problems.
11/29/05) omitted.
duplicate samples included for calculations.
4.5.1.2 Iron. Figure 4-12 presents total iron concentrations measured across the treatment train.
Total iron in raw water ranged from 346 to 510 |o,g/L and averaged 426 |o,g/L, of which approximately
60% was present in the soluble form (Table 4-8). The soluble iron concentration may have actually been
significantly higher, but not reflected as such, due to the possibility of iron oxidation during sampling. As
noted in Section 4.1.1, although the average soluble iron to soluble arsenic ratio was 15:1, ratios up to
25:1 (on April 3, 2006 [Appendix B]) and up to 35:1 (on August 30, 2004 [Section 4.1.3]) were observed.
Nonetheless, iron addition was required to improve arsenic removal. In addition to the lower-than-
expected soluble iron levels, factors such as pH and/or other water quality parameters also might have
affected the arsenic removal capacity of the iron solids. After successfully addressing all backwash issues
(Section 4.4.3), FeCl3 addition was initiated on June 15, 2006. This pretreatment, dosed at an average
rate of 0.5 mg/L (as Fe), raised iron levels following the contact tank to the range of 658 to 1,638 |o,g/L
(969 |o,g/L on average). The variations in iron concentrations observed might have been caused by
fluctuations in iron dosage, which ranged from 0.2 to 1.1 mg/L (as Fe). However, no direct correlation
existed between the average daily dosages and the iron concentrations after the contact tank.
33
-------
Arsenic Speciation at Wellhead (IN)
I
o 10-
u
11/22/05 01/04/06 01/31/06 03/01/06 04/03/06 05/02/06 05/30/06 06/27/06 07/31/06 08/22/06 09/18/06 10/17/06 11/27/06
Arsenic Speciation after Contact Tank (AC)
Chlorination
problem
experienced
i
o 10 -
06/15/06: Iron addition began
11/22/05 01/04/06 01/31/06 03/01/06 04/03/06 05/02/06 05/30/06 06/27/06 07/31/06 08/22/06 09/18/06 10/17/06 11/27/06
Arsenic Speciation after Filter Tanks (TT)
Chlorination
problem
experienced
R
06/15/06: Iron addition began
11/22/05 01/04/06 01/31/06 03/01/06 04/03/06 05/02/06 05/30/06 06/27/06 07/31/06 08/22/06 09/18/06 10/17/06 11/27/06
Figure 4-10. Arsenic Speciation Results
34
-------
Figure 4-11. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train
0 -4-»
11/14/05 01/03/06
Figure 4-12. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train
35
-------
Prior to iron addition, the treated water contained low iron concentrations, mostly near and/or less than
the method reporting limit of 25 |og/L, except for one exceedance of 483 |o,g/L at the TA sampling
location on November 29, 2005. With iron addition, effluent iron concentrations increased to an average
of 50 |og/L with one spike as high as 225 |o,g/L (Table 4-8). The speciation tests for iron showed <25
Hg/L of soluble iron at all sampling locations after chlorination, indicating that any chloramine formation
had little or no effect on iron oxidation. Thus, the slight increase in the effluent iron concentration to near
50 |og/L was due to some small amounts of particulate iron exiting the filters.
To determine the extent of arsenic, iron, and manganese breakthrough during a 24-hr service run, a
special study was conducted during November 8 through 14, 2006. Samples were collected at
approximately 6, 12, 20, and 24 hr of service time over a duration of seven days while 165 hr of standby
time was accrued. Concentrations of arsenic, iron, and manganese in the filter effluent remained below
the respective MCLs or SMCLs during the entire filter run, as shown in Figure 4-13. Total arsenic and
manganese concentrations, which were 70 to 100% soluble, were consistent with the regular treatment
plant results and comparable for both filters. Conversely, total iron concentrations, which were nearly
100% particulate, differed between the filters. Tank A exhibited no breakthrough until almost 20 hr of
service while Tank B showed breakthrough over 80 |o,g/L at 12 hr of service. Similar to the regular
treatment plant sampling results, no correlation between particulate iron breakthrough and filter run time
was observed, and no iron breakthrough was detected after the filters were freshly backwashed.
25
20 -
3-TAAs -C TBAs
-*-TAMn —I— TBMn
-A-TAFe -A-TBFe
200
10 12 14 16
Service Time since Last Backwash (hr)
Figure 4-13. Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Concentrations During a 24-hr Service Run
36
-------
4.5.1.3 Manganese. Figure 4-14 presents total manganese concentrations measured during the study.
In raw water, manganese ranged from 23.1 to 31.7 |og/L, existing primarily in the soluble form as Mn(II)
at an average concentration of 28.8 |og/L. With chlorine addition and contact time, approximately 64 and
45% of the Mn(II) was converted to particulate manganese before and after iron addition, respectively.
Because the Macrolite® filters removed only the particulates formed, soluble manganese levels after the
contact tank were similar to the total and soluble levels after the pressure filters, with average effluent
concentrations ranging from 11 to 13 |o,g/L before iron addition and 15 to 19 |o,g/L after iron addition. The
cause for the decrease in manganese oxidation/removal with FeCl3 addition is unknown. Studies have
found that incomplete oxidation of Mn(II) occurred using free chlorine at pH values less than 8.5 (Knocke
et al., 1987 and 1990; Condit and Chen, 2006; McCall et al., 2007).
11/14/05 01/03/06 02/22/06 04/13/06 06/02/06 07/22/06 09/10/06 10/30/06
Figure 4-14. Total Manganese Concentrations Across Treatment Train
4.5.1.4 pH, DO, and ORP. pH values in raw water ranged from 7.5 to 8.3 and averaged 7.9. This
range was significantly higher that what was measured by Battelle during source water sampling on
August 31, 2004 (i.e., 6.9 [Table 4-1]). Average DO levels across the treatment train were low, ranging
from 1.1 to 2.2 mg/L. As a result of chlorine addition, average ORP levels increased from 342 millivolts
(mV) in raw water (except for two outliers of-3 and 91 mV on November 22 and 29, 2005, respectively)
to over 400 mV after the contact tank.
4.5.1.5 Chlorine and Ammonia. Ammonia concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 0.4 mg/L (as N) and
averaged 0.3 mg/L (as N) with no difference observed across the treatment train. Based on the NaOCl
dosage and the amount of free chlorine residuals measured throughout the treatment train (see discussion
below), ammonia should have been completely oxidized. Note that the MDL for ammonia was 0.1 mg/L
(as N), which was close to some of the amounts measured.
37
-------
Free and total chlorine residuals measured throughout the treatment train are presented in Figure 4-15. As
shown in the figure, data for free and total chlorine residuals were scattered from 0.0 to 1.6 (0.6 to 0.8 on
average) and 0.5 to 1.9 (1.3 on average) mg/L (as C12), respectively. Considering that 3.6 mg/L of NaOCl
(as C12) was applied to raw water, 0.2 mg/L (as C12) would have reacted with As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II)
based on the average amounts (i.e., 14.9, 250, and 28.8 (ig/L, respectively) present in raw water (Table 4-
8), and 2.3 mg/L (as C12) would have reacted with 0.3 mg/L (as N) of ammonia to reach breakpoint
chlorination. As such, 1.1 mg/L (as C12) would be present as free chlorine in treated water These
theoretical amounts seem to be consistent with actual chlorine residuals measured in the treated water.
o n _
1 A
o 1 4
(D
— | \ 9
D)
•= 1 n
T3
(/)
'^ 0 6
O
O
0 4
0 9
0 0
A A
oB
A AO
A ° 9
o o
o o
V 4 ""'
A° A* A
0 AQ a2 A/
= » « 00 ' .
° - •.-;'•
• •
DD o o
0
a
A Total at AC
o Total at TA TR TT
o Free at AC
• Free at TAJBJT ~
0
'° §° o AO
A A 0
' 0 °
o
0° * 0
n
no
11/29/05 01/28/06 03/29/06 05/28/06 07/27/06 09/25/06 11/24/06
Figure 4-15. Chlorine Residuals Measured Throughout Treatment Train
4.5.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate, silica, TOC,
temperature, and hardness levels remained consistent across the treatment train and were not affected by
the treatment process (Table 4-8). Phosphorus after the contact tank, which was slightly higher than the
average raw water concentration of 57 |o,g/L (possibly due to trace quantities in the pretreatment
chemicals), decreased from an average of 75 to <19 |o,g/L after the pressure filters. Turbidity also
decreased slightly with treatment (i.e., from 2.4 to <1.5 NTU).
4.5.2 Backwash Water and Solids Sampling. Table 4-10 presents the analytical results of
monthly backwash water sampling events. The results for the January and February 2006 sampling
events are not included in the table because these samples were collected from an incorrect sampling tap.
Among the events reported, relatively low values of total metals, TSS, and TDS were observed for Events
1 and 2, most likely due to the timing of the sampling (i.e., these manual backwash cycles were initiated
soon after the pressure filters were automatically backwashed by the PLC [thus having fewer solids in
backwash water for sampling]). Event 2 also was collected on March 7, 2006, when chlorine addition
38
-------
Table 4-10. Backwash Water Sampling Test Results
Sampling
Event(a)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Date
12/08/05
Q3/Q7/Q6m
04/12/06
05/09/06
06/06/06
07/03/06(c)
08/16/06
09/19/06
10/09/06
11/14/06
Tank A
£
S.U.
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.6
GO
P
mg/L
252
390
428
430
418
498
406
404
436
354
GO
GO
H
mg/L
26
34
78
106
166
282
269
220
190
235
3
_0
f/3
<
Ug/L
30.0
30.5
383
610
789
1,307
1,223
903
978
1,088
S"
,0
3
1,
w
<
Ug/L
8.2
16.2
11.3
12.8
9.6
6.5
5.7
11.4
11.3
7.7
As (particulate)
Ug/L
21.8
14.3
371
597
779
1,301
1,217
891
967
1,081
3
_0
1)
PH
Ug/L
1,564
2,023
25,116
29,521
46,664
105,594
87,210
61,376
56,427
82,624
"a?
1
1
i)
PH
Ug/L
<25
158
141
251
76.0
80.8
101
263
200
52.0
Mn (total)
Ug/L
68.1
30.2
658
1,206
1,688
1,875
1,664
1,084
1,066
1,102
Mn (soluble)
Ug/L
10.6
26.6
16.7
20.6
15.8
17.6
14.9
20.5
20.8
17.1
TankB
£
S.U.
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.6
GO
P
mg/L
414
370
646
636
422
468
428
372
432
398
GO
GO
H
mg/L
24
11
39
94
150
200
258
205
204
160
3
_0
f/3
<
Ug/L
31.1
24.6
215
396
914
1,081
1,389
1,027
1,115
1,188
S"
X)
3
1,
VI
<
Ug/L
8.5
14.4
10.0
11.3
12.1
8.1
8.3
10.9
11.3
6.9
As (particulate)
Ug/L
22.6
10.2
205
385
902
1,073
1,381
1,016
1,104
1,181
3
_0
1)
PH
Hg/L
1,546
1,791
18,599
19,883
54,174
85,431
95,470
64,439
62,140
77,879
"a?
1
1
i)
PH
Ug/L
<25
92.4
92.8
155
159
208
254
202
155
48.5
Mn (total)
Ug/L
66.1
35.4
373
824
2,035
1,533
1,867
1,144
1,203
1,195
Mn (soluble)
Ug/L
11.4
28.3
15.0
16.0
17.6
18.5
19.5
19.5
19.8
16.8
(a) January and February 2006 results omitted since samples collected from an incorrect tap.
(b) Incomplete oxidation of treated water used for backwash due to chlorination problems from 02/21/06 through 03/09/06.
(c) FeCl3 addition began 06/15/06.
Table 4-11. Backwash Solids Sampling Test Results
Date: Location
06/07/06: Tank A
06/07/06: TankB
11/14/06: Tank A
11/14/06: TankB
Mg
mg/g
6.2
5.8
8.2
8.2
Al
mg/g
9.8
8.2
6.4
5.5
Si
l-ig/g
<250
<250
318
427
P
mg/g
1.4
2.8
21.0
23.2
Ca
mg/g
33.1
51.6
47.8
49.4
Mn
mg/g
14.4
17.1
5.1
5.1
Fe
mg/g
208
258
371
378
Ni
Hg/g
7.1
6.2
8.1
9.3
Cu
l-ig/g
14.8
16.7
44.7
51.3
Zn
Hg/g
349
74.6
71.4
69.4
As
mg/g
2.7
3.9
4.5
4.8
Cd
l-ig/g
<0.5
<0.5
0.15
0.15
Pb
Hg/g
6.3
5.9
9.4
11.9
Note: Arsenic/iron (|ag/mg) ratios of 13.0, 15.1, 12.1, and 12.7 from top to bottom
-------
problems were encountered as discussed in Section 4.4.5.1. The implication was that the backwash used
treated water with minimal oxidation, if any, as evident by the somewhat elevated soluble arsenic and
manganese concentrations for both tanks.
Concentrations of the backwash water for Events 1, 3, 4, and 5, characteristic of normal operating
conditions without iron addition, ranged from 252 to 646 mg/L for TDS and 24 to 166 mg/L for TSS.
Concentrations of total arsenic, iron, and manganese ranged from 30 to 914 |o,g/L, 1.5 to 54 mg/L, and 66
to 2,035 |og/L, respectively. Assuming that these average results existed during the production of 1,165
gal/tank of backwash water, approximately 0.01 Ib of arsenic, 0.48 Ib of iron, and 0.02 Ib of manganese
were disharged from both filtration tanks during each backwash. For the subsequent events with iron
addition, parameter values ranged from 354 to 498 mg/L for TDS, 160 to 282 mg/L for TSS, and 0.9 to
1.4 mg/L, 56 to 106 mg/L, and 1.1 to 1.9 mg/L for total arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively.
Assuming that these average results existed during the production of 1,520 gal/tank of backwash water,
approximately 0.03 Ib of arsenic, 2.0 Ib of iron, and 0.03 Ib of manganese was disharged per backwash
cycle (i.e., from both tanks combined). For all events, the backwash water had a pH of 7.8 to 8.0, with
the majority of metals existing in particulate form.
The solids loading to the sanitary sewer system was further monitored through collection of backwash
solids (Section 3.3.5). The analytical results of solid samples collected in June and November 2006 are
presented in Table 4-11. Based on an average TSS concentration of 85 mg/L in backwash water prior to
iron addition, approximately 0.5 Ib of solids were produced from backwashing both tanks. The iron,
manganese, and arsenic compositions of 0.38 Ib, 0.03 Ib, and 0.01 Ib, respectively, were similar to those
derived from the backwash water quality data. Increased solids loading due to iron addition produced 2.6
Ib of solids from the backwash of both tanks based on an average TSS concentration of 222 mg/L in
backwash water. The iron, manganese, and arsenic compositions of 2.10 Ib, 0.03 Ib, and 0.03 Ib,
respectively, again, agreed with the backwash water quality data derivations. The calcium composition
also was noteworthy at 10 to 14% of the total solids mass for both events.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Table 4-12 summarizes the results of the
distribution system sampling events. The water quality was similar among the three residences except for
lead and copper at the DS3 residence, which exhibited lower concentrations than the other two residences.
After the treatment system began operation, arsenic, manganese, and iron concentrations decreased from
average baseline levels of 16.5, 23.8, and 192 |o,g/L to 7.5, 13.7, and <25 |o,g/L, respectively, as shown in
Figure 4-16. Alkalinity, pH, and lead concentrations remained fairly consistent. Results of the DS2
sample on September 12, 2006 are not included in these findings due to the anomalously high arsenic,
iron, and lead values observed. Otherwise, the water in the distribution system was comparable to that of
the treatment system effluent, and the treatment system appeared to have beneficial effects on the arsenic,
manganese, and iron concentrations (Figure 4-16).
4.6 System Cost
The system cost was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and the
O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. Capital cost of the treatment system included cost for
equipment, site engineering, and system installation, shakedown, and startup. O&M cost included cost
for chemicals, electricity, and labor. Cost associated with the building including the sump, sanitary sewer
connections, and water system telemetry was not included in the capital cost because it was not included
in the scope of this demonstration project and was funded separately by the village.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for the FM-260-AS system was $334,573 (Table 4-13).
The equipment cost was $224,994 (or 67% of the total capital investment), which included cost for an
iron addition system, a contact tank, two pressure tanks, 80 ft3 of Macrolite®, instrumentation and
40
-------
Table 4-12. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
02/22/05
03/22/05(a)
04/19/05
05/26/05
12/13/05
01/17/06
02/14/06
03/14/06
04/18/06
05/16/06
06/13/06
07/1 1/0600
08/15/06
09/12/06
10/10/06
11/28/06
DS1
Residence - 1 st draw
o
a
H
a
,o
^
a
OB
cS
55
hr
8.0
6.6
8.0
8.8
8.5
9.5
8.8
6.5
8.3
8.3
8.3
7.5
8.8
8.2
8.3
8.3
ffi
ft
S.U.
7.2
7.8
7.9
7.7
8.0
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.1
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.7
Alkalinity
mg/L
158
155
155
156
150
154
138
149
154
146
145
147
147
151
157
162
M
<
Hg/L
15.6
17.8
14.7
16.1
8.5
9.0
7.6
8.6
7.7
8.0
8.4
4.3
6.9
5.8
6.2
6.2
£
Hg/L
144
145
144
241
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
30.3
<25
<25
<25
<25
Hg/L
29.4
25.2
24.8
23.0
8.2
9.4
8.5
28.0
11.5
8.9
9.0
11.1
16.6
16.2
19.0
11.1
£
Hg/L
3.2
0.9
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
1.5
<0.1
5.5
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
5.0
3.7
2.7
1.1
0.2
3
O
Hg/L
56.5
151
113
32.6
44.7
165
47.1
92.1
125
105
155
44.2
177
199
104
159
DS2
Residence - 1 st draw
o
a
H
a
,o
ts
a
on
a
55
hr
10.5
7.8
7.5
7.5
8.0
6.8
7.5
51.5
8.7
7.8
6.5
7.3
7.5
7.6
7.5
6.5
ffi
ft
S.U.
7.2
8.2
7.9
7.8
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.4
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.8
8.4
7.7
7.7
Alkalinity
t/3
<
mg/L | jig/L
158
160
155
156
158
154
146
132
154
146
145
147
126
151
153
162
12.4
23.8
14.2
18.0
9.6
10.2
4.9
11.7
11.0
5.7
7.8
5.0
5.8
13.5
6.1
5.3
£
Hg/L
<25
232
123
188
<25
<25
<25
<25
36.5
<25
89.2
86.5
48.0
1,957
34.4
<25
fH
Hg/L
21.2
8.2
23.8
18.7
0.9
12.1
9.5
25.1
1.3
11.9
14.9
19.5
16.6
26.8
21.8
18.1
£
Hg/L
0.3
2.6
0.8
0.9
1.3
<0.1
0.9
0.1
0.9
0.6
1.4
1.4
1.0
16.6
0.9
0.5
3
O
Hg/L
199
586
202
209
58.6
4.4
176
26.3
134
202
391
264
308
30.8
330
326
DS3
Residence - 1 st draw
O
a
H
a
,o
ta
a
OB
^
55
hr
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.0
7.0
8.0
ffi
ft
S.U.
7.6
7.8
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.2
Alkalinity
mg/L
153
155
155
156
150
154
M
<
Hg/L
15.7
17.7
17.6
15.0
10.2
10.2
£
Hg/L
315
284
382
93.7
<25
<25
Hg/L
26.4
29.4
29.8
26.3
11.7
13.0
£
Hg/L
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
3
O
Hg/L
8.0
10.3
3.8
4.9
2.3
3.8
Homeowner Not Available
7.5
8.0
7.5
7.5
7.5
8.0
8.0
7.5
9.0
8.0
8.1
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.7
145
154
142
145
147
147
151
155
162
8.8
8.6
9.1
9.2
5.2
6.4
5.7
6.1
5.9
<25
27.0
<25
<25
64.2
46.5
<25
<25
<25
14.9
10.0
11.2
12.2
13.7
15.8
16.1
19.2
19.3
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.5
2.8
3.5
3.6
12.8
3.2
4.1
5.6
4.5
10.4
(a) DS2 sampled on 03/21/05.
(b) FeCl3 addition began 06/15/06.
BL = baseline sampling; NA = data not available
Lead action level =15 |ig/L; copper action level =1.3 mg/L
Alkalinity measured in mg/L as CaCO3.
-------
Figure 4-16a. Arsenic in Treated Water and Distribution System
11/09/04 02/17/05 05/28/05 09/05/05 12/14/05 03/24/06 07/02/06 10/10/06 01/18/07
Figure 4-16b. Manganese in Treated Water and Distribution System
11/09/04 02/17/05 05/28/05 09/05/05 12/14/05 03/24/06 07/02/06 10/10/06 01/18/07
Figure 4-16c. Iron in Treated Water and Distribution System
400
350
11/09/04 02/17/05 05/28/05 09/05/05 12/14/05 03/24/06 07/02/06 10/10/06 01/18/07
-DS1
-DS2
-DS3
Treated Water
Figure 4-16. Effect of Treatment System on Arsenic, Manganese, and Iron in Distribution System
42
-------
controls, miscellaneous materials and supplies, labor, and system warranty. The system warranty cost
covered the cost for repair and replacement of defective system components and installation workmanship
for twelve months after system startup.
The site engineering cost covered the cost for preparing the required permit application submittal,
including a process design report, a general arrangement drawing, P&IDs, electrical diagrams,
interconnecting piping layouts, tank fill details, and a schematic of the PLC panel, and obtaining the
required permit approval from MDEQ. The engineering cost of $30,929 was 9% of the total capital
investment.
The installation, shakedown, and startup cost covered the labor and materials required to unload, install,
and test the system for proper operation. All installation activities were performed by the vendor's
subcontractor, and startup and shakedown activities were performed by the vendor with the operator's
assistance. The installation, startup, and shakedown cost of $78,650 was 24% of the total capital
investment.
The total capital cost of $334,573 was normalized to $836/gpm ($0.58/gpd) of design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 400 gpm (or 576,000 gpd). The total capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $31,581 gal/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-yr return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/week at the design
flowrate of 400 gpm to produce 210,240,000 gal/yr, the unit capital cost would be $0.15/1,000 gal.
During the first year, the system produced 38,291,000 gal of water, so the unit capital cost increased to
$0.82/1,000 gal.
Table 4-13. Capital Investment for Kinetico's FM-260-AS System
Description
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment
Tanks, Valves, and Piping
Macrolite® Media (80 ft3)
Instrumentation and Controls
Air Scour System
Change Order for Iron Addition System
Additional Sample Taps and Totalizers/Meters
Labor
Freight
Equipment Total
$122,315
$20,607
$25,123
$6,305
$3,395
$2,002
$42,747
$2,500
$224,994
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
67%
Engineering
Labor
Subcontractor
Engineering Total
$28,679
$2,250
$30,929
-
-
9%
Installation, Shakedown, and Startup
Labor
Subcontractor
Travel
Installation, Shakedown, and Startup
Total Capital Investment
$16,200
$57,500
$4,950
$78,650
$334,573
-
-
-
24%
100%
43
-------
A37ftx33ft building with a side wall height of 16 ft was constructed by the Village to house the
treatment system (Section 4.3.2). Not included in the capital cost, the total cost of the building and
supporting utilities, which were sized for two treatment systems, was approximately $120,000.
4.6.2 O&M Cost. O&M costs included chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor for a
combined unit cost of $0.17/1,000 gal (Table 4-14). No cost was incurred for repairs because the system
was under warranty. Since chlorination already existed prior to the demonstration study, incremental
chemical cost for iron addition only at $0.013/1,000 gal was incurred once initiated. Electrical power
consumption was calculated based on the difference between the average monthly cost from electric bills
before and after building construction and system startup. The difference in cost was approximately
$147.50/month or $0.05/1,000 gal of water treated. The routine, non-demonstration related labor
activities consumed 30 min/day (Section 4.4.5.3). Based on this time commitment and a labor rate of
$30/hr, the labor cost was $0.11/1,000 gal of water treated.
Table 4-14. O&M Costs for Kinetico's FM-260-AS System
Category
Volume Processed (1,000 gal)
Value
39,185
Remarks
From 11/22/05 through 12/08/06
Chemical Usage
37^2% FeCl3 Unit Cost ($/lb)
FeCl3 Consumption (lb/1,000 gal)
Chemical Cost ($/l,000 gal)
$0.37
0.035
$0.013
Supplied in 610 Ib drums including tax,
surcharges, and drum deposit
Electricity Consumption
Electricity Cost ($/month)
Electricity Cost ($/l,000 gal)
$147.50
$0.05
Average incremental consumption after
system startup; including building
heating and lighting
Labor
Labor (hr/week)
Labor Cost ($/l, 000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($/l,000 gal)
2.5
$0.11
$0.17
30 min/day, 5 day /week
Labor rate = $30/hr
Including FeCl3 usage
44
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Clark, J.W., W. Viessman, and M.J. Hammer. 1977. Water Supply and Pollution Control. IEP, aDun-
Donnelley Publisher, New York, NY.
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. EPA/600/R-
06/152. 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. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
Frank, P.L. and D.A. Clifford. 1986. Arsenic (III) Oxidation and Removal from Drinking Water.
EPA/600/S2-86/021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Ghurye, G.L. and D.A. Clifford. 2001. Laboratory Study on the Oxidation of Arsenic III to Arsenic V.
EPA/600/R-01/021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Kinetico. 2005. The Village ofPentwater, MI: Installation Manual; Suppliers Literature; and Operation
and Maintenance Manual, Macrolite FM-260-AS Arsenic Removal System. Newbury, OH.
Knocke, W.R., R.C. Hoehn, and R.L. Sinsabaugh. 1987. "Using Alternative Oxidants to Remove
Dissolved Manganese From Waters Laden With Organics." J. AWWA, 79(3): 75-79.
Knocke, W.R., J.E. Van Benschoten, M. Kearney, A. Soborski, and D.A. Reckhow. 1990. "Alternative
Oxidants for the Removal of Soluble Iron and Mn." AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
McCall, S.E., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2007. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media: U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park in Springfield,
45
-------
OH, Six-Month Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-07/016. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Sorg, T.J. 2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, 28(11): 15.
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
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pentwater, MI - Daily System Operation
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Date
11/22/05
11/23/05
11/25/05
11/26/05
11/27/05
11/28/05
11/29/05
11/30/05
12/01/05
12/02/05
12/04/05
12/05/05
12/06/05
12/07/05
12/08/05
12/09/05
12/10/05
12/12/05
12/13/05
12/14/05
12/15/05
12/16/05
12/19/05
12/20/05
12/21/05
12/22/05
12/24/05
12/27/05
12/28/05
12/29/05
01/02/06
01/03/06
01/04/06
01/05/06
01/06/06
01/09/06
01/10/06
01/11/06
01/12/06
01/13/06
01/15/06
01/16/06
01/17/06
01/18/06
01/19/06
01/20/06
01/23/06
01/24/06
01/25/06
01/26/06
Well
#2
Meter
hr
4
6
9
12
14
17
19
22
24
27
31
32
35
37
38
41
42
47
48
50
53
55
62
64
65
68
72
78
81
83
98
100
102
104
107
113
115
116
118
119
124
125
127
131
133
134
NA
143
145
146
Run
Time
hr
NA
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
7.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
3.0
2.0
15.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
6.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
NA
NA
2.0
1.0
15%
CI2
Usage
gal
NA
NA
NA
1.3
0.4
1.3
0.9
1.3
1.3
0.9
2.2
0.4
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
2.2
0.4
0.9
1.8
0.9
3.5
0.9
0.9
0.9
3.5
3.5
0.9
0.9
NA
0.9
0.9
1.8
0.9
2.7
0.9
0.9
1.8
NA
NA
NA
0.9
1.3
0.9
0.4
2.7
1.3
0.9
0.4
Pressure Filtration
Inlet
psig
80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
90
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
78
NA
NA
78
NA
NA
NA
NA
77
77
NA
NA
NA
78
NA
NA
NA
NA
78
NA
80
79
78
NA
NA
77
Outlet
Tank
A
psig
74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
80
NA
NA
81
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
71
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
72
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
NA
74
72
71
NA
NA
72
Outlet
Tank
B
psig
75
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
75
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
74
NA
NA
75
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
71
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
72
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
74
71
73
NA
NA
72
Effluent
psig
56
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
75
NA
NA
76
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
58
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
58
58
58
NA
NA
58
Inlet-
TA
psig
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
5
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
6
7
7
NA
NA
5
Inlet-
TB
psig
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
5
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
6
8
5
NA
NA
5
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
NA
NA
20
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
19
NA
NA
NA
20
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
NA
22
21
20
NA
NA
19
Flow
rate
gpm
350
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
353
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
351
NA
NA
350
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
355
NA
NA
359
NA
NA
NA
NA
363
360
NA
NA
NA
359
NA
NA
NA
NA
358
NA
365
359
356
NA
NA
362
Totalizer to Distribution
Meter
kgal
202.7
237.2
335.1
432.4
489.7
582.9
653.7
730.5
807.1
875.1
986.7
1013.3
1095.7
1147.4
1173.4
1254.1
1279.5
1406.8
1438.2
1491.6
1572.4
1624.8
1805.5
1859.8
1892.9
1964.3
2067.6
2237.1
2306.5
2356.8
2722.9
2774.5
2827.0
2884.0
8.2
176.5
231.1
257.9
352.0
376.8
504.6
555.4
607.7
684.2
749.0
778.9
936.1
1009.5
1057.9
1083.7
Cum.
Flow
kgal
NA
34
132
229
287
380
451
527
604
672
784
810
892
944
970
1051
1076
1204
1235
1288
1369
1422
1602
1657
1690
1761
1864
2034
2103
2154
2520
2571
2624
2681
2689
2857
2912
2939
3033
3058
3185
3236
3288
3365
3430
3460
3617
3690
3739
3764
Avg
Flow
rate
gpm
NA
287
544
541
477
518
590
427
639
377
465
444
458
432
433
448
424
424
523
445
449
436
430
453
552
397
430
471
385
419
407
429
438
474
NA
468
455
447
784
413
426
848
435
319
540
499
NA
NA
404
429
FeCI3
Tank
Level
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
2
4
8
9
10
12
14
15
17
19
22
23
25
27
28
30
31
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
43
43
44
45
46
46
48
48
49
49
49
51
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
57
57
58
Tank
B
No.
2
4
8
9
10
12
14
15
17
19
22
23
25
27
28
30
31
35
36
38
38
39
40
41
41
42
42
44
44
45
46
46
47
48
48
49
50
50
51
51
52
53
53
54
54
54
56
56
57
57
Cum.
Volume
kgal
34.7
38.0
42.5
46.4
48.1
51.4
54.8
56.5
59.8
63.2
68.5
70.2
73.5
77.7
80.5
85.0
88.0
95.6
98.9
102.3
103.4
107.0
109.8
112.1
112.1
113.5
114.9
118.8
120.2
121.6
126.1
126.1
128.6
129.7
129.7
133.9
135.0
135.0
137.8
137.8
140.6
141.7
143.1
144.5
145.9
145.9
149.5
150.9
152.0
153.4
Daily
Volume
kgal
NA
3.4
4.5
3.9
1.7
3.4
3.4
1.7
3.4
3.4
5.3
1.7
3.4
4.2
2.8
4.5
3.1
7.5
3.4
3.4
1.1
3.6
2.8
2.2
0.0
1.4
1.4
3.9
1.4
1.4
4.5
0.0
2.5
1.1
0.0
4.2
1.1
0.0
2.8
0.0
2.8
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.0
3.6
1.4
1.1
1.4
Since Last BW
Run
Time
A/Bhr
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
0/0
1/1
0/0
1/0
1/1
1/0
1/1
1/1
0/0
1/1
0/1
1/1
0/0
0/0
2/3
2/0
4/1
0/2
1/3
4/1
3/5
3/0
1/3
3/0
1/3
3/5
0/1
2/0
5/3
1/4
3/1
4/0
1/2
2/3
3/5
5/1
1/3
4/1
1/3
2/4
4/0
2/3
4/1
0/2
Standby
Time
A/Bhr
8/8
3/3
2/2
4/4
11/11
6/6
2/1
10/9
5/4
0/0
2/0
9/7
6/4
9/2
3/9
9/6
2/11
7/4
3/2
9/7
19/30
15/0
29/10
0/18
15/34
39/10
27/46
37/8
13/32
31/1
9/27
24/42
0/18
19/0
39/20
2/31
26/6
44/0
16/21
29/34
24/40
45/12
17/32
40/7
9/25
30/46
41/8
17/32
39/5
5/19
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pentwater, MI - Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Date
01/30/06
01/31/06
02/01/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
02/06/06
02/07/06
02/08/06
02/09/06
02/10/06
02/13/06
02/14/06
02/15/06
02/16/06
02/17/06
02/20/06
02/21/06
02/22/06
02/23/06
02/24/06
02/27/06
02/28/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
03/03/06
03/06/06
03/07/06
03/08/06
03/09/06
03/10/06
03/13/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
03/16/06
03/17/06
03/20/06
03/21/06
03/22/06
03/23/06
03/24/06
03/27/06
03/28/06
03/29/06
03/30/06
03/31/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
04/05/06
04/06/06
04/07/06
Well
#2
Meter
hr
155
157
158
161
161
169
171
174
176
178
185
186
189
192
194
204
206
208
3.8
10.0
22.3
26.1
29.1
33.6
35.3
45.3
47.2
52.0
55.5
58.8
70.8
73.3
76.9
80.6
85.6
102.2
106.0
108.3
113.4
115.9
126.7
131.4
135.3
137.8
141.2
151.0
154.5
159.1
161.0
166.2
Run
Time
hr
9.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
NA
8.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
7.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
NA
6.2
12.3
3.8
3.0
4.5
1.7
10.0
1.9
4.8
3.5
3.3
12.0
2.5
3.6
3.7
5.0
16.6
3.8
2.3
5.1
2.5
10.8
4.7
3.9
2.5
3.4
9.8
3.5
4.6
1.9
5.2
15%
CI2
Usage
gal
4.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.4
3.1
0.4
1.3
0.4
1.3
3.5
0.9
1.8
0.9
0.9
3.1
NA
1.3
1.3
2.2
5.8
1.3
1.3
1.8
1.8
4.4
1.8
2.2
NA
1.8
6.2
2.2
2.2
1.8
2.7
9.8
2.7
0.9
2.7
1.8
5.8
2.2
2.7
1.3
1.3
3.5
1.8
NA
0.9
2.2
Pressure Filtration
Inlet
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
79
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
80
78
78
NA
78
78
NA
78
78
NA
79
NA
NA
77
78
78
78
77
NA
NA
NA
NA
78
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
77
NA
NA
NA
79
77
NA
80
NA
NA
Outlet
Tank
A
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
73
71
NA
73
74
NA
72
73
NA
74
NA
NA
72
72
73
72
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
72
73
NA
72
NA
NA
Outlet
Tank
B
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
72
72
NA
73
73
NA
73
73
NA
73
NA
NA
73
73
72
72
71
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
72
72
NA
72
NA
NA
Effluent
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
59
58
58
NA
60
58
NA
58
58
NA
58
NA
NA
58
58
58
58
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
59
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
59
59
NA
58
NA
NA
Inlet-
TA
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
5
7
NA
5
4
NA
6
5
NA
5
NA
NA
5
6
5
6
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
7
4
NA
8
NA
NA
Inlet-
TB
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
6
6
NA
5
5
NA
5
5
NA
6
NA
NA
4
5
6
6
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
7
5
NA
8
NA
NA
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
20
20
NA
18
20
NA
20
20
NA
21
NA
NA
19
20
20
20
19
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
NA
NA
NA
20
18
NA
22
NA
NA
Flow
rate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
353
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
352
355
355
NA
351
355
NA
352
347
NA
347
NA
NA
353
346
351
347
345
NA
NA
NA
NA
347
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
347
NA
NA
NA
347
357
NA
345
NA
NA
Totalizer to Distribution
Meter
kgal
1317.0
1369.8
1421.2
1472.1
1502.7
1675.3
1722.2
1798.0
1846.7
1915.2
2093.2
2144.5
2236.1
2285.4
2346.9
2567.5
2630.6
2687.5
2774.6
2903.3
200.7
276.5
339.9
431.9
466.7
675.6
715.9
812.0
881.8
948.9
1194.1
1244.4
1320.4
1396.3
1495.7
1832.8
1911.6
1959.3
2063.0
2113.1
2331.0
2425.6
2503.4
2553.1
2623.6
2823.8
2894.0
31.8
68.1
173.2
Cum.
Flow
kgal
3998
4051
4102
4153
4183
4356
4403
4479
4527
4596
4774
4825
4917
4966
5028
5248
5311
5368
5455
5584
5785
5861
5924
6016
6051
6260
6300
6396
6466
6533
6778
6828
6904
6980
7080
7417
7496
7543
7647
7697
7915
8010
8088
8137
8208
8408
8478
8510
8546
8651
Avg
Flow
rate
gpm
432
440
857
283
NA
360
391
421
406
571
424
856
509
274
513
368
526
474
NA
346
NA
332
352
341
341
348
353
334
332
339
341
336
352
342
331
338
346
345
339
334
336
336
333
331
346
340
334
NA
318
337
FeCI3
Tank
Level
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
59
60
60
61
61
62
63
63
64
64
65
66
66
67
67
68
69
69
70
70
71
72
72
73
75
76
76
77
77
78
79
79
79
80
81
82
82
83
83
83
85
85
86
86
86
88
88
88
89
89
Tank
B
No.
59
59
59
60
60
61
62
62
63
63
64
65
65
66
66
67
68
68
69
69
70
71
71
72
73
74
74
75
75
76
77
77
78
78
79
80
80
81
81
81
83
83
83
84
84
86
86
86
87
87
Cum.
Volume
kgal
157.4
158.8
158.8
161.3
161.3
164.1
166.6
166.6
169.4
169.4
171.9
174.7
174.7
177.5
177.5
178.9
181.7
181.7
185.0
185.0
187.5
189.8
189.8
194.0
198.2
201.2
201.2
203.5
203.5
206.3
209.1
209.1
210.2
211.6
214.4
217.2
217.2
219.7
219.7
219.7
224.7
224.7
226.1
227.2
227.2
232.0
232.0
232.0
234.5
234.5
Daily
Volume
kgal
3.9
1.4
0.0
2.5
0.0
2.8
2.5
0.0
2.8
0.0
2.5
2.8
0.0
2.8
0.0
1.4
2.8
0.0
3.4
0.0
2.5
2.2
0.0
4.2
4.2
3.1
0.0
2.2
0.0
2.8
2.8
0.0
1.1
1.4
2.8
2.8
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
1.4
1.1
0.0
4.8
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
Since Last BW
Run
Time
A/Bhr
4/1
1/3
3/5
1/2
2/3
3/5
2/2
5/5
1/1
3/3
6/6
2/2
5/5
0/0
3/3
6/6
1/1
3/3
3.8/0
10.0/6.3
9.6/5.8
3.6/1.3
6.6/4.3
0.4/0.1
0.0/0.0
2.1/2.1
4.0/3.9
4.2/4.2
7.6/7.6
1.4/1.4
5.7/5.9
8.2/8.4
NA
6.2/6.2
0.9/0.9
5.2/3.7
9.0/7.6
0.0/0.0
5.1/5.1
7.6/7.6
0.5/0.5
5.2/5.1
0.0/9.0
2.5/2.4
5.9/5.5
0.0/0.0
3.5/3.5
8.2/8.1
1.2/1.2
6.4/6.4
Standby
Time
A/Bhr
40/7
8/23
29/44
2/16
21/35
31/45
20/20
44/44
11/11
32/32
47/0
17/17
38/38
6/6
28/28
36/36
4/4
20/19
15.3/1.3
38.6/22.5
42.6/28.0
18.0/3.9
32.6/15.5
NR
3.0/0.0
13.1/12.8
28.4/28.1
19.1/18.6
41.1/40.6
11.5/11.0
23.0/22.5
43.2/42.7
NA
33.9/33.3
4.3/3.7
13.8/13.9
32.0/31.6
1.9/1.5
23.3/23.0
40.9/40.6
4.4/4.0
28.5/28.2
0/48.0
16.2/16.0
40.4/40
2.7/2.4
20.8/20.5
47.8/47.5
14.1/13.9
38.6/38.4
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pentwater, MI - Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Date
04/10/06
04/11/06
04/12/06
04/13/06
04/17/06
04/18/06
04/19/06
04/20/06
04/21/06
04/24/06
04/25/06
04/26/06
04/27/06
04/28/06
05/01/06
05/02/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
05/05/06
05/08/06
05/09/06
05/10/06
05/11/06
05/12/06
05/15/06
05/16/06
05/17/06
05/18/06
05/19/06
05/22/06
05/23/06
05/24/06
05/25/06
05/26/06
05/30/06
05/31/06
06/01/06
06/02/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
06/07/06
06/08/06
06/09/06
06/12/06
06/13/06
06/14/06
06/15/06
06/16/06
06/17/06
06/18/06
Well
#2
Meter
hr
175.9
180.4
182.9
187.5
201.0
205.4
209.8
214.4
219.1
231.5
234.5
238.5
242.4
246.4
261.9
266.0
271.4
274.2
280.0
299.8
304.4
310.1
314.1
319.7
333.3
337.4
341.4
346.4
352.0
368.2
372.6
378.3
385.9
393.1
432.6
438.2
443.8
449.4
472.5
479.8
487.8
493.2
501.2
525.0
532.2
541.6
550.7
564.7
577.5
593.7
Run
Time
hr
9.7
4.5
2.5
4.6
13.5
4.4
4.4
4.6
4.7
12.4
3.0
4.0
3.9
4.0
15.5
4.1
5.4
2.8
5.8
19.8
4.6
5.7
4.0
5.6
13.6
4.1
4.0
5.0
5.6
16.2
4.4
5.7
7.6
7.2
39.5
5.6
5.6
5.6
23.1
7.3
8.0
5.4
8.0
23.8
7.2
9.4
9.1
14.0
12.8
16.2
15%
CI2
Usage
gal
4.9
2.7
0.9
2.2
7.1
1.8
2.2
2.2
3.1
5.8
1.3
2.2
2.7
1.8
6.2
NA
2.2
1.8
3.1
10.2
3.1
3.1
1.8
1.8
6.7
1.8
2.7
2.2
4.0
7.5
NA
2.2
3.5
2.7
15.9
2.7
2.1
2.3
8.9
2.7
3.5
1.8
5.3
NA
4.0
4.0
3.1
5.8
5.8
7.1
Pressure Filtration
Inlet
psig
80
NA
NA
78
NA
NA
80
NA
80
81
77
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
79
NA
NA
77
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
78
NA
NA
NA
78
NA
NA
80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
78
80
76
NA
78
79
78
87
82
NA
Outlet
Tank
A
psig
72
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
71
NA
72
73
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
71
NA
NA
71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
71
72
NA
72
72
71
71
71
NA
Outlet
Tank
B
psig
72
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
72
NA
72
72
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
71
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
NA
NA
NA
71
NA
NA
71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
71
72
NA
71
71
71
71
69
NA
Effluent
psig
58
NA
NA
59
NA
NA
58
NA
58
58
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
59
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
58
59
NA
58
58
58
58
58
NA
Inlet-
TA
psig
8
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
9
NA
8
8
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
9
4
NA
6
7
7
16
11
NA
Inlet-
TB
psig
8
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
8
NA
8
9
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
9
4
NA
7
8
7
16
13
NA
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
22
NA
NA
19
NA
NA
22
NA
22
23
19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
NA
NA
19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
NA
NA
NA
20
NA
NA
21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
22
17
NA
20
21
20
29
24
NA
Flow
rate
gpm
347
NA
NA
347
NA
NA
349
NA
346
347
356
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
355
NA
NA
355
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
355
NA
NA
NA
353
NA
NA
348
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
351
352
358
NA
354
347
356
328
352
NA
Totalizer to Distribution
Meter
kgal
368.4
461.0
512.2
606.7
892.9
973.7
1061.5
1155.6
1253.4
1504.4
1567.0
1650.6
1732.3
1813.5
2128.0
2209.8
2319.2
2377.5
2493.2
2892.1
30.9
147.1
228.5
288.4
618.7
703.7
866.8
968.6
1083.4
1420.3
1513.4
1630.9
1790.2
1938.8
2746.2
2861.4
2976.8
3091.9
289.4
437.7
604.4
717.8
880.7
1368.1
1517.3
1712.6
1902.5
2171.6
2432.3
2748.6
Cum.
Flow
kgal
8846
8939
8990
9085
9371
9452
9540
9634
9731
9982
10045
10129
10210
10292
10606
10688
10797
10856
10971
11370
11401
11517
11599
11659
11989
12074
12237
12339
12454
12790
12884
13001
13160
13309
14116
14232
14347
14462
14751
14900
15066
15180
15343
15830
15979
16175
16365
16634
16894
17211
Avg
Flow
rate
gpm
335
343
342
342
353
306
332
341
347
337
348
348
349
338
338
333
338
347
332
336
NA
340
339
178
405
345
NA
339
342
347
353
344
349
344
341
343
343
343
NA
339
347
350
339
341
345
346
348
320
339
325
FeCI3
Tank
Level
gal
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
45.0
38.5
34.5
30.5
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
90
91
91
92
94
94
94
95
95
96
97
98
98
99
100
100
101
101
101
103
104
105
105
106
107
107
108
108
109
110
110
110
111
111
113
113
113
114
115
115
116
116
117
118
118
118
119
119
120
121
Tank
B
No.
88
89
90
91
93
93
93
94
94
95
96
96
97
97
98
99
99
99
100
101
102
102
102
103
104
104
105
105
105
107
107
107
108
108
110
110
111
111
112
112
113
113
114
115
115
115
116
116
117
118
Cum.
Volume
kgal
236.7
239.2
240.4
242.6
247.6
247.6
247.6
250.1
250.1
252.7
255.2
256.3
257.4
258.8
261.3
262.7
263.8
263.8
265.2
269.2
271.4
273.1
273.1
275.9
278.7
278.7
101.3
101.3
102.6
106.4
106.4
106.4
109.1
109.1
115.0
115.0
116.4
117.8
120.5
120.5
123.1
123.1
125.8
128.7
128.7
128.7
131.4
131.4
134.6
137.9
Daily
Volume
kgal
2.2
2.5
1.1
2.2
5.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
2.5
2.5
1.1
1.1
1.4
2.5
1.4
1.1
0.0
1.4
3.9
2.2
1.7
0.0
2.8
2.8
0.0
NA
0.0
1.3
3.8
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
5.9
0.0
1.4
1.4
2.7
0.0
2.6
0.0
2.7
2.9
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
3.2
3.3
Since Last BW
Run
Time
A/Bhr
8.4/8.4
3.8/3.8
6.3/2.5
4.6/4.6
0.0/0.0
3.9/3.9
8.3/8.3
2.6/2.5
7.3/7.2
10.4/10.0
0.0/2.6
4.0/6.7
7.9/1.2
1.2/5.2
4.1/8.1
8.2/0.0
2.7/5.4
5.5/8.2
11.3/1.3
1.6/6.3
0.0/0.0
4.4/5.7
8.8/9.7
1.5/2.7
2.6/4.1
0.0/8.3
4.0/0.8
9.0/5.7
2.7/11.2
4.3/0.0
8.7/4.4
14.4/10.1
7.6/3.1
14.8/10.3
6.1/1.7
11.9/7.3
NR
4.3/1.5
8.4/3.2
15.7/10.4
8.0/5.8
13.4/11.3
2.1/2.0
1.9/1.5
9.1/8.6
18.5/18
8.3/3.3
22.3/17.3
11.1/10.7
3.3/2.9
Standby
Time
A/Bhr
45.7/45.4
21.6/21.3
39.2/16.7
22.6/22.5
0.7/0.4
20.0/19.8
47.2/42.0
13.0/12.7
34.7/34.5
42.6/42.6
0.0/13.7
16.5/30.4
36.3/1.9
7.7/21.0
19.0/33.1
36.4/23.0
7.5/21.8
24.2/38.5
42.9/8.9
3.2/17.5
2.0/0.4
16.3/18.8
34.3/36.8
4.3/6.7
12.9/15.4
0.0/28.4
15.6/2.4
37.1/24.4
6.6/42.4
12.6/0.0
31.3/18.7
47.3/34.8
21.3/8.8
35.4/22.8
11.7/0.8
30.3/18.4
NR
14.3/3.4
15.1/4.2
29.6/18.8
16.1/15.6
33.8/33.3
4.8/4.4
0.9/0.9
15.6/15.6
25.6/25.6
14.8/10.2
25.4/20.9
7.6/7.5
3.5/3.5
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pentwater, MI - Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Date
06/19/06
06/20/06
06/21/06
06/22/06
06/23/06
06/25/06
06/26/06
06/27/06
06/28/06
06/29/06
06/30/06
07/03/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
07/07/06
07/09/06
07/10/06
07/11/06
07/12/06
07/13/06
07/14/06
07/17/06
07/19/06
07/20/06
07/21/06
07/22/06
07/24/06
07/25/06
07/26/06
07/27/06
07/28/06
07/29/06
07/30/06
07/31/06
08/01/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
08/04/06
08/06/06
08/07/06
08/08/06
08/09/06
08/10/06
08/11/06
08/13/06
08/14/06
08/15/06
08/16/06
08/17/06
08/18/06
Well
#2
Meter
hr
601.9
608.7
616.9
624.4
NR
654.0
624.7
666.9
674.1
681.3
691.3
725.5
750.4
763.6
774.0
801.9
814.0
823.0
830.7
838.8
845.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
886.5
910.7
918.0
925.6
933.8
943.0
953.2
965.3
974.9
983.4
994.3
1004.0
1013.5
1036.0
1045.8
1054.8
1067.1
1076.8
1090.0
1119.0
1129.0
1141.1
1153.0
1166.4
1178.6
Run
Time
hr
8.2
6.8
8.2
7.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.2
7.2
10.0
34.2
24.9
13.2
10.4
27.9
12.1
9.0
7.7
8.1
7.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.6
24.2
7.3
7.6
8.2
9.2
10.2
12.1
9.6
8.5
10.9
9.7
9.5
22.5
9.8
9.0
12.3
9.7
13.2
29.0
10.0
12.1
11.9
13.4
12.2
15%
CI2
Usage
gal
2.2
3.1
3.1
4.4
1.3
NA
2.2
NA
3.1
2.7
4.0
14.2
10.2
5.8
4.0
NA
5.3
4.9
3.5
4.0
3.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.0
11.5
3.5
3.1
4.4
4.4
4.0
NA
3.1
4.0
5.3
4.4
4.0
10.6
4.4
3.5
5.8
4.0
4.0
NA
4.9
4.4
5.3
5.8
4.4
Pressure Filtration
Inlet
psig
83
86
81
NA
NA
86
79
NA
83
NA
82
82
NA
NA
NA
77
NA
86
82
NA
NA
84
NA
NA
74
83
83
85
83
NA
87
80
NA
NA
85
82
82
87
NA
85
80
NA
81
NA
84
83
82
87
83
85
Outlet
Tank
A
psig
71
71
71
NA
NA
72
71
NA
72
NA
71
69
NA
NA
NA
71
NA
71
72
NA
NA
73
NA
NA
68
73
73
72
69
NA
72
74
NA
NA
74
70
74
74
NA
69
71
NA
72
NA
66
72
72
72
72
71
Outlet
Tank
B
psig
71
70
70
NA
NA
70
71
NA
69
NA
71
69
NA
NA
NA
70
NA
70
70
NA
NA
69
NA
NA
67
69
70
69
73
NA
70
69
NA
NA
68
73
70
70
NA
72
75
NA
70
NA
72
70
71
70
71
70
Effluent
psig
58
58
58
NA
NA
50
58
NA
58
NA
58
58
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
58
58
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
58
58
58
58
58
NA
58
58
NA
NA
58
58
58
58
NA
58
58
NA
58
NA
58
58
58
58
58
58
Inlet-
TA
psig
12
15
10
NA
NA
14
8
NA
11
NA
11
13
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
15
10
NA
NA
11
NA
NA
6
10
10
13
14
NA
15
6
NA
NA
11
12
8
13
NA
16
9
NA
9
NA
18
11
10
15
11
14
Inlet-
TB
psig
12
16
11
NA
NA
16
8
NA
14
NA
11
13
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
16
12
NA
NA
15
NA
NA
7
14
13
16
10
NA
17
11
NA
NA
17
9
12
17
NA
13
5
NA
11
NA
12
13
11
17
12
15
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
25
28
23
NA
NA
36
21
NA
25
NA
24
24
NA
NA
NA
19
NA
28
24
NA
NA
26
NA
NA
16
25
25
27
25
NA
29
22
NA
NA
27
24
24
29
NA
27
22
NA
23
NA
26
25
24
29
25
27
Flow
rate
gpm
338
335
348
NA
NA
334
345
NA
348
NA
346
334
NA
NA
NA
345
NA
328
340
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
350
348
346
348
NA
342
345
NA
NA
345
345
348
335
NA
339
355
NA
350
NA
348
349
357
338
351
342
Totalizer to Distribution
Meter
kgal
2911.7
3044.1
3217.2
91.3
246.3
685.4
824.8
942.4
1086.2
1227.4
1428.8
2107.5
2595.8
2861.1
2931.3
343.4
581.8
774.9
920.2
1079.4
1195.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
1867.5
2356.3
2506.7
2663.6
2838.4
3026.4
3241.0
203.4
404.0
584.9
805.6
1010.4
1199.8
1666.2
1862.2
2051.6
2300.4
2503.0
2768.4
67.9
293.5
525.5
765.0
1036.6
1269.8
Cum.
Flow
kgal
17374
17506
17679
17771
17926
18365
18504
18622
18765
18907
19108
19787
20275
20540
20611
20954
21192
21385
21531
21690
21806
NA
NA
NA
NA
22478
22967
23117
23274
23449
23637
23852
24055
24256
24436
24657
24862
25051
25518
25714
25903
26152
26355
26620
26688
26913
27145
27385
27657
27890
Avg
Flow
rate
gpm
332
325
352
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
333
327
336
331
327
335
113
NA
328
358
315
328
276
NA
NA
NA
NA
325
337
343
344
355
341
351
NA
348
355
337
352
332
345
333
351
337
348
335
NA
376
320
335
338
319
FeCI3
Tank
Level
gal
28.0
26.5
24.0
22.0
20.0
14.5
12.5
11.0
9.5
7.5
41.0
32.5
26.0
22.0
19.0
12.0
43.0
42.0
40.0
38.5
36.5
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
34.0
27.5
25.5
23.5
21.5
19.0
16.0
13.0
10.5
43.0
41.5
39.0
36.5
30.5
28.0
25.0
22.0
19.5
16.0
8.5
5.5
40.0
36.5
33.0
30.0
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
121
121
122
122
122
123
124
124
124
125
125
126
127
128
128
130
130
130
131
131
131
131
131
131
132
133
134
134
134
135
135
136
136
136
137
137
138
138
139
139
140
140
141
141
142
143
144
144
145
145
Tank
B
No.
118
118
119
119
119
120
121
121
121
122
122
123
124
125
125
127
127
127
128
128
128
128
128
128
129
129
130
130
131
131
131
132
132
133
133
134
134
134
135
136
137
137
138
138
140
140
141
141
142
142
Cum.
Volume
kgal
137.9
137.9
141.2
141.2
141.2
144.6
148.0
148.0
148.0
151.1
151.1
154.3
157.6
160.7
160.7
166.9
166.9
166.9
170.1
170.1
170.1
170.1
170.1
170.1
175.9
178.5
182.2
182.2
183.9
185.6
185.6
188.9
188.9
190.6
192.2
194.0
195.7
195.7
199.0
200.7
203.7
203.7
207.0
207.0
212.1
213.8
216.7
216.7
220.0
220.0
Daily
Volume
kgal
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
3.4
3.4
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.0
3.2
3.3
3.1
0.0
6.2
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.8
2.6
3.7
0.0
1.7
1.7
0.0
3.3
0.0
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.7
0.0
3.3
1.7
3.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
5.1
1.7
2.9
0.0
3.3
0.0
Since Last BW
Run
Time
A/B hr
11.5/11.2
18.3/17.9
6/5.7
13.5/13.2
21.5/21.2
19.3/18.9
2.1/1.6
8/7.4
15.2/14.6
0/0
10/10
19.6/20.3
22.2/21.8
11.4/10.9
22.8/21.3
1.7/1.2
13.9/13.4
23.7/23.2
6.6/6.3
14.7/14.4
21.7/21.4
23.8/23.5
8.5/8.6
20.3/20.5
4.5/5.0
5.9/14.6
6.1/14.7
13.4/22.2
21/5.9
5.2/14.5
14.4/23.7
0.6/10.2
12.4/22
22.3/7.4
6.8/16.3
17.7/2.8
3.4/12.8
12.8/22.2
11.5/21.0
21.5/6.4
6.2/8.1
18.3/20.4
5.7/6.1
18.9/19.3
23.9/0
10.8/11.2
9.4/9.4
21.3/21.3
9.3/8.8
21/21.5
Standby
Time
A/B hr
18.5/18.7
33.4/33.6
14/14
28.1/28.1
42.5/42.5
25.6/25.6
3.1/3.0
18.1/18.1
34.6/34.6
1.5/1.0
16/16
20.9/20.9
19.1/19
11.1/11.1
22.9/22.5
1.5/1.5
11.3/11.3
26.6/26.5
11.9/11.9
27.3/27.3
33.4/33.4
33.4/33.4
9.1/8.8
20.2/19.8
8.5/8.5
10.6/23.6
9.9/16
23.1/29.2
36.5/13
12.8/28
27.1/42.1
0/12.9
10.6/23.6
24.5/13.2
12.1/27
25.6/7.0
8/23.2
20.5/35.6
11.4/22.5
6.4/9.5
11.4/11.4
24.3/24.3
9.2/9.3
20.6/20.5
15.5/0
8.5/8.5
11.2/10.4
20.7/20.5
9.5/9.5
20.5/21.5
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pentwater, MI - Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Date
08/21/06
08/22/06
08/23/06
08/24/06
08/25/06
08/28/06
08/29/06
08/30/06
08/31/06
09/01/06
09/02/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
09/07/06
09/08/06
09/11/06
09/1 2/06
09/1 3/06
09/14/06
09/15/06
09/18/06
09/19/06
09/20/06
09/21/06
09/22/06
09/25/06
09/26/06
09/27/06
09/28/06
09/29/06
1 0/02/06
1 0/03/06
1 0/04/06
1 0/05/06
10/06/06
10/09/06
10/10/06
10/11/06
10/12/06
10/13/06
10/16/06
10/17/06
10/18/06
10/19/06
1 0/20/06
1 0/23/06
1 0/24/06
10/25/06
10/26/06
1 0/27/06
Well
#2
Meter
hr
1213.1
1230.0
1241.8
1254.1
1259.1
1295.0
1303.1
1311.8
1319.6
1329.7
1350.1
1382.3
1390.2
1397.5
1405.5
1425.9
1429.8
1435.3
1439.2
1444.8
1463.0
1468.9
1473.0
1478.0
1482.4
1498.2
1502.4
1507.5
1511.5
1516.3
1530.5
1533.2
1538.0
1541.0
1545.0
1560.0
1566.0
1569.0
1572.6
1578.0
1592.1
1595.4
1598.6
1602.1
1606.8
1617.8
1620.9
1623.4
1626.0
1629.0
Run
Time
hr
34.5
16.9
11.8
12.3
5.0
35.9
8.1
8.7
7.8
10.1
20.4
32.2
7.9
7.3
8.0
20.4
3.9
5.5
3.9
5.6
18.2
5.9
4.1
5.0
4.4
15.8
4.2
5.1
4.0
4.8
14.2
2.7
4.8
3.0
4.0
15.0
6.0
3.0
3.6
5.4
14.1
3.3
3.2
3.5
4.7
11.0
3.1
2.5
2.6
3.0
15%
CI2
Usage
gal
15.1
NA
7.1
4.4
2.7
14.2
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.0
8.4
NA
3.1
3.1
3.5
8.0
2.2
1.8
2.7
2.2
7.1
1.3
2.7
1.8
4.0
3.5
0.4
0.9
0.0
0.0
9.3
0.4
1.3
1.3
2.7
5.8
3.1
1.8
0.4
3.1
6.2
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.8
4.0
1.8
1.8
0.9
1.8
Pressure Filtration
Inlet
psig
77
77
84
NA
NA
NA
79
83
85
NA
78
84
86
79
NA
NA
80
80
80
NA
NA
84
80
80
NA
NA
NA
80
NA
NA
NA
81
83
NA
NA
82
NA
NA
79
NA
NA
NA
NA
83
NA
80
NA
NA
NA
NA
Outlet
Tank
A
psig
67
72
71
NA
NA
NA
72
72
72
NA
72
73
72
73
NA
NA
72
72
70
NA
NA
72
73
73
NA
NA
NA
73
NA
NA
NA
73
72
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
NA
74
NA
NA
NA
NA
Outlet
Tank
B
psig
66
71
70
NA
NA
NA
71
71
70
NA
71
71
70
72
NA
NA
72
71
70
NA
NA
72
72
72
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
72
72
NA
NA
71
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
73
NA
NA
NA
NA
Effluent
psig
56
58
58
NA
NA
NA
59
59
58
NA
60
58
58
58
NA
NA
58
58
58
NA
NA
58
58
58
NA
NA
NA
60
NA
NA
NA
58
58
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inlet-
TA
psig
10
5
13
NA
NA
NA
7
11
13
NA
6
11
14
6
NA
NA
8
8
10
NA
NA
12
7
7
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
NA
8
11
NA
NA
10
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inlet-
TB
psig
11
6
14
NA
NA
NA
8
12
15
NA
7
13
16
7
NA
NA
8
9
10
NA
NA
12
8
8
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
9
11
NA
NA
11
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
11
NA
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
21
19
26
NA
NA
NA
20
24
27
NA
18
26
28
21
NA
NA
22
22
22
NA
NA
26
22
22
NA
NA
NA
20
NA
NA
NA
23
25
NA
NA
24
NA
NA
21
NA
NA
NA
NA
25
NA
22
NA
NA
NA
NA
Flow
rate
gpm
362
345
345
NA
NA
NA
349
350
349
NA
357
342
353
360
NA
NA
363
354
361
NA
NA
354
360
350
NA
NA
NA
352
NA
NA
NA
350
352
NA
NA
360
NA
NA
362
NA
NA
NA
NA
357
NA
353
NA
NA
NA
NA
Totalizer to Distribution
Meter
kgal
1950.1
2270.4
2510.6
2758.3
2864.6
308.8
476.6
661.6
816.7
1024.6
1435.4
2089.4
2250.9
2402.9
2569.0
2989.2
3072.7
3185.3
3268.2
107.4
493.8
602.9
685.8
785.9
877.2
1208.0
1293.8
1401.5
1493.0
1584.3
1887.0
1962.0
2047.2
2111.9
2199.2
2508.8
2645.9
2710.2
2769.7
2884.9
3179.8
3255.8
38.7
113.8
209.9
442.6
510.1
562.6
620.8
730.0
Cum.
Flow
kgal
28570
28890
29131
29378
29485
29793
29961
30146
30301
30509
30920
31574
31735
31887
32054
32474
32557
32670
32753
32860
33247
33356
33439
33539
33630
33961
34047
34154
34246
34337
34640
34715
34800
34865
34952
35262
35399
35463
35522
35638
35933
36009
36047
36122
36218
36451
36519
36571
36629
36739
Avg
Flow
rate
gpm
329
316
339
336
354
NA
345
354
331
343
336
339
341
347
346
343
357
341
354
NA
354
308
337
334
346
349
340
352
381
317
355
463
296
359
364
344
381
357
275
356
349
384
NA
358
341
353
363
350
373
607
FeCI3
Tank
Level
gal
21.0
17.0
13.5
10.5
9.0
35.0
33.0
30.5
28.0
26.0
20.0
11.5
10.0
38.0
36.0
30.5
29.5
28.0
26.5
25.0
20.5
19.0
18.0
16.5
15.5
11.0
10.5
0.2
43.0
42.0
38.5
37.5
36.0
35.5
34.5
30.5
29.5
28.5
27.0
25.5
21.5
20.8
20.0
19.0
17.5
15.0
14.0
13.0
12.5
11.5
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
147
148
148
149
149
150
151
151
151
152
153
154
154
155
155
157
157
157
158
158
159
159
160
160
161
162
162
163
163
164
165
165
165
166
166
167
168
168
169
169
170
171
171
171
171
173
173
174
174
174
Tank
B
No.
144
145
145
146
146
147
148
148
148
149
150
151
151
152
152
154
154
154
155
155
156
156
157
157
158
159
159
160
160
160
162
162
162
163
163
164
165
165
166
166
167
168
168
168
168
170
170
171
171
171
Cum.
Volume
kgal
226.8
230.2
230.2
233.7
233.7
237.0
240.4
240.4
240.4
243.7
247.0
250.4
250.4
253.7
253.7
259.4
259.4
259.4
262.2
262.2
265.2
265.2
267.9
267.9
270.6
273.4
273.4
276.0
276.0
277.3
281.1
281.1
281.1
283.7
283.7
286.4
289.1
289.1
291.8
291.8
294.8
297.2
297.2
297.2
297.2
302.5
302.5
305.2
305.2
305.2
Daily
Volume
kgal
6.8
3.4
0.0
3.5
0.0
3.3
3.4
0.0
0.0
3.3
3.3
3.4
0.0
3.3
0.0
5.7
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
3.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
2.7
2.8
0.0
2.6
0.0
1.3
3.8
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
2.7
2.7
0.0
2.7
0.0
3.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
Since Last BW
Run
Time
A/B hr
7.7/7.1
0.7/0.2
12.6/12.0
1.0/0.6
6.1/5.7
17.8/17.6
1.8/1.4
10.8/10.4
18.4/18.0
4.5/4.0
0.9/0.5
9.3/9.0
17.2/17.0
0.5/0.1
8.5/8.1
0/16.9
3.9/3.9
9.4/9.3
0.3/0.3
5.2/5.7
6.3/6.2
11.5/11.5
3.3/3.3
8.1/8.1
1.5/1.4
4.1/4.1
8.2/8.3
2.4/2.4
6.8/6.8
0/0
2.8/2.8
5.5/5.5
10.3/10.4
2.7/2.7
6.9/31.2
10.4/10.4
5.3/5.3
8.4/38.7
1.5/1.5
7/7.1
8.5/8.6
3.5/3.5
6.5/6.5
10.0/10.0
14.7/14.6
1.8/1.8
4.9/5.0
0/0
2.6/2.8
6.5/6.7
Standby
Time
A/B hr
1.5/1.6
0/0
8.8/8.8
0.7/0.7
13.8/13.8
24.0/24.1
4.0/4.0
21.3/21.3
35.8/35.8
8.2/8.2
0/0
12.2/12.3
27.1/27.1
0/0
16.3/16.3
0/16.9
17.0/17.2
33.8/34.0
0/0
18.1/18.5
19.1/19.6
37.3/38.8
17.7/17.4
36.7/36.4
6.9/6.6
15.7/15.3
34.8/34.4
7.7/7.2
28.2/27.7
0.3/0
7.1/6.7
23.2/22.8
45.6/45.1
14.5/13.8
6.9/30.7
39.8/39.8
19.2/18.9
8.3/38.4
7.2/6.8
26.5/26.3
3.4/33.5
15.3/18.6
40.3/39.9
58.6/58.2
82.3/81.8
7.3/6.9
27.0/26.6
0/0
18.3/19.9
40.1/39.7
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pentwater, MI - Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
50
51
52
53
54
55
Date
1 0/30/06
10/31/06
11/01/06
11/03/06
11/06/06
11/07/06
11/08/06
11/09/06
11/10/06
11/13/06
11/14/06
11/16/06
11/17/06
11/20/06
11/21/06
11/22/06
11/27/06
11/28/06
11/29/06
11/30/06
12/01/06
12/04/06
12/05/06
1 2/06/06
1 2/07/06
12/08/06
Well
#2
Meter
hr
1640.5
1644.0
1646.0
1653.0
1662.2
1665.2
1668.7
1670.5
1674.5
1684.0
1685.0
1691.1
1693.3
1700.3
1702.3
1704.6
1718.5
1721.0
1724.7
1725.5
1729.6
1735.9
1739.4
1740.6
1744.2
1746.6
Run
Time
hr
11.5
3.5
2.0
7.0
9.2
3.0
3.5
1.8
4.0
9.5
1.0
6.1
2.2
7.0
2.0
2.3
13.9
2.5
3.7
0.8
4.1
6.3
3.5
1.2
3.6
2.4
15%
CI2
Usage
gal
4.4
1.8
1.3
3.1
3.5
1.8
0.9
1.3
1.3
4.4
0.9
2.2
1.8
2.2
0.9
1.8
5.3
0.9
1.8
0.9
1.3
2.7
1.3
0.0
1.8
3.1
Pressure Filtration
Inlet
psig
NA
NA
83
NA
NA
80
82
NA
NA
NA
85
80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Outlet
Tank
A
psig
NA
NA
73
NA
NA
72
72
NA
NA
NA
73
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Outlet
Tank
B
psig
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
73
72
NA
NA
NA
71
71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Effluent
psig
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
58
58
NA
NA
NA
58
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inlet-
TA
psig
NA
NA
10
NA
NA
8
10
NA
NA
NA
12
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inlet-
TB
psig
NA
NA
11
NA
NA
7
10
NA
NA
NA
14
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
NA
NA
25
NA
NA
22
24
NA
NA
NA
27
22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Flow
rate
gpm
NA
NA
354
NA
NA
363
361
NA
NA
NA
360
364
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Totalizer to Distribution
Meter
kgal
925.2
1005.0
1056.5
1192.1
1384.6
1450.1
1519.9
1557.7
1640.0
1843.2
1881.5
1981.0
2029.3
2181.1
2231.6
2282.1
2578.8
2631.5
2710.2
2735.3
2814.0
2942.5
3020.2
3045.1
3124.5
3176.5
Cum.
Flow
kgal
36934
37014
37065
37201
37393
37459
37528
37566
37649
37852
37890
37990
38038
38190
38240
38291
38587
38640
38719
38744
38823
38951
39029
39054
39133
39185
Avg
Flow
rate
gpm
283
380
429
323
349
364
332
350
343
356
638
272
366
361
421
366
356
351
355
523
320
340
370
346
368
361
FeCI3
Tank
Level
gal
8.5
43.5
42.5
40.5
38.5
37.5
36.5
36.0
35.0
32.5
32.0
31.0
30.0
28.5
27.5
27.0
24.0
22.5
21.5
21.0
20.5
18.5
17.5
17.0
16.5
16.0
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
176
176
176
177
177
178
178
178
178
178
178
179
180
181
182
182
184
185
185
185
186
187
188
188
189
189
Tank
B
No.
173
173
173
174
174
175
175
175
175
175
175
176
177
178
179
179
181
182
182
182
183
184
185
185
186
186
Cum.
Volume
kgal
310.7
310.7
310.7
313.3
313.3
316.3
316.3
316.3
316.3
316.3
316.3
319.6
321.9
324.2
326.9
326.9
332.0
334.4
334.4
334.4
336.9
339.4
342.0
342.0
344.6
344.6
Daily
Volume
kgal
5.5
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
2.3
2.3
2.7
0.0
5.1
2.4
0.0
0.0
2.5
2.5
2.6
0.0
2.6
0.0
Since Last BW
Run
Time
A/B hr
1.2/1.2
5.0/5.0
7.4/7.4
6.3/6.5
15.5/15.8
3.0/3.0
6.5/6.4
8.3/8.2
12.3/12.1
21.9/21.8
23.7/23.6
3.5/3.6
1.2/1.1
3.5/3.5
0.0/0.0
2.3/2.3
2.5/2.6
0.0/0.0
3.7/3.7
4.9/4.9
2.4/2.4
3.6/3.6
1.2/1.2
2.4/2.4
1.2/1.3
3.6/3.7
Standby
Time
A/B hr
5.0/5.4
28.4/28.8
44.8/45.2
41.4/41.7
97.2/97.7
19.8/19.4
43.0/42.6
60.1/59.7
81.9/81.7
141.6/141.5
165.0/164.9
44.7/44.3
13.8/13.5
29.2/58.9
4.4/4.0
24.2/23.7
30.8/30.5
4.0/3.6
31.3/30.9
46.7/46.2
21.7/21.1
35.8/35.1
13.2/12.5
29.4/28.7
6.6/5.9
29.7/29.0
Note: Average calculated flowrates before 02/22/06 not accurate due to hour meter limitations.
Flowrate and Totalizer to Distribution Meter readings before 05/16/06 proportionally calculated due to incorrect initial calibration.
Highlighted columns indicate calculated values.
NA = data not available
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Pentwater, MI
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
=luoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
3 (total)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
roc
DH
Temperature
DO
ORP
=ree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Vlg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
=e (total)
=e (soluble)
Win (total)
Win (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
11/22/05
IN
141
-
0.5
<1
<0.05
55.0
11.4
2.6
-
8.3
12.2
0.9
-3
-
-
210
118
92.1
18.1
18.0
0.1
16.2
1.9
456
433
28.5
28.9
AC
154
-
0.4
<1
<0.05
71.2
11.7
0.6
-
8.3
12.3
1.2
496
2.0+(c)
2.0+(c)
215
122
92.6
18.1
12.9
5.2
1.4
11.5
445
<25
27.8
10.5
TT
154
-
0.4
<1
<0.05
51.9
11.3
<0.1
-
8.6
12.0
0.9
424
2.0+(c)
2.0+(c)
217
121
96.0
12.0
11.6
0.4
1.6
10.1
<25
<25
10.8
11.0
11/29/05
IN
150
-
-
-
-
66.2
11.4
1.8
-
8.1
11.5
3.3
91
-
-
-
-
-
18.8
-
-
-
-
423
-
27.0
-
AC
154
-
-
-
-
126(d)
11.5
0.4
-
8.1
12.3
0.9
469
2.0+(c)
2.0+(c)
-
-
-
216(d)
-
-
-
-
690(d)
-
30.7(d)
-
TA
154
-
-
-
-
218(d)
11.5
0.5
-
8.1
12.5
1.6
516
2.0+(c)
2.0+(c)
-
-
-
15.6(d)
-
-
-
-
483(d)
-
17.3(d)
-
TB
158
-
-
-
-
32.2
11.5
0.7
-
8.0
12.1
4.1
511
2.0+(c)
2.0+(c)
-
-
-
11.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
9.8
-
12/08/05
IN
154
-
-
-
-
56.6
11.2
2.3
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
-
-
16.5
-
-
-
-
395
-
27.7
-
AC
150
-
-
-
-
58.0
10.5
0.4
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
17.7
-
-
-
-
429
-
26.9
-
TA
154
-
-
-
-
23.6
11.1
0.1
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
11.7
-
TB
154
-
-
-
-
17.8
10.7
0.2
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
10.8
-
12/12/05
IN
154
-
-
-
-
60.6
11.2
1.7
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
-
-
18.0
-
-
-
-
413
-
27.4
-
AC
154
-
-
-
-
87.6
11.1
0.2
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
21.4
-
-
-
-
826
-
35.9
-
TA
150
-
-
-
-
25.2
11.1
<0.1
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
10.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
6.8
-
TB
145
-
-
-
-
25.7
10.9
<0.1
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
10.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.0
-
01/04/06
IN
150
-
0.4
<1
<0.05
55.7
11.6
1.9
-
8.3
15.0
2.4
187
-
-
202
113
89.0
17.9
18.3
<0.1
17.1
1.2
431
422
24.8
25.5
AC
150
-
0.4
<1
<0.05
59.9
11.1
0.7
-
8.4
14.0
1.9
523
1.5
1.5
207
114
92.4
15.7
9.2
6.5
<0.1
9.1
476
<25
27.6
9.1
TT
154
-
0.4
<1
<0.05
27.0
11.1
0.5
-
8.1
14.3
3.7
511
0.8
1.2
210
117
93.9
8.7
9.3
<0.1
0.3
9.0
38.5
<25
9.0
9.0
(a)AsCaCO3. (b)AsP.
(c) Residual was estimated by operator based on color of solution with reagent, (d) Rerun analysis indicated similar results, (e) Water quality parameter not measured.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Pentwater, MI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
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
ug/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
01/11/06
IN
154
-
-
<10
11.1
2.5
8.1
12.6
1.3
331
-
-
16.7
-
-
465
26.1
-
AC
145(c)
-
-
<10
11.2
0.6
8.0
12.6
1.1
403
0.4
1.2
-
16.9
-
-
499
28.1
-
TA
154
-
-
<10
11.4
0.6
7.9
12.9
1.1
400
0.3
1.3
-
9.1
-
-
<25
14.3
-
TB
158
-
-
<10
11.3
0.4
8.0
12.6
1.2
478
1.0
1.3
-
9.2
-
-
<25
15.6
-
1/17/2006(d)
IN
154
-
-
48.5
11.5
2.7
8.0
12.0
0.8
264
-
-
18.4
-
-
398
25.4
-
AC
154
-
-
59.9
11.2
0.6
8.0
12.4
0.5
437
0.2
1.2
-
21.6
-
-
534
29.4
-
TA
158
-
-
15.2
11.6
2.2
8.0
12.9
1.4
444
0.4
1.2
-
11.1
-
-
<25
13.8
-
TB
150
-
-
18.3
11.6
1.1
7.9
13.6
1.1
413
0.9
1.2
-
11.9
-
-
<25
13.0
-
01/23/06(e)
IN
167
-
-
69.7
11.0
2.9
8.1
12.1
1.2
322
-
-
18.2
-
-
383
25.9
-
AC
150
-
-
72.8
10.8
2.0
8.3
12.1
0.8
487
0.3
1.1
-
18.5
-
-
419
26.4
-
TA
154
-
-
29.2
11.2
4.7
8.3
12.4
1.7
471
0.2
1.1
-
10.9
-
-
<25
9.7
-
TB
154
-
-
26.5
11.3
1.0
8.3
12.6
0.7
466
0.6
1.2
-
9.7
-
-
<25
11.5
-
01/31/06
IN
148
0.4
<1
<0.05
44.0
11.3
2.6
2.0
8.0
13.8
3.7
397
-
191
114
77.2
15.4
15.5
0.1
8.7
6.8
490
297
31.7
32.9
AC
152
0.4
<1
<0.05
46.2
10.6
0.9
16(g)
8.0
13.5
1.7
395
0.4
1.3
197
117
79.7
15.7
10.9
4.9
0.3
10.6
475
<25
31.4
10.9
TT
144
0.4
<1
<0.05
<10
11.5
1.6
2.5(9)
8.5
14.5
1.5
443
0.9
1.0
197
117
79.9
8.4
8.2
0.2
0.5
7.7
42.4
<25
11.4
11.9
02/06/06('
IN
150
146
-
-
58.4
62.9
10.9
11.4
2.5
2.5
8.0
12.2
1.9
302
-
-
21.8
20.8
-
-
412
433
26.9
27.2
-
AC
150
150
-
-
64.8
62.5
11.5
11.5
0.7
0.7
8.0
12.3
0.9
311
1.1
1.2
-
23.0
20.1
-
-
451
471
27.6
27.3
-
TA
150
150
-
-
19.8
21.4
11.2
11.1
0.3
0.3
8.0
12.8
1.5
318
0.6
1.2
-
12.1
11.0
-
-
<25
<25
12.4
12.0
-
TB
150
150
-
-
21.2
21.3
11.1
11.7
0.5
0.4
8.0
13.1
1.1
364
0.2
1.2
-
11.9
11.1
-
-
<25
<25
10.9
10.3
-
(a)AsCaC03. (b) As P.
(c) Reanalyzed outside of hold time, (d) Water quality measurements taken on 01/19/06. (e) Water quality measurements taken on 01/26/06.
(f) Water quality measurements taken on 02/09/06. (g) Result is an estimated concentration.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Pentwater, MI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
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
ug/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
02/14/06(c)
IN
150
-
-
59.8
11.0
3.0
7.9
12.6
1.6
288
-
-
15.3
-
-
346
23.9
-
AC
146
-
-
64.4
11.4
1.5
7.9
11.7
1.3
303
0.3
1.2
-
14.4
-
-
344
21.5
-
TA
146
-
-
31.7
10.7
1.0
7.8
12.1
1.5
310
0.4
1.2
-
7.8
-
-
<25
11.1
-
TB
158
-
-
26.9
11.2
1.5
7.8
12.2
1.3
318
0.4
1.2
-
8.1
-
-
<25
11.3
-
02/22/06(d)
IN
146
-
-
55.9
11.6
2.5
-
8.1
12.1
2.4
265
-
-
17.7
-
-
440
28.9
-
AC
146
-
-
56.0
11.4
4.0
-
8.1
12.2
2.6
268
0.0
0.0
-
17.6
-
-
444
28.7
-
TA
146
-
-
40.3
12.4
2.1
-
8.1
12.5
2.0
273
0.0
0.1
-
17.1
-
-
241
28.9
-
TB
150
-
-
43.7
11.7
1.9
-
8.1
12.4
2.5
287
0.0
0.1
-
17.8
-
-
253
29.4
-
03/01 /06(d)
IN
145
0.5
<1
<0.05
56.7
11.1
3.9
1.9
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
212
112
99.9
17.7
16.9
0.9
14.0
2.9
418
45.2(9)
27.6
27.1
AC
145
0.5
<1
<0.05
63.2
12.0
5.6
1.9
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
215
114
101
19.1
18.1
0.9
14.7
3.4
434
355
28.4
28.2
TT
149
0.5
<1
<0.05
47.8
11.7
5.8
1.9
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
211
112
99.3
17.8
17.9
0.1
13.9
4.0
271
167
29.1
28.5
03/07/06(d'f)
IN
145
-
-
50.1
10.8
2.9
7.5
12.7
2.0
257
-
-
17.0
-
-
398
27.7
-
AC
149
-
-
51.2
10.9
5.1
8.1
12.1
1.1
261
0.3
1.0
-
16.9
-
-
414
28.8
-
TA
149
-
-
35.8
11.2
2.6
8.1
13.4
2.9
264
0.3
1.0
-
16.3
-
-
260
28.8
-
TB
145
-
-
34.0
10.4
2.5
8.1
11.9
1.8
259
0.3
1.0
-
16.3
-
-
255
27.9
-
03/14/06
IN
145
-
-
54.4
10.2
2.5
8.0
13.1
2.2
473
-
-
17.9
-
-
449
28.4
-
AC
145
-
-
56.5
11.1
0.9
8.0
12.4
2.0
494
0.4
1.9
-
18.7
-
-
454
28.0
-
TA
145
-
-
19.5
10.2
0.7
8.0
13.2
1.3
501
0.4
1.8
-
8.9
-
-
<25
7.5
-
TB
145
-
-
20.8
10.8
1.0
8.0
13.6
1.8
523
0.6
1.7
-
9.2
-
-
<25
7.4
-
(a)AsCaC03. (b) As P.
(c) Water quality measurements taken on 02/17/06. (d) Insufficient chlorine dosed for treatment due to off-spec solution per communication with operator. Chlorine solution
replaced on 03/09/06. (e) Water quality measurement not recorded, (f) Water quality measurements taken on 03/09/06. (g) Reanalysis indicated similar result.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Pentwater, MI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
03/20/06
IN
145
-
-
-
65.3
11.4
2.3
7.9
11.7
2.0
325
-
-
17.5
-
-
510
29.1
-
AC
145
-
-
-
110
11.8
1.0
8.0
12.1
0.8
476
0.3
1.8
-
25.4
-
-
902
46.3
-
TA
145
-
-
-
21.5
10.9
0.3
7.9
12.5
1.2
461
1.3
1.8
-
9.1
-
-
<25
6.4
-
TB
145
-
-
-
20.6
11.4
0.3
7.9
12.6
1.2
456
0.5
1.8
-
9.7
-
-
<25
6.2
-
04/03/06
IN
146
-
0.5
<1
<0.05
58.2
11.1
2.4
1.9
7.7
14.3
1.0
353
-
190
104
86.6
17.6
17.6
<0.1
16.1
1.5
421
432
26.2
28.2
AC
146
-
0.5
<1
<0.05
63.0
11.6
1.6
1.9
8.1
14.0
1.0
401
0.2
1.6
195
106
89.2
19.3
11.2
8.1
0.1
11.1
477
<25
26.9
10.5
TT
146
-
0.5
<1
<0.05
25.9
11.2
0.9
1.9
7.9
14.1
1.0
403
0.2
1.5
177
98.5
78.8
8.8
8.9
<0.1
0.4
8.4
<25
<25
22.2
22.2
04/10/06
IN
145
-
-
-
51.3
11.2
2.9
8.0
12.7
NA(d)
363
-
-
18.2
-
-
419
25.6
-
AC
145
-
-
-
49.4
11.3
2.6
7.9
12.6
NA(d)
402
0.1
1.4
-
18.2
-
-
414
25.4
-
TA
141
-
-
-
13.4
10.9
1.4
8.0
12.4
NA(d)
385
1.2
1.3
-
9.7
-
-
<25
9.0
-
TB
141
-
-
-
16.1
10.7
1.5
7.9
12.3
NA(d)
379
0.9
1.5
-
9.9
-
-
<25
9.6
-
04/18/06
IN
153
-
-
-
66.5
10.5
2.6
7.9
12.7
1.3
330
-
-
16.9
-
-
441
27.3
-
AC
153
-
-
-
69.3
11.2
0.7
8.0
12.7
1.1
432
1.1
1.3
-
17.8
-
-
475
28.1
-
TA
153
-
-
-
29.2
10.9
0.3
8.0
12.8
1.1
409
0.7
1.4
-
8.8
-
-
<25
9.8
-
TB
158
-
-
-
30.7
10.8
0.5
8.0
12.7
2.7
415
0.0
1.3
-
8.8
-
-
<25
10.1
-
04/24/06(c)
IN
154
-
-
-
46.3
11.4
2.1
7.9
11.9
1.1
349
-
-
17.4
-
-
442
29.0
-
AC
154
-
-
-
50.4
11.0
0.6
8.0
12.6
1.1
373
0.3
1.2
-
17.1
-
-
460
28.7
-
TA
154
-
-
-
15.0
10.7
0.4
7.9
12.8
1.1
444
0.2
1.3
-
9.2
-
-
<25
10.2
-
TB
159
-
-
-
17.7
11.2
0.4
7.7
12.7
1.5
427
0.6
1.3
-
9.7
-
-
31.9
11.0
-
(a) As CaCO3. (b) As P.
(c) Water quality measurements taken on 04/25/06. (d) DO probe not operational.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Pentwater, MI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
=luoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
3 (total)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
roc
DH
Temperature
DO
ORP
=ree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Vlg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
=e (total)
=e (soluble)
Win (total)
Win (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
05/02/06
IN
146
0.4
0.6
<1
<0.05
57.6
11.4
2.3
1.9
8.1
12.2
1.1
438
-
-
208
114
94.4
17.6
17.1
0.5
15.4
1.7
427
249
27.7
29.3
AC
150
0.3
0.5
<1
0.1
63.6
10.9
0.5
1.9
7.9
12.1
1.5
455
1.2
1.3
210
114
95.9
18.2
11.1
7.0
0.2
10.9
445
<25
28.4
10.1
TT
150
0.3
0.5
<1
0.1
23.1
10.9
0.6
1.9
8.2
12.0
3.2
436
0.9
1.3
209
113
96.0
9.5
8.4
1.1
0.2
8.2
66.2
<25
11.7
11.8
05/09/06(c)
IN
147
142
-
-
-
-
67.8
72.3
11.5
11.7
2.4
2.2
-
7.7
12.2
1.3
333
-
-
-
-
-
17.7
18.1
-
-
-
-
406
410
-
29.8
29.1
-
AC
142
147
-
-
-
-
73.4
103
12.3
11.6
0.6
0.5
-
8.0
12.4
0.8
375
1.1
1.3
-
-
-
18.2
24.8
-
-
-
-
434
770
-
29.5
42.6
-
TA
142
147
-
-
-
-
39.3
36.5
12.1
12.5
0.2
0.3
-
7.9
12.3
0.6
376
0.3
1.3
-
-
-
10.0
10.3
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
10.3
10.3
-
TB
147
147
-
-
-
-
36.7
37.6
11.9
11.7
0.4
0.3
-
7.9
12.5
0.9
415
0.5
1.3
-
-
-
9.9
10.4
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
9.9
10.2
-
05/16/06
IN
142
-
-
-
-
43.1
11.4
2.3
-
7.8
12.3
1.6
370
-
-
-
-
-
16.2
-
-
-
-
437
-
28.3
-
AC
146
-
-
-
-
45.7
11.2
0.6
-
8.0
12.4
1.0
356
0.6
1.2
-
-
-
16.3
-
-
-
-
446
-
28.3
-
TA
146
-
-
-
-
<10
11.1
0.2
-
8.0
12.3
1.0
421
0.5
1.2
-
-
-
8.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
10.3
-
TB
146
-
-
-
-
<10
10.9
0.4
-
7.9
12.2
1.2
396
0.3
1.2
-
-
-
8.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
11.4
-
05/23/06(d)
IN
146
-
-
-
-
42.4
11.7
2.7
-
NA
12.7
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
18.2
-
-
-
-
399
-
23.1
-
AC
146
-
-
-
-
46.2
11.5
3.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
18.0
-
-
-
-
483
-
27.3
-
TA
142
-
-
-
-
<10
11.9
1.0
-
NA
11.9
0.9
326
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
19.6
-
-
-
-
37.4
-
65.2
-
TB
146
-
-
-
-
<10
11.5
0.6
-
NA
12.7
1.0
340
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
20.6
-
-
-
-
60.9
-
62.7
-
05/30/06
IN
141
-
0.4
<1
<0.05
52.1
10.9
3.0
1.9
7.9
13.8
2.2
451
-
-
167
105
62.3
16.2
15.8
0.3
14.3
1.6
477
220
28.0
29.7
AC
141
-
0.4
<1
<0.05
52.2
11.2
1.2
1.9
7.5
13.8
1.1
461
1.1
1.1
166
106
59.5
16.5
10.1
6.4
0.2
9.9
498
<25
29.9
11.6
TT
141
-
0.4
<1
<0.05
23.4
10.6
3.3
1.9
8.0
13.9
2.5
447
0.8
1.0
167
107
60.2
8.5
8.9
<0.1
0.2
8.7
34.0
<25
11.8
12.5
(a)AsCaCO3. (b)AsP.
(c) Water quality measurements taken on 05/10/06. (d) After sample collection, operator noticed lack of chlorine residual while performing water quality measurements
and corrected problem. Remaining water quality measurements not collected due to time constraints.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Pentwater, MI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
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
ug/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
06/06/06
IN
142
-
-
63.1
11.4
2.4
-
7.7
13.1
1.6
305
-
-
-
17.5
-
-
457
-
28.3
AC
150
-
-
68.7
11.5
1.0
-
8.4
12.9
1.2
325
0.9
0.9
-
-
15.9
-
-
495
-
28.3
TA
146
-
-
30.2
11.4
0.4
-
8.3
12.9
0.9
305
0.4
1.0
-
-
8.0
-
-
<25
-
12.7
TB
150
-
-
29.2
11.3
0.8
-
8.1
12.9
1.0
319
0.5
1.0
-
-
8.0
-
-
30.0
-
12.9
06/13/06(c)
IN
149
-
-
68.7
11.3
2.4
-
8.0
14.5
1.1
282
-
-
-
18.8
-
-
415
-
28.5
AC
141
-
-
95.9
11.9
1.0
-
8.4
14.4
0.9
382
0.6
1.6
-
-
22.4
-
-
636
-
35.5
TA
149
-
-
27.9
11.1
0.4
-
8.4
14.6
0.8
405
1.2
1.5
-
-
9.6
-
-
<25
-
11.0
TB
153
-
-
38.4
11.6
0.4
-
8.4
14.7
1.6
404
0.2
1.5
-
-
11.7
-
-
102
-
14.5
06/19/06(d)
IN
146
-
-
57.9
12.4
2.3
-
7.6
12.9
1.2
285
-
-
-
18.9
-
-
459
-
29.0
AC
142
-
-
105
12.4
1.0
-
7.8
12.3
0.7
499
1.4
1.5
-
-
25.9
-
-
1634
-
38.4
TA
138
-
-
13.1
12.1
0.7
-
8.0
12.7
0.9
464
0.9
1.6
-
-
5.2
-
-
119
-
19.8
TB
146
-
-
<10
11.2
0.7
-
8.0
12.8
0.6
448
1.2
1.5
-
-
5.0
-
-
140
-
20.1
06/27/06
IN
142
0.5
<1
<0.05
57.2
12.7
2.3
NA(e)
8.0
13.2
2.1
284
-
221
118
102
16.7
16.2
0.5
17.8
0.1
447
147
29.3
29.5
AC
142
0.5
<1
<0.05
54.1
12.0
1.2
NA(e)
8.0
13.1
1.1
472
0.6
1.4
215
115
100
17.5
3.9
13.5
0.3
3.6
993
<25
32.2
19.1
TT
142
0.5
<1
<0.05
<10
12.1
0.7
NA(e)
8.2
13.0
2.2
448
0.7
1.4
214
114
100
4.0
3.0
1.0
0.6
2.4
<25
<25
21.3
20.0
07/05/06("
IN
146
-
-
54.8
11.8
2.3
-
7.8
13.2
1.9
283
-
-
-
16.4
-
-
442
-
29.0
AC
146
-
-
56.2
11.9
0.9
-
7.8
13.3
1.2
478
0.8
1.5
-
-
16.5
-
-
866
-
30.9
TA
146
-
-
<10
11.4
0.4
-
7.8
13.3
0.9
461
0.9
1.5
-
-
3.8
-
-
<25
-
14.6
TB
142
-
-
11.8
11.2
0.2
-
7.9
13.3
0.7
443
1.0
1.6
-
-
5.6
-
-
109
-
16.6
(a)AsCaC03. (b) As P.
(c) Extra media loaded into tanks by Kinetico after sampling, (d) FeCI3 addition began 06/15/06 with speed/stroke 50/50 and 4x dilution. Speed/stroke
reduced to 30/30 on 06/19/06. (e) Sample failed laboratory QA/QC check, (f) FeCI3 dilution increased to 5x on 06/30/06. Water quality measurements taken on 07/07/06.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Pentwater, MI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L<"
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
07/11/06
IN
152
-
-
60.3
11.3
2.3
-
7.7
11.6
1.5
276
-
-
15.4
-
-
426
26.0
-
AC
143
-
-
58.0
10.9
0.5
-
7.8
11.7
1.2
312
1.5
1.9
-
13.6
-
-
Ill
26.0
-
TA
147
-
-
25.9
10.6
1.1
-
7.8
12.0
0.9
317
0.4
1.9
-
5.8
-
-
147
10.4
-
TB
147
-
-
31.5
11.3
1.0
-
7.7
12.0
1.2
344
1.2
1.8
-
6.5
-
-
225
11.7
-
07/25/06(c)
IN
147
-
-
64.1
11.0
2.1
-
7.9
15.2
1.4
439
-
-
19.3
-
-
430
27.2
-
AC
147
-
-
86.7
9.8
3.2
-
8.1
15.2
1.3
449
1.6
1.6
-
19.1
-
-
884
29.5
-
TA
147
-
-
15.1
10.7
2.8
-
8.1
15.1
1.5
453
1.4
1.6
-
6.7
-
-
86.1
11.6
-
TB
146
-
-
18.0
10.9
0.5
-
8.2
15.2
1.3
430
0.5
1.6
-
7.2
-
-
107
12.2
-
07/31/06
IN
171
0.3
0.4
<1
<0.05
59.6
13.2
2.5
1.9
7.8
13.9
1.4
377
-
192
113
79.0
17.6
17.1
0.5
15.3
1.8
397
236
28.2
29.6
AC
146
0.2
0.5
<1
<0.05
91.4
13.1
1.0
1.9
7.7
13.7
1.0
445
1.4
1.5
195
112
83.2
18.8
6.2
12.6
0.3
5.9
918
<25
30.9
9.4
TT
146
0.2
0.4
<1
<0.05
16.4
12.9
1.6
2.0
7.9
13.9
2.3
416
1.4
1.6
195
111
84.4
5.8
3.8
2.0
0.2
3.6
141
<25
12.9
12.3
08/08/06
IN
147
147
-
-
57.3
63.2
10.7
10.8
2.5
2.0
-
7.9
12.7
2.5
367
-
-
19.1
20.3
-
-
389
369
25.6
24.4
-
AC
143
143
-
-
52.4
125
11.2
10.8
0.8
3.0
-
8.1
12.2
1.5
355
1.0
1.2
-
16.1
18.4
-
-
706
919
25.6
27.1
-
TA
143
143
-
-
<10
<10
10.8
10.4
0.3
0.1
-
8.2
11.1
1.9
349
0.8
1.5
-
6.5
6.1
-
-
<25
<25
11.7
11.9
-
TB
143
147
-
-
10.8
<10
10.9
10.4
0.5
0.2
-
8.2
10.9
1.5
361
1.2
1.3
-
7.1
6.7
-
-
29.6
<25
12.8
12.7
-
08/14/06(d)
IN
135
-
-
74.5
10.9
1.9
-
7.9
12.4
1.9
305
-
-
15.3
-
-
374
24.5
-
AC
152
-
-
130
11.2
0.9
-
8.3
12.5
0.6
418
0.9
1.2
-
22.9
-
-
1,638
32.3
-
TA
147
-
-
<10
10.9
0.3
-
8.3
12.7
0.9
387
1.3
1.4
-
4.2
-
-
<25
13.7
-
TB
156
-
-
<10
11.1
0.3
-
8.2
12.8
1.0
400
0.4
1.3
-
4.2
-
-
<25
13.2
-
(a) As CaCO3. (b) As P.
(c) Water quality measurements taken on 07/23/06. (d) Water quality measurements taken on 08/15/06.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Pentwater, MI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
=luoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
3 (total)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
roc
DH
Temperature
DO
ORP
=ree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Vlg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
=e (total)
=e (soluble)
Win (total)
Win (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
08/22/06(c
IN
160
0.3
0.8
<1
<0.05
58.9
10.8
2.1
2.0
7.7
11.7
1.1
439
-
-
222
127
95.2
20.3
18.5
1.8
16.1
2.4
438
145
28.0
28.5
AC
156
0.3
0.9
<1
<0.05
60.7
10.6
0.8
1.8
8.4
12.2
0.9
482
0.1
1.2
210
124
86.9
20.6
6.4
14.2
0.6
5.9
811
<25
30.0
15.6
TT
156
0.3
0.9
<1
<0.05
<10
10.6
0.7
1.9
8.3
12.3
2.5
454
0.0
1.3
215
126
89.6
5.7
5.6
<0.1
0.6
5.0
<25
<25
18.3
18.0
08/30/06
IN
154
-
-
-
-
69.7
10.7
2.9
-
7.9
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
-
-
17.2
-
-
-
-
402
-
26.3
-
AC
156
-
-
-
-
93.1
10.9
0.7
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
0.0
1.1
-
-
-
22.0
-
-
-
-
1,007
-
31.5
-
TA
159
-
-
-
-
25.9
11.1
0.4
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
1.0
1.2
-
-
-
5.9
-
-
-
-
68.6
-
17.3
-
TB
159
-
-
-
-
29.2
10.3
0.2
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
0.1
1.2
-
-
-
6.6
-
-
-
-
104
-
18.2
-
09/06/06(d)
IN
156
-
-
-
-
59.2
10.1
1.2
-
7.9
12.0
1.6
430
-
-
-
-
-
17.2
-
-
-
-
396
-
28.3
-
AC
159
-
-
-
-
152
9.8
0.7
-
8.0
11.9
0.8
471
1.3
1.3
-
-
-
27.9
-
-
-
-
1,452
-
41.6
-
TA
159
-
-
-
-
<10
10.4
0.3
-
8.4
12.1
1.2
463
0.9
1.3
-
-
-
5.5
-
-
-
-
45.2
-
16.7
-
TB
177
-
-
-
-
12.1
10.6
0.4
-
8.1
11.9
1.1
454
1.2
1.3
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
70.6
-
17.0
-
09/12/06
IN
158
-
-
-
-
48.6
11.2
2.2
-
7.7
15.3
1.6
412
-
-
-
-
-
17.4
-
-
-
-
420
-
27.4
-
AC
160
-
-
-
-
52.0
11.1
0.4
-
7.7
15.2
1.6
426
0.4
1.1
-
-
-
17.3
-
-
-
-
741
-
29.0
-
TA
158
-
-
-
-
<10
11.0
<0.1
-
7.6
15.3
1.9
417
0.5
0.7
-
-
-
5.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
15.9
-
TB
158
-
-
-
-
<10
10.5
0.3
-
7.7
15.4
1.5
414
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
5.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
16.6
-
09/18/06
IN
154
0.3
1.1
<1
<0.05
46.6
11.5
2.1
2.0
7.8
12.0
1.4
338
-
-
206
117
88.3
15.9
17.5
<0.1
15.4
2.1
412
271
27.2
28.1
AC
154
0.3
0.6(f)
<1
<0.05
44.2
11.3
0.6
2.0
8.1
12.3
0.9
447
0.4
1.2
200
113
86.7
16.4
5.8
10.6
<0.1
5.7
750
<25
28.5
14.8
TT
154
0.3
1.3
<1
<0.05
<10
10.5
0.5
1.9
8.2
12.2
2.6
441
1.2
1.3
218
122
96.1
4.9
4.2
0.7
<0.1
4.1
41.9
<25
17.5
16.8
(a)AsCaCO3. (b)AsP.
(c) Water quality measurements taken on 08/23/06. (d) Water quality measurements taken on 09/07/06. (e) Water quality parameter not measured.
(f) Reanalysis conducted outside of holding time.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Pentwater, MI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L<"
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
09/28/06(c)
IN
160
-
-
68.7
10.8
2.6
-
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
-
-
17.5
-
-
421
25.6
-
AC
155
-
-
72.6
11.1
1.1
-
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
-
18.0
-
-
698
28.2
-
TA
155
-
-
23.0
10.8
1.3
-
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
-
12.7
-
-
207
27.5
-
TB
155
-
-
23.5
10.8
1.1
-
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
-
13.4
-
-
219
27.6
-
10/03/06
IN
153
-
-
68.2
10.9
1.8
-
7.8
12.8
1.4
330
-
-
17.7
-
-
384
25.8
-
AC
164
-
-
67.8
11.2
0.8
-
7.9
12.9
0.8
458
1.3
1.4
-
17.4
-
-
669
27.2
-
TA
162
-
-
22.5
11.0
0.7
-
7.9
12.7
1.3
446
1.0
1.4
-
5.5
-
-
<25
18.5
-
TB
155
-
-
23.7
11.2
1.2
-
8.0
12.8
1.6
469
0.3
1.6
-
5.6
-
-
<25
18.6
-
1 0/09/06
IN
152
-
-
60.6
11.3
2.6
-
7.8
15.6
2.0
385
-
-
18.0
-
-
414
28.2
-
AC
154
-
-
139
10.8
0.9
-
7.9
15.6
1.6
458
0.4
1.0
-
17.6
-
-
834
28.9
-
TA
154
-
-
<10
10.7
0.8
-
7.9
15.6
1.7
441
1.0
1.2
-
5.6
-
-
<25
18.6
-
TB
154
-
-
<10
12.3
0.4
-
8.1
15.6
1.4
430
0.3
1.0
-
5.6
-
-
45.5
18.0
-
10/17/06
IN
159
0.4
0.6
<1
<0.05
68.9
10.8
2.5
2.0
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
-
219
117
102
18.8
16.8
2.0
15.5
1.2
379
259
26.3
27.8
AC
157
0.3
0.6
<1
<0.05
75.0
11.1
1.3
2.0
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
224
118
106
18.2
6.9
11.3
0.5
6.4
658
<25
29.2
16.6
TT
157
0.3
0.6
<1
<0.05
12.9
10.1
0.8
2.1
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
221
115
105
5.6
5.0
0.6
0.5
4.5
65.9
<25
19.6
19.0
1 0/25/06
IN
154
-
-
50.3
11.0
2.8
-
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
-
-
19.1
-
-
481
28.5
-
AC
154
-
-
57.3
10.8
4.2
-
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
-
19.0
-
-
778
29.5
-
TA
160
-
-
<10
10.6
4.0
-
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
-
6.0
-
-
<25
12.6
-
TB
156
-
-
<10
10.7
4.0
-
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
-
5.8
-
-
<25
12.9
-
(a) As CaCO3. (b) As P.
(c) Chlorine injection system down 09/27/06 to 09/29/06. Samples not received until 10/02/06; turbidity outside of holding time.
(d) Water quality parameter not measured.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Pentwater, MI (Continued)
Cd
o
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
=luoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
=ree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Vlg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
=e (soluble)
Vln (total)
Vln (soluble)
mg/L<°>
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L<"
mg/L<"
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
11/01/06
IN
157
-
-
-
-
62.8
10.6
2.4
-
7.7
11.6
3.0
412
-
-
-
-
-
17.9
-
-
-
-
468
-
27.6
-
AC
157
-
-
-
-
63.9
10.8
2.3
-
7.9
11.1
1.4
454
0.9
1.2
-
-
-
17.5
-
-
-
-
833
-
28.5
-
TA
159
-
-
-
-
13.6
10.8
1.4
-
7.9
11.3
1.1
486
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
5.2
-
-
-
-
49.8
-
16.4
-
TB
155
-
-
-
-
17.4
11.0
0.7
-
7.8
11.4
1.8
453
0.1
1.0
-
-
-
5.7
-
-
-
-
83.1
-
16.8
-
11/13/06
IN
157
-
-
-
-
54.2
11.0
3.4
-
7.8
12.9
1.1
327
-
-
-
-
-
18.4
-
-
-
-
438
-
27.4
-
AC
161
-
-
-
-
169
10.5
3.7
-
8.0
12.3
0.7
444
0.6
1.2
-
-
-
27.6
-
-
-
-
1,577
-
37.4
-
TA
145
-
-
-
-
<10
10.6
3.0
-
8.0
12.7
1.1
452
1.2
1.2
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
17.0
-
TB
157
-
-
-
-
<10
11.1
2.6
-
8.3
12.7
0.5
448
1.2
1.2
-
-
-
6.7
-
-
-
-
42.1
-
18.1
-
11/27/06
IN
164
0.3
0.6
<1
<0.05
46.3
11.1
2.3
2.1
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
223
120
103
14.6
13.9
0.7
11.5
2.4
503
89.5
30.1
29.6
AC
164
0.3
0.7
<1
<0.05
44.3
10.8
2.0
1.9
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
223
120
103
14.1
4.5
9.6
0.5
4.0
908
<25
31.9
19.6
TT
160
0.3
0.7
<1
<0.05
<10
10.9
4.0
1.8
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
223
119
103
4.2
3.7
0.5
0.6
3.1
25.5
<25
24.9
25.2
(a)AsCaCO3. (b) As P.
(c) Water quality parameter not measured.
------- |