EPA/600/R-08/007
March 2008
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at City of Sandusky, 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 U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) arsenic removal technology demonstration project at the City of
Sandusky, MI facility. The objectives of the project were to evaluate: 1) the effectiveness of Siemens
Water Technologies' Enhanced AERALATER® Type II Arsenic Removal Technology in removing
arsenic to meet the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |o,g/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 engineering plan review and approval by the state, the AERALATER® was installed and became
operational on June 14, 2006. The fully-automated, packaged system consisted of a 12-ft diameter
aluminum detention tank atop a 12-ft diameter, three-cell gravity sand filter plus ancillary equipment
including an air distribution grid, an air compressor pack, a blower, two chemical feed systems, a high
service pump, sample taps, and associated instrumentation. The filter contained 226 ft3 of sand and was
designed for filtration rates up to 2.5 gpm/ft2.
During the performance evaluation study, source water had an average pH value of 7.2 and contained
fluctuating concentrations of arsenic and iron due, in part, to the use of up to four source water wells.
Total arsenic concentrations ranged from 7.3 to 23.5 |o,g/L and averaged 11.4 |o,g/L. The predominant
soluble species was As(III) with an average concentration of 8.7 |o,g/L. Total iron concentrations ranged
from 236 to 3,214 |o,g/L and averaged 896 |o,g/L. Chlorine was used to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) to form
filterable As(V)-laden particles within the detention tank. However, due to the presence of 0.3 mg/L (as
N) of ammonia in source water, breakpoint chlorination was not achieved with an average of 2.5 mg/L (as
C12) of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) applied. The formation of chloramines might have partially
inhibited the oxidation of As(III), leaving as much as 3.2 (ig/L of As(III) in the treated water. After
gravity filtration, total arsenic concentrations ranged from 0.4 to 9.8 |o,g/L and averaged 2.4 |og/L,
consisting of soluble As(III) and As(V). Iron concentrations in the filter effluent were, in most cases, less
than the method reporting limit of 25 |o,g/L; however, occasional elevated concentrations were measured
in the range of 99 to 617 |o,g/L in the filter effluent. The system operated at approximately 163 gal/min
(gpm), producing approximately 61,833,000 gal of water through June 22, 2007. The flowrate
corresponded to an average detention time of 69 min and an average filtration rate of 1.4 gpm/ft2,
compared to the design values of 40 min and 2.5 gpm/ft2.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after system startup demonstrated a
considerable decrease in arsenic (i.e., 7.4 to 3.2 |o,g/L) and iron (i.e., 360 to 35 ng/L). Manganese and
lead concentrations did not appear to be affected, but copper concentrations increased from 209 to
473 |o,g/L after system startup. Alkalinity and pH increased and decreased, respectively, at two locations.
Uncertainties of water sources during baseline sampling and changes to the post-treatment chemicals
might have impacted the trends.
Filter tank backwash occurred automatically based on a day and time setpoint. Approximately 6,000 gal
of wastewater was discharged to the sanitary sewer for each backwash event, totaling 1.0% of the treated
water volume when backwashing 2 time/week and 1.6% when backwashing 3 time/week. On average,
the backwash wastewater contained 129 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS), 0.5 mg/L of arsenic,
58 mg/L of iron, and 1.1 mg/L of manganese, with the majority exisiting as particulates. Based on solids
IV
-------
sampling, approximately 3.5 Ib of solids were discharged per backwash event, including 0.02 Ib of
arsenic, 2.90 Ib of iron, and 0.06 Ib of manganese.
The capital investment for the system was $364,916, including $205,800 for equipment, $27,077 for site
engineering, and $132,039 for installation, shakedown, and startup. Using the system's rated capacity of
340 gpm (or 489,600 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $l,073/gpm (or $0.75/gpd). This unit cost does
not include the cost of the building to house the treatment system. O&M cost, estimated at $0.50/1,000
gal, included cost for chemical, electricity, and labor.
-------
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 Project 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 8
3.3.1 Source Water 8
3.3.2TreatmentPlantWater 8
3.3.3 Backwash Water 8
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 8
3.3.5 Residual Solids 8
3.4 Sampling Logistics 8
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 8
3.4.2 Preparation of Sample Coolers 9
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 11
Section 4.0 DEMONSTRATION SITE AND TECHNOLOGY EVALUATED 12
4.1 Site Description 12
4.1.1 Existing Facility 12
4.1.2 Distribution System and State Sampling Requirements 13
4.1.3 Source Water Quality 13
4.1.4 Facility Modifications 15
4.2 Treatment Process Description 17
4.3 Treatment System Installation 21
4.3.1 System Permitting 21
4.3.2 Building Construction 21
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown 21
Section 5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 25
5.1 System Operation 25
5.1.1 Service Operation 25
5.1.2 Backwash Operation 27
5.1.3 Residual Management 28
5.1.4 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation 28
VI
-------
5.1.4.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements 28
5.1.4.2 System Automation 28
5.1.4.3 Operator Skill Requirements 28
5.1.4.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities 28
5.1.4.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements 29
5.2 System Performance 29
5.2.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 29
5.2.1.1 Arsenic 29
5.2.1.2 Iron 33
5.2.1.3 Manganese 34
5.2.1.4 pH, DO, andORP 35
5.2.1.5 Chlorine and Ammonia 36
5.2.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters 36
5.2.2 Backwash Water and Solids Sampling 36
5.2.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 36
5.3 Building and System Cost 39
5.3.1 Building Cost 39
5.3.2 System Cost 39
5.3.3 O&MCost 40
Section 6.0 REFERENCES 42
APPENDICES
Appendix A: OPERATIONAL DATA A-l
AppendixB: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES B-l
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations 10
Figure 4-1. Pump House for Well No. 1 and Water Tower 12
Figure 4-2. System Piping and Chlorine and Phosphate Addition Systems 13
Figure 4-3. Screenshot of Water Tower Setpoints for Well Control 16
Figure 4-4. Layout and Schematic of Siemens' AERALATER® Unit 18
Figure 4-5. Treatment System Components 18
Figure 4-6. Control Panel and Ancillary Equipment 19
Figure 4-7. New Treatment Plant Building 22
Figure 4-8. Equipment Delivery and Unloading 22
Figure 4-9. Blower Piping Modification 24
Figure 5-1. Daily Demand of AERALATER® System (Unit 1) 26
Figure 5-2. Daily Demand of Each Well by Both AERALATER® Units 26
Figure 5-3. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train 31
Figure 5-4. Arsenic Speciation Results at Inlet (IN), After Detention Tank (AD), and after
Filter Cells (TT) 32
Figure 5-5. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train 33
Figure 5-6. Total Arsenic and Iron Concentrations During Special Study 34
Figure 5-7. Total Manganese Concentrations Across Treatment Train 35
Figure 5-8. Chlorine Residuals and Manganese Removal 35
vn
-------
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of the Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 3
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 6
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses 9
Table 4-1. Well No. 1 Source Water Quality Data 14
Table 4-2. Well Capacities and Control 16
Table 4-3. Wells No. 3, 6, and 9 Source Water Quality Data 16
Table 4-4. Physical Properties of Silica Sand Media 17
Table 4-5. Design Features of the AERALATER® System 20
Table 4-6. Installation Issues Encountered 23
Table 5-1. AERALATER® System Operational Parameters 25
Table 5-2. Settings for Backwash Operations 27
Table 5-3. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Results 29
Table 5-4. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 30
Table 5-5. Backwash Water Results 37
Table 5-6. Backwash Solids Results 37
Table 5-7. Distribution System Sampling Results 38
Table 5-8. Capital Investment for Siemens'AERALATER® System 40
Table 5-9. O&M Cost for Siemens'AERALATER® System 41
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
bgs below ground surface
BV bed volume(s)
Ca calcium
C/F coagulation/filtration
cfm cubic feet per minute
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
Fe2(SO4)3 ferric sulfate
FedEx Federal Express
gpd gallons per day
gph gallons per hour
gpm gallons per minute
F£AA haloacetic acid
HIX hybrid ion exchange
HOA hand/off/auto
hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
LOU Letter of Understanding
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
MDL method detection limit
IX
-------
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
jam micrometer
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not available/not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detected
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
Pb lead
psi pounds per square inch
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
RFQ request for quotation
RPD relative percent difference
RO reverse osmosis
Sb antimony
SCADA system control and data acquisition
scfm standard cubic feet per minute
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO4 sulfate
SOC synthetic organic compound(s)
STS Severn Trent Services
TDS total dissolved solids
TDH total dynamic head
TE Townley Engineering, LLC.
THM trihalomethane
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
-------
UPS United Parcel Service
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
V vanadium
VFD variable frequency drive
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of the division of public works in
Sandusky, MI. The plant operators monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the
treatment and distribution systems on a regular schedule throughout the evaluation study. This
performance evaluation would not have been possible without their support and dedication. Ms. Julia
Valigore, who is currently pursuing a doctoral degree at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand,
was the Battelle study lead for this demonstration project.
xn
-------
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) mandates that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L
(EPA, 2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on
March 25, 2003 to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/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 from 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 City of Sandusky, 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. Siemens Water Technologies' Enhanced AERALATER® Type II
Arsenic Removal Technology was selected for demonstration at Sandusky, MI. As of January 2008, 37
of the 40 systems were operational, and the performance evaluation of 26 systems was completed.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites included 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13
coagulation/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, and 17 point-of-use (POU) units
(including nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and
eight AM units at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations,
technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, Fe, and
pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12
Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital costs is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al.,
2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA website at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 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 Siemens' system at the City of Sandusky in Michigan
from June 14, 2006, through June 22, 2007. The types of data collected include system operation, water
quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and capital and O&M
cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
riijr/T,)
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
AMfA/TComplex^
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
riijr/T,)
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
Siemens Water Technologies' AERALATER® treatment system was installed and operated at the City of
Sandusky, MI from June 14, 2006 through June 22, 2007. Based on the information collected during the
evaluation study, the following was summarized and concluded relating to the overall project objectives.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• The AERALATER® treatment system was capable of reducing arsenic concentrations to
below the arsenic MCL. This was achieved at an average filtration rate of 1.4 gpm/ft2, which
was 44% lower than the design value of 2.5 gpm/ft2.
• An average chlorine dosage of 2.5 mg/L (as C12) was not able to achieve breakpoint
chlorination due to the presence of 0.3 mg/L (as N) of ammonia in source water. The
formation of chloramines might have partially inhibited the oxidation of As(III), leaving as
much as 3.2 (ig/L of As(III) in the treated water.
• The filter run time could be as high as 80 hr (or 750,000 gal of throughput) before backwash
was required. However, particulate iron breakthrough at levels as high as 617 (ig/L was
observed on eight weekly sampling occasions.
• Bachwashing at a rate of 7.4 gpm/ft2 was effective at restoring the gravity filter for
subsequent service runs.
• The treatment system was capable of reducing arsenic and iron concentrations in the
distribution system. The concentration reductions for arsenic and iron were from 7.4 to
3.2 |og/L and from 360 to 35 |o,g/L, respectively.
Required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• The treatment system was reliable and easy to operate.
• Very little time was required to operate and maintain the system. The daily demand on the
operator was 30 to 45 min to visually inspect the system and record operational parameters.
The AERALATER® unit and all ancillary equipment were fully automatic and controlled by
a programmable logic controller (PLC).
Characteristics of residuals produced by the technology:
• During system operation, a relatively small amount of wastewater was generated. The
amount was equivalent to 1.0 and 1.6% of the volume of water treated based on the backwash
frequency of 2 and 3 time/week, respectively.
• Approximately 6,000 gal of wastewater and 3.5 Ib of residual solids were produced during
each backwash event. The solids discharged to the sanitary sewer included 0.02 Ib of arsenic,
2.90 Ib of iron, and 0.06 Ib of manganese.
Capital and O&M cost of the technology:
• The capital investment for the system was $364,916, including $205,800 for equipment,
$27,077 for site engineering, and $132,039 for installation, shakedown, and startup. The
building was funded by the City and not included in this cost.
• The unit capital cost was $ 1,073/gpm (or $0.75/gpd) based on a 340-gpm peak capacity.
• The O&M cost, estimated at $0.50/1,000 gal, included cost for chemical, 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 Siemens treatment system began on June 14, 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. Any 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 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 quantities of aqueous and solid residuals generated were estimated by tracking the volume of
backwash wastewater produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water and solids were sampled
and analyzed for chemical characteristics.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding (LOU) Issued
Final LOU Issued
Request for Quotation (RFQ) Issued to Siemens
Siemens' Quotation Received
Facility Letter Report Issued
RFQ Issued to Townley Engineering
Townley Engineering's Quotation Received
Purchase Order Established with Siemens
Purchase Order Established with Townley Engineering
Engineering Package Submitted to MDEQ
System Permit Granted by MDEQ
Building Construction Permit Granted to City
Building Construction Began
System Arrived at Facility
System Installation Began
Performance Evaluation Study Plan Issued
Building Construction Completed
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Began
Operator Training Completed by Battelle
Date
September 1, 2004
October 18, 2004
October 27, 2004
October, 28, 2004
December 2 1,2004
March 1, 2005
March 29, 2005
April 22, 2005
May 20, 2005
June 13, 2005
August 5, 2005
September 7, 2005
November 8, 2005
November 2 1,2005
February 16, 2006
February 17, 2006
February 28, 2006
March 1, 2006
April 6, 2006
May 5, 2006
June 14, 2006
June 22, 2006
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
- 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
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (gpm) (or gal/day [gpd]) of
design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital
cost for equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for chemical supply, electricity
usage, and labor.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis, 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) level; 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 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, were tracked using an Operator
Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities, such as completing field logs,
replenishing NaOCl solution, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as
recommended by the vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as
performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle
Study Lead and the vendor, was recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
-------
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the influent, across the treatment plant, during
filter backwash, and from the distribution system. The sampling schedules and analytes measured during
each sampling event are listed in Table 3-3. In addition, Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the
treatment system along with the analytes and schedules at each sampling location. 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.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. The plant operator collected samples weekly, on a four-week
cycle, for on- and off-site analyses. For the first week of each four-week cycle, samples taken at the inlet
(IN), after the detention tank (AD), and after the filter cells (TT), were speciated on-site and analyzed per
Table 3-3 for monthly treatment plant water. For the next three weeks, samples were collected at the
same three locations and analyzed per Table 3-3 for the weekly treatment plant water.
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 filter cell. After the
content in the container was thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected and/or filtered on-site
using 0.45-(im disc filters. Analytes for the backwash samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system 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 the system startup from February to June 2005,
four sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected from two residences and one business
within the distribution system. These locations are part of the City's historic sampling network under the
EPA Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). Following system startup, distribution system sampling continued on
a monthly basis at the same three locations.
Samples were collected 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 sample collection were recorded for calculation of the stagnation
time. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least 6 hr to
ensure that stagnant water was sampled.
3.3.5 Residual Solids. Residual solids produced by the treatment process included backwash
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. A portion of each solid/water mixture
was air-dried for metal 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).
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Backwash
Water
Distribution
Water
Residual
Solids
Sample
Locations'3'
At Wellhead
IN, AD, TT
BW
Two LCR
Residences and
One LCR Non-
residence
SS (Backwash
Solids from
Each Cell)
No. of
Samples
1
3
o
J
o
J
3
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, SO4,
SiO2, PO4, NH3, NO2, NO3,
TOC, TDS, turbidity, and
alkalinity
On-site03': pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, C12 (free and total)
Off-site: As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
P (total), SiO2, turbidity, and
alkalinity
Same as above plus
following off-site analytes:
As (soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (soluble), Mn (soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, NH3,
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, and
Zn
Collection Date(s)
and Results
Table 4-1
(09/01/04)
Appendix B
Appendix B
Table 5-5
Table 5-7
Table 5-6
(a) Abbreviation corresponding to sample location in Figure 3-1, i.e., IN = at inlet, AD = after detention,
TT = after filter cells, BW = from backwash discharge line; SS = sludge sampling location
(b) On-site measurements of chlorine not collected at IN
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
-------
Monthly
, temperature^3), DO®, ORP
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
P, Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
NH3, TOC, turbidity, alkalinity
INFLUENT
(WELLS NO. 1, 3, 6, & 9)0>)
a),
IX
Sandusky, MI
Enhanced AERALATER8
Average Flow: 280 gpm
3), temperature^), DQ(3), ORP(3),
C12 (free and total/3),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),-
1
r
NaOCl
Fe2(S04)3
-------
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 locations, placed in Ziplock® bags, and packed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed United Parcel Service (UPS) air bills, and bubble wrap, were
included. The chain-of-custody forms and air bills were complete except for the operator's signature and
the sample dates and times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the
following week's sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry
(ICP-MS) Laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses by Battelle's subcontract laboratories,
including American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and Belmont Labs in Englewood,
OH, were packed in separate coolers and picked up by couriers. The chain-of-custody forms remained
with the samples from the time of preparation through collection, analysis, and final disposal. 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 Belmont Labs. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all
methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy, method detection
limits (MDLs), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative percent difference
[RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The quality assurance (QA)
data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be
prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
handheld field meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the procedures provided
in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring the ORP of a standard
solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a water sample in a clean,
plastic beaker and placed the probe in the beaker until a stable value was obtained. The plant operator
also performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine test kits following the user's
manual.
11
-------
4.1
Section 4.0 DEMONSTRATION SITE AND TECHNOLOGY EVALUATED
Site Description
4.1.1 Existing Facility. The City of Sandusky has five supply wells (i.e., Wells No. 1,3,6, 7, and
9) that have a total capacity of 760 gpm. Because of high iron concentrations (2.5 to 3.0 mg/L), Well No.
3 is seldom used. Prior to the demonstration study, the other four wells (i.e., Wells No. 1, 6, 7, and 9)
were used on a monthly, rotating basis. Well No. 1, which was designated for this study, was 10-in in
diameter and 136 ft deep. The static water level depth was 30 ft below ground surface (bgs). The
submersible pump for Well No. 1 previously operated at 210 gpm at 130 ft of total dynamic head (TDH)
to the height of the water tower. A pump test performed in December 2004 indicated that the aquifer was
capable of sustaining an increased extraction rate of approximately 280 gpm at a reduced TDH of only 18
ft to the height of the treatment system. A new 15-horsepower (hp) pump, capable of producing 340 gpm,
was installed in March 2006 prior to the installation of the arsenic removal system. Servicing with a
population of 2,916 people, the water system has a maximum daily capacity of 750,000 gal and an
average daily demand of 262,000 gal.
Figure 4-1 shows the existing pump house for Well No. 1 and 300,000-gal water tower, and Figure 4-2
shows the system piping for Well No. 1 with associated valves, flow totalizer, and pressure gauges.
Existing water treatment consisted of a NaOCl addition at 3 mg/L (as C12) to reach a target free chlorine
residual level of 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (as C12), and a blended phosphate feed (85% ortho- and 15% poly
phosphate) at 4 mg/L as a sequestering agent for iron and for corrosion and scale control. Figure 4-2
shows the 55-gal phosphate and chlorine addition tanks and a scale. The water was pumped to the
distribution system and stored in the water tower as shown in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1. Pump House for Well No. 1 and Water Tower
12
-------
Figure 4-2. System Piping and Chlorine and Phosphate Addition Systems
4.1.2 Distribution System and State Sampling Requirements. The distribution system consisted
of 4-in and 8-in cast iron and 8-in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping, which was added in 2000. The two
residences and one non-residence selected for the monthly baseline and distribution system water
sampling are impacted by all of the wells in the distribution system and the two residences are part of the
City's historic LCR sampling network. Individual service hookups are %- and 1-in copper piping.
For compliance purposes, the City had sampled water periodically from the distribution system for
several parameters: monthly at two residences for bacterial analysis; yearly at four residences for
trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (F£AAs) under the EPA Disinfection Byproducts Rule
(DBPR); and once every three years at 10 residences for lead and copper under the LCR. Well No. 1 also
had been sampled quarterly for arsenic, yearly for partial chemistry (i.e., chloride, fluoride, hardness,
nitrate, nitrite, sulfate, sodium, and iron) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), once every three years
for c (SOCs), and once every nine years for metals and radionuclides.
4.1.3 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected from Well No. 1 on September
1, 2004. The analytical results are presented in Table 4-1 and compared to the historic data collected by
the facility, Battelle (on July 23, 2002), and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
(from March 7,2001 through March 15, 2004).
Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 14 to 36 (ig/L. Based on Battelle's September
1, 2004 results, total arsenic was 15.8 (ig/L, consisting of 13.7 (ig/L in the soluble form and 2.1 (ig/L in
the particulate form. Of the soluble arsenic, 9.7 (ig/L (or 60%) existed as As(III) and 4.0 (ig/L (or 25%)
as As(V). Arsenic speciation performed by Battelle on July 23, 2002, however, showed a total arsenic
concentration twice as high with soluble As(III) and As(V) existing almost evenly at 14.9 and 15.3 (ig/L,
respectively. The variations in arsenic concentration in Well No. 1 water were, therefore, closely
13
-------
Table 4-1. Well No. 1 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)
Ca (total)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mg (total)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Na (total)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
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
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Facility
Data
NA
6.9
NA
NA
NA
361*
468
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
113*
16.0*
ND
25.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
115*
1,400
NA
44*
35*
NA
43*
NA
NA
NA
NA
Battelle
Data
07/23/02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30.9
30.2
0.7
14.9
15.3
NA
1,563
1,212
NA
33.6
31.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
09/01/04
6.9/7.2
12.9
0.5
-62
314
525
17
736
1.5
O.04
0.01
0.3
130
0.3
89.0
13.9
0.1
15.8
13.7
2.1
9.7
4.0
133.6
1,387
1,276
46.3
38.3
37.7
109.4
0.7
0.6
1.2
1.1
MDEQ
Data
03/07/01-03/15/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
407-546
NA
NA
NA
O.4
0.05
NA
71-192
0.5-0.7
95-120
NA
NA
14-36
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
500-1,700
NA
NA
NA
NA
43-106
NA
NA
NA
NA
*EPA sample analysis
TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon; NA = not analyzed
monitored throughout the course of the demonstration study. 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 concentrations in source water ranged from 500 to 1,700 |o,g/L. Manganese concentrations ranged
from 33.6 to 38.3 |o,g/L. Based on the speciation sampling conducted on July 23, 2002 and September 1,
2004, 78 to 92% of iron and 94 to 98% of manganese existed in the soluble form. These results, along
with the presence of As(III) at the levels observed, were consistent with the low DO (0.5 mg/L) and ORP
(-62 mV) values measured during the September 1, 2004 sampling event. For effective arsenic removal
by iron solids, the general recommendations are that the soluble iron concentration is at least 20 times the
14
-------
soluble arsenic concentration (Sorg, 2002), and that the pH values fall within the range of 5.5 to 8.5 (note
that improved arsenic removal most likely would occur at the lower end of this pH range). The results
obtained on July 23, 2002 and September 1, 2004 indicated soluble iron to soluble arsenic concentration
ratios of 40:1 and 93:1, respectively, and a pH range of 6.9 to 7.2. Therefore, no provisions were made
for pH adjustment, but an iron addition system was included in case additional iron was required to lower
the arsenic level in the treated water.
The September 1, 2004 test results showed that 0.3 mg/L (as N) of ammonia was in raw water. The
presence of ammonia will increase the chlorine demand. Addition of chlorine to raw water will oxidize
As(III) and other reducing species, such as Fe(II) and Mn(II), and also react with ammonia and organic
nitrogen compounds, if any, to form combined chlorine (i.e., mono- and di-chloramines 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. Thus, the theoretical chlorine dosage required would include the
following: (1) amount to oxidize As(III), Fe(II), Mn(II), and any other reducing species, which was
estimated to be 0.9 mg/L (as C12) (Ghurye and Clifford, 2001), (2) amount to oxidize ammonia and
combined chlorine formed during chlorination, which was estimated to be 2.3 mg/L (as C12) (Clark et al.,
1977), and (3) amount to provide the target free chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L (as C12).
With the addition of 3.7 mg/L (as C12) of NaOCl, the potential exists for the formation of disinfection
byproducts (DBFs), including THMs and HAAs, due to the presence of approximately 1.5 mg/L of total
organic carbon (TOC) in raw water. Factors affecting the DBR formation include type of disinfectant,
dosage, contact time, water pH and temperature, and concentration and characteristics of precursors, such
as TOC (EPA, 2006). Formation of DBFs is monitored by the State through yearly collection of samples
for THM and F£AA analyses (Section 4.1.2). Furthermore, chlorine residuals, ammonia, and TOC were
monitored during the performance evaluation study.
Other source water quality parameters also were analyzed (Table 4-1); results were mostly comparable to
those obtained by the facility and MDEQ. The September 1, 2004 results indicated a high turbidity value
of 17 nephlemetric turbidity units (NTU), presumably due to precipitation of iron and other constituents
after sampling. The facility added phosphates to source water to sequester iron (Section 4.1.1). The
treatment process was expected to greatly reduce turbidity levels through iron removal. Concentrations of
orthophosphate, silica, fluoride, vanadium, and uranium were relatively low and not expected to impact
the arsenic removal. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and sulfate were measured at 736 and 89 mg/L,
respectively, which were not a concern for the treatment process. Hardness levels measured ranged from
407 to 546 mg/L (as CaCO3); some customers of the water system installed point of entry softeners to
lower the hardness.
4.1.4 Facility Modifications. Prior to the startup of the EPA-funded AERALATER® (designated
as Unit 1), the City installed a second AERALATER® (designated as Unit 2) to meet the State's firm
capacity requirements and began a water main project financed by U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Rural Development. The City also installed and tested a generator for backup power to the
treatment systems after the building was completed. The two AERALATER® units have a combined
capacity of 680 gpm. Via a common header, Wells No. 1 and 3 were connected to the treatment units in
May 2006, and Wells No. 6 and 9 were connected in mid-August 2006. Control of these wells (Table 4-
2) and monitoring of the AERALATER® systems' operations were facilitated via a system control and
data acquisition (SCADA) system at the City's wastewater treatment plant office. The wells' start and
stop setpoints were controlled by the established water levels in the storage tanks and could be easily
adjusted to change each well's operation. For example, Well No. 1, designated as 'Tower' in Figure 4-3,
has the highest water level setpoint at 26 ft, which requires it to operate most often.
15
-------
Table 4-2. Well Capacities and Control
Well No.
1
3
6
9
Capacity
(gpm)
340(a)
150
150
120
Lead/Backup
Lead
Backup
Backup
Backup
(a) Well capacity after installation of a new 15-hp
pump in March 2006
TOWER SETPOINTS
:<><>
LOW" i' o
Figure 4-3. Screenshot of Water Tower Setpoints for Well Control
Table 4-3. Wells No. 3, 6, and 9 Source Water Quality Data
Parameter
Date
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
As (total)
Fe (total)
Na (total)
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
Well No. 3
07/09/04-10/04/05
620-693
<0.4
<0.05
177-197
0.5
131-160
28-43
2,500-3,000
74-105
Well No. 6
03/09/04-10/04/05
324-351
<0.4
<0.05
28-45
0.7
62-64
13-38
500-600
41-50
Well No. 9
03/09/04-10/04/05
171-180
<0.4
<0.05
8-10
0.9-1.0
16-18
12-18
200-400
25-26
Source: MDEQ
16
-------
Upon completion of the watermain project, the distribution system consisted of a looped distribution line
supplied by Wells No. 1, 3, 6, and 9. The facility used Well No. 1 as the lead well with Wells No. 3, 6,
and 9 as backup wells to meet the City's daily demand. Source water data obtained from MDEQ for
Wells No. 3, 6, and 9 are summarized in Table 4-3. It appeared that arsenic concentrations of the blended
water would still be above 10 (ig/L and, therefore, would require treatment through the AERALATER®
units. Due to the high iron concentrations in Well No. 3 water when compared to those in Wells No. 6
and 9 water, Well No. 3 was used as the main backup well during this demonstration study.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
Siemens proposed to use a vertical, prepackaged unit, referred to as an Enhanced AERALATER® Type II
Arsenic Removal System, to remove iron and arsenic from raw water. Sized at 10-ft diameter for 210
gpm in Siemens' original proposal to EPA, the system was upgraded at the City's request (based on the
pump test results discussed in Section 4.1.1) and expenses, to 12-ft diameter for 340 gpm in order to
accommodate the City's future expansion. The treatment train included prechlorination/oxidation,
coprecipitation/adsorption, and gravity filtration. The filter media was silica sand, which is listed by NSF
International (NSF) under Standard 61 for use in drinking water applications. The physical properties of
this media are summarized in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4. Physical Properties of Silica Sand Media
Property
Color
Effective Size (mm)
Uniformity Coefficient
Acid Solubility (%)
Specific Gravity
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Value
Light brown to light red
0.45-0.55
<1.6
<5
>2.5
100
The AERALATER® treatment system included two chemical feed systems, one detention tank with air
diffuser grid, one three-cell gravity filter with aluminum plate underdrains, one blower and motor starter
enclosure, one air compressor pack, one aluminum V-notch weir board, one high service pump with
variable frequency drive (VFD), sample taps, and associated instrumentation. The main body of the
AERALATER® unit was constructed of corrosion-resistant aluminum, and the tank bottom was solvent
cleaned prior to undercoat applications. Metal surfaces of all carbon steel, cast iron, and ductile iron pipe,
flanges, and fittings greater than 3-in diameter were blast cleaned, coated with 3 to 4 mils of primer, and
painted with 4 to 8 mils of epoxy.
The treatment system was fully automated (Section 5.1.4.2) with a wall-mounted control panel that
housed a touchscreen operator interface panel (OIP) (Allen Bradley model PanelView 1000), a PLC
(Allen Bradley model SLC 5/04), and a modem (U.S. Robotics model V.92). A solenoid panel (Phoenix
Contact model UK 5 N) also was included for the manual override of different valves. Figure 4-4
presents the layout and schematic of the AERALATER® unit. Figures 4-5 and 4-6 contain photographs
of the system components and control panel and ancillary equipment, respectively. Key system design
parameters are listed in Table 4-5. The major steps of the treatment process included:
17
-------
12'-0" Diameter x 18'-1/4" High
Type II Aeralater
Enhanced Multi-Wash Style
• Level Control
• Float
4" Air Supply Line Connection
8" Backwash Rate Set Valve
:6" Influent Connection
6" Cell Influent Valve
,— 8" Backwash Waste Valve
8" Backwash Waste Pipe
8" Backwash Waste Drop Pipe
Ground Surface
Source: Townley Engineering.
Drain to Waste NO r to SCA
Figure 4-4. Layout and Schematic of Siemens' AERALATER® Unit
Figure 4-5. Treatment System Components
(Clockwise from Left: Inlet Piping from Wells; Air Diffiiser Grid within Detention Tank; Influent Piping
and Prechlorination Equipment; AERALATER® Unit with Detention Tank Effluent above Gravity Cell
Influent; and Discharge Piping with Siphon Breaker to Sump)
18
-------
Figure 4-6. Control Panel and Ancillary Equipment
(Clockwise from TopLeft: Control Panel and VFD; Low Pressure Limit Switch and Head Loss Gauge;
High Service Pump; Blower; Compressor; and Solenoid Panel)
Intake. The well pumps were activated and deactivated based on water tower level setpoints.
The system primarily treated water from Well No. 1, but also occasionally received water
from Wells No. 3, 6, and 9. Influent (and effluent) flowrates and throughput were monitored
using Siemens' Sitrans F Magflow flowmeters. The inlet piping from the wells into the
building and the combined influent piping to the treatment system is shown in Figure 4-5.
Chlorine Addition. A 12.5% NaOCl solution was injected to oxidize As(III) to As(V) and
Fe(II) to Fe(III) in raw water. The chemical feed system included a 0.58-gal/hr (gph) LMI
metering pump, a check valve, a 4-function anti-siphon pressure relief valve, suction tubing, a
foot valve and a foot valve weight, discharge tubing, an injector check valve, and an LMI 50-
gal polyethylene chemical day tank with cover (Figure 4-5). The pump was proportionally
paced according to the influent flowrate. One calibration cylinder was included for direct
dosage (in gph) measurements. The City also provided a drum scale and eye wash station at
its own expense.
Iron Addition. The natural iron in source water was at levels sufficient to effectively
remove arsenic through coprecipitation with and adsorption onto the iron solids formed from
chlorine addition. Nonetheless, a 0.42-gph LMI metering pump (with flow pacing
capabilities), a check valve, a 4-function anti-siphon pressure relief valve, suction tubing, a
foot valve and a foot valve weight, discharge tubing, an injector check valve, and an LMI 50-
gal polyethylene chemical day tank for ferric sulfate (Fe2[SO4]3) solution were available in
case supplemental iron addition was required.
19
-------
Table 4-5. Design Features of the AERALATER® System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
Chlorine Addition (mg/L [as C12])
Supplemental Iron Addition (mg/L)
Field
Determined
0
> 0.9 mg/L based on demand for As(III),
Fe(II), andMn(II) (Section 4.1. 3)
Used only if needed
Detention
Tank Size (ft)
Volume (gal)
Detention Time (min)
12 Dx 10.8 H
11,340
40
High water level at 9.8 ft
Includes volume of filter freeboard
Based on average flowrate of 280 gpm
Filtration
Filter Size (ft)
Filter Freeboard (ft)
Media Depth (ft)
Surface Area (ft2)
Media Volume (ft3)
Peak Flowrate (gpm)
Average Flowrate (gpm)
Filtration Rate (gpm/ft2)
Daily Production (gal)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
12Dx7.3H
3.7
2.0
113
226
340
280
2.5
489,600
53.5
Three cells in parallel with 1.6 ft underdrain
-
Silica sand media
37.7 ft2/cell
75.3 ft3/cell
-
Typically expected
Based on average flowrate of 280 gpm
Based on peak flowrate, 24 hr/day
Based on a daily demand of 262,000 gal
Backwash
Duration (min)
Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Air Wash (scfm)
Wastewater Production (gal)
Frequency (gal)
45
280
7.4
75
12,600
650,000
15 min/cell
-
-
2.0 scfm/ft2
Per backwash for three filter cells
Based on throughput (or 39 hr of run time)
D = diameter; H = height
• Detention. At 280 gpm, 12-ft-diameter by 10.8-ft-tall aluminum detention tank provided
over 40 min of contact time to improve the formation of filterable iron floes. The water level
was monitored by a pressure transducer (Rosemount model 2088), which regulated the speed
of the high service pump via a VFD (PumpSmart model PS75) connected to the control
panel. A high level setpoint prevented overflow of the detention tank by signaling the well
pump(s) to shut off. The detention tank had a 6-in inlet connection, an 18-in-diameter access
manhole, and an air diffuser below the water surface. The purpose of the air diffuser grid was
to further oxidize and mix the chlorinated water. Air supply to the diffuser was provided by a
15-hp, 340-standard-ft3/min (scfm) positive displacement blower (Unimac model SB4L-15).
Figure 4-5 shows photographs of the detention tank and air diffuser grid, and Figure 4-6
shows the VFD and blower.
• Gravity Filtration. A 6- and 8-in piping manifold on the front of the unit transferred water
from the detention tank to the 12-ft-diameter, 7.3-ft-tall aluminum General Filter
MULTIWASH gravity filter with aluminum plate underdrains. Three cells arranged in
parallel contained 24 in or 75.3 ft3 (per cell) of silica sand and provided a total filtration area
of 113 ft2. The filter had a 6-in effluent connection to a 25-hp, centrifugal high service pump
(Gould model 3656M [Figure 4-6]) sized for 340 gpm at 130 ft TDH, which pressurized the
treated water for distribution. During normal system operation with all three cells in-service,
a 280-gpm flowrate provided a filtration rate of 2.5 gpm/ft2.
20
-------
• Backwash. During the filtration process, solids were collected in the filter cells, resulting in
head loss across the filter. Backwash could be initiated manually, semiautomatically, or
automatically based on a throughput or a day and time setpoint. A low pressure limit switch
(USFilter model 10-in Hg) connected to the underdrain also provided added protection to shut
down the high service pump and signal an alarm if a backwash was overdue. An air com-
pressor pack consisting of two 1-hp, 5.0-scfm air compressors (Quincy model QC01006DD
[Figure 4-6]) with an alternating starter panel actuated the pneumatic valves (Bray series
92/93) during the backwash sequence. Each filter cell was backwashed in succession with
water produced by the other two in-service filter cells and received an air wash from the
blower. The resulting wastewater was sent to a backwash waste sump with a V-notch weir
board for flowrate indication and then to the sanitary sewer through 8-in-diameter schedule
40 steel piping (Figure 4-5).
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 complete engineering package including civil, architectural,
structural, mechanical, and electrical plans for the water treatment plant was prepared according to the
Ten States Standards by Townley Engineering, LLC (TE). The plans detailed connections of the
AERALATER® systems from the inlet piping and to the City's water distribution and sanitary sewer
systems. In addition, system general arrangement, electrical and mechanical drawings, and component
specifications were provided by Siemens for inclusion in the package. Extensive communications among
Siemens, TE, the City, and Battelle ensured that accurate contract documents existed for proper
fabrication and installation of the equipment. Siemens accommodated all necessary adjustments to the
standard AERALATER® design, such as system orientation, air piping elevation, and chemical feed
equipment. The submittal was certified by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Michigan
and submitted to MDEQ for review and approval on August 5, 2005. After MDEQ's review comments
were addressed, the package was resubmitted on August 29, 2005, and a water supply construction permit
was issued by MDEQ on September 7, 2005. System fabrication began shortly thereafter.
4.3.2 Building Construction. A building construction permit was issued by Sanilac County on
November 8, 2005. After receiving funding from USDA Rural Development on November 16, 2005, the
City began and completed its building construction on November 21, 2005 and March 1, 2006,
respectively. The 60 %-ft x 31 D-ft building provided ample space to house three 12-ft diameter
AERALATER® units and included one 12-ft x 42 %-ft annex divided into a generator room and a
blower/compressor room. Sidewall and roof peak heights were 19 D and 27 !/> ft, respectively. A section
of 16 %-ft-wide removable panel enabled ease of equipment placement and installation. The footing was
52 in deep. The concrete floor in the building was 4 in thick with a 16-in thick reinforced concrete
pedestal atop compacted sand backfill beneath the AERALATER® units. A 4 ft * 2 !/> ft x 2 % ft sump
(one for each unit) fed two 3,100-gal precast concrete equalization tanks that emptied into the sanitary
sewer to facilitate wastewater discharge. Figure 4-7 shows the new treatment plant building. In addition
to electrical and plumbing connections, a phone line also was installed to enable the vendor to dial into
the modem in the control panel for any troubleshooting.
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown. The AERALATER® unit and all ancillary
equipment were delivered to the site on February 16, 2006, and system installation began following the
offloading (Figure 4-8). Two TE subcontractors, Franklin Holwerda Co. in Wyoming, MI, and Blank
Electric Co. in Snover, MI, performed all mechanical and electrical work, respectively. Installation work
included setting all equipment in place, installing the air diffuser and face piping manifold, hooking up
21
-------
Figure 4-7. New Treatment Plant Building
Figure 4-8. Equipment Delivery and Unloading
22
-------
the chemical feed systems, connecting the piping, and painting exposed piping. The issues encountered
during system installation are summarized in Table 4-6.
In mid-April 2006, Siemens was on-site for system inspection and O&M training while TE and its
subcontractors completed media loading, leak testing, and electrical continuity testing. The vendor added
the following parameters/features to the OIP: (1) system run time, (2) volume of wastewater generated
during backwash, and (3) blower control status with ability to toggle between operation for aeration and
backwash or for backwash only. Startup and shakedown of the AERALATER® unit was completed from
May 2 to 5, 2006. The common 8-in effluent PVC pipe for both units burst in mid-May and was replaced
by TE and its subcontractors with 8-in ductile iron pipe. Although Well No. 1 was connected to the
treatment system in late May 2006, it could not be used until after subsequent bacterial tests passed on
June 13, 2006. The performance evaluation study began on June 14, 2006, when water supply by Well
No. 1 commenced.
Battelle performed system inspection and training of three operators on sample and data collection from
June 21 to 23, 2006. During this time, the replacement blower starter was installed, and the air wash
flowrate was set during the course of a backwash by throttling the blower and/or adjusting the air wash
rate set valve. Media loss coincided with the air wash flowrate from 40 to 100 scfm with negligible
media loss occurring without air wash.
Table 4-6. Installation Issues Encountered
Issue Encountered
Blower received not as
specified
Low pressure limit switch
received not as specified
(Figure 4-6)
Blower piping modification
desired by City (Figure 4-9)
Some equipment missing
from original shipment
Remarks
• Modifications required to add hand/off/auto (HO A) switches
and transformers
• Starter and air flow gauge replaced due to malfunction
• Model previously declined by City in lieu of non-mercury model
still supplied
• Issue never rectified by vendor
• Piping installed according to engineering drawings, however,
City opted to add an elevated loop before the T to prevent
backflow from detention tank or filter cells to blower
• TE advocated change as preventative measure since blower
would not be operating full-time as designed because of
sufficient oxidation provided via prechlorination
• Delays in completing installation work experienced
• Remaining equipment eventually received on March 30, 2006 (1
!/2 months later), and TE then able to finish installation work
23
-------
Figure 4-9. Blower Piping Modification
24
-------
Section 5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1
System Operation
5.1.1 Service Operation. System operational parameters from June 14, 2006, through June 22,
2007, are tabulated and attached as Appendix A. The key parameters are summarized in Table 5-1.
During this evaluation study, the EPA-funded AEJ3ALATER® system (Unit 1) treated approximately
61,833,000 gal of water. This throughput was 65% of the City's demand, based on flow totalizer readings
for Unit 1 and compared to wellhead totalizer readings from the City's water production reports. The
remainder of the flow was either treated by Unit 2 or did not require treatment. The daily demands for
Unit 1 ranged from 74,000 to 346,000 gal and averaged 166,000 gal (Figure 5-1), equivalent to a
utilization rate of 34% over the one-year study period. Well No. 1 was the primary well while Wells No.
3 and 6 also were used (Figure 5-2) due to water tower level setpoints for these wells (Section 4.1.4).
Chlorine addition ranged from 1.3 to 6.7 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 2.5 mg/L (as C12). The dosage was
calculated based on daily NaOCl consumption (by weight) and system effluent totalizer readings. This
dosage was significantly less than the theoretical dosage of at least 3.7 mg/L required to provide 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 5.2.1.5. Iron addition was not required.
The system run time could not be determined because it could only be recorded based on the high service
pump run time, which included the high service pump idling time. An incorrect VFD setting caused the
pump to idle even when the treatment system was off After being fixed, the VFD setting had to be
changed back to the previous setting because the high service pump was unable to pump under increased
pressure from the water tower after the level had been raised to accommodate increased demand.
Therefore, system flowrates were tracked only by instantaneous readings on the effluent flow meter,
which ranged from 49 to 316 gpm and averaged 163 gpm. This flowrate was significantly lower than the
280-gpm design flowrate (and capacity of Well No. 1), because the influent flow often needed to be split
between Units 1 and 2. The corresponding detention time ranged from 36 to 231 min and averaged 69
min, and the corresponding filtration rate ranged from 0.4 to 2.8 gpm/ft2 and averaged 1.4 gpm/ft2.
Table 5-1. AERALATER® System Operational Parameters
Parameter
Operational Period
Value
06/14/06-06/22/07
Service Operation
Throughput (gal)
Average Demand [Range] (gpd)
Average Flowrate [Range] (gpm)
Average Chlorine Dosage [Range] (mg/L [as C12])
Average Detention Time [Range] (min)
Average Filtration Rate [Range] (gpm/ft2)
Average Head Loss [Range] (ft H2O)
61,833,000
166,000 [74,000-346,000]
163 [49-316]
2.5 [1.3-6.7]
69 [36-231]
1.4 [0.4-2.8]
1.5 [0.3-2.0]
Backwash Operation
Frequency (time/week)
Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Duration (min)
Wastewater Produced (gal/event)
2-3
280
7.4
21
6,000
25
-------
bbU -
15
0)
o
o
•a
c
S
'ro
Q
n -
Wells No. 6 & 9 connected
to treatment plant ^^"^
Watermain break
4 Hydrant flushing
performed
i
Hydrant flushing
performed
A
/ ^
[ i /
' n '!
l".h ' 'l
' f ' ! l ' i
fj' " f/ » 1 "HI V j* (i . IA .! , ,.\ >iJ i/V
lliWWl^fAVlfV,!!!!^
! '^1' f J >J iiVl^' lj' ! * i ' " '! ' \' ' 'A1 ' ^ 'J 'y ' ' ' i1 'J V ' i1 yl '»' ' 'fc*" ! '
' j v 'J '
I /" ^^ Flowtotalizers pulled
[ \^ _s and cleaned
All Wells Combined
EPA Unit 1
Figure 5-1. Daily Demand of AERALATER® System (Unit 1)
"ro
O)
ro
E
0)
1
,
0 '
« *
*
•i": *^
'5. i>'! **
''.';
r * *»
.
Wells No. 6 & 9 connected to
treatment plant « Well No. 1 (280 gpm)
• Well No. 3 (150 gpm)
Well No. 6 (150 gpm)
. • • ••
: • »
* • «,,*/•
* • * * * * **
.
l' ^ J*
•':• xx • >. .-^' ., X x X '"ft *
.J^C^.^S^, .A- "JtlJ^L^Jl
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ % % % %. % %
Figure 5-2. Daily Demand of Each Well by Both AERALATER® Units
The range of each of the parameters was inclusive of the respective design value shown in Table 4-5, but
varied significantly based on the influent flowrates. Air supply from the blower to the diffuser, originally
intended to provide constant aeration to the detention tank, was used only once a week to prevent the
diffuser from becoming plugged because the iron in the feed water was oxidized with chlorine. Head loss
across the filter varied from 0.3 to 2.0 ft of water (ft of H2O) and did not increase noticeably between two
consecutive backwash cycles.
26
-------
5.1.2 Backwash Operation. The backwash settings are listed in Table 5-2. Initially, the system
was automatically backwashed 3 time/week based on a day and time setpoint of Monday, Wednesday,
and Friday mornings (exact time was adjusted periodically from 6:00 to 8:00 a.m.). Instead of using a
throughput setting, the facility preferred to use this mode for backwash to ensure that an operator was on-
site should any problem arise during backwash. This frequency corresponded to a throughput of 332,000
to 498,000 gal (or a filter run time of 34 to 51 hr [at an average flowrate of 163 gpm]) based on the
average daily demand.
The throughput setpoint was temporarily increased to 1,200,000 gal from February 7 to 14, 2007, when a
special study on filter run time (or backwash frequency) was performed. The purpose of the study was to
determine if the above mentioned 3-time/week backwash frequency was adequate in terms of particulate
arsenic and iron breakthrough in between two consecutive backwash events as discussed in
Section 5.2.1.2. After the special study, the backwash frequency was reduced to 2 time/week (i.e.,
Tuesday and Thursday at 8:00 a.m.) on February 16, 2007. This frequency corresponded to a throughput
of 498,000 to 664,000 gal and a filter run time of 51 to 68 hr at an average flowrate of 163 gpm based on
the average daily demand. The design flowrate of 280 gpm and the design throughput of 650,000 gal
(Table 4-5) corresponded to a 39-hr filter run time between two consecutive backwash events. Therefore,
the initial backwash frequency agreed with the design filter run time between backwashes, and the revised
backwash frequency agreed with the design throughput between backwashes. Manual backwashes also
were occasionally initiated for testing and sampling of backwash water and solids (Section 5.2.2).
The backwash flowrate was controlled with a backwash rate set valve located on the face piping
manifold. If the influent flowrate was below the 280-gpm setting when backwash was triggered,
additional wells would be called upon by the PLC to attain sufficient flow prior to commencing
backwash. Water levels in the floor sump also provided visual estimates for backwash flowrate according
to heights on the V-notch weir board. The operator indicated that the water level in the sump was usually
at or near a specified height corresponding to a flowrate of 280 gpm (or 7.4 gpm/ft2). Each filter cell was
backwashed in succession with water produced by the other two in-service filter cells for 7 min, including
5 min with water only followed by 2 min with air wash at 60 to 70 scfm and water to remove particulates.
Approximately 6,000 gal of wastewater was produced during each backwash event, which was less than
the design value due to the shorter backwash duration, i.e., 7 vs. 15 min/cell. Backwash appeared
adequate to fully restore the filter cells for subsequent filter runs. Section 5.1.3 provides additional
information on wastewater management.
Table 5-2. Settings for Backwash Operations
Parameter
Throughput Trigger (1,000 gal)
Day and Time Trigger
Air Wash Start Delay Timer (sec/cell)
Backwash Duration (min/cell)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Air Purge Duration (min/cell)
Air Wash Flowrate (scfm)
Blower Control Status(b)
Range
100-2,000
Any
30-300
5-30
0-340
1-50
0-340
ABorBO
Factory
Settings
650
-
60
10
NA
2
NA
NA
Field Settings
06/14/06
899(a)
MWF 08:00
45
5
280
2
60-70
BO
Field Settings
02/16/07
1,200
TR 08:00
45
5
280
2
60-70
BO
(a) Temporarily increased to 2,000,000 gal for special study from 02/07/07 to 02/14/07
(b) Ability to toggle between operation for aeration and backwash (AB) or backwash only (BO)
NA = not available
27
-------
5.1.3 Residual Management. The only residual produced by the AERALATER® unit was
backwash wastewater and solids. Wastewater from backwash was discharged to the building sump,
which emptied to the sanitary sewer. Backwash water discharge was tracked by totalizing the volume of
water passing through the influent flow meter during the backwash process. Approximately 855,000 gal
of wastewater was generated as a result of this gravity filtration process. By reducing the backwash
frequency from 3 to 2 time/week (Section 5.1.2), wastewater production decreased from approximately
1.6 to 1.0% of the treated water production.
5.1.4 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation. No system downtime occurred; however, some
difficulties were encountered with the blower (Unimac model SB4L-15) and loss of head gauge (USFilter
model), which are shown in Figure 4-6. The air wash provided by the blower occasionally fluctuated
outside of the 60 to 70 scfrn range. To make adjustments, the operator needed to climb a ladder to reach
the set valve located below the 'T' in Figure 4-9. The loss of head gauge, which measures differential
pressure (Ap) across the filter, could be improved with the use of a smaller scale (e.g., 0 to 10 ft of H2O)
and/or finer graduations. Five increments from 0 to 32 ft of H2O with backwash required at about 8 ft of
H2O hinders readability and makes it difficult to monitor increases in head loss especially since readings
ranged only from 0.3 to 2.0 ft of H2O.
5.1.4.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Chlorine addition with a 12.5% NaOCl stock
solution was used to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) and to provide chlorine residuals within the distribution
system. The operator tracked the consumption of the solution daily with a drum scale and measured
chlorine residuals regularly with a Hach meter. Analytical results indicated that satisfactory arsenic
removal was achieved without supplemental iron addition due primarily to the low levels of arsenic in
raw water. No post-treatment was required; however, the facility chose to resume blended phosphate
(25% ortho- and 75% poly-phosphate) addition in October 2006 for corrosion control.
5.1.4.2 System Automation. The AERALATER® unit was automatically controlled by the PLC in
the control panel. The control panel contained a modem and a touchscreen OIP that enabled monitoring
of system parameters, toggling the blower status, adjusting backwash setpoints, and checking the alarm
status. The OIP was equipped to provide alarms for high service pump or blower failure, low or high
detention tank level, backwash requirements (for manual or semiautomatic mode), and low underdrain
pressure. Backwash was automatically initiated based on a day and time setpoint; however, it also could
be semi-automatically initiated or manually conducted by operating the blower and individual valve
function switches on the OIP. The PLC included control loops to ensure that the proper equipment, such
as chemical feed and high service pumps, were operating concurrently with the system. In addition,
electrode control programming for the level sensors in the detention tank enabled the well pump motor
starters, the high service pump VFD, and the water tower's plant demand switch to maintain proper water
levels in the detention tank.
5.1.4.3 Operator Skill Requirements. The daily demand on the operator was 30 to 45 min for visual
inspection of the system, refilling the chlorine feed tank, and recording of operational parameters, such as
volume, flowrate, and chemical usage on field log sheets. In Michigan, operator certifications are class-
ified on a level of 1 (most complex) to 5 (least complex) (MDEQ, 2006). The primary operator was
Limited Water Treatment Level 4 (D-4) and Water Distribution Level 3 (S-3) certified. After receiving
proper training during system startup, the operator understood the PLC, knew how to use the touch-screen
OIP, and was able to work with the vendor to troubleshoot and perform minor on-site repairs.
5.1.4.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities. The vendor recommended routine maintenance
activities as provided by the equipment manufacturers to prolong the integrity of the treatment system
components within its comprehensive O&M manual (Siemens, 2006). Such tasks included checking and
changing lubrication, replacing worn parts, seals, and gaskets, and cleaning instrumentation as prescribed.
28
-------
5.1.4.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements. The operator tracked the 12.5%NaOCl
usage daily, coordinated the solution supply through Elkhorn Chemical, and refilled the day tank every 1
to 2 weeks. The solution did not require any dilutions and was usually supplied in 30-gal drums. The
facility provided an emergency eye wash and shower station for safety measures.
5.2
System Performance
5.2.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 54 occasions
including four duplicate events and 13 speciation events during this evaluation study. Table 5-3
summarizes the analytical results for arsenic, iron, and manganese. Table 5-4 summarizes the results of
the other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results. The results
of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
5.2.1.1 Arsenic. Figure 5-3 shows total arsenic concentrations measured across the treatment train
and Figure 5-4 presents the results of 13 speciation events. Total arsenic concentrations in source water
fluctuated significantly from 7.3 to 23.5 |o,g/L, due, in part, to the operation of different wells (i.e., Wells
No. 1, 3, 6, and 9) throughout the study. However, even while operation of only one well was confirmed
Table 5-3. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Results
Parameter
As (total)
(Figures 5-3 and 5-4)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
(Figure 5-4)
As(III)
(Figure 5-4)
As(V)
(Figure 5-4)
Fe (total)
(Figure 5-5)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
(Figures 5-7 and 5-8)
Mn (soluble)
Location
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
Sample
Count
54
54
54
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
54
54
54
13
13
13
54
54
54
13
13
13
Concentration (u.g/L)
Minimum
7.3
7.4
0.4
7.3
1.3
0.9
0.2
6.3
<0.1
6.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.0
0.6
236
239
<25
610
<25
<25
21.6
21.1
<0.1
23.5
6.3
2.1
Maximum
23.5
21.6
9.8
18.4
4.5
4.5
8.7
19.5
0.3
18.9
3.2
3.2
1.8
1.7
1.5
3,214
1,951
617
990
<25
<25
30.6
35.6
30.8
35.6
23.5
20.9
Average
11.4
11.3
2.4
9.8
2.1
1.9
2.2
8.7
<0.1
8.7
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.0
896
858
61.0
785
<25
<25
25.4
25.9
11.7
27.6
15.6
12.4
Standard
Deviation
3.5
3.5
1.8
2.8
0.9
1.0
2.3
3.4
0.1
3.3
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.3
419
291
135
112
-
-
1.9
2.4
8.1
3.1
5.9
7.2
One-half of detection limit used for nondetect results and duplicate samples included for calculations.
29
-------
Table 5-4. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as C12)
(Figure 5-8)
Total Chlorine (as C12)
(Figure 5-8)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Location
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
AD
TT
AD
TT
IN
AD
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
Mfi/L
HB/L
Mfi/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
°C
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
54
54
54
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
12
12
12
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
4900
50
50
50
50
47
47
13
13
13
Concentration
Minimum
293
295
293
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.5
80
89
76
O.05
<0.05
O.05
<10
<10
<10
11.2
11.2
10.0
2.1
0.5
0.1
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
6.4
7.0
7.1
9.7
10.2
10.2
0.8
1.3
1.3
248
284
274
0.1
0.1
1.1
1.2
328
330
331
Maximum
350
350
346
0.5
0.4
0.4
3.4
1.8
1.9
105
107
118
O.05
0.07
O.05
27.0
29.7
25.4
13.5
13.9
13.8
17.0
9.9
3.4
1.3
1.3
1.1
7.7
7.7
7.6
13.3
13.1
16.2
3.7
4.2
5.6
406
552
566
2.3
3.1
4.6
4.7
436
431
432
Average
319
320
320
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.8
0.8
96
97
97
<0.05
O.05
<0.05
<10
<10
<10
12.0
12.0
11.8
10.9
1.6
0.7
<1.0
1.0
<1.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
11.9
11.4
11.7
1.7
2.7
2.6
303
364
351
0.5
0.6
2.8
2.7
387
392
395
Standard
Deviation
13.3
12.3
12.9
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.4
0.4
7.3
5.8
9.7
-
0.0
-
4.1
4.2
3.1
0.5
0.5
0.6
3.1
1.4
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.7
32.5
71.8
83.5
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.9
30.5
29.1
27.4
30
-------
Table 5-4. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results (Continued)
Parameter
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Location
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
13
13
13
13
13
13
Concentration
Minimum
196
198
198
112
121
119
Maximum
300
297
295
142
148
141
Average
259
261
263
128
130
132
Standard
Deviation
29.8
28.5
29.4
9.3
7.9
7.5
(a) One outlier (i.e., 2.6 mV on 08/08/06) omitted
One-half of detection limit used for nondetect results and duplicate samples included for calculations.
-•-At Inlet (IN)
-n- After Detention Tank (AD)
-A-After Filter Cells (TT
As MCL= 10|jg/L
06/15/06
08/14/06
10/13/06
12/12/06
02/10/07
04/11/07
06/10/07
Figure 5-3. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train
over several weeks, no discernable trends were apparent. Source water arsenic concentrations ranged
from 7.3 to 23.5 |o,g/L and averaged 11.4 |o,g/L with 2.2 ug/L existing in the particulate form and 9.8 ug/L
in the soluble form. The soluble arsenic consisted of 8.7 ug/L of As(III), the predominant arsenic species,
and 1.2 ug/L of As(V). The range of total arsenic concentrations measured during this one-year study
period was lower than that of previous results for Well No. 1 (Table 4-1).
Following the detention tank, the average total arsenic concentration remained the same at 11.3 ug/L with
8.7 ug/L existing in the particulate form and 2.1 ug/L in the soluble form (including 0.8 ug/L of As [III]
and 1.3 ug/L of As[V]). The decrease in As(III) and increase in particulate arsenic after prechlorination
and detention indicated oxidation of As(III) and subsequent coprecipitation/adsorption of As(V) with/onto
the iron solids also formed upon chlorination. As much as 3.2 ug/L of As(III), however, was observed
following detention, indicating incomplete oxidation caused, presumably, by the presence of ammonia.
As(III) most likely was oxidized initially by free chlorine before free chlorine reacted with ammonia to
form chloramines (Frank and Clifford, 1986). Ghurye and Clifford (2001) reported that only limited
As(III) oxidation occurred due to the presence of monochloramine formed in situ.
31
-------
Arsenic Speciation at the Inlet (IN)
Arsenic Speciation after Detention Tank (AD)
Arsenic Speciation after Filter Cells (TT)
3 10
1
Figure 5-4. Arsenic Speciation Results at Inlet (IN), After Detention
Tank (AD), and after Filter Cells (TT)
32
-------
Total arsenic concentrations after gravity filtration ranged from 0.4 to 9.8 |o,g/L and averaged 2.4 |og/L.
Based on average influent results, the ratio of soluble iron to soluble arsenic was 80:1, which was more
than adequate compared to the rule of thumb ratio of 20:1 for effective arsenic removal.
5.2.1.2 Iron. Figure 5-5 presents total iron concentrations measured across the treatment train.
Similarly to arsenic concentrations, source water iron concentrations also fluctuated significantly, ranging
from 236 to 3,214 |o,g/L. Total iron concentrations in source water averaged 896 |o,g/L, existing primarily
in the soluble form with an average concentration of 785 |o,g/L. Maximum iron concentrations coincided
with maximum arsenic concentrations and were seen in Well No. 1 water. According to historical results
presented in Table 4-3, highest arsenic and iron concentrations were expected in Well No. 3 water. Well
No. 6 water contained the lowest iron concentrations, which were lower than historical ranges. Well No.
9 water, however, might have even lower concentrations, but samples were not collected during periods
of its operation. Even at lower-than-expected influent iron concentrations, arsenic removal was not
impacted due mainly to the relatively low levels of arsenic observed in source water.
3,500
3,000 -
2,500 -
2,000 -
1,500 -
1,000 -
500 -
-•-At Inlet (IN)
-n- After Detention Tank (AD)
-A-After Filter Cells (TT)
Fe SMCL = 300 |jg/L
06/15/06
08/14/06
10/13/06
12/12/06
02/10/07
04/11/07
06/10/07
Figure 5-5. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train
The treated water contained low iron concentrations, mostly below the method reporting limit of 25 |o,g/L.
Considerable breakthrough of iron occurred on eight occasions with concentrations ranging from 99 to
617 |og/L. Four of these occasions had concentrations above the 300-|o,g/L secondary maximum
contaminant level (SMCL). All soluble iron concentrations were <25 |o,g/L after chlorine addition,
detention, and filtration. The presence of chloramines apparently did not affect complete oxidation of
Fe(II).
As part of a special study, an extended filter run was conducted from February 7 to 14, 2007, to determine
the extent of particulate arsenic and iron breakthrough during the run. Nine samples were collected in
113 hr (Figure 5-6) as 1,139,000 gal of water was treated. Except for two samples taken at 97.1 and 98.7
hr, concentrations of arsenic and iron in the filter effluent, including the one taken at 113 hr just before
the end of the run, were consistently below 3 and 90 |o,g/L, respectively. Further, six of the nine samples,
33
-------
3
I
34.0 Hr 50.4 hr 65.2 hr
34.0 hr 50.4 hr 65.2 hr
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Water Treated since Backwash (x1,000 gal)
Figure 5-6. Total Arsenic and Iron Concentrations During Special Study
including the one taken at 113 hr, had iron concentration either near or below the method reporting limit
of 25 ng/L. The anomalous results for the sample collected at 97.1 hr were thought to have been caused
by a sampling error because the results were more characteristic of source water than treated water.
Regardless of the anomaly, the filter cells were able to operate for at least 80 hr or 750,000 gal of
throughput without having significant arsenic and iron breakthrough. These results confirmed that the
backwash frequency could be reduced to once every 498,000 to 664,000 gal or 51 to 68 hr as discussed in
Section 5.1.2.
5.2.1.3 Manganese. Figure 5-7 presents total manganese concentrations measured across the
treatment train. Total manganese concentrations in source water ranged from 21.6 to 30.6 |o,g/L and
averaged 25.4 |og/L, which existed entirely in the soluble form. After chlorine addition and detention,
total manganese concentrations remained essentially unchanged although over 40% (on average) turned
into particulates. The particulates formed were completely removed by the filter, leaving 11.7 |o,g/L
soluble manganese in the filter effluent.
Careful examination of the manganese results revealed that the amounts of particulate manganese formed
and then removed by the filter followed rather closely with the amounts of total chlorine residuals in the
treated water. Higher total chlorine residuals apparently led to faster oxidation kinetics for Mn(II),
enabling more particulates to be formed and then removed by the filter. The manganese removal rates
were close to or over 90% in 10 occasions with corresponding total chlorine residuals at approximately 3
to 4.5 mg/L (as C12), and close to or less than 30% in 11 occasions with corresponding total chlorine
residuals at approximately 1.5 to 2.0 mg/L (as C12). At 3 to 4.5 mg/L (as C12), some free chlorine might
have become available to react with Mn(II) even with the presence of ammonia (see discussion in
Section 5.2.1.5). Conversely, at 1.5 to 2.0 mg/L (as C12), residuals were present only as chloramines,
which were not effective in oxidizing Mn(II). Even in the absence of ammonia, previous studies have
shown 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). Filtration media (such as sand and Macrolite®)
removed manganese only if it was present as filterable particles; any soluble and unfilterable solids, such
as colloidal particles, would be left untreated in the filter effluent.
34
-------
50
40 -
-•-At Inlet (IN)
-a- After Detention Tank (AD)
-A-After Filter Cells (TT)
MnSMCL = 50|jg/L
06/15/06
08/14/06
10/13/06
12/12/06
02/10/07
04/11/07
06/10/07
Figure 5-7. Total Manganese Concentrations Across Treatment Train
6.0
5.5
5.0
~ 4.5
"a
3.5
3.0
2.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
06/15/06
*
x .
*X
1 "' - i!
a
x
A
1 DD
100
90
70
60
50 =
40 -
30 E
20
10
-10
-20
08/14/06
10/13/06
12/12/06
02/10/07
04/11/07
06/10/07
x Free at AD & Total at AD
Free at TT
Total at TT --x- Mn Removal by Filter
Figure 5-8. Chlorine Residuals and Manganese Removal
5.2.1.4 pH, DO, and ORP. pH values of source water ranged from 6.4 to 7.7 and averaged 7.2. This
range was comparable to those obtained by Battelle during sampling of Well No. 1 water on September 1,
2004 (i.e., 6.9 and 7.2 [Table 4-1]). Average DO levels at the inlet were relatively low at 1.7 mg/L, and
then increased slightly to 2.7 mg/L after the detention tank. Although the air diffuser grid was used only
once a week to prevent plugging, some aeration did occur as raw water entered the detention tank. As a
result of chlorine addition and some aeration, average ORP levels increased from 303 mV in source water
to 364 mV after the detention tank. DO and ORP readings in source water were much higher than those
35
-------
measured by Battelle on September 1, 2004 (i.e., 0.5 mg/L and -62 mV, respectively). Some source water
samples might have been partially aerated during sampling.
5.2.1.5 Chlorine and Ammonia. Ammonia concentrations ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 mg/L (as N)
across the treatment train and averaged 0.3 mg/L (as N) at the inlet and 0.2 mg/L (as N) after detention
and after filtration. Judging by the amount of total chlorine residuals measured after detention and after
filtration (see discussion below), ammonia should have been completely oxidized. The reporting limit for
ammonia was 0.1 mg/L (as N), which was very close to the average amount (i.e., 0.2 mg/L) measured
after chlorine addition and filtration.
Free and total chlorine residuals measured after the detention tank and after the filter cells are presented in
Figure 5-8. As shown in the figure, data for total and, especially, free chlorine residuals were widely
scattered from 1.1 to 4.7 (2.7 on average) and from 0.1 to 3.1 (0.5 on average) mg/L (as C12), respectively.
Because only 2.5 mg/L (as C12) of NaOCl (on average) had been added to raw water (Section 5.1.1), it
suggested that the concentrations measured might have been somewhat higher than the actual
concentrations.
Considering that 2.5 mg/L (as C12) of NaOCl was applied to raw water, 0.5 mg/L (as C12) would have
reacted with As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II) based on the average amounts (i.e., 8.7, 785, and 27.6 (ig/L,
respectively) present in raw water (Table 5-3), and 2.0 mg/L (as C12) would have reacted with 0.3 mg/L
(as N) of ammonia to form 2.0 mg/L (as C12) of combined chlorine. As such, no free chlorine residuals
should have been formed. This seems to be supported by the majority office chlorine data, which
showed no more than a few tenths of mg/L (as C12) and were very close to the MDL of 0.1 mg/L (as C12).
5.2.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate, phosphorus, silica,
TOC, temperature, and hardness levels remained consistent across the treatment train and were not
affected by the treatment process (Table 5-4). Average turbidity decreased from 10.9 to 0.7 NTU with
treatment via the removal of particulates.
5.2.2 Backwash Water and Solids Sampling. Table 5-5 presents the analytical results of the
backwash water samples along with the minimum, average, and maximum of each parameter for all three
cells combined. The pH, TDS, and total suspended solids (TSS) values of backwash water ranged from
6.7 to 7.8, from 664 to 784 mg/L, and from 52 to 232 mg/L, respectively. The average pH value of
backwash water (i.e., 7.6) was somewhat higher than that across the treatment train (i.e., 7.2).
Concentrations of total arsenic, iron, and manganese averaged 0.5, 58, and 1.1 mg/L, respectively, with
the majority exisiting as particulate. Applying the average iron, manganese, and arsenic results,
approximately 2.92 Ib of iron, 0.05 Ib of manganese, and 0.02 Ib of arsenic would have been produced
and discharged in 6,000 gal of backwash wastewater during each backwash cycle.
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 October 2006 and May 2007 are
presented in Table 5-6. Based on an average TSS concentration of 129 mg/L in backwash wastewater,
approximately 3.5 Ib of solids were produced per backwash. The iron, manganese, and arsenic
compositions of 2.90 Ib, 0.06 Ib, and 0.02 Ib, respectively, agreed well with the results derived from the
water quality data. The calcium composition also was noteworthy at 0.42 Ib or 12% of the total solids
mass.
5.2.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Table 5-7 summarizes the results of the distribution
system samples. During the baseline sampling, the City was predominantly operating Wells No. 1, 6, 7,
and 9 to meet its demand. Blended phosphate (85% ortho- and 15% poly-phosphate) also was added at
4 mg/L at the wellheads for iron sequestration and corrosion control. Once the wells were connected to
36
-------
Table 5-5. Backwash Water Results
Sampling
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
06/28/06
07/26/06
08/29/06
09/27/06
10/25/06
12/11/06
01/10/07
02/07/07
03/13/07
04/17/07
05/15/07
06/12/07
Cells
Combined
Cell 1
Q.
s.u.
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.8
VI
Q
mg/L
718
756
718
748
726
700
692
690
702
718
708
714
VI
VI
f-«
mg/L
232
156
58
74
84
114
100
82
174
190
200
195
4s (total)
Hg/L
702
420
244
293
393
449
289
357
692
676
773
681
^
3
3
"o
X
X
-------
Table 5-7. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
Date
02/23/05
03/22/05
04/26/05
06/01/05
Baseline Average
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
07/13/06(c'd)
08/08/06(d)
09/06/06(d)
10/31/06
11/29/06
12/19/06
01/18/07
02/14/07(e)
03/14/07
04/11/07
05/09/07
06/13/07
Average
DS1
LCR Residence
1st Draw
Stagnation Time
hr
10.5
8.5
8.8
9.0
-
8.0
8.3
9.3
22.0
9.0
9.0
7.3
7.0
8.0
8.3
7.8
8.0
-
K
S.U.
7.5
7.8
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.4
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
mg/L
270
333
326
312
310
306
302
331
335
314
331
339
320
337
324
317
320
323
w
*f
Mg/L
6.3
5.0
7.7
9.5
7.1
2.5
3.7
2.6
2.6
3.1
3.4
3.2
6.0
3.2
3.0
4.9
1.5
3.3
n
Mg/L
0.3
0.9
5.6
3.2
2.5
1.2
1.0
0.1
<0.1
0.3
0.1
<0.1
1.3
<0.1
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.4
^
r i
Mg/L
113
152
57.3
193
129
910
418
406
922
840
661
758
877
421
633
222
507
631
DS2(a)
LCR Non-residence
1st Draw
Stagnation Time
hr
8.5
11.8
14.8
14.3
-
13.1
14.5
14.6
12.8
14.1
14.0
14.1
10.5
15.0
10.5
14.5
14.6
-
K
S.U.
7.9
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.4
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
mg/L
225
311
330
321
297
310
302
335
346
342
329
328
320
330
324
314
313
324
w
*f
Mg/L
8.8
6.5
8.2
7.0
7.6
2.8
3.6
2.8
2.5
3.3
3.4
2.8
5.5
2.3
3.7
4.0
1.8
3.2
n
Mg/L
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.5
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.1
O.I
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
r i
Mg/L
272
159
253
262
236
453
382
324
520
505
417
499
330
414
235
515
177
398
DSS^
LCR Residence
1st Draw
Stagnation Time
hr
7.0
7.0
8.0
7.0
-
8.0
7.8
7.8
8.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
7.5
7.5
7.0
7.0
6.5
-
K
S.U.
7.8
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.7
7.3
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.4
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
mg/L
225
320
286
223
264
314
298
326
333
320
333
322
322
335
324
321
309
321
w
*f
Mg/L
9.0
8.2
6.6
5.5
7.3
2.0
3.6
2.8
3.1
4.0
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.5
2.6
3.9
1.4
3.2
n
Mg/L
0.7
1.1
2.2
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.7
O.I
0.5
1.5
0.1
0.5
^
r i
Mg/L
224
265
349
213
263
491
473
355
275
384
299
458
524
152
559
464
261
391
(a) BL 1 collected from different location with water softener present
(b) Water softener present at this location
(c) Fe and As treatment plant results also elevated for 07/12/06 possibly due to inadequate backwash
OJ
oo
(d) No phosphate addition to treated water exiting treatment plant
(e) Elevated As and Fe possibly due to extended filter run length for special breakthrough study
Note: lead action level =15 |ig/L; copper action level =1.3 mg/L; BL = baseline sampling; NA = not available
-------
the treatment plant and treatment commenced in June 2006, Well No. 1 was primarily used without phos-
phate addition. Beginning in October 2006, post-treatment using blended phosphate (25% ortho- and
75% poly-phosphate) resumed for corrosion control at 1 to 2 mg/L.
Average arsenic concentrations improved from 7.1 to 7.6 |o,g/L at baseline to 3.2 to 3.3 |o,g/L after the
system startup and similarly for average iron concentrations from 120 to 626 |o,g/L to <25 to 43.4 |o,g/L at
the three locations. Alkalinity and pH increased and decreased, respectively, at DS2 and DS3 compared
to baseline levels. Lead and manganese concentrations did not show any apparent trends; average copper
concentrations increased from 129 to 263 |o,g/L to 391 to 631 |o,g/L. Explanations for this increase are not
apparent due to uncertainties of water sources during baseline sampling and changes to the post-treatment
chemicals. The water in the distribution system was comparable to that of the treatment system effluent
for arsenic and iron, so the treatment system appeared to have beneficial effects on these parameters
since they decreased significantly.
5.3 Building and System Cost
5.3.1 Building Cost. A 60 %-ft x 31 D-ft building with sidewall and roof peak heights of 19 D and
27 !/2 ft, respectively, was constructed by the City to house the treatment system and provide space for
two additional systems to meet the State's firm capacity requirements and the City's future expansion
needs (Section 4.3.2). The total cost for the building construction, site improvements (including sanitary
sewer service and holding tanks), water system telemetry, well connections (to the treatment systems) and
improvements, and Unit 2 installation, was $663,654, which reflects some price escalation resulting from
the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. This cost was not included in the capital cost or used to evaluate the
system cost because the work was outside of the scope of this demonstration project and funded
separately by the City.
5.3.2 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. The total capital investment cost for the
AERALATER® unit was $364,916 consisting of $330,374 (from EPA) for the proposed 10-ft diameter
unit plus $34,542 (from the City) for upgrade to the 12-ft diameter unit (Table 5-8). The equipment cost
of $205,800 (or 56% of the total) included cost for the detention tank and three-cell filter, process valves
and piping, 157 ft3 of sand, two chemical feed systems, an air diffuser grid and other ancillary equipment,
instrumentation and controls, labor, and freight. The system warranty was also included in the cost,
which covered repair and replacement of any defective components for one year after system startup.
The engineering cost covered the cost for preparing the required system permit application submittal,
including system general arrangement, electrical and mechanical drawings, component specifications,
connections to the entry piping and the City's water distribution and sanitary sewer systems, and
obtaining the required approval from MDEQ. The engineering cost of $27,077 was 7% of the total
capital investment.
The installation, shakedown, and startup cost covered the labor and materials required to unload, install,
paint, and test the system for proper operation. All installation activities were performed by Franklin
Holwerda Co. and Blank Electric Co., both subcontracted to TE. All startup and shakedown activities
were performed by Siemens, TE, and TE's subcontractors with the operator's assistance. The installation,
startup, and shakedown cost of $132,039 was 36% of the total capital investment.
The total capital cost of $364,916 was normalized to $l,073/gpm ($0.75/gpd) of design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 340 gpm (or 489,600 gpd). The capital cost also was converted to a unit cost
of $0.19/1,000 gal using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate, a 20-yr
return period, and full-time system operation at the rated capacity. Since the system produced only
60,292,000 gal of water during the first year, the total unit cost increased to $0.57/1,000 gal.
39
-------
Table 5-8. Capital Investment for Siemens' AERALATER® System
Description
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment
Detention Tank and Filter Cells
Process Valves, Piping, and Air Diffuser Grid
Silica Sand Media (157 ft3)
Instrumentation and Controls
High Service Pump, Compressor Pack, and Blower
Chemical Feed Systems
Sample Taps and Totalizers/Meters
Siemens' Labor
Freight
Equipment Surcharge for Upgrade
Subtotal
$64,100
$13,431
$883
$44,882
$11,435
$2,314
$1,571
$34,978
$6,460
$25,746
$205,800
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
56%
Engineering
Siemens' Labor
TE's Labor
Subtotal
$11,077
$16,000
$27,077
-
-
7%
Installation, Shakedown, and Startup
Installation Material
TE's Labor for Installation
Subcontractor Labor for Installation
Installation Surcharge for Upgrade
Siemens' Labor and Travel for Shakedown/Startup
Subtotal
$15,120
$24,126
$66,380
$8,796
$17,617
$132,039
-
-
-
-
-
36%
Total Cost for 12-ft Diameter System
10-ft Diameter System
Upgrade to 12-ft Diameter System
Capital Investment Total
$330,374
$34,542
$364,916
91%
9%
100%
5.3.3 O&M Cost. O&M cost included chemical, electricity, and labor for a combined unit cost of
$0.50/1,000 gal (Table 5-9). No cost was incurred for repairs because the system was under warranty.
The only chemical requirement for treatment was NaOCl addition, which cost $0.04/1,000 gal. The
electricity cost of $l,943/month or $0.39/1,000 gal was calculated based on the average monthly cost
from electric bills after building construction and system startup. This cost included an incremental cost
of $l,136/month or $0.24/1,000 gal compared to the consumption prior to the facility improvements. The
routine, non-demonstration related labor activities consumed 30 to 45 mm/day (Section 5.1.4.3). Based
on this time commitment and a labor rate of $18/hr, the labor cost was $0.07/1,000 gal of water treated.
40
-------
Table 5-9. O&M Cost for Siemens' AERALATER* System
Category
System Throughput (1,000 gal)
Value
61,833
Remarks
From 06/14/06 through 06/22/07
Chemical Usage
NaOCl Cost ($71,000 gal)
$0.04
No incremental consumption
Electricity Consumption
Electricity Cost ($/month)
Electricity Cost ($71,000 gal)
$1,943.00
$0.39
Average after system startup including
building heating and lighting
Labor
Labor (hr/week)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($71,000 gal)
4.5
$0.07
$0.50
30 to 45 min/day, 7 day /week
Labor rate = $18/hr
-
41
-------
Section 6.0 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.
Battelle. 2005. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology Round 2 at Sandusky, Michigan. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-OO-
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. 2006. Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. EPA/815/B-06/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal
Register, 40 CFRPart 141.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
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, Water Engineering 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.
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.
42
-------
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.
MDEQ. 2006. Operator Training and Certification. Website:
http://www.michigan.gov/deqoperatortraining.
Siemens Water Technologies. 2006. Multiwash Enhanced Type IIAERALATER Packaged Iron and
Arsenic Removal Unit- City ofSandusky Water Treatment Plant, Sandusky, Michigan:
Operation and Maintenance Manual.
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.
43
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sandusky, Ml - Daily System Operation
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Date
06/14/06
06/15/06
06/16/06
06/17/06
06/18/06
06/19/06
06/20/06
06/21/06
06/22/06
06/23/06
06/24/06
06/25/06
06/26/06
06/27/06
06/28/06
06/29/06
06/30/06
07/01/06
07/02/06
07/03/06
07/04/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
07/07/06
07/08/06
07/09/06
07/10/06
07/11/06
07/12/06
07/13/06
07/14/06
07/15/06
07/16/06
07/17/06
07/18/06
07/19/06
07/20/06
07/21/06
07/22/06
07/23/06
07/24/06
07/25/06
07/26/06
07/27/06
07/28/06
07/29/06
07/30/06
07/31/06
08/01/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
08/04/06
08/05/06
08/06/06
08/07/06
08/08/06
08/09/06
08/10/06
08/11/06
08/12/06
08/13/06
Time
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:01
6:57
6:49
7:02
7:06
7:11
7:10
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:15
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:13
7:00
6:57
6:57
7:01
6:39
6:48
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:03
7:06
7:04
6:56
7:12
7:14
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
12.5%
CI2
Usage
Ib
25
28
26
NA
27
29
20
28
11
12
NA
28
35
35
37
19
19
20
18
19
25
21
22
21
NA
27
26
22
24
30
26
29
25
33
39
40
44
NA
32
30
30
35
35
31
36
38
37
31
40
32
37
32
35
28
28
34
34
36
35
26
37
Inlet Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
185
260
261
182
185
186
187
188
267
0
189
190
266
0
264
240
0
136
0
0
0
131
0
0
118
0
0
76
76
191
185
188
0
187
187
188
184
75
75
75
92
90
94
239
115
0
0
281
178
213
198
0
0
152
152
0
175
178
0
0
120
Meter
kgal
4386
4643
4895
5179
5398
5621
5804
6050
6152
6261
6506
6727
6992
7262
7531
7668
7792
7913
8028
8144
8263
8379
8517
8650
8792
8934
9065
9149
9246
9381
9522
9712
9884
10802
11043
11280
11516
11623
11734
11830
1156
1299
1429
1545
1717
1923
2116
2286
2496
2667
2854
3020
3198
3340
3477
3647
3818
3995
4158
4308
4423
Daily
Flow
kgal
225
257
252
284
219
223
183
246
102
109
245
221
265
270
269
137
124
121
115
116
119
116
138
133
142
142
131
84
97
135
141
190
172
NA
241
237
236
107
111
96
NA
143
130
116
172
206
193
170
210
171
187
166
178
142
137
170
171
177
163
150
115
Effluent Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
139
312
311
164
141
223
232
242
283
0
236
131
316
0
301
0
0
137
0
0
0
121
235
0
127
0
0
0
0
296
268
116
0
218
122
264
238
110
75
0
110
56
110
0
117
0
0
306
236
273
0
0
0
153
202
0
108
151
0
0
200
Meter
kgal
4451
4712
4969
5258
5482
5708
5891
6143
6248
6359
6606
6833
7103
7379
7654
7790
7917
8038
8156
8274
8395
8513
8652
8788
8931
9077
9211
9293
9392
9528
9671
9865
41
14183
14419
14087
14316
14560
14818
15059
1336
1480
1613
1729
1904
2114
2311
2485
2699
2860
3050
3221
3401
3545
3686
3859
4033
4213
4380
4530
4648
Daily
Flow
kgal
225
261
257
289
224
226
183
252
105
111
247
227
270
276
275
136
127
121
118
118
121
118
139
136
143
146
134
82
99
136
143
194
176
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
144
133
116
175
210
197
174
214
161
190
171
180
144
141
173
174
180
167
150
118
Cum.
Flow
kgal
225
486
743
1032
1256
1482
1665
1917
2022
2133
2380
2607
2877
3153
3428
3564
3691
3812
3930
4048
4169
4287
4426
4562
4705
4851
4985
5067
5166
5302
5445
5639
5815
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7110
7254
7387
7503
7678
7888
8085
8259
8473
8634
8824
8995
9175
9319
9460
9633
9807
9987
10154
10304
10422
Head
Loss
ft H2O
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
NA
NA
1.4
NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
1.3
NA
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.4
NA
1.5
1.4
1.5
NA
1.4
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
1.5
Backwash
Elapsed
Volume
kgal
365
251
507
276
500
76
172
424
88
20
238
464
NR
638
363
809
682
780
662
355
778
660
769
632
756
610
476
817
718
767
624
709
533
NA
669
432
680
573
799
704
601
767
634
790
615
705
508
334
699
761
722
551
727
583
442
734
560
730
563
754
636
Cum.
Volume
kgal
71.7
NR
77.6
NR
83.4
89.4
NR
NR
101.9
107.9
NR
NR
107.9
113.9
113.9
125.5
125.5
131.4
131.4
131.4
137.3
137.3
143.1
143.1
148.9
148.9
148.9
154.8
154.8
160.6
160.6
166.4
166.4
166.4
172.3
172.3
178.1
178.1
183.9
183.9
183.9
189.9
189.9
195.6
195.6
201.4
201.4
201.4
207.2
213.0
219.0
219.0
224.8
224.8
224.8
230.0
230.0
236.0
236.0
242.0
242.0
Kgal/
event
kgal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
NA
6.0
NA
11.6
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
5.8
NA
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
5.8
NA
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
5.8
NA
NA
6.0
NA
5.7
NA
5.8
NA
NA
5.8
5.8
6.0
NA
5.8
NA
NA
5.2
NA
6.0
NA
6.0
NA
A-l
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sandusky, Ml - Daily System Operation
Week
No.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Date
08/14/06
08/15/06
08/16/06
08/17/06
08/18/06
08/19/06
08/20/06
08/21/06
08/22/06
08/23/06
08/24/06
08/25/06
08/26/06
08/27/06
08/28/06
08/29/06
08/30/06
08/31/06
09/01/06
09/02/06
09/03/06
09/04/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
09/07/06
09/08/06
09/09/06
09/10/06
09/11/06
09/12/06
09/13/06
09/14/06
09/15/06
09/16/06
09/17/06
09/18/06
09/19/06
09/20/06
09/21/06
09/22/06
09/23/06
09/24/06
09/25/06
09/26/06
09/27/06
09/28/06
09/29/06
09/30/06
10/01/06
10/02/06
10/03/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
10/06/06
10/07/06
10/08/06
10/09/06
10/10/06
10/11/06
10/12/06
10/13/06
10/14/06
10/15/06
Time
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:15
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:10
7:09
6:43
6:30
7:13
7:14
7:18
7:12
6:49
7:02
6:45
7:15
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:15
7:05
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:10
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:11
7:07
7:14
7:12
6:59
6:50
12.5%
CI2
Usage
Ib
29
29
38
52
42
42
35
37
43
41
42
41
37
40
38
39
40
40
39
42
38
37
38
36
33
36
34
27
30
40
39
31
29
32
28
24
26
25
13
23
21
22
34
33
36
40
40
40
34
32
31
30
30
27
27
22
25
27
30
30
29
35
31
Inlet Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
121
0
0
270
224
0
170
0
169
0
172
171
0
171
168
170
91
76
76
60
60
61
0
0
225
160
118
119
117
117
116
116
117
0
0
117
162
87
0
74
79
79
283
170
284
97
158
80
80
160
0
0
260
0
0
177
170
173
167
173
144
78
78
Meter
kgal
4539
4640
4823
5095
5533
5730
5898
5817
6018
6201
6383
6566
6732
6902
7064
7512
7392
7534
7671
7787
7868
7952
8042
8199
8319
8430
8561
8667
8783
8993
9172
9295
9402
9526
9639
9744
9901
44
190
325
482
607
721
867
1030
1220
1376
1559
1679
1798
2006
2210
2419
2584
2775
2913
3060
3258
3451
3651
3833
4007
4117
Daily
Flow
kgal
116
101
183
272
438
197
168
NA
201
183
182
183
166
170
162
NA
NA
142
137
116
81
84
90
157
120
111
131
106
116
210
179
123
107
124
113
105
157
143
146
135
157
125
114
146
163
190
156
183
120
119
208
204
209
165
191
138
147
198
193
200
182
174
110
Effluent Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
211
0
0
314
192
0
0
0
234
0
154
177
0
256
0
153
89
89
0
180
0
172
0
0
260
225
0
206
220
171
198
231
0
0
0
219
279
120
0
181
102
93
0
241
0
106
136
0
91
0
0
0
307
0
0
87
112
248
224
105
159
179
126
Meter
kgal
4765
4867
5052
5329
5296
5490
5654
6065
6260
6455
6639
6826
6994
7167
7332
7512
7664
7807
7947
8063
8144
8228
8317
8477
8598
8710
8845
8952
9068
9282
9462
9587
9694
9820
9935
40
199
344
492
632
789
913
1033
1179
1346
1539
1698
1882
2005
2125
2338
2546
2758
2928
3121
3262
3412
3613
3809
4015
4200
4376
4489
Daily
Flow
kgal
117
102
185
277
NA
161
164
NA
195
195
184
187
168
173
165
180
152
143
140
116
81
84
89
160
121
112
135
107
116
214
180
125
107
126
115
105
159
145
148
140
157
124
120
146
167
193
159
184
123
120
213
208
212
170
193
141
150
201
196
206
185
176
113
Cum.
Flow
kgal
10539
10641
10826
11103
NA
11264
11428
11839
12034
12229
12413
12600
12768
12941
13106
13286
13438
13581
13721
13837
13918
14002
14091
14251
14372
14484
14619
14726
14842
15056
15236
15361
15468
15594
15709
15814
15973
16118
16266
16406
16563
16687
16807
16953
17120
17313
17472
17656
17779
17899
18112
18320
18532
18702
18895
19036
19186
19387
19583
19789
19974
20150
20263
Head
Loss
ft H2O
1.5
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
NA
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
1.6
NA
1.5
1.5
1.4
NA
1.5
NA
1.5
NA
NA
1.5
1.4
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
NA
NA
NA
1.5
NA
NA
0.3
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.0
Backwash
Elapsed
Volume
kgal
519
804
768
645
441
712
544
377
708
513
721
534
739
566
401
720
754
611
471
789
708
624
812
652
778
895
760
653
897
683
898
772
898
772
657
896
899
896
775
635
772
648
528
753
586
706
547
899
776
897
684
899
687
899
706
565
898
697
896
691
506
734
622
Cum.
Volume
kgal
242.2
248.0
253.8
259.7
259.7
265.5
265.5
265.5
271.4
271.4
277.2
277.2
283.1
283.1
283.1
288.9
294.8
294.8
294.8
300.6
300.6
300.6
306.5
306.5
312.4
318.2
318.2
318.2
324.1
324 A
329.9
329.9
335.8
335.8
335.8
341.7
344.4
347.6
349.5
349.5
355.3
355.3
355.3
361.2
366.1
367.3
367.3
379.3
379.3
385.2
385.2
391.1
391.1
396.9
396.9
396.9
402.9
402.9
408.8
408.8
408.8
414.6
414.6
Kgal/
event
kgal
NA
5.8
5.8
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.8
5.9
NA
NA
5.8
NA
NA
5.9
NA
5.9
5.8
NA
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.9
2.7
3.2
1.9
NA
5.8
NA
NA
5.9
4.9
1.2
NA
12.0
NA
5.9
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.8
NA
A-2
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sandusky, Ml - Daily System Operation
Week
No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Date
1 0/1 6/06
10/17/06
10/18/06
1 0/1 9/06
1 0/20/06
10/21/06
1 0/22/06
10/23/06
1 0/24/06
10/25/06
10/26/06
1 0/27/06
1 0/28/06
10/29/06
10/30/06
10/31/06
11/01/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
11/04/06
11/05/06
11/06/06
11/07/06
11/08/06
11/09/06
11/10/06
11/11/06
11/12/06
11/13/06
11/14/06
11/15/06
11/16/06
11/17/06
11/18/06
11/19/06
11/20/06
11/21/06
11/22/06
11/23/06
11/24/06
11/25/06
11/26/06
11/27/06
11/28/06
11/29/06
11/30/06
12/01/06
1 2/02/06
1 2/03/06
1 2/04/06
1 2/05/06
1 2/06/06
12/07/06
12/08/06
1 2/09/06
12/10/06
12/11/06
12/12/06
1 2/1 3/06
1 2/1 4/06
12/15/06
12/16/06
1 2/1 7/06
Time
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:03
7:11
6:52
7:08
6:56
7:06
7:07
7:00
7:08
7:02
7:03
7:16
7:15
7:04
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
6:46
7:04
7:00
7:15
7:05
7:11
7:05
7:12
7:16
7:11
7:00
7:00
7:02
7:04
7:22
7:00
7:00
6:51
6:58
7:00
6:59
6:55
6:38
6:36
12.5%
CI2
Usage
Ib
30
34
36
37
35
35
33
29
31
29
30
32
36
30
29
31
28
32
28
31
23
24
31
27
29
29
25
26
24
28
29
27
26
26
22
22
33
32
28
21
24
24
24
30
32
29
32
34
31
28
31
28
27
28
25
24
23
31
30
32
33
28
26
Inlet Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
95
95
158
97
97
95
95
96
0
147
149
80
80
81
282
264
257
258
151
0
0
171
143
304
170
160
0
173
174
0
0
173
151
0
0
0
98
79
61
60
62
61
60
189
78
83
80
82
80
80
82
269
154
0
0
0
155
154
177
0
182
186
185
Meter
kgal
4234
4418
4598
4792
4985
5170
5316
5441
5615
5784
5961
6126
6289
6395
6505
6684
6849
7032
7203
7400
7531
7669
7849
8018
8206
8390
8539
8676
8811
8973
9155
9327
9492
9658
9772
9887
57
77
322
396
476
555
634
795
947
1101
1261
1413
1533
1634
1793
1969
2139
2320
2476
2609
2739
2931
3132
3327
3543
3727
3889
Daily
Flow
kgal
117
184
180
194
193
185
146
125
174
169
177
165
163
106
110
179
165
183
171
197
131
138
180
169
188
184
149
137
135
162
182
172
165
166
114
115
170
20
245
74
80
79
79
161
152
154
160
152
120
101
159
176
170
181
156
133
130
192
201
195
216
184
162
Effluent Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
136
91
105
106
133
0
0
102
0
49
208
77
87
83
0
245
225
170
80
0
0
176
151
229
174
185
0
175
180
0
0
181
152
0
0
0
106
78
0
76
87
0
80
192
82
79
98
89
82
70
83
278
160
0
0
0
154
157
176
0
189
195
190
Meter
kgal
4607
4796
4979
5178
5375
5564
5713
5840
6017
6189
6368
6537
6703
6811
6923
7103
7273
7458
7633
7833
7967
8108
8293
8466
8657
8844
8995
9135
9273
9438
9625
9798
9968
136
252
370
542
707
811
885
962
1043
1121
1286
1440
1595
1759
1911
2034
2137
2298
2478
2649
2834
2990
3127
3260
3455
3660
3857
4077
4263
4425
Daily
Flow
kgal
118
189
183
199
197
189
149
127
177
172
179
169
166
108
112
180
170
185
175
200
134
141
185
173
191
187
151
140
138
165
187
173
170
168
116
118
172
165
104
74
77
81
78
165
154
155
164
152
123
103
161
180
171
185
156
137
133
195
205
197
220
186
162
Cum.
Flow
kgal
20381
20570
20753
20952
21149
21338
21487
21614
21791
21963
22142
22311
22477
22585
22697
22877
23047
23232
23407
23607
23741
23882
24067
24240
24431
24618
24769
24909
25047
25212
25399
25572
25742
25910
26026
26144
26316
26481
26585
26659
26736
26817
26895
27060
27214
27369
27533
27685
27808
27911
28072
28252
28423
28608
28764
28901
29034
29229
29434
29631
29851
30037
30199
Head
Loss
ft H2O
1.5
0.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
NA
NA
0.7
NA
0.7
1.5
0.8
0.7
0.7
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
0.3
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
NA
1.4
1.4
NA
1.4
1.4
NA
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
Backwash
Elapsed
Volume
kgal
504
719
536
710
513
716
567
440
728
556
732
564
741
633
521
919
549
716
541
699
565
424
728
555
722
534
756
616
478
744
557
726
556
743
627
509
731
566
798
724
826
745
667
738
584
751
587
754
631
528
367
187
736
551
742
606
473
722
517
718
498
730
568
Cum.
Volume
kgal
414.6
420.6
420.6
426.5
426.5
432.3
432.3
432.3
438.3
438.3
444.2
444.2
450.0
450.0
452.0
456.0
456.0
461.9
461.9
467.0
467.0
467.7
473.7
473.7
479.6
479.6
485.5
485.5
485.5
491.4
491.4
497.4
497.4
503.3
503.3
503.3
509.2
509.2
515.2
515.2
521.0
521.0
521.0
521.0
527.0
532.9
532.9
538.8
538.8
538.8
538.8
538.8
544.7
544.7
550.6
550.6
550.6
556.6
556.6
562.5
562.5
568.4
568.4
Kgal/
event
kgal
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
2.0
4.0
NA
5.9
NA
5.1
NA
0.7
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.9
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.9
NA
6.0
NA
5.8
NA
NA
NA
6.0
5.9
NA
5.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.9
NA
5.9
NA
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
5.9
NA
A-3
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sandusky, Ml - Daily System Operation
Week
No.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Date
12/18/06
12/19/06
12/20/06
12/21/06
12/22/06
12/23/06
12/24/06
12/25/06
12/26/06
12/27/06
12/28/06
12/29/06
12/30/06
12/31/06
01/01/07
01/02/07
01/03/07
01/04/07
01/05/07
01/06/07
01/07/07
01/08/07
01/09/07
01/10/07
01/11/07
01/12/07
01/13/07
01/14/07
01/15/07
01/16/07
01/17/07
01/18/07
01/19/07
01/20/07
01/21/07
01/22/07
01/23/07
01/24/07
01/25/07
01/26/07
01/27/07
01/28/07
01/29/07
01/30/07
01/31/07
02/01/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
02/04/07
02/05/07
02/06/07
02/07/07
02/08/07
02/09/07
02/10/07
02/11/07
02/12/07
02/13/07
02/14/07
02/15/07
02/16/07
02/1 7/07
02/18/07
Time
6:49
6:55
7:03
6:55
6:45
6:43
6:30
6:40
6:50
6:50
6:45
7:00
6:50
6:30
5:41
5:50
6:11
5:44
5:48
5:50
5:51
5:30
5:25
5:42
5:25
6:35
5:28
5:40
8:40
7:30
5:30
5:30
7:41
6:00
5:30
7:40
7:20
6:53
7:03
7:47
8:12
8:00
7:18
7:45
6:51
7:00
6:45
6:30
6:30
7:00
7:00
6:45
6:45
6:45
7:00
7:00
6:47
7:34
8:00
7:44
6:18
7:11
6:23
12.5%
CI2
Usage
Ib
24
29
28
30
31
23
23
18
18
24
26
25
24
21
18
18
25
28
27
30
22
22
27
29
28
26
28
23
24
23
22
25
26
24
20
21
22
22
24
23
26
12
21
21
20
17
21
20
18
18
20
18
18
27
17
17
16
22
20
18
18
18
15
Inlet Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
0
0
276
0
0
0
155
159
0
0
0
0
0
0
158
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
185
186
0
0
185
274
156
0
159
0
0
187
191
158
277
155
178
165
156
175
155
157
151
155
0
155
154
156
160
119
142
145
143
289
154
169
156
0
158
Meter
kgal
4041
4222
4408
4586
4773
4898
5022
5123
5217
5384
5551
5708
5834
5949
6050
6155
6291
6477
6670
6874
7020
7166
7343
7552
7748
7957
8136
8293
8448
8597
8761
8949
9137
9314
9456
9607
9786
9964
152
334
529
656
781
965
1138
1294
1489
1640
1781
1914
2095
2242
2386
2630
2755
2876
2999
3208
3391
3539
3703
3886
4004
Daily
Flow
kgal
152
181
186
178
187
125
124
101
94
167
167
157
126
115
101
105
136
186
193
204
146
146
177
209
196
209
179
157
155
149
164
188
188
177
142
151
179
178
188
182
195
127
125
184
173
156
195
151
141
133
181
147
144
244
125
121
123
209
183
148
164
183
118
Effluent Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
0
0
281
0
0
0
161
165
0
0
0
0
0
0
165
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
188
193
0
81
183
278
159
0
167
0
0
192
193
158
279
128
136
124
157
127
107
147
152
159
0
166
150
160
150
128
156
150
146
119
158
180
144
0
139
Meter
kgal
4585
4768
4957
5138
5328
5455
5582
5685
5780
5949
6118
6278
6405
6524
6627
6733
6872
7060
7257
7463
7613
7762
7942
8154
8352
8566
8748
8908
9065
9217
9385
9575
9766
9946
91
245
427
608
798
983
1183
1312
1440
1627
1802
1960
2159
2312
2456
2593
2775
2926
3072
3321
3448
3572
3698
3912
4097
4248
4415
4600
4720
Daily
Flow
kgal
160
183
189
181
190
127
127
103
95
169
169
160
127
119
103
106
139
188
197
206
150
149
180
212
198
214
182
160
157
152
168
190
191
180
145
154
182
181
190
185
200
129
128
187
175
158
199
153
144
137
182
151
146
249
127
124
126
214
185
151
167
185
120
Cum.
Flow
kgal
30359
30542
30731
30912
31102
31229
31356
31459
31554
31723
31892
32052
32179
32298
32401
32507
32646
32834
33031
33237
33387
33536
33716
33928
34126
34340
34522
34682
34839
34991
35159
35349
35540
35720
35865
36019
36201
36382
36572
36757
36957
37086
37214
37401
37576
37734
37933
38086
38230
38367
38549
38700
38846
39095
39222
39346
39472
39686
39871
40022
40189
40374
40494
Head
Loss
ftH2O
NA
NA
1.5
NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
1.4
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
0.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
2.0
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
Backwash
Elapsed
Volume
kgal
408
716
527
734
544
779
652
549
818
649
736
576
776
657
554
807
668
724
527
709
559
410
739
527
717
503
732
572
897
745
577
743
552
723
578
423
721
540
727
541
703
573
445
722
547
660
461
666
522
385
632
481
1864
1615
1488
1363
1238
1025
839
1052
885
1038
918
Cum.
Volume
kgal
568.4
574.4
574.4
580.4
580.4
586.3
586.3
586.3
592.2
592.2
598.2
598.2
604.1
604.1
604.1
610.1
610.1
616.0
616.0
621.9
621.9
621.9
627.9
627.9
633.8
633.8
639.7
639.7
645.7
645.7
645.7
651.7
651.7
657.6
657.6
657.6
663.6
663.6
669.5
669.5
675.5
675.5
675.5
681.5
681.5
687.4
687.4
693.3
693.3
693.3
699.3
699.3
705.3
705.3
705.3
705.3
705.3
705.3
705.3
711.2
711.2
717.2
717.2
Kgal/
event
kgal
NA
6.0
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.9
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
5.9
NA
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
5.9
NA
6.0
NA
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
6.0
NA
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
5.9
NA
NA
6.0
NA
6.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.9
NA
6.0
NA
A-4
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sandusky, Ml - Daily System Operation
Week
No.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Date
02/19/07
02/20/07
02/21/07
02/22/07
02/23/07
02/24/07
02/25/07
02/26/07
02/27/07
02/28/07
03/01/07
03/02/07
03/03/07
03/04/07
03/05/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
03/08/07
03/09/07
03/10/07
03/11/07
03/12/07
03/13/07
03/14/07
03/15/07
03/16/07
03/1 7/07
03/18/07
03/19/07
03/20/07
03/21/07
03/22/07
03/23/07
03/24/07
03/25/07
03/26/07
03/27/07
03/28/07
03/29/07
03/30/07
03/31/07
04/01/07
04/02/07
04/03/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
04/06/07
04/07/07
04/08/07
04/09/07
04/10/07
04/11/07
04/12/07
04/13/07
04/14/07
04/15/07
04/16/07
04/1 7/07
04/18/07
04/19/07
04/20/07
04/21/07
04/22/07
Time
5:34
7:26
5:16
5:20
5:15
5:13
6:39
7:17
7:22
6:33
7:47
7:56
8:22
7:59
6:29
7:16
7:30
6:51
6:49
6:27
6:38
6:57
7:30
7:15
7:15
7:15
6:40
6:50
7:28
7:37
7:13
7:08
7:17
7:00
6:30
6:15
6:20
6:17
6:19
6:24
6:00
6:17
6:21
6:10
6:07
6:13
6:05
6:25
6:14
7:00
6:58
7:06
7:10
7:08
7:18
7:06
7:45
7:45
7:45
7:45
7:45
7:45
7:45
12.5%
CI2
Usage
Ib
15
16
20
20
19
26
17
13
23
19
20
20
18
17
15
21
20
18
21
21
18
19
18
23
26
23
21
18
19
21
23
33
34
23
17
16
20
22
23
21
22
20
17
22
23
23
21
20
17
18
22
27
18
22
27
23
23
24
26
22
26
27
22
Inlet Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
151
0
182
152
168
178
0
200
170
179
157
149
152
0
149
207
161
150
169
178
176
186
152
153
150
147
151
162
159
184
184
301
202
0
180
142
155
162
151
155
0
161
166
153
155
156
156
160
0
164
154
168
173
155
165
158
170
166
155
154
277
148
0
Meter
kgal
4130
4270
4468
4652
4850
5044
5204
5341
5545
5719
5907
6089
6259
6388
6509
6723
6903
7096
7307
7500
7655
7821
8007
8186
8360
8535
8714
8843
8979
9164
9362
9672
9
192
304
416
592
778
964
1135
1309
1426
1542
1719
1899
2068
2228
2352
2479
2589
2759
2966
3112
3305
3490
3620
3761
3948
4138
4310
4495
4671
4789
Daily
Flow
kgal
126
140
198
184
198
194
160
137
204
174
188
182
170
129
121
214
180
193
211
193
155
166
186
179
174
175
179
129
136
185
198
310
337
183
112
112
176
186
186
171
174
117
116
177
180
169
160
124
127
110
170
207
146
193
185
130
141
187
190
172
185
176
118
Effluent Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
160
0
187
150
166
183
0
190
169
189
112
157
162
0
161
102
164
152
179
184
181
189
157
153
149
146
151
93
167
185
195
301
206
0
189
151
161
171
160
160
0
107
167
158
159
147
161
106
66
172
162
171
180
159
97
154
171
170
157
158
283
157
0
Meter
kgal
4849
4994
5192
5380
5581
5778
5942
6082
6289
6466
6658
6842
7014
7147
7270
7488
7671
7867
8082
8277
8436
8606
8793
8975
9152
9328
9510
9641
9778
9964
165
479
825
1008
1121
1233
1410
1597
1785
1956
2132
2250
2365
2544
2726
2897
3059
3185
3313
3424
3596
3805
3953
4147
4335
4467
4607
4795
4987
5160
5347
5525
5644
Daily
Flow
kgal
129
145
198
188
201
197
164
140
207
177
192
184
172
133
123
218
183
196
215
195
159
170
187
182
177
176
182
131
137
186
201
314
346
183
113
112
177
187
188
171
176
118
115
179
182
171
162
126
128
111
172
209
148
194
188
132
140
188
192
173
187
178
119
Cum.
Flow
kgal
40623
40768
40966
41154
41355
41552
41716
41856
42063
42240
42432
42616
42788
42921
43044
43262
43445
43641
43856
44051
44210
44380
44567
44749
44926
45102
45284
45415
45552
45738
45939
46253
46599
46782
46895
47007
47184
47371
47559
47730
47906
48024
48139
48318
48500
48671
48833
48959
49087
49198
49370
49579
49727
49921
50109
50241
50381
50569
50761
50934
51121
51299
51418
Head
Loss
ftH2O
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
Backwash
Elapsed
Volume
kgal
788
644
1002
814
612
1037
837
733
526
1032
840
656
1028
896
773
555
1026
829
614
1022
863
693
506
1022
846
669
1028
897
760
574
1005
691
346
1024
911
799
622
1020
832
661
1032
914
799
620
1032
860
699
1090
962
851
679
1007
859
665
1024
892
752
563
1014
841
654
1034
915
Cum.
Volume
kgal
717.2
717.2
723.0
723.0
723.0
729.0
729.0
729.0
729.0
734.8
734.8
734.8
740.8
740.8
740.8
740.8
746.6
746.6
746.6
752.6
752.6
752.6
752.6
758.6
758.6
758.6
764.5
764.5
764.5
764.5
770.4
770.4
770.4
776.4
776.4
776.4
776.4
782.3
782.3
782.3
788.2
788.2
788.2
788.2
794.1
794.1
794.1
800.1
800.1
800.1
800.1
806.0
806.0
806.0
811.9
811.9
811.9
811.9
817.8
817.8
817.8
823.8
823.8
Kgal/
event
kgal
NA
NA
5.8
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
NA
5.8
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
NA
5.8
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
6.0
NA
A-5
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sandusky, Ml - Daily System Operation
Week
No.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Date
04/23/07
04/24/07
04/25/07
04/26/07
04/27/07
04/28/07
04/29/07
04/30/07
05/01/07
05/02/07
05/03/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
05/06/07
05/07/07
05/08/07
05/09/07
05/10/07
05/11/07
05/12/07
05/13/07
05/14/07
05/15/07
05/16/07
05/17/07
05/18/07
05/19/07
05/20/07
05/21/07
05/22/07
05/23/07
05/24/07
05/25/07
05/26/07
05/27/07
05/28/07
05/29/07
05/30/07
05/31/07
06/01/07
06/02/07
06/03/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
06/06/07
06/07/07
06/08/07
06/09/07
06/10/07
06/11/07
06/12/07
06/13/07
06/14/07
06/15/07
06/16/07
06/17/07
06/18/07
06/19/07
06/20/07
06/21/07
06/22/07
Time
7:10
7:10
7:10
7:15
7:15
7:10
7:15
6:15
6:14
6:16
6:10
6:08
6:12
6:05
6:08
6:10
6:08
6:12
6:02
6:30
7:00
7:18
7:02
7:18
7:07
7:21
7:24
7:08
6:56
7:02
7:02
7:10
6:33
6:59
7:01
7:10
7:15
7:15
7:15
7:15
7:15
6:30
7:12
7:14
7:25
7:10
7:13
6:57
6:56
7:05
7:04
7:07
7:04
7:00
7:12
7:10
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
12.5%
CI2
Usage
Ib
20
27
31
31
27
29
23
24
29
28
32
34
33
24
26
29
32
27
26
29
25
31
29
32
29
30
31
30
38
40
40
34
39
38
33
30
34
42
39
45
51
25
0
34
41
39
44
34
52
42
44
46
47
47
49
44
43
40
35
45
42
Inlet Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
155
159
154
149
149
151
148
149
151
157
151
149
150
158
151
153
251
151
150
154
0
0
267
266
120
0
120
0
116
117
118
151
147
164
115
0
152
150
147
148
0
0
0
146
147
149
140
193
79
190
143
145
108
82
130
101
150
147
142
135
136
Meter
kgal
4901
5081
5268
5456
5621
5797
5920
6043
6217
6387
6589
6792
6981
7098
7227
7415
7616
7792
7977
8211
8333
8472
8651
8833
9008
9192
9307
9418
9550
9702
9836
43
241
416
550
674
819
1033
1228
1426
1645
1761
1761
1919
2116
2299
2514
2656
2813
2953
3158
3375
3597
3793
4009
4177
4356
4576
4744
4930
5117
Daily
Flow
kgal
112
180
187
188
165
176
123
123
174
170
202
203
189
117
129
188
201
176
185
234
122
139
179
182
175
184
115
111
132
152
134
207
198
175
134
124
145
214
195
198
219
116
0
158
197
183
215
142
157
140
205
217
222
196
216
168
179
220
168
186
187
Effluent Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
157
163
158
155
160
158
156
149
147
152
156
157
160
163
156
168
182
155
156
155
0
0
264
268
132
0
92
0
114
123
121
157
150
163
126
0
154
155
154
149
0
0
0
146
150
151
0
197
80
190
143
149
106
93
143
124
159
157
147
132
136
Meter
kgal
5757
5940
6126
6317
6482
6660
6782
6905
7079
7249
7454
7660
7851
7969
8100
8291
8494
8672
8860
9095
9219
9362
9544
9726
9901
87
198
307
438
592
723
933
1134
1310
1445
1569
1716
1929
2126
2326
2546
2659
2659
2820
3018
3205
3424
3561
3721
3864
4072
4292
4518
4718
4936
5107
5289
5512
5681
5870
6059
Daily
Flow
kgal
113
183
186
191
165
178
122
123
174
170
205
206
191
118
131
191
203
178
188
235
124
143
182
182
175
186
111
109
131
154
131
210
201
176
135
124
147
213
197
200
220
113
NA
161
198
187
219
137
160
143
208
220
226
200
218
171
182
223
169
189
189
Cum.
Flow
kgal
51531
51714
51900
52091
52256
52434
52556
52679
52853
53023
53228
53434
53625
53743
53874
54065
54268
54446
54634
54869
54993
55136
55318
55500
55675
55861
55972
56081
56212
56366
56497
56707
56908
57084
57219
57343
57490
57703
57900
58100
58320
58433
58433
58594
58792
58979
59198
59335
59495
59638
59846
60066
60292
60492
60710
60881
61063
61286
61455
61644
61833
Head
Loss
ftH2O
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.4
NA
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Backwash
Elapsed
Volume
kgal
802
619
1025
834
669
1032
910
787
613
1042
837
631
1017
899
768
577
1010
832
644
969
845
702
520
1026
851
665
1095
986
855
701
1076
866
665
1046
911
787
640
996
799
599
989
876
876
714
1021
834
1200
1069
910
767
559
994
768
568
990
818
636
413
1038
849
660
Cum.
Volume
kgal
823.8
823.8
829.7
829.7
829.7
835.7
835.7
835.7
835.7
841.6
841.6
841.6
847.6
847.6
847.6
847.6
853.5
853.5
853.5
859.5
859.5
859.5
859.5
865.4
865.4
865.4
871.4
871.4
871.4
871.4
877.3
877.3
877.3
883.3
883.3
883.3
883.3
889.2
889.2
889.2
895.1
895.1
895.1
895.1
900.1
900.9
906.8
909.0
909.0
909.0
909.0
914.9
914.9
914.9
920.8
920.8
920.8
920.8
926.7
926.7
926.7
Kgal/
event
kgal
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
NA
5.0
0.8
5.9
2.2
NA
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA
Notes: (1) Unit 1 backwashes Monday, Wednesday, and Friday w/ air wash at 60-70 scfm until 02/07/07. Afterwards, Tuesday
and Friday w/ air wash at 60-70 scfm. (2) Unit 1 inlet valve throttled to allow 66-75% of flow to Unit 1 and 25-33% of flow to
Unit 2 when both units operating until 09/19/06. Afterwards, Unit 1: 100% during day, 50% at night; Unit 2: 50% at night only.
(3) Blower operates once/week to keep air diffuser grid from plugging. (4) Highlighted columns indicate calculated values.
NA = not available; NR = no reading taken
A-6
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (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("
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
06/22/06 - Well 1
IN
297
0.1
0.7
87
<0.05
<10
11.7
13.0
NA(C)
7.7
11.8
1.8
298
-
-
375
247
128
7.6
7.3
0.2
6.0
1.3
689
688
25.2
25.1
AD
297
0.1
0.7
89
<0.05
<10
11.6
1.3
NA(C)
7.7
11.5
2.4
387
0.2
NA(d)
384
252
132
7.6
1.3
6.3
0.3
1.0
694
<25
25.0
10.7
TT
297
0.1
0.7
89
<0.05
<10
12.1
0.2
NA(C)
7.6
13.0
2.3
431
0.1
NA(d)
407
267
140
1.2
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.6
<25
<25
13.5
13.0
06/28/06 - Well 1
IN
293
-
-
-
-
<10
12.0
10.0
-
7.3
13.3
2.8
406
-
-
-
-
-
7.3
-
-
-
-
576
-
22.2
-
AD
297
-
-
-
-
<10
12.9
1.1
-
7.2
12.0
3.7
499
0.2
NA(d)
-
-
-
7.4
-
-
-
-
617
-
23.0
-
TT
293
-
-
-
-
<10
13.8
1.7
-
7.3
13.5
5.6
535
0.2
NA(d)
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
-
35
-
12.7
-
07/05/06 - Well 1
IN
297
-
-
-
-
<10
11.6
9.9
-
7.3
12.3
1.8
291
-
-
-
-
-
8.1
-
-
-
-
712
-
24.3
-
AD
302
-
-
-
-
<10
11.9
1.1
-
7.1
12.0
2.0
530
0.3
NA(d)
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
1,023
-
29.4
-
TT
302
-
-
-
-
<10
11.9
1.0
-
7.1
13.0
2.0
566
0.2
NA(d)
-
-
-
5.5
-
-
-
-
523
-
21.0
-
07/12/06(e)-Well3
IN
302
-
-
-
-
<10
12.2
13.0
-
7.3
12.3
1.7
287
-
-
-
-
-
8.9
-
-
-
-
869
-
26.3
-
AD
302
-
-
-
-
<10
11.9
1.2
-
7.2
12.0
2.6
487
1.4
3.5
-
-
-
10.0
-
-
-
-
912
-
26.3
-
TT
302
-
-
-
-
<10
12.4
0.6
-
7.2
12.6
3.1
484
0.4
4.7
-
-
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
472
-
20.5
-
07/1 8/06 -Well 3
IN
311
0.4
1.5
102
<0.05
<10
11.3
16.0
<1.0
7.2
11.9
1.4
272
-
-
378
262
115
10.6
10.4
0.2
9.8
0.6
962
990
29.2
30.1
AD
307
0.3
1.4
107
<0.05
<10
11.2
0.8
1.1
7.1
12.6
2.6
484
0.4
3.3
407
286
121
10.6
1.6
9.0
0.6
1.0
977
<25
29.3
11.2
TT
307
0.3
1.6
102
<0.05
<10
11.4
0.3
1.0
7.1
12.5
2.8
366
0.3
3.4
402
283
119
1.6
1.4
0.2
0.6
0.7
<25
<25
14.5
14.3
07/25/06 - Well 3
IN
312
-
-
-
-
<10
12.5
16.0
-
7.3
12.4
3.7
306
-
-
-
-
-
15.3
-
-
-
-
1,156
-
30.6
-
AD
317
-
-
-
-
<10
12.4
1.4
-
7.3
11.4
4.2
380
1.7
3.2
-
-
-
21.2
-
-
-
-
1,785
-
35.6
-
TT
308
-
-
-
-
<10
12.3
0.5
-
7.3
12.1
3.9
418
3.1
3.5
-
-
-
1.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
10.7
-
(a)AsCaCO3. (b)AsP.
(c) Sample failed laboratory QA/QC check, (d) Test reagent not available for measurement.
(e) Switched to Well No. 3 on 07/10/06. Water quality measurements taken on 07/10/06.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (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
08/0 1/06(c)- Well 1
IN
299
-
-
-
-
<10
13.3
10.0
-
7.3
12.6
0.8
248
-
-
-
-
-
10.3
-
-
-
-
757
-
27.0
-
AD
295
-
-
-
-
<10
13.9
0.7
-
7.2
12.0
2.6
305
0.5
3.7
-
-
-
10.6
-
-
-
-
755
-
26.9
-
TT
295
-
-
-
-
<10
11.4
0.3
-
7.2
12.1
2.4
303
0.5
3.7
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
9.7
-
08/08/06 - Well 1
IN
302
-
-
-
-
<10
12.7
9.2
-
7.2
12.3
1.5
3«
-
-
-
-
-
11.8
-
-
-
-
795
-
25.9
-
AD
307
-
-
-
-
<10
12.1
0.8
-
7.1
12.1
2.0
447
0.5
4.0
-
-
-
11.5
-
-
-
-
755
-
26.2
-
TT
307
-
-
-
-
<10
11.8
0.2
-
7.2
12.3
2.7
468
0.5
3.9
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
10.2
-
08/1 5/06(d)- Well 1
IN
307
0.3
3.4
93
<0.05
<10
12.3
7.9
1.1
7.3
11.8
1.0
301
-
-
392
257
135
10.0
8.7
1.3
7.5
1.2
841
651
24.6
26.3
AD
312
0.2
1.8
94
<0.05
<10
12.0
0.9
1.1
7.2
11.6
2.7
498
2.3
3.7
424
277
148
9.4
2.5
6.9
0.8
1.6
789
<25
25.5
10.2
TT
337
0.2
1.9
94
<0.05
<10
12.0
0.1
1.1
7.3
11.7
2.9
489
2.0
3.4
411
282
129
2.0
2.0
<0.1
0.8
1.2
<25
<25
2.6
2.6
08/22/06 - Well 1
IN
331
-
-
-
-
<10
11.5
7.8
-
7.2
12.5
1.7
331
-
-
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
691
_
24.5
-
AD
324
-
-
-
-
<10
11.3
0.8
-
7.2
11.7
2.5
552
0.3
4.6
-
-
-
10.8
-
-
-
-
619
_
25.0
-
TT
333
-
-
-
-
<10
11.6
0.2
-
7.2
11.9
2.4
513
0.3
4.3
-
-
-
1.6
-
-
-
-
<25
_
8.0
-
08/29/06 - Well 1
IN
320
293
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
11.8
11.2
7.7
8.3
-
7.3
12.1
1.8
290
-
-
-
-
-
8.5
8.1
-
-
-
-
708
707
-
26.1
25.4
-
AD
315
326
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
11.3
11.7
0.6
0.9
-
7.3
11.9
3.1
498
1.4
4.0
-
-
-
8.7
9.0
-
-
-
-
724
724
-
26.1
25.7
-
TT
324
337
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
11.7
11.4
0.2
0.5
-
7.3
16.2
2.9
474
0.4
3.8
-
-
-
1.2
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
7.8
8.0
-
09/06/06(e) - Well 1
IN
326
-
-
-
-
22.1
11.3
11.0
-
7.1
12.0
2.3
291
-
-
-
-
-
23.5
-
-
-
-
1,941
-
26.7
-
AD
335
-
-
-
-
19.3
11.7
9.9(9)
-
7.2
12.0
2.8
437
0.4
3.8
-
-
-
21.6
-
-
-
-
1,951
-
29.3
-
TT
335
-
-
-
-
<10
11.6
0.5
-
7.2
11.8
2.7
453
3.1
3.6
-
-
-
4.6
-
-
-
-
182
-
7.2
-
(a)AsCaCO3. (b)AsP.
(c) Resumed Well No. 1 operation on 07/28/06. (d) Water quality measurements taken on 08/16/06. (e) Water quality measurements taken on 09/05/06.
(f) Possible recording error, (g) Reanalysis indicated similar result.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (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
09/1 4/06(c)- Well!
IN
316
0.3
0.6
91
<0.05
<10
12.3
9.4
1.1
7.3
12.6
1.9
281
-
-
387
254
133
9.6
8.3
1.4
7.4
0.8
789
610
23.4
23.5
AD
314
0.1
0.6
93
<0.05
<10
11.8
1.4
1.1
7.3
11.6
2.4
311
1.4
3.8
377
250
126
7.7
1.3
6.3
<0.1
1.2
691
<25
22.8
6.3
TT
323
0.1
0.6
76
<0.05
<10
11.4
0.9
<1.0
7.2
11.6
2.6
309
0.3
4.1
379
252
127
1.0
1.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.0
<25
<25
3.4
3.5
09/1 9/06 -Well 1
IN
324
-
-
-
-
<10
12.3
7.8
-
7.2
12.0
1.5
265
-
-
-
-
-
7.5
-
-
-
-
697
-
26.1
-
AD
317
-
-
-
-
<10
12.2
0.7
-
7.3
11.3
2.8
301
0.4
4.1
-
-
-
7.5
-
-
-
-
698
-
25.0
-
TT
320
-
-
-
-
<10
12.1
0.1
-
7.3
11.5
3.6
292
0.9
4.1
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.0
-
09/27/06(d)-WelM
IN
319
-
-
-
-
27.0
11.4
8.7
-
7.1
11.8
1.8
317
-
-
-
-
-
11.8
-
-
-
-
732
-
25.8
-
AD
331
-
-
-
-
29.7
11.8
0.9
-
7.3
11.5
2.9
299
0.7
2.9
-
-
-
12.7
-
-
-
-
854
-
27.0
-
TT
321
-
-
-
-
25.4
12.1
0.1
-
7.3
11.7
3.0
301
0.1
2.6
-
-
-
6.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.0
-
10/03/06 -Well!
IN
315
-
-
-
-
<10
12.1
9.2
-
7.0
11.9
1.9
305
-
-
-
-
-
10.5
-
-
-
-
625
-
23.5
-
AD
315
-
-
-
-
<10
11.8
0.8
-
7.2
11.2
3.2
306
0.2
2.9
-
-
-
11.0
-
-
-
-
633
-
24.1
-
TT
310
-
-
-
-
<10
11.5
0.3
-
7.2
11.3
3.2
300
0.2
2.9
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
10/1 1/06 -Well 1
IN
327
0.4
0.6
95
<0.05
<10
11.4
10.0
1.1
7.0
11.6
2.0
317
-
-
396
278
118
11.6
8.1
3.5
7.5
0.6
1,202
680
26.5
26.5
AD
323
0.3
0.5
97
<0.05
<10
11.4
1.3
1.1
7.2
11.0
3.2
307
0.9
2.0
400
276
124
9.1
2.2
6.9
1.0
1.2
735
<25
26.2
18.8
TT
325
0.4
0.5
96
<0.05
<10
10.0
0.3
1.0
7.2
11.2
2.7
301
1.9
2.0
408
281
127
1.9
1.9
<0.1
1.0
0.9
<25
<25
20.8
20.8
10/1 7/06 -Well 6
IN
339
-
-
-
-
<10
12.2
3.0
-
7.3
11.3
1.8
283
-
-
-
-
-
10.2
-
-
-
-
242
-
23.2
-
AD
324
-
-
-
-
<10
11.6
1.5
-
7.4
11.2
3.3
292
0.4
1.9
-
-
-
10.1
-
-
-
-
239
-
24.1
-
TT
337
-
-
-
-
<10
11.3
0.9
-
7.4
11.2
3.2
292
0.3
1.3
-
-
-
1.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
(a)AsCaC03. (b)AsP.
(c) Water quality measurements taken on 09/12/06. (d) Water quality measurements taken on 09/28/06.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (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
10/24/06 -Well 1
IN
333
-
-
-
-
<10
12.3
9.7
-
7.0
11.3
2.0
291
-
-
-
-
-
14.1
-
-
-
-
754
-
25.9
-
AD
320
-
-
-
-
<10
12.2
0.9
-
7.3
11.0
2.7
294
0.3
2.9
-
-
-
13.5
-
-
-
-
759
-
25.7
-
TT
322
-
-
-
-
<10
11.6
0.3
-
7.2
11.1
2.9
293
0.2
2.9
-
-
-
2.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
11/01/06(c)-Well 1
IN
320
-
-
-
-
<10
11.3
11.0
-
7.0
11.9
1.7
285
-
-
-
-
-
9.6
-
-
-
-
789
-
24.3
-
AD
320
-
-
-
-
<10
11.5
1.1
-
7.2
11.2
2.7
321
0.9
2.6
-
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
-
804
-
24.4
-
TT
322
-
-
-
-
<10
11.5
0.7
-
7.1
11.2
2.6
311
2.5
2.6
-
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.4
-
11/07/06 -Well 1
IN
324
0.3
0.7
105
<0.05
<10
11.5
11.0
-
7.1
12.4
1.9
329
-
-
436
300
136
18.3
9.5
8.7
7.8
1.8
3,214(d)
763
28.5
26.6
AD
315
0.3
0.6
106
<0.05
<10
11.8
1.1
-
7.2
11.4
2.7
316
0.3
2.9
431
297
134
11.2
3.4
7.8
2.1
1.3
1,277
<25
28.1
11.2
TT
320
0.3
0.7
101
<0.05
<10
10.9
0.5
-
7.2
11.8
2.4
314
0.2
2.7
432
295
138
3.0
2.9
<0.1
2.1
0.8
<25
<25
10.0
10.1
11/1 6/06 -Well!
IN
327
-
-
-
-
<10
11.2
6.0
-
7.0
12.2
2.6
265
-
-
-
-
-
10.5
-
-
-
-
667
-
24.5
-
AD
334
-
-
-
-
<10
11.7
1.1
-
7.0
11.8
2.8
351
0.9
2.8
-
-
-
11.0
-
-
-
-
641
-
24.3
-
TT
332
-
-
-
-
<10
11.1
0.4
-
7.1
11.9
3.0
315
0.2
2.7
-
-
-
3.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
10.3
-
1 1/28/06- Wells 3 & 6
IN
350
346
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
11.7
11.6
2.1
2.2
-
7.2
13.0
2.9
258
-
-
-
-
-
9.5
9.6
-
-
-
-
236
245
-
21.7
21.6
-
AD
350
350
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
11.5
11.2
1.5
1.6
-
7.2
13.1
3.2
286
0.3
2.8
-
-
-
9.2
9.2
-
-
-
-
240
245
-
21.1
21.4
-
TT
344
346
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
11.5
11.1
0.3
0.4
-
7.1
12.1
3.2
301
0.3
3.3
-
-
-
1.8
1.9
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
12/06/06 -Well!
IN
321
0.3
0.7
95
<0.05
<10
12.0
12.0
<1.0(e)
7.1
11.5
2.5
268
-
-
397
263
133
10.5
9.7
0.8
8.5
1.2
851
827
27.1
29.2
AD
323
0.2
0.6
91
<0.05
<10
11.5
1.9
1.0(e)
7.2
11.2
2.9
318
0.2
3.3
385
254
131
10.6
2.1
8.5
0.6
1.5
862
<25
27.3
11.2
TT
321
0.2
0.7
93
<0.05
<10
11.8
0.9
<1.0(e)
7.1
11.2
2.8
291
0.2
3.3
389
253
137
2.2
2.1
0.1
0.6
1.5
<25
<25
0.9
2.1
(a)AsCaCO3. (b)AsP.
(c) Water quality measurements taken on 10/31/06. (d) Reanalysis indicated similar result, (e) Sample analyzed outside of hold time.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (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<"
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
12/1 2/06 -Well!
IN
299
-
-
-
-
<10
11.4
11.0
-
7.2
12.2
1.8
255
-
-
-
-
-
9.8
-
-
-
-
777
-
23.6
-
AD
313
-
-
-
-
<10
11.2
0.5
-
7.2
11.4
2.7
284
2.0
2.9
-
-
-
10.1
-
-
-
-
788
-
24.7
-
TT
301
-
-
-
-
<10
11.3
<0.1
-
7.2
11.2
2.9
490
0.2
2.9
-
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.2
-
12/1 9/06 -Well 1
IN
333
-
-
-
-
<10
12.0
12.0
-
7.2
11.6
2.5
272
-
-
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
1,011
-
25.2
-
AD
331
-
-
-
-
<10
11.7
1.1
-
7.2
11.2
3.2
286
0.7
2.5
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
890
-
26.0
-
TT
331
-
-
-
-
<10
11.6
0.7
-
7.2
11.2
2.4
447
0.6
2.6
-
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
11.4
-
01/04/07 -Well 1
IN
325
0.3
0.6
98
<0.05
<10
11.5
11.0
<1.0(c)
7.2
11.9
1.1
267
-
-
410
289
121
10.4
8.7
1.6
7.3
1.4
862
831
25.1
26.5
AD
323
0.3
0.6
100
<0.05
<10
11.8
1.2
<1.0(c)
7.3
11.1
3.3
430
0.2
2.2
405
281
124
10.5
1.8
8.7
0.3
1.5
873
<25
25.6
13.9
TT
325
0.3
0.8
118
<0.05
<10
11.6
0.3
<1.0(c)
7.2
11.3
2.5
438
1.0
2.3
408
281
127
1.2
1.2
<0.1
0.2
1.0
<25
<25
15.6
17.1
01/09/07 -Well!
IN
307
-
-
-
-
<10
11.8
12.0
-
7.2
11.3
1.5
297
-
-
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
868
-
24.4
-
AD
322
-
-
-
-
<10
12.1
1.2
-
7.2
11.0
2.7
344
0.2
2.5
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
877
-
24.6
-
TT
322
-
-
-
-
<10
12.0
0.4
-
7.2
11.3
1.6
290
0.1
2.4
-
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
13.1
-
01/1 7/07 -Well 1
IN
317
-
-
-
-
<10
13.5
17.0
-
7.2
11.1
1.3
297
-
-
-
-
-
20.4
-
-
-
-
1,523
-
27.4
-
AD
324
-
-
-
-
<10
12.4
2.1
-
7.2
10.9
3.0
454
0.2
2.0
-
-
-
12.7
-
-
-
-
1,429
-
31.4
-
TT
306
-
-
-
-
<10
11.8
0.7
-
7.2
10.9
2.8
433
0.2
2.0
-
-
-
3.6
-
-
-
-
182
-
25.5
-
01/23/07 -Well!
IN
319
-
-
-
-
<10
12.1
13.0
-
7.2
11.4
1.2
356
-
-
-
-
-
9.4
-
-
-
-
790
-
25.1
-
AD
328
-
-
-
-
<10
11.6
0.9
-
7.2
11.0
1.7
356
0.2
2.0
-
-
-
10.1
-
-
-
-
804
-
25.0
-
TT
326
-
-
-
-
<10
11.9
0.2
-
7.2
11.2
1.4
378
0.1
1.9
-
-
-
1.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
17.4
-
(a)AsCaC03. (b)AsP.
(c) Sample analyzed outside of hold time.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (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
01/30/07 -Well 1
IN
335
0.3
1.2
104
<0.05
<10
11.4
14.0
<1.0
7.1
11.1
1.2
368
-
-
345
210
135
22.5
18.4
4.1
18.9
<0.1
1,285
902
28.7
28.9
AD
340
0.3
1.2
98
<0.05
<10
11.6
1.1
<1.0
7.2
11.0
1.3
375
0.8
1.1
347
214
132
20.8
1.3
19.5
<0.1
1.3
904
<25
28.7
21.4
TT
337
0.3
0.7
95
<0.05
<10
11.4
0.7
<1.0
7.1
11.1
1.5
340
0.5
1.2
351
211
140
1.9
1.9
<0.1
1.0
0.9
<25
<25
20.9
20.2
02/06/07 - Well 1
IN
327
-
-
-
-
<10
11.2
13.0
-
6.4
9.7
1.2
353
-
-
-
-
-
10.8
-
-
-
-
880
-
25.6
-
AD
329
-
-
-
-
<10
11.5
0.7
-
7.1
10.2
1.8
373
0.2
1.9
-
-
-
10.5
-
-
-
-
797
-
25.6
-
TT
322
-
-
-
-
<10
11.3
0.3
-
7.3
10.2
1.6
286
0.2
1.6
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
16.1
-
02/1 3/07 -Well!
IN
318
-
-
-
-
<10
12.1
12.0
-
7.2
10.7
1.2
318
-
-
-
-
-
9.1
-
-
-
-
897
-
25.2
-
AD
320
-
-
-
-
<10
12.7
1.5
-
7.2
10.7
1.8
353
0.5
1.6
-
-
-
9.1
-
-
-
-
813
-
25.5
-
TT
322
-
-
-
-
<10
11.9
0.6
-
7.2
10.8
1.7
279
0.1
1.5
-
-
-
3.6
-
-
-
-
211(c)
-
19.7
-
02/20/07 - Well 1
IN
330
337
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
11.9
12.0
12.0
11.0
-
7.2
11.6
1.1
307
-
-
-
-
-
16.5
16.6
-
-
-
-
935
958
-
25.5
25.8
-
AD
330
327
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
12.4
12.1
1.5
1.4
-
7.2
11.0
1.8
295
0.2
1.7
-
-
-
17.3
17.6
-
-
-
-
886
898
-
27.0
26.9
-
TT
330
332
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
12.1
12.4
0.5
0.8
-
7.2
11.3
1.7
275
0.5
1.5
-
-
-
0.9
1.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
30.4
30.8
-
02/28/07(d) - Well 1
IN
322
0.3
0.7
101
<0.05
<10
12.6
13.0
1.3
7.1
11.5
1.3
386
-
-
328
196
132
10.5
8.7
1.8
7.0
1.7
826
755
25.7
25.9
AD
318
0.3
0.6
102
0.1
<10
12.9
1.8
1.1
7.3
10.9
1.9
344
0.2
1.6
330
198
132
9.6
2.0
7.7
0.8
1.2
769
<25
25.4
23.1
TT
320
0.3
0.6
104
<0.05
<10
12.7
0.6
<1.0
7.2
11.1
1.3
275
0.2
1.4
331
198
133
1.7
1.6
<0.1
0.7
0.9
<25
<25
20.8
20.9
03/06/07(e) - Well 1
IN
322
-
-
-
-
<10
11.6
13.0
-
7.2
11.1
1.2
336
-
-
-
-
-
11.0
-
-
-
-
804
-
25.1
-
AD
327
-
-
-
-
<10
11.5
1.9
-
7.3
10.8
2.4
369
0.4
1.5
-
-
-
10.7
-
-
-
-
783
-
25.3
-
TT
332
-
-
-
-
<10
11.8
0.6
-
7.2
10.9
2.2
298
0.3
1.3
-
-
-
2.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
22.7
-
(a)AsCaC03. (b)AsP.
(c) Elevated level possibly due to extended filter run length for special breakthrough study, (d) Water quality measurements taken on 02/27/07'.
(e) Water quality measurements taken on 03/08/07.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (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
03/1 3/07(c)- Well 1
IN
333
-
-
-
-
<10
11.6
13.0
-
7.2
11.8
1.1
325
-
-
-
-
-
11.3
-
-
-
-
778
-
23.4
-
AD
331
-
-
-
-
<10
12.0
4.5
-
7.2
11.1
1.5
325
0.2
2.2
-
-
-
14.9
-
-
-
-
1,036
-
24.4
-
TT
328
-
-
-
-
<10
12.0
1.1
-
7.2
11.3
1.4
361
0.1
2.0
-
-
-
7.5(d>
1C
-
-
-
-
410(d)
' 1,
-
19.9
-
03/20/07 - Well 1
IN
327
-
-
-
-
15.7
11.7
7.7W
l.f
6.7
11.6
1.3
304
-
-
-
-
-
•3
-
-
-
-
198 -
-
24.0
-
AD
332
-
-
-
-
<10
12.1
-
7.3
11.0
2.6
379
0.1
1.9
-
-
-
13.1
-
-
-
-
1,231
-
25.9
-
TT
327
-
-
-
-
<10
11.9
2.4
-
7.3
10.8
3.3
318
0.1
1.9
-
-
-
9.8(d)
13
-
-
-
617(d)
-
22.7
-
03/27/07 - Well 1
IN
312
0.2
0.5
80
<0.05
13.4
11.4
11.0
1.0
7.2
11.7
1.2
293
-
-
435
293
142
^
11.7
1.9
10.4
1.2
801
782
25.8
35.6
AD
315
0.3
0.6
90
<0.05
17.2
11.3
1.8
1.0
7.3
11.6
3.6
331
0.6
1.5
421
279
142
14.2
4.5
9.7
3.2
1.3
897
<25
25.9
22.3
TT
317
0.2
0.6
92
<0.05
15.1
11.3
0.7
<1.0
7.3
11.5
2.6
289
0.3
1.6
411
270
141
4.4
4.5
<0.1
3.2
1.3
<25
<25
19.5
19.8
04/03/07 - Well 1
IN
323
-
-
-
-
<10
11.5
13.0
-
7.2
12.0
1.7
298
-
-
-
-
-
12.4
-
-
-
-
894
-
25.7
-
AD
325
-
-
-
-
<10
11.8
3.2
-
7.2
11.2
2.9
331
0.1
2.1
-
-
-
15.5
-
-
-
-
1,204
-
28.7
-
TT
320
-
-
-
-
<10
11.5
0.8
-
7.3
11.4
3.0
283
0.1
2.0
-
-
-
3.8
-
-
-
-
99.2
-
23.0
-
04/1 1/07('- Well 1
IN
332
-
-
-
-
<10
12.0
13.0
-
7.1
11.8
2.0
294
-
-
-
-
-
14.6
-
-
-
-
817
-
24.2
-
AD
320
-
-
-
-
<10
12.0
5.0
-
7.2
11.0
3.1
318
0.2
2.2
-
-
-
18.8
-
-
-
-
820
-
23.7
-
TT
308
-
-
-
-
<10
12.5
1.5
-
7.2
11.2
2.8
274
0.7
2.1
-
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.9
-
04/1 8/07 -Well 1
IN
319
-
-
-
-
<10
12.3
13.0
-
7.2
11.7
1.8
286
-
-
-
-
-
11.5
-
-
-
-
737
-
25.8
-
AD
321
-
-
-
-
<10
12.7
1.4
-
7.2
11.1
2.7
319
0.2
2.5
-
-
-
11.1
-
-
-
-
730
-
25.4
-
TT
326
-
-
-
-
<10
12.5
0.8
-
7.2
11.1
2.3
285
0.2
2.7
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
14.2
-
(a)AsCaCO3. (b)AsP.
(c) Water quality measurements taken on 03/15/07. (d) Elevated level possibly due to sample collection shortly after backwash.
Reanalysis indicated similar result, (e) Reanalyzed outside of hold time, (f) Water quality measurements taken on 04/12/07.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (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
04/25/07 - Well 1
IN
337
0.3
0.4
100
<0.05
<10
13.0
14.0
1.0
7.1
11.9
1.8
309
-
-
379
253
125
10.9
10.2
0.6
8.5
1.7
977
925
27.8
28.9
AD
337
0.2
0.5
98
<0.05
<10
12.9
1.0
1.3
7.3
11.1
2.3
343
0.2
2.8
387
258
129
9.6
1.9
7.6
0.2
1.7
916
<25
28.0
23.5
TT
334
0.2
0.5
96
<0.05
<10
13.3
0.5
<1.0
7.3
11.1
2.4
298
0.5
2.7
395
254
141
1.4
1.9
<0.1
0.4
1.5
<25
<25
11.6
11.7
05/02/07 - Well 1
IN
320
-
-
-
-
<10
12.6
12.0
-
7.3
11.9
2.1
285
-
-
-
-
-
11.1
-
-
-
-
1,061
-
27.0
-
AD
320
-
-
-
-
<10
12.8
1.5
-
7.3
11.3
2.7
312
0.3
3.2
-
-
-
10.6
-
-
-
-
907
-
26.9
-
TT
316
-
-
-
-
<10
12.5
0.3
-
7.3
11.4
2.4
286
0.3
2.9
-
-
-
2.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
10.9
-
05/09/07 - Well 1
IN
319
-
-
-
-
<10
12.1
11.0
-
7.3
12.5
1.9
332
-
-
-
-
-
9.3
-
-
-
-
770
-
23.7
-
AD
310
-
-
-
-
<10
11.8
1.3
-
7.3
11.5
2.3
356
0.3
2.7
-
-
-
8.8
-
-
-
-
805
-
24.8
-
TT
307
-
-
-
-
<10
11.9
0.3
-
7.2
11.9
2.0
287
0.1
2.7
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
9.4
-
05/1 5/07 -Well!
IN
305
302
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
11.8
11.9
15.0
12.0
-
7.2
12.5
0.9
299
-
-
-
-
-
9.5
8.5
-
-
-
-
1,023
851
-
23.2
23.0
-
AD
298
300
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
12.3
12.5
2.5
2.1
-
7.2
11.6
2.6
301
0.5
3.0
-
-
-
8.4
8.5
-
-
-
-
838
819
-
22.7
22.2
-
TT
298
305
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
12.3
11.9
1.8
1.2
-
7.2
11.7
2.7
286
0.2
2.8
-
-
-
1.5
1.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
9.8
9.6
-
05/23/07 - Well 1
IN
310
0.5
0.5
101
<0.05
<10
12.3
12.0
1.2
7.1
12.3
2.3
299
-
-
372
261
112
10.4
8.2
2.2
6.8
1.5
861
805
23.2
25.0
AD
310
0.4
0.5
103
<0.05
<10
12.3
1.2
1.1
7.2
11.5
2.8
363
0.2
3.3
395
274
121
9.8
1.3
8.5
0.2
1.1
861
<25
23.7
19.4
TT
310
0.4
0.6
103
<0.05
<10
12.0
0.5
1.1
7.1
11.7
2.2
352
0.3
3.2
411
288
122
1.0
1.0
<0.1
0.2
0.8
<25
<25
5.3
5.5
05/29/07 - Well 1
IN
322
-
-
-
-
<10
13.0
13.0
-
7.1
12.6
1.5
289
-
-
-
-
-
11.9
-
-
-
-
1,026
-
28.9
-
AD
320
-
-
-
-
<10
12.8
1.0
-
7.2
11.7
1.8
313
0.2
3.2
-
-
-
11.3
-
-
-
-
969
-
28.5
-
TT
322
-
-
-
-
<10
12.9
0.8
-
7.2
11.7
1.9
279
0.8
3.3
-
-
-
3.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
(a)AsCaCO3. (b)AsP.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
Silica (as SiOJ
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (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
06/05/07 - Well 1
IN
306
-
-
-
-
<10
12.7
11.0
-
7.0
12.5
2.3
314
-
-
-
-
-
8.6
-
-
-
-
1,015
-
24.9
-
AD
320
-
-
-
-
<10
12.1
1.6
-
7.1
11.7
3.0
361
0.3
3.5
-
-
-
8.3
-
-
-
-
948
-
25.7
-
TT
323
-
-
-
-
<10
12.2
1.1
-
7.1
11.6
2.7
297
0.3
3.5
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
8.1
-
06/1 2/07 -Well 1
IN
313
-
-
-
-
<10
11.8
12.0
-
7.2
12.9
2.0
334
-
-
-
-
-
9.4
-
-
-
-
809
-
26.7
-
AD
311
-
-
-
-
<10
12.3
3.4
-
7.2
11.6
3.1
358
0.3
3.3
-
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
-
813
-
26.9
-
TT
320
-
-
-
-
<10
11.9
3.4
-
7.2
11.7
2.8
313
1.8
3.3
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.9
-
(a) As CaCO3. (b) As P.
------- |