EPA/600/R-10/179 December 2010 Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, South Dakota Final Performance Evaluation Report by Anbo Wang* Abraham S.C. Chen§ Lili Wang§ JBattelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693 §ALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43219-0693 Contract No. EP-C-05-057 Task Order No. 0019 for Thomas J. Sorg Task Order Manager Water Supply and Water Resources Division National Risk Management Research Laboratory Cincinnati, OH 45268 National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268 ------- DISCLAIMER The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Task Order 0019 of Contract EP-C-05-057 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute recommendation for use by the EPA. ------- FOREWORD The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future. The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and sub- surface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi- ronmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provid- ing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels. This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients. Sally Gutierrez, Director National Risk Management Research Laboratory in ------- ABSTRACT This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained from the arsenic removal treatment technology demonstration project at Lead, South Dakota. The main objective of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of SolmeteX's adsorptive media system in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |o,g/L. Additionally, this project evaluated (1) the reliability of the treatment system, (2) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skills, and (3) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The project also characterized the water in the distribution system. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), process residuals, and capital and O&M cost. The demonstration study was divided into two study periods, with Study Period I extending from April 4, 2008, to November 29, 2009, and Study Period II from November 30, 2009, to May 23, 2010. Study Period I focused on evaluating the performance of ArsenXnp media. At the end of Study Period I, the lead vessel was replaced with LayneRT™and the flow through the vessels was switched (such that the lag vessel containing partially exhausted ArsenXnp media was placed in the lead position and the former lead vessel containing virgin LayneRT™ media was placed in the lag position) before Study Period II began. ArsenXnp is an engineered hybrid inorganic/organic sorbent manufactured by Purolite. The media consists of hydrous iron oxide nanoparticles impregnated into 300 to 1,200 (im anion exchange resin beads. LayneRT™ is a newer generation of the hybrid media. The treatment system consisted of two 42-in x 72-in fiberglass vessels in series configuration, each containing approximately 28 ft3 of adsorptive media. The treatment system was designed for a peak flowrate of 75 gal/min (gpm) and an empty bed contact time (EBCT) of approximately 2.8 min/vessel. Over the performance evaluation period, the actual average flowrate was at 71.5 gpm in Study Period I and 69.2 gpm in Study Period II, corresponding to an EBCT of 2.9 and 3.0 min, respectively. In Study Period I, the treatment system operated for a total of 7,154 hr, treating approximately 27,978,780 gal (or 133,590 bed volumes [BV]) of water. (Unless mentioned otherwise, bed volumes were calculated based on 28 ft3 of media in one vessel.) The average daily operating time was 12.0 hr/day and the average daily water production was 46,866 gal/day (gpd). In Study Period II, the treatment system operated for a total of 1,787 hr, treating approximately 7,231,940 gal (or 34,530 BV) of water. The average daily operating time was 10.5 hr/day and the average daily water production was 42,541 gpd. Due to leaks from the distribution system, the amount of daily water production in both study periods was significantly higher than the design value of 9,000 gpd. During the 25-month demonstration study, the District located and fixed several leaks from the distribution system. Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 16.9 to 26.3 |o,g/L, and averaged 21.6 |o,g/L. Soluble As(V) was the predominating species with concentrations ranging from 18.6 to 23.1 |o,g/L and averaging 20.8 |o,g/L. In Study Period I, arsenic breakthrough at 10 (ig/L following the lead vessel occurred after treating 14,725,250 gal (or 70,310 BV) of water, which was about 8% higher than the 65,000 BV working capacity projected by the vendor. By the end of Study Period I, total arsenic concentrations in the system effluent were reduced to 5.8 |o,g/L. At this point, the system had treated approximately 27,978,780 gal of water (i.e., 133,590 BV - based on 28 ft3 of media in one vessel, or 66,795 BV - based on 56 ft3 of media in both vessels). Study Period II ended when the system effluent contained only 0.5 |og/L of total arsenic. IV ------- Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after system startup showed a significant decrease in arsenic concentration (from an average of 22.5 to 1.1 (ig/L). The average lead concentrations reduced from 2.0 (ig/L in baseline samples to 0.8 (ig/L; the average copper concentration reduced from 164 (ig/Lto 46.2 (ig/L. The capital investment cost of $87,892 included $60,678 for equipment, $14,214 for site engineering, and $13,000 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 75 gpm (or 108,000 gpd), the capital cost was $l,172/gpm (or $0.81/gpd) of design capacity. The unit capital cost would be $0.21/1,000 gal if the 75 gpm system operated around the clock. Based on an average daily operating time of 12.0 hr/day and an average system flowrate of 71.5 gpm, the unit capital cost increased to $0.44/1,000 gal at this reduced rate of use. The O&M cost included only the cost for media replacement and disposal, electricity consumption, and labor. The media replacement cost represented the majority of the O&M cost. The unit O&M cost is reported in graphical form as a function of projected media run length. ------- CONTENTS DISCLAIMER ii FOREWORD iii ABSTRACT iv APPENDICES vii FIGURES vii TABLES viii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2 1.3 Project Objectives 2 2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 7 3.1 General Project Approach 7 3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8 3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 8 3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection 10 3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection 10 3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater/Solids and Spent Media Samples 10 3.3.4 Distribution System Water Sample Collection 10 3.4 Sampling Logistics 11 3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 11 3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 11 3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 11 3.5 Analytical Procedures 11 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13 4.1 Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure 13 4.1.1 Source Water Quality 15 4.1.2 Distribution System 17 4.2 Treatment Process Description 17 4.3 System Installation 26 4.3.1 Permitting 26 4.3.2 Building Preparation 26 4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 26 4.4 System Operation 29 4.4.1 Operational Parameters 29 4.4.2 Residual Management 34 4.4.3 Media Rebedding 34 4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 34 4.5 System Performance 35 4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 35 4.5.2 Spent Media Sampling 40 4.5.3 Backwash Water Sampling 42 4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling 42 VI ------- 4.6 System Cost 44 4.6.1 Capital Cost 44 4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 45 5.0 REFERENCES 48 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA FIGURES Figure 4-1. Wellhead of Two Johns II Well at Terry Trojan Water District, SD 13 Figure 4-2. Booster Station (left) and Booster Pump (right) at Terry Troj an Water District 14 Figure 4-3. Concrete Water Storage Reservoir and Partition (left) and Level Sensors (right) in Reservoir 14 Figure 4-4. Interior of Partition Housing Chemical Addition System 15 Figure 4-5. 15-gal Chemical Day Tank, Chlorine Injection Point, and Raw Water Totalizer at Inlet to Storage reservoir 16 Figure 4-6. Schematic of SolmeteX's ArsenXnp Arsenic Removal System for Lead, SD 20 Figure 4-7. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations for Lead, SD 21 Figure 4-8. SolmeteX Arsenic Removal System 22 Figure 4-9. Pre-Filter Installed Upstream of SolmeteX System 23 Figure 4-10. Chlorine Addition System 24 Figure 4-11. System Flow Path - Vessel A in Lead Position and Vessel B in Lag Position 24 Figure 4-12. System Flow Path - Vessel A Taken Offline During Proposed Offsite Media Regeneration 25 Figure 4-13. System Flow Path - Vessel B in Lead Position and Rebedded/Regenerated Vessel A in Lag Position 25 Figure 4-14. Treatment Plant Building at Terry Trojan Water District, SD 27 Figure 4-15. Lead Treatment System (Under Tarp on Left) and Offloading (Right) 27 Figure 4-16. Media Loading 28 Figure 4-17. Treatment System after Modification 29 Figure 4-18. Operator Training at Lead, SD 30 Figure 4-19. Treatment System Daily Water Production 31 Figure 4-20. System Instantaneous and Calculated Flowrates 33 Figure 4-21. Operational Pressure Readings 33 Figure 4-22. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves in Study Period I 39 Figure 4-23. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves in Study Period II 39 Figure 4-24. Arsenic Speciation Results in Study Period 1 41 Figure 4-25. Arsenic Concentrations Measured in Distribution System Water 44 Figure 4-26. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost 47 vn ------- TABLES Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3 Table 1 -2. Number of Demonstration Sites Under Each Arsenic Removal Technology 5 Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 7 Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 8 Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes 9 Table 4-1. Raw and Treated Water Quality Data for Two Johns II Well in Lead, SD 18 Table 4-2. Properties of ArsenXnp Media 19 Table 4-3. Properties of LayneRT™ Media 19 Table 4-4. Design Features of the SolmeteX's Arsenic Adsorption System 20 Table 4-5. Summary of SolmeteX System Operation 30 Table 4-6. Comparison of Average Daily Water Demand and Average Daily Water Production 32 Table 4-7. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese 36 Table 4-8. Summary of Water Quality Parameters 37 Table 4-9. Spent Media Total Metal Analysis 42 Table 4-10. Distribution System Sampling Results 43 Table 4-11. Capital Investment Cost for the Lead SD System 45 Table 4-12. Operation and Maintenance Cost forthe Lead System 46 Vlll ------- ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS Ap differential pressure AAL American Analytical Laboratories AM adsorptive media As arsenic ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems bgs below ground surface BV bed volume Ca calcium C/F coagulation/filtration process Cl chlorine CRF capital recovery factor Cu copper CWS community water system DO dissolved oxygen EBCT empty bed contact time EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency F fluorine Fe iron gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute HOPE high-density polyethylene HIX hybrid ion exchanger hp horse power ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry ID identification IR iron removal IX ion exchange LCR Lead and Copper Rule MCL maximum contaminant level MDL method detection limit MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc. Mg magnesium Mn manganese mV millivolts Na sodium NA not analyzed NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory IX ------- ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued) NSF NSF International O&M operation and maintenance ORD Office of Research and Development ORP oxidation-reduction potential PO4 phosphate POU point of use psi pounds per square inch PVC polyvinyl chloride QA quality assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QA/QC quality assurance/quality control RFP request for proposal RO reverse osmosis RPD relative percent difference SD DENR South Dakota Department of Environmental and Natural Resources SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SiO2 silica SO42" sulfate STS Severn Trent Services TCLP TDH TDS TOC toxicity characteristic leaching procedure total dynamic head total dissolved solids total organic carbon voc volatile organic compound ------- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Mr. Raymond Millard of the Terry Trojan Water District in Lead, South Dakota. Mr. Millard monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the treatment and distribution systems on a regular schedule throughout the study. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without his support and dedication. XI ------- 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA, 2001). 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 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. 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. With funding from Congress, EPA selected 10 more sites for demonstration under Round 2a. Somewhat different from the Round 1 and Round 2 selection process, Battelle, under EPA's guidance, issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on February 14, 2007, to solicit technology proposals from vendors and engineering firms. Upon closing of the RFP on April 13, 2007, Battelle received from 14 vendors a total of 44 proposals, which were subsequently reviewed by a three-expert technical review panel convened at EPA on May 2 and 3, 2007. Copies of the proposals and recommendations of the review panel were later ------- provided to and discussed with representatives of the 10 host sites and state regulators in a technology selection meeting held at each host site during April through August 2007. The final selections of the treatment technology were made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the respective state regulators, and the host sites. A 75-gal/min (gpm) SolmeteX arsenic removal system was selected for demonstration at the Terry Trojan Water District in Lead, South Dakota. The system used a hybrid sorbent, ArsenXnp, manufactured by Purolite and a newer generation of the hybrid sorbent, LayneRT™, manufactured by SolmeteX. As of November 2010, 49 of the 50 systems were operational and the performance evaluations of 48 systems were completed. 1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal Technologies selected for Rounds 1, 2, and 2a demonstration included adsorptive media (AM), iron removal (IR), coagulation/filtration (C/F), ion exchange (IX), reverse osmosis (RO), point-of-use (POU) RO, and system/process modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, Fe, and pH). Table 1-2 presents the number of sites for each technology. AM technology was demonstrated at 30 sites, including four with IR pretreatment. IR technology was demonstrated at 12 sites, including four with supplemental iron addition. C/F, IX, and RO technologies were demonstrated at three, two, and one sites, respectively. The Sunset Ranch Development site that demonstrated POU RO technology had nine under-the-sink RO units. The Oregon Institute of Technology site classified under AM had three AM systems and eight POU AM units. The Lidgerwood site encompassed only system/process modifications. 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 Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/resource.htm. 1.3 Project Objectives The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic removal 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 SolmeteX's arsenic treatment system at the Terry Trojan Water District in Lead, South Dakota, from April 4, 2008, through May 23, 2010. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals characterization, and capital and O&M cost. ------- Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality Demonstration Location Site Name Technology (Media) Vendor Design Flowrate (§Pm) Source Water Quality As (HS/L) Fe toe/L) PH (S.U.) Northeast/Ohio Camel, ME Wales, ME Bow,NH Goffstown, NH Rollinsford, NH Dummerston, VT Houghton, NY(C) Woodstock, CT Pomfret, CT Felton, DE Stevensville, MD Conneaut Lake, PA Newark, OH Springfield, OH Carmel Elementary School Springbrook Mobile Home Park White Rock Water Company Orchard Highlands Subdivision Rollinsford Water and Sewer District Charette Mobile Home Park Town of Caneadea Woodstock Middle School Seely-Brown Village Town of Felton Queen Anne's County Conneaut Lake Park Buckeye Lake Head Start Building Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park RO AM (A/I Complex) AM (G2) AM(E33) AM(E33) AM (A/I Complex) IR (Macrolite) AM (Adsorbsia) AM (ArsenXnp) C/F (Macrolite) AM(E33) IR (Greensand Plus) with ID AM (ARM 200) IR & AM (E33) Norlen's Water ATS ADI AdEdge AdEdge ATS Kinetico Siemens SolmeteX Kinetico STS AdEdge Kinetico AdEdge 1,200 gpd 14 70W 10 100 22 550 17 15 375 300 250 10 250(eJ 21 38W 39 33 36(a) 30 27(a) 21 25 30(a) 19W 28W 15w 25W <25 <25 <25 <25 46 <25 l,806(d) <25 <25 48 270™ 157™ 1,312™ 1,615™ 7.9 8.6 7.7 6.9 8.2 7.9 7.6 7.7 7.3 8.2 7.3 8.0 7.6 7.3 Great Lakes/Interior Plains Brown City, MI Pentwater, MI Sandusky, MI Delavan, WI Goshen, IN Fountain City, IN Waynesville, IL Geneseo Hills, IL Greenville, WI Climax, MN Sabin, MN Sauk Centre, MN Stewart, MN Lidgerwood, ND Lead, SD City of Brown City Village of Pentwater City of Sandusky Vintage on the Ponds Clinton Christian School Northeastern Elementary School Village of Waynesville Geneseo Hills Subdivision Town of Greenville City of Climax City of Sabin Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park City of Stewart City of Lidgerwood Terry Trojan Water District AM(E33) IR (Macrolite) with ID IR (Aeralater) IR (Macrolite) IR&AM(E33) IR (G2) IR (Greensand Plus) AM(E33) IR (Macrolite) IR (Macrolite) with ID IR (Macrolite) IR (Macrolite) IR &AM (E33) Process Modification AM (ArsenXnp) STS Kinetico Siemens Kinetico AdEdge US Water Peerless AdEdge Kinetico Kinetico Kinetico Kinetico AdEdge Kinetico SolmeteX 640 400 340(e) 40 25 60 96 200 375 140 250 20 250 250 75 14W 13W 16W 20W 29W 27W 32W 25W 17W 39W 34W 25W 42W 146W 24 127™ 466™ l,387(d) l,499(d) 810(d) 1,547™ 2,543™ 248™ 7,827™ 546™ 1,470™ 3,078™ 1,344™ 1,325™ <25 7.3 6.9 6.9 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.1 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.1 7.7 7.2 7.3 ------- Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued) Demonstration Location Site Name Technology (Media) Vendor Design Flowrate (gpm) Source Water Quality As (HS/L) Fe (HS/L) PH (S.U.) Midwest/Southwest Willard, UT Arnaudville, LA Alvin, TX Bruni, TX Wellman, TX Anthony, NM Nambe Pueblo, NM Taos, NM Rimrock, AZ Tohono O'odham Nation, AZ Valley Vista, AZ Hot Springs Mobile Home Park 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 IR & AM (Adsorbsia) IR (Macrolite) AM (E33) AM (E33) AM (E33) AM (E33) AM (E33) AM (E33) AM (E33) AM (E33) AM (AAFS50/ARM 200) Filter Tech Kinetico STS AdEdge AdEdge STS AdEdge STS AdEdge AdEdge Kinetico 30 770W 150 40 100 320 145 450 90W 50 37 15.4W 35W 19(a) 56(a) 45 23(a) 33 14 50 32 41 332W 2,068W 95 <25 <25 39 <25 59 170 <25 <25 7.5 7.0 7.8 8.0 7.7 7.7 8.5 9.5 7.2 8.2 7.8 Far West Three Forks, MT Fruitland, ID Homedale, ID Okanogan, WA Klamath Falls, OR Vale, OR Reno, NV Susanville, CA Lake Isabella, CA Tehachapi, CA City of Three Forks City of Fruitland Sunset Ranch Development City of Okanogan Oregon Institute of Technology City of Vale South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District Richmond School District Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A Golden Hills Community Service District C/F (Macrolite) IX (A300E) POURO(1) C/F (Electromedia-I) POE AM (Adsorbsia/ ARM200/ArsenXnp) and POU AM (ARM 200)(g) IX (Arsenex II) AM (GFH) AM (A/I Complex) AM (fflX) AM (Isolux) Kinetico Kinetico Kinetico Filtronics Kinetico Kinetico Siemens ATS VEETech MEI 250 250 75gpd 750 60/60/30 525 350 12 50 150 64 44 52 18 33 17 39 37w 35 15 <25 <25 134 69W <25 <25 <25 125 125 <25 7.5 7.4 7.5 8.0 7.9 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.5 6.9 AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HEX = hybrid ion exchanger; IR = iron removal; IR with ID = iron removal with iron addition; 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) Withdrew from program in 2007. Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006. (d) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II). (e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Arnaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm. (f) Including nine residential units. (g) Including eight under-the-sink units. ------- Table 1-2. Number of Demonstration Sites Under Each Arsenic Removal Technology Technologies Adsorptive Media(a) Adsorptive Media with Iron Removal Pretreatment Iron Removal (Oxidation/Filtration) Iron Removal with Supplemental Iron Addition Coagulation/Filtration Ion Exchange Reverse Osmosis Point-of-use Reverse Osmosis*' System/Process Modifications Number of Sites 26 4 8 4 3 2 1 1 1 (a) Oregon Institute of Technology site at Klamath Falls, OR, had three AM systems and eight POU AM units. (b) Including nine under-the-sink RO units. ------- 2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS SolmeteX's arsenic treatment system at Lead, South Dakota began operation on April 4, 2008. Based on the information collected from April 4, 2008, through May 23, 2010, the following summary and conclusion statements are made: Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems: • ArsenXnp media was effective in removing arsenic. Arsenic breakthrough at 10 |o,g/L from the lead vessel occurred after treating 14,725,250 gal (or 70,310 bed volumes [BV]) of water (based on 28 ft3 of media in one vessel). This media run length was about 8% higher than the working capacity projected by the vendor. The media in the lead vessel was changed out when the arsenic concentration from the lag vessel was 5.8 |o,g/L. The system could have run longer and likely would have reached the 10 ng/L level after the two bed system (56 ft3) had treated more than 70,000 BV of water. • The operation of the treatment system significantly lowered arsenic concentrations in the distribution system water to below 1.1 ng/L (on average). The treatment system also reduced lead and copper concentrations in distribution system water. Required system O&Mand operator skill levels: • Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the system were minimal, with atypical daily demand on the operator of about 60 min. Operation of the system did not appear to require additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the existing water supply equipment. Process residuals produced by the technology: • No backwash residuals were produced because the hybrid media did not need backwash. Cost-effectiveness of the technology: • Based on the system's rated capacity of 75 gpm (or 108,000 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $l,172/gpm (or $0.81/gpd) of design capacity. • O&M cost included only the cost for media replacement and disposal, electricity, and labor. There was no chemical consumption cost. ------- 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 SolmeteX AM system began on April 4, 2008, and ended on May 23, 2010. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected and/or considered as part of the technology evaluation study. Overall performance of the system was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the arsenic MCL of 10 (ig/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment plant, as described in a Performance Evaluation Study Plan (Battelle, 2007). The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extents of repair. The plant operator recorded unscheduled downtime and repair information on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates Activities Introductory Meeting Held Project Planning Meeting Held Draft Letter of Understanding Issued Final Letter of Understanding Issued Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle Purchase Order Completed and Signed Engineering Package Submitted to SD DENR System Permit Granted by SD DENR One-Time Ground Discharge Permit Granted by SD DENR Equipment Shipped Final Study Plan Issued System Installation Completed/Air Bubbles Observed in System System Operation Suspended due to Air Bubbles Modified Engineering Package Submitted System Shakedown Completed/Air Bubbles Issue Resolved Modified Engineering Package Approved by SD DENR Performance Evaluation Begun Date 12/08/06 07/17/07 07/24/07 07/27/07 07/30/07 08/10/07 08/30/07 09/13/07 09/14/07 09/17/07 10/30/07 10/30/07 11/02/07 11/19/07 03/12/07 03/31/08 04/01/08 04/04/08 SD DENR = South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources The required system O&M and operator skill levels were evaluated through quantitative data and qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation, extent of preventive maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and safety practices. The staffing requirements for system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This required tracking the capital cost for equipment, site engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical consumption, electrical power usage, and labor. ------- Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities Evaluation Objectives Performance Reliability System O&M and Operator Skill Requirements Residual Management System Cost Data Collection -Ability to consistently meet 10 ug/L of arsenic MCL in treated water -Unscheduled system downtime -Frequency and extent of repairs, including a description of problems, materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost -Pre- and post-treatment requirements -Level of automation for system operation and data collection -Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers -Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, and complexity of tasks -Chemical handling and inventory requirements -General knowledge needed of relevant chemical processes and health and safety practices -Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by system process -Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation -O&M cost for media replacement, 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. The plant operator recorded system operational data such as pressure, flowrate, system throughput, and hour meter readings on a Daily System Operation Log Sheet, 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 problems encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred, on the Repair and Maintenance 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 expenditure for media replacement and disposal, incremental electricity consumption, and labor. Incremental electricity consumption was tracked through electric bills before and after system startup. Labor hours for routine system O&M, system troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. Routine O&M included activities such as completing field logs, performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the vendor. Demonstration-related work, including activities such as performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and vendor, was recorded but not used for the cost analysis. No chemicals were required by the arsenic treatment system. The existing chlorine addition system was moved from the shed next to the storage tank to the treatment building for post-chlorination. The cost for the chlorine addition was not included in O&M cost. 3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules To evaluate system performance, samples were collected from the wellhead, across the treatment plant, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedule and analytes measured during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, ------- Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes Sample Type Source Water Treatment Plant Water Distribution Water Spent Media Sampling Locations'3' IN IN, TA, TB Three LCR locations Top, middle and bottom of Vessel A No. of Sampling Locations 1 o J o J o J Frequency Once during initial site visit Once in each 8-week cycle(b) (Speciation Sampling) Three times in each 8- week cycle(c) (Regular Sampling) Monthly(e) Once Analytes Onsite: pH, temperature, andORP Offsite: As (total and soluble), As(III), As(V), Fe (total and soluble), Mn (total and soluble), Sb (total and soluble), Al, V, Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, N03, N02, NH3, S04, SiO2, P (total), TOC, TDS, turbidity, and alkalinity Onsite: pH, temperature, DO, ORP, and C12 (total andfree)(d) Offsite • V_/-L-Li3llX/. As(total and soluble), As(III), As(V), Fe (total and soluble), Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity Onsite: pH, temperature, DO, ORP, and C12 (total andfree)(d) Offsite: As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2, P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity pH, alkalinity, and total As, Fe, Mn, Pb, and Cu As, Fe, Mn, Ba, Ca, Mg, P, and Si Sampling Date 12/08/06 See Appendix B See Appendix B Baseline sampling: See Table 4-10 Monthly sampling: See Table 4-10 11/30/2009 (a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-7: IN = at wellhead; TA = after Vessel A; and TB = after Vessel B. (b) Actual sampling frequency varied from once every 4 to 14 weeks. Speciation sampling discontinued after July 21,2009. (c) Actual sampling frequency varied from once every 1 to 3 weeks; analytes reduced after July 21, 2009, to total arsenic, pH, temperature, DO, ORP, and chlorine. (d) Measured only at TB. (e) Monthly distribution water sampling discontinued after July 7, 2009. DO = dissolved oxygen; LCR = Lead and Copper Rule; ORP = oxidation-reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon ------- containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2003). 3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection. During the initial visit to the site on December 8, 2006, one set of source water samples was collected by Battelle for detailed water quality analyses. Source water also was speciated onsite using a speciation kit (see 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 sample are listed in Table 3-3. 3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection. During the system performance evaluation study, the plant operator collected water samples across the treatment train for onsite and offsite analyses. The Battelle Study Plan called for biweekly sampling. Once in each 8-week cycle, treatment plant samples were collected at the wellhead (IN), after Vessel A (TA), and after Vessel B (TB). These samples were speciated and analyzed for the analytes listed under "Speciation Sampling" in Table 3-3. Three additional biweekly samples were collected at the same three locations in the same 8-week cycle and analyzed for the analytes listed under "Regular Sampling" in Table 3-3. The actual sampling frequency varied from 4 to 14 weeks for speciation sampling and 1 to 3 weeks for regular sampling. Because only trace amounts of As(III) existed in source water, speciation sampling was discontinued on July 21, 2009, 15 month into the demonstration study. Meanwhile, analytes for the regular sampling were reduced to total arsenic plus five water quality measurements, i.e., pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and total and free chlorine performed onsite by the operator. 3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater/Solids and Spent Media Samples. Because the system was not backwashed during the entire study period, no backwash residuals were produced. Three spent media samples were collected from the top, middle, and bottom of the lead vessel (Vessel A) during the media changeout on November 30, 2009. Spent media were removed from the vessel using a shop vac. Representative samples were collected at each level and stored in an unpreserved, 1-gal wide- mouth high-density polyethylene (HOPE) bottle. One aliquot of each sample was air-dried and acid- digested for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. 3.3.4 Distribution System Water Sample Collection. 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 arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to system startup, three sets of baseline samples were collected at three locations on October 31, 2007, December 19, 2007, and February 21, 2008. Following system startup, distribution system water sampling continued at the same three locations on a monthly basis. The monthly distribution water sampling discontinued after July 7, 2009. The three locations selected were residences within the District's historic Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling network, designated as DS1 (i.e., 21111 Barefoot Loop), DS2 (i.e., 21193 High Ridge), and DS3 (i.e., 21163 Last Chance). The baseline and monthly samples were collected following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). First-draw samples were collected from cold-water faucets that had not been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. Samplers recorded the date and time of last water use before sampling and the date and time of sample collection for calculations of the stagnation time. The samples were analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not performed for the distribution system water samples. 10 ------- 3.4 Sampling Logistics All sampling logistics, including preparation of arsenic speciation kits and sample coolers, and sample shipping and handling are discussed as follows. 3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion exchange resin column to separate soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998). Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories in accordance with the procedures detailed in Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2007). 3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre- printed, color-coded, and waterproof label, consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code for designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. For example, red, yellow, and blue were used to designate sampling locations for IN, TA, and TB, respectively. The pre-labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate zip lock bags and packed in the cooler. When needed, the sample cooler also included bottles for the distribution system water sampling. In addition, all sampling and shipping-related materials, such as latex gloves, sampling instructions, chain-of-custody forms, pre-paid/pre-addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included in each cooler. Except for the operator's signature, the chain-of-custody forms and air bills had already been completed with the required information. The sample coolers were shipped via FedEx to the facility approximately 1 week prior to the scheduled sampling date. 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 and analyzed at Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and TCCI Laboratories in Lexington, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter. 3.5 Analytical Procedures The analytical procedures described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2007) were followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy, method detection limits (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 11 ------- 80%). The QA data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project. Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a VWR Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Symphony SP90M5 probe in the beaker until a stable value was obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements at a sample tap after post-chlorination using Hach chlorine test kits following the user's manual. 12 ------- 4.1 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure Located at 21111 Barefoot Loop, Lead, SD, the community water system (CWS) at the Terry Trojan Water District provided drinking water to 177 residential and 10 commercial service connections. The commercial service connections included 37 condominium units at the Barefoot Condominiums, four condominium units at the Shake Condominiums, 16 motel units at the Terry Peak Lodge, and the Terry Peak Ski Resort that had an office, a ski rental shop, a cafeteria/dining hall, and a lounge. The CWS was supplied by the Two Johns II Well, which operated approximately 2 hr/day to meet the District's average daily demand of approximately 9,000 gal prior to this demonstration project. A second well also existed; however, it was not in use due to the high total arsenic concentration. The 6-in diameter Two Johns II Well was drilled into an abandoned mine "decline" and equipped with a 30-horsepower (hp) Grundfos 855 30-26 submersible pump rated for 50 gpm at 564 lb/in2 (psi) or 1,300 ft H2O of total dynamic head (TDH). The submersible pump was set at 360 ft below ground surface (bgs). Figure 4-1 presents a photo of the wellhead. Figure 4-1. Wellhead of Two Johns II Well at Terry Trojan Water District, SD Water from the wellhead at an elevation of 5,924 ft was pumped via a 4-in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) transmission line to a booster station (Figure 4-2), which was 306 ft above the wellhead. At the booster station, a 30-hp Sterling Fluid Systems C1020 AMBF booster pump was used to pump water via a 6-in PVC transmission line to a 90,000-gal (56 ft * 32 ft * 12 ft) concrete storage reservoir (see Figure 4-3) located on a small peak near the Barefoot Condominiums. The total length of the transmission line was 14,000 ft and the total elevation difference between the wellhead (at 5,924 ft) and the storage reservoir (at 13 ------- Figure 4-2. Booster Station (left) and Booster Pump (right) at Terry Trojan Water District Figure 4-3. Concrete Water Storage Reservoir and Partition (left) and Level Sensors (right) in Reservoir 14 ------- 6,646 ft) was 722 ft H2O. On/off of the well pump was controlled by level sensors in the storage reservoir with the high and low level sensors set at 10 ft 5 in (1 ft 1 in below the overflow line) and 9ftlOin(lft8 in below the over flow line), respectively. The overflow line is 11 ft 6 in ft above ground level. As shown in Figure 4-4, a small partition attached to the storage reservoir housed the pre-existing treatment system, including a flow meter/totalizer on the incoming transmission line and a chlorine addition system. The chlorine addition system (see Figure 4-5) consisted of a 15-gal polyethylene chemical day tank and a 3.0-gpd peristaltic metering pump, which was interlocked with the well pump. Chlorination was accomplished using a 12.5%NaOCl stock solution for a target dosage of 1.25 mg/L (as C12) and a target free chlorine residual level of 0.75 mg/L (as C12) in the distribution system. The state of South Dakota required that free chlorine residuals be maintained at 0.5 mg/L (as C12) within the distribution system. The pre-existing chlorination system was relocated to a new treatment building for post-chlorination. Figure 4-4. Interior of Partition Housing Chemical Addition System 4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on December 8, 2006, when a Battelle staff member traveled to the site to conduct an introductory meeting for the demonstration project. Source water also was filtered for soluble arsenic, iron, manganese, and antimony, and then speciated for As(III) and As(V) using the field speciation method modified from Edwards et al. (1998) by Battelle (Wang et al., 2000). Onsite measurements for pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were performed using the VWR Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter. Table 4-1 presents analytical results of the December 8, 2006, sampling event. Also presented in the table are results of EPA's February 21, 2006, sampling event, and the historic data from November 26, 1996, through July 15, 2003, as documented in an engineering report prepared by Itasco E.S.C (Schreier, 2005). These historic data represent quality of water after chlorination. Overall, Battelle's data are comparable to EPA's and the historic data. 15 ------- Figure 4-5. 15-gal Chemical Day Tank, Chlorine Injection Point, and Raw Water Totalizer at Inlet to Storage Reservoir 16 ------- Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 14.0 to 23.9 |og/L. Based on Battelle's results obtained on December 8, 2006, out of 23.9 |o,g/L of total arsenic, 22.5 |o,g/L (or 94%) existed as soluble As(V) and 0.5 |o,g/L (or 2.1%) as soluble As(III). Low levels of As(III) in source water suggest that without pre-oxidation, adsorptive media can be an effective process. Battelle and EPA's total arsenic results were slightly higher than those provided by Itasco E.S.C. Iron and Manganese. Total iron concentrations in source water were below the MDL of 25 |o,g/L. Due to the low iron content in source water, this site was an ideal candidate for adsorptive media, which works best with low influent iron levels. The total manganese concentration obtained by Battelle was 2.8 |og/L with almost all existing as particulate manganese. Battelle's data were consistent with EPA data, which showed 2.3 |o,g/L for total manganese. Competing Anions. For adsorptive media, removal of arsenic can be influenced by competing anions such as silica and phosphate. Adsorptive media has been reported to be affected by elevated levels of silica and phosphate (Meng et al., 2002; Meng et al., 2000). The Two Johns II Well water contained 14.4 to 15.0 mg/L of silica and <0.01 mg/L of total phosphate (as P), which did not appear to be high enough to impact the adsorptive media treatment process. Other Water Quality Parameters. Battelle's data indicated a moderate pH of 7.3, which was within the commonly-agreed target range of 5.5 to 8.5 for arsenic removal. Total alkalinity concentrations ranged from 141 to 162 mg/L (as CaCO3); total hardness from 136 to 163 mg/L (as CaCO3); turbidity at 0.7 NTU; total dissolved solids (TDS) from 144 to 178 mg/L; and nitrate from 0.4 to 2.7 mg/L. Total organic carbon (TOC) and ammonia were below the respective MDLs of 1.0 and 0.05 mg/L. All other analytes were below detection limits and/or low enough not to adversely affect the arsenic removal process. 4.1.2 Distribution System. The Terry Trojan Water District distribution system consisted of 187 service connections (or water meters), including 177 for residential and 10 for commercial (one commercial has five meters; one has three; and the other two have one each). The distribution system material was comprised of 2 to 6-in diameter steel and polyvinyl (PVC) pipes. The District sampled water from the distribution system monthly for bacterial analysis; quarterly for pesticides; yearly for nitrate; and once every three years for LCR, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and inorganics. 4.2 Treatment Process Description The treatment system installed at the Terry Trojan Water District consisted of arsenic adsorption using either ArsenXnp or LayneRT™ media. The performance evaluation was sub-divided into two study periods. Study Period I took place from April 4, 2008, through November 29, 2009, using ArsenXnp and Study Period II followed from November 30, 2009, through May 23, 2010, using LayneRT™. Manufactured by Purolite, ArsenXnp is an engineered hybrid inorganic/organic adsorbent that incorporates a nanoparticle technology originally developed by researchers at Lehigh University, PA and further refined by SolmeteX, Inc., of Northborough, MA. According to the manufacturer, the hybrid material contains approximately 25% of iron (dry weight) or 36% of iron oxide, Fe2O3. Because the hybrid resin beads are attrition-resistant, they do not generate fines and do not require backwash. The media is regenerable and is NSF International (NSF) 61 certified for use in municipal water treatment systems. Table 4-2 summarizes ArsenXnp media's physical properties. LayneRT™ media also is a hybrid adsorbent; physical properties of the media are summarized in Table 4- 3. Similar to ArsenXnp, LayneRT™ does not require backwashing, is regenerable, and is NSF 61 certified for use in municipal water treatment systems. 17 ------- Table 4-1. Raw and Treated Water Quality Data for Two Johns II Well in Lead, SD Parameter Sampling Date PH Temperature DO ORP Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) Total Hardness (as CaCO3) Turbidity Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Nitrate (as N) Nitrite (as N) Ammonia (as N) Chloride Fluoride Sulfate Silica (as SiO2) Orthophosphate (as P) Total P (as P) Al (total) As (total) As (soluble) As (paniculate) As (III) As(V) Fe (total) Fe (soluble) Mn (total) Mn (soluble) Sb (total) Sb (soluble) V (total) Na Ca Mg Unit S.U. °c mg/L mV mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L EPA Raw Water Data 02/21/06 NA NA NA NA 147 150 NA NA NA 0.4 0.01 0.03 <5.0 NA 10.8 14.4 0.09 0.065 <25 23 NA NA NA NA 14 NA 2.3 NA <25 NA NA 2.0 46.3 8.4 Battelle Raw Water Data 12/08/06 7.3 10.4 NA 300 162 163 0.7 178 <1.0(c) 0.5 0.05 0.05 1.0 0.7 2.0 15.0 NA 0.01 NA 23.9 23.0 0.9 0.5 22.5 <25 <25 2.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.7 2.4 49.9 9.3 Historic Treated Water Data(a'b) 11/26/96-07/15/03 7.6-7.7 NA NA NA 141 136 NA 144-147 NA 0.35-2.7 [0.75] 0.05 NA 0.5-2.0 0.78-0.86 <10.0-20.9 [<10.0] NA NA NA <50 14.0-21.0 [18.0] 15.0-18.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 38.7-47.5 8.1-10.2 (a) Source: Schreier, 2005 (b) Minimum-maximum [average]. (c) Sample analyzed out of hold time. NA = not available. 18 ------- Table 4-2. Properties of ArsenXnp Media Property Value Reddish-brown spherical beads Physical Form and Appearance Particle Size (urn) 300 to 1,200 Operating Temperature (°F) 33 to 176 Operating pH (S.U.) 5.0 to 8.5 Bulk Density (g/cm3 [lb/ft3]) 0.79 to 0.84 [49-52] Moisture Content (% 55-60 Base Polymer Macroporous Polystyrene Active Component Hydrous Iron Oxide Minimum Bed Depth (in.) 18 Source: SolmeteX Table 4-3. Properties of LayneRT™ Media Property Value Reddish-brown spherical beads Physical Form and Appearance Particle Size (urn) 300 to 1,200 Operating Temperature (°F) 33 to 172 Operating pH (S.U.) 5.0 to 8.5 Bulk Density (g/cm3 [lb/ft3]) 0.79 to 0.84 [49-52] Minimum Contact Time (min) Base Polymer Macroporous Polystyrene Active Component Hydrous Iron Oxide Source: SolmeteX As shown in Figure 4-6, the arsenic removal system at Lead, SD consists of two skid-mounted adsorption vessels and associated piping/valves and instrumentation on a welded carbon steel frame (note that neither the 50-um pre-filter nor the post-chlorination system is shown). Table 4-4 specifies the key system design parameters of the treatment system. Figure 4-7 presents a process flowchart, along with the sampling/analysis schedule, for the 75-gpm ArsenXnp arsenic removal system. Figure 4-8 is a photograph of the system. 19 ------- PURGE OUTLET I V-Ml PURCE INLET V-04A V-03A V-03B | 53V-Q6A V-066 I V-049 P-3 FLOW INDICATOR Figure 4-6. Schematic of SolmeteX Arsenic Removal System for Lead, SD Table 4-4. Design Features of SolmeteX Arsenic Adsorption System Parameter Value Remarks Pre-treatment Pre-filter One 50-um bag filter - Adsorption No. of Vessels Configuration Vessel Size (in) Vessel Cross Section (ft2) Media Volume (ft3/vessel) Media Depth (in) Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) EBCT (min/vessel) Differential Pressure across Tank (psi) Maximum Daily Production (gpd) Average Daily Production (gpd) Hydraulic Utilization (%) Projected Media Run Length to 10-ug/L As Breakthrough from Lead Vessel (B V) Throughput to 10-ug/L As Breakthrough (gal) Projected Media Life (month) 2 Series 42 D x 72 H 9.6 28 35 7.8 2.8 10 108,000 9,000 8.3 65,000 13,600,000 50 - - - - 56 ft3 total - Based on 75 gpm flowrate Based 28 ft3 of media and 75 gpm flowrate Across a clean bed Based on peak flowrate, 24 hr/day - Typical operation is 2 hr/day !BV=28ft3=209gal — Based on 9,000 gpd water usage 20 ------- Speciation Sampling pH<3), temperature^3), DO/ORP(a\ As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V), Fe (total and soluble), __ Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity pH^), temperature^), DO/ORP(3), As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V), Fe (total and soluble),^ Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, N03, S04, SiO2, P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity pH<3), temperature^3), DO/ORP<3), C12 (total and free), As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V), Fe (total and soluble), - Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, N03, S04, SiO2, P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity Footnote (a) On-site analyses INFLUENT (TWO JOHNS II WELL) PRE-FILTER Lead, SD SolmeteX Arsenic Removal System Design Flow: 75 gpm Regular Sampling pHH temperature^3), • As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2, P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity pHO), temperature1:3), DO/ORPO), • As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2, P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity pH(3), temperature^3), DO/ORP(3), C12 (total and free), As (total), ' Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2, P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity STORAGE RESERVOIR (90,000 GAL) DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Water Sampling Locations LEGEND ( IN J Influent ( TA j After Vessel A ( TB J After Vessel B DA: C12 Chlorine Disinfection INFLUENT Unit Process ^* , Figure 4-7. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations for Lead, SD 21 ------- Figure 4-8. SolmeteX Arsenic Removal System The key process steps and major components of the arsenic removal system are discussed as follows: • Intake - Raw water was pumped from the Two Johns II Well and fed to the treatment system via a 14,000-ft, 4-/6-in diameter PVC transmission line. • Pre-filter - A 50-(im pre-filter was placed ahead of the SolmeteX system to remove any particulate from the well water (Figure 4-9). • Adsorption - The arsenic removal system consisted of two 42-in x 72-in adsorption vessels, configured in series, each containing 28 ft3 of media supported by 12-in garnet underbedding. The vessels were polyethylene construction, rated for 150 psi working pressure, and piped to a valve rack on a welded carbon steel frame. Based on a design flow rate of 75 gpm, the empty bed contact time (EBCT) was 2.8 min/vessel (or 5.6 min for both vessels) and the hydraulic loading rate was 7.8 gpm/ft2. The design pressure drop across a clean resin bed was approximately 10 psi. All plumbing for the system was schedule 80 PVC. The skid-mounted system was pre- plumbed with the necessary isolation valves, check valves, sampling ports, and other features. • Filter Backwash - For source water containing little or no iron, the media does not require backwashing during standard operation. For the initial media loading, the media was flushed to remove dust and fines generated during shipping. The first 1200-gal of wastewater generated was discharged to and hauled away by a septic truck. The remaining was discharged directly to the ground per the one-time dewatering permit issued by the State of South Dakota (Section 4.3.1). 22 ------- Figure 4-9. Pre-Filter Installed Upstream of SolmeteX System • Post-chlorination - The chlorine addition system consisting of a pre-existing 15-gal polyethylene chemical day tank and a 3.0-gpd peristaltic metering pump was relocated to the treatment plant building for post-chlorination (see Figure 4-10). Chlorination was accomplished using a 12.5% NaOCl stock solution to maintain a target dosage of 1.25 mg/L (as C12) and a target free chlorine residual level of 0.75 mg/L (as C12) in the distribution system. The state of South Dakota required that the free chlorine residual level be maintained at >0.5 mg/L (as C12) within the distribution system. • Media Regeneration/Rebedding - SolmeteX initially recommended regenerating spent ArsenXnp media in the lead vessel (Vessel A) offsite when total arsenic levels following the lag vessel exceeded MCL. The system would operate with only the lag vessel (Vessel B) when the lead vessel was taken offline. SolmeteX claimed that ArsenXnp can be regenerated up to 10 times with the arsenic adsorptive capacity of a regenerated media reduced approximately 15% following each regeneration. Instead of regenerating the spent media, it was decided to rebed the lead vessel with LayneRT™, a new adsorptive media. Upon completion of media replacement, the newly rebedded lead vessel (Vessel A) was placed at the lag position with Vessel B containing partially exhausted ArsenXnp placed at the lead position. Figures 4-11 through 4-13 show the system flow path under different vessel configurations. 23 ------- Figure 4-10. Chlorine Addition System FID Source: SolmeteX™ Figure 4-11. System Flow Path - Vessel A in Lead Position and Vessel B in Lag Position 24 ------- v-oi. \X)IB. YKMS. vxn M v: Offl'ff & -* LtM . »J PUHSE W.EI Source: SolmeteX1 Figure 4-13. System Flow Path - Vessel B in Lead Position and Rebedded/Regenerated Vessel A in Lag Position 25 ------- 4.3 System Installation The installation of the treatment system was completed by SolmeteX on November 2, 2007. The following summarizes predemonstration activities, including permitting, building preparation, as well as system offloading, installation, shakedown, and startup. 4.3.1 Permitting. The system engineering package, prepared by SolmeteX and its subcontractor, Schrieir Engineering, included the following documents and drawings: • A system design report • A general arrangement and piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) • Electrical and mechanical drawings and component specifications • Building construction drawings detailing connections from the system to the tie-in points at the inlet and the entry point to town's distribution system The engineering package was certified by a South Dakota Professional Engineer and submitted to D DENR for review and approval on September 13, 2007. A water supply construction permit was issued by SD DENR on September 14, 2007, and fabrication of the system began thereafter. In addition to the treatment system construction permit, a one-time de-watering request was submitted in September 2007 and a permit was granted by SD DENR on September 17, 2007, to allow for one-time ground discharge of backwash wastewater during initial media loading. 4.3.2 Building Preparation. Because the existing treatment partition (Figure 4-4) was insufficient to house the SolmeteX arsenic removal system, the Terry Trojan Water District constructed a new treatment plant building (Figure 4-14) in 2006. Sitting on a 5-in thick concrete slab, the 20 ft x 40 ft x 14 ft structure had a 12 ft x 12 ft overhead door to enable ease of equipment placement and installation. 4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The treatment system was delivered to the site on October 30, 2007. SolmeteX performed the off-loading (Figure 4-15) and installation, including connections to the tie-in points. Because the treatment plant building was located at the top of a hill and the access road was not accessible to the delivering flatbed, a construction forklift was used to transport the equipment through the narrow and rutted access road to the treatment plant building. To load media into the adsorption vessels, a scaffold was laid across the top of the system. The vessels were first half-filled with water. Vessel headers were then removed and 8 ft3 of garnet was loaded into each vessel. To facilitate observation of the fill level in each vessel, light in the treatment plant building was turned off and an emergency light was shined over the opposite side of the vessel. The level of the garnet layer was about 2 in above the start of the bottom dome. Twenty eight ft3 of ArsenXnp was then loaded to each vessel and the vessels were filled with water to the level approximately 12 in below the start of the top dome. Figure 4-16 is a photograph of media loading. Upon completion of media loading, 41 ounces of SaniSystem liquid sanitizer, consisting of 1 oz of sanitizer concentrate per gal of water, was added to each vessel to sanitize the vessel. The headers were replaced and the vessels and piping were filled with water. After 5 min, the liquid in the system was discharged to a 1200-gal septic truck at 10 to 20 gpm. Backwash purge continued with water passing through the system in all vessel configurations, followed by media rinsing. After the septic truck was full, media rinsing continued for two additional hours with wastewater discharged directly to the ground as permitted by SD DENR (Section 4.3.1). System sanitation was complete on November 2, 2007. 26 ------- Figure 4-14. Treatment Plant Building at Terry Trojan Water District, SD Figure 4-15. Lead Treatment System (Under Tarp on Left) and Offloading (Right) 27 ------- Figure 4-16. Media Loading Immediately after system installation, air bubbles were observed in the treatment system/piping. Elevated differential pressure of over 30 psi also was observed across the system. A teleconference among Battelle, SolmeteX, and Schreier Engineering was held on November 19, 2007, and a joint decision was made during the call to temporarily suspend system operation until the air bubble issue was resolved. Upon investigation of the treatment system and transmission line by Schreier Engineering, the source of air bubbles was linked to a leak from the 8,060-ft transmission line between the booster station and the treatment plant. Because the treatment plant is located 415 ft above the booster station, water in the transmission line would retrieve to, at least, where the leak was, whenever the booster and well pumps were idle. Upon restart of the booster and well pumps, air in the transmission line would be pushed into the treatment system, thus causing the air bubble problem. According to the water static pressure measured at the level of booster station, the leak would be at a point approximately 6,990 ft away from the treatment plant (or 360 ft below the elevation of the treatment plant). Instead of repairing the leak on the transmission line, Schreier Engineering proposed the following: • Install a combination air release valve (Figure 4-17) on the system inlet piping to allow for release of air immediately after the well and booster pumps were triggered 28 ------- Figure 4-17. Treatment System after Modification • Install an air release valve (Figure 4-17) on top of each vessel to assist in purging air from the treatment system immediately after the well and booster pumps were triggered and during system operation • Elevate the inlet piping to above the adsorption vessels so that when the well and booster pumps were shut down, water in the arsenic removal system would not be siphoned back into the transmission line. SD DENR approved the proposed modifications submitted by Schreier Engineering and the modifications were completed by the firm's plumbing contractor on March 27, 2008. When operating the system at the design flowrate of 75 gpm, the system inlet pressure was reduced to 18 to 20 psi, compared to the 30 psi observed before the modifications. Air accumulating in the treatment system during the initial system shakedown in November 2007 was expelled from the lead vessel air release valve for 10 to 20 sec and from the lag vessel for approximately 5 min. Since the modifications, no air bubbles were observed in the treatment system. The system shakedown was therefore complete on March 31, 2008, and the demonstration study began on April 4, 2008. Two Battelle staff members arrived at Lead, SD, on July 22, 2008, to inspect the treatment system and provide operator training, which included calibration and use of field water quality meters, collection and recording of operational data, collection of water samples, use of arsenic speciation kits (see Figure 4-18), and handling and shipping of collected samples. 4.4 System Operation 4.4.1 Operational Parameters. Operational data were collected during the period of April 4, 2008, through May 23, 2010, and are attached as Appendix A after tabulation. Table 4-5 summarizes key operational parameters. The performance evaluation study was divided into two study periods with Study Period I extending from April 4, 2008, through November 29, 2009, and Study Period II from November 30, 2009, through May 23, 2010. Study Period I evaluated the performance of ArsenXT Study Period II 29 ------- Figure 4-18. Operator Training at Lead, SD Table 4-5. Summary of SolmeteX System Operation Parameter Data Period Adsorptive Media Total Operating Time (hr) Total Operating Days (day) Daily Operating Time (hr/day) Throughput to Distribution (gal) Average Daily Use (gpd) Calculated System Flowrate(b) (gpm) Empty Bed Contact Time (min/vessel) Hydraulic Loading to Each Vessel (gpm/ft2) Pressure Loss Across Each Vessel (psi) Study Period I 04/04/08-11/29/09 Lead Vessel: Virgin ArsenXnp Lag Vessel: Virgin ArsenXnp 7,154(a) 597 2-24 (12.0) 27,978,780 (133,590 BV) 46,866 23.6-112(71.5) 1.9-8.9 (2.9) 2.5-11.7(7.4) Vessel A 4-20 (12) Vessel B 2-10 (6) Study Period II 11/30/09-05/23/10 Lead Vessel: Partially Exhausted ArsenXnp Lag Vessel: Virgin LayneRT™ 1,787 170 2-24 (10.5) 7,231,940 (34,530 BV) 42,541 48.9-136 (69.2) 1.5^.3 (3.0) 5.1-14.2(7.2) Vessel A 6-20 (13) Vessel B 3-7 (7) 1 BV = 28 ft3 (media in one vessel) or 209.4 gal. (a) Operational time from April 4 through May 25, 2008, estimated based on total number of operating hours and total number of operating days during remainder of Study Period I. (b) Based on readings of totalizer at system outlet and hour meter at wellhead. 30 ------- began after rebedding of the lead vessel with LayneRT™ and switching of the newly rebedded vessel to the lag position. The system operating time was tracked by a well pump hour meter, which was installed on May 26, 2008, 52 days after commencement of the performance evaluation study. From May 26, 2008, through November 29, 2009, the treatment system operated for a total of 6,589.6 hr. Because the operating time was not recorded from April 4 through May 25, 2008, the operation time (564 hr) during this period was estimated by multiplying the average daily operating time (12 hr/day) during the remainder of Study Period I by the number of days (47 day) when the system was in operation. Therefore, the total system operating time during Study Period I (i.e., from April 4, 2008, through November 29, 2009) was 7,154 hr. The total operating time in Study Period II (from November 30, 2009 to May 23, 2010) was 1,787 hr. (Note that the system was still in operation when Study Period II ended.) The average daily operating time was 12.0 hr/day in Study Period I and 10.5 hr/day in Study Period II. The total volume throughput was 27,978,780 gal, or 133,590 BV (1 BV = 28 ft3 of media in one vessel) in Study Period I, and 7,231,940 gal, or 34,530 BV in Study Period II, based on a totalizer installed at the system outlet. Figure 4-19 plots amounts of daily water production, which averaged 46,866 gpd in Study Period I and 42,541 gpd in Study Period II. These amounts were approximately five times the daily demand of 9,000 gal originally provided by the District for the system design. S Figure 4-19. Treatment System Daily Water Production \ To help identify the cause(s) of the discrepancy between the daily water production and daily water demand, the District provided Battelle its monthly water usage data, i.e., customers' water bills, from December 2007 through July 2008. As shown in Table 4-6, averaged daily water demands based on customers' water bills ranged from 10,143 to 19,204 gpd, which were about 1 to 2 times the amount (9,000 gpd) estimated by the District. Average daily water production volumes were 3 to 4 times those delivered to customers, indicating possible loss of water after the entry point. 31 ------- Table 4-6. Comparison of Average Daily Water Demand and Average Daily Water Production Month Dec 2007 Jan 2008 Feb 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 Average Daily Water Demand Based on Customers Water Bills (gpd) 16,287 16,965 19,204 12,313 10,143 11,558 14,483 19,106 Average Daily Water Production Based on Totalizer at System Outlet (gpd) .(a) .(a) _(a) .(a) 39,073 40,584 53,421 62,162 (a) Demonstration study had not begun; no throughput available. data During the 25-month performance evaluation study, four leaks at the water storage reservoir and in the distribution system were detected and repaired on July 20, 2008; October 19, 2008; March 7 through 9, 2010; and April 14 through 16, 2010. Nonetheless, no noticeable decrease in daily water demands was observed after the leaks were repaired. Average daily productions still ranged from 27,000 to 44,260 gpd. Daily/incremental average flowrates were calculated based on daily/incremental throughputs recorded by the electromagnetic flow totalizer installed at the system outlet and wellhead hour meter readings. Instantaneous flowrates were tracked with a rotameter located at the system inlet. Figure 4-20 plots both calculated and instantaneous flowrates. Calculated daily/incremental flowrates ranged from 24 to 112 gpm and averaged 71.5 gpm in Study Period I, and ranged from 49 to 136 gpm and averaged 69.2 gpm in Study Period II (compared to the design value of 75 gpm [Table 4-4]). These average flowrates represented average EBCTs of 2.9 and 3.0 min (compared to the design value of 2.8 min) and average hydraulic loading rates of 7.4 and 7.2 gpm/ft2 (compared to the design value of 7.8 gpm/ft2). Due to a leak from the transmission line between the booster station and the treatment plant, system flowrates decreased 29% starting on March 1, 2009, and continuing through May 19, 2009, as shown in Figure 4-20. The leakage was identified and fixed on May 19, 2009, and flowrates returned to the normal range. Average rotameter readings in Study Periods I and II were 73.8 and 76.7 gpm (on average), respectively, which were 3.2% and 9.8% higher than the corresponding calculated flowrates. Note that data collected between March 1 and May 19, 2009, when a leak occurred, were not included in the calculation of the average flowrates. As shown in Figure 4-21, differential pressure (Ap) readings across Vessel A ranged from 4 to 20 psi and averaged 12 psi in Study Period I, and ranged from 6 to 20 psi and averaged 13 psi in Study Period II. Ap readings across Vessel B ranged from 2 to 10 psi and averaged 6 psi in Study Period I and ranged from 3 to 7 psi and averaged 7 psi in Study Period II. Ap readings across Vessel A were about twice those across Vessel B. The average Ap across Vessel A was about 20 to 30% higher than the design value of 10 psi, while the average differential pressure across Vessel B was about 30 to 40% lower than the design value. 32 ------- 100 90 - 80 70 - 60 - i, sx po : 5 40 - 30 - 20 10 • o Calculated Average Flowrate -J?---- --- -^ Rotameter Reading Low flowrates caused by a leaking pipe between the booster station and treatment plant Study Period I (04/04/08 - 11/29/09) Study Period II (11/30/09 - 05/23/10) o Figure 4-20. System Instantaneous and Calculated Flowrates Study Period II (11/30/09 - 05/23/10) Study Period I (04/04/08-11/29/09) AP drops due to lower flowrates caused by a leak from transmission line between booster station and treatment plant Figure 4-21. Operational Pressure Readings 33 ------- Reduced Ap readings were observed between March and May 2009, due to lower system flowrates caused by a broken transmission line discussed above. Ap readings across Vessel B were rather steady throughout the entire performance evaluation study. However, Ap across Vessel A increased gradually after May 2009 to 16 to 20 psi before rebedding, likely due to accumulation of sediment or media fines in the lead vessel. Ap readings across Vessel A returned to the levels of 10 to 15 psi after rebedding. 4.4.2 Residual Management. Because backwashing was not required, no residuals were produced during routine system operation. One-time discharge of backwash wastewater was done during system startup as discussed in Section 4.3.1. During Vessel A rebedding, the vendor took back the spent ArsenXnp media with no charge (except for the freight). 4.4.3 Media Rebedding. To prepare for possible rebedding/regeneration, Battelle requested in August 2009 that SolmeteX produce a quote for media replacement with two options: (a) rebedding the lead vessel with LayneRT™ or (b) regenerating spent ArsenXnp on or offsite and rebedding the lead vessel with the regenerated ArsenXnp. Because the vendor had discontinued ArsenXnp media production, it recommended that LayneRT™ be used to replace ArsenXnp. Another reason for selecting this option was that the wastewater from media regeneration could not be discharged onsite and, therefore, regeneration had to be conducted offsite. Due to the logistic complexity of offsite regeneration, it was decided to replace the spent media with LayneRT™. On November 17, 2009, after treating approximately 27,439,000 gal (or 131,000 BV) of water, arsenic concentrations were 70% of the influent concentration following the lead vessel and 58% of the arsenic MCL following the lag vessel. Although the media was not fully exhausted in November 2009, the District expressed its desire to move forward with lead vessel rebedding because it needed to complete all rebedding activities before the access road to the treatment building was closed due to snow cover. The media replacement for the lead vessel was conducted on November 30, 2009, after the system had treated approximately 27,978,780 gal (or 133,590 BV) of water (based on the amount of media in one vessel). Before loading LayneRT™, freeboard heights in Vessel A were measured at 23.5 in from the media surface to the top flange and 62 in from the underbedding garnet surface to the top flange. Therefore, the bed depth was 38.5 in, which was about 3.5 in deeper than the design value of 35 in (Table 4-4). Upon removal of the spent media, virgin LayneRT™ was loaded on top of the garnet underbedding at a target freeboard value of 23.5 in from the media surface to the top flange. Meanwhile, flow through the vessels was switched such that the lag vessel was placed in the lead position and the newly rebedded vessel was placed in the lag position. A BAC-T sample was taken after rebedding and the result was negative. Therefore, the system was put online without further sanitization. 4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. In addition to the air bubble problem discussed in Section 4.3.3, the only O&M issues encountered were with the well pump controller due to a lightening strike and the leaky transmission line between the booster station and treatment plant. Both issues were solved in a timely manner and caused no more than one day of system downtime. The system O&M and operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to post-treatment requirement, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventive maintenance activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements. Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. No pre-treatment was required. The existing chlorination system was relocated to the treatment plant building for post-chlorination. The operator monitored chlorine tank levels to estimate consumption rates and residual chlorine levels using a Hach meter. 34 ------- System Automation. Because of simple system operation (i.e., no periodic backwashing, no chemical addition, etc.), the adsorption system was operated manually. The operator manually opened or closed all hand valves to achieve an intended tank configuration and correct flow path. The operator monitored and adjusted the system flowrate and operating pressure, recorded log sheets, and took routine samples of raw water, treated water, and samples after each vessel. Operator Skill Requirements. Skill requirements to operate the system demanded a higher level of awareness and attention than the previous system of only chlorination. The operator's knowledge of system limitations and typical operational parameters were keys to achieve system performance objectives. The operator was onsite typically seven times a week and spent approximately 60 min each time to perform visual inspections and record relevant system operating parameters on the Daily System Operation Log Sheets. The basis for the operator skills began with onsite training and a thorough review of the system operations manual; however, increased knowledge and invaluable system troubleshooting skills were gained through hands-on operational experience. The State of South Dakota requires that all community and non-transient, non-community water systems have a certified water distribution operator. Any system that owns its own source and treats the water must also have a certified water treatment operator. The State categorizes treatment plants and systems into four classes, designated as Class I, II, III, or IV, according to complexity of operation. Class IV is the highest or most complex. The plant operator at Lead, SD, has Water Treatment Plant Class I and Water Distribution System Class I licenses. Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included periodic checks of flow meters and pressure gauges, inspection of system piping, valves, and NaOCl injection pump. Typically, the operator performed these duties while onsite for routine activities. Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. NaOCl was used for post-chlorination. The operator ordered and handled the chemical as done prior to installation of the SolmeteX system. 4.5 System Performance 4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. In Study Period I, treatment plant water samples were collected on 42 occasions (including three duplicate samples collected during three regular sampling events) with field speciation performed during nine of the 42 occasions at IN, TA, and TB sampling locations. Treatment plant water samples were collected on 13 occasions at IN, TA, and TB sampling locations in Study Period II. No duplicate sampling or speciation sampling was performed in Study Period II. Table 4-7 summarizes the analytical results of arsenic, iron, and manganese at the three sampling locations across the treatment train. Table 4-8 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results throughout the performance evaluation study. Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 16.9 to 26.3 |o,g/L and averaged 22.2 |o,g/L in Study Period I; and ranged from 19.4 to 22.6 |o,g/L and averaged 21.0 |o,g/L in Study Period II. Based on the nine speciation sampling events taking place in Study Period I, soluble As(V) was the predominating species, ranging from 17.5 to 22.7 (ig/L and averaging 20.4 |og/L. Trace levels of soluble As(III) also existed, with concentrations ranging from <0.1 to 1.1 ng/L and averaging 0.4 |o,g/L. Particulate arsenic concentrations were low as well, ranging from <0.1 to 1.8 |o,g/L and averaging 0.8 (ig/L. Arsenic concentrations in source water measured during the performance evaluation study were consistent with those collected previously during source water sampling (Table 4-1). 35 ------- Table 4-7. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Study Period I II Parameter As (total) As (soluble) As (paniculate) As (III) As(V) Fe (total) Fe (soluble) Mn (total) Mn(soluble) As (total) Sampling Location'3' IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA(C) TB(c) Unit Hg/L Hg/L Hg/L Hg/L Hg/L Hg/L Hg/L Hg/L Hg/L Hg/L Count 42 42 42 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 32 32 32 9 9 9 32 32 32 9 9 9 13 13 13 Concentration Minimum 16.9 <0.1 <0.1 18.6 0.0 0.1 <0.1 0.1 O.I O.I 0.1 O.I 17.5 0.1 O.I <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 O.I 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 19.4 0.3 5.7 Maximum 26.3 21.9 6.1 23.1 18.6 2.2 1.8 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.4 1.0 22.7 18.4 2.0 <25 <25 36.8 <25 <25 37.5 3.4 3.3 3.5 0.9 0.8 1.6 22.6 2.5 12.1 Average 22.2 _(b) _(b) 20.8 _(b) _(b) 0.8 _(b) _(b) 0.4 _(b) _(b) 20.4 _(b) _(b) <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.3 0.5 0.8 21.0 _(b) _(b) Standard Deviation 1.9 _(b) _(b) 1.5 _(b) _(b) 0.6 _(b) _(b) 0.3 _(b) _(b) 1.7 _(b) (b) NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.0 _(b) (b) (a) See Figure 4-7 for sampling location. (b) Not meaningful for concentrations related to breakthrough; see Figures 4-22 and 4-23 and Appendix B for results. (c) Vessel positions switched after rebedding such that TA was after lag vessel and TB after lead vessel. NA = Not Applicable One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for calculations. Figures 4-22 and 4-23 present total arsenic breakthrough curves for Study Periods I and II. In Study Period I, total arsenic concentrations following the lead vessel reached 10 (ig/L after treating approximately 70,310 BV of water (based on 28 ft3 of media in the lead vessel), which was about 8% higher than the 65,000 BV of working capacity projected by the vendor (Table 4-4). Afterwards, total arsenic concentrations following the lead vessel continued to ramp higher and reached over 70% of influent concentrations by the end of Study Period I. By then, the system had treated 27,978,780 gal 36 ------- Table 4-8. Summary of Water Quality Parameters Study Period I Parameter Alkalinity (as CaCO3) Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate (as N) Total P (as P) Silica (as SiO2) Turbidity pH Temperature DO ORP Free Chlorine (as C12) Total Chlorine (as C12) Total Hardness (as CaCO3) Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) Sampling Location00 IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB TB TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB Unit mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L mg/L NTU s.u. °c mg/L mV mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Count 32 32 32 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 35 35 35 35 35 35 33 33 33 35 35 35 35 35 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Concentration Minimum 136 141 141 0.4 0.7 0.7 5.4 10.1 10.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 <10 <10 <10 14.5 14.6 14.7 0.1 0.1 O.I 6.8 7.1 7.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 3.6 3.8 3.8 304 309 295 0.8 0.8 117 116 118 95.4 93.8 98.0 18.9 19.1 19.5 Maximum 158 155 170 0.8 0.8 0.8 10.8 11.1 11.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 18.0 23.3 <10 18.4 17.9 19.6 2.6 2.9 2.8 7.4 7.8 7.4 16.9 16.9 16.9 8.8 9.0 8.8 472 489 493 1.1 1.1 179 171 173 135 135 134 45.1 41.5 42.7 Average 147 147 148 0.7 0.8 0.8 9.9 10.7 10.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 6.0 6.0 <10 16.4 16.4 16.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 7.2 7.3 7.3 13.2 13.1 13.1 6.5 6.6 6.7 421 412 410 1.0 1.0 153 153 155 117 118 120 35.2 34.5 35.7 Standard Deviation 5.5 3.7 6.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.6 NA 1.0 1.0 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 41 41 45 0.0 0.1 18 19 17 14 14 13 7.5 6.9 7.1 37 ------- Table 4-8. Summary of Water Quality Parameters (Continued) Study Period n(b) Parameter pH Temperature DO ORP Free Chlorine (as C12) Total Chlorine (as C12) Sampling Location'3' IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB IN TA TB TB TB Unit S.U. °c mg/L mV mg/L mg/L Count 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Minimum 6.9 7.1 7.2 10.3 10.1 9.9 8.2 8.2 8.2 418 352 316 0.9 1.0 Maximum 7.2 7.3 7.3 11.8 11.9 12.1 8.4 8.4 8.4 440 621 435 1.2 1.2 Average 7.1 7.2 7.2 11.3 11.3 11.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 432 440 420 1.0 1.0 Standard Deviation 0.1 0.03 0.04 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 6.4 65 35 0.1 0.1 (a) See Figure 4-7 for sampling location. (b) Vessel positions switched after rebedding; sampling location TA was after lag vessel and TB after lead vessel. NA = Not Applicable. One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for calculations. (or 133,590 BV) of water. At this point, the arsenic concentration following the lag vessel, based on the water sample collected on November 17, 2009, was 5.8 |og/L, which was still below the 10-|o,g/L MCL. The system could have run longer and likely would have reached the 10 |o,g/L level after the two bed system (56 ft3) had treated more than 70,000 BV of water. The lead vessel was rebedded with LayneRT™ media (Section 4.4.3) at the end of Study Period I. After switching vessel positions, the vessel containing partially exhausted ArsenXnp (in the lead position) treated an additional 4,492,800 gal (or 21,340 BV) of water before arsenic concentrations in the vessel effluent reached 10 (ig/L (see Figure 4-23). By the end of Study Period II, arsenic concentrations following the lead vessel were 11.7 |o,g/L (based on the sample collected on May 1 8, 20 1 0) after treating an additional 7,05 1,380 gal (33,670 BV) of water. At this point, the concentration after the lag vessel was According to the breakthrough curves obtained in Study Period I, after reaching 1 1 to 12 (ig/L, the lead vessel could treat an additional 10,912,580 gal (52,104 BV) of water before the concentration in the vessel effluent would reach 70% of influent concentration. Assuming an average daily production rate of 42,541 gpd (Table 4-5), the system could operate for an additional 8 months after May 2010 before the lead vessel (Vessel B) would require rebedding. 38 ------- 30 25 20 § 15 is 10 Study Period I (April 4, 2008 to November 29, 2009) Lead Vessel (Virgin ArsenXnp) Lag Vessel (Virgin ArsenXnp) reakthrough at 14,725,250 gal or 70.310 BV 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 Throughput (gal) 25,000,000 30,000,000 Figure 4-22. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves in Study Period I 30 25 i 2° 3 c ^o « I 15 o O I 10 Study Period II (November 30, 2009 to May 23, 2010) IN, Influent TA, After Lag Vessel (Virgin LayneRT) TB, AfterLead Vessel (Partially Exhausted ArsenXnp) 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 Throughput (gal) Figure 4-23. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves in Study Period II 39 ------- Figure 4-24 contains three bar charts showing concentrations of total arsenic, participate arsenic, soluble As(III), and soluble As(V) at the IN, TA, and TB sampling locations for each of the nine speciation sampling events in Study Period I. After treatment, soluble As(V) concentrations reduced to less than the MDL of 0.1 ng/L until 90,400 BV (1 BV = 28 ft3). Afterwards, soluble As(V) started to break through the lag vessel and reached 2.0 (ig/L at 110,000 BV, according to the result of the last speciation event on July 21, 2009. As(III) concentrations reduced only slightly from 0.4 (ig/L (on average) in raw water to 0.3 (ig/L (on average) after the lag vessel. The adsorption vessels filtered out some particulate arsenic, with the average concentration reduced from 0.8 (ig/L in raw water to 0.1 (ig/L after the treatment system. Iron and Manganese. Total iron concentrations in source water and following the adsorption vessels were below the MDL of 25 (ig/L (Table 4-7), except for the lag vessel sample collected on June 23, 2009, with total and soluble concentrations of 36.8 and 37.5 (ig/L, respectively. Total manganese levels in source water also were low, ranging from <0.1 to 3.4 (ig/L and averaging 0.6 (ig/L. Total manganese concentrations in system effluent were at similar levels to those in source water, ranging from 0.2 to 3.5 (ig/L and averaging 1.1 (ig/L. Competing Anions. Phosphate and silica, which might influence arsenic adsorption, were measured in Study Period I at IN, the TA, and TB sampling locations across the treatment train. Phosphorus concentrations were at or below 18 (ig/L in source water and below the MDL of 10 (ig/L in system effluent. Silica concentrations in source water ranged from 14.5 to 18.4 mg/L and averaged 16.4 mg/L. No silica reduction was observed after treatment, with concentrations averaged at 16.6 mg/L in the system effluent. Other Water Quality Parameters. As shown in Table 4-8, alkalinity, reported as CaCO3, ranged from 136 to 158 mg/L and averaged 147 mg/L in source water. As expected, alkalinity after the treatment system remained essentially unchanged at 148 mg/L (on average) after the lag vessel. Sulfate concentrations were consistently low, averaging 9.9 mg/L in source water and 10.7 mg/L after the lead and lag vessels. Fluoride and nitrate levels ranging from 0.4 to 0.8 mg/L and from 0.2 to 0.6 mg/L (as N), respectively, across the treatment train did not appear to have been affected by ArsenXnp. Average pH values ranged from 7.2 to 7.3 in Study Period I and from 7.1 to 7.2 in Study Period II. Total hardness concentrations, reported as CaCO3, ranged from 117 to 179 mg/L and averaged 153 mg/L in source water. Total hardness remained unchanged at 153 to 155 mg/L, on average, following Adsorption Vessels A and B. Average DO levels throughout the treatment train ranged from 6.5 to 6.7 mg/L in Study Period I, and from 8.2 to 8.3 mg/L in Study Period II. Average ORP readings throughout the treatment train ranged from 410 to 421 mV in Study Period I, and ranged from 420 to 440 mV in Study Period II. As expected, the mining tunnel water was rather oxidizing. 4.5.2 Spent Media Sampling. Three sets of spent media samples were collected from the top, middle, and bottom of the lead vessel (Vessel A) during media changeout on November 30, 2009. Table 4-9 presents the ICP-MS results. As shown in the table, arsenic loadings on the spent media were constant across the media bed, with 4.43, 4.39, and 4.53 mg/g of dry media measured at the top, middle, and bottom of the bed, respectively. The uniform arsenic loading across the media bed indicated that the media bed was close to complete exhaustion. The adsorptive capacity also was calculated by dividing the arsenic mass represented by the area between the influent (IN) and the lead vessel effluent (TA) curves, as shown in Figure 4-22, by the amount of dry media in lead vessel. Assuming no media loss, the dry weight of the media, i.e., 601 Ib/vessel, was calculated based on 1,414 Ib of wet media (i.e., 28 ft3 of media at an average bulk density of 50.5 lb/ft3) and an average moisture content of 57.5% (Table 4-2). Using this approach, the theoretical arsenic 40 ------- ju - ^^ -•> c As Species at Wellhead (IN) As Contration(ug/L -> i— " i— " K» (x 5 O (Ji O (Ji O t- ^ JU to ^ ^-^ on zU C O s Contra) /i O L .^.^ ** — ..._ / r^H / i^H ^ / / a — / / OAs(III) DAs(V) • As(particulate) ^^ / As Species afterVessel A (TA) / ^^ EJ / DAs(III) DAs(V) • As(particulate) MC T 1 Ong^ "^^ _^B_^ ===== -— -— As Contration(jig/L) ^ c _ on - 1 C _ 1U 5 " As Species after Vessel B (TB) DAs(III) DAs(V) MCL=10ng/L ! , i^—^—, | | Figure 4-24. Arsenic Speciation Results in Study Period I 41 ------- Table 4-9. Spent Media Total Metal Analysis Analyte (jig/g) Vessel A Top Vessel A Middle Vessel A Bottom Runl Run 2 Avg. Runl Run 2 Avg. Runl Run 2 Avg. Mg 536 499 518 544 572 558 615 621 618 P 772 746 759 754 797 775 882 1,000 941 Si 3,211 3,359 3,285 3,502 4,732 4,117 1,511 1,585 1,548 Ca 2,381 2,387 2,384 2,510 2,422 2,466 2,331 2,477 2,404 Fe 223,134 207,605 215,369 20,368 222,570 121,469 235,353 241,143 238,248 Mn 3,663 3,838 3,757 3,151 3,695 3,423 3,993 4,234 4,113 As 4,536 4,316 4,426 4,342 4,432 4,387 4,478 4,584 4,531 Ba 31.4 35.6 33.5 27.6 36.3 32.0 38.4 35.4 36.9 loadings on the media would be 5.50 mg/g of dry media. Therefore, ICP-MS analysis recovered approximately 80.8 % of arsenic. 4.5.3 Backwash Water Sampling. As recommended by the vendor, backwashing of the media was not conducted during the performance evaluation study. 4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. Distribution system water samples were collected to determine if water treated by the arsenic removal system would impact the lead, copper, and arsenic levels and other water chemistry in the distribution system. Prior to system startup, baseline distribution system water samples were collected on October 31, 2007; December 19, 2007; and Februray 21, 2008. Since system startup, distribution system water sampling continued monthly at the same three locations until July 7, 2009. Table 4-10 presents the results. The stagnation times for the first draw samples ranged from 6.5 to 13.0 hr, which met the requirements of the EPA LCR sampling protocol (EPA, 2002). Arsenic concentrations were reduced significantly from apre-startup level of 22.5 |o,g/L (on average) to a post-startup level of 1.1 ng/L. Arsenic concentrations measured in the distribution system water were compared to those measured in the plant effluent. As shown in Figure 4-25, before 77,170 BV (16,163,800 gal) of throughput, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system water were higher than those in the plant effluent. Afterwards, arsenic concentrations decreased to levels similar to the plant effluent. These results suggest occurrence of some initial redissolution and/or resuspendsion of arsenic previously accumulated in the distribution system. After that, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system water essentially mirrored those of the plant effluent. Iron concentrations measured in the distribution system were low both before and after system startup, with the majority of the samples measured at <25 |og/L. Manganese concentrations also were low both before (0.2 |o,g/L) and after (0.4 |o,g/L) system startup. Lead concentrations ranged from 0.1 to 3.0 (ig/L after startup, with no sample exceeding the action level of 15 (ig/L. Copper concentrations ranged from 1.9 to 143 (ig/L after startup, with no sample exceeding the 1,300 (ig/L action level. Compared to baseline samples, the average lead concentration reduced from 2.0 (ig/L in baseline samples to 0.8 (ig/L after startup; the average copper concentration reduced from 164 (ig/L to 46.2 (ig/L after startup. Measured pH values ranged from 7.4 to 7.8 and averaged 7.5. Alkalinity levels ranged from 139 to 159 mg/L (as CaCO3) and averaged 147 mg/L. The arsenic treatment system did not seem to affect pH and alkalinity levels in the distribution system. 42 ------- Table 4-10. Distribution System Sampling Results Sampling Event No. BL1 BL2 BL3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Date 10/31/07 12/19/07 02/21/08 08/1 1/08 09/04/08 10/01/08 10/30/08 12/03/08 01/08/09 02/25/09 03/19/09 04/15/09 05/13/09 06/1 1/09 07/07/09 DS1 21111 Barefoot Loop LCR 1st Draw Stagnation Time hi 7.0 11.8 8.0 8.0 10.3 6.5 NA NA 8.0 7.8 8.0 7.5 11.5 10.5 10.0 S a. S.U. 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.8 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.4 7.6 Alkalinity mg/L 157 146 151 146 142 139 143 152 146 148 145 148 145 150 155 < Hg/L 21.7 24.7 28.6 3.8 3.8 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.4 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.3 1.8 g Hg/L <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 a Hg/L 0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 .a PH Hg/L <0.1 0.2 0.2 1.6 1.9 1.8 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 s u Hg/L 85.4 94.0 101 130 143 31.6 18.5 10.6 9.1 33.1 66.3 140 10.3 5.8 18.4 DS2 21193 High Ridge LCR 1st Draw Stagnation Time hr 7.3 13.0 10.0 9.5 10.8 6.3 NA NA 9.0 8.0 8.0 9.5 11.0 9.5 7.0 S a. S.U. 7.5 7.8 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.4 7.4 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.5 Alkalinity mg/L 147 148 151 148 146 141 143 159 146 148 149 141 145 150 150 < Hg/L 12.1 23.2 27.7 1.5 1.7 1.4 0.5 0.8 0.7 1.4 <0.1 0.2 0.5 1.2 1.7 g Hg/L <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 a Hg/L 0.5 0.2 <0.1 0.3 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 2.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 .a PH Hg/L 8.7 0.2 <0.1 1.2 0.8 0.7 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.9 <0.1 1.6 0.2 0.2 s u Hg/L 517 8.2 91.1 26.6 61.3 63.4 41.3 98.4 119 23.2 39.0 18.1 37.0 5.7 15.0 DS3 21163 Last Chance LCR 1st Draw Stagnation Time hi 8.0 11.0 11.0 9.5 9.8 6.5 NA NA 9.5 8.5 6.5 10.5 11.0 10.0 10.5 S a. S.U. 7.6 7.7 7.5 7.8 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.6 7.7 7.5 7.5 Alkalinity mg/L 145 148 147 146 146 141 146 157 144 144 153 159 145 152 148 < Hg/L 14.0 23.3 27.1 2.1 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.6 1.4 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 1.0 1.2 1.7 g Hg/L 66.0 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 a S Hg/L 0.7 0.3 <0.1 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.2 <0.1 1.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 .a PH Hg/L 8.0 0.6 <0.1 1.0 3.0 0.1 <0.1 2.5 0.8 <0.1 0.1 1.5 1.3 0.4 0.3 s u Hg/L 433 24.5 117 63.0 38.4 31.2 1.9 114 22.5 27.2 2.7 33.0 138 9.9 16.5 -P-. OJ Lead action level = 15 BL = baseline samplin The unit for alkalinity ug/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L ig; NA = not available is mg/L as CaCO3. ------- 10 •So e o o •a s Study Period I (April 4, 2008 to November 29, 2009) 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 Throughput (gal) Figure 4-25. Arsenic Concentrations Measured in Distribution System Water 30,000,000 4.6 System Cost System cost was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The capital cost includes the cost for equipment, site engineering, and installation. The O&M cost includes the cost for media replacement and disposal, electrical use, and labor. 4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation of the treatment system was $87,892 (see Table 4-11). The equipment cost was $60,678 (or 69% of the total capital investment), which included the cost for two adsorption vessels, system skid frame, 56 ft3 of ArsenXnp media, prefilter, flowmeter, and shipping. The engineering cost included the cost for the design work necessary to develop the final system layout and footprint within the building, design of the piping connections up to the water storage reservoir inlet pipe, and the design of the electrical connection and conduit plan. The engineering cost also included the cost for the submission of the plans and permit application to SD DENR. The site engineering cost was $14,214, or 16% of the total capital investment. The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted unit, perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, load and backwash the media, perform system shakedown and startup, and conduct operator training. The installation cost was $13,000, or 15% of the total capital investment. 44 ------- Table 4-11. Capital Investment Cost for Lead, SD System Description Quantity Cost % of Capital Investment Cost Equipment Cost System Skid Frame Fiberglass Pressure Vessels Prefilter Assembly ArsenXnp Media (ft3) Totalizer/flow meter Shipping Equipment Total 1 2 1 56 1 — — $17,625 $8,125 $3,350 $23,800 $1,778 $6,000 $60,678 — — — — — — 69 Engineering Cost Vendor Labor 1 Engineering Total | $14,214 $14,214 — 16 Installation Cost Vendor Labor Subcontractor Labor Travel Installation Total Total Capital Investment — — — — - $10,000 $1,000 $2,000 $13,000 $87,892 — — — 15 100 The total capital cost of $87,892 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 75 gpm (108,000 gpd), which resulted in $l,172/gpm of design capacity ($0.81/gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an annualized cost of $8,296/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at the system design flowrate of 75 gpm to produce 39,420,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.21/1,000 gal. Because the system operated an average of 12 hr/day at approximately 71.5 gpm (based on the data in Study Period I, see Table 4-5), producing 18,790,000 gal of water annually, the unit capital cost increased to $0.44/1,000 gal at this reduced rate of use. 4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included the cost for media replacement and disposal, electricity, and labor (Table 4-12). The media replacement and disposal cost was $9,693, including the cost for 28 ft3 of LayneRT™ media and freight for shipping the virgin LayneRT™ media to the site and the spent ArsenXnp media to a SolmeteX location. Because the facility performed rebedding itself, the cost did not include labor and equipment for removing the spent media and loading the new media. To encourage the use of LayneRT™ for rebedding, the vendor offered a discounted price of $250/ft3, instead of its regular price of $480/ft3. Therefore, an adjusted cost of $16,133 (including the cost for 28 ft3 of LayneRT™ at $480/ft3 and the freight as discussed above) was used to calculate the media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water treated as a function of total throughput at 10-|a,g/L arsenic breakthrough from the lag vessel (Figure 4-26). Should additional cost for labor and equipment be included, the rebedding cost would be higher than $16,133. Comparison of electrical bills before and after system startup did not indicate any noticeable increase in power consumption. Therefore, electrical cost associated with system operation was assumed to be negligible. The chemical cost associated with the operation of the treatment system included only post-chlorination. This treatment step was in use at the site prior to installation of the treatment system. Therefore, the incremental chemical cost for the treatment system was negligible. 45 ------- Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed an average of 1 hr/day. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $0.40/1,000 gal of water treated based on this time commitment and a labor rate of $21/hr. This estimation assumes that maintenance and operational procedures were consistently performed through the completion of the system performance evaluation. Table 4-12. Operation and Maintenance Cost for the Lead System Cost Category Volume Processed (gal/year) Value 18,790,000 Assumptions Based on 12 hr/day and 71.5 gpmflowrate Media Replacement and Disposal Media Cost ($) Shipping ($) Freight of Spent Media to SolmeteX Facility ($) Subtotal ($) Media Replacement and Disposal Cost ($71000 gal) 7,000 or 13,440 1,418 1,275 9,693 or 16,133 See Figure 4-26 28 ft3 of LayneRT™ media at $250/ft3 (discounted price) or $480/ft3 (regular price) - — With a media cost of either $7,000 or $13,440 Based upon media run length at lO^g/L arsenic breakthrough Electricity Consumption Power Use ($71,000 gal) Negligible - Labor Average Weekly Labor (hr/wk) Total Labor Hours (hr/year) Total Labor Cost ($/year) Labor Cost ($71,000 gal) Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal 7 364 7,644 0.40 See Figure 4-26 1 hr/day; 7 day/wk - Labor rate=$2 1/hr - Based upon media run length at lO^g/L arsenic breakthrough 46 ------- $5.00 $4.50 $4.00 $3.50 ^ $3.00 = $2.50 $2.00 O $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00 •O&M cost •Mediareplacementcost 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (xl,000) Note: One bed volume equals 28 ft3 (209 gal) Figure 4-26. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost 47 ------- 5.0 REFERENCES Battelle. 2007. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology. Prepared under Contract No. EP-C-05-057, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. Battelle. 2007. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration - Round 2a at Lead, South Dakota. Prepared under Contract No. EP-C-05-057, Task Order No. 0019 for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. 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. Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113. EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Fed. Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142. EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems. EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141. Meng, X.G., S. Bang, and G.P. Korfiatis. 2000. "Effects of Silicate, Sulfate, and Carbonate on Arsenic Removal by Ferric Chloride." Plater Research, 34(4): 1255-1261. Meng, X.G., G.P. Korfiatis, S.B. Bang, and K.W. Bang. 2002. "Combined Effects of Anions on Arsenic Removal by Iron Hydroxides." Toxicology Letters, 133(1): 103-111. Schreier, A.M. 2005. Terry Trojan Water District Distribution, Storage & Transmission System Planning Study, prepared by Schreier Engineering for Terry Trojan Water District. Wang, L., A.S.C. Chen, and K. Fields. 2000. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Ion Exchange and Activated Alumina Plants. EPA/600/R-00/088. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. Wang, L., W. Condit, and A. 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. 48 ------- APPENDIX A OPERATIONAL DATA ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet Week No. Day Date Pump Hours hr Daily OP Time"1 hr/day Rotameter Flo wr ate gpm System Pressure System Inlet psig After Prefilter psig After Rotameter psig Tank A Outlet psig System Outlet psig AP Tank A psi AP Tank B psi Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer"" gal Cum. Flow gal Avg Flow/rate gpm Study Period 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fri Sat Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 04/04/08 04/05/08 04/07/08 04/08/08 04/09/08 04/10/08 04/11/08 04/12/08 04/13/08 04/14/08 04/15/08 04/16/08 04/17/08 04/18/08 04/19/08 04/20/08 04/21/08 04/22/08 04/23/08 04/24/08 04/25/08 04/26/08 04/27/08 04/28/08 04/29/08 04/30/08 05/01/08 05/02/08 05/03/08 05/04/08 05/05/08 05/06/08 05/07/08 05/08/08 05/09/08 05/10/08 05/11/08 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 74 74 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 72 73 73 72 69 70 71 73 73 73 73 73 72 74 73 73 73 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 18 32 25 20 16 19 16 16 18 18 16 16 16 18 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 16 12 8 6 10 10 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 8 5 4 3 5 5 4 4 5 2 2 2 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 8 7 4 3 5 5 2 2 3 6 6 6 4 450,943 530,566 697,152 787,412 868,703 955,531 972,404 987,800 1,003,943 1,045,719 1,078,003 1,117,155 1,156,805 1,197,999 1,245,574 1,297,428 1,323,854 1,377,283 1,406,836 1,443,849 1,480,288 1,511,968 1,556,732 NM 1,597,741 1,618,019 1,637,874 NA 79,623 246,209 336,469 417,760 504,588 521,461 536,857 553,000 594,776 627,060 666,212 705,862 747,056 794,631 846,485 872,911 926,340 955,893 992,906 1,029,345 1,061,025 1,105,789 1,105,789 1,146,798 1,167,076 1,186,931 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA System bypassed due to snow storm (05/02/08 to 05/06/08). NM NM NM NM NM 11 11 11 11 11 73 73 72 73 75 18 18 18 16 16 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 8 8 8 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 NA NA NA NA NA 4 4 4 2 2 1,658,575 1,679,314 1,701,297 1,724,244 1,745,029 1,207,632 1,228,371 1,250,354 1,273,301 1,294,086 NA NA NA NA NA ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 7 8 9 10 11 12 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 05/12/08 05/13/08 05/14/08 05/15/08 05/16/08 05/17/08 05/18/08 05/19/08 05/20/08 05/21/08 05/22/08 05/23/08 05/24/08 05/25/08 05/26/08 05/27/08 05/28/08 05/29/08 05/30/08 05/31/08 06/01/08 06/02/08 06/03/08 06/04/08 06/05/08 06/06/08 06/07/08 06/08/08 06/09/08 06/10/08 06/11/08 06/12/08 06/13/08 06/14/08 06/16/08 06/17/08 06/18/08 06/19/08 06/20/08 06/21/08 06/22/08 Pump Hours hr NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 49.4 61.2 73.7 81.6 92.7 102.9 113.9 126.8 138.0 145.5 157.4 166.6 176.0 188.9 198.5 211.4 218.0 231.3 239.1 252.9 276.1 286.5 300.8 311.6 323.8 334.1 346.4 Daily OP Time1" hr/day 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 13 8 11 10 11 13 11 8 12 9 9 13 10 13 7 13 8 14 12 10 14 11 12 10 12 Rota meter Flowrate gpm 73 72 74 73 73 74 74 74 72 72 73 72 73 73 73 75 73 73 73 73 75 75 73 73 73 73 75 75 75 NM NM 74 73 75 74 75 76 76 75 75 74 System Pressure System Inlet psig 16 24 16 16 18 24 20 20 20 26 24 24 26 26 20 22 22 24 28 20 24 22 28 25 28 26 26 26 24 NM NM 28 28 28 27 23 24 24 24 28 28 After Prefilter psig NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM After Rotameter psig NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM Tank A Outlet psig 4 16 4 4 5 10 8 10 10 13 10 10 14 14 8 12 16 18 16 8 12 10 14 12 14 14 16 16 12 NM NM 16 16 16 14 12 12 12 12 14 14 System Outlet psig 2 8 2 2 3 5 4 5 5 7 5 5 7 7 4 6 8 9 8 4 6 5 7 6 7 7 8 8 6 NM NM 8 8 8 7 6 6 6 6 7 7 iP Tank A psi NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA iP Tank B psi 2 8 2 2 2 5 4 5 5 6 5 5 7 7 4 6 8 9 8 4 6 5 7 6 7 7 8 8 6 NA NA 8 8 8 7 6 6 6 6 7 7 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 1,766,068 1,795,783 1,818,567 2,915 11,376 12,268 16,432 24,335 28,015 33,887 39,695 43,432 48,743 55,685 60,065 66,159 72,681 36,301 93,079 147,784 204,452 275,346 333,863 369,737 425,395 469,369 513,290 578,257 623,175 687,856 719,487 783,240 821,378 886,710 1,002,115 1,053,321 1,126,185 1,178,725 1,240,565 1,290,024 1,351,572 Cum. Flow gal 1,315,125 1,344,840 1,385,593 1,426,345 1,467,098 1,507,851 1,548,604 1,589,356 1,630,109 1,670,862 1,711,615 1,752,367 1,793,120 1,833,873 1,874,625 1,915,378 1,956,131 1,996,884 2,053,662 2,108,367 2,165,035 2,235,929 2,294,446 2,330,320 2,385,978 2,429,952 2,473,873 2,538,840 2,583,758 2,648,439 2,680,070 2,743,823 2,781,961 2,847,293 2,962,698 3,013,904 3,086,768 3,139,308 3,201,148 3,250,607 3,312,155 Avg Flowrate gpm NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 58 54 86 85 89 86 92 87 80 78 80 78 84 78 84 80 80 81 79 83 82 85 81 84 80 83 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 13 14 15 16 17 18 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 06/23/08 06/24/08 06/25/08 06/26/08 06/27/08 06/28/08 06/29/08 06/30/08 07/01/08 07/02/08 07/03/08 07/04/08 07/05/08 07/06/08 07/07/08 07/08/08 07/09/08 07/10/08 07/11/08 07/12/08 07/13/08 07/14/08 07/15/08 07/16/08 07/17/08 07/18/08 07/19/08 07/20/08 07/21/08 07/22/08 07/23/08 07/24/08 07/25/08 07/26/08 07/27/08 07/28/08 07/29/08 07/30/08 07/31/08 08/01/08 08/02/08 08/03/08 Pump Hours hr 356.9 367.6 377.6 390.7 403.4 416.1 429.2 443.7 452.7 468.4 478.9 491.7 504.4 522.9 536.9 549.8 562.3 578.1 595.7 613.4 631.3 651.4 670.2 687.4 706.7 726.3 743.8 765.7 779.4 790.9 803.7 816.7 826.5 840.7 852.9 863.8 874.7 885.5 897.7 904.7 942.8 948.8 Daily OP Time1" hr/day 11 11 10 13 13 13 13 15 9 16 11 13 13 19 14 13 13 16 18 18 18 20 19 17 19 20 18 22 14 12 13 13 10 14 12 11 11 11 12 7 20 6 Rotameter Flowrate gpm 74 74 75 75 75 78 78 73 75 75 73 72 73 75 75 74 74 50 75 73 73 50 50 50 55 50 50 50 50 75 73 73 73 73 72 72 73 73 75 75 72 73 System Pressure System Inlet psig 28 27 27 27 28 28 22 24 26 26 28 22 28 25 24 27 27 21 24 26 27 15 15 15 15 16 15 15 15 24 28 27 25 28 25 28 28 27 28 28 26 28 After Prefilter psig NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM After Rotameter psig NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM Tank A Outlet psig 14 13 13 14 14 14 14 12 13 13 13 10 6 12 11 13 13 10 11 10 13 7 7 7 8 8 7 7 7 12 14 13 12 14 12 14 14 13 14 14 12 14 System Outlet psig 7 6 6 7 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 5 3 6 5 7 7 5 5 5 7 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 6 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 6 7 7 6 7 iP Tank A psi NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA iP Tank B psi 7 7 7 7 6 6 8 6 7 7 7 5 3 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 7 6 6 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 1,401,599 1,454,473 1,501,395 1,568,190 1,630,365 1,695,950 1,760,777 1,834,770 1,877,045 1,957,706 2,008,640 2,074,147 2,136,513 2,233,615 2,306,547 2,370,001 2,431,807 2,503,321 2,561,771 2,621,181 2,682,702 2,751,444 2,815,474 2,889,730 2,963,925 3,036,473 3,110,292 3,149,210 3,185,073 3,233,417 3,295,150 3,358,890 3,405,356 3,476,456 3,535,410 3,587,627 3,640,049 3,691,447 3,750,222 3,782,008 3,853,562 3,882,156 Cum. Flow gal 3,362,182 3,415,056 3,461,978 3,528,773 3,590,948 3,656,533 3,721,360 3,795,353 3,837,628 3,918,289 3,969,223 4,034,730 4,097,096 4,194,198 4,267,130 4,330,584 4,392,390 4,463,904 4,522,354 4,581,764 4,643,285 4,712,027 4,776,057 4,850,313 4,924,508 4,997,056 5,070,875 5,109,793 5,145,656 5,194,000 5,255,733 5,319,473 5,365,939 5,437,039 5,495,993 5,548,210 5,600,632 5,652,030 5,710,805 5,742,591 5,814,145 5,842,739 Avg Flowrate gpm NA 82 78 85 82 86 82 85 78 86 81 85 82 87 87 82 82 75 55 56 57 57 57 72 64 62 70 30 44 70 80 82 79 83 81 80 80 79 80 76 58 79 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 19 20 21 22 23 24 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 08/04/08 08/05/08 08/06/08 08/07/08 08/08/08 08/09/08 08/10/08 08/11/08 08/12/08 08/13/08 08/14/08 08/15/08 08/16/08 08/17/08 08/18/08 08/19/08 08/20/08 08/21/08 08/22/08 08/23/08 08/24/08 08/25/08 08/26/08 08/27/08 08/28/08 08/29/08 08/30/08 08/31/08 09/01/08 09/02/08 09/03/08 09/04/08 09/05/08 09/06/08 09/07/08 09/08/08 09/09/08 09/10/08 09/11/08 09/12/08 09/13/08 09/14/08 Pump Hours hr 962.8 977.9 995.9 Daily OP Time1" hr/day 13 20 18 Rotameter Flowrate gpm 75 73 73 System Pressure System Inlet psig 18 18 16 After Prefilter psig NM NM NM After Rotameter psig NM NM NM Tank A Outlet psig 9 9 8 System Outlet psig 4 4 3 AP Tank A psi NA NA NA AP Tank B psi 5 5 5 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 3,949,482 4,024,852 4,080,733 Cum Flow gal 5,910,065 5,985,435 6,041,316 Avg Flowrate gpm 80 83 52 Lighting striked the well pump controler on 8/7/08, the system was off. 1020.4 1048.6 1056.4 1056.9 1065.6 1075.6 1095.5 1105.4 1110.1 1125.3 1139.2 1148.5 1155.6 1168.3 1183.2 1198.4 1210.5 1220.3 1227.6 1239.1 1255.8 1270.0 1284.4 1290.0 1305.0 1316.5 1324.6 1329.9 1343.0 1363.4 1375.7 1386.5 1399.2 1413.5 1425.9 1442.0 1455.6 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 13 14 9 7 13 14 15 13 10 7 11 17 14 14 6 15 11 8 5 13 20 13 11 13 14 12 15 14 75 73 73 75 73 17 17 17 28 27 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 4 4 4 18 16 2 2 2 9 8 NA NA NA NA NA 2 2 2 9 8 4,301,030 4,452,535 4,568,553 4,570,318 4,633,330 6,261,613 6,413,118 6,529,136 6,530,901 6,593,913 NA NA NA 59 NA System was offline to install a pressure gauge after the rotameter 73 72 73 73 73 73 73 75 73 73 73 73 72 72 72 72 72 73 73 72 72 72 73 73 72 73 72 72 73 73 48 73 28 25 26 26 22 22 27 29 23 22 27 27 27 29 27 26 27 23 29 29 26 28 27 28 28 24 28 28 27 22 21 28 NM 24 25 25 20 20 26 28 22 21 26 26 26 26 26 25 26 22 28 28 25 27 26 26 27 23 26 26 25 21 20 26 NM 24 24 24 18 18 24 16 15 16 17 24 24 27 25 23 25 22 26 26 24 25 24 25 25 21 25 25 24 20 19 25 14 12 13 13 8 8 13 7 7 8 8 14 14 26 15 16 14 10 16 16 14 16 17 16 16 11 12 12 11 10 10 12 7 6 7 7 4 4 7 3 4 4 4 7 7 16 7 8 7 8 8 8 7 7 8 9 8 6 7 7 6 5 5 7 NA 12 11 11 10 10 11 9 8 8 9 10 10 NA 10 7 11 12 10 10 10 9 7 9 9 10 13 13 13 10 9 13 7 6 6 6 4 4 6 4 3 4 4 7 7 10 8 8 7 2 8 8 7 9 9 7 8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4,683,140 4,785,418 4,834,092 4,857,495 4,934,492 5,003,753 5,049,700 5,083,900 5,149,907 5,224,392 5,300,845 5,361,060 5,408,335 5,444,144 5,503,192 5,587,294 5,658,017 5,729,809 5,756,131 5,833,854 5,890,681 5,929,712 5,957,337 6,021,900 6,125,041 6,186,888 6,241,387 6,307,404 6,373,515 6,413,199 6,475,642 6,543,467 6,643,723 6,746,001 6,794,675 6,818,078 6,895,075 6,964,336 7,010,283 7,044,483 7,110,490 7,184,975 7,261,428 7,321,643 7,368,918 7,404,727 7,463,775 7,547,877 7,618,600 7,690,392 7,716,714 7,794,437 7,851,264 7,890,295 7,917,920 7,982,483 8,085,624 8,147,471 8,201,970 8,267,987 8,334,098 8,373,782 8,436,225 8,504,050 83 57 82 83 84 83 82 80 87 83 84 83 80 82 86 84 83 83 78 86 82 80 87 82 84 84 84 87 77 53 65 83 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 25 26 27 28 29 30 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 09/15/08 09/16/08 09/17/08 09/18/08 09/19/08 09/20/08 09/21/08 09/22/08 09/23/08 09/24/08 09/25/08 09/26/08 09/27/08 09/28/08 09/29/08 09/30/08 10/01/08 10/02/08 10/03/08 10/04/08 10/05/08 10/06/08 10/07/08 10/08/08 10/09/08 10/10/08 10/11/08 10/12/08 10/13/08 10/14/08 10/15/08 10/16/08 10/17/08 10/18/08 10/19/08 10/20/08 10/21/08 10/22/08 10/23/08 10/24/08 10/25/08 10/26/08 Pump Hours hr 1468.8 1489.9 1501.1 1505.9 1523.3 1539.9 1550.6 1560.1 1572.6 1576.2 1588.3 1601.4 1610.4 1617.0 1631.1 1637.1 1644.8 1658.1 1664.8 1670.2 NM 1692.1 1695.7 1709.2 1718.5 1727.5 1734.3 1746.5 1754.5 1763.6 1773.2 1779.7 1789.2 1800.3 NM 1810.9 1819.5 1828.3 1837.9 1852.4 1856.7 1868.5 Daily OP Time1" hr/day 14 21 11 5 17 16 11 10 12 4 12 13 9 7 15 6 8 13 7 5 NA 11 4 13 9 7 10 12 8 9 10 6 9 11 NA 11 9 9 10 11 6 12 Rotameter Flowrate gpm 73 73 73 73 73 72 72 73 73 73 73 73 72 73 73 73 72 73 73 73 NM 73 73 73 75 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 NM 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 System Pressure System Inlet psig 24 24 27 26 26 25 26 26 26 23 24 26 28 24 28 28 26 28 28 27 NM 28 27 28 28 28 26 27 28 27 27 28 28 27 NM 28 28 27 27 28 28 28 After Prefilter psig 26 23 25 25 25 24 25 25 25 21 23 23 27 23 27 27 25 27 27 26 NM 27 26 26 27 27 26 26 27 26 26 27 27 26 NM 28 26 25 26 27 26 26 After Rotameter psig 21 22 24 24 24 22 24 23 23 20 18 23 25 21 25 26 24 25 26 25 NM 25 25 25 25 25 25 24 26 26 25 26 26 25 NM 24 24 25 24 24 24 25 Tank A Outlet psig 11 12 14 13 13 12 13 13 13 10 12 13 14 13 14 15 13 14 16 14 NM 14 14 14 14 16 13 14 14 14 13 16 16 15 NM 16 17 16 16 16 14 16 System Outlet psig 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 5 6 6 7 6 7 7 6 7 7 7 NM 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 8 8 8 NM 8 8 7 7 8 7 7 AP Tank A psi 10 10 10 11 11 10 11 10 10 10 6 10 11 8 11 11 11 11 10 11 NA 11 11 11 11 9 12 10 12 12 12 10 10 10 NA 8 7 9 8 8 10 9 AP Tank B psi 5 5 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 7 7 7 7 8 7 7 9 7 NA 7 7 7 7 9 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 7 NA 8 9 9 9 8 7 9 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 6,609,464 6,721,539 6,776,191 6,800,196 6,888,419 6,971,355 7,023,685 7,072,619 7,134,063 7,149,897 7,211,874 7,276,458 7,320,076 7,353,836 7,423,605 7,451,319 7,490,612 7,556,709 7,589,695 7,618,005 NM 7,728,055 7,746,756 7,814,795 7,861,585 7,906,457 7,942,303 8,004,129 8,043,939 8,088,197 8,132,891 8,164,479 8,204,655 8,262,384 8,262,384 8,312,538 8,356,018 8,398,851 8,445,286 8,515,860 8,544,813 8,590,337 Cum. Flow gal 8,570,047 8,682,122 8,736,774 8,760,779 8,849,002 8,931,938 8,984,268 9,033,202 9,094,646 9,110,480 9,172,457 9,237,041 9,280,659 9,314,419 9,384,188 9,411,902 9,451,195 9,517,292 9,550,278 9,578,588 NM 9,688,638 9,707,339 9,775,378 9,822,168 9,867,040 9,902,886 9,964,712 10,004,522 10,048,780 10,093,474 10,125,062 10,165,238 10,222,967 NA 10,273,121 10,316,601 10,359,434 10,405,869 10,476,443 10,505,396 10,550,920 Avg Flowrate gpm 83 89 81 83 85 83 82 86 82 73 85 82 81 85 82 77 85 83 82 87 NA 84 87 84 84 83 88 84 83 81 78 81 70 87 NA 80 84 81 81 81 112 64 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 31 32 33 34 35 36 Day Mon Tue Wed|c| Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 10/27/08 10/28/08 10/29/08 10/30/08 10/31/08 11/01/08 11/02/08 11/03/08 11/04/08 11/05/08 11/06/08 11/07/08 11/08/08 11/09/08 11/10/08 11/11/08 11/12/08 11/13/08 11/14/08 11/15/08 11/16/08 11/17/08 11/18/08 11/19/08 1 1/20/08 11/21/08 11/22/08 11/23/08 11/24/08 11/25/08 11/26/08 11/27/08 11/28/08 1 1/29/08 11/30/08 12/01/08 12/02/08 12/03/08 12/04/08 12/05/08 12/06/08 12/07/08 Pump Hours hr 1875.2 1884.0 1917.6 1923.9 1934.0 1945.5 1952.7 1962.6 1970.1 1981.3 NM NM NM NM 2026.9 2037.9 2044.7 2058.7 NM 2071.8 2085.0 2094.5 2103.0 2111.6 2121.6 2129.8 2138.0 2147.7 2157.4 2164.4 2176.1 2184.0 2191.9 2205.6 2219.4 2228.5 2239.3 2248.1 2254.1 2266.7 2273.2 2281.4 Daily OP Time1" hr/day 7 9 24 10 10 11 7 10 7 11 NA NA NA NA 8 11 7 14 NA 7 12 8 9 9 10 8 13 10 7 7 12 8 8 19 14 7 11 9 6 13 10 8 Rotameter Flowrate gpm 73 73 73 73 72 73 73 73 73 73 NM NM NM NM 73 73 73 73 NM 73 73 73 73 72 73 73 73 73 72 73 73 74 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 System Pressure System Inlet psig 26 26 26 28 27 28 26 26 26 26 NM NM NM NM 27 27 26 26 NM 27 27 27 27 26 28 27 25 27 27 28 28 29 28 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 28 27 After Prefilter psig 25 24 25 25 26 27 25 25 25 25 NM NM NM NM 26 26 25 25 NM 26 26 26 26 25 27 26 24 26 26 27 27 28 27 26 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 26 After Rotameter psig 24 24 24 24 22 24 24 24 24 24 NM NM NM NM 24 24 20 20 NM 24 24 24 24 22 24 24 20 24 22 24 24 26 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 24 Tank A Outlet psig 12 12 11 11 12 13 12 12 12 13 NM NM NM NM 13 12 8 7 NM 14 14 14 14 12 12 14 10 14 13 14 14 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 14 System Outlet psig 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 NM NM NM NM 6 7 4 3 NM 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 5 7 6 7 7 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 AP Tank A psi 12 12 13 13 10 11 12 12 12 11 NA NA NA NA 11 12 12 13 NA 10 10 10 10 10 12 10 10 10 9 10 10 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 13 10 AP Tank B psi 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 NA NA NA NA 7 5 4 4 NA 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 8,623,114 8,665,169 8,712,745 8,738,054 8,780,648 8,826,225 8,853,129 8,895,512 8,923,719 8,969,492 NM NM NM NM 9,148,836 9,193,209 9,220,705 9,279,276 NM 9,331,992 9,384,717 9,421,574 9,456,191 9,490,808 9,530,030 9,562,912 9,595,794 9,634,250 9,672,701 9,700,324 9,746,149 9,777,579 9,808,999 9,866,543 9,924,168 9,961,804 10,004,198 10,039,534 10,062,560 10,111,892 10,137,311 10,169,079 Cum. Flow gal 10,583,697 10,625,752 10,673,328 10,698,637 10,741,231 10,786,808 10,813,712 10,856,095 10,884,302 10,930,075 NA NA NA NA 11,109,419 11,153,792 11,181,288 11,239,859 NA 11,292,575 11,345,300 11,382,157 11,416,774 11,451,391 11,490,613 11,523,495 11,556,377 11,594,833 11,633,284 11,660,907 11,706,732 11,738,162 11,769,582 11,827,126 11,884,751 11,922,387 11,964,781 12,000,117 12,023,143 12,072,475 12,097,894 12,129,662 Avg Flowrate gpm 82 80 24 67 70 66 62 71 63 68 NA NA NA NA 66 67 67 70 NA 67 67 65 68 67 65 67 67 66 66 66 65 66 66 70 70 69 65 67 64 65 65 65 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 37 38 39 40 41 42 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 12/08/08 12/09/08 12/10/08 12/11/08 12/12/08 12/13/08 12/14/08 12/15/08 12/16/08 12/17/08 12/18/08 12/19/08 12/20/08 12/21/08 12/22/08 12/23/08 12/24/08 12/25/08 12/26/08 12/27/08 12/28/08 12/29/08 12/30/08 12/31/08 01/01/09 01/02/09 01/03/09 01/04/09 01/05/09 01/06/09 01/07/09 01/08/09 01/09/09 01/10/09 01/11/09 01/12/09 01/13/09 01/14/09 01/15/09 01/16/09 01/17/09 01/18/09 Pump Hours hr 2295.8 2302.3 2314.5 2321.2 2331.9 2344.9 NM 2357.9 2365.0 2382.2 2394.5 2411.5 2427.1 2444.0 2464.8 2482.7 2498.7 2514.4 2529. 1 2544.0 2559.5 2577.6 2595.8 2612.9 2629.4 2647.1 2666.2 2691.9 2694.9 2702.5 2713.2 2723.0 2734.5 2745.9 2757.7 2770.5 2777.4 2787.3 2797.3 2809.2 2820.4 2831.7 Daily OP Time1" hr/day 10 7 12 7 11 20 NA 5 7 17 12 17 23 17 16 18 17 15 15 24 16 13 19 17 16 18 23 12 2 8 11 10 12 11 12 13 7 10 10 12 17 11 Rotameter Flowrate gpm 73 73 73 73 73 73 NM 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 75 73 73 73 73 73 75 73 73 70 73 73 73 75 73 73 73 72 72 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 System Pressure System Inlet psig 28 25 28 28 28 28 NM 27 28 23 23 24 23 23 20 27 26 27 27 27 28 27 27 25 26 27 27 28 25 27 27 26 26 26 27 27 27 28 27 28 28 24 After Prefilter psig 27 24 27 27 27 27 NM 26 27 20 21 21 20 20 18 26 24 26 26 26 27 26 26 24 25 26 26 27 24 26 26 25 25 25 24 25 26 27 26 26 26 22 After Rotameter psig 26 22 26 26 26 26 NM 24 26 20 20 20 18 18 16 24 21 24 24 24 25 24 24 21 23 24 24 26 22 24 24 23 23 24 22 23 23 25 23 24 22 20 Tank A Outlet psig 14 8 14 14 14 13 NM 12 14 8 8 8 7 7 4 12 10 12 12 12 14 12 12 10 10 12 12 14 7 12 12 10 10 12 12 12 10 14 10 14 12 8 System Outlet psig 7 4 7 7 7 7 NM 6 7 4 4 4 4 4 2 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 6 5 5 6 6 7 3 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 5 7 5 7 6 4 iP Tank A psi 12 14 12 12 12 13 NA 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 13 12 12 12 15 12 12 13 13 12 10 11 13 11 13 10 10 12 iP Tank B psi 7 4 7 7 7 6 NA 6 7 4 4 4 3 3 2 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 6 5 5 6 6 7 4 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 5 7 5 7 6 4 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 10,228,452 10,252,220 10,301,960 10,328,468 10,370,303 10,409,162 NM 10,531,444 10,558,934 10,631,758 10,683,047 10,755,548 10,822,316 10,848,390 10,936,770 11,012,630 11,079,540 11,146,006 11,212,033 11,277,869 11,344,337 11,411,874 11,488,320 11,495,501 11,567,038 11,703,770 11,775,999 11,888,229 11,901,380 11,933,620 11,974,650 12,013,339 12,059,751 12,106,078 12,151,375 12,203,348 12,229,070 12,268,865 12,308,661 12,354,440 12,399,721 12,445,003 Cum. Flow gal 12,189,035 12,212,803 12,262,543 12,289,051 12,330,886 12,369,745 NA 12,492,027 12,519,517 12,592,341 12,643,630 12,716,131 12,782,899 12,808,973 12,897,353 12,973,213 13,040,123 13,106,589 13,172,616 13,238,452 13,304,920 13,372,457 13,448,903 13,456,084 13,527,621 13,664,353 13,736,582 13,848,812 13,861,963 13,894,203 13,935,233 13,973,922 14,020,334 14,066,661 14,111,958 14,163,931 14,189,653 14,229,448 14,269,244 14,315,023 14,360,304 14,405,586 Avg Flowrate gpm 69 61 68 66 65 50 NA NA 65 71 69 71 71 NA 71 71 70 71 75 74 71 62 70 NA NA NA 63 73 73 71 64 66 67 68 64 68 62 67 66 64 67 67 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) > oo Week No. 43 44 45 46 47 48 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 01/19/09 01/20/09 01/21/09 01/22/09 01/23/09 01/24/09 01/25/09 01/26/09 01/27/09 01/28/09 01/29/09 01/30/09 01/31/09 02/01/09 02/02/09 02/03/09 02/04/09 02/05/09 02/06/09 02/07/09 02/08/09 02/09/09 02/10/09 02/11/09 02/12/09 02/13/09 02/14/09 02/15/09 02/16/09 02/17/09 02/18/09 02/19/09 02/20/09 02/21/09 02/22/09 02/23/09 02/24/09 02/25/09 02/26/09 02/27/09 02/28/09 03/01/09 Pump Hours hr 2848.7 2859.2 2874.0 2888.8 2913.1 2928.1 2943. 1 2958.1 2967. 1 2977.7 2990.4 3000.3 3011.7 3020.3 3030.9 3041.6 3052.7 3063.9 3073.4 3082.9 3099.1 3109.4 3119.9 3130.1 3142.6 3155.1 3167.8 3180.7 3194.4 3206.3 3221.9 3235.3 3247.3 3260.2 3275.8 3283.9 3295.5 3307.9 3319.1 3328.9 3341.4 3357.7 Daily OP Time1" hr/day 13 11 15 15 24 22 15 12 9 10 13 10 17 9 8 11 11 11 10 13 16 8 10 11 12 13 19 13 10 12 16 13 12 21 16 6 12 13 11 10 19 16 Rotameter Flowrate gpm 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 72 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 72 72 73 73 73 73 72 73 73 70 59 System Pressure System Inlet psig 27 28 28 26 26 28 24 28 28 26 26 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 28 28 25 26 28 28 23 24 28 23 28 28 26 28 28 24 25 After Prefilter psig 25 27 27 25 24 27 22 27 27 24 25 25 25 24 26 27 25 26 26 25 25 26 26 25 25 26 26 24 24 25 25 20 22 25 20 25 25 24 25 25 22 23 After Rotameter psig 24 25 25 20 20 24 20 24 25 24 24 23 24 24 25 25 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 23 23 24 24 22 20 24 24 18 20 24 18 24 24 22 24 24 20 22 Tank A Outlet psig 12 14 16 6 12 14 8 14 14 12 12 14 14 12 14 12 14 14 14 14 14 12 12 10 10 12 12 8 16 12 12 8 10 12 8 12 12 10 12 12 7 8 System Outlet psig 6 7 8 3 6 7 4 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 5 5 6 6 4 8 6 6 4 5 6 4 6 6 5 6 6 3 6 iP Tank A psi 12 11 9 14 8 10 12 10 11 12 12 9 10 12 11 13 10 10 10 10 10 12 12 13 13 12 12 14 4 12 12 10 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 13 14 iP Tank B psi 6 7 8 3 6 7 4 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 5 5 6 6 4 8 6 6 4 5 6 4 6 6 5 6 6 4 2 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 12,514,777 12,556,247 12,567,959 12,579,621 12,632,901 12,695,110 12,757,320 12,813,595 12,853,155 12,895,005 12,933,766 12,976,646 13,019,960 13,062,407 13,104,827 13,147,247 13,190,862 13,234,477 13,271,726 13,308,975 13,375,106 13,416,253 13,457,550 13,498,549 13,548,451 13,599,268 13,650,277 13,702,160 13,757,809 13,809,711 13,869,094 13,922,713 13,976,000 14,029,785 14,083,570 14,115,830 14,160,450 14,203,242 14,245,829 14,288,621 14,331,515 14,374,410 Cum. Flow gal 14,475,360 14,516,830 14,528,542 14,540,204 14,593,484 14,655,693 14,717,903 14,774,178 14,813,738 14,855,588 14,894,349 14,937,229 14,980,543 15,022,990 15,065,410 15,107,830 15,151,445 15,195,060 15,232,309 15,269,558 15,335,689 15,376,836 15,418,133 15,459,132 15,509,034 15,559,851 15,610,860 15,662,743 15,718,392 15,770,294 15,829,677 15,883,296 15,936,583 15,990,368 16,044,153 16,076,413 16,121,033 16,163,825 16,206,412 16,249,204 16,292,098 16,334,993 Avg Flowrate gpm 68 66 NA NA NA 69 69 63 73 66 51 72 63 82 67 66 65 65 65 65 68 67 66 67 67 68 67 67 68 73 63 67 74 69 57 66 64 58 63 73 57 44 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 49 50 51 52 53 54 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 03/02/09 03/03/09 03/04/09 03/05/09 03/06/09 03/07/09 03/08/09 03/09/09 03/10/09 03/11/09 03/12/09 03/13/09 03/14/09 03/15/09 03/16/09 03/17/09 03/18/09 03/19/09 03/20/09 03/21/09 03/22/09 03/23/09 03/24/09 03/25/09 03/26/09 03/27/09 03/28/09 03/29/09 03/30/09 03/31/09 04/01/09 04/02/09 04/03/09 04/04/09 04/05/09 04/06/09 04/07/09 04/08/09 04/09/09 04/10/09 04/11/09 04/12/09 Pump Hours hr 3377.9 3393.5 3406.6 3421.4 3436.2 3454.8 3473.4 3493.4 3509.3 3525.2 3537.8 3555.3 3572.8 3594.6 3614.6 3631.6 3647.0 3658.5 3676.7 3693.8 3714.2 3728.8 NM NM 3772.7 3787.2 3802.4 3817.6 NM NM 3861.2 3875.6 3890.1 NM 3905.2 3935.5 3949.4 3963.0 3975.6 3988.3 4005.8 4023.4 Daily OP Time1" hr/day 15 16 13 15 15 20 19 15 16 16 13 18 21 22 15 17 16 12 18 24 20 11 NA NA 15 15 21 16 NA NA 13 15 14 NA 9 24 15 14 13 13 18 17 Rota meter Flowrate gpm 55 55 53 53 55 55 55 55 57 57 55 55 55 57 53 53 53 53 53 55 55 53 NM NM 53 53 55 53 NM NM 53 53 55 NM 53 53 55 53 53 53 55 58 System Pressure System Inlet psig 16 18 23 25 24 24 25 24 24 24 23 24 16 24 24 24 28 24 18 20 17 26 NM NM 26 24 25 23 NM NM 27 24 25 NM 25 25 25 24 25 24 25 24 After Prefilter psig 14 14 21 23 22 22 23 21 21 20 21 20 14 12 21 21 25 21 15 18 14 23 NM NM 23 22 22 20 NM NM 25 21 23 NM 22 22 23 24 25 24 25 24 After Rotameter psig 16 14 20 20 20 20 16 20 20 22 18 20 20 16 20 18 16 15 12 15 13 20 NM NM 20 20 20 18 NM NM 22 18 21 NM 20 20 20 22 20 22 24 18 Tank A Outlet psig 4 4 12 12 12 12 4 14 14 14 6 14 12 4 12 12 4 4 6 10 4 12 NM NM 14 14 14 14 NM NM 14 14 14 NM 12 14 14 14 14 14 12 4 System Outlet psig 2 2 6 6 6 6 2 7 7 7 3 7 6 2 6 6 2 2 3 5 2 6 NM NM 7 7 7 7 NM NM 7 7 7 NM - 7 7 7 7 7 6 2 AP Tank A psi 12 10 8 8 8 8 12 6 6 8 12 6 8 12 8 6 12 11 6 5 9 8 NA NA 6 6 6 4 NA NA 8 4 7 NA 8 6 6 8 6 8 12 14 AP Tank B psi 2 2 6 6 6 6 2 7 7 7 3 7 6 2 6 6 2 2 3 5 2 6 NA NA 7 7 7 7 NA NA 7 7 7 NA 7 7 7 7 7 6 2 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 14,433,970 14,479,490 14,516,670 14,558,540 14,600,760 14,656,785 14,712,810 14,772,125 14,818,065 14,864,006 14,899,849 14,952,512 15,003,175 15,069,445 15,127,950 15,174,865 15,221,780 15,255,623 15,306,625 15,357,410 15,417,025 15,458,438 NM NM 15,582,680 15,622,919 15,666,819 15,710,720 NM NM 15,832,430 15,873,000 15,913,570 NM 15,956,186 16,041,420 16,080,315 16,117,850 16,153,267 16,188,415 16,239,587 16,290,760 Cum. Flow gal 16,394,553 16,440,073 16,477,253 16,519,123 16,561,343 16,617,368 16,673,393 16,732,708 16,778,648 16,824,589 16,860,432 16,913,095 16,963,758 17,030,028 17,088,533 17,135,448 17,182,363 17,216,206 17,267,208 17,317,993 17,377,608 17,419,021 NA NA 17,543,263 17,583,502 17,627,402 17,671,303 NA NA 17,793,013 17,833,583 17,874,153 NA 17,916,769 18,002,003 18,040,898 18,078,433 18,113,850 18,148,998 18,200,170 18,251,343 Avg Flowrate gpm 49 49 47 47 48 50 50 49 48 48 47 50 48 51 49 46 51 49 47 49 49 47 NA NA 47 46 48 48 NA NA 47 47 47 NA 47 47 47 46 47 46 49 48 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 55 56 57 58 59 60 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 04/13/09 04/14/09 04/15/09 04/16/09 04/17/09 04/18/09 04/19/09 04/20/09 04/21/09 04/22/09 04/23/09 04/24/09 04/25/09 04/26/09 04/27/09 04/28/09 04/29/09 04/30/09 05/01/09 05/02/09 05/03/09 05/04/09 05/05/09 05/06/09 05/07/09 05/08/09 05/09/09 05/10/09 05/11/09 05/12/09 05/13/09 05/14/09 05/15/09 05/16/09 05/17/09 05/18/09 05/19/09 05/20/09 05/21/09 05/22/09 05/23/09 05/24/09 Pump Hours hr 4041.7 4056.5 4067.5 4078.5 4093.6 4100.3 4114.8 4133.2 4144.9 4160.6 4171.0 4183.7 4192.4 4207.8 4223.2 4237.5 4250.5 4264.3 4278.1 4289.7 4301.4 4321.4 4335.7 4350. 1 4359.9 4370.9 4381.5 4399.2 4417.0 4428.2 4437.0 4454.2 4471.5 4480.6 4489.8 4511.6 4532.9 4556.4 NM NM 4628.9 4645.0 Daily OP Time1" hr/day 14 15 11 11 15 10 14 14 11 16 11 13 12 15 12 14 13 14 14 16 12 15 14 14 10 11 16 18 13 11 8 17 17 14 10 16 21 23 NA NA 3.50 24 Rotameter Flowrate gpm 55 55 53 55 57 55 55 55 53 55 53 53 55 55 53 53 55 55 53 55 53 53 55 53 53 55 55 53 53 55 55 53 55 60 55 55 53 NM NM NM 72 75 System Pressure System Inlet psig 22 24 25 20 26 26 26 25 26 24 25 26 21 22 26 25 25 25 25 25 26 25 26 24 26 20 19 25 25 26 22 25 25 28 25 26 25 NM NM NM 38 27 After Prefilter psig 22 24 25 20 26 26 26 25 26 24 25 26 21 22 26 25 25 25 25 25 26 25 26 24 26 20 19 25 25 26 22 25 25 28 25 26 25 NM NM NM 38 27 After Rotameter psig 20 21 24 18 24 24 16 24 24 23 23 24 20 20 24 22 22 22 23 22 24 23 24 23 25 18 18 23 24 24 20 24 24 26 24 24 23 NM NM NM 36 25 Tank A Outlet psig 12 12 14 8 14 14 4 14 14 12 12 14 10 12 14 14 12 12 14 12 14 12 12 14 14 6 6 12 14 12 8 14 14 16 14 14 12 NM NM NM 36 25 System Outlet psig 6 6 7 4 7 7 2 7 7 6 6 7 5 6 7 7 6 6 7 6 7 6 6 7 7 3 3 6 7 6 4 7 7 8 7 7 6 NM NM NM 2 4 AP Tank A psi 8 9 10 10 10 10 12 10 10 11 11 10 10 8 10 8 10 10 9 10 10 11 12 9 11 12 12 11 10 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 11 NA NA NA AP Tank B psi 6 6 7 4 7 7 2 7 7 6 6 7 5 6 7 7 6 6 7 6 7 6 6 7 7 3 3 6 7 6 4 7 7 8 7 7 6 NA NA NA Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 16,344,950 16,387,160 16,417,470 16,447,780 16,484,790 16,508,286 16,547,350 16,599,590 16,632,160 16,675,910 16,704,960 16,740,400 16,764,530 16,808,107 16,851,685 16,891,715 16,928,135 16,967,047 17,005,960 17,040,084 17,074,209 17,130,497 17,171,058 17,211,620 17,238,570 17,268,392 17,298,215 17,349,232 17,400,250 17,431,626 17,456,252 17,505,998 17,555,795 17,582,095 17,608,446 17,670,172 17,683,563 NM NM NM 17,695,695 17,763,070 Cum. Flow gal 18,305,533 18,347,743 18,378,053 18,408,363 18,445,373 18,468,869 18,507,933 18,560,173 18,592,743 18,636,493 18,665,543 18,700,983 18,725,113 18,768,690 18,812,268 18,852,298 18,888,718 18,927,630 18,966,543 19,000,667 19,034,792 19,091,080 19,131,641 19,172,203 19,199,153 19,228,975 19,258,798 19,309,815 19,360,833 19,392,209 19,416,835 19,466,581 19,516,378 19,542,678 19,569,029 19,630,755 19,644,146 NA NA NA 19,656,278 19,723,653 Avg Flowrate gpm 49 48 46 46 41 58 45 47 46 46 47 47 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 49 49 47 47 47 46 45 47 48 48 47 47 48 48 48 48 47 NA NA NA NA NA 70 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 61 62 63 64 65 66 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 05/25/09 05/26/09 05/27/09 05/28/09 05/29/09 05/30/09 05/31/09 06/01/09 06/02/09 06/03/09 06/04/09 06/05/09 06/06/09 06/07/09 06/08/09 06/09/09 06/10/09 06/11/09 06/12/09 06/13/09 06/14/09 06/15/09 06/16/09 06/17/09 06/18/09 06/19/09 06/20/09 06/21/09 06/22/09 06/23/09 06/24/09 06/25/09 06/26/09 06/27/09 06/28/09 06/29/09 06/30/09 07/01/09 07/02/09 07/03/09 07/04/09 07/05/09 Pump Hours hr 4670.7 4696.5 4706.2 4717.1 4724.8 4737.4 4750.0 4760.8 4770.7 4780.7 4787. 1 4799.6 4812.1 4824.7 4837.3 4849.0 4860.8 4870.5 4880.3 4896.6 4912.9 4923.2 4935.3 4947.6 4961.2 4971.8 4986.6 5001.4 5016.8 5025.5 5044.0 5056.8 5069.6 5086.3 5096.8 5107.4 5123.6 5139.6 5148.8 5164.7 5180.7 5196.7 Daily OP Time1" hr/day 19 22 10 11 7 20 13 8 10 10 6 13 13 13 13 12 12 10 9 16 16 10 12 12 14 11 15 15 15 9 19 13 13 17 11 12 14 16 12 14 15 16 Rotameter Flowrate gpm 77 75 76 76 75 76 76 76 77 77 76 76 77 77 77 77 75 77 77 76 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 78 76 77 77 77 75 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 System Pressure System Inlet psig 22 26 26 28 28 28 28 26 28 28 30 26 29 28 28 28 29 28 28 26 26 28 28 28 29 26 28 25 28 28 28 28 24 27 28 24 28 28 28 26 26 27 After Prefilter psig 22 26 26 28 28 28 28 26 28 28 30 26 29 28 28 28 29 28 28 26 26 28 28 28 29 26 28 25 28 28 28 28 24 27 28 24 28 28 28 26 26 27 After Rotameter psig 18 24 24 26 24 26 26 24 26 26 28 24 27 25 24 26 26 26 26 24 24 26 26 26 25 24 26 20 26 26 26 26 20 25 24 20 24 26 26 20 24 24 Tank A Outlet psig 5 13 14 14 14 14 13 10 12 12 13 10 13 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 14 12 8 12 12 12 10 12 12 System Outlet psig 2 7 7 7 6 7 7 5 6 6 7 5 7 6 6 6 7 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 iP Tank A psi 13 11 10 12 10 12 13 14 14 14 15 14 14 13 12 14 12 14 14 12 12 14 14 14 13 14 14 8 14 14 14 14 10 11 12 12 12 14 14 10 12 12 iP Tank B psi 3 6 7 7 8 7 6 5 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 7 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 7 6 2 6 6 6 5 6 6 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 17,877,735 17,994,250 18,031,920 18,077,247 18,106,785 18,158,672 18,210,560 18,256,234 18,296,618 18,337,003 18,362,903 18,413,484 18,464,065 18,517,660 18,571,255 18,620,247 18,669,240 18,709,261 18,749,282 18,814,858 18,890,435 18,934,858 18,986,157 19,037,456 19,095,096 19,140,880 19,203,697 19,266,515 19,333,270 19,370,395 19,450,555 19,505,602 19,560,650 19,632,385 19,677,036 19,721,687 19,792,412 19,860,015 19,899,616 19,968,295 20,037,242 20,106,033 Cum. Flow gal 19,838,318 19,954,833 19,992,503 20,037,830 20,067,368 20,119,255 20,171,143 20,216,817 20,257,201 20,297,586 20,323,486 20,374,067 20,424,648 20,478,243 20,531,838 20,580,830 20,629,823 20,669,844 20,709,865 20,775,441 20,851,018 20,895,441 20,946,740 20,998,039 21,055,679 21,101,463 21,164,280 21,227,098 21,293,853 21,330,978 21,411,138 21,466,185 21,521,233 21,592,968 21,637,619 21,682,270 21,752,995 21,820,598 21,860,199 21,928,878 21,997,825 22,066,616 Avg Flowrate gpm 74 75 65 69 64 69 69 70 68 67 67 67 67 71 71 70 69 69 68 67 77 72 71 70 71 72 71 71 72 71 72 72 72 72 71 70 73 70 72 72 72 72 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 67 68 69 70 71 72 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 07/06/09 07/07/09 07/08/09 07/09/09 07/10/09 07/11/09 07/12/09 07/13/09 07/14/09 07/15/09 07/16/09 07/17/09 07/18/09 07/19/09 07/20/09 07/21/09 07/22/09 07/23/09 07/24/09 07/25/09 07/26/09 07/27/09 07/28/09 07/29/09 07/30/09 07/31/09 08/01/09 08/02/09 08/03/09 08/04/09 08/05/09 08/06/09 08/07/09 08/08/09 08/09/09 08/10/09 08/1 1/09 08/12/09 08/13/09 08/14/09 08/15/09 08/16/09 Pump Hours hr 5212.2 5227.1 5239.3 5251.5 5268.3 5283.7 5299. 1 5310.6 5324.8 5339.1 5351.4 5368.0 5382.6 5398.3 5411.0 5423.8 5437.7 5453.1 5467.8 5483. 1 5498.4 5511.5 5524.4 5539. 1 5555.0 5571.0 5582.4 5591.5 5613.1 5626.7 5644.8 5658.8 5674.1 5692.2 5710.3 5723.5 5734.5 5749.9 5760.5 5772.6 5789.7 5805.2 Daily OP Time1" hr/day 18 13 12 12 17 15 15 12 14 14 12 16 15 16 13 13 14 15 14 15 16 13 13 15 16 16 17 7 22 17 16 16 14 17 17 14 11 16 11 12 16 15 Rotameter Flowrate gpm 77 77 77 77 76 77 77 75 77 76 76 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 76 77 77 77 77 77 77 76 77 27 77 77 77 77 72 77 77 77 77 77 77 System Pressure System Inlet psig 28 29 29 27 29 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 26 29 29 28 29 29 29 29 28 29 30 28 28 28 28 28 28 26 26 29 32 32 29 29 29 28 28 29 29 After Prefilter psig 28 29 29 27 29 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 26 29 29 28 29 29 29 29 28 29 30 28 28 28 28 28 28 26 26 29 32 32 29 29 29 28 28 29 29 After Rotameter psig 26 28 28 24 26 24 26 26 26 26 26 28 28 22 27 27 26 27 27 27 27 24 26 28 24 24 24 24 24 26 22 22 27 28 28 27 27 27 24 24 26 27 Tank A Outlet psig 14 14 14 12 14 14 14 14 14 12 12 14 14 10 14 14 12 14 14 14 14 12 14 14 14 12 14 14 12 14 12 12 14 14 14 12 12 12 12 10 14 14 System Outlet psig 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 5 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 7 7 iP Tank A psi 12 14 14 12 12 10 12 12 12 14 14 14 14 12 13 13 14 13 13 13 13 12 12 14 10 12 10 10 12 12 10 10 13 14 14 15 15 15 12 14 12 13 iP Tank B psi 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 5 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 7 7 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 20,173,889 20,236,478 20,288,338 20,339,699 20,412,641 20,478,900 20,545,160 20,593,482 20,654,190 20,714,968 20,767,957 20,837,498 20,901,664 20,968,641 21,023,137 21,076,754 21,137,626 21,202,379 21,266,339 21,332,009 21,397,680 21,452,763 21,508,222 21,570,695 21,639,767 21,708,840 21,758,124 21,796,907 21,884,348 21,948,715 22,026,580 22,087,881 22,152,403 22,231,850 22,310,798 22,367,334 22,412,509 22,477,806 22,521,194 22,571,350 22,644,958 22,710,541 Cum. Flow gal 22,134,472 22,197,061 22,248,921 22,300,282 22,373,224 22,439,483 22,505,743 22,554,065 22,614,773 22,675,551 22,728,540 22,798,081 22,862,247 22,929,224 22,983,720 23,037,337 23,098,209 23,162,962 23,226,922 23,292,592 23,358,263 23,413,346 23,468,805 23,531,278 23,600,350 23,669,423 23,718,707 23,757,490 23,844,931 23,909,298 23,987,163 24,048,464 24,112,986 24,192,433 24,271,381 24,327,917 24,373,092 24,438,389 24,481,777 24,531,933 24,605,541 24,671,124 Avg Flowrate gpm 73 70 71 70 72 72 72 70 71 71 72 70 73 71 72 70 73 70 73 72 72 70 72 71 72 72 72 71 67 79 72 73 70 73 73 71 68 71 68 69 72 71 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 73 74 75 76 77 78 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Tnu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 08/17/09 08/18/09 08/19/09 08/20/09 08/21/09 08/22/09 08/23/09 08/24/09 08/25/09 08/26/09 08/27/09 08/28/09 08/29/09 08/30/09 08/31/09 09/01/09 09/02/09 09/03/09 09/04/09 09/05/09 09/06/09 09/07/09 09/08/09 09/09/09 09/10/09 09/11/09 09/12/09 09/13/09 09/14/09 09/15/09 09/16/09 09/17/09 09/18/09 09/19/09 09/20/09 09/21/09 09/22/09 09/23/09 09/24/09 09/25/09 09/26/09 09/27/09 Pump Hours hr 5814.2 5824.4 5838.4 5848.1 5860.2 5873.5 5888.5 5895.0 5910.0 5916.7 5929.0 5938.3 5945.4 5956.3 5967.3 5975.7 5988.0 5996.3 6007.0 6020.4 6034.6 6048.9 6056.7 6068.2 6076.4 6087.7 6099.5 6111.4 6117.5 6129.0 6138.1 6144.1 6150.6 6157.7 6163.5 6172.4 6175.1 6180.4 6185.7 6191.2 6196.8 6207.6 Daily OP Time1" hr/day 10 10 14 12 11 12 14 8 14 7 12 10 7 11 11 8 12 8 11 13 14 14 8 12 8 11 12 12 6 12 8 6 7 7 6 9 3 5 5 6 6 11 Rotameter Flowrate gpm 77 77 77 77 75 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 75 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 75 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 System Pressure System Inlet psig 28 30 29 28 30 30 30 28 28 27 28 29 29 30 30 30 32 29 32 30 29 28 26 32 30 32 30 30 32 32 32 30 32 30 32 34 32 30 30 30 34 35 After Prefilter psig 28 30 29 28 30 30 30 28 28 27 28 29 29 30 30 30 32 29 32 30 29 28 26 32 30 32 30 30 32 32 32 30 32 30 32 34 32 30 30 30 34 35 After Rotameter psig 24 27 27 24 27 27 27 26 26 25 26 27 27 27 28 28 28 26 29 27 27 24 24 29 28 29 28 28 28 28 28 27 28 26 28 28 26 26 28 27 28 30 Tank A Outlet psig 14 14 12 14 12 12 14 14 14 14 8 10 10 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 14 14 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 14 14 14 10 System Outlet psig 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 7 7 8 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 5 AP Tank A psi 10 13 15 10 15 15 13 12 12 11 18 17 17 15 16 16 14 14 17 15 13 10 12 15 14 15 14 14 14 16 16 13 14 12 14 14 12 14 14 13 14 20 AP Tank B psi 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 7 7 6 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 5 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 22,747,585 22,788,098 22,847,335 22,887,337 22,936,380 22,992,731 23,055,285 23,081,903 23,143,215 23,169,817 23,218,831 23,257,172 23,283,871 23,329,064 23,374,257 23,406,740 23,457,977 23,491,909 23,533,925 23,590,274 23,651,021 23,711,768 23,742,399 23,790,460 23,824,315 23,868,936 23,917,360 23,965,785 23,990,394 24,035,729 24,072,447 24,095,894 24,121,202 24,149,306 24,171,250 24,203,925 24,217,381 24,237,794 24,258,049 24,278,913 24,300,518 24,337,874 Cum. Flow gal 24,708,168 24,748,681 24,807,918 24,847,920 24,896,963 24,953,314 25,015,868 25,042,486 25,103,798 25,130,400 25,179,414 25,217,755 25,244,454 25,289,647 25,334,840 25,367,323 25,418,560 25,452,492 25,494,508 25,550,857 25,611,604 25,672,351 25,702,982 25,751,043 25,784,898 25,829,519 25,877,943 25,926,368 25,950,977 25,996,312 26,033,030 26,056,477 26,081,785 26,109,889 26,131,833 26,164,508 26,177,964 26,198,377 26,218,632 26,239,496 26,261,101 26,298,457 Avg Flowrate gpm 69 66 71 69 68 71 70 68 68 66 66 69 63 69 68 64 69 68 65 70 71 71 65 70 69 66 68 68 67 66 67 65 65 66 63 61 83 64 64 63 64 58 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 79 80 81 82 83 84 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Tnu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Tnu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 09/28/09 09/29/09 09/30/09 10/01/09 10/02/09 10/03/09 10/04/09 10/05/09 10/06/09 10/07/09 10/08/09 10/09/09 10/10/09 10/11/09 10/12/09 10/13/09 10/14/09 10/15/09 10/16/09 10/17/09 10/18/09 10/19/09 10/20/09 10/21/09 10/22/09 10/23/09 10/24/09 10/25/09 10/26/09 10/27/09 10/28/09 10/29/09 10/30/09 10/31/09 11/01/09 11/02/09 11/03/09 11/04/09 11/05/09 11/06/09 11/07/09 11/08/09 Pump Hours hr 6212.1 6215.5 6220.9 6226.4 6232.0 6240.4 6248.0 6254.1 6259.3 6262.8 6267.4 6273.6 6279.7 6286. 1 6292.4 6298.7 6304.8 6311.2 6318.5 6323.5 6330.2 6333.9 NM NM 6361.0 6364.6 6371.1 6377.7 6384.3 6390.7 6397.0 NM NM 6414.6 6420.9 6427.3 6430.5 NM NM 6449.3 6456. 1 6462.9 Daily OP Time1" hr/day 5 3 5 6 6 8 8 6 5 3 5 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 7 5 7 4 NA NA 9 4 6 7 6 6 6 NA NA 6 6 6 3 NA NA 6 6 7 Rotameter Flowrate gpm 75 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 75 75 77 77 77 75 75 75 77 75 77 77 NM NM 50 77 77 77 77 77 75 NM NM 77 77 77 77 NM NM 77 77 77 System Pressure System Inlet psig 35 35 31 35 35 35 34 28 35 35 30 30 35 35 35 30 30 28 32 35 35 35 NM NM 30 35 35 35 35 35 30 NM NM 35 35 35 35 NM NM 35 35 35 After Prefilter psig 35 35 31 35 35 35 34 28 35 35 30 30 35 35 35 30 30 28 32 35 35 35 NM NM 30 35 35 35 35 35 30 NM NM 34 34 35 35 NM NM 35 35 35 After Rotameter psig 29 28 26 29 28 29 28 24 29 34 26 26 30 30 30 26 26 24 28 31 31 31 NM NM 26 31 31 31 30 30 26 NM NM 30 30 30 30 NM NM 30 30 30 Tank A Outlet psig 12 14 12 10 10 12 12 14 14 14 12 12 14 14 14 12 12 10 12 14 14 14 NM NM 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 NM NM 14 14 12 14 NM NM 12 12 12 System Outlet psig 6 7 6 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 5 6 7 7 7 NM NM 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 NM NM 7 7 6 7 NM NM 6 6 6 AP Tank A psi 17 14 14 19 18 17 16 10 15 20 14 14 16 16 16 14 14 14 16 17 17 17 NA NA 12 17 17 17 16 16 14 NA NA 16 16 18 16 NA NA 18 18 18 AP Tank B psi 6 7 6 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 5 6 7 7 7 NA NA 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 NA NA 7 7 6 7 NA NA 6 6 6 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 24,355,284 24,369,370 24,390,490 24,411,578 24,435,245 24,464,813 24,494,819 24,514,726 24,534,224 24,547,188 24,567,001 24,591,368 24,615,389 24,640,160 24,664,886 24,690,053 24,713,968 24,738,785 24,768,045 24,787,478 24,813,995 24,827,785 NM NM 24,900,930 24,915,910 24,942,123 24,968,288 24,994,153 25,019,685 25,044,525 NM NM 25,113,131 25,138,105 25,163,080 25,175,567 NM NM 25,248,594 25,275,552 25,302,510 Cum. Flow gal 26,315,867 26,329,953 26,351,073 26,372,161 26,395,828 26,425,396 26,455,402 26,475,309 26,494,807 26,507,771 26,527,584 26,551,951 26,575,972 26,600,743 26,625,469 26,650,636 26,674,551 26,699,368 26,728,628 26,748,061 26,774,578 26,788,368 NA NA 26,861,513 26,876,493 26,902,706 26,928,871 26,954,736 26,980,268 27,005,108 NA NA 27,073,714 27,098,688 27,123,663 27,136,150 NA NA 27,209,177 27,236,135 27,263,093 Avg Flowrate gpm 64 69 65 64 70 59 66 54 62 62 72 66 66 65 65 67 65 65 67 65 66 62 NA NA 45 69 67 66 65 66 66 NA NA 65 66 65 65 NA NA 65 66 66 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 85 86 87 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 11/09/09 11/10/09 11/11/09 11/12/09 11/13/09 11/14/09 11/15/09 11/16/09 11/17/09 11/18/09 11/19/09 11/20/09 11/21/09 11/22/09 11/23/09 11/24/09 11/25/09 11/26/09 11/27/09 11/28/09 11/29/09 Pump Hours hr 6468.6 6474.3 6480.9 6487.6 NM NM NM 6522.3 6526.9 6537.3 6545.5 6552.5 6561.7 6571.4 6579.2 6587.1 6594.2 NM 6614.3 6628.1 6639.0 Dally OP Time'" hr/day 6 6 6 7 NA NA NA 9 5 10 8 8 8 10 8 8 7 NA 10 14 11 Rotameter Flowrate gpm 75 75 77 77 NM NM NM 75 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 NM 77 77 77 System Pressure System Inlet psig 30 30 35 35 NM NM NM 37 35 35 35 37 37 37 35 34 34 NM 34 35 35 After Prefilter psig 30 29 35 35 NM NM NM 36 33 35 35 37 37 37 33 32 32 NM 32 33 33 After Rotameter psig 27 25 30 30 NM NM NM 31 30 30 30 34 34 34 30 30 30 NM 30 30 30 Tank A Outlet psig 12 12 14 14 NM NM NM 14 12 12 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 NM 12 14 14 System Outlet psig 6 6 7 7 NM NM NM 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 NM 6 7 7 AP Tank A psi 15 13 16 16 NA NA NA 17 18 18 18 20 20 20 16 16 16 NA 18 16 16 AP Tank B psi 6 6 7 7 NA NA NA 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 NA 6 7 7 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 25,325,945 25,349,381 25,375,618 25,401,856 NM NM NM 25,541,743 25,559,165 25,602,095 25,635,701 25,663,700 25,701,161 25,741,065 25,772,902 25,804,550 25,833,082 NM 25,914,620 25,972,402 26,018,201 Cum. Flow gal 27,286,528 27,309,964 27,336,201 27,362,439 NA NA NA 27,502,326 27,519,748 27,562,678 27,596,284 27,624,283 27,661,744 27,701,648 27,733,485 27,765,133 27,793,665 NA 27,875,203 27,932,985 27,978,784 Avg Flowrate gpm 69 69 66 65 NA NA NA 67 63 69 68 67 68 69 68 67 67 NA 68 70 70 Study Period II 88 89 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 11/30/09 12/01/09 12/02/09 12/03/09 12/04/09 12/05/09 12/06/09 12/07/09 12/08/09 12/09/09 12/10/09 12/11/09 12/12/09 12/13/09 6649.2 6653.5 6663.1 NM 6678.3 6685.6 6692.9 6696.7 NM 6710.4 6720.0 NM 6737.3 6750.2 10 4 10 NA 8 7 7 4 NA 7 9 NA 9 12 77 77 77 NM 77 77 77 77 NM 77 77 NM 77 77 35 27 27 NM 30 30 34 35 NM 35 35 NM 33 35 33 25 25 NM 30 29 33 33 NM 33 33 NM 32 33 30 20 20 NM 26 25 29 28 NM 28 28 NM 25 28 14 6 6 NM 12 12 12 14 NM 14 14 NM 12 14 7 6 6 NM 6 6 6 7 NM 7 7 NM 6 7 16 14 14 NA 14 13 17 14 NA 14 14 NA 13 14 7 NA 6 6 6 7 NA 7 7 NA 6 7 26,061,777 26,073,037 26,120,565 NM 26,180,704 26,210,905 26,241,107 26,252,750 NM 26,311,560 26,352,157 NM 26,423,375 26,479,040 28,022,360 28,033,620 47,528 NA 107,667 137,868 168,070 179,713 NA 238,523 279,120 NA 350,338 406,003 71 44 83 NA 66 69 69 51 NA 72 70 NA 69 72 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Os Week No. 90 91 92 93 94 95 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 12/14/09 12/15/09 12/16/09 12/17/09 12/18/09 12/19/09 12/20/09 12/21/09 12/22/09 12/23/09 12/24/09 12/25/09 12/26/09 12/27/09 12/28/09 12/29/09 12/30/09 12/31/09 01/01/10 01/02/10 01/03/10 01/04/10 01/05/10 01/06/10 01/07/10 01/08/10 01/09/10 01/10/10 01/11/10 01/12/10 01/13/10 01/14/10 01/15/10 01/16/10 01/17/10 01/18/10 01/19/10 01/20/10 01/21/10 01/22/10 01/23/10 01/24/10 Pump Hours hr 6760. 1 6770.6 6782.8 6789.5 NM 6813.1 6825.9 6836.6 6847.4 6860. 1 6876.5 NM NM NM 6945.3 6963.5 6972.4 6992.3 NM 7032.0 7052.3 7065.7 7078. 1 7091.3 7104.3 7115.0 7129.6 7141.3 7153.8 7161.8 7176.1 7190.4 7200.9 7218.7 7240. 1 7258.4 7281.1 7281.1 7289.8 7302.6 7315.5 NM Daily OP Time1" hr/day 10 11 12 6 NA 12 13 11 12 13 16 NA NA NA 17 19 9 22 NA 19 20 14 12 13 14 11 14 13 12 8 14 15 10 18 21 19 22 9 13 12 NA Rotameter Flowrate gpm 75 77 77 77 NM 77 77 77 77 77 75 NM NM NM 77 75 77 77 NM 75 77 77 77 75 77 77 77 75 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 NM System Pressure System Inlet psig 30 35 35 37 NM 35 35 35 35 35 30 NM NM NM 35 35 37 35 NM 30 35 35 35 35 35 32 35 30 35 35 35 35 35 33 32 25 25 35 35 35 32 NM After Prefilter psig 28 35 33 35 NM 33 33 33 32 32 27 NM NM NM 33 33 35 33 NM 27 33 33 33 33 33 28 33 27 33 3 33 33 33 31 30 23 23 33 33 33 30 NM After Rotameter psig 25 33 28 30 NM 28 28 28 28 28 25 NM NM NM 28 28 26 28 NM 25 28 28 28 28 28 25 28 24 27 27 27 27 27 27 25 16 16 28 28 27 25 NM Tank A Outlet psig 12 14 14 14 NM 14 14 14 12 14 10 NM NM NM 14 14 8 14 NM 10 14 12 14 12 14 14 14 12 14 14 14 14 14 12 5 10 10 12 12 14 14 NM System Outlet psig 6 7 7 7 NM 7 7 7 6 7 5 NM NM NM 7 7 4 7 NM 5 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 2 5 5 6 6 7 7 NM AP Tank A psi 13 19 14 16 NA 14 14 14 16 14 15 NA NA NA 14 14 18 14 NA 15 14 16 14 16 14 11 14 12 13 13 13 13 13 15 20 6 6 16 16 13 11 NA AP Tank B psi 6 7 7 7 NA 7 7 7 6 7 5 NA NA NA 7 7 4 7 NA 5 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 3 5 5 6 6 7 7 NA Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 26,521,828 26,564,915 26,617,539 26,645,516 NM 26,744,606 26,795,573 26,845,003 26,891,433 26,945,143 27,015,744 NM NM NM 27,298,154 27,366,651 27,439,356 27,528,109 NM 27,705,616 27,794,370 27,852,875 27,907,565 27,962,255 28,016,886 28,071,635 28,120,865 28,170,095 28,223,684 28,253,035 28,316,974 28,378,913 28,423,349 28,501,583 28,595,671 28,676,921 28,779,336 28,780,780 28,815,476 28,869,330 28,923,164 NM Cum. Flow gal 448,791 491,878 544,502 572,479 NA 671,569 722,536 771,966 818,396 872,106 942,707 NA NA NA 1,225,117 1,293,614 1,366,319 1,455,072 NA 1,632,579 1,721,333 1,779,838 1,834,528 1,889,218 1,943,849 1,998,598 2,047,828 2,097,058 2,150,647 2,179,998 2,243,937 2,305,876 2,350,312 2,428,546 2,522,634 2,603,884 2,706,299 2,707,743 2,742,439 2,796,293 2,850,127 NA Avg Flowrate gpm 72 68 72 70 NA 70 66 77 72 70 72 NA NA NA 68 63 136 74 NA 75 73 73 74 69 70 85 56 70 71 61 75 72 71 73 73 74 75 NA 66 70 70 NA ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 96 97 98 99 100 101 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Tnu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 01/25/10 01/26/10 01/27/10 01/28/10 01/29/10 01/30/10 01/31/10 02/01/10 02/02/10 02/03/10 02/04/10 02/05/10 02/06/10 02/07/10 02/08/10 02/09/10 02/10/10 02/11/10 02/12/10 02/13/10 02/14/10 02/15/10 02/16/10 02/17/10 02/18/10 02/19/10 02/20/10 02/21/10 02/22/10 02/23/10 02/24/10 02/25/10 02/26/10 02/27/10 02/28/10 03/01/10 03/02/10 03/03/10 03/04/10 03/05/10 03/06/10 03/07/10 Pump Hours hr 7336.1 7345.8 7356.0 7368.2 7380.5 7391.2 7399.0 7408.4 NM NM 7436.7 7443.3 7451.0 7463. 1 7468.6 7476.4 7484.3 7492. 1 7505.2 7518.1 7531.1 7547.3 7554.2 7561.8 7571.2 7580.6 7590. 1 7602.5 7609.5 7617.2 7625.4 7633.3 7644.5 7655.4 7674. 1 7680.5 7689.3 7694.4 7718.5 7741.2 7763.0 7787. 1 Daily OP Time1" hr/day 11 10 10 12 12 11 7 10 NA NA 9 7 8 13 6 7 11 8 10 12 16 14 7 7 9 10 10 12 6 9 8 15 7 12 15 6 10 6 24 23 20 NA Rotameter Flowrate gpm 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 NM NM 72 75 75 77 75 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 75 77 77 77 77 77 77 System Pressure System Inlet psig 32 35 35 35 35 35 35 32 NM NM 28 35 35 32 32 35 35 35 32 35 35 28 35 35 35 35 35 30 35 35 35 35 35 32 35 30 35 35 25 25 38 25 After Prefilter psig 28 32 32 32 32 32 32 27 NM NM 25 32 32 28 30 32 32 32 30 32 31 24 32 32 32 33 33 26 32 32 32 32 32 28 32 26 32 32 22 22 32 22 After Rotameter psig 25 27 27 27 27 27 27 25 NM NM 20 28 28 26 27 25 27 27 27 28 27 20 28 28 28 29 25 24 28 29 28 28 28 25 28 22 28 28 20 20 28 20 Tank A Outlet psig 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 10 NM NM 12 14 14 14 12 14 14 14 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 14 14 14 14 14 12 14 14 14 14 10 10 125 10 System Outlet psig 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 NM NM 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 5 5 6 5 AP Tank A psi 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 15 NA NA 8 14 14 12 15 11 13 13 15 14 13 6 14 14 14 15 11 12 14 15 14 14 14 13 14 8 14 14 10 10 NA 10 AP Tank B psi 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 NA NA 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 5 5 NA 5 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 29,008,785 29,051,594 29,094,404 29,143,619 29,195,971 29,240,779 29,273,382 29,310,994 NM NM 29,410,651 29,435,537 29,469,015 29,520,493 29,544,925 29,577,453 29,609,982 29,641,805 29,694,701 29,750,603 29,806,506 29,877,589 29,905,654 29,939,719 29,977,700 30,015,681 30,055,432 30,108,129 30,139,622 30,171,115 30,204,768 30,237,165 30,281,702 30,327,527 30,405,219 30,434,281 30,470,937 30,493,508 30,598,195 30,700,515 30,795,672 30,907,311 Cum. Flow gal 2,935,748 2,978,557 3,021,367 3,070,582 3,122,934 3,167,742 3,200,345 3,237,957 NA NA 3,337,614 3,362,500 3,395,978 3,447,456 3,471,888 3,504,416 3,536,945 3,568,768 3,621,664 3,677,566 3,733,469 3,804,552 3,832,617 3,866,682 3,904,663 3,942,644 3,982,395 4,035,092 4,066,585 4,098,078 4,131,731 4,164,128 4,208,665 4,254,490 4,332,182 4,361,244 4,397,900 4,420,471 4,525,158 4,627,478 4,722,635 4,834,274 Avg Flowrate gpm 69 74 70 67 71 70 70 67 NA NA 59 63 72 71 74 70 69 68 67 72 72 73 68 75 67 67 70 71 75 68 68 68 66 70 69 76 69 74 72 75 73 77 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 102 103 104 105 106 107 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 03/08/10 03/09/10 03/10/10 03/11/10 03/12/10 03/13/10 03/14/10 03/15/10 03/16/10 03/17/10 03/18/10 03/19/10 03/20/10 03/21/10 03/22/10 03/23/10 03/24/10 03/25/10 03/26/10 03/27/10 03/28/10 03/29/10 03/30/10 03/31/10 04/01/10 04/02/10 04/03/10 04/04/10 04/05/10 04/06/10 04/07/10 04/08/10 04/09/10 04/10/10 04/11/10 04/12/10 04/13/10 04/14/10 04/15/10 04/16/10 04/17/10 04/18/10 Pump Hours hr NM 7828.3 7836.3 7844.6 7853.6 7864.7 7879.0 7889.9 7899.4 7908.7 7917.8 7927.0 7936.8 7945. 1 7957.9 7964.3 7974. 1 7982.4 7990.7 7998.6 8006.7 8015.3 8024.3 8029.5 8033.9 NM 8052.2 8060.2 8068.3 8076.7 - 8091.7 NM 8100.5 8109.4 8118.2 8125.6 Daily OP Time1" hr/day NA 18 8 8 10 11 14 10 9 9 9 10 10 9 15 6 10 7 8 7 9 8 9 5 5 NA 18 8 8 9 NA 15 NA 9 9 9 7 Rota meter Flowrate gpm NM 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 NM 77 77 77 77 77 77 NM 77 77 77 77 System Pressure System Inlet psig NM 35 35 35 35 35 35 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 NM 35 32 35 35 35 35 NM 35 35 35 35 After Prefilter psig NM 32 32 32 32 32 32 30 33 33 33 33 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 30 30 30 30 30 30 NM 30 27 30 30 30 30 NM 30 30 30 30 After Rotameter psig NM 27 28 27 27 27 27 28 27 27 27 28 25 25 28 28 28 28 28 26 26 26 26 26 26 NM 26 24 27 27 27 27 NM 27 27 26 25 Tank A Outlet psig NM 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 NM 14 12 14 14 14 14 NM 14 14 14 14 System Outlet psig NM 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 NM 7 6 7 7 7 7 NM 7 7 7 7 AP Tank A psi NA 13 14 13 13 13 13 16 13 13 13 14 11 11 14 14 14 14 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 NA 12 12 13 13 13 13 NA 13 13 12 11 AP Tank B psi NA 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 NA 7 6 7 7 7 7 NA 7 7 7 7 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal NM 30,907,358 30,939,900 30,973,415 31,010,040 31,056,443 31,116,840 31,162,502 31,201,781 31,240,046 31,277,628 31,315,210 31,355,749 31,401,399 31,441,351 31,464,151 31,509,255 31,543,032 31,576,682 31,608,515 31,641,471 31,676,071 31,712,336 31,732,573 31,751,567 NM 31,824,027 31,855,562 31,891,268 31,925,138 - 31,985,342 NM 32,020,786 32,056,781 32,092,461 32,121,843 Cum. Flow gal NA 4,834,321 4,866,863 4,900,378 4,937,003 4,983,406 5,043,803 5,089,465 5,128,744 5,167,009 5,204,591 5,242,173 5,282,712 5,328,362 5,368,314 5,391,114 5,436,218 5,469,995 5,503,645 5,535,478 5,568,434 5,603,034 5,639,299 5,659,536 5,678,530 NA 5,750,990 5,782,525 5,818,231 5,852,101 - 5,912,305 NA 5,947,749 5,983,744 6,019,424 6,048,806 Avg Flowrate gpm NA NA 68 67 68 70 70 70 69 69 69 68 69 92 52 59 77 68 68 67 68 67 67 65 72 NA 66 66 73 67 NA 67 NA 67 67 68 66 System offline to repair leak in 8136.5 8138.6 8159.8 10 2 24 70 70 70 35 30 35 30 25 30 25 17 25 12 10 14 6 5 7 13 7 11 6 5 7 32,163,381 32,171,824 32,262,272 6,090,344 6,098,787 6,189,235 64 67 71 ------- Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued) Week No. 108 109 110 111 112 Day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Date 04/19/10 04/20/10 04/21/10 04/22/10 04/23/10 04/24/10 04/25/10 04/26/10 04/27/10 04/28/10 04/29/10 04/30/10 05/01/10 05/02/10 05/03/10 05/04/10 05/05/10 05/06/10 05/07/10 05/08/10 05/09/10 05/10/10 05/11/10 05/12/10 05/13/10 05/14/10 05/15/10 05/16/10 05/17/10 05/18/10 05/19/10 05/20/10 05/21/10 05/22/10 05/23/10 Pump Hours hr Daily OP Time1" hr/day Rota meter Flowrate gpm System Pressure System Inlet psig After Prefilter psig After Rotameter psig Tank A Outlet psig System Outlet psig System offline to repair leak 8168.2 8175.4 8181.2 8189.1 8196.1 8203.1 8209.6 8216.4 8223.6 8231.5 8240.6 8249.9 8259. 1 8266.9 8274.2 8281.0 8288.0 8295.3 NM NM 8324.2 8329.9 8335.6 8343.7 8351.8 8362.6 8369.0 8378.0 8385.5 8400.0 8410.2 8414.6 8426.1 8 7 7 8 7 6 7 7 7 8 10 9 11 7 8 7 6 7 NA NA 10 6 5 8 8 13 5 9 12 10 10 6 12 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 NM NM 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 35 35 35 35 35 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 NM NM 35 35 30 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 NM NM 30 30 24 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 26 26 26 26 24 27 27 28 27 26 26 27 26 27 28 27 27 26 NM NM 27 28 20 27 27 27 28 28 27 27 28 28 28 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 NM NM 14 14 10 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 NM NM 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 AP Tank A psi in 12 12 12 12 10 13 13 14 13 12 12 13 12 13 14 13 13 12 NA NA 13 14 10 13 13 13 14 14 13 13 14 14 14 AP Tank B psi 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 NA NA 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Totalizer to Distribution System Totalizer1"1 gal 32,294,099 32,328,270 32,345,297 32,374,163 32,401,655 32,429,878 32,457,362 32,484,579 32,513,965 32,545,276 32,590,840 32,619,084 32,656,821 32,688,591 32,717,844 32,745,263 32,773,412 32,803,053 NM NM 32,918,413 32,939,651 32,960,889 32,992,274 33,023,660 33,066,790 33,091,978 33,124,421 33,154,586 33,204,571 33,249,812 33,265,038 33,304,981 NM = not measure, NA = Not available Tank A and B have 28 ft3 of media each. (a)Hour meter readings were not recorded prior to 05/26/08, daily opearation time was estimated based on the average value in the following month. (b) The totalizer was located on the outlet piping of the skid mounted treatment system (c) K-factor of the flow meter was reset, when tried to recaliabrate the flow meter to close the gap between the throughput and the actual water usage rate. Cum. Flow gal 6,221,062 6,255,233 6,272,260 6,301,126 6,328,618 6,356,841 6,384,325 6,411,542 6,440,928 6,472,239 6,517,803 6,546,047 6,583,784 6,615,554 6,644,807 6,672,226 6,700,375 6,730,016 NA NA 6,845,376 6,866,614 6,887,852 6,919,237 6,950,623 6,993,753 7,018,941 7,051,384 7,081,549 7,131,534 7,176,775 7,192,001 7,231,944 Avg Flowrate gpm 70 79 49 61 65 67 70 67 68 66 83 51 68 68 67 67 67 68 NA NA 67 62 62 65 65 67 66 60 67 57 74 58 58 ------- APPENDIX B ANALYTICAL DATA ------- Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Lead, SD Sampling Date Sampling Location Parameter Unit Bed Volume Alkalinity (as CaCO3) Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate (as N) Total P (as P) Silica (as SiO2) Turbidity pH Temperature DO ORP Free Chlorine (as CI2) Total Chlorine (as CI2) Total Hardness (as CaCO3) Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) As (total) As (soluble) As (particulate) As (III) As(V) Fe (total) Fe (soluble) Mn (total) Mn (soluble) 103 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ng/L mg/L NTU S.U. °C mg/L mV mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L 04/1 7/08 IN - 150 - - - <10 14.9 1.0 NA NA NA NA - - - - - 24.5 - - - - <25 - 0.9 - TA TB 3.4 148 - - - <10 14.7 2.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA - - - 0.6 - - - - 99 - 3.3 - 146 - - - <10 14.7 0.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA - - - <0.1 - - - - <25 - 2.4 - 04/28/08 IN - 145 - - - <10 14.5 0.8 NA NA NA NA - - - - - 24.0 - - - - <25 - 0.5 - TA TB 5.3 143 - - - <10 14.6 1.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA - - - 0.8 - - - - <25 - 1.2 - 141 - - - <10 14.7 0.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA - - - 0.8 - - - - <25 - 2.2 - 05/12/08 IN - 144 - - - <10 15.9 1.3 NA NA NA NA - - - - - 23.5 - - - - <25 - 0.7 - TA TB 6.3 151 - - - <10 15.8 1.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA - - - <0.1 - - - - <25 - 2.0 - 149 - - - <10 15.7 0.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA - - - <0.1 - - - - <25 - 2.7 - 05/27/08 IN - 143 - - - 13.6 17.1 0.2 NA NA NA NA - - - - - 25.7 - - - - <25 - 0.6 - TA TB 9.1 143 - - - <10 17.4 0.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA - - - 0.2 - - - - <25 - 1.4 - 147 - - - <10 17.3 0.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA - - - 0.1 - - - - <25 - 2.2 - 07/22/08 IN - 149 0.8 10.4 0.5 <10 16.2 0.1 7.1 12.7 3.6 472 - - 133 95.4 37.8 23.8 23.1 0.7 0.4 22.7 <25 <25 1.0 0.2 TA TB 24.8 144 0.8 10.5 0.5 <10 16.4 <0.1 7.1 12.3 3.9 489 - - 128 93.8 34.2 0.1 0.0 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <25 <25 0.9 0.8 147 0.8 10.6 0.5 <10 16.3 <0.1 7.1 12.7 4.0 493 0.9 0.8 141 103 38.5 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 <25 <25 1.6 1.5 08/11/08 IN - 148 - - - <10 16.7 0.3 7.2 16.8 3.7 458 - - - - - 21.6 - - - - <25 - 0.5 - TA TB 31.2 146 - - - <10 16.5 <0.1 7.2 16.9 3.9 445 - - - - - 0.2 - - - - <25 - 0.4 - 151 - - - <10 19.5 <0.1 7.4 16.9 3.8 446 0.9 0.9 - - - 0.1 - - - - <25 - 1.9 - ------- Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Lead, SD (Continued) Sampling Date Sampling Location Parameter Unit Bed Volume Alkalinity (as CaCO3) Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate (as N) Total P (as P) Silica (as SiO2) Turbidity pH Temperature DO ORP Free Chlorine (as CIJ Total Chlorine (as CIJ Total Hardness (as CaCO3) Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) As (total) As (soluble) As (particulate) As (III) As(V) Fe (total) Fe (soluble) Mn (total) Mn (soluble) 103 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L l-ig/L mg/L NTU S.U. °C mg/L mV mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L 08/21/08 IN - 145 0.8 10.7 0.5 <10 16.9 0.1 7.1 16.0 3.7 459 - - 161 125 35.4 21.9 21.5 0.4 0.3 21.3 <25 <25 0.4 0.4 TA TB 33.6 145 0.8 11.1 0.5 <10 17.1 <0.1 7.4 16.3 3.9 452 - - 165 129 36.6 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <25 <25 0.6 0.6 143 0.7 10.7 0.5 <10 17.3 <0.1 7.3 16.4 3.8 445 0.8 0.8 163 128 35.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <25 <25 0.9 0.9 09/04/08 IN - 146 - - - <10 17.1 <0.1 7.2 16.9 3.7 457 - - - - - 23.5 - - - - <25 - 0.3 - TA TB 37.7 144 - - - <10 17.1 <0.1 7.4 16.7 3.9 457 - - - - - 0.3 - - - - <25 - 0.5 - 146 - - - <10 16.7 <0.1 7.4 16.5 3.8 449 0.9 0.8 - - - 0.1 - - - - <25 - 1.0 - 9/25/2008 IN - 143 - - - <10 16.6 <0.1 7.1 16.7 3.6 471 - - - - - 22.6 - - - - <25 - 0.7 - TA TB 43.8 146 - - - <10 16.7 <0.1 7.2 16.8 3.9 445 - - - - - 0.4 - - - - <25 - 0.5 - 146 - - - <10 16.3 <0.1 7.4 16.7 3.8 445 10/01/08 IN - 143 - - - <10 16.0 <0.1 7.2 16.1 5.0 470 0.9 0.8 - - - <0.1 - - - - <25 - 0.7 - - - - 23.5 - - - - <25 - 0.3 - TA TB 45.1 141 - - - <10 16.1 <0.1 7.2 16.2 5.0 441 - - - - - 0.6 - - - - <25 - 0.5 - 141 - - - <10 15.9 <0.1 7.4 16.2 5.0 445 1.0 0.9 - - - 0.3 - - - - <25 - 0.7 - 10/15/08 IN - 139 0.7 10.8 0.5 <10 14.5 0.3 6.8 13.3 6.0 461 - - 153 115 37.4 22.7 21.3 1.5 0.2 21.0 <25 <25 0.3 0.2 TA TB 48.2 143 0.7 10.9 0.5 <10 15.3 <0.1 7.2 13.4 5.9 368 - - 151 116 34.8 0.7 0.7 <0.1 0.2 0.5 <25 <25 0.5 0.5 143 0.8 10.8 0.5 <10 14.7 <0.1 7.2 13.1 5.8 357 1.0 0.9 150 113 36.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <25 <25 1.1 1.3 10/30/08 IN - 143 - - - 10.6 16.6 0.2 6.9 14.4 6.0 461 - - - - - 22.5 - - - - <25 - 1.0 - TA TB 51.1 146 - - - <10 16.9 <0.1 7.2 13.3 5.9 371 - - - - - 0.9 - - - - <25 - 0.5 - 146 - - - <10 16.9 <0.1 7.3 13.9 5.8 361 1.0 1.0 - - - <0.1 - - - - <25 - 0.8 - ------- Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Lead, SD (Continued) Sampling Date Sampling Location Parameter Unit Bed Volume Alkalinity (as CaCO3) Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate (as N) Total P (as P) Silica (as SiO2) Turbidity pH Temperature DO ORP Free Chlorine (as CI2) Total Chlorine (as CI2) Total Hardness (as CaCO3) Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) As (total) As (soluble) As (particulate) As (III) As(V) Fe (total) Fe (soluble) Mn (total) Mn (soluble) 103 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ng/L mg/L NTU S.U. °C mg/L mV mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L 11/18/08 IN - 136 - - - <10 16.5 0.3 7.1 16.7 3.6 471 - - - - - 23.9 - - - - <25 - 0.7 - TA TB 54.5 143 - - - <10 16.4 <0.1 7.2 16.8 3.9 445 - - - 2.2 - - - - <25 - 0.2 - 143 - - - <10 16.6 <0.1 7.4 16.4 3.8 445 1.0 0.9 - - - 0.1 - - - - <25 - 0.9 - 12/03/08 IN - 150 - - - <10 16.5 1.6 7.1 16.6 3.6 472 - - - - - 23.9 - - - - <25 - 0.4 - TA TB 57.3 152 - - - <10 16.1 0.1 7.2 16.4 3.8 446 - - - - - 3.3 - - - - <25 - <0.1 - 152 - - - <10 16.5 0.2 7.3 16.3 3.8 446 0.9 0.9 - - - <0.1 - - - - <25 - 0.5 - 12/17/08 IN - 147 0.8 10.2 0.5 <10 15.0 2.1 7.2 10.3 3.9 353 - - 161 124 36.5 22.8 21.4 1.4 0.6 20.8 <25 <25 3.4 0.9 TA TB 60.1 147 0.8 10.5 0.5 <10 14.9 2.5 7.3 10.3 5.1 355 162 125 37.1 4.5 4.4 0.1 0.4 4.0 <25 <25 1.9 0.7 145 0.8 10.4 0.5 <10 15.0 2.8 7.3 10.4 4.1 372 0.9 0.9 165 128 37.5 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <25 <25 2.7 1.0 01/08/09 IN - 142 - - - 18.0 15.0 0.1 7.2 12.3 3.9 368 _ _ - - - 23.3 - - - - <25 - 0.4 - TA TB 66.7 144 - - - 23.3 14.7 0.1 7.3 11.4 4.8 355 _ _ - - - 9.5 - - - - <25 - 0.1 - 144 - - - <10 15.7 <0.1 7.3 11.9 4.0 360 1.0 0.9 - - - 0.2 - - - - <25 - 0.3 - 01/21/09 IN - 138 0.8 10.6 0.5 <10 15.7 0.2 7.3 14.7 5.1 443 _ _ 154 113 40.8 21.3 21.5 <0.1 0.4 21.1 <25 <25 0.3 0.2 TA TB 69.4 146 0.8 10.6 0.5 <10 15.3 0.1 7.3 14.5 5.4 448 _ _ 159 119 40.9 9.4 9.7 <0.1 0.3 9.5 <25 <25 0.3 0.2 146 0.8 10.7 0.5 <10 15.9 <0.1 7.2 14.7 8.0 446 1.0 0.9 163 120 42.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <25 <25 0.5 0.4 02/04/09 IN - 143 148 - - - <10 <10 16.5 16.7 2.2 2.0 7.3 13.6 5.2 449 _ _ - - - 24.5 24.4 - - - - <25 <25 - 0.4 0.4 - TA TB 72.3 148 148 - - - <10 <10 17.1 16.7 <0.1 0.4 7.3 13.5 5.3 452 _ _ - - - 11.3 11.5 - - - - <25 <25 - 0.4 0.4 - 150 150 - - - <10 <10 17.0 16.8 0.5 0.8 7.3 13.7 6.9 450 0.9 0.9 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - <25 <25 - 1.4 1.5 - ------- Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Lead, SD (Continued) Sampling Date Sampling Location Parameter Unit Bed Volume Alkalinity (as CaCO3) Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate (as N) Total P (as P) Silica (as SiO2) Turbidity pH Temperature DO ORP Free Chlorine (as CI2) Total Chlorine (as CI2) Total Hardness (as CaCO3) Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) As (total) As (soluble) As (particulate) As (III) As(V) Fe (total) Fe (soluble) Mn (total) Mn (soluble) 103 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ng/L mg/L NTU S.U. °C mg/L mV mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L 02/19/09 IN - 156 - - - <10 15.0 1.2 7.3 13.4 5.2 441 - _ - - - 21.1 - - - - <25 - 0.3 - TA TB 75.8 153 - - - <10 15.3 2.4 7.8 13.9 5.3 440 - _ - - - 11.4 - - - - <25 - 0.3 - 156 - - - <10 15.4 2.8 7.3 13.3 5.8 444 1.0 1.0 - - - 0.3 - - - - <25 - 0.7 - 03/05/09 IN - 150 0.8 10.8 0.5 <10 16.7 0.2 7.3 12.9 5.7 304 - _ 117 97.6 18.9 19.2 18.6 0.7 1.1 17.5 <25 <25 0.6 0.3 TA TB 78.9 148 0.8 11 0.5 11.9 16.7 0.1 7.3 12.8 7.8 309 - _ 116 96.8 19.1 11.3 11.6 <0.1 0.4 11.3 <25 <25 0.2 0.2 154 0.8 11.3 0.5 <10 16.4 0.3 7.4 12.8 6.8 326 1.0 1.0 118 98.0 19.5 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 1.0 <0.1 <25 <25 0.4 0.4 03/19/09 IN - 147 - - - <10 16.0 1.0 7.4 12.4 7.8 418 - _ - - - 21.5 - - - - <25 - 0.4 - TA TB 82.2 151 - - - <10 16.1 0.5 7.3 11.9 7.7 411 - _ - - - 15.4 - - - - <25 - 0.1 - 149 - - - <10 16.2 0.8 7.4 11.9 7.8 411 0.9 1.0 - - - <0.1 - - - - <25 - 0.2 - 04/07/09 IN - 158 - - - <10 14.6 0.8 7.3 11.3 8.7 419 - _ - - - 16.9 - - - - <25 - 0.5 - TA TB 86.1 155 - - - <10 14.7 0.5 7.3 11.0 7.1 405 - _ - - - 11.4 - - - - <25 - <0.1 - 160 - - - <10 14.7 0.3 7.2 10.9 7.9 408 1.0 1.0 - - - <0.1 - - - - <25 - 0.2 - 04/15/09 IN - 157 - - - <10 17.6 0.6 7.3 12.6 8.4 418 - _ - - - 21.7 - - - - <25 - 0.4 - TA TB 87.7 141 - - - <10 17.9 0.6 7.4 12.4 8.0 412 - _ - - - 15.5 - - - - <25 - 0.1 - 141 - - - <10 17.4 0.6 7.3 12.0 7.9 403 0.9 1.0 - - - <0.1 - - - - <25 - 0.3 - 04/30/09 IN - 140 0.7 9.2 0.4 10.8 18.4 1.6 7.4 11.5 8.6 418 - _ 154 117 36.2 19.9 19.0 1.0 <0.1 18.9 <25 <25 0.8 0.3 TA TB 90.4 142 0.8 10.1 0.5 12.2 17.8 1.8 7.4 11.3 8.6 412 - _ 159 121 37.5 13.0 12.7 0.3 <0.1 12.6 <25 <25 0.3 0.2 142 0.8 10.3 0.6 <10 19.6 0.8 7.3 11.4 8.4 410 1.0 1.0 162 123 38.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <25 <25 0.6 0.3 ------- Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Lead, SD (Continued) Sampling Date Sampling Location Parameter Unit Bed Volume Alkalinity (as CaCO3) Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate (as N) Total P (as P) Silica (as SiO2) Turbidity pH Temperature DO ORP Free Chlorine (as CI2) Total Chlorine (as CI2) Total Hardness (as CaCO3) Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) As (total) As (soluble) As (particulate) As (III) As(V) Fe (total) Fe (soluble) Mn (total) Mn (soluble) 103 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L l-ig/L mg/L NTU S.U. °C mg/L mV mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L 05/13/09 IN _ 149 - - - <10 17.5 0.2 7.4 11.9 8.7 420 _ - - - - 20.8 - - - - <25 - 0.6 - TA TB 92.7 147 - - - <10 17.9 0.1 7.4 12.1 8.8 419 _ - - - - 15.0 - - - - <25 - 0.3 - 147 - - - <10 18.1 0.3 7.3 11.8 8.7 418 0.9 1.0 - - - 0.6 - - - - <25 - 1.2 - 05/28/09 IN _ 148 - - - <10 16.8 1.0 7.4 12.1 8.8 419 _ - - - - 20.2 - - - - <25 - 0.4 - TA TB 95.7 148 - - - <10 17.2 0.6 7.4 12.4 8.7 419 _ - - - - 16.4 - - - - <25 - 1.7 - 148 - - - <10 17.6 2.1 7.4 12.3 8.7 418 0.9 1.0 - - - 1.4 - - - - <25 - 3.5 - 06/11/09 IN _ 152 152 - - - <10 <10 17.1 16.8 1.4 1.4 7.4 11.9 8.7 420 _ - - - - 22.0 21.4 - - - - <25 <25 - 0.5 0.5 - TA TB 98.7 152 152 - - - <10 <10 17.0 16.9 1.4 0.6 7.4 11.7 8.7 420 _ - - - - 17.9 17.6 - - - - <25 <25 - 0.2 0.2 - 152 150 - - - <10 <10 16.7 16.8 1.0 1.3 7.4 11.5 8.7 420 1.0 1.0 - - - 1.1 1.0 - - - - <25 <25 - 0.4 0.4 - 06/23/09 IN _ 148 0.8 10.6 0.5 <10 16.7 1.6 7.4 11.7 8.7 421 _ - 164 135 29 19.3 19.2 <0.1 0.3 19.0 <25 <25 0.7 0.4 TA TB 102 146 0.8 10.7 0.5 <10 16.6 0.6 7.4 11.7 8.7 420 _ - 164 135 29 16.1 15.8 0.4 0.1 15.7 <25 <25 0.6 0.7 144 0.8 10.7 0.5 <10 16.6 0.6 7.4 11.6 8.6 420 1.0 1.0 164 134 30 1.2 1.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 36.8 37.5 1.8 1.6 07/07/09 IN _ 153 - - - <10 17.1 0.3 7.3 12.7 .("' 441 _ - - - - 21.7 - - - - <25 - <0.1 - TA TB 106 148 - - - <10 17.1 0.5 7.3 12.8 .<") 461 _ - - - - 18.3 - - - - <25 - <0.1 - 155 - - - <10 17.1 0.2 7.4 13.0 .<"> 476 1.0 1.0 - - - 1.6 - - - - <25 - 0.2 - 07/21/09 IN _ 156 0.4 5.38 0.21 <10 18.3 2.6 7.3 12.9 .<"> 443 _ - 179 134 45 23.8 22.0 1.8 0.2 21.8 <25 <25 0.3 0.2 TA TB 110 144 0.8 10.6 0.45 <10 17.3 1.2 7.3 12.9 .("' 475 _ - 171 130 41 18.6 18.6 <0.1 0.2 18.4 <25 <25 0.5 0.2 170 0.8 10.5 0.46 <10 19.3 1.6 7.2 13.1 .<") 484 1.0 1.0 173 130 43 2.2 2.2 <0.1 0.2 2.0 <25 <25 0.5 0.3 (a) Data were not available due to a mistake in measurement ------- Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Lead, SD (Continued) Sampling Date Sampling Location Parameter Unit Bed Volume Alkalinity (as CaCO3) Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate (as N) Total P (as P) Silica (as SiO2) Turbidity pH Temperature DO ORP Free Chlorine (as CI2) Total Chlorine (as CI2) Total Hardness (as CaCO3) Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) As (total) As (soluble) As (particulate) As (III) As(V) Fe (total) Fe (soluble) Mn (total) Mn (soluble) 103 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ng/L mg/L NTU S.U. °C mg/L mV mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L 08/04/09 IN - - - - - ; - - 7.3 12.8 8.5 395 - _ - - - 26.3 - - - - - - - - TA TB 114 - - - - - - - 7.3 12.7 8.5 387 - _ - - - 21.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - ; - - 7.3 12.6 8.4 375 1.0 1.0 - - - 0.9 - - - - - - - - 08/18/09 IN - - - - - ; - - 7.2 13.0 8.1 363 - _ - - - 20.5 21.2 - - - - - - - - TA TB 118 - - - - ; - - 7.2 12.9 8.1 337 - _ - - - 17.0 16.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - ; - - 7.2 12.7 8.7 295 1.0 1.0 - - - 5.6 5.7 - - - - - - - - 09/02/09 IN - - - - - ; - - 7.3 11.8 8.7 374 - _ - - - 18.9 - - - - - - - - TA TB 121 - - - - ; - - 7.3 11.7 8.7 378 - _ - - - 14.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - ; - - 7.3 11.7 8.8 386 1.0 1.0 - - - 2.9 - - - - - - - - 09/17/09 IN - - - - - ; - - 7.3 11.9 8.5 391 - _ - - - 23.0 - - - - - - - - TA TB 124 - - - - ; - - 7.3 12.1 9.0 392 - _ - - - 18.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - ; - - 7.3 12.0 8.5 411 1.0 1.0 - - - 5.9 - - - - - - - - 09/29/09 IN - - - - - ; - - 7.3 11.7 8.5 381 - _ - - - 22.0 - - - - - - - - TA TB 126 - - - - ; - - 7.3 11.9 8.5 380 - _ - - - 18.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - ; - - 7.3 11.9 8.5 378 1.0 1.1 - - - 5.8 - - - - - - - - 10/13/09 IN - - - - - ; - - 7.3 11.9 8.5 371 - _ - - - 20.8 - - - - - - - - TA TB 127 - - - - ; - - 7.3 11.7 8.4 379 - _ - - - 14.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - ; - - 7.3 11.8 8.4 378 1.1 1.1 - - - 4.6 - - - - - - - - ------- Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Lead, SD (Continued) Sampling Date Sampling Location Parameter Unit Bed Volume Alkalinity (as CaCO3) Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate (as N) Total P (as P) Silica (as SiO2) Turbidity pH Temperature DO ORP Free Chlorine (as CI2) Total Chlorine (as CI2) Total Hardness (as CaCO3) Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) As (total) As (soluble) As (particulate) As (III) As(V) Fe (total) Fe (soluble) Mn (total) Mn (soluble) 103 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ng/L mg/L NTU S.U. °C mg/L mV mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L 10/27/09 IN - ; - - - - - - 7.3 12.1 8.4 382 _ - - - - 21.9 - - - - ; - - - TA TB 128 ; - - - - - - 7.3 12.2 6.3 385 _ - - - - 15.5 - - - - - - - - ; - - - - - - 7.3 12.1 8.3 385 1.0 1.0 - - - 5.8 - - - - ; - - - 11/10/09 IN _ ; - - - - - - 7.3 10.9 8.4 422 _ - - - - 22.4 - - - - ; - - - TA TB 130 ; - - - - - - 7.3 10.7 8.4 400 _ - - - - 15.2 - - - - ; - - - ; - - - - - - 7.3 10.6 8.3 354 0.9 1.0 - - - 6.1 - - - - ; - - - 11/17/09 IN _ ; - - - - - - 7.2 10.7 8.4 418 _ - - - - 22.4 - - - - ; - - - TA TB 131 ; - - - - - - 7.2 10.5 8.4 402 _ - - - - 15.9 - - - - ; - - - ; - - - - - - 7.2 10.1 8.3 380 0.9 1.0 - - - 5.8 - - - - ; - - - 12/3/09(a) IN _ ; - - - - - - 6.9 10.3 8.4 418 _ - - - - 19.7 - - - - ; - - - TA TB 0.4 ; - - - - - - 7.2 10.1 8.4 352 _ - - - - 2.5 - - - - : - - - ; - - - - - - 7.3 9.9 8.4 316 1.0 1.0 - - - 5.7 - - - - ; - - - 12/15/09 IN _ ; - - - - - - NA NA NA NA _ - - - - 20.3 - - - - ; - - - TA TB 2.3 ; - - - - - - NA NA NA NA _ - - - - 1.2 - - - - - - - - ; - - - - - - NA NA NA NA NA NA - - - 5.8 - - - - - - - - 01/04/10 IN _ ; - - - - - - 7.0 11.5 8.4 432 _ - - - - 22.6 - - - - ; - - - TA TB 8.5 ; - - - - - - 7.2 10.9 8.3 427 _ - - - - 0.6 - - - - ; - - - ; - - - - - - 7.2 11.1 8.3 425 1.0 1.0 - - - 8.3 - - - - ; - - - (a) Vessel A was placed in the lag position after rebedding on 12/02/09. ------- Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Lead, SD (Continued) Sampling Date Sampling Location Parameter Unit Bed Volume Alkalinity (as CaCO3) Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate (as N) Total P (as P) Silica (as SiO2) Turbidity pH Temperature DO ORP Free Chlorine (as CI2) Total Chlorine (as CIJ Total Hardness (as CaCO3) Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) As (total) As (soluble) As (particulate) As (III) As(V) Fe (total) Fe (soluble) Mn (total) Mn (soluble) 103 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ng/L mg/L NTU S.U. °C mg/L mV mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L 01/12/10 IN _ ; - - - - - ; 7.0 11.1 8.2 439 _ - - - - 21.1 - - - - ; - - - TA TB 10.4 ; - - - - - ; 7.1 11.0 8.3 423.1 _ - - - - 0.5 - - - - ; - - - ; - - - - - ; 7.3 10.5 8.3 431.7 1.1 1.1 - - - 7.8 - - - - ; - - - 01/27/10 IN _ ; - - - - - ; 7.1 10.9 8.2 438 _ - - - - 21.6 - - - - ; - - - TA TB 14.4 ; - - - - - ; 7.3 10.7 8.2 429.3 _ - - - - 0.5 - - - - ; - - - ; - - - - - ; 7.2 10.6 8.3 430.7 1.0 1.0 - - - 8.9 - - - - ; - - - 02/10/10 IN _ ; - - - - - ; NA NA NA NA _ - - - - 20.5 - - - - ; - - - TA TB 16.9 ; - - - - - ; NA NA NA NA _ - - - - 0.4 - - - - ; - - - ; - - - - - ; NA NA NA NA NA NA - - - 8.9 - - - - ; - - - 02/24/10 IN _ ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.7 8.2 437 _ - - - - 20.9 - - - - ; - - - TA TB 19.7 ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.8 8.2 435.1 _ - - - - 0.4 - - - - ; - - - ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.8 8.2 435.1 0.9 1.0 - - - 9.3 - - - - ; - - - 03/10/10 IN _ ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.5 8.2 440 _ - - - - 20.0 - - - - ; - - - TA TB 23.2 ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.7 8.2 431.6 _ - - - - 0.4 - - - - ; - - - ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.6 8.2 434 1.0 1.0 - - - 10.7 - - - - ; - - - 03/23/10 IN _ ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.8 8.2 432 _ - - - - 22.2 - - - - ; - - - TA TB 25.7 ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.9 8.2 433 _ - - - - 0.3 - - - - ; - - - ; - - - - - ; 7.2 12.1 8.2 434 1.1 1.1 - - - 10.6 - - - - ; - - - ------- Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling, Lead, SD (Continued) Cd Sampling Date Sampling Location Parameter Unit Bed Volume Alkalinity (as CaCO3) Fluoride Sulfate Nitrate (as N) Total P (as P) Silica (asSiO2) Turbidity pH Temperature DO ORP Free Chlorine (as CI2) Total Chlorine (as CIJ Total Hardness (as CaCO3) Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) As (total) As (soluble) As (particulate) As (III) As(V) Fe (total) Fe (soluble) Mn (total) Mn (soluble) 103 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ng/L mg/L NTU S.U. °C mg/L mV mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L M9/L 04/06/10 IN _ ; - - - - - - 7.2 11.7 8.3 428 _ - - - - 20.7 - - - - - - - - TA TB 27.9 ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.8 8.2 435 _ - - - - 0.4 - - - - ; - - - ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.8 8.2 435 1.0 1.0 - - - 5.9 - - - - ; - - - 04/20/10 IN _ ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.6 8.3 431 _ - - - - 19.4 - - - - ; - - - TA TB 29.6 ; - - - - - - 7.2 11.5 8.2 429 _ - - - - 0.6 - - - - - - - - ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.7 8.3 428 1.2 1.2 - - - 9.6 - - - - ; - - - 05/04/10 IN _ ; - - - - - : 7.2 11.3 8.3 429 _ - - - - 22.4 - - - - : - - - TA TB 31.6 ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.3 8.3 621 _ - - - - 0.3 - - - - ; - - - : - - - - - ; 7.2 11.1 8.3 420 1.1 1.1 - - - 12.1 - - - - ; - - - 05/18/10 IN _ ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.4 8.4 429 _ - - - - 21.2 - - - - ; - - - TA TB 33.7 ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.5 8.3 426 _ - - - - 0.5 - - - - ; - - - ; - - - - - ; 7.2 11.7 8.3 426 1.0 1.0 - - - 11.7 - - - - ; - - - ------- |