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
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
------- |