EPA/600/R-07/050
June 2007
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Coagulation/Filtration
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Village of Pentwater, MI
Six-Month Evaluation Report
by
Julia M. Valigore
Wendy E. Condit
Abraham S.C. Chen
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the first six months
of the EPA arsenic removal technology demonstration project at the Village of Pentwater, MI facility.
The main objective of the project is to evaluate the effectiveness of Kinetico's FM-260-AS treatment
system using Macrolite® media in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level
(MCL) of 10 ng/L. Additionally, this project evaluates the reliability of the treatment system for use at
small water facilities, the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels,
and the cost-effectiveness of the technology. The project also characterizes water in the distribution
system and residuals generated by the treatment process. The types of data collected include system
operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), process residuals,
and capital and O&M costs.
After engineering plan review and approval by the state, the FM-260-AS treatment system was installed
and became operational on November 22, 2005. The system consisted of one 96-in-diameter, 96-in-tall
steel contact tank and two 60-in-diameter, 96-in-tall steel pressure tanks configured in parallel. Each
pressure tank contained 40 ft3 of Macrolite® media, which is a spherical, low density, chemically inert
ceramic media designed for filtration rates up to 10 gpm/ft2. The system used an existing chlorination
system to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) and the contact tank to improve the formation of As(V)-laden
particles prior to entering the pressure filters. The system operated at approximately 353 gal/min (gpm)
for 3.2 hr/day, producing 12,714,000 gal of water through May 22, 2006. The flowrate corresponded to a
contact time of 6.8 min and a filtration rate of 9 gpm/ft2. A number of issues related to backwash
operation were experienced and are being addressed by the vendor. The resolution of these issues will be
further discussed in the Final Performance Evaluation Report.
The source water had an average pH of 8.0 and contained 15.3 to 21.8 |o,g/L of total arsenic. The
predominant species was As(III) with an average concentration of 17.2 |og/L. Total iron concentrations
ranged from 346 to 510 |o,g/L, which existed primarily in the soluble form with an average concentration
of 367 |og/L. Raw water soluble iron and soluble arsenic concentrations corresponded to a ratio of 21:1.
Total arsenic concentrations in treated water ranged from 7.8 to 15.6 |o,g/L and averaged 10.0 |o,g/L. To
further reduce arsenic concentrations in treated water, provisions were made to enable supplemental iron
addition. This condition will be initiated after backwash issues are resolved by the vendor and evaluated
in the Final Performance Evaluation Report.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after the system startup demonstrated a
considerable decrease in arsenic (16.5 to 8.8 |og/L), iron (192 to <25 |o,g/L), manganese (23.8 to
11.5 |og/L), and copper (131 to 70.4 |og/L) concentrations. Alkalinity, pH, and lead concentrations did not
appear to be affected.
Filter tank backwash occurred automatically about 3 time/tank/week triggered by 24-hr service time, 48-
hr standby time, or 22-psi differential pressure setpoints, whichever occurred first. Due to low
operational time of the treatment system, the majority of backwash cycles was initiated by the standby
time setpoint. Approximately 403,900 gal of wastewater, or 3.2% of the amount of water treated, was
generated during the first six months. Under normal operating conditions, the backwash wastewater
contained 24 to 106 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS), 1.5 to 29.5 mg/L of iron, 66 to 1,206 |o,g/L of
manganese, and 30 to 610 |o,g/L of arsenic, with the majority exisiting as particulates. The highest amount
of solids discharged per backwash cycle was approximately 0.96 Ib, including 0.235 Ib of iron, 0.009 Ib
of manganese, and 0.005 Ib of arsenic.
IV
-------
The capital investment for the system was $334,573 consisting of $224,994 for equipment, $30,929 for
site engineering, and $78,650 for installation, shakedown, and startup. Using the system's rated capacity
of 400 gpm (or 576,000 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $836/gpm (or $0.58/gpd). This calculation
does not include the cost of the building to house the treatment system.
O&M cost, estimated at $0.22/1,000 gal, included only the incremental cost for electricity and labor.
Since chlorination already existed prior to the demonstration study, the incremental cost for chemical
usage will only be incurred for iron addition once initiated. The associated costs for iron addition will be
discussed in the Final Performance Evaluation Report.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 6
3.1 General Project Approach 6
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 7
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 7
3.3.1 Source Water 10
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 10
3.3.3 Backwash Water 10
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 10
3.3.5 Residual Solid 10
3.4 Sampling Logistics 10
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 10
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 10
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 11
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
4.1 Facility Description 12
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 13
4.1.2 Distribution System 13
4.2 Treatment Process Description 13
4.3 Treatment System Installation 18
4.3.1 System Permitting 18
4.3.2 Building Construction 18
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown 18
4.3.4 Iron Addition Modification 19
4.4 System Operation 19
4.4.1 Coagulation/Filtration Operation 19
4.4.2 Backwash Operation 22
4.4.3 Residual Management 24
4.4.4 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation 24
4.4.4.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements 25
4.4.4.2 System Automation 25
4.4.4.3 Operator Skill Requirements 25
4.4.4.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities 25
VI
-------
4.4.4.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements 25
4.5 System Performance 25
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 26
4.5.1.1 Arsenic 28
4.5.1.2 Iron 30
4.5.1.3 Manganese 31
4.5.1.4 pH, DO, and ORP 31
4.5.1.5 Chlorine and Ammonia 31
4.5.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters 32
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling 32
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 32
4.6 System Costs 32
4.6.1 Capital Cost 34
4.6.2 O&MCost 35
5.0 REFERENCES 36
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA A-l
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES B-l
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations 9
Figure 4-1. Existing Facility and System Components 12
Figure 4-2. Schematic of Kinetico's FM-260-AS System 16
Figure 4-3. Treatment System Components 16
Figure 4-4. Control and Instrumentation 17
Figure 4-5. New Building Constructed Next to Existing Well No. 2 Pump House 19
Figure 4-6. Service Flowrates According to Initial and Revised Calibration Values 22
Figure 4-7. Backwash Flowrates According to Initial and Revised Calibration Values 23
Figure 4-8. Arsenic Speciation Results at Wellhead (IN), After Contact Tank (AC), and After
Tanks A and B Combined (TT) 29
Figure 4-9. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train 30
Figure 4-10. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train 31
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 3
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 6
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses 8
Table 4-1. Well No. 2 Source Water Quality Data 14
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of M2 Macrolite® Media 15
Table 4-3. Design Specifications for Kinetico's FM-260-AS System 17
Table 4-4. System Inspection Punch-List Items 20
Table 4-5. FM-260-AS Treatment System Operational Parameters 20
Table 4-6. Summary of PLC Settings for Backwash Operations 23
Table 4-7. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Results 26
vn
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 27
Table 4-9. Backwash Water Sampling Results 33
Table 4-10. Distribution System Sampling Results 33
Table 4-11. Capital Investment for Kinetico's FM-260-AS System 34
Table 4-12. O&M Cost for Kinetico's FM-260-AS System 35
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AA activated alumina
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
bgs below ground surface
BV bed volume(s)
C/F coagulation/filtration
Ca calcium
Cl chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DBPR Disinfection Byproducts Rule
DO dissolved oxygen
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
FEATS Field Evaluation and Technical Support
FeCl3 ferric chloride
FedEx Federal Express
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
H2SO4 sulfuric acid
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
jam micrometer
IX
-------
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detected
NS not sampled
NSF NSF International
NTU nephlemetric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
OIP operator interface panel
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P phosphorus
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
Pb lead
pCi/L picocuries per liter
psi pounds per square inch
PLC programmable logic controller
PO4 phosphate
POU point-of-use
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RPD relative percent difference
RO reverse osmosis
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO4 sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TBD to be determined
TDS total dissolved solids
THM trihalomethanes
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
UPS uninterruptible power supply
V vanadium
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Mr. Gerald Kacynski in Village of Pentwater,
Michigan. Mr. Kacynski monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the treatment and
distribution systems on a regular schedule throughout this study period. 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 at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule on March 25, 2003
to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community and
non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the community water system in the Village of Pentwater, MI was one of those selected.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28. Kinetico's Macrolite® Arsenic Removal Technology was selected for
demonstration at the Pentwater facility. As of June 2007, 36 of the 40 demonstrations have been initiated
with 21 performance evaluations completed.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13 coagula-
tion/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, and 17 point-of-use (POU) units (including
nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and eight AM units
at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors,
system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, Fe, and pH) at the 40
demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 Round 1
demonstration sites and the associated capital cost is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004;
Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA website at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 40 full-scale arsenic treatment
technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific
objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small
systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill
levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the Kinetico system at the Village of Pentwater in Michigan
during the first six months from November 22, 2005 through May 22, 2006. The types of data collected
included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system),
residuals, and capital and preliminary O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(HS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow, NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NY(d)
Newark, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (ARM 200)
AM(E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70(b)
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250W
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19w
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,806(c)
1,312W
1,61 5W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM(E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM (E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14W
13(a)
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127W
466W
1,387W
1,499W
7827(c)
546W
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
1,344W
l,325(c)
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Indian Health Services
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(b)
50
37
35W
19W
56<">
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
Oig/L)
Fe
(HS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POURO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)®
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HIX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75 gpd
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; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) Replaced Village of Lyman, NE site which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Arnaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Kinetico's FM-260-AS treatment system with Macrolite® media was installed and operated at Village of
Pentwater, MI since November 22, 2005. Based on the information collected during the first six months
of operation, the following preliminary conclusions were made relating to the overall project objectives.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• Without supplemental iron addition, the system may not remove arsenic to <10 ng/L.
The average soluble iron to soluble arsenic ratio in raw water was 21:1, which is on the
borderline with the rule of thumb value of 20:1.
• Chlorination is effective in oxidizing As(III) to As(V), reducing the As(III) concentration
from 14.6 |o,g/L (on average) in raw water to 0.4 |o,g/L (on average) after the contact tank.
• The system can be operated at a high filtration rate of 9 gpm/ft2 (on average) with
minimum particulate leakage observed in the pressure filter effluent.
• The treatment system has improved water quality in the distribution system. A
considerable decrease in arsenic (16.5 to 8.8 |og/L), iron (192 to <25 |o,g/L), manganese
(23.8 to 11.5 |og/L), and copper (131 to 70.4 |og/L) concentrations was observed.
Alkalinity, pH, and lead concentrations did not appear to be affected.
Required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• Although the daily demand on the operator was only 30 min, a significant amount of time
and effort was required to troubleshoot several backwash related issues.
• Flow meters and totalizers may provide erroneous readings due to incorrect meter
calibration. It would be prudent to verify these readings, especially if and when the
system is performing out of design specifications.
Characteristics of residuals produced by the technology:
• The amount of wastewater produced was equivalent to about 3.2% of the amount of
water treated. This generation rate is higher than that from a similar, but smaller system
at Climax, MN, where 1.9 to 2.4% was observed (Condit and Chen, 2006). The
backwash generation rate will continue to be monitored after all backwash issues are
resolved.
• Approximately 0.96 Ib of residual solids was produced during each backwash cycle,
including 0.235 Ib of iron, 0.009 Ib of manganese, and 0.005 Ib of arsenic.
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
• The capital investment for the system was $334,573, consisting of $224,994 for
equipment, $30,929 for site engineering, and $78,650 for installation, shakedown, and
startup. The building cost was not included in the capital investment, since it was funded
by the village.
• The unit capital cost was $836/gpm (or $0.58/gpd) based on a design capacity of
400 gpm.
• The O&M cost, estimated at $0.22/1,000 gal, included only incremental cost for
electricity and labor.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
the Kinetico treatment system began on November 22, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data
collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance
was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the target MCL of 10 |o,g/L
through the collection of water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the system was
evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and
replacement. The unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a
Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data
and qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system
automation, extent of preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling
and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and
safety practices. The staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
water produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water was sampled and analyzed for chemical
characteristics.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (gpm) (or gal/day [gpd]) of
design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital
cost for equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electricity usage, and labor.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received
Purchase Order Established
Letter Report Issued
Engineering Package Submitted to MDEQ
Study Plan Issued
System Permit Granted by MDEQ
Building Construction Permit Granted by Oceana County
Building Construction Began
Building Completed and FM-260-AS System Shipped
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Began
Date
August 3 1,2004
October 19, 2004
November 4, 2004
November 10, 2004
December 2, 2004
February 1, 2005
March 1, 2005
March 29, 2005
March 30, 2005
May 3 1,2005
August 17, 2005
August 19, 2005
October 2 1,2005
November 4, 2005
November 11, 2005
November 22, 2005
MDEQ = Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objective
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems,
materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a Daily System
Operation Log Sheet, checked the sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) level, and conducted visual inspections
to ensure normal system operations. If any problem occurred, the plant operator contacted the Battelle
Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator
recorded all relevant information, including the problem, course of actions taken, materials and supplies
used, and associated cost and labor, on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly basis, the
plant operator measured several water quality parameters on-site, including temperature, pH, dissolved
oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded the data on a
Weekly On-Site Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet. Monthly backwash data also were recorded on a
Backwash Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and
labor. Consumption of NaOCl was tracked on the Daily System Operation Log Sheet. Electricity
consumption was determined from utility bills. Labor for various activities, such as routine system
O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, was tracked using an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as completing field logs, replenishing
the NaOCl solution, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the
vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as performing field
measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the
vendor, was recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the treatment plant,
during Macrolite® filter backwash, and from the distribution system. The sampling schedules and
analytes measured during each sampling event are listed in Table 3-3. In addition, Figure 3-1 presents a
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Backwash
Water
Distribution
Water
Residual
Solids
Sample
Locations'3'
At Wellhead (IN)
At Wellhead
(IN), after
Contact Tank
(AC), after Tank
A (TA), and after
Tank B (TB)
At Wellhead
(IN), after
Contact Tank
(AC), and after
Tanks A and B
Combined (TT)
Backwash
discharge line
Three non-LCR
residences
Backwash solids
from each tank
No. of
Samples
1
4
o
5
2
3
2
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Twice
Analytes
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off-site: As (total, soluble,
and paniculate), As(III),
As(V), total and soluble
Fe, Mn, U, and V, Na, Ca,
Mg, Cl, F, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
NH3, NO2, NO3, TOC,
TDS, turbidity, and
alkalinity
On-site(b): pH,
temperature, DO, ORP,
C12 (free and total).
Off-site: total As, Fe, Mn,
and P, SiO2, turbidity, and
alkalinity
Same as weekly analytes
shown above plus the
following:
Off-site: As (soluble and
paniculate), As(III),
As(V), Fe (soluble), Mn
(soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3,
SO4, NH3, and TOC
As (total, soluble, and
paniculate), total and
soluble Fe and Mn, pH,
TDS, andTSS
Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu, and
Pb, pH, and alkalinity
TCLP metals and total Al,
As, Ca, Cd, Cu, Fe, Mg,
Mn, Ni, P, Pb, Si, and Zn
Collection Date(s)
08/31/04
11/29/05, 12/08/05,
12/12/05,01/11/06,
01/17/06,01/23/06,
02/06/06, 02/14/06,
02/22/06, 03/07/06,
03/14/06, 03/20/06,
04/10/06, 04/18/06,
04/24/06, 05/09/06,
05/16/06
11/22/05,01/04/06,
01/31/06,03/01/06,
04/03/06, 05/02/06
12/08/05, 01/04/06,
02/06/06, 03/07/06,
04/12/06, 05/09/06
Baseline sampling(c):
02/22/05, 03/22/05,
04/19/05, 05/26/05
Monthly sampling:
12/13/05,01/17/06,
02/14/06, 03/14/06,
04/18/06, 05/16/06
TBD
(a) Abbreviation corresponding to sample location in Figure 3 -1.
(b) On-site measurements of chlonne not collected at IN.
(c) Sampling events performed before system startup.
TBD = to be determined.
-------
INFLUENT
(WELL No. 2)
Monthly
pBW, temperature^), DO(a),
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble),^
Mn (total and soluble),
P, Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
NH3, FOC, turbidity, alkalinity
Pentwater, MI
Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: 400 gpm
pBW, temperature^), DO(a),
C12 (free and total),
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
P, Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
NH3, FOC, turbidity, alkalinity
NaOCl
FeCl3(b)
Weekly
pH
-------
flow diagram of the treatment system along with the analytes and schedules at each sampling location.
Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and
holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
(Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit, one set of source water samples was collected
and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (Section 3.4.1). The sample tap was flushed for several
minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted
oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, the plant
operator collected samples weekly, on a four-week cycle, for on- and off-site analyses. For the first week
of each four-week cycle, samples taken at the wellhead (IN), after the contact tank (AC), and after Tanks
A and B combined (TT), were speciated on-site and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for
monthly treatment plant water. For the next three weeks, samples were collected at IN, AC, after Tank A
(TA), and after Tank B (TB) and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for the weekly treatment
plant water.
3.3.3 Backwash Water. Backwash water samples were collected monthly by the plant operator.
Tubing, connected to the tap on the discharge line, directed a portion of backwash water at approximately
1 gpm into a clean, 32-gal container over the duration of the backwash for each tank. After the content in
the container was thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected and/or filtered on-site with 0.45-
(im filters. Analytes for the backwash samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to the system startup from February to May 2005,
four sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected from three residences within the
distribution system. Following the system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly
basis at the same three locations.
The homeowners collected samples following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and
Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The dates and times
of last water usage before sampling and sample collection were recorded for calculation of the stagnation
time. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least 6 hr to
ensure that stagnant water was sampled.
3.3.5 Residual Solids. Residual solids produced by the treatment process included backwash
solids, which were not collected during the initial six months of this demonstration.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sample Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, colored-coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample
10
-------
collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The
sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code
for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The
labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate Ziplock® bags and packed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included. The chain-of-
custody forms and air bills were complete except for the operator's signature and the sample dates and
times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following week's sam-
pling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-
MS) Laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up
by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and TCCI Laboratories in
New Lexington, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration study. The
chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final
disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the
required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy,
method detection limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative
percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The quality
assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary
Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
handheld field meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the procedures provided
in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring the ORP of a standard
solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a water sample in a clean,
plastic beaker and placed the probe in the beaker until a stable value was obtained. The plant operator
also performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine test kits following the user's
manual.
11
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Facility Description
Three wells (Wells No. 1, 2, and 3) owned by the Village of Pentwater supplied water to a population of
about 1,000, which increased during the summer months with the influx of tourists and summer residents.
Well No. 2 was primarily used to meet the village's daily demand, and Wells No. 1 and 3 were used as
backup wells to meet the peak demand of 300,000 gpd. Typical daily operational time was 16 to 18 hr
during the summer and 4 to 5 hr during the winter.
Well No. 2, selected for this demonstration study, was a 10-in-diameter, 235-ft-deep well screened from
195 to 235 ft below ground surface (bgs) with a static water level at 40 ft bgs. The well was equipped
with a 30-horsepower (hp) submersible pump rated for 250 gpm at 300 ft of total dynamic head (TDH).
Operating at a reduced TDH of 184 ft, Well No. 2 had a capacity of approximately 350 gpm, which was
notably less than the 420 gpm expected based on the pump curve.
Prior to the installation of the arsenic removal system, treatment consisted of only chlorine and
polyphosphate addition, which was carried out in the Well No. 2 pump house (Figure 4-1). A 15%
NaOCl solution stored in a 55-gal drum was injected at 2 to 3 mg/L at the wellhead using a 1.0-gal/hr
(gph) pump to attain a chlorine residual of approximately 0.5 mg/L. A phosphate mixture (i.e., 85%
polyphosphate and 15% orthophosphate) also was added at 2 mg/L using a 2.5-gph pump for iron
sequestration and corrosion control. The treated water was stored in a 150,000-gal water tower with level
sensors for pump control.
Figure 4-1. Existing Facility and System Components
(Clockwise from Top: Well No. 2 Pump House, Water Tower, Polyphosphate Drum,
Wellhead Totalizer, and Piping and Chlorine Addition Equipment)
12
-------
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected from Well No. 2 on August
31, 2004. The results of the source water analysis, along with those provided by the facility, vendor, and
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), are presented in Table 4-1.
Historically, total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 17 to 24 (ig/L. Based on the
August 30, 2004 sampling results, arsenic existed primarily as As(III) (i.e., 11.1 of 13.4 (ig/L), most
likely a result of the reducing conditions of the source water (i.e., low DO and ORP). A small amount of
arsenic also was present as particulate arsenic (i.e., 0.2 (ig/L) and As(V) (i.e., 2.1 (ig/L). Because the
treatment process relied upon coprecipitation and adsorption of As(V) onto iron solids, prechlorination
was required to oxidize As(III) to As(V). The presence of 0.3 mg/L of ammonia and 2.5 mg/L of total
organic carbon (TOC) potentially could impact the prechlorination dosage. Hence, chlorine residual,
ammonia, and TOC were monitored during the performance evaluation study.
Iron concentrations in source water ranged from 300 to 600 |o,g/L, which existed almost entirely as soluble
iron based on the August 30, 2004 sampling results. For effective adsorption of arsenic onto iron solids,
the general recommendations are that the soluble iron concentration is at least 20 times greater than the
soluble arsenic concentration (Sorg, 2002), and that the pH value of source water falls in the range
between 5.5 and 8.5 although improved performance may be observed at the lower end of this range. The
results obtained on August 30, 2004 indicated a soluble iron to soluble arsenic ratio of 35:1 and a pH
range of 6.9 to 7.9. Therefore, no provisions were made for iron addition or pH adjustment.
Other source water quality parameters also were analyzed (Table 4-1). Among those with detectable
concentrations were chloride (i.e., 130 to 165 mg/L), fluoride (i.e., 0.4 to 0.7 mg/L), selenium (i.e., 6 to 8
Hg/L), sodium (i.e., 51 to 73 mg/L), calcium and magnesium hardness (i.e., 180 to 252 mg/L [as CaCO3]),
barium (i.e., 90 to 110 ng/L), chromium (i.e., 10 ng/L), and manganese (i.e., 32.4 to 80 (ig/L, which
exceeded the secondary MCL [SMCL] of 0.05 mg/L). The combined radium concentration (i.e., 0.3 and
0.1 pCi/L of Ra-226 and 228, respectively) was below the 5.0-pCi/L MCL.
4.1.2 Distribution System. The distribution system at the Village of Pentwater consisted of a
mostly looped distribution line linked to the primary supply well (i.e., Well No. 2) and two backup wells
(i.e., Wells No. 1 and 3). Based on a conversation with the utility operator, the distribution system was a
combination of 6- and 8-in-diameter ductile iron and sand cast iron piping. Three residences served by
these wells were selected by the plant operator for the distribution system sampling. These locations were
not part of Pentwater's historic sampling network for EPA's Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) due to limited
availability of such homes year-round.
The Village samples water from the distribution system monthly for bacteria analysis, semi-annually for
trihalomethanes (THMs) and acetic acid analysis under EPA's Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR),
and once every three years for lead and copper analysis at 10 residences under EPA's LCR. The wells
also are sampled periodically for arsenic and other constituents.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
Kinetico provided a FM-260-AS Arsenic Removal system for the Village of Pentwater site. The
treatment train included prechlorination/oxidation, coprecipitation/adsorption, and Macrolite® pressure
filtration. Macrolite®, a spherical, low density, chemically inert, ceramic media manufactured by
Kinetico, is designed to allow for filtration rates up to 10 gpm/ft2 and approved for use in drinking water
applications under NSF International (NSF) Standard 61. The physical properties of Macrolite® are
summarized in Table 4-2.
13
-------
Table 4-1. Well No. 2 Source Water Quality Data
Parameter
Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as P)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Ba (total)
Cr (total)
Ca (total)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mg (total)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Na (total)
Se (total)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Ra-226
Ra-228
Unit
-
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
u£/L
HB/L
u£/L
HB/L
u£/L
HB/L
HB/L
mg/L
HB/L
tig/L
mg/L
HB/L
tig/L
mg/L
tig/L
HS/L
u£/L
tig/L
tig/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
Facility
Data
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
188
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
148
NA
<5
NA
NA
18.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
550
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kinetico
Data
11/06/03
7.9
NA
NA
NA
144
204
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
144
0.7
<4
17.1
0.5
17.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
47.5
530
NA
21
80
NA
67
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Battelle
Data
08/31/04
6.9
13.7
1.3
-97
141
252
2.3
450
2.5
0.04
0.01
0.3
130
0.4
1
11.1
0.1
13.4
13.2
0.2
11.1
2.1
NA
NA
56
466
465
27
32.4
32.6
83
NA
0.1
0.1
1.4
1.0
NA
NA
MDEQ
Data
04/08/00 - 02/26/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
180-211
NA
NA
NA
0.4
0.05
NA
140-165
0.5-0.7
<5
NA
NA
17.0-24.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
90-110
10
NA
300-600
NA
NA
NA
NA
51-73
6-8
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
0.1
Note: MDEQ data also reported non-detect levels
TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic
of Be, Cd,Hg,Ni,
carbon; NA = not
Pb, Sb, and Tl.
analyzed
14
-------
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of M2 Macrolite* Media
Property
Color
Uniformity Coefficient
Sphere Size Range (mm) [mesh]
Nominal Size (mm)
Bulk Density (g/cm3) [lb/ft3]
Specific Gravity
Value
Variable
1.1
0.21 -0.42 [40
x70]
0.3
0.86 [54]
2.05
The FM-260-AS system was composed of one contact tank, two pressure filtration tanks arranged in
parallel, and associated instrumentation to monitor pressure, flowrate, and turbidity (continuous turbidity
monitoring was performed only during backwash). The system also was equipped with a central control
panel that housed a touch screen operator interface panel (OIP), a programmable logic controller (PLC), a
modem, and an uninterruptible power supply (UPS). The PLC automatically controlled the system by
actuating polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pneumatic valves using a 7.5-horsepower (hp) compressor. The
system also featured schedule 80 PVC solvent bonded plumbing and all of the necessary isolation and
check valves and sampling ports. Figure 4-2 is a simplified system piping and instrumentation diagram
(P&ID). Figures 4-3 and 4-4 contain photographs of the key system components and control and
instrumentation, respectively. The system's design specifications are summarized in Table 4-3. The
major process steps are presented as follows:
• Intake. Raw water was pumped from Well No. 2 at approximately 350 gpm. The system
was equipped with two 200-gpm flow-limiting devices (i.e., one installed after each pressure
filtration tank) to prevent overrun and piping to bypass the treatment system (Figure 4-3).
• Chlorination. The existing chlorine feed system was used to oxidize As(III) to As(V) and
Fe(II) to Fe(III) and maintained a total chlorine residual of approximately 1.3 mg/L (as C12)
throughout the treatment train. The feed system consisted of a 5 5-gal day tank containing a
15% NaOCl solution and a chemical feed pump with a maximum capacity of 1.0 gph.
• Coprecipitation/Adsorption. It was anticipated at system startup that enough natural iron
existed in source water to effectively remove soluble arsenic through coprecipitation/
adsorption of As(V) with/onto iron solids formed after chlorination. However, analytical
results collected during the first six months of operation indicated that arsenic removal might
be improved via supplemental addition of ferric chloride (FeCl3) to the chlorinated water
(Section 4.5.1). An iron addition system, purchased in April 2006, included a 55-gal
polyethylene tank with secondary containment, a 1/20-hp overhead mixer, and a 3.15-gph
chemical metering pump. Iron addition will commence during the second six months of
system operation.
One 96-in-diameter, 96-in-tall epoxy-lined steel tank, designed to allow 6 min of contact
time, was used to improve the formation of iron floes prior to pressure filtration. The 2,400-
gal tank had 6-in top and bottom flanges, which connected to the exit and inlet piping,
respectively, for an upflow configuration.
• Pressure Filtration. Floe removal from the contact tank effluent was achieved via
downflow filtration through two 60-in-diameter, 96-in-tall pressure tanks configured in
15
-------
Kinetico FM-260-AS Arsenic Removal System
J
at50-100psi
Chemical
Metering
Purnps
Backwash Waste
to Sewer
Filtered Water to
Storage / Distribution
by Others
I hxisling I
Figure 4-2. Schematic of Kinetico's FM-260-AS System
Figure 4-3. Treatment System Components
(Clockwise from Top: Well No. 2 Entry and Bypass Piping; Two Filter Tanks and a Contact Tank;
Filter Tank Laterals and Viewing Window; and Backwash Discharge Piping to Building Sump)
16
-------
Figure 4-4. Control and Instrumentation
(Clockwise from Left: Control Panel Housing PLC; Turbidimeter Display; Compressor;
and Sample Tap and Pressure Gauge)
Table 4-3. Design Specifications for Kinetico's FM-260-AS System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
Chlorine Dosage (mg/L [as C12])
Iron Dosage (mg/L [as Fe])
2-3
0
—
Not used during the first six months
Contact
Tank Quantity
Tank Size (in)
Tank Volume (gal)
Contact Time (min)
1
96 D x 96 H
2,400
6
—
—
—
—
Filtration
Tank Quantity
Tank Size (in)
Tank Cross Section (ft2)
Media Volume (ftVtank)
Peak Flowrate (gpm)
Filtration Rate (gpm/ft2)
Ap across Tank (psi)
Maximum Production (gpd)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
2
60 D x 96 H
19.6
40
400
10
10-12
576,000
52
Parallel configuration
—
—
24-in bed depth of Macrolite®
Typically expected
200 gpm/tank
Across one clean filter
Based on peak flow, 24 hr/day
Estimated based on 300,000-gal peak
daily demand in summer
Backwash
Frequency
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Wastewater Production (gpd)
Variable
8-10
Variable
Based on PLC setpoints for Ap across
tank, run time, and standby time
157-196 gpm
Based on PLC setpoints for minimum and
maximum backwash time and turbidity
D = diameter; H = height.
17
-------
parallel. Each tank contained 40 ft3 (or 24 in) of 40 x 60 mesh Macrolite® media loaded on
top of fine garnet underbedding filled to 1 in above the 0.006-in slotted, stainless steel wedge-
wire underdrain. The epoxy-lined steel pressure tanks featured windows for media and
backwash observation and were rated for a working pressure of 150 pounds per square inch
(psi). The tanks were floor mounted and piped to a valve rack mounted on a welded, stainless
steel frame. The flow through each tank was regulated to less than 200 gpm using a flow-
limiting device to prevent filter overrun. System operation with both tanks in service could
produce a total flowrate of 400 gpm.
• Filter Backwash. Backwash removed particulates accumulating in the filter tanks, thereby
reducing pressure buildup. The filter tanks were automatically backwashed in succession in
an upflow configuration based on service time, run time, and/or differential pressure (Ap)
setpoints. The water was drained from the first filter tank before a 2-min air sparge at 100
pounds per square inch gage (psig). After a 4-min settling period, the filter tank was
backwashed with treated water from the distribution system until reaching a turbidity
threshold setpoint (i.e., 20 nephlemetric turbidity units [NTU]) as measured using a Hach™
turbidimeter. The resulting wastewater was sent to a sump that emptied into the sanitary
sewer. After the backwash step, the filter tank underwent filter-to-waste for 2 min using
water from the contact tank before returning to feed service.
4.3 Treatment System Installation
This section provides a summary of the system installation, startup, and shakedown activities and the
associated prerequisites including permitting and building construction.
4.3.1 System Permitting. The system engineering package, prepared by Kinetico and Wade Trim,
included a system design report and associated general arrangement and a P&ID for the FM-260-AS
system, electrical and mechanical drawings and component specifications, and building construction
drawings detailing connections from the system to the entry piping and the village's water and sanitary
sewer systems. The engineering package was certified by a Professional Engineer registered in the State
of Michigan and submitted to MDEQ for review and approval on March 29, 2005. After MDEQ's review
comments were addressed, the package was resubmitted along with a permit application on May 19,
2005. A water supply construction permit was issued by MDEQ on May 31, 2005, and fabrication of the
system began thereafter.
4.3.2 Building Construction. A permit for building construction was applied for by the village
and issued by Oceana County on August 17, 2005. Construction began on the following day and was
completed on October 21, 2005. The building was 37 l/3 ft x 33 l/3 ft with sidewall and roof peak heights
of 16 and 22.7 ft, respectively. The foundation had a 42-in-depth overlain with a 6-in concrete slab. A
12-ft-wide overhead door enabled ease of equipment placement and installation. Wastewater discharge
was facilitated with a 1,500-gal underground sump that emptied by gravity into the sanitary sewer. Figure
4-5 shows the new building constructed adjacent to the existing Well No. 2 pump house. In addition to
electrical and plumbing connections, a phone line also was installed on January 19, 2006 with service
available on February 22, 2006 to enable the equipment vendor to dial into the modem in the control
panel for any troubleshooting.
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown. The FM-260-AS treatment system was
delivered to the site on October 21, 2005. The vendor, through its subcontractor, performed the off-
loading and installation of the system, including connections to the entry and distribution piping and
electrical interlocking. System installation, hydraulic testing, and media loading were completed on
November 4, 2005. System startup and shakedown activities that lasted until November 11, 2005
18
-------
Figure 4-5. New Building Constructed Next to Existing Well No. 2 Pump House
included PLC testing, instrument calibration, prolonged backwashing to remove Macrolite® media fines,
chlorine disinfection and residual testing, and operator training on system O&M. The treatment system
remained off through November 21, 2005 pending bacteriological results.
Battelle performed system inspections and operator training on sample and data collection on November
21 and 22, 2005. As a result of the system inspections, several punch-list items were identified, some of
which appeared to have failed relevant MDEQ requirements and system design specifications. Table 4-4
summarizes the items identified and corrective actions taken. While most of the punch-listed items were
resolved by December 2005, several problems related to filter backwash, as discussed in Section 4.4.2,
continued to surface throughout the six-month study period.
4.3.4 Iron Addition Modification. Initial sampling results across the treatment train indicated a
need for iron addition to further reduce arsenic concentrations to less than the 10-(ig/L MCL. Battelle
requested a quote for such capabilities on December 6, 2005 and follow-on permitting and equipment
supply services on January 23, 2006. An approval for iron addition was granted by MDEQ on April 20,
2006, and the equipment was delivered to the site and installed by the operator on May 8, 2006. Iron
addition was not initiated by the end of the first six months of system operation due to on-going backwash
problems (Section 4.4.2).
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Coagulation/Filtration Operation. The operational parameters for the first six months of
the system operation are tabulated and attached as Appendix A with the key parameters summarized in
Table 4-5. From November 22, 2005 through May 22, 2006, the system operated for 572 hr, producing
12,714,000 gal based on hour meter and flow totalizer readings on the control panel. (Note that the hour
meter was interlocked with the well pump and that the flow meter/totalizer was installed downstream of
the pressure filters.) The average daily demand was 70,200 gal, equivalent to approximately 3.2 hr/day of
operational time and a utilization rate of 13% over the 26-week period.
19
-------
Table 4-4. System Inspection Punch-List Items
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Punch-List Item
Description
Elevate discharge piping to
at least 2 times piping
diameter off of floor
Provide metal, saddled
sample tap at combined
effluent location
Pipe air release valves to
drain to keep water off of
floor
Enable contact tank to be
drained
Coordinate modem/phone
line hookup with facility
Correct backwash flowrate
readings
Review/revise PLC field
settings as appropriate
Corrective Action(s) Taken
• Elevated discharge piping as required
• Provided metal sample tap at combined effluent
location with PVC saddle
• Piped air release valves to drain
• Installed ball valve between contact tank inlet (at
bottom of contact tank) and treatment system inlet
valve
• Completed modem/phone line connection (Section
4.3.2)
• Dialed into PLC for modifications (Section 4.4.1)
• Attempted to increase flowrate to specified range
by adjusting diaphragm valve (Section 4.4.2)
• Added tank stagger time to PLC to prevent/reduce
sump overflow (Section 4.4.2)
• Measured flowrate with portable meter, recalibrated
flow meter, and adjusted diaphragm valve (Section
4.4.2)
• Installed 150-gpm flow restrictors and replaced lost
media (Section 4.4.2)
• Changed PLC settings (Section 4.4.2)
• Recommended field setting changes due to
recurring sump overflow (Section 4.4.2; Table 4-6)
Resolution
Date
12/15/05
12/15/05
12/15/05
12/15/05
01/19/06
02/22/06
12/06/05
03/10/06
05/15/06
TBD
12/15/05
03/10/06
TBD = to be determined
Table 4-5. FM-260-AS Treatment System Operational Parameters
Parameter
Operational Period
Value
11/22/05-05/22/06
Pretreatment Operation
Chlorine Dosage (mg/L [as C12])
Iron Dosage (mg/L [as Fe])
1.3
TBD
Coagulation/Filtration Operation
Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Operating Time (hr/day)
Throughput (gal)
Average Demand (gpd)
Service Time between Backwash Cycles(a) (hr)
Throughput between Backwash Cycles(a) (gal)
Average Flowrate [Range] (gpm)
Average Contact Time [Range] (min)
Average Filtration Rate [Range] (gpm/ft2)
Average Ap across Each Tank [Range] (psi)
Average Ap across System [Range] (psi)
572
3.2
12,714,000
70,200
3-14
74,000-276,000
353 [345-365]
6.8 [6.6-7.0]
9.0 [8.8-9.3]
6 [4-15]
20 [14-24]
20
-------
Table 4-5. FM-260-AS Treatment System Operational Parameters (Cont'd)
Parameter
Value
Backwash Operation
Average Frequency (time/tank/week)
Number of Cycles (Tank A/Tank B)
Average Flowrate [Range] (gpm)
Average Hydraulic Loading Rate [Range] (gpm/ft2)
Average Duration [Range] (min/tank)
Average Backwash Volume [Range] (gal/tank)
Filter to Waste Volume (gal/tank)
Average Wastewater Produced [Range] (gal/tank)
3(a)
110/107
213 [170-280](b)
10.9 [8.7-14.3](b)
5 [5-7](b)
1,150 [840-2, 100](c)
700
1,850 [l,540-2,800](c)
(a) Based on 24-hr service time and/or 48-hr standby time since 12/15/05.
(b) Based on monthly data from Backwash Log Sheet.
(c) Based on all cycles. Three backwashes which appeared to occur for <5 min
possibly due to incomplete backwash or recording errors not included in range.
TBD = to be determined
Flowrates of the system were tracked by both instantaneous readings of the flow meter and calculated
values based on hour meter and flow totalizer readings on the control panel. As shown in Figure 4-6,
large discrepancies were observed between the instantaneous readings and calculated values since the
system startup through February 22, 2006, when the hour meter display was modified to add one decimal
place for tenths of an hour. During this period, the calculated values, denoted as "*" in Figure 4-6,
scattered extensively from 304 to 950 gpm. After the decimal place was added, the calculated flowrates
fell in a much tighter range, with values ranging from 339 to 392 gpm and averaging 374 gpm (excluding
two outliers at 198 and 449 gpm on May 12 and 15, 2006, respectively) until the end of this reporting
period.
The instantaneous flowrate readings, denoted as "•" in Figure 4-6, ranged from 382 to 405 gpm and
averaged 391 gpm from the system startup through May 15, 2006. During the vendor's site visit on May
15, 2006 to troubleshoot "low" backwash flowrates (Section 4.4.2), it was noticed that the paddle wheel
flow meter was calibrated with an incorrect, factory-supplied K factor (i.e., 19.457), thus resulting in
erroneously high flowrate and totalizer readings during this period. After being recalibrated with a
revised K factor of 17.553, the flow meter read 355 gpm on May 17, 2006, compared to an average of 391
gpm beforehand. As a result, the original and corrected calibration values were used to adjust the
previously obtained instantaneous flowrate and totalizer readings to reflect actual flowrates and
throughputs. The revised instantaneous flowrate readings for the entire six-month period ranged from
345 to 365 gpm and averaged 353 gpm.
Due to the changes to totalizer readings, flowrate values were re-calculated and plotted in Figure 4-6. As
shown in the figure, the revised calculated values, denoted as "•," ranged from 306 to 353 gpm and
averaged 340 gpm (except for two outliers at 178 and 405 gpm on May 12 and 15, 2006, respectively)
since the decimal place had been added on February 22, 2006. The revised calculated values were
somewhat lower than the revised instantaneous readings, which were used as the system flowrates
throughout this performance evaluation report.
The 353-gpm flowrate corresponded to a contact time of 6.8 min and a filtration rate of 9 gpm/ft2,
compared to the design values of 6 min and 10 gpm/ft2, respectively (Table 4-3). The Ap readings ranged
from 14 to 24 psi across the system and 4 to 15 psi across each tank. Few particulates or media fines
accumulated in the filters between two consecutive backwash events due to the backwash frequency of
approximately 3 time/tank/week and low service time of 3.2 hr/day.
21
-------
900 -
100
n -
x x x
X
•
X
^ X
54? X v
* x : • xx x
\ • x x * K
"^^§U§3* £• -"
X
x • x x
. .
• Initial Instantaneous Flowrate
x Initial Calculated Flowrate
• Revised Calculated Flowrate
^^02/22/06: Decimal
*^ place added to hour
meter reading for
tenths of an hour
05/16/06: »
Flow meter
recalibrated
>
^SSS§SJS35
I.
11/20/05 12/10/05 12/30/05 01/19/06 02/08/06 02/28/06 03/20/06 04/09/06 04/29/06 05/19/06
Figure 4-6. Service Flowrates According to Initial and Revised Calibration Values
4.4.2 Backwash Operation. The Macrolite® pressure filtration tanks were automatically
back-washed according to three PLC setpoints: Ap, standby time, and service time. Due to short daily
operational time, the majority of the backwash cycles were triggered by the standby time. Occasionally,
manual backwash cycles also were initiated but only for testing and sampling of backwash water and
solids. The backwash duration for each tank was affected by the minimum and maximum backwash time
settings and the ability of the backwash water to meet the turbidity threshold setting as measured by an in-
line Hach™ turbidimeter. If the backwash water failed to meet the set threshold prior to reaching the
maximum backwash time, the backwash failure alarm had to be acknowledged and a successful backwash
cycle had to be conducted before the tank might return to the service mode. Backwash was followed by a
2-min filter-to-waste rinse to remove any particulates from the tank.
The pressure filters were backwashed relatively frequently during the first six months of system operation
including 110 backwash cycles for Tank A and 107 backwash cycles for Tank B. Backwash flowrates,
initially shown on the touch screen OIP as 60 to 104 gpm due to the use of an incorrect K factor (i.e.,
7.354), were actually 170 to 295 gpm after the flow meter had been recalibrated using a revised K factor
of 20.554 (Figure 4-7). As a result, the hydraulic loading rates for backwash were 8.7 to 14.3 gpm/ft2.
(The implications of these observations are discussed below.) With each backwash cycle lasting for 5 to
7 min, the amount of wastewater produced ranged from 1,540 to 2,800 gal/tank, including 700 gal/tank
produced during the filter-to-waste rinse. (Note that three backwashes which appeared to occur for less
than 5 min possibly due to incomplete backwash or recording errors are not included in the range.) The
amount of wastewater produced was equivalent to 3.2% of the total amount of water treated.
Backwash-related issues experienced during the first six months of system operation included backwash
setting modifications, backwash alarms, media loss, and sump overflow. Table 4-6 summarizes the PLC
settings for the backwash process at system startup and two subsequent modifications on December 15,
2005 and March 10, 2006. Initially, the PLC was set in the field to backwash with a standby time trigger
of 12 hr, which resulted in frequent backwash (i.e., at least 1 time/tank/day) even though the filter service
time during this 12-hr period ranged from only 1 to 5 hr/day. In addition, the field-set turbidity threshold
22
-------
300
250 -
•§- 200 -
CL
-E2
£
I 15°
ro
I 100-
50 -
Initial Instantaneous Flowrate
X Initial Calculated Flowrate
Revised Calculated Flowrate
Target range (157-196
gpm)for8-10gpm/ft2
•
X
11/20/05 12/10/05 12/30/05 01/19/06 02/08/06 02/28/06 03/20/06 04/09/06 04/29/06
Figure 4-7. Backwash Flowrates According to Initial and Revised Calibration Values
Table 4-6. Summary of PLC Settings for Backwash Operations
Parameter (for Each Tank)
Drain Time (min)
Service Time Trigger (hr)
Standby Time Trigger (hr)
Ap Trigger (psi)
Minimum Backwash Time (min)
Maximum Backwash Time (min)
Turbidity Threshold (MTU)
Low Flowrate Threshold (gpm)
Filter-to-Waste Time (min)
Backwash Stagger Time (min)
Date
ll/22/05(a)
4
24
12
18
5
16
65.5
5
2
-
12/15/05
2
24
48
22
5
20
20
120
2
-
03/10/06
4
24
48
22
5
10
20
75
2
5
(a) Initial field settings.
of 65.5 NTU was significantly higher than the factory setpoint of 20 NTU, and the low flowrate alarm
level of 5 gpm was well below the 157 to 196 gpm (8 to 10 gpm/ft2) design values.
On December 15, 2005, several changes were made to the November 22, 2005 field settings, including
increasing standby time trigger, Ap trigger, maximum backwash time, and low flowrate threshold, and
decreasing turbidity threshold. With these changes, the backwash frequency decreased to approximately
3 time/tank/week. On March 10, 2006, additional changes were made to decrease the maximum
backwash time and add stagger time to allow the sump additional drain time between tank backwashes.
These changes were made in an attempt to alleviate concerns over recurring sump overflow problems
23
-------
during backwash since system startup, which, in turn, were based on the erroneous flowrate readings from
the incorrectly calibrated flow meter.
The low flowrate threshold also was decreased on March 10, 2006 due in part to a backwash alarm
experienced on March 2, 2006, caused by insufficient flow from the water tower. Previously
unacknowledged backwash alarms caused the system to remain in the standby mode, which prevented the
system from supplying water to the water tower. The plant operator bypassed the treatment system,
refilled the water tower with untreated water from Well No. 2, and restarted the system with vendor
assistance on March 3, 2006.
Due to incorrect calibration of the backwash flow meter, the backwash flowrate readings were
substantially lower than the design values. This problem, not identified until the vendor's site visit on
May 15, 2006, had created a great deal of confusion concerning backwash flowrate, sump capacity, and
media loss. Prior to the May 15, 2006 site visit, the maximum attainable backwash flowrate was thought
to be only 104 gpm (which, in fact, was 295 gpm with proper meter calibration). At the "low" 104-gpm
backwash flowrate, recurring overflow was observed from the building sump, which was designed for a
discharge capacity of at least 150 gpm according to the Village Engineer. Further, some Macrolite®
media was found in and around the sump after each backwash, with the loss confirmed and measured
during the vendor's May 15, 2006 visit to be 3 and 4 in (or 5 and 7 ft3) from Tanks A and B, respectively.
Prior to the vendor's site visit, several attempts had been made to verify the accuracy of flowrate readings
(including using a portable flow meter) and to establish strategies to overcome problems associated with
the "underdesigned" sump (including decreasing the maximum backwash time and low flowrate threshold
and adding stagger time to allow the sump additional drain time between consecutive backwash cycles).
After the flow meter was recalibrated, the backwash flowrate was adjusted to 180 gpm using a diaphragm
valve. It also was determined that the filter-to-waste rinse was actually performed at approximately 350
gpm instead of the 200-gpm design value because all of the influent flow was going through one tank
during this step.
Therefore, contrary to the initial thoughts, sump overflow was more likely attributable to incorrect
backwash settings due to erroneous flowrates and the surge experienced during the filter-to-waste rinse.
Similarly, the media loss was likely caused by the excessive backwash flowrates (ranging from 170 to
295 gpm [8.7 to 15.0 gpm/ft2]) experienced by the pressure filters. To prevent overflow, the vendor
recommended on May 17, 2006 to use a 150-gpm flow restrictor on each filter-to-waste discharge line to
reduce the surge. The replacement of lost media, installation of flow restrictors, and any changes in
backwash operation will be discussed in the Final Performance Evaluation Report.
4.4.3 Residual Management. The only residuals produced by the Macrolite® Arsenic Removal
System were backwash wastewater and filter-to-waste rinse water. Wastewater from backwash was
discharged to the building sump, which emptied by gravity to the sanitary sewer. According to the
backwash flow totalizer, 250,700 gal of wastewater were produced during the pressure filter backwash.
Based on a flowrate of 350 gpm and a duration of 2 min/tank for 217 backwash cycles, 151,900 gal of
filter-to-waste rinse water also were produced. (Note that a flow meter was not able to be installed on the
filter-to-waste discharge line due to anticipated complications caused by high solids content.) Therefore,
over 402,000 gal of wastewater, or 3.2% of the treated water, was generated as a result of this pressure
filtration process.
4.4.4 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation. Inability to achieve acceptable arsenic removal
due to insufficient iron levels in source water (Sections 4.5.1.1 and 4.5.1.2) and erroneous backwash
flowrates resulting in media loss and sump overflow (Section 4.4.2) were the primary sources of concern
during this reporting period. Other O&M issues encountered included problems with the prechlorination.
24
-------
The total amount of system downtime for troubleshooting problems with the prechlorination and
backwash was no more than 1% of the operational time.
4.4.4.1 Pre-and Post-Treatment Requirements. Prechlorination with 15% NaOCl solution was
performed at the pump house using the existing equipment to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) and provide
chlorine residuals to the distribution system. In addition to tracking the depth of the NaOCl solution in
the day tank, the operator measured chlorine residuals to ensure that adequate residuals existed
throughout the treatment train. Insufficient chlorine was dosed from February 21 to March 9, 2006 due to
provision of an off-spec solution by a chemical supplier. This period of non-treatment could have been
shortened if low free and total chlorine measurements were noticed earlier.
Analytical results from the first six months of system operation also indicated that iron addition should be
employed for more effective arsenic removal. Iron addition, using 38 to 42% FeCl3 will commence upon
resolution of several backwash issues (Section 4.4.2) and will be discussed in the Final Performance
Evaluation Report. No post-treatment requirements existed.
4.4.4.2 System Automation. The FM-260-AS Arsenic Removal System was automatically
controlled by the PLC in the central control panel. The control panel contained a modem and a touch
screen OIP that facilitated monitoring of system parameters, changing of system setpoints, and checking
the alarm status. Service time, standby time, and Ap settings (Table 4-6) automatically dictated when the
tanks should be backwashed. The touch screen OIP also enabled the operator to manually initiate the
backwash sequence.
4.4.4.3 Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the daily demand on the
operator was about 30 min for visual inspection of the system and recording of operational parameters,
such as pressure, volume, flowrate, and chemical usage on field log sheets. In Michigan, operator
certifications are classified on a level of 1 (least complex) to 4 (most complex). The primary operator
was Limited Water Treatment Level 3 (D-3) and Water Distribution Level 3 (S-3) certified. After
receiving proper training during the system startup, the operator understood the PLC, knew how to use
the touch screen OIP, and was able to work with the vendor to troubleshoot and perform minor on-site
repairs.
4.4.4.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities. The vendor recommended several routine maintenance
activities to prolong the integrity of the treatment system (Kinetico, 2005). Preventative maintenance
tasks included recording pressures, flows, chemical drum levels, and visually checking for leaks,
overheating components, proper manual valve positioning and pumps' lubricant levels, and any unusual
conditions daily. The vendor recommended weekly checking for trends in the recorded data which might
indicate a decline in system performance, and semi-annually servicing and inspecting ancillary equipment
and replacing worn components. Cleaning and replacement of sensors and replacement of o-ring seals
and gaskets of valves should be performed as needed.
4.4.4.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements. Prechlorination was required for effective
treatment since system startup. The operator tracked the NaOCl usage daily, coordinated the solution
supply, and refilled the day tank as-needed.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the Macrolite® FM-260-AS Arsenic Removal System was evaluated based on
analyses of water samples collected from the treatment plant, backwash lines, and distribution system.
25
-------
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 25 occasions
including two duplicate events and six speciation events during the first six months of system operation.
Table 4-7 summarizes the analytical results for arsenic, iron, and manganese. Table 4-8 summarizes the
results of the other water quality parameters. Three sets of samples (including two weekly and one
monthly speciation) collected from February 22 to March 7, 2006, when insufficient chlorine residuals
existed due to the use of an off-spec NaOCl solution, are not included in the statistical calculations in
Tables 4-7 and 4-8, but included in the data plots. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical
results. The results of the water samples collected across the treatment plant are discussed below.
Table 4-7. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Results(a
Parameter
As (total)
(Figure 4-9)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
(Figure 4-8)
As(III)
(Figure 4-8)
As(V)
(Figure 4-8)
Fe (total)
(Figure 4-10)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
Sample
Count
25
22
17
17
5
6
5
5
6
5
5
6
5
5
6
5
5
25
22
16(b)
17
5
5(0
5
5
25
22
17
17
5
6
5
5
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
15.3
14.4
7.8
8.1
8.4
15.5
9.2
8.2
<0.1
4.9
<0.1
8.7
<0.1
0.2
1.2
9.1
7.7
346
344
<25
<25
<25
249
<25
<25
23.9
21.5
6.4
6.2
9.0
25.5
9.1
9.0
Maximum
21.8
25.4
15.6
11.9
12.0
18.3
12.9
11.6
0.9
8.1
1.1
17.1
1.4
1.6
6.8
11.5
10.1
510
902
<25
31.9
66.2
433
<25
<25
31.7
46.3
17.3
15.6
22.2
32.9
10.9
22.2
Average
17.7
19.0
10.2
10.0
9.5
17.2
11.1
9.3
0.3
6.3
0.4
14.6
0.4
0.6
2.7
10.6
8.7
427
515
<25
<25
34.4
367
<25
<25
27.5
29.7
10.8
10.4
13.1
28.6
10.2
13.2
Standard
Deviation
1.4
2.9
.8
.1
.5
.0
.3
.4
0.3
1.3
0.4
3.1
0.6
0.5
2.1
0.9
0.9
34
144
0.0
4.7
22.6
87.4
0.0
0.0
1.7
5.5
2.8
2.2
5.2
2.5
0.7
5.2
(a) Results for three sampling events without sufficient chlorine addition during 02/22/06 to 03/07/06 not
included in AC, TA, TB, and TT calculations.
(b) One outlier (i.e., 483 |ag/L on 11/29/05) not included in calculations.
(c) One outlier (i.e., 45.2 |j,g/L on 03/01/06) not included in calculations.
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect results and duplicate samples included for calculations.
26
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
Total P
(as PO4)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
25
22
17
17
5
6
5
5
6
5
5
6
5
5
25
22
17
17
5
25
22
17
17
5
25
22
17
17
5
3
2
2
20
18
13
13
5
20
18
13
13
5
19
17
12
12
5
Minimum
141
142
141
141
144
0.4
0.4
0.4
<1
<1
<1
O.05
<0.05
O.05
<0.03
O.03
<0.03
O.03
<0.03
10.2
10.5
10.2
10.7
10.9
1.7
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
7.5
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.9
11.5
11.7
12.1
12.1
12.0
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
Maximum
167
154
158
159
154
0.6
0.5
0.5
<1
<1
<1
O.05
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.2
11.7
12.3
12.5
11.9
11.5
3.9
2.6
4.7
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.9
1.9
8.3
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.6
15.0
14.0
13.2
13.6
14.5
3.7
2.0
1.7
4.1
3.7
Average
149
149
150
151
150
0.5
0.4
0.4
<1
<1
<1
O.05
0.0
0.0
0.17
0.20
0.10
0.07
0.08
11.2
11.3
11.2
11.2
11.2
2.5
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.7
1.9
1.9
1.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.2
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.7
13.4
1.8
1.1
1.3
1.6
2.0
Standard
Deviation
6
4
5
6
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.15
0.03
0.05
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.1
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.5
1.3
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.9
1.3
27
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results (Cont'd)
Parameter
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Hardness
/•QC PoPPl \
Ca Hardness
/Qc PoPPl 'I
Mg Hardness
(V,c PoPPl "1
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
AC
TA
TB
TT
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
20
18
13
13
5
16
12
12
4
16
12
12
4
6
5
5
6
5
5
6
5
5
Minimum
-3
303
310
318
403
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
190
195
177
104
106
98.5
77.2
79.7
78.8
Maximum
473
523
516
523
511
.5
.3
.0
0.9
.9
.8
.8
.5
212
215
217
118
122
121
99.9
95.9
96.0
Average
302
422
420
428
443
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
202
205
202
113
115
113
89.8
90.0
88.9
Standard
Deviation
110
64
63
58
41
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
9.6
8.4
15.7
4.8
5.8
8.6
7.7
6.2
8.8
(a) Results for three sampling events without sufficient chlorine addition during 02/22/06 to 03/07/06 not
included in AC, TA, TB, and TT calculations.
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect results and duplicate samples included for calculations.
4.5.1.1 Arsenic. Figure 4-8 presents the results of six speciation events and Figure 4-9 shows total
arsenic concentrations measured across the treatment train. Total arsenic concentrations in raw water
ranged from 15.3 to 21.8 |og/L, with As(III) as the predominant species. Low levels of As(V) and
particulate As also were present, averaging 2.7 and 0.3 |og/L, respectively. Total arsenic concentrations
measured during this six-month period were slightly higher than that of the raw water sample collected on
August 31, 2004 (Table 4-1).
The analytical results for water samples collected from February 22 to March 7, 2006 indicated
insufficient chlorine addition for As(III) oxidation (Figures 4-8 and 4-9). For all other events, the results
obtained after prechlorination and the contact tank indicated that As(III) was effectively oxidized to
As(V). Average concentrations of As(III), As(V), and particulate As were 0.4, 10.6, and 6.3 |o,g/L,
respectively. The high As(V) levels in water after the contact tank indicated incomplete adsorption of
As(V) onto iron solids. Ideally, high levels of particulate As and low to non-detectable levels of As(III)
and As(V) should exist prior to entering the pressure filters.
With sufficient chlorine addition, total arsenic concentrations after the pressure filtration at the TA, TB,
and TT sampling locations ranged from 7.8 to 15.6 |o,g/L and averaged 10.0 |o,g/L. It became evident soon
after startup that the treatment system was not able to consistently remove arsenic to less than 10 ng/L.
This observation was supported by the fact that the ratio of soluble iron to soluble arsenic was just over
21:1, which was on the borderline with the rule of thumb ratio of 20:1 for effective arsenic removal. Two
28
-------
Arsenic Speciation of Influent from Wellhead (IN)
DAs (participate)
As(V)
DAs(lll)
11/22/05 01/04/06 01/31/06 03/01/06 04/03/06 05/02/06
Arsenic Speciation of Contact Tank Effluent (AC)
Insufficient
chlorine dosed
for oxidation
11/22/05 01/04/06 01/31/06 03/01/06 04/03/06 05/02/06
Arsenic Speciation of Combined Effluent (TT)
Treatment
ineffective due
to insufficient
oxidation
11/22/05 01/04/06 01/31/06 03/01/06 04/03/06 05/02/06
Figure 4-8. Arsenic Speciation Results at Wellhead (IN), After
Contact Tank (AC), and After Tanks A and B Combined (TT)
29
-------
30
25
_ 20
1 15
c
o
o
10 -
5
—•—Influent from Wellhead
-*- Contact Tank Effluent
—•—Tank A Effluent
-A-Tank B Effluent
Combined Effluent
11/21/05
12/21/05
01/20/06
02/19/06
03/21/06
04/20/06
05/20/06
Figure 4-9. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train
weeks after the commencement of weekly sampling on December 6, 2005, planning began for an iron
addition system as part of the pretreatment for this pressure filtration system.
4.5.1.2 Iron. Figure 4-10 presents total iron concentrations measured across the treatment train.
Total iron concentrations in raw water ranged from 346 to 510 |og/L, which existed primarily in the
soluble form with an average concentration of 367 |o,g/L (not including one outlier of 45.2 |o,g/L on March
1, 2006). As noted above, average soluble iron and average soluble arsenic concentrations in raw water
(Table 4-7) corresponded to a ratio of 21:1, which was just over the 20:1 target ratio for effective arsenic
removal (Sorg, 2002). It was possible that factors such as pH and/or other water quality parameters
affected the arsenic removal capacity of the iron solids.
The treated water exhibited low iron concentrations, mostly near and/or less than 25 |o,g/L, except for one
exceedance of 483 |o,g/L at the TA location on November 29, 2005. Soluble iron concentrations were
<25 ng/L in treated water. These low iron levels indicated that iron was effectively removed by the
Macrolite® pressure filters and that little or no particulate breakthrough had occurred during the 3 to 14 hr
of service time.
After successful resolution of all backwash issues (Section 4.4.2), iron addition using FeCl3 will be
initiated at 0.5 mg/L (as Fe). The feed rate of the pump and/or stock solution concentration will be
adjusted, as necessary, to consistently reduce effluent arsenic concentrations to below the 10-|o,g/L arsenic
MCL. Stock solution samples will be collected and analyzed periodically to ensure proper solution
preparation and strength.
30
-------
1000
800
600
.2
•s
O 400
200
—*—Influent from Wellhead
-*- Contact Tank Effluent
-•—Tank A Effluent
-A-Tank B Effluent
Combined Effluent
11/21/05 12/21/05 01/20/06 02/19/06 03/21/06 04/20/06
Figure 4-10. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train
05/20/06
4.5.1.3 Manganese. Manganese concentrations in raw water ranged from 23.9 to 31.7 |og/L, which
existed primarily in the soluble form at an average concentration of 28.6 |og/L. With prechlorination and
contact time, approximately 64% of the soluble manganese was converted to particulate manganese (i.e.,
10.2 ng/L soluble Mn and 18.4 |o,g/L particulate Mn afterthe contact tank). Previous studies also have
found that incomplete oxidation of Mn(II) occurs using free chlorine at pH values less than 8.5 (Knocke
et al., 1987 and 1990; Condit and Chen, 2006). Macrolite® does not promote manganese removal unless
present in the particulate form, so soluble levels after the contact tank were similar to total levels after the
pressure filters.
4.5.1.4 pH, DO, and ORP. pH values in raw water ranged from 7.5 to 8.3 and averaged 8.0. This
range was significantly higher that what was measured by Battelle during source water sampling on
August 31, 2004 (i.e., 6.9 [Table 4-1]). Average DO levels across the treatment train were low, ranging
from 1.1 to 2.0 mg/L. As a result of prechlorination, average ORP levels increased from 302 millivolts
(mV) in raw water to over 400 mV after the contact tank.
4.5.1.5 Chlorine and Ammonia. Chlorine residuals measured at the TA, TB, and TT locations were
comparable to those measured at the AC location, indicating little or no chlorine consumption through the
pressure filters. Ammonia was sampled on one occasion on May 2, 2006 (Appendix B). The significant
difference between free and total chlorine levels (i.e., 0.6 and 1.3 mg/L [as C12]) and decrease in ammonia
from 0.4 to 0.3 mg/L at the AC location indicated formation of chloramines after chlorine addition.
However, the presence of 0.3 mg/L of ammonia after the contact tank contradicted the fact that 0.6 mg/L
of free chlorine (on average as C12) also existed at this location, because all ammonia should have reacted
with NaOCl before free chlorine would form.
31
-------
4.5.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate, silica, TOC,
temperature, and hardness levels remained consistent across the treatment train and were not affected by
the treatment process (Table 4-8). TOC levels were 1.9 mg/L in raw water and remained unchanged
across treatment train. Total phosphorus (as PO4) decreased from an average concentration of 0.2 mg/L
in raw water and after the contact tank to 0.1 mg/L after the pressure filters. Turbidity also decreased
from 2.5 to < 1.0 NTU with treatment.
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. Table 4-9 presents the analytical results of four monthly
backwash water sampling events. The results for the January and February 2006 sampling events are not
included in the table because these samples were collected from an incorrect sampling tap. Among the
four sampling events reported, relatively low values of total metals, TSS, and TDS were observed for
Events 1 and 2, most likely due to the timing of the sampling (i.e., these manual backwash cycles were
initiated soon after the pressure filters had just been backwashed automatically by the PLC [thus having
fewer solids in backwash water for sampling]). Event 2 also was collected on March 7, 2006 when
insufficient chlorine was added for oxidation as discussed in Section 4.5.1.1. The implication was that
the backwash was performed without proper prechlorination, as evident by the somewhat elevated soluble
arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations in the backwash water.
The backwash water of Events 1,3, and 4, characteristic of normal operating conditions, ranged from 7.9
to 8.0 for pH, 252 to 646 mg/L for TDS, and 24 to 106 mg/L for TSS. Concentrations of total arsenic,
iron, and manganese ranged from 30 to 610 |o,g/L, 1.5 to 29.5 mg/L, and 66 to 1,206 |og/L, respectively,
with the majority existing as particulate.
Assuming that the Event 4 results are representative of the backwash water from all backwash cycles, and
that 1,150 gal of backwash water is produced from each backwash cycle, approximately 0.96 Ib of solids
would be generated and discharged per backwash cycle, including 0.235 Ib of iron, 0.009 Ib of
manganese, and 0.005 Ib of arsenic. The amount of solids to be discharged during backwash will be
further monitored during the next months of system operation.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Table 4-10 summarizes the results of the
distribution system sampling. The water quality was similar among the three residences except at the
DS3 residence, which exhibited lower lead and copper concentrations than the other two residences.
Water quality significantly improved after the treatment system began operation. Arsenic, iron,
manganese, and copper concentrations decreased from average baseline levels of 16.5, 192, 23.8, and 131
Hg/L to 8.8, <25, 11.5, and 70.4 |o,g/L, respectively, after system startup. Alkalinity, pH, and lead
concentrations remained fairly consistent. The water in the distribution system was comparable to that of
the treatment system effluent. Thus, the treatment system appeared to have beneficial effects on the water
quality in the distribution system.
4.6 System Cost
The system cost was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and the
O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. Capital cost of the treatment system included cost for
equipment, engineering, and system installation, shakedown, and startup. O&M cost included cost for
chemicals, electricity, and labor. Cost associated with the building including the sump, sanitary sewer
connections, and water system telemetry was not included in the capital cost because it was not included
in the scope of this demonstration project and was funded separately by the village.
32
-------
Table 4-9. Backwash Water Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
Date
12/08/05
03/07/06(a)
04/12/06
05/09/06
Tank A
G,
s.u.
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
1X1
Q
H
mg/L
252
390
428
430
1X1
1X1
mg/L
26
34
78
106
«
-------
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for the FM-260-AS system was $334,573 (Table 4-11).
The equipment cost was $224,994 (or 67% of the total capital investment), which included cost for an
iron addition system, a contact tank, two pressure tanks, 80 ft3 of Macrolite®, instrumentation and
controls, miscellaneous materials and supplies, labor, and system warranty. The system warranty cost
covered the cost for repair and replacement of defective system components and installation workmanship
for a period of twelve months after system startup.
The engineering cost covered the cost for preparing the required permit application submittal, including a
process design report, a general arrangement drawing, P&IDs, electrical diagrams, interconnecting piping
layouts, tank fill details, and a schematic of the PLC panel, and obtaining the required permit approval
from MDEQ. The engineering cost was $30,929, which was 9% of the total capital investment.
Table 4-11. Capital Investment for Kinetico's FM-260-AS System
Description
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment
Tanks, Valves, and Piping
Macrolite® Media (80 ft3)
Instrumentation and Controls
Air Scour System
Iron Addition System
Additional Sample Taps and Totalizers/Meters
Labor
Freight
Equipment Total
$122,315
$20,607
$25,123
$6,305
$3,395
$2,002
$42,747
$2,500
$224,994
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
67%
Engineering
Labor
Subcontractor
Engineering Total
$28,679
$2,250
$30,929
-
-
9%
Installation, Shakedown, and Startup
Labor
Subcontractor
Travel
Installation, Shakedown, and Startup
Total Capital Investment
$16,200
$57,500
$4,950
$78,650
$334,573
-
-
-
24%
100%
The installation, shakedown, and startup cost covered the labor and materials required to unload, install,
and test the system for proper operation. All installation activities were performed by Kinetico's
subcontractor, and startup and shakedown activities were performed by Kinetico with the operator's
assistance. The installation, startup, and shakedown cost was $78,650, or 24% of the total capital
investment.
The total capital cost of $334,573 was normalized to $836/gpm ($0.58/gpd) of design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 400 gpm (or 576,000 gpd). The total capital cost also was converted to a unit
cost of $0.15/1,000 gal using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a
20-yr return period. This calculation assumed that the system operated 24 hr/day at its rated capacity.
Since the system operated at approximately 353 gpm (Table 4-5), producing 12,714,000 gal of water
during the six-month period, the total unit cost increased to $1.24/1,000 gal.
34
-------
A 37 l/3 ft x 33 Vs ft building with a sidewall height of 16 ft was constructed by the Village of Pentwater to
house the treatment system (Section 4.3.2). The total cost of the building and supporting utilities was
approximately $120,000, which, as noted above, was not included in the capital cost.
4.6.2 O&M Cost. O&M costs included chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor for a
combined unit cost of $0.22/1,000 gal (Table 4-12). No cost was incurred for repairs because the system
was under warranty. Since chlorination was already performed prior to the demonstration study,
incremental chemical cost will only be incurred for iron addition once initiated during the remainder of
the one-year study period. The associated cost for iron addition will be discussed in the Final
Performance Evaluation Report.
Electrical power consumption was calculated based on the difference between the average monthly cost
from electric bills before and after building construction and system startup. The difference in cost was
approximately $147.50/month or $0.07/1,000 gal of water treated.
The routine, non-demonstration related labor activities consumed 30 min/day (Section 4.4.4.3). Based on
this time commitment and a labor rate of $30/hr, the labor cost was $0.15/1,000 gal of water treated.
Table 4-12. O&M Cost for Kinetico's FM-260-AS System
Category
Volume Processed (1,000 gal)
Value
12,714
Remarks
From 11/22/05 through 05/22/06
Chemical Usage
37-42% FeCl3 Unit Cost ($/lb)
FeCl3 Consumption (lb/1,000 gal)
Chemical Cost ($/l,000 gal)
$0.37
0.03
TBD
610 Ib drum including tax, surcharges,
and drum deposit
Anticipated
Electricity Consumption
Electricity Cost ($/month)
Electricity Cost ($/l,000 gal)
$147.50
$0.07
Average incremental consumption after
system startup; including building
heating and lighting
Labor
Labor (hr/week)
Labor Cost ($/l, 000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($/l,000 gal)
2.5
$0.15
$0.22
30 min/day, 5 day /week
Labor rate = $30/hr
Not including FeCl3 usage
TBD = to be determined
35
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Battelle. 2005. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology Round 2 atPentwater, Michigan. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-OO-
185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J. 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.
Condit, W.E. and A.S.C. Chen. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal, U.S. EPA
Demonstration Project at Climax, MN, Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-
06/152. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal
Register, 40 CFRPart 141.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
Kinetico. 2005. The Village ofPentwater, MI: Installation Manual; Suppliers Literature; and Operation
and Maintenance Manual, Macrolite FM-260-AS Arsenic Removal System. Newbury, OH.
Knocke, William R., Hoehn, Robert C., Sinsabaugh, Robert L. 1987. "Using Alternative Oxidants to
Remove Dissolved Manganese From Waters Laden With Organics." J. AWWA, 79(3): 75-79.
Knocke, William R., Van Benschoten, J.E.. Kearney, M., Soborski, A., Reckhow, D. A.. 1990.
"Alternative Oxidants for the Removal of Soluble Iron and Mn." AWWA Research Foundation,
Denver, CO.
Sorg, T.J. 2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, 28(11): 15.
Wang, L., W. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
36
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pentwater, Ml - Daily System Operation
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Date
1 1/22/05
1 1/23/05
1 1/25/05
1 1/26/05
1 1/27/05
1 1/28/05
1 1/29/05
1 1/30/05
12/01/05
12/02/05
12/04/05
12/05/05
12/06/05
12/07/05
12/08/05
12/09/05
12/10/05
12/12/05
12/13/05
12/14/05
12/15/05
12/16/05
12/19/05
12/20/05
12/21/05
12/22/05
12/24/05
12/27/05
12/28/05
12/29/05
01/02/06
01/03/06
01/04/06
01/05/06
01/06/06
01/09/06
01/10/06
01/11/06
01/12/06
01/13/06
01/15/06
01/16/06
01/17/06
01/18/06
01/19/06
01/20/06
01/23/06
01/24/06
01/25/06
01/26/06
Well
32
Meter
hr
4
6
9
12
14
17
19
22
24
27
31
32
35
37
38
41
42
47
48
50
53
55
62
64
65
68
72
78
81
83
98
100
102
104
107
113
115
116
118
119
124
125
127
131
133
134
NA
143
145
146
Run
Time
hr
NA
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
7.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
3.0
2.0
15.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
6.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
NA
NA
2.0
1.0
15% CI2
Tank
Level
In
NA
NA
21.0
20.3
20.0
19.3
18.8
18.0
17.3
16.8
15.5
15.3
14.5
14.0
13.5
13.0
12.5
11.3
11.0
10.5
9.5
9.0
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
3.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
27.5
27.0
26.5
25.5
25.0
23.5
23.0
22.5
21.5
NA
NA
19.8
19.3
18.5
18.0
17.8
16.3
15.5
15.0
14.8
CI2
Usage
gal
NA
NA
NA
1.3
0.4
1.3
0.9
1.3
1.3
0.9
2.2
0.4
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
2.2
0.4
0.9
1.8
0.9
3.5
0.9
0.9
0.9
3.5
3.5
0.9
0.9
NA
0.9
0.9
1.8
0.9
2.7
0.9
0.9
1.8
NA
NA
NA
0.9
1.3
0.9
0.4
2.7
1.3
0.9
0.4
Totalizer to Treatment
Meter
kgal
466160
466200
466305
466413
466476
466578
466656
466738
466821
466897
467018
467047
467137
467194
467222
467310
467338
467475
467510
467568
467656
467713
467911
467973
468010
468080
468197
468378
468454
468508
468903
468958
469017
469078
469163
469344
469402
469431
469535
469560
NA
469758
469811
469892
469965
469998
470167
470245
470298
470328
Daily
Flow
kgal
NA
40
105
108
63
102
78
82
83
76
121
29
90
57
28
88
28
137
35
58
88
57
198
62
37
70
117
181
76
54
395
55
59
61
85
181
58
29
104
25
NA
NA
53
81
73
33
169
78
53
30
Avg
Flow
rate
gpm
NA
333
583
600
525
567
650
456
692
422
504
483
500
475
467
489
467
457
583
483
489
475
471
517
617
389
488
503
422
450
439
458
492
508
472
503
483
483
867
417
NA
NA
442
338
608
550
NA
NA
442
500
Pressure Filtration
Influent
psig
80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
90
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
78
NA
NA
78
NA
NA
NA
NA
77
77
NA
NA
NA
78
NA
NA
NA
NA
78
NA
80
79
78
NA
NA
77
Outlet
Tank A
psig
74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
80
NA
NA
81
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
71
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
72
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
NA
74
72
71
NA
NA
72
Outlet
TankB
psig
75
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
75
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
74
NA
NA
75
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
71
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
72
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
74
71
73
NA
NA
72
Effluent
psig
56
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
75
NA
NA
76
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
58
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
58
58
58
NA
NA
58
Inlet-
TA
psig
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
5
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
6
7
7
NA
NA
5
Inlet-
TB
psig
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
5
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
6
8
5
NA
NA
5
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
NA
NA
20
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
19
NA
NA
NA
20
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
NA
22
21
20
NA
NA
19
Flow
rate
gpm
350
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
353
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
351
NA
NA
350
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
355
NA
NA
359
NA
NA
NA
NA
363
360
NA
NA
NA
359
NA
NA
NA
NA
358
NA
365
359
356
NA
NA
362
Totalizer to Distribution
Meter
kgal
202.7
237.2
335.1
432.4
489.7
582.9
653.7
730.5
807.1
875.1
986.7
1013.3
1095.7
1147.4
1173.4
1254.1
1279.5
1406.8
1438.2
1491.6
1572.4
1624.8
1805.5
1859.8
1892.9
1964.3
2067.6
2237.1
2306.5
2356.8
2722.9
2774.5
2827.0
2884.0
8.2
176.5
231.1
257.9
352.0
376.8
504.6
555.4
607.7
684.2
749.0
778.9
936.1
1009.5
1057.9
1083.7
Daily
Flow
kgal
NA
34
98
97
57
93
71
77
77
68
112
27
82
52
26
81
25
127
31
53
81
52
181
54
33
71
103
170
69
50
366
52
53
57
NA
168
55
27
94
25
128
51
52
77
65
30
157
73
48
26
Cum.
Flow
kgal
NA
34
132
229
287
380
451
527
604
672
784
810
892
944
970
1051
1076
1204
1235
1288
1369
1422
1602
1657
1690
1761
1864
2034
2103
2154
2520
2571
2624
2681
2689
2857
2912
2939
3033
3058
3185
3236
3288
3365
3430
3460
3617
3690
3739
3764
Avg
Flow
rate
gpm
NA
287
544
541
477
518
590
427
639
377
465
444
458
432
433
448
424
424
523
445
449
436
430
453
552
397
430
471
385
419
407
429
438
474
NA
468
455
447
784
413
426
848
435
319
540
499
NA
NA
404
429
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
2
4
8
9
10
12
14
15
17
19
22
23
25
27
28
30
31
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
43
43
44
45
46
46
48
48
49
49
49
51
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
57
57
58
Tank
B
No.
2
4
8
9
10
12
14
15
17
19
22
23
25
27
28
30
31
35
36
38
38
39
40
41
41
42
42
44
44
45
46
46
47
48
48
49
50
50
51
51
52
53
53
54
54
54
56
56
57
57
Cum.
Volume
kgal
34.7
38.0
42.5
46.4
48.1
51.4
54.8
56.5
59.8
63.2
68.5
70.2
73.5
77.7
80.5
85.0
88.0
95.6
98.9
102.3
103.4
107.0
109.8
112.1
112.1
113.5
114.9
118.8
120.2
121.6
126.1
126.1
128.6
129.7
129.7
133.9
135.0
135.0
137.8
137.8
140.6
141.7
143.1
144.5
145.9
145.9
149.5
150.9
152.0
153.4
Daily
Volume
kgal
NA
3.4
4.5
3.9
1.7
3.4
3.4
1.7
3.4
3.4
5.3
1.7
3.4
4.2
2.8
4.5
3.1
7.5
3.4
3.4
1.1
3.6
2.8
2.2
0.0
1.4
1.4
3.9
1.4
1.4
4.5
0.0
2.5
1.1
0.0
4.2
1.1
0.0
2.8
0.0
2.8
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.0
3.6
1.4
1.1
1.4
Since Last BW
Run Time
A/B hr
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
0/0
1/1
0/0
1/0
1/1
1/0
1/1
1/1
0/0
1/1
0/1
1/1
0/0
0/0
2/3
2/0
4/1
0/2
1/3
4/1
3/5
3/0
1/3
3/0
1/3
3/5
0/1
2/0
5/3
1/4
3/1
4/0
1/2
2/3
3/5
5/1
1/3
4/1
1/3
2/4
4/0
2/3
4/1
0/2
Standby
Time
A/B hr
8/8
3/3
2/2
4/4
11/11
6/6
2/1
10/9
5/4
0/0
2/0
9/7
6/4
9/2
3/9
9/6
2/11
7/4
3/2
9/7
19/30
15/0
29/10
0/18
15/34
39/10
27/46
37/8
13/32
31/1
9/27
24/42
0/18
19/0
39/20
2/31
26/6
44/0
16/21
29/34
24/40
45/12
17/32
40/7
9/25
30/46
41/8
17/32
39/5
5/19
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pentwater, Ml - Daily System Operation
Week
No.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
01/30/06
01/31/06
02/01/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
02/06/06
02/07/06
02/08/06
02/09/06
02/10/06
02/13/06
02/14/06
02/15/06
02/16/06
02/17/06
02/20/06
02/21/06
02/22/06
02/23/06
02/24/06
02/27/06
02/28/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
03/03/06
03/06/06
03/07/06
03/08/06
03/09/06
03/10/06
03/13/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
03/16/06
03/17/06
03/20/06
03/21/06
03/22/06
03/23/06
03/24/06
03/27/06
03/28/06
03/29/06
03/30/06
03/31/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
04/05/06
04/06/06
04/07/06
04/10/06
04/11/06
04/12/06
04/13/06
Well
32
Meter
hr
155
157
158
161
161
169
171
174
176
178
185
186
189
192
194
204
206
208
3.8
10.0
22.3
26.1
29.1
33.6
35.3
45.3
47.2
52.0
55.5
58.8
70.8
73.3
76.9
80.6
85.6
102.2
106.0
108.3
113.4
115.9
126.7
131.4
135.3
137.8
141.2
151.0
154.5
159.1
161.0
166.2
175.9
180.4
182.9
187.5
Run
Time
hr
9.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
NA
8.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
7.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
NA
6.2
12.3
3.8
3.0
4.5
1.7
10.0
1.9
4.8
3.5
3.3
12.0
2.5
3.6
3.7
5.0
16.6
3.8
2.3
5.1
2.5
10.8
4.7
3.9
2.5
3.4
9.8
3.5
4.6
1.9
5.2
9.7
4.5
2.5
4.6
15% CI2
Tank
Level
in
12.5
12.0
11.5
11.0
10.8
9.0
8.8
8.0
7.8
7.0
5.0
4.5
3.5
3.0
2.5
0.8
29.0
28.3
27.5
26.3
23.0
22.3
21.5
20.5
19.5
17.0
16.0
14.8
31.0
30.0
26.5
25.3
24.0
23.0
21.5
16.0
14.5
14.0
12.5
11.5
8.3
7.0
5.5
4.8
4.0
2.0
1.0
30.0
29.5
28.3
25.5
24.0
23.5
22.3
CI2
Usage
gal
4.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.4
3.1
0.4
1.3
0.4
1.3
3.5
0.9
1.8
0.9
0.9
3.1
NA
1.3
1.3
2.2
5.8
1.3
1.3
1.8
1.8
4.4
1.8
2.2
NA
1.8
6.2
2.2
2.2
1.8
2.7
9.8
2.7
0.9
2.7
1.8
5.8
2.2
2.7
1.3
1.3
3.5
1.8
NA
0.9
2.2
4.9
2.7
0.9
2.2
Totalizer to Treatment
Meter
kgal
470583
470640
470698
470754
470788
470978
471029
471112
471166
471241
471436
471493
471596
471652
471716
471959
472032
472092
472187
472273
472600
472693
472764
472866
472905
473138
473181
473288
473366
473440
473708
473784
473575
473931
474041
474409
474499
474552
474666
474722
474965
475067
475153
475207
475287
475507
475582
475687
475726
475841
476057
476158
476214
476320
Daily
Flow
kgal
255
57
58
56
34
190
51
83
54
75
195
57
103
56
64
243
73
60
95
86
327
93
71
102
39
233
43
107
78
74
268
76
NA
NA
110
368
90
53
114
56
243
102
86
54
80
220
75
105
39
115
216
101
56
106
Avg
Flow
rate
gpm
472
475
967
311
NA
396
425
461
450
625
464
950
572
311
533
405
608
500
NA
231
443
408
394
378
382
388
377
372
371
374
372
507
NA
NA
367
369
395
384
373
373
375
362
368
360
392
374
357
380
342
369
371
374
373
384
Pressure Filtration
Influent
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
79
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
80
78
78
NA
78
78
NA
78
78
NA
79
NA
NA
77
78
78
78
77
NA
NA
NA
NA
78
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
77
NA
NA
NA
79
77
NA
80
NA
NA
80
NA
NA
78
Outlet
Tank A
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
73
71
NA
73
74
NA
72
73
NA
74
NA
NA
72
72
73
72
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
72
73
NA
72
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
72
Outlet
TankB
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
72
72
NA
73
73
NA
73
73
NA
73
NA
NA
73
73
72
72
71
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
72
72
NA
72
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
72
Effluent
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
59
58
58
NA
60
58
NA
58
58
NA
58
NA
NA
58
58
58
58
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
59
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
59
59
NA
58
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
59
Inlet-
TA
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
5
7
NA
5
4
NA
6
5
NA
5
NA
NA
5
6
5
6
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
7
4
NA
8
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
6
Inlet-
TB
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
6
6
NA
5
5
NA
5
5
NA
6
NA
NA
4
5
6
6
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
7
5
NA
8
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
6
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
20
20
NA
18
20
NA
20
20
NA
21
NA
NA
19
20
20
20
19
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
NA
NA
NA
20
18
NA
22
NA
NA
22
NA
NA
19
Flow
rate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
353
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
352
355
355
NA
351
355
NA
352
347
NA
347
NA
NA
353
346
351
347
345
NA
NA
NA
NA
347
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
347
NA
NA
NA
347
357
NA
345
NA
NA
347
NA
NA
347
Totalizer to Distribution
Meter
kgal
1317.0
1369.8
1421.2
1472.1
1502.7
1675.3
1722.2
1798.0
1846.7
1915.2
2093.2
2144.5
2236.1
2285.4
2346.9
2567.5
2630.6
2687.5
2774.6
2903.3
200.7
276.5
339.9
431.9
466.7
675.6
715.9
812.0
881.8
948.9
1194.1
1244.4
1320.4
1396.3
1495.7
1832.8
1911.6
1959.3
2063.0
2113.1
2331.0
2425.6
2503.4
2553.1
2623.6
2823.8
2894.0
31.8
68.1
173.2
368.4
461.0
512.2
606.7
Daily
Flow
kgal
233
53
51
51
31
173
47
76
49
69
178
51
92
49
62
221
63
57
87
129
NA
76
63
92
35
209
40
96
70
67
245
50
76
76
99
337
79
48
104
50
218
95
78
50
71
200
70
NA
36
105
195
93
51
94
Cum.
Flow
kgal
3998
4051
4102
4153
4183
4356
4403
4479
4527
4596
4774
4825
4917
4966
5028
5248
5311
5368
5455
5584
5785
5861
5924
6016
6051
6260
6300
6396
6466
6533
6778
6828
6904
6980
7080
7417
7496
7543
7647
7697
7915
8010
8088
8137
8208
8408
8478
8510
8546
8651
8846
8939
8990
9085
Avg
Flow
rate
gpm
432
440
857
283
NA
360
391
421
406
571
424
856
509
274
513
368
526
474
NA
346
NA
332
352
341
341
348
353
334
332
339
341
336
352
342
331
338
346
345
339
334
336
336
333
331
346
340
334
NA
318
337
335
343
342
342
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
59
60
60
61
61
62
63
63
64
64
65
66
66
67
67
68
69
69
70
70
71
72
72
73
75
76
76
77
77
78
79
79
79
80
81
82
82
83
83
83
85
85
86
86
86
88
88
88
89
89
90
91
91
92
Tank
B
No.
59
59
59
60
60
61
62
62
63
63
64
65
65
66
66
67
68
68
69
69
70
71
71
72
73
74
74
75
75
76
77
77
78
78
79
80
80
81
81
81
83
83
83
84
84
86
86
86
87
87
88
89
90
91
Cum.
Volume
kgal
157.4
158.8
158.8
161.3
161.3
164.1
166.6
166.6
169.4
169.4
171.9
174.7
174.7
177.5
177.5
178.9
181.7
181.7
185.0
185.0
187.5
189.8
189.8
194.0
198.2
201.2
201.2
203.5
203.5
206.3
209.1
209.1
210.2
211.6
214.4
217.2
217.2
219.7
219.7
219.7
224.7
224.7
226.1
227.2
227.2
232.0
232.0
232.0
234.5
234.5
236.7
239.2
240.4
242.6
Daily
Volume
kgal
3.9
1.4
0.0
2.5
0.0
2.8
2.5
0.0
2.8
0.0
2.5
2.8
0.0
2.8
0.0
1.4
2.8
0.0
3.4
0.0
2.5
2.2
0.0
4.2
4.2
3.1
0.0
2.2
0.0
2.8
2.8
0.0
1.1
1.4
2.8
2.8
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
1.4
1.1
0.0
4.8
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
2.2
2.5
1.1
2.2
Since Last BW
Run Time
A/B hr
4/1
1/3
3/5
1/2
2/3
3/5
2/2
5/5
1/1
3/3
6/6
2/2
5/5
0/0
3/3
6/6
1/1
3/3
3.8/0
10.0/6.3
9.6/5.8
3.6/1.3
6.6/4.3
0.4/0.1
0.0/0.0
2.1/2.1
4.0/3.9
4.2/4.2
7.6/7.6
1.4/1.4
5.7/5.9
8.2/8.4
NA
6.2/6.2
0.9/0.9
5.2/3.7
9.0/7.6
0.0/0.0
5.1/5.1
7.6/7.6
0.5/0.5
5.2/5.1
0.0/9.0
2.5/2.4
5.9/5.5
0.0/0.0
3.5/3.5
8.2/8.1
1.2/1.2
6.4/6.4
8.4/8.4
3.8/3.8
6.3/2.5
4.6/4.6
Standby
Time
A/B hr
40/7
8/23
29/44
2/16
21/35
31/45
20/20
44/44
11/11
32/32
47/0
17/17
38/38
6/6
28/28
36/36
4/4
20/19
15.3/1.3
38.6/22.5
42.6/28.0
18.0/3.9
32.6/15.5
NR
3.0/0.0
13.1/12.8
28.4/28.1
19.1/18.6
41.1/40.6
11.5/11.0
23.0/22.5
43.2/42.7
NA
33.9/33.3
4.3/3.7
13.8/13.9
32.0/31.6
1.9/1.5
23.3/23.0
40.9/40.6
4.4/4.0
28.5/28.2
0/48.0
16.2/16.0
40.4/40
2.7/2.4
20.8/20.5
47.8/47.5
14.1/13.9
38.6/38.4
45.7/45.4
21.6/21.3
39.2/16.7
22.6/22.5
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Pentwater, Ml - Daily System Operation
Week
No.
22
23
24
25
26
27
Date
04/1 7/06
04/18/06
04/19/06
04/20/06
04/21/06
04/24/06
04/25/06
04/26/06
04/27/06
04/28/06
05/01/06
05/02/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
05/05/06
05/08/06
05/09/06
05/10/06
05/11/06
05/12/06
05/15/06
05/16/06
05/17/06
05/18/06
05/19/06
05/22/06
Well
#2
Meter
hr
201.0
205.4
209.8
214.4
219.1
231.5
234.5
238.5
242.4
246.4
261.9
266.0
271.4
274.2
280.0
299.8
304.4
310.1
314.1
319.7
333.3
337.4
341.4
346.4
352.0
368.2
Run
Time
hr
13.5
4.4
4.4
4.6
4.7
12.4
3.0
4.0
3.9
4.0
15.5
4.1
5.4
2.8
5.8
19.8
4.6
5.7
4.0
5.6
13.6
4.1
4.0
5.0
5.6
16.2
15% CI2
Tank
Level
in
18.3
17.3
16.0
14.8
13.0
9.8
9.0
7.8
6.3
5.3
1.8
30.3
29.0
28.0
26.3
20.5
18.8
17.0
16.0
15.0
11.3
10.3
8.8
7.5
5.3
1.0
CI2
Usage
gal
7.1
1.8
2.2
2.2
3.1
5.8
1.3
2.2
2.7
1.8
6.2
NA
2.2
1.8
3.1
10.2
3.1
3.1
1.8
1.8
6.7
1.8
2.7
2.2
4.0
7.5
Totalizer to Treatment
Meter
kgal
476634
476722
476822
476922
477031
477308
477376
477468
477558
477647
477993
478083
478204
478264
478395
478835
478941
479068
479164
479281
479586
479680
479776
479884
480067
480368
Daily
Flow
kgal
314
88
100
100
109
277
68
92
90
89
346
90
121
60
131
440
106
127
96
117
305
94
96
108
183
301
Avg
Flow
rate
gpm
388
333
379
362
387
372
378
383
385
371
372
366
373
357
376
370
384
371
400
348
374
382
400
360
545
310
Pressure Filtration
Influent
psig
NA
NA
80
NA
80
81
77
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
79
NA
NA
77
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
78
NA
NA
NA
Outlet
Tank A
psig
NA
NA
71
NA
72
73
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
Outlet
TankB
psig
NA
NA
72
NA
72
72
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
71
NA
NA
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
NA
NA
NA
Effluent
psig
NA
NA
58
NA
58
58
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
Inlet-
TA
psig
NA
NA
9
NA
8
8
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
Inlet-
TB
psig
NA
NA
8
NA
8
9
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
NA
NA
22
NA
22
23
19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
NA
NA
19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
NA
NA
NA
Flow
rate
gpm
NA
NA
349
NA
346
347
356
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
355
NA
NA
355
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
355
NA
NA
NA
Totalizer to Distribution
Meter
kgal
892.9
973.7
1061.5
1155.6
1253.4
1504.4
1567.0
1650.6
1732.3
1813.5
2128.0
2209.8
2319.2
2377.5
2493.2
2892.1
30.9
147.1
228.5
288.4
618.7
703.7
866.8
968.6
1083.4
1420.3
Daily
Flow
kgal
286
81
88
94
98
251
63
84
82
81
314
82
109
58
116
399
NA
116
81
60
330
85
163
102
115
337
Cum.
Flow
kgal
9371
9452
9540
9634
9731
9982
10045
10129
10210
10292
10606
10688
10797
10856
10971
11370
11401
11517
11599
11659
11989
12074
12237
12339
12454
12790
Avg
Flow
rate
gpm
353
306
332
341
347
337
348
348
349
338
338
333
338
347
332
336
NA
340
339
178
405
345
NA
339
342
347
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
94
94
94
95
95
96
97
98
98
99
100
100
101
101
101
103
104
105
105
106
107
107
108
108
109
110
Tank
B
No.
93
93
93
94
94
95
96
96
97
97
98
99
99
99
100
101
102
102
102
103
104
104
105
105
105
107
Cum.
Volume
kgal
247.6
247.6
247.6
250.1
250.1
252.7
255.2
256.3
257.4
258.8
261.3
262.7
263.8
263.8
265.2
269.2
271.4
273.1
273.1
275.9
278.7
278.7
101.3
101.3
102.6
106.4
Daily
Volume
kgal
5.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
2.5
2.5
1.1
1.1
1.4
2.5
1.4
1.1
0.0
1.4
3.9
2.2
1.7
0.0
2.8
2.8
0.0
1.6
0.0
1.3
3.8
Since Last BW
Run Time
A/Bhr
0.0/0.0
3.9/3.9
8.3/8.3
2.6/2.5
7.3/7.2
10.4/10.0
0.0/2.6
4.0/6.7
7.9/1.2
1.2/5.2
4.1/8.1
8.2/0.0
2.7/5.4
5.5/8.2
11.3/1.3
1.6/6.3
0.0/0.0
4.4/5.7
8.8/9.7
1 .5/2.7
2.6/4.1
0.0/8.3
4.0/0.8
9.0/5.7
2.7/11.2
4.3/0.0
Standby
Time
A/Bhr
0.7/0.4
20.0/19.8
47.2/42.0
13.0/12.7
34.7/34.5
42.6/42.6
0.0/13.7
16.5/30.4
36.3/1.9
7.7/21.0
19.0/33.1
36.4/23.0
7.5/21.8
24.2/38.5
42.9/8.9
3.2/17.5
2.0/0.4
16.3/18.8
34.3/36.8
4.3/6.7
12.9/15.4
0.0/28.4
15.6/2.4
37.1/24.4
6.6/42.4
10.6/0.0
Average calculated flowrates before 02/22/06 not accurate due to hour meter limitations.
Flowrate and Totalizer to Distribution Meter readings before 05/16/06 proportionally calculated due to incorrect initial calibration.
Highlighted columns indicate calculated values.
NA = data not available
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Pentwater, MI
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
=luoride
Sulfate
Slitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
oH
Temperature
DO
ORP
=ree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Vlg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
=e (total)
=e (soluble)
Vln (total)
Vln (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
11/22/05
IN
141
0.5
<1
<0.05
0.2
11.4
2.6
-
8.3
12.2
0.9
-3
-
-
210
118
92.1
18.1
18.0
0.1
16.2
1.9
456
433
28.5
28.9
AC
154
0.4
<1
<0.05
0.2
11.7
0.6
-
8.3
12.3
1.2
496
2.0+(c)
2.0+(c)
215
122
92.6
18.1
12.9
5.2
1.4
11.5
445
<25
27.8
10.5
TT
154
0.4
<1
<0.05
0.2
11.3
<0.1
-
8.6
12.0
0.9
424
2.0+(c)
2.0+(c)
217
121
96.0
12.0
11.6
0.4
1.6
10.1
<25
<25
10.8
11.0
11/29/05
IN
150
-
-
-
0.2
11.4
1.8
-
8.1
11.5
3.3
91
-
-
-
-
-
18.8
-
-
-
-
423
-
27.0
-
AC
154
-
-
-
0.4(d)
11.5
0.4
-
8.1
12.3
0.9
469
2.0+(c)
2.0+(c)
-
-
-
216(d)
-
-
-
-
690(d)
-
30.7(d)
-
TA
154
-
-
-
07(d)
11.5
0.5
-
8.1
12.5
1.6
516
2.0+(c)
2.0+(c)
-
-
-
15.6(d)
-
-
-
-
483(d)
-
17.3(d)
-
TB
158
-
-
-
0.1
11.5
0.7
-
8.0
12.1
4.1
511
2.0+(c)
2.0+(c)
-
-
-
11.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
9.8
-
12/08/05
IN
154
-
-
-
0.2
11.2
2.3
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
-
-
16.5
-
-
-
-
395
-
27.7
-
AC
150
-
-
-
0.2
10.5
0.4
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
17.7
-
-
-
-
429
-
26.9
-
TA
154
-
-
-
0.1
11.1
0.1
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
11.7
-
TB
154
-
-
-
0.1
10.7
0.2
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
10.8
-
12/12/05
IN
154
-
-
-
0.2
11.2
1.7
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
-
-
18.0
-
-
-
-
413
-
27.4
-
AC
154
-
-
-
0.3
11.1
0.2
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
21.4
-
-
-
-
826
-
35.9
-
TA
150
-
-
-
0.1
11.1
<0.1
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
10.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
6.8
-
TB
145
-
-
-
0.1
10.9
<0.1
-
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
-
10.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.0
-
01/04/06
IN
150
0.4
<1
<0.05
0.2
11.6
1.9
-
8.3
15.0
2.4
187
-
-
202
113
89.0
17.9
18.3
<0.1
17.1
1.2
431
422
24.8
25.5
AC
150
0.4
<1
<0.05
0.2
11.1
0.7
-
8.4
14.0
1.9
523
1.5
1.5
207
114
92.4
15.7
9.2
6.5
<0.1
9.1
476
<25
27.6
9.1
TT
154
0.4
<1
<0.05
0.1
11.1
0.5
-
8.1
14.3
3.7
511
0.8
1.2
210
117
93.9
8.7
9.3
<0.1
0.3
9.0
38.5
<25
9.0
9.0
(a)AsCaCO3. (b) As PO4.
(c) Residual was estimated by operator based on color of solution with reagent, (d) Rerun analysis indicated similar results.
(e) Water quality parameter not measured.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Pentwater, MI
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
=luoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
=ree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Vlg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
=e (soluble)
Vln (total)
Vln (soluble)
mg/L<"
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L("
mg/L("
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
01/11/06
IN
154
-
-
-
<0.05
11.1
2.5
-
8.1
12.6
1.3
331
-
-
-
-
-
16.7
-
-
-
-
465
-
26.1
-
AC
145(c)
-
-
-
<0.05
11.2
0.6
-
8.0
12.6
1.1
403
0.4
1.2
-
-
-
16.9
-
-
-
-
499
-
28.1
-
TA
154
-
-
-
<0.05
11.4
0.6
-
7.9
12.9
1.1
400
0.3
1.3
-
-
-
9.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
14.3
-
TB
158
-
-
-
<0.05
11.3
0.4
-
8.0
12.6
1.2
478
1.0
1.3
-
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
15.6
-
01/17/06(d)
IN
154
-
-
-
0.1
11.5
2.7
-
8.0
12.0
0.8
264
-
-
-
-
-
18.4
-
-
-
-
398
-
25.4
-
AC
154
-
-
-
0.2
11.2
0.6
-
8.0
12.4
0.5
437
0.2
1.2
-
-
-
21.6
-
-
-
-
534
-
29.4
-
TA
158
-
-
-
<0.05
11.6
2.2
-
8.0
12.9
1.4
444
0.4
1.2
-
-
-
11.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
13.8
-
TB
150
-
-
-
0.1
11.6
1.1
-
7.9
13.6
1.1
413
0.9
1.2
-
-
-
11.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
13.0
-
1/23/2006(e)
IN
167
-
-
-
0.2
11.0
2.9
-
8.1
12.1
1.2
322
-
-
-
-
-
18.2
-
-
-
-
383
-
25.9
-
AC
150
-
-
-
0.2
10.8
2.0
-
8.3
12.1
0.8
487
0.3
1.1
-
-
-
18.5
-
-
-
-
419
-
26.4
-
TA
154
-
-
-
0.1
11.2
4.7
-
8.3
12.4
1.7
471
0.2
1.1
-
-
-
10.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
9.7
-
TB
154
-
-
-
0.1
11.3
1.0
-
8.3
12.6
0.7
466
0.6
1.2
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
11.5
-
01/31/06
IN
148
0.4
<1
<0.05
0.1
11.3
2.6
2.0
8.0
13.8
3.7
397
-
-
191
114
77.2
15.4
15.5
<0.1
8.7
6.8
490
297
31.7
32.9
AC
152
0.4
<1
<0.05
0.1
10.6
0.9
16(g)
8.0
13.5
1.7
395
0.4
1.3
197
117
79.7
15.7
10.9
4.9
0.3
10.6
475
<25
31.4
10.9
TT
144
0.4
<1
<0.05
<0.05
11.5
1.6
2.5(g)
8.5
14.5
1.5
443
0.9
1.0
197
117
79.9
8.4
8.2
0.2
0.5
7.7
42.4
<25
11.4
11.9
02/06/06(f)
IN
150
146
-
-
-
0.2
0.2
10.9
11.4
2.5
2.5
-
8.0
12.2
1.9
302
-
-
-
-
-
21.8
20.8
-
-
-
-
412
433
-
26.9
27.2
-
AC
150
150
-
-
-
0.2
0.2
11.5
11.5
0.7
0.7
-
8.0
12.3
0.9
311
1.1
1.2
-
-
-
23.0
20.1
-
-
-
-
451
471
-
27.6
27.3
-
TA
150
150
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
11.2
11.1
0.3
0.3
-
8.0
12.8
1.5
318
0.6
1.2
-
-
-
12.1
11.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
12.4
12.0
-
TB
150
150
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
11.1
11.7
0.5
0.4
-
8.0
13.1
1.1
364
0.2
1.2
-
-
-
11.9
11.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
10.9
10.3
-
(a)AsCaCO3. (b)AsPO4.
(c) Reanalyzed outside of hold time, (d) Water quality measurements taken on 01/19/06. (e) Water quality measurements taken on 01/26/06.
(f) Water quality measurements taken on 02/09/06. (g) Result is an estimated concentration.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Pentwater, MI
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
=luoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
=ree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Vlg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
=e (soluble)
Vln (total)
Vln (soluble)
mg/L<"
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L("
mg/L("
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
02/14/06(c)
IN
150
-
-
-
0.2
11.0
3.0
-
7.9
12.6
1.6
288
-
-
-
-
-
15.3
-
-
-
-
346
-
23.9
-
AC
146
-
-
-
0.2
11.4
1.5
-
7.9
11.7
1.3
303
0.3
1.2
-
-
-
14.4
-
-
-
-
344
-
21.5
-
TA
146
-
-
-
0.1
10.7
1.0
-
7.8
12.1
1.5
310
0.4
1.2
-
-
-
7.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
11.1
-
TB
158
-
-
-
0.1
11.2
1.5
-
7.8
12.2
1.3
318
0.4
1.2
-
-
-
8.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
11.3
-
02/22/06(d)
IN
146
-
-
-
0.2
11.6
2.5
-
8.1
12.1
2.4
265
-
-
-
-
-
17.7
-
-
-
-
440
-
28.9
-
AC
146
-
-
-
0.2
11.4
4.0
-
8.1
12.2
2.6
268
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
17.6
-
-
-
-
444
-
28.7
-
TA
146
-
-
-
0.1
12.4
2.1
-
8.1
12.5
2.0
273
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
17.1
-
-
-
-
241
-
28.9
-
TB
150
-
-
-
0.1
11.7
1.9
-
8.1
12.4
2.5
287
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
17.8
-
-
-
-
253
-
29.4
-
03/01/06(d)
IN
145
0.5
<1
<0.05
0.2
11.1
3.9
1.9
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NAW
-
-
212
112
99.9
17.7
16.9
0.9
14.0
2.9
418
45.2(g)
27.6
27.1
AC
145
0.5
<1
<0.05
0.2
12.0
5.6
1.9
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
215
114
101
19.1
18.1
0.9
14.7
3.4
434
355
28.4
28.2
TT
149
0.5
<1
<0.05
0.1
11.7
5.8
1.9
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
NA(e)
211
112
99.3
17.8
17.9
<0.1
13.9
4.0
271
167
29.1
28.5
03/07/06(dfl
IN
145
-
-
-
0.2
10.8
2.9
-
7.5
12.7
2.0
257
-
-
-
-
-
17.0
-
-
-
-
398
-
27.7
-
AC
149
-
-
-
0.2
10.9
5.1
-
8.1
12.1
1.1
261
0.3
1.0
-
-
-
16.9
-
-
-
-
414
-
28.8
-
TA
149
-
-
-
0.1
11.2
2.6
-
8.1
13.4
2.9
264
0.3
1.0
-
-
-
16.3
-
-
-
-
260
-
28.8
-
TB
145
-
-
-
0.1
10.4
2.5
-
8.1
11.9
1.8
259
0.3
1.0
-
-
-
16.3
-
-
-
-
255
-
27.9
-
03/14/06
IN
145
-
-
-
0.2
10.2
2.5
-
8.0
13.1
2.2
473
-
-
-
-
-
17.9
-
-
-
-
449
-
28.4
-
AC
145
-
-
-
0.2
11.1
0.9
-
8.0
12.4
2.0
494
0.4
1.9
-
-
-
18.7
-
-
-
-
454
-
28.0
-
TA
145
-
-
-
0.1
10.2
0.7
-
8.0
13.2
1.3
501
0.4
1.8
-
-
-
8.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.5
-
TB
145
-
-
-
0.1
10.8
1.0
-
8.0
13.6
1.8
523
0.6
1.7
-
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.4
-
(a)AsCaCO3. (b)AsPO4.
(c) Water quality measurements taken on 02/17/06. (d) Insufficient chlorine dosed for treatment due to off-spec solution per communication with operator. Chlorine
solution replaced on 03/09/06. (e) Water quality measurement not recorded, (f) Water quality measurements taken on 03/09/06. (g) Reanalysis indicated similar result.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Pentwater, MI
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
=luoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
=ree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Vlg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
=e (soluble)
Vln (total)
Vln (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L<*>
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
03/20/06
IN
145
-
-
-
0.2
11.4
2.3
-
7.9
11.7
2.0
325
-
-
-
-
-
17.5
-
-
-
-
510
-
29.1
-
AC
145
-
-
-
0.3
11.8
1.0
-
8.0
12.1
0.8
476
0.3
1.8
-
-
-
25.4
-
-
-
-
902
-
46.3
-
TA
145
-
-
-
0.1
10.9
0.3
-
7.9
12.5
1.2
461
1.3
1.8
-
-
-
9.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
6.4
-
TB
145
-
-
-
0.1
11.4
0.3
-
7.9
12.6
1.2
456
0.5
1.8
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
6.2
-
04/03/06
IN
146
0.5
<1
<0.05
0.2
11.1
2.4
1.9
7.7
14.3
1.0
353
-
-
190
104
86.6
17.6
17.6
<0.1
16.1
1.5
421
432
26.2
28.2
AC
146
0.5
<1
<0.05
0.2
11.6
1.6
1.9
8.1
14.0
1.0
401
0.2
1.6
195
106
89.2
19.3
11.2
8.1
0.1
11.1
477
<25
26.9
10.5
TT
146
0.5
<1
<0.05
0.1
11.2
0.9
1.9
7.9
14.1
1.0
403
0.2
1.5
177
98.5
78.8
8.8
8.9
<0.1
0.4
8.4
<25
<25
22.2
22.2
04/10/06
IN
145
-
-
-
0.2
11.2
2.9
-
8.0
12.7
NA(d)
363
-
-
-
-
-
18.2
-
-
-
-
419
-
25.6
-
AC
145
-
-
-
0.2
11.3
2.6
-
7.9
12.6
NA(d)
402
0.1
1.4
-
-
-
18.2
-
-
-
-
414
-
25.4
-
TA
141
-
-
-
<0.05
10.9
1.4
-
8.0
12.4
NA(d)
385
1.2
1.3
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
9.0
-
TB
141
-
-
-
<0.05
10.7
1.5
-
7.9
12.3
NA(d)
379
0.9
1.5
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
9.6
-
04/18/06
IN
153
-
-
-
0.2
10.5
2.6
-
7.9
12.7
1.3
330
-
-
-
-
-
16.9
-
-
-
-
441
-
27.3
-
AC
153
-
-
-
0.2
11.2
0.7
-
8.0
12.7
1.1
432
1.1
1.3
-
-
-
17.8
-
-
-
-
475
-
28.1
-
TA
153
-
-
-
0.1
10.9
0.3
-
8.0
12.8
1.1
409
0.7
1.4
-
-
-
8.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
9.8
-
TB
158
-
-
-
0.1
10.8
0.5
-
8.0
12.7
2.7
415
0.0
1.3
-
-
-
8.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
10.1
-
04/24/06(c)
IN
154
-
-
-
0.1
11.4
2.1
-
7.9
11.9
1.1
349
-
-
-
-
-
17.4
-
-
-
-
442
-
29.0
-
AC
154
-
-
-
0.2
11.0
0.6
-
8.0
12.6
1.1
373
0.3
1.2
-
-
-
17.1
-
-
-
-
460
-
28.7
-
TA
154
-
-
-
<0.05
10.7
0.4
-
7.9
12.8
1.1
444
0.2
1.3
-
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
10.2
-
TB
159
-
-
-
0.1
11.2
0.4
-
7.7
12.7
1.5
427
0.6
1.3
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
31.9
-
11.0
-
(a)AsCaCO3. (b)AsPO4. (c) Water quality measurements taken on 04/25/06. (d) DO probe not operational.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Pentwater, MI
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Vlg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Vln (total)
Vln (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
05/02/06
IN
146
0.4
0.6
<1
<0.05
0.2
11.4
2.3
1.9
8.1
12.2
1.1
438
-
-
208
114
94.4
17.6
17.1
0.5
15.4
1.7
427
249
27.7
29.3
AC
150
0.3
0.5
<1
0.1
0.2
10.9
0.5
1.9
7.9
12.1
1.5
455
1.2
1.3
210
114
95.9
18.2
11.1
7.0
0.2
10.9
445
<25
28.4
10.1
TT
150
0.3
0.5
<1
0.1
0.1
10.9
0.6
1.9
8.2
12.0
3.2
436
0.9
1.3
209
113
96.0
9.5
8.4
1.1
0.2
8.2
66.2
<25
11.7
11.8
5/9/2006(c)
IN
147
142
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.2
11.5
11.7
2.4
2.2
-
7.7
12.2
1.3
333
-
-
-
-
-
17.7
18.1
-
-
-
-
406
410
-
29.8
29.1
-
AC
142
147
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.3
12.3
11.6
0.6
0.5
-
8.0
12.4
0.8
375
1.1
1.3
-
-
-
18.2
24.8
-
-
-
-
434
770
-
29.5
42.6
-
TA
142
147
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
12.1
12.5
0.2
0.3
-
7.9
12.3
0.6
376
0.3
1.3
-
-
-
10.0
10.3
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
10.3
10.3
-
TB
147
147
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
11.9
11.7
0.4
0.3
-
7.9
12.5
0.9
415
0.5
1.3
-
-
-
9.9
10.4
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
9.9
10.2
-
05/16/06
IN
142
-
-
-
-
0.1
11.4
2.3
-
7.8
12.3
1.6
370
-
-
-
-
-
16.2
-
-
-
-
437
-
28.3
-
AC
146
-
-
-
-
0.1
11.2
0.6
-
8.0
12.4
1.0
356
0.6
1.2
-
-
-
16.3
-
-
-
-
446
-
28.3
-
TA
146
-
-
-
-
<0.05
11.1
0.2
-
8.0
12.3
1.0
421
0.5
1.2
-
-
-
8.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
10.3
-
TB
146
-
-
-
-
<0.05
10.9
0.4
-
7.9
12.2
1.2
396
0.3
1.2
-
-
-
8.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
11.4
-
(a) As CaCO3. (b) As PO4. (c) Water quality measurements taken on 05/10/06.
------- |