EPA/600/R-11/025
March 2011
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City, IN
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Ryan J. Stowe§
Abraham S.C. Chen*
Lili Wang*
§Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693
JALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43219-6093
Contract No. EP-C-05-057
Task Order No. 0019
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, 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 0019 of Contract EP-C-05-057 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to 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 and the results obtained from the arsenic removal
treatment technology demonstration project at Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City, IN. The
main objective of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of US Water Systems' iron removal (IR)
system in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 ug/L.
Additionally, this project evaluated (1) the reliability of the treatment system, (2) the required system
operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels, and (3) the capital and O&M cost of the
technology. The project also characterized the water in the distribution system and process residuals
produced 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
cost.
The system consisted of four 36-in x 72-in composite poly-glass vessels configured in parallel. Each
vessel contained 17.7 ft3 of G2® media consisting of a granular, calcined diatomite substrate coated with
ferric hydroxide developed by ADI. The treatment system was designed for a peak flowrate of 60 gal/min
(gpm) (15 gpm per vessel), which corresponds to a hydraulic loading rate of 2.1 gpm/ft2. Over the
performance evaluation period, the actual average flowrates were 11.3, 11.3, 11.4,and 13.1gpmfor
Vessels A, B, C, and D, respectively, based on readings from the flow meter/totalizer installed on each
vessel. The average hydraulic loading rates for Vessels A, B, C, and D were 1.6, 1.6, 1.6, and 1.8
gpm/ft2, respectively.
The pre-existing chlorination system was replaced with a new Stenner Model 85MPHP5 peristaltic pump,
a 30-gal chemical feed tank, an injector, and 2-in inline mixer. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) was
injected prior to the filtration vessels to oxidize As(III) to As(V) and form arsenic-laden iron solids,
which were then filtered by G2® media. The chlorination system also was used to maintain a target
combined chlorine residual of 1.0 mg/L (as C12) in the distribution system for disinfection.
From September 22, 2008, through the end of the performance evaluation study on October 29, 2009, the
treatment system operated for atotal of 349.1 hr, treating approximately 941,500 gal of water. The
average daily operation time was 1.4 hr/day when the school was in session and 0.3 hr/day when the
school was out of session. The average system flowrate was 47.1 gpm.
Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 24.0 to 39.3 (ig/L and averaged 29.4 (ig/L. Soluble
As(III) was the predominating arsenic species with concentrations ranging from 10.8 to 23.9 (ig/L and
averaging 17.7 (ig/L. Total iron concentrations in raw water averaged 1,865 (ig/L, while soluble iron
concentrations averaged 1,058 (ig/L, which was over 52 times the average soluble arsenic concentration
(20.2 (ig/L) in raw water. Therefore, supplemental iron addition was not necessary for arsenic removal.
Following chlorination, over 85% of arsenic existed as particulate arsenic (23.8 (ig/L [on average]), which
was removed by the pressure filters to an average concentration of 3.6 (ig/L. The system also reduced
total iron concentrations to 99 (ig/L (on average), while total manganese concentrations remained
relatively unchanged.
During the performance evaluation period, the vessels were backwashed eight times. Backwash might be
triggered manually or automatically with either a time, a throughput, or a pressure differential (Ap) as a
setpoint. Throughput was chosen as the setpoint to initiate backwash. To give the operator better control
over when backwash would occur, the throughput was set to 90,000 gal. Each backwash cycle lasted 26
min, including 14 min for counter-current backwash, 5 min for co-current slow rinse, and 7 min co-
current fast rinse. Each vessel generated 1,137 gal of wastewater (on average), or 4,548 gal per event.
Assuming an average of 677 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS) in 1,137 gal of wastewater produced
IV
-------
by backwashing one vessel, 2,914 g of solids would be discharged to the sewer. The solids were
composed of 2.2, 396, and 1.6 g of arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after the system startup showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentration (i.e., from 17.0 to 5.2 (ig/L [on average]). Arsenic
concentrations in the distribution system were slightly higher than those in the system effluent. Iron was
significantly reduced in the distribution system, while manganese remained relatively unchanged. Copper
levels in the distribution system increased after the system was put into service, but their concentrations
were always below their respective action levels.
The capital investment cost for the system was $128,118, including $103,118 for equipment, $7,500 for
site engineering, and $17,500 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 60 gpm (86,400
gal/day [gpd]), the normalized capital cost was $2,135/gpm ($1.48/gpd). The O&M cost was $2.26/1,000
gal of water treated and only included the cost associated with labor.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
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 6
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 7
3.1 General Project Approach 7
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 9
3.3.1 Source Water 9
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 9
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids 9
3.3.4 Spent Media 9
3.3.5 Distribution System Water 9
3.4 Sampling Logistics 11
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 11
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 11
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13
4.1 Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure 13
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 14
4.1.2 Distribution System 17
4.2 Treatment Process Description 17
4.2.1 Technology Description 17
4.2.2 System Design and Treatment Process 18
4.3 System Installation 23
4.3.1 Permitting 23
4.3.2 Building Preparation 23
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 23
4.4 System Operation 26
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 26
4.4.2 Chlorine Injection 29
4.4.3 Backwash 30
4.4.4 Residual Management 32
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 32
VI
-------
4.5 System Performance 33
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 33
4.5.2 Backwash Water and Solids Sampling 40
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 41
4.6 System Cost 44
4.6.1 Capital Cost 44
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 44
5.0 REFERENCES 46
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDICES
OPERATIONAL DATA
ANALYTICAL DATA
BACKWASH DATA
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Pre-existing Water System at Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City, IN 13
Figure 4-2. Chlorination Pump and Injection Port 14
Figure 4-3. Water Softener (left) and Water Heater (right) 15
Figure 4-4. Simplified Schematic of US Water Systems' Iron Removal System 19
Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 20
Figure 4-6. Chlorine Addition System 21
Figure 4-7. Magnum IT Valves and Logix 764 Controllers on G2® Filtration Vessels 22
Figure 4-8. Treatment System Installed 24
Figure 4-9. Conditioning of G2® Media 25
Figure 4-10. Treatment System Daily Operating Times 28
Figure 4-11. Comparison of Instantaneous Flowrate Readings and Calculated Flowrate Values 28
Figure 4-12. Differential Pressures Across Filtration Vessels 29
Figure 4-13. System Control Panel with Logix 764 Controllers 32
Figure 4-14. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Locations 38
Figure 4-15. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train 39
Figure 4-16. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train 39
Figure 4-17. Chlorine Residuals Measured at AC and TT 40
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 1 -2. Number of Demonstration Sites Under Each Arsenic Removal Technology 5
Table 3-1. Demonstration Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 8
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes 10
Table 4-1. Source Water Data for Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City, IN 16
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of G2® Media Provided by ADI 18
Table 4-3. Key System Design Parameters 19
Table 4-4. Freeboard Measurements and Media Volumes Before and After Backwash (or
Media Conditioning) 25
vn
-------
Table 4-5. Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions 26
Table 4-6. Summary of Treatment System Operational Parameters 27
Table 4-7. Summary of Backwash Events 30
Table 4-8. Summary of System Backwash Operations 31
Table 4-9. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 34
Table 4-10. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 35
Table 4-11. Filtration Vessel Backwash Sampling Results 41
Table 4-12. Backwash Solids Sampling Results 42
Table 4-13. Distribution System Sampling Results 43
Table 4-14. Capital Investment Cost for US Water Systems' Treatment System 45
Table 4-15. Operation and Maintenance Cost for AdEdge Treatment System 45
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
BL baseline sampling
Ca calcium
Cl chloride
C/F coagulation/filtration
CRF capital recovery factor
DBF disinfection byproduct
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HAAS haloacetic acids
HC1 hydrochloric acid
HFX hybrid ion exchanger
hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
i.d. inner diameter
ID identification
IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management
IR iron removal
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
Mn manganese
MRDL maximum residual disinfectant level
MRDLG maximum residual disinfectant level goal
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NS not sampled
NTNC non-transient, non-community
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
PCM pump control module
psi pounds per square inch
PO4 orthophosphate
POU point-of-use
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RO reverse osmosis
RFP Request for Proposal
RPD relative percent difference
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO42' sulfate
SOC synthetic organic compound
STS Severn Trent Services
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
TTHM total trihalomethanes
voc
volatile organic compound
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Mr. Steve Burge and Mr. Mac Wicker at
Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City for their assistance in monitoring the treatment system
and collecting samples from the treatment and distribution systems throughout this study period. This
performance evaluation would not have been possible without their efforts.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) mandates that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (< 10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems to reduce compliance costs. As part of
this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites. In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28.
With additional funding from Congress, EPA selected 10 more sites for demonstration under Round 2a.
Somewhat different from the Round 1 and Round 2 selection process, Battelle, under EPA's guidance,
issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on February 14, 2007, to solicit technology proposals from vendors
and engineering firms. Upon closing of the RFP on April 13, 2007, Battelle received from 14 vendors a
total of 44 proposals, which were subsequently reviewed by a three-expert technical review panel
convened at EPA on May 2 and 3, 2007. Copies of the proposals and recommendations of the review
-------
panel were later provided to and discussed with representatives of the 10 host sites and state regulators in
a technology selection meeting held at each host site during April through August 2007. The final
selections of the treatment technology were made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the respective
state regulators, and the host sites. A 60-gal/min (gpm) iron removal (IR) system fabricated by US Water
Systems in Indianapolis, IN was selected for demonstration at Northeastern Elementary School in
Fountain City, IN. The system used ADI's G2®media for filtration of arsenic-laden iron particles.
As of January 2011, 49 of the 50 systems were operational and the performance evaluations of all 49
systems were completed.
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
Technologies selected for Rounds 1, 2, and 2a demonstration included adsorptive media (AM), IR,
coagulation/filtration (C/F), ion exchange (IX), reverse osmosis (RO), point-of-use (POU) RO, and
system/process modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, system
flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, iron [Fe], and pH). Table 1-2 presents
the number of sites for each technology. AM technology was demonstrated at 30 sites, including four
with IR pretreatment. IR technology was demonstrated at 12 sites, including four with supplemental iron
addition. C/F, IX, and RO technologies were demonstrated at three, two, and one sites, respectively. The
Sunset Ranch Development site that demonstrated POU RO technology had nine under-the-sink RO
units. The Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) site classified under AM had three AM systems and
eight POU AM units. The Lidgerwood site encompassed only system/process modifications. An
overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the
associated capital costs is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are
posted on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/resource.htm.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program was to conduct full-scale performance evaluations of
treatment technologies for arsenic removal from drinking water supplies. The specific objectives were 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 US Water Systems' IR system at Northeastern Elementary
School in Fountain City, IN, from September 22, 2008, through, October 29, 2009. The types of data
collected included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution
system), residuals, and capital and O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(HS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Carmel, ME
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Houghton, NY(C)
Woodstock, CT
Pomfret, CT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Conneaut Lake, PA
Buckeye Lake, OH
Springfield, OH
Carmel Elementary School
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Caneadea
Woodstock Middle School
Seely -Brown Village
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Conneaut Lake Park
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
RO
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
IR (Macrolite)
AM (Adsorbsia)
AM (ArsenXnp)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
IR (Greensand Plus) with ID
AM (ARM 200)
IR & AM (E33)
Norlen's Water
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
Siemens
SolmeteX
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
Kinetico
AdEdge
l,200gpd
14
70W
10
100
22
550
17
15
375
300
250
10
250(eJ
21
38W
39
33
36W
30
27W
21
25
30W
19(a)
28W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
1,806™
<25
<25
48
270™
157™
l,312(d)
1,615™
7.9
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
7.6
7.7
7.3
8.2
7.3
8.0
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Goshen, IN
Fountain City, IN
Waynesville, IL
Geneseo Hills, IL
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
Lead, SD
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Clinton Christian School
Northeastern Elementary School
Village of Waynesville
Geneseo Hills Subdivision
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
Terry Trojan Water District
AM(E33)
IR (Macrolite) with ID
IR (Aeralater)
IR (Macrolite)
IR&AM(E33)
IR (G2)
IR (Greensand Plus)
AM(E33)
IR (Macrolite)
IR (Macrolite) with ID
IR (Macrolite)
IR (Macrolite)
IR&AM(E33)
Process Modification
AM (ArsenXnp)
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
AdEdge
US Water
Peerless
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
SolmeteX
640
400
340ce)
40
25
60
96
200
375
140
250
20
250
250
75
14(a)
13(a)
16W
20W
29W
27W
32W
25W
17W
39W
34W
25W
42W
146W
24
127™
466™
1,387™
1,499™
810™
1,547™
2,543™
248™
7,827™
546™
1,470™
3,078™
1,344™
1,325™
<25
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.1
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
7.3
Midwest/Southwest
Willard, UT
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Hot Springs Mobile Home Park
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water Consumers
IR & AM (Adsorbsia)
IR (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
Filter Tech
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
30
770(e)
150
40
100
320
15.4W
35W
19W
56W
45
23W
332™
2,068™
95
<25
<25
39
7.5
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Site Name
Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
Technology (Media)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Vendor
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
145
450
90™
50
37
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
33
14
50
32
41
Fe
(ug/L)
<25
59
170
<25
<25
PH
(S.U.)
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General Improvement
District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/
ARM200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)(B)
IX(ArsenexII)
AM (GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM(HIX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69w
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; EHX = hybrid ion exchanger; IR = iron removal; IR with ID = iron removal with iron addition; IX = ion exchange
process; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(c) Withdrew from program in 2007. Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(d) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Amaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
Table 1-2. Number of Demonstration Sites Under Each Arsenic
Removal Technology
Technologies
Adsorptive Media(a)
Adsorptive Media with Iron Removal Pretreatment
Iron Removal (Oxidation/Filtration)
Iron Removal with Supplemental Iron Addition
Coagulation/Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Point-of-use Reverse Osmosis(b)
System/Process Modifications
Number
of Sites
26
4
8
4
o
J
2
1
1
1
(a) Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) site at Klamath
Falls, OR, had three AM systems and eight POU AM
units.
(b) Including nine under-the-sink RO units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
US Water Systems' IR treatment system using ADI's G2® media was installed and has operated at
Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City, IN since September 22, 2008. Based on the
information collected during the one year of system operation, the following conclusions were made
relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• Chlorination effectively oxidized As(III) and Fe(II) and formed arsenic-laden particles that
were filtered by G2® media. Total arsenic concentrations were reduced from 29.4 (ig/L (on
average) in raw water to 3.6 (ig/L (on average) in treated water.
• Iron concentrations were reduced from 1,865 (ig/L (on average) in raw water to 99 (ig/L (on
average) in treated water. Manganese concentrations were unaffected by the IR process.
• The operation of the treatment system significantly lowered arsenic concentrations in the
distribution system (i.e., from 17.0 to 5.2 (ig/L [on average]). Although lead and copper
concentrations were always below their respective action levels, somewhat elevated copper
levels were observed in the distribution system water after system startup.
Required system O&Mand operator skill levels:
• The daily demand on the operator was typically 20 min to visually inspect the system and
record operational parameters.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• Residuals produced by the operation of the treatment system consisted of only backwash
wastewater.
• Backwashing produced 1,137 gal of wastewater per vessel, which contained 2,914 g of solids
composed of 2.2, 396, and 1.6 g of arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively.
Capital and O&M cost of the technology:
• The capital investment for the system was $128,118, including $103,118 for equipment,
$7,500 for site engineering, and $17,500 for installation, shakedown, and startup.
• The unit capital cost was $2,135/gpm (or $1.48 gpd) based on a 60-gpm design capacity.
• The increased O&M cost was $2.26/1,000 gal of water treated consisting entirely of 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
US Water Systems' iron removal system began on September 22, 2008, and ended on October 29, 2009.
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 MCL of 10 ug/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train,
as described in the Study Plan (Battelle, 2008). The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking
the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The plant
operator recorded unscheduled downtime and repair information on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Demonstration Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Technology Selection Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Building Construction Began
Building Construction Completed
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Letter Report Issued
Engineering Package Submitted to IDEM
System Permit Issued by IDEM
Equipment Arrived at Site
Study Plan Issued
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Began
Sampling Completed
Performance Evaluation Completed
Date
September 26, 2006
May 23, 2007
August 10, 2007
August 27, 2007
September 10, 2007
October 8, 2007
December 3, 2007
December 26, 2007
December 28, 2007
January 29, 2008
January 29, 2008
April 22, 2008
May 29, 2008
July 23, 2008
July 25, 2008
August 20, 2008
September 2, 2008
September 22, 2008
September 29, 2009
October 29, 2009
IDEM = Indiana Department of Environmental Management
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
wastewater produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water and solids were sampled and
analyzed for chemical characteristics.
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
Cost-Effectiveness
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 ug/L of arsenic MCL in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems
encountered, materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
incurred
-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
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per 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, electrical usage, and labor.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, biweekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a regular basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a System Operation Log
Sheet (see Appendix A) and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any
problems 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 problems encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and
labor incurred on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. During each sampling event, the plant operator
also measured temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and
chlorine residuals and recorded the data on an Onsite Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the IR system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and system
installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical supply,
electricity consumption, and labor. Labor for various activities, such as the routine system O&M,
troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour
Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as completing field logs, 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 cost
analysis.
-------
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected from the wellhead, across the treatment plant,
during the oxidation/filtration vessel backwash, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 presents the
sampling schedules and analytes measured during each sampling event. 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, 2007). The procedure
for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit on September 26, 2006, one set of source water
samples from Well No. 1 was collected and speciated using an arsenic specitation kit (see Section 3.4.1).
The sample tap was flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid
agitation, which might cause unwanted oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in
Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, the plant
operator collected water samples across the treatment train for onsite and offsite analyses. The Battelle
Study Plan called for biweekly sampling, alternating between "regular" and "speciation" sampling.
Regular sampling involved taking samples at the wellhead (IN), after chlorination (AC), and after Vessels
A, B, C, and D (TA, TB, TC, and TD) and having them analyzed for the analytes listed under regular
sampling in Table 3-3. Speciation sampling involved collecting and speciating samples at IN and AC and
after effluent from the four vessels was combined (TT) and having them analyzed for the analytes listed
under speciation sampling in Table 3-3. The actual sampling frequency varied from 3.5 to eight weeks
for regular sampling and from two to seven weeks for speciation sampling. On August 31, 2009 when the
speciation sampling was performed, regular samples also were taken from TA through TD.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids. The plant operator collected backwash wastewater
samples from each vessel on four occasions. Over the duration of backwash for each vessel, a side stream
of backwash wastewater was directed from the tap on the backwash wastewater discharge line to a clean,
32-gal plastic container at approximately 1 gpm. After the contents in the container were thoroughly
mixed, one aliquot was collected as is and the other filtered with 0.45-(im disc filters. The samples were
analyzed for analytes listed in Table 3-3.
Once during the 13-month study period, the contents in a 32-gal plastic container were allowed to settle
and the supernatant was removed by siphoning using a piece of plastic tubing. Care was taken to avoid
agitating the settled solids in the container. The remaining solids/water mixture was then transferred to a
1-gal plastic jar. After the solids in the jar were settled and the supernatant was carefully decanted, one
aliquot of the solids/water mixture was air-dried before being acid-digested and analyzed for the metals
listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Spent Media. The media in the oxidation/filtration vessels was not replaced, therefore, no
spent media was produced as residual solids during this demonstration study.
3.3.5 Distribution System Water. Water samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, lead and copper levels. Prior to the system start-up from April to August 2008,
four sets of baseline distribution system water samples were collected at the kitchen sink (DS1), which
was one of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) locations used by the school for LCR sampling. On August
14, 2008, two additional distribution locations were added: north water fountain (DS2) and south water
fountain (DS3). Only one set of distribution system water samples was collected from DS2 and DS3
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
(Speciation)
Treatment
Plant Water
(Regular)
Distribution
System
Water(b)
Backwash
Wastewater
Backwash
Solids
Sample
Locations'3*
IN
IN, AC, and
TT
IN, AC,
TA, TB,
TC, and TD
Kitchen
Sink(DSl),
North
Water
Fountain
(DS2), and
South
Water
Fountain
(DS3)
Backwash
Discharge
Line (BW)
Wastewater
Container
from Each
Vessel
No. of
Samples
1
3
6
3
2
4
Frequency
Once
(During
initial site
visit)
Every 2 to 7
weeks
Every 3.5 to
8 weeks
Monthly
Every 3 to 4
months
Once
Analytes
Onsite: pH and
temperature
Offsite: As (III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
V (total), Na, Ca, Mg, Cl,
F, NO3, NO2, NH3i SO4,
SiO2, PO4, P (total),
turbidity, alkalinity, TDS,
and TOC
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and total
and/or free C12M)
Offsite: As(III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3,
SO4, SiO2, P (total),
turbidity, alkalinity, and
TOC
Onsite: : pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and total
and/or free Cl2(e)
Offsite: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), NH3,
SiO2, turbidity, alkalinity,
and TOC
As (total), Fe (total), Mn
(total), Cu, Pb, pH, and
alkalinity
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
pH, TDS, TSS, and SiO2,
Total Al, As, Ba, Ca, Cd,
Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P,
Pb, Si, Zn
Sampling Date
09/26/06
10/09/08, 11/06/08,
12/04/08, 01/07/09,
02/11/09,03/03/09,
03/31/09,04/28/09,
05/12/09, 06/09/09,
07/30/09,08/31/09,
09/15/09
(see Appendix B)
10/22/08, 11/20/08,
12/29/08, 01/22/09,
02/23/09, 03/17/09,
04/14/09, 05/26/09,
07/06/09,
08/31/09®,
09/29/09
(see Appendix B)
Baseline Sampling:
04/01/08, 06/10/08,
07/01/08,
08/07/08(g)
10/22/08, 11/20/08,
12/17/08, 01/22/09,
02/23/09, 03/17/09,
04/14/09, 05/12/09,
06/09/09, 07/06/09,
08/31/09,09/29/09
12/03/08, 04/08/09,
07/06/09, 10/13/09
07/06/09
(a) Abbreviations in parenthesis corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-5, i.e., IN = at
wellhead; AC = after chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B; TC = after Vessel C;
10
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes (Continued)
TD = after Vessel D; TT = after total combined effluent; BW = backwash discharge line; DS1 =
distribution system sampling location 1; DS2 = distribution system sampling location 2; DS3 =
distribution system sampling location 3.
(b) Four baseline sampling events taking place from April through August 2009 prior to system startup.
(c) Free chlorine measurements discontinued on April 28, 2009.
(d) Total and free chlorine measured at IN location during some sampling events.
(e) Except for two occasions on October 22, 2008, and January 22, 2009, measurements were made at IN,
AC, and TT locations.
(f) Samples also taken at TA, TB, TC, and TD locations during speciation sampling event.
(g) DS2 and DS3 samples collected on August 14, 2008.
DO = dissolved oxygen; ORP = oxidation-reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total
organic carbon; TSS = total suspended solids
prior to system startup. Following system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly
basis at the three aformentioned sampling locations.
The plant operator collected the samples following an instruction sheet developed in accordance with
the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002).
The date and time of last water usage before sampling and of actual sample collection were recorded
for calculation of 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.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used 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 in accordance with the procedures
detailed in Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2007).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, color-coded label consisting of sample identification (ID), date and time of sample collection,
collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The sample ID
consisted of a two-letter code for a 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 zip-lock 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 sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for offsite 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.
11
-------
Samples for metals analyses were stored at Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
(ICP-MS) laboratory. Samples for other water analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up by
couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH, which was under contract with
Battelle for this demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the
time of preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate
laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2007)
were followed by Battelle's ICP-MS laboratory and AAL. 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 QA data
associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared
under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
VWR Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use
following the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy
by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator
collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Symphony SP90M5 probe in the beaker
until a stable value was obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements
using Hach chlorine test kits following the user's manual.
12
-------
4.1
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure
Northeastern Elementary School is located at 7295 U.S. 27 North in Fountain City, IN. The facility is
classified as a non-transient, non-community (NTNC) water system, which, per EPA definition, serves at
least the same 25 non-resident individuals during six months of the year. Prior to the performance
evaluation study, the facility supplied water to approximately 600 students and staff members during the
academic year. Located in the school's mechanical room, the pre-existing water system included inlet
piping, a chlorine addition system, a bulk storage tank, and a water softener (Figure 4-1). The water
system was supplied by a single well, i.e., Well No. 1, which is 8-in in diameter and approximately 126 ft
deep. The well was equipped with a three-phase, 460-volt, 5-horsepower (hp) submersible pump rated for
50 gpm. The submersible well pump typically operated 2 hr/day to meet the average daily demand of
approximately 5,000 gal.
Figure 4-1. Pre-existing Water System at Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City, IN
(Storage Tank [top left], Water Softener [top right], and Chlorine Addition System [bottom])
13
-------
Source water was piped from the supply well to the school's mechanical room where it was first
chlorinated with a sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution to maintain a target free chlorine residual level
of 0.2 mg/L (as C12). Following chlorination the water was stored in a 750-gal, vertical, bulk storage tank
constructed of carbon steel. Figure 4-2 shows a detailed view of the existing chlorination pump and
injection port prior to the storage tank. Following the storage tank, water was divided into two separate
streams for cold and hot water distribution. The stream dedicated for hot water distribution was further
treated by a water softener prior to heating. Figure 4-3 shows the water softener and water heater.
Figure 4-2. Chlorination Pump and Injection Port
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on September 26, 2006, when
a Battelle staff member traveled with EPA to the site for an introductory meeting for this demonstration
project. Table 4-1 presents the analytical results along with the data provided by EPA and Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). Overall, Battelie's data are comparable to those
provided by EPA and IDEM.
Arsenic. Historic total arsenic concentrations in Well No. 1 water ranged from 2.7 to 27.0 ug/L. Based
on the speciation results obtained by Battelle on September 26, 2006, out of 26.9 ug/L of total arsenic,
8.8 ug/L existed as particulate arsenic. For the soluble fraction, 12.6 and 5.5 ug/L existed as As(III) and
As(V), respectively. Therefore, chlorination was used to oxidize soluble As(III) to soluble As(V). The
As(V) formed co-precipitated with and/or adsorbed onto iron solids to form As(V)-laden iron particles
prior to pressure filtration.
14
-------
Figure 4-3. Water Softener (left) and Water Heater (right)
Ammonia and Total Organic Carbon. Well No. 1 water contained between 0.7 to 1.0 mg/L of
ammonia (as N) and 1.6 to 2.8 mg/L of organic carbon (as C). When in contact with chlorine, ammonia
will react with chlorine to form chloramines, which most likely will not react with organic carbon, to the
extent as chlorine does, to form disinfection byproducts (DBFs), such as total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)
and haloacetic acids (HAAS). The stoichiometric quantity of chlorine consumed by the reaction with
ammonia is 5:1 (w/w) with chlorine expressed as C12 and ammonia as N. The stoichiometric quantity of
chlorine consumed to completely oxidize the chloramines formed, or to reach the breakpoint chlorination,
is 7.6:1 (w/w). From the metal data presented in Table 4-1, 0.7 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) will be required
to oxidize reduced metals, including As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II). To achieve the target free chlorine
residual level of 0.2 mg/L (as C12), 6.2 to 8.5 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) will be needed, including:
• 0.7 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) to react with 12.6 (ig/L of As(III), 855 (ig/L of Fe(II), and 53.1
(ig/L ofMn(II)
• 5.3 to 7.6 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) to completely oxidize 0.7 to 1.0 mg/L of ammonia (as N)
at the breaking point
• 0.2 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) to provide the required 0.2 mg/L of free chlorine residual.
The use of 6.2 to 8.5 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) will add to the chemical cost, increase the formation
potential of DBFs, and exceed the maximum residual disinfectant level (MRDL) and maximum residual
disinfectant level goal (MRDLG) of 4 mg/L (as C12) as stipulated in the Stage 1 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule (http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/mdbp/dbpl.html).
15
-------
Table 4-1. Source Water Data for Northeastern Elementary School in
Fountain City, IN
Parameter
Date
pH
Temperature
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
P (as PO4)
Al (total)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
V (total)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
EPA
Data
02/07/06
NA
NA
NA
234
NA
NA
2.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.1
13.5
NA
<0.2
<25
20.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,292
NA
49.4
NA
<25
NA
27.8
54.6
23.8
Battelle
Data
09/26/06
NA
NA
317
218
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
<5
NA
2.4
13.4
0.01
<0.2
<25
19.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,114
NA
49.6
NA
<25
NA
26.9
51.2
21.9
7.5
25.0
337
255
5.8
304
1.6
O.05
<0.05
0.7
2
1.5
2.0
13.9
<0.1
O.03
NA
26.9
18.1
8.8
12.6
5.5
1,547
855
53.5
53.1
NA
<0.1
29.0
57.9
26.7
IDEM
Data
09/93-09/06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.28-0.95
O.01-0.09
NA
NA
1.6-2.2
<5
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.7-27.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Iron and Manganese. Total iron concentrations in Well No. 1 water ranged from 1,114 to 1,547 ug/L,
which exceeded the 300-ug/L secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL). Battelle's speciation
results indicated that, out of 1,547 ug/L of total iron, 855 ug/L (or 55%) existed as soluble iron, which is
47 times the soluble arsenic level (i.e., 18.1 ug/L) mentioned above. EPA's February 7 and September
26, 2006 total iron results, i.e., 1,292 and 1,114 ug/L, respectively, were slightly lower than Battelle's
total iron result. No historical iron data were available from IDEM. The presence of soluble iron in
source water will help remove arsenic once an oxidant, such as chlorine, is introduced to raw water. The
use of chlorination prior to the G2® media would oxidize and precipitate iron, enabling removal of
arsenic-laden iron solids via filtration through the media.
Total manganese concentrations ranged from 49.4 to 53.5 ug/L, which, based on the data obtained by
Battelle on September 26, 2006, existed almost entirely as soluble manganese.
Competing Anions Based on the results shown in Table 4-1, concentrations of silica (13.4 to 13.9 mg/L)
and phosphate (less than the MDL) in raw water do not appear to be high enough to impact the IR
process.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Battelle's data indicate a pH value of 7.5, which is within the
commonly-agreed target range of 5.5 to 8.5 for arsenic removal via IR. The raw water samples also were
analyzed for additional parameters as listed in Table 4-1. Collectively, total hardness concentrations
ranged from 218 to 255 mg/L (as CaCO3); nitrate from <0.05 to 0.95 mg/L (as N); nitrite from <0.01 to
0.09 mg/L (as N), and sodium from 21 to 29.0 mg/L. Turbidity was 5.8 nephelometric turbidity unit
(NTU) and total dissolved solids (TDS) were 304 mg/L. All other analytes were below detection limits
and/or anticipated to be low enough not to adversely affect the arsenic removal process.
4.1.2 Distribution System. Based on the information provided by the facility, the distribution
system was comprised of a combination of copper, galvanized, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping. The
pipe material between the supply well and the mechanical room was a combination of galvanized and
PVC piping and the piping within the building was primarily copper. Three locations within the school
(kitchen sink, north water fountain, and south water fountain) were selected for monthly baseline and
distribution system water sampling to evaluate the effect of the treatment system on the distribution
system water quality.
Northeastern Elementary School samples water periodically for several parameters. Raw water samples
are collected quarterly for arsenic; yearly for nitrate; once every three years for cyanide, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), synthetic organic compounds (SOC), and inorganic compounds (lOCs).
Distribution system water samples are collected yearly for HAA5 and TTHMs, once every three years
under LCR, and once every nine years for asbestos.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
This section provides a general technology description and site-specific details on US Waters Systems' IR
system using ADI's G2® as a filtration media.
4.2.1 Technology Description. Developed by ADI, G2® is an adsorptive/filtration media
consisting of a granular, calcined diatomite substrate coated with ferric hydroxide. Because of the
presence of elevated levels of soluble iron in raw water and because of the addition of chlorine to raw
water to oxide As(III), arsenic-laden iron solids were formed and had to be removed via filtration.
Therefore, G2® media acted more like a filtration media than an adsorptive media. Table 4-2 presents
physical and chemical properties of G2® media. G2®is delivered in dry, granular form and has NSF
International (NSF) Standard 61 approval for use in drinking water. The G2® media require a pre-
17
-------
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of G2 Media Provided by ADI
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Specific Gravity (dry)
Hardness (lb/in2)
Effective Size (mm)
Uniformity Coefficient
Bulk Relative Density
Adsorption (%)
Value
Diatomite impregnated with
ferric hydroxide
Dry granules
Dark brown
47
0.75
210
0.32
1.8-2.0
1.073
51.1
Chemical Analysis
Constituents
Fe
Na
Al
Diatomaceous Earth (a silica-based material)
Trace Elements
Weight %
5-30
9-10
0.5
Balance
<0.1
conditioning step prior to use. Details concerning the pre-conditioning step are presented in Section
4.2.2.
The IR system is a fixed-bed, down-flow filtration system. Water with arsenic-laden iron particles was
pumped through four G2® filtration vessels to remove the solids. Solids accumulated in the vessels were
then removed from the media beds via backwash. Backwash wastewater generated was discharged to the
sanitary sewer.
4.2.2 System Design and Treatment Process. The treatment system consisted of a chlorine
injection system (pre-existing), four parallel filtration vessels (with a balance header to ensure equal flows
to the four vessels), and a pressure tank (pre-existing) prior to the distribution system. Figure 4-4 presents
a simplified system schematic showing only one filtration vessel and associated instrumentation. Table 4-
3 specifies key system design parameters. Figure 4-5 presents a process flowchart along with the
sampling/analysis schedule. Key process components of the treatment system are discussed as follows:
• Intake - Raw water was pumped from Well No. 1 and fed to the treatment system via a 3-in
copper pipe. The well pump was rated at 50 gpm, which could not be verified due to the lack
of a flow meter at the wellhead.
• Pre-chlorination - Chlorine was added to raw water using a chlorine addition system (Figure
4-6) consisting of a 5-gal/day (gpd) Stenner peristaltic pump (Model 85MPHP5), a Stenner
pump control module (PCM), a SeaMetrics pulse meter (MJ-Series), a chlorine injection tap,
a 30-gal polyethylene chemical feed tank (containing a 12.5% NaOCl solution), and a 2-in in-
line mixer. When water flowed through the SeaMetrics pulse meter, a signal was sent to the
PCM, which, in turn, sent a signal to the Stenner pump to dose NaOCl through the injection
tap. The PCM was set at 55% based on calculations using equations provided by the
manufacturer. Chemical consumption was monitored by visually inspecting and measuring
levels of NaOCl in the day tank on a daily basis and recording the levels on field log sheets.
18
-------
Not to Scale
Figure 4-4. Simplified Schematic of US Water Systems' Iron Removal System
Table 4-3. Key System Design Parameters
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Prechlorinotion
Target Dose (mg/L [as C12])
Target Combined Residual (mg/L [as C12])
1.7
1.0
-
-
G2* Filtration Vessels
No. of Vessels
Configuration
Vessel Size (in)
Vessel Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Media Quantity (ft3)
Media Bed Depth (in)
Design Flowrate (gpm/vessel)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min)
Average Use Rate (gal/day)
4
Parallel
36 D x 72 H
7.1
100
42
15
2.1
12.5
5,000
-
-
Composite poly -glass
-
Four vessels; 25 ft3 in each vessel
-
60 gpm total
-
15 gpm flowrate through each vessel
Facility estimated
Backwash
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Duration (min/vessel)
Backwash Wastewater Generated (gal/vessel)
Design Backwash Frequency (times/month)
40
5.7
18
720
2
-
-
-
2,880 gal per event
-
19
-------
INFLUENT
(WELL#1)
Speciation Sampling
Every 2 to 7 Weeks
pH, temperature^), DO/ORP(a>,
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
F, NO,, NH3, SO4, SiO2, P (total),
turbidity, alkalinity, TOC
pH, temperature^, DO/ORP,
totalandfreeCl2, As (totaland
soluble), As (III),
As(V), Fe (total and soluble),-
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
F, NO,, NH3, SO4, SiO2, P (total),
turbidity, alkalinity, TOC
Every 6-8 Weeks
pH, TDS, TSS, SiO2,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (totaland soluble),
Mn (totaland soluble)
pH, temperature^, DO/ORP,
totaland free Cl2,
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As(V), Fe (total and soluble),-
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
F, NO,, NH3, SO4, SiO2, P (total),
turbidity, alkalinity, TOC
Northeastern
Elementary School
Fountain City, IN
US Water Systems' G2® Arsenic
Removal System
Design Flow: 60 gpm
t
i
i
t- (TB> -(TC)
Regular Sampling
Every 3.5 to 8 Weeks
pHW, temperature^,
DO/ORPW, As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), NH3, SiO2f
turbidity, alkalinity, TOC
pH, temperature^, DO/ORPW,
totalandfreeCl2, temperature*3), DO/ORP
-------
Figure 4-6. Chlorine Addition System
(Stenner Pump and 30-gal Day Tank [top left], Stenner Pump Control Module [top right],
SeaMetrics Pulse Meter [bottom left], and 2-in inline mixer [bottom right])
Since raw water contained 0.7 to 1.0 mg/L (as N) of ammonia, it was necessary to add
enough chlorine (i.e., 7.6 times of 0.7 to 1.0 mg/L plus the amount required to oxidize all
reducing species) to reach the breakpoint. Breakpoint chlorination would ensure complete
removal of ammonia and chloramines and leave free chlorine residuals in the treated water.
Due to the high levels of chlorine that would be required to reach the breakpoint, only the
amount of chlorine necessary to oxidize reducing metals (i.e., 0.7 mg/L [as C12]) and to
produce 1.0 mg/L of combined chlorine residuals (i.e., 1.0 mg/L [as C12]) was added to the
water. This resulted in a total chlorine dose of 1.7 mg/L of chlorine (as C12).
The water system was required to test for total and free chlorine residuals on days that school
was in session. Meanwhile, total chlorine residuals were controlled to <1 mg/L (as C12) in
order to minimize any adverse effect on the resin in the downstream softener.
21
-------
Filtration - The treatment system consisted of four 36-in x 72-in composite poly-glass
vessels configured in parallel, each containing 25 ft3 of G2® media (100 ft3 total) underlain
by washed gravel. Each vessel had a 6-in flange opening on the top for loading media and
assessing vessel contents. A GE Magnum IT valve and GE Logix 764 controller were
installed on each vessel. The GE Logix 764 controllers were used for setting custom
parameters such as backwashing frequency, external notifications for alarm conditions, and
other inputs and outputs. Through 2-in piping, water flowed in parallel into the vessels, from
upper distributors downward though the media and then collected at the bottom through high-
flow slotted hub and lateral assemblies. The treated water then traveled up through 1.5-in
riser piping in the vessels before it exited at the outlet of the Magnum IT valves.
Based on a design flowrate of 15 gpm/vessel (60 gpm total), the empty bed contact time
(EBCT) was 12.5 min and the hydraulic loading rate on each filter was 2.1 gpm/ft2. The
anticipated pressure drop across a clean bed was approximately 2 lb/in2 (psi), and the
anticipated pressure differential across the whole system was 10 psi. The flow through each
vessel was monitored using a flow meter and totalizer that was built in to the GE Magnum IT
valve. Figure 4-7 shows filter vessels, Magnum IT valves, and the Logix 764 controller.
Before the system could be put into service, the media had to be conditioned to lower its pH,
from as high as 11.5 to less than 8. Details on the conditioning procedure are discussed in
Section 4.3.3.
1C tfator
V V • ,st«ni.cMt
800-60h ;JSWATER
Arse; ;c Filter
Figure 4-7. Magnum IT Valves and Logix 764 Controllers on G2® Filtration Vessels
22
-------
• Filter Backwash - Due to accumulation of iron solids in the media, the filter beds needed to
be backwashed to remove the solids and fluff the media to minimize channeling.
Backwashing might be performed manually or automatically with either time, throughput, or
pressure differential (Ap) setpoint. The vessels were backwashed individually with treated
water from the 750-gal pressure tank and supplemental well water when the pressure tank
reached its low-pressure setpoint. US Water Systems recommended that backwash be
performed every two to three weeks at a flowrate of 40 gpm for 18 min. The amount of
wastewater produced was 720 gal/vessel (or 2,880 gal per event), which was discharged
directly into the sump and then to the sanitary sewer. Under IDEM regulations, no permit
was necessary for the discharge.
4.3 System Installation
US Water Systems completed system installation and shakedown on September 2, 2008. The following
briefly summarizes system installation activities, including permitting, building preparation, and system
installation, shakedown, and startup.
4.3.1 Permitting. Design drawings and a process description of the proposed treatment system
were submitted to IDEM by Ladd Engineering on April 22, 2008. IDEM did not have any review
comments and the permit was issued on May 29, 2008.
4.3.2 Building Preparation. The pre-existing system was located on an elevated concrete pad in
the school's utility room. To accommodate the new treatment system, an extension to the pre-existing
concrete pad was poured to bring the floor level to that of the pre-existing pad. The construction was
funded by the school and took approximately three days to complete (i.e., December 26 to 28, 2007).
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. System components and materials were delivered
by US Water Systems to the school starting the week of July 28, 2008. The system was built onsite (not
prefabricated). System fabrication and installation took place over the next three weeks and were
completed on August 20, 2008. Installation activities included placing the vessels, building all connective
piping between vessels (including a backwash discharge line to the sanitary sewer), connecting the system
to tie-in points, and assembling the chlorine injection system. Figure 4-8 shows photographs of the
treatment system.
Upon completion of system installation and prior to media loading, the system was tested hydraulically
for pressure losses and leaks on August 20, 2008. Minimal pressure losses (< 2 psi) were observed across
each vessel and no leaks were detected in any piping or joints. After the vessels were drained, 500 Ib of
washed gravel underbedding and 20 ft3 of G2® media were loaded into each vessel on August 25, 2008.
Freeboard measurements were taken following gravel underbedding and G2® media loading. The amount
of G2® media loaded (20 ft3/vessel) was less than the design value of 25 ft3/vessel. After the control
valves were reinstalled on the vessels, the system was re-pressurized.
On August 28, 2008, the media in each vessel was backwashed (or "conditioned" per vendor) at 42 gpm
for approximately 25 min. The wastewater produced was collected in a 500-gal holding tank. Once the
holding tank was full, backwash was temporarily suspended and the pH of the wastewater was measured
and adjusted, if needed, using hydrochloric acid (HC1) before being discharged to the sanitary sewer.
This process was repeated until the wastewater pH was less than 8 and until the wastewater was free of
particulate. Approximately 1,000 gal of wastewater was produced from each vessel (or 4,500 gal from all
four vessels). Figure 4-9 presents pictures of G2® media conditioning. Upon completion of media
conditioning, the control valves were removed from the vessels for freeboard measurements again. Based
upon these measurements, media volume in each vessel was calculated to be 17.7 ft3/vessel (or 70.8 ft3
23
-------
Figure 4-8. Treatment System Installed
(Filtration Vessels with Magnum IT Valves andLogix 764 Controllers [top left],
Backwash Discharge Line [top right], Flow meter/Totalizer on Backwash
Discharge Line [bottom])
total). Table 4-4 presents freeboard measurements before and after media backwashing (or media
conditioning) along with calculated media volumes.
On September 5, 2008, the treatment system was disinfected by increasing the chlorine dosage at the
system inlet to approximately 40 mg/L (as C12). The system was allowed to sit for 24 hr before being
flushed of residual chlorine. After flushing, the chlorine dosage was reset for 0.5 mg/L (as C12) of
residuals at the system outlet. An initial bacteria sample collected by US Water Systems on September
10, 2008, returned negative. Per IDEM request, two additional bacteria samples were collected on
October 9, 2008, with both results returning negative. The results from the three bacteria tests were
submitted to IDEM on October 21, 2008.
24
-------
Figure 4-9. Conditioning of G2® Media
Table 4-4. Freeboard Measurements and Media Volumes Before and After
Backwash (or Media Conditioning)
Measurement
To Top of Gravel (in)
Vessel A
63
Vessel B
63
Vessel C
63
Vessel D
63
Before Backwash (or Media Conditioning)
To Top of Media (in)
Bed Depth (in)
Media Volume (ft3)
Total Volume (ft3)
29.5
33.5
19.7
29.25
33.75
19.9
29.5
33.5
19.7
29.5
33.5
19.7
79.0
After Backwash (or Media Conditioning)
To Top of Media (in)
Bed Depth (in)
Media Volume (ft3)
Total Volume (ft3)
33
30
17.7
33
30
17.7
33
30
17.7
33
30
17.7
70.8
25
-------
On September 22, 2008, two Battelle staff members visited the school to inspect the system. After
inspections, several installation/operational issues were identified. Table 4-5 summarizes the punch-list
items and corrective actions taken. One Battelle staff member returned to the school on October 9, 2008,
to provide sample collection training to the operator and inspect changes made to the punch-list items.
Table 4-5. Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions
Date(s)
09/22/08 -
10/02/08
09/22/08 -
10/02/08
09/22/08 -
10/02/08
09/22/08 -
10/02/08
09/22/08 -
10/02/08
09/22/08 -
10/31/08
Issues/Problems
Encountered
Total combined effluent (TT)
sample tap not installed as
requested in RFQ
Backwash (BW) sample tap
not installed as requested in
RFQ
Pressure gauges on filtration
vessels not as specified in
RFQ (0-200 psi)
Well pump hour meter not
reliable and needed to be
replaced
Backwash flowmeter/totalizer
not functioning properly
Each Logix 764 controller
controls two Magnum IT
valves; displays hard to read
due to location on top of
vessels
Corrective Action Taken
TT sample tap installed on
combined effluent line before
entering pressure tank
BW sample tap installed on
backwash discharge line
Pressure gauges on vessels
replaced with 0-100 psi gauges as
specified on RFQ
New hour meter installed on well
pump
Backwash flowmeter/totalizer
replaced with new version of the
same model
Two additional Logix 764
controllers purchased for Magnum
IT valves by EPA; all four Logix
764 controllers relocated to
mounted panel for easier use
Work Performed
by
US Water Systems
US Water Systems
US Water Systems
US Water Systems
US Water Systems
US Water Systems
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the one-year performance
evaluation study were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in
Table 4-6. From September 22, 2008, through October 29, 2009, the system operated for a total of 279
days, excluding weekends and Thanksgiving (from November 28 through 29, 2008) and Christmas
holidays (from December 22, 2008, through January 2, 2009). Based on the wellhead hour meter, the
system operated for 349.1 hr. Daily operating times fluctuated between 0 to 6.7 hr (Figure 4-10) and
averaged 1.4 hr/day when the school was in session and 0.3 hr/day when the school was out of session
(from June 3, 2009, through August 16, 2009).
The system treated approximately 941,500 gal of water based on totalizer readings from the Magnum IT
valves installed on each filter vessel. This throughput value matches well with that (941,142 gal) based
on a SeaMetrics MJR-200-2P totalizer installed at the wellhead. Imbalanced flows were observed among
the four vessels, with throughput values ranging from 21.5% to 27.8% of the total flow.
Flowrates through the four vessels (Figure 4-11) were tracked by both instantaneous readings from the
flowmeters on the vessels and calculated values by dividing incremental volume throughputs recorded
from each vessel totalizer by incremental operating times. As shown in Table 4-6, instantaneous flowrate
26
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Treatment System Operational Parameters
Operational Parameter
Duration
Average Daily Run Time
(hr/day)
Total Operating Time (hr)
Throughput (gal)(a) &
Hydraulic Loading Rate
(gpm/ft2)
Instantaneous Flowrate (gpm)
Calculated Flowrate (gpm)(b)
Operational Pressures (psi)
Value/Condition
1.4
0.3
Vessel
A
B
C
D
System
Vessel
A
B
C
D
System
Vessel
A
B
C
D
System
Vessel
A
B
C
D
System
09/22/08-10/29/09
(When school was in session)
(When school was out of session)
349.1
09/22/08-10/29/09 Hydraulic Loading Rate
241,900 1.6 (0.8-1.8)
202,500 1.6(0.7-2.1)
235,800 1.6(1.1-1.8)
261,300 1.8(1.3-2.3)
941,500
Range Average
6-13(c) 11.3
5-15(c) 11.3
8-13(c) 11.4
9-16(c) 13.1
28-50 (c) 47.1
Range Average
0.9-20.0(d) 12.0
0.7-23. 6(e) 11.7
0.7-25.9® 11.8
0.8-27.8fe) 13.4
22.7-66.7(h) 49.4
Inlet Outlet Ap_
43 (32-56) 38 (28-54) 5 (0-10)(l)
43 (32-54) 38 (28-56) 5 (0-10)G)
43 (30-56) 39 (28-57) 5 (0-12)00
43 ( 32-56) 39 (28-57) 5 (0-12)(1)
63 (30-80) 38 (30-58) 25 (0-43)(m)
(a) Including amount of treated and source water used for backwashing filtration vessels.
(b) Data calculated by dividing incremental throughput by incremental hour meter readings
recorded during 09/22/08 through 10/29/09.
(c) Excluding all instantaneous flowrate data from 09/22/08 through 10/31/08 due to
configuration of Logix 764 controllers, which provided flowrate readings only for combined
flows.
(d) Excluding four outliers on 10/13/08, 04/02/09, 08/11/09, and 08/12/09.
(e) Excluding all calculated flowrate data from 09/22/08 through 10/31/08 due to malfunctioning
valve; excluding seven outliers on 02/23/09, 03/31/09, 04/02/09, 06/30/09, 08/11/09,
08/12/09, and 10/12/09.
(f) Excluding five outliers on 10/13/08, 01/20/09, 04/02/09, 07/23/09, and 08/12/09.
(g) Excluding two outliers on 04/02/09 and 08/12/09.
(h) Excluding data from 09/22/08 through 10/31/08 as noted under footnote e and outliers on
12/03/08, 01/20/09, 02/23/09, 02/25/09, 03/31/09, 04/02/09, 06/30/09, 07/13/09, 07/23/09,
08/11/09, 08/12/09, and 10/12/09.
(i) Excluding three outliers from 11/12/08, 11/21/08, and 11/26/08.
CD Excluding two outliers from 11/21/08 and 11/26/08.
(k) Excluding six outliers from 09/22/08, 10/13/08, 10/14/08, 10/16/08, 11/21/08, and 12/05/08.
(1) Excluding four outliers from 09/22/08, 10/09/08, 10/14/08, and 11/21/08.
(m) Excluding two outliers from 10/09/08 and 11/04/08.
27
-------
09/19/08 10/29/08 12/08/08 01/17/09 02/26/09 04/07/09 05/17/09 06/26/09 08/05/09 09/14/09 10/24/09
Figure 4-10. Treatment System Daily Operating Times
-Vessels Calculated
SystemCalculated
- Vessel C Instantaneous
-VesselA Instantaneo
VesselCCalculated
VesselACalculated
- Vessel D Instantaneous
- Vessel D Calculated
Figure 4-11. Comparison of Instantaneous Flowrate Readings and Calculated Flowrate Values
28
-------
readings for Vessels A, B, C, and D averaged 11.3, 11.3, 11.4, and 13.1 gpm, respectively; calculated
flowrates for the same vessels averaged 12.0, 11.7, 11.8, and 13.4 gpm, respectively. Instantaneous
system flowrates ranged from 28 to 50 gpm and averaged 47.1 gpm, while calculated system flowrates
ranged from 22.7 to 66.7 gpm and averaged 49.4 gpm. Based upon these flowrates, the system operated
at approximately 80% of the design value of 60 gpm. While these two sets of flowrate data were
comparable to each other, the calculated values appeared to be scattered somewhat more than the
instantaneous readings (Figure 4-11). As such, only instantaneous readings were used for hydraulic
loading rate calculations.
Based on the instantaneous flowrates to the individual vessels, hydraulic loading rates for Vessels A, B,
C, and D ranged from 0.7 to 2.3 gpm/ft2 and averaged 1.6, 1.6, 1.6, and 1.8 gpm/ft2, respectively. The
hydraulic loading rates on the vessels were 14% to 24% lower than the design value of 2.1 gpm/ft2
(Table 4-3).
Ap across each vessel ranged from 0 to 12 psi and averaged 5 psi (Figure 4-12). The inlet pressure of the
system ranged from 30 to 80 psi and averaged 63 psi, while the outlet pressure of the system ranged from
30 to 58 psi and averaged 38 psi. The average system differential pressure was 25 psi.
09/19/08 11/08/08
12/28/08
04/07/09 05/27/09
Date
07/16/09
10/24/09
Figure 4-12. Differential Pressures Across Filtration Vessels
4.4.2 Chlorine Injection. As described in Section 4.2, a 12.5% NaOCl solution was used to
oxidize As(III) and Fe(II). The chlorine injection system experienced no operational irregularities during
the performance evaluation study. The PCM was set at approximately 55% by the vendor during system
startup and remained at that level throughout the entire duration of the study.
Chlorine dosages to the treatment system were carefully monitored by measuring solution levels in the
chlorine feed tank on a daily basis. The average dosage during the entire study period was 4.0 mg/L (as
C12), which was about 2.3 times higher than the target dosage of 1.7 mg/L (as C12) as shown in Table 4-3.
29
-------
Since free and total chlorine residual levels at the TT location were satisfactory and the average dose was
at the MDRL level, no adjustments were made to the pump or PCM during the study.
4.4.3 Backwash. As mentioned in Section 4.2.2, backwash can be performed manually or
automatically with either a time-, a throughput-, or a Ap-setpoint. Throughput was chosen as the setpoint
while the time and Ap setpoints were disabled. The Logix 764 controller on each vessel was set to
backwash after 90,000 gal of water had been processed with the controller starting at 90,000 gal and
counting down. The value was intentionally set high to allow the operator more control over when a
backwash was to occur. Due to the design of the system, a valve had to be manually opened to allow
treated water from the pressure tank to be used for backwash.
A total of eight backwash events occurred during the entire study period (Table 4-7). All but one of the
events were engaged manually by the operator. The only event initiated automatically occurred on
February 20, 2009, when the operator noticed that Vessel D had just been backwashed (as indicated by
the throughput counter that had been reset to 90,000 gal). Upon noticing this, Vessel B began to go into
backwash even though the throughput counter was far from reaching 0 gal. The operator aborted the
backwash and notified the Battelle Study Lead, who, in turn, contacted US Water Systems because none
of the throughput counters on the vessels was near 0 gal when backwash was initiated. Upon checking
the valve programming, it was determined that the "reserve capacity" on the valve was set at 30% of the
total capacity (i.e., 90,000 gal), causing the vessel to backwash at 27,000 gal. To prevent this from
happening again, the reserve capacity was set to 0% to allow the total capacity to be utilized before
backwash. After the adjustment, all vessels, including Vessel D, were backwashed by the operator on
February 25, 2009. (Because the valve to the pressure tank was not open during the automatic backwash
of Vessel D, the vessel was backwashed with insufficient pressure and flow. Therefore, Vessel D was
backwashed again.) According to the operator, wastewater from Vessel D was still "very dirty" during its
second backwash.
Table 4-7. Summary of Backwash Events
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Date(s)
09/22/08
10/02/08
10/31/08
12/03/08
02/20/09-
02/25/09
04/08/09
07/06/09
10/13/09
Vessel(s)
Backwashed
A(x2)
B(xl)
A, B, C, D
A, B, C, D
A B, C, D
A, B, C, D (x2)
A B, C, D
A B, C, D
A B, C, D
Remarks
Initiated to demonstrate valve controls during Battelle 's
site visit; each backwash was aborted after initiation
Taking place during operator training by US Water
Systems
Initiated by US Water Systems after installation and
relocation of Logix 764 controllers
Initiated by operator at request of Battelle for backwash
wastewater sample collection
Vessel D automatically backwashed on 02/20/09;
Vessel B automatically backwashed on 02/23/09, but
backwash aborted by operator; all vessels backwashed
by operator on 02/25/09
Initiated by operator at request of Battelle for backwash
wastewater sample collection
Initiated by operator at request of Battelle for backwash
wastewater sample collection
Initiated by operator at request of Battelle for backwash
wastewater sample collection
30
-------
Backwash wastewater samples were collected during four of seven manually initiated backwash events.
Backwash start/end times, durations, flowrates, and volumes of wastewater generated were tabulated and
are attached as Appendix C. Table 4-8 summarizes key parameters from the four backwash events. The
vessels were backwashed on an as-needed basis by the operator at the request of Battelle. The need for
backwash was primarily based on iron and arsenic levels in the finished water with volume processed and
time since last backwash being taken into consideration.
Table 4-8. Summary of System Backwash Operations
Vessel
A
B
C
D
Date
12/03/08
04/08/09
07/06/09
10/13/09
Average
12/03/08
04/08/09
07/06/09
10/13/09
Average
12/03/08
04/08/09
07/06/09
10/13/09
Average
12/03/08
04/08/09
07/06/09
10/13/09
Average
Instantaneous
Flowrate
(gpm)
50.1
52.0
55.0
47.0
51.0
46.8
43.0
54.2
54.0
49.5
51.0
46.4
55.0
56.0
52.1
48.0
55.7
54.0
58.0
53.9
Duration
(min)
26
26
26
26
Total
26
26
26
26
Total
26
26
26
26
Total
26
26
26
26
Total
Average Wastewater per Vessel (gal)
Combined Total Wastewater (gal)
Wastewater
Generated
(gal)
1,196.2
1,027.1
944.0
866.6
4,033.9
,119.3
,098.9
,150.0
,142.6
4,510.8
,282.1
,087.5
,227.0
,259.3
4,855.9
,210.0
,194.0
,201.7
,180.1
4,785.8
1,137
18,186
The four filters were backwashed one at time for 26 min. The backwash process consisted of counter-
current backwash for 14 min, co-current slow rinse for 5 min, and co-current fast rinse (7 min). During
Battelle's site visit on September 22, 2008, valve backwash settings were programmed for a 20 min
counter-current backwash followed by a 15 min co-current fast rinse. After the two additional Logix 764
controllers were installed on October 31, 2008, the backwash settings were inadvertently reset to their
default settings (i.e., backwash for 14 min, slow rinse for 5 min, and fast rinse for 7 min). Because
backwash results at these settings appeared to be satisfactory, these settings remained unchanged during
the remainder of the study.
Instantaneous backwash flowrates averaged 51.0, 49.5, 52.1, and 53.9 gpm for Vessels A, B, C, and D,
respectively; total amounts of backwash wastewater generated were 4,034, 4,511, 4,856, and 4,786 gal,
respective. The total volume of wastewater produced from the four vessels was 18,186 gal. The flowrate
and volume of the wastewater were recorded by a flowmeter/totalized located on the backwash discharge
line.
31
-------
4.4.4 Residual Management. Residuals expected by the operation of the system included
backwash wastewater and spent media. The G2® media was not replaced during the study period;
therefore, the only residual produced was backwash wastewater. Backwash wastewater was discharged to
the sanitary sewer via a sump. No permits were required by IDEM for discharging to the sewer.
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. There was no downtime for the treatment
system during the performance evaluation study. Minor control issues with the Logix 764 controllers had
been experienced before two additional controllers were purchased and mounted on an easily accessible
panel (Figure 4-13) on October 31, 2008. Before the two additional controllers were installed, one
controller was responsible for controlling two valves. Due to this configuration, only combined flowrates
could be read from the display, making it difficult to determine flowrates through each vessel. In
addition, when backwash was initiated manually by pressing the backwash button on the controller, the
vessel that had not been backwashed previously would undergo backwash. The vessel undergoing
backwash was not indicated on the display, therefore, the vessel that was being backwashed had to be
determined by other methods. After all the remaining items on the system inspection punch list
(Section 4.3.3, Table 4-5) were fixed, no operational problems were encountered.
Figure 4-13. System Control Panel with Logix 764 Controllers
The system O&M and operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to pre- and post-
treatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventive maintenance
activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
32
-------
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pretreatment consisted of chlorination using a 12.5% NaOCl
solution to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II), and provide chlorine residuals to the distribution system. In
addition to tracking levels of the NaOCl solution in the chemical feed tank, the operator measured
chlorine concentrations to ensure that residuals existed throughout the treatment train. Post-treatment was
not needed for this system.
System Automation. On and off of the treatment system was controlled by the 750-gal pressure tank
located downstream of the treatment system. When the pressure in the tank reached its low pressure
setpoint, the well pump was turned on. The well pump provided the necessary flow and pressure to move
chlorinated water through the filter vessels to the pressure tank, which would turn off the well pump when
the high pressure setpoint was reached. Chlorine injection was automated and would only occur when
flow was sensed by the SeaMetrics pulse meter. As previously mentioned, the pulse meter would send a
signal to the PCM, which, in turn, signaled the pump to inject the NaOCl solution. In addition, the
system was fitted with automated controls to allow for automatic backwash of the vessels based on time,
throughput, or Ap.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the daily demand on the operator was
about 20 min for visual inspection of the system and recording of operational parameters such as pressure,
volume, flowrate, and chemical usage on field log sheets. The operator's duties were to monitor and refill
the chlorine feed tank, adjust the chlorine dosage via the PCM, if necessary, and ensure that the valve to
the pressure tank was open during backwash. The operator's knowledge of the system limitations and
typical operational parameters were key to achieve the system performance objectives. The basis for the
operator's skills began with onsite training and a thorough review of the system operations manual;
however, increased knowledge and system troubleshooting skills were gained through hands-on
operational experience.
All Indiana public water systems (both community and non-transient/non-community) serving more than
250 people must have a certified operator. Operator certifications are granted by the State of Indiana after
passing an exam and maintaining a minimum amount of continuing education hours at professional
training events. The number of continuing education hours required depends on the type of distribution
and water treatment systems. Operator certifications are classified by the type of systems: distribution
systems are classified as small, medium, or large (DSS, DSM, DSL); water treatment systems are
classified from Classes 1 to 6 (WT1 to WT6). A DSS/WT2 certification is required to operate the
treatment system at Northeastern Elementary School. The school operator had a DSS/WT3 certification.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventative maintenance tasks included inspecting the system
piping and monitoring NaOCl levels in the chemical feed tank. Periodically, the operator checked and
cleaned, if needed, the paddlewheel in the flowmeter/totalizer on the backwash discharge line.
Particulates in backwash wastewater could build up on the paddles and impede and/or stop its rotation.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. The only chemical required for system
operation was the NaOCl solution used for chlorination. A 12.5% NaOCl solution, supplied by
Environmental Management and Development, Inc., was purchased as needed in 5-gal increments. The
solution was transferred via a hand pump to the day tank and injected without dilution.
4.5 System Performance
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-9 summarizes analytical results of arsenic, iron, and
manganese measured at all sampling locations across the treatment train. Table 4-10 summarizes results
of other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results for the
demonstration study. The treatment plant results are discussed below.
33
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
AC
TT
Sample
Count
26
26
14
14
14
14
19
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
26
26
14
14
14
14
19
12W
13
13
26
26
14
14
14
14
19
13
13
13
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
24.0
20.2
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.9
1.9
14.0
2.1
1.5
4.8
17.3
0.1
10.8
0.1
0.1
0.8
1.5
1.3
1,418
1,206
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
407
<25
<25
41.8
40.0
29.6
28.9
33.2
27.2
19.5
46.5
26.1
20.1
Maximum
39.3
36.1
9.1
7.9
11.2
9.4
6.2
26.4
4.9
3.1
15.7
27.4
3.9
23.9
0.8
0.8
10.7
4.8
2.6
2,333
2,369
466
422
661
556
291
1,491
219
34
59.7
62.3
71.0
71.9
71.3
69.0
72.7
58.8
59.0
73.2
Average
29.4
28.1
3.7
4.1
4.1
3.8
3.6
20.2
3.0
2.3
8.2
23.8
1.3
17.7
0.4
0.4
2.5
2.6
1.9
1,865
1,762
100
142
141
136
99
1,058
53
<25
51.3
51.5
50.1
49.8
50.4
48.6
52.0
52.3
41.6
51.1
Standard
Deviation
3.3
3.2
1.9
1.8
2.9
2.0
1.4
3.2
0.7
0.4
3.4
3.1
1.4
3.8
0.2
0.2
2.6
0.8
0.4
250
270
131
135
210
152
89.6
326
61.9
5.9
4.6
4.8
11.1
11.2
10.6
12.0
13.3
o o
J.J
10.4
16.1
(a) One outlier (i.e., 33 ug/L) on 04/28/09 was omitted.
Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the IR system was arsenic concentration
in treated water. Treatment plant water samples were collected on 26 occasions (including three set of
duplicate samples taken on December 29, 2008, March 17, 2009, and July 6, 2009) with field speciation
performed during 13 occasions at IN, AC, and TT sampling locations.
34
-------
Table 4-10. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TC
TD
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
26
26
14
14
14
14
19
26
26
14
14
14
14
19
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
26
26
14
14
14
14
19
26
26
14
14
14
14
19
25
25
13
13
13
13
18
(
Minimum
309
309
309
307
312
309
304
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
.4
.6
.6
.5
.4
.6
0.05
0.05
0.05
<10
<10
<10
13.6
13.2
15.7
15.6
15.5
15.6
16.0
11.0
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
.4
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
^oncentratioi
Maximum
361
357
359
355
355
356
350
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.4
2.6
1.8
2.4
2.3
2.4
0.05
0.05
0.05
22.3
17.5
19.7
17.0
17.6
30.6
29.3
28.6
29.8
25.6
24.0
12.0
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.1
2.8
7.7
2.6
1.9
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
i
Average
328
328
329
329
329
330
329
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.1
0.05
0.05
0.05
11.0
<10
<10
15.2
15.3
19.5
18.8
18.7
19.1
18.6
16.8
3.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
.8
.7
.5
.5
.5
.6
.5
Standard
Deviation
14.0
12.6
14.9
14.4
12.2
12.5
11.8
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
6.8
4.4
5.3
0.7
0.8
4.6
4.5
4.2
4.6
2.5
3.4
2.2
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
35
-------
Table 4-10. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results (Continued)
Parameter
pH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen (DO)
Oxidation-
Reduction
Potential (ORP)
Free Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
S.U.
s.u.
S.U.
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
22
22
20
22
22
20
13
13
12
22
22
20
12
12
10
12
22
20
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Concentration
Minimum
7.4
7.4
7.4
10.6
11.9
10.0
1.6
1.4
0.9
148
214
242
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
210
206
208
120
122
121
70.9
65.7
73.2
Maximum
7.7
7.6
7.6
19.2
18.4
21.2
4.5
3.6
6.4
353
418
409
0.1
0.9
0.9
0.1
1.4
1.4
303
298
289
179
189
182
153
139
143
Average
7.6
7.5
7.5
15.3
15.3
15.9
2.9
2.3
2.2
238
275
284
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.7
0.5
259
258
257
152
153
152
106
105
105
Standard
Deviation
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.0
1.8
2.3
1.0
0.7
1.6
44.6
44.2
40.3
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.4
28.2
26.7
23.4
18.4
18.9
15.4
20.3
18.1
19.2
Figure 4-14 contains three bar charts showing concentrations of particulate arsenic, As(III), and As(V) at
the IN, AC, and TT sampling locations for each of the 13 speciation events. Total arsenic concentrations
in raw water ranged from 24.0 to 39.3 ug/L and averaged 29.4 ug/L (Table 4-9). Of the soluble fraction,
As(III) was the predominating species, with concentrations ranging from 10.8 to 23.9 ug/L and averaging
17.7 ug/L. Soluble As(V) concentrations were low, ranging from 0.8 to 10.7 ug/L and averaging 2.5
ug/L. Particulate arsenic concentrations ranged from 4.8 to 15.7 ug/L and averaged 8.2 ug/L. The
arsenic concentrations were consistent with those collected previously during source water sampling
(Table 4-1).
Following chlorination (AC), total arsenic concentrations remained essentially unchanged at 28.1 ug/L
(on average). Arsenic, however, existed mostly as particulate arsenic (23.8 ug/L [on average]) with only
a small fraction remaining in the soluble form (3.0 ug/L). Of the soluble fraction, 0.4 ug/L (on average)
existed as As(III) and 2.6 ug/L (on average) as As(V), indicating effective oxidation of As(III) by
chlorine.
The oxidized arsenic was adsorbed onto and/or co-precipitated with iron solids, which also formed upon
chlorination. The solids were filtered out by the G2® media, reducing the average total arsenic
concentration from 29.4 ug/L in raw water to 3.6 ug/L in the system effluent at the TT sampling location.
Total arsenic concentrations after each vessel ranged from 0.7 to 11.2 ug/L and averaged 4.1, 4.1, 3.8, and
3.6 ug/L for Vessels A, B, C, and D, respectively.
36
-------
As shown in Figure 4-14, arsenic concentrations at the TT sampling location never exceeded the 10 (ig/L
arsenic MCL during the 13 speciation sampling events. Effluent samples from the four filter vessels
exceeded the MCL only once during the 14 regular, non-speciation sampling events: on February 23,
2009, Vessel C had an effluent concentration of 11.2 (ig/L (see Figure 4-15).
Iron. Total iron concentrations at the wellhead ranged from 1,418 to 2,333 (ig/L and averaged
1,865 (ig/L. About 57% (on average) of iron existed as soluble iron. Following chlorination, the average
total iron concentration remained essentially unchanged at 1,762 (ig/L with iron existing almost entirely
as iron solids. Arsenic-laden iron solids were removed by the four G2® media filters to levels that ranged
from
-------
Arsenic Species at Inlet (IN)
X X
-------
10/4/200S 11/3/2008 12/3/21
-At Inlet (IN) —•—After Chlorination (AC) After Tank A(TA} —*— After Tank B (TB) —**—After Tank C (TC) —I—After Tank D (TD) —"—Total Combined Effluent (TT)
Figure 4-15. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train
Figure 4-16. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train
39
-------
I!
'a
Total (AC)
Free (AC)
Total (TT)
Free (TT)
10/4/2008 11/3/2008 12/3/2008 1/2/2009 2/1/2009 3/3/2009
4/2/2009
Date
5/2/2009 6/1/2009 7/1/2009 7/31/2009 8/30/2009 9/29/2009
Figure 4-17. Chlorine Residuals Measured at AC and TT
4.5.2 Backwash Water and Solids Sampling. Table 4-11 presents analytical results of backwash
wastewater sampling. Backwash wastewater samples were collected by the operator from each of the
four G2® filtration vessels under four separate occasions. pH values of backwash wastewater ranged from
7.7 to 7.8 and averaged 7.7, which was approximately 0.2 pH units higher than that of the treated water.
TDS concentrations ranged from 288 to 420 mg/L and averaged 320 mg/L. TSS concentrations ranged
from 252 to 1,040 mg/L and averaged 677 mg/L. Concentrations of total arsenic, iron, and manganese
ranged from 92 to 1,081 (ig/L (averaged 521 (ig/L), 20,528 to 145,337 (ig/L (averaged 92,030 (ig/L), and
136 to 563 (ig/L (averaged 373 (ig/L), respectively.
As expected, total arsenic, iron, and manganese were present mostly as particulate in backwash
wastewater. Assuming that 1,137 gal of backwash wastewater would be generated (on average) from
each vessel during each backwash event (see Table 4-8) and that 677 mg/L of TSS would be produced,
approximately 2,914 g of solids were generated from each filtration vessel during each backwash event
and were discharged to the sewer. Based on the average particulate metal data in Table 4-11,
approximately 2.2 g of arsenic (i.e. 0.08% by weight), 396 g of iron (i.e. 13.6 % by weight), and 1.6 g of
manganese (i.e. 0.05 % by weight) were generated from each vessel during each backwash event.
Solids loadings to the sewer also were monitored through collection of backwash solids (Section 3.3.3).
Table 4-12 presents analytical results of the solid samples collected on July 6, 2009. Arsenic, iron, and
manganese levels in the solids averaged 1,120 (ig/g (or 0.1% by weight), 176,582 (ig/g (or 17.7% by
weight), and 429 (ig/g (or 0.04 % by weight), respectively. These amounts were comparable to those
derived from the backwash wastewater metal analysis (i.e. 0.08%, 13.6%, and 0.05%, respectively).
40
-------
Table 4-11. Filtration Vessel Backwash Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
Date
M
8.
s.u.
!/5
0
H
mg/L
!/5
!/5
H
mg/L
^
^
S 53
:•= 2
& &
mg/L
13
•^
o
-*^
5«
<
Hg/L
As (soluble)
Hg/L
As
(Particulate)
Hg/L
13
•^
o
-*^
£
Hg/L
Fe (soluble)
Hg/L
13
•^
o
B^
1
Hg/L
Mn (soluble)
Hg/L
Filtration Vessel A
12/03/08
04/08/09
07/06/09
10/13/09
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.8
320
320
326
294
755
660
552
984
NA
67.3
92.2
79.9
526
531
421
1,081
4.0
4.2
3.8
1.9
522
527
417
1,079
97,012
117,322
68,262
145,337
53
144
105
78
437
443
242
479
44.6
64.6
53.7
46.7
Filtration Vessel B
12/03/08
04/08/09
07/06/09
10/13/09
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.8
314
318
320
304
930
675
638
700
NA
85.9
81.2
94.7
536
435
409
825
3.6
3.5
2.8
1.9
533
432
406
823
111,983
101,975
84,209
113,067
35
100
<25
72
563
412
288
392
47.1
62.0
53.8
48.7
Filtration Vessel C
12/03/08
04/08/09
07/06/09
10/13/09
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.8
320
322
314
300
970
395
344
575
NA
71.6
70.2
156
628
242
302
828
3.7
3.7
3.3
2.6
625
238
299
825
113,839
54,886
49,439
110,581
37
114
54
134
524
239
190
389
48.2
58.2
52.3
47.6
Filtration Vessel D
12/03/08
04/08/09
07/06/09
10/13/09
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.7
320
420
324
288
1,040
535
252
820
NA
79.7
56.5
125
428
272
92.1
111
3.8
4.0
2.8
1.5
424
268
89.3
775
91,379
79,411
20,528
113,245
48
167
<25
<25
466
349
136
417
43.5
54.9
49.9
49.8
(a) Silica added after 12/03/08 sampling event.
NA = not analyzed; TDS = total dissolved solids; TSS = total suspended solids
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment
system, four first draw baseline distribution system water samples were collected from the kitchen sink
tap on April 1, 2008, June 10, 2008, July 1, 2008, and August 7, 2008. Prior to system installation, two
additional distribution locations were added - north water fountain and south water fountain. One
baseline sample was collected from each water fountain on August 14, 2008. Following the installation
of the treatment system, distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis from October 2008
through September 2009. Table 4-13 presents the results of the distribution system sampling.
The most noticeable change in the distribution water samples since system startup was a decrease in
arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged from 4.7 to 37.6
(ig/L and averaged 17.0 (ig/L. After system startup, arsenic concentrations ranged from 2.1 to 10.9 (ig/L
and averaged 5.2 (ig/L. Out of the 10 distribution samplings only one location (i.e, DS1 - kitchen sink)
had an arsenic concentration above the 10 (ig/L MCL (i.e., 10.9 (ig/L), which occurred on July 6, 2009.
The baseline iron concentrations ranged from less than the MDL of 25 (ig/L to 2,013 (ig/L, and averaged
986. After system startup, iron concentrations ranged from less than the MDL of 25 (ig/L to 375 and
averaged 84 (ig/L. Reduction in manganese levels was less significant than arsenic or iron with baseline
concentrations averaging 61.7 (ig/L and after-startup concentrations averaging 50.5 (ig/L, which is just
above the SMCL of 50 (ig/L.
41
-------
Table 4-12. Backwash Solids Sampling Results
Sample
Vessel A-Solids-A
Vessel A-Solids-B
Average
Vessel B-Solids-A
Vessel B-Solids-B
Average
Vessel C-Solids-A
Vessel C-Solids-B
Average
Vessel D-Solids-A
Vessel D-Solids-B
Average
Overall Average
Unit
lig/g
lig/g
Hg/g
lig/g
lig/g
ng/g
lig/g
lig/g
ng/g
lig/g
lig/g
ng/g
Hg/g
Mg
2,396
2,518
2,457
2,097
1,994
2,045
2,943
2,365
2,654
3,647
3,549
3,598
2,689
Al
11,864
13,639
12,751
12,104
12,071
12,087
11,577
11,223
11,400
13,435
14,019
13,727
12,492
Si
32,153
39,008
35,580
19,120
18,829
18,975
20,576
18,632
19,604
9,012
13,045
11,029
21,297
P
648
668
658
577
560
569
527
549
538
394
411
403
542
Ca
18,845
19,143
18,994
17,466
16,772
17,119
16,363
17,075
16,719
15,241
15,978
15,610
17,110
Fe
187,512
194,741
191,127
193,821
183,901
188,861
187,162
186,555
186,858
136,932
142,033
139,482
176,582
Mn
467
468
468
434
418
426
391
404
398
416
437
426
429
Ni
25.0
26.2
25.6
25.3
25.2
25.3
26.9
26.4
26.7
28.9
27.8
28.4
26
Cu
61.7
65.1
63.4
59.1
54.0
56.5
52.7
54.4
53.5
57.4
56.0
56.7
58
Zn
760
795
777
756
713
734
736
781
759
618
708
663
733
As
1,223
1,246
1,234
1,269
1,242
1,256
1,305
1,252
1,278
719
706
713
1,120
Cd
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
Ba
757
769
763
807
779
793
768
754
761
709
712
710
757
Pb
20.2
20.7
20.4
19.2
19.5
19.3
18.6
18.8
18.7
21.8
21.6
21.7
20
Collected on 07/06/09.
to
-------
Table 4-13. Distribution System Sampling Results
No. of
Sampling
Events
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Address
Sample Type
Flushed /1st Draw
Sampling Date
Date
04/01/08
06/10/08
07/01/08
08/07/08 & 08/1 4/08(b)
10/22/08
11/20/08
12/17/08
01/22/09
02/23/09
03/17/09
04/14/09
05/12/09
06/09/09
07/06/09
08/31/09
09/29/09
DS1
Kitchen Sink
LCR
1 st Draw
CD
P
0
'H
O>
CO
&
hrs
89.5
18.0
26.0
3.0
NA
NA
16.8
24.5
2.5
0.0
0.0
9.0
5.0
18.0
0.5
8.0
31
O.
s.u.
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.6
7.8
7.9
7.7
8.1
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
.£»
c
2
<
mg/L
318
328
317
326
326
309
319
319
347
337
327
341
331
352
327
326
3
M9/L
4.7
6.8
37.6
6.5
8.6
5.1
4.1
3.7
3.3
3.4
5.3
4.1
4.4
10.9
2.1
8.2
£
M9/L
<25
49
2,013
61
183
96
<25
45
<25
<25
<25
89
<25
375
<25
338
C
M9/L
59.1
60.1
67.9
63.5
31.4
29.9
35.8
41.7
50.8
46.3
43.1
56.1
61.7
197
61.3
50.5
£
M9/L
2.0
0.8
0.7
0.2
5.9
0.6
3.9
0.4
0.1
0.7
2.0
0.9
0.2
2.3
0.6
1.0
3
M9/L
66.1
44.5
61.4
87.8
520
130
532
29.1
73.0
130
151
36.7
269
282
33.8
27.5
DS2(a)
North Water Fountain
LCR
1 st Draw
CD
P
0
'H
O>
CO
&
hrs
NS
NS
NS
NA
NA
NA
16.8
24.5
2.5
0.0
0.0
10.0
5.0
17.5
2.0
8.0
31
O.
S.U.
NS
NS
NS
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.7
.£»
c
2
<
mg/L
NS
NS
NS
323
326
307
323
317
342
346
327
344
337
355
325
324
*
M9/L
NS
NS
NS
22.4
5.3
5.6
4.4
9.9
4.7
4.1
5.4
5.1
4.9
5.3
2.4
6.7
£
M9/L
NS
NS
NS
1,390
100
93
33
298
<25
<25
<25
111
<25
<25
<25
160
C
M9/L
NS
NS
NS
59.9
27.0
30.1
36.4
38.0
45.8
43.2
37.6
49.8
62.1
148
39.9
22.2
£
M9/L
NS
NS
NS
0.4
0.3
0.2
2.8
1.5
0.1
0.9
0.8
0.6
<0.1
0.6
0.3
1.3
O
M9/L
NS
NS
NS
6.5
261
210
667
387
145
183
134
128
206
291
122
314
DS3(a)
South Water Fountain
LCR
1 st Draw
0
P
0
'H
O>
CO
&
hrs
NS
NS
NS
NA
NA
NA
16.8
18.5
2.5
0.0
0.0
9.0
5.0
17.5
2.0
8.0
31
O.
S.U.
NS
NS
NS
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.6
8.0
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
.£»
c
2
<
mg/L
NS
NS
NS
320
324
309
321
319
349
348
325
346
335
352
330
330
*
M9/L
NS
NS
NS
24.0
6.1
5.5
4.5
4.3
4.0
3.2
4.8
4.7
4.9
9.7
2.5
6.6
£
M9/L
NS
NS
NS
1,439
93
122
<25
59
<25
<25
<25
102
66
296
26
132
C
M9/L
NS
NS
NS
60.1
28.2
30.8
34.4
43.7
56.3
49.7
41.5
55.4
4.9
123
52.1
13.9
£
M9/L
NS
NS
NS
0.4
1.1
<0.1
1.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
0.5
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.1
0.5
O
M9/L
NS
NS
NS
6.7
527
67.1
399
72.0
79.1
106
115
71.2
231
297
83.0
143
BL = Baseline Sampling; NA = not available; NS = not sampled
Lead action level = 15 ug/L; copper action level =1.3 mg/L
The unit for analytical parameters is ug/L except for alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3).
(a) Additional sampling locations added on 07/17/08.
(b) DS1 sample collected on 08/07/08; DS2 and DS3 collected on 08/14/08.
-------
Lead concentrations within the distribution system increased slightly from baseline levels while a
significant increase in the copper concentration was observed. Baseline lead concentrations ranged from
0.2 to 2.0 (ig/L and averaged 0.8 (ig/L; baseline copper concentrations ranged from 6.5 to 87.8 (ig/L and
averaged 45.5 (ig/L. After system startup, lead levels increased slightly to 1.1 (ig/L (on average) with no
samples exceeding the action level of 15 (ig/L. Copper concentrations increased significantly to an
average of 207 (ig/L with no samples exceeding the 1,300 (ig/L action level.
Measured pH values ranged from 7.6 to 8.1 and averaged 7.7. Alkalinity levels ranged from 307 to
355 mg/L (as CaCO3) and averaged 331 mg/L (as CaCO3). The arsenic treatment system did not affect
these water quality parameters of the distributed water.
4.6 System Cost
The cost of the treatment system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design
capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This required tracking of the capital cost for
the equipment, site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal,
electricity consumption, and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation for the
60-gpm treatment system was $128,118 (Table 4-14). The equipment cost was $103,118 (or 80% of the
total capital investment), which included $19,200 for four media vessels, $19,250 for 100 ft3 of G2®
media ($192.50/ft3 or $4.10/lb), $20,314 for process valves and piping, $22,950 for instrumentation and
controls, $2,250 for additional sample taps, $2,780 for the totalizer on the backwash discharge line and
$3,400 for shipping. Three O&M manuals and one-year O&M support were $256 and $6,000,
respectively. A change order for $2,118 was issued to the vendor on October 28, 2008 for the purchase of
two additional Logix 764 controllers, a mounting panel, and an hour meter.
The site engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of a process flow diagram and relevant
mechanical drawings of the treatment system, piping, valves, and a backwash discharge line, as well as
submission of a permit application package to IDEM for approval. The site engineering cost was $7,500,
or 6% of the total capital investment. Site engineering was performed by Ladd Engineering, a
subcontractor for US Water Systems.
The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the system, perform piping
tie-ins and electrical work, load and backwash the media, perform system shakedown and startup, and
conduct operator training. The installation was performed by US Water Systems and cost $17,500, or
14% of the total capital investment.
The capital cost of $128,118 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 60 gpm (or 86,400 gpd),
which results in $2,135/gpm (or $1.48 gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $12,093/year using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at the design
flowrate of 60 gpm to produce 86,400 gal/day, the unit capital cost would be $0.38/1,000 gal. During the
13-month demonstration period, the system produced approximately 941,500 gal of water (see Table 4-6)
or 844,600 gal from October 30, 2008 through October 29, 2009; at this reduced rate of usage, the unit
capital cost increased to $14.32/1,000 gal.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included cost for electricity and labor
for a combined unit cost of $2.26/1,000 gal as summarized in Table 4-15. Chlorination using NaOCl
existed prior to the installation of the treatment system for disinfection purposes. Because the presence of
the system did not affect the use rate of the NaOCl solution, the incremental chemical cost for
44
-------
Table 4-14. Capital Investment Cost for US Water Systems' Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
%of
Capital
Investment
Equipment Cost
Media Vessel (36-in x?2-in)
G2® Media (ft3)
Process Valves and Piping
Instrumentation and Controls
Additional Sample Taps
Totalizer on Backwash Line
O&M Manuals
One-Year O&M Support
Labor
Shipping
subtotal
Controller Panel (Change Order)
Hour Meter (Change Order)
subtotal
Equipment Total
4
100
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$19,200
$19,250
$20,314
$22,950
$2,250
$2,780
$256
$6,000
$4,600
$3,400
$101,000
$1,858
$260
$2,118
$103,118
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
80%
Engineering Cost
Subcontractor Material
Subcontractor Labor
Subcontractor Travel
Engineering Total
-
-
-
-
$7,500
$7,500
-
-
-
6%
Installation Cost
Vendor Material
Vendor Labor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
$9,500
$8,000
$17,500
$128,118
-
-
14%
100%
chlorination was negligible. Electrical power consumption was calculated based on the difference
between the average monthly cost from electric bills before and after system startup. The difference in
cost was negligible. The routine, non-demonstration related labor activities consumed approximately 20
min/day (Section 4.4.5). Based on this time commitment and a labor rate of $22/hr, the labor cost was
$2.26/1,000 gal of water treated.
Table 4-15. Operation and Maintenance Cost for AdEdge Treatment System
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Value
844,600
Remarks
From 10/30/08 through 10/29/09
Electricity Cost
Electricity Cost ($/month)
Electricity Cost ($71,000 gal)
Negligible
Negligible
-
-
Labor Cost
Labor (hr/wk)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($/l,000 gal)
1.67
$2.26
$2.26
20 min/day; 5 days/wk
Labor rate = $22/hr
Electricity Cost ($) + Labor Cost ($)
45
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
AdEdge. 2005. Operation and Maintenance Manual for Groundwater Treatment System: APU and
AD26 Package Units for Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Reduction.
Battelle. 2007. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology (QAPP
ID 355-Q-6-0). Prepared under Contract No.EP-C-05-057. Task Order No. 0019, for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
Battelle. 2008. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology Round 2a at Northeastern Elementary School in Fountain City, IN.
Prepared under Contract No. EP-C-05-057, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
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." JAWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
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.
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. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
46
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Fountain City, IN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Fountain City, IN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
>
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Fountain City, IN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
>
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Fountain City, IN
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as Ch)
Total Chlorine (as Cl 2)
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
1C?
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HS'L
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
MS'L
MS'L
MS'L
Mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
1 0/09/08
IN
319
1.0
1.7
2.3
<0.05
<10
15.9
12.0
1.5
7.7
15.0
4.2
254
0.0
0.0
247
147
101
29.0
23.4
5.6
21.8
1.7
1,466
1,085
49.8
51.5
AC
321
0.9
1.7
2.3
<0.05
<10
15.8
3.5
1.5
7.5
15.4
1.8
262
0.1
1.4
258
154
103
28.9
2.7
26.1
0.3
2.4
1,558
<25
50.4
26.1
TT
0.1
321
0.8
1.6
2.2
<0.05
<10
19.7
0.3
1.5
7.5
15.3
0.9
294
0.5
1.4
260
156
104
2.2
2.0
0.2
0.4
1.6
<25
<25
19.5
20.1
10/22/08
IN
324
1.0
-
15.3
11.0
1.8
7.5
14.0
2.1
241
0.0
0.0
28.0
-
1,570
-
59.7
AC
322
0.9
-
15.3
1.9
1.8
7.5
15.7
1.8
259
0.3
1.4
27.6
-
1,442
-
62.3
TA
0.2
322
0.9
-
20.0
1.0
1.9
7.4
14.7
1.8
270
0.3
1.3
5.2
-
254
-
29.6
TB
0.0
328
0.9
-
18.8
1.2
1.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.9
-
314
-
28.9
TC
0.2
328
0.9
-
18.3
0.9
1.8
7.4
14.6
1.8
265
0.3
1.3
5.9
-
287
-
33.2
TD
0.2
328
0.9
-
19.9
0.6
1.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.9
-
154
-
27.2
11/06/08
IN
315
1.0
1.6
2.1
<0.05
<10
14.2
19.0
1.0
7.6
19.2
2.2
197
0.1
0.0
210
120
89.6
26.8
19.9
6.9
16.3
3.7
1,606
812
52.8
52.1
AC
317
0.9
1.7
2.2
<0.05
11.1
14.0
2.4
0.9
7.5
18.4
2.0
266
0.5
1.2
214
122
92.1
28.4
2.1
26.2
0.6
1.5
1,828
<25
53.1
31.8
TT
0.2
310
0.9
1.7
2.2
<0.05
19.7
18.8
0.9
0.9
7.6
19.2
2.5
269
0.9
1.1
208
121
87.5
6.0
2.2
3.7
0.6
1.6
286
<25
27.8
26.8
11/20/08
IN
309
1.0
-
15.2
13.0
1.9
7.7
16.2
NA(b)
204
0.0
0.1
31.2
-
1,532
-
47.6
AC
309
0.9
-
15.3
12.0
2.6
7.6
15.4
NA(b>
214
0.0
1.0
36.1
-
1,849
-
48.6
TA
0.4
312
0.9
-
20.7
1.2
1.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.1
-
466
-
34.6
TB
0.1
307
0.9
-
19.6
1.3
1.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.9
-
422
-
34.1
TC
0.4
312
0.9
-
19.3
1.4
1.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.3
-
527
-
35.1
TD
0.3
309
0.9
-
20.4
2.1
1.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.4
-
556
-
30.1
TT
0.3
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
NA
7.6
16.1
NA(b>
252
0.8
0.9
NA
-
NA
-
NA
(a) As CaCOs
(b) DO measurement not taken due to probe calibration error
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Fountain City, IN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as Ch)
Total Chlorine (as Cl 2)
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10"
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9/L
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
12/04/08
IN
-
332
1.0
1.7
2.1
<0.05
22.3
15.2
19.0
1.6
7.5
14.8
NA
207
0.0
0.0
286
167
119
31.0
22.8
8.2
21.3
1.4
1,945
1,282
52.5
52.2
AC
-
334
0.9
1.7
2.1
<0.05
11.5
16.3
2.7
1.6
7.4
14.4
NA(b)
285
0.9
1.0
286
167
118
29.2
2.4
26.8
0.6
1.8
1,797
<25
53.2
39.8
TT
0.4
330
0.9
1.7
2.1
<0.05
<10
20.8
0.3
1.7
7.4
14.6
NA<">
283
0.1
0.1
280
164
116
2.7
2.4
0.2
0.7
1.8
<25
<25
41.9
42.7
12/29/08*'
IN
-
312
314
1.1
1.0
-
15.6
15.5
22.0
24.0
1.6
1.6
7.4
12.0
NA(b)
148
0.1
0.0
-
-
-
34.3
34.3
1,980
1,980
42.0
42.0
AC
-
309
312
0.9
1.0
-
15.4
15.3
4.3
3.4
2.4
1.7
7.4
17.5
NA(b)
270
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
28.1
32.1
1,671
1,767
43.2
42.1
TA
0.6
309
316
1.0
1.0
-
30.6
29.3
0.3
0.4
1.7
1.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.5
3.4
<25
<25
40.1
36.7
TB
0.3
316
316
1.0
1.0
-
29.3
28.9
0.4
0.5
2.1
1.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.5
3.3
54
<25
38.3
37.6
TC
0.6
316
316
0.9
0.9
-
28.6
27.9
0.3
0.2
1.8
1.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.0
3.0
<25
<25
39.7
36.9
TD
0.6
318
318
1.0
1.0
-
28.9
29.8
0.6
0.5
1.8
1.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.3
3.4
37
40
35.3
34.7
TT
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.4
17.8
NA(b)
242
0.2
0.3
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
01/07/09
IN
-
312
0.9
1.8
2.0
O.05
22.3
14.3
12.0
1.7
7.6
13.8
NA<">
207
0.1
0.0
303
150
153
39.3
26.4
12.9
23.9
2.5
1,786
1,395
41.8
46.5
AC
-
310
0.9
1.8
2.0
<0.05
13.5
14.5
6.3
1.5
7.5
14.2
NA(b)
271
0.1
0.2
284
145
139
30.2
2.8
27.4
0.4
2.4
1,206
<25
40.0
29.7
TT
0.5
321
0.9
1.8
2.0
<0.05
10.3
17.1
0.4
1.4
7.4
14.2
NA(b)
274
0.2
0.4
286
143
143
3.4
2.2
1.2
0.5
1.8
57
<25
35.3
37.2
1/22/0 9™
IN
-
317
1.0
-
14.0
15.0
1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
29.8
1,677
50.9
AC
-
319
1.0
-
14.9
2.7
1.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
29.8
1,429
49.5
TA
0.7
319
0.8
-
18.6
0.5
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.9
116
49.3
TB
0.4
317
0.9
-
16.7
0.6
1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
4.5
186
50.5
TC
0.6
315
0.9
-
17.2
0.4
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.9
136
48.9
TD
0.6
321
0.8
-
18.1
0.6
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
4.4
191
48.2
TT
0.6
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
(a) As CaCO 3
(b) DO measurement not taken due to probe calibration error
(c) Bed volumes from 01/06/09
(d) Water quality measurements were not taken on 01/22/09
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Fountain City, IN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as Cl 2)
Total Chlorine (as Cl 2)
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
1C?
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
•c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
02/11/09
IN
331
1.0
2.0
2.2
<0.05
13.4
15.1
14.0
1.4
7.6
16.5
NA(b)
327
0.1
0.0
260
157
103
29.4
18.2
11.2
17.5
0.8
1,601
407
47.9
46.5
AC
340
1.0
1.8
2.1
<0.05
13.7
15.6
2.7
1.4
7.6
16.8
NA(b)
324
0.4
1.1
266
163
104
29.7
2.9
26.8
0.8
2.1
1,611
<25
49.8
29.9
TT
0.7
338
1.0
1.8
2.1
<0.05
<10
18.1
1.0
1.4
7.4
16.8
NA(b)
325
0.0
0.8
258
158
100
6.2
2.4
3.9
0.8
1.6
291
<25
49.8
48.2
02/23/09
IN
342
1.0
-
-
14.6
18.0
1.4
7.6
13.1
NA(b)
213
0.1
0.0
-
-
31.9
-
-
-
1,773
50.9
-
AC
344
1.0
-
-
15.0
2.3
1.3
7.4
13.0
NA(b)
242
0.6
0.7
-
-
27.6
-
-
-
1,433
48.9
-
TA
0.9
340
0.9
-
-
17.1
0.5
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
4.5
-
-
-
197
50.3
-
TB
0.6
340
0.9
-
-
16.4
0.8
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
5.9
-
-
-
312
51.8
-
TC
0.8
344
0.9
-
-
16.7
2.0
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
11.2
-
-
-
661
52.1
-
TD
0.8
356
0.9
-
-
16.2
0.8
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
6.0
-
-
-
313
53.2
-
TT
0.8
NA
NA
NA
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA(e)
NA(e>
NA(e)
NA(e>
NA(e)
NA(e)
-
-
NA
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
03/03/09
IN
324
1.0
1.9
2.1
<0.05
16.4
15.8
11.0
1.7
7.6
10.6
NA
266
0.0
0.0
215
144
70.9
27.1
22.0
5.2
20.9
1.1
1,418
1,035
52.5
53.2
AC
328
1.0
1.8
2.2
<0.05
10.5
15.4
2.7
1.7
7.6
11.9
NA
261
0.4
0.3
206
140
65.7
25.1
3.2
21.9
0.4
2.8
1,310
43.9
49.3
50.2
TT
0.8
330
0.9
1.8
2.1
<0.05
<10
17.0
0.2
1.6
7.4
10.0
NA
257
0.4
0.4
221
148
73.2
1.9
1.8
0.1
0.4
1.3
<25
<25
53.0
51.3
03/17/09
IN
341
339
1.0
1.0
-
-
15.2
14.7
17.0
19.0
1.5
1.4
7.6
15.3
NA
220
0.0
0.0
-
-
31.2
31.1
-
-
-
2,062
2,101
54.0
54.8
-
AC
337
335
1.0
1.0
-
-
14.6
14.5
2.5
2.9
1.4
1.4
7.5
13.8
NA
247
0.6
0.6
-
-
30.5
29.9
-
-
-
1,800
1,888
54.5
53.7
-
TA
1.0
328
341
1.0
1.0
-
-
16.5
16.0
0.1
0.1
1.3
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
2.8
2.8
-
-
-
33
32
54.9
54.0
-
TB
0.7
337
339
1.0
1.0
-
-
16.2
16.3
0.4
0.5
1.3
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
4.4
4.7
-
-
-
188
188
55.2
54.8
-
TC
0.9
331
331
1.0
1.0
-
-
16.2
15.8
0.2
0.2
1.3
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
2.2
2.3
-
-
-
<25
32
55.7
55.3
-
TD
1.0
337
337
1.0
1.0
-
-
16.5
16.3
0.2
0.2
1.4
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
2.2
2.2
-
-
-
41
41
55.3
55.2
-
TT
0.9
331
344
1.0
1.0
-
-
17.0
16.7
0.2
0.3
1.3
1.3
7.4
12.8
NA
256
0.7
0.7
-
-
3.2
3.1
-
-
-
96
90
55.1
55.3
-
(a) AsCaCOs
(b) DO measurement not taken due to probe calibration error
(e) TT water quality measurements not taken on 02/23/09
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Fountain City, IN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
DH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as Cl 2)
Total Chlorine (as Cl 2)
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10*
mg/L|a|
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
•c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L|a|
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
03/31/09
IN
329
1.0
1.7
1.8
<0.05
<10
13.6
19.0
1.4
7.6
13.7
NA
212
NA
NA
266
163
103
24.5
19.2
5.4
16.6
2.6
2,049
1,241
50.5
51.3
AC
329
1.0
1.7
1.8
<0.05
12.8
13.2
5.3
1.5
7.6
13.7
NA
253
NA
0.8
249
156
92.3
20.2
2.9
17.3
0.5
2.5
1,579
107
53.1
48.4
TT
0.9
334
0.9
1.8
2.1
<0.05
<10
18.9
2.8
1.4
7.6
13.7
NA
255
NA
0.3
240
150
90.0
2.8
2.4
0.4
0.4
1.9
27
<25
49.8
51.3
4/1 4/0 9"'
IN
332
1.0
-
-
-
:
14.5
16.0
1.5
7.7
17.1
2.0
215
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
28.0
-
2,228
53.8
-
AC
334
0.9
-
-
-
:
14.6
3.6
1.7
7.6
17.1
2.1
255
0.7
0.8
-
-
-
27.0
-
2,255
54.7
-
TA
1.1
329
0.9
-
-
-
:
18.3
0.7
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.4
-
<25
55.6
-
TB
0.8
325
0.9
-
-
-
:
18.0
0.3
1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.2
-
<25
54.8
-
TC
1.0
332
0.9
-
-
-
:
17.8
0.3
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.2
-
<25
55.4
-
TD
1.1
323
0.9
-
-
-
:
17.9
0.6
1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.2
-
<25
54.7
-
TT
1.0
NA
NA
-
-
-
:
NA
NA
NA
7.5
17.1
1.9
270
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
NA
-
NA
NA
-
04/28/09
IN
332
1.0
1.8
2.1
<0.05
10.2
17.0
19.0
1.4
7.6
15.2
1.6
272
NA
NA
271
164
107
26.7
16.9
9.8
16.2
0.8
2,076
33
58.1
55.6
AC
332
0.9
1.7
2.1
<0.05
<10
17.6
2.4
1.4
7.6
15.2
3.6
278
NA
0.3
273
164
108
27.2
3.3
23.9
0.4
2.9
1,955
46
58.9
38.7
TT
1.1
344
0.9
1.7
2.1
<0.05
<10
18.5
1.6
1.4
7.6
15.1
6.4
275
NA
0.2
261
159
102
2.4
3.0
<0.1
0.4
2.6
54
<25
58.3
59.8
05/12/09
IN
346
1.0
1.7
2.2
<0.05
10.5
16.0
19.0
1.9
7.6
14.8
2.1
217
NA
0.0
222
121
100
26.4
21.6
4.8
20.3
1.3
2,110
1,491
56.6
55.0
AC
341
1.0
1.9
2.0
<0.05
<10
16.5
2.4
1.6
7.5
13.0
1.5
283
NA
0.4
236
130
105
24.5
3.6
21.0
0.3
3.2
1,826
112
54.6
53.0
TT
1.1
346
1.0
1.8
2. 1
<0.05
<10
19.1
1.0
1.5
7.4
14.8
0.9
280
NA
0.3
260
143
117
3.9
2.5
1.4
0.1
2.3
192
34
57.8
58.7
05/26/09
IN
332
1.0
-
-
-
:
15.6
21.0
1.6
7.6
15.7
3.5
224
NA
NA
-
-
-
31.7
-
2,333
53.0
-
AC
332
1.0
-
-
-
:
15.6
6.1
1.6
7.5
13.5
2.8
242
NA
0.5
-
-
-
32.3
-
2,369
51.3
-
TA
1.3
329
1.0
-
-
-
:
19.1
1.2
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.6
-
97
54.6
-
TB
1.0
332
1.0
-
-
-
:
18.3
0.4
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.8
-
112
54.7
-
TC
1.3
329
1.0
-
-
-
:
18.9
0.6
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.2
-
79
53.3
-
TD
1.3
329
1.0
-
-
-
:
18.0
0.8
1.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
4.8
-
225
53.2
-
TT
1.2
329
1.0
-
-
-
:
18.7
0.5
1.7
7.5
17.0
1.4
281
NA
0.3
-
-
-
4.1
-
135
54.0
-
(a) As CaCOs
(f) bed volumes from 04/13/09
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Fountain City, IN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as Cl 2)
Total Chlorine (as Cl 2)
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
1C?
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
•c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
06/09/09
IN
333
1.0
1.8
1.8
<0.05
<10
15.5
18.0
1.5
7.5
16.2
2.0
288
NA
0.0
267
175
92
26.1
18.1
8.0
16.3
1.8
2,255
1,167
53.8
53.9
AC
329
0.9
2.0
1.9
<0.05
<10
15.3
3.9
1.5
7.6
16.0
1.4
287
NA
0.2
264
173
91
22.5
2.2
20.4
0.4
1.8
1,896
<25
53.9
51.4
TT
1.3
329
1.0
1.7
1.8
<0.05
<10
23.5
0.9
1.6
7.5
16.2
1.4
285
NA
0.0
251
166
85
4.0
2.6
1.5
0.3
2.3
148
<25
56.3
57.5
07/06/09 (s)
IN
359
361
1.0
1.0
-
-
15.7
15.9
17.0
18.0
1.5
7.4
15.2
3.8
235
NA
NA
-
-
28.5
28.7
-
-
-
1,758
1,945
49.7
48.8
-
AC
350
357
0.9
1.0
-
-
16.1
15.9
1.3
1.3
1.5
7.5
14.1
3.0
247
NA
0.6
-
-
26.2
27.5
-
-
-
1,895
1,850
50.7
50.6
-
TA
1.3
355
359
0.9
0.9
-
-
16.6
17.5
0.2
<0.1
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
2.5
2.5
-
-
-
<25
<25
55.7
55.8
-
TB
1.1
355
355
0.9
0.9
-
-
16.3
16.2
0.2
0.1
1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
2.7
2.7
-
-
-
<25
<25
54.7
54.5
-
TC
1.3
341
355
0.9
0.9
-
-
16.7
16.4
0.1
0.1
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
2.7
2.5
-
-
-
<25
<25
55.1
55.5
-
TD
1.4
346
340
0.9
0.9
-
-
16.5
16.3
0.2
0.2
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
2.3
2.3
-
-
-
<25
<25
54.7
53.7
-
TT
1.3
350
330
0.9
0.9
-
-
16.7
16.8
0.1
0.3
1.6
7.4
16.6
2.2
274
NA
0.5
-
-
2.8
2.4
-
-
-
<25
<25
52.6
54.6
-
07/30/09 (h)
IN
320
1.0
2.4
1.5
<0.05
17.8
15.1
18.0
7.7
7.6
17.5
3.6
248
NA
NA
271
137
134
29.6
14.0
15.7
12.6
1.3
1,827
571
57.8
58.8
AC
322
1.0
1.8
1.4
<0.05
17.5
14.9
4.4
2.0
7.5
17.5
1.8
256
NA
0.0
260
131
128
29.7
4.9
24.8
<0.1
4.8
1,816
219
56.9
59.0
TT
1.3
320
1.0
1.8
1.6
<0.05
18.5
25.6
0.2
1.9
7.4
21.2
1.1
267
NA
0.1
265
134
132
3.4
2.0
1.3
<0.1
1.9
54
<25
72.7
73.2
08/31/09
IN
325
0.9
1.4
2.4
<0.05
<10
15.4
13.0
1.8
7.6
15.1
4.5
250
NA
NA
-
-
28.3
21.5
6.8
10.8
10.7
1,898
51.4
-
AC
327
0.9
2.6
2.2
<0.05
<10
15.3
1.9
1.8
7.4
15.1
3.5
258
NA
0.6
-
-
24.9
3.0
21.9
<0.1
2.9
1,708
51.9
-
TA
1.5
325
0.9
-
-
15.7
0.1
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
0.8
-
-
-
<25
71.0
-
TB
1.2
323
0.9
-
-
15.6
1.6
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
0.8
-
-
-
<25
71.9
-
TC
1.4
325
0.9
-
-
15.5
<0.1
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
<25
71.3
-
TD
1.6
325
0.9
-
-
15.6
0.2
1.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
1.9
-
-
-
125
69.0
-
TT
1.4
325
0.9
1.8
2.4
<0.05
<10
16.0
1.0
1.6
7.4
15.1
2.2
270
NA
1.1
-
-
1.9
1.5
0.4
<0.1
1.4
82
71.8
-
(a) AsCaCOs
(g) bed volumes from 07/13/09
(h) bed volume from 07/27/09
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Fountain City, IN (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as Cl 2)
Total Chlorine (as Cl 2)
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
1C?
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
•c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
09/1 5/09
IN
-
309
1.0
1.5
2.0
<0.05
<10
15.3
15.3
1.7
7.6
18.3
3.6
243
NA
NA
283
179
104
24.0
18.4
5.6
16.1
2.3
1,814
953
51.7
52.1
AC
-
317
0.9
1.6
2.1
<0.05
<10
15.1
15.1
1.6
7.5
18.3
2.1
365
NA
0.6
298
189
109
27.2
2.7
24.5
0.4
2.3
2,050
<25
53.8
37.2
TT
1.5
304
0.9
1.6
1.9
<0.05
<10
17.1
17.1
1.6
7.5
18.3
1.2
365
NA
0.9
289
182
107
6.2
3.1
3.0
0.7
2.4
108
<25
64.4
65.9
09/29/09
IN
-
322
1.0
-
15.1
17.0
1.4
7.4
16.8
2.9
353
NA
NA
-
-
27.3
-
1,694
-
49.3
AC
-
320
0.9
-
15.2
2.6
1.3
7.4
15.8
2.6
418
NA
0.8
-
-
27.9
-
2,024
-
50.1
TA
1.6
326
0.9
-
17.6
0.6
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
4.6
-
134
-
58.9
TB
1.3
322
0.9
-
17.0
0.7
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
4.6
-
147
-
55.4
TC
1.6
324
0.8
-
17.0
1.7
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
4.9
-
167
-
57.8
TD
1.8
326
0.9
-
17.2
0.4
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
4.6
-
135
-
56.3
TT
1.6
324
0.9
-
17.3
0.8
1.3
7.4
16.0
4.0
409
NA
0.4
-
-
5.4
-
205
-
57.8
(a) AsCaCO3
-------
APPENDIX C
BACKWASH DATA
-------
Date
12/03/08
04/08/09
07/06/09
10/13/09
Date
12/03/08
04/08/09
07/06/09
10/13/09
Date
12/03/08
04/08/09
07/06/09
10/13/09
Tank A "TA" Backwash
Backwash Start
Time
9:00 AM
9:30 AM
8:00 AM
10:30 AM
gal x100
686
664
488
0
Backwash End
Time
9:26 AM
10:00 AM
8:26 AM
10:59 AM
gal x100
899
899
899
867
Backwash
Row rate
gpm
50.1
52.0
55.0
47.0
Backwash
Duration
min
26
26
26
26
Wastewater
Generated
gal
1,196.2
1,027.1
944.0
866.6
Tank B "TB" Backwash
Backwash Start
Time
9:30 AM
10:00 AM
8:30 AM
11:03 AM
gal x100
696
682
495
0
Backwash End
Time
9:56 AM
10:30 AM
8:56 AM
11:33 AM
gal x100
899
899
899
1143
Backwash
Row rate
gpm
46.8
43.0
54.2
54.0
Backwash
Duration
min
26
26
26
26
Wastewater
Generated
gal
1,119.3
1,098.9
1,150.0
1,142.6
Tank C "TC" Backwash
Backwash Start
Time
10:10 AM
10:30 AM
9:00 AM
11:33 AM
galxlOO
680
674
490
0
Backwash End
Time
10:36 AM
10:55 AM
9:26 AM
12:00 PM
galxlOO
899
899
899
1259
Backwash
Row rate
gpm
51.0
46.4
55.0
56.0
Backwash
Duration
min
26
26
26
26
Wastewater
Generated
gal
1,282.1
1,087.5
1,227.0
1,259.3
Date
12/03/08
04/08/09
07/06/09
10/13/09
Tank D "TD" Backwash
Backwash Start
Time
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
9:30 AM
12:07 PM
gal x100
700
655
391
0
Backwash End
Time
11:11 AM
11:30 AM
9:56 AM
12:33 PM
gal x100
899
899
899
1180
Backwash
Row rate
gpm
48.0
55.7
54.0
58.0
Backwash
Duration
min
26
26
26
26
Wastewater
Generated
gal
1,210.0
1,194.0
1,201.7
1,180.1
C-l
------- |