EPA/600/R-11/073
July 2011
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Coagulation/Filtration
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Conneaut Lake Park in Conneaut Lake, PA
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Abraham S.C. Chen*
Ryan J. Stowe§
Lili Wang*
§Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693
JALSA Tech, LLC, Powell, OH 43065-6082
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 Conneaut Lake Park (the Park) in Conneaut Lake, PA. The
main objective of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of AdEdge Technologies' (AdEdge)
coagulation/filtration (C/F) system, using GreensandPlus™ media (branded as AD-GS+ by AdEdge), in
removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |o,g/L. Additionally,
this project evaluated (1) the reliability of the treatment system, (2) the required system operation and
maintenance (O&M) and operator 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 included system operation, water quality (both across the
treatment train and in the distribution system), process residuals, and capital and O&M cost.
The community water system (CWS) was supplied primarily by one groundwater well (i.e., Well No. 2)
to meet an average daily and a maximum demand of 124,000 and 231,000 gal/day (gpd), respectively.
The daily demand changed seasonally with visitors to the park during the summer months. Total arsenic
concentrations in source water ranged from 26.8 to 37.3 |o,g/L and averaged 29.0 (ig/L. Soluble As(III)
was the predominating arsenic species, with concentrations ranging from 11.3 to 30.8 (ig/L and averaging
26.2 (ig/L. Total iron concentrations in source water averaged only 188 |o,g/L with 78% existing in the
soluble form. Therefore, iron addition was necessary to facilitate arsenic removal.
The system consisted of three 54-in x 60-in in-parallel, epoxy-lined, carbon steel vessels rated for 100 psi
operating pressure. Each vessel contained approximately 6.5 ft3 of gravel overlain by 39 ft3 of
GreensandPlus™ and 6 ft3 of anthracite #1 (compared to 11.5, 32, and 16 ft3 of gravel, GreensandPlus™,
and anthracite #1, respectively, by design). GreensandPlus™ is a black, granulated media with a silica
sand core coated with manganese dioxide (MnO2) for iron and manganese removal from drinking water
supplies.
The treatment system was designed for a peak flowrate of 250 gal/min (gpm) (83.3 gpm per vessel).
Because of the high pressure (i.e., >100 lb/in2 [psi]) produced by the well pump and to prevent damage to
the filtration vessels, the pressure and flowrate were reduced to no greater than 95 psi and 190 gpm (63.3
gpm/vessel) using a Cla-Valve model 49-01 pressure/flow-reducing valve. The reduced flowrate was
within the permitted system flowrate of 200 gpm by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) and corresponded to a filtration rate of 4.0 gpm/ft2 with all three filters online and 5.3
gpm/ft2 with two filters online and one in backwash.
The pre-existing gas chlorination system was replaced with a liquid sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) system
consisting of a 75-gal day tank and a metering pump that was pulse controlled by a programmable logic
control (PLC). Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) was injected prior to the pressure/flow-reducing valve to
oxidize soluble As(III) to soluble As(V) and maintain a total chlorine residual of 0.3 to 0.5 mg/L (as C12)
in the distribution system. Iron was added in the form of ferric chloride (FeCl3) after the pressure/flow-
reducing valve and prior to the filtration vessels to supplement natural iron in Well No. 2 water. The
addition of iron aided in the formation of arsenic-laden solids, which were filtered by GreensandPlus™
media. The iron addition system consisted of a 75-gal day tank and a metering pump that also was pulse
controlled by the PLC.
From December 03, 2009, through the end of the performance evaluation study on December 17, 2010,
the treatment system operated for atotal of 2,414 hr, treating approximately 20,114,000 gal of water. The
average daily run time was 11.9 hr/day when the Park was in operation and 4.3 hr/day when the Park was
not in operation. Flowrates through the filtration vessels were 53, 49, and 51 gpm for Vessels A, B, and
IV
-------
C, respectively, based on readings from a flow meter/totalizer installed on each vessel. Average filtration
rates for Vessels A, B, and C were 3.3, 3.1, and 3.2 gpm/ft2, respectively.
Following chlorination and iron addition (with an average dosage of 1.8 mg/L [as Fe]), soluble As(III)
concentrations were significantly reduced to 0.2 (ig/L while particulate arsenic concentrations were
correspondingly increased to 27.8 (ig/L. Except for two sampling events where iron was not added due to
malfunctioning of the metering pump, removal of arsenic-laden iron particles by the GreensandPlus™
filters was effective, reducing total concentrations to 2.8 (ig/L (on average). Iron leakage, however, was
observed; concentrations as high as 506 (ig/L (or 64 (ig/L [on average]) were measured in the filter
effluent. The C/F system also reduced total manganese concentrations from 64.3 ug/L (all in the soluble
form) in source water to 2.4 (ig/L (on average).
Results of a run length study indicated that arsenic breakthrough at 10 (ig/L from a filter occurred after
43.5 hr in service. However, iron breakthrough at 300 (ig/L occurred much earlier at 26.6 hr. To
maintain reasonably good water quality, the filters must be backwashed no less than once every 26 hr.
Because the average daily run time was 11.9 hr/day when the Park was in operation and 4.3 hr/day when
the Park was not in operation, the filters required backwashing once every 2 to 3 days when the Park was
in operation and once every 6 days when the Park was not in operation.
During the performance evaluation study, each of the three filtration vessels was backwashed 85 times
(on average). Backwash could be initiated manually or automatically with a time, a throughput, or a
differential pressure (Ap) setpoint. Time was chosen as the setpoint during most of system operation.
Backwash of a vessel included a 9-min upflow wash and a 1-min downflow rinse both at 184 gpm (on
average), producing 1,840 gpm of wastewater per vessel or 5,520 gal per event. Solids produced were 3.5
kg per vessel, consisting of 0.3 to 0.5% (by weight) of arsenic, 36.3 to 37.4% of iron, and 1.3 to 3.3% of
manganese. Backwash wastewater produced was discharged into two 4,000-gal holding tanks. After
settling for at least 4 hr, the supernatant was recycled to the header of the filtration skid and the sludge
after accumulating was discharged to a sewer.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after system startup showed a decrease
in arsenic concentration (i.e., from 10.6 to 5.0 (ig/L [on average]). Iron concentrations were elevated after
system startup apparently due to iron leakage through the filtration vessels. Iron particles that penetrated
through the filters significantly increased arsenic concentrations in two instances. Manganese
concentrations were reduced to below the secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL). Lead and
copper levels increased slightly but were significantly lower than the respective action levels.
The capital investment cost for the system was $191,970, including $136,744 for equipment, $21,726 for
site engineering, and $33,500 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 250 gpm (360,000
gal/day [gpd]), the normalized capital cost was $768/gpm ($0.53/gpd). The O&M cost was $0.48/1,000
gal and only included the cost associated with chemical addition, electricity consumption, and labor.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 8
3.1 General Project Approach 8
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 9
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 11
3.3.1 Source Water 11
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 11
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids 11
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 11
3.4 Sampling Logistics 12
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 12
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 12
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 12
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 14
4.1 Facility Description and Preexisting Treatment System Infrastructure 14
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 17
4.1.2 Distribution System 18
4.2 Treatment Process Description 18
4.2.1 Technology Description 19
4.2.2 System Design and Treatment Process 19
4.3 System Installation 25
4.3.1 Permitting 25
4.3.2 Building Preparation 25
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 27
4.4 System Operation 28
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 28
4.4.2 Chlorine Injection 31
4.4.3 Iron Addition 31
4.4.4 Backwash and Backwash Reclaim System 32
4.4.5 Residual Management 33
4.4.6 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 33
4.5 System Performance 35
VI
-------
4.6
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 35
4.5.2 Filter Run Length Study 43
4.5.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids Sampling 46
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling 48
System Cost 50
4.6.1 Capital Cost 50
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 51
5.0 REFERENCES 52
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDICES
OPERATIONAL DATA
ANALYTICAL DATA
BACKWASH DATA
FIGURES
Figure 4.1. Conneaut Lake Park Arsenic Demonstration Site 14
Figure 4-2. Well Houses No. 1 (left) and No. 2 (right) at Conneaut Lake Park 15
Figure 4-3. Inside of Well Houses No. 1 (left) and No. 2 (right) 15
Figure 4-4. 75,000-gal Water Tower at Conneaut Lake Park 16
Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram with Sampling Schedules and Locations 21
Figure 4-6. NaOCl and FeCl3 Addition Systems 23
Figure 4-7. Cla-Val Model 49-01 Pressure- and Flow-Reducing Valve 23
Figure 4-8. Carbon-Steel Filtration Vessels with Associated Piping and Valves 24
Figure 4-9. Schematic of Backwash Reclaim System 25
Figure 4-10. Backwash Reclaim System 26
Figure 4-11. New Treatment Building at Site of Former Well Houses No. 1 and No. 2 26
Figure 4-12. Treatment System Daily Operating Times 30
Figure 4-13. Comparison of Instantaneous Flowrate Readings and Calculated Flowrate Values 30
Figure 4-14. Differential Pressures Across Filtration Vessels 31
Figure 4-15. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, BF, and TT Sampling Locations 40
Figure 4-16. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train 41
Figure 4-17. Iron Dosages to Source Water 42
Figure 4-18. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train 42
Figure 4-19. Chlorine Residuals Measured at BF and TT Locations 44
Figure 4-20. Filter Run Length Study Results vs. Throughput 45
Figure 4-21. Filter Run Length Study Results vs. Filter Run Time 45
vn
-------
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 1 -2. Number of Demonstration Sites Under Each Arsenic Removal Technology 5
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Activities and Completion Dates 8
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 9
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes 10
Table 4-1. Source Water Data for Conneaut Lake Park 17
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of Filtration Media 19
Table 4-3. Design Features of AdEdge Coagulation/Filtration System 22
Table 4-4. Freeboard Measurements and Media Volumes Before and After Backwash 27
Table 4-5. Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions 28
Table 4-6. Summary of Treatment System Operational Parameters 29
Table 4-7. Summary of System Backwash 32
Table 4-8. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 36
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 37
Table 4-10. Results of Run Length Study 44
Table 4-11. Filtration Vessel Backwash Sampling Results 47
Table 4-12. Backwash Solids Sampling Results 48
Table 4-13. Distribution System Sampling Results 49
Table 4-14. Capital Investment Cost 50
Table 4-15. Operation and Maintenance Cost 51
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
bgs below ground surface
Ca calcium
Cl chloride
CLJMA Conneaut Lake Joint Municipal Authority
C/F coagulation/filtration
CRF capital recovery factor
CWS community water system
DBF disinfection byproduct
DO dissolved oxygen
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F
Fe
gpd
gph
gpm
HOPE
HIX
hp
ICP-MS
ID
IR
IX
fluoride
iron
gallons per day
gallons per hour
gallons per minute
high-density polyethylene
hybrid ion exchanger
horsepower
inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
identification
iron removal
ion exchange
LCR
MCL
MDL
MEI
Mg
Mn
mV
Lead and Copper Rule
maximum contaminant level
method detection limit
Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
magnesium
manganese
millivolts
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NS not sampled
NSF NSF International
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
O&M operation and maintenance
OIP operator interface panel
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
PA DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
PO4 orthophosphate
PLC programmable logic controller
POU point-of-use
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RFP request for proposals
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO4 sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TDH
TDS
TOC
TSS
total dynamic head
total dissolved solids
total organic carbon
total suspended solids
voc
volatile organic compound
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Mr. Bob Morrow and Mr. George Glancy at
Conneaut Lake Park for their dedication in monitoring the treatment system and collecting samples from
the treatment and distribution systems throughout the 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 (SDWA) mandates that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (< 10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems to reduce compliance costs. As part of
this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites. In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28.
With 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 250-gal/min (gpm) coagulation/filtration (C/F) system designed and
fabricated by AdEdge Technologies (AdEdge) was selected for demonstration at Conneaut Lake Park in
Conneaut Lake, PA. AD-GS+ (GreensandPlus™) was used as the filtration media.
As of May 2011, all 50 systems were operational and the performance evaluations of 49 systems were
completed.
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
Technologies selected for Rounds 1, 2, and 2a demonstration included adsorptive media (AM), iron
removal (IR), 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 flow rates, 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 AdEdge treatment system at the Conneaut Lake Park in
Conneaut Lake, PA, from December 3, 2009 through, December 17, 2010. The types of data collected
include system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system),
residuals, and capital and O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
(gpm)
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
70™
10
100
22
550
17
15
375
300
250
10
250(e)
21
38W
39
33
36W
30
27w
21
25
30W
19W
28W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
l,806(d)
<25
<25
48
270™
157™
1,312™
1,615™
7.9
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
7.6
7.7
7.3
8.2
7.3
8.0
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Goshen, IN
Fountain City, IN
Waynesville, IL
Geneseo Hills, IL
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
Lead, SD
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Clinton Christian School
Northeastern Elementary School
Village of Waynesville
Geneseo Hills Subdivision
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
Terry Trojan Water District
AM(E33)
IR (Macrolite) with ID
IR (Aeralater)
IR (Macrolite)
IR&AM(E33)
IR (G2)
IR (Greensand Plus)
AM(E33)
IR (Macrolite)
IR (Macrolite) with ID
IR (Macrolite)
IR (Macrolite)
IR&AM(E33)
Process Modification
AM (ArsenXnp)
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
AdEdge
US Water
Peerless
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
SolmeteX
640
400
340(e)
40
25
60
96
200
375
140
250
20
250
250
75
14W
13(a)
16W
20W
29W
27W
32W
25W
17W
39W
34W
25W
42(>0
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
Hot Springs Mobile Home Park
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School District
IR & AM (Adsorbsia)
IR (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
Filter Tech
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
30
770(e)
150
40
15.4W
35W
19W
56W
332™
2,068™
95
<25
7.5
7.0
7.8
8.0
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Site Name
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water Consumers
Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
Technology (Media)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Vendor
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Design
Flow rate
(gpm)
100
320
145
450
90W
50
37
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
45
23W
33
14
50
32
41
Fe
(ug/L)
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
PH
(S.U.)
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General Improvement
District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/
ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)(g)
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; HTX = 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) Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006; withdrew from program in 2007 and replaced with a home system in
Lewisburg, OH.
(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) 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
AdEdge's C/F system using AD-GS+ (GeensandPlus™) media has operated at Conneaut Lake Park in
Conneaut Lake, PA since December 3, 2009. 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:
• Chlorine was effective in oxidizing soluble As(III) and soluble Fe(II), reducing their
concentrations from 26.2 to 2.9 ug/L and from 146 to <25 ug/L, respectively (on average),
prior to filtration.
• Addition of supplemental iron was effective in converting soluble As(V) to arsenic-laden iron
solids, significantly decreasing and increasing respective concentrations (to 2.6 and 27.8 ug/L
[on average]) prior to filtration. The average iron dosage of 1.8 mg/L (as Fe) appeared to be
adequate.
• GreensandPlus™ media effectively removed arsenic-laden iron solids, reducing arsenic
concentrations to <2.8 ug/L (on average). Without iron addition, as much as 15.2 ug/L of
total arsenic was measured in the filter effluent with most existing as soluble As(V).
• Iron leakage from the filtration vessels was an issue; concentrations as high as 506 ug/L were
measured in one instance (or 64 ug/L [on average]). Based on a run length study, 300 ug/L
of iron penetrated through the filtration vessels after 26.6 hr of filter run time. In contrast,
arsenic breakthrough at 10 ug/L did not occur until 43.5 hr.
• Chlorine effectively oxidized soluble manganese to, presumably, MnO2, reducing soluble
manganese concentrations from 64.9 to 16.4 ug/L (on average). Manganese was effectively
removed by GreensandPlus™, leaving only 2.3 ug/L in the filter effluent.
• To maintain acceptable water quality, the system required backwashing once every 26 hr of
system operation. A desired backwash frequency was once every 2 to 3 days when the Park
was in operation and once every six days when the Park was not in operation. This is based
on an average daily run time of 11.9 hr when the Park was in operation and 4.3 hr when the
Park was not in operation.
• The operation of the treatment system significantly lowered arsenic concentrations in the
distribution system (from 10.6 to 5.0 ug/L [on average]). Elevated arsenic levels (21.4 and
18.0 ug/L) were observed in two instances; both appeared to be associated with iron leakage
(2,758 and 600 ug/L, respectively).
• Lead and copper levels in the distribution system increased slightly from the respective
baseline levels, but were significantly lower than the respective action levels.
Required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• The daily demand on the operator was typically 1 hr to visually inspect the system and record
operational parameters.
• The operator occasionally had to spend extra time to resolve issues related to backwash
wastewater recycling and sludge discharge.
-------
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• Residuals produced by the operation of the treatment system consisted of only backwash
wastewater.
• Approximately 1,840 gal of wastewater and 3.5 kg of solids were discharged into two
backwash holding tanks during backwash of each filtration vessel. The solids consisted of
0.3 to 0.5% (by weight) of arsenic, 36.3 to 37.4% of iron, and 1.3 to 3.3% of manganese.
Capital and O&M cost of the technology:
• The capital investment for the system was $191,970, including $136,744 (or 71%) for
equipment, $21,726 (or 11%) for site engineering, and $33,500 (or 18%) for installation,
shakedown, and startup.
• The unit capital cost was $768/gpm (or $0.53 gal/day [gpd]) based on a 250-gpm design
capacity.
• The O&M cost was $0.48/1,000 gal, which included the incremental cost for chemicals,
electricity and labor.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
AdEdge's C/F system began on December 3, 2009, and ended on December 17, 2010. 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 ng/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train, as described in the
Study Plan (Battelle, 2009). 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. Predemonstration Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Letter Report Issued
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
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Package Submitted to PA DEP
Building Construction Began
Equipment Arrived at Site
System Permit Issued by PA DEP
Building Construction Completed
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Study Plan Issued
Performance Evaluation Began
Date
10/27/2006
01/23/2007
07/19/2007
11/15/2007
12/04/2007
12/27/2007
12/28/2008
01/21/2009
04/03/2009
06/24/2009
07/09/2009
07/31/2009
09/03/2009
10/09/2009
10/23/2009
11/06/2009
11/11/2009
12/03/2009
PA DEP = Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
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 (o,g/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 gal/min (or gpm) (or 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, site engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for 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 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 arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost of 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.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
(Speciation)
Treatment
Plant Water
(Regular)
Distribution
System
Water(d)
Backwash
Water
Backwash
Solids
Sample
Locations'3'
Well No. 2
IN, BF, and TT
IN, BF, TA, TB,
TC, and TT
Three LCR
Locations (DS)
Backwash
Discharge Line
(BW)
Wastewater
Sample
Container
No. of
Samples
1
o
J
6
3
2
4
Frequency
Once
(During
initial site
visit)
Monthly(b)
Monthly(b)
Monthly
Monthly
Once
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Offsite: As (III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, V, Cl, F, NO3,
NO2, NH3, SO4, SiO2, PO4, P,
turbidity, alkalinity, TDS,
and TOC
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and total and free
C12 (except at IN)
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, turbidity, alkalinity,
and TOC
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and total and free
C12 (except at IN)(c)
Offsite: As (total), Fe (total),
Mn (total), NO3, NH3, SiO2,
P, turbidity, and alkalinity
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,
and TSS
As, Ba, Ca, Fe, Mg, Mn, P,
Si
Sampling Date
10/27/06
12/03/09, 01/04/10,
01/27/10, 02/24/10,
03/23/10, 04/19/10,
05/17/10, 06/14/10,
07/13/10, 08/09/10,
09/07/10, 10/05/10,
11/02/10, 12/07/10
12/14/09, 01/07/10,
02/10/10, 03/08/10,
04/05/10, 05/03/10,
06/01/10, 06/28/10,
07/26/10, 08/23/10,
09/20/10
12/15/09, 01/08/10,
02/11/10,03/09/10,
04/06/10, 05/04/10,
06/02/10, 06/28/10,
07/27/10, 08/24/10,
09/21/10
01/04/10, 01/27/10,
02/24/10, 03/23/10,
04/19/10, 05/18/10,
06/16/10, 07/12/10,
08/10/10, 09/08/10,
10/06/10
01/27/10
(a) Abbreviations in parenthesis corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-5, i.e., IN = at
Wellhead; BF = before filtration; TA/TB/TC = after Vessels A/B/C; TT = after effluent from Vessels A,
B, and C combined; BW = backwash discharge line; DS = distribution system.
(b) Alternating between speciation and regular sampling.
(c) Only at IN, BF, and TT.
(d) Four baseline sampling events took place from 09/17/09 through 10/08/09 prior to system startup.
DO = dissolved oxygen; ORP = oxidation/reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total
organic carbon; TSS = total suspended solids
10
-------
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected from the wellhead, across the treatment plant,
during backwash of the GreensandPlus™ filtration vessels, 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 October 27, 2006, one set of source water
samples from Well No. 2 was collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (see Section 3.4.1).
The sample tap was flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid
agitation, which might cause unwanted oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in
Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. The Battelle Study Plan called for sampling of treatment plant
water once every two weeks, with "speciation sampling" performed during the first week of each four-
week cycle and "regular sampling" performed during the third week of each four week cycle. Regular
sampling involved taking samples at the wellhead (IN), before filtration (BF), and after Vessels A, B, and
C (TA, TB, and TC) and having them analyzed for the analytes listed under regular sampling in Table 3-
3. Speciation sampling involved collecting and speciating samples at IN, BF, and after effluent from the
three filtration vessels combined (TT) and having them analyzed for the analytes listed under speciation
sampling in Table 3-3.
During the performance evaluation study, both speciation and regular sampling took place once a month,
except for the month of January and June 2010 when speciation and regular sampling, repsectively, were
performed twice. In general, sampling alternated between speciation and regular sampling.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids. The plant operator collected backwash wastewater
samples from each vessel on 11 occasions. Over the duration of backwash for each vessel, a side stream
of backwash wastewater was directed from the tap on the backwash water 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
the analytes listed in Table 3-3.
Once during the one-year study period, the contents in the 32-gal plastic container were allowed to settle
and the supernatant was carefully siphoned using a piece of plastic tubing 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 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 system startup from September 17 through
October 8, 2009, four sets of baseline samples were collected from three locations within the distribution
system. Following system startup, distribution system water sampling continued on a monthly basis at
the same three locations until September 21, 2010, after which it was discontinued.
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
11
-------
and time of last water usage before sampling and of actual sample collection were recorded for
calculating 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.
Samples for metals analyses were stored at Battelie'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 and Belmont Labs in
Englewood, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration study. The
chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final
disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the
required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2007)
were followed by Battelle ICP-MS 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.
12
-------
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.
13
-------
4.1
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Preexisting Treatment System Infrastructure
Conneaut Lake Park (the Park) is a seasonal resort located at 12382 Center Street in Conneaut Lake, PA
(Figure 4-1). The existing water treatment plant was built between 1980 and 1989 and is classified as a
community water system (CWS). The plant is supplied by two groundwater wells (i.e., Wells No. 1 and
No. 2), which are located on a 35-ft * 63-ft corner lot and approximately 1,500 ft from the Park on Route
618. Well No. 2 is the primary well, operating approximately 8 hr/day, while Well No. 1 operates
minimally because of its high iron and particulate content. The wells are alternated manually, providing a
source capacity no greater than 250 gpm. The Park's water system serves approximately 250 residents
with an average daily production of 124,000 gpd and a maximum production of 231,000 gpd. The daily
demand changes seasonally with the number of visitors to the Park.
The wells are located in separate well houses approximately 20 ft apart (Figures 4-2 and 4-3). Well No. 1
is 45 ft deep, with a 10-in-diameter steel casing screened from 5 to 45 ft below ground surface (bgs).
Well No. 2 is 70 ft deep, consisting of a 16-in-diameter steel casing screened from 5 to 15 ft bgs and a 12-
in-diameter steel casing screened from 15 to 70 ft bgs. The static water level in both wells is 3 ft bgs.
The PA DEP hydrogeologist determined both wells to be in the same aquifer. Each well is equipped with
an 8-in Deminc Vert turbine pump with an 11-stage impeller and a 25-horsepower (hp) motor. Both
pumps are rated for 250 gpm at 280 ft of total dynamic head (TDH). Both wells are interlocked with
level sensors in a 75,000-gal water tower located at the Park (Figure 4-4). The well control panels are
located in Well House No. 1.
Figure 4.1. Conneaut Lake Park Arsenic Demonstration Site
14
-------
Figure 4-2. Well Houses No. 1 (left) and No. 2 (right) at Conneaut Lake Park
Figure 4-3. Inside of Well Houses No. 1 (left) and No. 2 (right)
15
-------
Prior to installation of the arsenic removal system, treatment consisted of gas chlorination and silica
polyphosphate addition at the wellhead. Chlorine gas was added to the water to reach a target free
chlorine residual level of 0.2 mg/L (as C12) and a target total chlorine residual level of 0.5 mg/L (as C12).
The chlorinated water then flowed through a 20-in-diameter, 270-ft-long underground pipe loop, which
provided approximately 20 min of contact time as required by PA DEP. A silica polyphosphate corrosion
inhibitor (Corroban) was added to the water, with a daily usage of approximately 4 Ib. The treated water
supplied residents near the well houses, but the majority of water was transported via a 4-in-diameter,
800-ft-long transmission line to the 75,000-gal water tower and the Park.
Figure 4-4. 75,000-gal Water Tower at Conneaut Lake Park
Although a public sewer was available at both the well site and the Park, the Conneaut Lake Joint
Municipal Authority (CLJMA) was unwilling to accept backwash wastewater generated from the arsenic
treatment system. In a letter addressed to the Trustees of Conneaut Lake Park dated January 9, 2009, the
CLJMA expressed its concerns over the backwash discharge. The concerns cited included the possibility
of exceeding the hydraulic capacity of all pump stations involved with transporting the waste stream to
the wastewater treatment plant and the increased load of iron, minerals, and trace metals that could
adversely impact the biological treatment process and their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit (which regulates their mandated influent and effluent analyses). A backwash
recycling system was therefore considered by the Park to handle the waste.
16
-------
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water and chlorinated water samples were collected from
Well No. 2 and at the end of the chlorination pipe loop, respectively, on October 27, 2006, when Battelle
staff traveled to the site to attend an introductory meeting for this demonstration project. Table 4-1
presents analytical results from the October 27, 2006, sampling event and compares them to data provided
by EPA and PA DEP. Overall, Battelle's Well No. 2 source water data are comparable to those provided
by EPA and PA DEP.
Table 4-1. Source Water Data for Conneaut Lake Park
Parameter
Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total alkalinity(a)
Total hardness(a)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
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)
Sb (soluble)
V (total)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
(ig/L
(ig/L
(ig/L
(ig/L
(ig/L
(ig/L
(ig/L
(ig/L
(ig/L
(ig/L
(ig/L
(ig/L
(ig/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
EPA Data
Well
No. 1
Raw
Water
Well
No. 2
Raw
Water
Main
Shop
03/01/06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
142
NA
NA
NA
<0.02
0.05
<0.03
NA
NA
21.1
12.8
O.005
<0.2
<25
27
NA
NA
NA
NA
897
NA
83.1
NA
<25
NA
NA
13.7
40.9
9.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
124
NA
NA
NA
O.02
O.01
0.14
NA
NA
19.3
12.7
0.009
<0.2
<25
28
NA
NA
NA
NA
158
NA
57.1
NA
<25
NA
NA
16.2
36.0
8.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
130
NA
NA
NA
<0.02
O.01
<0.03
NA
NA
20.4
12.8
O.005
<0.2
<25
48
NA
NA
NA
NA
648
NA
76.2
NA
<25
NA
NA
15.6
37.8
8.7
Battelle Data
Well
No. 2
Raw
Water
Chlorine
Treated-
Water
10/27/06
8.0
NA
3.1
397
147
154
1.5
170
<1.0
O.05
O.05
0.14
14
0.2
21.0
12.7
O.05
O.03
NA
28.4
28.0
0.4
25.8
2.2
157
151
61.0
66.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
15.5
50.0
7.1
NA
9.9
1.5
600
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.03
NA
27.2
14.5
12.7
NA
NA
156
<25
47.0
1.1
O.I
O.I
NA
NA
NA
NA
PA DEP Data
Well
No. 1
Raw
Water
Well
No. 2
Raw
Water
1984
NA
NA
NA
NA
136
132
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
16
NA
NA
NA
NA
24
NA
NA
NA
NA
650
NA
130
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
132
114
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
24
NA
NA
NA
NA
390
NA
70
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Well
No. 2
Raw
Water
10/14/05
6.8
NA
NA
NA
119
96
NA
NA
0.7
NA
NA
NA
60
NA
20
10.6
NA
0.02
NA
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
180
NA
40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
60.4
8.7
(a) asCaCO3.
DO = dissolved oxygen; NA = not available; OPJ3 = oxidation/reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids;
TOC = total organic carbon
17
-------
Arsenic. Historically, total arsenic concentrations in Well No. 2 source water ranged from 24 to 30 |og/L
(Table 4-1). Based on Battelle's October 27, 2006, speciation data, out of 28.4 |o,g/L of total arsenic,
25.8 ng/L (or 91%) existed as soluble As(III), 2.2 |o,g/L as soluble As(V), and 0.4 |o,g/L as particulate
arsenic. Soluble As(III) must be oxidized to As(V) using an oxidant, such as chlorine, for more effective
removal. No prior information on arsenic speciation is available. Overall, Battelle's and EPA's total
arsenic results from Well No. 2 were within the historical range provided by PA DEP.
Iron and Manganese. When selecting the IR or C/F process for arsenic removal, the soluble iron
concentration should be at least 20 times the soluble arsenic concentration to achieve effective treatment
results (Sorg, 2002). Collectively, iron concentrations in Well No. 2 water ranged from 180 to 390 |o,g/L.
Iron levels in Well No. 1 water were much higher, ranging from 650 to 897 |og/L. Based on Battelle's
speciation results, iron existed mainly as soluble iron (151 |o,g/L or 96%), which was less than six times
the soluble arsenic level. Due to low soluble iron concentrations in source water, supplemental iron
addition had to be implemented for more effective arsenic removal.
Manganese concentrations in Well No. 2 water ranged from 40 and 70 |o,g/L, which existed almost
entirely in the soluble form. After chlorination, manganese was oxidized to particulate MnO2, leaving
only 1.1 (ig/L of soluble manganese in the chlorinated water. Manganese after oxidation may coat on
MnOx-coated media, such as greensand, as observed previously by Knocke et al. (1990) and by Cumming
et al. (2009).
Competing Anions. Based on the results shown in Table 4-1, concentrations of silica (12.8 mg/L [as
SiO2] in Well No. 1 water and 10.6 to 12.7 mg/L [as SiO2] in Well No. 2) and phosphate (below the MDL
in Well No. 1 water and as high as 0.02 mg/L [as PO4] in Well No. 2 water) did not appear to be high
enough to impact the treatment process.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Battelle's data indicated a pH of 8.0 for Well No. 2 water, which
was within the higher end of the commonly agreed target range of 5.5 to 8.5 for arsenic removal.
Concentrations/readings of other parameters analyzed in Well No. 2 water included 96 to 154 mg/L (as
CaCO3) for total hardness, 1.5 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) for turbidity, 170 mg/L for TDS, 5 to
60 mg/L for chloride, 0.2 mg/L for fluoride, and 15.5 to 16.2 mg/L for sodium. 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. The distribution system has 184 domestic connections in two
townships, including 62 in Sadsbury Township and 122 in Summit Township. The majority of these
connections are to single family residences, except for three Sadsbury connections to multiple family
residences with 13 units. In addition, the Park contains 16 commercial connections serving a high
seasonal population of vacationers.
The Park samples water periodically from the distribution system for several parameters: monthly for
bacteria; yearly for nitrate; once every 3 years for lead and copper (under the Lead and Copper Rule
[LCR]), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), inorganics, and disinfection byproducts (DBFs). Three
locations within the distribution system were sampled monthly four times before system startup for
baseline data. After system startup, the same three locations were sampled monthly to evaluate the
treatment system effects on the distribution system water quality.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
This section provides a general technology description and site-specific details of the AdEdge C/F system
installed at Conneaut Lake Park.
18
-------
4.2.1 Technology Description. AD-26 media was originally intended to be used in AdEdge's C/F
system. However, the treatment system was unable to supply the necessary backwash flowrate for
effective media expansion due to the flow restriction caused by a 4-in pipe that draws backwash water
from the 75,000-gal water tower. A decision was then made to change the source of backwash water and
use a media with a lower bulk density. The new source of backwash water was treated water from the
two filtration vessels that were not being backwashed. The replacement media selected was
GreensandPlus™ (branded as AD-GS+ by AdEdge), which is a black, granulated media with a silica sand
core coated with manganese dioxide (MnO2). Greensand and GreensandPlus™ media are commonly
used for iron and manganese removal. The media has NSF International (NSF) Standard 61 approval for
use in drinking water applications. Table 4-2 provides physical properties of various filtration media:
anthracite #1, AD-GS+ (GreensandPlus™), and AD-26.
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of Filtration Media
Parameter
Physical Form
Color
Specific Gravity
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Porosity
Mesh Size
Effective Size (mm)
Uniformity Coefficient
pH Range
Maximum Temperature (°C)
Service Loading (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Rate (gpm/ft2)
Anthracite
#1(a)
Dry, crushed
Black
1.5-1.6
0.65-0.70
NA
14 x30
0.6-0.8
<1.7
NA
NA
5
12-18
AD-GS+(b)
Dry nodular
granules
Black
-2.4
1.36
-0.45
18 x60
0.30-0.35
<1.6
6.2-8.5
NA
2-12
>12
AD-26(a)
Dry nodular
granules
Black
3.8
2.00
NA
20 x40
0.40
1.54
6-9
NA
8-12
18-20
(a) Source: AdEdge Technologies, Inc.
NA = not available
Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and ferric chloride (FeCl3) were injected into source water upstream of the
filtration vessels. NaOCl oxidized soluble As(III) to soluble As(V), which was attached to iron solids
through co-precipitation and/or adsorption. The iron solids formed were removed from water via
filtration by the media. FeCl3 supplemented the natural iron in source water for soluble As(V) removal.
4.2.2 System Design and Treatment Process. The AdEdge C/F system consisted of a NaOCl
addition system; a FeCl3 addition system; three in-parallel, epoxy-lined, carbon-steel filtration vessels; a
backwash wastewater reclaim system; and associated gauges and sensors to monitor pressure and
flowrate. The system also was equipped with a NEMA 4X stainless steel control panel that housed a
touch-screen Allen Bradley PanelView Plus 600 operator interface panel (OIP), an Allen Bradley
MicroLogix 1500 programmable logic controller (PLC), and an uninterruptible power supply (UPS). The
PLC automatically controlled the system by actuating motor operated butterfly valves depending on
various inputs and outputs of the system and corresponding PLC setpoints. The system also featured
schedule 80 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) solvent-bonded plumbing and all necessary isolation and check
valves and sampling ports. As requested by PA DEP, the original gas chlorination system was replaced,
due to health and safety concerns, with a new liquid chlorination system using NaOCl for oxidation and
disinfection. Because the pressure produced by the well pumps (117 to 120 lb/in2 [psi]) exceeded the
pressure rating of the filtration vessels (100 psi), a pressure and flow reducing valve was installed before
19
-------
the treatment system to prevent damage. The backwash reclaim system was added to recover the liquid
fraction of backwash wastewater that the CLJMA was not willing to accept.
The addition of the backwash wastewater reclaim system was the responsibility of the Park as outlined in
the Final Letter of Understanding dated December 27, 2007. The Park also was responsible for the liquid
NaOCl system since it was part of the original treatment system at Conneaut Lake Park.
Figure 4-5 is a generalized flow diagram of the treatment system, including sampling locations and
parameters that were analyzed during the demonstration study. Table 4-3 presents key system design
parameters. The major components of the treatment process are discussed as follows:
• Intake. Raw water was pumped from Well No. 2 through a 4-in water line with a maximum
flowrate of 250 gpm at approximately 120 psi to a pressure- and flow-reducing valve before
entering the treatment system.
• Pre-chlorination. A liquid NaOCl addition system was used to oxidize As(III), Fe(II), and
Mn(II) and maintain a target total chlorine residual level of 0.3 to 0.5 mg/L (as C12) for proper
disinfection. The system consisted of a 75-gal day tank containing a 12.5% NaOCl solution
and a 0.95 gal/hr (gph) ProMinent gamma/L diaphram metering pump with a self bleeding
liquid end that was pulse-controlled by the PLC. Chemical consumption was monitored by
measuring the level of the NaOCl solution in the day tank on a daily basis and recording the
levels on field log sheets. Figure 4-6 shows the NaOCl and FeCl3 addition systems.
The chlorine injection point was located upstream of system bypass and the pressure/flow-
reducing valve. Chlorine injection was installed prior to the bypass so in the event the system
was offline, the Park could still keep the well water disinfected.
• Pressure and Flow reducing Valve. Because the three pressure filtration vessels were rated
at 100 psi, the pressure and flowrate of the incoming water was reduced from the wellhead
levels (120 psi and 250 gpm) to <95 psi and 180 to 190 gpm using a Cla-Val model 49-01
pressure/flow-reducing valve (Figure 4-7). The reduced flowrate was within the 200 gpm
flowrate permitted by PA DEP.
• Ferric Chloride Addition. Due to the low concentration of soluble iron in Well No. 2 water,
FeCl3 was injected after the NaOCl addition point and prior to the filtration vessels to aid in
forming arsenic-laden solids. The target iron dosage was 1.5 mg/L (as Fe). The iron addition
system consisted of a 75-gal day tank containing a 41% FeCl3 solution and a 1.1 gph
ProMinent gamma/L diaphram metering pump that was pulse-controlled by the PLC.
Chemical consumption was monitored by measuring the level of the FeCl3 solution in the day
tank on a daily basis and recording the levels on field log sheets. After chlorination and iron
addition, the water proceeded though a Westfall Model 2850 inline static mixer before
entering the filtration vessels.
• Filtration. The filtration system consisted of three 54-in x 60-in epoxy-lined carbon-steel
vessels configured in parallel. By design, each vessel was to contain 11.5 ft3 of gravel
underbedding overlain by 32 ft3 of AD-GS and 16 ft3 of anthracite #1. Elliptical man-ways
located on the top of each vessel were used for media loading and accessing tank internals.
Water traveled to each vessel via 4-in schedule 80 PVC pipe, entered through a flanged
opening on the side to the upper distributor, and flowed downward through the media.
Filtered water collected by a Schedule 80 PVC slotted hub and lateral assembly proceeded to
a 20-in-diameter, 270-ft-long pipe loop that provides 23 min of contact time (based on a
4,400-gal capacity in the pipe loop and a 190-gpm flowrate after pressure/flow reducing).
From the loop, the water was sent to a 75,000-gal water tower located approximately 1,000 ft
20
-------
Speciation Sampling (Monthly1"1)
*), temperature, DO/ORP"1),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (tola land soluble), Ca,Mg,
F, NO3, NH3, SO4, SiO2, P (total),
TOC, turbidity, and alkalinity
INFLUENT
(WELL No. 2)
a]}
Conneaut Lake Park, PA
AdEdge Coagulation/Filtration System
Design Flowrate: 250 gpm
NaOCl
Regular Sampling (Monthly1"1)
pH, tempera ture, DO/ORP,
C12 (totalandfree)">), As (total and soluble),
As (III), As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca,Mg,
F, NO3, NH3, SO4, SiO2, P (total), TOC,
turbidity, and alkalinity
), temperature ">), DO/ORP
-------
Table 4-3. Design Features of AdEdge Coagulation/Filtration System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
Target Chlorine Dosage (mg/L [as C12])
Target Supplemental Iron Dosage (mg/L
[as Fe])
1.7
1.5
Using 12.5% NaOCl
Using41%FeCl3
Filtration Vessels
Vessel Size (in)
Cross-sectional Area (ft2/vessel)
No. of Vessels
Configuration
54 D x 60 H
15.9
3
Parallel
Epoxy-lined carbon-steel
-
-
-
Filtration Media
Media Type
Media Depth (in/vessel)
Media Volume (ft3/vessel)
Underbedding Volume (ft3/vessel)
Anthracite #1
AD-GS+
12 (Anthracite) #1
24 (AD-GS+)
16 (Anthracite) #1
32 (AD-GS+)
11.5
—
—
—
Gravel
Service
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Permitted Flowrate (gpm)
Flowrate After Pressure/Flow Reducing
(gpm)
Filtration Rate (gpm/ft2)
Average use rate (gal/day)
250
200
190
4.0
5.3
124,000
83.3 gpm/vessel
66.7 gpm/vessel
63.3 gpm/vessel
63.3 gpm/vessel with three vessels
online; 85.0 gpm/vessel with two
vessels online and one in backwash
mode
Based on data received from Park
Backwash
Differential Pressure Setpoint (psi/vessel)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm/vessel)
Backwash Rate (gpm/ft2)
Media Bed Expansion (%)
Backwash Frequency (frequency/vessel)
Backwash Duration (min/vessel)
Filter to Waste Rinse Flowrate (gpm/vessel)
Filter to Waste Rinse Duration (min/vessel)
Wastewater Production (gal/vessel)
10
190
12
-50
Every 2-3 days
9
190
1
1,900
-
-
-
-
Actual backwash frequency to be
determined during system operation
-
Based on backwash flowrate and total
wastewater production per vessel
-
Total wastewater production during
backwash and rinse cycle
Backwash Wastewater Reclaim System
No. of Holding Tanks
Holding Tank Size (in)
Holding Tank Capacity (gal/tank)
Recycle Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Wastewater Settling Time (hr)
Time to Complete Recycling (hr)
2
102 D x 125 H
4,000
18-20
4
5
-
1.5 rating high-density polyethylene
(HOPE)
-
-10% of service flowrate
-
Based on 5,700 gal of wastewater
produced from three vessel and 19-
gpm recycle flowrate
22
-------
Figure 4-6. NaOCl and FeCl3 Addition Systems
(NaOCl day tank and pump [left-left side], FeCl3 day tank and pump [left-right side],
NaOCl injection point [center], and Fed3 Injection point [right])
Figure 4-7. Cla-Val Model 49-01 Pressure- and Flow-Reducing Valve
23
-------
to the southwest. As mentioned above, due to the high pressure generated by the well pump,
the incoming pressure and flowrate were reduced to <95 psi and 180 to 190 gpm to avoid
vessel damage. The resulting filtration rates were 4.0 gpm/ft2 when the incoming flowrate
was reduced to 190 gpm (or 63.3 gpm/vessel) and 5.3 gpm/ft2 when the flowrate was reduced
to 190 gpm and if only two vessels were online while the third was being backwashed (i.e.,
85 gpm/vessel). Figure 4-8 shows the filter vessels and associated piping and valves.
Figure 4-8. Carbon-Steel Filtration Vessels with Associated Piping and Valves
• 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
can be performed manually or automatically with either time, throughput, or differential
pressure (Ap) as the setpoint. The filters were backwashed at approximately 190 gpm,
resulting in a backwash rate of 12 gpm/ft2. During backwash, one filter went into the
backwash mode, while the other two remained online. The flow from the two filters that
remained online provided the water for the backwash process. The backwash cycle lasted
approximately 10 min per vessel, including a 9 min upflow backwash and a 1 min downflow
filter-to-waste rinse. All three vessels were backwashed one at a time with a 20 min delay
between the end of one backwash and the start of the next, resulting in a backwash event
lasting 90 min and generating a total of 5,700 gal of wastewater.
• Backwash Reclaim System. Backwash wastewater generated was stored in two 102-in x
125-in high-density polyethylene (HOPE) holding tanks, each having 4,000 gal capacity. The
wastewater entered through the top of one of the holding tanks and traveled to the other tank
by way of a 1.5-in connector pipe between the tanks, which equalized the levels. Before any
wastewater could be recycled back through the treatment system, it was allowed to settle for a
24
-------
minimum of 4 hr. The supernatant was then pumped from the holding tank via a short length
of 1.5-in pipe located on the side of the tank 18 in from the bottom through a polyfelt bag
filter (BN-12 2 in stainless steel bag filter) to remove any solids. The filtered water then
travelled to the inlet header of the treatment skid, where no more than 10% of the total inlet
flow consisted of the recycled water. The reclaim system was propelled by a 1-hp Grundfos
Vertical Multistage Centrifugal Pump rated for 18-20 gpm. Disposal of solids that
accumulated in the backwash holding tanks was the responsibility of the Park. Figure 4-9
presents a diagram of the backwash reclaim system and Figure 4-10 shows the backwash
reclaim system.
Ferric Chloride
Module
Chlorination
Module
i
t
Supplemental Backwash Water
AD26-GS+ Iron/Win
Remo
Pressure or
ATM Storage
Tank(s)
Backwash Water
Recycled Water (supernatant)
Customer
Supply
Well(s)
Backwash
Holding Tank
Treated Water
to Distribution
Reclaim
Pump
•> Solids to
waste hauler
Particulate Fitter(s)
Figure 4-9. Schematic of Backwash Reclaim System
4.3
System Installation
AdEdge completed system installation and shakedown on November 6, 2009. The following briefly
summarizes system installation activities, including permitting, building preparation, and system
installation, shakedown, and startup.
4.3.1 Permitting. A system engineering package was prepared by AdEdge and its subcontractor,
Porter Consulting Engineers, P.C. of Meadville, PA. The package included a system design report with
component specifications, treatment system plan and mechanical drawings, and a piping and
instrumentation diagram (P&ID). After being certified by a professional engineer registered in the State
of Pennsylvania, the package was submitted to PA DEP for review and approval on June 24, 2009. After
PA DEP's review comments were addressed, a revised package was submitted, along with a permit
application, on August 17, 2009. A water supply construction permit was issued by PA DEP on
September 3, 2009, and installation of the system began thereafter.
4.3.2 Building Preparation. A new 20-ft x 38-ft water treatment building was constructed at the
site of Well Houses No. 1 and No. 2 (Figure 4-11) to house the treatment and chemical addition systems.
The new structure was constructed of 10-in concrete block, with insulated cores, to an interior elevation
of 12 ft. The two original small structures were demolished in favor of one large building that enclosed
both wells and the entire treatment system. Construction began on July 9, 2009 and was completed by
October 9, 2009.
25
-------
Figure 4-10. Backwash Reclaim System
(Photograph on left: Bag Filter [left], Reclaim Pump [center], and Control Box [right])
(Photograph on right: Backwash Holding Tank)
Figure 4-11. New Treatment Building at Site of Former Well Houses No. 1 and No. 2
26
-------
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The treatment system arrived at the site on July 31,
2009, but installation was delayed until the building to house the system was completed on October 9,
2009. The vendor's subcontractor finished installation of the treatment system on October 23, 2009.
AdEdge and its subcontractor were onsite the week of October 26, 2009 to perform system shakedown
and startup. Hydraulic testing and system disinfection using chlorine were performed on October 26,
2009. Bacteria sampling and media loading took place the next day. Before media could be loaded into
Vessel C, four lower laterals had to be repaired due to damage to the upper distributor when it fell during
shipping. Gravel, GreensandPlus™, and anthracite were loaded sequentially into each vessel and then
backwashed to remove media fines. Due to an agreement with CLJMA, only 30,000 gal of water was
used for backwash and discharged to the sewer.
Freeboard measurements (Table 4-4) were made during media loading and after backwashing. About 25
in of freeboard was measured in each of the three vessels before backwash; about 26 in of freeboard was
measured after backwash. This freeboard should be sufficient for approximately 50% bed expansion as
the combined bed depth for GreensandPlus™ and anthracite was about 34 in (on average). Although this
average bed depth was very close to the design value of 36 in, the actual depths for GreensandPlus™ and
anthracite (i.e., 29.5 and 4.6 in, respectively, assuming a loss of 0.5 in each during backwash) were quite
different from the design values of 24 and 12 in, respectively (see Table 4-3). The discrepancies observed
probably were caused by the combination of inaccurate freeboard measurements and inaccurate media
quantities in media containers.
Table 4-4. Freeboard Measurements and Media Volumes Before and After Backwash
Measurement
To Top of Gravel (in)
Vessel A
60.0
Vessel B
593/4
Vessel C
603/4
Before Backwash
To Top of GreensandPlus™ (in)
GreensandPlus™ Bed Depth (in)
Average GreensandPlus'1^ Bed Depth (in)
GreensandPlus™ Volume (ft3)
Average GreensandPlus'1^ Volume (ft3)
To Top of Anthracite (in)
Anthracite Bed Depth (in)
Average Anthracite Bed Depth (in)
Anthracite Volume (ft3)
Average Anthracite Volume (ft3)
30.0
30.0
297/8
297/8
30!/2
30!/4
30.0
39.8
39.6
40.1
39.8
25.0
5.0
25.0
4.9
25%
5!/4
5.1
6.6
6.5
7.0
6.7
After Backwash
To Top of Anthracite (in)
Bed Depth Loss (in)
Average Bed Depth Loss (in)
Average GreensandPlus^™ Bed Depth (in)
Average GreensandPlus^™ Volume (ft )
Average Anthracite Bed Depth (in)
Average Anthracite Volume (ft )
253/4
0.75
26.0
1.0
26 3/16
0.94
0.9
29. 5 w
39.0
4.6W
6.0
(a) Assuming a bed depth loss of 0.5 in.
During PLC testing, a control issue related to the backwash recycle pump and chemical addition pumps
was found. Because it could not be addressed by the technician onsite, another site visit was made by a
programmer on November 4, 2009. The issue was properly addressed and all components were tested
27
-------
and verified to be working as designed. PA DEP performed a final walkthrough on November 12, 2009,
and gave the approval to put the system online on November 16, 2009. Due to a crack in the backwash
meter saddle, the system was not put online until November 19, 2009, after a temporary fix was made
until the new piece arrived two weeks later.
On December 2 and 3, 2009, two Battelle staff members visited the site to inspect the system and provide
sample and data collection training to the operators. During inspection, several installation/operational
issues were found. Table 4-5 summarizes punch-list items and corrective actions taken.
Table 4-5. Punch-List Items and Corrective Actions
Dates
12/02/09-
03/12/10
12/02/09-
02/26/10
12/02/09-
02/26/10
12/02/09-
02/16/10
Issues/Problems
Encountered
No hour meters on Well Pump
No. 1 and No. 2
Leaky air scavenging valve on
system inlet line from Well
No. 2
Incorrectly labeled Valve BV-
200 on treated effluent line
(not matched label shown on
PLC)
Wrong flow values summed
by PLC, making total volume
processed since last backwash
incorrect
Corrective Action
Taken
An hour meter installed
on each well pump
Leaky valve repaired
A new label with correct
valve name sent to operator
PLC update sent to
operator; update installed
by operator with guidance
from AdEdge
Work
Performed by
The Park
AdEdge
Subcontractor
AdEdge/the
Park/
AdEdge/the
Park/
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The performance evaluation study at Conneaut Lake Park began
on December 3, 2009 and ended on December 17, 2010. The operational parameters for the one-year
study were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-6.
From March 12, 2010, through December 17, 2010, the system operated for 1,988.4 hr. Because the well-
pump hour meter was not installed until March 12, 2010, the system operating time could not be tracked
during the first three months of system operation. Using an average daily run time of 4.3 hr when the
Park was not in operation (see discussion below), 425.7 hr would have been run during that period.
Therefore, the total system operating time would have been 2,414 hr. As shown in Figure 4-12, daily
system run times fluctuated extensively from 1.6 to 23.2 hr/day and averaged 11.9 hr/day when the Park
was in operation (from May 28, 2010 to September 8, 2010) and from 0.1 to 15.6 hr/day and averaged 4.3
hr/day when the Park was not in operation.
During the study period, the system treated 20,114,150 gal of water based on readings of three SeaMetrics
electromagnetic insertion flow sensors/totalizers installed on each of the three filtration vessels. Volume
throughputs through the three filtration vessels ranged from 6,497,314 to 6,975,153 gal and averaged
6,704,717 gal. The amounts varied in a rather narrow range from -0.9% to 4%, indicating balanced flow.
Flowrates through the three filtration vessels (Figure 4-13) were tracked by both instantaneous readings
displayed on the PLC and calculated values by dividing incremental volume throughputs recorded from
the PLC by incremental operating times recorded from the well-pump hour meter. As shown in
28
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Treatment System Operational Parameters
Operational Parameter
Duration
Average Daily Run Time
(hr/day)
Total Operating Time (hr)
Throughput (gal)(b)
Instantaneous Flowrate
(gpm)/Filtration Rate
(gpm/ft2)
Calculated Flowrate
(gpm)(d)
Operational Pressures (psi)
Value/Condition
12/03/09-12/17/10
1 1.9 (When Park in operation from 05/28/10-09/08/10)
4.3 (When Park not in operation)
2
Vessel
A
B
C
System
Vessel
A
B
C
System
Well No. 2
Vessel
A
B
C
System
Well No. 2
Vessel
A
B
C
System
1,988.4 (03/12/10W-12/17/10)
414.1 (12/03/09-12/17/10; estimated)
Throughput
6,975,153
6,497,314
6,641,683
20,114,150
Range Average
17-92/1.1-5.8 53/3.3
20-96/1.3-6.0 49/3.1
10-88/0.6-5.5 51/3.2
110-186(c) 153
17-194 153
Range Average
10.5-98.0(e) 51.3
15.7-82.5(f) 47.5
14.2-86.0(g) 48.9
58.9-200w 147
62-252 148
Inlet Outlet Ap_
82 (80-91) 79 (68-84) 4 (0-15)(l)
81 (77-87) 79 (70-86) 2 (0-10)G)
81 (78-89) 80 (70-86) 2 (O-IO)^
81 (60-87) 77 (60-86) 4 (0-20)
(a) Hour meters not installed until 03/11/10.
(b) Including amount of treated water used for backwashing filtration vessels.
(c) Not including one outlier on 02/08/10.
(d) Data calculated by dividing incremental throughput by incremental hour meter readings
recorded during 03/12/10 through 12/17/10.
(e) Not including eight outliers as highlighted in red in Appendix A.
(f) Not including six outliers as highlighted in red in Appendix A.
(g) Not including ten outliers as highlighted in red in Appendix A.
(h) Not including eleven outliers as highlighted in red in Appendix A.
(i) Not including three outliers as highlighted in red in Appendix A.
(]) Not including thirteen outliers as highlighted in red in Appendix A.
(k) Not including fifteen outliers as highlighted in red in Appendix A.
Table 4-6, instantaneous flow readings for Vessels A, B, and C averaged 53, 49, and 51 gpm,
respectively; calculated flow values averaged 51.3, 47.5, and 48.9 gpm, respectively. Instantaneous
system flowrates averaged 153 gpm while calculated system flowrates averaged 147 gpm. Based upon
these flowrates, the system operated at approximately 60% of the design capacity of 250 gpm. Due to
pressure/flow-reducing, the anticipated flowrate was reduced to approximately 190 gpm and the system
operated at approximately 80% of the adjusted flow capacity. 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 4-13). As such, only instantaneous readings were used for filtration rate
calculations.
29
-------
E
X X X X X X X X X X X
Date
Figure 4-12. Treatment System Daily Operating Times
-System Instantaneous — *— System Calculated
-Vessel B Instantaneous — •— Vessel B Calculated
Vessel A Instantaneous — ±— Vessel A Calculated
Vessel C Instantaneous o Vessel C Calculated
Date
Figure 4-13. Comparison of Instantaneous Flowrate Readings and Calculated Flowrate Values
30
-------
Based on the instantaneous flowrates to the individual vessels, filtration rates for Vessels A, B, and C
ranged from 0.6 to 6.0 gpm/ft2 and averaged 3.3, 3.1, and 3.2 gpm/ft2, respectively. These filtration rates
were lower than the design value of 4.0 gpm/ft2 (Table 4-3) with all three vessels online.
Ap across the vessels ranged from 0 to 15 psi and averaged 4 psi for Vessel A and 2 psi for Vessels B and
C (Figure 4-14). The system inlet pressure ranged from 60 to 87 psi and averaged 81 psi, while the
system outlet pressure ranged from 60 to 86 psi and averaged 77 psi. The average system Ap was 4 psi.
4.4.2 Chlorine Injection. As described in Section 4.2.2, a 12.5% NaOCl solution was used as an
oxidantto oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) and a disinfectant for the distribution system. The chlorine injection
system was controlled by the PLC and experienced no operational irregularities during the performance
evaluation study. The stroke of the injection pump was set to achieve a target dose of 1.7 mg/L (as C12)
by the vendor during system startup and remained at that setting for the duration of the study.
Chlorine dosages to the treatment system were carefully monitored by measuring solution levels in the
chemical day tank on a daily basis. During the performance evaluation study, the average dosage was 3.5
mg/L (as C12), which was about two times the target dosage of 1.7 mg/L (as C12). Since free and total
chlorine residual levels at the TT location were satisfactory, no adjustments were made to pump or PLC
settings during the study.
Figure 4-14. Differential Pressures Across Filtration Vessels
4.4.3 Iron Addition. Iron in the form of FeCl3 (41%) was added to source water as a coagulant to
remove soluble As(V) through adsorption and/or co-precipitation with iron solids. The stroke of the
injection pump was set to achieve a target dose of 1.8 mg/L by the vendor during system startup and
remained at that setting for the duration of the study. The iron addition system was controlled by the PLC
31
-------
as described in Section 4.2.2 and functioned properly until August 26, 2010, when the iron addition pump
stopped working for unknown reasons. From August 26, 2010, to September 29, 2010, no iron was added
to source water, which resulted in arsenic levels higher than the MCL in two sampling events on
September 7 and 20, 2010. After undergoing a thorough cleaning by the operator on September 29, 2010,
the pump was put back online and experienced no additional operational issues.
Iron dosages to the treatment system were carefully monitored by measuring solution levels in the
chemical day tank on a daily basis. During the performance evaluation study, the average dosage was 1.8
mg/L (as Fe), which was very close to the target dosage of 1.5 mg/L (as Fe) as shown in Table 4-3. Since
iron levels at the BF and TT location were satisfactory, no adjustments were made to pump or PLC
settings during the study.
4.4.4 Backwash and Backwash Reclaim System. Backwash data were tabulated and are attached
as Appendix C and summarized in Table 4-7. As mentioned in Section 4.2.2, backwash could be initiated
manually or automatically with a time, a throughput (gal), or a Ap setpoint. During system startup, a time
was chosen as the setpoint and the PLC was set to initiate backwash for all three vessels once every 6
days. Due to some customer complaints about iron in the treated water and an increased water demand
after the Park started its seasonal operation in late May, the backwash frequency was increased to once
every 3 days on July 23, 2010. The actual backwash frequency as shown in Table 4-7 was once every 4
to 7 days before June 17, 2010 (about 3 weeks after the Park was open) and once every 1 to 4 days
between June 17 and November 17, 2010. Why the backwash frequency did not stay at once every 3 or 6
days, as set, for a large number of backwash events is not known. The 11 manual backwashes initiated by
the operator for backwash wastewater sampling and manual recording of backwash counts could
contribute, in part, to the irregularities observed. There was no backwash counter displayed in the PLC
and there was no throughput countdown on each filtration vessel.
Table 4-7. Summary of System Backwash
Duration'3'
12/14/09-06/17/10
06/21/10-11/17/10
11/23/10-12/16/10
Total
No. of
Backwashes
(vessel-time)
107
140
8
255(b)
No. of Days
Between
Backwashes
4-7
1-4
4-7
Amount of
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
199,720
256,223
13,199
469,142
(a) The Park in operation between 05/28/10 and 09/08/10.
(b) Equivalent to 85 backwash cycles.
Backwashing of the individual vessels also did not necessarily occur in one day. Out of 82 backwash
events between December 18, 2009, and November 17, 2010, only 55 events occurred with all three
vessels backwashed in one day (see Appendix C). There were times when two vessels were backwashed
one day then the third was backwashed the next day, or vice versa. There were times when two or four
vessels were backwashed in one day. There also were times when one vessel was backwashed in three
consecutive days. These irregularities might be due, in part, to the time when the operator was onsite to
record data. However, all backwashes should have taken place in the early morning with each backwash
completed in 10 min followed by a 20 min delay and all three backwashes completed in approximately 90
min.
32
-------
Because the backwash settings had not been modified since late July, the system continued to perform
backwashing once every 3 days even after the Park ceased its seasonal operation in early September. The
decrease in water demand from the Park resulted in a decrease in daily run time from an average of 11.9
to 4.3 hr/day (see Table 4-6). The decrease in daily run time coupled with backwashing every 3 days
allowed the backwash holding tanks to fill up. This was because the volume of wastewater produced
from one backwash event could not be completely reclaimed at a flowrate of approximately 18 to 20 gpm
by the time the next backwash event started. When the high-level sensor failed during a backwash event
on November 4, 2010, the holding tanks overflowed. Therefore, the backwash setpoint was changed
again on November 5, 2010, from time to throughput.
The throughput setpoint was based on the findings of a run length study completed by Battelle in July
2010. The results indicated that arsenic breakthrough at 10 ug/L would occur after treating approximately
123,000 gal of water and that iron breakthrough at 300 (ig/L (iron secondary maximum contaminant level
[SMCL]) would occur after 83,000 gal. Therefore, the volume throughput was set at 65,000 gal for
Vessel A, 75,000 gal for Vessel B, and 85,000 gal for Vessel C. The throughputs were staggered from
one vessel to the next by 10,000 gal to prevent all vessels from being backwashed at the same time. This
volume would allow the two vessels left online to provide enough water for the entire backwash event
without going into backwash themselves. Also, under no circumstance could backwash of a vessel be
triggered when another vessel had already been in the backwash mode. A lockout in the PLC would
delay backwash of the second vessel until backwash of the other vessel was complete.
As shown in Table 4-7, a total of 85 backwash events occurred over the duration of the performance
evaluation period, generating 469,142 gal of wastewater based on readings of a SeaMetrics
electromagnetic insertion flow sensor/totalizer connected to the PLC. The average amount of wastewater
produced per backwash event was 5,520 gal (or 1,840 gal/vessel), compared to the design value of 5,700
gal (or 1,900 gal/vessel). Based on the amount of wastewater produced and the 9-min backwash and 1-
min filter-to-waste rinse time, the average flowrate would be 184 gpm. This flowrate is equivalent to a
backwash rate of 11.6 gpm/ft2, which is very close to the design value of 12 gpm/ft2.
Over the course of the performance evaluation period, a total of 511,915 gal of wastewater was reclaimed
by the system based on readings of an inline GPI turbine flowmeter/totalizer located after the bag filter.
There was a discrepancy of 42,773 gal between this volume and the total backwash volume generated
(i.e., 469,142 gal). The difference was thought to be due to loss of calibration by the GPI turbine
flowmeter/totalizer since no water could be introduced into the system between the holding tanks and
reclaim tie-in located at the header of the filtration skid.
4.4.5 Residual Management. Residuals include backwash wastewater and spent media. The AD-
GS+ media and anthracite were not replaced during the study period; therefore, the only residual produced
was backwash wastewater. The backwash wastewater was discharged from the system to two 4,000-gal
holding tanks, where solids were allowed to settle for a minimum of 4 hr. After the settling period, the
supernatant was recycled back to the header of the filtration skid at approximately 10% of the inlet
flowrate (18 to 20 gpm) when the system was operating. Over time, the sludge accumulating in the
bottom of the tanks had to be removed to prevent solids from being recycled back into the system and
clogging the bag filter. The operator was given special approval by the CLJMA to discharge the sludge to
the sanitary sewer on the condition that the date and approximate volume were documented for future
billing purposes. The sludge was pumped from the holding tanks to the sewer on five occasions (May 3,
June 21, August 2, August 16, and September 22, 2010) during the study period with a combined volume
of approximately 15,600 gal.
4.4.6 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. There was no downtime for the treatment
system during the performance evaluation study. Minor issues were experienced with the iron addition
33
-------
pump, as previously mentioned, along with the bag filter and pressure relief manifold. The bag filter
would experience a heavy solids loading whenever the level of the solids in the holding tanks was near
the level of the intake pipe (18 in from the bottom of the tank) to the reclaim pump and bag filter. Once
the sludge was pumped from the holding tanks, the issue was resolved. A leak in the pressure relief
manifold was discovered by the operator on August 2, 2010, which did not affect system operation or
performance. The vendor provided the operator with a replacement part and the leak was fixed by
August 26, 2010.
A major issue involving the high-level sensor in the holding tanks occurred on November 4, 2010, when
the tanks overflowed during backwash. The high-level sensor is a precaution that is intended to abort a
backwash if the water level reaches the preset height. To prevent unnecessary backwashes and slow the
accumulation of backwash in the tanks, the backwash setpoint was changed from time to throughput. The
issue with the high-level sensor had not been properly resolved when the performance evaluation study
ended in December 2010.
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.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pre-treatment consisted of chlorination and iron addition.
Chlorination utilized a 12.5% NaOCl solution to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II), and provide chlorine residuals
to the distribution system. In addition to tracking the levels of the NaOCl solution in the day tank, the
operator measured chlorine residual concentrations to ensure that residuals existed throughout the
treatment train. The addition of iron (as a 41% FeCl3 solution) was required to supplement the low
natural iron level in the source water. The iron acted as a coagulant to remove soluble As(V) through
adsorption and/or co-precipitation. In addition to tracking the levels of the FeCl3 solution in the day tank,
the operator periodically measured iron concentrations at the BF location to verify the correct amount of
iron was being added by the pump. Each pump was setup by the vendor during system startup and
remained at its original setting throughout the performance evaluation study. Post-treatment was not
needed for this system.
System Automation. A low-level sensor in the 75,000 gal water tower triggered the well pump to provide
water to the system to be treated. Once the water level in the tower reached the high-level sensor, the
well pump shut off. The valve sequences were controlled by an Allen-Bradley (AB) 1500 Micrologix
PLC, which also pulse controlled both chemical feed pumps. Each vessel had four electronic actuated
butterfly valves controlled by the PLC and two manual isolation butterfly valves. In addition, the system
effluent line and backwash line each had a manual throttling valve, which could be used to balance flow.
An AB PanelView Plus 600 touch screen interface allowed the operator to monitor system parameters,
change system setpoints, and check the status of alarms.
The backwash reclaim system also was controlled by the PLC, which could be used to view recycle
flowrates, modify the settling time, and control the recycle pump. Backwash wastewater recycling only
occurred when the treatment system was operating and the water in the holding tanks had settled for a
minimum of 4 hr. Two manual isolation valves were located on the recycle line with one after the two
holding tanks, but before the pump and bag filter and one after the bag filter and right before the tie-in of
the recycle line to the inlet line.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the daily demand on the operator was
approximately 1 hr. The operator's duties consisted of visually inspecting the system, recording the
operational parameters such as flowrates, volumes, and system pressures on field log sheets, and
measuring chemical levels in the day tanks. The operator also was responsible for pumping the backwash
34
-------
sludge from the holding tanks to the sewer and occasionally performing minor repairs. After receiving
the proper training during system startup, the operator understood the PLC, knew how to use the touch
screen, and was able to work with the vendor to troubleshoot problems. The operator's knowledge of the
system limitations and typical operational parameters was the 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 Pennsylvania community and non-transient/non-community public water systems must have a
certified operator. Operator certifications are granted by the State of Pennsylvania after passing an exam
gaining the necessary experience while working with another operator and maintaining a minimum
amount of continuing education hours at professional training events. The number of continuing
education hours required depends on the operator's certification and years of experience at that
certification level. Operator certifications are classified by the capacity of the system (A to E) and sub-
classified by the treatment processes used (1 to 14). The certification of C, E, 8, 9, 12 is required to
operate the treatment system at Conneaut Lake Park. The operator held a certification of A, E, 11, 12, 13,
14 certification.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventative maintenance tasks included inspecting the vessels and
system piping for leaks and monitoring the levels of NaOCl and FeCl3 in the day tanks to ensure proper
chemical usage. Periodically, the operator checked the bag filter on the recycle line for particulate build-
up and either cleaned or replaced the filter depending on its condition.
Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements. Chlorine and iron additions were required for
effective arsenic removal. The operator tracked usage of the chemical solutions daily (by measuring
solution levels in the day tanks), coordinated supplies, and refilled the day tanks as needed. A 12.5%
NaOCl and a 41% FeCl3 solution, both supplied in 15-gal carboys by Barber's Chemicals, were
transferred by hand pumps to the respective day tanks and injected without dilution. The stroke settings
of the chemical pumps could be adjusted by the operator, if needed.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the C/F system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected across
the treatment plant, during the media backwash, and from the distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-8 summarizes analytical results of arsenic, iron, and
manganese measured at the sampling locations across the treatment train. Table 4-9 summarizes the
results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results for the
demonstration study. The results of the analysis of the water samples collected throughout the treatment
plant are discussed below.
Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the arsenic treatment system was the
concentration of arsenic in the treated water. Treatment plant water samples were collected on
28 occasions, including three sets of duplicate samples taken on February 10, May 3, July 26, 2010, with
field speciation performed during 14 occasions at IN, BF, and TT sampling locations.
Figure 4-15 contains three bar charts showing concentrations of soluble As(III), soluble As(V), and
particulate arsenic at the IN, BF, and TT locations for each of the 14 speciation events. Total arsenic
concentrations in raw water ranged from 26.8 to 37.3 |o,g/L and averaged 29.0 |o,g/L, existing almost
entirely as soluble arsenic (Table 4-8). Of the soluble fraction, As(III) was the predominating species,
35
-------
Table 4-8. 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
BF
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
BF
TT
IN
BF
TT
IN
BF
TT
IN
BF
TT
IN
BF
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
BF
TT
IN
BF
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
BF
TT
Sample
Count
28
28
14
13w
14
14
14
14
I3(b>
14
14
I3(b>
14
14
I3(b>
14
14
13(b)
28
28
14
13«o
14
14
14
14
13(b)
28
28
13(d)
13(e)
14
14
14
14
12
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
26.8
24.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
27.3
0.9
0.6
0.1
7.6
0.1
11.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.4
128
196
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
54.8
52.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
56.4
2.0
0.1
Maximum
37.3
43.2
15.0
15.1
15.2
13.5
33.7
21.7
14.0
5.6
42.1
2.2
30.8
0.5
0.5
17.8
21.6
13.9
420
3,093
359
506
463
226
227
<25
<25
78.0
144
11.8
15.5
13.6
18.4
81.9
32.8
0.7
Average
29.0
29.2
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.7
29.6
2.9
2.3
0.6
27.8
0.5
26.2
0.2
0.2
3.3
2.6
2.1
188
1,866
77
66
72
41
146
<25
<25
64.3
73.2
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.8
64.9
16.4
0.2
Standard
Deviation
2.1
3.4
3.8
4.1
3.9
3.2
1.6
5.4
3.6
1.5
7.1
0.7
4.7
0.1
0.1
4.5
5.5
3.6
55.4
610
122
142
136
60.0
62.8
-
-
6.7
16.1
3.8
4.5
3.9
5.0
7.3
8.8
0.2
(a) One outlier (i.e., 51.9 ug/L) on 12/14/09 omitted.
(b) Speciation results not available due to reanalysis of 07/13/10 metals sample.
(c) One outlier (i.e., 5,188 ug/L) on 12/14/09 omitted.
(d) One outlier (i.e., 72.1 ug/L) on 12/14/09 omitted.
(e) One outlier (i.e., 1,337 ug/L) on 12/14/09 omitted.
with concentrations ranging from 11.3 to 30.8 (ig/L and averaging 26.2 |o,g/L. Soluble As(V)
concentrations were low, ranging from 0.2 to 17.8 |o,g/L and averaging 3.3 |o,g/L. Particulate arsenic
concentrations also were low, ranging from <0.1 to 5.6 (ig/L and averaging 0.6 (ig/L. The arsenic
concentrations were consistent with those collected previously during source water sampling (Table 4-1).
36
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Sampling
Location
IN
BF
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
BF
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
BF
TT
IN
BF
TT
IN
BF
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
BF
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
BF
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
BF
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
BF
TT
IN
BF
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
Sample
Count
28
27W
14
14
14
14
28
28
14
14
14
I3(b>
14
14
14
14
14
14
28
28
14
14
14
14
28
27«o
14
13(d)
14
14
28
28
14
14
14
14
28
28
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
19
19
19
Concentration
Minimum
138
132
130
130
133
129
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.1
17.5
18.6
18.3
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
12.8
12.8
12.4
12.5
12.4
12.7
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
6.7
7.2
7.4
Maximum
172
165
156
158
155
159
0.2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.2
0.2
0.3
24.3
25.5
32.2
0.1
0.2
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.05
<10
12.9
<10
<10
<10
<10
16.2
16.4
15.1
14.2
14.9
16.4
6.5
10.0
5.4
9.2
4.0
1.9
<1.0
1.5
<1.0
8.8
9.0
8.8
Average
148
143
140
141
141
142
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.2
0.2
0.2
21.0
22.0
22.6
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
14.1
14.1
13.4
13.4
13.3
13.8
1.8
2.7
1.3
1.8
1.6
0.8
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
7.8
7.8
7.9
Standard
Deviation
8.9
9.1
7.8
8.2
6.7
8.5
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
0.1
2.2
2.3
3.9
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
-
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.5
2.5
1.3
2.5
1.0
0.4
-
0.3
-
0.5
0.4
0.3
37
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results (Continued)
Parameter
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
BF
TT
IN
BF
TT
IN
BF
TT
BF
TT
BF
TT
IN
BF
TT
IN
BF
TT
IN
BF
TT
Unit
°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
Sample
Count
16(e)
17W
1?(e)
6
6
6
20
20
20
19
19
19
19
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Concentration
Minimum
8.5
8.3
7.9
1.7
1.2
1.5
152
152
152
0.9
0.5
1.2
0.6
92
86
121
56
46
80
33.5
34.8
35.2
Maximum
15.7
15.2
15.0
5.8
7.6
3.6
482
723
707
3.1
1.7
4.5
2.0
166
175
171
126
128
126
51
49
46
Average
12.6
12.6
12.8
3.6
5.1
2.4
358
535
561
1.6
1.2
2.0
1.4
140
145
145
100
103
104
40
42
40
Standard
Deviation
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.6
2.2
0.9
82.3
139
137
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.4
21.0
23.4
17.8
18.5
21.8
15.4
5.0
4.6
4.3
(a) One outlier (i.e., 43.4 mg/L) on 07/26/10 omitted.
(b) One outlier (i.e., 1.8 mg/L) on 12/03/09 omitted.
(c) One outlier (i.e., 464 ug/L) on 05/03/10 omitted.
(d) One outlier (i.e., 28.0 ug/L) on 12/14/09 omitted.
(e) One outlier (i.e., 25.0 °C) on 04/19/10 omitted.
Following chlorination and iron addition (BF), total arsenic concentrations remained essentially
unchanged at 29.2 (ig/L (on average). Arsenic, however, existed mostly as participate arsenic (27.8 (ig/L
[on average]) with only a small fraction remaining in the soluble form (2.9 (ig/L). Of the soluble fraction,
0.2 (ig/L (on average) existed as As(III) and 2.6 (ig/L as As(V) (on average), indicating effective
oxidation of As(III) by chlorine.
The oxidized arsenic was adsorbed onto and/or co-precipitated with iron solids upon chlorination and
FeCl3 injection. The solids were filtered out by the GreensandPlus™ media, reducing the average total
arsenic concentration to 2.7 (ig/L in the combined effluent of the three filtration vessels. Total arsenic
concentrations after each vessel ranged from 0.7 to 15.2 (ig/L and averaged 3.0, 2.8, and 2.8 (ig/L for
Vessels A, B, and C, respectively.
As shown in Figure 4-16, total combined arsenic concentrations exceeded the 10 (ig/L arsenic MCL once
during the 14 speciation sampling events. Effluent samples from the three filtration vessels also exceeded
the MCL once during the 14 regular sampling events on September 20, 2010, with 15.0, 15.1, and
15.2 (ig/L in Vessels A, B, and C effluent, respectively. None of the exceedances had elevated iron
concentrations in the same samples; iron concentrations in all cases were below the MDL of 25 (ig/L.
38
-------
As mentioned above, arsenic existed mostly as soluble As(III) in raw water. This is not consistent with
relatively high ORP and DO results measured onsite using a Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter.
As shown in Table 4-9, ORP readings of source water ranged from 152 to 482 mV and averaged 358 mV;
DO concentrations ranged from 1.7 to 5.8 mg/L and averaged 3.6 mg/L. These ORP readings and DO
concentrations are much higher than those of source waters containing high levels of soluble As(III) at
other arsenic demonstration sites. For example, at Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park in Sauk Centre,
MN, the source water had over 80% of arsenic as soluble As(III) and its ORP readings and DO
concentrations averaged -41 mV and 1.2 mg/L, respectively (Shiao et al., 2009). At Climax, MN, arsenic
in source water existed almost entirely as soluble As(III) and its ORP readings and DO concentrations
averaged -77 mV and 1.7 mg/L, respectively (Condit and Chen, 2006). At Felton, DE, however, the
average ORP reading was high at 320 mV even though over 84% of arsenic existed as soluble As(III)
(Chen et al., 2010). The average DO concentration at Felton, DE was low at 1.0 mg/L.
What caused high ORP readings and/or DO concentrations at Conneaut Lake Park and Felton is
unknown. One contributing factor could be the field handheld meters used, some of which tended to drift
over the course of measurements as reported by operators at a number of arsenic demonstration sites. The
other possibility could be the effect of surface water from Conneaut Lake, which obviously is more
oxidizing than the groundwater underlying the Park.
Iron. Total iron concentrations in source water ranged from 128 to 420 (ig/L and averaged 188 (ig/L,
existing mostly (78% [on average]) as soluble iron. Following chlorination and iron addition, total iron
concentration increased significantly, ranging from 196 to 3,093 (ig/L and averaging 1,866 (ig/L. Low
levels of iron at 221 and 196 (ig/L were measured on September 7 and 20, 2010, respectively, due to
malfunctioning of the metering pump during August 26, 2010, through September 29, 2010. Therefore,
no iron was added to source water during this period. The lack of supplemental iron addition caused
elevated arsenic levels (from 13.5 to 15.2 (ig/L), existing mainly as soluble As(V), in the filter effluent.
Elevated iron levels at the BF location reflected the addition of supplemental iron to source water. The
iron dosage on a given date was calculated by subtracting the amount of iron in source water from the
amount of iron measured at the BF location. Figure 4-17 plots iron dosages during the study period. Iron
dosages ranged from 1.0 to 3.0 mg/L (as Fe) and averaged 1.8 mg/L (as Fe), which is close to the target
value of 1.5 mg/L (as Fe) (see Table 4-3) and exactly the same as the estimated dosage (1.8 mg/L [as Fe])
based on solution levels in the day tank.
As expected, iron existed entirely as particulate iron after chlorination. Arsenic-laden iron solids were
removed by the GreensandPlus™ media to levels that ranged from <25 to 506 ug/L and averaged 64 (ig/L
(see Table 4-8). Iron leakage from the filtration vessels appeared to be an issue during some sampling
events, including one on March 8, 2010 with concentrations above the 300-ug/L SGML and seven on
February 24, March 23, April 19, June 1, June 28, August 9, and August 23, 2010, with concentrations
below the SMCL. A filter run length study using Vessel A was then conducted to determine the useful
run length before arsenic and iron breakthrough at 10 and 300 (ig/L, respectively. Results of the study are
discussed in detail in Section 4.5.2. Figure 4-18 shows total iron concentrations across the treatment
train.
39
-------
Arsenic Species at Wellhead (IN)
- 30-
§ 20
c
3
< 15-1
DAs(lll) BAs(V) HAs (Paniculate)
n
Date
Arsenic Species Before Filtration (BF)
40 -
35 -
— 30 -
1
.1 25
|
g 20
3
< 15-
10 -
5 -
DAs(lll) BAs(V) HAs (Paniculate)
"
, .
1 1
"
_
—
—
• 1
1 1
—
1 1
—
1 1
_
,\0
,r
-------
Arsenic Species at Total Combined Effluent (TT)
_ 30-
1
§ 20
I
< 15 H
I DAs(lll)•AsiV) • As (Paniculate) I
n
n
n
Date
Figure 4-15. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, BF, and TT
Sampling Locations (Continued)
•S3
-A-At Wellhead (IN)
-1—After Tank A (TA)
-X— After Tank C (TC)
—»— Before Filtration (BF)
—X— After Tank B (TB)
—D— Total Combined Effluent (TT)
Figure 4-16. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train
41
-------
3,500 -
3,000 -
2,500 -
2,000 -
1,500 -
1,000 -
o
o
11/23/09 01/02/10 02/11/10 03/23/10 05/02/10 06/11/10 07/21/10 08/30/10 10/09/10 11/18/10 12/28/10
Date
Figure 4-17. Iron Dosages to Source Water
»— Before Filiations (BF)
-X-AfterTankB(TB)
Total Combined Effluent
Date
Figure 4-18. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train
42
-------
Manganese. Total manganese levels in source water ranged from 54.8 to 78.0 (ig/L and averaged
64.3 (ig/L, existing entirely in the soluble form. After chlorination, only 16.4 (ig/L remained as soluble
manganese; the rest was precipitated, presumably, to MnO2. These results were contrary to those
observed at a number of arsenic demonstrations sites, where very little soluble manganese was
precipitated by chlorine due to slow kinetics (McCall et al., 2007; Condit and Chen, 2006; Knocke et al.,
1990;Knockeetal., 1987).
Total manganese concentrations in the filter effluent ranged from <0.1 to 15.5 (ig/L and averaged
2.3 (ig/L. Rather complete removal was achieved apparently via filtration of particulate manganese
(MnO2) and possible reactions between soluble manganese (Mn2+) and the GreensandPlus™-MnO2
media:
Mn2+ + GreensandPlus-MnO2 —> GreensandPlus-Mn2O3 + MnO2(S)
The reduced surface (GreensandPlus-Mn2O3) would then be re-oxidized when in contact with chlorine:
GreensandPlus-Mn2O3 + OC1" -» GreensandPlus-MnO2 + Cl"
Competing Anions. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, phosphorus and silica could compete with arsenic for
available adsorption sites on iron solids. Phosphorus concentrations were mostly below the MDL of
10 (ig/L. Silica concentrations ranged from 12.8 to 16.2 mg/L (as SiO2) and averaged 14.1 mg/L (as
SiO2); these concentrations remained essentially unchanged across the treatment train. Therefore, the
phosphorus and silica effect on arsenic removal should be minimal.
pH. pH values of source water ranged from 6.7 to 8.8 and averaged 7.8. This range was consistent with
the pH measurements taken by Battelle during source water sampling on October 27, 2006 (i.e., 8.0 in
Table 4-1) and were at the higher end of the commonly agreed upon target range of 5.5 to 8.5 for arsenic
removal.
Chlorine. Figure 4-19 presents free and total chlorine residuals measured after chlorination and iron
addition (BF) and after the effluent from the three filtration vessels combined (TT). As shown in the
figure, data for BF and TT were scattered. Total chlorine residuals at BF ranged from 1.2 to 4.5 mg/L (as
C12) and averaged 2.0 mg/L (as C12); free chlorine residuals ranged from 0.9 to 3.1 mg/L (as C12) and
averaged 1.6 mg/L (as C12). Total and free chlorine residuals at TT were 0.6 and 0.4 mg/L (as C12),
respectively, lower than those at BF, indicating chlorine demand in the filtration vessels. Because only
0.1 mg/L of ammonia (as N) was measured in source water, formation of chloramines was not a concern.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity, fluoride, nitrate, sulfate, TOC, and hardness levels were
low or below the respective MDLs. They remained relatively constant across the treatment train,
indicating that they were not affected by the treatment process (Table 4-9). Turbidity levels averaged 1.8
NTU in source water and increased only slightly to 2.7 NTU (on average) after iron addition. This result
was somewhat unexpected because as much as 1.8 mg/L of iron (as Fe) had been added to source water to
enhance arsenic removal. Turbidity levels after the filtration vessels ranged 0.2 to 9.2 NTU and averaged
1.4 NTU. Fiigher turbidity readings did not appear to correlate well with elevated iron and arsenic
concentrations in the filter effluent.
4.5.2 Filter Run Length Study. Table 4-10 summarizes results of a filter run length study
spanning from July 5 through 13, 2010. Afterthe system was backwashed, filtered (with 0.45 (im disc
filters) and unfiltered samples were collected daily from the TA location during normal system operation.
By the end of Day 6, the three filtration vessels were backwashed again and sampling continued through
Day 8. Daily run time, volume throughput, and Ap were recorded when samples
43
-------
• Total (BF) ATotal (TT)
OFree(BF) AFree(TT)
•55
2
u
AO
t A
A
°
0.0
11/23/09 01/02/10 02/11/10 03/23/10 05/02/10 06/11/10 07/21/10 08/30/10 10/09/10 11/18/10 12/28/10
Date
Figure 4-19. Chlorine Residuals Measured at BF and TT Locations
were taken. Both filtered and unfiltered samples were analyzed for arsenic, iron, manganese, and
phosphorus. Figure 4-20 plots total and soluble arsenic and iron concentrations and Ap against volume
throughput. Figure 4-21 plots total arsenic and total iron concentrations against filter run time.
Table 4-10. Results of Run Length Study
Sampling Date
Day No.
Sampling Location
Parameter
Operating Time
Ap
Throughput
P (as P)
As (total)
As (soluble)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Unit
hr
psi
gal
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
07/05/10
DayO
TA
0
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
07/06/10
Day 1
TA
0.3
5
1,245
<10
1.4
1.0
<25
<25
0.9
0.2
07/07/10
Day 2
TA
11.8
9
47,800
<10
1.8
1.1
87
31
70.1
1.4
07/08/10
Day 3
TA
23.2
8
75,222
<10
3.7
1.3
185
<25
6.3
0.6
07/09/10
Day 4
TA
40.6
10
115,993
<10
9.5
1.4
774
<25
22.2
0.9
07/10/10
Day 5
TA
50.4
12
140,110
<10
11.2
1.3
756
<25
24.2
0.7
07/11/10
Day 6
TA
65.3
12
173,457
<10
6.5
1.5
390
102
13.0
2.4
07/12/10
Day 7(a)
TA
82.6
12
32,200
<10
1.5
1.1
33
<25
2.2
0.5
07/13/10
Day 8(a)
TA
90.1
2
55,185
<10
1.1
1.0
26
25
0.7
16.1
(a) Results from after backwash occurred at end of Day 6.
44
-------
Filter Run Length Study: As, Fe, and Ap vs. Throughput
—A—As (Total)
—•—dP
--A--AS (Soluble;
—• Fe (Tola
- - D - - Fe (Soluble)
Q.
-------
As expected, arsenic and iron in the filter effluent existed primarily in the participate form. Total arsenic
concentrations in the filter effluent increased steadily from 1.4 (ig/L at 0.3 hr on Day 1 to 9.5 (ig/L at 40.6
hr on Day 4. Based on extrapolation, breakthrough at 10 (ig/L would occur at 43.5 hr on Day 5, treating
approximately 123,100 gal of water. Total iron concentrations were below the MDL of 25 (ig/L at 0.3 hr
and increased rather rapidly to 87 and 185 (ig/L at 11.8 and 23.2 hr, respectively. By Day 4 at 40.6 hr, the
total iron concentration had already increased to 774 (ig/L. Therefore, breakthrough at 300 (ig/L would
occur at 26.6 hr on Day 4, after treating approximately 83,200 gal of water.
To ensure good water quality, the filter run length should be no longer than 26 hr, or 83,000 gal of
throughput per filtration vessel, when the Park is in operation. For a 12 and an 8 hr daily run time (the
average daily run time is 11.9 hr when the Park is in operation [see Table 4-6]), the system would need a
backwash once every 2 and 3 days, respectively. These suggested filter run lengths are based on no
higher than 300 (ig/L of iron in the treated water. Obviously, if the Park desires to have less iron in the
treated water, the filter run length must be further reduced accordingly. The time setpoint starting from
July 23, 2010, was once every 3 days.
The samples on Day 6 were taken before backwash by the end of the day. It is not known why the low
results were achieved as shown in Table 4-10. Ap increased from a clean-bed level of 5 psi to 12 psi on
Day 6. After backwash, Ap remained high at 12 psi at Day 7. There is no plausible reason, other than a
recording error, to explain why the Ap remained high.
4.5.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids Sampling. Table 4-11 presents analytical results of
backwash wastewater sampling. Backwash wastewater samples were collected by the operator a total of
11 times from each of the three filtration vessels (except for Vessel C, which was sampled 10 times). pH
values of backwash wastewater ranged from 7.3 to 7.9 and averaged 7.6, which was approximately 0.3
pH units lower than that of the treated water. TDS concentrations ranged from 152 to 220 mg/L and
averaged 185 mg/L. TSS concentrations ranged from 85 to 1,280 mg/L and averaged 498 mg/L.
Concentrations of total arsenic, iron, and manganese ranged from 215 to 3,943 |o,g/L (averaged
1,581 (ig/L), 32,024 to 437,564 (ig/L (averaged 180,707 (ig/L), and 783 to 16,237 |^g/L (averaged
6,335 (ig/L), respectively.
As expected, the majority of the total arsenic, iron, and manganese in the backwash wastewater were in
particulate form. (Soluble arsenic concentrations in the samples collected on September 8, 2010, were
high, ranging from 17.1 to 18.8 |o,g/L. The reason for these elevated concentration is unknown.)
Assuming that 1,840 gal (see Section 4.4.4) of backwash wastewater was produced from each vessel and
that 498 mg/L of TSS was produced, approximately 3,469 g (3.5 kg) of solids would be discharged during
backwash of each filtration vessel and stored in the two 4,000-gal holding tanks. The solids would be
comprised of 11.0 g of arsenic (i.e. 0.3% by weight), 1,258 g of iron (i.e. 36.3 % by weight), and 44.0 g of
manganese (i.e. 1.3 % by weight) based on the average particulate metal data presented in Table 4-11.
Solids in backwash wastewater were characterized through collection of backwash solids (Section 3.3.3).
Table 4-12 presents analytical results of the solid samples collected on January 27, 2010. Arsenic, iron,
and manganese levels in the solids averaged 4,551 (ig/g (or 0.5% by weight), 373,734 (ig/g (or 37.4% by
weight), and 33,168 (ig/g (or 3.3 % by weight), respectively. These amounts were comparable to those
derived from the backwash wastewater metal analysis (i.e., 0.3%, 36.3%, and 1.3%, respectively).
46
-------
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
13
•^
o
-*^
5«
<
Hg/L
As (soluble)
Hg/L
As (particulate)
Hg/L
13
-*^
§
1>
ta
ug/L
Fe (soluble)
Hg/L
13
•^
o
-*^
1
Hg/L
Mn (soluble)
HS/L
Filtration Vessel A
01/04/10
01/27/10
02/24/10
03/23/10
04/19/10
05/18/10
06/16/10
07/12/10
08/10/10
09/08/10
10/06/10
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.9
7.6
174
176
180
174
208
204
202
220
192
192
188
85
230
260
580
810
850
1,000
525
650
95
220
302
472
442
1,692
3,139
1,893
2,963
1,535
3,943
1,283
1,061
6.7
2.8
2.8
.5
.4
.2
.4
.0
2.4
17.1
2.9
295
469
439
1,691
3,138
1,892
2,961
1,534
3,940
1,266
1,058
32,024
108,871
102,042
214,299
293,846
229,569
264,029
357,290
229,273
34,481
96,229
369
121
137
83
46
32
47
165
<25
<25
95
783
1,708
1,878
8,643
13,319
8,431
12,508
5,367
11,974
4,366
2,693
51.6
5.5
5.2
2.0
1.1
1.4
1.7
1.7
0.8
3.5
3.7
Filtration Vessel B
01/04/10
01/27/10
02/24/10
03/23/10
04/19/10
05/18/10
06/16/10
07/12/10
08/10/10
09/08/10
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.9
174
168
172
174
210
166
192
194
194
182
210
145
510
300
835
810
915
1,280
520
115
451
357
1,236
215
3,863
2,427
1,173
3,357
868
1,238
3.1
2.5
2.3
1.7
2.7
2.9
1.7
3.6
2.8
18.2
448
355
1,234
213
3,860
2,424
1,171
3,353
866
1,220
94,375
69,618
193,692
117,825
324,397
238,352
437,564
332,500
191,416
35,598
129
114
110
104
126
155
66
277
29
<25
1,828
1,464
6,243
1,944
15,482
10,020
5,846
14,384
4,085
3,918
3.5
3.7
3.9
3.0
4.4
6.3
2.2
11.4
1.6
5.4
10/06/10 7.6 184 225 1,085 2.9 1,082 95,608 104 2,750 4.2
Filtration Vessel C
01/04/10(a) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
01/27/10
02/24/10
03/23/10
04/19/10
05/18/10
06/16/10
07/12/10
08/10/10
09/08/10
10/06/10
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.9
7.5
176
172
170
152
180
196
186
190
182
186
160
310
345
665
600
805
1,010
550
115
210
433
471
247
3,261
2,026
2,683
2,555
1,402
1,462
1,048
2.9
3.4
2.3
1.6
3.4
1.7
1.7
3.1
18.8
2.7
430
467
245
3,259
2,022
2,681
2,553
1,398
1,443
1,045
86,792
120,994
133,835
284,662
203,891
223,185
289,080
205,463
42,207
99,612
133
383
178
44
184
62
115
40
32
99
1,345
2,229
2,417
16,237
7,275
10,334
11,199
4,936
4,511
2,589
4.7
12.3
5.2
1.5
5.8
2.0
2.9
2.1
6.6
4.0
NA = not available
(a) Backwash samples not collected from Tank C.
47
-------
Table 4-12. Backwash Solids Sampling Results
Sample ID
Vessel A-BW-Solids-1
Vessel A-BW-Solids-2
Average
Vessel B-BW-Solids-1
Vessel B-BW-Solids-2
Average
Vessel C-BW-Solids-1
Vessel C-BW-Solids-2
Average
Unit
Hg/g
MŁ/g
Hg/g
Hg/g
Hg/g
Mfi/g
Hg/g
Hg/g
Mfi/g
Mg
7,556
7,966
7,761
2,871
2,549
2,710
3,729
3,026
3,378
P
1,374
1,422
1,398
796
748
772
1,257
1,015
1,136
Si
13,363
9,936
11,650
4,322
3,026
3,674
4,558
3,276
3,917
Ca
60,053
64,691
62,372
33,334
31,751
32,543
46,980
45,060
46,020
Fe
365,724
395,474
380,599
270,006
297,442
283,724
460,129
453,629
456,879
Mn
39,412
36,158
37,785
36,406
40,180
38,293
22,734
24,116
23,425
As
4,518
4,878
4,698
3,219
3,591
3,405
5,600
5,498
5,549
Ba
1,642
1,753
1,697
1,566
1,497
1,532
2,200
1,867
2,033
Collected on 01727/10.
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to system startup, four first-draw baseline
samples were collected from three residences (all of which were previously used for LCR sampling) on
September 17, September 23, September 29, and October 8, 2009. Following system startup, sampling
continued on a monthly basis from December 2009 through September 2010. Table 4-13 presents results
of the distribution system sampling.
The most noticeable change in the distribution system water samples since system startup was a decrease
in arsenic and manganese concentrations. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged from 2.8 to 20.7 (ig/L
and averaged 10.6 (ig/L. After system startup, the average arsenic concentration decreased significantly
to 5.0 (ig/L (on average). Out of the 11 distribution sampling events, two (at DS3 on April 6, 2010, and at
DS2 on June 28, 2010) had arsenic concentrations above the 10 (ig/L MCL. In both cases, elevated
arsenic concentrations (at 21.4 and 18.0 (ig/L) were associated with elevated iron concentrations (at 2,758
and 600 ug/L, respectively), indicating iron leakage from and inadequate backwash frequency of the
filtration vessels. These elevated concentrations also could come from pipe surfaces.
During the study period, iron leakage from the filtration vessels was observed due to an increase in water
demand and inadequte backwash frequency (once every six days), and was reflected by the results of
distribution sampling. Baseline iron concentrations ranged from less than the MDL of 25 (ig/L to 928
(ig/L and averaged 181 (ig/L. From system startup through June 2, 2010, iron concentrations increased
significantly, ranging from less than the MDL of 25 (ig/L to 2,758 (ig/L and averaged 458 (ig/L. To
prevent iron leakage, the backwash frequency was shortened from once every six days to once every three
days on July 23, 2010. Since then, iron concentrations were reduced significantly to 230 (ig/L (on
average).
Baseline manganese concentrations ranged from 0.4 to 212 (ig/L, and averaged 62.2 (ig/L. After system
startup, manganese concentrations were reduced to below the 50 (ig/L SMCL (43.5 (ig/L [on average]).
Lead and copper concentrations within the distribution system increased slightly from baseline levels, but
remained significantly less than their respective action levels of 15 (ig/L and 1,300 (ig/L. Baseline lead
concentrations ranged from less than the MDL of 0.1 (ig/L to 4.5 (ig/L and averaged 0.6 (ig/L, while
baseline copper concentrations ranged from 0.3 to 72.6 (ig/L and averaged 17.9 (ig/L. After system
startup, lead and copper levels slightly increased to 1.2 (ig/L and 21.2 (ig/L (on average), respectively.
48
-------
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
Location
Address
Flushed/
1st Draw
Sampling
Date
Date
09/17/09
09/23/09
09/29/09
10/08/09
12/15/09
01/08/10
02/11/10
03/09/10
04/06/10
05/04/10
-------
Measured pH values ranged from 7.4 to 8.2 and averaged 7.8. Alkalinity levels ranged from 129 to
184 mg/L (as CaCO3) and averaged 143 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
250-gpm treatment system was $191,970 (Table 4-14). The equipment cost was $136,744 (or 71% of the
total capital investment), which included $36,283 for the three carbon-steel filtration vessels, $13,320 for
the AD-GS+ ($138.75/ft3 or $1.63/lb), $2,244 for anthracite ($46.75/ft3 or $l.ll/lb), $36,283 for process
valves and piping, $26,515 for instrumentation and controls, $4,865 for the iron addition system, $3,150
for the chlorine addition system, and $3,950 for shipping.
Table 4-14. Capital Investment Cost
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment
Equipment Cost
Filtration Vessels
GreensandPlus™ (ft3)
Anthracite #1 (ft3)
Process Valves and Piping
Instrumentation and Controls
Iron Addition System
Chlorine Addition System
O&M Manuals
Shipping
Miscellaneous Items
Equipment Total
3
96
48
-
-
1
1
3
-
-
-
$36,283
$13,320
$2,244
$36,283
$26,515
$4,865
$3,150
$475
$3,950
9,659
$136,744
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
71%
Site Engineering Cost
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Subcontractor Labor
PA DEP Review Fees
Engineering Total
-
-
-
-
-
$8,073
$3,240
$9,663
$750
$21,726
-
-
11%
Installation Cost
Vendor Labor for Startup
Vendor Travel for Startup
Subcontractor Material
Subcontractor Electrical Material/Labor
Subcontractor Labor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$3,880
$985
$16,947
$2,922
$8,766
$33,500
$191,970
-
-
-
-
-
18%
100%
50
-------
The site engineering cost included the cost for preparation of a process flow diagram and relevant
mechanical drawings of the treatment system, piping, and valves, as well as submission of a permit
application package to PA DEP for approval. The site engineering cost was $21,726, or 11% of the total
capital investment. Site engineering was performed by Porter Consulting Engineers, P.C., a subcontractor
to AdEdge.
The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the system, perform piping
tie-ins/electrical connections, load and backwash the media, perform system shakedown and startup, and
conduct operator training. The installation was performed by AdEdge and its subcontractor and cost
$33,500, or 18% of the total capital investment.
The capital cost of $191,970 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 250 gpm (or 360,000 gpd),
which resulted in $768/gpm (or $0.53 gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $18,120/year using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-yr return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at the design
flowrate of 250 gpm to produce 131,400,000 gal/year, the unit capital cost would be $0.14/1,000 gal.
During the year-long demonstration period, the system produced approximately 20,114,000 gal of water
(see Table 4-6); at this reduced rate of usage, the unit capital cost increased to $0.90/1,000 gal.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M costs included chemical consumption (i.e.,
FeCl3), electricity consumption, and labor for a combined unit cost of $0.48/1,000 gal as summarized in
Table 4-15. Chlorination using NaOCl existed prior to the installation of the treatment system for
disinfection purposes. The presence of the system did not affect the use rate of the NaOCl solution.
Therefore, the incremental chemical cost of the chlorine was negligible. Iron addition using FeCl3 was
calculated to be $0.07/1,000 gal based on 186 gal used to treat approximately 20,114,150 gal of water.
Electrical power consumption was calculated based on the difference between the average monthly usage
cost from electric bills before and after system startup. The difference in electricity usage was 1,715
KWh, which was an additional $108.37 per month based on a rate of $0.0632/KWh. Therefore, the cost
of the electricity was calculated to be $0.06/1,000 gal. The routine, non-demonstration related labor
activities consumed approximately 1 hr/day (Section 4.4.6). Based on this time commitment and a labor
rate of $22/hr, the labor cost was $0.35/1,000 gal of water treated.
Table 4-15. Operation and Maintenance Cost
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Value
20,114,150
Assumptions
12/03/09-12/17/10 (379 days)
Chemical Cost
Ferric Chloride Cost ($/yr)
Ferric Chloride Cost ($/l,000 gal)
$1,479
$0.07
Estimated one-year consumption: 730 gal
Actual consumption: 186 gal
Electricity Cost
Electricity Cost ($/month)
Electricity Cost ($/l,000 gal)
$108.37
$0.06
Based on KWh usage at $0.0632 rate
Average monthly usage increase of 1,715 KWh
Labor Cost
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Labor Throughout Study (hr)
Labor Cost ($)
Unit Labor Cost ($/l,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
6.0
324
$7,128
$0.35
$0.48
1.0 hr/visit, 6.0 visit/week (on average)
54 weeks from 12/03/09 through 12/17/10
Labor rate = $22.00/hr
Sum for chemicals, electricity, and labor
51
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2009. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology Round 2a at Conneaut Lake Park in Conneaut Lake, OH. Prepared under
Contract No. EP-C-05-057, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Battelle. 2007. 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. EPA
NRMRL. August 15.
Chen, A.S.C., G.M. Lewis, L. Wang, and A. Wang. 2010. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Coagulation/Filtration, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Town ofFelton, DE, Final
Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-10/039. 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.
Condit, W.E. and A.S.C. Chen. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal, U.S. EPA
Demonstration Project at Climax, MN, Final Performance Evaluation Report.
EPA/600/R-06/152. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Cumming, L.J., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2009. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH, Final Performance Evaluation
Report. EPA/600/R-09/017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. 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.
Knocke, W.R., R.C.Hoehn, and R.L. Sinsabaugh. 1987. "Using Alternative Oxidants to Remove
Dissolved Manganese from Waters Laden with Organics." J. AWWA, 79(3): 75.
Knocke, W.R., J.E. Van Benschoten, M. Kearney, A. Soborski, and D.A. Reckhow. 1990. Alternative
Oxidants for the Remove of Soluble Iron and Manganese. Final report prepared for the AWWA
Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
52
-------
McCall, S.E., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2007. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park in Springfield,
OH, Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-07/072. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Shiao, H.T., A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, and W.E. Condit. 2009. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Iron Removal, U. S. EPA Demonstration Project at Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park in Sauk
Centre, MN, Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-09/013. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sorg, T.J. 2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, AWWA, 28(11): 15.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
53
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Conneaut Lake Park, PA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Day
of
Week
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Fri
Sat
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Date
12/03/09
12/04/09
12/05/09
12/06/09
12/07/09
12/08/09
12/09/09
12/11/09
12/12/09
12/13/09
12/14/09
12/15/09
12/17/09
12/18/09
12/19/09
12/20/09
12/21/09
12/23/09
12/25/09
12/26/09
12/27/09
12/28/09
12/29/09
12/30/09
01/01/10
01/02/10
01/04/10
01/05/10
01/06/10
01/07/10
01/08/10
01/09/10
01/10/10
01/11/10
01/12/10
01/13/10
01/14/10
01/15/10
01/16/10
01/17/10
Time
13:56
13:15
4:55
17:00
13:05
13:05
13:21
17:43
5:18
1:50
13:22
13:46
13:18
13:45
3:45
4:00
13:38
19:00
2:00
12:00
10:00
13:34
13:20
20:40
5:00
8:00
13:31
13:45
13:03
13-16
13:50
11:40
10:30
13:10
13:15
13:06
13:30
16:00
4:00
5:00
Supply Well (Well No. 2)
Cum.
Op
Hours
hr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Well
Pump
Flow/rate
gpm
163
162
162
160
173
158
164
165
161
172
NA
NA
NA
NA
170
170
161
161
162
166
158
154
153
160
167
163
154
166
164
163
157
158
164
161
165
169
164
158
168
164
Cum.
Volume
gal
NA
18,423
34,985
39,327
85,722
110,103
132,996
158,951
194,463
221,687
256,097
279,273
NA
348,396
355,506
377,851
424,637
475,938
520,745
547,716
594,257
641,526
665,848
691,285
711,203
761,399
826,682
844,221
867,932
900 046
930,260
952,345
975,509
996,285
1,018,441
1,031,262
1,064,703
1,106,112
1,109,712
1,129,986
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vessel A
Instant.
Flowrate
A
gpm
57
57
55
57
60
58
57
56
56
54
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
57
55
55
55
55
51
53
51
91
51
50
51
70
53
52
50
51
67
68
51
50
49
49
69
68
Cum.
Volume
A
gal
NA
6,141
12,282
13,736
30,508
38,593
46,398
67,327
68,051
80,000
104,739
113,935
114,635
118,516
124,249
132,159
148,544
165,128
184,331
193,089
208,691
224,172
232,607
245,532
254,288
268,000
288,409
295,829
306,037
314845
325,698
332,482
342,084
350,527
359,943
366,687
373,808
386,272
387,587
396,149
Average
Flowrate
A
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DP
psi
7
9
8
8
7
9
1
-1
3
7
0
0
2
0
5
8
0
0
6
4
6
8
9
0
4
8
0
2
4
-1
7
7
7
4
4
6
6
2
4
4
Vessel B
Instant.
Flowrate
B
gpm
53
53
52
53
55
52
52
51
53
58
NA
NA
53
43
56
55
58
52
55
57
54
51
49
35
58
58
51
67
51
52
46
46
62
62
47
47
45
43
64
64
Cum.
Volume
B
gal
NA
6,141
11,458
12,810
28,336
35,711
42,886
62,209
62,860
70,184
104,441
106,537
107,217
111,606
114,638
122,163
137,673
153,373
167,203
176,101
192,123
207,828
216,047
222,230
230,715
246,267
268,186
274,599
284,269
292 384
302,465
308,755
317,092
324,728
333,398
339,586
346,136
357,280
358,281
366,087
Average
Flowrate
B
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DP
psi
4
3
2
3
0
-1
1
0
4
2
0
0
0
-1
3
2
1
-1
1
3
2
3
3
4
2
3
1
1
2
0
1
2
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
Vessel C System
Instant.
Flowrate
C
gpm
51
52
52
53
58
56
55
53
54
59
NA
NA
59
45
57
58
53
52
52
56
54
50
51
35
59
58
53
28
65
66
62
61
33
34
70
71
70
65
38
32
Cum.
Volume
C
gal
NA
6,141
11,245
12,587
27,921
35,652
43,131
63,089
63,759
71,083
NA
NA
108,788
113,267
116,153
124,032
140,184
156,341
169,682
178,127
193,704
209,261
217,509
223,737
231,928
247,536
267,738
274,013
278,059
289 051
302,577
310,848
316,705
320,822
325,463
334,989
345,125
362,048
363,709
367,989
Average
Flowrate
C
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DP
psi
1
0
1
3
1
-1
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
0
-1
3
4
2
4
1
0
1
2
0
-1
1
3
2
1
1
0
-1
0
1
1
Inlet
Pressure
psi
84
85
83
82
83
81
80
81
83
82
60
87
NA
80
83
84
80
80
82
82
83
80
82
81
82
83
80
82
82
80
82
84
83
82
82
83
81
80
82
82
Outlet
Pressure
psi
80
82
81
81
82
80
80
80
81
81
60
86
NA
80
81
81
80
80
80
81
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Conneaut Lake Park, PA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Day
of
Week
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Date
01/18/10
01/19/10
01/20/10
01/21/10
01/22/10
01/23/10
01/24/10
01/25/10
01/26/10
01/27/10
01/28/10
01/29/10
02/01/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
02/04/10
02/05/10
02/08/10
02/09/10
02/10/10
02/11/10
02/12/10
02/15/10
02/16/10
02/17/10
02/18/10
02/18/10
02/19/10
02/22/10
02/23/10
02/24/10
02/25/10
02/26/10
03/01/10
03/02/10
03/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
03/06/10
03/08/10
03/09/10
03/10/10
03/11/10
03/12/10
Time
13:30
13:45
13:30
13:20
13:20
3:00
2:00
13:15
10:00
13:25
13:10
13:11
13:20
13:10
13:15
13:00
20:35
13:15
13:30
13:00
13:15
13:15
13:30
13:15
13:15
13:20
14:10
13:15
13:28
12:15
13:07
13:25
13:15
13:10
13:13
17:00
13:00
13:10
19:10
13:40
13:05
13:15
13:05
13:06
Supply Well (Well No. 2)
Cum.
Op
Hours
hr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
Well
Pump
Flow/rate
gpm
169
168
154
155
159
165
159
163
153
152
163
160
162
173
164
163
164
174
163
160
163
156
160
155
156
156
NA
154
162
151
147
171
159
159
160
157
167
160
160
155
153
152
153
153
Cum.
Volume
gal
1,172,121
1,193,978
1,228,313
1,255,361
1,280,466
1,281,623
1,319,381
1,344,379
1,378,064
1,401,968
1,434,084
1,458,807
1,525,084
1,552,102
1,585,652
1,616,587
1,638,985
1,704,282
1,745,883
1,768,141
1,786,947
1,817,411
1,944,617
1,979,035
1,998,741
2,019,021
2,019,941
2,041,204
2,125,248
2,160,574
2,184,543
2,201,551
2,240,802
2,300,880
2,331,044
2,353,562
2,374,370
2,400,050
2,434,141
2,475,502
2,500,129
2,525,380
2,548,033
2,570,471
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vessel A
Instant.
Flowrate
A
gpm
52
51
48
49
67
68
50
50
49
51
55
54
56
60
58
55
56
90
56
56
57
55
56
54
55
54
NA
53
57
53
53
57
47
50
79
73
35
33
35
73
67
32
33
35
Cum.
Volume
A
gal
413,737
420,203
430,795
439,389
449,128
449,796
453,530
471,507
481,649
489,575
500,966
509,184
532,156
541,870
553,652
564,502
572,141
595,515
610,387
617,676
624,279
635,029
679,931
691,881
698,754
705,860
706,028
713,708
743,445
755,614
764,511
770,677
783,382
801,665
815,862
826,136
836,098
841,212
848,379
867,817
878,929
884,812
889,596
894,564
Average
Flowrate
A
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DP
psi
1
7
5
6
2
5
5
4
4
2
2
2
4
2
2
4
2
7
2
4
4
-2
4
2
4
4
NA
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
0
4
2
3
2
4
4
2
4
6
Vessel B
Instant.
Flowrate
B
gpm
49
48
44
43
61
64
45
45
43
43
53
52
53
54
52
52
53
56
52
52
52
50
52
50
50
50
NA
48
52
48
48
54
55
53
40
42
64
63
58
41
43
63
60
58
Cum.
Volume
B
gal
382,443
388,429
398,229
405,914
414,552
415,171
427,838
435,057
443,777
450,940
461,129
468,992
490,733
499,531
510,252
520,165
527,196
548,268
561,997
568,827
574,896
584,614
625,141
636,251
642,574
649,027
649,212
656,074
682,602
693,465
701,340
706,914
719,942
740,700
748,645
754,301
760,478
770,549
783,384
794,686
801,359
811,020
819,849
828,314
Average
Flowrate
B
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DP
psi
0
1
2
0
0
2
1
-2
-2
0
-2
-2
2
0
0
0
0
2
4
2
4
4
4
2
4
4
NA
4
4
0
2
2
4
2
2
4
0
1
2
4
2
T
2
3
Vessel C System
Instant.
Flowrate
C
gpm
68
69
65
63
32
33
66
66
61
60
56
53
54
57
53
53
53
58
53
54
54
51
52
51
51
52
NA
51
53
50
50
61
57
54
43
42
68
64
59
42
44
65
62
60
Cum.
Volume
C
gal
376,112
384,893
399,452
410,646
416,564
416,891
427,592
438,234
451,270
460,727
471,436
479,754
502,199
511,071
522,111
532,252
539,391
560,676
574,830
581,805
588,011
597,991
639,956
651,317
657,792
664,409
664,596
671,695
699,361
710,596
718,869
724,187
737,964
758,795
766,689
772,253
778,048
788,450
801,712
813,323
820,093
829,732
838,759
847,420
Average
Flowrate
C
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DP
psi
0
1
2
3
3
1
2
0
0
2
w
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
4
2
0
4
4
NA
4
4
2
2
2
4
2
2
4
0
1
2
4
2
0
2
2
Inlet
Pressure
psi
82
83
82
83
82
83
82
82
82
80
80
81
81
82
82
81
81
83
82
82
83
82
82
82
82
82
NA
83
82
80
82
82
83
82
82
80
83
82
80
82
82
82
81
82
Outlet
Pressure
psi
80
80
80
80
80
81
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
81
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
78
NA
78
80
80
80
80
80
79
79
80
83
80
80
79
79
80
79
79
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Conneaut Lake Park, PA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Day
of
Week
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Date
03/15/10
03/16/10
03/17/10
03/18/10
03/19/10
03/22/10
03/23/10
03/24/10
03/25/10
03/26/10
03/29/10
03/30/10
03/31/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
04/05/10
04/06/10
04/07/10
04/08/10
04/09/10
04/12/10
04/13/10
04/14/10
04/15/10
04/16/10
04/19/10
04/20/10
04/21/10
04/22/10
04/23/10
04/26/10
04/27/10
04/28/10
04/29/10
04/30/10
05/03/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
05/06/10
05/07/10
05/10/10
05/11/10
05/12/10
05/13/10
05/14/10
Time
13:25
13:00
13:05
13:00
13:05
9:40
13:00
13:10
13:05
13:00
21:13
14:15
13:28
13:04
13:12
13:06
13:25
13:02
13:00
13:02
8:15
13:02
13:02
13:20
13:00
13:00
13:04
13:25
13:15
13:20
13:09
13:05
13:15
15:30
13:00
13:00
13:20
13:15
13:00
13:00
13:45
13:00
13:05
20:48
13:02
Supply Well (Well No. 2)
Cum.
Op
Hours
hr
7.5
11.2
13.6
16.0
18.6
26.2
28.7
32.6
32.9
36.4
48.0
50.4
52.9
55.4
57.8
67.7
70.1
73.9
77.7
79.4
87.5
91.4
95.5
101.4
107.3
123.6
127.7
132.5
138.3
144.2
161.0
164.5
170.7
178.1
181.8
198.7
204.6
208.6
213.1
219.2
235.0
238.3
243.6
251.7
255.0
Well
Pump
Flow/rate
gpm
153
165
148
154
165
164
165
160
165
162
164
160
159
153
155
163
162
153
153
152
163
155
155
154
163
17
166
157
150
147
156
158
151
143
147
160
150
150
148
165
149
152
149
159
159
Cum.
Volume
gal
2,638,283
2,671,740
2,695,023
2,717,187
2,741,153
2,813,406
2,836,110
2,873,579
2,876,275
2,910,359
3,020,643
3,043,646
3,067,031
3,090,378
3,112,566
3,204,719
3,230,867
3,264,399
3,295,624
3,319,314
3,396,389
3,428,154
3,466,961
3,520,054
3,574,950
3,727,571
3,762,438
3,813,085
3,865,250
3,919,404
4,072,312
4,105,332
4,162,018
4,233,548
4,258,891
4,413,198
4,471,633
4,505,462
4,547,441
4,602,619
4,751,557
4,781,059
4,826,903
4,904,190
4,935,217
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
157
151
162
154
154
158
151
160
150
162
158
160
156
156
154
155
182
147
137
159
136
158
150
155
156
142
176
150
153
152
157
152
161
114
152
165
141
155
151
157
149
144
159
157
Vessel A
Instant.
Flowrate
A
gpm
71
32
28
30
77
37
35
54
57
55
56
56
56
54
54
56
55
53
52
52
54
53
53
51
55
52
52
54
53
51
53
56
53
50
52
55
53
53
53
56
53
54
52
55
55
Cum.
Volume
A
gal
926,590
941,361
945,386
949,482
954,090
988,388
993,591
1,005,070
1,006,022
1,017,566
1,055,847
1,063,710
1,071,962
1,080,119
1,087,945
1,119,818
1,128,864
1,140,232
1,151,002
1,159,324
1,178,609
1,196,603
1,209,900
1,228,228
1,247,656
1,300,836
1,312,685
1,329,549
1,347,582
1,366,404
1,419,597
1,430,979
1,450,642
1,475,675
1,484,808
1,538,189
1,558,576
1,570,950
1,585,333
1,605,333
1,656,778
1,667,225
1,683,488
1,710,429
1,721,268
Average
Flowrate
A
gpm
74.1
66.5
28.0
28.4
29.5
75.2
34.7
49.1
52.9
55.0
55.0
54.6
55.0
54.4
54.3
53.7
62.8
49.9
47.2
81.6
39.7
76.9
54.1
51.8
54.9
54.4
48.2
58.6
51.8
53.2
52.8
54.2
52.9
56.4
41.1
52.6
57.6
51.6
53.3
54.6
54.3
52.8
51.1
55.4
54.7
DP
psi
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
6
2
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
3
4
4
6
2
2
Vessel B
Instant.
Flowrate
B
gpm
42
65
66
62
43
63
60
52
54
53
53
52
50
49
51
54
54
51
49
49
53
49
50
49
53
48
56
51
49
48
51
50
49
45
46
52
48
47
46
53
47
48
46
52
51
Cum.
Volume
B
gal
846,242
855,678
864,860
873,916
883,481
901,667
910,836
923,534
924,434
935,564
971,079
978,510
986,199
993,661
1,000,783
1,030,371
1,039,168
1,050,159
1,060,251
1,067,946
1,092,224
1,103,741
1,116,084
1,132,991
1,151,047
1,200,700
1,212,160
1,228,686
1,245,646
1,263,152
1,312,872
1,323,493
1,341,860
1,364,335
1,372,527
1,422,723
1,441,443
1,452,113
1,465,163
1,482,811
1,530,991
1,540,310
1,554,767
1,579,386
1,589,519
Average
Flowrate
B
gpm
41.5
42.5
63.8
62.9
61.3
39.9
61.1
54.3
50.0
53.0
51.0
51.6
51.3
49.7
49.5
49.8
61.1
48.2
44.3
75.4
50.0
49.2
50.2
47.8
51.0
50.8
46.6
57.4
48.7
49.5
49.3
50.6
49.4
50.6
36.9
49.5
52.9
44.5
48.3
48.2
50.8
47.1
45.5
50.7
51.2
DP
psi
2
0
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
-2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
Vessel C System
Instant.
Flowrate
C
gpm
43
68
68
66
46
63
63
54
58
54
55
53
54
51
52
56
53
51
49
50
55
55
52
49
55
48
57
52
51
49
52
53
54
47
46
53
50
50
49
49
49
49
50
53
53
Cum.
Volume
C
gal
865,698
874,963
884,428
893,874
903,690
922,630
932,054
945,073
945,993
957,455
993,504
1,001,164
1,009,062
1,016,743
1,024,071
1,054,076
1,063,032
1,074,156
1,084,441
1,092,294
1,116,476
1,128,434
1,141,232
1,158,556
1,176,546
1,226,219
1,237,826
1,254,931
1,272,206
1,289,885
1,339,891
1,350,871
1,369,945
1,393,174
1,401,566
1,452,418
1,471,691
1,482,893
1,496,674
1,514,711
1,563,854
1,573,587
1,588,839
1,614,068
1,624,442
Average
Flowrate
C
gpm
42.3
41.7
65.7
65.6
62.9
41.5
62.8
55.6
51.1
54.6
51.8
53.2
52.7
51.2
50.9
50.5
62.2
48.8
45.1
77.0
49.8
51.1
52.0
48.9
50.8
50.8
47.2
59.4
49.6
49.9
49.6
52.3
51.3
52.3
37.8
50.1
54.4
46.7
51.0
49.3
51.8
49.2
48.0
51.9
52.4
DP
psi
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
-2
2
2
2
2
5
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
Inlet
Pressure
psi
82
81
82
81
81
80
82
82
81
82
80
82
82
81
82
82
82
80
81
82
80
81
82
82
81
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
80
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
80
82
Outlet
Pressure
psi
73
80
78
73
80
80
81
80
79
80
80
80
80
75
75
79
80
72
76
76
80
79
79
79
79
76
80
79
76
74
79
80
75
70
72
78
78
78
77
80
78
76
76
80
80
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Conneaut Lake Park, PA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Day
of
Week
Mon
Tue
Wed
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Sat
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Date
05/17/10
05/18/10
05/19/10
05/21/10
05/24/10
05/25/10
05/26/10
05/27/10
05/28/10
06/01/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
06/04/10
06/07/10
06/08/10
06/09/10
06/10/10
06/11/10
06/14/10
06/15/10
06/16/10
06/17/10
06/19/10
06/21/10
06/22/10
06/23/10
06/24/10
06/25/10
06/28/10
06/29/10
06/30/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
07/03/10
07/04/10
07/05/10
07/06/10
07/07/10
07/08/10
07/09/10
07/10/10
07/11/10
Time
13:25
13:05
13:40
13:00
13:00
14:00
13:00
13:00
13:10
13:00
13:15
13:12
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
12:55
13:15
13:10
6:30
13:00
13:00
13:05
14:00
13:00
13:00
13:05
13:15
13:15
13:00
6:10
6:15
6:10
13:45
13:05
13:00
13:05
7:04
7:08
Supply Well (Well No. 2)
Cum.
Op
Hours
hr
272.8
281.9
297.9
310.0
333.6
334.0
346.9
353.1
361.0
404.9
413.3
420.3
427.5
451.0
457.7
464.7
471.7
478.3
500.4
508.7
515.4
521.9
533.4
556.7
563.5
570.0
587.2
594.0
621.0
629.5
636.4
655.6
670.4
685.4
707.0
726.2
744.3
756.8
768.2
785.6
795.4
810.3
Well
Pump
Flow/rate
gpm
147
140
156
144
161
194
153
155
141
147
137
132
137
142
145
137
135
161
151
131
134
162
150
137
132
150
138
133
132
147
141
134
142
129
109
144
134
142
144
128
124
140
Cum.
Volume
gal
5,097,041
5,173,741
5,268,695
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
152
140
99
5,430,033 | 222
5,635,649
5,639,266
5,754,930
5,810,468
5,879,750
NA
6,335,073
6,392,159
6,448,498
6,659,315
6,717,539
6,775,609
6,832,281
6,891,558
7,089,468
7,159,651
7,214,865
7,274,699
7,381,629
7,583,612
7,638,596
7,764,460
7,834,534
7,890,645
8,113,530
8,183,618
8,243,511
8,400,264
8,520,184
8,637,143
8,794,010
8,932,491
9,084,932
9,182,199
9,285,075
9,419,242
9,493,641
9,607,697
145
151
149
149
146
NA
145
136
130
150
145
138
135
150
149
141
137
153
155
144
135
323
68
138
138
137
145
136
135
130
121
120
140
130
150
129
127
128
Vessel A
Instant.
Flowrate
A
gpm
52
49
50
50
55
55
52
51
50
51
46
45
43
49
49
47
46
53
52
45
63
59
54
36
37
68
61
58
37
66
64
56
56
32
32
64
59
67
41
41
40
22
Cum.
Volume
A
gal
1,778,590
1,805,797
1,837,317
1,892,611
1,964,885
1,966,122
2,005,249
2,024,650
2,050,305
2,180,455
2,204,532
2,223,929
2,243,274
2,315,158
2,334,962
2,354,915
2,374,582
2,395,238
2,462,335
2,486,365
2,512,238
2,533,157
2,572,249
2,631,115
2,646,227
2,691,766
2,723,236
2,748,042
2,809,186
2,834,044
2,861,069
2,928,790
2,966,318
2,993,701
3,037,495
3,084,837
3,153,156
3,200,721
3,228,362
3,269,060
3,293,177
3,326,632
Average
Flowrate
A
gpm
53.7
49.8
32.8
76.2
51.0
51.5
50.6
52.2
54.1
49.4
47.8
46.2
44.8
51.0
49.3
47.5
46.8
52.2
50.6
48.3
64.4
53.6
56.7
42.1
37.0
116.8
30.5
60.8
37.7
48.7
65.3
58.8
42.3
30.4
33.8
41.1
62.9
63.4
40.4
39.0
41.0
37.4
DP
psi
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
12
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
10
12
2
0
0
10
0
5
10
10
8
10
0
12
9
2
10
12
12
Vessel B
Instant.
Flowrate
B
gpm
47
45
52
46
51
64
49
48
45
48
44
43
42
46
47
43
43
52
48
42
34
57
51
30
31
66
56
53
31
65
60
52
25
29
28
68
57
66
39
37
37
96
Cum.
Volume
B
gal
1,640,499
1,664,799
1,696,320
1,748,247
1,813,809
1,814,999
1,852,653
1,870,326
1,892,092
2,016,492
2,039,402
2,058,119
2,076,258
2,144,390
2,163,298
2,181,902
2,200,171
2,219,454
2,283,531
2,306,146
2,320,392
2,340,671
2,378,405
2,429,575
2,442,284
2,482,746
2,512,690
2,535,534
2,587,583
2,609,618
2,635,502
2,698,465
2,732,610
2,756,680
2,795,636
2,837,459
2,905,937
2,954,575
2,981,159
3,019,553
3,041,773
3,086,530
Average
Flowrate
B
gpm
47.7
44.5
32.8
71.5
46.3
49.6
48.6
47.5
45.9
47.2
45.5
44.6
42.0
48.3
47.0
44.3
43.5
48.7
48.3
45.4
35.4
52.0
54.7
DP
psi
2
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
36.6 I 8
31.1 I 9
103.7 0
29.0 I 0
56.0
32.1
43.2
62.5
54.7
38.5
26.7
30.1
36.3
63.1
64.9
38.9
36.8
37.8
50.1
0
10
0
3
10
10
10
10
0
10
6
0
10
10
10
Vessel C System
Instant.
Flowrate
C
gpm
49
46
54
49
54
67
52
51
47
49
45
43
43
48
49
44
44
55
49
42
37
43
45
72
63
16
19
21
62
15
18
26
88
67
50
10
17
17
65
50
45
46
Cum.
Volume
C
gal
1,677,777
1,702,974
1,735,094
1,789,309
1,856,897
1,858,227
1,896,988
1,915,664
1,938,724
2,067,757
2,091,252
2,110,342
2,128,812
2,199,875
2,219,545
2,238,761
2,257,516
2,276,957
2,343,790
2,367,120
2,382,222
2,401,194
2,431,014
2,522,943
2,550,204
2,589,918
2,598,597
2,607,057
2,716,877
2,739,794
2,746,992
2,773,011
2,821,304
2,886,657
2,960,872
3,010,443
3,025,814
3,027,248
3,075,578
3,130,621
3,158,541
3,194,541
Average
Flowrate
C
gpm
49.9
46.1
33.5
74.7
47.7
55.4
50.1
50.2
48.6
49.0
46.6
45.5
42.8
50.4
48.9
45.8
44.7
49.1
50.4
46.8
37.6
48.6
43.2
DP
psi
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
65.8 I 8
66.8 I 10
101.8 0
8~4 | 0
20.7
67.8
44.9
17.4
22.6
54.4
72.6
57.3
43.0
14.2
1.9
70.7
52.7
47.5
40.3
0
10
0
0
10
10
7
10
0
10
6
0
10
10
10
Inlet
Pressure
psi
82
82
82
82
82
80
82
82
80
80
80
80
80
81
82
82
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
Outlet
Pressure
psi
73
73
78
74
80
77
75
75
72
72
72
72
70
73
73
73
72
80
72
72
72
80
75
72
70
73
73
72
72
75
73
70
72
70
70
72
70
72
72
72
70
70
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Conneaut Lake Park, PA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
33
34
35
36
37
38
Day
of
Week
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Date
07/12/10
07/13/10
07/14/10
07/15/10
07/16/10
07/17/10
07/18/10
07/19/10
07/20/10
07/21/10
07/22/10
07/23/10
07/24/10
07/25/1 0
07/26/10
07 727 710
07/28/10
07/29/10
07/30/10
07/31/10
08/01/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
08/04/10
08/05/10
08/06/10
08/07/10
08/08/10
08/09/10
08/10/10
08/11/10
08/12/10
08/13/10
08/14/10
08/15/10
08/16/10
08/17/10
08/18/10
08/19/10
08/20/10
08/21/10
08/22/10
Time
13:39
13:00
13:10
13:02
13:00
7:00
6:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:05
13:01
7:20
7'02
13:45
13:05
13:05
13:08
13:09
8:02
7:06
13:10
13:02
13:07
13:04
13:05
7:00
7:00
13:10
13:20
13:03
13:00
19:40
7:10
7:12
13:20
13:04
13:00
13:18
13:08
7:15
7:01
Supply Well (Well No. 2)
Cum.
Op
Hours
hr
827.6
835.1
850.6
858.6
873.4
884.6
900.3
916.4
930.4
941.5
955.9
971.7
991.1
996 4
1011.1
1020.6
1040.3
1052.3
1066.1
1076.2
1091.4
1110.3
1112.2
1128.6
1137.2
1150.5
1156.7
1172.3
1191.1
1197.6
1207.2
1209.1
1234.6
1240.6
1258.6
1277.5
1286.4
1293.6
1305.4
1319.6
1334.0
1353.2
Well
Pump
Flow/rate
gpm
144
153
155
144
129
133
145
143
127
125
127
162
136
145
140
138
139
140
154
154
132
152
155
154
157
158
144
152
151
154
151
147
155
160
151
145
160
150
145
150
145
Cum.
Volume
gal
9,751,053
9,817,347
9,953,631
10,020,518
10,136,698
10,227,935
10,355,684
10,489,350
10,601,440
10,685,787
10,787,384
10,921,762
11,000,454
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
138
147
147
139
131
136
136
138
133
127
118
142
68
11,254,874 I 149
11,333,837
11,487,900
11,591,363
11,705,043
11,790,688
11,923,486
12,082,246
12,147,377
12,246,443
NA
12,448,492
12,505,255
12,646,195
12,809,684
12,870,819
12,958,146
13,068,308
13,206,891
13,262,091
13,410,473
13,584,985
13,665,658
13,728,265
13,841,350
13,959,489
14,093,835
14,265,298
139
130
144
137
141
146
140
571
101
NA
154
153
151
145
157
152
966
91
153
137
154
151
145
160
139
155
149
Vessel A
Instant.
Flowrate
A
gpm
87
46
46
49
45
25
92
41
41
43
43
17
72
75
69
24
71
63
22
81
59
24
52
53
52
53
50
49
51
52
32
52
51
51
51
51
53
52
51
50
49
Cum.
Volume
A
gal
3,375,350
3,398,825
3,442,989
3,465,202
3,505,152
3,530,956
3,559,204
3,627,831
3,662,325
3,690,702
3,725,853
3,740,292
3,780,840
3,871,711
3,911,987
3,964,208
4,003,956
4,058,767
4,088,729
4,119,121
4,195,372
4,215,873
4,248,127
4,275,096
4,317,208
4,336,633
4,385,461
4,442,639
4,462,956
4,492,547
4,530,312
4,578,412
4,597,782
4,650,760
4,709,274
4,737,415
4,759,178
4,797,666
4,838,632
4,885,274
4,942,431
Average
Flowrate
A
gpm
46.9
52.2
47.5
46.3
45.0
38.4
30.0
71.0
41.1
42.6
40.7
15.2
34.8
1593
45.6
70.7
44.2
55.2
66.2
49.4
33.3
67.2
179.8
32.8
52.3
52.8
52.2
52.2
50.7
52.1
51.4
331.3
31.4
53.8
49.1
51.6
52.7
50.4
54.4
48.1
54.0
49.6
DP
psi
12
2
8
2
12
10
0
8
10
11
10
10
12
Q
10
10
9
12
12
0
10
2
8
7
2
2
0
2
4
0
5
6
12
12
10
8
8
5
0
8
0
10
Vesse B
Instant.
Flowrate
B
gpm
37
45
43
46
41
87
37
20
25
27
30
61
32
63
34
35
57
34
38
64
36
36
63
51
49
51
51
46
50
49
49
49
47
50
52
49
46
52
49
47
50
47
Cum.
Volume
B
gal
3,158,671
3,179,789
3,220,897
3,241,705
3,278,814
3,320,206
3,395,344
3,425,010
3,443,637
3,461,008
3,484,292
3,541,770
3,560,010
3 595 210
3,640,502
3,659,552
3,710,178
3,741,308
3,770,686
3,798,943
3,849,153
3,890,048
3,912,248
3,944,883
3,970,716
4,009,947
4,028,727
4,074,166
4,126,982
4,147,062
4,175,433
4,210,904
4,255,397
4,273,056
4,320,655
4,377,434
4,403,498
4,423,794
4,460,643
4,498,747
4,542,314
4,598,132
Average
Flowrate
B
gpm
69.5
46.9
44.2
43.4
41.8
61.6
79.8
30.7
22.2
26.1
26.9
60.6
15.7
1107
51.4
33.4
42.8
43.2
35.5
46.6
55.1
36.1
33.2
50.1
49.2
50.5
48.5
46.8
51.5
49.3
311.1
29.1
49.1
44.1
50.1
48.8
47.0
52.0
44.7
50.4
48.5
DP
psi
10
0
6
1
10
10
0
8
10
10
10
10
10
Q
10
10
1
8
10
0
0
10
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
2
0
8
0
0
Vessel C System
Instant.
Flowrate
C
gpm
14
63
49
50
43
22
15
81
61
56
49
67
34
64
35
37
59
34
39
68
37
37
66
52
52
54
53
57
52
52
52
51
48
51
55
50
48
53
50
48
53
48
Cum.
Volume
C
gal
3,216,778
3,238,778
3,290,665
3,313,684
3,352,808
3,377,034
3,401,425
3,436,519
3,495,493
3,534,102
3,577,256
3,639,706
3,659,625
3 696 604
3,742,685
3,762,276
3,813,560
3,845,931
3,875,619
3,903,062
3,955,232
3,996,804
4,019,357
4,053,430
4,080,097
4,120,029
4,139,731
4,186,407
4,239,811
4,260,633
4,290,061
4,326,987
4,372,947
4,391,086
4,438,953
4,498,121
4,524,684
4,545,135
4,582,893
4,621,956
4,666,087
4,724,575
Average
Flowrate
C
gpm
21.4
48.9
55.8
48.0
44.1
36.1
25.9
36.3
70.2
58.0
49.9
65.9
17.1
1163
52.2
34.4
43.4
45.0
35.9
45.3
57.2
36.7
197.8
34.6
51.7
50.0
53.0
49.9
47.3
53.4
51.1
30.0
50.4
44.3
52.2
49.7
47.3
53.3
45.8
51.1
50.8
DP
psi
10
0
1
0
10
10
0
8
10
10
10
10
10
Q
0
10
0
10
10
0
0
10
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
2
0
8
0
0
Inlet
Pressure
psi
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
81
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
Outlet
Pressure
psi
72
78
72
70
70
72
73
70
70
70
69
70
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
79
78
75
79
75
73
78
73
78
76
71
72
74
72
70
74
74
72
78
73
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Conneaut Lake Park, PA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
39
40
41
42
43
42
43
44
Day
of
Week
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Date
08/23/10
08/24/10
08/25/10
08/26/10
08/27/10
08/28/10
08/29/10
08/30/10
08/31/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
09/03/10
09/04/10
09/05/10
09/06/10
09/07/10
09/08/10
09/09/10
09/10/10
09/13/10
09/14/10
09/15/10
09/16/10
09/17/10
09/20/10
09/21/10
09/22/10
09/23/10
09/24/10
09/27/10
09/28/10
09/29/10
09/30/10
10/01/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
10/06/10
10/07/10
10/08/10
10/09/10
10/10/10
10/11/10
10/12/10
10/13/10
10/14/10
10/15/10
Time
13:02
13:26
13:06
13:02
13:12
7:02
7:14
13:10
13:02
13:03
14:00
13:35
7:37
7:16
7:07
13:00
13:00
16:45
13:08
13:06
13:12
13:06
13:14
13:00
13:00
13:20
13:10
17:56
13:19
13:30
13:15
13:15
13:00
15:41
15:45
14:00
13:00
13:00
NA
7:30
7:20
13:15
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
Supply Well (Well No. 2)
Cum.
Op
Hours
hr
1375.4
1384.0
1398.4
1400.0
1423.4
1439.9
1446.2
1459.2
1465.4
1479.1
1494.3
1507.4
1516.4
1532.7
1548.7
1558.4
1567.4
NA
1582.7
1607.9
1616.4
1622.4
1629.4
1637.4
1661.4
1668.4
1674.3
1682.4
1687.3
1709.3
1714.4
1718.6
1722.4
1731.4
1747.3
1751.3
1756.3
1762.4
1768.4
1771.4
1781.1
1791.3
1796.7
1799.4
1805.3
1810.3
Well
Pump
Flow/rate
gpm
135
157
154
152
160
163
160
157
160
155
161
159
158
159
165
156
160
159
160
159
162
158
160
155
162
154
160
156
152
149
143
160
157
146
148
160
156
152
154
155
149
157
149
152
159
161
Cum.
Volume
gal
14,453,409
14,531,750
14,661,081
14,768,608
14,889,718
14,956,888
15,114,911
15,233,570
15,294,355
15,420,455
15,566,441
15,690,810
15,775,470
15,922,404
16,077,893
16,171,014
16,254,640
16,342,716
16,399,462
16,636,341
16,719,906
16,775,688
16,841,224
16,914,268
17,140,060
17,209,363
17,263,832
17,340,321
17,389,955
17,581,303
17,630,088
17,669,312
17,707,256
17,781,326
17,933,670
17,966,814
18,012,547
18,071,481
18,129,429
18,154,227
18,240,455
18,331,730
18,382,444
18,408,548
18,461,785
18,511,895
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
141
152
150
1,120
86
68
418
152
163
153
160
158
157
150
162
160
155
NA
62
157
164
155
156
152
157
165
154
157
169
145
159
156
166
137
160
138
152
161
161
138
148
149
157
161
150
167
Vessel A
Instant.
Flowrate
A
gpm
48
52
51
49
54
55
55
52
53
53
53
54
54
55
52
54
52
55
54
55
52
53
54
52
53
53
54
53
52
50
49
49
52
51
51
52
53
51
52
53
52
53
53
53
54
52
Cum.
Volume
A
gal
5,007,868
5,035,703
5,078,013
5,113,262
5,154,038
5,176,777
5,230,407
5,270,773
5,291,333
5,334,031
5,383,695
5,425,979
5,454,920
5,505,265
5,558,430
5,590,375
5,619,178
5,648,987
5,668,385
5,749,501
5,779,074
5,797,177
5,819,441
5,824,484
5,921,203
5,944,804
5,963,411
5,989,547
6,006,539
6,071,594
6,088,073
6,102,007
6,114,361
6,139,102
6,190,931
6,202,636
6,217,805
6,237,639
6,257,451
6,265,871
6,295,291
6,327,220
6,344,359
6,353,385
6,371,889
6,388,988
Average
Flowrate
A
gpm
49.1
53.9
49.0
367.2
29.0
23.0
141.9
51.8
55.3
51.9
54.5
53.8
53.6
51.5
55.4
54.9
53.3
NA
21.1
53.6
58.0
50.3
53.0
10.5
67.2
56.2
52.6
53.7
58.0
49.3
53.9
55.3
54.2
45.8
54.3
48.8
50.6
54.2
55.0
46.8
50.5
52.2
52.9
55.7
52.3
57.0
DP
psi
12
0
2
0
0
0
5
5
0
4
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
3
6
0
0
0
Vessel B
Instant.
Flowrate
B
gpm
43
52
51
50
52
53
52
51
52
50
52
52
52
54
50
52
49
52
51
52
51
51
52
51
52
51
52
51
49
49
46
52
51
48
48
52
50
49
51
50
48
51
49
49
52
49
Cum.
Volume
B
gal
4,658,655
4,683,898
4,726,762
4,762,464
4,802,086
4,823,942
4,875,545
4,914,241
4,934,012
4,974,940
5,022,353
5,062,641
5,090,086
5,137,847
5,188,298
5,218,592
5,245,830
5,277,429
5,292,826
5,369,751
5,396,928
5,415,051
5,436,350
5,460,131
5,533,586
5,556,138
5,573,873
5,598,820
5,614,998
5,677,504
5,693,430
5,706,300
5,718,744
5,743,097
5,792,836
5,803,756
5,818,756
5,837,996
5,856,861
5,864,921
5,893,033
5,922,381
5,938,924
5,947,372
5,964,552
5,980,838
Average
Flowrate
B
gpm
45.4
48.9
49.6
371.9
28.2
22.1
136.5
49.6
53.1
49.8
52.0
51.3
50.8
48.8
52.6
52.1
50.4
NA
16.8
50.9
53.3
50.3
50.7
49.5
51.0
53.7
50.1
51.2
55.2
47.4
52.0
51.1
54.6
45.1
52.1
45.5
50.0
52.6
52.4
44.8
48.3
48.0
51.1
52.1
48.5
54.3
DP
psi
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
Vessel C System
Instant.
Flowrate
C
gpm
45
53
52
52
54
55
53
53
54
52
54
54
52
55
52
52
53
53
52
54
53
52
54
52
54
52
54
52
49
50
47
55
53
49
49
54
53
51
53
54
48
53
49
51
54
50
Cum.
Volume
C
gal
4,786,732
4,811,992
4,856,146
4,892,716
4,933,436
4,956,008
5,008,795
5,048,399
5,068,905
5,111,341
5,160,218
5,202,085
5,230,359
5,279,130
5,331,003
5,361,891
5,389,473
5,419,168
5,438,404
5,517,027
5,543,799
5,563,355
5,585,271
5,609,493
5,685,108
5,708,269
5,726,368
5,751,818
5,768,274
5,832,053
5,848,432
5,860,837
5,873,986
5,898,997
5,949,691
5,960,233
5,975,813
5,995,690
6,014,964
6,023,275
6,051,970
6,081,978
6,099,001
6,107,649
6,125,183
6,141,915
Average
Flowrate
C
gpm
46.7
49.0
51.1
380.9
29.0
22.8
139.6
50.8
55.1
51.6
53.6
53.3
52.4
49.9
54.0
53.1
51.1
NA
21.0
52.0
52.5
54.3
52.2
50.5
52.5
55.1
51.1
52.3
56.2
48.3
53.5
49.2
57.7
46.3
53.1
43.9
51.9
54.3
53.5
46.2
49.3
49.0
52.5
53.4
49.5
55.8
DP
psi
8
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
-1
0
0
0
Inlet
Pressure
psi
80
82
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
79
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
81
80
80
80
80
80
Outlet
Pressure
psi
70
80
75
76
78
78
74
78
75
74
75
79
78
80
78
74
78
80
79
73
79
78
77
78
78
77
76
76
74
76
74
80
78
78
80
78
78
79
79
79
75
78
76
76
76
75
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Conneaut Lake Park, PA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Day
of
Week
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Date
10/18/10
10/19/10
10/20/10
10/21/10
10/22/10
10/25/10
10/26/10
10/27/10
10/28/10
1 0/29/1 0
11/01/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
11/04/10
11/05/10
11/08/10
11/09/10
11/10/10
11/11/10
11/12/10
11/15/10
11/16/10
11/17/10
11/18/10
11/19/10
11/22/10
11/23/10
11/24/10
11/26/10
11/29/10
11/30/10
12/01/10
12/02/10
12/03/10
12/06/10
12/07/10
12/08/10
12/09/10
12/10/10
12/13/10
12/14/10
12/15/10
12/16/10
12/17/10
Time
13:00
18:40
13:00
13:00
10:00
13-00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13'00
13:00
13:15
13:05
13:15
13:00
13:11
17:25
13:08
13:00
13:00
13:25
13:05
13:00
18:00
13:33
14:03
13:00
13:00
18:25
19:00
13:05
13:00
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:45
13:10
13:10
18:00
13:15
13:00
13:12
13:12
13:00
Supply Well (Well No. 2)
Cum.
Op
Hours
hr
1829.6
1832.6
1834.6
1836.4
1837.1
18470
1849.6
1852.4
1854.6
18576
1867.4
1870.2
1873.6
1876.3
1879.3
1889.3
1892.5
1894.4
1897.6
1902.4
1911.4
1914.6
1917.7
1920.7
1923.1
1929.4
1932.4
1938.2
1945.6
1951.4
1953.7
1956.2
1956.3
1959.7
1963.4
1967.5
1968.4
1970.7
1973.4
1977.6
1980.4
1982.4
1985.6
1988.4
Well
Pump
Flow/rate
gpm
152
147
158
161
161
159
162
161
159
161
163
161
155
157
154
150
154
152
157
142
145
149
154
153
150
147
156
143
141
154
153
150
154
152
155
143
150
145
147
143
141
150
152
151
Cum.
Volume
gal
18,678,766
18,709,993
18,730,298
18,747,414
18,757,987
18845171
18,872,067
18,894,273
18,916,862
1 8 944 1 54
19,038,168
19,061,346
19,093,986
19,120,042
19,144,493
19,243,706
19,267,058
19,289,795
19,314,391
19,359,903
19,435,707
19,459,696
19,485,938
19,512,180
19,530,669
19,598,004
19,622,354
19,674,048
19,741,210
19,788,435
19,809,889
19,831,641
19,832,836
19,858,201
19,902,334
19,930,766
19,935,467
19,956,915
19,983,545
20,020,747
20,042,526
20,059,334
20,090,735
20,114,282
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
144
173
169
158
252
147
172
132
171
152
160
138
160
161
136
165
122
199
128
158
140
125
141
146
128
178
135
149
151
136
155
145
199
124
199
116
87
155
164
148
130
140
164
140
Vessel A
Instant.
Flowrate
A
gpm
52
51
52
55
56
55
55
56
54
53
53
53
52
61
61
43
45
45
83
73
48
80
61
61
62
60
51
68
59
61
65
63
66
45
47
45
46
45
80
80
73
71
29
30
Cum.
Volume
A
gal
6,446,716
6,457,589
6,464,603
6,470,436
6,474,057
6 503 602
6,512,900
6,520,393
6,528,045
6 537 567
6,569,480
6,577,062
6,587,804
6,597,535
6,606,982
6,637,193
6,643,889
6,650,662
6,661,020
6,684,785
6,710,953
6,718,848
6,731,069
6,754,801
6,768,906
6,775,134
6,783,139
6,805,523
6,834,683
6,854,327
6,863,379
6,872,592
6,873,089
6,881,238
6,894,585
6,897,289
6,904,727
6,911,323
6,923,444
6,943,458
6,954,780
6,962,336
6,970,409
6,975,153
Average
Flowrate
A
gpm
49.9
60.4
58.5
54.0
86.2
49.7
59.6
44.6
58.0
529
54.3
45.1
52.7
60.1
52.5
50.4
34.9
59.4
53.9
82.5
48.5
41.1
65.7
131.8
98.0
16.5
44.5
64.3
65.7
56.4
65.6
61.4
82.8
39.9
60.1
11.0
47.8
74.8
79.4
67.4
63.0
42.0
28.2
DP
psi
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
10
4
4
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vessel B
Instant.
Flowrate
B
gpm
50
48
51
53
52
51
52
51
51
52
53
51
50
58
57
38
42
42
31
29
69
46
28
28
28
32
38
58
52
23
22
22
23
63
63
57
60
57
37
36
37
79
56
55
Cum.
Volume
B
gal
6,034,997
6,045,117
6,051,784
6,057,372
6,060,839
6 089 367
6,098,135
6,105,270
6,112,560
6121 468
6,152,207
6,159,734
6,170,385
6,179,641
6,188,739
6,218,491
6,223,737
6,229,991
6,235,796
6,244,680
6,279,265
6,290,346
6,296,539
6,299,513
6,304,647
6,318,522
6,326,924
6,348,082
6,374,429
6,389,608
6,392,825
6,396,005
6,396,179
6,405,750
6,423,863
6,435,404
6,437,290
6,445,716
6,453,744
6,463,161
6,468,846
6,474,568
6,488,566
6,497,314
Average
Flowrate
B
gpm
46.8
56.2
55.6
51.7
82.5
480
56.2
42.5
55.2
495
52.3
44.8
52.2
57.1
50.5
49.6
27.3
54.9
30.2
30.8
64.0
57.7
33.3
16.5
35.7
36.7
46.7
60.8
59.3
43.6
23.3
21.2
29.0
46.9
81.6
46.9
34.9
61.1
49.6
37.4
33.8
47.7
72.9
52.1
DP
psi
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vessel C System
Instant.
Flowrate
C
gpm
50
48
52
52
53
53
55
55
54
55
58
55
53
38
37
68
67
64
43
41
28
24
66
64
63
57
52
22
28
64
66
64
66
43
45
42
44
43
30
30
31
23
66
65
Cum.
Volume
C
gal
6,196,891
6,207,126
6,213,756
6,219,441
6,222,935
6,252,047
6,260,873
6,268,449
6,276,103
6 284 963
6,316,322
6,324,390
6,335,633
6,342,709
6,348,592
6,388,872
6,399,278
6,409,013
6,417,413
6,430,290
6,445,336
6,450,333
Average
Flowrate
C
gpm
47.5
56.9
55.3
52.6
83.2
490
56.6
45.1
58.0
492
53.3
48.0
55.1
43.7
32.7
67.1
54.2
85.4
43.8
44.7
27.9
26.0
6,458,166 42.1
6,459,131 5.4
6,476,964 I 123.8
6,504,196 I 72.0
6,512,149
6,520,283
6,531,936
6,544,320
6,553,536
6,562,871
6,563,387
6,571,056
6,583,717
6,591,920
6,593,292
6,599,719
6,606,096
6,613,978
6,618,744
6,622,269
6,630,601
6,641,683
44.2
23.4
26.2
35.6
66.8
62.2
86.0
37.6
57.0
33.3
25.4
46.6
39.4
31.3
28.4
29.4
43.4
66.0
DP
psi
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2
-2
0
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Inlet
Pressure
psi
80
80
80
80
82
81
80
80
80
81
80
81
80
80
81
80
80
81
82
81
80
82
81
81
81
80
80
82
82
80
80
80
82
82
82
82
81
82
82
82
82
81
82
82
Outlet
Pressure
psi
74
80
79
78
78
74
78
78
78
79
79
78
78
78
78
78
78
76
78
76
78
78
79
79
79
80
60
78
78
80
78
78
78
80
78
76
78
78
78
78
78
79
80
79
NA = not available
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Conneaut Lake Park, PA
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as
CI2)
Total Chlorine (as
CI2)
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lla)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
Hg/L
LJg/L
LJg/L
Ljg/L
Mg/L
Ljg/L
Mg/L
ng/L
12/03/09
IN
144
<0.05
0.2
20.3
<0.05
<10
13.7
1.3
<1.0
7.9
11.3
2.2
419
-
-
138
100
37.5
29.6
28.8
0.8
24.7
4.1
166
108
59.8
59.9
BF
141
<0.05
0.2
18.6
<0.05
<10
13.8
0.9
<1.0
7.7
11.4
1.2
628
2.1
4.5
138
101
36.9
28.7
1.1
27.6
0.2
0.9
1,782
<25
65.4
9.3
TT
137
1.8
0.2
20.6
<0.05
<10
13.4
1.1
<1.0
7.7
11.5
1.5
583
0.5
0.6
138
100
37.1
0.7
0.6
<0.1
0.2
0.4
<25
<25
0.8
0.7
12/14/09
IN
141
0.2
-
-
<0.05
<10
15.0
1.0
-
7.3
NA(C)
NAID)
298
-
-
-
-
-
27.0
-
-
-
-
160
-
55.8
-
BF
139
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
14.8
2.5
-
7.6
NA(C)
NAID)
578
1.9
2.2
-
-
-
24.8
-
-
-
-
1,553
-
52.1
-
TA
137
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
13.9
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.3
-
-
-
-
264
-
72.1
-
TB
137
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
28.0
14.2
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
51.9
-
-
-
-
5,118
-
1,337
-
TC
139
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
13.7
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.6
-
TT
;
-
.
.
;
-
;
;
.
7.8
NA(C)
NAm
409
1.1
1.2
-
-
-
;
.
.
.
.
;
.
-
-
01/04/10
IN
152
0.1
0.2
24.3
<0.05
<10
14.8
0.7
<1.0
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
124
88.6
35.2
26.8
27.3
<0.1
24.6
2.7
175
165
60.7
59.9
BF
149
<0.05
0.2
23.9
<0.05
<10
14.7
0.9
<1.0
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
124
89.6
34.8
27.5
1.2
26.3
0.5
0.7
2,026
<25
66.8
15.9
TT
142
<0.05
0.2
22.9
<0.05
<10
14.3
0.6
<1.0
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
128
91.7
36.1
1.0
0.9
0.1
0.5
0.4
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
01/07/10
IN
146
0.1
-
-
<0.05
<10
14.4
3.0
-
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
28.4
-
-
-
-
153
-
59.1
-
BF
141
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
14.5
1.5
-
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
26.1
-
-
-
-
1,731
-
62.3
-
TA
138
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
13.8
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
TB
138
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
13.9
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TC
138
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
14.0
1.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TT
;
-
.
.
;
-
;
;
.
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
;
.
.
.
.
;
.
-
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) DO probe calibration error.
(c) Not measured.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Conneaut Lake Park, PA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as
CI2)
Total Chlorine (as
CI2)
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L1"
mg/Lla)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
M9/L
LJg/L
M9/L
H9/L
M9/L
LJg/L
01/27/10
IN
138
0.1
0.2
18.2
<0.05
<10
14.9
4.4
<1.0
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
114
80.7
33.5
28.4
28.8
<0.1
27.9
0.9
146
141
59.9
60.5
BF
134
<0.05
0.2
18.6
<0.05
<10
14.9
4.4
<1.0
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
130
90.7
39.6
26.8
1.2
25.6
0.2
1.1
1,921
<25
72.2
13.8
TT
129
<0.05
0.2
18.3
<0.05
<10
14.4
1.0
<1.0
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
127
89.0
38.5
0.8
0.8
<0.1
0.2
0.6
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
02/10/10
IN
159
148
0.1
0.1
-
-
<0.05
0.1
<10
<10
14.2
13.9
4.5
6.5
-
7.6
8.5
5.1
448
-
-
-
-
-
26.8
27.2
-
-
-
-
167
193
-
58.0
60.4
-
BF
143
139
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
0.2
<0.05
<10
<10
13.7
14.0
10.0
8.6
-
7.7
8.3
6.1
513
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
27.5
26.7
-
-
-
-
2,036
1,968
-
66.9
59.9
-
TA
139
139
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
13.5
13.6
1.7
5.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.8
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.3
0.2
-
TB
143
139
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
13.4
13.7
9.2
5.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.8
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
-
TC
143
136
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
13.5
13.5
2.6
4.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.8
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
-
TT
-
;
-
.
;
;
-
;
.
7.7
7.9
3.4
707
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
.
-
-
02/24/10
IN
155
0.2
0.2
17.5
<0.05
<10
13.9
1.2
<1.0
7.9
11.0
5.8
320
-
-
144
103
40.8
28.2
29.6
<0.1
28.7
1.0
164
137
61.6
60.8
BF
135
<0.05
0.2
19.3
<0.05
<10
13.7
1.5
<1.0
7.6
10.9
7.6
675
1.6
1.9
148
107
41.6
28.3
1.0
27.3
0.4
0.6
2,143
<25
71.0
13.6
TT
139
<0.05
0.3
18.7
<0.05
<10
13.1
0.8
<1.0
8.1
10.6
3.6
689
1.7
1.9
140
100
39.7
1.6
1.1
0.4
0.3
0.8
55
<25
3.6
0.6
03/08/10
IN
146
0.1
-
-
<0.05
<10
13.2
1.5
-
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
28.4
-
-
-
-
158
-
58.3
-
BF
148
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
13.3
3.0
-
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
27.3
-
-
-
-
2,227
-
56.7
-
TA
141
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
12.6
2.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.0
-
-
-
-
359
-
11.8
-
TB
136
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
12.6
1.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.8
-
-
-
-
506
-
15.5
-
TC
141
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
12.4
2.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.3
-
-
-
-
463
-
13.6
-
TT
-
;
-
.
;
;
-
;
.
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
.
-
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) DO probe calibration error.
(c) Not measured.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Conneaut Lake Park, PA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lla)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
LJg/L
Ljg/L
Mg/L
ng/L
Mg/L
Ljg/L
03/23/10
IN
142
0.1
0.2
19.3
<0.05
<10
<10
0.5
<1.0
8.1
11.8
NAID)
482
-
-
125
90.5
34.1
27.7
27.4
0.3
26.4
1.0
128
<25
60.7
56.4
BF
137
<0.05
0.2
19.9
<0.05
<10
<10
2.8
<1.0
7.5
12.0
NAID)
706
1.8
2.2
134
95.3
38.7
43.2
1.1
42.1
0.1
1.0
3,093
<25
144
2.0
TT
137
<0.05
0.2
18.7
<0.05
<10
<10
0.7
<1.0
7.7
12.0
NAm
435
1.6
1.8
129
92.5
36.1
3.1
0.9
2.2
0.1
0.8
226
<25
18.4
0.2
04/05/10
IN
138
0.1
-
-
<0.05
<10
<10
3.6
-
8.0
13.1
NAID)
419
-
-
-
-
-
27.7
-
-
-
-
149
-
58.7
-
BF
133
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
<10
4.2
-
7.8
13.1
NAID)
661
1.6
1.3
-
-
-
24.9
-
-
-
-
2,020
-
64.5
-
TA
131
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
<10
1.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
TB
142
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
<10
1.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
6.6
-
TC
133
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
<10
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.9
-
TT
;
;
.
.
;
-
-
;
.
7.7
13.9
NAID)
665
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
;
.
.
.
.
;
.
-
-
04/19/10
IN
144
0.1
0.2
20.5
<0.05
<10
14.6
0.9
<1.0
7.0
25.0
NAID)
261
-
-
92.3
56.0
36.4
29.1
29.1
<0.1
11.3
17.8
143
49
61.7
59.9
BF
141
<0.05
0.2
20.7
<0.05
<10
14.0
1.1
<1.0
7.4
25.0
NAID)
675
1.8
2.2
86.2
45.8
40.4
29.1
1.6
27.4
0.3
1.3
2,243
<25
72.8
3.0
TT
139
<0.05
0.2
21.7
<0.05
<10
13.9
0.7
<1.0
7.6
25.0
NAm
476
1.5
2.0
121
86.1
35.2
2.4
1.1
1.3
0.2
0.9
103
<25
7.6
0.2
05/03/10
IN
141
143
0.1
0.1
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
13.0
13.1
1.0
1.9
-
6.7
14.9
NAID)
420
-
-
-
-
-
29.6
30.5
-
-
-
-
158
137
-
54.8
58.2
-
BF
134
132
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
0.1
464
12.9
13.2
13.1
2.2
2.2
-
7.2
13.1
NAID)
627
1.2
1.3
-
-
-
29.3
29.9
-
-
-
-
1,771
1,705
-
60.7
62.4
-
TA
130
130
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
12.5
12.4
0.4
1.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
2.8
0.3
-
TB
134
134
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
12.5
12.5
2.5
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
0.1
-
TC
136
134
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
12.6
12.6
2.4
1.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
0.9
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.6
0.1
-
TT
;
;
.
.
;
-
-
;
.
7.2
13.1
NAm
627
1.2
1.3
-
-
-
;
.
.
.
.
;
.
-
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) DO probe calibration error.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Conneaut Lake Park, PA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as
CI2)
Total Chlorine (as
CI2)
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L1"
mg/Lla)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
M9/L
LJg/L
M9/L
H9/L
M9/L
LJg/L
05/17/10
IN
139
0.1
0.1
19.7
<0.05
<10
13.9
1.4
<1.0
7.8
11.9
NAID)
440
-
-
156
113
42.5
27.1
28.8
<0.1
26.8
1.9
164
154
58.7
57.7
BF
134
<0.05
0.1
21.4
<0.05
<10
14.1
1.8
1.5
7.7
12.4
NAID)
488
1.3
1.5
175
128
47.5
28.8
0.9
27.9
0.1
0.8
2,349
<25
75.7
17.1
TT
134
<0.05
0.1
19.3
<0.05
<10
13.6
1.3
<1.0
7.6
12.5
NAm
638
1.1
1.2
170
124
46.2
1.0
0.7
0.3
0.1
0.6
<25
<25
1.4
0.3
06/01/10
IN
145
0.1
-
-
<0.05
<10
14.5
1.6
-
8.1
15.7
2.8
416
-
-
-
-
-
29.4
-
-
-
-
175
-
65.8
-
BF
141
<0.05
-
-
0.14
<10
15.3
2.1
-
7.9
15.0
5.5
457
1.7
2.2
-
-
-
28.5
-
-
-
-
2,175
-
76.6
-
TA
141
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
13.9
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
41
-
1.2
-
TB
130
<0.05
-
-
0.05
<10
14.2
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
-
28
-
1.0
-
TC
136
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
14.0
1.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
-
101
-
2.8
-
TT
-
;
-
.
;
;
-
;
.
7.8
15.0
2.5
634
1.0
1.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
.
-
-
06/14/10
IN
150
0.2
0.1
21.4
<0.05
<10
14.3
0.6
<1.0
7.6
14.8
3.9
367
-
-
166
120
46.4
28.3
30.2
<0.1
29.9
0.3
201
185
74.8
73.6
BF
147
<0.05
0.2
21.8
<0.05
<10
14.4
1.6
<1.0
7.7
13.8
6.0
411
1.2
1.8
163
118
45.3
30.4
1.0
29.4
<0.1
0.9
2,428
<25
83.7
22.2
TT
140
<0.05
0.1
23.2
<0.05
<10
14.0
0.4
<1.0
7.7
14.4
2.0
541
1.4
1.6
163
117
45.8
1.1
0.7
0.3
<0.1
0.6
<25
<25
1.3
0.1
06/28/10
IN
138
0.1
-
-
<0.05
<10
13.9
0.5
-
8.1
15.0
1.7
325
-
-
-
-
-
27.5
-
-
-
-
162
-
60.6
-
BF
141
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
13.9
1.3
-
7.3
14.7
4.2
437
1.5
1.6
-
-
-
27.1
-
-
-
-
2,287
-
67.5
-
TA
134
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
13.2
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.3
-
-
-
-
274
-
8.9
-
TB
138
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
13.3
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.3
-
-
-
-
197
-
5.7
-
TC
138
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
13.2
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.1
-
-
-
-
294
-
8.0
-
TT
-
;
-
.
;
;
-
;
.
7.8
14.9
1.6
677
1.2
1.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
.
-
-
CO
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) DO probe calibration error.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Conneaut Lake Park, PA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as
CI2)
Total Chlorine (as
CI2)
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L1"
mg/Lla)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
M9/L
LJg/L
M9/L
H9/L
M9/L
LJg/L
07/13/10
IN
169
0.1
0.1
22.8
<0.05
<10
13.4
1.1
<1.0
7.8
13.4
NAID)
257
-
-
163
118
44.3
30.2
33.7
<0.1
30.8
2.9
234
227
73.8
70.2
BF
136
0.05
0.1
23.8
<0.05
<10
13.4
1.3
<1.0
7.8
14.0
NAID)
466
1.1
1.2
174
126
47.6
33.9
1.6
32.3
0.5
1.1
2,466
<25
84.5
24.3
TT
136
0.05
0.1
32.2
<0.05
<10
13.9
0.8
<1.0
7.7
13.6
NAm
527
1.3
1.6
171
125
45.1
1.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
<25
NA(n)
0.8
NAm
07/26/10
IN
153
146
0.1
0.1
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
13.5
13.6
1.0
1.0
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NAla)
-
-
-
-
-
28.9
29.0
-
-
-
-
215
206
-
72.2
72.6
-
BF
43.8
144
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
13.1
13.2
0.8
0.8
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NAla)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
27.8
27.6
-
-
-
-
1,647
1,431
-
75.4
77.3
-
TA
139
146
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
13.4
12.8
0.3
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.6
1.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
-
TB
144
146
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
13.3
12.7
0.3
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.1
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.3
-
TC
146
144
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
13.0
12.9
0.5
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
1.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.3
-
TT
-
;
-
.
;
;
-
;
.
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
.
-
-
08/09/10
IN
138
0.1
0.1
22.4
<0.05
<10
15.0
1.4
<1.0
7.1
NA(C)
NAID)
152
-
-
153
108
45.1
29.2
29.6
<0.1
28.0
1.6
219
171
73.4
71.1
BF
153
<0.05
0.1
22.7
<0.05
<10
14.9
0.9
<1.0
7.6
15.2
NAm
152
1.4
1.4
162
116
46.1
31.9
2.1
29.8
0.2
1.9
1,244
<25
78.8
7.7
TT
149
<0.05
0.1
22.1
<0.05
<10
14.2
0.5
<1.0
7.9
14.1
NAID)
152
1.3
1.5
161
115
46.1
3.4
1.9
1.5
0.2
1.7
63
<25
4.4
0.3
08/23/10
IN
153
0.1
-
-
<0.05
<10
14.8
1.6
-
7.9
12.6
NA1"
352
-
-
-
-
-
27.4
-
-
-
-
214
-
72.7
-
BF
156
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
14.7
1.1
-
8.0
11.8
NA1"
424
0.9
1.5
-
-
-
29.7
-
-
-
-
1,227
-
78.3
-
TA
156
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
15.1
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.7
-
-
-
-
30
-
2.0
-
TB
158
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
14.2
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
TC
153
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
14.9
2.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.6
-
-
-
-
28
-
2.0
-
TT
-
;
-
.
;
;
-
;
.
8.0
12.8
NAID)
593
1.1
1.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
.
-
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) DO probe calibration error.
(c) Not measured.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Conneaut Lake Park, PA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as
CI2)
Total Chlorine (as
CI2)
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L1"
mg/Lla)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
M9/L
LJg/L
M9/L
H9/L
M9/L
LJg/L
09/07/1 0(c)
IN
158
0.1
0.1
23.3
<0.05
<10
16.2
0.9
< 1.0
8.3
11.9
NAID)
290
-
-
136
85.2
50.7
29.2
29.3
<0.1
29.1
0.2
240
224
71.5
69.1
BF
158
<0.05
0.1
25.5
<0.05
<10
16.4
0.5
< 1.0
8.3
12.8
NAID)
441
1.3
1.7
133
83.8
49.2
29.3
21.7
7.6
<0.1
21.6
221
<25
72.0
21.6
TT
156
<0.05
0.1
29.2
<0.05
<10
16.4
0.2
< 1.0
8.4
13.2
NAm
397
1.6
1.9
125
79.7
45.5
13.5
14.0
<0.1
<0.1
13.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
09/20/1 0(c)
IN
153
0.1
-
-
<0.05
<10
12.8
1.1
-
8.8
12.5
NAID)
421
-
-
-
-
-
30.4
-
-
-
-
420
-
68.8
-
BF
156
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
12.8
2.3
-
9.0
12.1
NAID)
475
1.9
2.2
-
-
-
30.5
-
-
-
-
196
-
71.4
-
TA
156
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
12.8
1.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
TB
158
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
13.4
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
TC
153
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<10
12.9
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
TT
-
;
-
.
;
;
-
;
.
8.8
12.5
NAID)
488
0.8
1.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
.
-
-
10/05/10
IN
172
0.1
0.1
21.4
<0.05
<10
13.4
0.8
<1.0
8.3
11.4
NAID)
330
-
-
164
126
38.4
37.3
31.7
5.6
26.5
5.2
243
221
78.0
81.9
BF
165
<0.05
0.1
23.5
<0.05
<10
14.7
4.5
<1.0
8.4
11.5
NAm
500
1.5
2.1
163
126
37.3
29.6
2.1
27.5
0.2
1.9
2,226
<25
86.9
23.3
TT
159
<0.05
0.1
23.1
<0.05
<10
12.8
0.3
<1.0
8.3
12.3
NAID)
649
1.4
1.6
163
126
36.9
3.1
3.3
<0.1
0.1
3.1
<25
<25
0.4
0.3
11/02/10
IN
148
0.1
0.2
24.3
<0.05
<10
13.5
1.2
<1.0
8.2
11.6
NAID)
313
-
-
145
104
40.5
31.0
30.5
0.5
25.6
4.9
190
104
64.2
63.2
BF
150
<0.05
0.2
23.6
<0.05
<10
13.5
1.6
<1.0
8.3
11.5
NAID)
663
1.2
1.6
150
108
41.0
30.5
2.0
28.5
0.3
1.6
2,111
<25
73.6
23.1
TT
150
<0.05
0.2
22.9
<0.05
<10
12.7
0.9
<1.0
8.0
11.6
NAm
652
1.1
1.4
150
109
40.6
2.2
2.2
<0.1
0.2
2.0
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
12/07/10™
IN
141
0.1
0.1
18.8
<0.05
<10
13.4
3.6
<1.0
NA(e)
NA(e)
NAID)
425
-
-
147
107
39.7
30.8
29.5
1.3
27.1
2.3
188
148
65.0
64.3
BF
139
<0.05
0.1
24.8
<0.05
<10
13.6
8.9
<1.0
NA(e)
NA(e)
NAID)
723
3.1
3.4
147
109
38.1
31.6
1.7
30.0
0.2
1.4
2,035
<25
71.5
32.8
TT
143
<0.05
0.2
22.8
<0.05
<10
13.2
1.9
<1.0
NA(e)
NA(e)
NAID)
688
1.2
1.1
143
105
38.2
1.7
1.6
<0.1
0.2
1.5
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) DO probe calibration error.
(c) FeCI3 addition not functioning properly.
(d) All non-metal samples except TOC collected on 12/06/10.
(e) pH probe calibration error
Cd
-------
APPENDIX C
BACKWASH DATA
-------
Table C-l. Backwash Data for Conneaut Lake Park, PA
Backwash
Date(s)
12/14/09
12/18/09-12/19/09
12/25/09
12/30/09-01/01/10
01/05/10-01/06/10
01/10/10-01/12/10
01/16/10-01/18/10
01/22/10-01/24/10
01/28/10
02/02/10
02/08/10
02/15/10
02/22/10
02/25/10-02/26/10
03/02/10-03/04/10
03/04/10-03/19/10
03/19/10-03/22/10
03/24/10
03/29/10
04/05/10
04/12/10
04/16/10
04/20/10
04/26/10
05/03/10
05/07/10
05/13/10
05/19/10
05/24/10
06/01/10
06/07/10
06/11/10
06/17/10
06/21/10
06/23/10
06/28/10-06/29/10
07/02/10-07/05/10
07/07/10-07/08/10
07/11/10-07/12/10
07/13/10
07/17/10-07/19/10
07/23/10-07/24/10
07/25/10-07/26/10
07/28/10-07/29/10
07/31/10-08/01/10
08/03/10
No. of
Vessels
Backw ashed
6
1,2
3
1,2
2,1
2,1
2,1
2,1
3
3
3
3
3
2,2
1,2
6
1,2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
1
2
1,2
1,2
2,1
1,1
3
1,1,1
2,1
2,1
2,1
2,1
2
No. of
Days
Between
Backwashes
Unknown
Unknown
6-7
5-6
5-6
4-6
4-6
4-6
4
5
6
6?
6?
3-4
4-6
Unknown
Unknown
2
5
6?
6-7
6
4
6?
5-6?
5-6?
6
6
5?
6?
6?
4
6
3-4
2
o
J
o
J
2-3
3-4
1
4
4
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
Amount of
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
10,943
1,878;3,788
5,691
1,872;3,797
3,748;1,899
3,756;1,882
3,738;1,869
3,745;1,892
5,664
5,650
5,670
5,729
5,721
3,920;3,884
1,848;3,638
11,029
1,844;3,689
5,618
5,611
5,585
5,578
5,535
5,556
5,533
5,572
5,515
5,507
5,533
5,508
5,496
5,488
5,466
7,659
1,793
3,582
1,781;3,648
1,786;3,575
3,071;1,875
1,792;1,753
5,446
1,769;1,753;1,779
3,539;2,429
3,042;1,820
3,631;1,826
3,622;1,815
3,653
Remarks
Backwash on 01/04/10
Backwash on 01/27/10
Backwash on 02/24/10
6 vessels backwashed in
specified duration
Backwash on 03/23/10
Backwash on 04/19/10
Backwash on 05/18/10
Backwash on 06/16/10
Backwash on 07/12/10
C-l
-------
Table C-l. Backwash Data for Conneaut Lake Park, PA (Continued)
Backwash
Date(s)
08/04/10
08/06/10
08/09/10
08/11/10
08/12/10
08/16/10
08/18/10
08/21/10
08/24/10
08/27/10
08/30/10
09/02/10
09/05/10
09/08/10
09/09/10
09/13/10
09/14/10
09/17/10
09/20/10
09/23/10
09/27/10
09/29/10
10/04/10
10/06/10
10/07/10
10/08/10
10/11/10
10/14/10
10/18/10
10/20/10
10/25/10
10/26/10
10/29/10
11/01/10
11/04/10
11/08/10
11/11/10
11/15/10-11/17/10
11/23/10-11/24/10
11/29/10
12/03/10
12/10/10
12/15/10-12/16/10
Total
No. of
Vessels
Backw ashed
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1,1,1
1,1
2
1
1
1,1
247
No. of
Days
Between
Backwashes
1
2
3
2
1
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
4
3
2-3
3
3
3
3
3-4
3-4
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3-4
6
5
4
7
5-6
Amount of
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
5,536
5,588
5,497
3,981
5,526
5,469
5,477
5,463
5,428
5,529
5,526
5,524
5,505
5,525
3,573
5,529
5,522
5,513
5,483
5,496
5,518
5,533
5,465
5,521
3,286
5,494
5,533
5,550
5,542
5,548
5,567
5,526
5,561
5,553
3,702
2,732
1,685
1,706;1,687;2.045
1,791;1,606
3,249
1,654
1,631
1,643;1,625
469,142
Remarks
Backwash on 08/10/10
Backwash on 10/06/10
1,900 gal/vessel
C-2
------- |