EPA/600/R-11/074
July 2011
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Geneseo Hills Subdivision
in Geneseo, IL
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Angela M. Paolucci§
Abraham S.C. Chen*
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, OH 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0019 of Contract EP-C-05-057 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
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 the Geneseo Hills Subdivision in Geneseo, IL. The main
objective of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of AdEdge Technologies' (AdEdge's) AD-33
adsorptive media (AM) system in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level
(MCL) of 10 ng/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 water system at the Geneseo Hills Subdivision was supplied primarily by one well, i.e., Well No. 5,
to meet an average daily demand of 40,600 gal/day (gpd). The well water contained 19.6 (ig/L (on
average) of total arsenic (with approximately 73% existing as soluble As[III]), 554 (ig/L (on average) of
total iron (with 65% existing as soluble iron), and 8.0 (ig/L (on average) of total manganese (with 100%
existing as soluble manganese). The water also contained 1.3 mg/L (on average) of ammonia (as N) and
1.9 mg/L (on average) of total organic carbon (TOC).
The 200-gal/min (gpm) treatment system installed consisted of two 54-in x 60-in, 100 lb/in2 (psi)-rated
carbon steel vessels, configured in parallel to meet the rule-of-thumb peak flowrate of 165 gpm as
required by Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IL EPA). The actual peak flowrate recorded per
readings of flow meters installed on the two adsorption vessels was 156 gpm. Each vessel contained
approximately 10 ft3 of gravel underbedding overlain by 49 ft3 of AD-33 media, an iron-based, dry
granular media manufactured by Lanxess and marketed by Severn Trent Services (STS) in the U.S.
Because the system was placed downstream of one 12,000-gal and one 9,000-gal hydropneumatic (hydro)
tank (pre-existing), the system was operating on-demand. Instantaneous flowrates recorded during the
demonstration period from May 8, 2008, through July 30, 2010, averaged 32 gpm, significantly lower
than the design flowrate of 200 gpm. This reduced average flowrate corresponded to a hydraulic loading
rate of 1.0 gpm/ft2 and an empty bed contact time (EBCT) of 22.9 min, compared to the respective design
values of 6.3 gpm/ft2 and 3.7 min.
The pre-existing chlorine addition system was used to oxidize soluble As(III) to soluble As(V) and
maintain a target total chlorine residual of 1.2 mg/L (as C12) in the distribution system. Because the
addition point was upstream of the two hydro tanks and because on-demand flowrates were much lower
than the design flowrate, a residence time as long as 11 hr (on average) was realized as chlorinated water
travelled through the tanks. As a consequence, some solids, including arsenic laden iron particles, settled
in the tanks, causing a decrease in both total iron (207 (ig/L [on average]) and total arsenic concentrations
(much less at 0.4 ug/L [on average]) in the tank effluent. As much as 19.2 (ig/L of total arsenic still
existed in the adsorption system influent with 9.4 (ig/L existing as soluble As(V) and 8.6 (ig/L as
particulate arsenic.
From May 8, 2008, through July 30, 2010, the Well No. 5 pump operated for atotal of 2,147 hr. The
amount of water treated by the system was 33,158,000 gal (or 45,230 bed volumes [BV]). Total arsenic
concentrations were removed to below 3.3 |o,g/L, presumably via soluble As(V) adsorption and particulate
arsenic filtration. Backwash at a frequency of once every 45 days (on average) appeared to be effective in
removing solids accumulating in the media beds. During each backwash event, as much as 8.2 Ib of
solids constituting mainly iron in 3,915 gal of wastewater was discharged into a backwash holding tank.
The use of a backwash reclaim system was required because a sewer system was not available to receive
IV
-------
wastewater in the Geneseo Hills Subdivision and because backwash wastewater could not be used for
irrigation purposes per IL EPA guidelines. Supernatant in the backwash holding tank was recycled at 12
gpm (<10% of the incoming well flowrate of 220 gpm [on average]) to a point upstream of the chlorine
addition point and the sludge accumulated in the backwash holding tank was transferred to a sludge
holding tank for air drying and final disposal. Sludge disposal did not occur during the performance
evaluation study.
One operational issue encountered during system operation was clogging of bag filters during system
backwash. The problem stemmed from a system design issue, which involved placing the bag filter
assembly upstream (rather than downstream) of the backwash holding tank. As a result, the operator had
to incrementally increase the nominal pore size of filter bags from 25 to 50 (im and then to 100 (im and
replace clogged filter bags as many as three times during each vessel backwash. The plan was to relocate
the bag filter assembly to downstream of the backwash holding tank but the relocation did not occur
during the performance evaluation study.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after system startup showed a decrease
in arsenic from 18.1 to 4.4 (ig/L (on average) and iron concentrations from 272 to 85 (ig/L (on average)
based on results from two sampling locations in the Subdivision's historic sampling network under the
Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and one non-LCR location. There was evidence to suggest that some
redissolution and/or resuspension of arsenic and iron had occurred. Average lead concentrations at two
LCR locations were reduced from 2.9 to 1.3 (ig/L after system startup. Average copper concentrations at
the two LCR locations were reduced from 946 to 670 (ig/L. Before system startup, two copper (Cu)
exceedances over the l,300-(ig/L action level were noted at one LCR location.
The capital investment cost for the system was $139,149, including $101,290 for equipment, $19,545 for
site engineering, and $18,314 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 200 gpm (288,000
gpd), the normalized capital cost was $696/gpm ($0.48/gpd). The incremental O&M cost was
$0.05/1,000 gal for labor plus the unit cost for media replacement, which can be estimated based on a
projected media run length.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 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 12
3.3.4 Spent Media 12
3.3.5 Distribution System Water 12
3.3.6 Fire Hydrant Flush 12
3.4 Sampling Logistics 13
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 13
3.4.2 Preparation of Sample Coolers 13
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 13
3.5 Analytical Procedures 13
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 15
4.1 Pre-existing Facility Description and Treatment System Infrastructure 15
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 15
4.1.2 Treated Water Quality 18
4.1.3 Distribution System 19
4.2 Treatment Process Description 19
4.3 System Installation 26
4.3.1 Permitting 26
4.3.2 Building Preparation 26
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 28
4.4 System Operation 30
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 30
4.4.2 Chlorine Injection 32
4.4.3 Backwash 32
4.4.4 Residual Management 33
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 33
4.5 System Performance 35
VI
-------
4.6
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 35
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater and Residual Solids Sampling 43
4.5.3 Spent Media 45
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling 45
4.5.5 Fire Hydrant Flush Solid Sampling 47
System Cost 47
4.6.1 Capital Cost 47
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 49
Section 5.0 REFERENCES 51
APPENDICES
Appendix A: OPERATIONAL DATA
Appendix B: ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Piping in Pump House at Geneseo Hills Subdivision Facility 16
Figure 4-2. 12,000-gal Hydropneumatic Tank at Geneseo Hills Subdivision Facility 16
Figure 4-3. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 22
Figure 4-4. Chlorine Addition System at Geneseo Hills Subdivision Facility 23
Figure 4-5. AdEdge Arsenic Treatment System at Geneseo Hills Subdivision Facility 24
Figure 4-6. Backwash Recycling System Components 25
Figure 4-7. Backwash Recycling System in Geneseo Hills Subdivision Facility 26
Figure 4-8. Process Flow Diagram and Backwash Recycling System 27
Figure 4-9. Modified Facility at Geneseo Hills Subdivision 28
Figure 4-10. Instantaneous Flowrate Measurements from the Treatment System 31
Figure 4-11. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Locations 39
Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves 40
Figure 4-13. Total Iron Breakthrough Curves 41
Figure 4-14. Total Manganese Breakthrough Curves 42
Figure 4-15. Total Phosphorous Breakthrough Curves 43
Figure 4-16. Media Replacement and Other Operation and Maintenance Cost 50
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 1 -2. Number of Demonstration Sites Under Each Arsenic Removal Technology 5
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 8
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 9
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes 10
Table 4-1. Geneseo Hills Subdivision Water Quality Data 17
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of Bayoxide E3 3 Granular Media(a) 20
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of Arsenic Removal System 21
Table 4-4. Freeboard Measurements During System Installation 29
Table 4-5. System Punch-List Items 29
vn
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Operational System Parameters 30
Table 4-7. Summary for System Backwash 33
Table 4-8. Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese 36
Table 4-9. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results 37
Table 4-10. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results 44
Table 4-11. Backwash Residual Solid Sampling Results 45
Table 4-12. Distribution System Sampling Results 46
Table 4-13. Fire Hydrant Flush Solid Sample Results 47
Table 4-14. Capital Investment Cost for APU Arsenic Adsorption System 48
Table 4-15. Operation and Maintenance Cost for APU Arsenic Adsorption System 49
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
AM adsorptive media
APU arsenic package unit
As arsenic
ATS aquatic treatment system
BET Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
bgs below ground surface
BV bed volume
Ca calcium
C/F coagulation/filtration process
Cl chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DBFs disinfection byproducts
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluorine
Fe iron
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
F£AA5 haloacetic acids
HOPE high-density polyethylene
hp horsepower
HIX hybrid ion exchange
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IL EPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
IR iron removal
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
Mg
Mn
mV
U
magnesium
manganese
millivolts
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detectable
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF NSF International
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
PLC programmable logic controller
PO4 orthophosphate
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
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO42" sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TDH total dynamic head
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
TTHM total trihalomethanes
uranium
V vanadium
VOC volatile organic compound
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the Geneseo Hills Subdivision and Mr. Merle
Loete, who monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the treatment system and
distribution system throughout this demonstration. This performance evaluation would not have been
possible without his dedication and persistence.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) mandates that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (< 10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems to reduce compliance costs. As part of
this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective
arsenic removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the
17 host sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical
panel reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it
determined were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other
technical reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the
information provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water
programs of the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites. In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28.
With additional funding from Congress, EPA selected 10 more sites for demonstration under Round 2a.
Somewhat different from the Round 1 and Round 2 selection process, Battelle, under EPA's guidance,
issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on February 14, 2007, to solicit technology proposals from vendors
and engineering firms. Upon closing of the RFP on April 13, 2007, Battelle received from 14 vendors a
total of 44 proposals, which were 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. Based on discussions at the technology selection meeting, a 200-gal/min (gpm) AdEdge
arsenic removal system using AD-33 adsorptive media (AM) was selected for demonstration at the
Geneseo Hills Subdivision in Geneseo, IL.
As of June 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 AM, iron removal (IR),
coagulation/filtration (C/F), ion exchange (IX), reverse osmosis (RO), point-of-use (POU) RO, and
system/process modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, system 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 system at the Geneseo Hills Subdivision in
Geneseo, IL from May 8, 2008, through July 30, 2010. The types of data collected included system
operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and
capital and O&M costs.
-------
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, NY00
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
250ce)
21
38W
39
33
36W
30
27W
21
25
30W
19(a)
28W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
l,806(d)
<25
<25
48
270™
157(d)
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
17(a)
39W
34W
25W
42W
146W
24
127(d)
466™
1,387™
l,499(d)
810™
1,547™
2,543™
248™
7,827(d)
546™
l,470(d)
3,078™
l,344(d)
l,325(d)
<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
23(a)
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 CH2-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/
ARM200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)(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; EHX = hybrid ion exchanger; IR = iron removal; IR with ID = iron removal with iron addition; IX = ion exchange
process; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(c) 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
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
Based on the information collected during performance evaluation from May 8, 2008, through July 30,
2010, the following summary and 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:
• The parallel system at a design flowrate of 200 gpm adequately met the water demand of the
Subdivision. Throughout the demonstration period, system instantaneous flowrates averaged
32 gpm, with only four instances having recorded flowrates of over 100 gpm. The peak
demand occurred at 156 gpm excluding the 188 gpm that occurred during a water main break.
• Chlorine effectively oxidized soluble As(III) to soluble As(V), decreasing its concentrations
from an average of 14.3 (ig/L in Well No. 5 water to 0.6 (ig/L after two hydropneumatic
(hydro)/contact tanks.
• Chlorine also was effective in oxidizing soluble iron (359 (ig/L [on average]), precipitating
all soluble iron to iron solids. Co-precipitation and/or adsorption were presumed to be the
responsible processes for the formation of 7.3 (ig/L of arsenic laden iron particles.
• Settling of iron solids occurred in the two hydro/contact tanks, resulting in a 37%
concentration reduction in total iron. The corresponding concentration reduction in total
arsenic was less significant, amounting to only 0.4 (ig/L (on average). Settling of iron solids
was due, in part, to a long residence time (i.e., 11 hr based on an average on-demand flowrate
of 32 gpm) experienced in the hydro/contact tanks.
• AD-33 was effective in removing total arsenic, reducing its concentrations to <3.3 (ig/L
throughout the demonstration period. Removal was achieved via soluble As(V) adsorption
and particulate arsenic filtration. Before the end of the performance evaluation study,
33,158,000 gal (or 45,230 bed volumes [BV]) of water had been treated, equivalent to about
70% of the vendor-estimated media life.
• Backwash was useful for removing solids accumulating in the media beds. The effectiveness
of backwash in restoring pressure drop across the adsorption vessels was not obvious because
uncharacteristically low pressure differential (i.e., 0 lb/in2 [psi]) was recorded throughout the
entire demonstration period.
• Distribution system water contained less arsenic and iron after system startup. On average,
the respective levels were reduced from 18.1 to 4.4 (ig/L for arsenic and from 272 to 85 (ig/L
for iron. The reduced concentrations, although low, were still higher than those measured in
the system effluent, suggesting redissolution and/or resuspension of some arsenic and iron in
the distribution system.
• Average lead concentrations at two Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling locations were
reduced from 2.9 (ig/L before system startup to 1.3 (ig/L after system startup. Average
copper concentrations at the two LCR locations were reduced from 946 to 670 (ig/L. Before
system startup, two copper (Cu) exceedances over the l,300-(ig/L action level were noted at
one LCR location.
Required system O&M and operator's skill levels:
• Although the adsorption system itself did not require much operator attention, operation of
the chlorine addition system, manual backwash, and backwash reclaim system (especially bag
filters) did. The operator was well versed for system troubleshooting and repairs.
-------
• For normal operations, the operator spent approximately 20 min during each visit to perform
visual inspections and record system operational parameters.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• The only process residual produced from system operation was backwash solids, which were
transferred from the backwash holding tanks to a 550-gal sludge holding tank for temporary
storage. Approximately 250 gal of sludge was accumulating in the holding tank; final
disposal did not occur during the performance evaluation study.
• During each backwash event, approximately 8.2 Ib of solids in 3,915-gal of wastewater were
discharged into a backwash holding tank. The solids were composed of approximately 0.04
Ib of arsenic, 2.2 Ib of iron, and 0.02 Ib of manganese.
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
• The capital investment for the system was $139,149, including $101,290 (or 73%) for
equipment, $19,545 (or 14%) for site engineering, and $18,314 (or 13%) for installation,
shakedown, and startup.
• The unit capital cost was $696/gpm (or $0.48 gal/day [gpd]) based on a 200-gpm design
capacity.
• The incremental O&M cost was $0.05/1,000 gal for labor plus an undetermined amount for
media replacement.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
the AdEdge arsenic removal treatment system began on May 8, 2008, and ended on July 30, 2010.
Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected and considered as part of the treatment technology
evaluation process. The overall system performance was based on its ability to consistently remove
arsenic to below the target MCL of 10 |o,g/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment
train, as described in the Study Plan (Battelle, 2008). The reliability of the system was evaluated by
tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The
plant operator recorded unscheduled downtime and repair information on a Repair and Maintenance Log
Sheet.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Initial Site Visit & Introductory Meeting Held
Technology Selection Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Initial Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Final Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Initial Engineering Package Submitted to IL EPA
Final Engineering Package Submitted to IL EPA
Permit Issued by IL EPA
Equipment Arrived at Site
System Installation and Shakedown Completed
Final Study Plan Issued
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
December 6, 2006
July 12, 2007
October 3, 2007
October 22, 2007
October 26, 2007
November 2, 2007
November 19, 2007
January 16, 2008
January 2 1,2008
February 5, 2008
March 13, 2008
March 17, 2008
March 28, 2008
April 22, 2008
May 2, 2008
May 18, 2008
IL EPA = Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
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 wastewater and solids were sampled and
analyzed for chemical characteristics.
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation
Objective
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and
Operator Skill
Requirements
Residual
Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems,
materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency,
and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, electrical usage, and labor
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gal/day [gpd]) of design
capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital cost for
equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal,
chemical consumption, electrical usage, and labor.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed weekly and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. Approximately three times per week, the plant operator
recorded system operational data, including pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a
Daily System Operation Log Sheet, and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations.
If any problem occurred, the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the
vendor should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information,
including the problem encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated
cost and labor incurred, on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. Approximately twice per month, the
plant operator measured free and total chlorine, temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-
reduction potential (ORP) and recorded the results on a Weekly Onsite Water Quality Parameters Log
Sheet. Approximately once per month, the operator backwashed the system and all relevant
measurements were recorded on a Backwash Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for media replacement and spent media disposal,
electrical usage, and labor. Electricity consumption was determined from utility bills. Labor for various
activities, such as routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work,
was tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such
as completing field logs, performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the vendor. The
labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as performing field measurements,
collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the vendor, was
recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Wastewater
Backwash
Solids
Backwash
Sludge
Distribution
Solids
Sampling
Locations'3'
Well No. 5
IN, AC, TT
for
"Speciation
Sampling"
IN, AC, TA,
TBfor
"Regular
Sampling"
Two LCR
Residences
and Storage
Tank #2
Backwash
Discharge
Line (BW)
Wastewater
Containers
Backwash
Sludge
Holding
Tank
Fire Hydrant
No. of
Sampling
Locations
1
3
4
3
2
2
1
2(i)
Frequency
Once during
initial site
visit
1st Week of
4-Week
Cycle(b)
3rd Week of
4-Week
Cycle
Monthly(d)
Monthly®
Twice
Once
Once
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Offsite:
As (total and soluble),
As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble),
V, Na, Ca, Mg, NH3,
NO3, NO2, Cl, F, SO4,
SiO2, P, TDS, TOC,
turbidity, and alkalinity
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free
and total)(c)
Offsite:
As (total and soluble),
As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3,
SO4, SiO2, P, TOC,
turbidity, and alkalinity
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free
and total) (c)
Offsite: As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
NH3, SiO2, P (total),
turbidity, and alkalinity
pH, alkalinity, As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
Cu, Pb, and C12 (free and
total)(e)
pH, TDS, TSS,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
and Mn (total and
soluble)
As, Ba, Ca, Fe, Mg, Mn,
P, and Si
As, Ba, Ca, Fe, Mg, Mn,
P, and Si
As, Ba, Ca, Fe, Mg, Mn,
P, and Si
Sampling
Date
12/06/06
See Appendix B
See Appendix B
See Table 4-12
See Table 4-10
11/18/08,
04/22/09
06/24/10
04/21/10
10
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes (Continued)
(a) Abbreviations corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-3: IN = at wellhead, AC = after
chlorination, TA/TB = after Vessel A/B, TT = total combined effluent, and BW = backwash discharge
line.
(b) Starting on August 25, 2009, only monthly speciation samples collected and analyzed for onsite water
quality parameters, As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V), Fe (total and soluble), Mn (total and
soluble), NH3, P, and TOC.
(c) Free and total chlorine not measured at IN sampling location.
(d) Four baseline sampling events performed during March 2008 prior to system startup; sampling
discontinued after 07/22/09.
(e) Free and total chlorine measured onsite only during baseline sampling in March 2008.
(f) Fire hydrant flush samples collected from four locations but only two produced sufficient amounts of
solids for analysis.
(g) Sampling discontineud after 10/21/09.
LCR = Lead and Copper Rule, TDS = total dissolved solids, TOC = total organic carbon, TSS = total
suspended solids
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the treatment train,
during adsorption vessel backwash, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 presents 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 December 6, 2006, one set of source water
samples from Well No. 5 was collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (see Section 3.4.1).
The sample tap was flushed for several minutes before sampling and 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 Study Plan called for speciation and regular sampling on the
first and third weeks of each four-week cycle, respectively, for onsite and offsite analyses. For speciation
sampling, samples were collected at the wellhead (IN), after chlorination (AC), and after effluent from
Vessels A and B combined (TT), speciated, and analyzed for the analytes listed under "speciation
sampling" in Table 3-3. For regular sampling, samples were collected at IN, AC, after Vessel A (TA),
and after Vessel B (TB) and analyzed for the analytes listed under "regular sampling" in Table 3-3.
Actual sampling performed during the performance evaluation study mostly followed the schedules
described in the Study Plan, but with the following exceptions:
• Speciation sampling did not begin until July 22, 2008, about two months into the
performance evaluation study. During the May 18 and July 1, 2008, sampling events,
samples were analyzed for all analytes listed under "speciation sampling" except soluble
arsenic, iron, and manganese. Sampling frequency varied from one to four weeks before
July 22, 2008.
• From July 22, 2008, through July 22, 2009, sampling alternated between speciation and
regular sampling at a frequency of one to three weeks.
• Starting on August 25, 2009, only monthly speciation sampling was performed, with the
exception of June 2010 when two speciation sampling events took place. Samples were
analyzed for onsite water quality parameters, total and soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese,
As(III), As(V), NH3, P, and TOC.
11
-------
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids. The plant operator collected backwash wastewater
samples from each adsorption vessel on a monthly basis through October 21, 2009. 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, two aliquots were collected for pH, total dissolved
solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), and total metals analyses. Another aliquot was collected and
filtered with 0.45-(im disc filters for soluble metals analysis. Analytes for backwash wastewater samples
are listed in Table 3-3.
On November 18, 2008 and April 22, 2009, 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 agitation of
settled solids in the container. The remaining solids/water mixture was then transferred to a 1-gal plastic
jar for shipment to Battelle. After 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.
In addition to the backwash solids sampling, a sludge sample was collected by EPA from a backwash
sludge holding tank on June 24, 2010. As part of the backwash recycling system (see Section 4.2.2), the
tank was used to collect and air dry backwash solids from the backwash recycling tank prior to disposal.
The backwash sludge sample was analyzed for the metals listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Spent Media. The media in the two adsorption vessels were not replaced during the
performance evaluation study; therefore, no spent media was produced as residual solids.
3.3.5 Distribution System Water. Water samples were collected from within the distribution
system to determine the impact of the treatment system on water chemistry, specifically the arsenic, lead,
and copper levels, in the distribution system. Prior to system startup during March 2008, four baseline
distribution system water samples were collected from two residences that were part of the historic
sampling network under LCR and Storage Tank #2. Although not in the LCR network, Storage Tank #2
was included due to limited availability of other LCR residences within the subdivision. Following
system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations
through July 22, 2009. Analytes for distribution system water samples are shown in Table 3-3.
The operator and homeowners collected samples following an instruction sheet developed according to
the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). For
the two residence locations, all samples were collected by the respective homeowners from a cold-water
faucet that had not been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. The dates and
times of last water usage before sampling and of actual sample collection were recorded for calculations
of the stagnation time. Samples from Storage #2 were collected by the operator. Because this sampling
location served as a large water main and was continually flushed, there was no stagnation time
associated with this location.
3.3.6 Fire Hydrant Flush. On April 21, 2010, fire hydrant flush samples were collected by the
operator from four fire hydrants located on Deer Path Court, Prairie Dawn Drive, Melody Lane, and
Longview Drive within the Subdivision. Each sample was collected in a 1-gal plastic jar when high
levels of solids were being flushed from the hydrant. After solids in the jar settled and the supernatant
was carefully decanted, one aliquot of solids/water mixtures was air dried before being acid-digested and
analyzed for the metals listed in Table 3-3. Although four fire hydrant flush samples were collected, only
two located at Deer Path Court and Prairie Dawn Drive produced a sufficient amount of solids for
analysis.
12
-------
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 Sample Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, colored-coded, waterproof label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of
sample collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative.
The sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the demonstration site, the 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 were separated by sampling location, placed in zip-lock bags, and packed into the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/pre-addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were placed in each
cooler. The chain-of-custody forms and air bills were completed 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 off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped back to Battelle. Upon receipt, the
sample custodian checked sample IDs against the chain-of-custody forms and verified that all samples
indicated on the forms were included and intact. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were
addressed with the plant operator by the Battelle Study Lead. The shipment and receipt of all coolers by
Battelle were recorded on a cooler tracking log.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-
MS) Laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up
by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and Belmont Labs in
Englewood, OH, 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's ICP-MS laboratory, AAL, and Belmont Labs. Laboratory quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms
of precision, accuracy, method detection limits (MDLs), and completeness met the criteria established in the
QAPP (i.e., relative percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of
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.
On-site 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
13
-------
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 for each parameter. The plant operator also performed free and total
chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine test kits following the user's manual.
14
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Pre-existing Facility Description and Treatment System Infrastructure
Located at 10 N. Meadowbrook Dr., Geneseo, IL, the Geneseo Hills facility is a community water system
serving a population of 480 people in the Geneseo Hills Subdivision. The facility was supplied by two
wells, Wells No. 4 and No. 5. Before June 2006, Well No. 4 was the main supply well. Because it could
not adequately meet the Subdivision's average daily demand of approximately 40,600 gpd, a new well,
Well No. 5, was drilled and completed in June 2006. Since then, Well No. 4 has been used only as a
backup well.
Wells No. 4 and 5 are located approximately 25 ft northwest and 100 ft south, respectively, of the pump
house. Well No. 4 was 6-in in diameter and 525 ft deep, equipped with a 10-horsepower (hp) submersible
pump rated for 90 gpm at 138 ft H2O or 60 psi of total dynamic head (TDH). The top of the pump was
set at 325 ft below ground surface (bgs) and the static water level was 117 ft bgs. Well No. 5 was 10-in in
diameter and 525 ft deep, equipped with a 25-hp Grundfos submersible pump rated for 250 gpm at 360 ft
H2O or 156 psi of TDH. The top of the pump was set at 330 ft bgs. With its larger capacity, Well No. 5
typically operated 6 to 8 hr/day.
The pre-existing 63 ft * 30 ft * 12ft pump house provided a shelter for wellhead piping, two chemical
addition systems, and various instrumentation, including pressure gauges and totalizers (see Figure 4-1).
Prior to this demonstration project, the treatment included chlorination and fluoridation with chemicals
injected in the water from both wells combined. Chlorination was accomplished using a 12.5% sodium
hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution to maintain a target dosage of 1.9 to 2.1 mg/L (as C12) and a target total
chlorine residual level of 1.2 mg/L (as C12) in the distribution system. Fluoridation was carried out using
a 23% hydrofluorosilic acid (H2SiF6) solution, diluted 30:1 (by volume), for a target dosage of 1.08 mg/L.
Each chemical addition system consisted of a 125-gal high-density polyethylene (HOPE) chemical day
tank and a 22 gpd-rated Stenner peristaltic pump synchronized with the well pump. The chemical pump
settings were 55% stroke and 100% speed for chlorination and 80 to 90% stroke and 100% speed for
fluoridation.
The water system has two pressure and two storage tanks with a total capacity of 35,000 gal. One 9,000-
and one 12,000-gal aboveground hydropneumatic (hydro) tank are housed in the facility (Figure 4-2). A
set of low/high pressure setpoints at 40 and 60 psi, respectively, controls the on/off of the well pumps.
One 5,700- (6-ft in diameter) and 8,300-gal (8-ft in diameter) underground storage tank are located 700
and 1,500 ft, respectively, downstream of the pump house and serve essentially as large water mains. The
only means of wastewater disposal available in the Subdivision is septic tanks at the individual homes.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Samples of Well No. 5 water were collected on December 6, 2006,
when a Battelle staff member traveled with EPA to the site to attend an introductory meeting for this
demonstration study. Table 4-1 presents the results and compares them to the data provided by EPA for
Well No. 4 water collected on March 6, 2006, as well as the data provided by IL EPA for Well No. 5
water (both raw and finished water) collected historically between June 8 through October 10, 2006.
Only limited historic data existed for Well No. 5 water because it was not drilled until June 2006. Well
No. 5 raw water data collected by Battelle indicate slightly higher levels of total arsenic, iron, and
manganese than those provided by IL EPA.
The treatment train for the demonstration project includes prechlorination and adsorption. Factors such as
arsenic and iron speciation and concentration, pH, natural organic matter, ammonia, and competing
anions such as silica and phosphorus can affect system performance. The results of source water
assessment and implications for water treatment are discussed below.
15
-------
Figure 4-1. Piping in Pump House at Geneseo Hills Subdivision Facility
Figure 4-2. 12,000-gal Hydropneumatic Tank at Geneseo Hills Subdivision Facility
16
-------
Table 4-1. Geneseo Hills Subdivision Water Quality Data
Parameter
Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
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
HS/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
Mfi/L
^g/L
^g/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
EPA
Data
Well
No. 4
Raw
03/06/06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
290
NA
NA
NA
0.02
0.01
1.5
<5.0
NA
0.1
18.1
0.3
0.6
<25
13.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
243
NA
2.9
NA
<25
NA
NA
9.4
66.6
30.1
Battelle
Data
Well
No. 5
Raw
12/06/06
7.1
10.4
1.5
89
407
341
1.9
548
1.8
0.05
0.05
1.2
<1.0
0.3
<1.0
20.3
NA
0.1
NA
24.9
19.6
5.3
17.5
2.1
248
227
18.1
8.3
O.I
0.1
O.I
10.4
81.7
33.3
ILEPA
Historical
Data
Well
No. 5
Raw
06/08/06
7.4
NA
NA
NA
367
344
2.6
352
NA
0.07
NA
NA
1.8
0.3
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
179
NA
<7.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.5
76.7
37.0
Well
No. 5
Finished
09/12/06-
10/10/06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
<10.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.0-17.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
120
NA
<15
NA
<2.0
NA
NA
14.0
NA
NA
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in water from Well No. 5 ranged from 18.4 to 24.9 (ig/L. Based on
the Battelle sampling results of December 6, 2006, out of 24.9 (ig/L of total arsenic, 17.5 (ig/L (or 70.3%)
existed as soluble As(III) and 2.1 (ig/L (8.4%) existed as soluble As(V). Therefore, As(III) was the
predominate species and chlorine or another form of oxidant would be necessary to oxidize soluble
As(III) to soluble As(V) for more effective arsenic removal via adsorption. In Well No. 4 water, the total
arsenic concentration was lower at 13 (ig/L, but still greater than the 10 |o,g/L MCL.
17
-------
Iron and Manganese. Total iron concentrations in Well No. 5 water ranged from 179 to 248 (ig/L,
existing almost entirely as soluble iron. In Well No. 4 water, the total iron concentration was measured at
243 (ig/L. Since these values were below the secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of
300 |og/L for iron, this water was amenable to adsorption processes. Overall, adsorption processes are
most effective with low influent iron levels (i.e., below SMCL) due to the potential for iron fouling of the
AM. Conversely, the presence of soluble iron in raw water may help remove soluble arsenic once an
oxidant, such as chlorine, is introduced into raw water. Chlorination prior to the AM will oxidize and
precipitate iron, enabling removal of arsenic-laden iron solids via filtration through the media.
The total manganese concentration in water from Well No. 5 was 18.1 |o,g/L with 47% existing as soluble
manganese. The total manganese concentration in source water for Well No. 4 was lower at 2.9 (ig/L.
Manganese at these levels was not expected to impact system performance.
Ammonia and TOC. Wells No. 4 and/or No. 5 source water contained 1.2 to 1.5 mg/L of ammonia
(NH3 [as N]) and 1.8 mg/L of TOC. The presence of ammonia in source water consumes chlorine and
forms chloramines. As noted above, the facility maintains a target total chlorine residual level of 1.2
mg/L (as C12) in the distribution system. To reach this level, 0.2 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) would be
needed to react with reducing species such as As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II), and 1.2 to 1.5 mg/L of chlorine
(as C12) needed to react with NH3 (as N) to form chloramines.
The presence of TOC can increase chlorine demand and form disinfection byproducts (DBFs) such as
total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic acids (HAA5). Results of historic sampling indicate that
TTHM and HAA5 concentrations were below their respective MCL of 80 and 60 |o,g/L. From October
1999 through June 2008, the maximum TTHM concentration detected was 2.2 |o,g/L (as chloroform) and
the maximum HAA5 concentration detected was 2.7 |o,g/L, based on historic data collected by IL EPA.
Competing Anions. Arsenic removal by adsorption processes potentially can be influenced by
competing anions such as silica and phosphorus. The presence of 20.3 mg/L of silica (as SiO2) and 0.1
mg/L of phosphorus (as PO4) potentially can affect arsenic adsorption.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Data collected by Battelle indicate a neutral pH of 7.1 for Well No.
5, which is within the target range of 5.5 to 8.5 for arsenic removal via AM. Total hardness
concentrations ranged from 341 to 344 mg/L (as CaCO3), indicating that the water was a hard water.
Total alkalinity ranged from 367 to 407 mg/L (as CaCO3); turbidity from 1.9 to 2.6 nephelometric
turbidity units (NTU); TDS from 352 to 548 mg/L. All other measured analytes were below detection
limits and/or low enough not to adversely affect arsenic adsorption.
4.1.2 Treated Water Quality. In addition to source water data, Table 4-1 presents historic treated
water quality data provided by IL EPA from September 12 through October 10, 2006. Total arsenic
concentrations after chlorination and fluoridation ranged from 14.0 to 17.0 |og/L, which were lower than
IL EPA and Battelle's raw water total arsenic results of 18.4 and 24.9 |o,g/L, respectively. Total iron
concentrations in the treated water was 120 |og/L, which also was lower than IL EPA and Battelle's raw
water results of 179 and 248 |og/L, respectively. Lower arsenic and iron levels in the chlorinated water
were expected because arsenic was attached to iron solids to form arsenic-laden particles, some of which
could settle in the distribution system. Results of other water quality parameters were similar to those of
raw water. Treated water samples were not collected by Battelle or EPA at the time of source water
sampling.
18
-------
4.1.3 Distribution System. The distribution system for the Geneseo Hills Subdivision has 155
service connections. Based on the information provided by the facility, the infrastructure for the water
distribution system is constructed of 1/4- to 4-in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. Piping within the homes
is primarily copper; no lead pipe or lead solder is present in the homes.
The Geneseo Hills Subdivision samples the distribution system water periodically for several parameters:
monthly for bacteria and fluoride; quarterly for arsenic; once every year for nitrate/nitrite; once every
three years for inorganics, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), DBFs (including TTHM and HAA5), and
pesticides; once every three to six years for radionuclides; and once every six years for lead and copper
per LCR. Results for these sampling activities are posted on the IL EPA Drinking Water Watch Web
portal (IL EPA, 2011).
4.2 Treatment Process Description
The arsenic package unit (APU) marketed by AdEdge is a fixed-bed, down-flow AM system used for
small water systems in the flow range of 5 to 300 gpm. The system uses Bayoxide E33 media (branded
as AD-33 by AdEdge), an iron-based AM developed by Lanxess (formerly Bayer AG) and marketed by
Severn Trent Services (STS) for arsenic removal from drinking water supplies. Table 4-2 presents the
media's physical and chemical properties. Before 2010, the media was available in both granular and
pelletized forms, with the pelletized media 25% denser than the granular media (35 vs. 28 lb/ft3). (The
adsorptive capacities of both media were similar on a per pound basis). The pelletized media was
designed for more robust applications such as frequent backwashes, but because of lack of apparent
benefits, STS had stopped recommending the use of this type of media for arsenic removal in 2010. E33
is delivered in a dry crystalline form and listed by NSF International (NSF) under Standard 61 for use in
drinking water applications. The granular media was used at the Geneseo Hills Subdivision.
As groundwater is pumped through the fixed-bed pressure vessels, dissolved arsenic is adsorbed onto the
media, thus reducing the total arsenic concentration in the treated water. When the media reaches its
capacity (effluent water greater than 10 |o,g/L of total arsenic), the spent media is removed and disposed of
as a non-hazardous waste after passing the EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test.
The media life depends upon the arsenic speciation and concentration, pH, concentrations of competing
anions, and empty bed contact time (EBCT).
As noted above, chlorination was used to provide chlorine residuals in the distribution system. Because
soluble As(III) was the predominant species, chlorine also was used to oxidize soluble As(III) to soluble
As(V) for more effective arsenic removal by E33 media. pH values of source water ranged from 7.1 to
7.4; therefore, pH adjustment was not required.
The treatment system installed at the Geneseo Hills Subdivision consisted of two pressure vessels,
configured in parallel to meet IL EPA's rule-of-thumb system flowrate requirement per peak use rate of
165 gpm. The system was located downgradient of the two hydro tanks for "on-demand" operations to
avoid using a larger system for the specified well flowrate of 250 gpm. Table 4-3 presents key system
design parameters of the treatment system. Figure 4-3 is a generalized flow diagram of the system
including sampling locations and parameters analyzed during the demonstration study. The major
components of the treatment system include:
• Intake. Raw water was pumped from Well No. 5, chlorinated, and fed to the two pre-
existing hydro tanks. The well pump turned on and off at 40 and 60 psi, respectively, in the
two hydro tanks. Well pump flowrates and throughput were tracked by a 4-in turbine flow
meter/totalizer (Water Specialties Corp.).
19
-------
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of Bayoxide E33 Granular Media(a)
Physical Properties
Parameter
Physical Form and Appearance
Matrix
Bulk Density (Ib/ft3)
BET Area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Base Polymer
Particle Size Distribution (U.S. standard mesh)
Crystal Size (A)
Crystal Phase
Value
Amber, dry granular media
Iron oxide composite
28.1
142
0.3
<15% by weight
Macroporous polystyrene
10 x35
70
a-FeOOH
Chemical Analysis
Constituents
FeOOH
CaO
MgO
MnO
S03
Na20
TiO2
Si02
A1203
P205
Cl
Weight (%)
90.1
0.27
1.00
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.01
(a) Provided by Bayer AG.
BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
Prechlorination. The pre-existing chlorine addition system was used to inject 12.5% NaOCl
directly into incoming raw water. The injection point was located approximately 10 ft
downstream of the raw water sampling tap (i.e., IN), but upstream of the two hydro tanks.
The chlorine addition system consisted of a 22 gpd-rated Stenner peristaltic pump and a 125-
gal HDPE chemical day tank, which was replaced by a 50-gal HDPE tank in November 2009
due to leaks from the 125-gal tank (Figure 4-4). Chlorine consumption was monitored three
times a week through measurements of solution levels in the chemical day tank. Chlorine,
which oxidized soluble As(III) to soluble As(V), was added to achieve a target total chlorine
residual level of 1.2 mg/L (as C12) in the distribution system. Chlorine residual levels were
monitored after the two hydro tanks (AC) and the two adsorption vessels (TA and TB).
Hydro/Contact Tanks. After chlorination, well water flowed into the two hydro tanks with
9,000- and 12,000-gal storage capacities. Because these tanks were arranged in series, they
provided a total of 11 hr contact time based on an average instantaneous system flowrate of
32 gpm (see Section 4.4). The contact time facilitated the formation of settleable arsenic-
laden particles, causing concentrations of total arsenic and total iron to decrease in the water
exiting the tanks.
20
-------
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of Arsenic Removal System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
Chlorine Dosage (mg/L [as C12])
2.0
Using 12.5% NaOCl
Adsorption Vessels
Vessel Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/vessel)
No. of Vessels
Configuration
54 D x 60 H
Side Shell
15.9
2
Parallel
—
-
-
-
Adsorptive Media
Media Type
Media Weight (Ib)
Media Volume (ft3)
Media Bed Depth (in)
AD-33
2,744
98
37.0
Granular
1,372 Ib/vessel
49 ft3/vessel
-
Hydro/Contact Tanks
No. of Tanks
Configuration
Volume of Tanks (gal)
Contact Time (hr)
2
Series
12,000/9,000
1.8
-
-
-
~1 1 hr based on average instantaneous
system flowrate of 32 gpm
Service
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Throughput to Breakthrough (gal)
Average Use Rate (gal/day)
Estimated Media Life (month)
200
6.3
3.7
65,000
47,645,000
40,600
39
100 gpm/vessel
1.0 gpm/ft2 based on average
instantaneous system flowrate of 32 gpm
22.9 min based on average instantaneous
system flowrate of 32 gpm
Vendor-estimated BV to 10 |j,g/L total
arsenic breakthrough from vessels
lBV=733gal
Provided by operator
-
Backwash
Pressure Differential Setpoint (psi)
Backwash Rate (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Frequency
Backwash Flowrate (gpm/vessel)
Backwash Duration (min/vessel)
Fast Rinse Flowrate (gpm/vessel)
Fast Rinse Duration (min/vessel)
Wastewater Production (gal/vessel)
10
9.1
Varying
145
12
145
1.5
1,958
All backwash events initiated manually
during performance evaluation study
At 145 gpm
For both Vessels A and B
-
-
-
-
-
Adsorption. The treatment system consisted of two 54-in x 60-in, 100 psi-rated, skid-
mounted carbon-steel vessels configured in parallel (Figure 4-5). Each vessel contained 10
ft3 of gravel underbedding overlain by 49 ft3 of granular AD-33 media. At a design flowrate
of 100 gpm for each vessel, the hydraulic loading rate was 6.3 gpm/ft2 and EBCT was 3.7
min. On-demand flowrates and throughput were tracked by a SeaMetrics EX8 IP
electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer, installed at the inlet side of each adsorption vessel.
21
-------
1st Week of 4-Week Cvcle
pH
-------
Figure 4-4. Chlorine Addition System at Geneseo Hills Subdivision Facility
(50 gal Tank on left replaced pre-existing 125-gal tank on right)
Each pressure vessel was interconnected with schedule 80 PVC piping and five electrically
actuated butterfly valves, which made up the valve tree as shown in Figure 4-5. In addition,
the system had two manual lug-style butterfly valves to divert incoming flow into each vessel
and two manual diaphragm valves on the backwash line. Each valve operated independently
and the electrically actuated butterfly valves were controlled by an Allen-Bradley 1500
Micrologix programmable logic controller (PLC) with a PanelView Plus 600 Color touch
interface screen.
Backwash. The vendor recommended that the treatment system be backwashed every 30 to
60 days to remove particulates accumulating in the media beds and to "fluff the media beds
to prevent channeling. The recommended backwash flowrate was 145 gpm to achieve a
backwash rate of 9.1 gpm/ft2. Backwash flowrates and throughput were tracked by a
SeaMetrics EX81P flow meter/totalizer installed on the backwash wastewater discharge line.
Backwash could be initiated manually or automatically based on differential pressure (Ap)
measured across individual pressure vessels, time, or volume of water treated. During the
demonstration study, backwash was initiated only manually to facilitate backwash
observation and wastewater sampling. Backwash was set to last for 13.5 min/vessel,
including 12 min for an upflow wash and 1.5 min for a downflow rinse. Water from the two
hydro tanks was used for backwash. Approximately 1,958 gal of wastewater was generated
23
-------
Figure 4-5. AdEdge Arsenic Treatment System at Geneseo Hills Subdivision Facility
per vessel, or 3,915 gal per event. During the demonstration study, atotal of 20 backwash
events took place, with frequencies spanning from one backwash per 7 days to one backwash
per 86 days.
• Backwash Recycling System. Because there was no sewer to receive backwash wastewater
and because backwash wastewater could not be used for irrigation purposes per IL EPA, the
liquid fraction was recycled to the head of the treatment train upstream of the chlorine
injection point and the two hydro tanks. The backwash recycling system consisted of a 316-
stainless steel bag filter assembly (containing two filter bags in parallel configuration); a 102-
in diameter, 5,000-gal HDPE backwash holding tank; a 48-in diameter, 550-gal HDPE sludge
holding tank; a GPI vertical, multistage, centrifugal pump rated for 15.4 gpm at 114 ft-H2O
TDH; and associated piping/valves and controls (Figures 4-6 and 4-7).
During backwash, wastewater was directed from the adsorption vessels through the bag filters
to the backwash holding tank. After the contents were allowed to settle for a minimum of 24
hr, supernatant was pumped from an intake point located 18-in above the ground level on the
backwash holding tank. The recycled flowrate was maintained at approximately 12 gpm so
that the ratio between the recycled flow and service flow did not exceed 10%. The reclaim
pump was activated only when the water level in the backwash holding tank was above the
low-level switch at 18 in above the ground level and the well pump was on. The backwash
holding tank was not equipped with a high-level switch. Instead, a 2-in diameter overflow
pipe was installed at the top of the tank to direct any overages to the outside of the treatment
building. The sludge accumulating in the backwash holding tank was transferred to the
sludge holding tank using a 26-gpm pump for air drying and eventual disposal.
24
-------
Because the bag filter assembly was located before the backwash holding tank, filter bags
with nominal pore sizes of 25-, 50-, and even lOO-jom, at times, were clogged soon after
backwash had begun (e.g., 3 min). To continue backwashing, the operator had to replace
filter bags as many as three times during a backwash event. To reduce the filter bag usage, a
decision was made to move the bag filter assembly after the backwash holding tank so that
the filter bags would filter only supernatant being recycled to the treatment system.
Periodically, the sludge in the bottom of the backwash holding tank was pumped to a sludge
holding tank. The sludge, after some air drying, would then be sampled for the TCLP test
prior to disposal. Figure 4-8 presents a conceptual process flow diagram of the treatment
system and backwash recycling system.
Figure 4-6. Backwash Recycling System Components
(Clockwise from upper left: Bag Filter Assembly, Sludge Holding Tank, Backwash
Holding Tank, and Reclaim Pump and Control)
25
-------
4.3
Figure 4-7. Backwash Recycling System in Geneseo Hills Subdivision Facility
• Media Replacement. Upon breakthrough of arsenic at 10 ug/L, the spent media is removed
from the adsorption vessels using a shop vac and virgin media is loaded as done during initial
media loading. Because total arsenic concentrations did not exceed the 10-|o,g/L MCL, media
was not changed out during the performance evaluation study.
System Installation
Installation and shakedown of the treatment system was completed by AdEdge and its subcontractors on
April 22, 2008. The following subsections summarize pre-demonstration activities, including permitting,
building preparation, and system offloading, installation, shakedown, and startup.
4.3.1 Permitting. The engineering plan and permit application package was prepared by Missman,
Stanley & Associates, an engineering subcontractor to AdEdge. The plan/package included a process
flow diagram of the treatment system, mechanical drawings of the equipment, and a schematic of the
equipment layout and was submitted to IL EPA on February 5, 2008. On March 6, 2008, IL EPA
provided comments on the plan requesting information regarding (1) the depth of support gravel, (2) the
depth of the media beds and effective size of the media, (3) the proposed piping layout, and (4) the
recycled water flowrate. Missman, Stanley & Associates provided IL EPA with the requested
information on March 13, 2008, and the final engineering plan was approved and the permit was issued
by IL EPA on March 17, 2008.
4.3.2 Building Preparation. The meeting room of the existing treatment facility was modified by
the Geneseo Hills Homeowners Association to house the arsenic treatment system. The height of the
meeting room was extended by 5!/2 ft with the final dimensions of the room being 15.5ftx27ftx 13 ft.
AlOftx 10ft area of concrete was reinforced to support the weight of the backwash holding tank and a
12 ft high x 10 ft wide roll-up door was installed where the door was previously located on the building.
Figure 4-9 is a photograph of the modified building at Geneseo Hills Subdivision.
26
-------
Geneseo, IL
Process Flow Diagram and
Backwash Recycling System
Backwash
Recycle
Water
Injection
Point
to
Backwash Recycling
Tank (5,000-gal)
~4,500-gal/event
Distribution
System
(On-Demand
System)
Explanation
Reclaim
Pump
Pump
Supernatant
from Solids/
Sludge
Tank to
Recycling
Tank
Influent Water
Treated Water
Current BW Recycling
System Setup
Future/Proposed Setup
On: sludge just
below outlet
Off: drawing in air
Figure 4-8. Process Flow Diagram and Backwash Recycling System
-------
Figure 4-9. Modified Facility at Geneseo Hills Subdivision
(Clockwise from top left: Previous Meeting Room in Facility, Modified Facility
After and Before Completion of Construction)
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The treatment system along with 17 5.9-ft3
containers of AD-33 media arrived at the site on March 28, 2008. Prior to delivery, the system was tested
hydraulically to ensure integrity of all system components and establish a baseline pressure profile across
the system. Results of factory testing at a forward flowrate of 42 to 146 gpm and no media in the
adsorption vessels showed an inlet/outlet pressure of 22 to 48 psi and a Ap of 0 psi across each vessel,
indicating no flow restriction through relevant system components.
System installation began immediately after system arrival. AdEdge and its contactor, Schmitt Plumbing-
Heating, Inc. in Dixon, IL, performed all installation activities, including placing and anchoring the
pressure vessel skid, connecting inlet/outlet plumbing at tie-ins, completing electrical wiring, assembling
the backwash reclaim system, and making proper adjustments to the pre-existing chlorine addition
system. Upon completion, follow-on installation activities began on April 10 and 11, 2008, and included
(1) inspections of all plumbing and electrical connections, (2) hydraulic testing of the system without
media in forward flow, and (3) gravel and media loading and backwashing along with freeboard
measurements.
Without media in the vessels, the onsite hydraulic testing in forward flow indicated a pressure loss of only
2 psi across the system, Vessel A, and Vessel B, similar to the results obtained during the factory testing.
The inlet and outlet pressure readings were 30 and 28 psi, respectively, across the system and for each
vessel. During testing, the system reached a flowrate of 199 gpm (i.e., 99 gpm at Vessel A and 100 gpm
at Vessel B), which was very close to the design flowrate of 200 gpm.
Afterwards, gravel and AD-33 media were loaded into each vessel half-filled with water. Table 4-4
presents freeboard measurement results. Based on the measurements before media backwash, 51.7 ft3 of
media was loaded into each vessel, compared to the design value of 49 ft3 per vessel. After media
backwash at 150 gpm for approximately 30 min, freeboards to the top of the media beds were measured
28
-------
Table 4-4. Freeboard Measurements During System Installation
Freeboard
Measurements'3'
Vessel A
Freeboard
(in)
Bed
Depth
(in)(b)
Volume
(ft3)
Vessel B
Freeboard
(in)
Bed
Depth
(in)00
Volume
(ft3)
Before Backwash
To Top of Gravel Underbedding (in)
To Top of Media Bed (in)
56
17
NA
39
NA
51.7
56
17
NA
39
NA
51.7
After Backwash
To Top of Media Bed (in)
19
37
49.0
18
38
50.4
(a) From vessel top sidewall welded seam.
(b) Calculated based on 60-in straight walled sides.
again and approximately 49.0 and 50.4 ft3 of media remained in Vessels A and B, respectively. For this
performance evaluation study, the design value of 49 ft3 per vessel was used in BV calculations.
On April 21 and 22, 2008, the vendor completed additional shakedown activities, including (1) hydraulic
testing in service and backwash mode, (2) PLC program review, (3) function testing of the entire system
in automatic mode, and (4) bacteria testing. The vendor also provided operator training. On April 21,
2008, the treatment system was placed online by the operator for hydraulic and automatic function testing
at a system flowrate of 85 gpm (by throttling a 3-in manual valve at the outlet of each vessel) to mimic
on-demand operations. The flowrates measured at Vessels A and B were 43 and 42 gpm, respectively,
indicating balanced flow. Ap readings across the system and each vessel were approximately 1 psi, which
was lower than what would be anticipated from a media-loaded system. After passing the bacteria test on
April 22, 2008, the system officially went online. The performance evaluation study began on May 8,
2008.
On July 22, 2008, two Battelle staff members were onsite to inspect the system and provide training to the
operator for system sampling and operational data collection. As a result of system inspections, a punch-
list (Table 4-5) was identified and forwarded to the vendor on July 28, 2008. The issues identified were
resolved either by the vendor or the operator before August 5, 2008.
Table 4-5. System Punch-List Items
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
Punch-List/
Operational Issues
Provide O&M manual to Battelle
Re-examine design of backwash
wastewater recycling system to ensure
proper reclaim of wastewater
Adjust valves (DV-1 13 A and DV-
1 13B) to limit maximum flow
Reconfigure/update system software to
reset backwash totalizer (i.e., gallons
treated since last backwash) after each
backwash cycle
Corrective Action(s) Taken
A copy sent to Battelle
Recommendations to modify
system design/operation sent to
Battelle
No action required by vendor;
operator adjusted valves to limit
flow to 100 gpm per vessel
A new program chip sent to site
by vendor
Resolution
Date
08/05/08
08/05/08
Between
04/23/08-
07/21/08
05/15/08
29
-------
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. System operational parameters recorded during the demonstration
period are tabulated and attached as Appendix A; key parameters are summarized in Table 4-6. From
May 8, 2008, through July 30, 2010, the system treated approximately 33,158,000 gal (or 45,230 BV) of
water based on readings from a SeaMetrics EX81P electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer installed on each
adsorption vessel. The well pump operated for a total of 2,147 hr. Daily run times ranged from 0.1 to 6.4
hr/day and averaged 2.6 hr/day. Because the hour meter was interlocked with Well No. 5 and because the
system was operating on-demand, the pump run time was not representative of the treatment system run
time. Based on the wellhead master flow meter/totalizer, Well No. 5 water was fed to the two
hydro/contact tanks at an average flowrate of 220 gpm.
Due to on-demand operation, chlorinated water in the two hydro/contact tanks flowed through the
adsorption vessels only when the distribution system called for treated water. On-demand flowrates were
tracked by readings of a SeaMetrics EX81P electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer on each adsorption
vessel. Figure 4-10 presents instantaneous flowrates for Vessels A and B and the system (i.e., sum of
Vessels A and B readings). During the demonstration period, system instantaneous flowrates ranged
from 0 to 188 gpm and averaged 32 gpm. System instantaneous flowrates were typically well below the
design flowrate of 200 gpm with only four readings equal to or greater than 100 gpm. On October 30,
2009, uncharacteristically high flowrate readings (i.e., 86 and 102 gpm, the maximum values measured
during the demonstration period) were registered by the flow meters due to a water main break
underneath the treatment plant building. Once the leak was repaired, system instantaneous flowrates
returned to typical levels.
Table 4-6. Summary of Operational System Parameters
Operational Parameter
Performance Period
Value
05/08/08-07/30/10
Well No. 5
Total Operating Time (hr)(a)
Average Daily Run Time (hr/day)
Throughput at Wellhead (gal)
Calculated Flowrate to Hydro/Contact Tanks (gpm)(b)
Calculated NaOCl Dosage (mg/L [as C12])(C)
2,147
2.6(0.1-6.4)
28,604,680
220 (68.3-458)
6.6
AD- 3 3 Adsorption System
Throughput (gal)
Bed Volumes (B V)
Instantaneous Flowrate (gpm)(d)
Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min)
Ap Across Adsorption Vessels/System (psi)
System Inlet/Outlet Pressure (psi)
Vessel A
16,401,436
44,749
15.8 (0-86)
1.0 (0-5.4)
22.9 (>4.3)
0-0
Vessel B
16,756,827
45,719
16.3 (0-102)
1.0 (0-6.4)
22.9 (>3.6)
0-0
Combined
33,158,263
45,234
32.0 (0-188)
NA
NA
2 (1-19)
52 (40-60)/50 (21-58)
(a) Wellhead hour meter installed on 09/26/08; operating time from 05/08/08 to 09/25/08 estimated
using that registered during same period in 2009 (i.e., 05/08/09 to 09/25/09).
(b) Data on 10/24/08, 04/04/09, 06/18/10, and 06/25/10 considered outliers and omitted from
calculations.
(c) NaOCl dosage from 07/30/08, 08/25/08, 10/24/08, 04/04/09, 06/18/10, and 06/25/10 considered
outliers and omitted from calculations.
(d) High flowrates at 86 and 102 gpm for Vessels A and B, respectively, caused by pipe break
under treatment plant building.
30
-------
£
a.
•3B
01
as
|
LL.
in
O
01
c
to
4-J
c
ro
4-J
c
200
180
160
140
120
100
Design flowrate of 200
gpm for system.
188 gpm
04/10/09
156 gpm
Water main break on
10/30/09
—0—Vessel A
—C^Vessel B
A System
TJ8705/09
12/29/08
100 gpm
100 gpm/vessel design flowrate
40
20
04/12/08 07/21/08 10/29/08 02/06/09 05/17/09 08/25/09 12/03/09 03/13/10 06/21/10 09/29/10
Date
Figure 4-10. Instantaneous Flowrate Measurements from the Treatment System
-------
Because the average instantaneous flowrate to each adsorption vessel was significantly lower (16 gpm)
than the design value of 100 gpm, the average hydraulic loading rate was significantly lower (1.0 gpm/ft2)
than the design value of 6.3 gpm/ft2 and the average EBCT was significantly higher (22.9 min) than the
design value of 3.7 min.
Throughout the demonstration period, pressure across the system was monitored with an inlet and outlet
panel-mounted, pressure gauge with the capability to measure pressure from 0 to 100 psi. Ap across each
adsorption vessel was monitored with a panel-mounted, piston-type differential pressure gauge with the
capability to measure Ap from 0 to 30 psi. Throughout the demonstration period,
Ap readings across Vessels A and B remained unchanged at 0 psi. These results were somewhat
unexpected because a few psi pressure drop normally would be observed across a clean AD-33 bed and
because an increase in pressure drop normally would be noticeable upon accumulation of solids in the
bed. Pressure drop would return to the clean-bed level only after an adequate backwash. Ap readings
across the system ranged from 1 to 19 psi and averaged 2 psi. The 19 psi reading was recorded on
October 30, 2009, during the water main break mentioned above. Once the leak was repaired, Ap
readings across the system returned to 2 psi throughout the remainder of the demonstration period. The
low pressure drop across the system and the adsorption vessels was indicative of little flow restriction
imposed by system components such as pipe, valves, top diffusers, and bottom laterals.
4.4.2 Chlorine Injection. As described in Section 4.2, 12.5% NaOCl solution was utilized to
oxidize soluble As(III) to soluble As(V) and provide a target total chlorine residual level of 1.2 mg/L (as
C12) in the distribution system. During the demonstration period, the chlorine tank level was monitored
approximately three times per week, along with other operational parameters, to determine the chlorine
dosage. NaOCl dosages thus determined averaged 6.6 mg/L (as C12), which is significantly higher than
the design value of 2.0 mg/L (as C12). As to be discussed in Section 4.5.1, an average of 2.4 mg/L of total
chlorine (as C12) was measured after the hydro/contact tanks and after the adsorption vessels (this residual
level was 100% higher than the target level of 1.2 mg/L [as C12]). Excluding the amount (-0.3 mg/L [as
C12]) that would be needed to oxidize reducing species, such as soluble As(III), soluble Fe(II), and soluble
Mn(II), the amount unaccounted for would be 3.9 mg/L (as C12) (i.e., 6.6 - 2.4 - 0.3 = 3.9). It is possible
that some chlorine was consumed by reacting with TOC (see Table 4-9). The NaOCl solution
concentration (12.5%) also can be an issue due to chlorine self-destruction. As noted in Section 4.4.5, the
operator ordered ten 15-gal containers every three to four months. NaOCl concentrations in some of the
containers may not be at its full strength by the time it gets to be used.
4.4.3 Backwash. Although automatic backwash could be triggered by a Ap, a time, or a
throughput setpoint, only manual backwashes were performed during the demonstration period. As
shown in Table 4-7, Vessels A and B were backwashed 20 and 18 times, respectively. Vessel B was not
backwashed on July 22 and August 25, 2008, due to clogging of filter bags during backwash. To avoid
clogging, the nominal pore size of filter bags was increased from 25 to 50 jam and then to 100 jam (see
more detailed discussion in Section 4.4.5). The vessels were backwashed once every 7 to 86 days (or
once every 45 days on [average]). Different backwash frequencies do not appear to have impacted
pressure drop across the E33 vessels (as evidenced by constant Ap readings at 0 psi throughout the study
period) or caused leakage of iron particles through the vessels (as discussed in Section 4.4.5.1 under Iron
and Manganese). The amount of wastewater produced per backwash event was recorded only twice on
May 16 and 23, 2008, totaling 3,947 and 3,265 gal, respectively. The amount collected on May 16, 2008,
was very close to the design value of 3,915 gal. Because of the lack of wastewater production data, it was
assumed that 3,915 gal of wastewater was produced during each backwash event. Therefore, the total
amount of wastewater produced would be 78,300 gal, with most being recycled to the head of the
treatment train upstream. The remaining account was transferred to the sludge holding tank.
32
-------
Table 4-7. Summary for System Backwash
Date
05/16/08
05/23/08
07/22/08
08/25/08
10/08/08
11/19/08
12/17/08
01/21/09
02/18/09
03/18/09
04/22/09
05/20/09
06/24/09
07/22/09
08/26/09
09/30/09
10/21/09
01/15/10
03/24/10
06/0910
Duration
Between
Backwashes
(day)
-
7
60
34
44
42
288
35
28
28
35
28
35
28
35
35
21
86
68
77
Amount of
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
Vessel A
2,000
1,667
1,368
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Vessel B
1,947
1,598
NB
NB
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Filter
Bag
Nominal
Pore Size
(M-m)
25
25
25
50, 100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
NC = data not collected; NB = not backwashed due to filter clogging
4.4.4 Residual Management. Because AD-33 media was not replaced during the demonstration
period and because backwash wastewater was recycled, only sludge was produced and temporarily stored
in the sludge holding tank for final disposal.
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. The only operational issue experienced was
replacement of filter bags during system backwash. Because the bag filter assembly was located before
the backwash holding tank, filter bags were clogged soon after the backwash had begun. To continue
backwashing, the operator had to replace filter bags as many as three times during a backwash event.
Initially, the system was fitted with 25-|am filter bags. On May 16, May 23, and July 22, 2008, 25-|am
filter bags were used, but inlet pressure to the filter bags increased to 60 psi within 3 min and water
stopped flowing through the filter bags once the inlet pressure reached 20 psi. Based on these
observations, nominal pore sizes of filter bags were adjusted to 50 jam on August 25, 2008, and then to
100 jam on September 9 (backwashing attempted but not completed) and October 8, 2008. After
successful testing on October 8, 2008, lOO-jom filter bags continued to be used during 15 additional
backwash events throughout the remainder of the demonstration period.
Follow-on discussions had been made with the vendor and operator to move the bag filter assembly to a
location downstream of the backwash holding tank such that filter bags would filter only the recycled
supernatant as opposed to solids-laden wastewater. The relocation, however, was not implemented before
the end of the performance evaluation study.
33
-------
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, preventative
maintenance activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The chlorination system, as discussed in Section 4.2 and shown
in Figure 4-4, utilized a 12.5% NaOCl solution to oxidize soluble As(III) to soluble As(V) and reach a
target free residual level of 1.2 mg/L (as C12). The chlorination system did not require additional
maintenance or skills, other than those required prior to the demonstration study. The operator monitored
NaOCl solution consumption rates and residual chlorine levels approximately three times per week
throughout the demonstration period. Post-treatment was not needed for this system.
System Automation. The system was fitted with controls for automatic backwash. The automated
portion of the system did not require regular O&M; however, operator awareness and an ability to detect
unusual system measurements were necessary when troubleshooting system automation failures. The
chlorine addition system was interlocked with the operation of Well No. 5; thus, only requiring the
operator to continue to refill the chemical day tank. The well pump turned on and off at 40 and 60 psi,
respectively, of pressure in the two hydro tanks. The reclaim pump on the backwash recycling system
was operating only when the water level in the backwash holding tank was above the low-level switch at
18 in above the ground level and when the well pump was on. The equipment vendor provided hands-on
training and an O&M manual to the operator during system installation, shakedown, and startup (see
Section 4.3.3).
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to operate the
treatment system were minimal. Operator knowledge of the system limitations and typical operational
parameters were critical in achieving system performance objectives. The operator was onsite typically
three times per week and spent approximately 20 min during each visit to perform visual inspections and
record system operational parameters on the daily log sheets. Other than routine activities, the operator's
duties included monitoring and refilling the chlorine day tank as well as initiating manual backwash
events (which may include changing filter bags on the backwash recycling system, if necessary).
Operator training began onsite with the equipment vendor during system installation, shakedown, and
startup and with a thorough review of the system O&M manual. However, over the demonstration
period, the operator found that invaluable system troubleshooting skills were gained through hands-on
operational experience.
IL EPA requires that the operator of the treatment system at the Geneseo Hills Subdivision hold at least a
Class B IL EPA drinking water operator certification. IL EPA drinking water operator certifications are
classified from Class A through D with Class A being the highest and requiring the most education,
experience, and training. Licensing eligibility requirements are based on education, experience, and
related training and incrementally increase with each licensing level. Specifically, Class B requires a high
school diploma or equivalent and three years of responsible experience in water supply operation.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included periodic checks of flow
meters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. The chlorine day tank and
supply lines also were checked for leaks and adequate pressure. Typically, the operator performed these
duties when onsite for routine activities approximately three times per week.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. NaOCl was utilized to oxidize soluble As(III)
to soluble As(V) prior to the two hydro tanks and provide a target total chlorine residual level of 1.2 mg/L
(as C12) in the distribution system. The operator continued to order 12.5% NaOCl solution throughout the
34
-------
demonstration period as was done prior to installation of the treatment system (i.e., 10 15-gal containers
from Brenntag Mid-South of Henderson, KY every three to four months).
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the arsenic treatment system was evaluated based on results of water samples
collected across the treatment train, during media backwash, and from the distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 45 occasions
including four duplicate and 25 speciation sampling events. A complete set of the results was tabulated
and is included in Appendix B. Table 4-8 summarizes results of arsenic, iron, and manganese across the
treatment train. Table 4-9 summarizes results of other water quality parameters. Figure 4-11 presents
results of the 25 arsenic speciation events at the IN, AC, and TT locations. The results for the AC
location from January 13, 2010, were not included in the figure because they looked as if chlorine had not
been added during the sampling event (even though 0.9 mg/L of total chlorine [as C12] was measured).
Results of the treatment plant water sampling are discussed below.
Arsenic. As shown in Table 4-8, total arsenic concentrations in raw water (IN) ranged from 15.9 to
24.4 ng/L and averaged 19.6 |o,g/L. As stated in Section 4.1.1, soluble As(III) was the predominant
species, with concentrations ranging from 11.4 to 17.1 |o,g/L and averaging 14.3 |o,g/L. Low levels of
soluble As(V) and particulate arsenic also were present, averaging 3.5 and 1.3 |o,g/L, respectively.
The presence of As(III) as the predominant species is consistent with the relatively low DO and ORP
measurements, which averaged 0.8 mg/L and -49.1 mV, respectively (see Table 4-9). After chlorination
and the two hydro/contact tanks (AC), DO levels increased to an average of 1.6 mg/L and remained
essentially unchanged after the adsorption vessels (TA/TB/TT). ORP readings increased significantly, as
expected, to an average of 315 mV and, like DO, remained rather unchanged across the adsorption
vessels. Measured total chlorine residual levels averaged 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, and 2.3 mg/L (as C12) at the AC,
TA, TB, and TT locations, respectively.
Chlorine reacted with ammonia in raw water, reducing its concentrations from an average of 1.3 (at IN) to
1.0 mg/L (as N) after the hydro/contact tanks and after the adsorption vessels. Based on the
stoichiometric relationship between chlorine and ammonia, approximately 1.5 mg/L of chloramines (as
C12) would be produced. This amount was lower than the average value of 2.4 mg/L (as C12) actually
measured after the hydro/contact tanks and after the adsorption vessels.
After chlorination and the hydro/contact tanks, total arsenic concentrations decreased slightly to an
average of 19.2 |og/L. Chlorine effectively oxidized soluble As(III) to soluble As(V), decreasing its
concentrations from an average of 14.3 (at IN) to 0.6 |og/L (for a net decrease of 13.7 |og/L). The soluble
As(V) formed either stayed as is or formed arsenic-laden solids (due to the presence of soluble iron in
source water; see detailed discussions under Iron and Manganese Subsection), resulting in a net increase
of 5.9 and 7.3 |o,g/L (on average) for soluble As(V) and particulate arsenic, respectively. The difference
between the net decrease in soluble As(III) concentration (i.e., 13.7 |o,g/L) and the sum of the net increases
in soluble As(V) and particulate arsenic concentrations (i.e., 13.2 |og/L) reflects the amount that might
have settled in the hydro/contact tanks. As mentioned in Section 4.2, the hydro/contact tanks provided an
average of 11-hr contact time at an average system flowrate of 32 gpm.
35
-------
Table 4-8. Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sample
Location
IN
AC(b)
TA
TB(C)
TT
IN
AC(b)
TT
IN
AC(b)
TT
IN
AC(b)
TT
IN
AC(b)
TT
IN(d)
AC
TA
TB(C)
TT(e)
IN(d)
AC(b)
TT
IN(d)
AC
TA
TB(C)
TT
IN(d)
AC
TT
Unit
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
^g/L
Sample
Count
45
44
20
19
25
25
24
25
25
24
25
25
24
25
25
24
25
45
45
20
19
24
25
24
25
45
45
20
20
25
25
25
25
Concentration
Minimum
15.9
14.9
0.1
<0.1
0.5
16.1
6.9
0.3
0.1
4.0
O.I
11.4
0.3
0.1
O.I
6.3
O.I
85
204
<25
<25
<25
170
<25
<25
4.4
4.7
0.4
0.3
4.2
5.0
4.5
4.2
Maximum
24.4
23.1
1.8
2.5
3.3
21.4
12.8
1.3
4.9
14.1
2.3
17.1
1.0
1.0
6.9
12.4
0.9
1,329
602
<25
50.7
83.7
790
66.5
73.5
19.9
7.8
8.2
8.6
9.9
12.0
6.9
10.2
Average
19.6
19.2
_(a)
_(a)
_(a)
17.8
10.0
_(a)
1.3
8.6
_(a)
14.3
0.6
_(a)
3.5
9.4
_(a)
554
347
<25
<25
<25
359
<25
<25
8.0
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.6
8.0
5.6
6.7
Standard
Deviation
2.3
2.1
_(a)
_(a)
_(a)
1.2
1.5
_(a)
1.6
3.0
_(a)
1.3
0.2
_(a)
1.4
1.5
_(a)
277
77
-
10.3
15.4
183
18.1
12.7
3.2
0.8
1.9
2.3
1.5
1.8
0.7
1.7
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for
calculations.
(a) Average and standard deviation calculations not meaningful due to arsenic breakthrough from
adsorption vessels; see breakthrough curves in Figure 4-12 for total arsenic and Figure 4-11 for
paniculate arsenic, soluble As(III), and soluble As(V).
(b) Data on 01/13/10 not used in statistical analysis due to abnormal results.
(c) Data on 05/20/09 not used in statistical analysis due to abnormal results.
(d) Soluble Fe/Mn concentrations in raw water significantly greater than respective total Fe/Mn
concentrations on eight occasions (12/03/08, 01/07/09, 03/11/09, 11/18/09, 01/13/10, 02/10/10,
04/07/10, and 06/09/10 [see Appendix B]); values flipped for statistical analysis and Fe/Mn
breakthrough curve plots (see Figures 4-13 and 4-14).
(e) Data on 01/22/08 not used in statistical analysis due to abnormal result.
36
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Sample
Location
INW
AC(a)
TAW
TB(a)
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN(b)
AC*'
TA
TBW
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
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
mg/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
^g/L
^g/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
Sample
Count
30
30
18
18
12
45
45
20
20
25
14
14
2
2
12
14
14
2
2
12
14
14
2
2
12
44
44
20
19
25
32
32
20
20
12
32
32
20
20
12
25
25
1
1
24
29
29
8
8
Concentration
Minimum
365
348
368
361
368
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
20.1
19.4
<10
<10
<10
20.5
20.9
20.9
20.7
20.8
0.6
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.5
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.1
Maximum
402
398
396
404
396
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
88.2
88.1
<10
<10
19.8
26.2
26.3
26.0
25.6
24.1
15.0
4.0
1.5
2.2
5.0
2.9
2.8
1.2
1.2
3.0
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.4
Average
380
378
379
379
380
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
49.8
50.1
_(<0
_(<0
_(<0
23.3
23.4
23.2
23.3
22.9
5.6
0.9
0.3
0.4
0.8
1.9
1.9
1.2
1.2
1.9
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.3
Standard
Deviation
11.0
10.6
8.7
10.3
9.5
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
0.3
0.0
0.0
—
—
0.0
—
—
—
—
—
10.8
12.1
_(<0
_(<0
_(<0
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.1
4.2
0.7
0.4
0.5
1.4
0.3
0.3
—
—
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
37
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
pH (Continued)
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sample
Location
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN(b)
AC
TA
TB
TT
AC
TA
TB
TT
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
Unit
S.U.
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
22
31
31
8
8
24
30
29
8
8
22
25
27
8
8
20
37
8
8
31
37
8
8
31
14
14
2
2
12
14
14
2
2
12
14
14
2
2
12
Concentration
Minimum
7.0
9.0
10.0
10.9
11.0
10.0
0.0
0.3
1.2
1.0
0.8
-93.3
42.0
71.0
75.0
205
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.6
0.1
0.7
231
230
224
225
295
101
100
96.9
95.7
161
122
124
123
123
126
Maximum
7.5
15.0
15.7
14.1
14.2
17.2
4.7
4.3
2.1
1.7
3.7
-14.0
474
440
460
435
2.5
2.1
1.9
1.8
3.5
3.3
3.9
3.3
436
452
358
360
457
241
251
235
237
251
215
236
127
129
264
Average
7.2
11.8
12.1
12.3
12.3
12.2
0.8
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.6
-49.1
315
341
337
332
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.8
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.3
351
354
291
292
366
197
198
166
166
205
154
156
125
126
160
Standard
Deviation
0.2
1.4
1.4
0.9
0.9
1.9
0.9
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.7
16.5
88.7
127
124
71.4
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.7
48.4
52.7
94.5
95.9
47.5
36.7
38.9
97.9
99.8
25.4
27.6
30.2
3.4
3.9
37.9
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for calculations.
(a) 09/09/08 samples not analyzed by laboratory because sample cooler was out of required temperature
range (i.e., >4°C).
(b) Data at IN and AC on 11/18/09 and at TB on 05/20/09 not used in statistical analysis due to abnormal
results.
(c) Average and standard deviation calculations not meaningful due to phosphorus breakthrough from
adsorption vessels; see breakthrough curves in Figure 4-15 for total phosphorus concentrations.
(d) Data collected on 07/22/08, 11/18/08, and 12/03/08 not used in statistical analysis due to abnormal results.
38
-------
O 15.0
2
Arsenic Speciation in Raw Water (IN)
hi
HAS (paniculate)
• Soluble As (III)
H Soluble As (V)
-As (total)
Arsenic Speciation after Chlorination and
Hydro/Contact Tanks (AC)
ni1
HAs(particulate)
• As (III)
HAs(V)
-As (total)
^
Date
Date
Arsenic Speciation after Total Combined Effluent (TT) I=IAS(paniculate)
^ As (III)
i ia«(V)
-*-As (total)
Arsenic MCL = 10rra/L
IM
Figure 4-11. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Locations
-------
Figure 4-12 plots total arsenic concentrations measured across the treatment train against throughput in
BV. Throughout the performance evaluation study, total arsenic concentrations were reduced to levels
well below 10 ng/L, with the highest concentration measured at 3.3 ng/L. Amounts of arsenic measured
consisted of no more than 0.9 |o,g/L of soluble As(V), 1.0 |o,g/L of soluble As(III), and 2.3 |o,g/L of
particulate arsenic. Both soluble As(V) and particulate arsenic were removed by AD-33 media,
presumably via adsorption and filtration, respectively. Very little soluble As(III) was removed by the
media; the average concentrations before and after adsorption were 0.6 and 0.5 ng/L, respectively.
As shown in Figure 4-12, total arsenic concentrations measured after the hydro/contact tanks were lower
than those measured in raw water for most samples. This is consistent with the average concentrations
(19.2 vs. 19.6 |og/L) shown in Table 4-8. As discussed earlier, the long residence time (11 hr) in the
hydro/contact tanks had caused some particles to settle, reducing both arsenic and iron concentrations at
the AC location. The concentration reduction for iron was much more significant than that for arsenic as
discussed below under the subsection Iron and Manganese.
Based on the final sampling event conducted on July 28, 2010, the total arsenic concentration in the
system effluent (TT) was 1.0 |o,g/L. Throughout the demonstration period, the system treated 33,158,300
gal (or 45,230 BV; 1 BV = 98 ft3 = 733 gal) of water. This volume throughput was about 70% of the
vendor-estimated media life of 65,000 BV (47,645,000 gal). Therefore, it is undetermined at this time
whether the AD-33 media would achieve the vendor-estimated media life.
Total Arsenic Concentrations at Geneseo Hills Subdivision
25.0
20.0
1
c
o
c
o
o
o
'c
HI
15.0
10.0
5.0
Arsenic MCL 10 nj/L
-TA -X-TB -*-TT
Notes: Non-detect concentrations plotted as half reporting limit; duplicate
samples plotted separately; outliers not plotted.
0.0
wY*
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Bed Volumes (X103)
Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves
45.0
50.0
Iron and Manganese. On eight occasions on December 3, 2008; January 7, March 11, and November
18, 2009; and January 13, February 10, April 7, and June 9, 2010; soluble iron and manganese
concentrations in raw water were significantly greater than respective total iron and manganese
40
-------
concentrations (see Appendix B). The higher soluble concentrations observed most likely were the
results of data transcription errors because under no circumstance could a soluble concentration be higher
than the corresponding total concentration. Therefore, the measurements in question were substituted for
one another for statistical calculations and data plots (see Table 4-8 and Figures 4-13 and 4-14).
Total iron concentrations in raw water varied extensively, ranging from 84.6 to 1,329 |o,g/L and averaging
554 |og/L (see Figure 4-13). Approximately 65% of the total iron was present in the soluble form. It was
not clear what had caused iron concentrations to vary. After chlorination and the hydro/contact tanks,
concentrations of total iron, existing entirely as particulate iron, were much more consistent, ranging from
204 to 602 |o,g/L and averaging 347 |og/L. This average concentration was 37% less than that in raw
water, presumably caused by settling of iron particles in the hydro/contact tanks. The remaining amount
(347 |og/L) was completely removed by AD-33 media from all but six samples with the highest
concentration measured at 83.7 |o,g/L (see Appendix B). Particulate iron removal most likely was
achieved via filtration.
Although not as extensively, total manganese concentrations in raw water also varied, ranging from 4.4 to
19.9 |og/L and averaging 8.0 |o,g/L (Figure 4-14). Manganese existed almost entirely in the soluble form.
Total manganese concentrations after chlorination and the hydro/contact tanks were reduced to an average
of 6.3 |og/L. Chlorination, however, did not precipitate manganese as it did for iron. Slow oxidation
kinetics most likely was the reason (McCall et al., 2007; Condit and Chen, 2006; Knocke et al., 1990;
Knocke et al., 1987). Soluble manganese remained untreated after the AD-33 adsorption vessels.
Total Iron Concentrations at Geneseo Hills Subdivision
1,400
1,200
1,000
1
c
o
c
01
u
c
o
O
c
p
800
600
400
200
Notes: Non-detect concentrations plotted as half reporting limit;
duplicate samples plotted separately; outliers not plotted
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Bed Volumes (x103)
Figure 4-13. Total Iron Breakthrough Curves
41
-------
Total Manganese Concentrations at Geneseo Hills Subdivision
25.0
Notes: Non-detect concentrations plotted as half reporting limit
duplicate samples plotted separately; outliers not plotted
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Bed Volumes (x103)
Figure 4-14. Total Manganese Breakthrough Curves
Competing Anions. Total phosphorous concentrations in raw water ranged from 20.1 to 88.2 |o,g/L and
averaged 49.8 |og/L, which remained essentially unchanged after chlorination and the hydro/contact tanks.
After the adsorption vessels, total phosphorous concentrations were reduced to its MDL of 10 |o,g/L for all
but three samples (at 11.6, 18.8, and 19.8 |o,g/L; see Appendix B). Therefore, phosphorus competes with
arsenic for available adsorption sites, thus adversely affecting system performance. Similar observations
were made at other arsenic demonstration sites (McCall et al., 2009). Figure 4-15 shows total
phosphorous concentrations across the treatment train as a function of throughput.
In contrast, silica concentrations remained relatively constant across the treatment train, averaging from
22.9 mg/L (as SiO2) at TT to 23.4 mg/L (as SiO2) at AC (see Table 4-9). As much as 0.5 mg/L of silica,
however, could have been removed by AD-33 media, thus affecting arsenic adsorption. Adsorption of
silica by various AM at other arsenic demonstration sites has been reviewed elsewhere (Chen et al.,
2011).
Other Water Quality Parameters. As shown in Table 4-9, pH values in raw water (IN) ranged from 6.9
to 7.6 and averaged 7.2. After chlorination and the two hydro/contact tanks (AC), pH values remained
essentially unchanged, ranging from 7.0 to 7.5 and averaging 7.2. These pH values are well within the
recommended pH range of 6.0 to 8.0 for optimal arsenic adsorption. After treatment, average pH values
remained constant, ranging from 7.2 to 7.3 at the TA, TB, and TT locations.
Alkalinity levels in raw water and treated water averaged 380 and 379 mg/L (as CaCO3), respectively.
Total hardness levels in raw water and treated water ranged from 231 to 436 mg/L (as CaCO3) and 224 to
457 mg/L (as CaCO3), respectively. Turbidity levels in raw water and treated water averaged 5.6 and 0.5
NTU, respectively. Average fluoride concentrations ranged from 0.3 to 0.6 mg/L at all sampling
42
-------
Total Phosphorus Concentrations at Geneseo Hills Subdivision
TB —X—TT
Notes: Non-detect concentrations plotted as half reporting limit; duplicate
samples plotted separately; outliers not plotted.
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Figure 4-15. Total Phosphorous Breakthrough Curves
locations, well below the fluoride MCL of 4 mg/L. Average sulfate concentrations ranged from <0.1 to
0.3 mg/L at all sampling locations. All nitrate concentrations were below the MDL of 0.05 mg/L (as N)
at all sampling locations. TOC levels averaged 1.9 mg/L at all sampling locations. In general, the results
indicated that AD-33 media did not affect alkalinity, total hardness, turbidity, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate,
and TOC levels in the treated water.
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater and Residual Solids Sampling. Table 4-10 presents analytical
results of 12 monthly backwash wastewater sampling events conducted from November 18, 2008,
through October 21, 2009. In general, backwash wastewater concentrations were consistent between
sampling events and between Vessels A and B. pH values ranged from 7.2 to 7.8 and averaged 7.4. TDS
concentrations ranged from 306 to 406 mg/L and averaged 352 mg/L. TSS concentrations ranged from
125 to 590 mg/L and averaged 252 mg/L. As expected, arsenic, iron, and manganese existed primarily in
the particulate form, with concentrations averaging 1,100 |o,g/L for particulate arsenic, 68,249 |o,g/L for
particulate iron, and 252 |o,g/L for particulate manganese. Although much lower than total iron levels,
soluble iron levels were uncharacteristically high, averaging 359 and 844 |o,g/L for Vessels A and B,
respectively. It was not clear why soluble iron concentrations were so high. Two possible explanations
were penetration of fine iron particles through the 0.45 (im disc filters used for sample filtration and
accidental spill/drips of some unfiltered water into filtered sample bottles. However, there has been no
evidence to suggest that either of these in fact had occurred during onsite sampling.
Assuming 252 mg/L of TSS in 3,915 gal of wastewater, 8.2 Ib of solids would be generated during each
backwash event. Based on the average particulate metal concentrations mentioned above, the solids
would consist of approximately 0.04 Ib of arsenic, 2.2 Ib of iron, and 0.02 Ib of manganese. These
amounts represent 0.44%, 27.1%, and 0.21% of the total solids produced.
43
-------
Table 4-10. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
11/18/08
12/17/08
01/21/09
02/18/09
03/18/09
04/22/09
05/20/09
06/24/09
07/22/09
08/25/09
09/30/09
10/21/09
Minimum
Maximum
Average
BW1
Vessel A
W
8.
s.u.
7.6
7.7
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.8
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.8
7.4
C/5
P
H
mg/L
352
370
354
362
314
306
406
358
368
372
360
346
306
406
356
C/5
C/5
H
mg/L
190
235
230
206
244
370
238
300
200
250
240
125
125
370
236
13
•^
o
-*^
5«
£
ug/L
732
957
869
723
,080
,219
781
,369
,185
,326
,180
554
554
1,369
998
As (soluble)
ug/L
14.6
8.3
9.7
9.3
8.6
15.5
5.9
5.4
1.3
17.4
7.5
8.7
1.3
17.4
9.3
As
(particulate)
ug/L
718
948
859
714
,071
,203
776
,364
,183
,309
,173
546
546
1,364
989
f
O
-^-1
£
ug/L
63,425
80,013
62,049
47,641
60,122
71,830
45,563
86,712
51,488
84,566
66,299
34,313
34,313
86,712
62,835
Fe (soluble)
ug/L
731
356
387
434
331
299
140
214
161
782
245
225
140
782
359
13
•^
o
-*^
1
ug/L
75
129
86.4
82.9
117
126
122
22.4
2,962
218
158
228
22.4
2,962
360
Mn (soluble)
ug/L
8.1
8.6
6.2
6.7
9.7
4.6
8.7
7.4
6.7
7.6
7.3
14.6
4.6
14.6
8.0
BW2
Vessel B
W
8.
S.U.
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.4
in
Q
H
mg/L
322
366
350
306
334
360
380
352
350
354
356
342
306
380
348
-------
Solids in wastewater were collected during two backwash events on November 18, 2008, and April 22,
2009, as discussed in Section 3.3.3. Table 4-11 presents analytical results of the solids sampled. On a
dry weight basis, arsenic, iron, and manganese constituted 0.3%, 27.4%, and 0.05%, respectively, of the
total solids produced, which are rather close to the results (i.e., 0.44%, 27.1%, and 0.21%) calculated
based on TSS and metal concentrations analyzed in wastewater.
A solid sample also was collected from the sludge holding tank on June 24, 2010; results also are
presented in Table 4-11. In general, the sludge had higher metal contents than the backwash solids
collected on November 18, 2008, and April 22, 2009, with some (such as Mg, P, Ca, Fe, As, and Ba) 19
to 70% higher and others (such as Si and Mn) 116 to 418% higher.
Table 4-11. Backwash Residual Solid Sampling Results
Date
11/18/08
04/22/09
Location
Vessel A
Vessel B
Average
Vessel A
Vessel B
Average
Average
06/24/10
Sludge
Tank
Mg
Hg/g
6,324
6,109
6,217
15,387
12,983
14,185
10,201
12,117
Si
Hg/g
1,672
1,546
1,609
5,105
5,299
5,202
3,406
17,663
P
Hg/g
6,853
7,456
7,155
19,274
18,051
18,663
12,909
19,482
Ca
l^g/g
31,325
30,434
30,880
82,408
66,533
74, 471
52,676
65,063
Fe
l^g/g
188,353
194,413
191,383
345,466
369,713
357,590
274,487
424,735
Mn
l^g/g
308
313
311
603
699
606
459
991
As
Hg/g
1,549
1,733
1,641
4,411
4,293
4,352
2,997
5,108
Ba
l^g/g
770
742
756
1,925
1,732
1,829
1,293
1,853
4.5.3 Spent Media. As stated in Section 3.3.4., AD-33 media in Vessels A and B was not replaced
because arsenic breakthrough at 10 |o,g/L was not reached during the demostration study; therefore, no
spent media was produced as residual solids.
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to installation and operation of the treatment
system, baseline distribution system water samples were collected at two residences and at Storage Tank
#2 on March 10, March 17, March 24, and March 31, 2008. Following installation and startup of the
treatment system, distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations,
with samples collected on 12 occasions from August 6, 2008, through July 22, 2009. As discussed in
Section 3.3.5., Storage Tank #2 was sampled by the operator as part of distribution system water
sampling, but it is not part of the LCR and serves as a large water main; therefore, there is no stagnation
time. Table 4-12 presents results of distribution system water sampling.
The most significant change in the distribution system water quality since the treatment system began
operation was a decrease in arsenic concentrations. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged from 8.6 to
34.1 (ig/L and averaged 18.1 (ig/L for all three locations. After system startup, arsenic concentrations
decreased at all three locations, ranging from 1.8 to 11.2 (ig/L and averaging 4.4 (ig/L. On September 9
and October 8, 2008, arsenic concentrations exceeded the MCL of 10 |o,g/L at Residence #2 (at 11.2 |og/L)
and Storage Tank #2 (at 10.4 ng/L), respectively. However, the remaining samples contained lower
arsenic concentrations, ranging from 1.8 to 8.5 |o,g/L for all three locations. Arsenic concentrations in
distribution water were somewhat higher than those in system effluent, suggeting redissolution and/or
resuspension of arsenic in the distribution system (Lytle, 2005).
45
-------
Table 4-12. Distribution System Sampling Results
No. of Sampling
Events
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Address
Sample Type
Flushed/ IstDraw
Sampling Date
Date
03/10/08
-------
Similarly to arsenic concentrations, iron concentrations decreased in distribution water since the system
began operation. Iron concentrations at Residence #1, Residence #2, and Storage Tank #2 averaged 444,
289, and 83 |o,g/L, respectively, before system startup; their concentrations decreased to 66, 142, and
47 |og/L (on average), respectively, after system startup. These concentrations, although low, were still
higher than those (<25 |o,g/L) measured in the system effluent. Therefore, some iron also could have been
reintroduced to water in the distribution system. Manganese concentrations were low both before and
after system startup at 6.3 and 6.6 |og/L (on average), respecitvely.
Before system startup, lead concentrations at Residences #1 and #2 ranged from 0.1 to 7.1 |o,g/L and
averaged 2.9 |og/L. After startup, lead concentrations at these two locations reduced slightly, ranging
from 0.2 to 5.4 (ig/L and averaging 1.3 |o,g/L. No sample exceeded the action level of 15 (ig/L. At
Storage Tank #2, lead concentrations were more irregular, ranging from 3.4 to 28.8 |og/L before system
startup and from 0.2 to 22.9 |o,g/L after system startup. The lead action level was exceeded once before
system startup on March 10, 2008, at 28.8 |o,g/L and once after system startup on November 18, 2008, at
22.9 |o,g/L. Average copper concentrations varied significantly at each location, ranging from 154 to
1,282 (ig/L before system startup and from 59.7 to 833 |o,g/L after system startup. The only samples that
exceeded the action level of 1,300 (ig/L were collected at Residence #1 before system startup on March
24, at 1,586 |^g/L and March 31, 2008, at 1,520
pH values before system startup averaged 7.3 for all three locations, which remained essentially
unchanged after system startup. Alkalinity also remained unchanged before and after system startup for
all three locations. Average alkalinity concentrations before and after system startup were 379 and 380
mg/L (as CaCO3), respectively.
4.5.5 Fire Hydrant Flush Solid Sampling. As described in Section 3.3.6, fire hydrant flush samples
were collected by the operator from four fire hydrants located within the Subdivision on April 21, 2010.
Although fire hydrant flush samples were collected from four locations, only the fire hydrants located at
Deer Path Court and Prairie Dawn Drive produced enough solids for analysis. The analytical results from
the fire hydrant flush solid samples are presented in Table 4-13. Metals concentrations of the fire hydrant
flush solids are within the range of those of the backwash solids.
Table 4-13. Fire Hydrant Flush Solid Sample Results
Fire Hydrant
Location
Deer Path Ct.
Prairie Dawn Dr.
Mg
Hg/g
21,334
41,082
Si
Hg/g
8,156
20,638
P
Hg/g
13,014
8,226
Ca
Hg/g
58,948
138,675
Fe
Hg/g
198,716
215,692
Mn
Hg/g
328
143
As
Hg/g
3,316
1,808
Ba
Hg/g
1,105
943
4.6
System Cost
System cost is evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design capacity and the O&M
cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The capital cost includes the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
installation. The O&M cost includes the cost for media replacement and disposal, electrical power
consumption, and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The total capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation
of the treatment system was $139,149 (see Table 4-14). The equipment cost was $101,290 (or 73% of the
total capital investment), which included $28,940 for two media vessels, $26,500 for AD-33 media and
47
-------
Table 4-14. Capital Investment Cost for APU Arsenic Adsorption System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment
Equipment Cost
Media Vessels
E33 Media
Gravel Underbedding
Process Valves & Piping
Instrumentation & Controls
Additional Sample Taps
O&M Manuals
One-Year O&M Support
Shipping
Equipment Total
2
100 ft3
20 ft3
-
-
2
3
-
-
-
$28,940
$26,000
$500
$27,590
$12,620
$210
$900
$1,790
$2,740
$101,290
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
73%
Engineering Cost
Vendor Labor
Subcontractor Labor
Engineering Total
-
-
-
$7,895
$11,650
$19,545
-
-
14%
Installation Cost
Vendor Labor for System Startup
Vendor Travel for System Startup
Subcontractor Material
Subcontractor Electrical Material/Labor
Subcontractor Labor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$2,730
$985
$7,669
$1,780
$5,150
$18,314
$139,149
-
-
-
-
-
13%
100%
gravel underbedding ($260 and $25/ft3, respectively), $27,590 for process valves and piping, $12,620 for
instrumentation and controls, $210 for additional sample taps, and $2,740 for shipping. The costs for
O&M manuals and one-year of O&M support were $900 and $1,790, respectively.
The site engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of system/site engineering plans and
drawings for piping tie-ins, electrical requirements for system components, and system layout and
footprint to facilitate building modifications, as well as submission of a permit application package to IL
EPA for approval. The site engineering cost was $19,545 (or 14% of the total capital investment). Site
engineering was performed by AdEdge and Missman, Stanley & Associates, an engineering subcontractor
for AdEdge.
The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted unit,
perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, load and backwash the media, and perform system shakedown
and startup. The installation cost was $18,314 (or 13% of the total capital investment).
The total capital cost of $139,149 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 200 gpm (or 288,000
gpd), which results in $696/gpm (or $0.48 gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted to
an annualized cost of $13,134/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/week at the design
flowrate of 200 gpm to produce 105,120,000 gal/year, the unit capital cost would be $0.12/1,000 gal.
During the demonstration period from May 8, 2008 through July 30, 2010, the system produced
33,158,000 gal of water (see Table 4-6) or 14,868,000 gal/year on average. At this reduced rate of usage,
the unit capital cost increased to $0.88/1,000 gal.
48
-------
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included the cost for items such as
media replacement and disposal, electricity consumption, and labor (see Table 4-15). Although media
replacement did not occur during the system performance evaluation, the media replacement cost would
have represented the majority of the O&M cost at an estimated $31,215 to change out the media in both
vessels. The media change-out cost would include the cost for the new media, gravel underbedding,
freight, labor, travel, spent media analysis, and the media disposal fee. This cost was used to estimate the
media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water treated as a function of the projected media run length to
the 10 |o,g/L arsenic breakthrough (Figure 4-16).
Chlorination using NaOCl for disinfection purposes and fluoridation using H2SiF6 existed prior to the
installation and operation of the treatment system. Because system operation did not affect the use rate of
either NaOCl or H2SiF6, the incremental chemical cost for each was negligible. Electrical power
consumption was calculated based on the difference between the average monthly cost from electric bills
before and after system startup. The difference in electrical consumption (kWh) before and after system
startup was negligible. Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and
maintain the system consumed 0.35 hr/day, 3 visits/week, or 1.0 hr/week (on average). The labor cost for
routine labor activities during the study period was $1,725 or $0.05/1,000 gal of water treated (see
Table 4-15).
Table 4-15. Operation and Maintenance Cost for APU Arsenic Adsorption System
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Value
33,158,000
Assumptions
During 8 15 -day study period; equivalent to
14,868,000 gal/year (on average)
Media Replacement and Disposal Cost
Media Replacement for 2 Vessels
Labor, Travel, Freight, & Disposal
Media Replacement and Disposal
($71,000 gal)
$26,000
$5,215
See Figure 4-16
$260/ft3 for 100 ft3
Based upon media run length at 10-|ag/L
arsenic breakthrough
Electricity Cost
Electricity Cost ($/month)
Electricity Cost ($71,000 gal)
Negligible
Labor Cost
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Total Labor (hr)
Total Labor Cost
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($71,000 gal)
1.0
115
$1,725
0.05
See Figure 4-16
0.35 hr/visit, 3 visits/week on average
05/08/08-07/30/10
Labor Rate = $ 15. 00/hr
Media replacement + $0.05 (labor cost)
49
-------
O&M/Media Replacement Cost
ra
O)
o
o
$8.50 -,
$8.00 -
$7.50 -
$7.00 -
$6.50 -
$6.00 -
$5.50 -
$5.00 -
$4.50 -
$4.00 -
$3.50 -
$3.00 -
$2.50 -
$2.00 -
$1.50 -
$1.00 -
$0.50 -
$0.00
- Media replacement cost
Note: 1BV = 98ft =733 gal
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Media Working Capacity (Bed Volumes [x103])
so
100
Figure 4-16. Media Replacement and Other Operation and Maintenance Cost
50
-------
Section 5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2008. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at Geneseo Hill,Illinois. 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.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
Chen, A.S.C., J.P. Lipps, R.J. Stowe, B.J. Yates, V. Lai, and L. Wang. 2011. Arsenic Removal from
Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media, U. S. EPA Demonstration Project at LEADS Head Start
Building in Buckeye Lake, OH, Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-11/002. 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.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFRPart 141.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
Knocke, W.R., R.C. Hoehn, 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.
Lytle, D. 2005. Coagulation/Filtration: Iron Removal Processes Full-Scale Experience. EPA Workshop
on Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water in Cincinnati, OH.
51
-------
McCall, S.E., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2009. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH, Final Performance Evaluation
Report. EPA/600/R-09/015. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
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. National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
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.
52
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Geneseo Hills Subdivision in Geneseo, IL - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Date
04/22/08
04/25/08
04/28/08
05/02/08
05/05/08
05/08/08
05/09/08
05/12/08
05/14/08
05/16/08
05/19/08
05/21/08
05/23/08
05/28/08
05/30/08
06/02/08
06/04/08
06/06/08
06/09/08
06/11/08
06/13/08
06/16/08
06/18/08
06/19/08
06/20/08
06/23/08
06/25/08
06/27/08
06/30/08
07/02/08
07/04/08
07/07/08
07/09/08
07/11/08
07/14/08
07/16/08
07/18/08
07/22/08
07/23/08
07/25/08
07/28/08
07/30/08
08/01/08
08/04/08
08/06/08
Time
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15:30
11:30
12:00
17:30
14:00
14:00
13:00
11:45
12:00
12:40
14:00
12:00
13:30
10:00
10:30
12:30
10:00
18:00
10:00
13:00
11:00
13:00
12:00
11:20
13:30
10:30
14:00
13:30
15:20
14:00
12:00
13:15
10:00
12:00
11:10
13:20
13:00
12:15
13:00
13:50
Supply Well (No.5)
Adjusted
Hours'"1
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
NA
NA
Adjusted
Totalizer
Meter
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
30,260
132,260
21 1 ,240
280,560
398,540
503,960
584,820
759,670
827,460
957,280
1,023,280
1,094,660
1,202,370
1,274,380
1,345,710
1,459,680
1,534,570
1,570,100
1,617,970
1,741,840
1,822,810
1,897,750
2,011,130
2,094,610
2,167,350
2,334,780
2,429,230
2,552,640
2,657,380
2,745,380
2,834,630
2,966,520
3,017,610
3,078,490
3,191,520
3,191,560
3,348,930
3,481 ,220
3,539,280
Avg
Flowrate
to Tanks
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
NA
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
A
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
14
11
17
24
11
8
25
11
9
30
10
15
17
16
19
15
32
21
9
19
21
26
25
18
47
15
22
7
17
15
24
21
26
38
19
20
13
15
9
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
A
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
55,162
71 ,660
128,545
173,885
213,566
282,284
343,386
388,926
405,197
443,033
515,172
551,187
591 ,829
653,346
696,004
737,426
805,801
847,316
868,281
898,868
968,060
1,015,801
1,062,606
1,135,186
1,189,387
1,235,692
1,337,046
1,395,736
1,458,526
1,519,276
1,573,966
1,621,986
1,682,413
1,710,806
1,747,406
1,815,106
1,861,147
1,910,239
1,990,254
2,042,396
Vessel B
Instant
Flowrate
B
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
15
11
17
25
11
7
25
11
10
27
12
15
18
16
20
15
33
22
9
19
20
25
22
15
45
17
21
0
20
17
27
22
28
40
18
19
12
14
9
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
B
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
58,392
75,785
136,441
185,362
226,113
295,336
360,445
402,432
419,917
460,736
539,477
579,297
622,937
686,714
731 ,347
774,412
842,848
887,745
909,408
937,847
1,009,981
1,057,087
1,098,841
1,159,457
1,205,147
1,244,977
1,339,287
1,393,972
1,454,957
1,540,702
1,589,612
1,647,567
1,712,166
1,743,706
1,778,662
1,845,220
1,890,137
1,937,763
2,013,819
2,057,491
System
Cum. Bed
Volume
(A+B)
BV
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
155
201
361
490
600
788
960
1,080
1,126
1,233
1,439
1,542
1,657
1,828
1,947
2,062
2,249
2,367
2,425
2,506
2,698
2,828
2,949
3,130
3,267
3,384
3,651
3,806
3,975
4,174
4,316
4,460
4,631
4,713
4,810
4,993
5,117
5,249
5,462
5,593
Inlet
Pressure
psi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
54
54
59
54
52
53
54
54
60
54
60
55
55
60
56
50
50
50
52
50
54
54
56
50
50
52
58
52
50
54
50
50
53
56
52
46
52
46
52
52
Outlet
Pressure
psi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
52
52
58
52
49
51
52
52
58
52
58
53
53
58
54
48
48
48
50
48
52
52
54
46
46
50
56
50
48
52
48
48
50
54
50
44
50
44
50
50
Vessel
Back-
wash
A/B
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Geneseo Hills Subdivision in Geneseo, IL - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
(Continued)
Week
No.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Date
08/08/08
08/11/08
08/13/08
08/15/08
08/18/08
08/20/08
08/22/08
08/25/08
08/27/08
08/29/08
09/02/08
09/05/08
09/08/08
09/12/08
09/15/08
09/17/08
09/19/08
09/22/08
09/24/08
09/26/08
09/29/08
10/01/08
10/03/08
10/06/08
10/08/08
10/10/08
10/13/08
10/15/08
10/17/08
10/22/08
10/24/08
10/27/08
10/29/08
10/31/08
11/03/08
11/05/08
11/07/08
11/10/08
11/14/08
11/17/08
11/19/08
11/21/08
11/24/08
11/26/08
11/28/08
12/01/08
Time
15:00
12:00
13:00
12:15
13:30
13:00
12:10
12:15
11:00
12:15
16:30
17:00
13:00
18:00
13:30
12:00
18:00
13:00
13:00
12:00
13:00
11:00
12:30
10:00
13:30
12:00
10:30
11:00
12:15
11:00
11:50
11:50
11:00
11:50
12:00
11:00
13:30
10:35
10:40
09:00
10:00
10:50
10:00
10:00
11:00
09:00
Supply Well (No.5)
Adjusted
Pump
Hours(a|
hr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
366.9
370.4
377.4
385.2
392.9
401.2
406.1
411.1
419.3
424.6
428.7
439.1
441.7
454.9
459.7
464.4
473.2
478.0
482.9
490.2
499.4
507.3
512.3
517.1
524.8
529.6
534.0
542.2
Adjusted
Totalizer
Meter
gal
3,628,330
3,747,730
3,821 ,480
3,896,580
4,039,140
4,158,930
4,257,790
4,257,790
4,500,780
4,565,660
4,851 ,930
4,914,310
5,012,540
5,140,830
5,228,760
5,289,580
5,351,010
5,457,210
5,529,180
5,599,680
5,709,200
5,741,180
5,841 ,820
5,948,520
6,013,080
6,077,220
6,182,830
6,251 ,860
6,313,910
6,446,350
6,540,090
6,643,080
6,706,080
6,767,480
6,879,620
6,942,750
7,005,330
7,101,060
7,220,500
7,321 ,750
7,386,980
7,449,280
7,548,080
7,610,590
7,668,040
7,775,300
Avg
Flowrate
to Tanks
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
336
261
68
218
214
220
214
215
217
252
212
NA
130
219
218
212
219
213
219
216
214
217
216
214
217
218
218
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
A
gpm
29
18
23
20
28
33
18
20
23
21
10
8
18
22
11
16
13
0
7
13
9
11
18
12
10
15
41
16
48
10
20
13
11
11
9
11
13
9
11
15
14
12
9
12
18
18
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
A
gal
2,076,352
2,147,757
2,193,216
2,239,564
2,323,321
2,393,336
2,448,485
2,530,127
2,595,116
2,639,811
2,813,162
2,849,931
2,908,667
2,976,935
3,028,068
3,060,203
3,093,696
3,154,143
3,194,471
3,233,311
3,298,673
3,333,545
3,374,093
3,436,239
3,472,448
3,506,509
3,566,686
3,606,724
3,640,690
3,715,088
3,766,512
3,824,881
3,860,078
3,894,288
3,957,697
3,992,801
4,026,566
4,080,056
4,145,901
4,202,448
4,236,661
4,272,209
4,327,859
4,365,056
4,397,278
4,458,196
Vessel B
Instant
Flowrate
B
gpm
30
18
22
20
29
34
19
21
25
20
10
8
17
20
12
17
14
0
8
14
9
11
18
11
9
14
42
17
49
11
21
14
12
12
10
12
14
9
12
16
14
13
10
13
20
19
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
B
gal
2,100,517
2,190,820
2,216,126
2,260,154
2,342,872
2,415,657
2,475,464
2,562,514
2,612,857
2,645,293
2,805,289
2,840,155
2,896,183
2,970,448
3,026,130
3,062,115
3,099,272
3,168,543
3,207,454
3,246,594
3,315,349
3,356,069
3,398,612
3,462,832
3,500,493
3,536,656
3,601 ,689
3,646,687
3,682,222
3,763,150
3,819,683
3,881 ,097
3,918,034
3,954,467
4,023,236
4,061 ,902
4,098,957
4,156,842
4,227,587
4,287,565
4,324,283
4,361 ,633
4,420,702
4,460,132
4,494,546
4,559,130
System
Cum. Bed
Volume
(A+B)
BV
5,698
5,919
6,015
6,138
6,366
6,560
6,717
6,947
7,105
7,210
7,665
7,762
7,919
8,113
8,259
8,352
8,448
8,625
8,733
8,840
9,023
9,126
9,239
9,412
9,512
9,608
9,779
9,895
9,990
10,202
10,349
10,512
10,611
10,707
10,887
10,988
11,085
11,237
11,423
11,582
11,679
11,778
11,935
12,039
12,130
12,301
Inlet
Pressure
psi
60
54
52
52
56
50
54
50
50
46
48
48
50
52
50
52
54
48
48
48
50
56
54
56
60
56
50
52
58
56
60
56
50
52
48
50
56
52
52
50
48
60
58
56
52
54
Outlet
Pressure
psi
58
52
50
50
50
48
52
48
48
44
46
46
48
50
48
50
52
46
46
46
48
54
52
54
58
54
48
50
56
54
58
54
48
50
46
48
54
50
50
48
46
58
56
54
50
52
Vessel
Back-
wash
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Geneseo Hills Subdivision in Geneseo, IL - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
(Continued)
Week
No.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Date
12/03/08
12/05/08
12/08/08
12/10/08
12/12/08
12/15/08
12/17/08
12/19/08
12/22/08
12/26/08
12/29/08
12/31/08
01/02/09
01/05/09
01/07/09
01/09/09
01/12/09
01/14/09
01/16/09
01/21/09
01/23/09
01/26/09
01/28/09
01/30/09
02/02/09
02/04/09
02/06/09
02/09/09
02/11/09
02/13/09
02/16/09
02/18/09
02/20/09
02/23/09
02/25/09
02/27/09
03/02/09
03/06/09
03/09/09
03/11/09
03/13/09
03/16/09
03/18/09
03/20/09
03/23/09
03/26/09
Time
09:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
09:50
12:00
13:30
10:30
09:00
11:00
09:30
12:00
10:00
09:00
11:45
13:45
09:00
11:30
11:45
09:00
12:00
12:00
12:20
11:00
15:30
14:30
15:15
15:45
14:30
15:40
14:45
15:00
16:00
15:00
15:00
15:45
14:30
15:30
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
09:00
15:00
09:00
Supply Well (No.5)
Adjusted
Pump
Hours(a|
hr
546.7
551.7
559.4
564.7
569.6
577.6
582.8
585.1
595.7
606.1
613.8
617.9
624.3
632.5
637.1
642.1
650.0
654.8
660.4
672.5
677.6
685.4
689.6
694.4
702.6
707.4
712.4
720.5
725.3
730.3
738.5
744.7
749.9
759.6
765.7
772.2
783.2
798.3
809.7
817.3
825.0
838.6
847.5
855.6
870.7
877.8
Adjusted
Totalizer
Meter
gal
7,834,130
7,899,180
7,999,480
8,072,780
8,132,420
8,235,700
8,302,830
8,331,130
8,469,340
8,607,030
8,708,520
8,773,530
8,846,800
8,954,350
9,014,380
9,079,300
9,187,380
9,244,190
9,316,990
9,478,040
9,546,620
9,642,160
9,715,080
9,764,530
9,871 ,040
9,934,710
10,000,780
10,105,580
10,168,060
10,233,210
10,339,090
10,420,240
10,465,240
10,612,880
10,692,030
10,775,830
10,918,450
11,112,580
11,258,550
11,359,250
11,456,170
11,630,730
11,744,800
11,849,830
12,041,580
12,209,230
Avg
Flowrate
to Tanks
gpm
218
217
217
231
203
215
215
205
217
221
220
264
191
219
218
216
228
197
217
222
224
204
289
172
216
221
220
216
217
217
215
218
144
254
216
215
216
214
213
221
210
214
214
216
212
394
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
A
gpm
16
16
9
18
12
19
9
10
24
22
51
35
18
18
10
13
6
19
15
11
13
8
12
12
15
15
12
13
12
15
18
19
10
19
20
35
15
17
18
17
19
23
32
22
35
0
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
A
gal
4,490,245
4,526,906
4,583,831
4,626,153
4,658,576
4,716,241
4,751 ,721
4,768,016
4,848,763
4,928,948
4,987,215
5,024,398
5,067,104
5,128,811
5,163,340
5,199,858
5,258,994
5,294,726
5,333,683
5,427,695
5,462,192
5,520,982
5,553,441
5,588,122
5,649,507
5,685,125
5,722,790
5,782,806
5,817,782
5,855,984
5,918,686
5,962,873
6,001 ,506
6,077,284
6,123,968
6,174,241
6,257,379
6,371,151
6,456,970
6,515,408
6,572,508
6,673,354
6,738,294
6,797,702
6,909,881
7,006,235
Vessel B
Instant
Flowrate
B
gpm
17
16
8
19
13
20
10
11
25
23
49
33
19
18
11
14
7
20
15
12
14
9
13
13
16
16
13
14
13
16
19
20
11
20
21
36
16
18
18
18
20
24
34
23
36
0
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
B
gal
4,593,527
4,631 ,771
4,691 ,684
4,736,717
4,769,404
4,834,682
4,873,119
4,890,336
4,977,320
5,062,931
5,124,307
5,163,655
5,208,867
5,273,729
5,310,185
5,348,621
5,410,427
5,447,977
5,492,012
5,588,052
5,624,436
5,687,420
5,722,449
5,760,102
5,824,796
5,862,821
5,902,725
5,966,427
6,003,516
6,043,801
6,109,042
6,154,604
6,195,617
6,276,292
6,325,794
6,378,542
6,466,225
6,586,310
6,676,707
6,738,056
6,797,763
6,902,983
6,970,432
7,033,847
7,153,232
7,255,332
System
Cum. Bed
Volume
(A+B)
BV
12,392
12,494
12,653
12,773
12,861
13,029
13,130
13,176
13,405
13,631
13,794
13,898
14,018
14,191
14,288
14,390
14,555
14,655
14,768
15,027
15,124
15,290
15,382
15,481
15,653
15,754
15,859
16,028
16,126
16,233
16,408
16,530
16,639
16,853
16,984
17,124
17,357
17,676
17,917
18,080
18,239
18,521
18,701
18,869
19,185
19,455
Inlet
Pressure
psi
56
60
56
60
56
60
51
50
54
51
55
60
52
56
50
54
52
58
56
50
56
52
51
56
51
52
54
54
52
52
54
56
54
60
52
55
52
56
50
56
50
54
48
52
58
54
Outlet
Pressure
psi
54
58
54
58
54
58
49
48
52
49
53
58
50
54
48
52
50
56
54
48
54
50
49
54
49
50
52
52
50
50
52
54
52
58
50
53
50
54
48
54
48
52
46
50
56
52
Vessel
Back-
wash
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Geneseo Hills Subdivision in Geneseo, IL - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
(Continued)
Week
No.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Date
03/27/09
03/30/09
04/01/09
04/04/09
04/06/09
04/08/09
04/10/09
04/13/09
04/15/09
04/17/09
04/20/09
04/22/09
04/24/09
04/27/09
04/29/09
05/01/09
05/04/09
05/06/09
05/08/09
05/11/09
05/16/09
05/18/09
05/20/09
05/22/09
05/27/09
05/29/09
06/01/09
06/04/09
06/05/09
06/08/09
06/10/09
06/12/09
06/15/09
06/17/09
06/19/09
06/22/09
06/24/09
06/26/09
06/29/09
07/01/09
07/03/09
07/08/09
07/10/09
07/13/09
07/15/09
07/17/09
Time
09:00
15:00
15:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
10:00
09:00
09:00
10:00
11:00
09:00
13:00
09:00
09:00
10:00
09:30
11:00
09:00
15:00
12:00
10:00
Supply Well (No.5)
Adjusted
Pump
Hours(a|
hr
879.1
894.7
901.0
911.2
919.6
927.2
940.0
951.2
956.4
960.7
968.4
973.0
978.1
986.0
990.5
995.6
1003.3
1008.5
1013.2
1021.3
1034.1
1039.2
1044.6
1050.5
1067.4
1074.4
1081.5
1088.5
1091.5
1101.2
1106.2
1111.7
1120.0
1125.1
1130.4
1138.4
1144.3
1150.2
1159.7
1165.3
1171.2
1186.1
1191.3
1200.9
1206.1
1210.5
Adjusted
Totalizer
Meter
gal
12,238,620
12,352,330
12,433,780
12,463,680
12,673,280
12,772,330
12,932,480
13,067,110
13,134,340
13,190,760
13,291,220
13,368,780
13,417,240
13,498,380
13,580,320
13,646,800
13,748,460
13,815,780
13,877,380
13,984,000
14,145,750
14,218,780
14,288,580
14,364,410
14,584,580
14,676,180
14,768,530
14,860,050
14,900,130
15,025,520
15,095,580
15,163,650
15,272,180
15,339,880
15,408,920
15,512,680
15,591,330
15,668,380
15,792,390
15,866,880
15,943,700
16,137,400
16,205,280
16,308,820
16,377,580
16,435,680
Avg
Flowrate
to Tanks
gpm
377
121
215
NA
416
217
209
200
215
219
217
281
158
171
303
217
220
216
218
219
211
239
215
214
217
218
217
218
223
215
234
206
218
221
217
216
222
218
218
222
217
217
218
180
220
220
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
A
gpm
15
13
17
27
25
20
74
11
6
8
10
9
14
12
15
16
16
18
0
9
15
9
12
24
13
19
0
12
16
27
20
14
11
21
22
38
18
35
16
18
34
12
16
17
10
19
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
A
gal
7,022,353
7,087,171
7,135,226
7,211,799
7,275,629
7,334,630
7,423,763
7,498,201
7,536,876
7,574,638
7,641 ,266
7,680,604
7,713,576
7,773,379
7,806,061
7,843,181
7,900,866
7,938,766
7,972,413
8,032,225
8,121,611
8,164,536
8,202,197
8,244,172
8,369,136
8,421 ,230
8,472,861
8,524,731
8,548,091
8,620,804
8,659,573
8,701,196
8,763,546
8,802,556
8,842,532
8,902,370
8,947,764
8,990,472
9,064,186
9,107,850
9,154,018
9,267,822
9,307,111
9,367,734
9,408,158
9,441 ,633
Vessel B
Instant
Flowrate
B
gpm
16
14
18
29
26
22
82
12
5
0
9
9
15
12
15
17
17
18
0
10
16
9
13
25
14
20
0
13
17
28
21
15
11
22
23
39
20
36
17
19
36
13
17
18
10
20
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
B
gal
7,273,190
7,342,919
7,394,007
7,474,860
7,542,047
7,604,119
7,699,879
7,781 ,357
7,815,776
7,842,014
7,891 ,570
7,923,015
7,958,182
8,022,079
8,056,971
8,096,503
8,157,332
8,196,560
8,231,105
8,293,515
8,386,449
8,429,904
8,468,391
8,514,080
8,647,654
8,702,316
8,756,658
8,810,414
8,834,566
8,910,136
8,950,512
8,994,194
9,058,892
9,099,457
9,140,700
9,202,540
9,249,945
9,294,969
9,372,757
9,417,335
9,463,717
9,578,538
9,618,373
9,680,294
9,720,699
9,754,133
System
Cum. Bed
Volume
(A+B)
BV
19,502
19,685
19,821
20,035
20,214
20,379
20,631
20,844
20,944
21,031
21,190
21,286
21,379
21,548
21,640
21,745
21,906
22,012
22,105
22,271
22,520
22,638
22,742
22,861
23,214
23,360
23,504
23,648
23,713
23,915
24,023
24,140
24,313
24,422
24,532
24,698
24,825
24,945
25,151
25,272
25,398
25,710
25,818
25,985
26,095
26,187
Inlet
Pressure
psi
54
54
52
50
60
50
56
50
54
54
54
54
48
54
56
56
48
48
52
50
54
50
58
48
48
50
58
50
48
52
46
54
50
52
48
54
50
52
48
54
46
46
52
54
50
51
Outlet
Pressure
psi
52
52
50
48
58
48
54
48
52
52
52
52
46
52
54
54
46
46
50
48
52
48
56
46
46
48
56
48
46
50
44
52
48
50
46
52
48
50
46
52
44
44
50
52
48
49
Vessel
Back-
wash
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Geneseo Hills Subdivision in Geneseo, IL - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
(Continued)
Week
No.
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
Date
07/20/09
07/22/09
07/24/09
07/27/09
07/29/09
07/31/09
08/03/09
08/05/09
08/07/09
08/10/09
08/12/09
08/14/09
08/17/09
08/21/09
08/24/09
08/26/09
08/28/09
08/31/09
09/02/09
09/04/09
09/09/09
09/11/09
09/14/09
09/16/09
09/18/09
09/21/09
09/25/09
09/28/09
09/30/09
10/02/09
10/12/09
10/14/09
10/16/09
10/19/09
10/21/09
10/23/09
10/26/09
10/28/09
10/30/09
11/02/09
11/04/09
11/06/09
11/09/09
11/11/09
11/13/09
11/16/09
Time
09:30
12:00
09:00
10:00
09:45
10:00
16:00
13:45
10:00
09:00
10:00
09:00
09:30
11:00
10:00
10:30
09:30
09:00
10:30
10:00
11:00
10:00
11:00
13:00
09:30
11:00
15:30
09:30
10:30
10:00
15:00
10:00
09:30
10:00
10:00
10:30
09:30
10:00
09:30
17:35
09:20
10:00
10:00
16:00
09:00
09:30
Supply Well (No.5)
Adjusted
Pump
Hours(a|
hr
1217.7
1222.5
1227.3
1234.7
1239.4
1244.2
1251.6
1257.2
1262.1
1269.2
1273.8
1279.2
1286.5
1295.5
1303.0
1308.0
1311.9
1318.9
1323.0
1327.4
1340.6
1345.0
1352.9
1358.5
1363.1
1371.0
1380.1
1386.5
1391.3
1395.9
1420.3
1424.5
1428.8
1435.9
1440.5
1445.3
1452.6
1457.6
1466.0
1475.7
1480.2
1485.0
1494.5
1502.4
1504.3
1510.9
Adjusted
Totalizer
Meter
gal
16,530,040
16,593,690
16,655,440
16,753,180
16,815,080
16,877,840
16,975,980
17,050,480
17,111,960
17,206,140
17,266,880
17,337,540
17,434,280
17,552,330
17,651,140
17,715,780
17,767,840
17,859,950
17,914,320
17,972,630
18,144,340
18,202,930
18,306,150
18,379,340
18,439,920
18,542,010
18,662,590
18,746,640
18,809,050
18,868,760
19,189,580
19,245,280
19,302,980
19,395,500
19,456,920
19,519,450
19,616,180
19,681,120
19,788,040
19,909,790
19,968,600
20,033,050
20,142,620
20,221,480
20,273,730
20,361,530
Avg
Flowrate
to Tanks
gpm
218
221
214
220
220
218
221
222
209
221
220
218
221
219
220
215
222
219
221
221
217
222
218
218
219
215
221
219
217
216
219
221
224
217
223
217
221
216
212
209
218
224
192
166
458
222
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
A
gpm
14
12
21
15
14
18
15
52
11
14
20
18
14
13
12
14
8
9
11
14
10
12
10
16
15
8
16
0
9
18
11
22
0
12
12
16
11
13
86
15
9
18
16
9
24
10
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
A
gal
9,495,888
9,532,555
9,566,166
9,624,737
9,661 ,206
9,698,270
9,755,971
9,798,926
9,836,241
9,891 ,641
9,928,131
9,970,132
10,027,494
10,096,812
10,153,800
10,188,358
10,217,686
10,268,897
10,298,081
10,330,941
10,427,766
10,460,822
10,519,530
10,561,975
10,596,156
10,655,090
10,723,738
10,771,609
10,807,364
10,838,358
11,018,109
11,048,844
11,085,406
11,139,569
11,174,149
11,208,716
11,261,746
11,298,678
11,359,941
11,416,126
11,451,437
11,489,310
11,552,996
11,600,086
11,629,830
11,679,160
Vessel B
Instant
Flowrate
B
gpm
15
13
22
16
14
19
16
53
10
14
19
17
13
12
11
15
7
10
12
15
10
12
9
16
14
7
15
0
8
20
11
18
0
12
12
17
11
14
102
15
9
18
17
9
25
12
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
B
gal
9,808,895
9,845,994
9,881 ,247
9,941 ,684
9,977,352
10,013,362
10,069,067
10,110,452
10,146,567
10,199,802
10,234,202
10,274,457
10,329,684
10,396,081
10,453,239
10,488,625
10,519,542
10,573,014
10,603,126
10,636,872
10,735,562
10,768,958
10,828,763
10,871,597
10,905,829
10,964,550
11,031,949
11,079,420
11,114,371
11,147,231
11,331,097
11,362,340
11,393,420
11,445,034
11,479,281
11,513,829
11,570,812
11,609,082
11,675,183
11,733,752
11,770,072
11,808,353
11,872,692
11,920,425
11,945,162
11,998,499
System
Cum. Bed
Volume
(A+B)
BV
26,335
26,436
26,530
26,692
26,791
26,890
27,045
27,160
27,260
27,408
27,505
27,617
27,771
27,956
28,112
28,207
28,289
28,432
28,513
28,604
28,871
28,961
29,123
29,239
29,333
29,493
29,679
29,809
29,905
29,992
30,488
30,573
30,665
30,810
30,903
30,998
31,148
31,250
31,424
31,581
31,678
31,782
31,957
32,086
32,161
32,301
Inlet
Pressure
psi
48
48
52
48
54
50
48
44
50
48
44
46
50
48
50
50
45
54
56
44
48
46
46
48
50
48
50
50
52
52
50
58
50
58
56
48
50
50
40
51
50
50
56
52
52
52
Outlet
Pressure
psi
46
46
50
46
52
48
46
40
48
46
42
44
48
46
48
48
43
52
54
42
46
44
44
46
48
46
48
48
50
50
48
56
48
56
54
46
48
48
21
49
48
48
54
50
50
50
Vessel
Back-
wash
A/B
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Geneseo Hills Subdivision in Geneseo, IL - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
(Continued)
Week
No.
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Date
11/18/09
11/20/09
11/23/09
11/25/09
11/27/09
11/30/09
12/02/09
12/04/09
12/07/09
12/11/09
12/14/09
12/16/09
12/18/09
12/21/09
12/23/09
12/28/09
01/01/10
01/04/10
01/06/10
01/08/10
01/11/10
01/13/10
01/15/10
01/18/10
01/22/10
01/25/10
01/27/10
01/29/10
02/01/10
02/03/10
02/05/10
02/08/10
02/10/10
02/12/10
02/15/10
02/19/10
02/22/10
02/24/10
02/26/10
03/01/10
03/03/10
03/05/10
03/08/10
03/10/10
03/12/10
03/15/10
Time
09:00
10:00
12:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
10:30
09:30
12:00
10:00
15:30
10:00
10:00
09:30
10:00
10:00
12:00
10:00
11:00
10:00
11:30
10:00
10:00
09:45
10:00
15:30
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:30
10:00
10:30
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:00
10:00
04:00
12:00
09:00
07:00
10:30
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:15
Supply Well (No.5)
Adjusted
Pump
Hours(a|
hr
1515.2
1519.5
1526.5
1530.9
1535.3
1542.4
1546.2
1550.2
1557.1
1565.4
1572.8
1577.0
1581.4
1588.3
1593.0
1605.1
1614.6
1622.5
1627.4
1632.0
1645.3
1655.3
1659.9
1666.7
1675.4
1682.8
1687.3
1692.3
1701.4
1707.1
1713.6
1720.7
1725.0
1729.3
1736.3
1744.9
1751.8
1756.4
1760.4
1767.3
1771.3
1775.7
1782.3
1786.5
1790.6
1797.2
Adjusted
Totalizer
Meter
gal
20,419,180
20,478,140
20,572,540
20,632,880
20,692,220
20,786,900
20,840,980
20,896,290
20,989,930
21,102,260
21,195,580
21,250,820
21,308,590
21,399,030
21,460,910
21,619,650
21,744,380
21,848,980
21,913,260
21,973,910
22,141,880
22,266,680
22,326,930
22,417,800
22,532,800
22,631,100
22,690,640
22,756,230
22,875,480
22,950,320
23,032,360
23,126,750
23,183,030
23,239,160
23,332,430
23,445,100
23,537,130
23,596,810
23,650,090
23,741,400
23,793,850
23,851,780
23,938,330
23,994,820
24,048,950
24,136,080
Avg
Flowrate
to Tanks
gpm
223
229
225
229
225
222
237
230
226
226
210
219
219
218
219
219
219
221
219
220
210
208
218
223
220
221
221
219
218
219
210
222
218
218
222
218
222
216
222
221
219
219
219
224
220
220
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
A
gpm
8
8
14
9
17
16
9
11
9
8
15
11
27
17
15
23
18
12
13
20
36
10
9
12
10
11
17
16
17
8
11
9
12
18
13
14
12
15
0
0
16
13
10
9
16
16
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
A
gal
11,711,895
11,744,988
11,799,169
11,832,908
11,866,821
11,920,458
11,950,469
11,981,332
12,035,736
12,100,089
12,150,973
12,182,439
12,214,386
12,265,451
12,300,531
12,391,021
12,462,393
12,510,604
12,558,814
12,593,787
12,689,828
12,760,509
12,793,255
12,846,030
12,910,687
12,966,514
13,000,576
13,038,996
13,109,571
13,155,286
13,202,927
13,256,771
13,287,997
13,318,934
13,372,227
13,435,401
13,487,781
13,520,747
13,550,218
13,602,776
13,631,474
13,663,014
13,711,941
13,743,461
13,773,091
13,822,441
Vessel B
Instant
Flowrate
B
gpm
9
9
14
10
18
17
10
10
10
9
16
11
28
18
16
24
18
13
14
21
37
11
10
13
11
11
17
17
17
8
12
9
13
19
13
15
13
14
0
0
16
14
10
9
15
15
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
B
gal
12,031,038
12,063,910
12,119,111
12,153,445
12,187,497
12,241,517
12,271,388
12,301,696
12,354,765
12,418,385
12,469,952
12,501,448
12,533,298
12,585,032
12,621,202
12,713,832
12,786,983
12,836,056
12,885,128
12,920,768
13,018,443
13,090,465
13,123,479
13,177,506
13,243,733
13,301,100
13,335,708
13,374,242
13,445,315
13,491,404
13,539,990
13,594,862
13,626,797
13,658,515
13,711,919
13,774,674
13,827,197
13,859,934
13,889,193
13,941,366
13,970,092
14,002,015
14,051,150
14,082,387
14,111,772
14,160,827
System
Cum. Bed
Volume
(A+B)
BV
32,390
32,480
32,629
32,722
32,814
32,961
33,043
33,126
33,273
33,448
33,587
33,673
33,760
33,901
33,998
34,248
34,445
34,577
34,710
34,806
35,071
35,265
35,355
35,501
35,679
35,834
35,927
36,032
36,226
36,351
36,482
36,631
36,717
36,802
36,948
37,119
37,263
37,352
37,432
37,575
37,654
37,740
37,874
37,960
38,040
38,174
Inlet
Pressure
psi
58
50
50
54
52
50
54
50
50
48
56
50
54
48
56
50
60
52
58
48
48
52
58
56
58
50
52
54
60
52
56
55
50
52
52
54
52
52
56
50
52
58
58
48
56
58
Outlet
Pressure
psi
56
48
48
52
50
48
52
48
48
46
54
48
52
46
54
48
58
50
56
46
46
50
56
54
56
48
50
52
58
50
54
53
48
50
50
52
50
50
54
48
50
56
56
46
54
56
Vessel
Back-
wash
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Geneseo Hills Subdivision in Geneseo, IL - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
(Continued)
Week
No.
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
Date
03/17/10
03/19/10
03/22/10
03/24/10
03/26/10
03/29/10
03/31/10
04/02/10
04/05/10
04/07/10
04/09/10
04/12/10
04/14/10
04/16/10
04/19/10
04/21/10
04/23/10
04/26/10
04/30/10
05/03/10
05/05/10
05/07/10
05/10/10
05/12/10
05/14/10
05/17/10
05/19/10
05/21/10
05/24/10
05/26/10
05/28/10
06/02/10
06/04/10
06/07/10
06/09/10
06/11/10
06/14/10
06/16/10
06/18/10
06/21/10
06/23/10
06/25/10
06/28/10
06/30/10
07/02/10
07/05/10
Time
10:00
09:40
09:00
09:30
10:00
10:00
10:00
09:00
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:00
10:00
10:00
09:30
10:15
09:00
10:00
12:00
09:30
10:00
10:00
10:30
10:00
17:00
12:30
16:00
09:00
16:00
10:00
13:10
10:00
11:00
14:00
10:00
09:00
09:45
12:00
10:00
10:00
09:30
08:30
12:00
12:00
09:45
07:00
Supply Well (No.5)
Adjusted
Pump
Hours(a|
hr
1801.4
1805.6
1812.9
1817.1
1821.7
1827.7
1831.8
1836.2
1843.2
1848.0
1852.9
1859.6
1864.3
1869.2
1877.2
1882.0
1886.6
1893.2
1902.9
1910.9
1915.5
1920.4
1928.1
1932.6
1937.4
1944.7
1949.6
1954.1
1964.8
1970.1
1975.8
1990.4
1994.6
2002.6
2006.5
2011.0
2018.2
2026.8
2026.9
2034.6
2039.4
2050.0
2060.2
2066.4
2072.2
2081.3
Adjusted
Totalizer
Meter
gal
24,192,280
24,247,250
24,343,830
24,398,900
24,460,350
24,540,180
24,594,030
24,652,620
24,744,540
24,808,130
24,863,630
24,961,210
25,023,530
25,087,630
25,191,780
25,253,200
25,314,610
25,402,300
25,528,770
25,632,540
25,693,340
25,758,050
25,858,500
25,916,640
25,979,290
26,074,680
26,139,840
26,199,120
26,336,950
26,406,280
26,479,930
26,669,840
26,773,330
26,830,680
26,882,880
26,941,710
27,035,880
27,097,030
27,151,280
27,255,930
27,317,090
27,326,130
27,459,500
27,538,590
27,616,760
27,735,680
Avg
Flowrate
to Tanks
gpm
223
218
221
219
223
222
219
222
219
221
189
243
221
218
217
213
223
221
217
216
220
220
217
215
218
218
222
220
215
218
215
217
411
119
223
218
218
119
NA
227
212
NA
218
213
225
218
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
A
gpm
8
13
8
13
9
14
26
22
15
0
0
7
10
6
13
19
8
13
0
12
13
14
8
10
17
8
15
16
19
9
13
0
8
21
23
12
19
25
17
11
15
40
13
11
16
17
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
A
gal
13,854,608
13,884,847
13,940,036
13,970,349
14,002,651
14,048,914
14,078,866
14,111,271
14,162,271
14,197,783
14,227,862
14,282,492
14,317,411
14,352,946
14,412,141
14,448,196
14,481,153
14,529,381
14,598,890
14,658,426
14,692,162
14,728,876
14,786,877
14,819,613
14,854,562
14,909,886
14,946,388
14,980,016
15,060,834
15,089,803
15,143,588
15,254,836
15,287,090
15,348,311
15,378,931
15,414,074
15,466,256
15,502,921
15,534,673
15,593,958
15,630,796
15,654,911
15,733,146
15,780,202
15,825,786
15,895,236
Vessel B
Instant
Flowrate
B
gpm
9
13
7
12
10
15
27
23
16
0
0
8
10
7
13
20
9
13
0
12
14
14
8
10
16
8
15
16
19
9
13
0
9
22
23
12
20
25
18
12
16
41
13
11
16
17
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
B
gal
14,192,346
14,222,397
14,277,320
14,307,276
14,340,433
14,388,305
14,414,139
14,453,758
14,507,492
14,544,872
14,576,846
14,634,275
14,669,768
14,706,072
14,765,852
14,802,152
14,836,654
14,888,010
14,961,136
15,021,368
15,056,058
15,093,657
15,151,874
15,184,801
15,219,404
15,273,983
15,310,946
15,345,082
15,425,427
15,464,238
15,506,010
15,614,552
15,645,597
15,704,872
15,734,342
15,767,987
15,820,612
15,857,937
15,890,334
15,950,452
15,988,090
16,013,002
16,093,182
16,140,817
16,186,727
16,256,332
System
Cum. Bed
Volume
(A+B)
BV
38,261
38,343
38,494
38,576
38,665
38,794
38,870
38,968
39,111
39,210
39,295
39,448
39,544
39,642
39,804
39,903
39,995
40,131
40,325
40,489
40,582
40,683
40,842
40,931
41,026
41,176
41,277
41,369
41,589
41,681
41,812
42,111
42,198
42,362
42,444
42,538
42,681
42,782
42,869
43,032
43,134
43,201
43,417
43,546
43,671
43,861
Inlet
Pressure
psi
48
54
54
54
47
50
56
52
50
48
50
46
50
56
58
52
48
46
50
50
47
48
54
48
52
48
48
54
46
46
52
46
51
48
50
44
56
50
42
42
44
48
50
42
50
52
Outlet
Pressure
psi
46
52
52
52
45
48
54
50
48
46
48
44
48
54
56
50
46
44
48
48
45
46
52
46
50
46
46
52
44
44
50
44
49
46
48
42
54
48
40
40
42
46
48
40
48
50
Vessel
Back-
wash
A/B
NO
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Geneseo Hills Subdivision in Geneseo, IL - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
(Continued)
Week
No.
116
117
118
Date
07/07/10
07/09/10
07/12/10
07/14/10
07/16/10
07/21/10
07/23/10
07/26/10
07/28/10
07/30/10
Time
09:00
12:00
09:00
17:00
10:30
09:00
10:00
12:00
11:30
10:30
Supply Well (No.5)
Adjusted
Pump
Hours(a|
hr
2086.5
2091.9
2099.8
2106.2
2110.8
2125.1
2130.6
2137.4
2142.4
2147.3
Adjusted
Totalizer
Meter
gal
27,806,630
27,875,530
27,979,180
28,063,500
28,124,010
28,311,840
28,384,380
28,473,750
28,539,380
28,604,680
Avg
Flowrate
to Tanks
gpm
227
213
219
220
219
219
220
219
219
222
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
A
gpm
10
11
21
21
16
14
14
10
17
12
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
A
gal
15,935,319
15,974,701
16,036,756
16,087,651
16,123,749
16,234,531
16,277,626
16,323,721
16,362,937
16,401,436
Vessel B
Instant
Flowrate
B
gpm
10
11
22
22
16
14
15
10
17
12
Cum. Flow
Totalizer
B
gal
16,296,695
16,337,007
16,400,222
16,451,334
16,486,782
16,595,057
16,630,505
16,681,777
16,719,882
16,756,827
System
Cum. Bed
Volume
(A+B)
BV
43,970
44,079
44,250
44,389
44,487
44,786
44,893
45,026
45,131
45,234
Inlet
Pressure
psi
42
48
55
44
44
44
46
50
44
52
Outlet
Pressure
psi
40
46
53
42
42
42
44
48
42
50
Vessel
Back-
wash
A/B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA = not available
1 BV = 49 ft = 367 gal with system in parallel configuration.
(a) Hour meter installed on September 26, 2008. Pump hours from May 8, 2009, through September 25, 2009,
September 25, 2008.
(b) Updated cumulative flow totalizer calculations to reflect cumulative reading from treatment system.
(c) Operator on vacation during week of October 5, 2009.
used to estimate total pump hours from May 8, 2008, through
>
oo
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Geneseo Hills Subdivision, Geneseo, IL
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (as P)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mfl/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
m/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
Hfl/L
M9/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
^g/L
05/18/08|a'B|
IN
-
374
1.2
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
42.9
21.1
13.0
1.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
231
101
130
22.1
-
-
-
-
836
-
10.0
-
AC
-
374
0.9
0.4
0.3
<0.05
41.5
23.6
1.1
1.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
230
100
130
22.2
-
-
-
-
407
-
6.3
-
TA
1.3
374
0.9
0.3
0.3
<0.05
<10
22.7
0.6
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
224
96.9
127
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
TB
1.4
370
0.9
0.3
0.3
<0.05
<10
22.9
0.9
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
225
95.7
129
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
06/19/08|c|
IN
-
384
1.0
-
-
-
38.6
26.2
9.4
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
18.4
-
-
-
-
663
-
8.3
-
AC
-
386
0.8
-
-
-
38.6
26.3
1.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
18.3
-
-
-
-
362
-
5.9
-
TA
2.9
382
0.8
-
-
-
<10
26.0
0.4
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
3.2
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.1
-
TB
3.0
382
0.9
-
-
-
<10
25.6
0.4
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
3.2
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.5
-
07/01/08
IN
-
366
1.2
0.2
<0.1
<0.05
39.7
20.5
9.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
363
241
122
19.5
-
-
-
-
275
-
5.6
-
AC
-
370
0.9
0.2
0.3
<0.05
38.6
21.0
0.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
361
237
124
19.6
-
-
-
-
346
-
6.3
-
TA
3.8
375
0.9
0.4
0.3
<0.05
<10
20.9
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
358
235
123
0.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
6.4
-
TB
3.8
375
1.0
0.3
0.3
<0.05
<10
20.7
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
360
237
123
0.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.2
-
07/15/08|c'a|
IN
-
374
1.3
-
-
-
43.1
23.3
8.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
20.9
-
-
-
-
256
-
5.1
-
AC
-
372
1.0
-
-
-
40.6
23.5
1.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
20.1
-
-
-
-
357
-
5.9
-
TA
4.7
372
1.0
-
-
-
<10
23.0
1.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
2.9
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
8.2
-
TB
4.8
374
1.1
-
-
-
<10
22.8
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
2.9
-
-
-
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.6
-
07/22/08
IN
-
378
1.6
0.3
<0.1
<0.05
54.4
23.3
2.6
-
7.0
15.0
NA
179
-
-
321
158
163
17.7(e)
16.7(e)
1.0(e)
16.6(e)
<0.1(e)
509
410
7.3
7.1
AC
-
371
1.0
0.3
0.3
<0.05
55.0
23.0
1.5
-
7.2
15.7
NA
230
0.6
3.2
312
156
156
19.9
8.6
11.3
0.7
7.8
602
<25
7.0
5.8
TT
5.2
378
1.1
0.4
0.3
<0.05
19.8
22.6
5.0
-
7.1
17.2
NA
243
0.5
2.9
301
161
140
3.3
1.0
2.3
0.6
0.4
176
<25
8.6
9.2
(a) BVfrom 05/19/08 system operational data.
(b) TOC samples analyzed out of hold time.
(c) Free and total chlorine measurements for TA and TB taken at TT location.
(d) BVfrom 07/14/08 system operational data. (e) Samples re-analyzed for arsenic; rerun results provided in table.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Geneseo Hills Subdivision, Geneseo, IL (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (as P)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
MO/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
m/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
Mfl/L
Hfl/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
VglL
m/L
08/06/08|a|
IN
-
380
1.4
-
-
-
52.1
23.4
3.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
21.7
-
-
-
-
962
-
10.4
-
AC
-
382
1.0
-
-
-
51.9
22.9
0.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
3.0
-
-
-
21.6
-
-
-
-
452
-
6.3
-
TA
6.1
380
1.0
-
-
-
<10
23.0
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
2.7
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.0
-
TB
6.2
384
1.0
-
-
-
<10
23.1
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
2.7
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.9
-
08/20/08""
IN
-
378
1.3
0.3
<0.1
<0.05
20.1
24.5
5.3
2.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
355
213
142
19.3
18.5
0.8
15.5
3.0
507
216
7.3
5.3
AC
-
380
1.0
0.3
0.3
<0.05
24.5
24.2
0.4
1.8
7.1
15.0
NA
NA
0.5
3.1
361
213
148
18.6
9.3
9.3
0.5
8.8
354
<25
6.0
5.4
TT
7.1
375
1.0
0.3
0.3
<0.05
<10
24.1
0.1
1.8
7.1
16.9
NA
NA
0.3
2.6
365
214
150
1.3
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.3
<25
<25
6.4
6.5
09/09/08|a'c|
IN
-
NA(a)
NA(d)
1.3
1.3
-
-
-
47.5
49.3
23.8
24.2
4.3
15.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
21.6
22.2
-
-
-
-
448
512
-
6.7
6.8
-
AC
-
NA(a)
NA(d)
1.1
1.0
-
-
-
46.5
48.6
24.3
24.2
0.5
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.2
2.5
-
-
-
20.4
20.5
-
-
-
-
421
428
-
6.7
6.8
-
TA
8.5
NAld)
NA(d)
1.0
1.1
-
-
-
<10
<10
24.2
24.2
<0.1
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
2.1
-
-
-
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
6.3
6.3
-
TB
8.5
NA(a)
NA(d)
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
<10
<10
24.4
23.7
0.1
0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
2.1
-
-
-
2.5
2.3
-
-
-
-
32
32
-
8.2
8.2
-
09/24/08
IN
-
368
1.3
0.3
<0.1
<0.05
44.2
24.1
5.9
2.1
7.5
14.3
0.0
NA
-
-
342
214
129
21.6
18.6
2.9
14.5
4.1
921
593
11.9
8.6
AC
-
370
1.1
0.3
0.3
<0.05
44.5
22.6
0.5
2.1
7.4
14.6
0.3
NA
0.7
2.2
355
222
133
20.6
7.7
12.8
0.3
7.4
394
<25
6.8
6.1
TT
9.3
370
1.1
0.3
0.3
<0.05
<10
23.3
<0.1
1.6
7.5
14.4
0.8
NA
0.8
3.1
359
226
133
0.5
0.9
<0.1
0.6
0.3
<25
<25
7.8
7.9
10/08/08""
IN
-
370
1.3
-
-
-
49.2
23.9
5.4
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
20.4
-
-
-
-
446
-
7.2
-
AC
-
372
1.1
-
-
-
49.1
24.0
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
1.8
-
-
-
20.0
-
-
-
-
401
-
6.9
-
TA
10.0
368
1.1
-
-
-
<10
23.6
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
1.7
-
-
-
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
8.1
-
TB
10.1
377
1.1
-
-
-
<10
24.0
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
1.7
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
8.6
-
(a) Free and total chlorine measurements for TA and TB taken at TT location.
(b) pH and temperature measured on 09/02/08.
(c) BV from 09/08/08 system operational data.
(d) Samples out of temperature.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Geneseo Hills Subdivision, Geneseo, IL (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (as P)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
m/L
H9/L
H9/L
Mfl/L
Hfl/L
|jg/L
H9/L
M9/L
^g/L
10/29/08
IN
-
374
1.3
0.3
<0.1
<0.05
55.7
23.5
3.4
2.1
NA
13.0
2.7
NA
-
-
307
170
136
19.3
16.8
2.5
13.5
3.3
937
320
13.5
6.9
AC
-
370
1.1
0.3
0.3
<0.05
52.7
23.4
0.5
2.2
NA
13.0
4.0
NA
0.4
2.1
291
162
129
17.7
6.9
10.8
0.6
6.3
356
<25
6.7
6.8
TT
11.2
368
1.1
0.3
0.3
<0.05
<10
23.5
0.1
2.1
NA
13.0
3.7
NA
0.1
1.8
295
169
126
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.6
<0.1
<25
<25
8.7
8.8
11/18/08|a|
IN
-
371
371
1.3
1.3
-
-
-
52.5
48.6
23.7
23.4
2.2
7.0
-
7.4
12.5
4.7
301
-
-
-
-
-
24.4
23.0
-
-
-
-
355
251
-
7.6
7.5
-
AC
-
362
371
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
57.6
55.8
23.6
23.4
0.5
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
2.8
-
-
-
23.1
22.8
-
-
-
-
416
391
-
7.6
7.4
-
TA
12.0
369
369
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
<10
<10
23.6
22.8
<0.1
<0.1
-
7.3
12.7
3.4
297
1.7
2.3
-
-
-
0.8
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
8.2
8.1
-
TB
12.3
366
369
1.1
1.0
-
-
-
<10
<10
23.4
23.3
<0.1
<0.1
-
7.3
12.7
3.4
297
1.7
2.3
-
-
-
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
8.5
8.5
-
12/03/08
IN
-
380
1.3
0.3
<0.1
<0.05
67.7
23.3
3.0
1.8
7.3
12.3
0.1
720
-
-
369
219
150
23.7
19.0
4.8
15.2
3.8
365
713
6.3
10.6
AC
-
384
1.0
0.3
0.4
<0.05
70.7
23.5
0.8
1.8
7.3
12.0
4.3
269
0.1
2.4
364
216
148
22.0
8.9
13.1
0.9
8.0
448
<25
7.4
6.8
TT
13.0
384
1.0
0.3
0.3
<0.05
<10
22.4
<0.1
1.8
7.4
12.3
1.6
263
0.1
2.1
366
216
150
0.6
0.6
<0.1
0.6
<0.1
<25
<25
7.8
7.9
12/17/08
IN
-
370
1.3
-
-
-
57.2
20.6
13.0
-
7.3
10.2
0.6
-53
-
-
-
-
-
20.0
-
-
-
-
908
-
19.9
-
AC
-
374
1.0
-
-
-
52.2
20.9
4.0
-
7.4
11.5
1.8
382
0.4
2.4
-
-
-
20.2
-
-
-
-
403
-
7.1
-
TA
13.5
370
1.0
-
-
-
<10
21.1
1.0
-
7.4
10.9
2.1
360
0.4
2.4
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.5
-
TB
13.9
374
1.1
-
-
-
<10
21.1
2.2
-
7.4
11.0
1.4
328
0.5
2.5
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.7
-
01/07/09
IN
-
366
1.3
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
88.2
21.7
2.6
1.8
7.6
11.2
0.4
-60
-
-
399
183
215
22.3
19.0
3.3
13.8
5.2
259
703
4.6
9.5
AC
-
348
1.0
0.3
0.3
<0.05
88.1
22.1
0.5
1.9
7.5
11.3
1.3
356
0.3
2.4
413
178
236
22.0
9.2
12.9
1.0
8.2
286
<25
4.8
4.9
TT
14.8
368
1.0
0.9
0.3
<0.05
18.8
22.0
0.2
1.8
7.4
11.2
1.0
374
0.1
2.2
448
184
264
1.1
0.8
0.2
1.0
<0.1
<25
<25
5.2
5.4
01/21/09
IN
-
372
1.2
-
-
-
63.0
21.3
13.0
-
7.6
11.5
0.2
-64
-
-
-
-
-
17.8
-
-
-
-
296
-
5.3
-
AC
-
372
0.8
-
-
-
65.1
22.1
0.7
-
7.5
11.5
1.4
358
2.4
3.3
-
-
-
17.7
-
-
-
-
353
-
6.3
-
TA
15.4
370
0.9
-
-
-
<10
22.4
<0.1
-
7.4
11.8
1.4
438
0.1
3.3
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
6.1
-
TB
15.8
361
0.9
-
-
-
<10
22.4
<0.1
-
7.4
11.7
1.6
443
0.4
3.0
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
6.1
-
(a) Water quality parameters taken on 11/21/08; measurements for TA and TB taken at TT location.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Geneseo Hills Subdivision, Geneseo, IL (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (as P)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
MO/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
m/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
Mfl/L
Hfl/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
VglL
m/L
02/04/09
IN
-
374
1.3
0.3
<0.1
<0.05
51.7
23.5
11.0
1.8
7.5
11.3
0.9
-32
-
-
365
215
150
23.8
18.8
4.9
15.0
3.9
774
768
12.0
12.0
AC
-
371
0.9
0.4
0.3
<0.05
50.6
23.6
1.0
1.9
7.5
11.3
1.6
474
2.4
3.1
365
215
151
22.9
8.9
14.1
0.6
8.3
400
<25
7.8
6.9
TT
16.3
376
0.9
0.9
0.3
<0.05
<10
24.1
1.8
1.9
7.5
11.5
1.4
430
0.4
3.2
366
212
154
0.7
0.8
<0.1
0.5
0.2
<25
<25
6.6
6.6
02/18/09
IN
-
393
1.3
-
-
-
44.0
22.0
1.2
-
7.3
11.2
1.0
-14
-
-
-
-
-
18.7
-
-
-
-
127
-
4.4
-
AC
-
387
0.9
-
-
-
74.0
21.5
0.4
-
7.3
11.6
1.8
405
0.8
3.3
-
-
-
18.2
-
-
-
-
371
-
6.0
-
TA
16.8
387
0.8
-
-
-
<10
21.2
<0.1
-
7.2
11.6
1.6
423
2.1
2.1
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
5.6
-
TB
17.3
391
0.9
-
-
-
<10
21.7
<0.1
-
7.3
11.6
1.4
397
0.4
3.2
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
5.6
-
03/11/09
IN
-
395
1.3
0.3
<0.1
<0.05
59.7
23.2
3.8
1.9
7.3
12.0
0.8
-27
-
-
396
210
186
18.8
18.0
0.8
15.7
2.3
330
629
6.0
9.3
AC
-
390
0.9
0.3
0.3
<0.05
70.4
23.6
0.4
1.9
7.3
11.8
1.9
397
0.5
2.7
387
217
170
19.5
11.8
7.7
0.6
11.2
312
<25
6.1
5.4
TT
18.6
388
1.0
0.9
0.3
<0.05
<10
23.2
0.1
1.6
7.2
11.8
1.9
407
1.2
3.0
360
214
146
0.8
0.7
<0.1
0.5
0.2
<25
<25
8.8
8.7
03/18/09
IN
-
390
375
1.4
1.4
-
-
-
49.1
48.9
22.8
22.7
0.6
0.6
-
7.3
12.5
0.7
-26
-
-
-
-
-
19.3
17.1
-
-
-
-
101
85
-
4.7
4.5
-
AC
-
390
380
1.3
1.3
-
-
-
48.2
48.7
23.1
23.0
1.1
1.3
-
7.3
12.6
1.9
42
0.0
0.4
-
-
-
19.0
16.6
-
-
-
-
263
275
-
6.1
6.0
-
TA
19.0
380
380
1.3
1.3
-
-
-
<10
<10
23.3
22.8
<0.1
<0.1
-
7.3
12.4
1.2
71
0.0
0.6
-
-
-
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
7.3
7.3
-
TB
19.6
390
375
1.3
1.3
-
-
-
<10
<10
23.3
22.8
<0.1
<0.1
-
7.3
12.4
1.6
75
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
7.2
7.3
-
04/01/09
IN
-
389
1.3
0.3
<0.1
<0.05
53.2
21.3
1.6
1.6
7.3
12.3
0.5
-50
-
-
347
200
146
18.5
18.3
0.2
11.4
6.9
877
790
10.7
10.1
AC
-
384
0.9
0.3
0.3
<0.05
51.7
20.9
0.8
1.6
7.3
12.3
1.5
427
0.3
3.5
353
205
148
18.6
11.9
6.7
0.7
11.2
377
67
6.4
5.9
TT
20.4
396
0.9
0.8
0.3
<0.05
<10
21.1
0.2
1.6
7.4
12.4
1.3
435
0.7
3.3
357
211
146
0.8
0.7
<0.1
0.6
<0.1
84
74
9.9
9.5
CO
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Geneseo Hills Subdivision, Geneseo, IL (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (as P)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mfl/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
van.
|jg/L
|jg/L
Hfl/L
M9/L
|jg/L
04/22/09
IN
-
387
1.3
-
-
-
51.6
23.3
2.1
-
7.3
12.5
0.9
-47
-
-
-
-
-
19.7
-
-
-
-
1,329
-
13.2
-
AC
-
387
0.9
-
-
-
52.3
23.6
0.6
-
7.3
12.6
1.3
331
0.3
2.6
-
-
-
20.0
-
-
-
-
468
-
6.8
-
TA
21.5
389
1.0
-
-
-
<10
23.2
0.1
-
7.3
12.5
1.2
428
0.2
3.2
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
5.2
-
TB
22.2
387
0.9
-
-
-
<10
23.3
0.2
-
7.3
12.5
1.3
405
0.4
3.2
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
5.1
-
05/06/09
IN
-
365
1.3
0.4
0.1
<0.05
49.2
25.3
8.4
1.7
7.3
12.9
0.8
-41
-
-
324
177
148
18.2
17.3
1.0
11.9
5.3
930
399
12.5
6.2
AC
-
374
1.2
0.4
0.3
<0.05
51.4
25.1
0.9
1.6
7.3
13.4
1.1
245
0.2
1.4
338
183
155
17.8
9.3
8.5
0.9
8.3
383
37
6.9
6.7
TT
22.6
377
1.2
0.8
0.4
<0.05
<10
20.8
0.3
1.6
7.3
13.4
1.1
269
0.7
1.3
346
188
158
0.5
0.6
<0.1
0.3
0.3
33
33
8.1
10.2
05/20/09
IN
-
401
1.3
-
-
-
59.2
24.3
2.6
-
7.3
14.5
0.8
-56
-
-
-
-
-
21.9
-
-
-
-
536
-
8.2
-
AC
-
396
0.9
-
-
-
53.5
24.5
1.2
-
7.3
14.1
1.2
424
2.5
3.4
-
-
-
21.4
-
-
-
-
336
-
6.2
-
TA
22.9
396
0.9
-
-
-
<10
24.6
0.6
-
7.3
14.1
1.7
440
0.2
3.2
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.4
-
TB
23.7
404
0.9
-
-
-
34.9(a)
25.2
1.2
-
7.3
14.2
1.0
460
0.2
3.9
-
-
-
10.8(a)
-
-
-
-
310(a)
-
9.4(a)
-
06/10/09
IN
-
394
1.2
0.3
<0.1
<0.05
56.2
24.5
9.2
1.6
7.4
12.0
0.6
-71
-
-
362
220
142
19.5
18.2
1.2
14.8
3.5
260
217
5.5
5.3
AC
-
387
0.9
0.3
0.3
<0.05
54.6
24.1
1.9
1.6
7.4
12.0
1.6
276
0.9
3.4
369
217
152
18.6
9.0
9.6
0.5
8.5
340
<25
6.5
5.8
TT
24.6
391
0.9
0.2
0.3
<0.05
<10
24.0
0.9
1.6
7.3
11.9
1.5
256
1.5
3.0
372
220
152
0.6
0.5
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
5.5
5.8
06/24/09
IN
-
394
402
1.3
1.3
-
-
-
51.3
42.6
23.4
23.5
1.9
8.2
-
7.4
12.3
1.0
-45
-
-
-
-
-
19.5
18.9
-
-
-
-
433
448
-
10.3
9.7
-
AC
-
378
398
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
46.3
44.0
23.7
23.5
0.9
0.6
-
7.3
12.5
1.4
259
0.4
2.4
-
-
-
19.0
18.1
-
-
-
-
309
346
-
6.5
6.5
-
TA
25.0
392
386
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
<10
<10
23.2
23.0
0.2
0.2
-
7.3
12.5
1.4
269
0.6
2.4
-
-
-
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
4.7
5.8
-
TB
25.8
378
384
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
<10
<10
23.1
23.5
0.2
0.4
-
7.3
12.5
1.3
287
0.2
2.9
-
-
-
0.5
1.0
-
-
-
-
<25
51
-
6.0
6.3
-
07/07/09""
IN
-
392
1.2
0.4
0.2
<0.05
43.4
23.7
2.8
2.1
NA(C)
12.2
0.7
NA(C)
-
-
436
237
199
21.1
21.4
<0.1
17.1
4.4
562
280
9.9
10.2
AC
-
392
0.9
0.3
0.3
<0.05
44.8
23.5
1.4
1.9
NA(C)
12.4
1.4
NA(C)
0.4
2.8
452
251
201
20.6
9.5
11.1
0.6
8.9
394
<25
7.7
6.7
TT
26.3
390
0.9
0.8
0.3
<0.05
<10
23.9
0.4
1.9
NA(C)
12.4
1.3
NA(C)
0.9
3.0
457
251
206
0.8
0.9
<0.1
0.5
0.3
<25
<25
6.5
6.3
(a) Re-analyzed results similar to original measurements.
(b) Water quality measurements and BV reading collected on 07/08/09.
(c) Substitute operator did not collect pH and ORP measurements on 07/08/09.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Geneseo Hills Subdivision, Geneseo, IL (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (as P)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hfl/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
MS/L
Hg/L
|jg/L
Mfl/L
Hfl/L
|jg/L
H9/L
Mfl/L
M9/L
07/22/09
IN
-
372
1.3
-
-
-
70.2
25.0
1.1
-
7.1
12.5
0.7
-93
-
-
-
-
-
18.5
-
-
-
-
578
-
10.4
-
AC
-
379
1.0
-
-
-
68.1
25.1
0.5
-
7.1
12.5
1.8
255
2.2
2.9
-
-
-
17.2
-
-
-
-
367
-
7.4
-
TA
26.6
374
1.0
-
-
-
<10
25.4
1.1
-
7.1
12.5
1.8
303
1.7
2.8
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
6.0
-
TB
27.4
372
1.0
-
-
-
<10
25.2
0.9
-
7.1
12.5
1.7
301
1.9
2.9
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
6.1
-
08/25/09|a|
IN
-
;
1.2
-
-
-
48.7
-
-
1.8
7.0
12.7
0.7
-55
-
-
-
-
-
17.6
18.0
<0.1
15.5
2.5
974
542
11.7
7.5
AC
-
;
0.9
-
-
-
47.4
-
-
1.8
7.0
12.8
1.3
272
0.3
2.9
-
-
-
17.4
10.8
6.6
0.6
10.2
338
62
5.7
5.0
TT
28.8
;
0.9
-
-
-
<10
-
-
1.8
7.1
12.8
1.5
279
1.8
2.4
-
-
-
0.9
1.1
<0.1
0.5
0.5
<25
<25
5.5
5.5
09/30/09
IN
-
;
1.3
-
-
-
49.6
-
-
1.5
7.0
11.8
0.6
-55
-
-
-
-
-
21.4
19.5
1.9
14.1
5.4
250
195
5.3
5.1
AC
-
;
0.9
-
-
-
44.9
-
-
1.6
7.1
12.2
1.4
330
0.4
3.2
-
-
-
20.9
10.2
10.7
0.5
9.7
280
<25
6.0
5.2
TT
30.5
;
1.0
-
-
-
<10
-
-
1.5
7.1
12.3
1.4
298
1.2
2.6
-
-
-
1.0
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.4
<25
<25
6.4
6.4
10/21/09
IN
-
;
1.3
-
-
-
25.8
-
-
1.8
7.1
11.0
0.7
-35
-
-
-
-
-
19.3
16.7
2.6
14.1
2.6
761
599
9.8
8.6
AC
-
;
1.1
-
-
-
19.4
-
-
1.7
7.1
11.1
1.5
202
0.8
1.4
-
-
-
18.5
9.2
9.3
0.3
8.9
307
<25
5.5
5.2
TT
31.5
;
1.1
-
-
-
<10
-
-
1.6
7.1
11.3
1.4
205
0.6
1.3
-
-
-
0.5
0.3
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<25
<25
9.1
9.3
11/18/09
IN
-
;
1.2
-
-
-
<10
-
-
1.5
7.0
10.5
0.8
-34
-
-
-
-
-
16.8
16.7
<0.1
12.9
3.8
315(b)
527(B)
e.r1
8.3(b)
AC
-
;
1.0
-
-
-
<10
-
-
1.5
7.0
10.8
1.3
241
1.3
2.2
-
-
-
16.4
10.5
5.9
0.7
9.8
273
64
5.4
5.1
TT
33.0
;
1.0
-
-
-
<10
-
-
1.5
7.2
10.8
1.3
259
1.5
2.1
-
-
-
0.8
0.8
<0.1
0.6
0.2
<25
<25
6.3
6.3
12/16/09
IN
-
;
1.3
-
-
-
52.6
-
-
1.5
7.0
9.8
0.4
-68
-
-
-
-
-
17.7
18.3
<0.1
14.0
4.3
459
209
8.0
8.3
AC
-
;
1.1
-
-
-
51.7
-
-
1.7
7.1
10.0
1.5
280
0.8
1.9
-
-
-
17.0
11.9
5.1
0.6
11.3
278
40
6.0
5.4
TT
34.2
;
1.1
-
-
-
<10
-
-
1.8
7.1
10.1
1.5
377
1.3
2.0
-
-
-
0.8
0.7
0.1
0.4
0.3
<25
<25
6.0
6.1
(a) Water quality measurements and BV reading collected on 08/26/09.
(b) Re-analyzed results similar to original measurements.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Geneseo Hills Subdivision, Geneseo, IL (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (as P)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
m/L
H9/L
H9/L
Mfl/L
Hfl/L
|jg/L
H9/L
M9/L
^g/L
01/13/10
IN
-
;
1.2
-
-
-
44.4
-
-
1.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
17.0
17.0
<0.1
14.7
2.4
203(a)
761 (a)
4.8(a)
9.8(a)
AC
-
;
1.2
-
-
-
47.9
-
-
1.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
0.9
-
-
-
17.1(a)
17.0(a)
<0.1(a)
12.9(a)
4.1(a)
245
150
4.9
5.2
TT
35.8
;
1.2
-
-
-
<10
-
-
2.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.9
-
-
-
0.8
0.8
<0.1
0.5
0.2
<25
<25
4.2
4.2
02/10/10
IN
-
;
1.2
-
-
-
51.4
-
-
1.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
16.8
16.8
<0.1
13.2
3.6
191(a)
589(a)
4.4(a)
8.1(a)
AC
-
;
1.0
-
-
-
50.8
-
-
2.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1
1.9
-
-
-
16.4
10.6
5.8
0.8
9.8
264
39
5.2
4.9
TT
37.3
;
1.0
-
-
-
<10
-
-
1.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.4
1.9
-
-
-
0.9
0.9
<0.1
0.6
0.3
<25
<25
4.4
4.4
03/10/10
IN
-
;
1.3
-
-
-
48.9
-
-
2.0
7.0
9.0
0.3
-58
-
-
-
-
-
16.4
16.1
0.3
14.3
1.8
196
221
4.9
5.0
AC
-
;
1.1
-
-
-
42.8
-
-
1.8
7.1
10.0
1.3
324
1.1
2.3
-
-
-
14.9
9.2
5.7
0.3
8.9
297
<25
5.3
4.9
TT
38.5
;
1.1
-
-
-
<10
-
-
1.8
7.1
10.0
1.1
361
0.4
2.2
-
-
-
0.9
0.9
<0.1
0.2
0.7
<25
<25
5.6
5.6
04/07/10
IN
-
;
1.1
-
-
-
39.8
-
-
2.0
7.0
9.8
0.5
-52
-
-
-
-
-
17.7
16.6
1.1
14.2
2.4
244
640
5.6
8.5
AC
-
;
0.9
-
-
-
29.5
-
-
1.9
7.0
10.0
1.4
394
0.3
2.2
-
-
-
17.2
10.1
7.1
0.6
9.5
318
27
6.4
5.3
TT
39.8
;
1.0
-
-
-
<10
-
-
2.0
7.2
10.2
1.4
421
0.8
1.9
-
-
-
0.8
0.8
<0.1
0.4
0.5
<25
<25
5.7
6.0
05/05/10
IN
-
;
1.0
-
-
-
42.5
-
-
1.9
7.0
10.2
0.9
-52
-
-
-
-
-
16.2
16.4
<0.1
14.3
2.1
590
592
7.8
7.9
AC
-
;
1.0
-
-
-
45.3
-
-
1.9
7.0
10.3
1.3
302
0.3
1.0
-
-
-
16.7
11.2
5.5
0.5
10.7
215
28
4.7
4.5
TT
41.1
;
1.0
-
-
-
<10
-
-
1.9
7.0
10.5
1.2
350
0.3
0.7
-
-
-
0.8
0.7
<0.1
0.3
0.4
<25
<25
5.7
5.5
(a) Re-analyzed results similar to original measurements. On 01/13/10, 02/10/10, 04/07/10, and 06/09/10, soluble iron and manganese results greater than
respective total iron and manganese results.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Geneseo Hills Subdivision, Geneseo, IL (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (as P)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hfl/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
MS/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
Mfl/L
Hfl/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
Mfl/L
M9/L
06/09/10
IN
-
;
1.3
-
-
-
58.0
-
-
2.9
7.0
10.1
0.6
-54
-
-
-
-
-
22.6
18.8
3.9
14.4
4.4
170
428
5.4
8.0
AC
-
;
1.1
-
-
-
50.0
-
-
2.0
7.1
10.1
1.4
326
0.9
2.2
-
-
-
20.1
11.7
8.4
0.4
11.3
254
31
5.7
5.5
TT
43.0
;
1.1
-
-
-
11.6
-
-
2.2
7.1
10.1
1.3
426
0.5
2.1
-
-
-
2.2
1.3
0.9
0.4
0.9
35
<25
6.3
6.1
06/30/10
IN
-
;
1.3
-
-
-
45.2
-
-
1.8
7.0
11.0
0.7
-40
-
-
-
-
-
15.9
16.9
<0.1
13.6
3.3
264
243
5.9
7.3
AC
-
;
1.1
-
-
-
45.8
-
-
2.2
7.0
12.0
1.3
397
0.2
1.9
-
-
-
16.8
12.8
4.0
0.4
12.4
204
<25
5.1
4.8
TT
44.1
;
1.2
-
-
-
<10
-
-
2.4
7.0
12.0
1.5
338
0.5
1.9
-
-
-
0.9
1.0
<0.1
0.3
0.7
<25
<25
4.9
4.6
07/28/10
IN
-
;
1.3
-
-
-
49.2
-
-
2.0
6.9
10.9
0.6
-45
-
-
-
-
-
16.3
17.1
<0.1
13.0
4.2
331
312
6.4
6.8
AC
-
;
1.1
-
-
-
49.3
-
-
2.2
7.0
12.0
1.5
305
0.4
1.7
-
-
-
16.3
11.3
5.0
0.5
10.9
226
<25
5.5
5.1
TT
45.7
;
1.1
-
-
-
<10
-
-
3.0
7.0
12.3
1.7
345
0.9
1.6
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
<0.1
0.4
0.6
<25
<25
5.9
5.6
------- |