EPA/600/R-11/071
July 2011
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Coagulation/Filtration
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Village of Waynesville, IL
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Abraham S.C. Chen*
Angela M. Paolucci§
Brian J. Yates§
Lili Wang*
Vivek Lal§
§Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693
JALSA Tech, LLC, Powell, OH 43065-6082
Contract No. EP-C-05-057
Task Order No. 0019
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0019 of Contract EP-C-05-057 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained from the arsenic removal drinking
water treatment technology demonstration project at the Village of Waynesville, IL. The main objective
of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Peerless coagulation/filtration (C/F) system, using
GreensandPlus™ filtration media with an anthracite cap, in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic
maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |og/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
during the demonstration period included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train
and in the distribution system), process residuals, and capital and O&M cost.
The community water system at Waynesville, IL served approximately 450 residents. The system was
supplied by two wells, i.e., Wells No. 6 and 8, with a combined flowrate of approximately 84 gal/min
(gpm). Source water contained 33.1 |o,g/L of total arsenic, 2,298 |og/L of total iron, and 33.1 |o,g/L of total
manganese. Because of the reducing condition with the source water (as reflected by 1.2 mg/L [on
average] of dissolved oxygen [DO] and -31 mV [on average] of oxidation-reduction potential [ORP]),
arsenic existed almost entirely as soluble As(III) and almost all iron and manganese were present in the
soluble form. The source water also contained 3.8 mg/L (as N) of ammonia and 7.9 mg/L of total organic
carbon (TOC). These elevated levels of ammonia and TOC made NaMnO4 to be the oxidant of selection
for oxidizing reducing species in the source water. The selection was confirmed with a series of jar tests
using both KaMnO4(as a surrogate for NaMnO4) and chlorine as oxidants.
The Peerless C/F system consisted of aNaMnO4 addition system, four 36-in x 72-in carbon steel, epoxy-
lined pressure vessels arranged in parallel, and three post-treatment chemical addition systems for
chlorination, fluoridation, and polyphosphate addition. The addition of NaMnO4 oxidized the reducing
species such as soluble As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II) and formed arsenic-laden iron particles prior to
filtration. Each pressure filter contained 6 ft3 of quartz support gravel overlain with 14 ft3 of
GreensandPlus™ filtration media and 7 ft3 of #1 anthracite cape. GreensandPlus™ has a silica sand core
with a thermally-bonded manganese dioxide (MnO2) coating. GreensandPlus™ is slightly different from
the conventional manganese greensand, which is formulated from a glauconite greensand.
The system was designed for a total flowrate of 96 gpm, or 24 gpm/vessel, equivalent for a filtration rate
of 3.4 gpm/ft2. Actual flowrates through the filters averaged 11.4 gpm/vessel (or 40.5 gpm for the
system) when only Well No. 6 was operating (since system startup on July 15, 2009, through December
17, 2009), or 22.1 gpm (or 84.4 gpm for the system) when both wells were operating (from December 18,
2009, through September 19, 2010). These flowrates yielded filtration rates no higher than 3.4 gpm/ft2,
which is just over the 10-state standard of 2 to 3 gpm/ft2 as required by Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IL EPA). Throughout the demonstration period, the system operated for 1,840 hr when only
Well No. 6 was in operation, and for 1,601 hr when both wells were in operation. The respective average
daily run times were 11.8 and 5.8 hr. The system treated approximately 12,603,800 gal of water with an
average daily demand of approximately 29,400 gal during the 432-day performance evaluation study.
With 2,277 ug/L (on average) of soluble iron and 31.4 ug/L (on average) of soluble arsenic in source
water, the iron to arsenic ratio was 72:1. With this ratio and the reducing condition maintained
throughout the treatment train, oxidation of soluble As(III) and Fe(II) and formation of filterable arsenic-
laden particles were ensured by the addition of 6.3 mg/L of NaMnO4 (on average). After NaMnO4
addition, soluble As(III) was converted almost entirely to particulate arsenic, leaving only 0.6 and 3.0
ug/L (on average) of soluble As(III) and As(V), respectively, in the oxidized water. Following
IV
-------
GreensandPlus™ filtration, arsenic and iron concentrations were reduced to below 4.6 and 34.9 ug/L (on
average), respectively. Manganese concentrations in raw water were low, averaging 33.1 ug/L. The 6.3-
mg/L NaMnO4 dose rate appears to be sufficient to react with reducing species and form filterable MnO2
particles, which were removed to below 100 ug/L by the GreensandPlus™ filters.
The presence of elevated dissolved organic matter (DOM) levels appears to have some impact on iron and
manganese solids formation. Unlike what was observed at most other arsenic demonstration sites,
addition of NaMnO4 to the well water did not completely oxidize soluble Fe(II) to iron solids, leaving as
much as 147 ug/L of soluble iron in the NaMnO4-treated water. Also in the NaMnO4-treated water was a
significant amount of "soluble" manganese (ranging from 26.4 to 1567 ug/L and averaging 765 ng/L),
which most likely existed as soluble Mn(II) (due to the formation of Mn(II)-DOM complexes) or
colloidal MnO2 particles (due to the presence of DOM). Additional contact time provided prior to the
filter beds might have helped form filterable MnO2 particles, which were subsequently removed by the
GreensandPlus™ filters.
Backwash wastewater contained, on average, 432, 86,432, and 46,572 ug/L of arsenic, iron, and
manganese, respectively. As expected, arsenic, iron, and manganese existed mainly in the particulate
form. Total suspended solids (TSS) levels ranged from 105 to 1,701 mg/L and averaged 441 mg/L.
Based on this TSS level and 3,100 gal of wastewater produced during each backwash event,
approximately 11.4 Ib (or 5,175 g) of solids would be discharged to the sewer. The solids would contain
0.01 Ib (or 5.0 g) of arsenic, 2.2 Ib (or 1,014 g) of iron, and 1.2 Ib (or 547 g) of manganese.
The water quality in the distribution system was significantly improved after startup of the treatment
system. Arsenic and iron concentrations were reduced from pre-startup levels of 23.4 and 977 ug/L (on
average), respectively, to 8.8 and 168 ug/L (on average), respectively. These concentrations were higher
than those in the filter effluent, indicating solublization, destablization, and/or desorption of arsenic-laden
particles/scales in some segments of the distribution system. Manganese concentrations measured after
system startup averaged 64.6 ug/L (on average), which was higher than that (i.e., 15.0 ug/L) measured
before system startup, but lower than (i.e., 85.7 ug/L) in the filter effluent.
The total capital cost for the system was $161,559, including $90,750 for equipment, $22,460 for site
engineering, and $48,350 for installation, startup, and shakedown. Using the system's rated capacity of
96 gpm (138,240 gal/day [gpd]), the normalized capital cost was $l,683/gpm ($1.17/gpd). The total
O&M cost was $0.68/1,000 gal of treated water including the cost for NaMnO4 addition, electricity
consumption, and labor.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 8
3.1 General Project Approach 8
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 9
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 10
3.3.1 Source Water 10
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 10
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids 10
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 10
3.4 Oxidant Demand and Disinfection Byproducts Formation Potential Studies 12
3.4.1 Raw Water Sample Collection 12
3.4.2 Oxidant Demand Studies 13
3.4.3 Arsenic/Iron Removal and DBP Formation Potential Study 13
3.5 Sampling Logistics 14
3.5.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 14
3.5.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 15
3.5.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 15
3.6 Analytical Procedures 15
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 16
4.1 Pre-existing Facility Description and Treatment System Infrastructure 16
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 16
4.1.2 Distribution System 21
4.2 Treatment Process Description 21
4.2.1 Technology Description 21
4.2.2 System Design and Treatment Process 23
4.3 System Installation 29
4.3.1 Permitting 29
4.3.2 Building Construction 29
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 29
4.4 System Operation 34
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 34
4.4.2 Backwash 35
4.4.3 NaMnO4 Injection 36
VI
-------
4.4.4 Residual Management 37
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 37
4.5 Jar Test Results 39
4.5.1 Oxidant Demand Studies 39
4.5.2 Arsenic/Iron Removal and DBF Formation Potential Studies 39
4.6 System Performance 42
4.6.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 42
4.6.2 Backwash Wastewater and Solids Sampling 52
4.6.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 55
4.7 System Cost 58
4.7.1 Capital Cost 59
4.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 60
5.0 REFERENCES 61
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
OPERATIONAL DATA
ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Well No. 6 Pump House and Pre-existing Chemical Addition Systems 17
Figure 4-2. Well No. 8 Pump House and Piping 17
Figure 4-3. 50,000-gal Water Tower 18
Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 24
Figure 4-5. NaMnO4 Addition System 26
Figure 4-6. Filtration Vessels and Valve Tree 26
Figure 4-7. System Instrumentation 27
Figure 4-8. Post-Treatment Chemical Addition Systems 28
Figure 4-9. Construction of New Treatment Plant Building 30
Figure 4-10. Layout of New Treatment Facility 31
Figure 4-11. Arrival and Offloading of System Components 32
Figure 4-12. Filtration Vessels Before and After Plumbing 32
Figure 4-13. NaMnO4 Dosage 36
Figure 4-14. Arsenic Speciation at Sampling Locations IN, AO, and TT (or TA) 46
Figure 4-15. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train 48
Figure 4-16. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train 49
Figure 4-17. Total Manganese Concentrations Across Treatment Train 51
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. Pre-demonstration Activities and Completion Dates 8
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 9
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes 11
vn
-------
Table 3-4. Oxidant Demand Study Experimental Matrix 13
Table 3-5. Experimental Matrix for Arsenic/Iron Removal and DBF Formation Studies 14
Table 4-1. Village of Waynesville Water Quality Data 19
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of Filtration Media 22
Table 4-3. Design Features of Peerless Anthracite/GreensandPlus™ Filtration System 25
Table 4-4. Specifications of Flow Meters/Totalizers and Pressure Gauges 27
Table 4-5. Freeboard Measurements During System Installation 33
Table 4-6. System Punch-List Operational Issues 33
Table 4-7. Summary of System Operational Parameters 34
Table 4-8. Summary of System Backwash Parameters 36
Table 4-9. Results of Chlorine Demand Study for Well No. 8 Raw Water 39
Table 4-10. Results of Permanganate Demand Study for Well No. 8 Raw Water 40
Table 4-11. Results for Arsenic/Iron Removal and DBFs Formation Potential Studies 40
Table 4-12. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 43
Table 4-13. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 44
Table 4-14. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results 53
Table 4-15. ICP-MS Results of Backwash Solids Samples 56
Table 4-16. Distribution Sampling Results 57
Table 4-17. Summary of Distribution System Water Sampling Results 58
Table 4-18. Capital Investment Cost for Peerless GreensandPlus™ System 59
Table 4-19. Operation and Maintenance Cost for Peerless GreensandPlus™ System 60
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
bgs below ground surface
BL baseline
Ca calcium
Cl chloride
C/F coagulation/filtration
CWS community water system
DBF disinfection byproduct
DI deionized
DO dissolved oxygen
DOM dissolved organic matter
DPD N, N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gph gallons per hour
gpm gallons per minute
F£AA5 haloacetic acids
HOPE high-density polyethylene
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
Hp horsepower
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.
Mg magnesium
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
Mn
MRDL
MRDLG
mV
Na
NA
NaOCl
NRMRL
NS
NTU
O&M
OIT
ORD
ORP
psi
P04
PLC
POU
QA
QAPP
QA/QC
RO
RPD
RFP
Sb
SDWA
SiO2
SMCL
SO42-
STS
manganese
maximum residual disinfectant level
maximum residual disinfectant level goal
millivolts
sodium
not analyzed
sodium hypochlorite
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
not sampled
nephelometric turbidity unit
operation and maintenance
Oregon Institute of Technology
Office of Research and Development
oxidation-reduction potential
pounds per square inch
orthophosphate
programmable logic controller
point-of-use
quality assurance
Quality Assurance Project Plan
quality assurance/quality control
reverse osmosis
relative percent difference
request for proposal
antimony
Safe Drinking Water Act
silica
secondary maximum contaminant level
sulfate
Severn Trent Services
TDH total dynamic head
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
TTHM total trihalomethanes
VGA
VOC
volatile organic analysis
volatile organic compound
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Mr. Kenneth Rich and Mrs. Fran Garrett at the
Village of Waynesville for their dedication in monitoring treatment system operations and collecting
samples from the treatment and distribution systems throughout the demonstration period. Mr. William
Brown of CMT Engineering interacted closely with the project team for system/site engineering during
the design phase and system troubleshooting after system startup. Mr. Merle Loete, the operator of the
water system at Geneseo Hills Subdivisioin in Geneseo, IL, traveled monthly to Waynesville, IL to
perform treatment plant water sampling, arsenic speciation, and onsite water quality measurements. This
performance evaluation study would not have been possible without their efforts.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (< 10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems to reduce compliance costs. As part of
this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites. In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28.
With additional funding from Congress, EPA selected 10 more sites for demonstration under Round 2a.
Somewhat different from the Round 1 and Round 2 selection process, Battelle, under EPA's guidance,
issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on February 14, 2007, to solicit technology proposals from vendors
and engineering firms. Upon closing of the RFP on April 13, 2007, Battelle received a total of 44
proposals from 14 vendors, which were subsequently reviewed by a three-expert technical review panel
convened at EPA on May 2 and 3, 2007. Copies of the proposals and recommendations of the review
-------
panel were later provided to and discussed with representatives of the 10 host sites and state regulators in
a technology selection meeting held at each host site from April through August 2007. The final
selections of the treatment technology were made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the respective
state regulators, and the host sites. A 96-gal/min (gpm) coagulation/filtration (C/F) system using
GreensandPlus™ with an anthracite cap designed by Peerless, Inc. of Kalamazoo, MI, was selected for
demonstration at the Village of Waynesville, IL.
As of July 2011, all 50 arsenic treatment systems were operational and performance evaluations for 49
systems were complete.
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
Technologies selected for Rounds 1, 2, and 2a demonstration included adsorptive media (AM), iron
removal (IR), C/F, ion exchange (IX), reverse osmosis (RO), point-of-use (POU) RO, and system/process
modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, system flow rates, and key
source water quality parameters (including As, iron [Fe], and pH). Table 1-2 presents the number of sites
for each technology. AM technology was demonstrated at 30 sites, including four with IR pretreatment.
IR technology was demonstrated at 12 sites, including four with supplemental iron addition. C/F, IX, and
RO technologies were demonstrated at three, two, and one sites, respectively. The Sunset Ranch
Development site that demonstrated POU RO technology had nine under-the-sink RO units. The Oregon
Institute of Technology (OIT) site classified under AM had three AM systems and eight POU AM units.
The Lidgerwood site encompassed only system/process modifications. An overview of the technology
selection and system design for the 12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital costs is
provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/resource.htm.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program was to conduct full-scale performance evaluations of
treatment technologies for arsenic removal from drinking water supplies. The specific objectives were to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the Peerless C/F system at the Village of Waynesville, IL,
from July 15, 2009, through September 19, 2010. The types of data collected during the demonstration
period included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution
system), residuals, and capital and O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1, 2, and 2a Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(HS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Carmel, ME
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Houghton, NY(C)
Woodstock, CT
Pomfret, CT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Conneaut Lake, PA
Buckeye Lake, OH
Springfield, OH
Carmel Elementary School
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Caneadea
Woodstock Middle School
Seely -Brown Village
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Conneaut Lake Park
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
RO
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
IR (Macrolite)
AM (Adsorbsia)
AM (ArsenXnp)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
IR (Greensand Plus) with ID
AM (ARM 200)
IR & AM (E33)
Norlen's Water
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
Siemens
SolmeteX
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
Kinetico
AdEdge
l,200gpd
14
70W
10
100
22
550
17
15
375
300
250
10
250W
21
38W
39
33
36W
30
27w
21
25
30W
19W
28W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
l,806(d)
<25
<25
48
270W
157W
1,312W
1,615W
7.9
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
7.6
7.7
7.3
8.2
7.3
8.0
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Goshen, IN
Fountain City, IN
Waynesville, IL
Geneseo Hills, IL
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
Lead, SD
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Clinton Christian School
Northeastern Elementary School
Village of Waynesville
Geneseo Hills Subdivision
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
Terry Trojan Water District
AM(E33)
IR (Macrolite) with ID
IR (Aeralater)
IR (Macrolite)
IR&AM(E33)
IR (G2)
IR (Greensand Plus)
AM(E33)
IR (Macrolite)
IR (Macrolite) with ID
IR (Macrolite)
IR (Macrolite)
IR&AM(E33)
Process Modification
AM (ArsenXnp)
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
AdEdge
US Water
Peerless
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
SolmeteX
640
400
340(e)
40
25
60
96
200
375
140
250
20
250
250
75
14W
13(a)
16W
20W
29W
27W
32W
25W
17w
39W
34W
25W
42(a)
146W
24
127w
466W
1,387W
1,499W
810(d)
1,547W
2,543(d)
248W
7,827(d)
546(d)
l,470(d)
3,078(d)
l,344(d)
1,325W
<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(d)
2,068(d)
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
fepm)
100
320
145
450
90W
50
37
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
45
23W
33
14
50
32
41
Fe
(ug/L)
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
PH
(S.U.)
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General Improvement
District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/
ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)(g)
IX(ArsenexII)
AM (GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM(HIX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37w
35
15
<25
<25
134
69w
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HTX = hybrid ion exchanger; IR = iron removal; IR with ID = iron removal with iron addition; IX = ion
exchange process; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(c) Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006. Withdrew from program in 2007 and replaced by a home
system in Lewisburg, OH.
(d) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Amaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
Table 1-2. Number of Demonstration Sites Under Each Arsenic
Removal Technology
Technologies
Adsorptive Media(a)
Adsorptive Media with Iron Removal Pretreatment
Iron Removal (Oxidation/Filtration)
Iron Removal with Supplemental Iron Addition
Coagulation/Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Point-of-use Reverse Osmosis(b)
System/Process Modifications
Number
of Sites
26
4
8
4
o
J
2
1
1
1
(a) OIT site at Klamath Falls, OR, had three AM systems and
eight POU AM units.
(b) Including nine under-the-sink RO units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Peerless C/F system using GreensandPlus™ media with an anthracite cap has been operational at the
Village of Waynesville, IL since July 15, 2009. Based on the information collected during the
demonstration period from system startup through September 19, 2010, the following conclusions were
made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• NaMnO4 was effective in oxidizing As(III), reducing its concentrations from 24.1 |o,g/L (in
source water) to 0.6 |o,g/L after oxidation. NaMnO4 was selected over chlorine as an oxidant
because of the presence of elevated total organic carbon (TOC) (7.9 mg/L [on average]) and
ammonia (3.8 mg/L [as N]) in source water.
• NaMnO4 was effective in oxidizing soluble iron, reducing its concentrations from 2,277 |o,g/L
(in source water) to 48.1 |o,g/L after oxidation. Incomplete oxidation, however, was observed
during three out of 13 speciation sampling events, leaving as much as 147 |og/L of soluble
iron in NaMnO4-treated water. The exact cause of the incomplete oxidation was not clear,
but the elevated TOC and/or the formation of colloidal particles might contribute to the
presence of "soluble" iron after NaMnO4 addition.
• At an average NaMnO4 dosage of 6.3 mg/L and a soluble iron to soluble arsenic ratio of 72:1,
soluble As(III) was effectively converted to particulate arsenic, leaving only a small amount
of soluble arsenic (i.e., 3.5 (ig/L [on average]) in NaMnO4-treated water. At a filtration rate
of <3.4 gpm/ft2, arsenic-laden iron particles were effectively removed by the
GreensandPlus™ filters, leaving only 0.5 |o,g/L of particulate arsenic in the filter effluent.
Soluble arsenic concentrations in the combined effluent also were low, averaging 3.3 |og/L.
• The presence of dissolved organic matter (DOM) in source water might have hindered the
formation of filterable MnO2 particles upon NaMnO4 addition, causing the presence of a large
amount of "soluble" manganese (i.e., 765 (ig/L [on average]) in NaMnO4-treated water. The
"soluble" manganese was subsequently removed by the GreensandPlus™ filters via either
filtration or chemical reaction with MnO2 coatings on the media surface. Additional contact
time might help form filterable particles prior to the media beds, as reflected by the
significantly reduced manganese concentrations (<100 |o,g/L [on average]) in the filter
effluent.
• It was essential to maintain a reducing condition throughout the treatment train so that soluble
iron in raw water could be fully utilized to form arsenic-laden particles and that microbial
activities, including nitrification, could be under control.
• Backwashing once every three days was effective in restoring the filters, allowing them to
perform in a sustainable manner for arsenic and iron removal. Higher than secondary
maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of manganese was measured in the filter effluent, with
most existing in the particulate form.
• The water quality in the distribution system was improved after startup of the C/F treatment
system. Arsenic and iron concentrations were significantly reduced, but remained higher
than those in the filter effluent, suggesting solubilization, destabilization, and/or desorption of
arsenic-laden particles/scales in some segments of the distribution system.
• Nitrification did not occur in the distribution system.
-------
• Lead concentrations in the distribution system remained unchanged after system startup.
Copper concentrations were reduced from the baseline level of 685 to 472 (ig/L (on average)
after system startup.
Required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• The daily demand on the operator was about 20 min. The work performed included routine
O&M, such as tracking chemical levels in pre- and post-treatment day tanks; replenishing day
tanks, if needed; and working with the equipment vendor and CMT Engineering (the
Village's engineer) to troubleshoot and perform minor onsite repairs.
• Except for a few operational issues, the system did not experience any downtime throughout
the demonstration study period.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• During the first year of system operation, the system was backwashed 123 times, generating,
on average, 3,100 gal of wastewater per backwash event. Upon adjustments on
backwash/fast rinse duration and fast rinse flowrate, the system was backwashed 21 times,
generating, on average, 4,226 gal of wastewater per backwash event. The total amount of
wastewater produced was 470,000 gal, equivalent to 3.7% of the water production during the
entire study period.
• Approximately 3,100 gal of wastewater was produced from each backwash event. It was
estimated that approximately 11.4 Ib of solids were discharged into the sewer during each
backwash event. The solids contained 0.01 Ib (or 5.0 g) of arsenic, 2.2 Ib (or 1,014 g) of iron,
and 1.2 Ib (or 547 g) of manganese.
Capital and O&M cost of the technology:
• The total capital investment for the treatment system was $161,559, including $90,749 (or
56.2%) for equipment, $22,460 (or 13.9%) for site engineering, and $48,350 (or 29.9%) for
system installation, shakedown, and startup.
• The normalized unit capital cost was $ 1,683/gpm (or $ 1.17 gal/day [gpd]) based on the
system's rated capacity of 96 gpm.
• The total O&M cost was $0.68/1,000 gal of treated water, including incremental costs for
NaMnO4, electricity, and labor.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following pre-demonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation of the
Peerless C/F system began on July 15, 2009, and ended on September 19, 2010. Table 3-2 summarizes
the types of data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall
system performance was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic below the MCL of
10 |og/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train, as described in the Study Plan
(Battelle, 2009). The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking unscheduled system downtimes
and frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The plant operator recorded unscheduled downtimes
and repair information on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Pre-demonstration Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting
Letter Report Issued
Technology Selection Meeting
Technology Selection Teleconference
Trip to Michigan to Observe One Peerless System
Project Planning Meeting
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Initial Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Revised Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Construction Permit Issued by IL EPA
Final Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Building Construction Began
System Permit Package Submitted to IL EPA
System Permit Issued by IL EPA
Equipment Arrived at Site
Study Plan Issued
Building Construction Completed
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Began
Date
12/05/06
01/23/07
07/11/07
07/18/07
08/15/07
10/02/07
10/15/07
10/19/07
11/02/07
12/05/07
01/11/08
01/22/08
02/13/08
08/25/08
09/22/08
10/23/08
01/09/09
02/17/09
04/24/09
04/30/09
05/08/09
06/15/09
07/15/09
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.
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation
Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M
and Operator
Skill
Requirements
Residual
Management
Cost-
Effectiveness
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic MCL in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems
encountered, materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and
cost incurred
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency,
and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health
and safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
wastewater produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water and solids were sampled and
analyzed for chemical characteristics.
The system cost was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and the
O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This required tracking the capital cost for equipment, site
engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for chemical supply, electrical usage, and labor.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, biweekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a regular basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data such as hour meter, flowrate, totalizer, and pressure readings on a System Operation Log
Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred,
the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted
for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information, including the problems
encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred
on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. The operator of the Geneseo Hills Subdivision water system
traveled to Waynesville, IL monthly to conduct arsenic speciation and measure pH, temperature,
dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) and recorded the data on an Onsite
Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic treatment system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost of chemical supply, electricity consumption, and
labor. Labor for various activities, such as the routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and
demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system
O&M included activities such as completing field logs, ordering supplies, performing system inspections,
and others as recommended by the vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities
such as collecting field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the
Battelle Study Lead and the vendor, was recorded, but not used for cost analysis
-------
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected from the wellhead, across the treatment plant,
during backwash of the filtration tanks, 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 5, 2006, two sets of source water
samples were collected from Wells No. 6 and No. 8 and speciated using an arsenic specitation kit (see
Section 3.5.1). The sample tap was flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to
avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed
in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. The Battelle Study Plan (Battelle, 2009) called for sampling of
treatment plant water once every two weeks, with "speciation sampling" performed during the first week
of each four-week cycle and "regular sampling" performed during the third week of each four-week
cycle. Regular sampling involved collecting water samples at the wellhead (IN), after oxidation (AO),
and after Vessels A, B, C, and D (TA, TB, TC, and TD) and having them analyzed for the analytes listed
under "regular sampling" in Table 3-3. Speciation sampling involved collecting and speciating samples
at IN, AO, and after effluent from the four filtration vessels combined (TT) and having them analyzed for
the analytes listed under speciation sampling in Table 3-3.
Except for the last three sampling events where only monthly speciation sampling was conducted,
speciation and regular sampling alternated every two weeks, as planned, during most of the rest of the
study period. Sampling intervals were adjusted to one to four weeks occasionally to accommodate
holidays and operator schedules.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Solids. The operator collected backwash wastewater samples
from each of the four filtration vessels on 12 occasions. Over the duration of each backwashing event, a
side stream of backwash wastewater was directed from the tap on the backwash water discharge line to
one of four clean, 32-gal plastic containers at approximately 1 gpm. After the contents in each container
were thoroughly mixed, one aliquot was collected as is for total As, Fe, and Mn, pH, total dissolved solids
(TDS), and total suspended solids (TSS) analysis and the other aliquot filtered with 0.45-(im disc filters
for soluble As, Fe, and Mn analysis.
Once during the performance evaluation study, the contents in a 32-gal plastic container were allowed to
settle and the supernatant was carefully siphoned using a piece of plastic tubing to avoid agitating settled
solids in the container. The remaining solids/water mixture was then transferred to a 1-gal plastic jar.
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.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Water samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to system startup from March 9 through May 13,
2009, six sets of baseline samples were collected from three residences within the Village's Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR) sampling network. Following system startup, distribution system water sampling
continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations until September 15, 2010.
10
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
(Speciation)
Treatment
Plant Water
(Regular)
Distribution
System
Water
Backwash
Water
Backwash
Solids
Sample
Locations'3'
Well No. 6 and
Well No. 8
IN, AO, and
rprp(b)
IN, AO, TA, TB,
TC, and TD
Three LCR
Residences (DS)
Backwash
Discharge Line
(BW)
Wastewater
Container from
Each Vessel
No. of
Samples
2
3
6
3
4
4
Frequency
Once
(During
initial site
visit)
Monthly(c)
Monthly(c)
Monthly
Monthly
Once
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Offsite: As (III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble),
V, Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F,
NO3, NO2, NH3, SO4,
SiO2, PO4, P, turbidity,
alkalinity, TDS, and TOC
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Offsite: As(III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3,
SO4, SiO2, P, turbidity,
alkalinity, and TOC
Onsite: none
Offsite: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), NH3,
SiO2, P, turbidity, and
alkalinity
As (total), Fe (total), Mn
(total), Cu,Pb,NO3,NO2,
NH3, pH, alkalinity, and
TOC(d)
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
pH, TDS, and TSS
Al, As, Ba, Ca, Cd, Cu,
Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb, Si,
andZn
Sampling Date
12/05/06
See Appendix B
See Appendix B
See Table 4-16(e)
See Table 4-14
07/15/09
(a) Abbreviations in parenthesis corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-4, i.e., IN = at
wellhead; AO = after oxidation; TA/TB/TC/TD = after Vessels A/B/C/D; TT = combined effluent from
Vessels A, B, C, and D; BW = backwash discharge line; DS = distribution system.
(b) TT samples collected at TA during four speciation sampling events on 04/22/10, 05/19/10, 08/18/10,
and 09/15/10.
(c) Alternating between speciation and regular sampling events.
(d) Ammonia, nitrate, and TOC analyses began on 05/06/09; nitrite analysis began on 12/02/09.
(e) Including six baseline sampling events before system startup.
DO = dissolved oxygen; ORP = oxidation-reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total
organic carbon; TSS = total suspended solids
11
-------
The operator collected the samples following an instruction sheet developed in accordance with the Lead
and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The date and
time of last water usage before sample collection were recorded for calculating stagnation time. All
samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least six hours to ensure
that stagnant water was collected for analysis.
3.4 Oxidant Demand and Disinfection Byproducts Formation Potential Studies
Due to the reducing nature of raw water at Waynesville, IL, chemical oxidation with either sodium
hypochlorite (NaOCl) or sodium permanganate (NaMnO4) was necessary for effective arsenic removal by
the proposed treatment system. NaOCl can oxidize reduced metals, including soluble As(III) and soluble
Fe(II), and provide residuals in finished water. However, NaOCl may react with TOC to form
disinfection byproducts (DBFs), especially at greatly elevated levels. NaOCl also will react with
ammonia to form combined chlorine, which is ineffective in oxidizing both soluble As(III) and soluble
Fe(II). NaMnO4can be used as an alternative oxidant. It can oxidize reduced metals, including soluble
As(III), and does not form DBFs even in the presence of elevated TOC. The use of NaMnO4 will form
MnO2, which can be present as colloidal particles not filterable by the GreensandPlus™ filters. Further, it
is often difficult to regulate NaMnO4 dosage due to factors such as changing water quality. Over dosing
will result in pink water.
Because ammonia and TOC also were present at elevated levels (i.e., >3.6 mg/L [as N] and 9.0 mg/L [as
C], respectively [see Table 4-1]), it was important to select an oxidant and a dose that would not only
oxidize soluble As(III) and soluble Fe(II) for their effective removal, but also not cause unwanted
formation of DBFs due to its use. Thus, the goals of this special study were:
1. To determine an appropriate oxidant and its dose to effectively oxidize soluble As(III),
soluble Fe(II), and other reducing species.
2. To determine DBF formation potential through the application of each oxidant at a specific
dose.
To accomplish these goals, a series of jar tests was conducted onsite based on a method modified from the
uniform formation conditions (UFC) test developed by Summers et al. (1996) for DBF formation in
drinking water. The following subsections describe the method used to collect representative raw water
samples and the specific procedures developed for the jar tests.
3.4.1 Raw Water Sample Collection. Raw water was collected from the Well No. 8 sample tap
(see the well information in Section 4.1) in a way to reduce oxidation of the source water and preserve its
in-well characteristics throughout the jar tests. A 2-ft piece of Tygon® tubing was first connected to the
tip of the sample tap to produce a laminar flow. The tap and the tubing were then thoroughly flushed with
Well No. 8 water for approximately 20 min. To ensure no incidental addition of any chemical at the
wellhead, all three chemical addition pumps that dispensed sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl),
hydrofluorosilic acid (H2SiF6), and polyphosphate were turned off. After the flow through the Tygon®
tubing was restored to a laminar flow, the end of the tubing was placed to the bottom of a 2.5-gal clear
plastic jug to fill the jug. Once the jug was filled, it was allowed to overflow to remove the layer of
potentially oxidized water. In doing so, potential oxidation of the raw water would be diffusion-limited to
a small layer near the air/water interface within the jug and relatively far away from the sampling tap
located near the bottom of the jug.
In addition to the tap near the bottom of the jug, the jug also was equipped with a small opening (and a
screw-on cap) on its top to provide pressure during water dispensing. When the tap was not used, the cap
12
-------
was screwed on tightly to reduce air intrusion. The water just below the interface was periodically
observed during the experiment for signs of oxidation (light attenuation and scattering caused by
precipitation of oxidized metals). No sign of significant oxidation was noted during the study, although a
slight yellow hue was observed in the jug approximately 60 min after sampling. Water with an
appreciably noticeable yellow hue was not used for the jar tests.
3.4.2 Oxidant Demand Studies. One L of a NaOCl stock solution was prepared by diluting 10
mL of a -10% NaOCl solution with Milli-Q deionized (DI) water. To validate the stock solution
concentration (i.e., ~1 g/L [as C12]), free chlorine measurements were made on a 1:1,000 diluted solution
using Hach colorimetric test kits (Method 8167). KMnO4 was used as a surrogate for NaMnO4 in this
study. One L of a KMnO4 stock solution was prepared by dissolving an appropriate mass of crystalline
KMnO4 for a final concentration of 1.0 g/L (as KMnO4). MnO4" concentrations of a 1:1,000 diluted
solution were measured onsite using a Hach DR/820 colorimeter via the N, N-diethyl-p-
phenylenediamine (DPD) method (Carus Corporation, 2001) and verified by inductively coupled plasma-
mass spectrometry (ICP-MS).
Oxidant demands of Well No. 8 water were determined by using the experimental matrix presented in
Table 3-4. Aliquots of the two stock solutions were added into separate 1-L amber glass bottles (reaction
bottles). The reaction bottles were then filled, with minimum agitation, with raw water from the 2.5-gal
jug and capped with Teflon®-lined caps with no headspace. Actual doses of chlorine and manganese
were verified with three reaction bottles each spiked with a known amount of an oxidant stock solution
and filled with DI water. After 20 min of contact time, the Teflon®-lined cap of a chosen reaction bottle
was removed and a 10-mL sample was taken and analyzed for either total chlorine or MnO4". The
reaction bottles were properly staggered to allow time for sampling and analysis.
Table 3-4. Oxidant Demand Study Experimental Matrix
Parameter/Condition
Chlorine Dose
Permanganate Dose
Reaction Time
Temperature
Unit
mg/L (as C12)
mg/L (as KMnO4)
min
°C
Values
0.0,2.6,4.9,7.0,9.1, 12.8, 16.4
0.0,6.0,8.5, 11.5, 17.5
20
Ambient
The 20-min contact time was chosen to mimic the longest time possible for the well water to travel from
the wellhead (either Well No. 6 or No. 8) to the top of an anthracite/GreensandPlus™ bed. Under normal
operating conditions with both wells running at a combined flowrate of 19 gpm/vessel, the time for the
well water to reach a filtration bed is less than 10 min.
3.4.3 Arsenic/Iron Removal and DBF Formation Potential Study. Once the oxidant demand of
Well No. 8 water was determined, the effect of NaOCl and KMnO4 on treated water quality, including
DBF formation potential, was examined using a series of jar tests. For NaOCl, two doses at 8 and 10
mg/L (as C12) were tested; for KMnO4, only one dose at 6 mg/L (as KMnO4) was tested. The 8 mg/L
NaOCl and 6 mg/L KMnO4 jars were allowed to contact for 20 min. The 10 mg/L NaOCl jar was
allowed to contact for 120 min, an extended duration that mimicked an absolute worst-case scenario.
Long residence times could contribute to higher DBF concentrations (Rathbun, 1997; Summers et al,
1996). As done for the oxidant demand jars, each oxidant was spiked with its separately determined dose
to a 1-L reaction bottle before being filled with raw water from the 2.5-gal jug. After a prescribed contact
time, the cap to a reaction bottle was removed and the contents in the bottle were taken for both onsite
and offsite measurements/analyses. Table 3-5 presents the experimental matrix.
13
-------
Table 3-5. Experimental Matrix for Arsenic/Iron Removal and DBF Formation Studies
Oxidant
None
NaOCl
NaOCl
KMnO4
1
0)
0
0
"a
ft
•a
H
O
NA
8.0
10.0
6.0
=
1,
I
H
0
"5
0)
«
0
20
120
20
a
•a
sS
•V
13
o
H
X
X
X
X
a
•a
0?
•V
—
s
(2
X
X
X
X
hH
hH
—
3
0
C/5
X
X
X
X
uble As (V)
o
in
X
X
X
X
Ammonia
X
X
X
X
u
g
X
X
X
X
TTHM
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
M
8.
X
X
X
X
mperature
H
X
X
X
X
O
0
X
X
X
X
o
X
X
X
X
tal Chlorine
s
X
X
O
=
X
To ensure proper sampling and analyses, two persons sampled each reaction bottle as quickly as possible
in the order listed below:
• A 40 mL sample was extracted from the reaction bottle with a plastic syringe and filtered
through a 0.45 um disc filter to a 40 mL volatile organic analysis (VOA) vial containing 1
mL of 0.1 N Na2S2O3 for total trihalomethanes (TTHM) analysis. The bottle was filled with
no headspace. This step was performed in duplicate for laboratory quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC).
• A second sample was extracted from the reaction bottle using a second plastic syringe and
filtered through a 0.45 um disc filter to a 100 mL VOA vial containing 0.1 mL of 70% (v/v)
H2SO4 for TOC analysis. The bottle was filled with no headspace.
• Immediately after the TOC VOA vial had been filled, onsite arsenic speciation began.
• During the arsenic speciation, 50 mL of 0.45 um disc filtered water from the reaction bottle
was added to a 50 mL certified pre-cleaned high-density polyethylene (HDPE) sample bottle
containing H2SO4 (to pH < 2) for NH3 analysis.
• Subsequently, a 60 mL amber glass sample bottle containing 2 mL of 10% Na2S2O3 was
filled with unfiltered water from the reaction bottle for haloacetic acids (HAA5) analysis.
The bottle was filled with no headspace. This step was performed in triplicate for laboratory
QA/QC.
• Total chlorine or permanganate (as measured by a handheld Hach colorimeter), pH, ORP and
temperature (as measured by a portable VWR SP90M5 meter) were measured last.
3.5
Sampling Logistics
3.5.1 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).
14
-------
3.5.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, color-coded label consisting of sample identification (ID), date and time of sample collection,
collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The sample ID
consisted of a two-letter code for a specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code for a specific
sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if necessary). The
sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The labeled bottles for
each sampling location were placed in separate zip-lock bags and packed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling
instructions, chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included
in the cooler. The chain-of-custody forms and air bills were complete except for the operator's signature
and the sample dates and times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for
the following week's sampling event.
3.5.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for offsite analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metals analyses were stored at Battelie's ICP-MS laboratory. Samples for other water
analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up by couriers from American Analytical
Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and Belmont Labs in Englewood, OH, both of which were under
contract with Battelle for this demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the
samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived
by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of
properly thereafter.
3.6 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 QA/QC of all
methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy, method detection
limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative percent difference
[RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The QA data associated with
each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared under separate
cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the operator using a VWR
Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use in
accordance with the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for
accuracy by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The
operator collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Symphony SP90M5 probe in
the beaker until a field measurement was stable and recorded on the log sheet.
15
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Pre-existing Facility Description and Treatment System Infrastructure
The Village of Waynesville water treatment facility is a community water system (CWS) serving
approximately 452 residents. The system is supplied by two wells, i.e., Wells No. 6 and 8, typically
operating 3 to 5 and 8 to 10 hr/day, respectively, to meet the Village's average daily demand of
approximately 29,000 gal. Well No. 6 is 6-in in diameter and 156 ft deep with a static water level at
approximately 94 ft below ground surface (bgs). The well is equipped with a 7.5-horsepower (hp)
submersible pump rated for 36 gpm at 96.9 ft water (H2O) of total dynamic head (TDH) or 42 lb/in2 (psi).
Well No. 8 is 10-in in diameter and 206 ft deep with a static water level at approximately 110 ft bgs. The
well is equipped with a 5-hp submersible pump rated for 42 gpm at 124.6 ft H2O of TDH or 54 psi. The
two wells and respective pump houses are located approximately 600 ft apart. There is an additional well
at the Village, Well No. 7 (adjacent to Well No. 8); however, this well is not operational and is only used
during an emergency.
Located next to the Village Hall at 200 E. Second Street, the Well No. 6 pump house is a 24 ft x 14 ft x 8
ft structure, which houses the wellhead piping, three chemical addition systems, one 2-in totalizer, and
pressure gauges (see Figure 4-1). The pre-existing treatment included chlorination, fluoridation, and
polyphosphate addition. Chlorination was accomplished using a 12.5% NaOCl solution to maintain a
target dosage of 3.0 mg/L (as C12). Target free and total chlorine residuals as required by the state were
0.2 and 0.5 mg/L (as C12), respectively. The chlorination system consisted of a 50-gal polyethylene
chemical day tank and a 22-gpd Premier flow-paced metering pump with the speed and stroke set at 65%
and 90%, respectively. Fluoridation was carried out using a 23% hydrofluorosilic acid (H2SiF6) for a
target fluoride dosage of 0.9 to 1.2 mg/L. The system consisted of a 15-gal drum and a 3-gpd Stenner
Peristaltic pump. Polyphosphate was added using a 34.5% phosphate solution to maintain a target dosage
of 3.0 mg/L (as PO4) for iron sequestration. The polyphosphate addition system consisted of a 50-gal
polyethylene chemical day tank and a 22-gpd Premier flow-paced metering pump. The chemical pumps
are interlocked with the Well No. 6 pump.
Adjacent to the water tower, the Well No. 8 pump house isa20ftx8ftx8ft structure, which provides
shelter to the wellhead piping, three chemical addition systems, one 2-in totalizer, and pressure gauges
(see Figure 4-2). Similar to those for Well No. 6, the chemical addition systems maintained the same
target levels of chlorine, fluoride, and polyphosphate and were turned on simultaneously with the Well
No. 8 pump.
Both well pumps are controlled automatically by level sensors in the 100 ft-tall, 50,000-gal water tower
(Figure 4-3) with the high level sensor (i.e., pumps off) set at 83.88 ft or 36.36 psi and the low level
sensor (i.e., pumps on) set at 81.90 ft or 35.50 psi. The tank overflow line is at 84.14 ft or 36.47 psi.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected from both wells on December
5, 2006, when a Battelle staff member traveled with EPA to the site to attend an introductory meeting for
this demonstration project. Samples from Well No. 6 water were speciated and analyzed both onsite and
offsite for a complete set of analytes presented in Table 4-1. Samples from Well No. 8 water also were
speciated, but analyzed for only a few select analytes shown in Table 4-1.
Analytical results from the December 5, 2006, sampling event are presented in Table 4-1 and compared to
source water quality data provided by EPA for site selection and historic data collected from January 7,
2003, through December 11, 2006, by IL EPA. In general, the Battelle data are comparable to and within
the range of those provided by EPA and IL EPA.
16
-------
Figure 4-1. Well No. 6 Pump House and Pre-existing Chemical Addition Systems
Figure 4-2. Well No. 8 Pump House and Piping
17
-------
Figure 4-3. 50,000-gal Water Tower
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 9.6 to 34.0 |o,g/L for Well No. 6 and
16.0 to 40.0 |og/L for Well No. 8. Based on the December 5, 2006, speciation results, out of 28.3 and
34.6 ug/L of total arsenic, 62% and 80% of total arsenic, respectively, existed as soluble As(III),
indicating that water from both wells was reducing. This observation was supported by the low DO (1.1
to 1.4 mg/L) and ORP (-14 to 4.4 mV) readings measured onsite at Wells No. 6 and No. 8. Soluble
As(III) must be oxidized using chlorine or an alternative oxidant for more effective removal by C/F. No
prior information on arsenic speciation was available for source water from either Wells No. 6 or No. 8.
Iron and Manganese. When selecting a C/F or IR process for arsenic removal, soluble iron
concentration should be at least 20 times the soluble arsenic concentration to achieve effective treatment
results (Sorg, 2002). Based on the historical data provided by IL EPA, total iron concentrations in source
water were 340 and 3,100 (ig/L for Wells No. 6 and 8, respectively, which exceed the 300-|o,g/L SMCL
for iron. The relatively low iron concentration in Well No. 6 water might not be representative of actual
water quality since the total iron concentration measured on July 5, 2002, was 2,900 (ig/L, which is closer
to the anticipated level and comparable to that measured in Well No. 8 water.
18
-------
Table 4-1. Village of Waynesville Water Quality Data
Parameter
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)
Phosphorus (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
Mfi/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
^g/L
^g/L
HS/L
Mfi/L
HS/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
EPA
Data
03/07/06
Well
No. 6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
445
NA
NA
NA
0.02
0.01
4.0
NA
NA
0.4
20.2
0.02
0.2
<25
14
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,440
NA
16.3
NA
<25
NA
NA
51.8
96.1
49.7
Well
No. 8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
440
NA
NA
NA
0.02
0.01
3.8
NA
NA
0.3
19.1
0.04
0.3
<25
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,429
NA
19.9
NA
<25
NA
NA
41.6
93.4
50.1
Battelle
Data
12/05/06
Well
No. 6
7.0
14.0
1.1
-14
681
481
35
338
9.0
0.05
0.05
3.6
7
0.9
<1
20.1
NA
0.3
NA
28.3
21.2
7.1
17.4
3.8
2,659
2,350
18.9
18.4
O.I
0.1
0.3
59.3
103
54.0
Well
No. 8
7.2
13.6
1.4
4.4
NA
467
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
34.6
30.4
4.2
27.7
2.7
2,427
562
21.0
19.6
O.I
0.1
0.1
49.1
98.2
53.8
ILEPA
Historical Data
01/07/03-12/11/06
Well
No. 6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1-0.1
0.1
NA
NA
0.4-1.5
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.6-34.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
340(a)
NA
16
NA
<2
NA
NA
63
NA
NA
Well
No. 8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.1
NA
NA
0.4-1.5
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.0-40.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
3,100
NA
22
NA
<2
NA
NA
54
NA
NA
(a) Sample collected on July 5
IL EPA = Illinois EPA; NA =
dissolved solids; TOC = total
, 2002 indicated total iron concentration of 2,900 ug/L.
not available; NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit TDS = total
organic carbon
Based on the data collected on December 5, 2006, water from Wells No. 6 and No. 8 contained 2,659 and
2,427 |o,g/L of total iron, respectively, 88% and 23% of which existed in the soluble form. The presence
of mostly participate iron in Well No. 8 water was believed to be due to incidental aeration during
sampling. Based on the Well No. 6 data, the soluble iron concentration was 110 times the soluble arsenic
concentration. This soluble iron to soluble arsenic ratio was favorable to the planned C/F process
utilizing indigenous iron for arsenic removal. EPA data indicate total iron concentrations of 2,440 and
19
-------
2,429 |og/L in Wells No. 6 and No. 8 water, respectively, which are similar to Battelle's results (although
EPA data do not include soluble iron concentrations).
Based on the December 5, 2006, data, total manganese concentrations for Wells No. 6 and 8 were 18.9
and 21.0 |o,g/L, respectively, existing almost entirely in the soluble form. Total manganese results
collected by Battelle are consistent with those provided by both EPA and IL EPA. All manganese
concentrations were below its SMCL of 50 |o,g/L.
Ammonia and TOC. Source water contained high levels of ammonia (3.6 to 4.0 mg/L [as N]) and high
levels of TOC (9.0 mg/L [as C]). If chlorine is used as the oxidant, chlorine will react with ammonia to
form mono- and di-chloramines (or combined chlorine) at a 5:1 chlorine (as C12) to ammonia (as N) ratio.
To reach the breakpoint chlorination, the ratio will increase to approximately 7.6:1. To achieve the state-
required free chlorine residual level of 0.2 mg/L (as C12), approximately 30.6 mg/L of chlorine (as C12)
would be needed to react with reduced metals (i.e., soluble As[III], Fe[II], and Mn[II]) and ammonia,
specifically:
• 1.5 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) to react with 17.4 (ig/L of soluble As(III), 2,350 (ig/L of
soluble Fe(II), and 18.4 (ig/L of soluble Mn(II) (see Table 4-1),
• 28.9 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) to completely oxidize an average of 3.8 mg/L of ammonia
(as N) at the breaking point, and
• 0.2 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) to provide the required 0.2 mg/L of free chlorine residual.
The use of 30.6 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) not only adds to the chemical cost, but also exceeds the
maximum residual disinfectant level (MRDL) and maximum residual disinfectant level goal (MRDLG) of
4 mg/L (as C12) as stipulated in the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA, 1998).
Therefore, it would not be practical or regulatorily acceptable to apply breakpoint chlorination to the
source water containing highly elevated ammonia. Less chlorine used would ensure formation of only
combined chlorine, which is known to be less effective in oxidizing soluble As(III) (Chen et al., 2009b;
Ghurye and Clifford, 2001) and even soluble Fe(II) (Chen et al., 2009b; Valigore et al., 2008; Vikesland
and Valentine, 2002). Combined chlorine also is not effective in reacting with TOC to form DBFs
(Bougeard et al., 2010; Amy et al., 1984).
Due to the fact that combined chlorine is a less effective oxidant, NaMnO4 was proposed to be the
oxidant. A series of jar tests was conducted onsite to verify the chemistry of combined chlorine (as
discussed above) and determine optimal KMnO4 dosage.
Although the use of KMnO4as an oxidant circumvents some of the issues associated with NaOCl, it too
presents its own set of unique challenges, which can affect the quality of finished water. First, KMnO4 in
sufficient concentrations will impart a pink color to treated water; this color subsides as KMnO4 is
reduced to MnO2. Another potential issue is an increase in manganese concentration in finished water.
As MnO4" is reduced, it is transformed to solid MnO2, which can be removed by the GreensandPlus™
filters at the expense of longer filter run lengths. Manganese dioxide, however, does not always
precipitate in a size fraction that is readily filterable. Studies conducted by Battelle suggest that in the
presence of elevated TOC, MnO2 is primarily precipitated in the colloidal size fraction (Shiao et al.,
2009), which is too small to be removed by filtration (Pellitier, 2010). (For the purposes of the current
study, all particulates able to pass through 0.45-um filters are considered part of the soluble fraction).
Knocke et al al. (1990) defines colloidal particles as those passing through 0.20-um filters and requiring
ultrafiltration for removal. In the Battelle study, it was found that increasing KMnO4 dosage can promote
the formation of larger MnO2 particles, which are then able to be removed by traditional filtration.
20
-------
Therefore, on the one hand, KMnO4 dose must be kept minimal to avoid water coloration and elevated
manganese in the finished water; on the other hand, KMnO4 must be added in sufficient dose to oxidize
soluble As(III) and soluble Fe(II) while still imparting sufficient oxidant to form filterable-size fractions
ofMnO2.
Competing Ions. Arsenic removal via iron removal potentially can be affected by the presence of silica
and phosphorus in raw water. Silica concentrations ranged from 19.1 to 20.1 mg/L (as SiO2). Silica can
be removed by iron solids and iron-based AM, thus affecting arsenic removal (see the review in the final
performance evaluation report for the LEADS Head Start Building demonstration project in Buckeye
Lake, OH [Chen et al., 201 la]). Phosphorus concentrations ranged from 0.04 to 0.3 mg/L (as PO4) with
up to 0.04 mg/L (as PO4) existing as orthophosphate. Significantly elevated phosphorus concentrations
and its removal by iron solids also were observed at a number of arsenic demonstration sites, including
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park in Sauk Centre, MN (Shiao et al., 2009), Hot Springs Mobile Home
Park in Willard, UT (Wang et al., 2011), City of Stewart in MN (Condit et al., 2009), and Town of
Arnaudville, LA (Chen et al., 201 Ib). Therefore, the effects of silica and phosphorus on arsenic removal
were closely monitored during the performance evaluation study.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Data collected by Battelle indicate a near neutral pH of 7.0 and 7.2 for
Wells No. 6 and 8, respectively, which are well within the acceptable target range of 5.5 to 8.5 for arsenic
removal. Total alkalinity concentration was 681 mg/L (as CaCO3); total hardness concentrations ranged
from 440 to 481 mg/L (as CaCO3); turbidity level was 35 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU); TDS level
was 338 mg/L; vanadium ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 (ig/L; sodium ranged from 41.6 to 63.0 mg/L; and
sulfate ranged from > 1 to 0.4 mg/L. All other analytes were below detection limits and/or anticipated to
be low enough not to adversely affect the treatment process.
4.1.2 Distribution System. The distribution system in the Village of Waynesville has 214
connections served by both Wells No. 6 and 8. Based on the information provided by the facility
operator, the distribution system material is comprised of % to 6-in diameter cast iron pipe. As stated in
Section 3.3.4, three residences within the Village's historic LCR network were selected for baseline and
monthly distribution system water sampling to evaluate the effect of the treatment system on the
distribution system water quality.
The Village collects water samples periodically from the distribution system, including monthly for
bacterial analysis; quarterly for total arsenic; yearly for nitrate and nitrite; once every three years for LCR,
inorganics, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), DBFs, and radionuclides for Well No. 8 water only;
once every six years for radionuclides for Well No. 6 water; and once every nine years for pesticides.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
This section provides a technology description and site-specific details of the Peerless filtration system
using GreensandPlus™ media with an anthracite cap demonstrated at the Village of Waynesville, IL.
4.2.1 Technology Description. The Peerless filtration system uses GreensandPlus™ media with an
anthracite cap for arsenic removal from drinking water supplies. Manufactured by Inversand Company,
GreensandPlus™ has a silica sand core with a thermally-bonded manganese dioxide (MnO2) coating,
which is slightly different from the conventional manganese greensand, which is formulated from a
glauconite greensand (with a process using IX properties of stabilized glauconite substrate to form an
active MnO2 coating). However, both media exhibit similar properties for water treatment purposes.
According to the vendor, the performance of GreensandPlus™ is expected to exceed that of the
conventional manganese greensand because of its silica core, which is much harder than the glauconite
greensand and can withstand greater pressure drops. The vendor also claims that GreensandPlus™ is not
21
-------
as prone to manganese stripping due to the thermal bonding process of MnO2to its silica core. The media
has NSF International (NSF) Standard 61 approval for use in drinking water applications. Table 4-2
presents physical and operational properties of GreensandPlus™ and the anthracite cap.
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of Filtration Media
Parameter
Media
Anthracite0
GreensandPlus™00
Black, dry, crushed granules
Black, dry nodular granules
Color and Physical Form
Specific Gravity
1.6
-2.4
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
1.4
Porosity
NA
-0.45
Mesh Size (U.S. Standard)
14 x30
18 x60
Effective Size (mm)
0.6-0.8
0.30-0.35
Uniformity Coefficient
Moisture Content (%
<2.0
NA
pH Range
NA
6.2-8.5
Maximum Temperature
NA
No limit
Service Loading Rate (gpm/ft)
>5
2-12
Backwash Rate (gpm/ft )
12-18
Minimum 12 at 55 °F
NA = not available
(a) http://www.clackcorp.com/water/pdf/anthracite_2354.pdf
(b) http://www.inversand.com/product.htm
The conventional manganese greensand has been used effectively for iron and manganese removal from
source water for decades. Applicable removal mechanisms involved oxidation of soluble Fe(II) and
Mn(II) to iron and manganese solids (as Fe2O3/Fe[OH]3 and MnO2) and filtration and subsequent removal
of accumulated solids from the greensand filter via backwash (Ficek, 1994). Meanwhile, the MnO2
coating on manganese greensand (in the VI oxidation state) is reduced to manganese oxide (Mn2O3) in the
III oxidation state. As it loses its oxidation capacity, the media is typically regenerated with KMnO4 or
NaOCl to restore its oxidation potential. The regeneration can be conducted either intermittently or
continuously. Continuous regeneration continuously feeds KMnO4 or NaOCl to the water to be treated by
the media. In doing so, most, if not all, of soluble Fe(II) and Mn(II) would have been oxidized before the
water is even in contact with manganese greensand. Therefore, the greensand would function only as a
filtration media such as silica sand for gravity filtration.
When soluble As(III) also exists in source water (like Wells No. 6 and No. 8 water), soluble As(III) is
oxidized to form soluble As(V), which is adsorbed onto and/or co-precipitated with iron solids also
formed during the oxidation process. Arsenic-laden iron solids then are filtered by the greensand filter.
Effective arsenic removal by chemical oxidation and greensand filtration has been demonstrated
previously by various researchers (Magyar, 1992; Ficek, 1994; Pedersen, 2001) and at Licking Valley
22
-------
High School in Newark, OH by Battelle (Chen et al., 201 la). Under the arsenic demonstration project,
the process of chlorination and GreensandPlus™ filtration also was evaluated at Conneaut Lake Park in
Conneaut Lake, PA (Chen et al., 201 Ic).
4.2.2 System Design and Treatment Process. The treatment process demonstrated at the Village
of Waynesville consisted of NaMnO4 oxidation and GreensandPlus™ filtration. A new 22 ft x 34 ft
water treatment facility, located adjacent to Well No. 8 and the water tower, was constructed to house the
treatment system. After treatment, treated water was stored in the water tower before entering the
distribution system. Figure 4-4 is a generalized flow diagram of the treatment process including sampling
locations and parameters analyzed during the demonstration period. Table 4-3 presents key system
design parameters. The major components of the treatment process include:
• Intake. Raw water from Wells No. 6 and No. 8 was fed directly to the treatment system
without being exposed to air. From system startup on July 15, 2009, through December 17,
2009, only Well No. 8 water was pumped to the treatment system at an average flowrate of
40.5 gpm, when work to synchronize the operation of Wells No. 6 with Well No. 8 was being
completed. Activities included plumbing the raw water line from Well No. 6 to a common
header with the raw water line for Well No. 8 and associated electrical connections. Upon
completion of the work on December 18, 2009, combined raw water from Wells No. 6 and
No. 8 was pumped to the treatment plant at an average flowrate of 84.4 gpm for the
remainder of the performance evaluation study.
• Sodium Permanganate Addition. Liquid NaMnO4 was preferred by the Village over
KMnO4due to ease of handling. The NaMnO4 addition system consisted of a 0.58-gal/hr
(gph) LMI Milton Roy electronic metering pump (Model AA 941-358HI), a Digi-Pulse™
flow monitor (to transmit and monitor pulsating flow from the pump), a 50-gal, straight-sided
polyethylene day tank, and an overhead mixer. A 20.0% NaMnO4 stock solution was
transferred from a 55-gal drum to the day tank using a manual crank pump. Tubing was used
to deliver the NaMnO4 solution from the day tank to an injection port located approximately
5 ft downstream of the raw water sampling location (IN). The speed and stroke of the
chemical metering pump were set for a target dose rate of 6.0 mg/L (as NaMnO4) based on
results of the jar tests as discussed in Section 4.5.2. The NaMnO4 addition system was
synchronized with the operation of the well pumps. The chemical consumption was
monitored daily using volumetric markings on the day tank. A low-level sensor was installed
in the day tank to ensure proper chemical supplies. Figure 4-5 is a photograph of the
NaMnO4 addition system.
• Anthracite/GreensandPlus™ Filtration. The 96-gpm anthracite/GreensandPlus™ filtration
system consisted of four 36-in x 72-in, 100 psi-rated carbon steel vessels coated with an
epoxy interior lining (see Figure 4-6). The vessels were configured in parallel to allow both
Well No. 6 and No. 8 to operate at a combined flowrate of 78 gpm. Each vessel was loaded
with 6 ft3 of quartz support gravel, which was overlain with 14 ft3 of GreensandPlus™ and 7
ft3 of #1 anthracite for a respective bed depth of 24 and 12 in. Interconnected with 2-in
ductile iron pipe, the vessels were equipped with five motor-actuated butterfly valves, which
made up the valve tree as shown in Figure 4-6. To monitor system operations, the treatment
system and individual vessels were equipped with flow meter/totalizers and pressure gauges
(Figure 4-7). Table 4-4 presents technical specifications of each flow meter/totalizer and
pressure gauge.
23
-------
INFLUENT
(WELLS No. 6 AND No. 8)0)
1st Week of 4-Week Cvcle
pH, temperature^, DO/ORP,
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
F, NH3, N03, S04, Si02, P (total),
TOC, turbidity, and alkalinity
pH«, temperature^, DO/ORP,
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
F, NH3, N03, S04, Si02, P (total),
TOC, turbidity, and alkalinity
pH, TDS, TSS,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
and Mn (total and
soluble)
pH, temperature^, DO/ORP, •
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
F, NH3, N03, S04, Si02, P (total),
TOC, turbidity, and alkalinity
Village of Waynesville, IL
Peerless Anthracite/Greensand Plus™
Filtration System
Design Flow Rate: 96 gpm
3rd Week of 4-Week Cvcle'b>
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total), NH3,
SiO2, P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total), NH3,
SiO2, P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total), NH3,
SiO2, P (total), turbidity, and alkalinity
WATER TOWER
(50,000 GAL)
Footnote
(a) See exception in Section 4.2.2.
(b) See exception in Section 3.3.2.
(c) On-site analyses.
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
LEGEND
Influent Raw Water
After Chemical
Oxidation
After Individual
Tanks (TA-TD)
After Tanks A-D
Combined
Sodium Permanganate
Backwash Flow
Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
24
-------
Table 4-3. Design Features of Peerless Anthracite/GreensandPlus Filtration System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Oxidation
NaMnO4 Target Dose Rate
(mg/L as NaMnO4)
6.0-7.0
Based on jar test results
Anthracite/GreensandPlus™ Filtration
No. of Vessels
Configuration
Vessel Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/vessel)
Media Depth (in/vessel)
Media Volume (ft3/vessel)
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Design Filtration Rate (gpm/ft2)
Ap Setpoint for Backwash (psi)
Backwash Frequency
Backwash Flowrate (gpm/vessel)
Backwash Duration (min/vessel)
Backwash Rate (gpm/ft2)
Media Bed Expansion (%)
Fast Rinse Flowrate (gpm/vessel)
Fast Rinse Duration (min/vessel)
Total Wastewater Production
(gal/vessel)
4
Parallel
36 D x 72 H
7.1
12 (#1 Anthracite)
24 (GreensandPlus™)
7 (#1 Anthracite)
14 (GreensandPlus™)
96
3.4
8
Every 3 days
85
8
12
40
-80
2
840
-
-
66 in side shell
-
—
—
24 gpm/vessel
-
Vessels backwashed sequentially
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
Post- Treatment
Chlorination Target Dose Rate
(mg/L [as C12])
Fluoridation Target Dose Rate (mg/L)
Polyphosphate Target Dose Rate (mg/L)
1.75
0.35
1.1
With a 12.5% NaOCl solution
With a 19% H2SiF6 solution
With a 34.5% Aqua Mag® solution
The motor actuated butterfly valves were controlled by an Allen-Bradley MicroLogix 1100
programmable logic controller (PLC) with an 8-in, C-more® EA7-T8C color touch panel (see
Figure 4-7). In addition, the system had four manual butterfly valves at vessel inlets to divert
incoming flow into each of the four vessels and four manual butterfly valves on treated
effluent lines. The system also had a manual butterfly valve on the backwash line.
Based on the design flowrate to the treatment system, the filtration rate to each vessel was 3.4
gpm/ft2, which is somewhat higher than the 10-state standard of 2 to 3 gpm/ft2. The
combined flowrate from both Wells No. 6 and No. 8 was lower than the design flowrate at
approximately 76 gpm, equivalent to a filtration rate of 2.7 gpm/ft2. IL EPA recommended
during the project planning meeting that the system's filtration rate be kept within the 10-
state standard of 2 to 3 gpm/ft2.
• Filter Backwash. Filter backwash was accomplished using well water supplemented with
the treated water from the water tower. Backwash can be automatically triggered by a
differential pressure (Ap), a time, or a throughput setpoint. During the performance
evaluation study, the treatment system was set to backwash every three days with the four
vessels backwashed sequentially starting with Vessel A. From system startup through July
19, 2010, backwash for each vessel lasted for 8 min at a flowrate of 85 gpm/vessel.
Backwash was followed by a filter to waste fast rinse for 2 min at a flowrate of over
25
-------
Figure 4-5. NaMnO4 Addition System
Figure 4-6. Filtration Vessels and Valve Tree
26
-------
Figure 4-7. System Instrumentation
(Clockwise from Top Left: System Effluent Pressure Gauge, System Effluent Flow
Meter/Totalizer, System Influent Flow Meter/Totalizer, andPLC)
Table 4-4. Specifications of Flow Meters/Totalizers and Pressure Gauges
Equipment
Master
Totalizers
Flow Meters/
Totalizers
Pressure
Gauges
Location
Well No. 6 Wellhead
Well No. 8 Wellhead
System Inlet
Vessels A/B/C/D
Inlet
System Outlet
Backwash Discharge
System Inlet/Outlet
Vessels A/B/C/D
Inlet/Outlet
Brand
Neptune
Unknown
ABB, MagMaster
LoFlo
Sparling,
TigermagEP™
Trerice
Type
Turbine
Turbine
Electromagnetic
Electromagnetic
!/4-inNPT
Bottom
Connection
Specifications
2 in
2-in totalizer removed when
pump house was taken down and
piping re-routed to new facility
MFE101341101004ER; 4 in with
a 0-100 gpm flow range
FM626-02-8-1-0-0-0; 2 in with a
9-303 gpm flow range
FM626-03-8-1-0-0-0; 3 in with a
20-664 gpm flow range
700LFSS4002LA110;316
stainless steel with glycerin-filled
dial
80 gpm/vessel. Because of several operational issues as discussed in Section 4.4.2, the
backwash duration was increased to 12 min/vessel with the same flowrate and the rinse
duration was increased to 4 min/vessel with a significantly lower rinse flowrate of
approximately 24 gpm/vessel. The wastewater produced was discharged via two 2,000-gal
septic tanks in series with the first tank for particulate settling and the second tank for
discharge to sewer. The Village's sewer system has adequate reserved capacities for such
27
-------
discharge and the Village was granted approval from IL EPA for backwash wastewater
discharge.
Post-Treatment Chemical Additions. The pre-existing chemical addition systems for
chlorination (using NaOCl), fluoridation (using H2SiF6), and iron sequestration (using
polyphosphate) were replaced with new addition systems housed in the new treatment plant
building. Lines were re-routed to new injection points after the treatment system.
Each chemical addition system consisted of a LMIAA971 metering pump with a maximum
flowrate of 0.42 gph, a 1000-mL calibration chamber, a Nalgene 2.5-gal carboy day tank, a
Scaletron™ Model 2310 scale with digital read-out, and a 15-gal Chemtainer BP series bulk
storage tank with stand. Solutions of NaOCl (12.5%), H2SiF6 (19%), and Aqua Mag®
(34.5%) were diluted to 6%, 1.6%, and 4.93%, respectively. On a daily basis, the operator
prepared each diluted solution in the 2.5-gal day tank by adding a concentrate from a 15-gal
bulk storage tank to a specific level marked on each day tank via a spring-loaded transfer
valve. The concentrate was then diluted with treated and softened water to another marked
level on the day tank to achieve the desired concentration. The speed on each metering pump
was set to 45, while the stroke was adjusted based on the flowrate to the treatment system to
achieve the target chlorine (as C12), fluoride, and polyphosphate dosages of 1.75, 0.35, and
1.10 mg/L, respectively.
During the demonstration period, the post-treatment chemical addition systems were
synchronized with the operation of the well pumps. Chemical consumption was monitored
by recording the weight (Ib) on a daily basis from each of the three digital scales, which held
the 2.5-gal carboy day tank. Figure 4-8 is a photograph of relevant chemical addition system
components.
Figure 4-8. Post-Treatment Chemical Addition Systems
(Clockwise from Top Left: Calibration Chamber and Metering Pump,
Scaletron Digital Display, and Bulk Tank and Day Tank)
28
-------
• Water Storage. After chemical additions, water was sent to the 100 ft-tall, 50,000-gal water
tower for storage. The Well No. 6 and 8 well pumps turned on and off at 81.90 and 83.88 ft
(or 35.50 and 36.36 psi), respectively. The head difference (i.e., 1.98 ft of water in the tower)
corresponds to approximately 5,040 gal of water. From the water tower, treated water was
either sent through to the distribution system or used for backwashing the filtration vessels.
4.3 System Installation
Installation and shakedown of the treatment system were completed by Crawford, Murphy & Tilly, Inc.
(CMT Engineering) and G.A. Rich & Sons, Inc. (G.A. Rich) on May 8 and June 15, 2009, respectively.
The following subsections summarize pre-demonstration study activities including permitting, building
construction, and system offloading, installation, shakedown, and startup.
4.3.1 Permitting. Engineering plans and a permit application package were prepared by CMT
Engineering, an engineering subcontractor to Peerless. The plans/package included a process flow
diagram of the treatment system, mechanical drawings of the equipment, and a schematic of the
equipment layout and were submitted to IL EPA on October 23, 2008. IL EPA approved the plans and
issued a permit to the Village of Waynesville on January 9, 2009.
4.3.2 Building Construction. A new 22 ft x 34 ft water treatment facility, located adjacent to
Well No. 8 and the water tower, was funded by the Village of Waynesville to house the new chemical
addition and treatment systems. The building construction plan and permit application were prepared and
submitted to IL EPA by CMT Engineering. IL EPA approved the plan and issued a permit to construct
on January 22, 2008. Construction was performed by G.A. Rich from September 22, 2008, through April
30, 2009. In preparation for the new facility, the south end of the Village pavilion was removed so that
the building foundation could be formed at the site. Figure 4-9 presents photographs of the new facility in
several stages of construction and Figure 4-10 presents the layout of the new facility with the chemical
addition and treatment systems.
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. Treatment system components along with quartz
support gravel, GreensandPlus™, and #1 anthracite arrived at the site on February 17, 2009. Figure 4-11
shows photographs of system component arrival and offloading. Installation of the treatment system
began immediately after arrival by G.A. Rich. Activities included placing, anchoring, and plumbing of
the four non-skid-mounted filtration vessels; placing and installation of the chemical addition systems
(both pre- and post-treatment), and electrical connections. System installation was completed on May 8,
2009. Figure 4-12 shows photographs of the four filtration vessels immediately following offloading and
after plumbing. Each vessel was hydrostatic tested at 130 psi in the vertical position prior to shipment
and certified by the manufacturer, Quick Tanks, Inc. of Kendallville, IN.
From May 8 through 13, 2009, approximately 6 ft3 of quartz support gravel (including 2 ft3 each of 1A x
%, #4, and #5), 14 ft3 of GreensandPlus™, and 7 ft3 of #1 anthracite were loaded sequentially into each
filtration vessel and then backwashed at approximately 60 gpm/vessel to remove media fines. Freeboard
measurements were made both before and after backwashing (see Table 4-5). Because freeboards were
not measured following loading of support gravel, depths to gravel were estimated based on volumes of
bottom domes and the straight shell-portion of the vessels. As shown in Table 4-5, average bed depths of
GreensandPlus™ and #1 anthracite before backwashing were 17.4 and 11.4 in, respectively, equivalent to
10.3 and 6.8 ft3, respectively. Following backwashing, 0.1 to 0.9 ft3 of media was lost from each of the
four filtration vessels. Except for Vessel A, the amounts of media lost were within the margin of errors.
Because it could not be sure what (and how much) media was lost during backwashing, the media
volumes obtained before backwashing were used for the following discussions.
29
-------
Figure 4-9. Construction of New Treatment Plant Building
(Clockwise from Top: Concrete Forms for Building Foundation; Building Concrete Foundation;
Completion of Building Walls and Roof; and Completed Water Treatment Plant Building)
While the average bed depth and volume of anthracite were comparable to the design values of 12 in and
7 ft3, respectively, the average bed depth and volume of GreensandPlus™ were significantly less than the
design values of 24 in and 14 ft3, respectively. According to the vendor, 28 0.5-ft3 bags of
GreensandPlus™ and seven 1.0-ft3 bags of #1 anthracite were loaded into each filtration vessel. Because
freeboards to the top of gravel support were not measured, the 17.4 in and 10.3 ft3 GreensandPlus™ bed
depth and volume were considered inaccurate. Therefore, for the purpose of discussions, 24 in and 14 ft3
were used as the GreensandPlus™ bed depth and volume, respectively.
Following backwashing, hydraulic testing was performed using a forward flow. At 24 gpm, no pressure
loss was observed across Vessels B, C, and D. A 4-psi loss, however, was observed, but was linked later
to a malfunctioning pressure gauge at the exit side of the vessel during a site visit by Battelle staff
members on July 15, 2009. The result of a Bac-T sample taken after backwashing came back positive,
prompting a decision to collect a separate Bac-T sample after the NaMnO4 addition system became
operational.
30
-------
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
Figure 4-10. Layout of New Treatment Facility
-------
Figure 4-11. Arrival and Offloading of System Components
(Top: Arrival of System Components on Flatbed; Clockwise from Left: Offloading of
Filtration Vessels into Treatment Plant Building)
Figure 4-12. Filtration Vessels Before and After Plumbing
32
-------
Table 4-5. Freeboard Measurements During System Installation
Measurements
To Top of Gravel (in)
Vessel A
61
Vessel B
61
Vessel C
61
Vessel D
61
GreensandPlus™ (Before Backwash)
To Top of GreensandPlus™ (in)
GreensandPlus™ Bed Depth (in)
GreensandPlus™ Volume (ft3)
43.5
17.5
10.3
43.8
17.2
10.2
43.5
17.5
10.3
43.5
17.5
10.3
#1 Anthracite (Before Backwash)
To Top of #1 Anthracite (in)
#1 Anthracite Bed Depth (in)
#1 Anthracite Volume (ft3)
32.0
11.5
6.8
32.3
11.5
6.8
32.3
11.2
6.6
32.0
11.5
6.8
After Backwash
To Top of Anthracite (in)
Bed Depth Loss (in)
Volume Loss (ft3)
Total Volume Loss (ft3)
33.5
1.5
0.9
33.0
0.7
0.4
32.5
0.2
0.1
32.5
0.5
0.3
1.7
On June 15, 2009, Peerless was onsite to perform preliminary startup services. Activities included
working with CMT Engineering and G.A. Rich to install the NaMnO4 addition system and performing
GreensandPlus™ media conditioning using 6.0 to 7.0 mg/L NaMnO4. Afterwards, another Bac-T sample
was collected and the results were negative. After the vendor's visit, CMT Engineering and G.A. Rich
worked to finish the installation and shakedown of the pre-treatment (i.e., NaMnO4) and post-treatment
chemical addition systems (i.e., chlorine, fluoride, and polyphosphate). All chemical addition systems
were operational by July 8, 2009, and the performance evaluation study began on July 15, 2009.
On July 15, 2009, two Battelle staff members visited the facility to inspect the system and provide sample
and data collection training to the operator. During inspections, several installation/operational issues
were noted. Table 4-6 summarizes punch-list items, corrective actions taken, and resolution date after the
system inspection.
Table 4-6. System Punch-List Operational Issues
Item
No.
1
2
o
J
4
5
Punch-List/
Operational Issues
Chemical day tank for NaMnO4 addition
system required by IL EPA
No graduated markings on NaMnO4
chemical tank
Effluent pressure gauge on Vessel A not
working properly (low readings)
Rinse flowrate through each vessel not
known
pH probe with temperature compensation
for field meter not functioning properly
Corrective Action Taken
IL EPA determined that the tank was not
necessary upon further investigation
Replaced original tank with a 50-gal,
straight-sided polyethylene tank with
graduated markings to more accurately
measure chemical consumption
Replaced malfunctioning pressure gauge by
operator
Conducted flow test to determine rinse
flowrate to be >80 gpm per vessel;
decreased flowrate to ~24 gpm
Replaced malfunctioning probe with a new
probe
Resolution
Date
NA
10/20/09
08/26/09
07/20/10
Immediately
NA = not applicable
33
-------
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. Operational data were collected during the period of July 15,
2009, through September 19, 2010, and are attached as Appendix A after tabulation. Table 4-7
summarizes key operational parameters.
Table 4-7. Summary of System Operational Parameters
Operational Parameter
Duration
No. of Days System in Operation
Average Daily Run Time (hr/day)(a)
Total Operating Time (hr)(b)
Throughput at System Inlet (gal)(c)
Throughput at System Outlet (gal)(c)
Throughput through Vessels (gal)(c)
Instantaneous Flowrate (gpm)
Filtration Rate (gpm/ft2)
Operational Pressures (psi)
Value/Condition
07/15/09-09/19/10
156 (Well No. 6 only from 07/15/09 through 12/17/09)
276 (Wells No. 6 and No. 8 from 12/18/09 through 09/19/10)
11.8 (With Well No. 6 only)
5.8 (With Wells No. 6 and No. 8)
1,840 (With Well No. 6 only)
1,601 (With Wells No. 6 and No. 8)
13,562,200
12,603,800
Vessel
A
B
C
D
System
Vessel
A
B
C
D
System(e)
Vessel
A
B
C
D
Vessel
A
B
C
D
System
Throughput
3,425,390
3,414,210
3,464,390
3,294,210
13,598,200
Ranse(d) Averase(d)
8.4-21.5/19.9-22.7 11 .4/21.7
9.3-21.7/21.2-23.2 11 .4/22.0
9.5-22.0/21.0-23.8 11.6/22.5
7.8-22.0/20.3-24.2 11.0/22.0
32.9-45.6/81.7-88.1 40.5/84.4
Ranse(d) Averase(d)
1.2-3.0/2.8-3.2 1.6/3.1
1.3-3.1/3.0-3.3 1.6/3.1
1.3-3.1/3.0-3.4 1.6/3.2
1.1-3.1/2.9-3.4 1.6/3.2
Inlet™ Outlet™
37(35-46) 36(31-38)
38 (34-46) 37 (35-47)
37 (34-45) 37 (35-42)
37 (34-46) 38 (35-43)
34 (32-38) 37 (30-39)
2 (0-13)
1 (0-5)
1(0-4)
2(0-6)
3 (0-5)
(a) Estimated based on volume throughput, total operating days, and average flowrate of respective
operating period.
(b) Estimated based on average daily run time and total operating days of respective operating period.
(c) Based on readings of flow meters/totalizers shown in Table 4-4.
(d) Data before "/" for flowrate readings with only Well No. 6 in operation; data after"/" for flowrate
readings with both wells in operation.
(e) Flowrate readings at system outlet.
(f) Data shown including average and range (in parentheses).
34
-------
As noted in Section 4.2.2, since system startup through December 17, 2009, Well No. 6 was the only well
in operation and it was not until December 18, 2009, that raw water from both Wells No. 6 and No. 8 was
supplied to the treatment system. The system operated for a total of 1,840 hr when only Well No. 6 was
in operation, and for 1,601 hr when both wells were in operation. These total operating times were
estimated based on average daily run times (i.e., 11.8 and 5.8 hr, respectively) and number of days (i.e.,
156 and 276 days, respectively) when the system was in operation. The average daily run times were
estimated based on the system effluent volume throughput (i.e., 12,603,800 gal) and average flowrates
(i.e. 40.5 and 84.4 gpm, respectively) as recorded by the flow meter/totalizer installed at the exit side of
the system.
Throughputs recorded at the system inlet and outlet were 13,562,200 and 12,603,800 gal, with the inlet
totalizer registering approximately 7.6% more flow than the outlet totalizer. Throughputs to individual
filtration vessels ranged from 3,294,210 to 3,464,390 gal, indicating balanced flow through the four
vessels. The total amount of water treated by the four filters was 13,598,200 gal, very close to the
throughput value registered by the system inlet totalizer.
Based on readings taken from the system outlet totalizer, daily water demands ranged from 13,380 to
53,900 gal and averaged 29,217 gal, compared to the Village's average daily demand of approximately
29,000 gal provided by the operator prior to the performance evaluation study.
Instantaneous flowrates through the four filtration vessels ranged from 7.8 to 22.0 gpm and averaged 11.4
with Well No. 6 only, and from 19.9 to 24.2 gpm and averaged 22.1 gpm with both wells. Flowrates
through the system ranged from 32.9 to 45.6 gpm and averaged 40.5 gpm with Well No. 6 only and from
81.7 to 88.1 gpm and averaged 84.4 gpm with both wells. The 84.4 gpm flow yielded a filtration rate of
3.2 gpm/ft2, just above the 2 to 3 gpm/ft2 range of the 10-state standard.
Inlet pressure readings to individual filtration vessels ranged from 34 to 46 psi and averaged 37 psi, which
is similar to the average system inlet pressure of 34 psi. Vessel outlet pressure readings ranged from 31 to
47 psi and averaged 37 psi, identical to the average system outlet pressure. These inlet and outlet pressure
readings reflected low pressure drops across all filtration vessels throughout the performance evaluation
study, indicating adequate filter backwashing and frequency during system operations.
4.4.2 Backwash. The four filtration vessels were backwashed once every three days except during
the first week of system operation when only one backwash event took place in the week and on March 3,
June 25, and July 20, 2010, when backwash occurred either one day late or repeatedly the day after
another backwash. In July 2010, the operator reported "yellow" and "pink" effluent during filter-to-waste
rinse (although these issues could not be substantiated by Battelle), which prompted adjustments to the
backwash and rinse duration from 8 to 12 min and from 2 to 4 min, respectively, on July 20, 2010.
Meanwhile, it was brought to CMT Engineering and Battelle's attention that an excessively high flowrate
(>80 gpm) was applied to each of the four filtration vessels during fast rinse and a joint decision was
made to reduce the fast rinse flowrate to 24 gpm, the design filtration flowrate through each filtration
vessel.
As shown in Table 4-8, from system startup through July 19, 2010, the system was backwashed 123
times, generating, on average, 3,100 gal of wastewater per backwash event. After backwash/fast rinse
duration and fast rinse flowrate adjustments, the system was backwashed 21 times, generating, on
average, 4,226 gal of wastewater per backwash event. These average amounts were very close to the
would-be values of 3,360 and 4,464 gal, respectively, based on the set backwash/fast rinse durations and
flowrates. The total amount of wastewater produced was 470,000 gal, equivalent to 3.7% of the total
amount of water treated during the performance evaluation study.
35
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of System Backwash Parameters
Parameter
Total Number of Backwash
Backwash Frequency
Backwash Duration (min/vessel)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm/vessel)
Fast Rinse Duration (min/vessel)
Fast Rinse Flowrate (gpm/vessel)
Amount of Wastewater Produced
per Backwash Event (gal)
From 07/15/09
Through 07/19/10
123
Every 3 days
8
85
2
>80
3,100
(2,680-3,820)
From 07/20/10
Through 09/19/10
21
Every 3 days
12
85
4
24
4,226
(4,190-4,280)
(a) Except for three events during the first week of system operation and on 03/03/10
and 06/25/10.
(b) Except for one event on 07/20/10 (with a repeat backwash on the day after).
4.4.3 NaMnO4 Injection. Figure 4-13 presents NaMnO4 dosage applied to the treatment system
during the performance evaluation study. NaMnO4 dose rates ranged from 2.9 to 14.6 mg/L and averaged
6.9 mg/L (as NaMnO4). This average dose rate was twice the target dose rate of 3.4 mg/L (as NaMnO4)
determined by the jar tests. No pink color was observed by the operator or reported by customers.
NaMnO4 Dosage
07/06/09 08/20/09 10/04/09 11/18/09 01/02/10 02/16/10 04/02/10 05/17/10 07/01/10 08/15/10 09/29/10
Figure 4-13. NaMnO4 Dosage
36
-------
4.4.4 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the Peerless anthracite/GreensandPlus™
filtration system included both backwash and rinse wastewater containing arsenic-laden iron particles.
The wastewater was discharged to a sump, which emptied by gravity into the two 2,000-gal septic tanks
in series. IL EPA issued a permit to the Village on November 26, 2007, to discharge the wastewater to
the sanitary sewer system.
After the demonstration period on November 11, 2010, and April 21, 2011, sludge accumulated in the
septic tanks was pumped and transported by Morris Septic of Rock Falls, IL to the Clinton Sanitary
District for disposal.
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. There was no downtime for the treatment
system throughout the performance evaluation period. However, the system experienced a few
operational issues, which, along with the corrective actions taken, are described below.
On November 11, 2009, the backwash flow meter/totalizer registered a reading that was much higher than
the would-be value of approximately 3,100 gal per backwash event. After discussing with the equipment
vendor, it was discovered that the flow meter/totalizer continued to register even when the system was not
being backwashed. On December 9, 2009, a Peerless engineer re-programmed the flow meter/totalizer,
which operated properly thereafter.
On January 25, February 24, March 23, 2010, and June 15, 2010, treatment plant sampling results showed
abnormally high levels of fluoride (from 6.0 to 16.9 mg/L) and phosphorus (from 4,008 to 6,627 |o,g/L [as
P]) at the TT location, which were located within 2 ft from the down-gradient post-treatment chemical
addition points. Bleeding of post treatment chemicals when there was no process flow was thought to
have caused the problem. However, this might not be the sole cause of the high concentrations when it
was discovered that post-treatment chemical additions were triggered by the well pumps. Due to the
small capacity of the elevated distribution system storage tank, the well pumps turned on during
backwash to augment backwash water. This caused the treated water to be double-dosed during
backwashing and dosed again during the filter-to-waste rinse and normal system operation. When this
was discovered, the operator was instructed to manually turn off the post-treatment chemical addition
systems during backwashing until re-wiring to the finished water flow meter could be done. Because of
concerns over this cross-contamination issue, speciation samples for the combined system effluent were
collected from the TA sampling location on April 22, May 19, August 18, and September 15, 2010. Re-
wiring, however, was not complete before the end of the performance evaluation study.
On May 19, June 3, and June 9, 2010, CMT Engineering and Battelle conducted a joint investigation on
backwash due to the operator's concerns over "pink and yellow" effluent during the filter-to-waste rinse.
The investigation also re-evaluated the reasonableness of using a high flowrate of over 80 gpm/vessel to
rinse the filters. It was determined that this rinse flowrate could cause damages to GreensandPlus™
media and should be significantly reduced to the design service flowrate of 24 gpm/vessel; CMT
Engineering and Peerless went ahead to adjust the flowrate accordingly. As to the "pink and yellow"
effluent issue, it was determined that it most likely was caused by the NaMnO4 dispensed into the rinse
water (and the backwash water) during the backwash cycle and should not present a problem especially
since the rinse water would be discharged into the septic tanks before being emptied to the sewer system.
The system O&M and operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to pre- and post-
treatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventive maintenance
activities, and frequency of chemical handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pretreatment consisted of NaMnO4 addition using a 20%
NaMnO4 stock solution to oxidize soluble As(III) to soluble As(V), and formation of filterable arsenic-
37
-------
laden iron particles prior to GreensandPlus™ filtration. The operator tracked solution levels in the
chemical day tanks for adequate chemical consumption. Post-treatment consisted of chlorination,
fluoridation, and polyphosphate using 12.5% NaOCl, 19% H2SiF6, and 34.5% Aqua Mag®, respectively,
as discussed in Section 4.2.2. The operator monitored chemical consumption daily by recording the
weight (Ib) from each of the three digital scales, which held the day tanks.
System Automation. The low-level sensor (at 81.90 ft) in the 50,000-gal water tower triggered the Well
No. 8 pump, which then triggered the Well No. 6 pump. Wells No. 6 and No. 8 provided water to the
treatment system at a combined flowrate of approximately 84 gpm. Once the water level in the tower
reached the high level at 83.88 ft, it shut off the Well No. 8 and then Well No. 6 pumps. Each vessel had
five motor-actuated butterfly valves, three manual isolation butterfly valves (on inlet, outlet, and
backwash lines), and one manual throttling valve (on the outlet line). Valve sequences were controlled by
an Allen-Bradley MicroLogix 1100 PLC. An 8-in, C-more® EA7-T8C color touch panel interface
allowed the operator to monitor system parameters, change system setpoints, and check alarm status.
The system was fitted with controls for automatic backwash. The automated portion of the system did
not require routine O&M; however, the operator's awareness and abilities to detect and troubleshoot
system irregularities were necessary to maintain system operations. The NaMnO4 addition system was
interlocked with the operation of the two well pumps. The post-treatment chemical addition systems (i.e.,
NaOCl, H2SiF6, and Aqua Mag®) were interlocked with the well pump. Due to concerns over cross-
contamination by the post-treatment chemicals, plans were made to re-wire these chemical addition
systems to the flow meter/totalizer installed at the system outlet. To maintain system operation, the only
requirement was for the operator to continue to refill the chemical day tanks. The equipment vendor and
especially CMT Engineering provided hands-on training and assistance to the operator during system
installation, shakedown, and startup, and throughout the demonstration period.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to operate the
treatment system were moderate. The operator's knowledge of the system limitations and typical
operational parameters were critical in achieving system performance objectives. Typically, the operator
was onsite daily and spent approximately 20 min during each visit to perform visual inspections and
record system operational parameters on the log sheets. The operator also monitored and refilled the
NaMnO4, NaOCl, H2SiF6, and Aqua Mag® day tanks and performed general maintenance of all chemical
addition systems.
Operator training began onsite with the equipment vendor and CMT Engineering during system
installation, shakedown, and startup. However, over the demonstration period, the operator gained
invaluable operational skills through hands-on experience and additional assistance from CMT
Engineering and the operator of the water system at Geneseo Hills Subdivision in Geneseo, IL.
IL EPA requires that the system operator at the Village of Waynesville 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, 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: (1) checking the flow meters
and pressure gauges; (2) inspecting treatment system vessels, piping, and valves for leaks; (3) monitoring
chemical levels in all day tanks to ensure proper chemical usage; and (4) checking the chemical addition
systems for proper operations and supply lines for leaks and adequate pressure. Typically, the operator
performed these duties on a daily basis when onsite for routine activities.
38
-------
Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements. The operator tracked usage of all chemicals on a
daily basis by measuring solution levels in all chemical day tanks and refilled the tanks as needed. A 20%
NaMnO4 stock solution, supplied in 55-gal polyethylene drums by Brenntag Mid-South, Inc., was
transferred by a hand pump to the day tank and injected into raw water without dilution. One drum of
NaMnO4 stock solution was ordered from Brenntag Mid-South, Inc. approximately every two months
along with post-treatment chemicals (i.e., NaOCl, H2SiF6, and Aqua Mag®). The NaOCl, H2SiF6, and
Aqua Mag® stock solutions (as described in Section 4.2.2) were supplied in 5, 15, and 15-gal carboys,
respectively.
4.5
Jar Test Results
4.5.1 Oxidant Demand Studies. Table 4-9 presents results of the chlorine demand study. After
the prescribed 20 min contact time, the two lowest doses (i.e., 2.6 and 4.9 mg/L [as C12]) resulted in a
negligible total chlorine residual. After these analyses, it was concluded that the chlorine demand of Well
No. 8 raw water was greater than 4.6 mg/L (as C12). The next four doses (7.0, 9.1, 12.8 and 16.4 mg/L [as
C12]) yielded a demand within a reasonably narrow range of 6.2 to 8.5 mg/L (as C12). These values were
used to calculate the average and standard deviation of chlorine demand, which were 7.2 and 1.0 mg/L (as
C12), respectively (coefficient of variation of 14%). This averaged value was used as the basis for
choosing doses of NaOCl for the subsequent arsenic/iron removal and DBF formation potential study.
Table 4-9. Results of Chlorine Demand Study for Well No. 8 Raw Water
Date
04/23/09
05/20/09
Initial Total
Chlorine Dose
(mg/L)
0.0
2.6
4.9
7.0
9.1
12.8
16.4
20 min Total
Chlorine Residual
(mg/L)
0.0
0.2(a)
0.3(a)
0.8
2.2
5.5
7.9
20 min Total
Chlorine Demand
(mg/L)
-
>2.4
>4.6
6.2
6.9
7.3
8.5
(a) Values not significantly different from background.
Table 4-10 presents results of the permanganate demand study. As anticipated, the raw water with no
added KMnO4 measured below the MDL for KMnO4and was usd as a control. Four doses (6.0, 8.5, 11.5
and 17.5 mg/L [as KMnO4]) were used to determine the average KMnO4 demand of the Well No. 8 raw
water, which was estimated to be 3.4 mg/L (as KMnO4). The measurements had a standard deviation of
0.8 mg/L (as KMnO4) and a coefficient of variation of 23%. This value was used as the basis for
choosing an KMnO4 dose for the subsequent DBF formation potential study.
4.5.2 Arsenic/Iron Removal and DBF Formation Potential Studies. Table 4-11 presents
measured water quality parameters for the jar tests. The second column of this table shows results of
Well No. 8 water, which are used to benchmark changes caused by the introduction of an oxidant. The
raw water results were consistent with the data collected previously by EPA, IL EPA, and Battelle during
the introductory meeting on December 5, 2006 (see Table 4-1), and throughout the performance
evaluation study between July 15, 2009, and September 19, 2010 (see Tables 4-12 and 4-13).
39
-------
Table 4-10. Results of Permanganate Demand Study for Well No. 8 Raw Water
Date
05/20/09
Initial
KMnO4 Dose
(mg/L)
0.0
6.0
8.5
11.5
17.5
20 min KMnO4
Residual
(mg/L)
0.0
3.3
5.3
7.9
13.1
20 min KMnO4
Demand
(mg/L)
-
2.7
3.2
3.6
4.4
Table 4-11. Results for Arsenic/Iron Removal and DBF Formation Potential Studies
Parameters
Raw Water
KMnO4
NaOCl #1
NaOCl #2
Jar Test Parameters
Oxidant Dose (mg/L [as C12] or
[KMnO4])
Reaction time (min)
Total Chlorine (mg/L)
0.0
0
0.0
6.0
20
3.0(a)
8.0
20
2.0
10.0
120
3.1
Onsite Measurements
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
ORP(mV)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
7.3
15.2
-55
1.0
7.6
16.8
225
1.1
6.7
17.2
95
5.0
7.5
20.2
310
1.1
Metals and Miscellaneous Analytes
Ammonia (mg/L [as N])
Total Organic Carbon (mg/L)
Phosphorus (ug/L)
As (total) (|ig/L)
As (soluble) (ug/L)
As paniculate (ug/L)
As(III) (ug/L)
As(V) (ug/L)
Fe (total) (ug/L)
Fe (soluble) (ug/L)
Mn (total) (|ig/L)
Mn (soluble) (ug/L)
4.4
7.6
112
50.1
36.4
13.7
27.2
9.2
2,151
2,339
22.6
22.7
3.7
9.1
114
48.4
5.7
42.7
0.6
5.1
2,141
56.3
1,443
279
4.1
NA
112
48.7
19.2
29.5
8.9
10.3
2,053
251
21.9
22.1
3.7
7.4
111
48.9
12.5
36.4
5.4
7.1
2,149
<25
22.5
22.0
Disinfection Byproducts
Chloroform (ug/L)
Bromodichloromethane (ug/L)
Dibromochloromethane (ug/L)
Bromoform (ug/L)
Total Trihalomethanes (ug/L)
Dibromoacetic Acid (ug/L)
Dichloroacetic Acid (ug/L)
Monobromoacetic Acid (ug/L)
Monochloroacetic Acid (ug/L)
Trichloroacetic Acid (ug/L)
HAA5 (ug/L)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2
<1
<1
<1
<2
<1
<6
4.9
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
4.9
<1
<1
<1
<2
<1
<6
6.8
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
6.8
<1
1.3
<1
<2
1.4
2.7
(a) Measured using DPD method for KMnO4 with a correction factor of 0.893
Corporation, 2001).
(b) This value considered erroneous due most likely to an instrument error.
NM = not measured
(Cams
40
-------
Chlorine as an Oxidant. Results of the arsenic/iron removal and DBF formation potential study using
chlorine as an oxidant are presented in the two columns labeled "NaOCl #1" (for 8 mg/L [as C12] dose)
and "NaOCl #2" (10 mg/L [as C12] dose). With both chlorine dose rates, ORP values increased
progressively, as expected, from -55 mV to as high as 310 mV. The DO level remained relatively
unchanged for NaOCl #2, but was significantly elevated at 5.0 mg/L for NaOCl #1. This elevated DO
level was thought to be an experimental error. With 8.0 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) and 20 min of contact
time, the soluble As(III) concentration was reduced from 27.2 to 8.9 ug/L. Even with 10 mg/L of
chlorine (as C12) and 120 of contact time, the soluble As(III) concentration was reduced to only 5.4 ug/L.
Incomplete As(III) oxidation most likely was caused by the presence of elevated ammonia (4.4 mg/L [as
N]), which reacted with chlorine to form chloramines. Ghurye and Clifford (2001) reported that pre-
formed monochloramines were ineffective for As(III) oxidation and that limited oxidation could be
achieved when monochloramine was formed in situ. The chlorine added might have reacted initially with
both soluble As(III) and ammonia in water before it was quenched by ammonia to form chloramines
(Frank and Clifford, 1986).
Incomplete Fe(II) oxidation (from 2,339 to 251 ug/L) also was observed with 8 mg/L of chlorine (as C12)
and 20 min of contact time. Similar to soluble As(III), some soluble iron might have been oxidized
initially by free chlorine before free chlorine reacted with ammonia to form chloramines. Chloramines
(preformed or formed in situ) were less effective in oxidizing soluble iron than free chlorine. With an
even larger chlorine dose (10.0 mg/L as [C12]) and a longer contact time (120 min), the soluble iron
concentration was reduced to below the MDL of 25 ug/L. This more complete oxidation might have been
caused by the greater chlorine dose rate and/or the prolonged contact time (Vikesland and Valentine,
2002).
Due to incomplete soluble iron oxidation, as much as 10.3 ug/L of soluble As(V) remained in water under
NaOCl #1. This, along with the soluble As(III), left the soluble arsenic concentration well above 10 ug/L
(i.e., 19.2 ug/L). Therefore, even with complete removal of particulate arsenic via GreensandPlus™
filtration, the remaining soluble arsenic concentration in the treated water would be well above the 10-
ug/L MCL, rendering the seemingly overabundant soluble iron (at a soluble iron to soluble arsenic ratio
of 64.2) ineffective in arsenic removal. With 10.0 mg/L (as [C12]) of chlorine and 120 min of contact
time, the soluble As(V) concentration was reduced to 7.1 ug/L, which, although lower, was not sufficient
to compensate the 5.4 ug/L of soluble As(III) still in the treated water.
Manganese is more difficult to oxidize compared to arsenic and iron, especially when present in high
TOC waters (Knocke et al., 1987); therefore, soluble manganese levels remained essentially unchanged at
22 ug/L after chlorine additions.
Neither chlorine addition scenario was capable of generating TTHMs or HAA5 in appreciable amounts.
This is an expected result, as waters high in ammonia concentration (even when subjected to excessive
chlorination) tend not to produce excessive amounts of DBFs (Bougeard et al., 2010; Sun et al., 2009;
Amy et al., 1984). Thus, formation of DBFs under these chlorine addition scenarios is not considered a
water quality issue.
Although not forming DBFs, chlorination at 8 or 10 mg/L (as C12) not only is ineffective in removing
arsenic but also is expensive, has potential to cause taste and odor issues, requires more operation
attention, and is not in compliance with the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
(EPA, 1998), which stipulates MRDLs and MRDLGs of 4 mg/L (as C12).
KMnO4 as an Oxidant. The final jar test involved 6.0 mg/L of KMnO4 addition and 20 min of contact
time. 6.0 mg/L rather than 3.4 mg/L of KMnO4 was used because a larger dose might be needed to offset
the TOC effect and form more filterable MnO2 particles (Shiao et al., 2009). KMnO4 at this dose and
41
-------
contact time was able to thoroughly oxidize soluble As(III), leaving only 0.6 ug/L in the treated water.
Further, the As(V) formed was sufficiently removed by iron solids, reducing the soluble arsenic
concentration to well below the 10-ug/L MCL (at 5.7 ug/L). Thus, KMnO4 at 6.0 mg/L and 20 min
contact time is effective in oxidizing source water and promoting adsorption/co-precipitation of soluble
As(V) onto/with iron particles. Assuming that arsenic-laden iron particles can be fully removed via
GreensandPlus™ filtration (i.e., no particulate breakthrough), total arsenic concentrations in the finished
water can be reduced to below 6.0 ug/L. Iron, too, was sufficiently oxidized to close to the MDL.
Effective oxidation of soluble As(III) and soluble Fe(II) with permanganate has been extensively reported
in the literature (Ghurye and Clifford, 2001). A few arsenic demonstration projects also used KMnO4 or
NaMnO4 as an oxidant to treat soluble As(III) and soluble Fe(II) while having elevated levels of TOC and
ammonia in source waters (Chen et al., 201 Ib; Shiao et al., 2009). One example was Big Sauk Lake
Mobile Home Park in Sauk Centre, MN, (Shiao et al., 2009) where, although not as high as that observed
at the Village of Waynsville, IL, TOC and ammonia were both elevated at 3.3 mg/L and 1.2 mg/L (as N),
respectively (on average). After KMnO4 addition, soluble As(III) concentrations were significantly
reduced from 21.9 to 1.0 ug/L and particulate arsenic levels were correspondingly elevated from 2.2 to
22.7 ug/L. The near complete precipitation of soluble iron observed suggested effective Fe(II) oxidation
even in the presence of elevated TOC. Researchers have reported that Fe(II)-KMnO4 reaction rates are
more rapid than KMnO4-DOM interactions (Knocke et al., 1994). It appeared that the elevated TOC
levels in raw water did not adversely impact soluble As(III) and soluble Fe(II) oxidation, similar to what
was observed by Ghurye and Clifford (2001).
Similar to DBF formation potential results for the two chlorine doses, addition of 6.0 mg/L KMnO4 did
not produce significant amounts of DBFs either. TTHMs were measured at 6.8 ug/L and HAAS at
2.7 ug/L. Both of these values are significantly lower than the respective MCLs for the compounds and,
thus, DBF formation under this KMnO4 addition scenario is not considered a water quality issue.
Given both oxidants' performance in oxidizing soluble As(III) and Fe(II) and forming arsenic-laden
solids, NaMnO4 at 6.0 to 7.0 mg/L was chosen as the oxidant for treating water from Wells No. 6 and No.
8. As mentioned earlier, one inherent challenge with the use of KMnO4, especially with the presence of
elevated TOC, is to keep manganese levels below the SMCL in treated water. For example, addition of
6.0 mg/L KMnO4 in this jar test imparts 2,080 ug/L of manganese (as Mn) to the treated water. If the
manganese remains in the colloidal form, it will pass through the filter media to the finished water. If the
manganese is fully oxidized and present as filterable particles, they will increase loading to the filter
media and may result in severely shortened useful filter run lengths. The results of this jar test indicate
that the majority of manganese was in the particulate form (1,443 vs. 279 ug/L in the soluble form).
These data suggest that in an event of complete particulate removal by the GreensandPlus™ filters, the
finished water would contain 279 ug/L of "soluble" manganese, present either as MnO4" (due to KMnO4
overdosing) or as colloidal MnO2. It will be important to monitor filter removal performance to avoid
manganese breakthrough and exceedance of the 50 ug/L SMCL.
4.6 System Performance
The performance of the C/F system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected across
the treatment plant, during the media backwash, and from the distribution system.
4.6.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. From July 15, 2009, through September 19, 2010, treatment
plant water samples were collected on 30 occasions, including three duplicate and 15 speciation sampling
events. Table 4-12 summarizes analytical results of arsenic, iron, and manganese measured across the
treatment train at the IN, AO, TA, TB, TC, TD, and TT locations. Table 4-13 summarizes results of other
water quality parameters. A complete set of analytical results for the demonstration study are provided as
Appendix B.
42
-------
Table 4-12. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Unit
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Sample
Location
IN
AO
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
IN
AO
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
IN
AO
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
Sample
Count
30
29(a)
19
15
15
15
11
15
13(b)
4
11
15
13(b)
4
11
15
13(b)
4
11
15
13(b)
4
11
30
29(a)
19
15
15
15
11
15
13(b)
3(c)
11
30
28(a,c)
19
15
15
15
11
15
13(b)
4
11
Concentration
Minimum
23.9
18.9
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.4
2.5
24.1
2.1
1.6
1.8
0.1
21.1
0.1
0.1
13.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
1.8
1.4
1.2
1,939
1,610
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
1,939
<25
<25
<25
21.2
1,331
5.2
7.0
8.4
32.4
38.0
21.3
26.4
4.9
13.8
Maximum
45.2
43.2
5.2
3.9
3.6
3.1
4.6
40.0
5.0
2.9
6.0
12.0
36.4
1.7
2.1
32.2
0.9
0.6
1.2
15.2
4.3
2.3
5.6
2,720
2,637
353
248
222
136
150
2,841
147
<25
<25
108
3,981
349
236
170
162
119
73.6
1,567
30.4
94.9
Average
33.1
31.3
2.6
2.2
2.2
2.0
3.4
31.4
3.5
2.2
3.3
2.2
27.1
0.5
0.5
24.1
0.6
0.5
0.7
7.7
3.0
1.7
2.6
2,298
2,283
65.1
54.4
46.1
33.1
34.9
2,277
48.1
<25
<25
33.1
2,451
69.7
91.6
82.5
98.9
70.6
32.1
765
15.1
54.6
Standard
Deviation
6.5
7.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
4.6
0.9
0.5
1.1
3.5
5.2
0.8
0.6
5.6
0.3
0.2
0.3
4.1
0.8
0.4
1.1
203
243
109
87.2
71.7
43.6
50.3
268
46.7
-
-
19.6
647
92.0
69.1
51.1
35.4
24.2
13.4
414
10.9
23.2
(a) 06/30/10 result considered an outlier and not included in calculations.
(b) 08/19/09 and 09/15/09 results considered outliers and not included in calculations.
(c) 09/15/10 result considered an outlier and not included in calculations.
43
-------
Table 4-13. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
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
mg/L
^g/L
^g/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
^g/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
Sample
Location
IN
AO
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
AO
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
IN
AO
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
AO
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
AO
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
Sample
Count
30
30
19
15
15
15
11
30
30
19
15
15
15
6(a)
15
15
4
6(a)
15
15
4
11
15
15
4
11
30
290)
19
15
15
15
5(o)
30
30
19
15
15
15
11
30
30
19
15
15
15
11
Concentration
Minimum
542
548
536
535
538
516
563
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
27.2
27.0
<10
<10
<10
<10
18.5
19.3
19.6
21.0
20.4
20.6
20.5
19.5
14.0
6.5
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
Maximum
651
670
675
697
629
627
630
4.2
5.8
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.0
0.6
1.6
0.7
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.2
141
135
42.3
34.6
35.8
36.1
51.6
24.1
24.3
23.1
23.2
23.1
23.2
30.4
40.0
14.0
8.0
8.6
2.5
2.7
5.5
Average
599
611
612
602
593
592
596
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.7
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
89.1
87.4
14.8
11.7
12.0
12.3
26.7
22.1
22.2
22.0
21.9
22.1
22.1
24.8
32.8
10.1
2.5
1.5
0.9
1.1
2.0
Standard
Deviation
27.4
31.1
35.7
37.7
27.7
26.8
20.0
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
0.06
21.5
19.1
10.6
8.7
9.3
10.7
14.0
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
4.0
4.6
1.6
2.4
2.0
0.6
0.8
1.8
44
-------
Table 4-13. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results (Continued)
Parameter
Total Organic
Carbon (TOC)
pH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen (DO)
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential (ORP)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
°C
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
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
Sample
Location
IN
AO
TA
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
IN
AO
TA
TT
Sample
Count
15
15
4
11
10(d)
U(e)
4
8cu
13
13
4
9
13te)
14
4
10
9(h)
13
4
90
15
15
4
11
15
15
4
11
15
15
4
11
Concentration
Minimum
5.8
6.8
7.2
6.7
6.9
7.2
7.4
6.7
12.7
13.3
14.4
13.3
0.6
1.1
1.2
0.6
-71.6
207
34.4
30.9
318
277
269
432
104
104
106
193
170
174
163
194
Maximum
8.9
8.5
8.8
7.9
8.0
8.2
7.5
8.2
15.0
15.8
16.0
19.4
2.5
3.4
1.6
2.1
41.7
487
180
754
601
551
473
548
325
302
275
294
308
279
204
276
Average
7.9
7.7
7.9
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.6
14.3
14.4
15.2
14.8
1.2
1.6
1.3
0.9
-31.0
392
102
392
476
469
400
478
244
244
210
251
232
224
190
228
Standard
Deviation
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.9
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.5
34.8
76.6
62.7
254
71.7
63.3
91.8
35.3
53.1
49.5
74.6
32.1
29.0
22.0
18.2
21.0
(a) One outlier each on 01/25/10, 02/24/10, 03/23/10, 06/15/10, and 07/14/10 not included in calculations.
(b) One outlier on 06/30/10 not included in calculations.
(c) One outlier each on 09/15/09, 01/25/10, 02/24/10, 03/23/10, 06/15/10, and 07/14/10 not included in
calculations.
(d) One outlier each on 09/15/09, 10/15/09, and 05/19/10 not included in calculations.
(e) One outlier each on 10/15/09 and 05/19/10 not included in calculations.
(!) One outlier on 10/15/09 not included in calculations.
(g) One outlier on 05/19/10 not included in calculations.
(h) One outlier each on 11/11/09, 01/25/10, 02/24/10, 03/23/10, 07/14/10 not included in calculations.
Arsenic and Iron Removal. Two of the most critical parameters for evaluating the effectiveness of the
C/F system were arsenic and iron concentrations in the treated water. Figure 4-14 presents three bar
charts showing results of the 15 speciation events at the IN, AO, and TT (or TA) sampling locations. On
April 22, May 19, August 18, and September 15, 2010, speciation samples of treated water were collected
from the TA sampling location because of cross contamination by post-treatment chemicals at the TT
location. This was not unexpected because the post-treatment chemical addition injection points were
located only less than 2 ft downgradient of the TT location. Results of the speciation samples collected at
AO on August 19 and September 15, 2009, were not included in the statistical analysis because the
45
-------
Arsenic Speciation in Raw Water (IN)
07/15/09 08/19/09 09/15/09 10/15/09 11/11/09 12/14/09 01/25/10 02/24/10 03/23/10 04/22/10 05/19/10 06/15/10 07/14/10 08/18/10 09/15/10
Date
Arsenic Speciation After Oxidation (AO)
07/15/09 08/19/09 09/15/09 10/15/09 11/11/09 12/14/09 01/25/10 02/24/10 03/23/10 04/22/10 05/19/10 06/15/10 07/14/10 08/18/10 09/15/10
Date
Figure 4-14. Arsenic Speciation at Sampling Locations IN, AO, and TT (or TA)
46
-------
Arsenic Speciation of Treated Water (TT & TA)
I Soluble As (III) Soluble As (V) • Paniculate As
On 04/22/10, 05/19/10, 08/18/10, and 09/15/10,
speciation samples collected from TA to avoid cross
contamination from post-treatment at TT
07/15/09 08/19/09 09/15/09 10/15/09 11/11/09 12/14/09 01/25/10 02/24/10 03/23/10 04/22/10 05/19/10 06/15/10 07/14/10 08/18/10 09/15/10
Date
Figure 4-14. Arsenic Speciation at Sampling Locations IN, AO, and TT (or TA) (Continued)
August 19 sample was not properly collected and because the September 15 sample was collected when
the system was not in operation.
Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 23.9 to 45.2 |o,g/L and averaged 33.1 |og/L, existing
almost entirely as soluble arsenic (see Table 4-12). Of the soluble fraction, As(III) was the predominating
species with concentrations ranging from 13.3 to 32.2 (ig/L and averaging 24.1 |o,g/L. Soluble As(V)
concentrations were lower, ranging from <0.1 to 15.2 |o,g/L and averaging 7.7 |o,g/L. Particulate arsenic
concentrations also were low, ranging from <0.1 to 12.0 (ig/L and averaging 2.2 (ig/L. The arsenic
concentrations obtained during the performance evaluation study were consistent with those collected
previously during source water sampling conducted by Battelle (see Table 4-1).
Total iron concentrations in raw water ranged from 1,939 to 2,720 (ig/L and averaged 2,298 (ig/L,
existing almost entirely as soluble iron. The presence of predominating soluble iron was consistent with
the presence of predominating soluble As(III) as well as low DO and ORP levels (i.e., 1.2 mg/L and -31
mV, respectively [on average]). The -31 mV average ORP value does not include five
uncharacteristically high readings (that range from 282 to 386 mV) measured on November 11, 2009, and
January 25, February 24, March 23, and July 14, 2010. Omitting these values was based on the belief that
these values were erroneous because soluble As(III) remained the predominating arsenic species in the
same samples. While it was not clear what had caused the high ORP readings, one contributing factor
was the Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, which, from time to time, tended to drift over the
course of measurements. Similar problems were encountered at several arsenic demonstration sites as
reported previously by Chen et al. (2010a).
47
-------
Given the average soluble iron and soluble arsenic levels in source water, this corresponded to an iron to
arsenic ratio of 72:1, which was well above the target ratio of 20:1 for effective arsenic removal by iron
removal (Sorg, 2002). As shown in Table 4-12 and Figure 4-15, total iron concentrations varied in a
relatively wide range from 1,939 to 2,720 |o,g/L. Varying iron concentrations could affect KMnO4 dosage,
which was critical to the formation of filterable manganese solids, as discussed later in this subsection.
3,000
1,500
1,000
—0— Raw Water (IN)
-A-After Tank A (TA)
-O— After Tank C (TC)
+ After Effluent Combined (TT)
-After Oxidation (AO)
-After Tank B (TB)
After Tank (TD)
SMCL Fe = 300 Dg/L
•* « • m «
07/06/09 08/25/09 10/14/09 12/03/09 01/22/10 03/13/10 05/02/10 06/21/10 08/10/10 09/29/10
Date
Figure 4-15. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train
Following NaMnO4 addition at the AO sampling location, total arsenic concentrations remained
essentially unchanged, ranging from 18.9 to 43.2 (ig/L and averaging 31.3 (ig/L. Oxidation of soluble
As(III) converted arsenic almost entirely to particulate arsenic (with concentrations ranging from 21.1 to
36.4 (ig/L and averaging 27.1 |og/L), presumably via adsorption and/or co-precipitation of soluble As(V)
with iron solids. A small fraction (at 11.2%) of arsenic remained in the soluble form, existing as both
As(III) and As(V) at 0.6 and 3.0 (ig/L (on average), respectively. These, along with the jar test results,
clearly demonstrate that NaMnO4 is effective in oxidizing soluble As(III) and that most soluble As(V)
formed can get attached to iron particles also produced during the oxidation process. Removal of arsenic
would now be determined if these arsenic-laden particles can be filtered by the downstream
GreensandPlus™ filters.
Unlike what was observed at most other arsenic demonstration sites, addition of an oxidant (i.e., NaMnO4
in this case) to water from Wells No. 6 and No. 8 did not completely oxidize soluble Fe(II) to iron solids.
As shown in Table 4-12, soluble iron at Sampling Location AO ranged from <25 to 147 (ig/L and
averaged 48.1 (ig/L. Out of the 13 sets of speciation samples (excluding two on August 19 and
September 15, 2009 for reasons shown in the second bar chart of Figure 4-14), three contained 107 to 147
(ig/L of soluble iron. A study has shown that soluble Fe(II) that complexes with DOM can be difficult to
48
-------
treat via oxidation and subsequent precipitation. This was due to the formation of colloidal particles with
a size fraction smaller than 0.2-|am filters. Colloid formation, however, may be affected by factors such
as DOM concentration and types (Knocke et al., 1994). The "incomplete" iron oxidation observed at
Waynesville, IL might have been the artifact from the formation of colloidal particles promoted by the
presence of significantly elevated (7.9 mg/L) TOC in source water (Table 4-13). Colloidal iron formed
might have penetrated through 0.45-|om filters and then was analyzed as soluble iron.
The results in Table 4-12 show that total arsenic concentrations after the GreensandPlus™ filters were
reduced to <4.6 (ig/L, indicating effective removal of arsenic-laden particles by the filters. Particulate
arsenic concentrations were reduced from 27.1 (ig/L (on average) after oxidation to 0.5 (ig/L (on average)
after filtration, representing greater than 98% arsenic removal. As expected, the small amount of soluble
As(III) (i.e., 0.6 (ig/L [on average]) left after oxidation remained in the filtered effluent. Some soluble
As(V) after oxidation appeared to have been further removed as the pre-oxidized water was processed by
the filters. Figure 4-16 plots total arsenic concentrations across the treatment train at Sampling Locations
IN, AO, TA, TB, TC, TD, and TT.
MCL As = 10 Dg/L
-Raw Water (IN)
-After Tank A (TA)
-After Tank C (TC)
After Effluent Combined (TT)
-D-After Oxidation (AO)
—X— After Tank B (TB)
-A- After Tank D (TD)
07/06/09 08/25/09 10/14/09 12/03/09 01/22/10 03/13/10 05/02/10 06/21/10 08/10/10 09/29/10
Date
Figure 4-16. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train
The GreensandPlus™ filters effectively removed arsenic-laden iron particles, reducing the average total
iron concentration to 34.9 (ig/L in the combined filter effluent. As shown in Figure 4-15 and Appendix B,
iron concentrations in the filter effluent were reduced to below the MDL of 25 (ig/L on 25 out 30
sampling occasions, including the three occasions that had over 100 (ig/L of "soluble" iron in oxidized
water. Prior studies have revealed that prolonged contact times can result in more complete oxidation of
soluble iron (Vikesland and Valentine, 2002), thus reducing its concentrations after the filters. Of the
other five occasions, one on September 15, 2009, contained 86 (ig/L (existing entirely as particulate iron);
49
-------
one on March 10, 2010 contained 90 to 259 (ig/L (no speciation data); two (including one duplicate
event) on June 30, 2010, contained 121 to 353 (ig/L (no speciation data); and one on September 15, 2010,
contained 678 (ig/L (with 114 (ig/L existing as soluble iron). Elevated iron concentrations in the filter
effluent could be due to the combination of particulate and colloidal iron particle breakthrough, although
there was no evidence to support accompanying particulate arsenic breakthrough under the circumstances.
A few pieces of data that should not be ignored are DO concentrations across the treatment train (see
Table 4-13). As discussed earlier, DO concentrations in raw water averaged 1.2 mg/L. After NaMnO4
addition and GreensandPlus™ filtration, DO concentrations remained relatively unchanged at 1.6 and
1.3 mg/L, respectively (on average). To maintain this rather reducing condition, it is imperative to keep
the source water from being exposed to air because incidental contact with air can cause unwanted iron
precipitation and media fouling due to microbial activities (such as nitrification). It is well known that
pre-formed iron is not as effective in removing soluble As(V) from aqueous solution (Hering et al., 1996)
and that air can be utilized by nitrifying bacteria such as Nitrosomona and Nitrobacter to convert
ammonia to nitrate. At another arsenic demonstration site at Arnaudville, LA, where source water also
contained mostly soluble As(III) and elevated TOC and ammonia (at 1.3 and 1.9 mg/L [as N],
respectively), more than 10 |o,g/L of soluble As(V) was measured in KMnO4-oxidized water even though
the soluble iron to soluble arsenic ratio was 65:1 (Chen et al., 201 Ib). Further, two downstream pressure
filters containing an engineered ceramic filter media were severely fouled due to extensive microbial
activities. It was discovered that incidental aeration in a supposedly refurbished, air-tight contact tank
had caused the problems observed and that bypassing the contact tank (or discontinuing air contact) had
helped reduce soluble As(V) concentrations after KMnO4 addition.
In summary, GreensandPlus™ filtration is effective in removing arsenic-laden particles at a filtration rate
of less than 3.4 gpm/ft2 (see Table 4-7). The pre-set backwash schedule of once every three days as
discussed in Section 4.4.2 appears to be adequate to restore the filters and allow them to perform in a
sustainable manner. Iron leakage from the filters, however, can be an issue, which warrants the operator's
occasional attention (such as performing spot checks for total iron using a field Hach meter) during
system operation. The feedback from homeowners throughout the Village indicates that once the
treatment system was put online, the water from their taps was consistently clear and "rust rings" in their
toilettes gradually decreased and disappeared.
Manganese. Total manganese concentrations in raw water ranged from 21.2 to 108 (ig/L and averaged
33.1 (ig/L, existing almost entirely in the soluble form. After NaMnO4 addition (AO), total manganese
concentrations increased, as expected, to levels ranging from 1,331 to 3,981 |o,g/L and averaging 2,451
|o,g/L (or 6.4 mg/L [as NaMnO4]). This value reflects an average NaMnO4 dosage of approximately 6.3
mg/L (as NaMnO4) (less the amount already in raw water), which is close to the measured dose rate of 6.9
mg/L (NaMnO4) as discussed in Section 4.4.3 and plotted in Figure 4-17. A significant amount of
manganese (ranging from 26.4 to 1567 |o,g/L and averaging 765 |o,g/L) remained in the soluble form,
which might exist as soluble Mn(II) (due to the formation of Mn(II)-DOM complexes [Gregory and
Carlson, 2003]), KMnO4 (due to overdosing), or colloidal MnO2 particles (due to the presence of DOM
[Shiao et al., 2009]).
Soluble Mn(II) oxidation by KMnO4 is dependent on the KMnO4 dosage, pH, temperature, and DOM
concentration in raw water. The reaction between KMnO4 with soluble Mn(II) is typically rapid and
complete at pH values ranging from 5.5 to 9.0. However, elevated DOM levels can increase the KMnO4
demand due to competition between these species and resulting kinetic effects (Knocke et al., 1987).
Some researchers suggest that DOM can interfere with the formation of MnO2 solids by exerting KMnO4
demand and, possibly, forming complexes with soluble Mn(II), thus rendering it less likely to be oxidized
(Gregory and Carlson, 2003). When modeling soluble Mn(II) oxidation with KMnO4, Carlson and
50
-------
— Raw Water (IN)
-O— After Tank C (TC)
-D- After Oxidation (AO)
—A- After Tank D (TD)
-After Tank A (TA) -X-After Tank B (TB)
After Effluent Combined (TT) O NaMnO4 Dosage
07/06/09 08/25/09 10/14/09 12/03/09 01/22/10 03/13/10 05/02/10 06/21/10 08/10/10 09/29/10
Figure 4-17. Total Manganese Concentrations Across Treatment Train
Knocke (1999) determined that incorporating a term to account for the DOM demand for MnO4"
significantly improved the prediction of the MnO4" consumption. The incorporation of DOM into the
oxidation term to account for complexation between DOM and Mn(II) also was postulated, but no data
were collected as part of that study.
High levels of DOM in source water can form fine colloidal MnO2 particles, which may not be filterable
by conventional gravity or pressure filters. At Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park in Minnesota,
significantly elevated "soluble" manganese levels (e.g., 1,097 ng/L with the use of 0.45(im filters) were
detected after KMnO4 addition, even though the level of KMnO4 addition was less than the theoretical
demand of 3.3 mg/L (as KMnO4) for reduced species in source water (Shiao et al, 2009). Increasing the
KMnO4 dosage to 4.5 mg/L during a series of jar tests reduced soluble manganese concentrations to
0.8 ng/L. Similar soluble manganese concentration reductions (to as low as 35 ng/L [on average]) also
were observed at the treatment plant when the KMnO4 dosage was increased to 4.4 to 5.8 mg/L (as
KMnO4). It was therefore concluded that in the presence of elevated DOM, KMnO4 will react with
reducing species in raw water to form colloidal particles and that increasing the KMnO4 dosage can help
offset the DOM effect and form filterable MnO2 particles. Knocke et al. (1991) defined colloidal particles
as those passing through 0.20-|am filters and requiring ultrafiltration for removal.
After the GreensandPlus™ filters, total manganese concentrations were reduced significantly to
<100 ng/L (on average). Manganese existed mostly as particulate manganese, indicating leakage of
MnO2 particles through the filters. As discussed in Section 4.5.2, the use of NaMnO4 as an oxidant will
increase loading to the filters and shorten useful filter run lengths. The filters were backwashed once
every three days, which was capable of maintaining sustainable filter runs for arsenic and iron removal,
51
-------
but not enough to consistently reduce manganese concentrations to below the 50-ng/L SMCL. Soluble
manganese concentrations were reduced to less than 55 ng/L in the combined effluent, suggesting that the
6.3 mg/L of NaMnO4 added not only oxidized reducing species, but also helped overcome the TOC effect
as desired. The extra contact time from the addition point through the GreensandPlus™ filters seemed to
be needed to allow particles to form. One advantage of using Greensand and MnO2-related filtration
media is the media's abilities to react with any soluble Mn(II) still in the water. A possible reaction
pathway is shown below:
Mn2+ + GreensandPlus-MnO2 —> GreensandPlus-Mn2O3 + MnO2(S)
The reduced surface (GreensandPlus-Mn2O3) would then be re-oxidized when in contact with KMnO4:
GreensandPlus-Mn2O3 + MnO4" —> GreensandPlus-MnO2 + MnO2
It is not clear if the "soluble" manganese measured actually existed as Mn(II) or colloidal MnO2 particles.
Ammonia and TOC. Source water contained high levels of ammonia, averaging 3.8 mg/L (as N). As
expected, ammonia did not react with NaMnO4, as reflected by its essentially unchanged concentrations
across the treatment train. This, along with below the MDL of nitrate across the treatment train,
confirmed that nitrification did not occur throughout the demonstration period.
TOC concentrations in source water also were high, ranging from 5.8 to 8.9 mg/L and averaging 7.9
mg/L. Some TOC concentration reductions were observed after NaMnO4 addition and across the
GreensandPlus™ filters, as have been reported in the literature (EPA, 1999).
Competing Anions. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, phosphorus and silica could compete with arsenic for
available adsorption sites on iron solids. Phosphorus concentrations in raw water ranged from 27.2 to 141
ug/L and averaged 89.1 ug/L. After GreensandPlus™ filtration, phosphorus concentrations were
significantly reduced to below 14.8 ug/L (on average). Silica concentrations in raw water ranged from
19.3 to 24.1 mg/L (as SiO2) and averaged 22.1 mg/L (as SiO2). Its concentrations remained essentially
unchanged across the treatment train. Therefore, their effect on arsenic removal should be minimal.
Other Water Quality Parameters. As shown in Table 4-13, alkalinity levels in raw water ranged from
542 to 651 mg/L (as CaCO3) and averaged 599 mg/L (as CaCO3). Alkalinity levels remained essentially
unchanged across the treatment train. pH values of raw water ranged from 6.9 to 8.0 and averaged 7.3.
pH values increased slightly (with a maximum increase of 0.3 pH unit [on average]) following
GreensandPlus™ filtration. Fluoride and sulfate concentrations in raw water were low and remained
relatively constant across the treatment train.
4.6.2 Backwash Wastewater and Solids Sampling. Table 4-14 summarizes analytical results
from the 12 backwash wastewater sampling events. Total arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations in
backwash wastewater collected during all 12 backwash events ranged from 2.7 to 2,105 ug/L, 20,300 to
348,354 ug/L, and 1,284 to 157,725 ug/L , respectively; the respective average concentrations were 432,
86,432, and 46,572 ug/L. As expected, arsenic, iron, and manganese existed mainly in the particulate
form. TSS levels ranged from 105 to 1,710 mg/L and averaged 441 mg/L. The wide variations observed
in these measurements were attributed, in part, to difficulties in collecting representative samples
containing suspended solids. Based on 441 mg/L of TSS and 3,100 gal of wastewater production (see
Section 4.4.2), approximately 11.4 Ib (or 5,175 g) of solids would be discharged to the septic systems and
then to the sewer. The solids would contain 0.01 Ib (or 5.0 g) of arsenic, 2.2 Ib (or 1,014 g) of iron, and
1.2 Ib (or 547 g) of manganese.
52
-------
Table 4-14. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
07/15/09
08/19/09
09/15/09
10/15/09
11/11/09
12/14/09
01/25/10
-------
Table 4-14. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results (Continued)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
07/15/09
08/19/09
09/15/09
10/15/09
11/11/09
12/14/09
01/25/10
-------
Table 4-15 presents total metal results of the backwash solid samples collected from the four filtration
vessels. Arsenic, iron, and manganese levels averaged 1,546 (or 0.15%), 152,707 (or 15.3%), and
109,514 ug/g (or 11.0%), respectively. Based on 5,175 g of solids produced, 7.8 g of arsenic, 792 g of
iron, and 569 g of manganese would exist, which are rather comparable to the amounts (i.e., 5.0, 1,014,
and 547 g) as calculated above.
4.6.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Table 4-16 presents results of six baseline and 14
monthly distribution system water sampling events. Table 4-17 summarizes the average and range of the
stagnation time and each of the 11 analytes. In addition to the analytes commonly measured for all other
arsenic demonstration projects, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and TOC also were analyzed due to the presence
of significantly elevated ammonia and TOC levels in Wells No. 6 and No. 8 water. Ammonia
concentrations in the distribution system water after system startup ranged from 3.3 to 4.8 mg/L (as N)
and averaged 3.8 mg/L, almost identical to the levels measured in the source water and filter effluent.
This, along with the below MDL levels of nitrate and nitrate, suggest that nitrification did not occur in the
distribution system. Before system startup, ammonia concentrations averaged 3.9 and 3.5 mg/L (as N) at
Residences 1 and 3, respectively. However, ammonia concentrations at Residence 2 were
uncharacteristically low at 0.9 and 0.5 mg/L [as N]. It was not clear what had caused the low
concentrations observed. TOC concentrations in the distribution system water were similar, averaging 7.6
and 7.4 mg/L before and after system startup. These concentrations were about the same as those in the
filter effluent, but somewhat lower than those in source water.
Comparison of arsenic, iron, and manganese levels at three residences before system startup indicated
significant differences, with Residence 3 having the highest arsenic and iron levels (at 36.9 and 2,244
ug/L, respectively), followed by Residence 2 (at 20.0 and 500 ug/L, respectively) and Residence 1 (13.2
and 187 ug/L, respectively). CMT Engineering confirmed that among the three residences, Residence 1
is located the most downgradient of the distribution network (or the farthest from the treatment plant). It
was possible that arsenic-laden particles formed upon chlorination at the wellhead gradually settled in the
distribution system, resulting in progressively lower arsenic and iron concentrations along the length of
the distribution system. Similar observations were made at the Town of Seville, Ohio, during its spring
fire hydrant flush as part of a separate EPA arsenic task order conducted by Battelle in early 2000.
Following system startup, total arsenic concentrations were significantly reduced to 11.8, 6.8, and 7.7
ug/L (on average) at Residences 1, 2, and 3, respectively. However, out of the 42 samples collected, 14
samples contained more than 10 ug/L of arsenic, including 10 samples collected in the months
immediately following system startup (see the exceedances in Table 4-16). Excluding these exceedances,
arsenic concentrations at Residence 2 essentially mirrored the concentrations in the filter effluent.
Arsenic concentrations at Residences 1 and 3, however, were generally higher than those in the treatment
plant effluent. After system startup, iron concentrations were significantly reduced to 41.0, 55.3, and 345
ug/L (on average) at Residences 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The 345-ug/L average concentration at
Residence 3 was much higher than those in the filter effluent.
The higher arsenic and iron concentrations measured in distribution system water suggest solublization,
destablization, and/or desorption of arsenic-laden particles/scales in some segments of the distribution
system. Similar observation were made by other researchers (Lytle and Sorg, 2005) and at a number of
arsenic demonstration sites including LEADS Head Start Building in Buckeye Lake, OH (Chen et al.,
201 la), the Town of Felton, DE (Chen et al., 2010a), the City of Sabin, MN (Chen et al., 2010b), Spring
Brook Mobile Home Park in Wales, ME (Lipps et al. 2010), Terry Trojan Water District in Lead, SD
(Wang et al., 2010a), Upper Bodfish in Lake Isabella, CA (Wang et al., 2010b), Oak Manor Municipal
Utility District in Alvin, TX (Wang et al., 2010c), Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA (Chen
et al., 2009a), Vintage on the Ponds in Delavan, WI (Chen et al., 2009b), the City of Stewart, MN (Condit
55
-------
Table 4-15. ICP-MS Results of Backwash Solids Samples
Sample ID
Vessel A - 1
Vessel A - 2
Average
Vessel B - 1
VesselB -2
Average
Vessel C - 1
Vessel C - 2
Average
Vessel D - 1
Vessel D - 2
Average
Metals
Mg
Hg/g
11,294
11,873
11,583
36,942
39,752
38,347
30,474
28,879
29,676
21,814
22,633
22,223
Al
Hg/g
709
546
628
2,429
2,530
2,480
1,223
1,504
1,363
1,545
1,189
1,367
Si
Hg/g
7557
8521
8,039
28,586
26,246
27,416
14,832
14,547
14,689
16,615
16,375
16,495
P
Hg/g
3,548
3,732
3,640
8,455
9,176
8,816
6,728
6,372
6,550
6,536
6,725
6,630
Ca
M-g/g
41,501
39,928
40,714
141,973
140,376
141,174
100,210
962,96
982,53
88,958
90,075
89,516
Fe
Hg/g
92,840
86,687
89,764
196,631
215,715
206,173
155,939
149,776
152,858
161,367
162,694
162,031
Mn
M-g/g
67,997
62,209
65,103
133,033
158,775
145,904
112,161
108,073
110,117
116,895
116,967
116,931
Ni
M-g/g
4.4
4.6
4.5
20.3
24.3
22.3
12.1
11.4
11.8
15.4
13.0
14.2
Cu
M-g/g
32.8
35.0
33.9
183
373
278
66.8
65.2
66.0
195
172
184
Zn
Hg/g
437
459
448
944
1,079
1,011
668
635
652
841
1,515
1,178
As
Hg/g
941
955
948
1,998
2,139
2,069
1,560
1,519
1,539
1,601
1,656
1,629
Cd
M-g/g
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
Ba
M-g/g
2,806
2,746
2,776
5,921
6,569
6,245
4,619
4,372
4,495
4,870
4,998
4,934
Pb
Hg/g
6.2
8.4
7.3
29.8
35.8
32.8
15.4
13.9
14.7
25.6
25.2
25.4
-------
Table 4-16. Distribution Sampling Results
No.
Sampling
Date
Date
Analytes
Stagnation
Time
Hrs
o.
S.U.
Alkalinity
mg/L
Ammonia
(asN)
mg/L
£
*5*
&
a
g
mg/L
Nitrite (as N)
mg/L
TOC (mg/L)
mg/L
<
Hg/L
v
'—
Hg/L
c
5;
re/L
£
Hg/L
U
Hg/L
Residence 1
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
BL5
BL6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
03/09/09
03/30/09
04/13/09
04/22/09
05/06/09
05/13/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/30/09
10/28/09
12/02/09
01/11/10
02/10/10
03/10/10
04/07/10
05/05/10
06/09/10
06/30/10
08/18/10
09/15/10
11.0
11.3
11.8
9.0
NA
11.0
11.5
11.5
12.0
12.0
12.5
11.8
11.8
12.3
13.0
12.6
11.3
13.5
10.5
12.5
7.8
7.4
7.9
7.4
7.5
7.7
7.3
7.3
7.6
7.3
7.4
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.4
7.8
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.3
578
593
596
599
630
617
581
570
555
552
578
638
631
626
591
617
608
599
629
609
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.4
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.6
3.7
3.9
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.0
3.9
4.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.8
7.4
7.9
7.3
6.6
6.8
6.7
6.8
7.4
7.5
8.3
7.5
7.5
7.9
5.8
8.0
15.7
11.1
13.4
13.6
13.3
11.9
18.6
17.1
17.8
11.7
10.4
9.4
9.0
7.3
6.8
7.6
13.1
14.1
7.5
14.5
86
804
36
71
60
66
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
45
28
<25
<25
<25
<25
51
<25
21.1
1.7
19.5
20.0
21.3
21.7
17.2
31.8
42.5
51.3
55.1
54.9
70.2
71.5
75.1
69.8
76.6
67.0
64.6
65.9
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1,145
846
882
905
1,290
1,427
907
801
783
477
715
766
843
804
1,153
878
1,024
364
817
564
Residence 2
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
BL5
BL6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
03/09/09
03/30/09
04/13/09
04/22/09
05/06/09
05/13/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/30/09
10/28/09
12/02/09
01/11/10
02/10/10
03/10/10
04/07/10
05/05/10
06/09/10
06/30/10
08/18/10
09/15/10
7.8
6.5
6.9
7.2
NA
8.0
6.6
7.1
6.8
6.8
6.5
6.5
7.0
7.3
6.5
6.4
6.0
6.5
6.1
6.8
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.2
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.4
605
604
601
606
628
617
574
565
573
546
589
636
638
600
604
617
592
684
613
661
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.9
0.5
0.3
3.3
3.6
0.5
3.7
3.7
.8
.8
.8
.0
.9
.9
.8
.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.2
7.5
7.8
7.9
6.5
7.1
6.5
6.6
7.5
7.7
8.0
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.3
8.0
15.8
33.6
17.6
17.0
15.6
20.3
15.6
13.3
12.5
5.2
3.7
4.0
3.4
2.9
4.0
3.7
7.0
4.8
5.0
10.0
89
1,238
217
303
379
774
47
70
59
27
26
123
50
26
92
34
27
35
86
72
20.9
3.9
1.2
1.3
1.3
2.9
3.5
1.9
2.4
1.4
1.8
64.1
25.8
24.0
70.5
24.7
18.0
19.5
41.0
70.1
<0.1
2.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
1.0
0.7
0.7
1.4
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.9
1.3
1,211
300
359
431
420
465
314
235
293
162
268
375
471
343
477
402
408
314
292
305
Residence 3
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
BL5
BL6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
03/09/09
03/30/09
04/13/09
04/22/09
05/06/09
05/13/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/30/09
10/28/09
12/02/09
01/11/10
02/10/10
03/10/10
04/07/10
05/05/10
06/09/10
06/30/10
08/18/10
09/15/10
8.3
7.5
8.0
8.0
NA
7.5
10.5
7.0
8.0
9.0
7.5
NS
8.4
8.0
7.5
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.0
6.5
7.6
7.6
7.8
8.1
7.6
7.6
7.3
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.5
NS
7.9
8.0
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.4
7.4
7.4
594
602
612
599
606
607
570
570
570
561
580
NS
635
596
604
620
598
599
626
647
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.5
3.5
3.7
.4
.5
.7
.6
NS
.7
.8
.7
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.9
3.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
NS
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.05
NS
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.1
7.5
7.9
7.5
6.6
7.0
6.6
NS
7.7
7.6
8.0
7.9
7.6
8.2
8.8
8.0
13.9
72.2
40.4
38.9
34.4
21.8
8.8
12.2
12.4
5.7
5 5
NS
7.0
5.9
6.0
5.6
10.9
5.4
5.3
9.7
141
4,063
3,067
2,553
2,740
901
<25
61
87
31
121
NS
700
200
626
620
564
374
411
<25
19.8
23.3
22.0
21.5
23.0
23.4
33.4
60.6
72.6
78.2
78.8
NS
197
112
182
162
154
89.6
85.5
162
0.2
4.4
11.7
12.1
5.4
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.3
NS
3.3
0.5
3.3
3.5
3.7
1.1
3.9
0.6
405
553
549
493
577
67.4
160
128
293
192
265
NS
448
291
462
333
348
286
295
308
Note: Pb action level =15 |ag/L; Cu action level = 1,300 [ig/L
57
-------
Table 4-17. Summary of Distribution System Water Sampling Results
Analytes
Stagnation
Time
pH
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Nitrate
(asN)
Nitrite
(asN)
TOC
As (total)
Fe (total)
Mn (total)
Pb (total)
Cu (total)
Unit
hr
S.U.
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
Type of
Measure-
ments
Baseline
Actual
Baseline
Actual
Baseline
Actual
Baseline
Actual(a)
Baseline
Actual
Baseline
Actual
Baseline
Actual
Baseline
Actual
Baseline
Actual
Baseline
Actual
Baseline
Actual
Baseline
Actual
Average (Range)
8.6(6.5-11.8)
8.9 (6.0-13.5)
7.6(7.4-8.1)
7.5 (7.2-8.0)
605 (758-630)
601 (546-684)
2.7 (0.5-3.9)
3.8(3.3^.8)
0.05
0.05
NA
0.05
7.6(7.1-8.2)
7.4 (5.8-8.8)
23.4(11.1-72.2)
8.8 (2.9-18.6)
977 (35.7-4,063)
168 (25.7-700)
15.0 (1.2-23.4)
64.6 (1.4-197.3)
3.3(0.1-12.1)
1.2(0.1-3.9)
685 (67.4-1,427)
472 (128-1,153)
(a) Not including two outliers on 08/05/09 and 10/28/09.
et al., 2009), White Rock Water Company Water System in Bow, NH (McCall et al, 2008), and the City
of Climax in MN (Condit and Chen, 2006).
Manganese concentrations measured after system startup averaged 58.1, 26.3, and 112.9 ug/L at
Residences 1, 2, and 3, respectively; these concentrations were higher than those measured before system
startup, but lower than those (except for Residence 3) in the filter effluent. It is not clear why manganese
concentrations decreased in the distribution system, but manganese particles can deposit on scales within
the distribution system especially with the added contact time.
Lead concentrations remained constant and averaged 3.3 and 1.2 ug/L before and after system startup,
respectively. Copper concentrations decreased slightly from 685 ug/L before system startup to 472 ug/L
after system startup. One baseline sample collected from Residence 1 on May 13, 2009, exceeded the
copper action level at 1,427 ug/L. Factors such as low pH, high temperature, and soft water with lower
dissolved minerals can increase the solubility of copper in drinking water when in contact with plumbing
fixtures. What had caused the one elevated copper concentration is unknown.
4.7
System Cost
The treatment system cost was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design capacity
and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The capital cost of the treatment system includes the
58
-------
cost for equipment, site engineering, and system installation. The O&M cost includes the cost for
chemicals, electricity, and labor. All costs associated with construction of the new water treatment
facility and post-treatment chemical addition systems were not included in the capital cost because neither
were included in the scope of the demonstration study and because these costs were funded separately by
the Village of Wayne sville.
4.7.1 Capital Cost. The total capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation
of the Peerless C/F system was $161,559 (see Table 4-18). The equipment cost was $90,749 (or 56.2% of
the total capital investment), which included $24,200 for the four filtration vessels, $5,726 for the media
(including #1 anthracite, GreensandPlus™, and gravel underbedding), $27,326 for process valves and
piping, $9,996 for instrumentation and controls, $7,956 for four additional flow meters/totalizers on the
four vessels, $2,545 for the NaMnO4 addition system, $4,500 for shipping, and $8,500 for labor.
Table 4-18. Capital Investment Cost for Peerless GreensandPlus™ System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment
Equipment Cost
Filtration Vessels
#1 Anthracite
GreensandPlus Media
Support Gravel
Process Valves & Piping
Instrumentation and Controls
Additional Flowmeter/Totalizers
NaMnO4 Addition System
Shipping
Labor
Equipment Total
4
7 ft3/vessel
14 ftVvessel
13 ftVvessel
-
-
4
1
-
-
-
$24,200
$424
$4,757
$545
$27,326
$9,996
$7,956
$2,545
$4,500
$8,500
$90,749
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
56.2%
Engineering Cost
Subcontractor Material
Subcontractor Labor
Subcontractor Travel
Engineering Total
-
-
-
-
$240
$21,630
$590
$22,460
-
-
-
13.9%
Installation Cost
Subcontractor Material
Subcontractor Labor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
$13,818
$34,532
$48,350
$161,559
-
-
29.9%
100%
The site engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of system engineering plans and drawings
for piping tie-ins, electrical requirements for system components, tank fill details, and system layout and
footprint to assist in facility construction, as well as submission of a permit application package to IL
EPA for approval. The site engineering cost was $22,460, or 13.9% of the total capital investment. Site
engineering was performed by CMT Engineering of Springfield, IL.
The installation cost included the material and labor to unload and install the four filtration vessels,
perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, load and backwash the media, and perform system shakedown
and startup. The installation cost was $48,350 (or 29.9% of the total capital investment). System
59
-------
installation was performed by G.A. Rich & Sons, Inc. of Deer Creek, IL in coordination with CMT
Engineering.
The total capital cost of $161,559 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 96 gpm (or 138,240
gpd), which results in $l,683/gpm (or $1.17 gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted
to an annualized cost of $15,250/yr using a capital recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate
and a 20-yr return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/week at the design
flowrate of 96 gpm to produce 50,457,600 gal/yr, the unit capital cost would be $0.30/1,000 gal. During
the demonstration period from July 15, 2009 through September 19, 2010, the system produced
12,603,800 gal of water or 10,649,000 gal/year. At this reduced rate of usage, the unit capital cost
increased to $1.43/1,000 gal.
4.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The total O&M cost for items including chemical usage,
electricity consumption, and operator labor was $0.68/1,000 gal of water treated (see Table 4-19). The
total chemical cost for NaMnO4 addition during the demonstration period was $5,976 or $0.47/1,000 gal
of water treated. Electrical consumption was calculated based on the difference between the cost from
utility bills before and after system startup. The monthly difference in electrical consumption was $67.20
or $0.08/1,000 gal of water treated. Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate
and maintain the system consumed 0.25 hr/day with 7 visits per week. The total labor cost for routine
labor activities during the demonstration period was $1,620 or $0.13/1,000 gal of water treated.
Table 4-19. Operation and Maintenance Cost for Peerless GreensandPlus™ System
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Value
12,603,800
Assumptions
During 432-day study period, equivalent to
10,649,000 gal/yr
Chemical Usage
20.0% NaMnO4 Unit Cost ($/gal)
NaMnO4 Consumption (gal/1,000 gal)
Chemical Cost ($/l,000 gal)
13.43
0.035
0.47
445 gal ordered during study period
Electricity Consumption
Electricity Cost ($/month)
Electricity Cost ($/l,000 gal)
67.20
0.08
Approximate incremental electricity
consumption after system startup
Labor Cost
Average Labor (hr/day)
Labor Through Study Period (hr)
Labor Cost through Study Period ($)
Labor Cost ($/l,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost (S/1,000 gal)
0.25
108
1,620
0.13
0.68
7 visits/week
During 432-day study period
At $15.00/hr during study period
-
For chemical usage, electricity consumption,
and labor
60
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Amy, G.L., P.A. Chadik, and P.H. King. 1984. "Chlorine Utilization During Trihalomethane Formation
in the Presence of Ammonia and Bromide." Environ. Sci. Technol, 18:781-786.
Battelle. 2009. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology Round 2a at Village of Waynesville, IL.. 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.
Bougeard, C.M.M., E.H. Goslan, B. Jefferson, and S.A. Parsons. 2010. "Comparison of the Disinfection
By-product Formation Potential of Treated Waters Exposed to Chlorine and Monochloramine,"
Water Research, 44: 729-740.
Carlson, Kenneth H., and William R. Knocke. 1999. "Modeling Manganese Oxidation with KMnO4 for
Drinking Water Treatment." JAWWA 125(10): 892-896.
Carus Corporation. 2001. Determination of Cairox® Potassium Permanganate Residual for Drinking
Water Applications: DPD Spectrophotometric Method. Analytical Method 103.
Chen, A.S.C., J.P.. Lipps, R.J. Stowe, B.J. Yates, V. Lai, and L. Wang. 201 la. 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., W.E. Condit, B.J. Yates, and L. Wang. 201 Ib. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Coagulation/Filtratoin, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Town ofArnaudville, LA, Final
Performance Evaluation Report. 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., R.J. Stowe, and L. Wang. 201 Ic. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Coagulation/Filtratoin, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Conneaut Lake Park in Conneaut
Lake, PA, Final Performance Evaluation Report. 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., G.M. Lewis, L. Wang, and A. Wang. 2010a. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Coagulation/Filtration, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Town ofFelton, DE, Final
Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-10/039. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., W.E. Condit, B.J. Yates, and L. Wang. 2010b. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Iron Removal. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN. Final Performance Evaluation
61
-------
Report. EPA/600/R-10/033. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., J.P. Lipps, S.E. McCall, and L. Wang. 2009a. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Adsorptive Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in
Susanville, CA. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-09/067. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, and W.E. Condit. 2009b. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron
Removal, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Vintage on the Ponds in Delavan, WI, Final
Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-09/066. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Condit, W.E., A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, and A. Wang. 2009. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Iron Removal and Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Stewart, MN, Final
Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-09/144. 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.-W. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, RC. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in Arsenic Analysis and Speciation." Journal 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.
EPA. 1999. Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual. EPA/815/R-99/014. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1998. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts;
Final Rule. 40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142.
Ficek, K.J. 1994. The Potassium Permanganate/Greensand Process for Water Treatment. Presented at
20th Annual WQA Convention, Phoenix, AZ, March 14.
62
-------
Frank, P.L. and D.A. Clifford. 1986. Arsenic (III) Oxidation and Removal from Drinking Water.
EPA/600/S2-86/021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Gregory, D., and K. Carlson. 2003. "Effect of Soluble Mn Concentration on Oxidation Kinetics ."
JAWWA 95(1): 98-108.
Ghurye, G.. and D. Clifford. 2001. Laboratory Study on the Oxidation of Arsenic III to Arsenic V.
EPA/600/R-01/021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Hering, J.G., P.Y. Chen, J.A. Wilkie, E. Menachem, and L. Sun. 1996. "Arsenic Removal by Ferric
Chloride." JAWWA, 88(4): 155.
Knocke, W.R., Hoehn, R.C., Sinsabaugh, R.L. 1987. Using Alternative Oxidants to Remove Dissolved
Manganese From Waters Laden With Organics. J. AWWA, 79(3): 75-79.
Knocke, William R., Holly L. Shorney, and Julia D. Bellamy. 1994. "Examining the Reactions Between
Soluble Iron, DOC, and Alternative Oxidants During Conventional Treatment. "JAWWA 86(1):
117-127.
Knocke, W.R., Van Benschoten, J.E., Kearney, M., Soborski, A., and Reckhow, D.A. 1990. Alternative
Oxidants for the Remove of Soluble Iron and Manganese. Final report prepared for the AWWA
Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, A. Wang, and S.E. McCall. 2010. Arsenic Removal from Drinking
Water by Adsorptive Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Spring Brook Mobile Home
Park in Wales, ME. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-10/012. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
Lytle D.A. and T.J. Sorg. 2005. "Distribution System Issues." Presented at the Workshop on Arsenic
Removal from Drinking Water - August 16 to 18, Cincinnati, OH.
Magyar, J. 1992. Personal Communication, Kelliher Arsenic Removal Study Saskatchewan
Environment and Public Safety, Regina, Canada. November 4.
McCall, S.E., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2008. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Bow, NH. Final Performance Evaluation Report.
EPA/600/R-08/006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Pedersen III, E. J. 2001. Greensand Filtration Removes Radium. Water Technology, August: 51-55.
Rathbun, R.E. 1997. "Effect of Reaction Time on the Formation of Disinfection Byproducts."
Chemosphere. 34(12): 2699-2713.
Shiao, H.T., A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, and W.E. Condit. 2009. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Iron Removal, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park in Sauk
Centre, MN, Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-09/013. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
63
-------
Sorg, T.J. 2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, AWWA, 28(11): 15.
Summers, R.S., S.M. Hooper, H.M. Shukairy, G. Solarik, and D. Owen. 1996. "Assessing DBF Yield:
Uniform Formation Conditions," J. A WWA. 88: 80-93.
Sun, Y-X., Q-Y. Wu, H-Y Hu, J. Tian, J. 2009. "Effect of Ammonia on the Formation of THMs and
F£AAs in Secondary Effluent Chlorination." Chemosphere, 7(5:631-637.
Vikesland, P.J. and R.L. Valentine. 2002. "Modeling the Kinetics of Ferrous Iron Oxidation by
Monochloramine." Environ. Sci. andTechnol. 36(4):662-668.
Valigore, J.M., A.S.C. Chen, W.E. Condit, and L. Wang. 2008. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water
by Iron Removal, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at City ofSandusky, MI, Final Performance
Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-08/007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Wang, L., A.S.C. Chen, V. Lai, and L.J. Cumming. 2011. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Solid Oxidizing Media and Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Hot Springs
Mobile Home Park in Willard, UT, Final Performance Evaluation Report. 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.
Wang A, A.S.C. Chen, and L, Wang. 2010a. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Lead, SD. Final Performance Evaluation Report.
EPA/600/R-10/179. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Wang, L., A.S.C. Chen, and G.M. Lewis. 2010b. Arsenic and Uranium Removal from Drinking Water
by Adsorptive Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Upper Bodfish in Lake Isabella, CA.
Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-10/165. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Wang, L., A.S.C. Chen, and A. Wang. 2010c. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Oak Manor Municipal Utility District at Alvin, TX.
Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-10/045. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
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.
64
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Waynesville, IL - Daily System Operation and Operator Labor Log Sheet
Time and System Effluent Meter
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Date
071 5/09
071 6/09
071 7/09
071 8/09
071 9/09
07/20/09
07/21/09
07/22/09
07/23/09
07/24/09
07/25/09
07/26/09
07/27/09
07/28/09
07/29/09
07/30/09
07/31/09
08/01/09
08/02/09
08/03/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
08/06/09
08/07/09
08/08/09
08/09/09
08/10/09
08/11/09
08/12/09
08/13/09
08/14/09
08/15/09
08/16/09
08/17/09
08/18/09
08/19/09
08/20/09
08/21/09
08/22/09
08/23/09
08/24/09
08/25/09
08/26/09
08/27/09
08/28/09
08/29/09
08/30/09
08/31/09
09/01/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
09/04/09
09/05/09
09/06/09
09/07/09
09/08/09
09/09/09
09/10/09
09/11/09
09/12/09
09 13/09
09 14/09
09 15/09
09 16/09
09 17/09
09 18/09
09 19/09
Time
11:37
16:23
16:15
16:20
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
19:30
16:30
16:10
15:50
15:00
16:12
16:28
16:06
16:16
17:05
16:20
16:22
16:15
16:15
16:15
16:23
16:15
16:25
15:40
14:50
16:35
16:40
16:25
16:15
16:40
17:40
16:40
16:25
16:20
16:00
16:20
16:50
16:15
16:45
16:15
17:00
16:10
16:22
16:50
16:00
16:02
16:00
16:20
16:50
16:08
18:00
16:20
16:50
17:05
17:05
18:12
16:42
16:34
16:05
17:25
16:35
17:05
System Effluent Meter
Flow
rate
(gpm|
45.56
44.50
42.40
41.20
42.25
41.40
40.00
43.22
36.78
44.00
43.00
42.70
41.00
37.90
41.20
37.70
41.60
37.40
42.50
37.30
41.70
37.70
36.40
45.20
37.00
36.80
38.40
42.00
41.60
38.20
36.30
34.80
32.90
39.90
36.10
45.30
39.50
40.20
39.30
41.20
37.30
36.50
38.40
38.30
40.70
37.90
41.40
40.60
41.40
Cum.
totalizer
(gal)
NA
NA
102,160
131,960
169,540
197,790
222,840
258,490
294,130
332,420
362,150
392,450
420,090
465,010
487,680
516,860
549,110
577,810
607,410
641 ,360
668,070
702,430
732,780
762,480
788,370
822,650
848,280
879,100
908,920
934,870
968,160
997,820
1,027,870
1,053,060
1,083,360
1,110,440
1,139,720
1,171,750
1,204,450
1,236,700
1,274,770
1,304,010
1,337,070
1,361,840
1,390,850
1,421,790
1,452,040
1,478,110
1,508,010
1,535,510
1,566,240
1,595,030
1,627,880
1,658,170
1,688,890
1,716,110
1,744,200
1,769,790
1,805,360
1,836,780
1,861,090
1,893,700
1,918,050
1,947,480
1,976,270
2,002,340
Daily
Treated
(gpd)
30,220
37,580
28,250
25,050
35,650
35,640
33,417
33,977
30,727
28,029
46,536
21 ,590
28,859
32,750
28,502
28,626
35,045
26,673
34,528
30,350
29,700
25,747
34,472
25,453
31,814
30,893
24,186
33,175
29,972
30,260
24,760
29,088
28,257
29,588
32,142
33,161
31 ,808
37,293
29,968
32,385
25,297
28,131
32,053
30,000
25,573
30,976
27,462
30,773
28,396
32,180
31 ,200
28,503
29,251
27,517
25,326
35,570
30,023
25,931
32,792
24,850
27,881
29,826
25,538
System Service Parameters
Tank A
Flow
rate
(gpm)
21.3
11.4
11.5
10.8
10.9
10.9
11.5
10.5
10.6
11.1
9.3
21.5
10.5
20.5
10.7
10.7
10.7
11.0
10.1
10.9
9.8
11.4
10.2
11.1
10.1
9.8
11.6
10.1
9.9
10.3
11.3
11.1
10.9
9.8
9.5
8.4
21.3
10.3
9.8
11.8
21.3
10.4
10.9
10.4
10.8
10.2
9.9
10.3
10.4
11.1
10.3
10.8
10.6
11.0
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
0
9,940
17,530
28,050
35,800
46,360
53,760
59,620
68,940
79,270
89,320
97,810
105,560
112,800
125,590
131,160
138,600
147,760
155,300
163,150
172,900
179,840
188,840
197,590
205,470
212,400
222,210
229,090
237,290
245,970
252,910
261 ,820
270,550
278,560
285,260
294,190
301 ,440
307,410
318,690
327,520
336,310
347,470
355,620
364,200
371 ,280
NA
NA
379,940
381,110
394,880
402,730
410,900
418,540
428,000
436,220
444,440
452,550
460,110
466,910
477,050
485,540
492,190
501 ,740
508,090
515,800
524,080
531 ,690
iP
10
6
7
5
6
5
6
5
5
5
9
5
4
4
6
5
7
5
4
8
5
6
7
5
5
7
6
6
7
5
6
7
6
6
8
5
7
6
5
6
5
5
13
11
10
11
12
3
5
7
5
6
7
5
6
7
4
2
3
4
5
6
5
4
5
3
4
TankB
Flow
rate
(gpm)
20.6
11.6
11.5
10.9
10.6
11.2
11.1
10.7
11.1
11.2
9.7
20.5
10.5
21.0
11.2
11.0
10.4
11.0
10.9
11.1
9.8
11.2
10.4
11.1
10.0
10.2
11.5
9.9
10.1
10.3
11.1
11.2
10.8
10.0
9.5
9.3
20.9
10.9
9.7
12.0
21.7
10.5
11.2
10.5
10.9
10.4
9.8
10.2
10.3
10.9
10.6
11.1
10.9
11.1
Cum.
totalizer
(gal)
0
10,050
17,750
28,270
28,400
45,740
54,340
60,940
69,890
80,470
90,650
99,190
107,250
109,520
127,120
133,000
140,700
149,960
157,660
165,560
175,310
182,340
191,400
200,050
208,070
215,000
224,740
231,630
239,770
248,270
255,360
264,250
272,850
280,950
287,840
296,340
303,740
311,840
320,820
329,660
338,360
349,340
350,270
366,060
373,300
NA
NA
381,930
389,200
397,110
405,060
413,360
421,040
430,450
438,660
446,810
454,600
462,220
469,020
479,230
487,700
494,220
503,680
510,170
518,050
526,350
533,990
iP
1
0
1
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
3
5
2
2
2
2
3
5
3
4
4
3
4
TankC
Flow
rate
(gpm)
20.7
12.4
12.3
11.5
11.1
11.7
10.9
10.6
10.5
11.6
10.1
20.5
10.9
20.0
12.0
11.5
10.9
11.3
10.6
11.6
10.3
11.4
10.7
11.6
10.4
10.5
11.9
10.1
10.4
10.7
11.4
11.4
11.2
10.2
9.8
9.5
21.0
10.9
10.0
11.9
22.0
11.0
11.4
10.9
11.4
10.6
10.1
10.5
10.5
11.0
10.7
11.4
11.2
11.3
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
0
10,440
18,610
29,500
37,740
48,640
56,580
63,570
72,780
83,880
94,500
103,190
111,650
119,100
131,880
138,310
146,510
156,010
164,080
172,290
182,270
189,620
199,110
207,920
216,200
223,320
233,210
240,400
248,910
257,550
264,860
273,990
282,640
291 ,060
297,920
306,620
314,220
322,590
331 ,500
340,610
349,530
360,480
368,570
377,440
384,570
NA
NA
393,300
400,650
408,790
416,890
425,450
433,400
442,940
451 ,340
459,670
467,560
475,120
482,150
492,440
501 ,090
507,730
517,240
523,860
531 ,970
540,350
548,080
iP
3
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
TankD
Flow
rate
(gpm)
21.6
11.8
12.1
11.2
11.5
11.3
11.1
10.9
10.1
11.0
9.1
22.0
10.3
20.5
11.8
10.9
9.3
11.0
9.2
11.2
10.2
11.2
9.1
11.1
10.1
8.7
11.5
9.7
9.0
10.3
11.2
11.0
11.0
8.8
9.3
7.8
21.0
10.7
9.5
10.9
21.5
10.4
9.7
10.4
11.0
9.0
9.6
10.1
10.1
10.6
9.0
10.9
10.7
10.9
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
0
9,740
17,670
27,800
35,760
45,960
48,430
60,210
68,890
79,240
89,460
97,300
105,350
112,690
124,970
131,440
139,390
147,860
155,310
163,280
172,640
179,440
188,720
196,820
204,570
211,500
220,730
227,330
235,620
243,570
250,250
259,080
266,860
274,700
281,390
289,400
296,320
304,020
312,480
321,010
329,510
339,270
346,780
355,630
362,270
NA
NA
370,480
377,230
385,000
392,490
400,330
408,000
416,600
424,450
432,510
439,600
446,800
453,730
463,100
471,170
477,570
486,330
492,400
500,200
507,910
515,060
iP
3
0
0
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
0
0
1
2
1
2
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
NA
2
1
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
3
5
4
4
5
4
3
6
6
5
6
4
2
4
5
4
6
5
Backwash
Back-
wash
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
Estimated
Cum.
Totalizer'"
(gal)
0
44,705
50,505
58,590
58,590
61,650
61,650
61,650
64,710
64,710
64,710
67,760
67,760
67,760
70,810
70,810
70,810
73,850
73,850
73,850
76,890
76,890
76,890
79,950
79,950
79,950
83,010
83,010
83,010
86,060
86,060
86,060
89,110
89,110
89,110
92,150
92,150
92,150
95,200
95,200
95,200
98,240
98,240
98,240
01 ,280
01 ,280
01 ,280
04,340
04,340
04,340
07,400
07,400
07,400
10,440
10,440
10,440
13,490
13,490
13,490
16,560
' 16,560
' 16,560
' 19,600
' 19,600
' 19,600
' 22,660
22,660
Oxidant Addition
NaMnO4
Level
(gal)
17.00
16.25
16.00
15.00
14.25
12.75
12.00
11.25
25.00
23.50
22.00
21.25
20.00
19.25
18.00
17.50
16.75
15.75
15.00
24.00
23.00
22.00
21.00
20.00
19.00
18.25
17.25
16.50
15.75
14.75
13.75
25.00
23.75
22.75
22.00
20.75
20.00
19.00
18.00
17.00
15.50
14.00
13.00
25.00
23.50
22.00
21.00
20.00
19.00
18.00
17.00
15.75
14.75
13.25
25.00
24.00
23.50
22.25
21.25
20.00
19.00
25.00
23.75
23.00
22.00
20.75
19.75
NaMnO4
Dosage
(mg/L)
NA
NA
NA
5.2
8.2
5.4
6.1
NA
8.6
8.0
5.2
8.5
5.6
5.7
4.5
5.3
6.4
5.4
NA
6.0
7.7
6.0
6.8
6.9
5.9
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.9
7.9
NA
8.6
6.8
6.1
8.5
5.7
7.0
6.4
6.3
9.5
8.1
7.0
NA
12.4
10.6
6.6
6.8
7.9
6.9
7.5
8.3
7.1
9.4
NA
6.7
3.8
9.1
8.0
7.2
6.5
NA
7.9
6.3
7.0
8.9
7.9
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Waynesville, IL - Daily System Operation and Operator Labor Log Sheet
(Continued)
Time and System Effluent Meter
Week
No.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Date
09/20/09
09/21/09
09/22/09
09/23/09
09/24/09
09/25/09
09/26/09
09/27/09
09/28/09
09/29/09
09/30/09
10/01/09
10/02/09
10/03/09
10/04/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
10/07/09
10/08/09
10/09/09
10/10/09
10/11/09
10/12/09
10/13/09
10/14/09
10/15/09
10/16/09
10/17/09
10/18/09
10/19/09
10/20/09
10/21/09
10/22/09
10/23/09
10/24/09
10/25/09
10/26/09
10/27/09
10/28/09
10/29/09
10/30/09
10/31/09
11/01/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
11/04/09
11/05/09
11/06/09
11/07/09
11/08/09
11/09/09
11/10/09
11/11/09
11/12/09
11/13/09
11/14/09
11/15/09
11/16/09
11/17/09
11/18/09
11/19/09
11/20/09
11/21/09
11/22/09
11/23/09
11/24/09
11/25/09
11/26/09
11/27/09
Time
15:30
17:40
16:30
16:05
17:16
15:46
15:50
16:16
16:05
16:05
16:00
16:00
16:20
16:20
16:05
16:12
16:05
17:55
17:36
15:10
16:00
16:27
16:25
16:30
18:30
15:00
16:35
16:10
16:38
16:55
17:45
16:10
16:10
16:30
16:00
16:20
16:55
16:00
17:45
16:10
16:00
16:15
16:34
16:00
16:25
16:00
16:10
15:20
15:15
16:25
16:00
16:22
16:20
15:50
16:00
16:10
16:40
18:00
16:05
16:50
16:58
16:06
15:45
14:05
17:10
16:00
15:55
16:28
19:30
System Effluent Meter
Flow
rate
(gpm|
40.80
42.60
43.90
40.80
42.40
37.60
37.50
37.30
42.00
41.10
41.70
40.50
41.30
36.30
35.30
40.60
41.80
43.20
35.60
35.40
40.50
41.60
40.10
38.70
41.50
40.80
41.70
42.50
42.00
42.10
44.50
43.10
43.80
41.20
42.10
40.50
41.70
Cum.
totalizer
(gal)
2,032,970
2,065,790
2,090,160
2,119,460
2,147,480
2,173,820
2,206,000
2,236,730
2,267,840
2,292,130
2,321,420
2,349,140
2,375,200
2,407,960
2,438,520
2,463,220
2,490,200
2,517,000
2,545,160
2,570,810
2,597,520
2,628,800
2,660,360
2,681,000
2,711,220
2,737,230
2,763,690
2,792,080
2,827,190
2,852,270
2,878,750
2,910,830
2,938,000
2,969,320
,004,210
,038,540
,064,740
,094,450
,122,320
,145,770
,175,100
,203,970
3,236,240
3,271,220
3,293,450
3,320,400
3,350,390
3,375,510
3,405,180
3,439,810
3,467,500
3,490,260
3,520,190
3,545,800
3,569,040
3,600,770
3,627,310
3,659,020
3,683,580
3,704,530
3,729,550
3,757,020
3,779,180
3,808,860
3,839,680
3,861,730
3,888,740
3,923,770
3,951,250
Daily
Treated
(gpd)
32,793
30,102
25,615
29,818
26,703
28,096
32,091
30,185
31 ,349
24,290
29,392
27,720
25,703
32,760
30,882
24,581
27,112
24,898
28,537
28,544
25,814
30,704
31 ,604
20,569
27,895
30,451
24,822
28,892
34,440
24,787
25,591
34,346
27,170
30,891
35,632
33,860
25,578
30,890
25,976
25,106
29,535
28,572
31 ,850
35,826
21,851
27,426
29,783
26,024
29,773
33,025
28,179
22,418
29,972
26,155
23,080
31,511
25,998
30,041
26,692
20,315
24,882
28,499
22,488
31 ,895
27,311
23,177
27,104
34,245
24,397
System Service Parameters
Tank A
Flow
rate
(gpm)
10.5
11.8
11.5
10.9
11.2
10.4
10.4
10.1
NA
11.3
11.0
11.1
10.8
10.8
9.8
9.8
10.8
20.2
11.1
11.4
9.9
9.7
10.9
11.1
11.0
10.7
11.0
11.1
11.2
11.2
11.1
11.4
11.5
11.1
11.7
11.3
11.4
11.2
11.4
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
539,370
548,780
555,630
563,480
571 ,690
578,830
587,560
594,830
604,890
611,480
NA
627,720
634,820
644,360
652,720
659,400
667,220
674,470
682,010
689,540
696,700
705,030
714,230
719,800
727,890
735,550
742,680
750,350
760,580
767,300
774,410
783,540
790,870
799,340
809,510
818,730
825,900
834,690
842,250
848,560
857,180
864,980
873,720
883,670
889,660
896,720
905,380
912,140
920,100
930,180
937,640
943,780
952,500
959,340
965,550
974,780
981,910
990,380
997,510
1,003,120
1,009,710
1,017,660
1,023,630
1,031,670
1,040,720
1,046,690
1,054,020
1,064,270
1,071,700
iP
4
3
5
3
1
2
4
2
3
1
NA
1
4
2
1
3
1
3
4
2
2
3
2
3
4
1
1
2
3
1
5
2
1
3
1
2
4
1
2
1
1
2
3
2
1
2
0
3
3
1
2
2
2
3
2
1
3
2
2
3
4
1
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
TankB
Flow
rate
(gpm)
10.7
11.5
11.2
10.9
11.3
10.0
10.4
9.9
NA
11.1
11.0
11.1
10.7
10.9
9.6
9.8
10.7
20.4
11.0
11.1
10.0
9.4
10.6
11.0
10.6
10.8
11.0
10.9
11.0
11.2
11.2
11.7
11.7
11.3
11.6
10.9
11.1
10.9
11.0
Cum.
totalizer
(gal)
541,600
550,870
557,520
565,190
573,260
580,410
588,950
597,780
606,250
619,870
NA
628,630
635,630
644,940
653,300
659,920
667,600
674,910
682,370
689,690
697,490
705,120
714,130
719,640
727,590
735,000
742,150
749,660
759,640
766,300
773,300
782,250
789,550
797,800
807,700
816,860
823,790
832,210
839,720
845,870
854,170
861,910
870,420
880,400
886,390
893,520
902,060
908,810
916,620
926,390
933,740
939,730
948,260
955,100
961,200
970,250
977,420
975,850
993,000
998,680
,005,320
,013,190
,019,140
,027,040
,035,720
,041,610
,048,730
' ,058,670
,065,930
iP
4
3
4
1
1
3
3
1
3
2
NA
1
4
1
1
4
1
3
4
0
2
3
2
3
4
1
2
2
3
1
5
2
1
4
1
3
4
1
4
2
1
2
4
2
1
1
0
2
3
1
2
1
3
1
1
0
1
0
1
2
2
0
2
3
1
0
2
1
3
TankC
Flow
rate
(gpm)
11.0
11.5
11.4
11.2
11.5
10.3
10.5
10.2
NA
11.4
11.1
11.2
10.9
11.1
9.8
9.9
10.9
20.7
11.1
11.3
10.1
9.6
10.8
11.1
10.7
10.9
11.2
10.9
11.2
11.5
11.3
11.7
12.1
11.7
11.8
11.0
11.2
11.1
11.2
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
552,770
565,030
571 ,760
579,600
587,690
594,930
603,680
612,550
621 ,200
627,780
NA
643,850
650,960
660,290
668,750
675,480
683,060
690,470
698,030
705,270
712,550
720,940
729,960
735,560
743,670
751 ,080
758,260
763,890
775,870
782,630
789,750
798,720
806,190
814,630
824,470
833,780
840,810
849,140
856,720
862,940
871,180
879,030
887,670
897,650
903,780
911,020
919,570
926,390
934,320
944,050
951 ,500
957,560
966,020
973,090
979,340
988,360
995,520
1,004,060
1,011,210
1,016,990
1,023,800
1,031,680
1,037,680
1,045,660
1,054,350
1,060,340
1,067,590
1,077,460
1,084,850
iP
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
NA
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
0
2
0
2
TankD
Flow
rate
(gpm)
10.8
10.2
11.0
10.7
11.0
9.7
9.0
9.9
NA
11.1
10.7
10.7
10.6
10.9
9.4
8.2
10.6
19.1
10.7
10.9
8.1
9.1
10.3
10.5
10.2
9.1
10.8
10.5
10.6
11.0
10.6
9.6
11.1
11.1
11.0
10.5
10.5
9.6
10.6
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
522,570
531,200
537,370
544,880
552,180
558,770
567,180
575,150
583,220
589,580
NA
604,130
611,010
619,530
627,270
633,750
640,760
647,380
654,650
661,310
667,950
676,180
684,230
689,360
697,220
704,000
710,450
717,720
726,590
732,830
739,670
747,970
754,670
762,780
771,570
780,320
787,000
794,490
801,330
807,270
814,860
821,910
830,170
839,300
844,720
851,600
859,390
865,620
873,310
882,290
889,250
895,020
902,750
909,240
915,190
923,340
929,890
937,880
944,330
949,380
955,690
962,850
968,300
975,870
983,740
989,140
995,960
1 ,004,730
1,011,570
iP
4
0
2
0
3
3
2
3
3
4
NA
5
3
5
5
2
5
3
1
2
2
2
4
2
1
1
2
2
3
4
0
4
4
1
4
1
0
3
3
4
4
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
0
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
Backwash
Back-
wash
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
Estimated
Cum.
Totalizer'"
(gal)
122,660
125,710
125,710
125,710
128,710
128,710
128,710
131,830
131,830
131,830
134,890
134,890
134,890
137,970
137,970
137,970
141,050
141,050
141,050
144,120
144,120
144,120
147,170
147,170
147,170
150,220
150,220
150,220
153,270
153,270
153,270
156,340
156,340
156,340
159,400
159,400
159,400
162,470
162,470
162,470
165,550
165,550
165,550
168,620
168,620
168,620
171,690
171,690
171,690
174,750
174,750
174,750
177,800
177,800
177,800
180,850
180,850
180,850
183,900
183,900
183,900
186,950
186,950
186,950
190,000
190,000
190,000
193,050
193,050
Oxidant Addition
NaMnO4
Level
(gal)
18.75
17.75
16.75
16.00
15.00
13.75
12.75
26.00
25.00
24.00
22.50
21.75
20.75
19.50
18.50
17.50
16.50
15.50
14.75
13.50
12.75
12.00
12.50
17.50
16.75
15.50
15.00
14.00
13.00
12.00
35.50
34.50
34.00
33.00
32.00
30.50
29.75
28.75
28.00
27.25
26.50
25.25
24.50
23.00
22.50
21.50
20.75
20.00
19.00
18.00
35.00
34.50
33.75
33.00
32.25
31.25
30.25
29.25
28.50
27.75
27.00
26.00
25.25
24.25
24.25
22.75
21.75
20.75
19.75
NaMnO4
Dosage
(mg/L)
6.7
6.2
8.4
5.2
7.3
9.7
6.4
NA
6.6
8.4
10.5
5.5
7.9
7.8
6.7
8.3
7.6
7.6
5.5
10.0
5.8
4.9
NA
NA
5.1
9.9
3.9
7.2
5.8
8.2
NA
6.4
3.8
6.5
5.9
9.0
5.9
6.9
5.5
6.6
5.2
8.9
4.8
8.8
4.6
7.6
5.1
6.1
6.9
5.9
NA
4.5
5.1
6.0
6.6
6.5
7.7
6.5
6.3
7.3
6.1
7.5
6.9
6.9
NA
13.9
7.6
5.9
7.5
>
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Waynesville, IL - Daily System Operation and Operator Labor Log Sheet
(Continued)
Time and System Effluent Meter
Week
No.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Date
11/28/09
11/29/09
11/30/09
12/01/09
12/02/09
12/03/09
12/04/09
12/05/09
12/06/09
12/07/09
12/08/09
12/09/09
12/10/09
12/11/09
12/12/09
12/13/09
12/14/09
12/15/09
12/16/09
12/17/09
12/18/09
12/19/09
12/20/09
12/21/09
12/22/09
12/23/09
12/24/09
12/25/09
12/26/09
12/27/09
12/28/09
12/29/09
12/30/09
12/31/09
01/01/10
01/02/10
01/03/10
01/04/10
01/05/10
01/06/10
01/07/10
01/08/10
01/09/10
01/10/10
01/11/10
01/12/10
01/13/10
01/14/10
01/15/10
01/16/10
01/17/10
01/18/10
01/19/10
01/20/10
01/21/10
01/22/10
01/23/10
01/24/10
01/25/10
01/26/10
01/27/10
01/28/10
01/29/10
01/30/10
01/31/10
02/01/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
02/04/10
Time
15:30
16:20
16:25
16:20
16:00
16:00
15:25
15:52
16:15
15:10
18:15
16:20
15:45
16:00
16:00
16:22
16:00
16:30
16:00
16:00
15:10
16:27
16:00
16:50
16:30
16:05
16:00
15:55
15:38
16:06
15:25
16:00
16:10
16:00
16:35
16:00
17:00
16:18
16:08
16:25
16:25
16:02
16:00
15:40
16:10
18:00
17:55
16:00
16:00
16:00
15:30
16:00
15:30
17:20
16:05
15:20
15:45
16:00
16:02
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:02
15:50
16:05
16:05
16:00
16:00
16:00
System Effluent Meter
Flow
rate
(gpm|
40.30
42.60
43.10
40.40
41.60
43.80
43.90
41.90
42.00
42.44
84.30
83.80
83.00
84.70
83.50
83.20
85.80
84.00
84.10
84.10
84.90
85.00
85.00
83.80
85.10
84.30
85.20
84.00
85.00
84.00
83.30
85.20
84.80
Cum.
totalizer
(gal)
3,977,450
4,004,600
4,033,280
4,057,120
4,083,040
4,106,210
4,130,890
4,164,520
4,190,670
4,217,120
4,244,230
4,265,960
4,293,640
4,320,640
4,352,350
4,377,100
4,405,210
4,429,440
4,457,000
4,483,110
4,508,170
4,535,100
4,562,030
4,588,640
4,614,460
4,638,000
4,666,060
4,692,680
4,719,490
4,749,300
4,773,640
4,795,770
4,828,700
4,866,240
4,905,590
4,942,810
4,988,450
5,027,180
5,055,810
5,085,910
5,114,620
5,143,970
5,173,020
5,202,260
5,232,570
5,277,640
5,307,240
5,332,660
5,359,250
5,391,400
5,420,420
5,452,750
5,482,460
5,510,790
5,539,480
5,566,520
5,596,130
5,624,940
5,654,070
5,680,440
5,707,200
5,737,790
5,768,140
5,797,310
5,826,880
5,856,080
5,886,210
5,909,990
5,937,410
Daily
Treated
(gpd)
31 ,440
26,239
28,581
23,923
26,285
23,170
25,295
33,011
25,739
27,700
24,024
23,616
28,370
26,722
31,710
24,378
28,546
23,736
28,146
26,110
25,961
25,563
27,445
25,717
26,184
23,956
28,158
26,713
27,130
29,241
25,053
21 ,605
32,703
37,803
38,416
38,147
43,814
39,894
28,830
29,749
28,710
29,826
29,090
29,652
29,691
41,871
29,703
27,626
26,590
32,150
29,637
31 ,670
30,342
26,319
30,266
27,912
29,105
28,513
29,090
26,407
26,760
30,590
30,308
29,415
29,265
29,200
30,235
23,780
27,420
System Service Parameters
Tank A
Flow
rate
(gpm)
11.1
11.4
11.6
11.3
11.2
11.8
11.4
11.3
11.4
11.4
21.4
21.7
22.1
22.1
22.2
22.4
21.7
22.6
22.3
21.8
21.4
22.7
22.5
22.3
21.3
21.6
22.7
22.6
22.4
22.3
22.2
21.5
21.8
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
1,078,870
1,086,900
1,094,690
1,101,150
1,108,890
1,115,070
1,121,770
1,131,700
1,138,850
1,146,080
1,154,200
1,159,970
1,167,370
1,175,360
1,183,990
1,190,770
1,199,190
1,205,820
1,213,270
1,221,100
1,227,850
1,234,210
1,242,810
1,249,820
1,256,640
1,263,940
1,271,110
1,278,110
1,286,240
1,294,000
1,300,610
1,307,630
1,316,030
1,325,940
1,337,560
1,347,070
1,359,150
1,370,330
1,377,950
1,385,860
1,394,520
1,402,020
1,409,550
1,418,360
1,426,090
1,437,920
1,446,380
1,453,070
1,460,080
1,469,290
1,476,710
1,485,120
1,493,630
1,501,180
1,508,760
1,517,110
1,524,500
1,531,960
1,540,390
1,547,410
1,554,590
1,563,300
1,571,290
1,579,040
1,587,880
1,595,320
1,602,400
1,610,590
1,617,540
iP
4
1
2
0
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
1
3
0
1
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
1
3
4
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
3
3
2
2
0
1
0
3
1
1
4
0
0
0
2
2
TankB
Flow
rate
(gpm)
10.7
11.2
11.2
11.1
11.1
11.8
11.3
11.2
11.2
11.3
21.7
21.7
21.8
21.6
21.5
21.7
22.2
22.6
22.2
21.8
22.3
22.8
22.4
22.0
21.9
21.8
22.8
22.2
22.7
22.2
21.9
22.0
21.9
Cum.
totalizer
(gal)
,072,780
,080,590
,088,300
,094,570
,101,990
,108,170
,114,680
,124,290
,131,240
,138,250
,146,090
,151,870
,159,120
,166,840
,175,330
,181,910
,189,990
' ,196,600
' ,203,850
',211,380
',218,090
',225,110
' ,232,710
' ,239,780
' ,246,610
' ,253,730
' ,260,960
' ,267,890
' ,275,650
' ,283,200
' ,289,610
,296,290
,304,760
,314,570
,325,760
,335,360
,347,260
,358,210
,365,850
,373,730
,382,170
,389,770
,397,250
,405,780
,413,590
,425,330
,433,660
,440,390
,447,390
,456,410
,464,010
,472,400
,480,800
,488,340
,495,880
,504,000
,511,540
,518,990
,527,340
,534,300
,541,390
,550,000
,558,030
,565,710
,574,340
,581,880
,588,940
' ,596,890
,603,940
iP
4
1
2
1
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
2
1
0
3
0
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
2
2
1
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
0
0
1
1
3
TankC
Flow
rate
(gpm)
10.8
11.4
11.6
11.4
11.1
12.1
11.8
11.3
11.3
11.6
22.7
22.2
22.0
22.5
22.1
21.9
23.0
21.8
21.9
22.4
22.9
22.4
22.4
22.2
22.8
22.4
22.2
22.1
22.7
22.2
21.9
22.9
22.6
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
1,091,870
1,099,530
1,107,300
1,113,710
1,121,140
1,127,470
1,134,130
1,143,720
1,150,770
1,157,810
1,165,560
1,171,340
1,178,740
1,186,350
1,194,970
1,201,650
1,209,620
1,216,340
1,223,640
1,231,050
1,237,850
1,244,900
1,252,480
1,259,480
1,266,290
1,273,240
1,280,750
1,287,810
1,295,510
1,303,340
1,309,860
1,316,350
1,325,070
1,334,980
1,346,040
1,346,030
1,368,090
1,378,850
1,386,360
1,394,200
1,402,480
1,410,450
1,418,090
1,426,480
1,434,610
1,446,540
1,454,830
1,461,590
1,468,630
1,477,770
1,485,650
1,494,330
1,502,830
1,510,330
1,517,900
1,525,870
1,533,740
1,541,390
1,549,730
1,556,580
1,563,650
1,572,220
1,580,320
1,588,010
1,596,480
1,604,300
1,611,510
1,619,310
1,626,640
iP
3
0
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
0
1
TankD
Flow
rate
(gpm)
10.0
10.4
10.9
9.3
10.5
10.3
11.4
10.6
10.4
10.8
22.4
21.9
21.2
22.2
21.5
21.1
22.7
20.3
20.8
22.0
21.8
21.2
21.3
21.0
22.7
22.0
21.3
21.0
21.0
21.1
20.9
22.8
22.3
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
,018,130
,025,000
,031,950
,037,800
,044,470
,050,240
,056,510
,064,900
,071,260
,077,910
,084,800
,090,090
,097,130
,104,010
,111,750
,117,940
,124,970
' ,130,850
' ,137,700
' ,144,350
' ,150,480
' ,157,330
' ,164,450
',171,070
' ,177,540
' ,183,990
',191,410
' ,198,260
' ,205,510
',213,180
',219,510
,225,540
,234,120
,243,740
,254,110
,263,800
,278,370
,285,470
,292,530
,299,950
,307,610
,315,430
,322,850
,330,710
,338,690
,350,270
,358,060
,364,390
,371,130
,379,810
,387,310
,395,630
,403,630
,410,740
,417,940
,425,320
,433,050
,439,460
,448,270
,454,830
,461,610
,469,660
,477,230
,484,560
,492,480
,500,180
,507,190
',514,500
,521,730
iP
0
2
2
2
3
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
0
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
0
2
2
0
0
2
1
1
2
0
3
2
0
0
2
2
2
2
1
1
Backwash
Back-
wash
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
Estimated
Cum.
Totalizer'"
(gal)
193,050
196,100
196,100
196,100
199,150
199,150
199,150
202,200
202,200
202,200
205,260
205,260
205,260
208,300
208,300
208,300
211,330
211,330
211,330
214,360
214,360
214,360
217,400
217,400
217,400
220,440
220,440
220,440
223,470
223,470
223,470
226,520
226,520
226,520
229,560
229,560
229,560
232,590
232,590
232,590
235,640
235,640
235,640
238,690
238,690
238,690
241 ,730
241 ,730
241 ,730
244,790
244,790
244,790
247,820
247,820
247,820
250,880
250,880
250,880
253,910
253,910
253,910
256,950
256,950
256,950
260,000
260,000
260,000
263,050
263,050
Oxidant Addition
NaMnO4
Level
(gal)
19.00
18.00
27.00
26.25
25.25
24.50
23.75
22.75
21.75
20.75
35.00
34.25
33.25
32.25
31.50
30.75
29.75
29.00
28.00
27.25
26.75
26.00
25.00
24.00
23.00
22.25
21.50
20.50
35.00
34.25
33.50
32.25
31.25
30.25
29.00
27.75
26.25
25.00
24.00
23.00
21.75
21.00
35.00
34.00
33.00
31.50
30.75
30.00
29.25
28.25
27.25
26.00
25.00
24.00
23.00
22.00
21.00
27.50
25.75
24.75
24.00
23.00
21.75
20.75
29.00
28.00
27.25
26.25
25.25
NaMnO4
Dosage
(mg/L)
5.9
7.6
NA
6.4
7.9
6.6
6.2
6.1
7.8
7.8
NA
7.1
7.4
7.6
4.8
6.2
7.3
6.3
7.4
5.9
4.1
5.7
7.6
7.7
7.9
6.5
5.5
7.7
NA
5.2
6.3
11.6
6.2
5.5
6.5
6.9
6.7
6.6
7.2
6.8
8.9
5.2
NA
7.0
6.8
6.8
5.2
6.0
5.8
6.4
7.1
7.9
6.9
7.2
7.1
7.6
6.9
NA
12.3
7.8
5.7
6.7
8.4
7.0
NA
7.0
5.1
8.6
7.5
>
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Waynesville, IL - Daily System Operation and Operator Labor Log Sheet
(Continued)
Time and System Effluent Meter
Week
No.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Date
02/05/10
02/06/10
02/07/10
02/08/10
02/09/10
02/10/10
02/11/10
02/12/10
02/13/10
02/14/10
02/15/10
02/16/10
02/17/10
02/18/10
02/19/10
02/20/10
02/21/10
02/22/10
02/23/10
02/24/10
02/25/10
02/26/10
02/27/10
02/28/10
03/01/10
03/02/10
03/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
03/06/10
03/07/10
03/08/10
03/09/10
03/10/10
03/11/10
03/12/10
03/13/10
03/14/10
03/15/10
03/16/10
03/17/10
03/18/10
03/19/10
03/20/10
03/21/10
03/22/10
03/23/10
03/24/10
03/25/10
03/26/10
03/27/10
03/28/10
03/29/10
03/30/10
03/31/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
04/03/10
04/04/10
04/05/10
04/06/10
04/07/10
04/08/10
04/09/10
04/10/10
04/11/10
04/12/10
04/13/10
04/14/10
Time
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
15:05
16:03
16:03
16:00
16:00
16:10
16:30
16:00
16:00
16:10
15:05
16:00
16:00
16:30
16:50
15:30
16:00
16:00
15:50
16:00
14:50
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
15:30
15:30
15:35
15:15
16:00
15:30
16:00
15:07
16:00
16:21
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:30
16:15
16:37
16:00
15:00
15:42
15:30
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:15
16:05
16:00
16:48
16:00
16:00
16:02
16:00
16:03
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
System Effluent Meter
Flow
rate
(gpm|
85.20
83.50
84.10
87.60
84.50
84.90
85.60
84.60
84.40
83.40
85.00
84.90
84.20
85.00
84.30
84.00
81.70
85.60
84.90
84.50
85.60
85.80
84.80
86.10
84.10
86.70
Cum.
totalizer
(gal)
5,967,030
5,996,620
6,024,590
6,049,840
6,075,980
6,101,790
6,126,740
6,152,760
6,177,790
6,209,480
6,235,600
6,259,640
6,286,910
6,312,020
6,339,460
6,366,390
6,397,740
6,424,900
6,447,300
6,475,210
6,500,780
6,530,610
6,556,770
6,582,630
6,612,290
6,639,100
6,663,780
6,689,500
6,716,810
6,746,480
6,776,430
6,802,850
6,828,100
6,853,690
6,879,110
6,905,150
6,932,720
6,967,350
6,993,960
7,039,650
7,064,800
7,093,840
7,116,770
7,148,860
7,177,620
7,203,620
7,230,680
7,253,270
7,282,460
7,307,140
7,334,600
7,365,120
7,392,310
7,418,840
7,445,540
7,470,950
7,506,790
7,536,310
7,572,000
7,599,330
7,626,300
7,656,170
7,680,750
7,711,780
7,742,410
7,771,810
7,804,630
7,832,340
7,864,480
Daily
Treated
(gpd)
29,620
29,590
27,970
25,250
27,178
24,811
24,950
26,074
25,030
31,471
25,762
24,551
27,270
24,937
28,737
25,939
31 ,350
26,606
22,093
29,552
25,048
29,830
26,343
25,682
31,175
25,567
24,680
25,720
27,310
29,670
29,950
26,982
25,250
25,501
25,778
25,251
28,157
33,923
27,627
44,068
24,789
29,470
22,930
32,090
28,173
26,274
26,653
23,186
30,459
23,981
27,691
29,897
27,190
26,530
26,700
25,148
36,091
29,623
34,539
28,272
26,970
29,829
24,614
30,965
30,694
29,400
32,820
27,710
32,140
System Service Parameters
Tank A
Flow
rate
(gpm)
21.3
21.8
22.5
22.2
21.9
22.5
22.6
22.6
22.7
22.5
22.3
21.2
21.8
22.1
21.3
22.5
22.5
22.3
21.1
22.5
21.1
21.7
21.3
21.8
22.1
22.4
22.7
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
1,625,230
1,634,000
1,641,120
1,647,680
1,655,540
1,662,130
1,668,600
1,676,430
1,682,760
1,690,930
1,698,810
1,705,110
1,712,390
1,719,690
1,726,730
1,733,720
1,742,680
1,749,920
1,755,930
1,764,110
1,770,860
1,778,820
1,786,610
1,793,510
1,801,480
1,808,770
1,815,890
1,822,660
1,830,470
1,838,230
1,846,150
1,854,270
1,860,620
1,867,280
1,874,990
1,881,620
1,888,800
1,898,620
1,905,700
1,918,030
1,925,920
1,933,210
1,939,130
1,948,260
1,955,900
1,962,890
1,971,030
1,976,830
1,984,350
1,991,920
1,998,850
2,006,740
2,019,450
2,021,410
2,028,480
2,035,810
2,045,230
2,053,110
2,063,510
2,070,720
2,077,950
2,087,020
2,093,380
2,101,600
2,110,710
2,118,190
2,126,780
2,134,860
2,143,360
iP
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
3
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
2
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
TankB
Flow
rate
(gpm)
22.0
21.8
21.7
23.2
22.3
22.5
22.9
22.2
22.2
22.0
22.4
21.9
22.0
21.9
22.0
22.4
22.2
21.6
22.1
22.5
22.0
22.1
22.0
21.9
21.9
21.8
22.8
Cum.
totalizer
(gal)
,611,630
,620,250
,627,460
,634,020
,641,710
,648,420
,654,900
,662,520
,669,050
,677,300
,684,870
,690,970
,698,020
,705,150
,712,440
,719,470
,728,410
' ,735,590
',741,500
' ,749,570
' ,756,330
' ,764,220
',771,870
' ,778,640
' ,786,420
' ,793,490
' ,800,510
' ,807,370
',815,100
' ,823,000
' ,830,850
,838,700
,845,200
,851,880
,861,330
,866,080
,873,250
,883,010
,890,040
,902,140
,909,690
,917,170
,923,120
' ,932,220
' ,939,790
' ,946,640
' ,954,550
' ,960,510
' ,968,080
,975,450
,982,510
,990,370
,998,020
,005,030
,012,040
,019,240
,028,700
,036,460
,046,540
,053,540
,060,510
2,069,090
2,075,360
2,083,420
2,092,270
2,099,860
2,108,420
2,116,390
2,124,840
iP
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
2
2
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
0
1
0
3
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
TankC
Flow
rate
(gpm)
23.0
22.0
22.1
23.5
22.6
22.2
22.6
22.3
22.2
21.9
22.6
22.9
22.6
22.3
23.3
22.3
22.0
21.4
22.3
22.3
23.1
22.9
23.4
22.7
23.0
22.1
22.6
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
1,634,520
1,643,100
1,650,610
1,657,330
1,664,940
1,671,930
1,678,580
1,686,050
1,692,770
1,701,180
1,708,740
1,715,130
1,722,390
1,729,570
1,736,980
1,744,090
1,753,030
1,760,130
1,766,010
1,773,990
1,780,710
1,788,570
1,796,100
1,802,880
1,810,630
1,817,640
1,824,570
1,831,450
1,839,180
1,847,140
1,855,030
1,862,690
1,869,470
1,876,300
1,883,640
1,890,720
1,898,110
1,907,890
1,914,900
1,926,970
1,934,290
1,942,090
1,948,250
1,957,440
1,964,920
1,971,820
1,979,590
1,985,840
1,993,650
2,000,960
2,008,400
2,016,530
2,024,280
2,031,390
2,038,470
2,045,690
2,055,230
2,063,030
2,073,150
2,080,420
2,087,540
2,095,610
2,102,640
2,110,920
2,119,720
2,127,650
2,136,410
2,144,360
2,152,790
iP
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
2
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
1
0
4
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
1
0
1
0
TankD
Flow
rate
(gpm)
22.8
21.6
21.6
22.2
21.7
21.4
21.6
21.7
21.5
21.2
21.6
22.7
22.5
21.8
22.4
21.4
21.2
20.3
22.9
21.3
22.8
22.5
23.1
22.4
22.8
21.4
21.8
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
,529,420
,537,530
,544,930
,551,470
,558,610
,565,480
,571,970
,579,080
,585,660
,593,910
,601,140
,607,480
,614,620
,621,500
,628,540
,635,390
,643,800
' ,650,620
' ,656,260
' ,663,700
',670,100
' ,677,640
' ,684,780
',691,420
' ,698,910
' ,705,670
',712,160
',718,580
' ,725,890
' ,733,470
',740,120
,748,170
,754,900
,761,630
,768,860
,775,670
,782,790
,791,950
,798,690
,810,210
,818,610
,824,550
,830,520
',839,130
' ,846,310
' ,852,820
' ,860,030
',866,140
' ,873,720
,880,540
,887,890
,895,790
,903,130
,909,810
,916,580
,923,410
,932,430
,939,870
,949,450
,956,570
,963,460
,971,500
,977,930
,986,010
,994,300
2,002,060
2,010,530
2,017,920
2,025,980
iP
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
2
2
0
1
0
2
2
2
1
3
0
2
1
0
2
2
0
0
2
0
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
1
1
0
1
Backwash
Back-
wash
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
Estimated
Cum.
Totalizer'"
(gal)
263,050
266,110
266,110
266,110
269,160
269,160
269,160
272,220
272,220
272,220
275,270
275,270
275,270
278,320
278,320
278,320
281 ,370
281 ,370
281 ,370
284,400
284,400
284,400
287,430
287,430
287,430
287,430
290,470
290,470
293,530
293,530
293,530
296,580
296,580
296,580
299,640
299,640
299,640
302,680
302,680
302,680
305,750
305,750
305,750
308,790
308,790
308,790
311,840
311,840
311,840
314,900
314,900
314,900
317,940
317,940
317,940
320,990
320,990
320,990
324,040
324,040
324,040
327,090
327,090
327,090
330,140
330,140
330,140
333,190
333,190
Oxidant Addition
NaMnO4
Level
(gal)
24.25
23.25
22.50
21.75
21.00
20.25
25.25
24.25
23.50
22.50
21.50
20.75
19.75
29.00
28.25
27.25
26.25
25.25
24.75
23.75
22.75
21.75
21.00
20.25
25.25
24.50
23.75
22.75
22.00
21.00
29.00
28.00
27.00
26.25
25.25
24.50
23.75
22.50
21.50
20.00
19.25
30.00
29.25
28.00
27.00
26.25
25.00
24.25
23.50
22.75
21.75
20.75
34.00
33.25
32.50
31.75
30.75
29.75
28.50
27.75
26.75
26.00
25.00
24.00
22.75
22.00
21.00
20.00
30.00
NaMnO4
Dosage
(mg/L)
6.9
6.9
5.5
6.1
5.9
6.0
NA
7.9
6.1
6.5
7.8
6.4
7.5
NA
5.6
7.6
6.5
7.5
4.6
7.3
8.0
6.9
5.9
5.9
NA
5.7
6.2
8.0
5.6
6.9
NA
7.8
8.1
6.0
8.1
5.9
5.6
7.4
7.7
6.7
6.1
NA
6.7
8.0
7.1
5.9
9.5
6.8
5.3
6.2
7.5
6.7
NA
5.8
5.8
6.1
5.7
6.9
7.2
5.6
7.6
5.1
8.3
6.6
8.4
5.2
6.2
7.4
NA
>
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Waynesville, IL - Daily System Operation and Operator Labor Log Sheet
(Continued)
Time and System Effluent Meter
Week
No.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Date
04/15/10
04/16/10
04/17/10
04/18/10
04/19/10
04/20/10
04/21/10
04/22/10
04/23/10
04/24/10
04/25/10
04/26/10
04/27/10
04/28/10
04/29/10
04/30/10
05/01/10
05/02/10
05/03/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
05/06/10
05/07/10
05/08/10
05/09/10
05/10/10
05/11/10
05/12/10
05/13/10
05/14/10
05/15/10
05/16/10
05/17/10
05/18/10
05/19/10
05/20/10
05/21/10
05/22/10
05/23/10
05/24/10
05/25/10
05/26/10
05/27/10
05/28/10
05/29/10
05/30/10
05/31/10
06/01/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
06/04/10
06/05/10
06/06/10
06/07/10
06/08/10
06/09/10
06/10/10
06/11/10
06/12/10
06/13/10
06/14/10
06/15/10
06/16/10
06/17/10
06/18/10
06/19/10
06/20/10
06/21/10
06/22/10
Time
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:12
16:00
15:10
16:00
16:00
15:36
15:15
15:45
15:35
16:00
16:00
16:00
14:50
15:45
16:10
16:02
16:20
16:00
16:00
16:00
15:15
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
15:30
16:00
16:00
16:30
16:00
16:00
16:00
15:50
16:05
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
15:55
16:00
16:57
16:00
16:00
16:00
15:30
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
15:30
16:00
15:05
15:30
16:00
16:00
16:00
15:35
15:50
15:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
System Effluent Meter
Flow
rate
(gpm|
84.00
85.50
83.70
84.90
83.10
84.50
84.00
83.20
88.10
85.10
85.60
85.40
83.60
84.90
85.20
83.70
86.30
84.50
85.20
82.50
85.60
85.00
84.60
83.30
84.40
84.00
84.40
84.80
84.80
Cum.
totalizer
(gal)
7,893,330
7,925,070
7,954,180
7,990,910
8,020,620
8,055,910
8,082,820
8,109,870
8,140,870
8,171,980
8,201,770
8,229,380
8,258,470
8,283,960
8,337,860
8,350,590
8,364,930
8,393,910
8,422,670
8,450,740
8,479,120
8,505,930
8,537,710
8,570,250
8,599,200
8,632,090
8,655,280
8,681,430
8,707,780
8,734,890
8,763,120
8,789,890
8,829,150
8,857,760
8,885,360
8,912,250
8,939,120
8,970,210
9,009,400
9,039,260
9,071,090
9,099,460
9,136,300
9,172,420
9,203,010
9,246,930
9,282,770
9,304,570
9,340,670
9,371,240
9,400,910
9,426,860
9,455,370
9,483,470
9,508,830
9,535,850
9,561,700
9,594,450
9,626,850
9,657,680
9,688,060
9,717,740
9,741,070
9,766,900
9,805,370
9,830,140
9,861,030
9,892,650
9,918,310
Daily
Treated
(gpd)
28,850
31 ,740
29,110
36,426
29,960
36,559
26,007
27,050
31 ,525
31 ,570
29,182
27,803
28,594
25,490
53,900
13,380
13,812
28,485
28,921
27,723
28,780
26,810
31 ,780
33,590
28,073
32,890
23,190
26,150
26,350
27,110
28,230
27,340
38,459
28,610
27,037
27,462
26,870
31 ,090
39,464
29,552
31,941
28,370
36,840
36,120
30,590
44,073
35,716
20,970
37,588
30,570
29,670
26,502
27,928
28,100
25,360
27,020
26,400
32,082
33,687
30,304
29,760
29,680
23,330
26,286
38,073
25,661
29,654
31 ,620
25,660
System Service Parameters
Tank A
Flow
rate
(gpm)
22.6
21.7
22.4
22.1
22.1
21.1
21.6
22.1
22.3
22.4
21.2
21.8
21.8
21.7
21.5
21.5
21.8
21.1
22.0
21.9
21.7
21.0
21.0
21.7
20.9
21.6
21.6
21.1
21.4
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
2,151,160
2,160,730
2,168,040
2,177,580
2,186,250
2,195,600
2,202,760
2,210,550
2,218,590
2,226,760
2,235,580
2,242,570
2,250,070
2,257,350
2,264,160
2,271,310
2,278,950
2,286,430
2,293,940
2,302,500
2,309,560
2,316,460
2,325,370
2,333,810
2,341,400
2,350,650
2,356,670
2,363,500
2,371,080
2,378,080
2,385,430
2,395,470
2,403,460
2,410,910
2,418,890
2,425,830
2,432,850
2,442,130
2,451,920
2,459,720
2,469,260
2,476,470
2,486,150
2,496,930
2,504,650
2,516,180
2,526,910
2,533,570
2,541,630
2,550,940
2,558,380
2,565,100
2,573,780
2,580,860
2,587,430
2,595,630
2,602,040
2,610,450
2,620,150
2,627,950
2,635,850
2,644,790
2,650,500
2,657,060
2,668,000
2,674,280
2,682,190
2,691,530
2,698,040
iP
3
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
2
3
1
2
0
0
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
2
4
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
2
2
0
1
0
3
1
2
0
0
0
TankB
Flow
rate
(gpm)
22.1
22.1
21.6
22.3
21.9
21.8
21.7
21.7
22.4
22.1
22.0
22.7
22.0
22.4
21.6
21.8
21.4
21.9
21.2
21.9
21.8
21.8
21.6
21.6
21.7
22.1
21.6
21.7
Cum.
totalizer
(gal)
2,132,440
2,140,690
2,149,200
2,158,750
2,167,280
2,176,430
2,183,390
2,191,020
2,199,250
2,207,440
2,216,140
2,223,290
2,230,760
2,238,050
2,245,070
2,252,230
2,259,800
2,267,420
2,274,910
2,283,160
2,290,410
2,297,350
2,306,230
2,314,850
2,322,450
2,331,650
2,337,770
2,344,610
2,352,110
2,359,250
2,366,610
2,376,360
,384,300
,391,590
,399,520
,406,560
,413,550
,422,660
,432,560
,440,230
,449,380
,456,520
2,465,930
2,476,320
2,484,080
2,495,410
2,505,760
2,512,570
2,520,600
2,529,710
2,537,270
2,543,970
2,552,420
2,559,640
2,566,190
2,574,100
2,580,720
2,589,180
2,598,690
2,606,590
2,614,420
2,623,070
2,629,100
2,635,860
2,646,650
2,652,990
2,660,930
2,670,090
2,676,810
iP
2
1
3
0
0
2
1
0
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
3
0
2
1
0
2
2
0
1
1
1
1
3
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
TankC
Flow
rate
(gpm)
22.0
22.9
22.0
22.5
22.0
22.8
22.5
22.0
23.1
22.6
22.9
22.9
22.2
22.6
22.5
22.0
22.8
22.6
22.6
21.5
22.6
22.8
22.7
22.0
22.7
22.4
22.4
22.8
22.7
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
2,160,440
2,169,470
2,177,360
2,187,100
2,195,560
2,204,890
2,211,900
2,219,500
2,227,810
2,236,060
2,244,710
2,252,140
2,259,820
2,267,140
2,274,280
2,281,560
2,289,210
2,297,010
2,304,670
2,312,830
2,320,400
2,327,520
2,336,450
2,345,200
2,352,840
2,362,060
2,368,240
2,375,150
2,382,660
2,389,910
2,397,360
2,400,150
2,415,380
2,422,650
2,430,790
2,437,780
2,444,740
2,453,740
2,464,070
2,471,880
2,481,000
2,488,380
2,497,980
2,508,280
2,516,420
2,528,000
2,537,670
2,545,280
2,553,530
2,562,520
2,570,410
2,577,280
2,585,670
2,593,220
2,599,970
2,607,740
2,614,650
2,623,330
2,632,790
2,641,070
2,649,120
2,657,630
2,663,890
2,670,850
2,681,700
2,688,340
2,696,540
2,705,610
2,712,490
iP
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
0
1
2
1
2
3
1
0
1
1
3
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
3
0
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
0
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
0
TankD
Flow
rate
(gpm)
21.0
22.4
21.4
21.5
20.9
22.7
21.9
21.0
22.2
21.6
22.9
21.4
21.1
21.5
22.4
21.2
22.4
22.4
22.1
20.5
22.3
22.7
22.6
21.6
22.5
NA
22.0
23.0
22.5
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
2,033,190
2,041,540
2,049,300
2,058,790
2,066,750
2,075,920
2,082,740
2,089,960
2,097,850
2,105,730
2,113,850
2,121,200
2,128,640
2,135,600
2,142,400
2,149,390
2,156,600
2,164,050
2,171,400
2,179,010
2,186,530
2,193,520
2,202,040
2,210,290
2,217,590
2,226,310
2,232,230
2,238,890
2,246,040
2,252,940
2,260,120
2,269,470
,277,650
,284,950
,292,390
,299,060
,305,730
,314,130
,324,270
,331,780
,340,310
,347,590
2,356,900
2,366,590
2,374,570
2,385,750
2,395,230
2,402,300
2,410,280
2,418,660
2,426,490
2,433,180
2,441,050
2,448,480
2,455,040
2,462,280
2,469,280
2,477,930
2,486,920
2,495,060
2,502,830
2,510,730
2,517,040
2,523,920
2,534,310
2,540,980
2,549,060
2,557,630
2,564,320
iP
2
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
3
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
0
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
0
1
0
1
0
2
3
1
3
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
3
0
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
0
1
1
Backwash
Back-
wash
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
Estimated
Cum.
Totalizer'"
(gal)
333,190
336,270
336,270
336,270
339,320
339,320
339,320
342,360
342,360
342,360
345,410
345,410
345,410
348,480
348,480
348,480
351 ,530
351 ,530
351 ,530
354,750
354,750
354,750
357,960
357,960
357,960
361,170
361,170
361,170
364,380
364,380
364,380
367,610
367,610
367,610
371 ,300
371 ,300
371 ,300
375,120
375,120
375,120
378,900
378,900
378,900
382,700
382,700
382,700
386,500
386,500
386,500
390,300
390,300
390,300
394,020
394,020
394,020
396,810
396,810
396,810
400,520
400,520
400,520
403,530
403,530
403,530
406,670
406,670
406,670
409,730
409,730
Oxidant Addition
NaMnO4
Level
(gal)
29.00
28.00
27.00
26.00
25.00
24.00
23.00
22.00
21.25
20.00
19.00
29.00
28.25
27.25
26.50
25.75
24.75
23.75
23.00
22.00
21.00
20.25
19.25
28.00
27.00
32.00
31.25
30.50
29.75
28.75
28.00
27.00
26.00
25.00
23.75
22.75
22.00
21.00
20.00
29.00
28.00
27.25
26.25
25.00
24.00
22.50
21.25
20.75
34.00
33.00
32.00
31.25
30.25
29.50
28.75
27.75
26.75
25.75
24.50
23.50
22.50
21.25
34.25
33.50
32.50
31.75
30.75
29.75
28.50
NaMnO4
Dosage
(mg/L)
7.1
6.5
7.0
5.6
6.9
5.8
7.6
7.6
5.0
8.2
6.9
NA
5.3
8.0
2.9
12.1
14.3
7.1
5.3
7.3
7.2
5.7
6.5
NA
7.1
NA
6.6
5.9
5.8
7.6
5.4
7.7
5.2
7.2
9.3
7.6
5.7
6.6
5.2
NA
6.4
5.4
5.6
7.1
6.7
7.0
7.1
4.7
NA
6.7
6.9
5.9
7.2
5.5
6.1
7.6
7.9
6.3
7.9
6.6
6.7
8.6
NA
6.0
5.3
6.2
6.6
6.5
10.0
>
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Waynesville, IL - Daily System Operation and Operator Labor Log Sheet
(Continued)
Time and System Effluent Meter
Week
No.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Date
06/23/10
06/24/10
06/25/10
06/26/10
06/27/10
06/28/10
06/29/10
06/30/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
07/03/10
07/04/10
07/05/10
07/06/10
07/07/10
07/08/10
07/09/10
07/10/10
07/11/10
07/12/10
07/13/10
07/14/10
07/15/10
07/16/10
07/17/10
07/18/10
07/19/10
07/20/10
07/21/10
07/22/10
07/23/10
07/24/10
07/25/10
07/26/10
07/27/10
07/28/10
07/29/10
07/30/10
07/31/10
08/01/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
08/04/10
08/05/10
08/06/10
08/07/10
08/08/10
08/09/10
08/10/10
08/11/10
08/12/10
08/13/10
08/14/10
08/15/10
08/16/10
08/17/10
08/18/10
08/19/10
08/20/10
08/21/10
08/22/10
08/23/10
08/24/10
08/25/10
08/26/10
08/27/10
08/28/10
08/29/10
08/30/10
Time
16:00
16:20
16:00
15:00
16:00
16:00
16:30
16:00
16:00
15:50
16:35
15:15
15:30
16:10
16:30
16:00
16:00
13:00
15:50
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
17:15
15:30
16:00
16:03
16:00
16:00
15:55
15:55
15:45
16:00
16:25
16:00
15:45
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:30
15:45
18:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
15:50
16:00
16:00
16:30
16:00
16:00
16:00
15:45
16:00
15:00
15:40
16:00
System Effluent Meter
Flow
rate
(gpm|
84.40
83.60
84.10
85.60
83.80
84.40
83.40
84.50
85.00
83.80
84.00
84.50
83.00
86.00
84.40
83.00
82.70
83.80
84.00
82.20
84.10
83.90
83.20
Cum.
totalizer
(gal)
9,944,930
9,976,180
10,005,460
10,030,570
10,063,050
10,101,720
10,132,410
10,159,050
10,184,960
10,213,620
10,249,150
10,284,240
10,313,610
10,345,000
10,392,810
10,421,840
10,457,740
10,481,870
10,518,320
10,549,640
10,583,880
10,610,340
10,638,340
10,673,270
10,699,930
10,733,000
10,762,980
10,787,890
10,817,970
10,843,940
10,875,960
10,904,410
10,939,480
10,978,100
11,004,100
11,030,990
11,060,140
11,088,090
11,114,900
11,149,440
11,174,810
11,203,380
11,231,570
11,262,690
11,289,170
11,330,930
11,365,380
11,394,120
11,428,790
11,453,940
11,482,570
11,516,600
11,543,320
11,577,580
11,609,380
11,636,920
11,664,080
11,692,510
11,726,140
11,758,270
11,789,450
11,816,240
11,842,820
11,869,650
11,899,150
11,929,900
11,962,690
11,996,520
12,029,570
Daily
Treated
(gpd)
26,620
30,822
29,692
26,202
31,181
38,670
30,064
27,207
25,910
28,860
34,453
37,154
29,067
30,542
47,155
29,648
35,900
27,577
32,601
31,104
34,240
26,460
28,000
33,201
28,757
32,395
29,918
24,962
30,080
26,060
32,020
28,649
34,708
37,961
26,459
27,173
28,849
27,950
26,810
34,540
25,370
27,987
29,099
28,453
28,887
41 ,760
34,450
28,740
34,670
25,150
28,630
34,030
26,720
34,260
31 ,800
27,540
27,160
28,629
33,398
32,130
30,544
27,360
26,580
26,830
29,811
30,433
34,216
32,916
32,597
System Service Parameters
Tank A
Flow
rate
(gpm)
21.8
22.2
21.5
22.5
20.8
21.7
22.2
21.6
20.6
20.1
21.1
20.1
21.6
20.2
21.1
21.7
19.9
21.5
20.0
21.4
20.9
21.3
19.9
21.0
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
2,704,960
2,714,260
2,722,390
2,728,800
2,737,310
2,748,620
2,756,450
2,763,200
2,770,860
2,778,290
2,787,880
2,798,220
2,805,680
2,813,840
2,827,320
2,834,990
2,844,580
2,852,220
2,861,310
2,869,430
2,879,500
2,886,040
2,893,230
2,903,370
2,909,990
2,918,520
2,927,570
2,935,010
2,943,030
2,949,400
2,959,360
2,966,350
2,975,360
2,987,100
2,993,460
,000,320
,009,490
,016,260
,023,050
,033,410
,039,620
,046,950
3,055,810
3,063,390
3,070,080
3,082,430
3,090,890
3,098,410
3,108,900
3,114,990
3,122,230
3,132,400
3,138,900
3,147,650
3,157,580
3,164,240
3,171,140
3,180,100
3,188,290
3,196,540
3,206,140
3,212,710
3,219,490
3,228,110
3,235,240
3,243,010
3,253,030
3,261,250
3,269,780
iP
0
0
0
2
3
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
2
4
1
2
0
TankB
Flow
rate
(gpm)
22.0
22.0
21.3
22.7
21.3
21.6
22.5
22.1
22.9
21.6
21.7
21.9
21.9
22.2
21.9
21.7
21.8
22.0
21.7
21.5
21.9
21.5
21.8
21.7
Cum.
totalizer
(gal)
2,683,800
2,692,930
2,701,230
2,707,790
2,716,300
2,727,280
2,735,210
2,741,850
2,749,420
2,757,000
2,766,530
2,776,670
2,784,160
2,792,190
2,805,690
2,813,390
2,822,880
2,830,060
2,839,630
2,847,870
2,857,750
2,864,530
2,871,760
2,881,760
2,888,630
2,897,230
2,906,050
2,913,700
2,921,600
2,928,440
2,938,220
2,945,530
,954,640
,966,090
,972,760
,979,730
,988,720
,995,900
3,002,880
3,013,260
3,019,830
3,027,320
3,036,020
3,044,080
3,050,950
3,063,270
3,072,190
3,079,860
3,090,200
3,096,680
3,104,110
3,114,210
3,121,160
3,130,110
3,139,690
3,146,770
3,153,850
3,162,680
3,171,410
3,179,840
3,189,340
3,196,300
3,203,250
3,211,670
3,219,360
3,227,370
3,237,400
3,246,130
3,254,830
iP
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
3
0
1
1
1
1
3
0
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
3
0
2
1
TankC
Flow
rate
(gpm)
21.9
21.7
22.6
22.3
23.1
22.9
21.9
22.8
23.2
21.0
22.7
23.1
22.4
23.8
22.9
22.2
23.1
22.6
23.2
22.1
23.0
22.3
23.2
22.7
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
2,719,550
2,728,490
2,736,850
2,743,440
2,751,890
2,762,600
2,771,120
2,778,070
2,785,710
2,793,100
2,802,490
2,812,450
2,820,500
2,828,910
2,842,380
2,849,960
2,859,440
2,866,230
2,876,190
2,884,640
2,894,420
2,901,600
2,909,130
2,919,110
2,926,350
2,935,220
2,943,920
2,951,700
2,959,740
2,966,630
2,976,190
2,983,950
2,993,370
,004,730
,011,830
,019,100
,027,990
,035,600
,042,860
,053,230
,060,180
,067,980
3,076,530
3,085,110
3,092,210
3,104,470
3,113,860
3,121,780
3,131,990
3,138,820
3,146,530
3,156,510
3,163,850
3,173,110
3,182,590
3,190,110
3,197,510
3,206,220
3,215,470
3,224,240
3,233,640
3,241,000
3,248,210
3,256,460
3,264,610
3,272,930
3,282,900
3,292,120
3,301,110
iP
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
3
0
1
1
1
1
3
0
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
3
0
2
1
TankD
Flow
rate
(gpm)
22.4
21.5
22.3
21.7
22.1
22.0
21.0
21.9
23.3
22.0
22.5
23.7
21.9
24.0
22.9
21.6
23.6
22.2
23.8
21.6
23.0
21.9
23.8
22.5
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
2,571,110
2,579,420
2,587,630
2,594,380
2,602,870
2,613,070
2,621,600
2,628,360
2,635,530
2,642,670
2,651,730
2,661,020
2,668,830
2,676,880
2,689,590
2,696,840
2,705,860
2,712,130
2,721,610
2,729,640
2,738,620
2,745,810
2,753,190
2,762,590
2,769,800
2,778,480
2,786,590
2,794,200
2,802,160
2,808,880
2,817,790
2,825,560
,834,780
,845,330
,852,490
,859,650
,867,930
,876,110
,882,790
,892,580
,899,540
,907,230
2,915,100
2,923,750
2,930,780
2,942,350
2,951,790
2,959,580
2,969,110
2,976,000
2,983,640
2,993,320
3,000,650
3,009,790
3,018,690
3,026,260
3,033,570
3,041,680
3,051,000
3,059,620
3,068,430
3,075,830
3,082,930
3,090,550
3,098,830
3,107,100
3,116,530
3,125,860
3,134,700
iP
0
1
1
2
3
1
3
1
1
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
4
1
2
0
1
1
3
1
0
3
1
0
NA
1
1
1
0
0
3
1
0
1
0
2
3
1
2
1
Backwash
Back-
wash
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
Estimated
Cum.
Totalizer'"
(gal)
409,730
412,720
415,670
415,670
415,670
418,550
418,550
418,550
422,230
422,230
422,230
425,150
425,150
425,150
428,830
428,830
428,830
431,610
431,610
431,610
434,290
434,290
434,290
437,110
437,110
437,110
439,840
444,070
444,070
444,070
448,290
448,290
448,290
452,520
452,520
452,520
456,750
456,750
456,750
460,980
460,980
460,980
465,180
465,180
465,180
469,420
469,420
469,420
473,630
473,630
473,630
477,860
477,860
477,860
482,070
482,070
482,070
486,270
486,270
486,270
490,490
490,490
490,490
494,720
494,720
494,720
498,940
498,940
498,880
Oxidant Addition
NaMnO4
Level
(gal)
27.75
26.75
25.75
25.00
23.75
22.50
21.25
20.50
32.50
31.50
30.00
29.00
28.00
27.00
25.00
24.00
23.00
22.00
21.00
20.00
34.00
33.25
32.25
31.00
30.00
28.75
28.00
27.00
26.00
25.00
24.00
23.00
22.00
20.75
34.25
33.50
32.25
31.50
30.75
29.75
29.00
28.00
27.00
26.00
25.00
23.75
22.50
21.50
20.50
19.50
35.00
34.00
33.25
32.25
31.25
30.50
29.75
28.75
31.00
29.75
28.75
28.00
27.00
26.00
25.00
24.00
23.00
22.00
21.00
NaMnO4
Dosage
(mg/L)
5.8
6.6
7.0
6.1
7.9
6.6
8.3
5.8
NA
7.2
8.7
5.8
7.0
6.5
8.6
7.1
5.7
8.5
5.6
6.5
NA
5.8
7.3
7.3
7.7
7.7
5.1
8.2
6.8
7.9
6.4
7.2
5.8
6.6
NA
5.7
8.8
5.5
5.7
5.9
6.1
7.2
7.3
6.6
7.7
6.1
7.4
7.1
5.9
8.2
NA
6.0
5.8
6.0
6.4
5.6
5.7
7.2
NA
8.0
6.6
5.7
7.7
7.6
6.9
6.7
6.3
6.1
6.2
>
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Waynesville, IL - Daily System Operation and Operator Labor Log Sheet
(Continued)
Time and System Effluent Meter
Week
No.
61
62
Date
08/31/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
09/03/10
09/04/10
09/05/10
09/06/10
09/07/10
09/08/10
09/09/10
09/10/10
09/11/10
09/12/10
09/13/10
09/14/10
09/15/10
09/16/10
09/17/10
09/18/10
09/19/10
Time
16:00
15:15
16:00
16:45
16:00
15:15
16:00
16:10
16:00
15:50
16:30
14:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:15
15:30
16:00
System Effluent Meter
Flow
rate
(gpm|
83.30
85.20
82.50
83.70
84.00
83.70
85.10
Cum.
totalizer
(gal)
12,058,210
12,088,370
12,115,940
12,143,650
12,169,710
12,202,780
12,235,460
12,263,620
12,290,370
12,317,210
12,347,770
12,372,200
12,405,720
12,434,730
12,461,990
12,490,260
12,517,260
12,544,080
12,572,070
12,603,800
Daily
Treated
(gpd)
28,640
31,133
26,735
26,870
26,901
34,137
31 ,690
27,966
26,937
27,028
29,734
27,271
30,942
29,010
27,260
28,270
27,000
26,544
28,893
31 ,082
System Service Parameters
Tank A
Flow
rate
(gpm)
20.9
21.2
21.9
20.0
21.0
20.0
20.1
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
3,278,900
3,286,240
3,293,290
3,301,340
3,307,890
3,316,550
3,326,470
3,333,390
3,340,230
3,348,910
3,356,340
3,362,480
3,372,710
3,379,740
3,386,690
3,395,670
3,402,170
3,408,930
3,417,650
3,425,390
iP
0
2
0
1
0
3
2
0
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
TankB
Flow
rate
(gpm)
21.8
22.7
21.8
21.7
21.9
21.7
22.2
Cum.
totalizer
(gal)
3,263,740
3,271,590
3,278,790
3,286,880
3,293,750
3,302,530
3,312,500
3,319,810
3,326,810
3,335,270
3,343,300
3,349,620
3,359,700
3,367,170
3,374,320
3,383,140
3,390,190
3,397,210
3,405,920
3,414,210
iP
0
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
TankC
Flow
rate
(gpm)
22.9
23.2
22.2
23.1
23.0
23.0
23.6
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
3,309,850
3,318,190
3,325,700
3,333,870
3,340,900
3,349,900
3,359,810
3,367,540
3,374,810
3,383,070
3,391,610
3,398,170
3,408,220
3,416,110
3,423,540
3,432,190
3,439,650
3,446,980
3,455,620
3,464,390
iP
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
TankD
Flow
rate
(gpm)
22.8
22.9
21.6
23.5
23.1
23.0
24.2
Cum.
Totalizer
(gal)
3,142,750
3,151,190
3,158,580
3,166,360
3,173,300
3,182,110
3,191,450
3,199,210
3,206,390
3,214,010
3,222,680
3,229,200
3,238,800
3,246,810
3,254,180
3,262,260
3,269,860
3,277,190
3,285,340
3,294,210
iP
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Backwash
Back-
wash
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
Estimated
Cum.
Totalizer'"
(gal)
503,160
503,160
503,160
507,350
507,350
507,350
511,570
511,570
511,570
515,830
515,830
515,830
520,060
520,060
520,060
524,290
524,290
524,290
528,520
528,520
Oxidant Addition
NaMnO4
Level
(gal)
20.00
35.25
34.50
33.50
32.75
31.75
30.75
28.75
28.25
27.25
34.00
33.25
32.50
31.50
30.25
29.25
28.50
27.75
26.75
25.75
NaMnO4
Dosage
(mg/L)
7.2
NA
5.6
7.4
5.9
6.2
6.3
14.6
3.8
7.6
NA
6.3
4.6
7.1
9.4
7.3
5.7
5.7
7.3
6.5
NA = not available
System in parallel configuration.
Green highlighted columns indicate calculated values.
Yellow highlighted rows indicate days with no backwash.
(a) From approximately November 1 1 through December 2, 2009,
backwash totalizer not functioning properly.
>
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Village of Waynesville, IL
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
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)
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
^g/L
|jg/L
Hfl/L
M9/L
|jg/L
07/15/09
IN
634
3.9
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
131
23.0
36.0
8.5
NA(a)
NA(a)
2.5
42
601
294
308
33.5
28.9
4.6
22.8
6.1
2,474
2,463
37.6
33.4
AO
641
4.1
0.5
<0.1
<0.05
106
23.0
11.0
7.9
NA(a)
NA(a)
3.4
373
551
272
279
30.4
3.6
26.8
0.6
3.0
2,275
<25
2,766
1,239
TT
627
4.0
0.5
<0.1
<0.05
19.2
22.8
0.3
7.8
NA(a)
NA(a)
2.1
154
548
272
276
4.6
2.5
2.1
0.6
1.9
150
<25
108
13.8
08/05/09
IN
579
3.6
-
-
-
141
22.4
36.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
45.2
-
-
-
-
2,368
-
32.5
-
AO
579
3.6
-
-
-
135
22.2
7.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
42.3
-
-
-
-
2,230
-
2,270
-
TA
574
3.6
-
-
-
40.3
21.8
0.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
13.4
-
TB
574
3.6
-
-
-
34.6
22.3
0.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
64.3
-
TC
579
3.8
-
-
-
35.8
21.6
0.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
60.7
-
TD
586
3.7
-
-
-
36.1
21.4
1.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
75.9
-
08/19/09""
IN
595
3.5
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
100
21.2
38.0
8.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
457
238
218
39.9
35.3
4.7
30.4
4.9
2,239
2,299
46.9
46.2
AO
592
3.6
0.5
0.1
<0.05
92.1
21.0
9.8
7.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
429
209
220
33.4
33.3
<0.1
2.8
30.5
1,610
1,953
2,266
2,724
TT
588
3.5
0.5
<0.1
<0.05
22.1
21.1
2.4
7.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
432
211
222
2.8
2.4
0.4
1.2
1.2
<25
<25
77.8
81.7
09/02/09
IN
578
3.4
-
-
-
95.3
21.9
35.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
36.2
-
-
-
-
2,103
-
108
-
AO
583
3.4
-
-
-
90.3
22.7
11.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
34.9
-
-
-
-
2,000
-
2,965
-
TA
576
3.4
-
-
-
16.4
21.9
0.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
20.4
-
TB
576
3.3
-
-
-
15.2
21.7
1.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
101
-
TC
565
3.3
-
-
-
16.1
22.2
0.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
93.5
-
TD
578
3.6
-
-
-
18.4
22.2
0.8
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
108
-
(a) pH and temperature
(b) B bottle collected by
not meausred on 07/15/09.
operator, but sample appeared to be unfiltered. Speciation performed with C bottle collected at Battelle laboratory.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Village of Waynesville, IL (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
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)
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
m/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
|jg/L
m/L
|jg/L
m/L
M9/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
m/L
09/15/09
IN
548
3.7
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
94.1
21.6
37.0
8.3
9.1
14.4
0.8
-71.6
498
260
239
40.1
38.1
2.0
28.5
9.6
2,186
2,119
26.3
26.2
AO
548
3.7
0.5
<0.1
<0.05
69.1
21.4
7.4
8.2
8.2
14.4
1.1
477
493
261
232
28.6
22.6
5.9
15.5
7.1
1,594
1,097
173
159
TT
563
3.8
1.2
0.2
<0.05
429
21.7
1.7
7.9
8.2
14.4
0.6
30.9
495
259
236
5.2
3.5
1.7
1.4
2.0
86
<25
119
94.9
09/30/09
IN
542
582
3.5
3.7
-
-
-
99.9
104
21.8
21.7
32.0
32.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
45.0
44.6
-
-
-
-
2,086
1,948
-
25.0
24.0
-
AO
575
590
3.6
3.6
-
-
-
101
104
21.9
21.9
12.0
11.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
42.6
43.2
-
-
-
-
2,028
1,972
-
2,409
2,409
-
TA
580
582
3.5
3.6
-
-
-
12.6
14.0
21.5
21.7
1.0
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.0
3.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
32.9
32.6
-
TB
573
577
3.6
3.6
-
-
-
13.9
14.0
21.3
21.8
1.9
0.7
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.7
2.7
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
144
142
-
TC
571
571
3.5
3.6
-
-
-
14.9
15.1
21.4
21.5
1.0
0.4
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.7
2.7
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
135
126
-
TD
573
578
3.6
3.7
-
-
-
15.3
15.8
21.6
21.8
0.4
0.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.5
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
123
123
-
10/15/09
IN
582
3.6
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
102
20.0
36.0
7.2
9.6
14.4
0.6
-33.7
528
283
245
38.7
32.2
6.5
29.6
2.6
2,112
2,474
22.2
23.8
AO
578
3.6
0.5
0.1
<0.05
91.2
19.6
9.2
6.8
8.8
13.3
1.9
413
510
281
229
35.6
3.5
32.1
<0.1
3.4
2,329
107
1,762
685
TT
595
3.6
0.7
0.1
<0.05
18.5
19.5
0.4
6.7
9.1
13.3
0.9
9.9
488
294
194
4.3
3.3
1.0
0.8
2.5
<25
<25
58.1
60.8
10/28/09
IN
552
3.8
-
-
-
93.1
22.5
33.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
37.8
-
-
-
-
1,954
-
25.0
-
AO
554
4.0
-
-
-
94.5
22.3
9.9
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
38.0
-
-
-
-
2,009
-
2,271
-
TA
536
4.0
-
-
-
<10
22.3
1.9
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
31.8
-
TB
535
4.0
-
-
-
<10
22.3
0.9
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
88.6
-
TC
538
3.9
-
-
-
<10
22.3
0.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
92.0
-
TD
516
3.9
-
-
-
<10
21.9
1.7
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
84.7
-
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Village of Waynesville, IL (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
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)
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
m/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
|jg/L
m/L
|jg/L
m/L
M9/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
m/L
11/11/09
IN
593
3.7
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
85.4
22.8
35.0
8.0
8.0
14.4
0.8
NA(a)
406
170
236
36.4
35.6
0.8
25.4
10.2
2,511
2,570
24.1
23.9
AO
597
3.6
0.3
0.1
<0.05
83.7
22.6
8.9
7.7
8.0
14.4
1.4
NA(a)
430
187
243
37.2
5.0
32.2
0.8
4.2
2,634
124
2,033
754
TT
602
3.6
0.6
<0.1
<0.05
51.6
22.4
1.9
7.4
7.9
14.4
0.7
NA(a)
441
193
248
3.3
3.0
0.3
0.8
2.2
<25
<25
67.7
64.9
12/02/09
IN
571
3.7
-
-
-
88.2
22.8
32.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
35.4
-
-
-
-
2,184
-
24.4
-
AO
604
3.7
-
-
-
93.0
23.1
11.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
37.6
-
-
-
-
2,257
-
2,212
-
TA
602
3.7
-
-
-
10.3
22.5
0.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
23.7
-
TB
596
3.8
-
-
-
10.2
22.3
0.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
115
-
TC
591
3.6
-
-
-
10.5
22.8
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
106
-
TD
578
3.7
-
-
-
12.2
22.9
0.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
83.0
-
12/14/09
IN
578
3.7
0.6
<0.1
<0.05
86.5
22.7
34.0
7.8
8.0
13.9
1.6
-23.1
370
200
170
32.3
33.2
<0.1
26.4
6.7
2,060
2,032
26.8
27.1
AO
587
3.8
0.6
0.1
<0.05
93.5
22.0
11.0
7.1
7.4
14.4
1.3
453
497
277
220
36.0
3.9
32.1
0.5
3.4
2,406
43
2,003
691
TT
584
3.6
0.8
<0.1
<0.05
22.3
22.0
0.2
6.8
7.7
14.4
0.6
339
497
277
220
2.5
2.6
<0.1
0.5
2.0
<25
<25
70.0
72.2
01/11/10
IN
633
3.6
-
-
-
89.8
23.3
33.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
27.5
-
-
-
-
2,177
-
25.2
-
AO
629
3.6
-
-
-
93.1
23.3
9.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
25.3
-
-
-
-
2,192
-
2,149
-
TA
624
3.5
-
-
-
<10
22.9
0.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.1
-
-
-
-
25
-
29.2
-
TB
574
3.6
-
-
-
<10
23.2
0.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
23.8
-
TC
596
3.6
-
-
-
<10
23.1
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
56.7
-
TD
594
3.6
-
-
-
<10
22.9
<0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
95.1
-
(a) Readings not accurately recorded.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Village of Waynesville, IL (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
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)
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
|jg/L
Hfl/L
M9/L
m/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
01/25/10
IN
625
3.8
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
106
24.1
32.0
7.8
7.3
12.7
1.5
369(B)
561
325
236
26.1
27.5
<0.1
32.2
<0.1
2,720
2,841
25.4
24.8
AO
625
3.9
0.4
0.1
<0.05
99.3
24.3
12.0
7.5
7.7
13.3
1.4
308
529
302
227
25.5
4.4
21.1
0.9
3.5
2,610
147
2,966
1,567
TT
609
2.9
6.0(a)
0.3
<0.05
4,008(a)
30.4
4.9
7.3
7.4
13.4
0.9
473
515
288
227
3.6
3.5
0.1
0.8
2.7
<25
<25
53.0
47.2
02/10/10
IN
634
3.8
-
-
-
27.2
23.1
24.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
27.2
-
-
-
-
2,285
-
28.1
-
AO
636
3.8
-
-
-
27.0
22.4
9.8
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
27.0
-
-
-
-
2,637
-
2,618
-
TA
636
3.6
-
-
-
<10
22.3
0.9
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
52.7
-
TB
618
3.7
-
-
-
<10
21.3
1.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
23.8
-
TC
623
3.7
-
-
-
<10
22.1
0.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
17.4
-
TD
627
3.8
-
-
-
<10
22.3
0.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
74.0
-
02/24/10
IN
608
4.1
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
76.0
21.7
32.0
7.5
7.3
13.3
1.0
366(B)
473
250
224
35.5
36.1
<0.1
27.2
8.9
1,939
1,939
26.6
24.7
AO
617
4.3
1.6
<0.1
<0.05
79.1
22.2
11.0
7.7
7.5
13.3
1.3
412
470
249
221
25.3
2.9
22.4
0.6
2.3
1,945
<25
2,123
786
TT
581
1.5
16.1(c)
0.5
0.1
5,111(c)
29.1
2.5
7.5
7.7
13.3
0.7
483
481
255
226
3.5
3.7
<0.1
0.9
2.8
<25
<25
63.1
47.3
03/10/10
IN
604
4.0
-
-
-
80.0
20.9
32.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
25.6
-
-
-
-
2,260
-
23.1
-
AO
618
4.0
-
-
-
83.9
21.1
12.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
25.4
-
-
-
-
2,288
-
2,095
-
TA
607
4.1
-
-
-
10.7
21.0
3.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
4.3
-
-
-
-
259
-
185
-
TB
611
4.0
-
-
-
<10
20.4
8.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.6
-
-
-
-
199
-
158
-
TC
614
3.9
-
-
-
<10
20.6
2.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.0
-
-
-
-
133
-
112
-
TD
614
3.9
-
-
-
<10
20.5
1.7
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.5
-
-
-
-
90
-
134
-
CO
(a) Results combined by laboratory reanalysis.
(b) Reading uncharacteristically high; a new ORP probe sent to site for future measurements.
(c) Uncharacteristically high results as also seen on 01/25/10 might have been caused by cross-contamination from post chemical treatment.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Village of Waynesville, IL (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter | Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
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)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
Hg/L
H9/L
VglL
m/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
03/23/10
IN
628
3.8
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
39.0
22.6
40.0
8.9
6.9
14.4
1.9
2900)
453
246
207
24.5
24.7
<0.1
13.3
11.5
2,469
2,510
22.5
23.3
AO
637
4.3
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
48.6
22.5
11.0
8.2
7.3
14.9
2.6
338
470
258
212
25.1
2.6
22.5
0.6
2.0
2,511
37
1,760
244
TT
588
1.9
16.9(a)
0.7
<0.05
6,621 (a)
29.9
5.5
7.8
7.8
14.5
0.7
515
449
234
214
3.7
3.9
<0.1
0.7
3.1
<25
<25
38.0
33.8
04/07/10
IN
616
651
3.9
4.2
-
-
-
96.6
82.6
23.5
23.3
31.0
33.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
29.9
24.2
-
-
-
-
2,550
2,322
-
22.2
21.2
-
AO
613
597
3.9
3.8
-
-
-
91.0
85.1
23.0
23.1
8.6
10.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
25.0
23.9
-
-
-
-
2,511
2,381
-
1,803
1,973
-
TA
607
579
3.9
4.0
-
-
-
10.9
<10
22.9
23.1
1.2
4.7
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.9
1.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
30.5
29.1
-
TB
620
606
3.9
4.0
-
-
-
<10
<10
22.5
22.9
0.5
1.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.6
1.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
12.1
11.5
-
TC
620
620
3.8
3.9
-
-
-
<10
<10
23.1
22.8
0.3
1.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.7
1.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
34.3
34.6
-
TD
613
588
3.8
3.9
-
-
-
<10
<10
23.2
22.9
0.7
2.7
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.6
1.5
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
76.2
76.8
-
04/22/1 0|c|
IN
599
4.1
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
75.3
22.1
35.0
7.9
7.6
14.7
0.7
-61.0
318
104
214
33.5
33.4
0.1
20.1
13.3
2,254
1,942
25.3
26.3
AO
663
4.4
0.5
<0.1
<0.05
88.6
22.4
9.7
8.0
7.4
14.7
1.3
487
277
104
174
26.6
3.6
23.0
0.8
2.9
2,204
32
1,331
536
TA
649
4.0
0.7
0.1
<0.05
42.3
22.1
8.0
7.2
7.4
14.9
1.6
121
269
106
163
2.1
2.4
<0.1
0.6
1.7
<25
<25
5.2
4.9
05/05/10
IN
622
4.1
-
-
-
100
22.3
35.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
28.6
-
-
-
-
2,427
-
39.9
-
AO
631
4.1
-
-
-
91.0
22.1
9.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
28.2
-
-
-
-
2,237
-
3,433
-
TA
624
4.0
-
-
-
<10
21.8
3.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
11.1
-
TB
615
4.0
-
-
-
<10
22.0
1.8
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.0
-
TC
629
4.1
-
-
-
<10
21.8
2.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
36.5
-
TD
617
4.0
-
-
-
<10
22.0
2.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
76.2
-
(a) Uncharacteristically high results as also seen on 01/25/10 and 02/24/10 might have been caused by cross-contamination from post chemical treatment. Corrective actions taken
on 04/14/10 to clean, repair, and/or replace chemical injector assemblies for all chemical addition systems.
(b) Uncharacteristically high readings as also seen on 01/25/10 and 02/24/10 confirmed with replacement probe.
(c) Due to possible cross-contamination by post chemical treatment, speciation samples collected at TA (instead of TT) on 04/22/10, 05/19/10, and 09/15/10.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Village of Waynesville, IL (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
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)
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
m/L
H9/L
Mfl/L
Mfl/L
^g/L
|jg/L
Mfl/L
VglL
Hg/L
05/1 9/1 0|a|
IN
610
4.2
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
70.1
21.8
32.0
7.4
5.7
13.3
7.8
-58.5
508
269
239
34.7
35.6
<0.1
20.3
15.2
2,185
2,084
34.0
36.7
AO
634
5.8
0.3
<0.1
<0.05
73.4
22.9
14.0
8.5
5.6
14.4
2.0
453
478
260
218
24.4
3.2
21.2
0.4
2.8
2,282
33
3,273
1,081
TA
627
4.1
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
19.8
22.6
6.8
7.5
7.4
14.4
1.2
73.0
454
250
204
1.8
1.8
<0.1
0.4
1.5
<25
<25
37.9
30.4
06/09/10
IN
614
4.2
-
-
-
108
21.8
34.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
40.3
-
-
-
-
2,448
-
24.6
-
AO
670
4.1
-
-
-
111
21.8
10.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
40.5
-
-
-
-
2,571
-
3,981
-
TA
600
4.0
-
-
-
18.7
22.5
1.7
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
137
-
TB
641
4.1
-
-
-
25.1
21.9
1.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
80.6
-
TC
614
4.3
-
-
-
27.9
21.8
0.9
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
8.4
-
TD
600
4.2
-
-
-
35.6
22.1
0.8
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
32.4
-
06/15/10
IN
603
4.2
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
88.4
22.5
34.0
8.8
7.0
14.9
1.0
-44.2
504
270
234
26.7
28.2
<0.1
23.5
4.8
2,541
2,431
25.6
21.3
AO
648
4.3
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
87.9
22.4
12.0
8.3
7.2
15.8
1.1
397
460
239
221
26.1
2.7
23.4
0.8
1.9
2,358
<25
3,698
1,120
TT
630
<0.05
9.3(B)
0.5
0.2
6,627(b)
27.8
0.8
7.7
7.2
15.8
1.1
754
445
229
216
3.8
3.3
0.5
0.6
2.8
<25
<25
72.2
47.0
06/30/10
IN
608
612
4.1
4.1
-
-
-
80.3
80.8
22.4
19.3
30.0
33.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
25.1
23.9
-
-
-
-
2,411
2,220
-
24.9
21.7
-
AO
612
612
4.0
4.1
-
-
-
25.3(c)
80.3
22.1
22.5
9.4
9.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
11.7(c)
24.1
-
-
-
-
85(c)
2,259
-
267(c)
3,088
-
TA
675
635
4.0
4.1
-
-
-
15.0
18.9
21.7
21.9
1.3
1.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
4.6
5.2
-
-
-
-
291
353
-
234
349
-
TB
697
617
4.1
4.0
-
-
-
13.6
13.8
21.8
21.4
1.2
1.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.7
3.9
-
-
-
-
218
248
-
167
236
-
TC
559
599
4.0
4.0
-
-
-
12.4
12.5
21.8
21.9
1.3
0.7
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.6
3.5
-
-
-
-
188
222
-
155
170
-
TD
612
599
4.0
4.1
-
-
-
<10
11.1
21.4
21.7
2.6
0.9
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.8
3.0
-
-
-
-
121
136
-
162
158
-
Cd
(a) Speciation samples collected at TA (instead of TT) until successful resolution of post treatment cross-contamination issues.
(b) Caused by post treatment cross-contamination.
(c) Samples looked cloudy; reanalyzed with similar results.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Village of Waynesville, IL (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOO
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
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)
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
^g/L
Hg/L
VglL
m/L
V9/L
V9/L
07/14/10
IN
571
3.8
0.3
<0.1
<0.05
89.2
20.9
14.0
8.1
7.0
14.9
0.8
386
519
263
256
38.0
40.0
<0.1
30.5
9.4
2,594
2,295
82.5
73.6
AO
569
3.8
0.3
<0.1
<0.05
89.7
21.6
11.0
7.4
7.3
15.0
1.2
367
494
253
241
35.3
3.5
31.8
0.2
3.3
2,533
<25
2,948
729
TT
587
<0.05
4.3
0.3
0.1
3,541
26.5
0.8
7.2
6.7
19.4
1.0
676
472
244
228
3.0
6.0
<0.1
0.5
5.6
<25
<25
49.2
36.9
08/1 8/1 0|a
IN
584
3.7
0.3
<0.1
<0.05
80.2
23.2
31.0
5.8
7.3
14.9
0.7
-1.8
477
246
231
36.1
24.1
12.0
17.6
6.5
2,508
2,097
68.0
37.7
AO
649
3.7
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
79.6
22.0
10.0
7.3
7.3
15.2
1.3
9.0
438
224
214
29.7
2.1
27.6
0.3
1.8
2,421
<25
2,427
26.4
TA
662
4.3
0.3
0.1
<0.05
10.4
21.2
5.7
8.8
7.4
15.5
1.2
34.4
404
209
195
1.7
1.6
<0.1
0.3
1.4
31
<25
10.3
10.5
09/1 5/1 0|a
IN
625
3.9
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
89.4
21.1
33.0
8.4
7.1
15.0
1.5
-27
520
283
223
31.2
27.8
3.4
17.1
10.7
2,290
1,979
29.8
31.8
AO
629
3.6
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
72.9
21.0
6.5
7.1
7.5
14.7
1.5
207
486
283
197
41.4
5.0
36.4
0.7
4.3
2,475
40
1,599
488
TA
652
4.2
0.4
<0.1
<0.05
15.3
21.2
5.4
8.1
7.5
16.0
1.3
180
498
296
197
4.5
2.9
1.7
0.6
2.3
678
114
57.8
14.6
(a) Speciation samples collected at TA instead of TT.
------- |