EPA/600/R-06/004
January 2006
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
USEPA Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI
Six-Month Evaluation Report
by
Wendy E. Condit
Abraham S.C. Chen
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0019
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document is funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0019 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is provid-
ing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowl-
edge 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 meth-
ods 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, sedi-
ments, and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provid-
ing 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 commun-
ity and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the first six months
of the arsenic removal treatment technology demonstration project in Brown City, MI. The objectives of
the project are to evaluate the effectiveness of Severn Trent Services (STS) Arsenic Package Unit-300
(APU-300) SORB 33™ media in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level
(MCL) of 10 micrograms per liter (ng/L), the reliability of the treatment system, the simplicity of
required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator's skills, and the cost-effectiveness of the
technology. The project also is characterizing water in the distribution system and process residuals
produced by the treatment system.
The STS treatment system started up on May 11, 2004, and continued to operate through November 30,
2004 with an average operational time of approximately 4.8 hrs/day or a 20% utilization rate. The design
capacity of the treatment system with two APU-300 units in parallel is 640 gallons per minute (gpm).
During this time frame, approximately 29,711,000 gallons or 13,096 bed volumes of water were treated.
The system continued to operate through the six-month demonstration period with only a few minor
repairs and adjustments. The flowrate and pressure data and other operational parameters were within the
vendor specifications after a system retrofit that was performed in late April to early May of 2004. The
system continues to operate within the vendor equipment specifications.
Arsenic in the source water existed primarily as As(III) (i.e., 79% at 11.2 (ig/L), with a small amount also
present as As(V) (i.e., 0.8 (ig/L ) and particulate As (i.e., 2.2 (ig/L). Per vendor's recommendations, raw
water was fed directly through the adsorption vessels without pre-chlorination to evaluate the capacity of
the SORB 33™ media for As(III) adsorption.
Over the six-month period, total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 9.5 to 28.7 (ig/L and in
treated water from 0.5 to 8.7 (ig/L. In early November, as the treatment system throughput was approach-
ing 12,500 bed volumes, a spike up to 8.7 (ig/L of total arsenic was measured in the treated water. How-
ever, by November 30, 2005, the total arsenic concentrations dropped to 2.4 to 4.1 (ig/L in the treated
water. The treated water remained below 10 (ig/L for approximately 20,000 bed volumes, which will be
further discussed in the final evaluation report.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after the operation of the APU-300
system showed a decrease in arsenic concentrations at each of the sampling locations. Total aresnic
levels in the distribution system decreased from 7.2 to 13.3 |o,g/L before treatment to 3.0 to 6.1 |o,g/L after
treatment. Iron levels decreased to non-detect levels, while manganese levels increased slightly. Lead
and copper concentrations did not appear to have been affected by the operation of the system.
Four backwash water samples were collected during the first six months of system operation. With the
exception of one event, dissolved arsenic concentrations in the backwash water were significantly lower
than the raw water and ranged from 4.9 to 9.9 |o,g/L, indicating removal of arsenic by the media during
backwash. Soluble iron levels were typically lower than the raw water, while manganese concentrations
correlated more closely with the influent concentrations.
The capital investment cost of $305,000 includes $218,000 for equipment, $35,500 for site engineering,
and $51,500 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 640 gpm (921,600 gallons per day
[gpd]), the capital cost was $477 per gpm ($0.33 per gpd) and equipment-only cost was $340 per gpm
($0.24 per gpd). These calculations do not include the cost of a building addition to house the treatment
system.
IV
-------
O&M costs included only incremental costs associated with the APU-300 system, such as media
replacement and disposal, chemical supply, electricity, and labor. Although not incurred during the first
six months of system operation, the media replacement cost would represent the majority of the O&M
cost and was estimated to be $53,600 for both APU-300 units (e.g., 320 ft3 of media). This cost was used
to estimate the media replacement cost per 1,000 gallons of treated water as a function of the projected
media run length to the 10 |o,g/L arsenic breakthrough. O&M costs will be refined once the actual
throughput and cost at the time of the media replacement become available.
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 1
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 CONCLUSIONS 3
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 5
3.1 General Project Approach 5
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 6
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 6
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection 8
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection 8
3.3.3 Backwash Water Sample Collection 8
3.3.4 Backwash Solid Sample Collection 8
3.3.5 Distribution System Water Sample Collection 8
3.4 Sampling Logistics 9
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 9
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 9
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 9
3.5 Analytical Procedures 9
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 11
4.1 Facility Description 11
4.1.1 Existing System 11
4.1.2 Source Water Quality 11
4.1.3 Distribution System 11
4.2 Treatment Process Description 15
4.3 System Installation 17
4.3.1 Permitting 17
4.3.2 Building Construction 19
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 19
4.4 System Operation 21
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 21
4.4.2 Backwash 22
4.4.3 Residual Management 22
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 22
4.5 System Performance 23
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 23
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling 31
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 31
VI
-------
4.6 System Costs 34
4.6.1 Capital Costs 34
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs 35
5.0 REFERENCES 38
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Operational Data
APPENDIX B: Analytical Data
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Map of the Brown City Service Area 12
Figure 4-2. Former Pump House at Brown City, MI, Site 13
Figure 4-3. Pump Motor, System Piping, and Chlorine Addition Assembly at Wellhead No. 4 13
Figure 4-4. Schematic Diagram of an APU-300 Unit at Brown City (After System Retrofit) as
Installed in May 2004 17
Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 18
Figure 4-6. Photograph of the Two APU-300 Units at the Brown City Site 19
Figure 4-7. New Building at Brown City Adjacent to the Pre-Existing Pump House (on the left) 20
Figure 4-8. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at the Influent and Combined System Effluent 27
Figure 4-9. Total Arsenic Concentration Versus Bed Volumes 28
Figure 4-10. Total Iron Concentrations vs. Bed Volumes 29
Figure 4-11. Total Manganese Concentrations Versus Bed Volumes 29
Figure 4-12. Concentrations of Manganese Species Versus Time 30
Figure 4-13. Media Replacement and O&M Cost for Brown City, MI, System (Two APU-300
Units 36
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Technologies and Source Water
Quality Parameters 2
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 5
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 6
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses 7
Table 4-1. Brown City Water Quality Data 14
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of SORB 33™ Media 15
Table 4-3. Design Features of Brown City Treatment System 16
Table 4-4. Summary of Treatment System Operation at the Brown City, MI, Site 21
Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 24
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results 25
Table 4-7. Backwash Water Sampling Results 32
Table 4-8. Distribution Sampling Results 33
Table 4-9. Summary of Capital Investment for the Brown City, MI, Treatment System 35
Table 4-10. O&M Costs forthe Brown City, MI, Treatment System 36
vn
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AA activated alumina
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
APU arsenic package unit
As arsenic
bgs below ground surface
BV bed volume(s)
Ca calcium
Cl chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EDR electrodialysis reversal
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
FEATS Field Evaluation and Technical Support
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HC1 hydrochloric acid
HOPE high-density polyethylene
HP horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
KWh kilowatt hours
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
LOU Letter of Understanding
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
MDWCA Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
Mo molybdenum
Vlll
-------
Na sodium
NA not applicable
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
NR no reading
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
PLC process logic controller
psi pounds per square inch
psig pounds per square inch (gage)
POE point-of-entry
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RDP relative percent difference
RFQ Request for Quotation
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SOC synthetic organic compound
SOW scope of work
STS Severn Trent Services
TBD to be determined
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TO Task Order
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
V vanadium
VOC volatile organic compounds
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of the Brown City Water Distribution
Department in Brown City, MI. The staff monitored the treatment system daily and collected samples
from the treatment system and distribution system on a regular schedule throughout this reporting period.
This performance evaluation would not have been possible without their efforts.
-------
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). 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 requires 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 technolo-
gies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly thereafter,
an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in participat-
ing in the first round of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their water
systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 sites from a list of 115 to be the host sites for the demonstration
studies. The water system in Brown City, MI, was selected as one of the 17 Round 1 host sites for the
demonstration program.
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 review
panel reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it deter-
mined were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other tech-
nical 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. Severn Trent Services' (STS's) arsenic
package unit (APU), using the Bay oxide E33 media developed by Bayer AG, was selected for the Brown
City, MI facility. STS has given the E33 media the designation "SORB 33™."
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the 12 Round 1 EPA arsenic removal demonstration host sites include nine
adsorptive media systems, one anion exchange system, one coagulation/filtration system, and one process
modification with iron addition. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, and key
source water quality parameters (including arsenic, iron [Fe], and pH) of the 12 demonstration sites. The
technology selection and system design for the 12 demonstration sites have been reported in an EPA
report (Wang et al., 2004) posted on an EPA Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/
resource.htm).
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Technologies and Source
Water Quality Parameters
State
NH
NH
MD
MI
MN
ND
NM
NM
AZ
AZ
ID
NV
Demonstration Site
Bow
Rollinsford
Queen Anne's County
Brown City
Climax
Lidgerwood
Desert Sands MDWCA
Nambe Pueblo
Rimrock
Valley Vista
Fruitland
STMGID
Technology
(Media)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
C/F
SM
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
IX
AM (GFH)
Vendor
ADI
AdEdge
STS
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
USFilter
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
70(a)
100
300
640
140
250
320
145
90(a)
37
250
350
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
39
36(b)
19(b)
14(b)
39(b)
146(b)
23(b)
33
50
41
44
39
Fe
(HS/L)
<25
46
270(c)
127(o)
546(c)
l,325(c)
39
<25
170
<25
<25
<25
PH
7.7
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.7
8.5
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.4
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration process; IX = ion exchange process;
GFH = granular ferric hydroxide, MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water Consumer's Association; SM = system
modification; STMGID = South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District; STS = Severn Trent Services.
(a) Due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation, the design flowrate is reduced by 50%.
(b) Arsenic exists mostly as As(III).
(c) Iron exists mostly as soluble Fe(II).
1.3
Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 12 full-scale arsenic treatment
technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific
objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small
systems.
• Determine the simplicity of required system operation and maintenance (O&M)
and operator's skill levels.
• Determine the cost-effectiveness of the technologies.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
This report summarizes the results gathered during the first six months of the STS treatment system
operation from May 11, 2004 through November 30, 2004. The types of data collected include system
operational data, water quality data (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system),
residuals characterization data, and capital and preliminary O&M cost data.
-------
2.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the first six months of system operation, the following
conclusions were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• By the end of the first six months of system operation, the treatment system
treated approximately 29,711,000 gallons of water, which was equivalent to
13,096 bed volumes. During this time period, the As(III) concentration in the
treated water increased from 1.9 mg/L on May 25, 2004 to 5.3 (ig/L on
November 16, 2004. The arsenic concentrations in the treated water remained
below 10 (ig/L after approximately 20,000 bed volumes of total throughput,
which will be further discussed in the final evaluation report. Switching from
post- to prechlorination would then be implemented to determine the effect of
chlorination on arsenic adsorption.
• Total iron concentrations varied from 101 to 228 |o,g/L at the influent, and the
majority of the iron was present in the soluble form. After 13,096 bed volumes
of treated water, the total iron concentrations in the treated water have been well
below the detection limit of <25 |o,g/L.
• Total manganese concentrations in the treated water were reduced initially, but
reached 100% breakthrough after 6,000 bed volumes of water treated. After
6,000 bed volumes, the total manganese levels were slightly higher in the treated
water than the influent raw water.
Simplicity of required system O&M and operator's skill levels:
• Operational issues were experienced during system shakedown related to higher
than expected pressure drops across the treatment system. The system was retro-
fitted by replacing the 3-inch-diameter pipe with 4-inch-diameter pipe; removing
the diaphragm valves, restrictive orifices, and valve controllers; and installing a
nested system of fully ported actuated butterfly valves. The flowrate and pressure
data and other operational parameters were within the vendor specifications after
the system retrofit.
• There was no unscheduled downtime during the first six months of operation.
• Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the system
were minimal, with a typical daily demand on the operator of 15 to 20 minutes.
Normal operation of the system did not appear to require additional skills beyond
those necessary to operate the existing water supply equipment.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• Residuals produced by the operation of the treatment system included spent
media and backwash water. The media was not exhausted during the first six
months of system operation; therefore, the only residual produced was backwash
wastewater.
-------
Soluble arsenic concentrations in the backwash water ranged from 4.9 to
9.9 |o,g/L. In most cases, arsenic and iron concentrations were lower than those in
the raw water (backwash was performed using raw water from the supply wells),
indicating some removal of these metals by the media during backwash.
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
Using the system's rated capacity of 640 gpm (921,600 gpd), the capital cost was
$477 per gpm ($0.33 per gpd) and equipment-only cost was $340 per gpm ($0.24
per gpd). These calculations do not include the cost of a building addition to
house the treatment system.
The estimated media changeout cost is $53,600 for both APU-300 units. Media
changeout did not occur during the first six months of operation. O&M costs
will be refined once the actual throughput and cost at the time of the media
replacement become available.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the pre-demonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
the STS treatment system began on May 11, 2004. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected
and/or considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall performance of the system
was determined based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to the target MCL of 10 |o,g/L. This
was monitored by collecting biweekly water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the
system was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair
and replacement. The unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator
on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
Simplicity of the system operation and the level of operator skill required were evaluated based on a
combination of quantitative data and qualitative considerations, including any pre-treatment and/or post-
treatment requirements, level of system automation, operator skill requirements, task analysis of the
preventive maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory
requirements, and general knowledge needed for safety requirements and chemical processes. The
staffing requirements on the system operation were recorded on a Daily Field Log Sheet.
The cost-effectiveness of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm of design capacity
and the O&M cost per 1,000 gallons of water treated. This required tracking capital costs such as equip-
ment, engineering, and installation costs, as well as O&M costs for media replacement and disposal,
chemical supply, electrical power use, and labor hours. The capital costs have been reported in an EPA
report (Chen et al., 2004) posted on an EPA Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/
resource.htm). Data on O&M costs were limited to chemicals, electricity, and labor because media
replacement did not take place during the six months of system operation.
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Submitted to Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Letter of Understanding Issued
Letter Report Issued
Engineering Package Submitted to Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Building Construction Initiated
Permit Issued by MDEQ
Final Study Plan Issued
Building Construction Completed
APU-300 Unit Shipped by STS
APU-300 Unit Delivered to Brown City
System Installation Completed (Before Media Loading)
Initial Hydraulic System Shakedown Performed
System Retrofit Completed
Media Loading and Initial Backwash Events Performed
Final Hydraulic System Shakedown Performed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
07/24/03
07/28/03
08/26/03
09/24/03
08/15/03
10/20/03
11/26/03
12/01/04
02/11/04
02/12/04
02/12/04
02/18/04
02/23/04
03/18/04
03/19/04
05/05/04
05/07/04
05/07/04
05/11/04
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
Simplicity of Operation and
Operator Skill
Cost-Effectiveness
Residual Management
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic in effluent
-Unscheduled downtime for system
-Frequency and extent of repairs to include man hours, problem description,
description of materials, and cost of materials
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of system automation for data collection and system operation
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and man hours
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance to include man hours per month and
number and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed of safety requirements and chemical processes
-Capital costs including equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M costs including chemical and/or media usage, electricity, and labor
-Quantity of the residuals generated by the process
-Characteristics of the aqueous and solid residuals
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the amount of backwash
water produced during each backwash cycle and the need to replace the media upon arsenic breakthrough.
Backwash water was sampled and analyzed for its chemical characteristics.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection following the
instructions provided by STS and Battelle. On a daily basis, the plant operator recorded system opera-
tional data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on the Daily Field Log Sheet and
conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. In the event of problems, the plant
operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who then determined if STS should be contacted for trouble-
shooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
On a biweekly basis, the plant operator measured temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and
oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) across the treatment train and recorded the data on a Weekly Water
Quality Parameters Log Sheet. During the six-month study period, the system was backwashed manually
to capture the backwash samples on a 45 day time interval.
Capital costs for the STS system consisted of costs for equipment, site engineering, and system installa-
tion. The O&M costs consisted primarily of costs for the media replacement and spent media disposal,
electricity, chemicals, and labor. The electricity use was tracked before and after plant installation
through a comparison of utility bills. Labor hours for various activities, such as the routine system O&M,
system troubleshooting and repair, and demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor
Hour Record. The routine O&M included activities such as filling field logs and performing system
inspections as recommended by STS. The demonstration-related work included activities such as
performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle
Study Lead. The demonstration-related activities were recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the performance of the system, samples were collected from the source, treatment plant, dis-
tribution system, and adsorptive vessel backwash discharge. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedules
and analytes measured during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements for analytical
-------
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Water
Residual
Sludge
Sample Locations'3'
At wellhead (IN)
At wellhead (IN), after
Tank A (TA), after
Tank B (TO), after
Tank C (TC), and after
Tank D (TO)
At wellhead (IN) and
after the combined
effluent (TT)
Three homes
Backwash discharge
line from Tanks A, B,
C, andD
At backwash
discharge point
No. of
Samples
1
5
2
3
4
2-3
Frequency
Once
during the
initial site
visit
Monthly
(Once every
four weeks)
Monthly
(Once every
four weeks)
Monthly
Once every
45 days
TOD
Analytes
As(total), paniculate and
soluble As, As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble), Mn
(total and soluble), Al (total
and soluble), Na, Ca, Mg, V,
Mo, Sb, Cl, F, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, TOC, and alkalinity.
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO/ORP.
Off-site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), SiO2,
PO4, turbidity, and
alkalinity.
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO/ORP, and C12 (free and
total) (except at wellhead).
Off-site: As(total),
paniculate As, As(III),
As(V), Fe (total and
soluble), Mn (total and
soluble), Ca, Mg, NO3, SO4>
SiO2, PO4, turbidity, and
alkalinity.
pH, alkalinity, As, Fe, Mn,
Pb, and Cu
TDS, turbidity, pH, As
(soluble), Fe (soluble), and
Mn (soluble)
TCLP Metals
As(Total)
Date(s)
Samples
Collected
07/24/03
05/18/04,
06/08/04,
07/06/04,
08/03/04,
08/31/04,
09/28/04,
11/02/04,
11/30/04
05/25/04,
06/24/04,
07/20/04,
08/17/04,
09/14/04,
10/12/04,
11/16/04
Baseline
sampling(b):
12/04/03,
12/18/03,
01/08/04.
Monthly
sampling:
06/15/04,
07/13/04,
08/10/04,
09/08/04,
10/05/04,
11/02/04.
06/15/04,
07/28/04,
09/09/04,
10/22/04
TBD
(a) The abbreviation in each parenthesis corresponds to the sample location in Figure 4-5.
(b) Three baseline sampling events were performed before the system became operational.
TOD = to be determined.
-------
methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the
EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2003).
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection. During the initial visit to the site, one set of source water
samples was collected by Battelle for detailed water quality analyses. The source water also was speci-
ated for particulate and soluble As, Fe, manganese (Mn), aluminum (Al), and As(III) and As(V). The
sample tap was flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation,
which might cause unwanted oxidation. Arsenic speciation kits and containers for water quality samples
were prepared as described in Section 3.4.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection. During the system performance evaluation
study, water samples were collected across the treatment train by the plant operator. Samples were
collected biweekly on a four-week cycle. For the first biweekly event, treatment plant samples were
collected at five locations (i.e., at the wellhead [IN], after Tank [TA], after Tank B [TB], after Tank C
[TC], and after Tank D [TD]) and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. For the second biweekly
event, treatment plant samples were collected for arsenic speciation at two locations (i.e. at the wellhead
[IN] and after the combined effluent [TT]) and also analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. The
sampling frequency was reduced from weekly as stated in the Study Plan to biweekly due to the low
water demand and the resulting low volume throughput to the system (Battelle, 2004).
3.3.3 Backwash Water Sample Collection. Four backwash water samples were collected during
each event from the sample taps located at the backwash water discharge line from each vessel. Unfil-
tered samples were measured on-site for pH using a field pH meter and sent to American Analytical
Laboratories (AAL) for total dissolved solids (TDS) and turbidity measurements. Filtered samples using
0.45-(im filters were sent to Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) labora-
tory for soluble As, Fe, and Mn analyses. Arsenic speciation was not performed for the backwash water
samples.
3.3.4 Backwash Solid Sample Collection. Backwash solid samples were not collected in the
initial six months of this demonstration. Two to three solid/sludge samples will be collected from the
backwash discharge point at the site. A dipper (EPA III-l) or a scoop (EPA II-3) will be used for solid
sample collection. The solid/sludge samples will be collected in glass jars and submitted to TCCI
Laboratories for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests.
3.3.5 Distribution System Water Sample Collection. Samples were collected from the distribu-
tion system to determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distri-
bution system, specifically, lead and copper levels. From December 2003 to January 2004, prior to the
startup of the treatment system, four baseline distribution system sampling events were conducted at three
locations per sampling event within the distribution system. Following the installation of the arsenic
adsorption system, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations.
Baseline and monthly distribution system samples were collected by the plant operator at three homes that
had been included for the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling. The samples were taken following an
instruction sheet developed by Battelle according to the Lead and Copper Rule Reporting Guidance for
Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The first draw sample was collected from a cold-water faucet that
had not been used for at least six hours to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. The sampler recorded
the date and time of last water use before sampling and the date and time of sample collection for calcula-
tion of the stagnation time. The samples were analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3.
-------
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics, including arsenic speciation kit preparation, sample cooler preparation, and sample
shipping and handling, were performed by Battelle. Relevant procedures were as follows:
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Arsenic speciation kits were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures
detailed in Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2003).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. All sample bottles were new and contained appropriate
preservatives. Each sample bottle was taped with a pre-printed, colored-coded, and waterproof label.
The sample label consisted of sample identification (ID), date and time of sample collection, sampler
initials, sampling location, analysis required, and preservative used. The sample ID consisted of a two-
letter code for a specific water facility, the sampling date, a two-letter code for a specific sampling
location, and a one-letter code for the specific analysis to be performed. The sampling locations were
color-coded for easy identification. Pre-labeled bottles were placed in one of the plastic bags (each
corresponding to a specific sampling location) in a sample cooler. When arsenic speciation samples were
to be collected, an appropriate number of arsenic speciation kits also were included in the cooler.
When appropriate, the sample cooler was packed with bottles for the three distribution system sampling
locations and/or the four backwash sampling locations (one for each vessel).
In addition, a packet containing all sampling and shipping-related supplies, such as latex gloves, sampling
instructions, chain-of-custody forms, prepaid Federal Express air bills, ice packs, and bubble wrap, also
was placed in the cooler. Except for the operator's signature and sampling time, the chain-of-custody
forms and prepaid Federal Express air bills had already been completed with the required information.
The sample coolers were shipped via Federal Express to the facility approximately one week prior to the
scheduled sampling date.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, sample
custodians 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, if noted, were addressed by the field sample custodian
(usually the plant operator), and the Battelle Study Lead was notified.
Samples for water quality analyses by Battelle's subcontract laboratories were packed in coolers at
Battelle and picked up by a courier from either AAL (Columbus, OH) or TCCI Laboratories (New
Lexington, OH). The samples for arsenic speciation analyses were stored at Battelle's ICP-MS
Laboratory. 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 duration
of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures are described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle,
2003). Field measurements of pH, temperature, and DO/ORP were conducted by the plant operator using
a WTW Multi 340i handheld meter, which was calibrated prior to use following the procedures provided
in the user's manual. The plant operator collected a water sample in a 400-mL plastic beaker and placed
-------
the Multi 340i probe in the beaker until a stable measured value was reached. The plant operator also
performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine test kits.
Laboratory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the guidelines provided in
the QAPP (Battelle, 2003). Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy, method detection limit (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 and to be
shared with the other 11 demonstration sites included in the Round 1 arsenic study.
10
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Facility Description
The Brown City water treatment system supplies water to 1,334 community members and has 664 service
connections. Figure 4-1 shows a map of the present delivery service area of the plant, which is located at
the end of Maple Street. Figure 4-2 shows the former pump house at the facility prior to the installation
of the two STS APU-300 systems.
4.1.1 Existing System. The water source is groundwater extracted from three wells. However, the
water demand is met primarily from Well No. 3 and Well No. 4 (see Figure 4-1 for the locations). Prior
to the demonstration study, Well No. 3 was the primary well in operation, running on an intermittent basis
for approximately four hours per day. Only Well No. 4 is currently in use for the demonstration study,
and Well No 3. is used as an emergency backup well. Well No. 4 is 16-inches in diameter and installed at
a depth of approximately 315 ft below ground surface (bgs). The static water level is approximately at
23 to 27 ft bgs. Well No. 4 is equipped with a 75 horsepower (HP) submersible pump rated for approxi-
mately 640 gpm at a discharge pressure of 59 pounds per square inch (psi).
Figure 4-3 shows the pre-existing piping configuration at Well No. 4 including a pump motor, several
pressure gauges, a flow totalizer, and a chlorine addition assembly at the wellhead. The treatment system
consisted only of disinfection with a sodium hypochlorite addition assembly that included a day tank and
a positive displacement pump. Residual chlorine levels were targeted at 0.3 mg/L for free chlorine (as
C12) and 0.4 mg/L for total chlorine (as C12). The treated water was stored in a nearby 200,000 gallon
water tower.
4.1.2 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected from Well No. 4 on July 24,
2003, and subsequently analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3. The results of the source water
analyses, along with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those
independently collected and analyzed by EPA, are presented in Table 4-1.
As shown in Table 4-1, total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 10 to 31 |o,g/L. Based on
the July 24, 2003 sampling results, arsenic existed primarily as As(III) (i.e., 79% at 11.2 (ig/L), with a
small amount also present as As(V) (i.e., 0.8 |o,g/L ) and particulate As (i.e., 2.2 |o,g/L). During the first
six months of system operation, chlorine was added only after the adsorption vessels so that the capacity
of the SORB 33™ media for As(III) adsorption might be evaluated.
Raw water pH values ranged from 7.3 to 7.5, which was within the STS recommended range of between
6.0 and 8.0. Therefore, pH adjustment was not required.
The concentrations of iron (126.7 to 262.5 (ig/L) and manganese (13 to 18.7 (ig/L) in the raw water were
below their respective secondary MCLs of 300 (ig/L and 50 (ig/L and sufficiently low so that pre-
treatment prior to the adsorption process was not required. The maximum levels of phosphate at
<0.1 mg/L and silica at 8.1 mg/L were significantly below the levels having the potential to reduce the
overall effectiveness of arsenic adsorption onto the SORB 33™ media. Sulfate levels were relatively
elevated at 74 to 128 mg/L and approaching the threshold of 150 mg/L, above which the sulfate anions
may compete with arsenic for available adsorption sites onto the SORB 33™ media.
4.1.3 Distribution System. The Brown City distribution system is supplied primarily by two wells
(Well No. 3 and Well No. 4). Well No. 4 is the designated well for the full duration of the arsenic
removal demonstration study. Well No. 3 is currently the emergency backup well and has been operated
11
-------
Figure 4-1. Map of the Brown City Service Area
-------
Figure 4-2. Former Pump House at Brown City, MI, Site
Figure 4-3. Pump Motor, System Piping, and Chlorine Addition Assembly
at Wellhead No. 4
13
-------
Table 4-1. Brown City Water Quality Data
Parameter
Units
Sampling Date
PH
Total Alkalinity
Hardness
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica
Orthophosphate
TOC
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Al
Soluble Al
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total V
Soluble V
Total Mo
Soluble Mo
Total Sb
Soluble Sb
Total Na
Total Ca
Total Mg
—
mg/L (as CaCO3)
mg/L (as CaCO3)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L (as SiO2)
mg/L
mg/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
W?/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Raw Water
Facility
Data
Not
Specified
7.5
267.0(a)
90.0
314
NS
128
7.7
<0.01(a)
NS
31
NS
NS
NS
NS
200(a)
NS
NS
NS
18.0(a)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
168(a)
14(a)
•7(3)
EPA
Data
07/23/02
NS
244.2
108.2
NS
NS
109
7.4
0.06
NS
10
NS
NS
NS
NS
193
NS
NS
NS
18.7
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<25
NS
240.3
30.6
7.7
Battelle
Data
07/24/03
7.3
235.0
83.2
51
1.9
74
8.1
0.10
0.50
14.2
12.0
2.2
11.2
0.8
126.7
117.6
<10
<10
13.0
15.0
0.1
O.I
7.9
6.9
O.I
0.1
115.4
20.6
7.7
07/23/02
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
11.9
12.0
O.I
7.9
4.2
262.5
148.0
12.6
1.3
16.9
16.3
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Historic
Facility Treated Water
Data
Min
2000-2003
NS
NS
90.0
ND
1.4
50
NS
NS
NS
10
NS
NS
NS
NS
200
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
ND
NS
60
NS
NS
Max
2000-2003
NS
NS
144.0
314
1.9
128
NS
NS
NS
36
NS
NS
NS
NS
400
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
ND
NS
289
NS
NS
(a) = data provided by
NS = Not sampled.
ND = Not detected.
EPA.
14
-------
only twice on October 13, 2004, and November 7, 2004, in the past six months. The water from the two
wells is blended in the nearby water tower. The well pumps are activated by pressure sensors in the water
tower, which signals the designated pump to turn on and off when the water level reaches a pre-set low
and high setting. As shown in Figure 4-1, the distribution system is constructed primarily of asbestos
cement pipe with some ductile iron and plastic piping and water main sizes ranging from 4 to 12 inches in
diameter. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the treated water quality from historic samples at several
locations within the distribution system. In addition, based on the June 1998 to September 2000 monitor-
ing results, the 90th percentile concentrations for lead and copper were 6 |o,g/L and 150 |o,g/L, respectively,
which were below the respective action levels of 15 |o,g/L and 1,300 |o,g/L.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The STS APU is designed for arsenic removal for small systems with flowrates greater than 100 gpm.
It uses Bay oxide® E33, an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG, for the removal of
arsenic from drinking water supplies. Bayoxide® E33 is branded as SORB 33™ by STS. Table 4-2
presents physical and chemical properties of the media. The SORB 33™ media is delivered in a dry
crystalline form and has NSF 61 approval for use in drinking water.
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of SORB 33™ Media
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical form
Color
Bulk density (g/cm3)
Bulk density (lb/ft3)
BET surface area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture content (%)
Particle size distribution
Crystal size (A)
Crystal phase
Values
Iron oxide composite
Dry granular media
Amber
0.45
28.1
142
0.3
<15%by weight
10 x 35 mesh
70
a -FeOOH
Chemical Analysis
Constituents
FeOOH
CaO
Si02
MgO
Na2O
SO3
A1203
MnO
TiO2
P2O5
Cl
Weight %
90.1
0.27
0.06
1.00
0.12
0.13
0.05
0.23
0.11
0.02
0.01
Note: BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller Method
15
-------
The STS APU system is a fixed-bed down-flow adsorption system. When the media reaches break-
through at 10 |o,g/L of arsenic, the spent media is removed and disposed after being subjected to the EPA
TCLP test.
The Brown City treatment system consists of two APU-300 units arranged in a parallel configuration to
meet the design flowrate of 640 gpm (i.e., 320 gpm for each unit). Each APU-300 unit consists of two
pressure vessels operating in parallel. The design features of the treatment system are summarized in
Table 4-3, and the process schematic is shown in Figure 4-4. A flow diagram along with the sam-
pling/analysis schedule are presented in Figure 4-5. Key process components are discussed below:
• Adsorption. Each APU-300 unit consists of two 63-inch-diameter, 86-inch-tall
vessels configured in parallel, each containing approximately 80 ft3 of SORB
33™ media supported by a gravel underbed. The vessels are fiberglass reinforced
plastic (FRP) construction, rated for 75 psi working pressure, skid mounted, and
piped to a valve rack mounted on a polyurethane coated, welded frame. Empty
bed contact time (EBCT) for the system is 3.7 minutes. Hydraulic loading to
each vessel based on a design flowrate of 320 gpm is approximately 7.3 gpm/ft2.
Figure 4-6 shows the two APU-300 units that were installed in a parallel
configuration at the Brown City, MI, site.
Table 4-3. Design Features of Brown City Treatment System
Parameter
Pretreatment/post-treatment
Number of adsorber vessels
Vessel configuration
Vessel size (in)
Type of media
Media volume (ftVvessel)
Media bed depth (in)
Free board depth (in)
Design flowrate (gpm/vessel)
Hydraulic loading rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min)
Backwash frequency (per 45 days)
Backwash flowrate (gpm)
Backwash hydraulic loading rate (gpm/ft2)
Backwash duration (min/vessel)
Fast rinse duration (min/vessel)
Backwash water produced (gal/vessel)
Average use rate (gal/day)
Estimated working capacity (bed volume
[BV])
Throughput (BV/day)
Estimated throughput to 10 |j,g/L As
breakthrough
Estimated media life (months)
Value
Post-chlorination
4
parallel
63 D x 86 H
SORB 33™
80
44
16
160
7.3
3.7
1
200
9.2
20
4
4,800
153,600
80,000(a)
64
191,514,000(a)
40
Remarks
2 vessels per unit
2 units in parallel; each with 2 vessels in
parallel
320 ft3 total
Based on a media bed depth of 44 inches
640 gpm total
Based on vessel cross sectional area of 21.6 ft2
given an inner diameter of 63 inches
Based on the design flow per vessel
Based on 4 hours of daily operation at 640 gpm
Based on an influent As concentration of
3 1 |ag/L and a bed volume of 320 ft3
Based on 4 hours of daily operation at 640 gpm
Based on a bed volume of 320 ft3
Estimated frequency of changeout at 17%
utilization
(a) Based on STS Proposal dated January 7, 2003, with an influent As concentration of 31 |J.g/L.
16
-------
oa1
4.3
Figure 4-4. Schematic Diagram of an APU-300 Unit at Brown City
(After System Retrofit) as Installed in May 2004
• Backwash. STS recommends that the SORB 33™ media be backwashed
approximately once every 45 days to loosen up the media bed and remove media
fines and/or particles accumulated in the beds. Automatic backwash may be
initiated either by timer or by differential pressure across the vessels. Controllers
for the backwash system include actuated valves for adsorption, backwash and
forward flush (fast rinse) cycles, timers, and pressure sensors. The backwash
water is directly discharged into a drainage ditch adjacent to the treatment
facility.
• Post-chlorination. Sodium hypochlorite is added to the treated water for
disinfection. The target residual levels are 0.3 mg/L (as C12) for free chlorine and
0.4 mg/L (as C12) for total chlorine in the distribution system.
System Installation
The building was completed by the City in early February 2004 and the two STS APU-300 units were
installed in March 2004 by a subcontractor to STS. However, hydraulic shakedown and startup activities
continued into late April 2004, and the system was retrofitted in early May 2004.
4.3.1 Permitting. Engineering plans for the system permit application were prepared by Boss
Engineering, a subcontractor to STS located in Howe 11, MI. The plans included diagrams of and
specifications for the treatment system, as well as drawings detailing the connection of the new units to
the pre-existing facility infrastructure. After incorporating comments on the plans from STS and Battelle,
17
-------
Monthly
pH®, temperature®, DO/ORP®,
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, N03, S04, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
INFLUENT
(WELL NO. 4)
Brown City, MI
Severn Trent
APU-300® Technology
Design Flow: 640 gpm
pH®, temperature®,
DO/ORP®, As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
SiO2, PO4, turbidity, alkalinity
pH, IDS,
turbidity,
As (soluble),
Fe (soluble),
Mn (soluble)
LEGEND
Influent
Media Vessel Effluent
(TA-TD)
Total Combined Effluent
Backwash Sampling Location
Sludge Sampling Location
Chlorine Disinfection
^" Process Flow
Backwash Flow
pH®, temperature®, DO/ORP®,
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, N03, S04, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
Footnote
(a) On-site analyses
1
L)
r
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
pH®, temperature(a),
DO/ORP®, As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
SiO2, PO4, turbidity, alkalinity
Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
18
-------
Figure 4-6. Photograph of the Two APU-300 Units at the Brown City Site
the permit application was submitted by the City to the MDEQ for review on November 26, 2003.
MDEQ approved the permit application package on February 11, 2004.
The
4.3.2 Building Construction. The City constructed an addition to its existing pump house at Well
No. 4 to house the two APU-300 units. The addition is a 28 ft x 28 ft concrete block structure with a
10-ft-wide roll-top metal door and access hatches in the roof for media loading. A photograph of the new
structure adjacent to the pre-existing block pump house is shown in Figure 4-7. The scope of work for the
building construction included excavation, masonry, carpentry, concrete floor pouring, building trim and
painting, and associated heating and electrical work. Also, included in the building construction was
installation of an overhead door, roof deck, and roofing, including overhead roof hatches. Building
construction started in December of 2003 with the installation of building footers and walls and was
completed by February of 2004.
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The two APU-300 units were delivered to
the site on February 23, 2004. A subcontractor to STS, off-loaded and installed the system, including
piping connections to the existing entry and distribution piping. Installation was completed on March 18,
2004, and the system hydraulic shakedown before media loading was initiated on March 19, 2004. The
original system configuration as delivered included several components such as the piping inlet, an auto-
matic variable diaphragm valve (to control flow), a strainer, a programmable Fleck valve controller (to
switch flow from a service to a backwash mode), an FRP vessel with top diffuser and bottom laterals, a
restrictive orifice, and an outlet. This configuration was later modified to a valve-tree configuration, as
described below in this subsection, to address pressure loss and flow issues with the APU-300 units.
19
-------
Figure 4-7. New Building at Brown City Adjacent to the Pre-Existing Pump House (on the left)
STS began hydraulic testing of the two APU-300 units on March 19, 2004, with no media loaded in the
vessels to troubleshoot several issues related to flow restriction, flow imbalance, and excessive pressure
losses noted on an identical APU-300 unit installed at Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water Consumers
Association (MDWCA) in Anthony, New Mexico, in December 2003. The Desert Sands MDWCA
system had experienced low and imbalanced flow and elevated pressures as described in the Desert Sands
MDWCA Six-Month Report (Coonfare et al., 2005).
On March 19, 2004, water from Well No. 4 was pumped through the two empty APU-300 units with
flowrates ranging from 105 to 115 gpm per vessel, which were well below the design flowrate of
160 gpm. The corresponding pressure losses at this flowrate were 7 to 8 psi across each empty vessel and
24 to 26 psi across the entire system. These results suggested that the system components and plumbing
most likely were the sources of the high pressure losses.
To address these issues, STS performed a series of systematic hydraulic tests at its Torrance, CA,
fabrication shop and at the Brown City, MI, site. A summary of the hydraulic test results are provided in
the Six-Month Report on the Deserts Sands MDWCA performance evaluation study (Coonfare et al.,
2005). The results of the Brown City testing performed on April 6, 2004, showed that, after removing the
restrictive orifice, strainer, and top diffuser, pressure losses were observed across the variable diaphragm
valve (from 80 to 71 psi) and valve controller and bottom laterals (from 71 to 58 psi). These results were
consistent with those observed during testing at Torrance, CA, except for the 1-psi loss (from 44 to
43 psi) across the variable diaphragm valve. The results of the Brown City, MI, and Torrance, CA,
testing were further confirmed during a separate test in Torrance, CA, on April 14, 2004. It was,
therefore, evident that the main sources of the pressure losses were the valve controller and restrictive
orifice. Upon completion of the hydraulic testing, STS recommended retrofitting the system.
20
-------
STS developed a revised plumbing design, which included replacing the 3-inch-diameter pipe with
4-inch-diameter pipe; removing the diaphragm valves, restrictive orifices, and valve controllers; and
installing a nested system of fully ported actuated butterfly valves and a new control panel. STS com-
pleted the system retrofit of the two APU-300 units, and the media was loaded on May 5, 2004. On
May 7, 2004, STS conducted operator training for system operations and Battelle conducted operator
training for system sampling and data collection. Water samples were taken from the vessels on
May 10, 2004, and the system passed the coliform test. The performance evaluation study officially
began on May 11,2004.
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters of the system are tabulated and
attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-4. The plant operations were
initiated on May 11, 2004, and continued through November 30, 2004.
Table 4-4. Summary of Treatment System Operation at the Brown City, MI, Site
Parameter
Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Throughput (kgal)
Throughput (BV)
Average Flowrate (gpm)
Range of Flowrate (gpm)
Average EBCT (min)(a)
Range of EBCT (min)(a)
Differential Pressure across Bed (psi)
System Pressure Loss for Each Unit (psi)
Time Between Backwash Events (days)
Values
843.7 hours from June 7, 2004 to November 30, 2004
5.5 hrs/day Jun to Aug; 4.1 hrs/day Sept to Nov
Vessel A
8,000
14,106
165
133-186
3.5
3.1-4.3
2.4-3.2
Vessel B
7,756
13,674
164
144-188
3.5
3.0-3.9
2.8-5.0
2-10
43
43
Vessel C00
6,925
12,210
148
126-165
3.8
3.4-4.5
2.2-4.0
Vessel D
7,030
12,395
148
131-168
3.8
3.4-4.3
1.0-3.0
2-8
43
43
Total
29,711
13,096
625
534-707
NA
NA
NA
2-10
NA
(a) Calculated based on 76 ft of media in each vessel. Also note that the underbedding in each vessel was 15 ft
and that the free boards in Vessels A, B, C, and D were 16, 14, 16, and 16 inches, respectively.
(b) Actual bed volumes may vary due to malfunction of flowmeter noted on November 20, 2004.
NA = not applicable.
An hour meter was installed on June 7, 2004. From June 7 to November 30, 2004, Well No. 4 operated
for 843.7 total hours based on the well pump hour meter readings, which is equal to an average daily
operating time of 4.8 hrs per day. This operating time represented a utilization rate of approximately 20%
over that time period. The water demand was only slightly higher in the summer, with an average operat-
ing time of 5.5 hrs/day from June to August compared to 4.1 hrs/day from September to November.
The total system throughput from May 11 to November 30, 2004, was approximately 29,711,000 gallons
based on the digital flow totalizer readings from the APU-300 units. This corresponds to 13,096 bed
volumes of water processed through the entire system. Based on the readings for the individual vessels,
the throughput values were 8,000, 7,756, 6,925, and 7,030 kilogallons through Vessels A, B, C, and D,
respectively (or 14,106, 13,674, 12,210, and 12,395 BV, respectively). The variance was due largely to
the minor flow discrepancy between the vessels as described below.
21
-------
The average flowrates through the vessels ranged from 148 to 165 gpm, which corresponded well with
the 160 gpm design flowrate for each vessel. There was a slight imbalance in flow between Unit 1 (A/B)
and Unit 2 (C/D). As a result, the EBCT for the vessels in Unit 1 averaged 3.5 minutes and in Unit 2
averaged 3.8 minutes, both of which were very close to the target value of 3.7 minutes. Although, the
flowrate difference primarily accounted for the variance in bed volumes of water treated, another
contributing factor was the malfunction of the flow totalizer/meter on Vessel C on November 20, 2004
(see Section 4.4.4).
Since the commencement of system operations on May 11, 2004, the differential pressure across each
adsorption vessel varied from 1.0 to 5.0 psi and remained low throughout the six-month duration of
system operations. The pressure drop across each APU-300 unit was low, ranging from 2 to 10 psi. No
significant pressure related problems were noted, with the exception of malfunctioning of the differential
pressure gauge on Vessel A, which was replaced on July 21, 2004.
4.4.2 Backwash. STS recommended that the SORB 33™ media be backwashed manually or
automatically approximately once per month to loosen up the media bed and remove media fines and
particles accumulated in the beds. Automatic backwash could be initiated either by timer or by
differential pressure in the vessels.
Although the automatic backwash was set for every 45 days or when the pressure drop across an adsorp-
tion vessel exceeded 10 psi, backwash events were all initiated manually to facilitate backwash water
sampling and to allow observation of the backwash events. Also, backwash was never automatically
triggered because the differential pressure across each adsorption vessel never exceeded the 10 psi
setpoint during this time period. Backwash was initiated manually four times on June 15, July 28,
September 9, and October 22, 2004, during the six months of system operations. Backwash was per-
formed at approximately 200 gpm, or 9.2 gpm/ft2, as set by STS using the manual valves on the backwash
discharge line from each unit. Based on the backwash logs, the backwash flowrates for all four vessels
ranged from 190 to 229 gpm. Each backwash event lasted for 20 minutes, followed by a four-minute
rinse, producing approximately 4,800 gallons of wastewater per vessel during each backwash event.
Based on the backwash logs, the amount of backwash water produced ranged from 3,900 to 6,100 gallons
per vessel.
An operational issue arose during backwash on October 22, 2004. Tank B did not go into fast rinse and
the operator had to manually adjust the valve to put the system back into service. The valve problem was
addressed by STS on December 2, 2004, by the repair of a loose limit switch. All four vessels were then
backwashed. The backwash water and treatment plant water samples taken after October 22, 2004,
appear to have been impacted by the valve problem (see Sections 4.5.2) and Battelle will continue to
monitor and assess the impact of this operational issue on the system performance. Note that backwash-
ing problems can potentially impact system performance through mechanisms such as media loss, bed
disturbance (such as short circuiting), and/or improper flow patterns.
4.4.3 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the treatment system included spent media
and backwash water. The media was not exhausted during the first six months of system operation;
therefore, the only residual produced was backwash water. Aboveground piping for backwash water from
both APU-300 units is combined before extending outside the building. The pipe emerges from the build-
ing and then discharges after an air gap into a small subsurface concrete vault and discharges via an
underground pipe to a nearby drainage ditch.
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. After the system retrofit, no major opera-
tional problems were encountered. The only O&M issues encountered were the temporary failure of a
digital flow meter, the failure of a differential pressure gauge, and a loose switch on an automatic valve.
22
-------
Neither scheduled nor unscheduled downtime had been required since the completion of the system
retrofit. The simplicity of system operation and operator skill requirements are discussed according to
pre- and post-treatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventa-
tive maintenance activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pre-treatment was not implemented at the site in order to
evaluate the capacity of the SORB 33™ media for As(III). Post-treatment consisted only of disinfection
with the pre-existing sodium hypochlorite chemical feed system. When arsenic reaches breakthrough,
pre-chlorination will be initiated to extend the media life.
System Automation. All major functions of the treatment system are automated and it requires only
minimal operator oversight and intervention. Automated processes include system startup in the forward
feed mode when the well energizes, backwash cycling based on time or pressure triggers, fast rinse
cycling, and system shutdown when the well pump shuts down.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill set required to operate the
treatment system was basic and limited to observation of the process equipment integrity and operating
parameters such as pressure, flow, and system alarms. The process logic controller (PLC) interface was
intuitive, and all major system operations were automated as described above. The daily demand on the
operator was 30 minutes to allow the operator to visually inspect the system and record the operating
parameters on the log sheets.
Preventative Maintenance Activities. Preventative maintenance tasks recommended by STS included
monthly inspection of the control panel; quarterly checking and calibration of the flow meters; biannual
inspection of the actuator housings, fuses, relays, and pressure gauges; and annual inspection of the
butterfly valves. STS recommended checking the actuators at each backwash event to ensure that the
valves were opening and closing in the proper sequence. Further, inspection of the adsorber laterals and
replacement of the underbedding gravel were recommended to be performed concurrent with the media
replacement (STS, 2004). During this reporting period, maintenance activities performed by the operator
included cleaning and repairing the flow meter paddle wheels, replacing one differential pressure gauge,
and replacing plastic pressure line fittings/elbows on sampling taps. Maintenance also was required on an
automated valve to repair a loose limit switch. This repair was made by STS and beyond routine
maintenance activities that could be performed by the operator.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. Pre-chlorination was not implemented at this
site. Therefore, chemical use and/or media handling was not required during the first six months of
system operations.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the treatment system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected
from the treatment plant, backwash discharge lines, and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Water samples were collected at six locations through the
treatment train: at the inlet (IN), after Vessels A, B, C, and D (TA, TB, TC, and TD), and at the combined
effluent (TT). Field-speciated samples from the IN and TT locations were collected once every four
weeks throughout this reporting period. Table 4-5 summarizes the arsenic, iron, and manganese
analytical results. Table 4-6 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B
contains a complete set of analytical results through the first six months of system operations. The results
of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
23
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
TT
IN
TT
IN
TT
IN
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
TT
Units
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
H8/L
ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Number
of
Samples'10
17
10
10
10
10
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
17
10
10
10
10
7
7
7
17
10
10
10
10
7
7
7
Minimum
Concentration
9.5
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.7
9.6
0.6
<0.1
0.1
9.0
0.5
0.1
O.I
101
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
99
<25
12.3
0.3
0.3
1.5
2.1
1.3
12.7
1.6
Maximum
Concentration
28.7
5.2
8.7
7.8
8.0
7.1
15.8
6.2
2.2
0.9
14.2
5.3
1.6
2.4
228
<25
<25
<25
<25
35.0
139
<25
18.5
20.5
21.8
22.8
25.0
22.4
16.5
19.9
Average
Concentration
15.0
2.1
3.1
3.2
3.4
2.8
13.0
2.5
0.8
0.3
12.4
2.1
0.6
0.6
153
<25
<25
<25
<25
15.7
121
<25
15.0
11.0
11.9
13.3
14.2
11.7
14.2
11.3
Standard
Deviation
4.4
1.5
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.2
2.0
1.9
0.9
0.3
1.8
1.7
0.5
0.9
32.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.5
16.6
0.0
2.0
7.6
7.6
7.9
9.0
9.4
1.5
8.7
Notes:
(a) One-half of the
calculations.
(b) Field duplicate
detection limit was used for samples with concentrations less than the detection limit for
samples were included in the calculations.
24
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results(a)
Parameter
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
pH
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
TT
IN
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
Number
of
Samples'10
17
10
10
10
10
7
7
7
7
7
17
10
10
10
10
7
17
10
10
10
10
7
6
6
17
10
10
10
10
7
14
7
7
7
7
7
Minimum
Concentration
218
214
214
202
214
164
1.3
1.4
54
73
0.06
0.06
O.06
O.06
0.06
O.06
7.7
7.2
2.3
2.7
3.1
5.0
0.04
O.04
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
Maximum
Concentration
277
246
246
250
256
250
3.3
1.8
120
120
0.1
0.
O.
O.
0.
O.
14.3
17.4
8.1
7.7
7.8
7.9
0.04
O.04
2.3
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.8
8.5
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
Average
Concentration
239
234
233
237
240
229
1.7
1.6
73
85
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
8.9
8.7
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.1
0.04
O.04
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.9
Standard
Deviation
12
11
11
13
12
30
0.7
0.2
25
16
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
1.5
3.1
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.0
0.00
0.00
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
25
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TD
TT
IN
TT
Units
°C
°C
°c
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
Number
of
Samples'10
15
8
8
8
8
7
13
7
7
8
8
7
15
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
Minimum
Concentration
10.3
10.8
10.9
10.8
10.7
10.2
1.0
1.3
1.2
0.7
1.2
0.7
3
3
2
3
2
2
65.0
87.5
Maximum
Concentration
14.3
13.8
12.8
12.3
12.3
13.4
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.7
2.3
1.9
106
99
102
104
104
77
111.2
131.1
Average
Concentration
11.6
11.6
11.5
11.4
11.5
11.5
.9
.6
.6
.6
.8
.5
32
33
32
32
31
26
91.8
99.3
Standard
Deviation
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.4
33
34
34
34
34
25
18.8
14.7
NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit
SU = standard units
Notes:
(a) One-half detection limit was used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for calculations.
(b) Field duplicate samples were included in the calculations except for field parameters (pH, temperature, DO, and
ORP).
Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the SORB 33™ media was the concen-
tration of arsenic in the treated water. The treatment plant water was sampled on 15 occasions during the
first six months of system operations, with field speciation performed on samples collected from the IN
and TT locations for 7 of the 15 sampling occasions.
Figure 4-8 shows the arsenic speciation results overtime including the concentrations of total As,
particulate As, As(III), and As(V) at the IN and TT locations.
Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 9.5 to 28.7 |o,g/L and averaged 15.0 |o,g/L
(Table 4-5). As(III) was the predominant species in the raw water, ranging from 9.0 to 14.2 |o,g/L and
averaging 12.4 |og/L. Only trace amounts of particulate As and As(V) existed, with concentrations
averaging 0.8 and 0.6 |og/L, respectively. The arsenic concentrations measured during this six-month
period were consistent with those in the raw water sample collected on July 24, 2003 (Table 4-1).
Total As concentrations in the combined effluent (TT) ranged from 0.7 to 7.1 |o,g/L and averaged 2.8 |o,g/L
(Table 4-5). As(III) levels in the combined effluent ranged from 0.5 to 5.3 (ig/L. The average particulate
and As(V) concentrations in the combined effluent were relatively low at 0.3 and 0.6 |o,g/L, respectively.
26
-------
Arsenic Species at the Inlet (IN) at Brown City, Ml
16 -
14 -
12 -
_i
"5)
3.
o 10 -
1
c
0>
o 8-
0
O
4 6-
4 -
2 -
B
5/25/2004 6/24/2004 7/20/2004 8/17/2004 9/14/2004 10/12/2004
Date
DAs (participate)
• As (V)
11/16/2004
18
Arsenic Species After Tanks Combined (TT) at Brown City, Ml
16 -
10 -
6 -
2 -
5/25/2004 6/24/2004 7/20/2004 8/17/2004 9/14/2004 10/12/2004 11/16/2004
Date
Figure 4-8. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at the Influent
and Combined System Effluent
27
-------
The increase of the As(III) concentration in the combined effluent (TT) from 1.9 |o,g/L on May 25, 2004,
to 5.3 (ig/L on November 16, 2004, indicated that SORB 33™ media might be reaching its capacity for
As(III) adsorption (see Figure 4-8). Although the total arsenic levels in the effluent of the system have
increased gradually overtime, a spike up to 8.7 (ig/L of total arsenic was measured in the treated water
in early November, as the treatment system throughput was approaching 12,500 bed volume (see
Figure 4-9). However by November 30, 2005, the total arsenic concentrations had decreased to 2.4 to
4.1 (ig/L in the treated water and remained below 10 (ig/L for approximately 20,000 bed volume, which
will be further discussed in the final evaluation report.
By the end of the first six months of system operation, the APU-300 system treated approximately
29,711,000 gallons of water, which was equivalent to 13,096 bed volumes. The results of the total
arsenic analyses at each sampling location are plotted against the bed volumes of treated water in
Figure 4-9. For the first six months of system operation, the treatment system removed arsenic from the
influent water to levels below the 10 |o,g/L level. However, the plot shows the gradual increase in total
arsenic concentrations in the treated water over time.
Total Arsenic Results for Brown City, Ml
35
30 -
25 -
20 -
o
15 -
10 -
5 -
Spike noted on November 2, 2004
after backwash malfunction.
12
15
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (*103)
Figure 4-9. Total Arsenic Concentration Versus Bed Volumes
Iron. Total iron concentrations in raw water varied from 101 to 228 |o,g/L, which existed primarily in the
soluble form ranging from 99 to 139 |o,g/L (see Table 4-5). Figure 4-10 shows that the total iron concen-
trations in the treated water were below the detection limit of <25 |o,g/L with the exception of September
14, 2004, when the total iron effluent level was 35 ng/L. This data indicated that mechanisms may exist
for the removal of soluble iron within the SORB 33™ media bed, which will be further discussed in the
final evaluation report.
28
-------
Total Iron Results for Brown City, Ml
0 3 6 9 12 15
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (*103)
Note: One-half of the detection limit was used for plotting the less-than-detect data points.
Figure 4-10. Total Iron Concentrations vs. Bed Volumes
Manganese. Total Mn concentrations at the various sampling locations are plotted versus bed volume in
Figure 4-11. Total and soluble Mn concentrations over time are also shown in Figure 4-12. Total Mn
levels in the influent ranged from 12.3 to 18.5 |o,g/L (Table 4-5), with the majority being soluble Mn(II).
Total Mn concentrations in the treated water sampled after the adsorption vessels were reduced initially,
Total Manganese Results for Brown City, Ml
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (*103)
Figure 4-11. Total Manganese Concentrations Versus Bed Volumes
29
-------
Manganese Species at the Inlet (IN) at Brown City, Ml
_ 20-
15 -
10 -
6/24/2004 7/20/2004
8/17/2004
Date
9/14/2004 10/12/2004 11 /16/2004
Manganese Species After Tanks Combined (TT) at Brown City, Ml
25 -
_ 20-
£ 15
5 -
5/25/2004 6/24/2004
8/17/2004
Date
9/14/2004 10/12/2004 11/16/2004
Figure 4-12. Concentrations of Manganese Species Versus Time
30
-------
but reached 100% breakthrough with about 6,000 bed volumes of water treated. The soluble manganese
levels were initially lower in the treated water than those in the raw water until breakthrough at about
6,000 bed volumes. After this point, the soluble manganese levels in the treated water were higher than
those in the raw water. The mechanisms responsible for the manganese removal during the first 6,000 bed
volumes of treatment are unclear.
Other Water Quality Parameters. In addition to arsenic, iron, and manganese, other water quality
parameters were analyzed to provide insight into the chemical processes occurring within the treatment
system. The results of the water quality parameters are included in Appendix B and are summarized in
Table 4-6.
On-site measurements of pH remained consistent at all sampling locations, with average values ranging
from 7.8 to 8.0 across the treatment train. Average alkalinity results ranged from 229 to 240 mg/L (as
CaCO3) across the treatment train. The average value of total hardness was 92 mg/L (as CaCO3) in raw
water and 99 mg/L (as CaCO3) in the treated water. The samples had predominantly calcium hardness
(approximately 5 9% to 77%).
Fluoride concentrations ranged from 1.3 to 3.3 mg/L in all samples and were not affected by the
SORB 33™ media. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 54 to 120 mg/L at the system influent and 73 to
120 mg/L at the effluent. In 5 out of 7 events, the sulfate levels were higher in the effluent than the
influent. Orthophosphate was below the detection limit in all samples. The average silica (as SiO2)
concentrations across the treatment train ranged from 7.1 to 8.9 mg/L. Silica was partially removed by
the SORB 33™ media, with the amount of removal declining significantly after approximately 2,000 BV.
DO levels ranged from 1.0 to 2.5 in the raw water, with an average value of 1.9 mg/L. The DO levels
ranged from 0.7 to 1.9 mg/L in the treated water, with an average value of 1.5 mg/L. The DO levels were
not affected by the media. The average ORP readings across the treatment train ranged from 26 to
33 millivolts. The ORP readings showed an increasing trend overtime.
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. Backwash was performed one vessel at a time using raw water.
The analytical results from the four backwash water sampling events are summarized in Table 4-7.
Samples were collected from the sample ports located in the backwash effluent discharge lines from each
vessel. Unfiltered samples were analyzed for pH, turbidity, and TDS. Filtered samples (using 0.45-|om
disc filters) were analyzed for soluble As, Fe, and Mn. Soluble concentrations measured during the first
three backwash events ranged from 4.9 to 9.9 |o,g/L for arsenic and <25 to 60 |o,g/L for iron, suggesting
removal during backwash. On October 22, 2004, the backwash on Vessel B malfunctioned, and Vessel B
did not go into the fast rinse mode. The results from the October 22, 2004 backwash samples on
Vessels B, C, and D had relatively elevated levels of soluble Fe and As. The arsenic levels ranged from
15.6 to 19.5 ng/L, close to the influent values. However, there was no change in the manganese levels.
As discussed in Section 4.4.2, the backwash problem was caused by a malfunctioning valve that was
repaired on December 2, 2004. The system backwash will be carefully monitored to assess the effect of
the malfunction on the system performance in both the feed and backwash modes.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Distribution system samples were collected to
determine if the arsenic removal system had any impact on the lead and copper level and water chemistry
in the distribution system. Prior to the installation and operation of the system, baseline distribution water
samples were collected at three locations on December 4 and 18, 2003, and January 8 and 21, 2004.
Following the installation of the system, distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis at the
same three locations on June 15, July 13, August 10, September 8, October 5, and November 2, 2004.
The samples were analyzed for pH, alkalinity, arsenic, iron, manganese, lead, and copper. The results of
the distribution system sampling are summarized in Table 4-8.
31
-------
Table 4-7. Backwash Water Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
Date
06/15/04
07/28/04
09/09/04
10/22/04(a)
Vessel A
"S,
S.U.
7.4
7.9
7.4
7.9
£>
3
H
NTU
28
55
33
24
to
B
mg/L
648
770
392
612
—
2
O
^^
3
Mg/L
4.9
6.5
6.1
9.1
2
"o
1
Mg/L
<25
<25
<25
38.2
2
^
o
^-^
=
Mg/L
11.6
15.7
16.8
17.5
Vessel B
W
o.
S.U.
7.6
7.9
7.7
7.9
£>
3
=
NTU
27
36
28
10
to
mg/L
1,010
852
698
816
—
2
o
^^
<
Mg/L
6.1
8.5
8.8
15.6
2
"o
1
Mg/L
<25
<25
<25
120
2
^
o
^-^
=
Mg/L
13.2
17.2
15.8
15.0
Vessel C
M
S.U.
7.6
7.9
7.6
7.9
^
3
=
NTU
38
50
28
16
to
mg/L
864
808
798
838
«
2
o
^^
<
Mg/L
7.4
9.1
9.7
18.8
2
"o
1
Mg/L
<25
29
36
154
2
^
o
^-^
=
Mg/L
15.2
19.0
18.0
17.4
Vessel D
M
S.U.
7.6
7.9
7.4
8.1
^
3
=
NTU
39
62
25
1.5®
to
B
mg/L
678
888
862
410
«
2
o
^^
^
Mg/L
7.0
9.9
9.7
19.5
2
"o
1
Mg/L
<25
<25
60
225
2
^
o
^-^
=
Mg/L
14.4
18.2
17.9
17.3
OJ
to
(a) Vessel B did not fast rinse properly during backwash, possibly affecting BW2 sample.
(b) Low turbidity reading compared to previous events.
-------
Table 4-8. Distribution Sampling Results
^
g
w
a
5.
03
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
ID
01
03
Q
a
5.
03
12/04/03
12/18/03
01/08/04
01/21/04
06/15/04
07/13/04
08/10/04
09/08/04
10/05/04
11/02/04
DS1
a
S
H
a
03
a ,_,
S j:
w o
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
g
m
7.9
8.0
7.7
8.1
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.6
7.8
03
-J
"a
S
I £
3 O
<3 u
246
254
268
258
232
263
239
234
244
242
3
i
5
11.5
10.1
11.8
13.3
4.8
3.8
3.0
3.9
4.1
5.3
^D
3-
£
76
89
45
93
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
^;
1
4.9
6.1
5.3
6.7
1.7
3.4
9.6
11.4
16.1
10.2
^
sL
£
1.8
1.1
1.0
2.7
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.9
1.2
^_^
^
^?
5
44.6
51.4
53.9
72.7
9.1
27.3
21.4
24.8
31.0
45.0
DS2
a
S
H
a
03
a
S j:
M O
8
6.7
7
7.5
6.2
6
8.25
6.5
6
8.25
£
^
o.
7.6
7.9
7.6
8.2
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.9
7.8
8.1
03
J
~Sfc
S
a 3
•— ' O
<3 u
244
246
256
249
245
243
235
234
244
246
3
i
<
9.0
7.2
8.8
9.0
5.5
4.8
3.0
4.3
4.5
6.1
3-
£
34
50
<25
31
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
-J
^;
1
6.5
6.3
6.2
5.0
2.6
4.7
6.5
13.8
17.6
17.8
^
sL
S
0.5
<0.1
0.1
0.5
<0.1
0.3
0.3
<0.1
1.7
0.6
^_^
^D
•^y
5
127.8
217.8
183.0
242.1
6.3
93.5
62.3
94.8
55.1
33.5
DS3
a
a
H
a
03
a ^
03 b
55 6
15
14.5
15
15
14.9
14.9
15
15
15
14.9
$
m
o.
7.3
7.9
7.3
8.2
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.9
8.0
03
-J
"a
S
•— ! O
<3 u
252
282
260
256
232
239
239
242
244
246
3
i
<
10.4
8.8
11.7
11.8
3.8
4.1
3.1
4.2
5.0
5.8
^D
3.
£
71
95
35
44
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
-J
^;
1
9.7
10.0
10.2
4.1
2.4
4.7
11.5
14.0
20.4
16.9
^
sL
S
2.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.3
2.3
1.4
<0.1
2.2
0.9
^_^
^D
•^y
5
182.7
155.8
194.0
56.4
4.9
74.5
70.1
73.3
62.1
53.9
OJ
OJ
Notes:
DS = Distribution Sampling
BL = Baseline Sampling
-------
The results of the distribution sampling indicated a decrease in the arsenic concentrations after treatment
at each of the sampling locations. Arsenic concentrations in the baseline samples ranged from 7.2 to
13.3 ng/L, whereas the concentrations measured since the treatment system was started ranged from 3.0
to 6.1 ng/L. The arsenic concentrations measured during system operation were lower than the baseline
values, but typically higher than the system effluent results. There also was a slight increasing trend in
arsenic concentration over time within the distribution system, corresponding to the increasing
concentrations in the treated water over time.
Measured pH values in the distribution system ranged from 7.3 to 8.2 before treatment and 7.6 to 8.1 after
treatment. Alkalinity levels in the distribution system ranged from 244 to 282 mg/L (as CaCO3) before
treatment and 232 to 263 (as CaCO3) after treatment. Iron concentrations ranged from <25 to 95 |o,g/L
before treatment and <25 |o,g/L after treatment. The iron concentrations in the distribution system samples
decreased since the treatment system began operation. The concentrations of manganese in the distribu-
tion system samples ranged from 4.1 to 10.2 |o,g/L before treatment. Manganese levels appeared to have
decreased initially after the initiation of the system operations, but have since increased to above baseline
levels at 10.2 to 17.8 |o,g/L in the November 2, 2004, samples.
Lead levels in the distribution system ranged from <0.1 to 2.7 |o,g/L, with no samples exceeding the action
level of 15 |og/L. Lead levels in the distribution system did not appear to have been affected by the treat-
ment. Copper concentrations in the distribution system ranged from 44.6 to 242.1 |o,g/L before treatment,
with no samples exceeding the 1,300 |o,g/L action level. Copper concentrations in the distribution system
ranged from 4.9 to 94.8 |o,g/L after treatment and were generally lower than those before treatment.
4.6 System Costs
The cost-effectiveness of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design
capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gallons of water treated. This included capital costs such as
equipment, engineering, and installation and O&M costs such as media replacement and disposal,
chemical supply, electrical power use, and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Costs. The capital investment costs for equipment, site engineering, and installation
were $305,000 (see Table 4-9). The equipment costs included the costs for the two skid-mounted APU-
300 units ($144,400), SORB 33™ media ($150/ft3 or $5.34/lb to fill four vessels with a total cost of
$48,000), miscellaneous materials and supplies ($3,400), and vendor's labor and travel ($22,200) for the
system shakedown and startup activities. The equipment costs are 71% of the total capital investment.
The engineering costs included the costs for the design work necessary to develop the final system layout
and footprint within the building, design of the piping connections up to the distribution tie-in points in
the building, and the design of the electrical connection and conduit plan. The engineering costs also
included the cost for the submission of the plans to the MDEQ for permit review and approval.
Engineering costs amounted to $35,500 or 12% of the total capital investment.
The installation costs included the cost for labor, equipment, and materials to unload and install the skid-
mounted units, perform the piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and backwash the media. All of
the piping tie-ins were completed using ductile iron pipe, valves, and fittings. Installation costs were
$51,500 or 17% of the total capital investment.
34
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Capital Investment for the Brown City, MI, Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
APU Skid-Mounted System
SORB-33 Media
Miscellaneous Equipment
and Materials
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Equipment Total
2
320 ft3
—
—
—
$144,400
$48,000
$3,400
$17,500
$4,700
$218,000
—
—
—
—
—
71%
Engineering Costs
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Engineering Total
—
—
—
—
$27,740
$6,680
$1,080
$35,500
—
—
—
12%
Installation Costs
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
—
—
—
—
-
$42,000
$5,600
$3,900
$51,500
$305,000
—
—
—
17%
100%
The total capital cost of $305,000 and equipment cost of $218,000 were converted to a unit cost of
$0.06/1,000 gallon and $0.04/1,000 gallon, respectively, using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.06722
based on a 3% interest rate and a 20-year return period. These calculations assumed that the system
operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at the system design flowrate of 640 gpm. The system typically
operated only 4.8 hrs/day, producing 29,711,000 gallons of water during the 6-month period, so at this
rate of usage the total unit cost and equipment-only unit cost would increase to $0.38/1,000 gallon and
$0.27/1,000 gallon, respectively. Using the system's rated capacity of 640 gpm (921,600 gallons per day
[gpd]), the capital cost was $477 per gpm ($0.33 per gpd) and equipment-only cost was $340 per gpm
($0.24 per gpd). These calculations did not include the building construction cost.
The total cost for the addition to the existing concrete block well house was $62,602. The primary con-
struction costs totaled $41,468 and included excavation, masonry, carpentry, and concrete floor pouring.
The overhead door cost was $1,400. The building costs also included $13,048 for the roof deck work and
roofing, including the overhead roof hatches. The building was finished with a wood and aluminum trim
and painted white. The cost for painting was $2,135, and the heating and electrical work for the building
totaled $4,550.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs. O&M costs included only incremental costs associated
with the two APU-300 units, such as media replacement and disposal, chemical supply, electricity, and
labor. These costs are summarized in Table 4-10. Because media replacement and disposal did not take
place during the first six months of operation, its cost per 1,000 gallons of water treated was calculated as
a function of projected media run length using the vendor-estimate of $53,600 for media replacement for
all four vessels. This replacement cost included costs for new media, freight, labor, travel expenses, and
media profiling and disposal fee. At the vendor-estimated media capacity of 80,000 BV for As(V) or a
throughput of 192 million gallons (See Table 4-4), the media replacement cost is projected to be
$0.28/1,000 gallons (Figure 4-13). This cost, however, will be refined once the actual breakthrough
occurs and the cost of media replacement becomes available.
35
-------
$2.00
$1.90
$1.80
$1.10
$1.00
~ $0.90
$0.10
$0.00
^—O&M cost
• Media replacement cost
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (X1000)
Figure 4-13. Media Replacement and O&M Cost for Brown City, MI, System
(Two APU-300 Units)
Table 4-10. O&M Costs for the Brown City, MI, Treatment System
Cost Category
Volume processed (Kgal)
Value
29,711
Assumptions
Through November 30, 2004
Media Replacement and Disposal
Media cost ($/ft3)
Total media volume (ft3)
Media replacement cost ($)
Labor cost ($)
Media disposal fee ($)
Subtotal
Media replacement and disposal cost
($71,000 gal)
$150
320
$48,000
$4,240
$1,360
$53,600
See Figure 4-13
Vendor quote
Four vessels
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Based upon media run length at 10 |ag/L
arsenic breakthrough
Chemical Usage
Chemical cost ($)
$0.00
No additional chemicals required.
Electricity
Electric utility charge ($/kWh)
Total usage (kWh)
Total electricity cost ($)
Electricity cost ($71,000 gal)
Incremental cost ($71,000 gal)
$0.0812
57,251
$4,771
$0.16
$0.07
Based on 2003 Detroit Edison Rate
From May to Nov 2004
From May to Nov 2004
-
Minus Usage from May to Nov 2003
Labor
Average weekly labor (hrs)
Labor cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gallons
3.5
$0.05
See Figure 4-13
30 minutes/day
Average Labor rate = $15/hr
-
36
-------
Because pre-chlorination was not implemented, there were no additional chemical costs associated with
the installation of the two APU-300 systems. The point of chlorination will be moved before the
treatment system, however, when the effluent arsenic level reaches breakthrough. This change could
result in an increase in chlorine because of a change in the chlorine demand of the source water.
The incremental electrical power consumption also was reviewed. From May to November of 2003, the
utility bill totaled $2,610.45 before the treatment plant was installed. From May to November of 2004,
the utility bill totaled $4,770.50 after the treatment plant was installed and operational. The incremental
utility cost over running the well alone before treatment is approximately $10.64/day or an additional
131 kilowatt hours (KWh) each day at $0.0812 per KWh. This increased usage may be due to the
increased total dynamic head on the well pump, but it is also related to the installation of a heater/air
conditioner unit in the building to maintain the building's temperature. The total cost of electricity was
approximately $0.16/1000 gallons, and the incremental cost over the before-treatment cost was
$0.07/1000 gallons.
The routine, non-demonstration related labor activities consume only 30 minutes per day, as noted in
Section 4.4.4. The labor cost was $0.05/1,000 gallons of water treated based on this time commitment
and a labor rate of $15/hr.
37
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2003. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. EPA NRMRL.
November 17.
Battelle. 2004. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at Brown City, Michigan. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task
Order No. 0019 for U.S. EPA NRMRL. February 12.
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. EPA NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH.
Coonfare, C., A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, and J. Valigore. 2005. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Adsorptive Media USEPA Demonstration Project at Desert Sands MDWCA, NMSix-Month
Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-05/079. U.S. EPA NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA (March): 103-113.
EPA, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Severn Trent Services. 2004. Operation and Maintenance Manual, Model APU-300, City of Brown City,
Michigan. June 11.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic
and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Fed. Register.,
66:14:6975. January 22.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for
Public Water Systems. Prepared by EPA's curly Office of Water. EPA/816/R-02/009. February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking
Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141. March 25.
Wang, L., W. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S. EPA
NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH.
38
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week No.
1
2
4
5
6
S
«
Q
05/12/04
05/13/04
05/14/04
05/15/04
05/16/04
05/17/04
05/1 8/04
05/19/04
05/20/04
05/21/04
05/22/04
05/23/04
05/24/04
05/25/04
05/26/04
05/27/04
05/28/04
05/29/04
05/30/04
05/31/04
06/01/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
06/04/04
06/05/04
06/06/04
06/07/04
06/08/04
06/09/04
06/10/04
06/1 1/04
06/12/04
06/13/04
06/14/04
06/15/04
06/16/04
06/17/04
06/1 8/04
06/19/04
06/20/04
Pump Hour
$
V
5;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Op Hours
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.1
5.8
5 5
3.1
4.9
NA
NA
5.6
4.5
2.6
5.5
5.4
3.7
6.1
Well Totalizer
$
V
5;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
J
<<
O
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
191600
217900
208900
119800
63900
NA
NA
204400
170700
97100
209200
181900
143200
231500
Flow Totalizer TA
§
O
NR
161
159
NR
NR
160
151
173
161
160
171
NR
160
167
166
168
NR
169
160
166
157
158
166
157
NR
NR
165
163
168
150
169
NR
NR
168
175
172
170
162
159
163
KGAL
107.229
119.759
178.436
183.837
228.270
272.865
313.825
318.571
372.478
414.647
416.054
465.207
495.832
542.984
551.846
598.829
646.928
689.973
704.951
739.799
785.052
830.267
887.743
932.469
978.901
1029.094
1076.384
1129.432
1180.313
209.263
259.343
273.504
323.025
373.086
1414.744
1438.503
1491.156
1537.023
1571.981
1631.160
Avg GPM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
152.4
154.2
155.6
170.3
NA
NA
149.0
154.3
152.3
159.6
141.6
157.5
161.7
Cumulative
Bed Volume
81.6
103.7
207.2
216.7
295.0
373.7
445.9
454.2
549.3
623.6
626.1
712.8
766.8
849.9
865.6
948.4
1033.2
1109.1
1135.5
1196.9
1276.7
1356.5
1457.8
1536.6
1618.5
1707.0
1790.4
1883.9
1973.6
2024.7
2113.0
2137.9
2225.3
2313.5
2387.0
2428.9
2521.7
2602.6
2664.2
2768.6
Flow Totalizer TB
§
O
NR
157
159
NR
NR
162
161
160
153
154
170
NR
148
156
157
158
NR
152
151
162
161
161
162
160
NR
NR
169
162
170
156
169
NR
NR
161
163
165
164
168
162
1 88
KGAL
125.518
136.316
196.577
201.828
246.131
290.377
331.255
335.899
389.394
431.453
432.858
481.841
512.374
559.458
568.312
615.068
662.993
705.651
720.591
755.361
800.464
845.019
902.285
946.932
993.219
1043.325
1090.546
1143.459
1194.214
1223.006
1273.014
1287.035
1336.439
1386.065
1427.542
1451.468
1504.426
1550.457
1585.942
1645.949
Avg GPM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
152.0
153.8
154.8
170.1
NA
NA
147.7
153.6
153.4
160.5
142.1
159.8
164.0
Cumulative
Bed Volume
78.4
97.4
203.7
213.0
291.1
369.1
441.2
449.3
543.7
617.8
620.3
706.7
760.5
843.5
859.1
941.6
1026.1
1101.3
1127.6
1188.9
1268.4
1347.0
1448.0
1526.7
1608.3
1696.6
1779.9
1873.2
1962.7
2013.5
2101.6
2126.3
2213.5
2301.0
2374. 1
2416.3
2509.6
2590.8
2653.4
2759.2
Head Loss
O.
<<
-^
«
H
NR
3.1
4.4
NR
NR
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.6
3.6
3.6
NR
3.2
3.1
3.6
3.8
NR
3.7
3.2
3.5
3.2
3.5
3.5
3.5
NR
NR
3.8
3.6
3.0
3.0
4.6
NR
NR
3.3
3.4
3.6
4.6
4.8
4.1
4.8
Tank B psi
NR
2.8
2.8
NR
NR
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.1
NR
2.9
3
3
3.2
NR
3.2
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
NR
NR
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.8
NR
NR
3
3
3.4
3
3
3
3.5
Pressure A/B
Influent psig
NR
61
66
NR
NR
65
65
60
64
65
60
NR
62
62
62
62
NR
66
62
63
58
58
59
58
NR
NR
62
63
64
64
64
NR
NR
64
65
62
64
65
64
65
Effluent psig
NR
56
60
NR
NR
58
59
54
58
60
55
NR
58
58
57
56
NR
60
57
57
56
57
56
57
NR
NR
56
57
60
58
58
NR
NR
59
60
56
56
58
59
59
-
<
NA
5
6
NA
NA
7
6
6
6
5
5
NA
4
4
5
6
NA
6
5
6
2
1
3
1
NA
NA
6
6
4
6
6
NA
NA
5
5
6
8
7
5
6
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (page 2 of 12)
Week No.
7
8
9
10
11
S
«
Q
06/21/04
06/22/04
06/23/04
06/24/04
06/25/04
06/26/04
06/27/04
06/28/04
06/29/04
06/30/04
07/01/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
07/04/04
07/05/04
07/06/04
07/07/04
07/08/04
07/09/04
07/10/04
07/11/04
07/12/04
07/13/04
07/14/04
07/15/04
07/16/04
07/17/04
07/18/04
07/19/04
07/20/04
07/21/04
07/22/04
07/23/04
07/24/04
07/25/04
Pump Hour
$
V
5;
NR
157.8
163.4
168.1
168.4
NR
NR
184.5
189.0
189.2
193.7
199.7
205.3
210.5
213.1
216.7
222.3
226.8
226.8
232.1
237.6
243.1
247.8
251.3
253.2
258.5
264.0
268.8
273.0
273.7
274.3
281.7
287.1
292.8
293.2
Op Hours
2.2
2.8
5.6
4.7
0.3
NA
NA
NA
4.5
0.2
4.5
6
5.6
5.2
2.6
3.6
5.6
4.5
0
5.3
5.5
5.5
4.7
3.5
1.9
5.3
5.5
4.8
4.2
0.7
0.6
7.4
5.4
5.7
0.4
Well Totalizer
$
V
5;
NA
63005400
63250100
63426100
63437900
63640100
63835800
64039500
64209400
64219700
64421300
64634600
64847800
65042600
65109500
65243800
65450500
65625100
65625100
65825900
66032000
66234900
66416400
66544400
66614900
66811300
NR
NR
67352300
67380100
67403600
67475800
67679100
67893400
68107000
J
<<
O
85000
108800
244700
176000
11800
202200
195700
203700
169900
10300
201600
213300
213200
194800
66900
134300
206700
174600
0
200800
206100
202900
181500
128000
70500
196400
NA
NA
NA
27800
23500
72200
203300
214300
213600
Flow Totalizer TA
§
O
167
170
170
167
170
NR
NR
153
158
157
156
164
NR
NR
163
164
150
157
162
NR
NR
162
159
153
154
155
NR
NR
133.4
169
160.9
162
160
NR
NR
KGAL
1652.422
1679.876
1740.701
1784.262
1787.186
1837.227
1885.586
1936.024
1978.058
1980.588
2030.435
2083.219
2135.890
2184.052
2199.704
2233.734
2284.732
2327.858
2338.512
2377.569
2428.535
2478.721
2522.278
2555.110
2572.546
2621.027
2671.860
2716.725
NA
2761.547
2767.358
2785.192
2835.338
2888.310
2940.996
Avg GPM
161.1
163.4
181.0
154.5
162.4
NA
NA
NA
155.7
210.8
184.6
146.6
156.8
154.4
100.3
157.5
151.8
159.7
NA
122.8
154.4
152.1
154.5
156.3
152.9
152.5
154.0
155.8
NA
NA
161.4
4-0 9
154.8
154.9
2195.3
Cumulative
Bed Volume
2806.0
2854.4
2961.7
3038.5
3043.6
3131.9
3217.1
3306.1
3380.2
3384.6
3472.5
3565.6
3658.5
3743.4
3771.0
3831.0
3920.9
3996.9
4015.7
4084.6
4174.4
4262.9
4339.7
4397.6
4428.4
4513.8
4603.5
4682.6
NA
4761.6
4771.8
4803.3
4891.7
4985.1
5078.0
Flow Totalizer TB
§
O
156
170
179
175
172
NR
NR
169
156
162
161
156
NR
NR
161
154
156
178
161
NR
NR
167
165
164
166
172
NR
NR
157.8
174
171
162
161
NR
NR
KGAL
1667.722
1695.329
1756.855
1800.935
1803.885
1854.253
1903.133
1954.016
1996.398
1998.944
2049.123
2102.226
2155.313
2203.936
2219.753
2254.023
2305.502
2349.120
2359.932
2399.256
2450.728
2501.298
2545.293
2578.485
2596.063
2645.117
2696.327
2741.592
2778.792
2786.859
2792.739
2810.777
2861.406
2915.004
2968.242
Avg GPM
164.9
164.3
183.1
156.3
163.9
NA
NA
NA
157.0
212.2
185.8
147.5
158.0
155.8
101.4
158.7
153.2
161.5
NA
123.7
156.0
153.2
156.0
158.1
154.2
154.3
155.2
157.2
147.6
192.1
163.3
40.6
156.3
156.7
2218.3
Cumulative
Bed Volume
2797.6
2846.2
2954.7
3032.4
3037.6
3126.4
3212.6
3302.3
3377.1
3381.6
3470.0
3563.7
3657.3
3743.0
3770.9
3831.3
3922.1
3999.0
4018.0
4087.4
4178.1
4267.3
4344.9
4403.4
4434.4
4520.9
4611.2
4691.0
4756.6
4770.8
4781.1
4812.9
4902.2
4996.7
5090.6
Head Loss
O.
<<
-^
«
H
4
5.4
3.6
5
3.6
NR
NR
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
NR
NR
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.6
NR
NR
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
NR
NR
3.7
3.7
3.7
2.8
2.8
NR
NR
Tank B psi
3 2
3
3.6
3 2
3.1
NR
NR
3
3
3
3
3
NR
NR
2.8
3
3
3
3
NR
NR
3.6
3
2.8
3
3
NR
NR
3
3.6
3
3.2
3
NR
NR
Pressure A/B
Influent psig
64
63
64
66
68
NR
NR
64
66
66
64
62
NR
NR
62
62
62
64
62
NR
NR
64
64
64
62
61
NR
NR
64
60
63
63
62
NR
NR
Effluent psig
58
56
58
60
62
NR
NR
58
60
60
58
56
NR
NR
56
56
56
59
58
NR
NR
58
59
58
57
56
NR
NR
60
54
59
56
58
NR
NR
-
<
6
7
6
6
6
NA
NA
6
6
6
6
6
NA
NA
6
6
6
5
4
NA
NA
6
5
6
5
5
NA
NA
4
6
4
7
4
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (page 3 of 12)
Week No.
12
13
14
15
16
S
«
Q
07/26/04
07/27/04
07/28/04
07/29/04
07/30/04
07/31/04
08/01/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
08/04/04
08/05/04
08/06/04
08/07/04
08/08/04
08/09/04
08/10/04
08/11/04
08/12/04
08/13/04
08/14/04
08/15/04
08/16/04
08/17/04
08/18/04
08/19/04
08/20/04
08/21/04
08/22/04
08/23/04
08/24/04
08/25/04
08/26/04
08/27/04
08/28/04
08/29/04
Pump Hour
$
V
5;
299.2
304.2
305.2
310.4
315.5
320.3
324.4
325.8
331.6
337.9
342.7
342.8
348.3
353.6
358.8
363.8
365.0
369.1
374.3
379.3
384.1
388.8
394.0
395.0
401.3
407.1
412.5
418.1
423.9
428.5
434.3
449.3
455.3
458.4
460.2
Op Hours
6
5
1
5.2
5.1
4.8
4.1
1.4
5.8
6.3
4.8
0.1
5.5
5.3
5.2
5
1.2
4.1
5.2
5
4.8
4.7
5.2
1
6.3
5.8
5.4
5.6
5.8
4.6
5.8
15
6
3.1
1.8
Well Totalizer
$
V
5;
68332700
68516400
68525600
68747400
68942600
69121100
69275700
69327700
69545300
69779600
69959000
69961400
70164600
70365100
70560900
70745700
70794000
70952300
71143500
71332200
71513000
71690100
71877100
71913300
72113900
72331600
72533900
72743700
72961300
73163600
73383000
73938800
74163100
74280300
74348000
J
<<
O
225700
183700
9200
221800
195200
178500
154600
52000
217600
234300
179400
2400
203200
200500
195800
184800
48300
158300
191200
188700
180800
177100
187000
36200
200600
217700
202300
209800
217600
202300
219400
555800
224300
117200
67700
Flow Totalizer TA
§
O
173
151
152
175
181
181
162
164
177
164
167
186
164
179
177
170
160
NR
NR
NR
171
175
161
166
168
162
170
161
NR
170
NR
NR
NR
150
NR
KGAL
2996.551
3041.739
3044.011
3098.278
3146.499
3190.561
3228.229
3241.637
3295.618
3353.549
3397.916
3398.509
3448.819
3498.296
3546.467
3592.056
3604.023
3643.034
3690.203
3736.696
3781.307
3825.047
3871.220
3880.057
3929.629
3983.447
4033.436
4085.240
4138.999
4189.020
4243.217
4381.027
4436.595
4464.967
4482.336
Avg GPM
154.3
150.6
37.9
173.9
157.6
153.0
153.1
159.6
155.1
153.3
154.1
98.8
152.5
155.6
154.4
152.0
166.2
158.6
151.2
155.0
154.9
155.1
148.0
147.3
131.1
154.6
154.3
154.2
154.5
181.2
155.7
153.1
154.4
152.5
160.8
Cumulative
Bed Volume
5176.0
5255.6
5259.6
5355.3
5440.3
5518.0
5584.4
5608.1
5703.3
5805.4
5883.6
5884.7
5973.4
6060.6
6145.5
6225.9
6247.0
6315.8
6399.0
6480.9
6559.6
6636.7
6718.1
6733.7
6821.1
6916.0
7004.1
7095.5
7190.3
7278.5
7374.0
7617.0
7715.0
7765.0
7795.6
Flow Totalizer TB
§
O
167
169
166
179
164
163
161
154
171
163
170
169
171
182
174
163
166
NR
NR
NR
160
170
172
167
170
160
169
172
NR
164
NR
NR
NR
157
NR
KGAL
3024.475
3069.980
3072.286
3127.310
3175.843
3220.191
3258.260
3271.628
3325.930
3384.293
3428.890
3429.493
3480.127
3530.098
3578.485
3624.430
3636.553
3675.998
3723.375
3770.260
3815.255
3859.337
3905.800
3914.767
3964.661
4018.874
4069.234
4121.514
4175.703
4226.111
4280.706
4419.407
4475.420
4504.061
4521.507
Avg GPM
156.2
151.7
38.4
176.4
158.6
154.0
154.8
159.1
156.0
154.4
154.9
100.5
153.4
157.1
155.1
153.1
168.4
160.3
151.8
156.3
156.2
156.3
148.9
149.4
132.0
155.8
155.4
155.6
155.7
182.6
156.9
154.1
155.6
154.0
161.5
Cumulative
Bed Volume
5189.7
5270.0
5274.0
5371.0
5456.6
5534.8
5601.9
5625.5
5721.2
5824.1
5902.8
5903.8
5993.1
6081.2
6166.5
6247.5
6268.9
6338.5
6422.0
6504.7
6584.0
6661.7
6743.6
6759.5
6847.4
6943.0
7031.8
7124.0
7219.5
7308.4
7404.7
7649.2
7748.0
7798.5
7829.2
Head Loss
O.
<<
-^
«
H
3
3
2.8
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.4
2.8
2.9
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.8
NR
Tank B psi
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.6
.6
.6
.4
.6
.2
2
4
.2
3.4
NR
NR
NR
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.8
.8
.8
NR
.8
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
Pressure A/B
Influent psig
64
64
62
62
62
62
64
60
64
66
68
62
62
64
63
64
61
NR
NR
NR
65
62
66
60
62
65
62
60
NR
65
NR
NR
NR
64
NR
Effluent psig
58
58
56
58
58
58
58
56
57
60
62
58
58
60
58
58
56
NR
NR
NR
58
57
59
56
57
59
57
56
NR
59
NR
NR
NR
59
NR
-
<
6
6
6
4
4
4
6
4
7
6
6
4
4
4
5
6
5
NA
NA
NA
7
5
7
4
5
6
5
4
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (page 4 of 12)
Week No.
17
18
19
20
21
S
«
Q
08/30/04
08/31/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
09/03/04
09/04/04
09/05/04
09/06/04
09/07/04
09/08/04
09/09/04
09/10/04
09/11/04
09/12/04
09/13/04
09/14/04
09/15/04
09/16/04
09/17/04
09/18/04
09/19/04
09/20/04
09/21/04
09/22/04
09/23/04
09/24/04
09/25/04
09/26/04
09/27/04
09/28/04
09/29/04
09/30/04
10/01/04
10/02/04
10/03/04
Pump Hour
$
V
5;
465.5
470.8
471.5
476.7
482.1
486.9
491.6
492.3
497.8
502.3
507.9
509.8
515.2
520.3
525.2
528.3
530.7
538.8
542.5
547.4
552.0
557.0
560.7
564.4
570.2
576.2
583.6
588.3
593.2
599.0
599.5
605.7
610.7
616.1
621.5
Op Hours
5.3
5.3
0.7
5.2
5.4
4.8
4.7
0.7
5.5
4.5
5.6
1.9
5.4
5.1
4.9
3.1
2.4
8.1
3.7
4.9
4.6
5
3.7
3.7
5.8
6
7.4
4.7
4.9
5.8
0.5
6.2
5
5.4
5.4
Well Totalizer
$
V
5;
74545800
74739700
74761500
74955600
75159600
75339700
75518500
75548500
75755200
75914600
76123800
76194300
76396100
76586900
76771600
76890900
76980700
77193700
77415500
77599000
77771300
77955300
78046300
78235900
78456400
78680100
78955300
79130800
79315200
79521400
79558200
79755100
79958900
80161900
80332000
J
<<
O
197800
193900
21800
194100
204000
180100
178800
30000
206700
159400
209200
70500
201800
190800
1 84700
119300
89800
213000
221800
183500
172300
1 84000
91000
189600
220500
223700
275200
175500
1 84400
206200
36800
196900
203800
203000
170100
Flow Totalizer TA
§
O
NR
184
174
NR
NR
NR
NR
162
NR
163
170
NR
NR
NR
NR
158
NR
NR
167
NR
NR
NR
167
NR
166
161
NR
NR
NR
171
NR
NR
164
NR
NR
KGAL
4531.284
4579.144
4584.525
4632.531
4682.929
4727.469
4771.724
4779.803
4830.332
4869.733
4921.357
4938.969
4989.458
5037.255
5083.534
5113.468
5136.039
5189.433
5245.048
5291.023
5334.175
5380.325
5416.220
5451.256
5506.044
5562.250
5631.430
5675.510
5721.823
5773.682
5782.936
5832.344
5883.586
5934.522
5977.235
Avg GPM
153.9
150.5
128.1
153.9
155.5
154.7
156.9
192.4
153.1
145.9
153.6
154.5
155.8
156.2
157.4
160.9
156.7
109.9
250.5
156.4
156.3
153.8
161.7
157.8
157.4
156.1
155.8
156.3
157.5
149.0
132.8
170.8
157.2
131.8
Cumulative
Bed Volume
7881.9
7966.3
7975.8
8060.4
8149.3
8227.8
8305.9
8320.1
8409.2
8478.7
8569.7
8600.7
8689.8
8774.0
8855.6
8908.4
8948.2
9042.3
9140.4
9221.5
9297.6
9378.9
9442.2
9504.0
9600.6
9699.7
9821.7
9899.4
9981.0
10072.5
10088.8
10175.9
10266.2
10356.1
10431.4
Flow Totalizer TB
§
O
NR
179
169
NR
NR
NR
NR
169
NR
161
162
NR
NR
NR
NR
156
NR
NR
172
NR
NR
NR
148
NR
170
172
NR
NR
NR
177
NR
NR
169
NR
NR
KGAL
4570.822
4619.151
4624.574
4672.952
4723.924
4768.626
4813.205
4821.392
4872.174
4911.832
4963.877
4980.815
5030.742
5077.936
5123.582
5153.076
5175.191
5227.659
5282.371
5327.558
5369.943
5415.248
5450.568
5484.917
5538.703
5593.930
5662.127
5705.434
5750.926
5801.817
5810.924
5859.629
5910.058
5960.125
6002.108
Avg GPM
155.1
152.0
129.1
155.1
157.3
155.2
158.1
194.9
153.9
146.9
154.9
148.6
154.1
154.2
155.3
158.6
153.6
108.0
246.5
153.7
153.6
151.0
159.1
154.7
154.6
153.4
153.6
153.6
154.7
146.2
303.6
130.9
168.1
154.5
129.6
Cumulative
Bed Volume
7916.2
8001.4
8011.0
8096.3
8186.1
8264.9
8343.5
8358.0
8447.5
8517.4
8609.2
8639.1
8727.1
8810.3
8890.8
8942.8
8981.8
9074.3
9170.8
9250.4
9325.2
9405.0
9467.3
9527.9
9622.7
9720.1
9840.3
9916.7
9996.9
10086.6
10102.7
10188.6
10277.5
10365.7
10439.8
Head Loss
O.
<<
-^
«
H
NR
3.2
3
NR
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
3
3
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.6
NR
NR
3
NR
NR
NR
2.4
NR
2.6
2.6
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
NR
3
NR
NR
Tank B psi
NR
4
3.4
NR
NR
NR
NR
4
NR
3.2
3.8
NR
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
NR
3.8
NR
NR
NR
4
NR
3.6
4.8
NR
NR
NR
3.8
NR
NR
3.4
NR
NR
Pressure A/B
Influent psig
NR
64
62
NR
NR
NR
NR
60
NR
62
65
NR
NR
NR
NR
64
NR
NR
63
NR
NR
NR
65
NR
64
64
NR
NR
NR
64
NR
NR
62
NR
NR
Effluent psig
NR
60
54
NR
NR
NR
NR
56
NR
56
60
NR
NR
NR
NR
58
NR
NR
57
NR
NR
NR
60
NR
58
58
NR
NR
NR
58
NR
NR
57
NR
NR
-
<
NA
4
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
NA
6
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
6
6
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (page 5 of 12)
Week No.
22
23
24
25
26
S
«
Q
10/04/04
10/05/04
10/06/04
10/07/04
10/08/04
10/09/04
10/10/04
10/11/04
10/12/04
10/13/04
10/14/04
10/15/04
10/16/04
10/17/04
10/18/04
10/19/04
10/20/04
10/21/04
10/22/04
10/23/04
10/24/04
10/25/04
10/26/04
10/27/04
10/28/04
10/29/04
10/30/04
10/31/04
11/01/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
11/04/04
11/05/04
11/06/04
11/07/04
Pump Hour
$
V
5;
621.5
626.7
632.0
636.3
641.1
645.6
645.6
650.9
658.9
663.1
672.6
677.1
677.1
682.4
687.5
692.8
693.1
698.1
703.2
705.3
712.6
717.6
722.0
722.0
727.0
732.1
736.5
736.5
740.1
745.1
746.3
751.3
756.2
756.4
761.1
Op Hours
0
5.2
5.3
4.3
4.8
4.5
0
5.3
8
4.2
9.5
4.5
0
5.3
5.1
5.3
0.3
5
5.1
2.1
7.3
5
4.4
0
5
5.1
4.4
0
3.6
5
1.2
5
4.9
0.2
4.7
Well Totalizer
$
V
5;
80332000
80526700
80725200
80911300
81093000
81264000
81264000
81463600
81763200
81919800
82271900
82448800
82448800
82647300
82840100
83010200
83023800
83211700
83399200
83480200
83674400
83862200
84026900
84026900
84213400
84406700
84572400
84572400
84770000
85004400
85189200
85374400
85388500
85564300
J
<<
O
0
194700
198500
186100
181700
171000
0
199600
299600
156600
352100
176900
0
198500
192800
170100
13600
187900
187500
81000
194200
187800
164700
0
186500
193300
165700
0
NA
NA
NA
184800
185200
14100
175800
Flow Totalizer TA
§
O
NR
172
NR
173
NR
NR
NR
165
163
NR
166
NR
NR
NR
NR
166
NR
NR
164
NR
NR
NR
NR
169
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
163
NR
170
NR
173
NR
KGAL
5977.235
6026.088
6075.869
6122.481
6168.076
6210.960
6210.960
6261.015
6336.357
6373.468
6461.988
6506.433
6506.433
6556.288
6604.728
6647.529
6650.931
6698.260
6745.434
6765.973
6814.714
6861.857
6903.227
6903.227
6949.989
6998.465
7039.997
7039.997
7089.632
7137.105
7148.444
7194.811
7241.365
7246.114
7289.078
Avg GPM
NA
156.6
156.5
180.7
158.3
158.8
NA
157.4
157.0
147.3
155.3
164.6
NA
156.8
158.3
134.6
189.0
157.8
154.2
163.0
111.3
157.1
156.7
NA
155.9
158.4
157.3
NA
229.8
158.2
157.5
154.6
158.3
152.4
Cumulative
Bed Volume
10431.4
10517.5
10605.3
10687.5
10767.9
10843.5
10843.5
10931.7
11064.6
11130.0
11286.1
11364.4
11364.4
11452.3
11537.7
11613.2
11619.2
11702.6
11785.8
11822.0
11908.0
11991.1
12064.0
12064.0
12146.5
12232.0
12305.2
12305.2
12392.7
12476.4
12496.4
12578.1
12660.2
12668.6
12744.4
Flow Totalizer TB
§
O
NR
158
NR
166
NR
NR
NR
162
164
NR
158
NR
NR
NR
NR
165
NR
NR
170
NR
NR
NR
NR
171
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
151
NR
167
NR
159
NR
KGAL
6002.108
6050.130
6099.067
6145.029
6189.880
6232.058
6232.058
6281.302
6355.360
6391.866
6479.542
6523.402
6523.402
6572.713
6620.624
6662.841
6666.199
6712.851
6759.491
6777.897
6826.266
6872.979
6913.946
6913.946
6960.326
7008.371
7049.552
7049.552
7098.683
7145.650
7156.908
7202.886
7249.096
7253.858
7296.407
Avg GPM
NA
153.9
153.9
178.1
155.7
156.2
NA
154.9
154.3
144.9
153.8
162.4
NA
155.1
156.6
132.8
186.6
155.5
152.4
146.1
110.4
155.7
155.2
NA
154.6
157.0
156.0
NA
227.5
156.6
156.4
153.3
157.2
396.8
150.9
Cumulative
Bed Volume
10439.8
10524.4
10610.7
10691.8
10770.8
10845.2
10845.2
10932.0
11062.6
11127.0
11281.6
11358.9
11358.9
11445.8
11530.3
11604.7
11610.7
11692.9
11775.2
11807.6
11892.9
11975.3
12047.5
12047.5
12129.3
12214.0
12286.6
12286.6
12373.2
12456.0
12475.9
12556.9
12638.4
12646.8
12721.8
Head Loss
O.
<<
-^
«
H
NR
3.2
NR
3
NR
NR
NR
2.6
2.8
NR
2.8
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.8
NR
NR
2.9
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.8
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
3
NR
3
NR
Tank B psi
NR
4
NR
4
NR
NR
NR
2.8
3
NR
3.6
NR
NR
NR
NR
4
NR
NR
5
NR
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3.2
NR
3.2
NR
3
NR
Pressure A/B
Influent psig
NR
60
NR
64
NR
NR
NR
60
64
NR
68
NR
NR
NR
NR
66
NR
NR
64
NR
NR
NR
NR
64
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
64
NR
64
NR
62
NR
Effluent psig
NR
56
NR
58
NR
NR
NR
56
59
NR
62
NR
NR
NR
NR
59
NR
NR
58
NR
NR
NR
NR
60
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
60
NR
58
NR
52
NR
-
<
NA
4
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
4
5
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
NA
6
NA
10
NA
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (page 6 of 12)
Week No.
27
28
29
30
S
«
Q
11/08/04
11/09/04
11/10/04
11/11/04
11/12/04
11/13/04
11/14/04
11/15/04
11/16/04
11/17/04
11/18/04
11/19/04
11/20/04
11/21/04
11/22/04
11/23/04
11/24/04
11/25/04
11/26/04
11/27/04
11/28/04
11/29/04
11/30/04
Pump Hour
$
V
5;
766.2
771.2
771.8
776.5
781.4
785.9
787.5
791.1
796.0
800.5
801.4
806.4
811.3
815.9
815.9
815.9
817.7
822.9
822.9
829.7
834.5
834.5
843.7
Op Hours
5.1
5
0.6
4.7
4.9
4.5
1.6
3.6
4.9
4.5
0.9
5
4.9
4.6
0
0
1.8
5.2
0
6.8
4.8
0
9.2
Well Totalizer
$
V
5;
85755800
85931700
85958700
86128100
86312100
86481600
86542300
86672300
86855300
87026700
87058800
87246400
87428700
87600700
87600700
87730000
87799700
87996100
87996100
88252800
88433600
88433600
88633600
J
<<
O
191500
175900
27000
169400
1 84000
169500
60700
130000
183000
171400
32100
187600
182300
172000
0
129300
69700
196400
0
256700
180800
0
200000
Flow Totalizer TA
§
O
169
162
164
NR
NR
NR
141.7
NR
171
166
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
163
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
176
166
KGAL
7337.275
7381.504
7388.376
7430.962
7477.247
7519.882
7535.594
7567.866
7613.893
7657.378
7665.106
7712.296
7758.117
7801.389
7801.389
7826.418
7851.447
7900.857
7900.857
7965.340
8010.916
8021.543
8061.260
Avg GPM
157.5
147.4
190.9
151.0
157.4
157.9
163.7
149.4
156.6
161.1
143.1
157.3
155.9
156.8
NA
NA
231.7
158.4
NA
158.0
158.3
NA
72.0
Cumulative
Bed Volume
12829.3
12907.3
12919.4
12994.5
13076.1
13151.3
13179.0
13235.9
13317.1
13393.7
13407.4
13490.6
13571.3
13647.6
13647.6
13691.8
13735.9
13823.0
13823.0
13936.7
14017.1
14035.8
14105.8
Flow Totalizer TB
§
O
172
161
163
NR
NR
NR
144.4
NR
175
155
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
165
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
KGAL
7344.173
7388.015
7394.869
7436.970
7482.808
7525.004
7540.687
7572.517
7618.088
7661.282
7668.862
7715.604
7761.055
7803.942
7803.942
7836.342
7836.652
7836.652
7836.652
NR
NR
7836.652
7836.652
Avg GPM
156.1
146.1
190.4
149.3
155.9
156.3
163.4
147.4
155.0
160.0
140.4
155.8
154.6
155.4
NA
NA
2.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cumulative
Bed Volume
12806.0
12883.3
12895.4
12969.7
13050.5
13124.9
13152.5
13208.6
13289.0
13365.2
13378.5
13460.9
13541.1
13616.7
13616.7
13673.8
13674.4
13674.4
13674.4
NA
NA
13674.4
13674.4
Head Loss
O.
<<
-^
«
H
3
3
3
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
3
3
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.8
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.8
2.8
Tank B psi
3
3
4
NR
NR
NR
4
NR
3
3
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.8
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3
3
Pressure A/B
Influent psig
62
66
66
NR
NR
NR
62
NR
64
62
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
62
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
62
64
Effluent psig
56
60
62
NR
NR
NR
59
NR
58
60
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
56
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
56
58
-
<
6
6
4
NA
NA
NA
3
NA
6
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
6
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (page 7 of 12)
Week No.
1
o
3
4
5
6
S
«
Q
05/12/04
05/13/04
05/14/04
05/15/04
05/16/04
05/17/04
05/18/04
05/19/04
05/20/04
05/21/04
05/22/04
05/23/04
05/24/04
05/25/04
05/26/04
05/27/04
05/28/04
05/29/04
05/30/04
05/31/04
06/01/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
06/04/04
06/05/04
06/06/04
06/07/04
06/08/04
06/09/04
06/10/04
06/11/04
06/12/04
06/13/04
06/14/04
06/15/04
06/16/04
06/17/04
06/18/04
06/19/04
06/20/04
Flow Totalizer TC
§
O
NR
147
126
NR
NR
161
151
153
163
160
141
NR
150
156
160
161
NR
160
155
154
151
151
153
151
NR
NR
148
151
157
149
152
NR
NR
161
156
147
158
160
150
151
KGAL
109.790
119.673
175.054
179.684
220.452
262.550
300.841
305.065
355.552
395.179
396.406
442.715
491.501
515.886
524.235
568.329
613.441
654.642
668.179
701.103
743.762
786.476
840.696
882.967
926.814
974.219
1019.011
1069.078
1117.091
1144.636
1191.852
1204.935
1251.707
1298.811
1338.089
1361.052
1407.619
1448.061
1479.695
1531.712
Avg GPM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
143.9
145.5
148.1
160.6
NA
NA
140.2
145.5
147.2
141.1
124.8
142.5
142.1
Cumulative
Bed Volume
70.8
88.2
185.9
194.0
265.9
340.1
407.6
415.1
504.1
574.0
576.1
657.8
743.8
786.8
801.5
879.3
958.8
1031.4
1055.3
1113.4
1188.6
1263.9
1359.5
1434.0
1511.3
1594.9
1673.9
1762.2
1846.8
1895.4
1978.6
2001.7
2084.2
2167.2
2236.5
2277.0
2359.1
2430.4
2486.1
2577.9
Flow Totalizer TD
§
O
NR
148
150
NR
NR
161
159
133
165
157
146
NR
153
160
161
166
NR
151
153
162
166
163
162
163
NR
NR
156
155
160
144
165
NR
NR
160
168
158
158
156
155
150
J
<<
O
M
114.571
125.300
184.938
189.859
233.650
277.445
317.329
321.661
373.048
414.685
416.038
463.226
492.931
538.692
547.306
593.048
639.870
681.960
696.401
730.179
773.887
817.877
873.881
917.388
962.458
1011.296
1057.645
1109.166
1158.868
1187.023
1235.582
1249.005
1297.311
1345.953
1386.452
1408.409
1454.439
1494.498
1525.727
1577.346
Avg GPM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
148.0
150.6
151.4
165.2
NA
NA
144.8
150.0
140.8
139.5
123.6
140.7
141.0
Cumulative
Bed Volume
77.3
96.2
201.4
210.1
287.3
364.5
434.8
442.4
533.0
606.5
608.8
692.0
744.4
825.1
840.3
920.9
1003.5
1077.7
1103.2
1162.7
1239.8
1317.4
1416.1
1492.8
1572.3
1658.4
1740.1
1830.9
1918.6
1968.2
2053.8
2077.5
2162.7
2248.4
2319.8
2358.6
2439.7
2510.3
2565.4
2656.4
Head Loss
Tank C psi
NR
2.6
2.3
NR
NR
2 2
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.6
2.6
NR
2.4
NR
2.5
2.7
NR
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.7
NR
NR
2.6
2.6
2.2
2.8
2.4
NR
NR
2.6
2.6
3.4
3
3
3
3.2
TankD psi
NR
1.7
1.5
NR
NR
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
NR
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.6
NR
1.4
1.5
2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
NR
NR
1.4
1.4
1
1.2
1.2
NR
NR
1.4
1.4
2.4
2 2
2.2
2.8
2 2
Pressure C/D
Influent psig
NR
52
64
NR
NR
64
64
60
62
66
63
NR
64
64
62
62
NR
66
62
63
60
60
60
63
NR
NR
62
63
64
64
65
NR
NR
64
66
61
62
64
64
65
Effluent psig
NR
56
62
NR
NR
60
60
54
58
60
58
NR
59
59
57
56
NR
62
58
58
56
56
56
58
NR
NR
56
58
60
60
60
NR
NR
60
61
56
57
59
60
59
-
<
NA
-)
NA
NA
4
4
6
4
6
5
NA
5
5
5
6
NA
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
NA
NA
6
5
4
4
5
NA
NA
4
5
5
5
5
4
6
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (page 8 of 12)
Week No.
7
8
9
10
11
S
«
Q
06/21/04
06/22/04
06/23/04
06/24/04
06/25/04
06/26/04
06/27/04
06/28/04
06/29/04
06/30/04
07/01/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
07/04/04
07/05/04
07/06/04
07/07/04
07/08/04
07/09/04
07/10/04
07/11/04
07/12/04
07/13/04
07/14/04
07/15/04
07/16/04
07/17/04
07/18/04
07/19/04
07/20/04
07/21/04
07/22/04
07/23/04
07/24/04
07/25/04
Flow Totalizer TC
§
O
147
135
154
149
152
NR
NR
143
144
149
139
144
NR
NR
134
146
145
147
140
NR
NR
149
154
148
144
142
NR
NR
140.9
149
139
150
143
NR
NR
KGAL
1550.962
1575.022
1628.973
1667.542
1670.122
1714.283
1757.023
1801.423
1838.395
1840.622
1884.502
1930.917
1977.272
2019.592
2033.632
2068.245
2108.073
2145.983
2155.540
2189.552
2234.232
2278.147
2316.276
2345.305
2360.291
2402.747
2447.251
2486.541
2518.928
2525.844
2530.954
2546.569
2590.503
2636.838
2683.016
Avg GPM
145.8
143.2
160.6
136.8
143.3
NA
NA
NA
136.9
185.6
162.5
128.9
138.0
135.6
90.0
160.2
118.5
140.4
NA
107.0
135.4
133.1
135.2
138.2
131.5
133.5
134.9
136.4
128.5
164.7
141.9
35.2
135.6
135.5
1924.1
Cumulative
Bed Volume
2611.8
2654.2
2749.3
2817.3
2821.9
2899.8
2975.1
3053.4
3118.6
3122.5
3199.9
3281.7
3363.4
3438.1
3462.8
3523.8
3594.1
3660.9
3677.8
3737.7
3816.5
3893.9
3961.2
4012.3
4038.8
4113.6
4192.1
4261.4
4318.5
4330.7
4339.7
4367.2
4444.7
4526.4
4607.8
Flow Totalizer TD
§
O
150
147
148
147
148
NR
NR
148
147
146
141
147
NR
NR
135
139
140
152
133
NR
NR
146
147
141
148
156
NR
NR
142.9
146
139
151
135
NR
NR
J
<<
O
M
1596.585
1620.202
1673.389
1711.392
1713.949
1757.673
1799.960
1844.034
1880.729
1882.934
1926.365
1972.479
2018.462
2060.456
2074.436
2103.766
2148.215
2185.787
2195.326
2229.099
2273.498
2317.292
2355.290
2384.199
2399.060
2441.387
2485.806
2524.969
2557.272
2564.104
2569.184
2584.818
2628.701
2675.008
2721.097
Avg GPM
145.8
140.6
158.3
134.8
142.1
NA
NA
NA
135.9
1 83.8
160.9
128.1
136.9
134.6
89.6
135.8
132.3
139.2
NA
106.2
134.5
132.7
134.7
137.7
130.4
133.1
134.6
136.0
128.2
162.7
141.1
35.2
135.4
135.4
1920.4
Cumulative
Bed Volume
2690.3
2732.0
2825.8
2892.8
2897.3
2974.4
3048.9
3126.6
3191.3
3195.2
3271.8
3353.1
3434.2
3508.2
3532.9
3584.6
3662.9
3729.2
3746.0
3805.6
3883.8
3961.1
4028.1
4079.0
4105.2
4179.9
4258.2
4327.2
4384.2
4396.2
4405.2
4432.7
4510.1
4591.8
4673.0
Head Loss
Tank C psi
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.4
3
NR
NR
3
3
3
3
3
NR
NR
2.8
3
3
3
3
NR
NR
3.2
3.2
3
3
3
NR
NR
3
3
3
3.2
3
NR
NR
TankD psi
2.2
-)
2.2
2
o
NR
NR
2 2
2
2
o
2
NR
NR
1.8
2
o
2
2
NR
NR
2
o
2
2
o
NR
NR
-)
2.2
2.2
2 2
2
NR
NR
Pressure C/D
Influent psig
64
62
64
66
68
NR
NR
66
66
66
64
62
NR
NR
64
62
62
64
62
NR
NR
64
64
64
62
62
NR
NR
66
60
62
60
64
NR
NR
Effluent psig
58
58
58
60
62
NR
NR
59
60
60
58
56
NR
NR
58
58
58
59
58
NR
NR
58
59
60
57
57
NR
NR
62
55
60
56
58
NR
NR
-
<
6
4
6
6
6
NA
NA
7
6
6
6
6
NA
NA
6
4
4
5
4
NA
NA
6
5
4
5
5
NA
NA
4
5
2
4
6
NA
NA
>
oo
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (page 9 of 12)
Week No.
12
13
14
15
16
S
«
Q
07/26/04
07/27/04
07/28/04
07/29/04
07/30/04
07/31/04
08/01/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
08/04/04
08/05/04
08/06/04
08/07/04
08/08/04
08/09/04
08/10/04
08/11/04
08/12/04
08/13/04
08/14/04
08/15/04
08/16/04
08/17/04
08/18/04
08/19/04
08/20/04
08/21/04
08/22/04
08/23/04
08/24/04
08/25/04
08/26/04
08/27/04
08/28/04
08/29/04
Flow Totalizer TC
§
O
131
150
131
149
151
150
148
142
150
154.7
151.7
146
153
146
165
150
145
NR
NR
NR
151
148
146
150.7
161
147
140
150
NR
154
NR
NR
NR
149
NR
KGAL
2731.768
2771.298
2773.293
2821.301
2863.298
2901.722
2934.860
2946.287
2993.284
3044.037
3082.787
3083.211
3127.336
3170.709
3212.662
3252.673
3263.457
3297.430
3338.839
3379.776
3419.003
3457.362
3497.878
3505.859
3549.140
3596.454
3640.357
3865.934
3733.177
3777.147
3824.736
3945.532
3994.336
4019.491
4034.531
Avg GPM
135.4
131.8
33.3
153.9
137.2
133.4
134.7
136.0
135.0
134.3
134.5
70.7
133.7
136.4
134.5
133.4
149.8
138.1
132.7
136.5
136.2
136.0
129.9
133.0
114.5
136.0
135.5
NA
NA
159.3
136.8
134.2
135.6
135.2
139.3
Cumulative
Bed Volume
4693.7
4763.4
4767.0
4851.6
4925.7
4993.4
5051.8
5072.0
5154.8
5244.3
5312.6
5313.4
5391.2
5467.7
5541.6
5612.2
5631.2
5691.1
5764.1
5836.3
5905.4
5973.1
6044.5
6058.6
6134.9
6218.3
6295.7
6693.5
6459.4
6536.9
6620.8
6833.8
6919.9
6964.2
6990.7
Flow Totalizer TD
§
O
151
148
141
135
145
135
136
147
157
144
147
152
142
142
150
149
140
NR
NR
NR
148
143
148
134
150
145
150
148
NR
146
NR
NR
NR
139
NR
J
<<
O
M
2769.864
2809.497
2811.501
2859.811
2901.906
2940.348
2973.537
2984.870
3031.829
3082.475
3120.938
3121.447
3165.239
3208.196
3249.779
3289.447
3300.282
3333.858
3374.953
3415.491
3454.295
3492.315
3532.431
3540.358
3583.137
3629.658
3673.056
3717.985
3764.599
3807.769
3854.657
3973.532
4021.487
4046.256
4060.927
Avg GPM
135.5
132.1
33.4
154.8
137.6
133.5
134.9
134.9
134.9
134.0
133.6
84.8
132.7
135.1
133.3
132.2
150.5
136.5
131.7
135.1
134.7
134.8
128.6
132.1
113.2
133.7
133.9
133.7
133.9
156.4
134.7
132.1
133.2
133.2
135.8
Cumulative
Bed Volume
4759.0
4828.9
4832.4
4917.6
4991.8
5059.6
5118.1
5138.1
5220.9
5310.2
5378.0
5378.9
5456.1
5531.9
5605.2
5675.1
5694.2
5753.4
5825.9
5897.4
5965.8
6032.8
6103.5
6117.5
6192.9
6275.0
6351.5
6430.7
6512.9
6589.0
6671.7
6881.3
6965.8
7009.5
7035.4
Head Loss
Tank C psi
3.2
3
32
28
3
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
TankD psi
2.2
-)
2
2
o
2
2
2.6
2.2
2
o
2
2.2
o
2
2
o
NR
NR
NR
2
2
o
2
2
o
2
2.4
NR
2.4
NR
NR
NR
2.4
NR
Pressure C/D
Influent psig
64
64
62
62
62
62
64
60
63
66
68
62
64
66
64
64
62
NR
NR
NR
65
62
66
60
62
65
62
60
NR
66
NR
NR
NR
64
NR
Effluent psig
58
58
56
58
58
58
60
56
58
60
62
56
58
60
58
58
56
NR
NR
NR
58
57
59
56
57
59
57
56
NR
60
NR
NR
NR
60
NR
-
<
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
NA
NA
NA
7
5
7
4
5
6
5
4
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
4
NA
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (page 10 of 12)
Week No.
17
18
19
20
21
S
«
Q
08/30/04
08/31/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
09/03/04
09/04/04
09/05/04
09/06/04
09/07/04
09/08/04
09/09/04
09/10/04
09/1 1/04
09/12/04
09/13/04
09/14/04
09/15/04
09/16/04
09/17/04
09/1 8/04
09/19/04
09/20/04
09/21/04
09/22/04
09/23/04
09/24/04
09/25/04
09/26/04
09/27/04
09/28/04
09/29/04
09/30/04
10/01/04
10/02/04
10/03/04
Flow Totalizer TC
§
O
NR
145
144
NR
NR
NR
NR
149
NR
142
144
NR
NR
NR
NR
136
NR
NR
146
NR
NR
NR
140
NR
134
139
NR
NR
NR
149
NR
NR
158
NR
NR
KGAL
4077.545
4119.722
4124.468
4166.658
4210.961
4250.125
4288.982
4296.299
4340.479
4375.129
4420.622
4436.103
4479.699
4521.038
4560.992
4586.943
4606.198
4652.188
4700.133
4739.762
4776.941
4816.589
4847.701
4877.839
4924.836
4973.144
5032.222
5070.088
5109.803
5154.303
5162.268
5204.704
5248.719
5292.486
5329.143
Avg GPM
135.3
132.6
113.0
135.2
136.7
136.0
137.8
174.2
133.9
128.3
135.4
135.8
134.6
135.1
135.9
139.5
133.7
94.6
216.0
134.8
134.7
132.2
140.1
135.8
135.0
134.2
133.1
134.3
135.1
127.9
265.5
114.1
146.7
135.1
113.1
Cumulative
Bed Volume
7066.6
7140.9
7149.3
7223.7
7301.8
7370.8
7439.4
7452.3
7530.2
7591.2
7671.5
7698.8
7775.6
7848.5
7919.0
7964.7
7998.7
8079.7
8164.3
8234.2
8299.7
8369.6
8424.5
8477.6
8560.5
8645.6
8749.8
8816.6
8886.6
8965.1
8979.1
9053.9
9131.5
9208.7
9273.3
Flow Totalizer TD
§
O
NR
141
149
NR
NR
NR
NR
149
NR
152
143
NR
NR
NR
NR
140
NR
NR
143
NR
NR
NR
131
NR
141
140
NR
NR
NR
157
NR
NR
146
NR
NR
J
<<
O
M
4102.983
4144.285
4148.936
4190.162
4233.471
4271.783
4309.724
4316.920
4360.036
4393.808
4438.204
4453.543
4496.667
4537.540
4577.018
4602.683
4621.603
4666.941
4714.237
4753.419
4790.161
4829.483
4860.336
4890.151
4936.737
4984.586
5043.251
5080.753
5120.154
5164.104
5171.954
5213.948
5257.398
5300.683
5337.010
Avg GPM
132.3
129.9
110.7
132.1
133.7
133.0
134.5
171.3
130.7
125.1
132.1
134.6
133.1
133.6
134.3
138.0
131.4
93.3
213.0
133.3
133.1
131.1
139.0
134.3
133.9
132.9
132.1
133.0
134.0
126.3
261.7
112.9
144.8
133.6
112.1
Cumulative
Bed Volume
7109.5
7182.3
7190.5
7263.2
7339.6
7407.1
7474.0
7486.7
7562.7
7622.3
7700.6
7727.6
7803.6
7875.7
7945.3
7990.6
8023.9
8103.9
8187.2
8256.3
8321.1
8390.4
8444.8
8497.4
8579.6
8663.9
8767.4
8833.5
8902.9
8980.4
8994.3
9068.3
9144.9
9221.2
9285.3
Head Loss
Tank C psi
NR
4
3
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.8
NR
3.4
3
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.8
NR
NR
3
NR
NR
NR
2.8
NR
2.8
2.8
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
NR
3
NR
NR
TankD psi
NR
2.4
2.4
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.8
NR
2.6
2.6
NR
NR
NR
NR
-)
NR
NR
-)
NR
NR
NR
2
NR
2.8
2.6
NR
NR
NR
-)
NR
NR
-)
NR
NR
Pressure C/D
Influent psig
NR
66
62
NR
NR
NR
NR
62
NR
62
65
NR
NR
NR
NR
64
NR
NR
64
NR
NR
NR
65
NR
64
64
NR
NR
NR
64
NR
NR
62
NR
NR
Effluent psig
NR
62
54
NR
NR
NR
NR
56
NR
56
60
NR
NR
NR
NR
60
NR
NR
58
NR
NR
NR
60
NR
59
59
NR
NR
NR
58
NR
NR
57
NR
NR
-
<
NA
4
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
6
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
5
5
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (page 11 of 12)
Week No.
22
23
24
25
26
S
«
Q
10/04/04
10/05/04
10/06/04
10/07/04
10/08/04
10/09/04
10/10/04
10/11/04
10/12/04
10/13/04
10/14/04
10/15/04
10/16/04
10/17/04
10/18/04
10/19/04
10/20/04
10/21/04
10/22/04
10/23/04
10/24/04
10/25/04
10/26/04
10/27/04
10/28/04
10/29/04
10/30/04
10/31/04
11/01/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
11/04/04
11/05/04
11/06/04
11/07/04
Flow Totalizer TC
§
O
NR
141
NR
152
NR
NR
NR
147
152
NR
144
NR
NR
NR
NR
156
NR
NR
148
NR
NR
NR
NR
145
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
144
NR
146
NR
151
NR
KGAL
5329.143
5371.084
5413.814
5453.892
5492.938
5529.687
5529.687
5572.569
5637.080
5668.856
5745.047
5783.000
5783.000
5825.824
5867.410
5904.081
5907.003
5947.517
5987.913
6006.032
6047.648
6087.794
6122.979
6122.979
6162.830
6204.150
6239.645
6239.645
6281.918
6322.362
6332.059
6391.641
6411.334
6415.579
6452.052
Avg GPM
NA
134.4
134.4
155.3
135.6
136.1
NA
134.8
134.4
126.1
133.7
140.6
NA
134.7
135.9
115.3
162.3
135.0
132.0
143.8
95.0
133.8
133.3
NA
132.8
135.0
134.5
NA
195.7
134.8
134.7
198.6
67.0
353.8
129.3
Cumulative
Bed Volume
9273.3
9347.3
9422.6
9493.3
9562.1
9626.9
9626.9
9702.5
9816.3
9872.3
10006.6
10073.5
10073.5
10149.1
10222.4
10287.0
10292.2
10363.6
10434.8
10466.8
10540.2
10610.9
10673.0
10673.0
10743.2
10816.1
10878.7
10878.7
10953.2
11024.5
11041.6
11146.7
11181.4
11188.9
11253.2
Flow Totalizer TD
§
O
NR
149
NR
148
NR
NR
NR
145
145
NR
133
NR
NR
NR
NR
149
NR
NR
143
NR
NR
NR
NR
141
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
143
NR
141
NR
140
NR
J
<<
O
M
5337.010
5378.646
5420.918
5460.528
5499.203
5535.516
5535.516
5577.978
5641.777
5673.190
5748.336
5785.583
5785.583
5827.575
5868.414
5904.385
5907.250
5946.919
5986.486
6004.418
6045.656
6085.656
6120.678
6120.678
6160.377
6201.478
6236.714
6236.714
7098.683
6318.872
6328.497
6367.823
6407.247
6411.543
6447.715
Avg GPM
NA
133.4
132.9
153.5
134.3
134.5
NA
133.5
132.9
124.7
131.8
138.0
NA
132.1
133.5
113.1
159.2
132.2
129.3
142.3
94.2
133.3
132.7
NA
132.3
134.3
133.5
NA
NA
NA
133.7
131.1
134.1
358.0
128.3
Cumulative
Bed Volume
9285.3
9358.7
9433.2
9503.1
9571.3
9635.3
9635.3
9710.2
9822.6
9878.0
10010.5
10076.2
10076.2
10150.2
10222.2
10285.7
10290.7
10360.7
10430.4
10462.0
10534.8
10605.3
10667.0
10667.0
10737.0
10809.5
10871.6
10871.6
NA
11016.5
11033.4
11102.8
11172.3
11179.9
11243.6
Head Loss
Tank C psi
NR
2.8
NR
2.8
NR
NR
NR
3.2
3
NR
2.8
NR
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
NR
3
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.6
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.8
NR
2.8
NR
3
NR
TankD psi
NR
2.6
NR
2
NR
NR
NR
-)
2.2
NR
-)
NR
NR
NR
NR
2
NR
NR
2
NR
NR
NR
NR
2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2
NR
2.6
NR
2.8
NR
Pressure C/D
Influent psig
NR
60
NR
64
NR
NR
NR
60
64
NR
68
NR
NR
NR
NR
66
NR
NR
64
NR
NR
NR
NR
64
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
64
NR
64
NR
62
NR
Effluent psig
NR
56
NR
58
NR
NR
NR
56
59
NR
64
NR
NR
NR
NR
59
NR
NR
58
NR
NR
NR
NR
60
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
60
NR
58
NR
56
NR
-
<
NA
4
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
4
5
NA
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
NA
6
NA
6
NA
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Brown City, MI - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (page 12 of 12)
Week No.
27
28
29
30
S
«
Q
1 1/08/04
1 1/09/04
11/10/04
11/11/04
11/12/04
11/13/04
11/14/04
11/15/04
11/16/04
11/17/04
11/18/04
11/19/04
11/20/04
11/21/04
1 1/22/04
11/23/04
11/24/04
11/25/04
11/26/04
11/27/04
11/28/04
1 1/29/04
1 1/30/04
Flow Totalizer TC
§
O
141
144
140
NR
NR
NR
132.6
NR
145
131
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
145
142
KGAL
6493.121
6530.875
6536.912
6573.001
6612.485
6648.888
6662.613
6689.849
6729.132
6766.423
6772.783
6813.090
6815.830
6815.830
6815.830
6815.831
NR
6857.973
6857.973
6913.039
6951.789
6961.023
6994.733
Avg GPM
134.2
125.8
167.7
128.0
134.3
134.8
143.0
126.1
133.6
138.1
117.8
134.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
135.0
134.5
NA
61.1
Cumulative
Bed Volume
11325.6
11392.2
11402.8
11466.4
11536.1
11600.2
11624.4
11672.5
11741.7
11807.5
11818.7
11889.8
11894.6
11894.6
11894.6
11894.6
NA
11968.9
11968.9
12066.0
12134.3
12150.6
12210.0
Flow Totalizer TD
§
O
143
150
143
NR
NR
NR
137.1
NR
153
134
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
146
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
140
136
J
<<
O
M
6483.547
6526.007
6532.062
6567.877
6607.015
6643.101
6656.767
6683.665
6722.580
6759.578
6765.839
6805.788
6844.607
6881.211
6881.211
6909.036
6923.572
6965.326
6965.326
7019.942
7058.368
7067.549
7100.799
Avg GPM
117.1
141.5
168.2
127.0
133.1
133.7
142.4
124.5
132.4
137.0
115.9
133.2
132.0
132.6
NA
NA
134.6
133.8
NA
133.9
133.4
NA
60.2
Cumulative
Bed Volume
11306.8
11381.7
11392.4
11455.5
11524.5
11588.1
11612.2
11659.7
11728.3
11793.5
11804.5
11875.0
11943.4
12008.0
12008.0
12057.0
12082.7
12156.3
12156.3
12252.6
12320.3
12336.5
12395.1
Head Loss
Tank C psi
3
3
3
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
3
3
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.8
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.8
2.8
TankD psi
2.8
2.8
2.8
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
2.4
2.5
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.8
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3
2.6
Pressure C/D
Influent psig
62
66
62
NR
NR
NR
61
NR
64
63
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
62
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
62
64
Effluent psig
56
60
56
NR
NR
NR
58
NR
58
60
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
56
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
58
58
-
<
6
6
6
NA
NA
NA
3
NA
6
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
6
NA = not applicable.
NR = no reading.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Brown City, MI
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume (xlO3)
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
No.
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
|ig/L
|ig/L
Hg/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
Hg/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
05/18/04
IN
-
238
-
-
<0.10
10.2
-
1.5
NA(C)
14.3
4.2(a>
4
-
-
-
28.7
-
-
-
-
168
-
14.3
-
TA
0.4
234
-
-
O.10
17.4
-
0.5
NA(C)
13.8
4A(a>
3
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.5
-
TB
0.4
217
-
-
<0.10
2.3
-
0.4
NA(C)
12.8
4.7(a>
1
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.5
-
TC
0.4
234
-
-
O.10
2.7
-
0.5
NA(C)
12.3
1.8
3
-
-
-
2.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.5
-
TD
0.4
234
-
-
<0.10
3.1
-
0.9
NA(C)
12.3
1.7
2
-
-
-
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.1
-
05/25/04
IN
-
246
1.5
95
<0.10
7.9
<0.04
1.4
8.2
12.4
1.7
3
109.8
77.7
32.1
15.6
13.4
2.2
13.1
0.3
149
139
15.5
15.8
TT
0.8
246
1.5
73
O.10
5.0
<0.04
0.4
7.9
11.0
0.7
7
93.1
63.5
29.6
2.1
1.8
0.3
1.9
<0.1
<25
<25
1.3
1.6
06/08/04
IN
-
228
-
-
O.10
8.6
-
1.1
8.5
11.7
1.0
10
-
-
-
15.1
-
-
-
-
101
-
17
-
TA
1.9
236
-
-
<0.10
7.2
-
0.3
8.0
11.7
1.6
7
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
TB
1.9
236
-
-
O.10
7.0
-
0.3
7.9
11.7
1.2
7
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
TC
1.8
240
-
-
<0.10
7.1
-
0.8
7.9
11.3
0.7
8
-
-
-
3.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.9
-
TD
1.8
236
-
-
O.10
7.0
-
0.8
7.9
11.2
1.3
7
-
-
-
2.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.7
-
06/24/04(e)
IN
-
227
1.4
65
O.10
8.5
O.04
1.0
8.0
11.9
1.8
5
65.0
39.4
25.6
14.3
12.5
1.8
11.7
0.8
113
99
13.5
13.2
TT
2.9
240
1.5
80
<0.10
7.4
O.04
0.8
7.9
11.4
1.9
2
92.1
62.9
29.2
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.7
0.1
<25
<25
2.2
2.5
(a) asCaCO3.
(b) asPO4.
(c) pH probe was not operational.
(d) Samples might have been aerated during sampling.
(e) Field data (temp, pH, DO, ORP) measured on 6/29/04 for this date.
IN = inlet; TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B; TC = after tank C; TD = after tank D; TT = after tanks combined.
NA = data not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Brown City, MI (page 2 of 4)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume (xlO3)
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
N03-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
No.
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L^
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
|ig/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
07/06/04
IN
-
218
-
-
0.10
9.5
-
2.3
8.0
11.9
2.5
7
-
-
-
21.5
-
-
-
-
228
-
17.0
-
TA
3.8
214
-
-
0.10
7.5
-
0.4
7.9
11.7
1.4
5
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.2
-
TB
3.8
214
-
-
0.10
8.1
-
0.6
7.9
11.6
1.6
5
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.8
-
TC
3.5
202
-
-
0.10
7.5
-
0.6
7.9
11.6
2.7
4
-
-
-
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.7
-
TD
3.6
214
-
-
0.10
7.8
-
0.4
7.9
11.7
2.2
4
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.4
-
07/20/04
IN
-
Ill
1.3
56
0.10
14.3
NA(C)
0.8
8.0
11.7
2.4
9
111.2
66.4
44.8
15.6
14.9
0.7
14.2
0.7
157
135
12.3
13.4
TT
4.6
223
1.4
79
0.10
7.2
NA(C)
0.6
7.9
13.4
1.5
13
131.1
91.1
40.0
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.9
O.I
<25
<25
2.9
2.7
08/03/04
IN
-
236
236
-
-
O.10
0.10
8.3
8.7
-
0.2
1.2
7.6
11.6
2.3
12
-
-
-
14.5
14.3
-
-
-
-
164
167
-
18.3
18.5
-
TA
5.7
217
236
-
-
O.10
0.10
8.0
7.8
-
0.3
0.2
7.6
11.7
2.0
13
-
-
-
1.2
1.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
11.4
9.6
-
TB
5.7
225
236
-
-
O.10
0.10
8.1
7.8
-
0.3
0.5
7.6
11.7
1.9
13
-
-
-
2.0
2.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
14.2
12.5
-
TC
5.2
236
236
-
-
O.10
0.10
7.7
7.7
-
0.3
0.2
7.6
11.8
1.4
14
-
-
-
0.8
1.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
12.5
12.3
-
TD
5.2
256
240
-
-
O.10
0.10
7.6
7.6
-
0.1
0.2
7.6
11.7
2.3
16
-
-
-
1.6
1.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
13.4
13.4
-
08/17/04
IN
-
233
1.4
59
0.10
8.7
0.04
0.5
8.0
11.8
1.7
18
82.9
55.0
27.9
13.1
12.9
0.2
12.9
0.1
108
105
12.6
12.7
TT
6.4
164
1.8
82
0.10
7.9
O.04
0.1
7.9
11.6
1.4
31
99.2
71.4
27.8
2.8
2.2
0.6
2.0
0.2
<25
<25
13.0
14.0
(a) as CaCO3.
(b) asPO4.
(c) Sample out of holding time for laboratory analysis.
IN = inlet; TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B; TC = after tank C; TD = after tank D; TT = after tanks combined.
NA = data not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Brown City, MI (page 3 of 4)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume (xlO3)
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
NO3-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
No.
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
08/31/04
IN
-
241
-
-
O.10
8.3
-
0.9
8.0
11.2
5.6W
24
-
-
-
14.9
-
-
-
-
115
-
13.7
-
TA
8.0
241
-
-
O.10
8.0
-
0.2
7.9
11.0
2.0
29
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
13.2
-
TB
8.0
241
-
-
O.10
7.5
-
0.3
7.9
11.1
2.0
30
-
-
-
2.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
15.5
-
TC
7.1
241
-
-
O.10
7.6
-
0.3
7.9
11.2
1.7
29
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
15.6
-
TD
7.2
245
-
-
O.10
7.5
-
0.1
7.9
11.2
2.3
28
-
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
17.1
-
09/14/04
IN
-
242
1.8
120
O.06
7.7
O.04
0.6
7.9
11.2
2.2
47
98.4
75.9
22.5
9.5
9.6
<0.1
9.0
0.6
159
127
17.0
16.5
TT
8.5
242
1.8
120
O.06
7.6
O.04
0.2
7.9
11.2
1.6
33
100.3
77.0
23.3
3.6
3.5
0.1
3.3
0.2
35
<25
19.7
19.1
09/28/04
IN
-
234
-
-
O.06
8.4
-
0.8
8.0
11.2
1.9
58
-
-
-
12.6
-
-
-
-
160
-
15.0
-
TA
10.1
230
-
-
O.06
7.8
-
0.2
7.9
11.1
1.6
45
-
-
-
2.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
20.5
-
TB
10.1
234
-
-
O.06
7.8
-
0.3
7.8
11.5
1.6
38
-
-
-
2.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
21.8
-
TC
9.0
238
-
-
O.06
7.5
-
0.2
7.9
11.6
1.9
36
-
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
19.2
-
TD
9.0
234
-
-
O.06
7.4
-
0.3
7.8
12.0
1.6
34
-
-
-
3.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
22.0
-
10/12/04
IN
-
231
3.3
54
O.06
9.2
O.04
2.1
7.9
10.3
1.4
24
104.1
62.9
41.2
15.6
15.8
0.1
14.2
1.6
203
135
16.6
14.8
TT
10.4
236
1.6
74
O.06
7.3
O.04
0.6
7.9
10.2
1.8
18
87.5
61.4
26.1
2.6
2.4
0.2
<1.0(d)
2.4
<25
<25
22.4
19.3
(a) asCaCO3.
(b) asPO4.
(c) Samples might have been aerated during sampling.
(d) Rerun sample was diluted 10 times due to insufficient quantity for analysis.
IN = inlet; TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B; TC = after tank C; TD = after tank D; TT = after tanks combined.
NA = data not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Brown City, MI (page 4 of 4)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume (xlO3)
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
N03-N
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
No.
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L^
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
ll/02/04(c)
IN
-
246
242
-
-
O.06
<0.06
7.9
8.1
-
0.7
0.7
8.0
10.9
2.1
69
-
-
-
12.4
12.9
-
-
-
-
165
152
-
13.8
13.3
-
TA
12.5
246
246
-
-
O.06
0.06
7.5
7.6
-
0.6
0.6
7.9
10.8
1.3
62
-
-
-
4.3
5.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
16.5
17.3
-
TB
12.5
246
246
-
-
O.06
0.06
7.6
7.7
-
0.7
0.5
7.8
10.9
1.4
57
-
-
-
7.8
8.7
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
17.3
17.2
-
TC
11.0
250
250
-
-
O.06
0.06
7.5
7.5
-
0.3
0.3
7.8
10.9
1.4
54
-
-
-
7.8
7.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
21.7
22.8
-
TD
11.0
250
250
-
-
O.06
0.06
7.6
7.6
-
0.3
0.3
7.8
10.9
1.2
53
-
-
-
8.0
7.9
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
23.7
25.0
-
11/16/04
IN
-
246
1.4
62
0.06
8.3
0.04
0.9
7.9
11.0
1.7
88
71.2
41.8
29.4
12.1
11.7
0.4
12.0
0.1
142
108
13.7
13.0
TT
12.5
250
1.5
85
0.06
7.6
O.04
0.4
7.7
11.4
1.5
77
92.1
60.1
32.0
7.1
6.2
0.9
5.3
0.9
<25
<25
20.5
19.9
11/30/04
IN
-
234
-
-
0.06
8.5
-
0.5
7.9
11.0
2.1
106
-
-
-
11.6
-
-
-
-
144
-
13.1
-
TA
14.1
236
-
-
0.06
7.7
-
0.2
7.8
10.9
1.5
99
-
-
-
2.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
18.1
-
TB
13.7
236
-
-
0.06
7.5
-
0.1
7.8
10.9
1.8
102
-
-
-
3.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
16.1
-
TC
12.2
240
-
-
0.06
7.5
-
0.3
7.7
10.8
1.4
104
-
-
-
3.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
19.5
-
TD
12.4
240
-
-
0.06
7.6
-
0.3
7.7
10.7
1.9
104
-
-
-
4.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
20.5
-
CO
(a) as CaCO3.
(b) asPO4.
(c) Vessel B did not fast rinse properly during 10/22/04 backwash.
IN = inlet; TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B; TC = after tank C;
NA = data not available.
, possibly affecting TB sample.
TD = after tank D; TT = after tanks combined.
------- |