EPA/600/R-10/166
December 2010
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Coagulation/Filtration
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at the City of Okanogan, WA
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Abraham S.C. Chen*
Anbo Wang"
Lili Wang*
"Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693
*ALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43201-0693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0029 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
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and 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 environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the arsenic removal
treatment technology demonstration project at the City of Okanogan, WA facility. The objectives of the
project were to evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of Filtronics' FH-13 Electromedia®! Arsenic Removal
System in removing arsenic to meet the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 (ig/L, (2) the reliability
of the treatment system for use at small water facilities, (3) the required system operation and
maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels, and (4) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The
project also characterized water in the distribution system and residuals generated by the treatment
process. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality, process residuals, and
capital and O&M cost.
After review and approval of the engineering plan by the State of Washington, the FH-13 Electromedia®!
treatment system was installed and became operational on August 14, 2008. The system consisted of two
4-ft x 8-ft carbon steel contact tanks, and one 7-ft x 9V3-ft horizontal carbon steel filter tank loaded with
174 ft3 of Electromedia®! filter media, 33 ft3 of support media, and 43 ft3 of concrete. The filter tank was
fitted with semi-elliptical ends and upper and lower manifold assemblies, providing a filtration area of 75
ft2. At a design flowrate of 750 gal/min (gpm), the hydraulic loading rate to the filter was 10 gpm/ft2.
The system used two chemical addition assemblies, one each for prechlorination and supplemental iron
addition. The chlorine addition system was installed to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) and form As(V)-laden
iron solids prior to the filtration tank. The iron addition system was installed to increase the removal of
soluble As(V) through adsorption and/or coprecipitation with iron solids. The target chlorine and iron
dosages were 0.7 mg/L (as C12) and 0.9 mg/L (as Fe), respectively.
A wastewater recycle system was incorporated into the treatment system to reclaim backwash wastewater
and eliminate the need to discharge wastewater into the sanitary sewer. The recycle system consisted of a
reclaim pump and a 22,500-gal concrete reclaim tank equipped with high/low float switches.
From August 14, 2008, through August 14, 2009, the treatment system operated for an average of 13.6
hr/day, producing 139,435,000 gal of water. This production rate corresponded to an average flowrate of
527 gpm, comparable to the 550-gpm extraction rate allowed for Well No. 4 by water rights. At 527
gpm, it yielded a contact time of 2.8 min in the two contact tanks and a filtration rate of 7.0 gpm/ft2.
Source water from Well No. 4 had an average pH value of 7.6 and contained 14.7 to 22.7 (ig/L of total
arsenic. The predominant arsenic species was As(III) with an average concentration of 13.4 (ig/L. Total
iron concentrations ranged from <25 to 230 (ig/L and averaged 78 (ig/L, existing mostly in the soluble
form (averaged at 49 (ig/L). This amount of soluble iron corresponded to a soluble iron to soluble arsenic
ratio of 2.7:1, indicating insufficient iron for arsenic removal. Ferric chloride was added to chlorinated
water to achieve a target iron concentration of 0.9 mg/L (50 times the soluble arsenic concentration in
source water) for more effective arsenic removal, presumably through adsorption and/or coprecipitation
with iron solids.
Total arsenic concentrations after the pressure filter ranged from 2.9 to 14.9 (ig/L and averaged 6.2 (ig/L.
Filter performance was maintained with backwash, which was triggered either by a preset run time of 8 hr
or when the water level in the storage reservoir reached the "Stop" setpoint. Backwashing every 8 hr
appeared to be adequate to maintain proper filter performance for arsenic and iron removal. The filter
tank was backwashed 2.3 times/day, producing approximately 6,150 gal of wastewater/time. A total of
4,667,850 gal of wastewater was produced during the study, equivalent to 3.3% of the total amount of
water treated. On average, the backwash wastewater contained 108 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS),
462 (ig/L of arsenic, 38.1 mg/L of iron, and 1,157 (ig/L of manganese, with the majority existing as
IV
-------
participate. During each backwash, 2.5 kg of solids was produced, which included 10.6 g of arsenic, 882
g of iron, and 26.3 g of manganese.
Arsenic levels in distribution system water as sampled at DS3, a non-Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)
sampling location, were very close to those in treatment system effluent (i.e., 6.8 versus 6.2 (ig/L, on
average). Because the other two sampling locations (DS1 and DS2) selected for distribution water
sampling were impacted by all four wells supplying Okanogan's distribution system, the effect of the
treatment system on the distribution water quality could not be evaluated directly. The average lead
concentration within the distribution system was 1.5 (ig/L with no samples exceeding the action level of
15 (ig/L. The average copper concentration was 61.6 (ig/L with no samples exceeding the 1,300 (ig/L
action level.
The capital investment for the system was $424,817, including $296,430 for equipment, $48,332 for site
engineering, and $80,055 for installation, shakedown, and startup. Using the system's rated capacity of
550 gpm (or 792,000 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $772/gpm (or $0.54/gpd). This unit cost does
not include the cost of the building to house the treatment system and recycle system utilized to reclaim
the backwash water. O&M cost, estimated at $0.18/1,000 gal, included cost for chemicals usage,
electricity consumption, and labor.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 6
3.1 General Project Approach 6
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 7
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 8
3.3.1 Source Water 8
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 8
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater 8
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 8
3.3.5 Residual Solids 11
3.4 Sampling Logistics 11
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 11
3.4.2 Preparation of Sample Coolers 11
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13
4.1 Site Description 13
4.1.1 Pre-existing Facility 13
4.1.2 Distribution System 14
4.1.3 Source Water Quality 14
4.2 Treatment Process Description 16
4.3 Treatment System Installation 22
4.3.1 System Permitting 22
4.3.2 Building Construction 22
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown 24
4.4 System Operation 25
4.4.1 Service Operation 25
4.4.2 Chlorine and Iron Additions 28
4.4.3 Backwash Operation 32
4.4.3.1 Other Problems Related to Backwash System 33
4.4.4 Residual Management 33
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 34
4.4.5.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements 34
VI
-------
4.4.5.2 System Automation 34
4.4.5.3 Operator Skill Requirements 34
4.4.5.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities 34
4.4.5.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements 35
4.5 System Performance 35
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 35
4.5.1.1 Arsenic 35
4.5.1.2 Iron 40
4.5.1.3 Manganese 41
4.5.1.4 pH, DO, andORP 42
4.5.1.5 Chlorine 42
4.5.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters 43
4.5.2 Backwash Water and Solids Sampling 44
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 45
4.6 System Cost 48
4.6.1 Capital Cost 48
4.6.2 O&MCost 49
5.0 REFERENCES 51
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLE
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF RESPONSIBILITIES ARSENIC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AT
OKANOGAN, WA
APPENDIX D: BACKWASH LOG SHEETS EPA ARSENIC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AT
OKANOGAN, WA
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedules and Locations 10
Figure 4-1. Well No. 4 in a Fenced Area 13
Figure 4-2. Manhole for Well No. 4 14
Figure 4-3. Plan View of Filtronics' FH-13 Treatment System 17
Figure 4-4. Treatment System Components 19
Figure 4-5. Chlorine and Iron Addition Systems 20
Figure 4-6. Reclaim System Components 21
Figure 4-7. New Building and Reclaim Tank Under Construction 23
Figure 4-8. New Building and Reclaim Tank 23
Figure 4-9. Equipment Delivery and Unloading 24
Figure 4-10. Schematic Illustration of Filtration and Supporting Media Layers in Filtration Tank 25
Figure 4-11. Treatment System Normalized Daily Operating Times 27
Figure 4-12. Treatment System Flowrates 28
Figure 4-13. Differential Pressure Across Pressure Filter 29
Figure 4-14. Differential Pressure Across Pressure Filter Before and After Backwash 29
Figure 4-15. Chlorine Dosage Test Results 31
Figure 4-16. Chlorine Doses over Demonstration Study Period 32
Figure 4-17. Calculated Iron Doses vs. Measured Iron Concentrations 33
vn
-------
Figure 4-18. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train 38
Figure 4-19. Arsenic Speciation Results 39
Figure 4-20. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train 40
Figure 4-21. Total Manganese Concentrations across Treatment Train 41
Figure 4-22. Chlorine Residuals Measured Throughout Treatment Train 42
Figure 4-23. Arsenic and Iron Concentrations Measured During Filter Run Length Study 43
Figure 4-24. Effect of Treatment System on Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese in Distribution
System 47
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of the Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 3
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration and Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 6
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
Table 3-3. Sampling Locations, Schedules, and Analyses 9
Table 4-1. Well No. 4 Water Quality Data 15
Table 4-2. Well No. 4 Historic Water Quality Data 16
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of FH-13 Treatment System 18
Table 4-4. Filter Break-in Schedule 25
Table 4-5. Treatment System Operational Parameters 26
Table 4-6. Issues/Problems Encountered Related to Chlorine Addition System 30
Table 4-7. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 36
Table 4-8. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameters Results 37
Table 4-9. Arsenic Speciation vs. DO and ORP 40
Table 4-10. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results 44
Table 4-11. Backwash Solids Sampling Test Results 45
Table 4-12. Distribution System Sampling Results 46
Table 4-13. Capital Investment for Filtronics' FH-13 Electromedia®! System 49
Table 4-14. O&M Costs for Filtronics' FH-13 Electromedia®! System 50
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
bgs below ground surface
C/F coagulation/filtration
Ca calcium
CDB community development block
Cl chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
D diameter
DBPR Disinfection Byproducts Rule
DO dissolved oxygen
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F
Fe
FeCl3
G&O
gpd
gph
gpm
H
HAAs
HIX
hp
ICP-MS
ID
IX
L
LCR
MCL
MDL
MEI
Mg
fluoride
iron
ferric chloride
Gray and Osborne
gallons per day
gallons per hour
gallons per minute
height
heloacetic acids
hybrid ion exchanger
horsepower
inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
identification
ion exchange
length
(EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
maximum contaminant level
method detection limit
Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
magnesium
IX
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
jam micrometer
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not analyzed/not available
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detected
NSF NSF International
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
OIP operator interface panel
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P phosphorus
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
Pb lead
pCi/L picocuries per liter
PLC programmable logic controller
PO4 phosphate
POU point-of-use
psi pounds per square inch
psig pounds per square inch gauge
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RFQ request for quotation
RPD relative percent difference
RO reverse osmosis
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO4 sulfate
SOCs synthetic organic compounds
STS Severn Trent Services
TDH total dynamic head
TDS total dissolved solids
THMs trihalomethanes
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
V vanadium
VOCs volatile organic compounds
WA DOH Washington Department of Health
WQE Water Quality Engineering
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Mr. Ray Doll and Mr. Loren Howell of the City
of Okanogan in Washington. Mr. Doll and Mr. Howell monitored the treatment system and collected
samples from the treatment and distribution systems on a regular schedule throughout the study. This
performance evaluation would not have been possible without their support and dedication.
Ms. Julia Valigore, who is currently pursuing a doctoral degree at the University of Canterbury in New
Zealand, served as the Battelle Study Lead during the planning stage of this demonstration project.
xn
-------
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 |o,g/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community and non-
transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small-community water systems (< 10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems for reducing 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, onsite demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement published in the Federal Register requested water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 of the 115 candidate sites to host the demonstration
studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided recommendations to EPA on the technologies it determined
acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical reasons,
only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information provided by the
review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking-water programs of the respective
states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites, and the community water system in the City of Okanogan, WA was one of those selected.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic-
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, EPA convened another technical panel to review
the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA; the number of proposals per site ranged from none
(for two sites) to a maximum of four. Final selection of the treatment technology at sites receiving at least
one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state regulators, and the host site. Since
then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program, reducing the number of sites to 28.
Filtronics' FH-13 system using Electromedia®! was selected for demonstration at the Okanogan facility.
As of December 2010, 39 of the 40 systems were operational and the performance evaluation of all 39
systems was completed.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Rounds 1 and 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive media
(AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13
coagulation/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, and 17 point-of-use (POU) units
(including nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and
eight AM units at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations,
technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, iron
[Fe], and pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design
for the 12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital cost is provided in two EPA reports
(Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 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 required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the Filtronics system at the City of Okanogan in Washington
from August 14, 2008 through August 14, 2009. The types of data collected include system operation,
water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and capital and
O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NY(d)
Buckeye Lake, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (ARM 200)
AM (E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70(b)
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250(e)
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,806(c)
1,312W
l,615(c)
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM (E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14W
13w
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127(c)
466W
1,387W
l,499(c)
7827W
546(c)
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
l,344(c)
1,325W
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(b)
50
37
35W
19w
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service
District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)fe)
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HDC)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69w
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HTX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) Withdrew from program in 2007. Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Amaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected from operation of Filtronics' FH-13 treatment system with
Electromedia®! media at the City of Okanogan, WA from August 14, 2008 to August 14, 2009, the
following summary and conclusions are provided relating to the overall objectives of the treatment
technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• With proper pre-chlorination and supplemental iron addition, Filtronics' FH-13
Electromedia®! system was able to remove arsenic to <10 (ig/L.
• Chlorination was effective in oxidizing As(III) to As(V), reducing As(III) concentrations
from 13.4 (ig/L (on average) in source water to 2.2 (ig/L (on average) after the contact tanks.
• At an average filtration rate of 7.0 gpm/ft2 and filter run time of 8 hr, no particulate arsenic
leakage was observed.
• Backwashing at a rate of 17.9 gal/min (gpm)/ft2 was effective at restoring the pressure filter
for subsequent service runs.
Required system O&Mand operator skill levels:
• Minimal time was required to operate and maintain the system. The daily demand on the
operator to perform routine O&M was 45 min.
• The treatment system was reliable and easy to operate.
Characteristics of residuals produced by the technology:
• Backwash solids were the only residual produced by the treatment system. Approximately
2.5 kg of backwash solids was generated during each backwash event, including 0.4% by
weight of arsenic, 3 5.3% by weight of iron, and l.l%by weight of manganese.
Capital and O&M cost of the technology:
• The capital investment for the system was $424,817, consisting of $296,430 for equipment,
$48,332 for site engineering, and $80,055 for installation, shakedown, and startup.
• The unit capital cost was $772/gpm (or $0.54 gal/day [gpd]) based on a flowrate of 550 gpm.
This calculation does not reflect the cost for the building and recycle system, which were
funded by the City of Okanogan.
• The O&M cost was 0.18/1,000 gal including incremental cost for chemicals, electricity, and
labor.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Table 3-1 summarizes the pre-demonstration and demonstration activities and completion dates.
Following the pre-demonstration activities, the performance evaluation study of the Filtronics treatment
system began on August 14, 2008, and ended on August 14, 2009. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of
data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system
performance was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the target MCL of
10 |og/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the system
was evaluated by tracking unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and
replacement. The plant operator recorded unscheduled downtime and repair information on a Repair and
Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration and Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory meeting held
Project planning meeting held
Draft letter of understanding issued
Final letter of understanding issued
Request for quotation issued to(a):
• Equipment vendor (Filtronics)
• System installer (including site engineering)
- City of Okanogan/Gray and Osborne
(G&O)
• System installer (including site engineering)
- Triad Mechanical/Water Quality
Engineering (WQE)
Letter report issued
Quotation received from:
• Filtronics
• City/G&O
• Triad Mechanical/WQE
Purchase order established:
• Filtronics
• Triad Mechanical/WQE
Engineering package submitted to WA DOH
System permit granted by WA DOH
Study plan issued
Building construction began
Building construction completed
FH-13 Electromedia®! system delivered
System installation completed
System shakedown completed
Performance evaluation began
Performance evaluation completed
Date
October 28, 2004
May 13, 2005
May 23, 2005
August 5, 2005
July 5, 2005
August 5, 2005
April 12, 2006
September 30, 2005
October 7, 2005
January 18, 2006
May 24, 2006
October 17, 2005
December 11, 2006
May 10, 2007
June 5, 2007
June 22, 2007
March 3, 2008
July 11,2008
July 14, 2008
July 24, 2008
August 14, 2008
August 14, 2008
August 14, 2009
(a) Parties performing system installation and site engineering were
sought after equipment vendor had declined to include site
engineering and system installation in its quote.
WA DOH = Washington Department of Health
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objective
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and operator
skill requirements
Residual management
System cost
Data Collection
Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic in treated water
Unscheduled system downtime
Frequency and extent of repairs, including a description of problems,
materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
Pre- and post-treatment requirements
Level of automation for system operation and data collection
Staffing requirements, including number of operators and laborers
Task analysis of preventative maintenance, including number,
frequency, and complexity of tasks
Chemical handling and inventory requirements
General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health
and safety practices
Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated
by system operation
Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
O&M cost for chemical use, electricity consumption, and labor
O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through a combination of quantitative data and
qualitative considerations, including needs for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation,
extent of preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and
inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and safety
practices. Staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log
Sheet.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
wastewater produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash wastewater was sampled and analyzed for
chemical characteristics.
The cost 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 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital cost for equipment,
engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical
supply, electricity usage, and labor.
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 the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis, the plant operators recorded system
operational data such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings (see Appendix A) on a
Daily System Operation Log Sheet; checked sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and ferric chloride (FeCl3)
levels; and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problem occurred,
the plant operators contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted
for troubleshooting. The plant operators recorded all relevant information, including the problems
encountered, course of action taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred,
on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly basis, the plant operators measured several water
quality parameters onsite, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded the data on a Weekly Onsite Water Quality
Parameters Log Sheet. Backwash data also were recorded on a Backwash Log Sheet.
-------
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the expenditure for equipment, site
engineering, and system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the expenditure for chemical use,
electricity consumption, and labor. Consumption of NaOCl and FeCl3 was tracked on the Daily System
Operation Log Sheet. Electricity consumption was determined from utility bills. Labor for various
activities such as routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, was
tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. Routine system O&M included activities such as
completing field logs, replenishing chemical solutions, ordering supplies, performing system inspections,
and others as recommended by the vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities
such as performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the
Battelle Study Lead and the vendor and system installer, was recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the treatment plant,
during filter backwash, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 shows sampling schedules and
analytes measured during each sampling event. Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the treatment
system along with the analytes and schedules for each sampling location.
Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and
holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
(Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit on October 28, 2004, one set of source water
samples was collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (Section 3.4.1). The sample tap was
flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause
unwanted oxidation. Table 3-3 lists analytes for the source water samples.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During system inspections and operator training on August 14,
2008, a Battelle staff member and the operators took the first set of treatment plant water samples at the
wellhead (IN), after the contact tanks (AC), and after filter tank (TT). The samples were speciated onsite
and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 under "monthly" treatment plant water (or speciation
sampling). Under Battelle's direction, the operators took the second set of samples from the same
locations for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 under "weekly" treatment plant water (or regular sampling).
Beginning on October 7, 2008, the plant operators used the protocols established to collect treatment plant
water samples weekly, on a four-week cycle, for onsite and offsite analyses. For the first week of each
four-week cycle, speciation sampling was performed. For the next three weeks, regular sampling was
performed. Sampling was skipped during the 2008 Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays and during the
week of February 9, 2009.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater. The operators collected monthly backwash wastewater samples
from October 2008 through July 2009. Backwash wastewater sampling was performed by directing a
portion of backwash wastewater at approximately 1 gpm via a plastic tubing connected to the tap on the
backwash wastewater discharge line into a clean, 32-gal container over the duration of filter backwash.
After the content in the container was thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected and/or filtered
onsite with 0.45-(im disc filters. Analytes for the backwash wastewater samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Water samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on its water chemistry, specifically, the arsenic,
lead, and copper levels. Prior to system startup, four monthly baseline distribution water samples were
collected from three locations within the distribution system from September 2005 to January 2006.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Locations, Schedules, and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Backwash
Wastewater
Distribution
System
Water
Backwash
Solids
Sample
Locations'3'
IN
IN, AC, TT
IN, AC, TT
BW
Two LCR
and one non-
LCR
residences
BW
No. of
Samples
1
3
o
J
1
3
1
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)
Weekly
(Regular
Sampling)
Monthly
(Speciation
Sampling)
Monthly
Monthly
Once
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Offsite: As(III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NH3,
NO2, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
TOC, TDS, turbidity, and
alkalinity
Onsite(b): pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free
and total)
Offsite: As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
SiO2, P (total), turbidity,
and alkalinity
Same as weekly analytes
shown above plus
following:
Offsite: As (soluble),
As(III), As(V),
Fe (soluble), Mn (soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, and SO4
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
pH, TDS, andTSS
Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu, and
Pb, pH, and alkalinity
Total As, Ba, Ca, Fe, Mg,
Mn, P, and Si
Collection Date(s)
10/28/04
See Appendix B
See Appendix B
See Table 4-10
See Table 4-12
04/14/09
(a) Abbreviations corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 3-1: IN = at wellhead; AC = after
contact tanks; TT = after filter tank; and BW = at backwash discharge line.
(b) Onsite chlorine measurements not performed at IN.
DO = dissolved oxygen; LCR = Lead and Copper Rule; ORP = oxidation-reduction potential; TDS = total
dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon.
Following system startup, distribution system water sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same
locations. The three locations selected for distribution water sampling included two Lead and Copper
Rule (LCR) locations (i.e., 150 Hennepin Street and 650 4th Avenue South) impacted by all wells in the
distribution system, and one residence (i.e., 341 River Avenue) impacted predominantly by Well No. 4.
Water from Well No. 4 was treated to remove arsenic under this demonstration project (Section 4.1.1).
Homeowners collected samples following an instruction sheet developed by Battelle in accordance with
-------
Monthly
^), temperature^), DO^), ORP
-------
the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). First-
draw samples were collected from cold-water faucets that had not been used for at least 6 hours to ensure
that stagnant water was sampled. The sampler recorded the date and time of last water use before
sampling, as well as the date and time of sample collection for calculation of the stagnation time. The
samples were analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not performed on the
distribution water samples.
3.3.5 Residual Solids. Residual solids produced by the treatment process consisted of only
backwash wastewater solids. After solids in the backwash wastewater containers (Section 3.3.3) had
settled and supernatant carefully decanted, residual solids samples were collected on one occasion. The
solids/water mixture was air-dried for metals analyses.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics, including arsenic speciation kits preparation, sample cooler preparation, and
sampling shipping and handling, are discussed below.
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate soluble arsenic species, i.e., As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories in accordance with the procedures
detailed in Appendix A of the QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sample Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, color-coded, waterproof label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of
sample collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative.
The sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the demonstration site, the sampling date, a two-letter
code for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The
labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed separated in a zip-lock bag (each corresponding to
a specific sample location), and packed in the cooler. When needed, the sample cooler also included
bottles for the distribution system sampling.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, pre-paid/pre-addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were placed in each
cooler. The chain-of-custody forms and air bills were complete except for the operator's signature and the
sample dates and times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the
following week's sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for offsite analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian checked sample IDs against the chain-of-custody forms and verified that all samples indicated
on the forms were included and intact. The Battelle Study Lead addressed discrepancies noted by the
sample custodian with the plant operator. The shipment and receipt of all coolers by Battelle were
recorded on a cooler tracking log.
Samples for metal analyses were stored and analyzed at Battelle's Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass
Spectrometry (ICP-MS) Laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate
coolers and picked up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH;
TCCI Laboratories in New Lexington, OH; and/or Belmont Labs in Englewood, OH, all of which were
11
-------
under contract with Battelle for this demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the
samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived
by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of
properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were followed by
Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, TCCI Laboratories, and Belmont Labs. Laboratory quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision,
accuracy, method detection limits (MDLs), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e.,
relative percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The
QA data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be
prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operators using a
handheld field meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the procedures provided
in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring the ORP of a standard
solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operators collected a water sample in a clean,
plastic beaker and placed the probe in the beaker until a stable value was obtained. The plant operators
also performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine test kits following the user's
manual.
12
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Site Description
4.1.1 Pre-existing Facility. Serving a population of 2,500 people, the water system at the City of
Okanogan is supplied by four wells, i.e., Wells No. 2, 3, 4, and 5, each having a capacity of 205, 650,
650, and 550 gpm, respectively. These wells help meet the city's daily demand of approximately
1,000,000 gal during the summer and 450,000 gal during the winter. Well No. 4 was designated for this
demonstration study.
Well No. 4 has a 12-in-diameter, 283-ft casing. A 75-horsepower (hp), 6-in submersible pump is set at
215 ft below ground surface (bgs) and can yield 650 gpm of water at 390 ft of total dynamic head (TDH).
However, water rights limit the extraction rate to 550 gpm. The well has one 10-in diameter, 60-slot
screen and one 10-in diameter, 30-slot screen, extending from 248 to 268 ft bgs and from 268 to 278 ft
bgs, respectively. The depth of the static water level is at 19 ft bgs. Figure 4-1 shows Well No. 4
wellhead located in a fenced area. A manhole located outside of the fenced area (Figure 4-2) provides
access to an underground vault where a sample tap, a water meter, and a clay valve are located. The clay
valve was inoperable, but a gate valve was used to restrict the flow to the 550-gpm extraction limit. The
well pressure increases from 115 to 160 lb/in2 (psi) as the well flowrate decreases from 650 to 550 gpm.
Approximately 120 psi is required for distribution.
Figure 4-1. Well No. 4 in a Fenced Area
13
-------
. -
Figure 4-2. Manhole for Well No. 4
Prior to installation of the arsenic removal system, well water without chlorination was pumped directly
into the distribution system and stored in three aboveground reservoirs (East [550,000 gal], North
[550,000 gal], and Highland [200,000 gal]) and two underground reservoirs (New West [200,000 gal] and
Existing West [200,000 gal]) with a combined capacity of 1,700,000 gal.
4.1.2 Distribution System. The distribution system consists of a 17-mile, mostly looped
distribution line supplied by Wells No. 2, 3, 4, and 5. The distribution system material is a combination
of 4- to 18-in cast iron (40%), asbestos concrete (35%), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (15%), and ductile iron
(10%). Service lines to individual homes are galvanized steel (75%), copper (25%), and polyethylene
(<1%) piping.
The City of Okanogan samples water periodically from the distribution system for a number of
parameters, including monthly at two residences for bacterial analysis and once every three years at 10
residences for lead and copper under EPA's LCR. Well No. 1 also is sampled quarterly for arsenic;
yearly for partial chemistry and volatile organic compounds (VOCs); once every three years for synthetic
organic compounds (SOCs); and once every nine years for metals and radionuclides.
After the arsenic removal system began operation, the City sampled once at three residences for
trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs) under EPA's Disinfection Byproducts Rule
(DBPR), as requested by WA DOH. Because of low THM and HAA results, the City was not required to
sample THMs and HAAs again.
4.1.3 Source Water Quality. Battelle collected source water samples from Well No. 4 on October
28, 2004 during the initial site visit. Table 4-1 presents the Battelle results and those provided by the
14
-------
facility to EPA for site selection and by the selected technology vendor (Filtronics). Historic raw water
data from Well No. 4, obtained from the facility, also are summarized in Table 4-1 and tabulated in
Table 4-2. In general, Battelle's data were comparable to those provided by other parties with exception
to three outliers found in the historic raw water data provided by the facility (Table 4-2).
Table 4-1. Well No. 4 Water Quality Data
Parameter
Unit
Sampling Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
W?/L
HB/L
HR/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
Mfi/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HR/L
HB/L
W?/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Facility
Data
Not
Specified
7.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
111
NA
NA
17
NA
NA
NA
NA
70
NA
60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
NA
NA
Battelle
Data
10/28/04
8.0
16.0
1.8
-47
185
286
0.2
346
<0.7
O.04
<0.01
0.05
2.0
0.4
110
24.1
O.06
18.4
18.6
<0.1
3.0
15.6
69
45
70.2
70.3
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
30.1
54.7
36.3
Filtronics
Data
07/12/05-
07/15/05
8.0-8.1
15.0
NA
NA
176
NA
NA
421
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18-19
NA
NA
NA
NA
55-78
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Historical
Facility
Data
1985-2004
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
179-243
0.1-0.5(a)
NA
NA
ND-0.15
NA
NA
NA
0.5-0.7
108-116
NA
NA
17-20(b)
NA
NA
NA
NA
50-15 l(c)
NA
49-92
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19-25
NA
NA
(a) One outlier of 2.7 NTU not included in this range.
(b) One outlier of <10 |ag/L not included in this range
(c) One outlier of 1,140 (o,g/L not included in this range.
DO = dissolved oxygen; NA = not available; NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit; ORP = oxidation-reduction
potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon
15
-------
Table 4-2. Well No. 4 Historic Water Quality Data
Parameter
Unit
Year
Conductivity
Hardness
Turbidity
Nitrate
Fluoride
Sulfate
As (total)
Fe (total)
Mn (total)
Na (total)
|j,S/cm
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
mg/L
Historical Facility Data
1985
530
240
0.1
ND
0.5
-
<10(a)
100
80
19
1988
530
240
0.4
ND
0.6
-
18
100
88
21
1992
530
222
2.7(a)
ND
0.6
-
17
l,140(a)
92
23
1994
-
-
-
ND
-
-
-
-
-
-
1995
-
223
-
ND
0.7
113
20
50
60
22
1997
533
179
0.2
ND
0.6
111
20
70
60
21
1998
-
-
-
ND
-
-
-
-
-
-
1999
-
-
-
ND
-
-
-
-
-
-
2001
539
218
0.5
ND
0.7
108
18
151
49
22
2002
-
-
-
ND
-
-
20
-
-
-
2003
-
-
-
0.15
-
-
-
-
-
-
2004
685
243
0.1
ND
0.6
116
20
ND
64
25
(a) Results not consistent with other data.
ND = not detected.
Arsenic. Historically, total arsenic concentrations ranged from 17 to 20 |o,g/L, with one exception
(<10 |og/L) occurring in 1985 (Table 4-2). Out of 18.4 |o,g/L of total arsenic measured by Battelle on
October 28, 2004, 3.0 |o,g/L existed as soluble As(III) and 15.6 |o,g/L as soluble As(V). As such, soluble
As(V) was the predominant species. (Note that soluble As [III] became the predominant species during
the 1-year performance evaluation study [Section 4.5.1.1]). Chlorine provides near-complete oxidation of
As(III) to As(V), typically in less than 30 seconds (Ghuyre and Clifford, 2001). Because NaOCl was
added to raw water and more than 2 min of contact time was provided prior to filtration, all As(III) should
be oxidized prior to filtration where it was removed along with iron solids formed.
Iron. Source water had low levels of iron (50 to 151 |o,g/L) with one exception (1,140 |o,g/L) occurring in
1992 (Table 4-2). Typically, soluble iron concentrations should be at least 20 times soluble arsenic
concentrations for effective arsenic removal via coagulation using iron salt as a coagulant. Therefore,
ferric iron had to be added to raw water to remove arsenic. Based on the arsenic and native iron data
obtained by Battelle, at least 0.3 mg/L of iron would need to be added to raw water to reach the generally
recommended ratio of 20:1 between soluble iron and soluble arsenic concentrations for satisfactory
arsenic removal.
Manganese. Manganese concentrations ranged from 49 to 92 |o,g/L, existing almost entirely in a soluble
form, based on the speciation result obtained by Battelle on October 28, 2004. Manganese concentrations
were over manganese's secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 0.050 mg/L. Removal of
manganese might be achieved via chlorination (to form manganese dioxide solids) and filtration,
depending on oxidation kinetics.
Other Water Quality Parameters. pH values of raw water ranged from 7.6 to 8.1, which were within
the commonly agreed range of 5.5 to 8.5 for iron coagulation. Therefore, no provisions were made for pH
adjustment. Concentrations of all other analytes appear to be low enough not to adversely affect arsenic
removal with iron solids and the subsequent pressure filtration process.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The treatment process involved chlorination, iron addition, adsorption/coprecipitation, and
Electromedia®! pressure filtration. The filter media is processed from naturally occurring minerals.
filter media and support gravels are approved for use in drinking water applications under NSF
The
16
-------
International (NSF) Standard 61. Information related to the physical properties of the media and support
gravels is considered proprietary and is not attainable from the vendor.
Figure 4-3 presents a plan view of the FH-13 treatment system, which consisted of two chemical addition
systems (for NaOCl and FeCl3), two contact tanks (arranged in series), one horizontal filter tank,
backwash wastewater reclaim equipment, sample taps, and associated instrumentation for pressure and
flow monitoring. Fully automated, the system featured a graphic display operator interface panel (OIP), a
programmable logic controller (PLC), and a US Robotics 56K external modem that allowed for remote
programming changes and troubleshooting. A 2-hp compressor was used to actuate pneumatic solenoid
valves, enabling backwash or service mode. The system was skid-mounted with schedule 40 steel piping,
150 Ib forged steel flanges, and 125 Ib cast iron flange fittings. Table 4-3 specifies key design parameters
of the treatment system. Figure 4-4 presents photographs of several system components.
Contact Tanks
Filter Tank
-
Source: Filtronics, 2006.
- .
Figure 4-3. Plan View of Filtronics' FH-13 Treatment System
Major process components are discussed as follows:
• Intake. Source water was pumped from Well No. 4 at approximately 550 gpm via 10-in
schedule 40 steel pipe into the treatment system. The amount of water pumped was tracked
with a totalizer installed at the wellhead. The well pump was activated and deactivated based
on level sensors in the City's water reservoirs. The well pump was shut down when the
water level in the reservoirs reached the "Stop" set level and was turned on when the water
level was reduced to the "Start" set level. Figure 4-4 includes a photo of the well pump
control box with an hour meter for tracking the system operation hours.
• Chlorination. NaOCl at 12.5% was added to raw water to oxidize As(III) to As(V) and
Fe(II) to Fe(III). The chlorine addition system consisted of a 1.3-gal/hr (gph) IWAKI
WalChem (Model EWC 15 Fl-DC) metering pump, a calibration column, a chemical supply
manifold, and three 53-gal chemical drums (Figure 4-5). The metering pump was energized
only when the well pump was on. To achieve the target chlorine dosage of 0.7 mg/L (as C12),
the operator adjusted the speed and stroke length settings of the pump. The NaOCl
consumption was tracked by measuring solution levels in the drums using a yardstick. The
measurements would be accurate only for the straight-wall portion of the drums.
• Iron Addition. A 42% FeCl3 solution was injected to raw water to enhance arsenic removal.
Similar to the chlorine addition system, the iron addition system consisted of a 1.3-gph
IWAKI WalChem metering pump, a calibration column, a chemical supply manifold, and
17
-------
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of FH-13 Treatment System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
Chlorine Addition (mg/L)
Iron Addition (mg/L)
0.7
0.9
Field determined
Field determined
Contact
No. of Tanks
Tank Size (ft)
Tank Volume (ft3/vessel)
Contact Time (min)
2
4Dx8H
100
2
Arranged in series
Fitted with semi-elliptical heads
-
Based on design flowrate of 750
gpm and both tanks combined
Filtration
No. of Tank
Tank Size (ft)
Electromedia-I® (ft3)
Support Media and Concrete (ft3)
Available Surface Area (ft2)
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Well Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
1
7 D x 9V3 L(a)
174
76
75
750
550
10
-
Fitted with semi-elliptical ends
25- to 27-in depth
25-in depth
-
Design capacity
Based on allowed extraction rate
Based on design flowrate
Backwash
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Duration (min)
Design Filter-to -Waste Flowrate (gpm)
Filter-to-Waste Duration (min)
Wastewater Production (gal/cycle)
Frequency (hr/backwash)
1,500
20
4
750
1
6,750
8
Water at 20 °C
Water at 20 °C
-
Well flowrate 550 gpm
-
-
-
(a) 9V3 ft is straight length, which does not include inner height of semi-elliptical heads.
D = diameter; L = length; H = height
two 55-gal chemical drums (Figure 4-5). The target iron dosage was 0.9 mg/L (as Fe). The
chemical dosage was controlled by the speed and stroke length settings of the pump. The
FeCl3 solution consumption was measured based on solution levels using a yardstick. The
measurements would be accurate only for the straight-wall portion of the drums.
Adsorption/Coprecipitation. Two 4-ft-diameter x 8-ft-high carbon steel contact tanks fitted
with semi-elliptical heads were used to enhance formation of iron floes prior to pressure
filtration. Arranged in series, the skid-mounted tanks provided a total of 2 min of contact
time at the design flowrate of 750 gpm. Each tank had two 10-in connections, one 4-in drain,
and one 12-in x!6-in access handhole (Figure 4-4).
Pressure Filtration. Removal of arsenic-laden floes was achieved via downflow filtration of
the effluent from the contact tanks. The horizontal filter tank was 7-ft in diameter and 9.3-ft
long, fitted with semi-elliptical ends and upper and lower manifold assemblies. The filter
tank also had two 10-in connections, one 4-in drain, one 12-in x 16-in access handhole, and
one 20-in access manway (Figure 4-4). Constructed of carbon steel, the floor-mounted tank
was rated for a working pressure of 150 psi.
In the filter tank, 25 to 27 in (or 174 ft3) of Electromedia®! media was loaded on top of three
layers of support gravels (i.e., T208, S202, and S200), each having a different nominal
18
-------
Figure 4-4. Treatment System Components
(from left to right and top to bottom: Contact Tanks; Filtration Vessel; Sample Tap;
Backwash and Effluent Flow meters; PLC Control Panel;
Filtration Media; Well Pump Controller and Hour Meter)
19
-------
Figure 4-5. Chlorine and Iron Addition Systems
(Clockwise from top left: NaOCl Addition System; Iron Addition System;
NaOCl and Iron Injection Points)
particle size. The support gravels (33 ft3 total) were placed, in turn, on top of a concrete
layer, which was poured at the bottom of the filter tank with its top surface laid just below the
bottom laterals. The total depth of the concrete and support gravel layers was approximately
25 in. Additional layers of light purple gravel and anthracite were then placed on top of
Electromedia®! media, leaving approximately 16 to 20 in of freeboard for filter backwashing.
Installation of the multiple filtration and support layers allowed a filtration surface area of
approximately 75 ft2, which would yield a hydraulic loading rate of 10 gpm/ft2 at the design
flowrate of 750 gpm. Actual flowrates and throughput values through the filter tank were
monitored using a propeller flow meter/totalizer, as shown in Figure 4-4.
Backwash. Backwashing removes particulates accumulating in the filter bed, thereby
reducing pressure buildup. The filter was automatically backwashed by one of two triggers:
(1) shutdown of the treatment system when water level in the City's reservoirs reached the
"Stop" set level, and (2) preset run time, typically 8 hr (with a 10-psi differential pressure
override). There was a time delay before the system went into a backwash cycle. This was
incorporated to allow for the flow to stop from the well pump before closing filtered water
20
-------
outlet valves. The chemical feed systems were automatically shut down during backwash.
Each backwash cycle involved backwashing the filter at 1,500 gpm (or 20 gpm/ft2) for 4 min
using treated water from the distribution system and rinsing the filter at 550 gpm for 1 min
using the effluent from the contact tanks. Backwash flowrate was monitored using a
propeller flow meter/totalizer (Filtronics 10-in tube meter), as shown in Figure 4-4.
• Backwash Reclaim System. Backwash wastewater was stored in a 22,500-gal reclaim tank
provided by the facility (Figure 4-6). The reclaim tank was equipped with high/low float
switches interlocked with the PLC, a floating suction strainer (to prevent uptake of solids), a
10-hp reclaim pump, and 2-in recycle loop piping. The lower float switch was for stopping
the reclaim pump. Whenever the filter was in the filtration mode and the water level in the
reclaim tank was over that of the lower float, the reclaim pump would be activated until the
water level hit the lower float. The upper float switch was for the reclaim high level alarm.
When the water level was above that of this switch during filtration, the reclaim level light
would flash. If the water level in the reclaim tank was above the alarm level when the filter
was calling for backwash, the drain valve under the reclaim tank would open until the level in
the reclaim tank dropped below the alarm level. The filter would then begin backwash.
The reclaim pump recycled supernatant from the reclaim tank through the recycle loop piping
to the head of the treatment train (downstream of chemical addition points), where the
supernatant was blended with raw water at a rate of approximately 7 gpm controlled by a
fixed rate orifice flow control valve. For every four backwashes, solids accumulating at the
bottom of the reclaim tank were disposed of from the 5% sloped-bottom reclaim tank through
a drain to a sewer (Figure 4-6).
Figure 4-6. Reclaim System Components
(From left to right and top to bottom: Reclaim Tank; Reclaim pump;
Float Switches in Reclaim Tank; Floating Suction Strainer; Reclaim Tank Drainage)
21
-------
4.3 Treatment System Installation
At most arsenic removal technology demonstration sites, equipment vendors served as sole subcontractors
to Battelle to provide treatment systems and associated engineering and installation services. This
turnkey approach was adopted by Battelle to expedite the procurement process and minimize potential
disputes among multiple contractors working on the same projects. Filtronics, however, did not provide
such services for its treatment system. Gray and Osborne (G&O), the engineering firm responsible for the
building design and construction for the City, was initially interested in taking on such responsibilities.
However, due to unfamiliarity with Filtronics' system and difficulties of separating the scope of work
between the City and Battelle, G&O produced a cost estimate far exceeding the budget. Filtronics was
contacted for a list of installers that were familiar with its systems; Triad Mechanical (Triad) was one of
the firms identified and contacted. Triad, teaming with Water Quality Engineering (WQE), submitted a
cost proposal for engineering and installation services, which was accepted by Battelle. The process of
identifying a firm capable of providing engineering and installation services spanned from May 13, 2005,
when the initial project planning meeting was held (see Table 3-1) to April 12, 2006, when a request for
quotation (RFQ) was issued to Triad, causing repeated delays to the demonstration study.
Upon issuance of a purchase order, Triad/WQE worked with Battelle, Filtronics, and the City/G&O for
system permitting, installation, startup, and shakedown. Significant efforts were made by Battelle to
coordinate work among all parties involved. To ensure that all project scopes were covered and all
project activities were completed in a timely manner, a responsibility matrix was developed by Battelle
and is presented in Appendix C.
4.3.1 System Permitting. The system engineering package was prepared by Triad and WQE with
input from G&O, and included the following documents and drawings:
• A system design report
• A general arrangement and piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID)
• Electrical and mechanical drawings and component specifications
• Building construction drawings detailing connections from the system to the inlet piping and
the City's water and sanitary sewer systems.
The engineering package was submitted to WA DOH for review and approval on May 10, 2007. After
WA DOH's review comments were addressed, the package was resubmitted, along with a permit
application, on May 23, 2007. A water supply construction permit was issued by WA DOH on June 5,
2007, and fabrication of the system began thereafter.
4.3.2 Building Construction. A permit for building construction was issued by the City of
Okanogan in August 2007. The City opened bids for building construction in August 2007. Due to lack
of responses from qualified contractors and due to high bid prices (at least twice the amount of the
community development block [CDB] grant the City received) from the two initial bidders, the City
rejected the initial bids and reopened the bids in October 2007. Two bids were received, with the lowest
bid still $180K higher than the CDB grant. Upon receipt of additional CDB funds, the City applied for
and obtained, the City awarded the contract to the lowest bidder, Rains Contracting, Inc. on December 4,
2007. The building construction began on March 3, 2008, and was completed on July 11, 2008. Figure
4-7 shows photographs of the treatment building and reclaim tank under construction. Figure 4-8
presents a photograph of the treatment system building and reclaim tank.
22
-------
Figure 4-7. New Building and Reclaim Tank Under Construction
Figure 4-8. New Building and Reclaim Tank
23
-------
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown. The FH-13 Electromedia®! treatment
system was delivered to the site on July 14, 2008. Triad performed offloading (Figure 4-9) and began
installation of the system, including connections to the entry and distribution piping and electrical
interlocking. System installation and hydraulic testing were completed on July 24, 2008.
Figure 4-9. Equipment Delivery and Unloading
Filtration and support media were loaded into the filter tank following Filtronics' instructions. A layer of
concrete was poured at the bottom of the filter tank with its top surface laid 2-in below bottom laterals.
On top of the concrete layer were three layers of support gravels (6, 3, 12 in of S200, S202, and T208,
respectively), each having a different nominal particle size. The concrete and support layers had a total
depth of approximately 25 in. The Electromedia®! media was loaded on top of the support gravels with a
depth of 25 to 27 in. A layer of light purple gravel plus a layer of carbon anthracite covered the top of the
filtration media bed to prevent media loss during backwash. Figure 4-10 shows the cross section of the
horizontal filter tank with layers of filtration and support media in the tank.
24
-------
Figure 4-10. Schematic Illustration of Filtration and Supporting Media
Layers in Filtration Tank
A water sample was collected and passed bacteriological tests and startup and shakedown activities were
completed on August 14, 2008. Startup and shakedown activities included PLC testing, instrument
calibration, chlorine disinfection and residual testing, and operator training on system O&M. Startup
activities included steps to "break in" the filter according to the schedule shown in Table 4-4. Battelle
performed system inspections and operator training on sample and data collection on August 14, 2008.
The 1-year demonstration study started on August 14, 2008.
Table 4-4. Filter Break-in Schedule
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Maximum
Filter Run
Time
(hr)
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Minimum
Number
of
Backwashes
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
1
Total
Minimum
Filter Run
Time
(hr)
8
8
9
8
10
12
14
8
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Service Operation. Operational parameters of the treatment system are tabulated and
attached as Appendix A with key parameters summarized in Table 4-5. The performance evaluation
study began on August 14, 2008, and ended on August 14, 2009. The treatment system operated for a
total of 4,358 hr based on the hour meter of the well pump. Because the operation data log was not filled
25
-------
out during weekends and because the daily log was not necessarily recorded at the same time each day
during weekdays, recorded incremental operating times were normalized to obtain daily operating times
(by dividing the incremental hours by the number of days since last recording times). As shown in
Table 4-5. Treatment System Operational Parameters
Parameter
Operating Period
Value
08/14/08-08/14/09
Pretreatment Operation
NaOCl Dosage (mg/L [as Cl2l)(a)
FeCl3 Dosage (mg/L [as Fe])
0.7 [0.2-1.5]
0.9 [0.2-1.4]
Service Operation
Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time(b) (hr)
Throughput^ (gal)
Average Daily Demand(b'c) (gal)
Instantaneous Flowrate(d) (gpm)
Calculated Flowrate(e) (gpm)
Contact Time in Contact Tanks(t) (min)
Hydraulic Loading over Pressure Filter® (gpm/ft2)
Ap Across filter tank(g) (psi)
4,358
13.6
139,435,000
414,000
527 [460-590]
538 [351-738]
2.8 [2.5-3.3]
7.0 [6. 1-7.9]
0.8[0-4]
Backwash Operation
Average Frequency*' (backwash/day)
Number of Backwash Cycles(h)
Flowrate(l) (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Duration (min)
Backwash Volume (gal/cycle)
Filter-to-Waste Volume (gal/cycle)
Wastewater Produced (gal/cycle)
2.3
759
1,344 [1,000-1,750]
17.9 [13.3-23.3]
4 [4-5]
5,400 [4,000-7,000]
750
6,150 [4,750-7,750]
Note: Data presented included average and [range].
(a) Based on dosage data collected after November 20, 2008, when proper
chlorine dosage was established.
(b) Data before October 2, 2008, when system was not operating constantly
(Section 4.4.2), were not included in calculation.
(c) Based on totalizer readings at system outlet.
(d) Based on flow meter readings at system outlet.
(e) Calculated flowrates based on incremental throughput and incremental
operating time.
(f) Based on instantaneous flowrate readings.
(g) Two outliers (i.e., 10 and 13 psi on 12/24/08 and 12/29/08, respectively)
omitted.
(h) Estimated based on backwash totalizer and averaged volume of wastewater
generated per backwash.
(i) Based on monthly data recorded on the Backwash Log Sheets.
Figure 4-11, normalized daily operating times fluctuated significantly from 2.5 to 23.8 hr and averaged
13.6 hr (not including two outliers on August 15 and 18, 2008). Seasonal variations were observed with
relatively longer operating times during summer months (averaged 17.3 hr from May through August)
and relatively shorter operating times during winter months (averaged 10.2 hr from December through
March).
26
-------
Figure 4-11. Treatment System Normalized Daily Operating Times
Total system throughput was approximately 138,151,000 gal based on flow totalizer readings at the
wellhead and was 139,435,000 gal based on flow totalizer readings measured at the system outlet. The
throughput values as measured by propeller flow meter/totalizer at the system outlet matched closely with
those by electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer (Siemens, SITRANS M MAGFLO MAG 5000) at the
wellhead, with only 0.9% difference observed through the 1-year study period. Average daily demand of
414,000 gpd was calculated by dividing the total throughput from October 2, 2008, through August 14,
2009, by the number of operating days during the period. The calculation did not include the data
collected before October 2, 2008, because the treatment system did not operate constantly due to
shakedown and chlorine dosage tests (Section 4.4.2). The average daily demand increased to 520,000
gpd during summer months (from May through August) and decreased to 332,000 gpd during winter
months (from December to March).
System flowrates were tracked by two flow meters/totalizers located at the wellhead and system outlet.
Flowrates also were calculated based on readings of the two flow meters/totalizers located at the wellhead
and system outlet and corresponding hour meter readings. As shown in Figure 4-12, instantaneous
flowrate readings and calculated flowrate values matched closely at both the wellhead and system outlet,
with relative error within 2% on average. Instantaneous flowrate readings at the system outlet ranged
from 460 to 590 gpm and averaged 527 gpm, compared to the average value of 550 gpm expected at the
site (see Table 4-3). The 527 gpm flowrate corresponded to a contact time of 2.8 min in the two contact
tanks (compared to the design value of 2.0 min) and a filtration rate of 7.0 gpm/ft2 over the pressure filter
(compare to the design value of 10 gpm/ft2) (Table 4-3).
27
-------
700
600
500 - " A ^ , "^ S"~
Q_
S 400
0)
•a
^ 300
200
100
Instantaneous Flowrate at Wellhead .1 Averaged Flowrate at Wellhead
MnstanteneousFlowrateatSystemEffluent ll^5I?9^L!i22^£!^£L?yf!5
Figure 4-12. Treatment System Flowrates
Differential pressure (Ap) readings across the pressure filter typically ranged from 0 to 4 psi and averaged
0.8 psi (Figure 4-13). As shown in the figure, a few spikes were measured during December 17, 2008,
through January 6, 2009, due to malfunctioning of a 10-in control valve on the backwash line (Section
4.4.3.1). These spikes were excluded from Ap calculations in Table 4-5. Figure 4-14 compared Ap
readings before and after backwash as recorded on the Backwash Log Sheet (Appendix D). Ap across the
filter was typically 1 to 2 psi right before a backwash and was reduced to 0 psi right after a backwash
except for a few occasions. This indicates that backwashing was generally effective under the conditions
specified in Table 4-5.
4.4.2 Chlorine and Iron Additions. Chemical pretreatments include chlorine and iron additions.
During the first three months of system operation, several operational issues/problems related to the
chlorine addition system arose and are summarized in Table 4-6.
At the beginning of the performance evaluation study, the chlorine addition system operated at a Battelle
recommended residual level of 0.5 mg/L (as C12) in system effluent. On September 8, 2008, Filtronics
asked the operator to shut down the treatment plant, claiming that the Electromedia®! might be damaged
due to the low chlorine residual (0.5 mg/L [as C12]). Filtronics stated that the free chlorine residual level
following the filter tank must be 10% above chlorine breakpoint or 0.5 mg/L, whichever was greater.
Filtronics suggested a set of chlorine dosage tests to determine the optimal dosage.
28
-------
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
?V\]MISi P
/ i ''!/ / '/
iri CO rai A C3
;'
,'
i
I
J
I
!
!
\
r
^
i
/
J
Backwashwas not conducted automatically, due to
the malfuntion of the 10" control valve on the
/
09 ^p Of ^ ap y^y^ 9
-------
Table 4-6. Issues/Problems Encountered Related to Chlorine Addition System
Date
09/08/08 to
10/02/08
08/14/08 to
10/23/08
Late
October to
11/20/08
Issue/Problem Encountered
Filtronics asked to shut down treatment system
on 09/08/08, because it believed that the target
chlorine residual level of 0.5 mg/L (as C12) in
system effluent was lower than what would be
required by the system.
Airlock observed in chlorine feed line, causing
unstable and fluctuating chlorine feed rates
City received complaints about red water and
chlorine odor in water
Corrective Action
Under instructions of Filtronics, a
series of chlorine dosage tests were
conducted by operator to determine
"optimal chlorine dosage." Based
on test results, a target chlorine feed
rate of 0.7 gph was recommended by
Filtronics. Treatment system was
put back to service with this feed
rate on 10/02/08
On 10/23/08, leaks in chlorine feed
system's manifold identified and
repaired
A conference call was held on
1 1/20/08 with city, G&O, EPA, and
Battelle; consensus was reached to
restore target chlorine residual level
to 0.5 mg/L (as C12) in system
effluent
With the assistance of the plant operator, a Filtronics technician was onsite to perform the chlorine dosage
tests in September 2008. During the tests, the NaOCl feed rate was gradually increased from 0.1 to 0.9
gph at a 0.1 gph increment, and total and free chlorine residuals in system effluent were measured.
Actual feed rates during each test also were measured both at the beginning and end of the test. The
average chlorine dose added to the influent water at each feed rate was calculated based on the actual
system flowrate and average of actual feed rates and plotted in Figure 4-15. These calculations assumed a
constant stock chlorine concentration of 12.5% (as C12).
Comparison between calculated chlorine doses at AC and total and chlorine residuals in system effluent
during each test indicated some chlorine demand across the pressure filter. For example, 0.53 mg/L of
chlorine (as C12) was consumed at a 0.2-gph feed rate (or -1.0 mg/L [as C12]), leaving 0.47 mg/L (as C12)
of total chlorine in system effluent. At 0.7 gph (or ~2.7 mg/L [as C12]), 1.2 mg/L (as C12) was consumed
and 1.5 mg/L (as C12) was measured in system effluent. The chlorine demand across the pressure filter
continued to increase to 2.0 mg/L (as C12) at a 0.9-gph feed rate (or -4.5 mg/L [as C12]), leaving 2.5 mg/L
(as C12) of total chlorine in system effluent.
Based on the dosage tests, Filtronics determined the chlorine feed rate to be 0.7 gph (or ~2.7 mg/L [as
C12]). The treatment system was put back in operation on October 2, 2008. As shown in Figure 4-16, at
the target feed rate of 0.7gph, the total chlorine residual measured in system effluent was 1.53 mg/L (as
C12). Since system re-startup on October 2 through the end of October, total chlorine residuals measured
in the plant effluent ranged from 1.2 to 2.0 mg/L (as C12) (see discussion in Section 4.5.1.5). These high
chlorine residuals led to a number of consumer complaints, as discussed below.
Since system startup on August 14 through October 23, 2008, airlocks observed in the chlorine feed
system caused unstable and fluctuating chlorine feed rates. The airlock problem was resolved on October
23, 2008, when leaks in the feed system manifold were identified and repaired. A stable chlorine feed
rate was established since repair of the leak.
30
-------
o
O
0
O
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Calculated chlorine dose based on actual feed rate
A
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
NaOCI Target Feed Rate (gph)
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
o Free CI2 (09/1 7/08)
x Free CI2 (09/26/08)
• Total CI2 (09/25/08)
^
Residual Chlorine in System Effluent
A Free CI2 (09/19/08) o Free CI2 (09/23/08)
» Total CI2 (09/1 7/08) A Total CI2 (09/1 9/08)
X Total CI2 (09/26/08)
n Free CI2 (09/25/09)
• Total CI2 (09/23/08)
J
Figure 4-15. Chlorine Dosage Test Results
In late October, the city received complaints about red water and chlorine smell in consumers' tap water.
A local newspaper reported the incident on October 29, 2008. Total chlorine residuals measured in plant
effluent ranged from 1.2 to 2.7 mg/L (as C12) during the period between October 23 (after the airlock
problem was resolved) to November 20, 2008. In response, a teleconference was held on November 20,
2008, with the city, G&O, EPA, and Battelle to discuss the issue. A consensus was reached to reduce the
chlorine feed rate so that residual levels in plant effluent could be maintained at approximately 0.5 mg/L
(as C12). Upon implementation of this decision, customer complaints discontinued and total chlorine
residual levels measured throughout the rest of the study period were from 0.3 to 0.6 mg/L (as C12) and
averaged 0.5 mg/L (as C12). With these residual levels, arsenic concentrations in system effluent were
maintained at levels below 10 (ig/L (except for one occasion on December 3, 2008, when the chlorine
pump was not functioning properly as discussed in Section 4.5.1.1).
Figure 4-16 presents chlorine doses, as calculated based on incremental NaOCI consumption (as
measured by changes in solution level in the chemical barrel) and corresponding incremental throughput
(according to the system effluent totalizer). Between October 2, 2008 (when the system was put back in
service with an intended feed rate of 0.7 gph), and October 23, 2008, measured chlorine doses fluctuated
significantly due to leaks in the chlorine system's manifold as discussed above. After the manifold was
repaired on October 23, 2008, the chlorine feed rate was restored presumably to the target level of 0.7
gph. Total chlorine residuals measured during October 23, 2008, through November 20, 2008 (when the
feed rate was reduced to allow for a target total chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L [as C12] in plant effluent)
ranged from 1.2 to 2.7 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 2.1 mg/L (as C12). After November 20, 2008,
measured chlorine doses were reduced significantly to levels ranging from 0.2 to 1.5 mg/L (as C12) and
averaging 0.7 mg/L, which was very close to the target level of 0.5 mg/L (as C12).
31
-------
0
I3 -1 fi
0)
« 1 4
Q
1.2
ro
^ 1
n -
Fluctuating j High c
residual "- — S i-p«sirln
levels due
to leaks in
system's
manifold
.
~
*
•
> k? measL
perioc
-
A
comp
red WE
.
ilorine
a levels
red during
with
fief's
aints about
ter and
e odor
j
-
ff
I-M
1 f
1
t
Lfl
-
1
fl!
1
t |
'tit I ^t- rf • 31 ttt1
JJr life MffifSffi *f
* i i
j
Figure 4-16. Chlorine Doses over Demonstration Study Period
With the amounts of reducing species (such as As[III], Fe[II], and Mn[II]) and ammonia in raw water (see
Section 4.5.1), 0.12 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) would be needed to oxidize As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II) to
form As(V), Fe(III), and Mn(IV), and 0.57 mg/L of chlorine (as C12) needed to react with 0.075 mg/L of
ammonia (as N) to reach breakpoint chlorination. Therefore, with 0.7 mg/L of chlorine added, 0.01 mg/L
(as C12) of free chlorine would be produced in system effluent (Section 4.5.1.5).
Iron was added to source water as a coagulant to remove soluble arsenic through adsorption and/or
coprecipitation with iron solids. Figure 4-17 presents calculated FeCl3 doses (mg/L [as Fe]) and iron
concentrations (mg/L [as Fe]) measured after the contact tanks (at AC) over the entire study period.
Similar to chlorine doses, iron doses were calculated based on incremental FeCl3 consumption (by
changes in solution level in the chemical barrel) and the corresponding throughput (according to the
system effluent totalizer). Note that Figure 4-17 does not include an outlier of 7.2 mg/L of total iron
measured at AC on November 4, 2008, when backwash solids appeared to have been reintroduced from
the reclaim tank (Section 4.5.1).
During the entire study period, calculated iron doses ranged from 0.21 to 4.4 mg/L (as Fe) and averaged
0.9 mg/L (as Fe), which was consistent with the iron concentrations in samples taken following the
contact tanks (i.e. ranged from 0.16 to 1.3 mg/L [as Fe] and averaged at 0.9 mg/L [as Fe]).
4.4.3 Backwash Operation. The system PLC was set to initiate a backwash based on one of two
potential triggers: (1) preset filter run time of 8 hr and (2) automatic shutdown of the treatment system
when water level in the city's reservoirs reached the "Stop" set level. Each backwash lasted for 4 min at
an average flowrate of 1,344 gpm (Table 4-5 and Appendix D). The filter then underwent a 1-min filter-
32
-------
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Q 2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
4J& .to* .to* _\(#> _\Q* 0«P .\QJ* jj& 0«P „«"» .\<^ .«j» .«"*
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
-Measured After Contact Tanks (AC) -i Injected Dosage
Figure 4-17. Calculated Iron Doses vs. Measured Iron Concentrations
to-waste rinse at up to 550 gpm before returning to filtration service. Estimated based on readings of the
backwash wastewater totalizer and average backwash wastewater production, the filter was backwashed
759 times during the performance evaluation study from August 14, 2008, through August 14, 2009. The
average backwash frequency was 2.3 times per day. Considering the average daily operation time of 13.6
hr and the preset filter run time of 8 hr, backwash was triggered at least once a day by the preset filter run
time. The backwash frequency was higher during the summer (i.e., 3.1 times per day from May to
August) and lower during the winter (i.e., 1.5 times per day from December to March), which was
consistent with the longer daily operation times in the summer and shorter operation time in the winter.
Filter run times between backwash events were either 8 hr, or any time between 0 to 8 hr depending on
the trigger of a backwash.
4.4.3.1 Other Problems Related to Backwash System. Two backwash related problems were
encountered during the 1-year demonstration study. Starting on December 17, 2008, Ap across the filter
surged several times from the typical range of 0 to 2 psi to as high as 13 psi. It was found that backwash
was not conducted automatically due to malfunctioning of a 10-in control valve on the backwash line.
Differential pressure readings across the filter went back to the normal range after the control valve was
taken offline and cleaned on January 14, 2009. On February 6, 2009, the automatic drain valve of the
reclaim tank was not functioning automatically. The drain valve was repaired on February 20, 2009.
4.4.4 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the treatment system
consisted of only backwash solids, which accumulated at the bottom of the reclaim tank. The reclaim
tank drain valve was set to open every four backwashes to discharge approximately 12 in of sludge to the
33
-------
sewer (Figure 4-7). Approximately 1,670 kg of backwash solids was produced during the performance
evaluation study based on 759 backwash events (Table 4-5) and 2.5 kg of backwash solids produced per
backwash event (Section 4.5.2).
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. The system experienced a number of
downtimes during the initial 7-week of system operation (for chlorine dosage tests as discussed in Section
4.4.2) and a 7-day downtime in February 2009 (for operators to attend a training class). Since then, there
was no additional downtime. No major operational problems were encountered during the 1-year
demonstration study, except for a few minor issues such as leaks in the chlorine feed system manifold
(Section 4.4.2), malfunctioning of a 10-in backwash control valve (Section 4.4.3.1), and malfunctioning
of a reclaim tank drain valve (Section 4.4.3.1). 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, preventative maintenance activities, and frequency of
chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
4.4.5.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pre-treatment consisted of chemical additions to
improve arsenic removal. A 12.5% NaOCl solution was added upstream of the contact tanks to oxidize
As(III) and Fe(II), and provide chlorine residuals to the distribution system. In addition to measuring
solution levels in the NaOCl drums, the operator monitored chlorine concentrations to ensure that
residuals existed throughout the treatment train. A 42% FeCl3 solution was added downstream of the
chlorine addition point, but upstream of the contact tanks. Solution levels in the FeCl3 drums were
tracked daily. No post-treatment was required.
4.4.5.2 System Automation. The treatment system was automatically controlled by the PLC in the
central control panel. The control panel also contained a modem and a touch screen OIP to facilitate
setting and monitoring of system parameters, such as filter run time, filter backwash time, filter rinse
time, backwash wastewater reclaim time, etc. All major functions of the treatment system were
automated and required only minimal operator oversight and intervention if all functions were operating
as intended. Automated processes included system startup and shutdown, filter backwash and rinse, and
chemical addition system on/off. The touch screen OIP also enabled the operator to manually initiate a
backwash sequence.
4.4.5.3 Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the daily demand on the
operator was about 45 min for visual inspection of the system and recording of operational parameters
such as pressure, volume, flowrate, and chemical usage on field log sheets. After receiving proper
training during system startup, the operators understood the PLC, knew how to use the touch screen OIP,
and were able to work with the equipment vendor to troubleshoot problems and perform minor onsite
repairs.
Based on population served and the treatment technology, the State of Washington required Basic
Treatment Operator certification for operating the Filtronics treatment system at the City of Okanogan
facility. The State of Washington has five levels of certification for operation of water treatment systems
based on population served by the plant, water supply source, and complication of the treatment system
(including chemical treatment/addition process, coagulation process, filtration process,
clarification/sedimentation process, and residuals disposal, etc.). The certification levels range from
Basic Treatment Operator (BTO) for small and simple treatment systems to Water Treatment Plant
Operator Levels 1 to 4 for larger and more complicate treatment systems.
4.4.5.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities. Daily preventative maintenance activities included
recording pressure and flowrate readings and chemical drum levels and visually checking for leaks,
overheating components, and any unusual conditions. To maintain the integrity of the treatment system,
34
-------
the vendor recommended several routine maintenance activities, including checking the oil level in the
valve oiler on the filter control panel weekly, checking the temperature of backwash water monthly, and
adjusting monthly backwash flowrate according to the "Backwash Rate Versus Temperature Chart". The
vendor also recommended checking the filter differential pressure weekly right after a backwash to ensure
that the Ap was the same as that recorded at system startup.
4.4.5.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements. Chlorine and iron additions were
required for effective arsenic removal. The operators tracked usage of the chemical solutions daily (by
solution levels), coordinated supplies, and started anew chemical drum as needed. A 12.5%NaOCl
solution supplied in 53-gal drums and a 42% FeCl3 solution supplied in 55-gal drums by Oxarc, Inc. were
injected without dilution. Speed and stroke length settings of the chemical feed pumps were adjusted, as
needed, to acquire the target chlorine residuals as measured regularly with a Hach pocket colorimeter and
iron concentrations after the contact tanks.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the Filtronics FH-13 Electromedia®! arsenic removal system was evaluated based on
analyses of water samples collected from the treatment plant and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 47 occasions (including
four duplicate events) during the 1-year performance evaluation period. Field speciation also was
performed for 12 of the 47 occasions. Table 4-7 summarizes the analytical results for arsenic, iron, and
manganese. Table 4-8 summarizes the results of the other water quality parameters. One outlier with
uncharacteristically high arsenic, iron, manganese, and phosphorus concentrations at the AC sampling
location on November 4, 2008, was not included in statistical calculations shown in Tables 4-7 and 4-8.
These elevated concentrations probably were caused by reintroduction of backwash solids from the
reclaim tank. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results. The results of the water samples
collected across the treatment train are discussed below.
4.5.1.1 Arsenic. Figure 4-18 shows total arsenic concentrations measured across the treatment train
and Figure 4-19 presents the results of the 12 speciation events. Total arsenic concentrations in source
water ranged from 14.7 to 22.7(ig/L and averaged 17.9 (ig/L with soluble As(III) existing as the
predominant species at 13.4 (ig/L (on average). Low concentrations of particulate arsenic and soluble
As(V) also were present in source water, with concentrations averaging 0.8 and 4.7 (ig/L, respectively.
As shown in Figure 4-19, soluble As(III) was the predominant species in source water during all but two
speciation events on November 4, 2008, and February 3, 2009. These results were in contrary to that
obtained during the initial site visit on October 28, 2004, when As(V) was predominant (Table 4-1). The
reason for the difference observed is unclear. As shown in Table 4-9, for the three sampling events with
higher soluble As(V) concentrations, only the sampling event on February 3, 2009, had a higher-than-
average DO level that might contribute to the high As(V) concentration measured. ORP values for the
three events were either similar to or significantly lower than the average ORP level, which could not
contribute to high soluble As(V) concentration. Except for As(III), As(V), and ORP, all other water
quality data measured during the 1-year performance evaluation study were consistent with those
collected on October 28, 2004.
Following prechlorination and the contact tanks, total arsenic concentrations remained essentially
unchanged at 17.8 (ig/L (on average). However, arsenic existed primarily as particulate arsenic (8.7 (ig/L
[on average]) and soluble As(V) (8.1 (ig/L [on average]). Note that the average total and particulate
arsenic concentrations at the AC location do not include one outlier on November 4, 2008, when the
concentrations spiked to over 100 (ig/L for total arsenic and 91.5 (ig/L for particulate arsenic. Particulate
35
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
tig/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Number
of
Samples
47
46(a)
45(b)
12
12
12
12
ll(a)
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
47
46(a)
45(b)
12
12
12
47
46(a)
45(b)
12
12
12
Concentration
Minimum
14.7
14.5
2.9
14.9
6.4
5.0
<0.1
2.7
<0.1
3.7
0.2
0.3
<0.1
1.6
4.6
<25
163
<25
<25
<25
<25
44.1
46.4
0.4
43.4
18.3
0.2
Maximum
22.7
23
14.9
21.2
17.1
14.6
2.9
12.0
1.1
19.8
13.9
8.9
14.7
16.7
8.2
230
1,345
107
89
37
26
77.0
76
51.9
74.1
77.0
43.3
Average
17.9
17.8
6.2
18.0
10.2
6.9
0.8
8.7
0.3
13.4
2.2
1.2
4.7
8.1
5.7
78
902
20.5
49
<25
14
62.5
63.9
21.0
61.4
43.2
16.3
Standard
Deviation
1.6
1.7
1.7
2.0
3.7
2.6
0.9
3.2
0.3
4.5
4.2
2.5
4.1
3.4
1.0
31.4
188
19.9
26.6
9.4
4.0
5.6
5.8
11.5
9.4
16.8
12.5
(a) One outlier on November 4, 2008 (i.
total Fe, and total Mn; respectively)
(b) Two outliers on November 13, 2008
e., 100, 91.5, 7247, and 369 ug/L of total As, paniculate As,
omitted.
(duplicate samples) omitted.
iron and participate manganese concentrations also spiked to 7,213 and 347 |og/L, suggesting
reintroduction of backwash solids from the reclaim tank.
Of the soluble fraction at the AC location, As(III) was less than 0.9 (ig/L (except for one data point at 7.2
(ig/L on August 14, 2008, and one data point at 13.9 (ig/L on December 3, 2008 ), indicating effective
oxidation of As(III) by chlorine. The reason for the high As(III) concentrations on August 14 and
December 3, 2008, was insufficient chlorine addition. Total chlorine concentration measured at AC on
August 14, 2008 (the system startup day) was 0 mg/L, indicating that the chlorine addition system was
not operating properly. On December 3, 2008, the suction tube valve of the chlorine pump was not
functioning correctly, causing low total and free chlorine concentrations (0.3 and 0.02 mg/L [as C12],
respectively) measured in the system effluent. As much as 8.1 (ig/L of As(V) was measured following
the contact tanks, suggesting the need for further increasing iron dose rates.
36
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
AC
TT
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Number
of
Samples
47
47
47
1
1
1
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
46
45(a)
46
47
47
47
47
47
47
41
41
41
35
36
36
42
42
42
38
37
39
37
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Concentration
Minimum
175
171
171
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
119
119
119
O.05
O.05
O.05
31.3
33.9
<10
23.1
23.0
22.5
0.13
0.14
0.1
7.4
7.5
7.6
1.0
1.3
1.0
361
371
358
0.18
0.14
0.0
0.3
227
227
223
110
116
56.9
113
104
101
Maximum
196
196
192
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
131
130
130
<0.05
0.3
<0.05
94.8
104
72.0
29.4
32.2
28.7
1.8
16.0
2.6
7.8
7.9
9.5
4.2
5.6
6.1
486
650
666
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.0
356
358
345
185
196
201
241
240
234
Average
183
181
181
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
125
123
124
O.05
0.05
O.05
50.8
49.5
15.0
25.9
26.0
25.6
0.5
1.4
0.6
7.6
7.7
7.8
2.7
3.3
2.7
458
512
521
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.6
269
272
271
137
141
134
133
131
137
Standard
Deviation
5.4
5.2
5.3
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.6
3.0
3.4
-
0.1
-
9.7
10.3
13.6
1.3
1.7
1.3
0.4
2.3
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.9
0.9
1.0
23.3
57.9
61.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
37.0
38.2
36.0
20.1
20.9
32.8
34.8
35.6
41.0
(a) One outlier (i.e., 362 ng/L on 11/04/08) omitted.
37
-------
110
100 -
90 -
80 -
g> 70 -
o 50
S 40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
oRf
X <
.r®
-At Inlet (IN)
-After Contact Tanks (AC)
-After Filter Tank (TT)
Figure 4-18. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train
Total arsenic concentrations after the pressure filter ranged from 2.9 to 14.9 (ig/L and averaged 6.2 (ig/L.
Based on the speciation results, arsenic in system effluent existed primarily as As(V) with concentrations
ranging from 4.6 to 8.2 (ig/L and averaging 5.7 (ig/L. Some soluble As(III) (1.2 (ig/L [on average]) and
particulate arsenic (0.3 (ig/L [on average]) also were present in system effluent. As shown in Figure 4-18,
total arsenic concentrations in system effluent exceeded the arsenic MCL on two occasions on November
13 and December 3, 2008. As discussed above, the December 3, 2008, sampling event resulted in a high
As(III) concentration at the AC location due to insufficient chlorine addition, which led to high total
arsenic and As(III) concentrations in system effluent. As(III) cannot be effectively removed via the C/F
process.
The elevated arsenic concentrations in system effluent on November 13, 2008 appeared to have been
caused by a sampling error. Total arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations measured after the contact
tanks on this day were 20.0, 886, and 62.7 (ig/L, respectively, which were comparable to the average
values measured during the 1-year performance evaluation study, implying that the high concentrations in
system effluent were due neither to insufficient iron addition nor to reintroduction of backwash solids. In
addition, as shown in Figures 4-18, 4-20, 4-21, concentrations at TT were higher than those at AC for all
three metals (As, Fe, and Mn) during the sampling event, suggesting that the high concentrations
measured in system effluent were not due to breakthrough of particulate metals. The filter run time
during which the sampling event took place was approximately 4 hr, which was only half of the filter run
time designed for the filtration system. This also supported the speculation that the high arsenic, iron, and
manganese concentrations measured were not caused by particulate metals breakthrough.
38
-------
30
125
^20
o
1 15
o
O
Arsenic Species at Wellhead (IN)
0 4-
c^'
n
DAs(Particulate)
• As(V)
• As (III)
a& o$& ^ o^ o^ t& n
X X X X X X X
Arsenic Species after Contact Tanks (AC)
nAs(Particulate)
As(V)
As
Particulate As = 91.5 |jg/L
°
30
Arsenic Species after Filter Tank (TT)
10|jgMCL
• III
a_
1
1 1 I
J U [
DAs(Particulate)
• As(V)
nAs (III)
1 • I
U
I25
c20
o
Il5
£=
0)
210
o
O
* 5
0
Figure 4-19. Arsenic Speciation Results
39
-------
Table 4-9. Arsenic Speciation vs. DO and ORP
Date
Average value during 1-year study
10/28/04 (initial site visit)
11/04/08
02/03/09
As(III)
(Hg/L)
13.4
3.0
6.0
3.7
As(V)
(HS/L)
4.7
15.6
11.1
14.7
DO
(mg/L)
2.7
1.8
2.5
4.2
ORP
(mV)
458
-47
465
460
The participate arsenic, iron, and manganese concentration spikes observed at AC on November 4, 2008,
presumably were caused by the reintroduction of backwash solids but did not cause arsenic breakthrough
from the pressure filter.
4.5.1.2 Iron. Figure 4-20 presents total iron concentration measured across the treatment train.
Total iron concentrations in source water ranged from <25 to 230 (ig/L and averaged 78 (ig/L, 63% of
which existed in the soluble form.
7,500
7,000 -
6,500 -
6,000 -
5,500 -
5,000 -
4,500 -
4,000
3,500 -
3,000 -
2,500 -
2,000 -
1,500 -
1,000 -
500 -
0
11/04/08
oi°% oS5* 1*P N
X X X
0\< „< »« J
X X X X
-e-At Inlet (IN)
-After Contact Tanks (AC)
-After Filter Tank (TT)
Figure 4-20. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train
As shown in Figure 4-20, total iron concentration spiked on November 4, 2008, probably due to
reintroduction of backwash solids from the reclaim tank (Section 4.5.1.1). Total iron concentrations after
the contact tanks varied significantly, ranging from 163 to 1,345 (ig/L and averaging 902 (ig/L (not
including the outlier on November 4, 2008). Total iron concentrations in system effluent ranged from
<25 to 107 (ig/L, and averaged 20.5 (ig/L (not including the outlier on November 13, 2008, caused by a
40
-------
sampling error [Section 4.5.1.1]). Approximately 80% of the samples collected at the system outlet had
total iron concentrations below the method reporting limit of 25 (ig/L.
4.5.1.3 Manganese. Figure 4-21 presents total manganese concentrations measured during the
demonstration study. Manganese concentrations in source water ranged from 44.1 to 77.0 |o,g/L and
averaged 62.5 (ig/L, existing almost entirely in the soluble form. After chlorination, iron addition, and the
contact tanks, average total manganese concentration remained at a similar level (63.9 (ig/L, not including
the outlier on November 4, 2008), but average soluble manganese concentrations decreased from 61.4 to
43.2 (ig/L. About 30% of the soluble manganese was oxidized and precipitated to become particulate
manganese. This rather incomplete Mn(II) oxidation was the result of slow reaction kinetics with
chlorine, as reported by Knocke et al. (1987 and 1990). After the pressure filter, 77% of particulate
manganese and 62% of soluble manganese were removed, leaving an average of 21.0 and 16.3 (ig/L of
total and soluble manganese, respectively, in filter effluent. Removal of soluble manganese by filtration
media in the presence of free chlorine was observed previously by Knocke et al. (1990) and Cumming et
al. (2009) at another arsenic removal demonstration site at Rollinsford in New Hampshire. Knocke et al.
reported that the presence of free chlorine promotes Mn(II) removal on MnOx-coated media. At
Rollinsford, in the absence office chlorine, AD33 adsorption media had a limited adsorptive capacity for
Mn(II). With the presence of 0.1 to 0.2 mg/L (as C12) office chlorine, total manganese concentrations in
system effluent were reduced from an average of 100 (ig/L (with 77% in the soluble form) to <10 (ig/L.
At Okanogan, the presence of 0.4 mg/L (as C12) office chlorine at AC (Table 4-8) might have promoted
removal of 62% of soluble manganese through precipitation of Mn(II) on the Electromedia®! filtration
media.
400
350
300 -
250 -
g 200
n 150
100 -
50
11/04/08
°
s.\ \< s.\<
X X
-At Inlet (IN)
-After Contact Tanks (AC)
-After Filter Tank (TT)
Figure 4-21. Total Manganese Concentrations across Treatment Train
41
-------
4.5.1.4 pH, DO, and ORP. pH values in source water ranged from 7.4 to 7.8 and averaged 7.6. This
average value was slightly lower than the pH measurement taken by Battelle during the source water
sampling on October 28, 2004 (i.e., 8.0 in Table 4-1). DO levels of source water ranged from 1.0 to 4.2
mg/L and averaged 2.7 mg/L. DO levels at AC and TT remained rather unchanged at 3.3 and 2.7 mg/L,
respectively. ORP readings of source water were uncharacteristically high, ranging from 361 to 486 mV
and averaging 458 mV. These high values most likely were caused by the handheld meter, which tends to
drift during measurements. After prechlorination, average ORP readings increased significantly to 512
mV after the contact tanks and to 521 mV after the pressure filter.
4.5.1.5 Chlorine. Figure 4-22 presents total and free chlorine residuals measured throughout the
treatment train. As shown in the figure, before November 20, 2008, total and free chlorine residuals were
high, due to the high chlorine dosage requested by the equipment vendor (Section 4.4.2) Average total
and free chlorine residuals during this period were 1.4 and 1.3 mg/L (as C12), respectively. After the
chlorine dosage was reduced to an average of 0.7 mg/L (as C12), average total and free chlorine residuals
were reduced to 0.5 mg/L (as C12) and 0.2 mg/L (as C12), respectively.
Unstable CI2
dosage due to
the leak in
reeding system -^
manifold
s\
^
o
AA
*/
0
c
0 ",
n D
0 0
A
High CI2 dosage o Total at AC
initially instructed by ° ' otal at AU
.the vendor, customers n Total at TT
complained chlorine in
water A Free at AC
o Free at TT
o
o /-.
- /s C- C- « „ C-
°S DD % C 0%0 ADn^ 0*000 ^oO
" nnS ago ° D D°n n °n nn^SD*
A D A
A A ^i AAA A A A AA
A AA AO°AxA_i
Ao °00 0 A A n ° n 0 o00_00oo-°0AAA
OA°oo o o u °
2.0 -
1.6
1.4
E 1.2
1.0
o 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Figure 4-22. Chlorine Residuals Measured Throughout Treatment Train
Assuming that an average of 0.7 mg/L of NaOCl (as C12) had been applied to source water
(Section 4.4.2), 0.12 mg/L (as C12) would have reacted with As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II) based on the
respective average concentrations of 13.4, 49.0, and 61.4 (ig/L in source water (Table 4-7). The ammonia
level in source water was measured twice, once before system startup on October 28, 2004 at 0.05 mg/L
(as N) and once after system startup on December 3, 2008 at 0.1 mg/L (as N). Assuming an average
42
-------
ammonia level of 0.075 mg/L (as N) in source water, 0.57 mg/L (as C12) would have reacted with
ammonia to reach breakpoint chlorination. As such, 0.01 mg/L (as C12) would have been present as free
chlorine in treated water. This theoretical amount appears to fall below the measured levels for total and
free residuals as shown in Figure 4-22.
4.5.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity, ammonia, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate, silica,
hardness and turbidity remained relatively constant across the treatment train and were not affected by the
treatment process (Table 4-8). Phosphorus levels after the contact tanks were the same as those in source
water (i.e., 49.5 at AC vs. 50.8 |o,g/L at IN [on average]). Phosphorus levels decreased 70% (to 15 |o,g/L
[on average]) after the pressure filter, indicating removal via C/F.
4.5.2 Filter Run Length Study. A filter run length study was conducted to delineate arsenic and
iron breakthrough during the 8-hr preset filter run time on December 2, 2008, after a proper chlorine
dosage had been established (Section 4.4.2). Hourly water samples were collected at AC and TT and a
portion of the samples was filtered with 0.45 jam disc filters during the 8-hour time period. Iron
concentrations at the TT location also were measured onsite. Figure 4-23 presents the study results.
ts
£=
o
1
CB1U •
8
r *
n .
»
• w • * •
-o-Total As at TT
A Souble As at TT
_i
-------
As shown in the figure, total arsenic concentrations measured at TT during the 8-hr filter run ranged from
6.3 to 6.9 |og/L and averaged 6.5 |o,g/L, existing primarily as soluble arsenic (i.e. over 96%). Total iron
was removed to below the MDL of 25 |o,g/L at TT from the beginning of the filter run to 5.5 hr into the
run. Total iron concentrations at TT then began to increase (to 72 |o,g/L at the end of the 8 hr-run) with
soluble iron concentrations remaining at <25 |o,g/L, indicating particulate iron breakthrough. The results
of the run length study suggested that conducting backwash every 8 hr was sufficient to maintain effective
filter performance for arsenic and iron removal.
4.5.3 Backwash Water and Solids Sampling. Treated water was used for backwash. Table 4-10
presents analytical results from 11 backwash wastewater sampling events during the 1-year performance
evaluation study. Most of the sampling events took place after a filter run time of 8 hr. Events 3 through
6 had shorter filter run times, ranging from 1.5 to 7 hr. The filter run time for Event 1 on October 21,
2008, was not recorded. The results from Events 1 and 6 were excluded from average and range
calculations as described below. Excluding the two unrepresentative sampling events, the average filter
run time was 7.4 hr.
Table 4-10. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Date
10/21/08
11/18/08
12/16/08
01/20/09
02/18/09
03/17/09
04/14/09
05/12/09
06/09/09
07/09/09
07/29/09
0)
S
H
I
•_
o>
-*^
tZ
hr
-
8.0
7.0
5.6
5.9
1.5
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
M
a.
S.U.
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
in
Q
H
mg/L
340
330
360
362
298
348
346
370
376
350
400
-------
weight), and 26.3 g of manganese (i.e., 1.1 % by weight) were generated from each vessel during each
backwash event.
Solids loadings to the reclaim tank also were monitored through collection of backwash solids (Section
3.3.5). Table 4-11 presents analytical results of the solid samples collected on April 14, 2009. Arsenic,
iron, and manganese levels in solids averaged 3.9 mg/g (or 0.4% by weight), 381 mg/g (or 38.1% by
weight), and 1.1 mg/g (or 1% by weight), respectively. These amounts matched very closely with those
derived from the backwash wastewater metal analysis (i.e. 0.4%, 35.3%, and 1.1%, respectively).
Table 4-11. Backwash Solids Sampling Results
Sample ID
04-14-09 Sample A
04-14-09 Sample B
Average
Mg
Hg/g
10,262
10,084
10,173
Si
Hg/g
5,759
5,682
5,720
P
Hg/g
12,853
12,496
12,675
Ca
Hg/g
57,890
56,078
56,984
Fe
Hg/g
389,821
372,911
381,366
Mn
Hg/g
10,705
10,308
10,507
As
Hg/g
4,031
3,835
3,933
Ba
Hg/g
1,086
1,060
1,073
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to system startup, four monthly baseline
distribution water samples were collected from September 2005 to January 2006 at three locations within
the distribution system. The three locations selected for distribution system water sampling included two
LCR residences and one non-LCR residence. Following system startup, distribution system water
sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same locations. The two LCR locations (DS1 and DS2)
were impacted by water from all four wells in the distribution system. The non-LCR location (DS3) was
impacted by water from all wells before system startup, but was impacted predominantly by water from
the treatment plant after system startup. Table 4-12 summarizes results of the distribution system water
sampling. All stagnation times for the sampling met the 6-hr minimum stagnation time requirement,
except for three occasions on October 7, 2008, at DS1 (5.8 hr), November 13, 2008, at DS2 (1.0 hr), and
December 16, 2008, at DS2 (5.5 hr).
There was no change in pH before and after system startup. pH values before startup ranged from 7.6 to
8.4 and averaged 7.9; pH values after system startup ranged from 7.4 to 8.4 and averaged 7.9. Alkalinity
levels remained essentially unchanged, with concentrations ranging from 185 to 308 mg/L (as CaCO3)
before startup and from 157 to 354 mg/L (as CaCO3) after startup.
Arsenic concentrations during the four baseline sampling events varied significantly, ranging from 3.4 to
15.9 (ig/L and averaging 10.3 (ig/L, with comparable concentrations among the three sampling locations.
The baseline arsenic concentrations observed were significantly lower than those in source water (14.7 to
22.7 (ig/L and averaged 17.9 (ig/L), as shown in Table 4-7. These results were expected, because before
system startup, water at DS1, DS2, and DS3 were from all four wells (Wells 2, 3, 4, and 5) in the
distribution system.
After system startup, arsenic concentrations at DS3 (with water supplied by the treatment plant alone)
decreased to an average of 6.8 ug/L, which was very close to that in system effluent (6.2 ug/L in Table 4-
7). Figure 4-24 illustrates the effects of the treatment system on arsenic, iron, and manganese
concentrations in the distribution system.
45
-------
Table 4-12. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
09/27/05(b)
10/25/05
11/22/05
01/04/06
09/02/08
10/07/08
11/13/08
12/16/08
01/21/09
02/18/09
03/18/09
04/15/09
05/13/09
06/04/09
07/01/09
08/12/09
DS1
150Hennepin St
LCR
1st draw
Stagnation Time
hr
9.5
7.1
8.8
10.0
7.0
5.8
8.0
7.8
6.9
8.5
6.0
9.3
6.5
6.3
7.5
NA(C)
Q.
s.u.
7.8
7.8
7.7
8.0
8.0
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.4
7.8
7.6
8.0
7.6
7.6
NA(C)
Alkalinity
mg/L
194
198
255
185
184
184
178
172
169
221
174
157
178
198
196
NA(C)
CO
<
M9/L
13.9
9.0
7.1
14.4
11.1
7.1
8.9
8.2
6.8
4.1
6.7
4.5
6.1
5.0
5.8
NA(C)
hr
8.6
12.5
15.5
13.0
8.3
12.0
NA
NA
11.1
11.0
10.5
10.0
9.0
16.0
10.0
12.0
Q.
s.u.
7.9
7.6
7.8
8.4
8.4
7.7
8.0
8.0
8.2
7.5
8.2
8.2
8.2
7.8
8.0
7.8
Alkalinity
mg/L
194
308
194
189
186
175
187
178
176
354
180
175
181
200
236
183
|
M9/L
12.0
3.4
10.7
15.9
11.2
6.6
7.5
7.2
6.4
3.3
7.6
6.8
5.6
6.5
6.4
6.8
cu
LL
M9/L
55
<25
<25
<25
43
<25
<25
85
<25
<25
<25
77
<25
<25
<25
<25
c
S
M9/L
36.2
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.7
1.7
9.6
1.9
0.1
0.7
1.3
2.2
0.5
0.9
5.4
JD
CL
M9/L
9.8
1.1
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.7
0.4
2.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
2.3
1.5
0.2
0.7
0.5
^
O
M9/L
4.8
66.6
4.4
5.5
9.7
28.3
5.8
7.9
5.0
17.9
5.0
18.4
21.7
10.8
18.5
35.9
(a) Water softener presen at this location.
(b) Sample DS3 collected on 09/26/05.
(c) Homeowner was not available during sampling
BL = baseline sampling; NA = data not available.
Lead action level = 15 ug/L; copper action level = 1 .300 ug/L.
Alkalin ty measured in mg/L as CaCO3.
-------
o
is
o
c
o
O
CO
"5
«4
d
oj!
oj!
o\
XVV
100
0\
otf
0\
80 -
o
ia
I
o
o
O
,^
*w*
'X X X X X X X X
A*
-After Filter Tank (TT)
-DS1
-DS2
-DS3
Figure 4-24. Effect of Treatment System on Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese in Distribution System
Iron concentrations in the baseline samples were low, ranging from <25 to 55.5 (ig/L and averaging 16.1
(ig/L. Similar to arsenic, iron concentrations were lower than those in source water (ranging from <25 to
230 (ig/L and averaging 78 (ig/L in Table 4-7). After system startup, the average iron concentration at
DS3 increased to 26.5 (ig/L, which was slightly higher than the average iron concentration of 20.5 (ig/L in
system effluent (Table 4-7). As shown in Figure 4-24, for the most part, iron concentrations at DS3 were
<25 (ig/L, which was similar to those in treatment system effluent.
47
-------
Total manganese concentrations in the distribution system averaged 11.7 (ig/L before system startup and
decreased to 6.1 (ig/L (on average) after system startup. Total manganese concentrations at DS3 averaged
2.1 (ig/L, which was lower than those measured in system effluent (i.e. 21 (ig/L [on average] at TT
location, Table 4-7). The reduction in total manganese concentration might be due to continuing
oxidation and precipitation of soluble manganese in the distribution system.
Lead concentrations within the distribution system remained unchanged from the baseline levels; copper
concentrations decreased slightly. Baseline lead concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 9.8 (ig/L and averaged
1.6 (ig/L. After system startup, lead levels remained at 1.5 (ig/L (on average) with no samples exceeding
the action level of 15 (ig/L. Baseline copper concentrations ranged from 4.4 to 246 (ig/L and averaged
89.8 (ig/L. After system startup, copper concentrations decreased to an average of 61.6 (ig/L with no
samples exceeding the 1,300 (ig/L action level.
4.6 System Cost
The system cost was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and the
O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. Capital cost of the treatment system included the expenditure
for equipment, site engineering, and system installation, shakedown, and startup. O&M cost included the
expenditure for chemicals, electricity, and labor. Cost associated with the building, including the reclaim
system was not included in the capital cost because it was not included in the scope of this demonstration
project and was funded separately by the City of Okanogan.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for the Filtronics FH-13 Electromedia®! arsenic removal
system was $424,817 (Table 4-13). The equipment cost was $296,430 (or 70% of the total capital
investment), which included cost for chemicals addition systems, two contact tanks, one filtration vessel,
174 ft3 of Electromedia®!, 76 ft3 of supporting media and concrete, instrumentation and controls,
miscellaneous materials and supplies, and labor.
The site engineering cost covered the expenditure for preparing the required permit application submittal,
including a process design report, a general arrangement drawing, P&IDs, electrical diagrams,
interconnecting piping layouts, and obtaining the required permit approval from WA DOH. The
engineering cost of $48,332 was 11% of the total capital investment.
The installation, shakedown, and startup cost covered the labor and materials required to unload, install,
and test the system for proper operation. The installation activities were performed by Triad Mechanical
and the vendor, and startup and shakedown activities were performed by the vendor with the operator's
assistance. The installation, startup, and shakedown cost of $80,055 was 19% of the total capital
investment.
The total capital cost of $424,817 was normalized to $772/gpm ($0.54/gpd) of design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 550 gpm (or 792,000 gpd). The total capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $40,098 gal/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-yr return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/week at the design
flowrate of 550 gpm to produce 289,080,000 gal/yr, the unit capital cost would be $0.14/1,000 gal.
During the 1-year demonstration study, the system produced 139,435,000 gal of water (Table 4-5);
therefore, the unit capital cost increased to $0.29/1,000 gal. These calculations did not include the
building construction cost.
48
-------
Table 4-13. Capital Investment for Filtronics' FH-13 Electromedia®! System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment
Cost
Equipment
Filter Vessel
Reaction Vessels Assembly of Two Tanks
Chemical Feed Systems
Pipes, Valves, Fittings, & Skid Mounting
Electromedia and Support Layers
Instrumentation and Controls
Sample Taps and Totalizer/Meters
Reclaim Equipment
Shipping
Labor
Equipment Total
6
1
—
—
_
$51,540
$32,730
$4,700
$49,970
$25,500
$57,700
$2,430
$15,100
$47,560
$9,200
$296,430
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
70%
Engineering
Contractor
Engineering Total
1
_
$48,332
$48,332
—
11%
Installation, Shakedown, and Startup
Vendor
Contractor
Installation, Shakedown, and Startup
Total Capital Investment
1
1
_
-
$7,000
$73,055
$80,055
$424,817
—
—
19%
100%
A building was constructed by the City of Okanogan to house the treatment system (Section 4.3.2). In
addition to the building, a 22,500-gal concrete backwash/reclaim tank was installed (Section 4.2). The
total cost of the building, recycle system, and supporting utilities was approximately $530,000, which was
not included in the capital cost.
4.6.2 O&M Cost. The O&M cost included expenditure for chemicals use, electricity consumption,
and labor for a combined unit cost of $0.18/1,000 gal (Table 4-14). No cost was incurred for repairs
because the system was under warranty. Incremental chemical cost for iron addition was $0.03/1,000 gal
and for NaOCl was $0.01/1,000 gal. Electrical power consumption was calculated based on the
difference between the average monthly cost from electric bills before and after building construction and
system startup. The difference in cost was approximately $910/month or $0.08/1,000 gal of water treated.
The routine, non-demonstration related labor activities consumed approximately 45 min/day (Section
4.4.5.3). Based on this time commitment and a labor rate of $30/hr, the labor cost was $0.06/1,000 gal of
water treated.
49
-------
Table 4-14. O&M Costs for Filtronics' FH-13 Electromedia®! System
Category
Volume Processed (1,000 gal)
Value
139,435
Remarks
From 08/14/08 through 08/14/09
Chemical Usage
42% FeCl3 Unit Cost ($/lb)
FeCl3 Consumption (lb/1,000 gal)
FeCl3 Cost ($71,000 gal)
12.5% NaOCl Unit Cost ($/lb)
NaOCl Consumption (lb/1,000 gal)
NaOCl Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total Chemicals Cost ($/l,000 gal)
$0.50
0.057
$0.03
$0.23
0.061
$0.01
$0.04
Supplied in 12 55-gal drums (665 Ib)
including freight
-
-
Supplied in 16 53-gal drums (530 Ib)
including freight
-
-
-
Electricity Consumption
Electricity Cost ($/month)
Electricity Cost ($/l,000 gal)
$910.00
$0.08
Average incremental consumption after
system startup; including building
heating and lighting
-
Labor
Labor (hr/week)
Labor Cost ($/l,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($/l,000 gal)
5.25
$0.06
$0.18
45 min/day, 7 day/week
Labor rate = $30/hr
-
50
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Cumming ,L.J., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang 2009. Final Performance Evaluation Report: Arsenic
Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media EPA Demonstration Project at Rollinsford,
NH. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0037 for Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation" J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFRPart 141.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
Ghuyre, G. and D.A. Clifford. 2001. Laboratory Study on the Oxidation of Arsenic III to Arsenic V.
EPA/600/R-01/021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Knocke, W.R., R.C. Hoehn, and R.L. Sinsabaugh. 1987. "Using Alternative Oxidants to Remove
Dissolved Manganese from Waters Laden With Organics." J. AWWA, 79(3): 75.
Knocke, W.R., J.E. Van Benschoten, M. Kearney, A. Soborski, and D.A. Reckhow. 1990. "Alternative
Oxidants for the Removal of Soluble Iron and Mn." AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
51
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Demonstration Project At Okanogan, WA - Daily Operational Log Sheet
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Date
08/14/08
08/15/08
08/16/08
08/17/08
08/18/08
08/19/08
08/26/08
08/27/08
08/28/08
08/29/08
08/30/08
08/31/08
09/01/08
09/02/08
09/03/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/01/08
10/02/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
10/05/08
10/06/08
10/07/08
10/08/08
10/09/08
10/10/08
10/11/08
10/12/08
10/13/08
10/14/08
10/15/08
10/16/08
10/17/08
10/18/08
10/19/08
10/20/08
10/21/08
10/22/08
10/23/08
10/24/08
10/25/08
10/26/08
10/27/08
10/28/08
10/29/08
10/30/08
10/31/08
11/01/08
11/02/08
11/03/08
11/04/08
11/05/08
11/06/08
11/07/08
11/08/08
11/09/08
11/10/08
11/11/08
11/12/08
11/13/08
11/14/08
11/15/08
11/16/08
11/17/08
11/18/08
11/19/08
11/20/08
11/21/08
11/22/08
11/23/08
11/24/08
11/25/08
11/26/08
11/27/08
11/28/08
11/29/08
11/30/08
Hour
Meter
hr
27,848.9
27,850.1
27,854.8
Incre. Run
Time
hr
MA
1.2
4.7
Well #4
Inst.
Flow
gpm
543
542
Totalizer
kgal
129
167
316
Avg Flow
gpm
NA
528
528
Filter
Inst.
Flow
gpm
540
543
550
Totalizer
kgal
144
180
329
Avg
Flow
gpm
NA
500
528
Inlet
psi
100
100
100
Outlet
psi
100
100
100
dP
across
Filter
psig
0
0
0
Filter Run time
Preset
hr
-
actual
hr
-
BW Counter
Preset
#
actual
#
-
BW
totalizer
Kgal
84
89
117
42%
FeCI3
Usage
gal/hr
12.5%
NaOCI
Usage
gal/hr
-
Treatment System Shakedown
27,883.1
27,914.7
27,932.4
27,955.4
28,003.0
28,027.0
28,047.8
28,011.4
28.3
31.6
17.7
23.0
47.6
24.0
20.8
NA
1,232
2,255
2,819
3,568
5,869
6,538
7,291
539
540
531
543
NA
536
536
NA
540
534
532
533
530
530
535
535
1,223
2,227
2,787
3,539
5,081
5,857
6,530
7,298
527
530
527
545
540
539
539
NA
102
102
102
104
102
102
100
102
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
2
2
2
4
2
2
0
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
164
184
194
209
240
255
270
285
0.09
0.09
-
0.09
0.07
0.10
-
Treatment System Taken Offline for Chlorine Dosage Tests
28,223.0
28,246.0
NMW
NM">
28,253.7
28,275.9
28,291.8
28,305.4
28,315.2
NM">
NMW
28,355.6
28,368.4
28,380.5
28,393.2
28,410.4
NM">
NM">
28,442.6
28,450.5
28,457.0
28,469.2
28,481 .6
NMW
NM">
28,517.3
28,528.1
28,542.7
28,549.3
28,560.6
NM">
NMW
28,591 .4
28,602.7
28,613.4
28,625.1
28,630.0
NM">
NM">
28,642.6
NM">
28,658.0
28,674.1
28,680.5
NMW
NM">
28,717.9
28,726.1
28,742.5
28,756.3
28,763.8
NM">
NMW
28,795.5
28,801.9
NM">
NM">
NM">
NM">
NM">
23.0
-
7.7
22.2
15.9
13.6
9.8
-
40.4
12.8
12.1
12.7
17.2
-
32.2
7.9
6.5
12.2
12.4
35.7
10.8
14.6
6.6
11.3
-
30.8
11.3
10.7
11.7
4.9
-
12.6
15.4
16.1
6.4
-
37.4
8.2
16.4
13.8
7.5
-
31.7
6.4
-
-
NMW
NM">
-
NM">
NMW
-
-
NM">
NM'"
527
540
531
537
552
NMW
NM'"
538
531
530
533
540
NM'"
NMW
529
NM'"
527
532
534
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
534
529
537
NMW
NM'"
537
539
540
527
539
NM'"
NMW
520
538
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
12,140
12,870
NMW
NM'"
13,102
13,806
14,313
14,744
15,056
NM'"
NMW
16,335
16,741
17,124
17,527
18,074
NM'"
NM'"
NMm
NMm
NMm
NMm
NMm
NMW
NM'"
21 ,465
21,811
22,276
22,485
22,847
NM'"
NMW
23,829
24,185
24,515
24,890
25,051
NM'"
NM'"
25,442
NM'"
25,943
26,450
26,653
NMW
NM'"
27,840
28,098
28,617
29,059
29,296
NM'"
NMW
30,299
30,503
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
529
502
529
531
528
531
528
529
528
529
530
534
531
528
534
531
525
514
534
548
517
542
525
529
529
524
527
534
527
527
531
534
525
NM"1
NM'"
535
533
527
530
530
NM'"
NM"1
530
528
570
534
520
NM"1
NM"1
580
530
590
590
550
NM"1
NM"1
540
557
535
557
535
NM"1
NM"1
590
NM"1
520
580
533
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
530
570
575
NM"1
NM"1
535
535
540
560
535
NM"1
NM"1
520
530
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
12,143
12,879
NM"1
NM"1
13,106
13,801
14,301
14,723
15,049
NM"1
NM"1
16,353
16,773
17,155
17,565
18,128
NM"1
NM"1
19,161
19,418
19,632
20,037
20,441
NM"1
NM"1
21,612
21,956
22,434
22,640
23,013
NM"1
NM"1
24,010
24,372
24,709
25,087
25,255
NM"1
NM"1
25,664
NM"1
26,180
26,692
26,897
NM"1
NM"1
28,101
28,362
28,885
29,339
29,577
NM"1
NM"1
30,602
30,809
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
533
491
522
524
517
554
538
547
526
538
546
535
542
549
553
543
547
531
546
520
550
540
534
525
538
571
541
558
530
534
537
530
532
548
529
539
539
101
102
NMW
NM"1
102
102
102
102
102
NM"1
NM"1
102
101
102
102
102
NM"1
NM"1
102
100
101
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
101
102
101
101
101
NM"1
NM"1
102
NM"1
102
101
101
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
101
102
100
NM"1
NM"1
102
101
100
103
100
NM"1
NM"1
103
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
100
101
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
101
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
101
100
100
101
101
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
99
NM"1
NM"1
100
NM"1
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
99
101
99
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
99
101
99
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
1
1
NM"1
NM"1
2
2
1
2
2
NM"1
NM"1
1
2
2
1
1
NM"1
NM"1
2
0
1
0
0
NM"1
NM"1
1
2
1
1
2
NM"1
NM"1
2
NM"1
2
1
1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
2
1
1
NM"1
NM"1
2
1
1
2
1
NM"1
NM"1
3
0
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
N
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6:25
4:27
6:45
7:51
NM"1
NM"1
5:25
8:00
4:39
6:56
7:37
NM"1
NM"1
0:00
NM"1
5:30
6:10
7:18
NM"1
NM"1
7:47
7:37
7:49
5:41
7:29
NM"1
NM"1
8:00
7:37
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
10
10
10
10
10
NM"1
NM"1
10
10
10
10
NM"1
NM"1
10
NM"1
10
10
10
NM"1
NM"1
10
10
10
10
10
NM"1
NM"1
10
10
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
5
3
1
9
NM"1
NM"1
4
2
1
-
7
NM"1
NM"1
2
NM"1
9
6
5
NM"1
NM"1
9
8
5
3
1
NM"1
NM"1
7
5
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
403
413
NM"1
NM"1
424
439
449
460
481
NM"1
NM"1
517
532
542
557
573
NM"1
NM"1
608
618
628
666
677
NM"1
NM"1
715
726
736
747
757
NM"1
NM"1
784
794
800
810
820
NM"1
NM"1
845
NM"1
861
877
882
NM"1
NM"1
914
919
935
946
957
NM"1
NM"1
977
988
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
-
0.08
0.29
0.04
0.11
0.08
0.08
0.17
0.15
0.19
0.06
0.10
0.17
0.66
0.46
0.25
0.18
0.25
0.52
0.49
0.37
0.53
0.10
0.13
0.19
0.06
0.15
0.12
0.11
0.14
0.18
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.25
0.17
0.82
-
0.23
-
0.53
0.28
0.09
0.33
0.21
0.02
0.22
0.34
0.28
0.31
-
0.06
0.60
0.13
0.64
0.55
-
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.25
0.11
-
0.53
0.33
0.54
0.49
0.34
-
0.07
0.51
0.28
0.32
-
0.40
0.40
0.43
0.42
0.11
-
0.16
0.19
-
-
A-l
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Demonstration Project At Okanogan, WA - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
10
11
12
13
14
15
,.
17
18
19
20
21
Date
12/01/08
12/02/08
12/03/08
12/04/08
12/05/08
12/06/08
1 2/07/08
12/08/08
12/09/08
12/10/08
12/11/08
12/12/08
12/13/08
12/14/08
12/15/08
12/16/08
12/17/08
12/18/08
12/19/08
12/20/08
12(21/08
12/22/08
12/23/08
1 2/24/08
12/25/08
12/26/08
1 2/27/08
12/28/08
1 2/29/08
1 2/30/08
12/31/08
01/01/09
01/02/09
01/03/09
01/04/09
01/05/09
01/06/09
01/07/09
01/08/09
01/09/09
01/10/09
01/11/09
01/12/09
01/13/09
01/14/09
01/15/09
01/16/09
01/17/09
01/18/09
01/19/09
01/20/09
01/21/09
01/22/09
01/23/09
01/24/09
01/25/09
01/26/09
01/27/09
01/28/09
01/29/09
01/30/09
01/31/09
02/01/09
02/02/09
02/03/09
02/04/09
02/05/09
02/06/09
02/07/09
02/08/09
02/09/09
02/10/09
02/11/09
02/12/09
02/13/09
02/14/09
02/15/09
02/16/09
02/17/09
02/18/09
02/1 9/09
02/20/09
02/21/09
02/22/09
Hour
Meter
hr
28,876.1
28,885.2
28,894.5
28,906.8
28,919.6
NM»
NH"1
NM»
NM»
28,976.7
28,980.0
NM»
NM»
NH"1
29,027.3
29,030.2
29,044.3
29,058.5
29,067.8
NM"
NM"1
NM"
NM"
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
29,179.2
29,186.6
29,198.6
NM(al
29,219.0
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
29,264.2
29,275.9
29,287.9
29,296.0
NM(al
NM(al
29,324.6
29,335.4
29,343.5
29,353.3
29,364.5
NH"
NM"
NH"
29,403.1
29,411.0
29,418.7
29,427.4
NH"
NU"
29,464.7
29,473.2
29,485.8
29,494.9
29,507.4
NU"
NM"
29,540.3
29,551.0
29,563.7
29,577.2
29,583.7
NH"
NU"
29,617.3
Incre. Run
Time
hr
74.2
9.1
9.3
12.3
12.8
57.1
3.3
47.3
2.9
14.1
14.2
9.3
111.4
7.4
12.0
20.4
45.2
11.7
12.0
8.1
28.6
10.8
8.1
9.8
11.2
38.6
7.9
7.7
8.7
37.3
8.5
12.6
9.1
12.5
32.9
10.7
12.7
13.5
6.5
33.6
Well #4
Inst.
Flow
gpm
533
535
534
536
534
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
537
539
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
532
537
531
530
526
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
500
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
481
534
536
NM"1
534
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
513
534
532
530
NM"1
NM"1
536
535
536
537
536
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
534
535
535
533
NM"1
NM"1
534
533
534
534
531
NM"1
NM"1
539
537
532
527
535
NM"1
NM"1
534
Totalizer
kgal
32,853
33,142
33,437
33,830
34,240
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
36,059
36,190
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
37,673
37,770
38,223
38,585
38,958
NM(al
NMlal
NM(al
NM(al
40,490
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
42,276
42,502
42,881
NM(al
43,533
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
44,946
45,315
45,700
45,955
NM(al
NM(al
46,871
47,217
47,475
47,787
48,145
NMlal
NM(al
NMlal
49,380
49,634
49,881
50,158
NMlal
NMlal
51,347
51,619
52,020
52,309
52,709
NMlal
NMlal
53,756
54,096
54,519
54,934
55,139
NMlal
NMlal
56,210
Avg Flow
gpm
528
529
529
533
534
531
662
523
557
535
425
668
267
509
526
533
521
526
535
525
682
534
531
531
533
533
536
535
531
655
533
530
529
533
733
530
555
512
526
633
Filter
Inst.
Flow
gpm
530
530
530
530
530
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
525
525
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
530
530
525
525
520
NM(al
NMlal
NM(al
NM(al
495
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
460
530
525
NM(al
525
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
500
525
525
525
NM(al
NM(al
520
525
525
525
525
NMlal
NM(al
NMlal
525
525
525
520
NMlal
NMlal
525
520
525
520
520
NMlal
NMlal
525
525
520
520
525
NMlal
NMlal
525
Totalizer
kgal
33,195
33,579
33,775
34,161
34,565
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
36,391
36,525
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
38,037
38,127
38,585
38,944
39,314
NM(al
NMlal
NM(al
NM(al
40,831
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
42,599
42,821
43,208
NM(al
43,869
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
45,278
45,654
46,033
46,297
NM(al
NM(al
47,219
47,571
47,830
48,153
48,516
NMlal
NM(al
NMlal
49,768
50,027
50,283
50,560
NMlal
NMlal
51,749
52,023
52,432
52,720
53,131
NMlal
NMlal
54, 176
54,514
54,943
55,366
55,573
NMlal
NMlal
56,656
Avg
Flow
gpm
536
703
351
523
526
533
677
533
517
541
421
663
265
500
538
540
520
536
526
543
691
543
533
549
540
541
546
554
531
655
537
541
527
548
738
526
563
522
531
640
Inlet
psl
101
101
101
101
101
NM"
NM"
NM"
NM"
101
100
NM"
NM"
NM"
101
100
101
102
103
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
109
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
113
100
100
NM"1
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
105
101
100
101
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
100
NM"
NM"1
NM"
100
100
100
100
NM"
NM"
100
100
100
100
100
NM"
NM"
100
100
100
101
100
NM"
NM"
101
Outlet
psl
100
100
100
100
100
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
100
100
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
100
99
99
99
99
NM(al
NMlal
NM(al
NM(al
99
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
100
99
99
NM(al
99
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
100
100
100
100
NM(al
NM(al
99
99
99
99
99
NMlal
NM(al
NMlal
100
100
100
99
NMlal
NMlal
100
100
100
100
100
NMlal
NMlal
100
100
100
100
100
NMlal
NMlal
100
dP
across
Filter
psig
1
1
1
1
1
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
1
0
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
1
1
2
3
4
NM(al
NMlal
NM(al
NM(al
10
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
13
1
1
NM(al
1
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
5
1
0
1
NM(al
NM(al
1
1
1
1
1
NMlal
NM(al
NMlal
0
0
0
1
NMlal
NMlal
0
0
0
0
0
NMlal
NMlal
0
0
0
1
0
NMlal
NMlal
1
Filter Run time
Preset
hr
8
8
8
8
8
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
8
8
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
8
8
8
8
8
NM(al
NMlal
NM(al
NM(al
8
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
8
8
8
NM(al
8
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
8
8
8
8
NM(al
NM(al
8
8
8
8
8
NMlal
NM(al
NMlal
8
8
8
8
NMlal
NMlal
8
8
8
8
8
NMlal
NMlal
8
8
8
8
8
NMlal
NMlal
8
actual
hr
6:55
6:40
6:40
7:12
6:18
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
7:34
7:45
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
4:25
6:29
5:40
7:18
6:42
NM(al
NMlal
NM(al
NM(al
5:00
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
9:36
2:52
5:45
NM(al
13:40
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
7:10
5:10
6:47
3:50
NM(al
NM(al
6:17
6:26
6:06
6:38
6:15
NMlal
NM(al
NMlal
6:38
6:10
5:46
6:16
NMlal
NMlal
6:50
4:46
7:00
6:12
3:37
NMlal
NMlal
7:53
7:21
5:34
1:45
6:53
NMlal
NMlal
6:39
BW Counter
Preset
#
10
10
10
10
10
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
4
4
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
4
4
4
4
4
NM(al
NMlal
NM(al
NM(al
4
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
4
4
4
NM(al
4
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
4
4
4
4
NM(al
NM(al
4
4
4
4
4
NMlal
NM(al
NMlal
4
4
4
4
NMlal
NMlal
4
4
4
4
4
NMlal
NMlal
4
4
1
2
2
NMlal
NMlal
4
actual
#
3
1
9
6
4
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
2
1
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
2
3
1
3
1
NM(al
NMlal
NM(al
NM(al
1
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
3
3
1
NM(al
1
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
1
1
3
2
NM(al
NM(al
1
3
2
4
2
NMlal
NM(al
NMlal
3
1
3
1
NMlal
NMlal
2
4
2
4
2
NMlal
NMlal
4
4
1
1
1
NMlal
NMlal
1
BW
totalizer
Kgal
1049
1059
1070
1083
1093
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
1138
1142
NMlal
NMlal
NMlal
77
83
88
89
89
NM(al
NMlal
NM(al
NM(al
1190
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
1191
1204
1212
NM(al
1235
NM(al
NM(al
NM(al
1239
1267
1279
1285
NM(al
NM(al
1311
1322
1333
1344
1354
NMlal
NM(al
NMlal
1380
1380
1389
1395
NMlal
NMlal
1424
1434
1448
1459
1469
NMlal
NMlal
1492
1513
1522
1533
1544
NMlal
NMlal
1577
42%
FeCb
Usage
ga]/hr
0.08
0.16
0.02
0.15
0.12
0.13
2.27
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.16
0.10
0.07
0.15
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.17
0.19
0.15
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.18
0.15
0.12
0.15
0.19
0.16
0.12
0.11
0.17
0.14
12.5%
NaOCI
Usage
gaj/hr
0.16
0.18
0.02
0.13
0.16
0.16
2.49
0.14
0.07
0.12
0.13
0.22
0.08
0.17
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.18
0.12
0.13
0.20
0.21
0.15
0.12
0.31
0.16
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.09
0.16
0.24
0.13
0.10
0.12
0.13
Treatment System Shut Down for Operators to Attend Training Class
29,625.5
29,632.7
29,640.7
29,652.4
NM"1
NM"1
8.2
7.2
8.0
11.7
524
532
536
535
NM"1
NM"1
56,474
56,702
56,959
57,331
NM(al
NM(al
537
528
535
530
520
520
525
525
NM(al
NM(al
56,915
57,234
57,419
57,784
NM(al
NM(al
526
738
385
520
102
101
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
NM(al
NM(al
2
1
0
0
NM(al
NM(al
8
8
8
8
NM(al
NM(al
0:29
6:01
6:40
6:16
NM(al
NM(al
4
4
4
4
NM(al
NM(al
3
1
3
4
NM(al
NM(al
1589
1601
1612
1624
NM(al
NM(al
0.05
0.16
0.09
0.10
0.65
0.17
0.05
0.18
A-2
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Demonstration Project At Okanogan, WA - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Date
02/23/09
02/24/09
02/25/09
02/26/09
02/27/09
02/28/09
03/01/09
03/02/09
03/03/09
03/04/09
03/05/09
03/06/09
03/07/09
03/08/09
03/09/09
03/10/09
03/11/09
03/12/09
03/13/09
03/14/09
03/15/09
03/16/09
03/17/09
03/18/09
03/19/09
03/20/09
03/21/09
03/22/09
03/23/09
03/24/09
03/25/09
03/26/09
03/27/09
03/28/09
03/29/09
03/30/09
03/31/09
04/01/09
04/02/09
04/03/09
04/04/09
04/05/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
04/08/09
04/09/09
04/10/09
04/11/09
04/12/09
04/13/09
04/14/09
04/15/09
04/16/09
04/17/09
04/18/09
04/19/09
04/20/09
04/21/09
04/22/09
04/23/09
04/24/09
04/25/09
04/26/09
04/27/09
04/28/09
04/29/09
04/30/09
05/01/09
05/02/09
05/03/09
05/04/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
05/07/09
05/08/09
05/09/09
05/10/09
05/11/09
05/12/09
05/13/09
05/14/09
05/15/09
05/16/09
05/17/09
Hour
Meter
hr
29,681.5
29,686.6
29,696.4
29,708.3
29,715.3
NM">
NM("
29,752.2
29,763.8
29,772.2
29,779.0
NM">
NM">
NM">
29,818.7
29,830.5
29,843.7
29,853.7
29,865.2
NM("
NM'"
29,899.4
29,906.4
29,916.7
29,927.8
29,940.5
NM'"
NM'"
29,961.1
29,973.5
29,984.2
29,991.0
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
30,028.0
30,038.0
30,046.0
30,064.0
30,076.0
NM'"
NM"1
30,106.3
30,117.0
30,133.0
30,151.0
30,163.0
NM'"
NM'"
30,200.4
30,215.0
30,228.0
30,247.0
30,261.0
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
30,320.0
30,334.0
30,353.0
30,371.0
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
30,440.0
30,455.0
30,471.0
30,494.0
NM"1
NM"1
30,539.7
30,561.0
30,568.0
30,579.0
30,591.0
NM"1
NM"1
30,645.0
30,670.0
30,685.0
30,702.0
30,716.0
NM"1
NM"1
Incre. Run
Time
hr
29.1
5.1
9.8
11.9
7.0
36.9
11.6
8.4
6.8
39.7
11.8
13.2
10.0
11.5
34.2
7.0
10.3
11.1
12.7
20.6
12.4
10.7
6.8
37.0
10.0
8.0
18.0
12.0
30.3
10.7
16.0
18.0
12.0
37.4
14.6
13.0
19.0
14.0
59.0
14.0
19.0
18.0
69.0
15.0
16.0
23.0
45.7
21.3
7.0
11.0
12.0
54.0
25.0
15.0
17.0
14.0
Well #4
Inst.
Flow
gpm
529
540
536
535
538
NM"1
NMW
529
527
534
536
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
534
529
534
533
531
NM"1
NM"1
531
536
536
537
528
NM"1
NM"1
550
538
541
539
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
537
530
539
523
529
NM"1
NM"1
533
532
534
530
532
NM"1
NM"1
537
534
532
529
525
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
531
536
530
531
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
526
530
531
526
NM"1
NM"1
532
526
528
528
531
NM"1
NM"1
526
524
533
532
530
NM"1
NM"1
Totalizer
kgal
58,258
58,421
58,734
59,116
59,340
NM"1
NM"1
60,519
60,888
61,155
61 ,372
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
62,646
63,025
63,414
63,763
64,134
NM"1
NM"1
65,221
65,445
65,775
66,130
66,534
NM"1
NM"1
67,193
67,593
67,933
68,152
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
69,344
69,671
69,931
70,510
70,884
NM"1
NM"1
71 ,837
72,200
72,700
73,272
73,645
NM"1
NM"1
74,828
75,309
75,709
76,341
76,784
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
78,663
79,108
79,691
80,257
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
82,458
82,935
83,439
84,193
NM"1
NM"1
85,606
86,290
86,525
86,877
87,250
NM"1
NM"1
88,952
89,757
90,245
90,783
91,218
NM"1
NM"1
Avg Flow
gpm
744
533
532
535
533
-
634
530
530
532
-
-
535
535
491
582
538
-
530
533
534
533
530
-
533
538
530
537
-
-
537
545
542
536
519
-
524
565
521
530
518
-
527
549
513
554
527
531
530
511
524
-
-
532
530
525
546
-
515
535
560
533
518
-
-
525
537
542
527
518
-
Filter
Inst.
Flow
gpm
520
530
520
525
525
NM"1
NM"1
520
520
525
525
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
525
525
525
525
520
NM"1
NM"1
520
525
525
525
520
NM"1
NM"1
525
525
520
525
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
525
520
525
520
520
NM"1
NM"1
520
520
525
520
520
NM"1
NM"1
525
520
560
520
520
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
520
525
520
520
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
520
525
525
520
NM"1
NM"1
520
520
520
520
520
NM"1
NM"1
515
520
520
520
520
NM"1
NM"1
Totalizer
kgal
58,727
58,886
59,202
59,588
59,815
NM"1
NM"1
61,014
61,387
61,656
61,875
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
63,179
63,563
63,956
64,310
64,690
NM"1
NM"1
65,802
66,025
66,364
66,729
67,144
NM"1
NM"1
67,815
68,221
68,569
68,792
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
69,998
70,332
70,593
71,184
71,557
NM"1
NM"1
72,529
72,897
73,412
73,989
74,360
NM"1
NM"1
75,558
76,044
76,449
77,075
77,538
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
79,427
79,876
80,465
81,038
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
83,258
83,737
84,249
85,005
NM"1
NM"1
86,436
87,125
87,362
87,715
88,092
NM"1
NM"1
89,810
90,620
91,101
91,640
92,086
NM"1
NM"1
Avg
Flow
gpm
749
520
537
541
540
-
644
536
534
537
-
-
547
542
496
590
551
-
542
531
549
548
545
-
543
546
542
547
-
-
543
557
544
547
518
-
535
573
536
534
515
-
534
555
519
549
551
534
535
517
531
-
-
536
532
533
548
-
522
539
564
535
524
-
-
530
540
534
528
531
-
Inlet
psi
101
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
101
101
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
100
101
100
102
100
NM"1
NM"1
101
100
100
100
101
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
99
100
99
101
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
101
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
101
101
100
101
NM"1
NM"1
100
101
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
101
101
100
100
101
NM"1
NM"1
Outlet
psi
100
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
99
100
99
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
dP
across
Filter
psig
1
0
0
0
0
NM"1
NM"1
1
1
0
0
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
0
1
0
2
0
NM"1
NM"1
1
0
0
0
1
NM"1
NM"1
0
0
0
0
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
0
0
0
1
0
NM"1
NM"1
0
0
0
0
0
NM"1
NM"1
0
0
0
0
1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
0
0
0
0
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
1
1
0
1
NM"1
NM"1
0
1
0
0
0
NM"1
NM"1
1
1
0
0
1
NM"1
NM"1
Filter Run time
Preset
hr
8
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
actual
hr
3:23
7:52
6:40
6:06
6:35
NM"1
NM"1
1:23
0:35
7:07
6:42
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
4:40
1:06
6:18
6:49
6:40
NM"1
NM"1
1:50
7:16
7:13
7:20
2:46
NM"1
NM"1
8:00
7:26
7:50
7:37
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
6:20
1:52
7:23
0:08
6:31
NM"1
NM"1
7:35
6:09
6:08
2:51
6:37
NM"1
NM"1
7:41
6:14
5:47
4:16
0:20
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
6:17
6:17
6:11
6:00
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
1:20
7:13
2:58
2:51
NM"1
NM"1
6:13
2:42
6:06
7:20
7:25
NM"1
NM"1
3:50
0:21
6:41
7:50
6:56
NM"1
NM"1
BW Counter
Preset
#
4
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
actual
#
4
2
1
3
2
NM"1
NM"1
4
2
4
2
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
3
1
2
4
1
NM"1
NM"1
3
1
2
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
1
3
4
2
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
3
2
3
1
1
NM"1
NM"1
3
3
1
2
3
NM"1
NM"1
1
2
4
1
3
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
1
3
3
4
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
2
3
1
2
NM"1
NM"1
1
1
4
2
4
NM"1
NM"1
4
1
2
3
1
NM"1
NM"1
BW
totalizer
Kgal
1648
1656
1663
1673
1679
NM"1
NM"1
1714
1725
1737
1749
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
1790
1801
1819
1829
1847
NM"1
NM"1
1883
1895
1912
1924
1935
NM"1
NM"1
1965
1977
1994
2006
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
2048
2054
2071
2083
2108
NM"1
NM"1
2144
2162
2174
2192
2209
NM"1
NM"1
2242
2258
2269
2286
2298
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
2353
2363
2385
2400
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
2458
2475
2485
2503
NM"1
NM"1
2554
2572
2583
2594
2605
NM"1
NM"1
2650
2667
2683
2699
2710
NM"1
NM"1
42%
FeCI3
Usage
gal/hr
0.14
0.18
0.11
0.09
0.16
-
0.13
0.13
0.16
0.14
-
-
0.13
0.03
0.20
0.07
0.16
-
0.09
0.32
0.05
0.07
0.15
-
0.16
0.18
0.05
0.11
-
-
0.12
0.15
0.09
0.15
0.12
-
0.17
0.11
0.12
0.10
0.16
-
0.15
0.10
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.12
-
-
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.13
-
0.23
0.12
0.16
0.14
0.16
-
-
0.12
0.12
0.15
0.13
0.13
-
12.5%
NaOCI
Usage
gal/hr
0.11
0.32
0.13
0.14
0.21
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.18
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.16
0.14
0.17
0.12
0.14
0.19
0.16
0.22
0.23
0.08
0.09
0.16
0.19
0.21
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.17
0.15
0.11
0.17
0.15
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.18
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.16
0.14
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.16
0.08
0.18
0.00
0.17
0.18
0.10
0.19
0.15
0.18
A-3
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Demonstration Project At Okanogan, WA - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Date
05/18/09
05/19/09
05/20/09
05/21/09
05/22/09
05/23/09
05/24/09
05/25/09
05/26/09
05/27/09
05/28/09
05/29/09
05/30/09
05/31/09
06/01/09
06/02/09
06/03/09
06/04/09
06/05/09
06/06/09
06/07/09
06/08/09
06/09/09
06/10/09
06/11/09
06/12/09
06/13/09
06/14/09
06/15/09
06/16/09
06/17/09
06/18/09
06/19/09
06/20/09
06/21/09
06/22/09
06/23/09
06/24/09
06/25/09
06/26/09
06/27/09
06/28/09
06/29/09
06/30/09
07/01/09
07/02/09
07/03/09
07/04/09
07/05/09
07/06/09
07/07/09
07/08/09
07/09/09
07/10/09
07/11/09
07/12/09
07/13/09
07/14/09
07/15/09
07/16/09
07/17/09
07/18/09
07/19/09
07/20/09
07/21/09
07/22/09
07/23/09
07/24/09
07/25/09
07/26/09
07/27/09
07/28/09
07/29/09
07/30/09
07/31/09
08/01/09
08/02/09
Hour
Meter
hr
30,777.9
30,798.0
30,821.0
30,832.0
30,858.0
NM">
NM">
NM">
30,902.6
30,922.0
30,937.0
30,953.0
NM("
NM'"
31,005.1
31,021.0
31,036.0
31,056.0
31,077.0
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
31,133.0
31,152.0
31,164.0
31,180.0
NM'"
NM'"
31,229.9
31 ,240.0
31,260.0
31,272.0
31,291.0
NM"'
NM'"
31,330.6
31,341.4
31,359.1
31,376.3
31,399.0
NM'"
NM'"
31 ,461 .7
31,481.0
31 ,499.2
31,517.7
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
NM"1
31,566.0
31,583.6
31,599.0
31,619.0
NM"'
NM"'
31,663.2
31,676.0
31,695.0
NM"'
31,732.0
NM"'
NM"'
NM"'
31,809.0
31,825.0
31,843.0
31,861.0
NM"'
NM"'
31,910.8
31,929.0
31,947.0
31,969.0
31,990.0
NM"'
NM"1
Incre. Run
Time
hr
61.9
20.1
23.0
11.0
26.0
44.6
19.4
15.0
16.0
52.1
15.9
15.0
20.0
21.0
56.0
19.0
12.0
28.0
49.9
10.1
20.0
12.0
19.0
39.6
10.8
17.7
17.2
22.7
62.7
19.3
18.2
18.5
48.3
17.6
15.4
20.0
44.2
12.8
19.0
37.0
77.0
16.0
18.0
18.0
49.8
18.2
18.0
22.0
21.0
Well #4
Inst.
Flow
gpm
524
522
526
530
532
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
524
530
534
533
NMW
NM'"
538
537
535
528
527
NM'"
NMW
NM'"
533
532
530
529
NM'"
NM'"
527
527
536
531
525
NMW
NM'"
531
528
525
531
525
NM'"
NM'"
529
529
528
528
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
NMW
522
519
520
522
NMW
NM'"
522
523
520
NM'"
519
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
515
520
518
522
NM'"
NM'"
521
523
521
523
516
NM'"
NMW
Totalizer
kgal
93,160
93,801
94,536
94,902
95,726
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
97,122
97,748
98,249
98,731
NM'"
NM'"
100,331
100,921
101,383
102,016
102,683
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
104,475
105,078
105,481
105,979
NM'"
NM'"
107,545
107,883
108,529
108,909
109,513
NM'"
NM'"
110,745
111,090
111,650
112,196
112,915
NM'"
NM'"
114,896
115,507
116,080
116,667
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
NMW
118,205
118,730
119,234
119,864
NM'"
NM'"
121,237
121,640
122,250
NM'"
123,403
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
125,837
126,326
126,889
127,448
NM'"
NM'"
129,025
129,589
130,165
130,832
131,507
NM'"
NMW
Avg Flow
gpm
523
532
533
555
528
-
522
538
557
528
-
512
618
513
528
529
-
-
533
529
560
536
-
523
558
538
528
530
-
519
532
527
529
528
-
527
528
525
529
-
-
531
497
545
525
-
518
525
535
-
519
-
-
527
509
521
518
-
528
516
533
505
536
-
-
Filter
Inst.
Flow
gpm
560
520
555
520
520
NM"'
NM"'
NM"'
520
520
515
515
NM'"
NM"'
520
525
520
520
515
NM"'
NM'"
NM"'
520
520
520
515
NM"'
NM"'
510
510
525
520
520
NM'"
NM"'
510
515
560
515
510
NM"'
NM"'
515
510
510
510
NM"'
NM"'
NM"'
NM"1
510
510
565
565
NM"1
NM"1
520
510
515
NM"1
510
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
510
560
510
510
NM"1
NM"1
510
510
510
510
510
NM"1
NM"1
Totalizer
kgal
94,034
94,677
95,416
95,787
96,608
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
98,012
98,641
99,143
99,622
NM"1
NM"1
101,247
101,842
102,306
102,946
103,615
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
105,445
106,064
106,473
106,983
NM"1
NM"1
108,562
108,908
109,555
109,938
110,555
NM"1
NM"1
111,797
112,148
112,716
113,263
113,994
NM"1
NM"1
115,959
116,566
117,146
117,746
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
119,309
119,839
120,347
120,986
NM"1
NM"1
122,373
122,780
123,386
NM"1
124,560
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
127,011
127,508
128,081
128,641
NM"1
NM"1
130,231
130,795
131,379
132,046
132,729
NM"1
NM"1
Avg
Flow
gpm
525
533
536
562
526
-
525
540
558
531
-
520
624
516
533
531
-
-
545
543
568
547
-
527
571
539
532
541
-
523
542
535
530
537
-
522
524
531
541
-
-
539
502
550
533
-
523
530
532
-
529
-
-
531
518
531
519
-
532
516
541
505
542
-
-
Inlet
psi
103
101
101
102
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
101
100
101
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
102
102
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
101
101
100
100
101
NM"1
NM"1
102
100
101
100
102
NM"1
NM"1
101
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
101
102
102
102
NM"1
NM"1
101
101
101
NM"1
102
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
102
101
102
101
NM"1
NM"1
102
100
102
100
102
NM"1
NM"1
Outlet
psi
101
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
101
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
NM"1
100
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
100
100
100
100
100
NM"1
NM"1
dP
across
Filter
psig
2
1
1
2
0
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
1
0
1
0
NM"1
NM"1
0
0
0
2
2
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
0
0
0
0
NM"1
NM"1
1
1
0
0
1
NM"1
NM"1
1
0
1
0
2
NM"1
NM"1
1
0
0
0
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
1
2
2
2
NM"1
NM"1
1
1
1
NM"1
2
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
2
1
2
1
NM"1
NM"1
2
0
2
0
2
NM"1
NM"1
Filter Run time
Preset
hr
8
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
NM"1
8
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
8
8
8
8
8
NM"1
NM"1
actual
hr
5:38
0:35
3:51
1:10
7:07
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
2:48
1:50
6:28
6:09
NM"1
NM"1
7:52
7:27
6:27
2:37
2:40
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
6:40
7:28
6:10
3:20
NM"1
NM"1
4:12
3:08
4:06
6:16
2:40
NM"1
NM"1
7:42
6:43
5:40
6:30
1:54
NM"1
NM"1
7:33
7:19
6:26
6:31
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
1:36
0:35
3:49
5:07
NM"1
NM"1
4:44
4:00
5:10
NM"1
4:48
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
0:55
4:38
2:40
6:14
NM"1
NM"1
5:19
6:20
2:28
6:52
3:08
NM"1
NM"1
BW Counter
Preset
#
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
NM"1
4
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
4
4
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
actual
#
4
2
2
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
2
3
4
1
NM"1
NM"1
3
3
1
2
3
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
3
2
4
1
NM"1
NM"1
4
1
1
2
3
NM"1
NM"1
2
3
1
1
2
NM"1
NM"1
4
1
1
1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
3
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
3
1
2
NM"1
3
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
2
2
2
3
NM"1
NM"1
3
4
1
1
2
NM"1
NM"1
BW
totalizer
Kgal
2758
2768
2788
2799
2819
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
2851
2867
2883
2899
NM"1
NM"1
2953
2973
2983
2998
3012
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
3097
3124
3135
3151
NM"1
NM"1
3197
3213
3233
3249
3264
NM"1
NM"1
3315
3332
3343
3364
3379
NM"1
NM"1
3431
3447
3469
3490
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
3543
3560
3580
3602
NM"1
NM"1
3649
3660
3676
NM"1
3713
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
3782
3804
3825
3841
NM"1
NM"1
3882
3897
3913
3933
3947
NM"1
NM"1
42%
FeCI3
Usage
gal/hr
0.13
0.07
0.16
0.14
0.12
-
0.15
0.00
0.12
0.12
-
0.15
0.05
0.10
0.11
0.14
-
-
0.12
0.10
0.19
0.09
-
0.12
0.07
0.09
0.16
0.16
-
0.18
0.03
0.13
0.09
0.15
-
0.13
0.17
0.12
0.12
-
-
0.11
0.11
0.15
0.11
-
0.15
0.06
0.20
-
0.10
-
-
0.13
0.14
0.12
0.12
-
0.14
0.08
0.08
0.17
0.11
-
-
12.5%
NaOCI
Usage
gal/hr
0.16
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.14
0.17
0.08
0.16
0.13
0.17
0.10
0.11
0.14
0.16
0.15
0.11
0.21
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.06
0.17
0.17
0.20
0.00
0.14
0.19
0.14
0.16
0.21
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.21
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.21
0.14
0.14
0.03
0.00
0.18
0.19
0.20
A-4
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Demonstration Project At Okanogan, WA - Daily Operational Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
45
46
Date
08/03/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
08/06/09
08/07/09
08/08/09
08/09/09
08/10/09
08/11/09
08/12/09
08/13/09
08/14/09
Hour
Meter
hr
NM("
32,053.0
32,074.0
32,090.0
NM">
NM">
NM">
32,150.4
32,167.0
32,182.0
32,194.0
32,207.0
Incre. Run
Time
hr
63.0
21.0
16.0
60.4
16.6
15.0
12.0
13.0
Well #4
Inst.
Flow
gpm
NMW
521
520
514
NM">
NM">
NM">
514
519
512
550
529
Totalizer
kgal
NM("
133,454
134,122
134,623
NM">
NM">
NM">
136,474
136,997
137,461
137,867
138,280
Avg Flow
gpm
-
515
530
522
-
-
-
511
525
516
564
529
Filter
Inst.
Flow
gpm
NM("
510
510
505
NM">
NM">
NM'"
555
505
555
545
510
Totalizer
kgal
NM'"
134,690
135,360
135,869
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
137,750
138,281
138,757
139,165
139,579
Avg
Flow
gpm
-
519
532
530
-
-
-
519
533
529
567
531
Inlet
psi
NM'"
100
100
102
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
102
100
102
100
100
Outlet
psi
NMW
100
100
100
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
100
100
100
100
100
dP
across
Filter
psig
NM"1
0
0
2
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
2
0
2
0
0
Filter Run time
Preset
hr
NMW
8
8
8
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
8
8
8
8
8
actual
hr
NM'"
7:43
7:30
2:39
NM'"
NM'"
NM'"
3:50
7:20
3:44
7:30
7:10
BW Counter
Preset
#
NM"1
4
4
4
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
actual
#
NM"1
1
2
4
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
2
2
3
4
2
BW
totalizer
Kgal
NM"1
4014
4030
4040
NM"1
NM"1
NM"1
4114
4137
4154
4170
4180
42%
FeCI3
Usage
gal/hr
-
0.11
0.14
0.14
-
-
-
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.12
0.12
12.5%
NaOCI
Usage
gal/hr
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.15
0.00
0.07
0.22
Highlighted columns indicate calculated values.
(a) Operational data not recorded during weekends and holidays.
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLE
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at Okanogan, WA
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (asCaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as S\O2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
M9/L
H9/L
M9/L
H9/L
08/14/08
IN
183
-
0.7
126
<0.05
50.1
26.9
0.3
7.7
21.7
2.0
361
-
-
272
142
130
22.7
21.2
1.5
19.8
1.4
104
89
77.0
74.1
AC
181
-
0.7
123
<0.05
47.1
27.1
1.3
7.8
21.5
2.0
374
NA
0.0
261
138
123
22.5
15.6
6.9
7.2
8.4
1,036
<25
76.2
77.0
TT
188
-
0.8
122
<0.05
<10
25.8
0.2
9.5(a)
20.5
1.0
358
NA
NA
267
56.9
210
6.8
6.5
0.3
0.4
6.1
<25
<25
0.6
0.3
09/02/08
IN
182
-
-
-
-
NA
27.0
0.2
NA(D)
NA(D)
NA(b)
NA(D)
-
-
-
-
-
18.6
-
-
-
-
78
-
59.3
-
AC
180
-
-
-
-
NA
26.8
0.4
NA(D)
NA(D)
NA(b)
NA(D)
NA(D)
NA(D)
-
-
-
19.3
-
-
-
-
526
-
60.5
-
TT
184
-
-
-
-
NA
26.7
<0.1
NA(D)
NA(D)
NA(b)
NA(D)
NA(D)
NA(D)
-
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
51.9
-
10/07/08
IN
177
-
0.6
123
<0.05
60.0
26.8
0.1
7.5
16.4
3.6
381
-
-
274
145
129
19.9
18.3
1.6
14.4
3.9
84
<25
60.5
62.5
AC
184
-
0.6
125
<0.05
54.0
26.8
0.1
7.8
16.4
4.2
615
NA
NA
277
149
128
19.8
17.1
2.7
0.4
16.7
163
<25
61.0
18.3
TT
177
-
0.6
125
<0.05
16.4
27.1
1.4
7.8
16.4
4.0
628
NA
NA
273
146
127
8.9
8.6
0.3
0.4
8.2
41
<25
5.7
0.9
10/14/08
IN
175
-
-
-
-
43.2
24.1
0.2
7.7
16.4
NA(C)
428
-
-
-
-
-
18.1
-
-
-
-
73
-
71.1
-
AC
177
-
-
-
-
41.1
23.4
0.6
7.8
16.3
NA(C)
424
1.3
1.4
-
-
-
16.1
-
-
-
-
717
-
63.9
-
TT
175
-
-
-
-
<10
23.7
0.1
7.9
16.4
NA(C)
416
NA
NA
-
-
-
4.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
31.8
-
10/21/08
IN
183
-
-
-
-
44.0
23.3
0.3
7.8
16.7
NA(C)
460
-
-
-
-
-
18.1
-
-
-
-
73
-
68.4
-
AC
181
-
-
-
-
47.6
23.0
1.7
7.8
16.5
NA(C)
440
1.3
1.6
-
-
-
18.8
-
-
-
-
972
-
70.5
-
TT
183
-
-
-
-
12.2
22.5
0.1
7.9
16.5
NA(C)
512
NA
NA
-
-
-
6.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
18.9
-
(a) The high pH value measured caused by media manufacturing process.
(b) Water quality data not measured on 09/02/08.
(c) DO probe not functional, waiting for Battelle to send a new probe.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at Okanogan, WA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (asCI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ng/L
ng/L
Mg/L
ng/L
Mg/L
ng/L
10/28/08
IN
179
-
-
-
-
52.0
26.8
0.1
7.7
16.2
4.1
467
-
-
-
-
-
18.1
-
-
-
-
75
-
70.8
-
AC
175
-
-
-
-
54.5
26.7
0.6
7.8
16.0
4.3
635
1.1
1.3
-
-
-
18.8
-
-
-
-
1,052
-
75.5
-
TT
175
-
-
-
-
13.4
26.1
<0.1
7.8
16.0
4.0
648
1.1
1.2
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.8
-
11/04/08
IN
182
-
0.6
119
<0.05
57.3
24.9
0.5
7.5
16.1
2.5
465
-
-
232
115
117
18.2
17.1
1.2
6.0
11.1
61
52
69.5
67.8
AC
184
-
0.8
119
0.3
362
32.2
16.0
7.6
16.1
2.5
650
1.8
2.0
230
116
114
100.1la)
8.6
91.5la)
0.3
8.3
7247la)
34
369
21.9
TT
179
-
0.6
120
<0.05
19.3
24.2
0.2
7.7
16.2
2.5
666
1.8
2.0
248
128
120
7.0
6.6
0.4
0.3
6.3
<25
<25
0.4
0.2
11/13/08
IN
180
178
-
-
-
-
67.9
49.7
26.6
26.3
0.6
1.2
7.6
15.7
3.6
461
-
-
-
-
-
20.5
20.6
-
-
-
-
67
67
-
61.8
60.8
-
AC
180
178
-
-
-
-
47.6
50.1
26.5
26.3
1.7
2.5
7.7
15.6
3.7
638
NA
NA
-
-
-
20.0
20.1
-
-
-
-
886
867
-
62.7
63.1
-
TT
178
185
-
-
-
-
70.7
72.0
26.9
26.1
2.3
2.1
7.8
15.6
3.5
636
1.1
1.3
-
-
-
29.1
29.4
-
-
-
-
1,383
1,338
-
66.5
66.0
-
11/18/08
IN
179
-
-
-
-
47.5
26.0
0.1
7.4
16.9
2.6
456
-
-
-
-
-
19.6
-
-
-
-
58
-
58.1
-
AC
179
-
-
-
-
45.7
26.1
0.7
7.6
16.9
3.0
641
1.3
1.6
-
-
-
18.8
-
-
-
-
815
-
58.2
-
TT
176
-
-
-
-
15.5
26.3
0.2
7.7
16.9
3.3
650
1.4
1.2
-
-
-
8.1
-
-
-
-
107
-
5.4
-
12/03/08
IN
182
0.1
0.6
127
<0.05
56.4
25.4
0.9
7.6
15.8
NA
455
-
-
269
145
124
18.2
15.3
2.9
15.3
<0.1
<25
<25
63.5
43.4
AC
186
0.1
0.6
124
<0.05
58.3
26.1
1.6
7.7
15.7
NA
371
0.04
0.4
270
144
126
19.2
15.5
3.7
13.9le)
1.6
920
<25
64.8
65.9
TT
182
0.1
0.6
120
<0.05
17.8
25.3
0.3
7.8
15.6
NA
365
0.02
0.3
273
145
128
14.9le)
14.6le)
0.2
8.9le)
5.7
<25
<25
42.8
43.3
12/10/08
IN
182
-
-
-
-
58.5
25.2
0.4
7.6
15.3
3.0
470
-
-
-
-
-
18.5
-
-
-
-
109
-
56.6
-
AC
178
-
-
-
-
54.2
25.5
0.7
7.7
15.4
2.5
530
0.2
0.6
-
-
-
18.4
-
-
-
-
1,041
-
58.9
-
TT
176
-
-
-
-
17.1
25.3
0.1
7.7
15.4
2.2
532
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
6.9
-
-
-
-
29
-
10.5
-
Cd
to
(d) Unusually high As and Fe concentrations confirmed by sample reanalysis and might be due to sampling error.
(e) High As(lll), indicating insufficient chlorination, which might cause high total As concentration at TT.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at Okanogan, WA (Continued)
Cd
OJ
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (asCI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
H9/L
H9/L
H9/L
H9/L
M9/L
H9/L
M9/L
M9/L
12/16/08
IN
178
-
-
-
-
51.8
23.6
0.2
7.8
10.9
3.5
477
-
-
-
-
-
18.9
-
-
-
-
84
-
58.3
-
AC
178
-
-
-
-
52.0
23.3
0.6
7.9
11.1
3.9
505
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
18.4
-
-
-
-
993
-
60.2
-
TT
178
-
-
-
-
15.5
23.5
0.1
7.9
11.3
3.2
502
0.2
0.6
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
<25
-
22.7
-
01/08/09
IN
178
-
0.6
122
<0.05
94.8
24.4
0.1
7.7
12.9
3.8
483
-
-
356
116
241
19.5
19.7
<0.1
16.5
3.2
53
<25
44.1
43.6
AC
178
-
0.6
120
<0.05
104
24.4
0.7
7.8
12.8
4.6
500
0.3
0.6
358
118
240
21.3
9.3
12.0
0.9
8.3
111
<25
46.4
29.5
TT
175
-
0.6
122
<0.05
37.2
23.8
0.1
7.8
12.8
3.9
513
0.2
0.6
345
111
234
6.9
6.9
<0.1
0.9
6.0
<25
<25
12.2
8.9
01/13/09
IN
176
-
-
-
-
53.9
25.2
0.2
7.5
14.3
5.2
449
-
-
-
-
-
16.4
-
-
-
-
66
-
59.8
-
AC
174
-
-
-
-
55.5
25.0
0.6
7.7
14.5
5.6
503
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
16.6
-
-
-
-
803
-
60.0
-
TT
174
-
-
-
-
16.2
25.3
0.1
7.8
14.5
4.4
503
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
5.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
18.3
-
01/20/09
IN
180
-
-
-
-
58.6
24.6
0.4
7.4
13.1
NA
467
-
-
-
-
-
17.1
-
-
-
-
67
-
59.1
-
AC
176
-
-
-
-
56.6
24.5
0.8
7.6
13.3
3.5
501
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
16.6
-
-
-
-
779
-
58.5
-
TT
178
-
-
-
-
16.7
24.2
0.2
7.7
13.4
3.8
517
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
5.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
17.8
-
01/27/09
IN
175
178
-
-
-
-
52.0
54.7
26.0
26.6
0.2
0.2
7.5
16.5
3.3
461
-
-
-
-
-
17.3
17.3
-
-
-
-
66
69
-
59.2
59.5
-
AC
171
173
-
-
-
-
53.3
53.7
26.1
25.6
0.6
0.6
7.7
16.5
4.3
481
0.4
0.6
-
-
-
17.4
17.4
-
-
-
-
847
846
-
60.9
61.3
-
TT
175
175
-
-
-
-
14.7
14.8
25.4
25.4
0.1
0.1
7.8
16.5
2.5
519
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
5.7
5.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
20.3
20.5
-
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at Okanogan, WA (Continued)
CO
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (asCI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
H9/L
H9/L
H9/L
H9/L
M9/L
H9/L
M9/L
M9/L
02/03/09
IN
178
-
0.6
125
<0.05
47.1
26.3
0.2
7.6
17.5
4.2
460
-
-
259
136
123
19.6
18.3
1.2
3.7
14.7
69
67
61.4
63.6
AC
175
-
0.6
125
<0.05
42.5
27.2
0.7
7.7
17.4
4.1
512
0.2
0.5
257
138
119
19.7
7.7
12.0
0.2
7.5
964
<25
64.2
46.3
TT
173
-
0.7
126
<0.05
<10
25.9
0.1
7.7
17.5
2.3
516
0.2
0.5
254
137
117
6.6
6.2
0.4
0.3
6.0
<25
<25
21.5
21.7
02/18/09
IN
188
-
-
-
-
43.7
24.6
0.2
7.6
17.1
3.8
473
-
-
-
-
-
16.2
-
-
-
-
63
-
53.7
-
AC
186
-
-
-
-
42.1
24.2
0.7
7.7
17.0
3.8
532
0.2
0.6
-
-
-
15.9
-
-
-
-
810
-
55.5
-
TT
183
-
-
-
-
12.3
23.9
0.2
7.8
17.0
6.1
507
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
4.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
36.0
-
02/24/09
IN
177
175
-
-
-
-
53.0
53.4
25.8
26.0
0.2
0.2
7.5
16.5
2.9
486
-
-
-
-
-
17.7
17.6
-
-
-
-
71
68
-
63.6
63.4
-
AC
175
173
-
-
-
-
51.6
53.3
25.8
25.7
0.6
0.6
7.6
16.3
1.8
516
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
17.8
17.7
-
-
-
-
790
782
-
64.5
63.9
-
TT
177
173
-
-
-
-
17.8
18.4
25.3
25.7
0.1
<0.1
7.6
16.1
1.5
506
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
6.1
6.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
24.6
25.4
-
03/03/09
IN
184
-
1.0
128
<0.05
53.6
26.4
0.2
7.6
16.2
1.2
455
-
-
237
124
113
17.5
17.3
0.3
14.4
2.9
67.5
40.8
65.2
62.0
AC
179
-
0.9
123
<0.05
53.4
26.4
0.6
7.7
16.1
2.8
500
0.2
0.6
227
123
104
18.1
6.4
11.6
0.6
5.8
762
<25
65.9
35.7
TT
181
-
0.7
127
<0.05
19.6
26
<0.1
7.7
16.1
1.4
493
0.2
0.5
223
121
101
6.3
5.2
1.1
0.6
4.6
78.5
<25
28.1
22.2
03/10/09
IN
181
-
-
-
-
58.4
25.6
0.1
7.6
15.9
1.8
466
-
-
-
-
-
19.5
-
-
-
-
72.3
-
60.7
-
AC
179
-
-
-
-
55.7
25.7
0.6
7.6
15.8
2.3
507
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
18.8
-
-
-
-
939
-
62.1
-
TT
179
-
-
-
-
16.4
25.6
0.1
7.6
15.8
1.5
518
0.2
0.4
-
-
-
6.4
-
-
-
-
27.6
-
19.6
-
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at Okanogan, WA (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (asCI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
ra/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
M9/L
H9/L
M9/L
ra/L
03/17/09
IN
180
-
-
-
-
49.1
24.9
0.2
7.6
16.4
1.6
458
-
-
-
-
-
17.2
-
-
-
-
78.8
-
65.2
-
AC
178
-
-
-
-
45.3
25.3
0.6
7.7
16.3
3.1
491
0.4
0.6
-
-
-
17.0
-
-
-
-
867
-
63.8
-
TT
176
-
-
-
-
12.6
25.1
0.1
7.8
16.3
2.2
524
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
5.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
17.5
-
03/24/09
IN
180
-
-
-
-
49.9
24.5
0.5
7.8
16.0
NA
456
-
-
-
-
-
17.6
-
-
-
-
84.3
-
66.6
-
AC
176
-
-
-
-
49.3
24.3
0.6
7.7
16.3
NA
515
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
18.1
-
-
-
-
910
-
67.6
-
TT
182
-
-
-
-
14.4
24.4
<0.1
7.9
15.9
NA
516
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
6.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
8.5
-
03/31/09
IN
190
-
0.7
124
<0.05
31.3
23.3
1.2
7.7
16.3
NA
460
-
-
261
134
127
18.1
18.8
<0.1
15.9
2.9
230
45
59.6
58.6
AC
182
-
0.6
121
<0.05
33.9
23.8
1.6
7.7
16.3
NA
514
0.3
0.7
263
135
128
18.6
9.2
9.4
0.6
8.6
1,186
37
61.3
40.3
TT
177
-
0.6
125
<0.05
<10
23.7
0.9
7.7
16.3
NA
516
0.3
0.3
258
132
126
6.2
6.0
0.2
0.6
5.4
26
<25
13.7
12.1
04/07/09
IN
193
-
-
-
-
54.4
23.1
0.6
NA
16.6
NA
446
-
-
-
-
-
17.1
-
-
-
-
109
-
58.1
-
AC
186
-
-
-
-
52.3
23.1
0.8
NA
16.5
NA
519
0.6
0.7
-
-
-
16.5
-
-
-
-
1,251
-
57.9
-
TT
186
-
-
-
-
<10
22.7
0.3
NA
16.5
NA
543
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
13.8
-
04/15/09
IN
178
-
-
-
-
56.4
28.4
0.5
7.6
16.1
1.0
457
-
-
-
-
-
16.0
-
-
-
-
116
-
50.0
-
AC
178
-
-
-
-
54.1
27.6
1.1
7.6
16.1
1.8
524
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
15.7
-
-
-
-
1,299
-
50.2
-
TT
171
-
-
-
-
12.3
26.6
0.7
7.7
16.0
1.2
527
0.2
0.6
-
-
-
5.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
12.7
-
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at Okanogan, WA (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (asCI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
M9/L
H9/L
M9/L
H9/L
04/21/09
IN
182
-
-
-
-
56.8
26.8
0.5
7.4
16.0
1.1
457
-
-
-
-
-
19.9
-
-
-
-
96
-
64.8
-
AC
182
-
-
-
-
57.7
26.2
1.0
7.5
16.0
1.3
525
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
19.8
-
-
-
-
1,345
-
67.0
-
TT
182
-
-
-
-
<10
24.9
0.4
7.6
16.0
1.1
550
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
6.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
12.1
-
04/28/09
IN
188
-
0.6
122
<0.05
61.5
29.4
0.6
7.5
16.2
2.9
482
-
-
227
110
117
21.3
21.1
0.2
15.4
5.7
85
84
72.7
70.6
AC
178
-
0.7
121
<0.05
54.2
29.8
1.4
7.7
16.1
3.1
481
0.3
0.6
258
143
115
19.7
10.5
9.2
0.7
9.9
1,011
27
74.8
52.5
TT
180
-
0.6
119
<0.05
19.4
28.7
0.3
7.7
16.1
3.2
532
0.2
0.6
270
155
116
6.5
6.6
<0.1
0.6
6.0
63
26
21.1
20.4
05/07/09
IN
187
-
-
-
-
49.2
27.7
1.0
7.4
15.6
2.6
459
-
-
-
-
-
16.5
-
-
-
-
83
-
67.4
-
AC
184
-
-
-
-
50.4
27.7
3.4
7.5
15.7
2.7
515
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
16.2
-
-
-
-
1,102
-
70.2
-
TT
184
-
-
-
-
11.1
27.6
1.6
7.6
15.6
3.2
513
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
4.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
49.0
-
05/13/09
IN
186
-
-
-
-
49.6
27.7
0.2
7.7
15.9
2.9
471
-
-
-
-
-
16.4
-
-
-
-
82
-
67.0
-
AC
181
-
-
-
-
48.5
28.3
2.0
7.8
15.8
4.7
508
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
16.6
-
-
-
-
1,022
-
69.2
-
TT
181
-
-
-
-
12.0
28.3
2.4
7.8
15.9
2.3
525
0.2
0.6
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
12.5
-
05/21/09
IN
183
-
-
-
-
45.6
27.5
1.0
7.6
16.5
1.9
444
-
-
-
-
-
18.4
-
-
-
-
62
-
60.6
-
AC
183
-
-
-
-
44.5
27.2
2.4
7.7
16.4
2.4
504
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
17.4
-
-
-
-
851
-
63.8
-
TT
183
-
-
-
-
11.4
26.9
2.6
7.7
16.5
1.9
515
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
-
61
-
20.3
-
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at Okanogan, WA (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (asCaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
M9/L
H9/L
M9/L
H9/L
05/28/09
IN
187
-
0.6
131
<0.05
45.8
26.5
0.4
7.8
16.8
2.5
477
-
-
323
185
138
14.7
14.9
<0.1
12.1
2.8
78
55
61.6
63.1
AC
185
-
0.8
130
<0.05
45.7
25.9
0.8
7.8
16.7
4.2
487
0.3
0.6
334
196
138
14.5
6.6
7.9
0.2
6.4
970
<25
64.5
42.8
TT
185
-
0.8
130
<0.05
13.9
25.9
0.3
7.9
16.9
2.9
500
0.2
0.5
340
201
140
5.0
5.0
<0.1
0.3
4.7
<25
<25
22.8
22.2
06/03/09
IN
192
-
-
-
-
38.9
27.2
0.6
7.6
16.6
2.0
470
-
-
-
-
-
17.6
-
-
-
-
60
-
65.5
-
AC
190
-
-
-
-
40.1
27.0
1.2
7.6
16.6
3.3
517
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
18.3
-
-
-
-
908
-
72.0
-
TT
192
-
-
-
-
<10
27.1
0.3
7.7
16.7
2.8
523
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
6.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
23.1
-
06/09/09
IN
186
190
-
-
-
-
38.0
41.6
26.2
26.5
1.4
1.8
7.6
16.9
2.6
446
-
-
-
-
-
17.4
17.5
-
-
-
-
72
64
-
66.2
66.6
-
AC
184
186
-
-
-
-
39.0
41.2
26.4
26.7
1.6
1.0
7.6
16.9
3.5
475
0.4
0.6
-
-
-
18.0
17.7
-
-
-
-
904
916
-
71.0
70.0
-
TT
186
186
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
26.3
26
1.6
0.9
7.7
16.8
2.7
517
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
6.3
6.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
21.6
21.9
-
06/16/09
IN
190
-
-
-
-
43.3
26.5
0.9
7.6
16.9
3.8
459
-
-
-
-
-
17.1
-
-
-
-
61
-
66.1
-
AC
190
-
-
-
-
42.4
26.4
1.7
7.7
17.0
3.9
485
0.3
0.5
-
-
-
17.1
-
-
-
-
874
-
67.7
-
TT
188
-
-
-
-
<10
26.2
0.7
7.8
17.1
2.8
521
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
6.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
25.8
-
06/24/09
IN
191
-
0.6
124
<0.05
45.2
25.9
0.5
7.6
16.4
3.5
459
-
-
268
149
119
17.9
17.8
0.1
13.7
4.1
76
71.2
64.2
65.6
AC
187
-
0.6
123
<0.05
44.7
26.0
1.2
7.7
16.4
4.0
510
0.3
0.6
273
152
121
18.1
8.2
9.9
0.3
7.9
999
<25
68.7
44.9
TT
189
-
0.6
127
<0.05
<10
25.6
0.5
7.7
16.5
2.7
521
0.2
0.5
255
141
114
5.6
5.6
<0.1
0.3
5.3
<25
<25
20.4
20.5
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at Okanogan, WA (Continued)
Cd
oo
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (asCI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
Hfl/L
M9/L
H9/L
M9/L
H9/L
06/30/09
IN
189
-
-
-
-
47.6
25.6
0.3
7.6
16.7
1.5
471
-
-
-
-
-
18.6
-
-
-
-
78
-
64.0
-
AC
185
-
-
-
-
45.9
25.8
0.8
7.8
16.6
3.2
511
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
18.1
-
-
-
-
952
-
64.2
-
TT
189
-
-
-
-
11.9
25.7
0.3
7.8
16.6
1.7
523
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
6.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
19.3
-
07/09/09
IN
196
-
-
-
-
37.0
26.3
0.6
7.6
16.9
2.3
444
-
-
-
-
-
16.6
-
-
-
-
57
-
61.6
-
AC
196
-
-
-
-
35.9
26.1
1.0
7.7
16.9
4.2
505
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
16.3
-
-
-
-
832
-
62.6
-
TT
191
-
-
-
-
<10
25.6
0.7
7.7
16.9
3.2
534
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
5.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
21.5
-
07/15/09
IN
189
-
-
-
-
39.9
26.5
0.4
7.5
16.8
3.1
482
-
-
-
-
-
17.2
-
-
-
-
60
-
63.5
-
AC
187
-
-
-
-
35.4
26.6
0.8
7.6
16.8
2.4
524
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
15.7
-
-
-
-
818
-
61.6
-
TT
189
-
-
-
-
<10
25.6
0.5
7.7
16.8
2.9
521
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
5.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
21.5
-
07/22/09
IN
177
-
0.7
131
<0.05
48.4
27.7
1.5
7.5
17.3
2.7
451
-
-
253
139
114
16.8
16.4
0.4
13.1
3.3
169
46
63.3
61.9
AC
179
-
0.6
126
<0.05
48.2
27.2
2.0
7.6
17.2
3.6
490
0.2
0.5
253
140
113
17.7
7.9
9.8
0.6
7.3
871
<25
64.4
43.3
TT
184
-
0.6
124
<0.05
12.3
27.2
1.8
7.7
17.2
2.5
511
0.1
0.5
251
139
112
5.1
5.2
<0.1
0.5
4.7
<25
<25
23.5
23.0
07/29/09
IN
181
-
-
-
-
50.3
26.0
0.3
7.7
18.8
2.5
453
-
-
-
-
-
14.8
-
-
-
-
70
-
61.1
-
AC
174
-
-
-
-
51.1
25.9
0.7
7.7
18.7
3.8
517
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
14.6
-
-
-
-
829
-
63.7
-
TT
177
-
-
-
-
15.6
25.9
0.7
7.8
18.7
3.3
443
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
2.9
-
-
-
-
39
-
37.6
-
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at Okanogan, WA (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(lll)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ng/L
ng/L
Mg/L
ng/L
Mg/L
ng/L
08/05/09
IN
178
-
-
-
-
-
47.2
-
24.8
-
0.4
-
7.6
17.7
2.1
466
-
-
-
-
-
16.0
-
-
-
-
-
68
-
-
60.2
-
-
AC
178
-
-
-
-
-
48.2
-
23.2
-
1.0
-
7.7
17.5
3.0
531
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
15.2
-
-
-
-
-
868
-
-
63.6
-
-
TT
178
-
-
-
-
-
12.8
-
26.0
-
0.3
-
7.8
17.6
2.5
521
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
4.4
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
23.8
-
-
08/12/09
IN
183
-
-
-
-
-
48.4
-
25.1
-
0.7
-
7.6
16.9
3.7
450
-
-
-
-
-
15.8
-
-
-
-
-
61
-
-
58.5
-
-
AC
183
-
-
-
-
-
46.2
-
25.4
-
1.5
-
7.7
16.8
3.2
490
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
15.2
-
-
-
-
-
810
-
-
59.4
-
-
TT
178
-
-
-
-
-
11.7
-
25.1
-
0.5
-
7.7
16.9
2.4
468
0.2
0.5
-
-
-
4.0
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
43.1
-
-
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF RESPONSIBILITIES
ARSENIC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AT OKANOGAN, WA
-------
Table C-l. Summary of Responsibilities
Task
Engineering
Equipment
Supply
Installation
Subtask
System drawings (P&IDs, tank arrangement, and control
panel assembly drawings)
System technical specifications and electrical/conduit
requirements
Site engineering drawings required for electrical and
mechanical tie-ins
Package including engineering drawings and report
stamped by WA PE and submitted to WA DOH
As-built engineering drawings and other post-construction
documentation
Building engineering and permitting including all non-
Filtronics supplied equipment and residuals handling
Electromedia®-!, FH-13 System for 750 gpm and other
equipment per Quotation No. 050802-l.A
Shop testing of PLC input/output to reduce on-site needs
Spare parts for installation/startup
3 copies including: O&M instructions, as-built drawings,
and manufacturers' bulletins
Shipment to the Okanogan, WA site
Receive and inspect shipment for damage/missing parts
Staging area/storage at site prior to installation/startup
Reclaim tank
Photographs of equipment arrival, unloading, placement,
media loading, etc.
Periodic installation inspection and supervision as needed
Equipment unloading and placement including provision of
crane/fork lift, jacking pads, etc.
Equipment leveling, alignment, grouting, and anchoring
Reclaim tank anchoring
FH-13 and Proposed Equipment Installation
Filter vessel and internals (1)
Reaction vessels (2)
Concrete, sealant, and filter media loading
Floating strainer and suction hose for reclaim tank
Recycle pump installation, alignment, and lubrication
Chemical feed equipment and manifold assemblies
installation (2)
Air compressor and starter installation
Finish paint on installed equipment and piping as required
Instrumentation and Controls Installation
Allen Bradley SLC 5/05 programmable controller including
field interconnection wiring
Responsible Party
Filtronics
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
Triad/WQE
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
City of
Okanogan/
G&O
A/
A/
A/
A/
V
Battelle
C-l
-------
Table C-l. Summary of Responsibilities (Continued)
Task
Installation
(Continued)
Shakedown,
Startup,
Inspection
Subtask
Panelview operator interface panel
Solenoid valves and field interconnection wiring to PLC
Flow control valve, butterfly valves, and check valve
Reclaim tank float switches and wiring to PLC
Pressure gauges installation for filter headless
measurements
Pressure switch for low air pressure
Tube meter for backwash and treated water including
wiring to PLC
Backwash flow control valve
Piping and Other Mechanical Connections
All equipment lubrication
All pipes and fittings, supports/hangers, and valves for
filtering, draining, and backwashing per drawings
Face piping and valve assembly
Installation of sample tap assemblies (to be provided by
Filtronics)
Installation of air vent valve (to be provided by Filtronics)
Air tubing for pneumatic butterfly valve actuators
Electrical and Control Wiring Connections
Equipment grounding (vessels, pumps, compressor, etc.)
Interlock the system operation with the well pump and
reservoir
All conduits and electrical wiring from process equipment
to power distribution panel/MCC
All conduits, electrical wiring, and signal wiring to/from
instrumentation to PLC
Circuit breaker panel
Recycle pump and starter wiring
System startup/shakedown**
Mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation inspection
PLC input/output testing and instrumentation
calibration/adjustment
Electrical continuity testing and motor rotation checks
Cleaning, flushing, and draining of all tanks and piping
prior to startup to remove debris
Fill tanks and piping with clean water for leak/pressure
testing (hydrostatic test)
Fill tanks and piping with clean water for hydraulic
shakedown/leak testing
Responsible Party
Filtronics
A/
A/
A/
Triad/WQE
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
City of
Okanogan/
G&O
A/
A/
A/
Battelle
C-2
-------
Table C-l. Summary of Responsibilities (Continued)
Task
Shakedown,
Startup,
Inspection
(Continued)
Chemical
Supply
Well Pumps
Building
Demo Study
Subtask
Operator training on system O&M
Disinfection and bacteriological testing prior to startup to
distribution
Ferric chloride
Sodium hypochlorite
Secondary containment of chemicals
Safety equipment/signs for chemical use/storage
Motor starter for well pump
Communication point in building for control interface with
well pumps and reservoirs through SCAD A
Hour meter/totalizer on well pump
Building infrastructure
Watermains from building to distribution system
Floor drains
Wastewater drain lines to sanitary sewer
Backwash/residuals handling and backwash storage tank
Utilities (heat, light, electricity, potable water, etc.)
Grounding location
Phone line for troubleshooting via modem
Power distribution panel for all equipment and 3/4"
conduit to within 10 ft of skid
Site sign identifying Okanogan as participant in EPA's
program
Drinking fountains, if desired
Emergency shower, if desired
Restroom, if desired
One-year of technical assistance for troubleshooting
Repair or replace faulty Filtronics-supplied parts or
equipment through warranty period
Repair or replace faulty installation work through warranty
period
Treatment system O&M
Prepare Study Plan describing protocol for collecting data
during the demonstration
Monitor treatment system and provide data to EPA, City,
Filtronics, and WA DOH quarterly
Responsible Party
Filtronics
A/
A/
A/
Triad/WQE
A/
City of
Okanogan/
G&O
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
Battelle
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
Note: For system shakedown and startup, Triad provided mechanical/electrical labor for assistance during shakedown
activities; the City provided operator.
C-3
-------
APPENDIX D
BACKWASH LOG SHEETS
EPA ARSENIC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AT OKANOGAN, WA
-------
Table D-l. Backwash Log Sheets
Date
08/14/08
08/15/08
08/18/08
08/27/08
08/28/08
08/29/08
08/30/08
09/01/08
09/02/08
09/03/08
09/04/08
10/02/08
10/03/08
10/07/08
10/09/08
10/13/08
10/16/08
10/20/08
10/21/08
10/28/08
11/13/08
11/18/08
12/16/08
12/30/08
12/31/08
01/02/09
01/09/09
01/12/09
01/13/09
01/14/09
01/15/09
01/16/09
01/21/09
01/22/09
01/23/09
01/26/09
01/27/09
01/28/09
01/29/09
01/30/09
02/02/09
02/03/09
Ap Before
Backwash
psig
2
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
0
1
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
Ap After
Backwash
psig
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
2
0W
Ow
2
1
2
0
ow
Ow
Ow
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Backwash
Start
Time
-
10:47
11:55
11:57
16:21
8:33
8:54
9:34
9:55
10:19
10:30
15:52
8:06
12:35
11:50
11:43
15:29
13:44
10:05
15:24
14:36
15:12
13:26
14:53
14:56
14:57
11:14
14:47
14:08
14:01
14:05
13:27
15:42
13:07
14:56
15:10
13:30
14:03
13:30
11:15
10:06
10:40
kgal
78
90
112
164
185
194
209
240
245
270
285
403
413
439
460
517
557
608
618
726
877
919
1183
1204
1212
1235
1285
1311
1322
1333
1344
1354
1380
1389
1396
1424
1434
1448
1459
1469
1492
1513
Backwash
End
Time
-
-
11:59
12:01
16:25
8:38
-
9:38
9:59
10:23
10:34
15:56
8:10
12:39
11:54
11:47
15:33
13:48
10:09
15:28
14:40
15:16
13:30
14:55
15:00
15:01
11:18
14:51
14:12
14:05
14:09
13:31
15:46
13:11
15:00
15:14
13:38
14:07
13:34
11:19
10:10
10:44
kgal
84
95
117
169
189
199
214
245
250
275
290
408
419
445
465
522
562
613
624
731
882
924
1188
1206
1218
1239
1290
1316
1327
1338
1349
1359
1385
1393
1400
1429
1443
1453
1464
1473
1497
1519
Backwash
Flow rate
gpm
1250
1200
1250
1100
1400
1320
1190
1250
1200
1100
1200
1250
1250
1250
1200
1200
1250
1300
1200
1150
1200
1200
1500
720
1500
1000
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1000
1000
1250
1100
1250
1250
1000
1200
1250
Backwash
Duration
min
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
4
4
4
4
4
Wastewater
Generated
Kgal
5.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2
6.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
9
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Average
Flow rate
gpm
1475
1250
1250
1250
1000
1000
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1500
1500
1250
1250
1250
1250
1500
1250
1250
1250
1250
1000
1500
1000
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1000
1000
1250
1125
1250
1250
1000
1250
1500
D-l
-------
Table D-l. Backwash Log Sheets (Continued)
Date
02/04/09
02/05/09
02/06/09
02/09/09
02/17/09
02/18/09
02/19/09
02/20/09
02/23/09
02/24/09
02/25/09
02/27/09
03/02/09
03/03/09
03/04/09
03/05/09
03/09/09
03/10/09
03/12/09
03/13/09
03/16/09
03/17/09
03/18/09
03/19/09
03/20/09
03/24/09
03/25/09
03/26/09
03/31/09
04/02/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
04/08/09
04/09/09
04/10/09
04/13/09
04/14/09
04/15/09
04/16/09
04/17/09
04/21/09
04/23/09
04/24/09
Ap Before
Backwash
psig
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
Ap After
Backwash
psig
0
0
0
Ow
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ow
0
Ow
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Backwash
Start
Time
13:19
12:20
13:22
8:36
15:43
12:40
14:45
11:29
13:10
15:00
14:02
14:45
9:15
8:21
15:00
14:36
12:21
11:55
9:29
11:55
12:38
9:15
13:03
14:37
12:12
9:50
15:07
13:58
12:45
7:44
7:11
13:38
13:09
13:59
15:10
6:57
14:45
14:50
15:08
8:55
15:04
14:27
13:30
kgal
1522
1533
1544
1577
1589
1601
1612
1624
1648
1656
1662
1679
1714
1725
1737
1749
1790
1801
1829
1847
1883
1895
1912
1924
1935
1977
1994
2006
2054
2083
2144
2162
2174
2192
2209
2242
2258
2269
2286
2298
2353
2385
2400
Backwash
End
Time
13:23
12:24
13:26
8:40
15:47
12:44
14:49
11:33
13:14
15:04
14:06
14:49
9:19
8:25
15:04
14:40
12:25
11:59
9:33
11:59
12:42
9:19
13:07
14:41
12:16
9:54
15:11
14:02
12:49
7:48
7:15
13:42
13:13
14:03
15:14
7:01
14:49
14:54
15:12
8:59
15:08
14:31
13:34
kgal
1528
1538
1550
1583
1595
1607
1618
1629
1653
1662
1668
1685
1719
1731
1743
1755
1796
1807
1835
1853
1889
1901
1918
1930
1941
1983
2000
2012
2060
2090
2150
2168
2180
2198
2215
2247
2264
2275
2292
2303
2358
2390
2406
Backwash
Flow rate
gpm
1500
1250
1500
1250
1500
1500
1500
1250
1250
1300
1300
1500
1300
1400
1400
1375
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1350
1400
1400
1450
1450
1420
1450
1400
1350
1300
1300
1350
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
Backwash
Duration
min
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Wastewater
Generated
kgal
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
Average
Flow rate
gpm
1500
1250
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1250
1250
1500
1500
1500
1250
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1750
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1250
1500
1500
1500
1250
1250
1250
1500
D-2
-------
Table D-l. Backwash Log Sheets (Continued)
Date
04/28/09
04/29/09
04/30/09
05/01/09
05/04/09
05/05/09
05/08/09
05/12/09
05/15/09
05/19/09
05/20/09
05/21/09
05/22/09
05/27/09
05/29/09
06/01/09
06/03/09
06/04/09
06/05/09
06/09/09
06/12/09
06/15/09
06/16/09
06/18/09
06/19/09
06/24/09
06/25/09
06/26/09
06/30/09
07/02/09
07/07/09
07/09/09
07/10/09
07/14/09
07/17/09
07/21/09
07/22/09
07/23/09
07/24/09
07/28/09
07/29/09
07/31/09
08/04/09
Ap Before
Backwash
psig
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
0
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
Ap After
Backwash
psig
0
0
0
0
0
0W
0
0
Ow
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ow
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Backwash
Start
Time
13:06
16:02
13:32
13:29
15:24
13:39
12:10
14:12
9:25
9:25
15:04
8:41
14:48
8:50
13:14
11:48
13:42
9:56
8:24
15:20
7:59
15:16
16:54
11:20
9:25
9:20
13:00
9:52
10:25
10:00
10:52
9:00
13:16
12:22
8:37
8:49
9:11
8:46
14:19
15:23
9:03
9:53
14:22
kgal
2458
2475
2487
2503
2554
2572
2605
2667
2710
2768
2788
2799
2819
2867
2899
2953
2983
2998
3012
3097
3151
3197
3218
3249
3264
3343
3364
3379
3447
3490
3543
3581
3602
3660
3713
3782
3804
3825
3841
3897
3913
3947
4014
Backwash
End
Time
13:10
16:06
13:36
13:33
15:29
13:43
12:14
14:16
9:29
9:29
15:08
8:45
14:52
8:54
13:18
11:52
13:46
10:00
8:28
15:24
8:03
15:20
16:58
11:24
9:29
9:24
13:04
9:56
10:29
10:04
10:56
9:04
13:20
12:26
9:01
8:53
9:15
8:50
14:23
15:27
9:07
9:57
14:26
kgal
2464
2481
2492
2509
2560
2577
2611
2672
2716
2773
2794
2805
2824
2872
2904
2958
2988
3002
3017
3103
3156
3202
3223
3254
3269
3348
3369
3385
3453
3495
3549
3586
3607
3665
3718
3788
3809
3830
3846
3902
3918
3952
4020
Backwash
Flow rate
gpm
1400
1400
1400
1400
1350
1400
1350
1350
1350
1350
1350
1350
1300
1300
1300
1300
1350
1150
1350
1350
1325
1325
1300
1300
1300
1300
1350
1350
1300
1300
1350
1350
1325
1300
1350
1400
1350
1400
1300
1350
1350
1300
1400
Backwash
Duration
min
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Wastewater
Generated
kgal
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
Average
Flow rate
gpm
1500
1500
1250
1500
1200
1250
1500
1250
1500
1250
1500
1500
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1000
1250
1500
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1500
1500
1250
1500
1250
1250
1250
1250
1500
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1500
D-3
-------
Table D-l. Backwash Log Sheets (Continued)
Date
08/06/09
08/07/09
08/11/09
08/12/09
Ap Before
Backwash
psig
2
1
2
2
Ap After
Backwash
psig
0
0
0
Ow
Backwash
Start
Time
14:32
16:22
13:29
10:41
kgal
4044
4065
4137
4154
Backwash
End
Time
14:56
16:26
13:33
10:45
kgal
4049
4071
4143
4159
Backwash
Flow rate
gpm
1400
1400
1400
1350
Backwash
Duration
min
4
4
4
4
Wastewater
Generated
kgal
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
Average
Flow rate
Gpm
1250
1500
1500
1250
(a) Pressure drop across the filter is zero because reservoirs full and system shutdown.
D-4
------- |