EPA/600/R-07/147
December 2007
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at City of Sandusky, MI
Six-Month Evaluation Report
by
Julia M. Valigore
Abraham S.C. Chen
Wendy E. Condit
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
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 first six months
of the EPA arsenic removal technology demonstration project at the City of Sandusky, MI facility. The
objectives of the project are to evaluate (1) the effectiveness of Siemens Water Technologies' Enhanced
AERALATER® Type II Arsenic Removal Technology in removing arsenic to meet the maximum
contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |o,g/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 characterizes water in the distribution system
and residuals generated by the treatment process. The types of data collected include system operation,
water quality, process residuals, and capital and O&M cost.
After engineering plan review and approval by the state, the AERALATER® was installed and became
operational on June 14, 2006. The fully-automated, packaged system consisted of a 12-ft diameter
aluminum detention tank atop a 12-ft diameter, three-cell gravity sand filter plus ancillary equipment
including an air distribution grid, an air compressor pack, a blower, two chemical feed systems, a high
service pump, sample taps, and associated instrumentation. The filter contained 226 ft3 of sand and was
designed for filtration rates up to 3 gpm/ft2.
Source water had an average pH of 7.2 and contained fluctuating concentrations of arsenic and iron due,
in part, to the use of up to four source water wells. Total arsenic concentrations ranged from 7.3 to
23.5 ng/L and averaged 10.9 |o,g/L. The predominant species was As(III) with an average concentration
of 7.8 |og/L. Total iron concentrations ranged from 236 to 3,214 |o,g/L and averaged 860 |o,g/L. Chlorine
was used to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) to form filterable As(V)-laden particles within the detention tank.
However, due to the presence of 0.3 mg/L of ammonia (as N) in source water, breakpoint chlorination
was not achieved with the 2.9 mg/L (as C12) of NaOCl applied. The formation of chloramines might have
partially inhibited the oxidation of As(III), leaving as much as 2.1 (ig/L of As(III) in the treated water.
After gravity filtration, total arsenic concentrations ranged from 1.0 to 6.3 |o,g/L and averaged 2.3 |o,g/L,
consisting of As(III) and As(V). The system operated at approximately 168 gal/min (gpm), producing
approximately 29,406,000 gal of water through December 14, 2006. The flowrate corresponded to a
detention time of 67 min and a filtration rate of 1.5 gpm/ft2.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after the system startup demonstrated a
decrease in arsenic (7.4 to 3.0 |o,g/L) and iron (360 to 30 ng/L). Manganese and lead concentrations did
not appear to be affected, but copper concentrations increased from 209 to 511 |o,g/L after system startup.
Alkalinity and pH increased and decreased, respectively, at two locations. Uncertainties of water sources
during baseline sampling and changes to the post-treatment chemicals might have impacted the trends.
Filter tank backwash occurred automatically about three time/week based on a day and time setpoint.
Approximately 6,000 gal of wastewater was discharged to the sanitary sewer for each event, totaling 1.7%
of the treated water volume during the first six months. On average, the backwash wastewater contained
109 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS), 52 mg/L of iron, 0.9 mg/L of manganese, and 0.4 mg/L of
arsenic, with the majority exisiting as particulates. Based on solids sampling, approximately 3 Ib of solids
were discharged per event including 2.45 Ib of iron, 0.05 Ib of manganese, and 0.02 Ib of arsenic.
The capital investment for the system was $364,916 consisting of $205,800 for equipment, $27,077 for
site engineering, and $132,039 for installation, shakedown, and startup. Using the system's rated capacity
of 340 gpm (or 489,600 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $l,073/gpm (or $0.75/gpd). This unit cost
does not include the cost of the building to house the treatment system.
IV
-------
O&M cost, estimated at $0.24/1,000 gal, included only the incremental cost for electricity and labor.
There was no incremental chemical consumption cost since chlorination was previously performed on-
site.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xii
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
Section 2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
Section 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 7
3.1 General Project Approach 7
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 9
3.3.1 Source Water 9
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 9
3.3.3 Backwash Water 9
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 9
3.3.5 Residual Solid 9
3.4 Sampling Logistics 12
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 12
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 12
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 12
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
Section 4.0 DEMONSTRATION SITE AND TECHNOLOGY EVALUATED 14
4.1 Site Description 14
4.1.1 Existing Facility 14
4.1.2 Distribution System and State Sampling Requirements 15
4.1.3 Source Water Quality 15
4.1.4 Facility Modifications 17
4.2 Treatment Process Description 18
4.3 Treatment System Installation 23
4.3.1 System Permitting 23
4.3.2 Building Construction 23
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown 23
Section 5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 27
5.1 System Operation 27
5.1.1 Service Operation 27
5.1.2 Backwash Operation 29
5.1.3 Residual Management 29
5.1.4 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation 30
VI
-------
5.1.4.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements 30
5.1.4.2 System Automation 30
5.1.4.3 Operator Skill Requirements 30
5.1.4.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities 30
5.1.4.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements 31
5.2 System Performance 31
5.2.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 31
5.2.1.1 Arsenic 33
5.2.1.2 Iron 33
5.2.1.3 Manganese 36
5.2.1.4 pH, DO, andORP 36
5.2.1.5 Chlorine and Ammonia 37
5.2.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters 38
5.2.2 Backwash Water and Solids Sampling 38
5.2.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 38
5.3 System Cost 41
5.3.1 Building Cost 41
5.3.2 System Cost 41
5.3.3 O&MCost 41
Section 6.0 REFERENCES 44
APPENDICES
Appendix A: OPERATIONAL DATA
Appendix B: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations 11
Figure 4-1. Pump House for Well No. 1 and Water Tower 14
Figure 4-2. System Piping and Chlorine and Phosphate Addition Systems 15
Figure 4-3. Screenshot of Water Tower Setpoints for Well Control 18
Figure 4-4. Layout and Schematic of Siemens' AERALATER® Unit 20
Figure 4-5. Treatment System Components 20
Figure 4-6. Control Panel and Ancillary Equipment 21
Figure 4-7. New Treatment Plant Building 24
Figure 4-8. Equipment Delivery and Unloading 24
Figure 4-9. Blower Piping Modification 25
Figure 5-1. Daily Demand of AERALATER® System (Unit 1) 28
Figure 5-2. Daily Demand of Each Well by Both AERALATER® Units 28
Figure 5-3. Arsenic Speciation Results at Inlet (IN), After Detention Tank (AD), and After
Filter Cells (TT) 34
Figure 5-4. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train 35
Figure 5-5. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train 35
Figure 5-6. Total Manganese Concentrations Across Treatment Train 36
Figure 5-7. Chlorine Residuals Through Treatment System 37
vn
-------
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of the Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 3
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 8
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses 10
Table 4-1. Well No. 1 Source Water Quality Data 16
Table 4-2. Well Capacities and Control 18
Table 4-3. Wells No. 3, 6, and 9 Source Water Quality Data 19
Table 4-4. Physical Properties of Silica Sand Media 19
Table 4-5. Design Features of the AERALATER® System 22
Table 4-6. Installation Issues Encountered 25
Table 5-1. AERALATER® System Operational Parameters 27
Table 5-2. Settings for Backwash Operations 29
Table 5-3. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Results 31
Table 5-4. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 32
Table 5-5. Backwash Water Results 39
Table 5-6. Backwash Solids Results 39
Table 5-7. Distribution System Sampling Results 40
Table 5-8. Capital Investment for Siemens'AERALATER® System 42
Table 5-9. O&M Cost for Siemens'AERALATER® System 43
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
bgs below ground surface
Ca calcium
C/F coagulation/filtration
Cl chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DBF disinfection biproducts
DBPR Disinfection Biproducts Rule
DO dissolved oxygen
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
Fe2(SO4)3 ferric sulfate
FedEx Federal Express
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
F£AA haloacetic acid
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
HOA hand/off/auto
hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
LOU letter of understanding
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
m micrometer
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
IX
-------
Na sodium
NA not available or not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detected
NS not sampled
NSF NSF International
NTU nephlemetric 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
Pb lead
PLC programmable logic controller
PO4 phosphate
POU point-of-use
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RFQ request for quotation
RPD relative percent difference
RO reverse osmosis
Sb antimony
SCADA system control and data acquisition
scfm standard cubic feet per minute
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO4 sulfate
SOC synthetic organic compound
STS Severn Trent Services
TDH total dynamic head
TDS total dissolved solids
TE Townley Engineering, LLC
THM trihalomethane
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
UPS United Parcel Service
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
V
vanadium
-------
VFD variable frequency drive
VOC volatile organic compound
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of the division of public works in
Sandusky, MI. The plant operators monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the
treatment and distribution systems on a regular schedule throughout this study period. 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, was the Battelle
study lead for this demonstration project.
xn
-------
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) mandates that 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 at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard
and provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the community water system in the City of Sandusky, MI 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, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28. Siemens Water Technologies' Enhanced AERALATER® Type II
Arsenic Removal Technology was selected for demonstration at the Sandusky facility. As of October
2007, 37 of the 40 systems have been operational, and the performance evaluation of 24 systems has been
completed.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 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, 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 costs is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al.,
2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA website 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 Siemens' system at the City of Sandusky in Michigan
during the first six months from June 14 through December 14, 2006. The types of data collected
included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system),
residuals, and capital and preliminary 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
(Hg/L)
Fe
(Ug/L)
pH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow, NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford,
NH
Dummerston,
VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville,
MD
Houghton,
NY(d)
Newark, 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)
38(a)
39
33
36(a)
30
30(a)
19(a)
27(a)
15(a)
25(a)
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,806(c)
l,312(c)
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
14(a)
13(a)
16(a)
20(a)
17
39(a)
34
25(a)
42(a)
146(a)
12?(o)
466(c)
l,387(c)
l,499(c)
782?(c)
546(c)
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
l,344(c)
l,325(c)
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Arnaudville,
LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo,
NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, 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
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
7?0(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(b)
35(a)
19(a)
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Site Name
Tohono O'odham Utility
Authority
Arizona Water Company
Technology
(Media)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM
200)
Vendor
AdEdge
Kinetico
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
50
37
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
32
41
Fe
(Ug/L)
<25
<25
pH
(S.U.)
8.2
7.8
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls,
OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella,
CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch
Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of
Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows
General Improvement
District
Richmond School
District
Upper Bodfish Well
CH2-A
Golden Hills Community
Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(f)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POEAM
(Adsorbsia/ARM
200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM
200)(g)
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HIX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37(a)
35
15
<25
<25
134
69(c)
<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; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HIX = 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) Replaced 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
Arnaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
Section 2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Siemens Water Technologies' AERALATER® treatment system has been operating at the City of
Sandusky, MI since June 14, 2006. Based on the information collected during the first six months of
operation, the following preliminary conclusions were made relating to the overall project objectives.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• At an average NaOCl dosage of 2.9 mg/L (as C12), breakpoint chlorination was not achieved
due to the presence of 0.3 mg/L (as N) of ammonia in source water. The formation of
chloramines might have partially inhibited the oxidation of As(III), leaving as much as
2.1 (ig/L of As(III) in the treated water.
• The gravity filter consistently removed arsenic to <10 |o,g/L without supplemental iron
addition. The measured filtration rates ranged up to 2.8 gpm/ft2, which were slightly higher
than the design value of 2.5 gpm/ft2, but lower than the maximum value of 3.0 gpm/ft2.
• A filter run could last for as long as 48 hr for a throughput of 483,000 gal without having
breakthrough of iron particles from the filter. Particulate iron breakthrough did occur on
three separate occassions during the course of the study, leaving as much as 523 (ig/L of iron
in the filter effluent. A special study will be conducted during the remainder of the study to
determine the maximum run time until arsenic and iron breakthrough.
• Backwash at a loading rate of 7.4 gpm/ft2 effectively restored the gravity filter for subsequent
service runs. Backwash was performed on a day and time setting for Monday, Wednesday,
and Friday.
• The water quality in the distribution system changed significantly since system startup. The
most noticeable changes included a decrease in arsenic and iron concentrations from 7.4 to
3.0 |o,g/L and from 360 to 30 |og/L, respectively, and an increase in copper concentrations
from 209 to 511
Required system O&Mand operator skill levels:
• Very little time was required to oversee the system operations. The daily demand on the
operator was typically 30 min to visually inspect the system and record operational
parameters. The AERALATER® unit and all ancillary equipment were fully automatic and
controlled by a programmable logic controller (PLC).
• The system was reliable, easy to operate, and experienced no downtime.
Characteristics of residuals produced by the technology:
• Approximately 6,000 gal of wastewater and 3 Ib of residual solids were produced during each
backwash event. The solids discharged to the sanitary sewer included 2.45 Ib of iron, 0.05 Ib
of manganese, and 0.02 Ib of arsenic.
• The total amount of wastewater produced was equivalent to 1.7% of the amount of water
treated.
Capital and O&Mcost of the technology:
• The capital investment for the system was $364,916, including $205,800 for equipment,
$27,077 for site engineering, and $132,039 for installation, shakedown, and startup. The
building was funded by the City and, therefore, not included in this cost.
• The unit capital cost was $ 1,073/gpm (or $0.75/gpd) based on a 340-gpm peak capacity.
-------
The O&M cost, estimated at $0.24/1,000 gal, included only incremental cost for electricity
and labor.
-------
Section 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
the Siemens treatment system began on June 14, 2006. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected
and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance was based
on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the target MCL of 10 |o,g/L through the collection of
water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the
unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The unscheduled
downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a Repair and Maintenance Log
Sheet.
The O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through quantitative data and qualitative
considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation, extent of
preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical handling and inventory, and general
knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and safety practices. The staffing
requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding (LOU) Issued
Final LOU Issued
Request for Quotation (RFQ) Issued to Siemens
Siemens' Quotation Received
Facility Letter Report Issued
RFQ Issued to Townley Engineering
Townley Engineering's Quotation Received
Purchase Order Established with Siemens
Purchase Order Established with Townley
Engineering
Engineering Package Submitted to MDEQ
System Permit Granted by MDEQ
Building Construction Permit Granted to City
Building Construction Began
System Arrived at Facility
System Installation Began
Performance Evaluation Study Plan Issued
Building Construction Completed
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Began
Operator Training Completed by Battelle
Date
September 1, 2004
October 18, 2004
October 27, 2004
October, 28, 2004
December 2 1,2004
March 1, 2005
March 29, 2005
April 22, 2005
May 20, 2005
June 13, 2005
August 5, 2005
September 7, 2005
November 8, 2005
November 2 1,2005
February 16, 2006
February 17, 2006
February 28, 2006
March 1, 2006
April 6, 2006
May 5, 2006
June 14, 2006
June 22, 2006
MDEQ = Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
-------
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 ug/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
- Analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
- Chemical handling and inventory requirements
- General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
- Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
- Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
- O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
water produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water and solids were sampled and analyzed for
chemical characteristics.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (gpm) (or gal/day [gpd]) of
design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital
cost for equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for 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 according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a Daily System
Operation Log Sheet; checked the sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) level; and conducted visual inspections
to ensure normal system operations. If any problem occurred, the plant operator contacted the Battelle
Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator
recorded all relevant information, including the problem encountered, course of actions taken, materials
and supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred, on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a
weekly basis, the plant operator measured several water quality parameters on-site, including temperature,
pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded
them on a Weekly On-Site Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet. Monthly backwash data also were
recorded on a Backwash Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and
labor. Consumption of NaOCl 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, were tracked using an Operator
Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as completing field logs,
replenishing NaOCl solution, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as
-------
recommended by the vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as
performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle
Study Lead and the vendor, was recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the influent, across the treatment plant, during
filter backwash, and from the distribution system. The sampling schedules and analytes measured during
each sampling event are listed in Table 3-3. In addition, Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the
treatment system along with the analytes and schedules at 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, 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. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. The plant operator collected samples weekly, on a four-week
cycle, for on- and off-site analyses. For the first week of each four-week cycle, samples taken at the inlet
(IN), after the detention tank (AD), and after the filter cells (TT), were speciated on-site and analyzed per
Table 3-3 for monthly treatment plant water. For the next three weeks, samples were collected at the
same three locations and analyzed per Table 3-3 for the weekly treatment plant water.
3.3.3 Backwash Water. Backwash water samples were collected monthly by the plant operator.
Connected to the tap on the discharge line, tubing directed a portion of backwash water at approximately
1 gpm into a clean, 32-gal container over the duration of the backwash for each filter cell. After the
content in the container was thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected and/or filtered on-site
using 0.45-(im disc filters. Analytes for the backwash samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to the system startup from February to June 2005,
four sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected from two residences and one business
within the distribution system. These locations are part of the City's historic sampling network under the
EPA Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). Following the system startup, distribution system sampling
continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations.
Samples were collected following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper
Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The dates and times of last
water usage before sampling and of sample collection were recorded for calculation of the stagnation
time. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least 6 hr to
ensure that stagnant water was sampled.
3.3.5 Residual Solids. Residual solids produced by the treatment process included backwash
solids. After the solids in the backwash water containers (Section 3.3.3) had settled and the supernatant
was carefully decanted, residual solids samples were collected. A portion of each solids/water mixture
was air-dried for metals analyses.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Backwash
Water
Distribution
Water
Residual
Solids
Sample
Locations(a)
At Wellhead
IN, AD, TT
BW
Two LCR
Residences
and One LCR
Non-residence
SS (Backwash
Solids from
Each Cell)
No. of
Samples
1
3
3
3
3
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Once
Analytes
On-site: pH,
temperature, DO, and
ORP
Off-site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, SO4,
SiO2, PO4, NH3, NO2,
NO3, TOC, TDS,
turbidity, and alkalinity
On-site(b): pH,
temperature, DO, ORP,
C12 (free and total)
Off-site: As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
P (total), SiO2, turbidity,
and alkalinity
Same as above plus
following off-site
analytes: As (soluble),
As(III), As(V), Fe
(soluble), Mn (soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4,
NH3, and TOC
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
pH, TDS, and TSS
Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu,
and Pb, pH, and
alkalinity
Total Al, As, Ca, Cd, Cu,
Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb,
Si, and Zn
Collection
Date(s) and
Results
Table 4-1
(09/01/04)
Appendix B
Appendix B
Table 5-5
Table 5-7
Table 5-6
(10/25/06)
(a) Abbreviations corresponding to sample location in Figure 3-1, i.e., IN = at inlet,
detention, TT = after filter cells, BW = at backwash discharge line; SS = sludge
(b) On-site measurements of chlorine not collected at IN.
AD = after
sampling location
10
-------
Monthly
, temperature^3), DO®, ORP
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
P, Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
NH3, TOC, turbidity, alkalinity
INFLUENT
(WELLS NO. 1, 3, 6, & 9)0>)
a),
IX
Sandusky, MI
Enhanced AERALATER8
Average Flow: 280 gpm
3), temperature^), DQ(3), ORP(3),
C12 (free and total/3),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),-
1
r
NaOCl
Fe2(S04)3
-------
3.4 Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to 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, colored-coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample
collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The
sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the demonstration site, the sampling date, a two-letter code
for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The
labeled bottles were separated by sampling locations, placed in Ziplock® bags, and packed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed UPS air bills, and bubble wrap, were included. The chain-of-
custody forms and air bills were complete except for the operator's signature and the sample dates and
times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following week's
sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-
MS) Laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses by Battelle's subcontract laboratories,
including American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and Belmont Labs in Englewood,
OH, were packed in separate coolers and picked up by couriers. The chain-of-custody forms remained
with the samples from the time of preparation through collection, 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, 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 quality assurance (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 operator 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
12
-------
solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a water sample in a clean,
plastic beaker and placed the probe in the beaker until a stable value was obtained. The plant operator
also performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine test kits following the user's
manual.
13
-------
4.1
Section 4.0 DEMONSTRATION SITE AND TECHNOLOGY EVALUATED
Site Description
4.1.1 Existing Facility. The City of Sandusky has four supply wells that provide a maximum daily
capacity of 750,000 gal with an average daily demand of 262,000 gal to a population of 2,916. Prior to
the demonstration study, the lead well was rotated monthly among Wells No. 1, 6, 7, and 9. A fifth well,
Well No. 3, was seldom used due to high iron levels. Well No. 1, which was designated for this study,
was 10-in in diameter and 136 ft deep. The static water level depth was 30 ft below ground surface (bgs).
The submersible pump for Well No. 1 previously operated at 210 gpm at 130 ft of total dynamic head
(TDH) to the height of the water tower. A pump test performed in December 2004 indicated that the
aquifer was capable of sustaining an increased extraction rate of approximately 280 gpm at a reduced
TDH of only 18 ft to the height of the treatment system. A new 15-hp pump, capable of producing 340
gpm, was installed in March 2006 prior to the installation of the arsenic removal system.
Figure 4-1 shows the existing pump house for Well No. 1 and 300,000-gal water tower, and Figure 4-2
shows the system piping for Well No. 1 with associated valves, flow totalizer, and pressure gauges.
Existing water treatment consisted of a sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) addition at 3 mg/L (as C12) to reach
a target free chlorine residual level of 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (as C12), and a blended phosphate feed (85% ortho-
and 15% poly-phosphate) at 4 mg/L as a sequestering agent for iron and for corrosion and scale control.
Figure 4-2 shows the 55-gal phosphate and chlorine addition tanks and a scale. The water was pumped to
the distribution system and stored in the water tower as shown in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1. Pump House for Well No. 1 and Water Tower
14
-------
Figure 4-2. System Piping and Chlorine and Phosphate Addition Systems
4.1.2 Distribution System and State Sampling Requirements. The distribution system consists
of 4-in and 8-in cast iron and 8-in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping, which was added in 2000. The two
residences and one business selected for the monthly baseline and distribution system water sampling are
impacted by all of the wells in the distribution system and are part of the City's historic LCR sampling
network. Individual service hookups are %- and 1-in copper piping.
For compliance purposes, the City samples water periodically from the distribution system for several
parameters: monthly at two residences for bacterial analysis; yearly at four residences for trihalomethanes
(THMs) and haloacetic acids (F£AAs) under the EPA Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR); and once
every three years at 10 residences for lead and copper under the LCR. Well No. 1 also is sampled
quarterly for arsenic, yearly for partial chemistry (i.e., chloride, fluoride, hardness, nitrate, nitrite, sulfate,
sodium, and iron) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), once every three years for synthetic organic
compounds (SOCs), and once every nine years for metals and radionuclides.
4.1.3 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected from Well No. 1 on September
1, 2004. The analytical results are presented in Table 4-1 and compared to the historic data collected by
the facility, Battelle (on July 23, 2002), and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
(from March 7, 2001 through March 15, 2004).
Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 14 to 36 (ig/L. Based on the September 1, 2004,
results obtained by Battelle, out of 15.8 (ig/L of total arsenic, 9.7 (ig/L (or 60%) existed as As(III) and
4.0 (ig/L (or 25%) as As(V). Arsenic speciation performed by Battelle on July 23, 2002, however,
showed a total arsenic concentration twice as high with As(III) and As(V) existing almost evenly at 14.9
and 15.3 (ig/L, respectively. The variations in arsenic concentration in Well No. 1 water were, therefore,
closely
15
-------
Table 4-1. Well No. 1 Source Water Quality Data
Parameter
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 P)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Ca (total)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mg (total)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Na (total)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Unit
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
mg/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
Ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Facility
Data
NA
6.9
NA
NA
NA
361*
468
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
113*
16.0*
ND
25.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
115*
1,400
NA
44*
35*
NA
43*
NA
NA
NA
NA
Battelle
Data
07/23/02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30.9
30.2
0.7
14.9
15.3
NA
1,563
1,212
NA
33.6
31.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
09/01/04
6.9/7.2
12.9
0.5
-62
314
525
17
736
1.5
O.04
0.01
0.3
130
0.3
89.0
13.9
<0.1
15.8
13.7
2.1
9.7
4.0
133.6
1,387
1,276
46.3
38.3
37.7
109.4
0.7
0.6
1.2
1.1
MDEQ
Data
03/07/01 -03/15/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
407-546
NA
NA
NA
<0.4
0.05
NA
71-192
0.5-0.7
95-120
NA
NA
14-36
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
500-1,700
NA
NA
NA
NA
43-106
NA
NA
NA
NA
*EPA sample analysis.
TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon; NA = not analyzed
monitored throughout the course of the demonstration study. Because the treatment process relies upon
coprecipitation and adsorption of As(V) with/onto iron solids, prechlorination was required to oxidize
As(III) to As(V).
Iron concentrations in source water ranged from 500 to 1,700 |o,g/L. Manganese concentrations ranged
from 33.6 to 38.3 |o,g/L. Based on the speciation sampling conducted on July 23, 2002, and September 1,
2004, 78 to 92% of iron and 94 to 98% of manganese existed in the soluble form. These results, along
with the presence of As(III) at the levels observed, were consistent with the low DO (0.5 mg/L) and ORP
(-62 mV) values measured during the September 1, 2004, sampling event. For effective arsenic removal
by iron solids, the general recommendations are that the soluble iron concentration is at least 20 times the
16
-------
soluble arsenic concentration (Sorg, 2002), and that the pH values fall within the range of 5.5 to 8.5 (note
that improved arsenic removal most likely would occur at the lower end of this pH range). The results
obtained on July 23, 2002, and September 1, 2004, indicated soluble iron to soluble arsenic concentration
ratios of 40:1 and 93:1, respectively, and a pH range of 6.9 to 7.2. Therefore, no provisions were made
for pH adjustment, but an iron addition system was included in case additional iron was required to lower
the arsenic level in the treated water.
Based on the September 1, 2004, results, 0.3 mg/L (as N) of ammonia was present in raw water. The
presence of ammonia will increase the chlorine demand. Addition of chlorine to raw water will oxidize
As(III) and other reducing species, such as Fe(II) and Mn(II), and also react with ammonia and organic
nitrogen compounds, if any, to form combined chlorine (i.e., mono- and dichloramines within a pH range
of 4.5 to 8.5). In order to attain the target free chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L (as C12), "breakpoint"
chlorination must be achieved. Thus, the theoretical chlorine dosage required would include the
following: (1) amount to oxidize As(III), Fe(II), Mn(II), and any other reducing species, which was
estimated to be 0.9 mg/L (as C12) (Ghurye and Clifford, 2001), (2) amount to oxidize ammonia and
combined chlorine formed during chlorination, which was estimated to be 2.3 mg/L (as C12) (Clark et al.,
1977), and (3) amount to provide the target free chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L (as C12).
With the addition of 3.7 mg/L of NaOCl,(as C12), there is potential for the formation of disinfection
byproducts (DBFs), including THMs and HAAs, due to the presence of approximately 1.5 mg/L of total
organic carbon (TOC) in raw water. Factors affecting the DBF formation include type of disinfectant,
dosage, contact time, water pH and temperature, and concentration and characteristics of precursors, such
as TOC (EPA, 2006). Formation of DBFs is monitored by the State through yearly collection of samples
for THMs and HAAs analyses (Section 4.1.2). Furthermore, chlorine residuals, ammonia, and TOC were
monitored during the performance evaluation study.
Other source water quality parameters also were analyzed (Table 4-1); results were mostly comparable to
those obtained by the facility and MDEQ. The September 1, 2004 results indicated a high turbidity value
of 17 nephlemetric turbidity units (NTU), presumably due to precipitation of iron and other constituents
after sampling. The facility has added phosphates to source water to sequester iron (Section 4.1.1). The
treatment process was expected to greatly reduce turbidity levels through iron removal. Concentrations of
orthophosphate, silica, fluoride, vanadium, and uranium were relatively low and not expected to impact
the arsenic removal. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and sulfate concentrations were elevated, but probably
would not cause concern for the treatment process. Hardness levels measured ranged from 407 to
546 mg/L (as CaCO3); some customers of the water system have installed point of entry softeners to
lower the hardness.
4.1.4 Facility Modifications. Prior to the startup of the EPA-funded AERALATER® (designated
as Unit 1), the City installed a second AERALATER® (designated as Unit 2) to meet the State's firm
capacity requirements and began a water main project financed by U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Rural Development. The City also installed and tested a generator for backup power to the
treatment systems after the building was completed. The two AERALATER® units have a combined
capacity of 680 gpm. Via a common header, Wells No. 1 and 3 were connected to the treatment units in
May 2006, and Wells No. 6 and 9 were connected in mid-August 2006. Control of these wells (Table 4-
2) and monitoring of the AERALATER® systems' operations were facilitated via a system control and
data acquisition (SCADA) system at the City's wastewater treatment plant office. The wells' start and
stop setpoints were controlled by the established water levels in the storage tanks and could be easily
adjusted to change each well's operation. For example, Well No. 1, designated as 'Tower' in Figure 4-3,
has the highest water level setpoint at 26 ft, which requires it to operate most often.
17
-------
Table 4-2. Well Capacities and Control
Well No.
1
3
6
9
Capacity
(gpm)
280
150
150
120
Lead/Backup
Lead
Backup
Backup
Backup
TOWER SETP01NTS
Figure 4-3. Screenshot of Water Tower Setpoints for Well Control
Upon completion of the watermain project, the distribution system consisted of a looped distribution line
supplied by Wells No. 1,3,6, and 9. The facility used Well No. 1 as the lead well with Wells No. 3, 6,
and 9 as backup wells to meet the City's daily demand. Source water data obtained from MDEQ for
Wells No. 3, 6, and 9 are summarized in Table 4-3. It appeared that arsenic concentrations of the blended
water would still be above 10 (ig/L and, therefore, would require treatment through the AERALATER®
units. Due to the high iron concentrations in Well No. 3 water when compared to those in Wells No. 6
and 9 water, Well No. 3 was used as the main backup well during this demonstration study.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
Siemens proposed to use a vertical, prepackaged unit, referred to as an Enhanced AERALATER® Type II
Arsenic Removal System, to remove iron and arsenic from raw water. Sized at 10-ft diameter for 210
gpm in Siemens' original proposal to EPA, the system was upgraded at the City's request and expenses,
based on the pump test results discussed in Section 4.1.1, to 12-ft diameter for 340 gpm in order to
accommodate the City's future expansion. The treatment train included prechlorination/oxidation,
coprecipitation/adsorption, and gravity filtration. The filter media is silica sand, which is listed by NSF
International (NSF) under Standard 61 for use in drinking water applications. The physical properties of
this media are summarized in Table 4-4.
18
-------
Table 4-3. Wells No. 3, 6, and 9 Source Water Quality Data
Parameter
Date
Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
As (total)
Fe (total)
Na (total)
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
^ig/L
HS/L
mg/L
Well No. 3
07/09/04-
10/04/05
620-693
<0.4
<0.05
177-197
0.5
131-160
28-43
2,500-3,000
74-105
Well No. 6
03/09/04-
10/04/05
324-351
<0.4
<0.05
28-45
0.7
62-64
13-38
500-600
41-50
Well No. 9
03/09/04-10/04/05
171-180
<0.4
<0.05
8-10
0.9-1.0
16-18
12-18
200-400
25-26
Source: MDEQ
Table 4-4. Physical Properties of Silica Sand Media
Property
Color
Effective Size (mm)
Uniformity Coefficient
Acid Solubility (%)
Specific Gravity
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Value
Light brown to light red
0.45-0.55
<1.6
<5
>2.5
100
The AERALATER® treatment system includes one each chemical feed system for chlorine and
supplemental iron addition (if necessary), a detention tank with air diffuser grid, a three-cell gravity filter
with aluminum plate underdrains, a blower and motor starter enclosure, an air compressor pack, an
aluminum V-notch weir board, a high service pump with variable frequency drive (VFD), sample taps,
and associated instrumentation. The main body of the AERALATER® unit is constructed of corrosion-
resistant aluminum, and the tank bottom was solvent cleaned prior to undercoat applications. Metal
surfaces of all carbon steel, cast iron, and ductile iron pipe, flanges, and fittings greater than 3-in diameter
were blast cleaned, coated with 3 to 4 mils of primer, and painted with 4 to 8 mils of epoxy.
The treatment system is fully automated with a wall-mounted control panel that houses a touchscreen
operator interface panel (OIP) (Allen Bradley model PanelView 1000), a PLC (Allen Bradley model SLC
5/04), and a modem (U.S. Robotics model V.92). A solenoid panel (Phoenix Contact model UK 5 N)
also is included for the manual override of different valves. Figure 4-4 presents the layout and schematic
of the AERALATER® unit. Figures 4-5 and 4-6 contain photographs of the system components and
control panel and ancillary equipment, respectively. Key system design parameters are listed in Table 4-
5. The major steps of the treatment process include:
• Intake. The well pumps are activated and deactivated based on water tower level setpoints.
The system primarily treats the flow from Well No. 1, but also occasionally receives water
19
-------
12'-0" Diameter x 18'-1/4" High
Type II Aeralater
Enhanced Multi-Wash Style
• Level Control
• float
4" Air Supply Lint Connection
8" Backwash Rate Set Valve
:6" Influent Connection
6" Cell Influent Valve
3" Backwash Waste Valve
8" Backwash Waste Pipe
8" Backwash Waste Drop Pip*
Ground Surface
Source: Townley Engineering.
Drain to Waste NO r to
Figure 4-4. Layout and Schematic of Siemens' AERALATER® Unit
Figure 4-5. Treatment System Components
(Clockwise from Left: Inlet Piping from Wells; Air Diffiiser Grid within Detention Tank; Influent Piping
and Prechlorination Equipment; AERALATER® Unit with Detention Tank Effluent above Gravity Cell
Influent; and Discharge Piping with Siphon Breaker to Sump)
20
-------
Figure 4-6. Control Panel and Ancillary Equipment
(Clockwise from TopLeft: Control Panel and VFD; Low Pressure Limit Switch and Head Loss Gauge;
High Service Pump; Blower; Compressor; and Solenoid Panel)
from Wells No. 3, 6, and 9. Influent (and effluent) flowrates and throughput were monitored
using Siemens' Sitrans F Magflow flowmeters. The inlet piping from the wells into the
building and the combined influent piping to the treatment system is shown in Figure 4-5.
Chlorine Addition. A 12.5% NaOCl solution is injected to oxidize As(III) to As(V) and
Fe(II) to Fe(III) in raw water. The chemical feed system includes a 0.58-gal/hr (gph) LMI
metering pump, a check valve, a 4-function anti-siphon pressure relief valve, suction tubing, a
foot valve and a foot valve weight, discharge tubing, an injector check valve, and an LMI 50-
gal polyethylene chemical day tank with cover (Figure 4-5). The pump was proportionally
paced according to the influent flowrate. One calibration cylinder was included for direct
dosage (i.e., gph) measurements. The City also provided a drum scale and eye wash station
at its own expense.
Iron Addition. Enough natural iron is expected to exist in source water to effectively
remove arsenic through coprecipitation with and adsorption onto the iron solids formed from
chlorine addition. Nonetheless, a 0.42-gph LMI metering pump (with flow pacing
capabilities), a check valve, a 4-function anti-siphon pressure relief valve, suction tubing, a
foot valve and a foot valve weight, discharge tubing, an injector check valve, and an LMI 50-
gal polyethylene chemical day tank for ferric sulfate (Fe2[SO4]3) solution are available, if
needed, for supplemental iron addition.
Detention. A 12-ft-diameter by 10.8-ft-tall aluminum detention tank provides over 40 min of
contact time to improve the formation of filterable iron floes. The water level is monitored
by a pressure transducer (Rosemount model 2088), which regulates the speed of the high
service pump via a VFD (PumpSmart model PS75) connected to the control panel. A high
21
-------
Table 4-5. Design Features of the AERALATER® System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
Chlorine Addition (mg/L [as C12])
Supplemental Iron Addition (mg/L)
Field
Determined
0
>0.9 mg/L based on demand for As(III),
Fe(II), andMn(II) (Section 4. 1.3)
Used only if needed
Detention
Tank Size (ft)
Volume (gal)
Detention Time (min)
12 Dx 10.8 H
11,340
40
High water level at 9.8 ft
Includes volume of filter freeboard
Based on average flowrate of 280 gpm
Filtration
Filter Size (ft)
Filter Freeboard (ft)
Media Depth (ft)
Surface Area (ft2)
Media Volume (ft3)
Peak Flowrate (gpm)
Average Flowrate (gpm)
Filtration Rate (gpm/ft2)
Daily Production (gal)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
12Dx7.3H
3.7
2.0
113
226
340
280
2.5
489,600
53.5
Three cells in parallel with 1.6 ft underdrain
-
Silica sand media
37.7 ft2/cell
75.3 ft3/cell
-
Typically expected
Based on average flowrate of 280 gpm
Based on peak flowrate, 24 hr/day
Based on a daily demand of 262,000 gal
Backwash
Duration (min)
Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Air Wash (scfm)
Wastewater Production (gal)
Frequency (gal)
45
280
7.4
75
12,600
650,000
15 min/cell
-
-
2.0 scfm/ft2
Per backwash for three filter cells
Based on throughput (or 38.7 hr of run time)
D = diameter; H = height
level setpoint prevents overflow of the detention tank by signaling the well pump(s) to shut
off. The detention tank has a 6-in inlet connection and includes an 18-in-diameter access
manhole and an air diffuser below the water surface. An air diffuser grid further oxidizes and
mixes the chlorinated water. Air supply to the diffuser is provided by a 15-horsepower (hp),
340-standard-ft3/min (scfm) positive displacement blower (Unimac model SB4L-15). Figure
4-5 shows photographs of the detention tank and air diffuser grid, and Figure 4-6 shows the
VFD and blower.
Gravity Filtration. A 6- and 8-in piping manifold on the front of the unit transfers water
from the detention tank to the 12-ft-diameter, 7.3-ft-tall aluminum General Filter
MULTIWASH gravity filter with aluminum plate underdrains. Three cells arranged in
parallel contain 24 in or 75.3 ft3 (per cell) of silica sand and provide a total filtration area of
113 ft2. The filter has a 6-in effluent connection to a 25-hp, centrifugal high service pump
(Gould model 3656M [Figure 4-6]) sized for 340 gpm at 130 ft TDH, which pressurizes the
treated water for distribution. During normal system operation with all three cells in-service,
a 280-gpm flowrate provides a filtration rate of 2.5 gpm/ft2.
Backwash. During the filtration process, solids are collected in the filter cells, resulting in
head loss across the filter. Backwash can be initiated manually, semiautomatically, or
automatically based on a throughput or a day and time setpoint. A low pressure limit switch
(USFilter model 10-in Hg) connected to the underdrain also provides added protection to shut
22
-------
down the high service pump and signal an alarm if a backwash is overdue. An air com-
pressor pack consisting of two 1-hp, 5.0-cfm air compressors (Quincy model QC01006DD
[Figure 4-6]) with an alternating starter panel actuates the filter valves during the backwash
sequence. Each filter cell is backwashed in succession with water produced by the other two
in-service filter cells and receives an air wash from the blower. The resulting wastewater is
sent to a backwash waste sump with a V-notch weir board for flowrate indication and then to
the sanitary sewer through 8-in-diameter schedule 40 steel piping (Figure 4-5).
4.3 Treatment System Installation
This section provides a summary of the system installation, startup, and shakedown activities and the
associated prerequisites including permitting and building construction.
4.3.1 System Permitting. The complete engineering package including civil, architectural,
structural, mechanical, and electrical plans for the water treatment plant was prepared according to the
Ten States Standards by Townley Engineering, LLC (TE). The plans detailed connections of the
AERALATER® systems from the inlet piping and to the City's water distribution and sanitary sewer
systems. In addition, system general arrangement, electrical and mechanical drawings, and component
specifications were provided by Siemens for inclusion in the package. Extensive communications among
Siemens, TE, the City, and Battelle ensured that accurate contract documents existed for proper
fabrication and installation of the equipment. Siemens accommodated all necessary adjustments to the
standard AERALATER® design, such as system orientation, air piping elevation, and chemical feed
equipment. The submittal was certified by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Michigan
and submitted to MDEQ for review and approval on August 5, 2005. After MDEQ's review comments
were addressed, the package was resubmitted on August 29, 2005, and a water supply construction permit
was issued by MDEQ on September 7, 2005. System fabrication began shortly thereafter.
4.3.2 Building Construction. A building construction permit was issued by Sanilac County on
November 8, 2005. After receiving funding from USDA Rural Development on November 16, 2005, the
City began and completed its building construction on November 21, 2005, and March 1, 2006,
respectively. The 60 %-ft * 31 Vs-ft building provides ample space to house three 12-ft diameter
AERALATER® units and includes one 12-ft x 42 %-ft annex divided into a generator room and a
blower/compressor room. Sidewall and roof peak heights are 19 1A and 27 1A ft, respectively. A section
of 16 %-ft-wide removable panel enabled ease of equipment placement and installation. The footing is 52
in deep. The concrete floor in the building is 4 in thick with a 16-in thick reinforced concrete pedestal
atop compacted sand backfill beneath the AERALATER® units. A 4 ft x 2 1A ft x 2 % ft sump (one for
each unit) fed two 3,100-gal precast concrete equalization tanks that emptied into the sanitary sewer to
facilitate wastewater discharge. Figure 4-7 shows the new treatment plant building. In addition to
electrical and plumbing connections, a phone line also was installed to enable the vendor to dial into the
modem in the control panel for any troubleshooting.
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown. The AERALATER® unit and all ancillary
equipment were delivered to the site on February 16, 2006, and system installation began following the
offloading (Figure 4-8). Subcontracted to TE, Franklin Holwerda Co. in Wyoming, MI, performed all
mechanical connections and Blank Electric Co. in Snover, MI, performed all electrical work. Installation
work performed through April 6, 2006, included setting all equipment in place, installing the air diffuser
and face piping manifold, hooking up the chemical feed systems, connecting the piping, and painting
exposed piping. The issues encountered during system installation are summarized in Table 4-6.
23
-------
Figure 4-7. New Treatment Plant Building
Figure 4-8. Equipment Delivery and Unloading
24
-------
Table 4-6. Installation Issues Encountered
Issue Encountered
Blower received not as
specified
Low pressure limit switch
received not as specified
(Figure 4-6)
Blower piping
modification desired by
City (Figure 4-9)
Some equipment missing
from original shipment
Remarks
• Modifications required to add hand/off/auto (HO A)
switches and transformers
• Starter and air flow gauge replaced due to malfunction
• Model previously declined by City in lieu of non-mercury
model still supplied
• Issue never rectified by vendor
• Piping installed according to engineering drawings,
however, City opted to add an elevated loop before the T
to prevent backflow from detention tank or filter cells to
blower
• TE advocated change as preventative measure since
blower would not be operating full-time as designed
because of sufficient oxidation provided via
prechlorination
• Delays in completing installation work experienced
• Remaining equipment eventually received on March 30,
2006 (l!/2 months later), and TE then able to finish
installation work
Figure 4-9. Blower Piping Modification
25
-------
In mid-April 2006, Siemens was on-site for system inspection and O&M training while TE and its
subcontractors completed media loading, leak testing, and electrical continuity testing. The vendor added
the following parameters/features to the OIP: (1) system run time, (2) volume of wastewater generated
during backwash, and (3) blower control status with ability to toggle between operation for aeration and
backwash or for backwash only. Startup and shakedown of the AERALATER® unit was completed from
May 2 to 5, 2006. The common 8-in effluent PVC pipe for both units burst in mid-May and was replaced
by TE and its subcontractors with 8-in ductile iron pipe. Although Well No. 1 was connected to the
treatment system in late May 2006, it could not be used until after subsequent bacterial tests passed on
June 13, 2006. The performance evaluation study began on June 14, 2006, when water supply by Well
No. 1 commenced.
Battelle performed system inspection and training of three operators on sample and data collection from
June 21 to 23, 2006. During this time, the replacement blower starter was installed, and the air wash
flowrate was set during the course of a backwash by throttling the blower and/or adjusting the air wash
rate set valve. Media loss coincided with the air wash flowrate from 40 to 100 scfm with negligible
media loss occurring without air wash.
26
-------
Section 5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1
System Operation
5.1.1 Service Operation. The operational parameters for the first six months of the system
operation, from June 14 through December 14, 2006, are tabulated and attached as Appendix A. The key
parameters are summarized in Table 5-1. During this study period, the EPA-funded AERALATER®
system (Unit 1) treated approximately 29,406,000 gal of water. This throughput was almost 60% of the
City's demand, based on flow totalizer readings for Unit 1 and compared to wellhead totalizer readings
for each well from the City's water production reports. The remainder of the flow was either treated by
Unit 2 or did not require treatment. The daily demands for Unit 1 ranged from 74,000 to 289,000 gal and
averaged 161,000 gal (Figure 5-1), equivalent to a utilization rate of 33% over the 26-week period. Well
No. 1 was the primary well while Wells No. 3 and 6 also were used frequently (Figure 5-2) based on
water tower level start and stop setpoints for each well (Section 4.1.4).
Chlorine addition ranged from 1.3 to 6.7 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 2.9 mg/L (as C12). The dosage was
calculated based on daily NaOCl consumption (by weight) and system effluent totalizer readings. This
dosage was significantly less than the theoretical dosage of at least 3.7 mg/L required to provide a free
chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L (as C12) as discussed in Section 4.1.3. The implications of this dosage and
other confounding data are discussed in Section 5.2.1.5.
Table 5-1. AERALATER® System Operational Parameters
Parameter
Operational Period
Value
06/14/06-12/14/06
Service Operation
Throughput (gal)
Average Demand [Range] (gpd)
Average Flowrate [Range] (gpm)
Average Chlorine Dosage [Range] (mg/L [as C12])
Iron Addition (mg/L)
Average Detention Time [Range] (min)
Average Filtration Rate [Range] (gpm/ft2)
Average Head Loss [Range] (ft H2O)
29,406,000
161,000 [74,000-289,000]
168 [49-3 16]
2.9 [1.3-6.7]
Not required
67 [36-231]
1.5 [0.4-2.8]
1.4 [0.3-2.0]
Backwash Operation
Frequency (time/week)
Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Duration (min)
Wastewater Produced (gal/event)
3
280
7.4
21
6,000
Because the system run time was based on the run time of the high service pump, calculated flowrates
based on run time and flow totalizer readings were not available due to an incorrect setting on the VFD,
which caused the pump to idle even when the treatment system was off. The idling pump incorrectly
reflected excessive system run time during this study period, but the VFD setting was later corrected on
January 9, 2007. Therefore, system flowrates were tracked only by instantaneous readings on the effluent
flow meter, which ranged from 49 to 316 gpm and averaged 168 gpm, which was significantly lower than
the 280-gpm design flowrate (and the capacity of Well No. 1) due largely to the split of the influent flow
27
-------
Figure 5-1. Daily Demand of AERALATER® System (Unit 1)
500
450
400
350
1
o 300
x
'g 250
f 200
f
1
150
100
50
Wells No. 6 & 9 connected to
treatment systems
• Well No. 1 (280 gpm)
• Well No. 3 (150 gpm)
Well No. 6 (150 gpm)
xWell No. 9 (120 gpm)
Jf **
->„. "3». -*>.
Figure 5-2. Daily Demand of Each Well by Both AERALATER® Units
between Units 1 and 2. The corresponding detention time ranged from 36 to 231 min and averaged 67
min and the corresponding filtration rate ranged from 0.4 to 2.8 gpm/ft2 and averaged 1.5 gpm/ft2. The
respective ranges of each of the parameters were inclusive of the design values shown in Table 4-5, but
varied significantly based on the influent flowrates. Air supply from the blower to the diffuser, originally
28
-------
intended to provide constant aeration to the detention tank, was used only once a week to prevent the
diffuser from becoming plugged since the feed water was already oxidized with chlorine. Head loss
varied from 0.3 to 2.0 ft of water (ft of H2O) and did not increase noticeably between two consecutive
backwash cycles.
5.1.2 Backwash Operation. The backwash settings are listed in Table 5-2. The system was
automatically backwashed approximately three time/week based on a day and time setpoint of Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday mornings (exact time was adjusted periodically from 6:00 to 8:00 a.m. during the
study). Instead of using a throughput setting, the facility preferred to use this mode for backwash to
ensure that an operator was on-site should any problem arise during backwash. This frequency
corresponded to a throughput of 322,000 to 483,000 gal (or a filter run time of 32 to 48 hr [at an average
flowrate of 168 gpm]) based on the average daily demand, which seemingly was more frequent than the
throughput setting of 650,000 gal but actually was about the same as the corresponding filter run time of
38.7 hr (at a design flow rate of 280 gpm). Occasionally, manual backwash cycles also were initiated for
testing and sampling of backwash water and solids.
Table 5-2. Settings for Backwash Operations
Parameter
Throughput Trigger (1,000 gal)
Day and Time Trigger
Air Wash Start Delay Timer
(sec/cell)
Backwash Duration (min/cell)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Air Purge Duration (min/cell)
Air Wash Flowrate (scfm)
Blower Control Status(a)
Range
100-2,000
Any
30-300
5-30
0-340
1-50
0-340
AB or BO
Factory
Setting
650
-
60
10
NA
2
NA
NA
Field
Setting
899
MWF 08:00
45
5
280
2
60-70
BO
(a) Ability to toggle between operation for aeration and backwash (AB) or
backwash only (BO).
NA = not available
The backwash flowrate was controlled with a backwash rate set valve located on the face piping
manifold. If the influent flowrate was below the 280-gpm setting when backwash was triggered,
additional wells would be called upon by the PLC to attain sufficient flow prior to commencing the
backwash process. Water levels in the floor sump also provided visual estimates for backwash flowrate
according to heights on the V-notch weir board. The operator indicated that the water level in the sump
was usually at or near a specified height corresponding to a flowrate of 280 gpm (or 7.4 gpm/ft2). Each
filter cell was backwashed in succession with water produced by the other two in-service filter cells for 7
min, including 5 min with water only followed by 2 min with air wash at 60 to 70 scfm and water to
remove particulates. Approximately 6,000 gal of wastewater was produced during each backwash cycle,
which was significantly less than the design value due to the shorter backwash duration, i.e., 7 vs. 15
min/cell. In essence, the system was backwashing more frequently with less water at the design flowrate
and slightly lower air wash flowrate, which appeared to be adequate to fully backwash the filter cells.
Section 5.1.3 provides additional information on wastewater management.
5.1.3 Residual Management. The only residual produced by the AERALATER® unit was
backwash wastewater and solids. Wastewater from backwash was discharged to the building sump,
29
-------
which emptied to the sanitary sewer. Backwash water discharge was tracked by totalizing the volume of
water passing through the influent flow meter during the backwash process. During the first six months,
490,800 gal of wastewater, or 1.7% of the water treated, was generated as a result of this gravity filtration
process.
5.1.4 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation. No system downtime was required. However,
some difficulties were encountered with the blower (Unimac model SB4L-15) and loss of head gauge
(USFilter model), which are shown in Figure 4-6. The air wash provided by the blower occasionally
fluctuated outside of the 60 to 70 scfrn range. To make adjustments, the operator needed to climb a
ladder to reach the set valve located below the 'T' in Figure 4-9. The loss of head gauge, which measures
differential pressure across the filter, could be improved with the use of a smaller scale (e.g., 0 to 10 ft of
H2O) and/or finer graduations. Five increments from 0 to 32 ft of H2O with backwash required at about 8
ft of H2O hinders readability and makes it difficult to monitor increases in head loss especially since
readings ranged only from 0.3 to 2.0 ft of H2O.
5.1.4.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Prechlorination with 12.5% NaOCl was performed
to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) and to provide chlorine residuals to the distribution system. The operator
tracked the consumption of the solution daily with a drum scale and measured chlorine residuals regularly
with a Hach meter. Analytical results from the first six months of system operation indicated that
satisfactory arsenic removal was achieved without supplemental iron addition due primarily to the low
levels of arsenic in raw water. No post-treatment was required; however, the facility chose to resume
blended phosphate (25% ortho- and 75% poly-phosphate) addition in October 2006 for corrosion control.
5.1.4.2 System Automation. The AERALATER® unit was automatically controlled by the PLC in
the control panel. The control panel contained a modem and a touchscreen OIP that facilitated
monitoring of system parameters, toggling the blower status, adjusting backwash setpoints, and checking
the alarm status. The OIP was equipped to provide alarms for high service pump or blower failure, low or
high detention tank level, backwash requirements (for manual or semiautomatic mode), and low
underdrain pressure. Backwash was automatic based on a day and time setpoint; however, it also could
be semiautomatically initiated or manually conducted by operating the blower and individual valve
function switches using the OIP. The PLC included control loops to ensure that the proper equipment,
such as chemical feed and high service pumps, were operating concurrently with the system. In addition,
electrode control programming for the level sensors in the detention tank enabled the well pump motor
starters, the high service pump VFD, and the water tower's plant demand switch to maintain proper water
levels in the detention tank.
5.1.4.3 Operator Skill Requirements. The daily demand on the operator was about 30 min for visual
inspection of the system and recording of operational parameters, such as volume, flowrate, and chemical
usage on field log sheets. In Michigan, operator certifications are classified on a level of 1 (most
complex) to 5 (least complex) (MDEQ, 2006). The primary operator was Limited Water Treatment Level
4 (D-4) and Water Distribution Level 3 (S-3) certified. After receiving proper training during the system
startup, the operator understood the PLC, knew how to use the touchscreen OIP, and was able to work
with the vendor to troubleshoot and perform minor on-site repairs.
5.1.4.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities. The vendor recommended routine maintenance
activities as provided by the equipment manufacturers to prolong the integrity of the treatment system
components within its comprehensive O&M manual (Siemens Water Technologies, 2006). Such tasks
included checking and changing lubrication, replacing worn parts, seals, and gaskets, and cleaning
instrumentation as prescribed.
30
-------
5.1.4.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements. The operator tracked the 12.5%NaOCl
usage daily, coordinated the solution supply through Elhorn Chemical, and refilled the day tank every 1 to
2 weeks. The solution did not require any dilutions and was usually supplied in 30-gal drums. The
facility provided an emergency eye wash and shower station for safety measures.
5.2
System Performance
5.2.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 25 occasions
including two duplicate events and seven speciation events during this study period. Table 5-3
summarizes the analytical results for arsenic, iron, and manganese. Table 5-4 summarizes the results of
the other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results. The results
of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
Table 5-3. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Results
Parameter
As (total)
(Figures 5-3 and 5-
4)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
(Figure 5-3)
As(III)
(Figure 5-3)
As(V)
(Figure 5-3)
Fe (total)
(Figure 5-5)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
(Figure 5-6)
Mn (soluble)
Location
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
Sample
Count
27
27
27
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
27
27
27
7
7
7
27
27
27
7
7
7
Concentration (ng/L)
Minimum
7.3
7.4
1.0
7.3
1.3
0.9
0.2
6.3
<0.1
6.0
<0.1
<0.1
0.6
1.0
0.6
236
239
<25
610
<25
<25
21.6
21.1
<0.1
23.5
6.3
2.1
Maximum
23.5
21.6
6.3
10.4
3.4
2.9
8.7
9.0
0.3
9.8
2.1
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.5
3,214
1,951
523
990
<25
<25
30.6
35.6
21.0
30.1
18.8
20.8
Average
10.9
10.8
2.3
8.9
2.1
1.8
2.3
7.4
0.1
7.8
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.3
1.0
860
807
55.5
744
<25
<25
25.3
25.9
7.9
26.8
11.4
9.5
Standard
Deviation
3.5
3.4
1.5
1.1
0.8
0.7
3.0
1.0
0.1
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.3
570
379
132
130
-
-
2.1
2.9
6.4
2.3
3.7
7.1
One-half of detection limit used for nondetect results and duplicate samples included for calculations.
31
-------
Table 5-4. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaC03)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica (as Si02)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as Cl2)(b)
Total Chlorine
(as Cl2)(b)
Total Hardness
(as CaC03)
Location
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
AD
TT
AD
TT
IN
AD
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
^g/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
°C
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
27
27
27
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
6
6
6
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24w
25
25
25
25
22
22
7
7
7
Concentration
Minimum
293
295
293
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.5
87
89
76
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
<10
11.2
11.2
10.0
2.1
0.5
<0.1
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
7.0
7.0
7.1
11.3
11.0
11.1
0.8
2.0
2.0
248
284
291
0.2
0.1
1.9
1.3
375
377
379
Maximum
350
350
346
0.4
0.3
0.4
3.4
1.8
1.9
105
107
102
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
27.0
29.7
25.4
13.3
13.9
13.8
16.0
9.9
1.7
1.1
1.1
1.1
7.7
7.7
7.6
13.3
13.1
16.2
3.7
4.2
5.6
406
552
566
2.3
3.1
4.6
4.7
436
431
432
Average
317
318
319
0.3
0.2
0.2
1.2
0.9
1.0
95
97
93
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
<10
11.9
11.8
11.7
9.4
1.4
0.5
<1.0
1.0
<1.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
12.1
11.7
12.1
1.9
2.8
2.9
293
380
384
0.7
0.7
3.3
3.3
395
401
404
Standard
Deviation
15.8
14.2
15.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.5
0.6
6.2
7.1
8.8
-
-
-
5.3
5.4
3.9
0.5
0.6
0.6
3.4
1.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.6
0.5
0.7
32.9
92.1
95.1
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.8
20.4
20.8
17.0
32
-------
Table 5-4. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results (Cont'd)
Parameter
Ca Hardness
(as CaC03)
Mg Hardness
(as CaC03)
Location
IN
AD
TT
IN
AD
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
7
7
7
7
7
7
Concentration
Minimum
247
250
252
115
121
119
Maximum
300
297
295
136
148
140
Average
266
270
273
128
131
131
Standard
Deviation
17.9
18.3
16.3
8.5
8.8
7.5
(a) One outlier (i.e., 2.6 mV on 08/08/06) omitted from calculations.
(b) See Figure 5-7.
One-half of detection limit used for nondetect results and duplicate samples included for calculations.
5.2.1.1 Arsenic. Figure 5-3 presents the results of seven speciation events, and Figure 5-4 shows
total arsenic concentrations measured across the treatment train. Total arsenic concentrations in source
water fluctuated significantly during the first six months, due, in part, to the operation of different wells
(i.e., Wells No. 1,3,6, and 9) throughout the study. However, even while operation of only one well was
confirmed over several weeks, no discernable trends were apparent. Source water arsenic concentrations
ranged from 7.3 to 23.5 |o,g/L and averaged 10.9 |o,g/L with 2.3 (ig/L existing in the particulate form and
8.9 (ig/L in the soluble form. The soluble arsenic consisted of 7.8 (ig/L of As(III), the predominant
arsenic species, and 1.1 |o,g/L of As(V). The range of total arsenic concentrations measured during this
six-month period was lower than that of previous results for Well No. 1 (Table 4-1).
Following the detention tank, the average total arsenic concentration remained the same at 10.8 |o,g/L with
7.4 |o,g/L existing in the particulate form and 2.1 |o,g/L in the soluble form (including 0.8 |o,g/L of As[III]
and 1.3 |o,g/L of As[V]). The decrease in As(III) and increase in particulate arsenic after prechlorination
and detention indicated oxidation of As(III) and subsequent coprecipitation/adsorption of As(V) with/onto
the iron solids also formed upon chlorination. As much as 2.1 |o,g/L of As(III), however, was observed
following detention, indicating incomplete oxidation caused, presumably, by the presence of ammonia.
As(III) most likely was oxidized initially by free chlorine before free chlorine reacted with ammonia to
form chloramines (Frank and Clifford, 1986). Ghurye and Clifford (2001) reported that only limited
As(III) oxidation occurred due to the presence of monochloramine formed in situ.
Total arsenic concentrations after gravity filtration ranged from 1.0 to 6.3 |o,g/L and averaged 2.3 |o,g/L.
Based on average influent results, the ratio of soluble iron to soluble arsenic was 84:1, which was more
than adequate compared to the rule of thumb ratio of 20:1 for effective arsenic removal.
5.2.1.2 Iron. Figure 5-5 presents total iron concentrations measured across the treatment train.
Similarly to arsenic concentrations, source water iron concentrations also fluctuated significantly. Total
iron concentrations in source water ranged from 236 to 3,214 |o,g/L and averaged 860 |og/L. Speciation
sampling indicated that iron existed primarily in the soluble form with an average concentration of
744 |o,g/L. Maximum iron concentrations coincided with maximum arsenic concentrations and were seen
in Well No. 1 water. According to historical results presented in Table 4-3, highest arsenic and iron con-
centrations were expected in Well No. 3 water. Well No. 6 water contained the lowest iron concen-
trations, which were lower than historical ranges. Well No. 9 water, however, might have even lower
concentrations, but samples were not collected during periods of its operation. Even at lower-than-
expected influent iron concentrations, arsenic removal was not impacted due mainly to the relatively low
levels of arsenic observed in source water.
33
-------
20
18 -
16 -
_ 14 -
1 12-
1 10 -
§
o 8 -
°< 6
4 -
2 -
0
Arsenic Speciation at the Inlet (IN)
I 1
18-
16-
14-
20
18
16
_ 14
£ 12
o
1 10
06/22/06 07/18/06 08/15/06 09/14/06 10/11/06 11/07/06 12/06/06
Arsenic Speciation after Detention Tank (AD)
06/22/06 07/18/06 08/15/06 09/14/06 10/11/06 11/07/06 12/06/06
Arsenic Speciation after Filter Cells (TT)
06/22/06 07/18/06 08/15/06 09/14/06 10/11/06 11/07/06 12/06/06
Figure 5-3. Arsenic Speciation Results at Inlet (IN), After Detention
Tank (AD), and After Filter Cells (TT)
34
-------
-At Inlet (IN)
After Detention Tank (AD)
-After Filter Cells (TT)
-AsMCL= 10M9/L
06/12/06 07/02/06 07/22/06 08/11/06 08/31/06 09/20/06 10/10/06 10/30/06 11/19/06 12/09/06 12/29/06
Figure 5-4. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train
3,500
3,000
2,500
500
-•-At Inlet (IN)
-D- After Detention Tank (AD)
-A-After Filter Cells (TT)
Fe SMCL = 300 |jg/L
/ \
06/12/06 07/02/06 07/22/06 08/11/06 08/31/06 09/20/06 10/10/06 10/30/06 11/19/06 12/09/06 12/29/06
Figure 5-5. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train
35
-------
The treated water contained low iron concentrations, mostly near and/or less than the analytical reporting
limit of 25 |og/L, except for three exceedances ranging from 182 to 523 |og/L, two of which were above
the 300-|o,g/L secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL). All soluble iron concentrations were
<25 |og/L after prechlorination, detention, and filtration, indicating that the presence of chloramines did
not inhibit the complete oxidation of Fe(II). The low iron levels in treated water indicated that iron was
effectively removed by the filter and did not buildup significantly between backwash events. A special
study will be conducted during the next six months to determine the extent of particulate arsenic and iron
breakthrough, if any, between two backwash events and to determine if the backwash frequency may be
reduced.
5.2.1.3 Manganese. Figure 5-6 presents total manganese concentrations measured across the
treatment train. Manganese concentrations in source water ranged from 21.6 to 30.6 |og/L, which existed
primarily in the soluble form as Mn(II) at an average concentration of 26.8 |o,g/L. With prechlorination
and detention time, approximately 57% of the Mn(II) was converted to particulate manganese (i.e.,
11.4 ng/L of Mn[II] and 15.4 |o,g/L of particulate manganese after the detention tank), which was then
removed by the filter media. The results indicate that only partial oxidation of Mn(II) was achieved with
the presence of chloramines. However, even in the absence of ammonia, previous studies also have found
that incomplete oxidation of Mn(II) occurred using free chlorine at pH values less than 8.5 (Knocke et al.,
1987 and 1990; Condit and Chen, 2006). Filtration media such as sand and Macrolite® do not remove
manganese unless present in the particulate form, so soluble levels after the detention tank were similar to
total and soluble levels after the filter cells.
50
40 --
-»-At Inlet (IN)
-D- After Detention Tank (AD)
-*-After Filter Cells (TT)
Mn SMCL = 50 |jg/L
06/12/06 07/02/06 07/22/06 08/11/06 08/31/06 09/20/06 10/10/06 10/30/06 11/19/06 12/09/06 12/29/06
Figure 5-6. Total Manganese Concentrations Across Treatment Train
5.2.1.4 pH, DO, and ORP. pH values of source water ranged from 7.0 to 7.7 and averaged 7.2. This
range was comparable to those obtained by Battelle during sampling of Well No. 1 water on September 1,
36
-------
2004 (i.e., 6.9 and 7.2 [Table 4-1]). Average DO levels at the inlet were relatively low at 1.9 mg/L, and
then increased slightly to 2.8 mg/L after the detention tank. Although the air difftiser grid was only used
once a week to prevent plugging, some aeration did occur as raw water entered the detention tank. As a
result of prechlorination and some aeration, average ORP levels increased from 293 mV in source water
to 380 mV after the detention tank. DO and ORP readings in source water were much higher than those
measured by Battelle on September 1, 2004 (i.e., 0.5 mg/L and -62 mV, respectively). Some source water
samples might have been partially aerated during the demonstration study period.
5.2.1.5 Chlorine and Ammonia. Ammonia concentrations ranged from 0.1 to 0.4 mg/L (as N)
across the treatment train and averaged 0.3 mg/L (as N) at the inlet and 0.2 mg/L (as N) after detention
and after filtration. Judging by the amount of total chlorine residuals measured after detention and after
filtration (see discussion below), ammonia should have been completely oxidized. Note that the
reporting limit for ammonia was 0.1 mg/L (as N), which was very close to the average amount (i.e.,
0.2 mg/L) measured after chlorine addition and filtration.
Free and total chlorine residuals measured after the detention tank and after the filter cells are presented in
Figure 5-7. As shown in the figure, data for total and, especially, free chlorine residuals were widely
scattered from 1.3 to 4.7 (3.3 on average) and from 0.1 to 3.1 (0.7 on average) mg/L (as C12), respectively.
On several occasions, free chlorine residuals were significantly greater than total (e.g., 3.1 versus
1.7 mg/L [as C12] on July 25, 3.1 versus 0.4 mg/L [as C12] on September 6, 1.9 versus 0.9 mg/L [as C12]
on October 11, and 2.5 versus 0.9 mg/L [as C12] on November 1, 2006). These observations, along with
the fact that only 2.9 mg/L (as C12), on average, of NaOCl had been added to raw water (Section 5.1.1),
suggested that the concentrations measured might have been somewhat higher than the actual
concentrations.
4C
4n
C\T o c
— O. \J
O
""T ^ n -
O)
_§
~m O ^
=5
;g
0
cc 9 n
0
O
"F 1
-------
Considering that 2.9 mg/L (as C12) of NaOCl was applied to raw water, 0.5 mg/L (as C12) would have
reacted with As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II) based on the average amounts (i.e., 7.8, 744, and 26.8 (ig/L,
respectively) present in raw water (Table 5-3), and 2.4 mg/L (as C12) would have reacted with 0.3 mg/L
(as N) of ammonia to form 2.4 mg/L (as C12) of combined chlorine. As such, no free chlorine residuals
should have been formed. This decree seems to be supported by the majority of free chlorine data, which
showed no more than a few tenth mg/L (as C12) and were very close to the MDL of 0.1 mg/L (as C12).
5.2.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate, phosphorus, silica,
TOC, temperature, and hardness levels remained consistent across the treatment train and were not
affected by the treatment process (Table 5-4). Average turbidity decreased from 9.4 to 0.5 NTU with
treatment via the removal of particulates.
5.2.2 Backwash Water and Solids Sampling. Table 5-5 presents the analytical results of the
backwash water samples along with the minimum, average, and maximum of each parameter for all three
cells combined. The pH, TDS, and TSS values of backwash water ranged from 7.4 to 7.7, from 672 to
784 mg/L, and from 52 to 232 mg/L, respectively. The average pH value of backwash water (i.e., 7.5)
was somewhat higher than that across the treatment train (i.e., 7.2). Concentrations of total arsenic, iron,
and manganese averaged 0.4, 52, and 0.9 mg/L, respectively, with the majority exisiting as particulate.
Assuming that all arsenic was adsorbed onto the iron solids, the arsenic (in (ig) to iron (in mg) ratio would
have been 8.2 (on average). Applying the average iron, manganese, and arsenic results, approximately
2.59 Ib of iron, 0.04 Ib of manganese, and 0.02 Ib of arsenic would have been produced and discharged in
6,000 gal of backwash wastewater during each backwash cycle.
The solids loading to the sanitary sewer system was further monitored through collection of backwash
solids (Section 3.3.5). The analytical results of solids samples collected in October 2006 are presented in
Table 5-6. Based on an average TSS concentration of 109 mg/L in backwash water, approximately 3 Ib
of solids were produced as listed in Table 5-6. The iron, manganese, and arsenic compositions of 2.45 Ib,
0.05 Ib, and 0.02 Ib, respectively, agreed well with the results derived from the water quality data. The
calcium composition also was noteworthy at 0.41 Ib or 14% of the total solids mass.
5.2.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Table 5-7 summarizes the results of the distribution
system samples. During the baseline sampling, the City was predominantly operating Wells No. 1, 6, 7,
and 9 to meet demand. Blended phosphate (85% ortho- and 15% poly-phosphate) also was added at
4 mg/L at the wellheads for iron sequestration and corrosion control. Once the wells were connected to
the treatment plant and treatment commenced in June 2006, Well No. 1 was primarily used without
phosphate addition. Beginning in October 2006, post-treatment using blended phosphate (25% ortho- and
75% polyphosphate) resumed for corrosion control at 1 to 2 mg/L.
Average arsenic concentrations improved from 7.1 to 7.6 |o,g/L at baseline to 2.9 to 3.1 |o,g/L after the
system startup and similarly for iron from 120 to 626 |o,g/L to <25 to 42 |o,g/L at the three locations.
Alkalinity and pH increased and decreased, respectively, at DS2 and DS3 compared to baseline levels.
Lead and manganese concentrations remained fairly consistent and did not appear to be affected by the
treatment system; average copper concentrations increased from 129 to 263 |o,g/L to 396 to 699 |o,g/L.
Explanations for this increase are not apparent due to uncertainties of water sources during baseline
sampling and changes to the post-treatment chemicals. The water in the distribution system was
comparable to that of the treatment system effluent for arsenic and iron, so the treatment system appeared
to have beneficial effects on these parameters since they decreased significantly.
38
-------
Table 5-5. Backwash Water Results
Sampling
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Date
06/28/06
07/26/06
08/29/06
09/27/06
10/25/06
12/11/06
All Cells
Combined
Celll
ffi
S.U.
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.4
„
mg/L
718
756
718
748
726
700
1
mg/L
232
156
58
74
84
114
1
Hg/L
702
420
244
293
393
449
Soluble As
Hg/L
3.1
2.2
2.4
6.9
3.9
3.4
<
_QJ
"3
o
1
Hg/L
699
418
241
286
390
446
Total Fe
Hg/L
199,191
53,399
27,856
28,795
42,151
45,637
Soluble Fe
Hg/L
48.7
<25
85.6
97.1
80.8
45.8
Total Mn
Hg/L
1,355
1,023
648
798
905
914
Soluble Mn
Hg/L
16.2
15.2
11.5
12.7
9.5
9.7
Minimum
7.4
672
52
237
2.1
235
26,205
<25
630
7.0
Cell 2
a
s.u
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
„
mg/L
742
784
728
708
700
672
1
mg/L
190
128
62
86
88
102
1
Hg/L
524
400
245
290
419
515
Soluble As
Hg/L
3.3
2.2
2.5
6.7
4.0
3.6
<
_QJ
"3
o
1
Hg/L
521
398
242
283
415
512
Total Fe
Hg/L
72,171
49,488
27,144
28,746
45,934
50,148
Soluble Fe
Hg/L
77.2
<25
105
96.4
102
52.2
Total Mn
Hg/L
1,003
946
649
822
950
1,016
Soluble Mn
Hg/L
17.1
11.0
10.8
8.2
10.4
8.4
Average
7.5
725
109
392
3.7
389
51,658
70.8
883
11.6
CellS
ffi
S.U.
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
„
mg/L
714
770
748
756
694
674
1
mg/L
172
88
52
84
84
104
Total As
Hg/L
485
326
237
316
356
447
Soluble As
Hg/L
3.3
2.1
2.5
7.0
3.5
4.1
Particulate As
Hg/L
482
324
235
309
352
443
Total Fe
Hg/L
77,198
39,039
26,205
30,684
42,651
43,409
Soluble Fe
Hg/L
80.3
<25
81.4
86.6
85.1
114
Total Mn
Hg/L
932
750
630
878
829
840
Soluble Mn
Hg/L
17.0
13.8
11.9
7.0
8.0
10.1
Maximum
7.7
784
232
702
7.0
699
199,191
114
1,355
17.1
Table 5-6. Backwash Solids Results
Filter
Cell 1
Cell 2
CellS
Average
Mg
mg/g
6.4
5.5
6.2
6.1
Al
mg/g
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
Si
Hg/g
225
330
197
251
P
mg/g
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Ca
mg/g
89.3
66.3
68.1
74.6
Fe
mg/g
449
466
435
450
Mn
mg/g
10.2
9.9
9.4
9.8
Ni
Hg/g
9.4
11.1
8.3
9.6
Cu
Hg/g
22.5
19.0
49.7
30.4
Zn
Hg/g
203
198
243
215
As
mg/g
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.7
Cd
Hg/g
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Pb
Hg/g
4.2
4.5
5.6
4.8
As/Fe
Hg/g
8.5
8.2
8.1
8.2
-------
Table 5-7. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
Date
02/23/05
03/22/05
04/26/05
06/01/05
Average
1
2
3
4
5
07/13/06(c'd)
08/08/06(d)
09/06/06(d)
10/31/06
11/29/06
Average
DS1
LCR
1st draw
Stagnation Time
hr
10.5
8.5
8.8
9.0
-
8.0
8.3
9.3
22.0
9.0
-
Cu
s.u.
7.5
7.8
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.4
Alkalinity
mg/L
270
333
326
312
310
306
302
331
335
314
318
V3
1
<*
mg/L
225
311
330
321
297
310
302
335
346
342
327
V3
-------
5.3 Building and System Cost
5.3.1 Building Cost. A 60 %-ft x 31 Vs-ft building with sidewall and roof peak heights of 19 1A
and 27 !/> ft, respectively, was constructed by the City to house the treatment system and provide space for
two additional systems to meet the State's firm capacity requirements and City's future expansion needs
(Section 4.3.2). The total cost for the building construction, site improvements (including sanitary sewer
service and holding tanks), water system telemetry, well connections (to the treatment systems) and
improvements, and Unit 2 installation, was $663,654, which reflects some price escalation resulting from
the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. This cost was not included in the capital cost or used to evaluate the
system cost because the work was outside of the scope of this demonstration project and funded
separately by the City.
5.3.2 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. The total capital investment cost for the
AERALATER® unit was $364,916 consisting of $330,374 (from EPA) for the proposed 10-ft diameter
unit plus $34,542 (from the City) for upgrade to the 12-ft diameter unit (Table 5-8). The equipment cost
of $205,800 (or 56% of the total) included cost for the detention tank and three-cell filter, process valves
and piping, 157 ft3 of sand, two chemical feed systems, an air diffuser grid and other ancillary equipment,
instrumentation and controls, labor, and freight. The system warranty was also included in the cost,
which covered repair and replacement of any defective components for one year after the system startup.
The engineering cost covered the cost for preparing the required system permit application submittal by
TE, including system general arrangement, electrical and mechanical drawings, component specifications,
connections to the entry piping and the City's water distribution and sanitary sewer systems, and
obtaining the required approval from MDEQ. The engineering cost of $27,077 was 7% of the total
capital investment.
The installation, shakedown, and startup cost covered the labor and materials required to unload, install,
paint, and test the system for proper operation. All installation activities were performed by Franklin
Holwerda Co. and Blank Electric Co., both subcontracted to TE. All startup and shakedown activities
were performed by Siemens, TE, and TE's subcontractors with the operator's assistance. The installation,
startup, and shakedown cost of $132,039 was 36% of the total capital investment.
The total capital cost of $364,916 was normalized to $l,073/gpm ($0.75/gpd) of design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 340 gpm (or 489,600 gpd). The total capital cost also was converted to a unit
cost of $0.19/1,000 gal using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate, a 20-
yr return period, and full-time system operation at the rated capacity. Since the system produced only
29,406,000 gal of water during the six-month period, the total unit cost increased to $0.59/1,000 gal.
5.3.3 O&M Cost. O&M cost included electricity consumption and labor for a combined unit cost
of $0.24/1,000 gal (Table 5-9). No cost was incurred for repairs or chemicals since chlorination was
already performed prior to the demonstration study. 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 $884/month or $0.18/1,000
gal of water treated. The routine, non-demonstration related labor activities consumed 30 min/day
(Section 5.1.4.3). Based on this time commitment and a labor rate of $ 18/hr, the labor cost was
$0.06/1,000 gal of water treated.
41
-------
Table 5-8. Capital Investment for Siemens' AERALATER® System
Description
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment
Detention Tank and Filter Cells
Process Valves, Piping, and Air Diffuser Grid
Silica Sand Media (157 ft3)
Instrumentation and Controls
High Service Pump, Compressor Pack, and
Blower
Chemical Feed Systems
Sample Taps and Totalizers/Meters
Siemens' Labor
Freight
Equipment Surcharge for Upgrade
Subtotal
$64,100
$13,431
$883
$44,882
$11,435
$2,314
$1,571
$34,978
$6,460
$25,746
$205,800
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
56%
Engineering
Siemens Labor
TE Labor
Subtotal
$11,077
$16,000
$27,077
-
-
7%
Installation, Shakedown, and Startup
Installation Material
TE Labor for Installation
Subcontractor Labor for Installation
Installation Surcharge for Upgrade
Siemens Labor and Travel for
Shakedown/Startup
Subtotal
$15,120
$24,126
$66,380
$8,796
$17,617
$132,039
-
-
-
-
36%
Total Cost for 12- ft Diameter System
10-ft Diameter System
Upgrade to 12-ft Diameter System
Capital Investment Total
$330,374
$34,542
$364,916
91%
9%
100%
42
-------
Table 5-9. O&M Cost for Siemens' AERALATER® System
Category
Volume Processed (1,000 gal)
Value
29,406
Remarks
From 06/14/06 through 12/14/06
Chemical Usage
Chemical Cost ($/ 1,000 gal)
$0.00
No incremental NaOCl consumption;
iron addition not required
Electricity Consumption
Electricity Cost ($/month)
Electricity Cost ($/l,000 gal)
$884.00
$0.18
Average incremental consumption
after system startup including
building heating and lighting
Labor
Labor (hr/week)
Labor Cost ($/l, 000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($/l,000 gal)
3.5
$0.06
$0.24
30 min/day, 7 day/week
Labor rate = $ 1 8/hr
-
43
-------
Section 6.0 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.
Battelle. 2005. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology Round 2 at Sandusky, Michigan. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-OO-
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.
Clark, J.W., W. Viessman, and M.J. Hammer. 1977. Water Supply and Pollution Control. IEP, aDun-
Donnelley Publisher, New York, NY.
Condit, W.E. and A.S.C. Chen. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal, U.S. EPA
Demonstration Project at Climax, MN, Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-
06/152. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2006. Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. EPA/815/B-06/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal
Register, 40 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.
Frank, P.L. and D.A. Clifford. 1986. Arsenic (III) Oxidation and Removal from Drinking Water.
EPA/600/S2-86/021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Engineering Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Ghurye, G.L. 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): 75-79.
44
-------
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.
MDEQ. 2006. Operator Training and Certification. Website:
http://www.michigan.gov/deqoperatortraining.
Siemens Water Technologies. 2006. Multiwash Enhanced Type IIAERALATER Packaged Iron and
Arsenic Removal Unit- City ofSandusky Water Treatment Plant, Sandusky, Michigan:
Operation and Maintenance Manual.
Sorg, T.J. 2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, 28(11): 15.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
45
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sandusky, Ml - Daily System Operation
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Date
06/14/06
06/15/06
06/16/06
06/17/06
06/18/06
06/19/06
06/20/06
06/21/06
06/22/06
06/23/06
06/24/06
06/25/06
06/26/06
06/27/06
06/28/06
06/29/06
06/30/06
07/01/06
07/02/06
07/03/06
07/04/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
07/07/06
07/08/06
07/09/06
07/10/06
07/11/06
07/12/06
07/13/06
07/14/06
07/15/06
07/16/06
07/17/06
07/18/06
07/19/06
07/20/06
07/21/06
07/22/06
07/23/06
07/24/06
07/25/06
07/26/06
07/27/06
07/28/06
07/29/06
07/30/06
07/31/06
08/01/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
08/04/06
08/05/06
08/06/06
Time
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:01
6:57
6:49
7:02
7:06
7:11
7:10
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:15
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:13
7:00
6:57
6:57
7:01
6:39
6:48
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:03
7:06
7:04
6:56
7:12
7:14
12.5%
CI2
Usage
Ib
25
28
26
NA
27
29
20
28
11
12
NA
28
35
35
37
19
19
20
18
19
25
21
22
21
NA
27
26
22
24
30
26
29
25
33
39
40
44
NA
32
30
30
35
35
31
36
38
37
31
40
32
37
32
35
28
Inlet Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
185
260
261
182
185
186
187
188
267
0
189
190
266
0
264
240
0
136
0
0
0
131
0
0
118
0
0
76
76
191
185
188
0
187
187
188
184
75
75
75
92
90
94
239
115
0
0
281
178
213
198
0
0
152
Meter
kgal
4386
4643
4895
5179
5398
5621
5804
6050
6152
6261
6506
6727
6992
7262
7531
7668
7792
7913
8028
8144
8263
8379
8517
8650
8792
8934
9065
9149
9246
9381
9522
9712
9884
10802
11043
11280
11516
11623
11734
11830
1156
1299
1429
1545
1717
1923
2116
2286
2496
2667
2854
3020
3198
3340
Daily
Flow
kgal
225
257
252
284
219
223
183
246
102
109
245
221
265
270
269
137
124
121
115
116
119
116
138
133
142
142
131
84
97
135
141
190
172
NA
241
237
236
107
111
96
NA
143
130
116
172
206
193
170
210
171
187
166
178
142
Effluent Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
139
312
311
164
141
223
232
242
283
0
236
131
316
0
301
0
0
137
0
0
0
121
235
0
127
0
0
0
0
296
268
116
0
218
122
264
238
110
75
0
110
56
110
0
117
0
0
306
236
273
0
0
0
153
Meter
kgal
4451
4712
4969
5258
5482
5708
5891
6143
6248
6359
6606
6833
7103
7379
7654
7790
7917
8038
8156
8274
8395
8513
8652
8788
8931
9077
9211
9293
9392
9528
9671
9865
41
14183
14419
14087
14316
14560
14818
15059
1336
1480
1613
1729
1904
2114
2311
2485
2699
2860
3050
3221
3401
3545
Daily
Flow
kgal
225
261
257
289
224
226
183
252
105
111
247
227
270
276
275
136
127
121
118
118
121
118
139
136
143
146
134
82
99
136
143
194
176
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
144
133
116
175
210
197
174
214
161
190
171
180
144
Cum.
Flow
kgal
NA
261
518
807
1031
1257
1440
1692
1797
1908
2155
2382
2652
2928
3203
3339
3466
3587
3705
3823
3944
4062
4201
4337
4480
4626
4760
4842
4941
5077
5220
5414
5590
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6885
7029
7162
7278
7453
7663
7860
8034
8248
8409
8599
8770
8950
9094
Head
Loss
ft H2O
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
NA
NA
1.4
NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
1.3
NA
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.4
NA
1.5
1.4
1.5
NA
1.4
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
NA
1.5
Backwash
Elapsed
Volume
kgal
365
251
507
276
500
76
172
424
88
20
238
464
NR
638
363
809
682
780
662
355
778
660
769
632
756
610
476
817
718
767
624
709
533
NA
669
432
680
573
799
704
601
767
634
790
615
705
508
334
699
761
722
551
727
583
Cum.
Volume
kgal
71.7
NR
77.6
NR
83.4
89.4
NR
NR
101.9
107.9
NR
NR
107.9
113.9
113.9
125.5
125.5
131.4
131.4
131.4
137.3
137.3
143.1
143.1
148.9
148.9
148.9
154.8
154.8
160.6
160.6
166.4
166.4
166.4
172.3
172.3
178.1
178.1
183.9
183.9
183.9
189.9
189.9
195.6
195.6
201.4
201.4
201.4
207.2
213.0
219.0
219.0
224.8
224.8
Kgal/
event
kgal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
NA
6.0
NA
11.6
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
5.8
NA
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
5.8
NA
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
5.8
NA
NA
6.0
NA
5.7
NA
5.8
NA
NA
5.8
5.8
6.0
NA
5.8
NA
A-l
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sandusky, Ml - Daily System Operation
Week
No.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Date
08/07/06
08/08/06
08/09/06
08/10/06
08/11/06
08/12/06
08/13/06
08/14/06
08/15/06
08/16/06
08/17/06
08/18/06
08/19/06
08/20/06
08/21/06
08/22/06
08/23/06
08/24/06
08/25/06
08/26/06
08/27/06
08/28/06
08/29/06
08/30/06
08/31/06
09/01/06
09/02/06
09/03/06
09/04/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
09/07/06
09/08/06
09/09/06
09/10/06
09/11/06
09/12/06
09/13/06
09/14/06
09/15/06
09/16/06
09/17/06
09/18/06
09/19/06
09/20/06
09/21/06
09/22/06
09/23/06
09/24/06
09/25/06
09/26/06
09/27/06
09/28/06
09/29/06
09/30/06
10/01/06
Time
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:15
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:10
7:09
6:43
6:30
7:13
7:14
7:18
7:12
6:49
7:02
6:45
7:15
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:15
7:05
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:10
7:00
7:00
7:00
12.5%
CI2
Usage
Ib
28
34
34
36
35
26
37
29
29
38
52
42
42
35
37
43
41
42
41
37
40
38
39
40
40
39
42
38
37
38
36
33
36
34
27
30
40
39
31
29
32
28
24
26
25
13
23
21
22
34
33
36
40
40
40
34
Inlet Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
152
0
175
178
0
0
120
121
0
0
270
224
0
170
0
169
0
172
171
0
171
168
170
91
76
76
60
60
61
0
0
225
160
118
119
117
117
116
116
117
0
0
117
162
87
0
74
79
79
283
170
284
97
158
80
80
Meter
kgal
3477
3647
3818
3995
4158
4308
4423
4539
4640
4823
5095
5533
5730
5898
5817
6018
6201
6383
6566
6732
6902
7064
7512
7392
7534
7671
7787
7868
7952
8042
8199
8319
8430
8561
8667
8783
8993
9172
9295
9402
9526
9639
9744
9901
44
190
325
482
607
721
867
1030
1220
1376
1559
1679
Daily
Flow
kgal
137
170
171
177
163
150
115
116
101
183
272
438
197
168
NA
201
183
182
183
166
170
162
NA
NA
142
137
116
81
84
90
157
120
111
131
106
116
210
179
123
107
124
113
105
157
143
146
135
157
125
114
146
163
190
156
183
120
Effluent Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
202
0
108
151
0
0
200
211
0
0
314
192
0
0
0
234
0
154
177
0
256
0
153
89
89
0
180
0
172
0
0
260
225
0
206
220
171
198
231
0
0
0
219
279
120
0
181
102
93
0
241
0
106
136
0
91
Meter
kgal
3686
3859
4033
4213
4380
4530
4648
4765
4867
5052
5329
5296
5490
5654
6065
6260
6455
6639
6826
6994
7167
7332
7512
7664
7807
7947
8063
8144
8228
8317
8477
8598
8710
8845
8952
9068
9282
9462
9587
9694
9820
9935
40
199
344
492
632
789
913
1033
1179
1346
1539
1698
1882
2005
Daily
Flow
kgal
141
173
174
180
167
150
118
117
102
185
277
NA
194
164
NA
195
195
184
187
168
173
165
180
152
143
140
116
81
84
89
160
121
112
135
107
116
214
180
125
107
126
115
105
159
145
148
140
157
124
120
146
167
193
159
184
123
Cum.
Flow
kgal
9235
9408
9582
9762
9929
10079
10197
10314
10416
10601
10878
10845
11039
11203
11614
11809
12004
12188
12375
12543
12716
12881
13061
13213
13356
13496
13612
13693
13777
13866
14026
14147
14259
14394
14501
14617
14831
15011
15136
15243
15369
15484
15589
15748
15893
16041
16181
16338
16462
16582
16728
16895
17088
17247
17431
17554
Head
Loss
ft H2O
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
NA
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
1.6
NA
1.5
1.5
1.4
NA
1.5
NA
1.5
NA
NA
1.5
1.4
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
Backwash
Elapsed
Volume
kgal
442
734
560
730
563
754
636
519
804
768
645
441
712
544
377
708
513
721
534
739
566
401
720
754
611
471
789
708
624
812
652
778
895
760
653
897
683
898
772
898
772
657
896
899
896
775
635
772
648
528
753
586
706
547
899
776
Cum.
Volume
kgal
224.8
230.0
230.0
236.0
236.0
242.0
242.0
242.2
248.0
253.8
259.7
259.7
265.5
265.5
265.5
271.4
271.4
277.2
277.2
283.1
283.1
283.1
288.9
294.8
294.8
294.8
300.6
300.6
300.6
306.5
306.5
312.4
318.2
318.2
318.2
324.1
324.1
329.9
329.9
335.8
335.8
335.8
341.7
344.4
347.6
349.5
349.5
355.3
355.3
355.3
361.2
366.1
367.3
367.3
379.3
379.3
Kgal/
event
kgal
NA
5.2
NA
6.0
NA
6.0
NA
NA
5.8
5.8
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.8
5.9
NA
NA
5.8
NA
NA
5.9
NA
5.9
5.8
NA
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.9
2.7
3.2
1.9
NA
5.8
NA
NA
5.9
4.9
1.2
NA
12.0
NA
A-2
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sandusky, Ml -Daily System Operation
Week
No.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Date
10/02/06
10/03/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
10/06/06
10/07/06
10/08/06
10/09/06
10/10/06
10/11/06
10/12/06
10/13/06
10/14/06
10/15/06
10/16/06
10/17/06
10/18/06
10/19/06
10/20/06
10/21/06
10/22/06
10/23/06
10/24/06
10/25/06
10/26/06
10/27/06
10/28/06
10/29/06
10/30/06
10/31/06
11/01/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
11/04/06
11/05/06
11/06/06
11/07/06
11/08/06
11/09/06
11/10/06
11/11/06
11/12/06
11/13/06
11/14/06
11/15/06
11/16/06
11/17/06
11/18/06
11/19/06
11/20/06
11/21/06
11/22/06
11/23/06
11/24/06
11/25/06
11/26/06
Time
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:11
7:07
7:14
7:12
6:59
6:50
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:03
7:11
6:52
7:08
6:56
7:06
7:07
7:00
7:08
7:02
7:03
7:16
7:15
7:04
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
6:46
7:04
7:00
12.5%
CI2
Usage
Ib
32
31
30
30
27
27
22
25
27
30
30
29
35
31
30
34
36
37
35
35
33
29
31
29
30
32
36
30
29
31
28
32
28
31
23
24
31
27
29
29
25
26
24
28
29
27
26
26
22
22
33
32
28
21
24
24
Inlet Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
160
0
0
260
0
0
177
170
173
167
173
144
78
78
95
95
158
97
97
95
95
96
0
147
149
80
80
81
282
264
257
258
151
0
0
171
143
304
170
160
0
173
174
0
0
173
151
0
0
0
98
79
61
60
62
61
Meter
kgal
1798
2006
2210
2419
2584
2775
2913
3060
3258
3451
3651
3833
4007
4117
4234
4418
4598
4792
4985
5170
5316
5441
5615
5784
5961
6126
6289
6395
6505
6684
6849
7032
7203
7400
7531
7669
7849
8018
8206
8390
8539
8676
8811
8973
9155
9327
9492
9658
9772
9887
57
77
322
396
476
555
Daily
Flow
kgal
119
208
204
209
165
191
138
147
198
193
200
182
174
110
117
184
180
194
193
185
146
125
174
169
177
165
163
106
110
179
165
183
171
197
131
138
180
169
188
184
149
137
135
162
182
172
165
166
114
115
170
20
245
74
80
79
Effluent Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
0
0
0
307
0
0
87
112
248
224
105
159
179
126
136
91
105
106
133
0
0
102
0
49
208
77
87
83
0
245
225
170
80
0
0
176
151
229
174
185
0
175
180
0
0
181
152
0
0
0
106
78
0
76
87
0
Meter
kgal
2125
2338
2546
2758
2928
3121
3262
3412
3613
3809
4015
4200
4376
4489
4607
4796
4979
5178
5375
5564
5713
5840
6017
6189
6368
6537
6703
6811
6923
7103
7273
7458
7633
7833
7967
8108
8293
8466
8657
8844
8995
9135
9273
9438
9625
9798
9968
136
252
370
542
707
811
885
962
1043
Daily
Flow
kgal
120
213
208
212
170
193
141
150
201
196
206
185
176
113
118
189
183
199
197
189
149
127
177
172
179
169
166
108
112
180
170
185
175
200
134
141
185
173
191
187
151
140
138
165
187
173
170
168
116
118
172
165
104
74
77
81
Cum.
Flow
kgal
17674
17887
18095
18307
18477
18670
18811
18961
19162
19358
19564
19749
19925
20038
20156
20345
20528
20727
20924
21113
21262
21389
21566
21738
21917
22086
22252
22360
22472
22652
22822
23007
23182
23382
23516
23657
23842
24015
24206
24393
24544
24684
24822
24987
25174
25347
25517
25685
25801
25919
26091
26256
26360
26434
26511
26592
Head
Loss
ft H2O
NA
NA
NA
1.5
NA
NA
0.3
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
0.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
NA
NA
0.7
NA
0.7
1.5
0.8
0.7
0.7
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
0.3
1.5
1.5
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
NA
1.4
1.4
NA
1.4
1.4
NA
Backwash
Elapsed
Volume
kgal
897
684
899
687
899
706
565
898
697
896
691
506
734
622
504
719
536
710
513
716
567
440
728
556
732
564
741
633
521
919
549
716
541
699
565
424
728
555
722
534
756
616
478
744
557
726
556
743
627
509
731
566
798
724
826
745
Cum.
Volume
kgal
385.2
385.2
391.1
391.1
396.9
396.9
396.9
402.9
402.9
408.8
408.8
408.8
414.6
414.6
414.6
420.6
420.6
426.5
426.5
432.3
432.3
432.3
438.3
438.3
444.2
444.2
450.0
450.0
452.0
456.0
456.0
461.9
461.9
467.0
467.0
467.7
473.7
473.7
479.6
479.6
485.5
485.5
485.5
491.4
491.4
497.4
497.4
503.3
503.3
503.3
509.2
509.2
515.2
515.2
521.0
521.0
Kgal/
event
kgal
5.9
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.8
NA
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
5.8
NA
2.0
4.0
NA
5.9
NA
5.1
NA
0.7
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.9
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
NA
NA
5.9
NA
6.0
NA
5.8
NA
A-3
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sandusky, Ml - Daily System Operation
Week
No.
25
26
27
Date
11/27/06
11/28/06
11/29/06
11/30/06
12/01/06
12/02/06
1 2/03/06
1 2/04/06
12/05/06
12/06/06
12/07/06
12/08/06
12/09/06
12/10/06
12/11/06
12/12/06
12/13/06
12/14/06
Time
7:15
7:05
7:11
7:05
7:12
7:16
7:11
7:00
7:00
7:02
7:04
7:22
7:00
7:00
6:51
6:58
7:00
6:59
12.5%
CI2
Usage
Ib
24
30
32
29
32
34
31
28
31
28
27
28
25
24
23
31
30
32
Inlet Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
60
189
78
83
80
82
80
80
82
269
154
0
0
0
155
154
177
0
Meter
kgal
634
795
947
1101
1261
1413
1533
1634
1793
1969
2139
2320
2476
2609
2739
2931
3132
3327
Daily
Flow
kgal
79
161
152
154
160
152
120
101
159
176
170
181
156
133
130
192
201
195
Effluent Flow
Flow
rate
gpm
80
192
82
79
98
89
82
70
83
278
160
0
0
0
154
157
176
0
Meter
kgal
1121
1286
1440
1595
1759
1911
2034
2137
2298
2478
2649
2834
2990
3127
3260
3455
3660
3857
Daily
Flow
kgal
78
165
154
155
164
152
123
103
161
180
171
185
156
137
133
195
205
197
Cum.
Flow
kgal
26670
26835
26989
27144
27308
27460
27583
27686
27847
28027
28198
28383
28539
28676
28809
29004
29209
29406
Head
Loss
ft H2O
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
Backwash
Elapsed
Volume
kgal
667
738
584
751
587
754
631
528
367
187
736
551
742
606
473
722
517
718
Cum.
Volume
kgal
521.0
521.0
527.0
532.9
532.9
538.8
538.8
538.8
538.8
538.8
544.7
544.7
550.6
550.6
550.6
556.6
556.6
562.5
Kgal/
event
kgal
NA
NA
6.0
5.9
NA
5.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.9
NA
5.9
NA
NA
6.0
NA
5.9
Note 1: Unit 1 backwashes Monday, Wednesday, and Friday w/ air wash at 60-70 scfin.
Note 2: Unit 1 inlet valve throttled to allow 66-75% of flow to Unit 1 and 25-33% of flow to Unit 2 when
both units operating until 09/19/06. Afterwards, Unit 1: 100% during day, 50% at night; Unit 2: 50% at
night only.
Note 3: Blower operates once/week to keep air diffuser grid from plugging.
NA = not available; NR = no reading taken.
Highlighted columns indicate calculated values.
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L00
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/Lw
mg/Lw
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
06/22/06 - Well 1
IN
297
0.1
0.7
87
0.05
<10
11.7
13.0
NA(C)
7.7
11.8
1.8
298
-
-
375
247
128
7.6
7.3
0.2
6.0
1.3
689
688
25.2
25.1
AD
297
0.1
0.7
89
0.05
<10
11.6
1.3
NA(C)
7.7
11.5
2.4
387
0.2
NAW
384
252
132
7.6
1.3
6.3
0.3
1.0
694
<25
25.0
10.7
TT
297
0.1
0.7
89
0.05
<10
12.1
0.2
NAW
7.6
13.0
2.3
431
0.1
NAW
407
267
140
1.2
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.6
<25
<25
13.5
13.0
06/28/06 - Well 1
IN
293
-
-
-
-
<10
12.0
10.0
-
7.3
13.3
2.8
406
-
-
-
-
-
7.3
-
-
-
-
576
-
22.2
-
AD
297
-
-
-
-
<10
12.9
1.1
-
7.2
12.0
3.7
499
0.2
NAW
-
-
-
7.4
-
-
-
-
617
-
23.0
-
TT
293
-
-
-
-
<10
13.8
1.7
-
7.3
13.5
5.6
535
0.2
NAW
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
-
35
-
12.7
-
07/05/06 - Well 1
IN
297
-
-
-
-
<10
11.6
9.9
-
7.3
12.3
1.8
291
-
-
-
-
-
8.1
-
-
-
-
712
-
24.3
-
AD
302
-
-
-
-
<10
11.9
1.1
-
7.1
12.0
2.0
530
0.3
NAW
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
1,023
-
29.4
-
TT
302
-
-
-
-
<10
11.9
1.0
-
7.1
13.0
2.0
566
0.2
NAW
-
-
-
5.5
-
-
-
-
523
-
21.0
-
07/12/06(e) - Well 3
IN
302
-
-
-
-
<10
12.2
13.0
-
7.3
12.3
1.7
287
-
-
-
-
-
8.9
-
-
-
-
869
-
26.3
-
AD
302
-
-
-
-
<10
11.9
1.2
-
7.2
12.0
2.6
487
1.4
3.5
-
-
-
10.0
-
-
-
-
912
-
26.3
-
TT
302
-
-
-
-
<10
12.4
0.6
-
7.2
12.6
3.1
484
0.4
4.7
-
-
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
472
-
20.5
-
07/1 8/06 -Well 3
IN
311
0.4
1.5
102
0.05
<10
11.3
16.0
<1.0
7.2
11.9
1.4
272
-
-
378
262
115
10.6
10.4
0.2
9.8
0.6
962
990
29.2
30.1
AD
307
0.3
1.4
107
0.05
<10
11.2
0.8
1.1
7.1
12.6
2.6
484
0.4
3.3
407
286
121
10.6
1.6
9.0
0.6
1.0
977
<25
29.3
11.2
TT
307
0.3
1.6
102
0.05
<10
11.4
0.3
1.0
7.1
12.5
2.8
366
0.3
3.4
402
283
119
1.6
1.4
0.2
0.6
0.7
<25
<25
14.5
14.3
07/25/06 - Well 3
IN
312
-
-
-
-
<10
12.5
16.0
-
7.3
12.4
3.7
306
-
-
-
-
-
15.3
-
-
-
-
1,156
-
30.6
-
AD
317
-
-
-
-
<10
12.4
1.4
-
7.3
11.4
4.2
380
1.7
3.2
-
-
-
21.2
-
-
-
-
1,785
-
35.6
-
TT
308
-
-
-
-
<10
12.3
0.5
-
7.3
12.1
3.9
418
3.1
3.5
-
-
-
1.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
10.7
-
(a)AsCaCO3. (b)AsP.
(c) Sample failed laboratory QA/QC check, (d) Test reagent not available for measurement.
(e) Switched to Well No. 3 on 07/10/06. Water quality measurements taken on 07/10/06.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI (continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as
N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as
Si02)
Turbidity
TOC
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total
Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
08/0 l/06(c)- Well 1
IN
299
-
-
-
-
<10
13.3
10.0
-
7.3
12.6
0.8
248
-
-
-
-
-
10.3
-
-
-
-
757
-
AD
295
-
-
-
-
<10
13.9
0.7
-
7.2
12.0
2.6
305
0.5
3.7
-
-
-
10.6
-
-
-
-
755
-
TT
295
-
-
-
-
<10
11.4
0.3
-
7.2
12.1
2.4
303
0.5
3.7
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
08/08/06 - Well 1
IN
302
-
-
-
-
<10
12.7
9.2
-
7.2
12.3
1.5
3*
-
-
-
-
-
11.8
-
-
-
-
795
-
AD
307
-
-
-
-
<10
12.1
0.8
-
7.1
12.1
2.0
447
0.5
4.0
-
-
-
11.5
-
-
-
-
755
-
TT
307
-
-
-
-
<10
11.8
0.2
-
7.2
12.3
2.7
468
0.5
3.9
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
08/15/06(d) - Well 1
IN
307
0.3
3.4
93
0.05
<10
12.3
7.9
1.1
7.3
11.8
1.0
301
-
-
392
257
135
10.0
8.7
1.3
7.5
1.2
841
651
AD
312
0.2
1.8
94
0.05
<10
12.0
0.9
1.1
7.2
11.6
2.7
498
2.3
3.7
424
277
148
9.4
2.5
6.9
0.8
1.6
789
<25
TT
337
0.2
1.9
94
0.05
<10
12.0
0.1
1.1
7.3
11.7
2.9
489
2.0
3.4
411
282
129
2.0
2.0
0.1
0.8
1.2
<25
<25
08/22/06 - Well 1
IN
331
-
-
-
-
<10
11.5
7.8
-
7.2
12.5
1.7
331
-
-
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
691
-
AD
324
-
-
-
-
<10
11.3
0.8
-
7.2
11.7
2.5
552
0.3
4.6
-
-
-
10.8
-
-
-
-
619
-
TT
333
-
-
-
-
<10
11.6
0.2
-
7.2
11.9
2.4
513
0.3
4.3
-
-
-
1.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
08/29/06 - Well 1
IN
320
293
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
11.8
11.2
7.7
8.3
-
7.3
12.1
1.8
290
-
-
-
-
-
8.5
8.1
-
-
-
-
708
707
-
AD
315
326
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
11.3
11.7
0.6
0.9
-
7.3
11.9
3.1
498
1.4
4.0
-
-
-
8.7
9.0
-
-
-
-
724
724
-
TT
324
337
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
11.7
11.4
0.2
0.5
-
7.3
16.2
2.9
474
0.4
3.8
-
-
-
1.2
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
09/06/06(e)-Welll
IN
326
-
-
-
-
22.1
11.3
11.0
-
7.1
12.0
2.3
291
-
-
-
-
-
23.5
-
-
-
-
1,941
-
AD
335
-
-
-
-
19.3
11.7
9.9fe)
-
7.2
12.0
2.8
437
0.4
3.8
-
-
-
21.6
-
-
-
-
1,951
-
TT
335
-
-
-
-
<10
11.6
0.5
-
7.2
11.8
2.7
453
3.1
3.6
-
-
-
4.6
-
-
-
-
182
-
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI (continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
ug/L
ug/L
08/0 l/06(c)- Well 1
IN
27.0
-
AD
26.9
-
TT
9.7
-
08/08/06 - Well 1
IN
25.9
-
AD
26.2
-
TT
10.2
-
08/15/06(d) - Well 1
IN
24.6
26.3
AD
25.5
10.2
TT
2.6
2.6
08/22/06 - Well 1
IN
24.5
-
AD
25.0
-
TT
8.0
-
08/29/06 - Well 1
IN
26.1
25.4
-
AD
26.1
25.7
-
TT
7.8
8.0
-
09/06/06(e)-Welll
IN
26.7
-
AD
29.3
-
TT
7.2
-
(c) Resumed Well No. 1 operation on 07/28/06. (d) Water quality measurements taken on 08/16/06. (e) Water quality measurements taken
(a)AsCaCO3. (b)AsP. on 09/05/06.
(f) Possible recording error, (g) Reanalysis indicated similar result.
Cd
OJ
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI (continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as
N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as
Si02)
Turbidity
TOC
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total
Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
09/14/06(c) - Well 1
IN
316
0.3
0.6
91
0.05
<10
12.3
9.4
1.1
7.3
12.6
1.9
281
-
-
387
254
133
9.6
8.3
1.4
7.4
0.8
789
610
23.4
AD
314
0.1
0.6
93
0.05
<10
11.8
1.4
1.1
7.3
11.6
2.4
311
1.4
3.8
377
250
126
7.7
1.3
6.3
0.1
1.2
691
<25
22.8
TT
323
0.1
0.6
76
0.05
<10
11.4
0.9
<1.0
7.2
11.6
2.6
309
0.3
4.1
379
252
127
1.0
1.1
0.1
0.1
1.0
<25
<25
3.4
09/19/06 - Well 1
IN
324
-
-
-
-
<10
12.3
7.8
-
7.2
12.0
1.5
265
-
-
-
-
-
7.5
-
-
-
-
697
-
26.1
AD
317
-
-
-
-
<10
12.2
0.7
-
7.3
11.3
2.8
301
0.4
4.1
-
-
-
7.5
-
-
-
-
698
-
25.0
TT
320
-
-
-
-
<10
12.1
0.1
-
7.3
11.5
3.6
292
0.9
4.1
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.0
09/27/06(d)-Welll
IN
319
-
-
-
-
27.0
11.4
8.7
-
7.1
11.8
1.8
317
-
-
-
-
-
11.8
-
-
-
-
732
-
25.8
AD
331
-
-
-
-
29.7
11.8
0.9
-
7.3
11.5
2.9
299
0.7
2.9
-
-
-
12.7
-
-
-
-
854
-
27.0
TT
321
-
-
-
-
25.4
- <
12.1
0.1
-
7.3
11.7
3.0
301
0.1
2.6
-
-
-
6.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.0
10/03/06 - Well 1
IN
315
-
-
-
-
10 -
12.1
9.2
-
7.0
11.9
1.9
305
-
-
-
-
-
10.5
-
-
-
-
625
-
23.5
AD
315
-
-
-
-
<10
11.8
0.8
-
7.2
11.2
3.2
306
0.2
2.9
-
-
-
11.0
-
-
-
-
633
-
24.1
TT
310
-
-
-
-
<10
11.5
0.3
-
7.2
11.3
3.2
300
0.2
2.9
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
10/1 1/06- Well 1
IN
327
0.4
0.6
95
0.05
<10
11.4
10.0
1.1
7.0
11.6
2.0
317
-
-
396
278
118
11.6
8.1
3.5
7.5
0.6
1,202
680
26.5
AD
323
0.3
0.5
97
0.05
<10
11.4
1.3
1.1
7.2
11.0
3.2
307
0.9
2.0
400
276
124
9.1
2.2
6.9
1.0
1.2
735
<25
26.2
TT
325
0.4
0.5
96
0.05
<10
10.0
0.3
1.0
7.2
11.2
2.7
301
1.9
2.0
408
281
127
1.9
1.9
0.1
1.0
0.9
<25
<25
20.8
10/17/06 - Well 6
IN
339
-
-
-
-
<10
12.2
3.0
-
7.3
11.3
1.8
283
-
-
-
-
-
10.2
-
-
-
-
242
-
23.2
AD
324
-
-
-
-
<10
11.6
1.5
-
7.4
11.2
3.3
292
0.4
1.9
-
-
-
10.1
-
-
-
-
239
-
24.1
TT
337
-
-
-
-
<10
11.3
0.9
-
7.4
11.2
3.2
292
0.3
1.3
-
-
-
1.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI (continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Mn (soluble)
ug/L
09/14/06(c) - Well 1
IN
-
23.5
AD
-
6.3
TT
-
3.5
09/19/06 - Well 1
IN
-
-
AD
-
-
TT
-
-
09/27/06(d)-Welll
IN
-
-
AD
-
-
TT
-
-
10/03/06 - Well 1
IN
-
-
AD
-
-
TT
-
-
10/1 1/06- Well 1
IN
-
26.5
AD
-
18.8
TT
-
20.8
10/17/06 - Well 6
IN
-
-
AD
-
-
TT
-
-
(a)AsCaCO3. (b)AsP.
(c) Water quality measurements taken on 09/12/06. (d) Water quality measurements taken on
09/28/06.
Cd
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI (continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as
N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as
SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total
Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
mg/Lw
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
10/24/06 - Well 1
IN
333
-
-
-
-
<10
12.3
9.7
-
7.0
11.3
2.0
291
-
-
-
-
-
14.1
-
-
-
-
-
754
-
AD
320
-
-
-
-
<10
12.2
0.9
-
7.3
11.0
2.7
294
0.3
2.9
-
-
-
13.5
-
-
-
-
-
759
-
TT
322
-
-
-
-
<10
11.6
0.3
-
7.2
11.1
2.9
293
0.2
2.9
-
-
-
2.7
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1 1/0 l/06(c)- Well
1
IN
320
-
-
-
-
<10
11.3
11.0
-
7.0
11.9
1.7
285
-
-
-
-
-
9.6
-
-
-
-
-
789
-
AD
320
-
-
-
-
<10
11.5
1.1
-
7.2
11.2
2.7
321
0.9
2.6
-
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
-
-
804
-
TT
322
-
-
-
-
<10
11.5
0.7
-
7.1
11.2
2.6
311
2.5
2.6
-
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
11/07/06- Well 1
IN
324
0.3
0.7
105
0.05
<10
11.5
11.0
-
7.1
12.4
1.9
329
-
-
436
300
136
18.3
-
9.5
8.7
7.8
1.8
3,214(d)
763
AD
315
0.3
0.6
106
0.05
<10
11.8
1.1
-
7.2
11.4
2.7
316
0.3
2.9
431
297
134
11.2
-
3.4
7.8
2.1
1.3
1,277
<25
TT
320
0.3
0.7
101
0.05
<10
10.9
0.5
-
7.2
11.8
2.4
314
0.2
2.7
432
295
138
3.0
-
2.9
0.1
2.1
0.8
<25
<25
11/16/06- Well 1
IN
327
-
-
-
-
<10
11.2
6.0
-
7.0
12.2
2.6
265
-
-
-
-
-
10.5
-
-
-
-
-
667
-
AD
334
-
-
-
-
<10
11.7
1.1
-
7.0
11.8
2.8
351
0.9
2.8
-
-
-
11.0
-
-
-
-
-
641
-
TT
332
-
-
-
-
<10
11.1
0.4
-
7.1
11.9
3.0
315
0.2
2.7
-
-
-
3.0
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
11/28/06 -Wells 3
&6
IN
350
346
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
11.7
11.6
2.1
2.2
-
7.2
13.0
2.9
258
-
-
-
-
-
9.5
9.6
-
-
-
-
236
245
-
AD
350
350
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
11.5
11.2
1.5
1.6
-
7.2
13.1
3.2
286
0.3
2.8
-
-
-
9.2
9.2
-
-
-
-
240
245
-
TT
344
346
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
11.5
11.1
0.3
0.4
-
7.1
12.1
3.2
301
0.3
3.3
-
-
-
1.8
1.9
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
12/06/06 - Well 1
IN
321
0.3
0.7
95
0.05
<10
12.0
12.0
<1.0(e)
7.1
11.5
2.5
268
-
-
397
263
133
10.5
-
9.7
0.8
8.5
1.2
851
827
AD
323
0.2
0.6
91
0.05
<10
11.5
1.9
1.0(e)
7.2
11.2
2.9
318
0.2
3.3
385
254
131
10.6
-
2.1
8.5
0.6
1.5
862
<25
TT
321
0.2
0.7
93
0.05
<10
11.8
0.9
<1.0(e)
7.1
11.2
2.8
291
0.2
3.3
389
253
137
2.2
-
2.1
0.1
0.6
1.5
<25
<25
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI (continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
ug/L
ug/L
10/24/06 - Well 1
IN
25.9
-
AD
25.7
-
TT
0.4
-
1 1/0 l/06(c)- Well
1
IN
24.3
-
AD
24.4
-
TT
2.4
-
11/07/06- Well 1
IN
28.5
26.6
AD
28.1
11.2
TT
10.0
10.1
11/16/06- Well 1
IN
24.5
-
AD
24.3
-
TT
10.3
-
11/28/06 -Wells 3
&6
IN
21.7
21.6
-
AD
21.1
21.4
-
TT
0.1
0.1
-
12/06/06 - Well 1
IN
27.1
29.2
AD
27.3
11.2
TT
0.9
2.1
(a)AsCaCO3. (b) As
P.
(c) Water quality measurements taken on 10/31/06. (d) Reanalysis indicated similar result, (e) Sample analyzed
outside of hold time.
Cd
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Sandusky, MI (continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia (as
N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total)
Silica (as
Si02)
Turbidity
TOC
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total
Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
12/12/06 - Well 1
IN
299
-
-
-
-
<10
11.4
11.0
-
7.2
12.2
1.8
255
-
-
-
-
-
9.8
-
-
-
-
777
-
23.6
-
AD
313
-
-
-
-
<10
11.2
0.5
-
7.2
11.4
2.7
284
2.0
2.9
-
-
-
10.1
-
-
-
-
788
-
24.7
-
TT
301
-
-
-
-
<10
11.3
<0.1
-
7.2
11.2
2.9
490
0.2
2.9
-
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
7.2
-
(a)AsCaCO3. (b)AsP.
B-8
------- |