EPA/600/R-09/013
                                                         February 2009
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal
           U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
 Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park in Sauk Centre, MN
          Final Performance Evaluation Report
                            by

                       H. Tien Shiao
                     Abraham S.C. Chen
                         Lili Wang
                      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 sub-
surface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provid-
ing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.

This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
                                                   Sally Gutierrez, Director
                                                   National Risk Management Research Laboratory
                                               in

-------
                                          ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained from the one-year arsenic removal
treatment technology demonstration project at the Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park (BSLMHP) in Sauk
Centre, MN.  The objectives of the project are to evaluate (1) the effectiveness of Kinetico's Macrolite®
pressure filtration process in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level
(MCL) of 10  (ig/L, (2) the reliability of the treatment system, (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 is characterizing water in the distribution system and process residuals produced by the
treatment system.

BSLMHP provided water to 37 mobile homes with an average daily demand of 7,500 gal. Source water
contained 27.5 (ig/L (on average) of total arsenic, 2,385 (ig/L of total iron, and 130 (ig/L of total
manganese. Because of the reducing condition with the source water, almost all iron and manganese
existed in the soluble form and over 80% (on average) of arsenic existed as soluble As(III). The
remainder of arsenic was present as soluble As(V) (13%) and particulate arsenic. The source water also
contained, on average, 3.3 mg/L of total organic carbon (TOC), 1.2 mg/L of ammonia (as N), and 417
(ig/L of phosphorous (as P).

The Macrolite® CP-213f arsenic removal system evaluated consisted of a KMnO4 feed system, two 36-in
x 57-in contact tanks (205 gal each), and four 13-in x 54-in pressure filters (two for each duplex unit)
arranged in parallel. Potassium permanganate (KMnO4) was used to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) prior to
Macrolite® pressure filtration. KMnO4 was selected over chlorine due to the presence of elevated TOC
and ammonia in source water. Each pressure filter contained 20 in (or 1.5 ft3) of Macrolite®, a low-
density, spherical media (40 * 60 U.S. Standard Mesh) designed for a filtration rate two times higher than
a conventional gravity filter. The design flowrate was 20 gal/min (gpm), which yielded 20 min of contact
time prior to filtration and 5.4 gpm/ft2 of hydraulic loading to the Macrolite® filters.  Because of the on-
demand operation, the actual flowrates ranged from 1 to 15 gpm, corresponding to 27 to 412 min of
contact time and 0.3 to 4.1 gpm/ft2 of hydraulic loading.

From July 13, 2005, through October 1,  2006, the well operated for a total of 2,052 hr at approximately
4.6 hr/day. The system treated approximately 2,017,000 gal of water with an average daily demand of
4,523 gal. KMnO4 effectively oxidized  As(III) in source water even in the presence  of TOC, as
evidenced by reducing its concentrations from 21.9 (ig/L (on average) to 1.0 (ig/L after contact tanks and
forming an average of 22.7 (ig/L of particulate arsenic with arsenic presumably bound to iron particles.

During the performance evaluation study, total arsenic levels in the treated water were reduced to an
average of 6.4 (ig/L mainly in the soluble form. Out of 60 sampling events, arsenic concentrations in
treated water  exceeded the 10-(ig/L MCL for a total of 13 times, mostly due to particulate breakthrough
from the Macrolite® filters.  To address particulate arsenic breakthrough, the backwash frequency was
increased incrementally from every 2,743 gal to every 916 gal of throughput for each filter.

With an average soluble iron to soluble arsenic ratio of 88:1, there was sufficient natural iron present in
the source water for effective arsenic removal. Soluble  iron was oxidized by KMnO4 to form iron
particles, which adsorbed and/or co-precipitated with arsenic before being removed by the filters. Total
iron concentrations in the treated water ranged from <25 to 2,363 (ig/L and averaged 204 (ig/L. An
increase in particulate iron correlated with an increase in particulate arsenic, indicating particulate
breakthrough from the Macrolite® filters.
                                               IV

-------
The high levels of TOC in the source water appeared to have inhibited the formation of filterable
manganese solids.  Before November 15, 2005, with the addition of 1.4 to 3.8 mg/L of KMnO4,
manganese concentrations after the contact tanks were present primarily in the "soluble" and/or colloidal
form that passed through 0.45-(im disc filters, with levels ranging from 416 to 1,126 (ig/L. A series of jar
tests were conducted in the laboratory to determine if higher KMnO4 dosages might help overcome the
TOC effect and form larger filterable MnO2 solids. Based on the results of the jar tests, the KMnO4
dosage was increased to 5.2 mg/L. After November 15, 2005, with the addition of 4.4 to 5.8 mg/L of
KMnO4, soluble manganese concentrations after the contact tank, as determined by the use of 0.45-(im
disc filters, were reduced to as low as 35 (ig/L (on average during February 3 through June 15, 2006) with
total manganese concentrations remaining  as high as 1,179 (ig/L. Meanwhile, total and soluble
manganese concentrations, as determined,  again, by the use of 0.45-(im disc filters, were reduced, on
average, to 163 and 78 (ig/L,  respectively,  during the same test period.

During the 15-month performance period, the control valve on top of each duplex unit was changed out
five times to increase the backwash frequency in order to control the particulate arsenic, iron, and
manganese breakthrough. The backwash frequency was increased from the initial field setting of every
2,743 gal to every 916 gal per tank. Thereafter,  except for three events with elevated arsenic and iron
concentrations detected in treated water, the treatment system was working properly as indicated by nine
consecutive sampling events where both arsenic and iron were below their respective MCL and secondary
maximum contaminant level (SMCL).

The backwash water contained, on average, 130 (ig/L of total arsenic,  19.5 mg/L of total iron, and 7.2
mg/L of total manganese. Total suspended solids (TSS) levels ranged  from 22.0 to 150 mg/L, averaging
72 mg/L.  Based on 72 mg/L  of TSS in 130 gal of backwash wastewater produced by one tank,
approximately 35.4 g (0.078 Ib) of solids were discharged to the septic system and then to a sanitary
sewer, containing 63.7 mg of arsenic, 9.6 g of iron, and 3.5 g of manganese.  Arsenic, iron, and
manganese levels in the backwash solids averaged 2.03 mg/g  (or 0.2%), 190 mg/g (or 19%), and 136
mg/g (or 13.6%), respectively.

In general, with the exception of manganese, the water quality in the distribution system has improved
after installation of the treatment system, as evidenced by the  reduced arsenic and iron concentrations and
little or no changes to the  pH, alkalinity, lead, and copper.  For example, after the treatment system began
operation, arsenic and iron concentrations decreased from average baseline levels of 23.4 and 2,791 (ig/L
to 8.1 and 173  (ig/L, respectively. Manganese concentrations increased from average baseline levels of
130 to 397 (ig/L due to the additon of KMnO4. Lead concentrations remained fairly constant and
averaged 0.6 and 1.6 (ig/L before and after system operation (except for a spike of 25.2 (ig/L at DS3 on
June 14, 2006). Copper concentrations increased from the baseline level of 1.8 to 18.5 (ig/L, including a
spike of 228 (ig/L. Alkalinity and pH concentrations remained fairly constant.

The capital investment cost was $63,547, which included $22,422 for equipment, $20,227 for
engineering, and $20,898  for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 20 gpm (28,800 gal/day
[gpd]),the capital cost was $3,177/gpm ($2.21/gpd). The O&M cost for the Macrolite® CP-213f system
included only incremental cost associated with the chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor.
The O&M cost was estimated to be $0.36/1,000 gal during the entire performance evaluation period.

-------
                                       CONTENTS

DISCLAIMER	ii
FOREWORD	iii
ABSTRACT	iv
APPENDICES	vii
FIGURES	vii
TABLES	vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS	ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS	xi

Section 1.0: INTRODUCTION	1
       1.1  Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal	2
       1.2  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	8
           3.3.1   Source Water	11
           3.3.2  Treatment Plant Water	11
           3.3.3   Special Study - KMnO4 Jar Tests	11
           3.3.4  BackwashWastewater	11
           3.3.5  Residual Solids	12
           3.3.6  Distribution System Water	12
       3.4  Sampling Logistics	12
           3.4.1  Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits	12
           3.4.2  Preparation of Sample Coolers	12
           3.4.3   Sample Shipping and Handling	13
       3.5  Analytical Procedures	13

Section 4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION	14
       4.1  Facility Description and Preexisting Treatment System Infrastructure	14
           4.1.1   Source Water Quality	14
           4.1.2  Distribution System and Treated Water Quality	16
       4.2  Treatment Process Description	17
       4.3  System Installation	22
           4.3.1  Permitting	22
           4.3.2  Building Construction	22
           4.3.3   System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup	22
       4.4  System Operation	23
           4.4.1  Operational Parameters	23
           4.4.2  Backwash	23
           4.4.3  Residual Management	25
           4.4.4   System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity	25
       4.5  System Performance	26
           4.5.1  Treatment Plant Sampling	26
           4.5.2  Backwash Wastewater Sampling	39
           4.5.3  Distribution System Water Sampling	39
                                            VI

-------
       4.6  System Cost	43
            4.6.1  Capital Cost	43
            4.6.2  Operation and Maintenance Cost	44

Section 5.0:  REFERENCES	46
                                       APPENDICES

Appendix A: OPERATIONAL DATA SHEETS
Appendix B: ANALYTICAL DATA

                                         FIGURES

 Figure 3-1.  Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations	10
 Figure 4-1.  Preexisting Well House at BSLMHP, MN Site	14
 Figure 4-2.  Existing Well Piping and Pressure Tanks at BSLMHP, MN Site	15
 Figure 4-3.  Process Schematic of Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System	18
 Figure 4-4.  Photograph of Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System	18
 Figure 4-5.  KMnO4 Feed System	20
 Figure 4-6.  Kinetico's Mach 1250 Control Valve	20
 Figure 4-7.  Backwash Flow Path for One Duplex Unit with Control Disc No. 6 and a
            Throughput of 916 gal between Backwash Cycles	21
 Figure 4-8.  Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Locations	30
 Figure 4-9.  Total Iron Concentrations After Contact Tanks and after Macrolite® Filters	31
 Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Concentrations After Contact Tanks and after Macrolite® Filters	31
 Figure 4-11. Total and Soluble Manganese Concentrations Following Contact Tanks (Top) and
            Macrolite® Filters (Bottom)	34
 Figure 4-12. Jar Test Setup	36
 Figure 4-13. Total Phosphorous Concentrations After Contact Tanks and After Macrolite®
            Filters	38
 Figure 4-14. Effects of Treatment System on Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese in Distribution
            System	42

                                          TABLES

Table 1 -1.   Summary of Round  1 and Round 2 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	7
Table 3-3.   Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses	9
Table 3-4.   Summary of Jar Test Parameters	11
Table 4-1.   BSLMHP, MN Water Quality Data	16
Table 4-2.   Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media	17
Table 4-3.   Design Specifications for Macrolite® CP-213f Pressure Filtration System	19
Table 4-4.   System Operation from July 13, 2005, to October 1, 2006	24
Table 4-5.   Sizes of Control Valve and Respective Throughput between Backwash Cycles	25
Table 4-6.   Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results	27
Table 4-7.   Summary of Other Water Quality  Parameter Sampling Results	28
Table 4-8.   Control Valve Sizes and Corresponding Occurrences of High  Total Arsenic and
            Iron Concentrations	32
                                             vn

-------
Table 4-9.   Correlations between Pump Stroke Length, KMnO4 Dosage, and Total and Soluble
            Manganese Concentrations	35
Table 4-10.  Jar Test Results for Macrolite®-Treated Water	36
Table 4-11.  Backwash Water Sampling Results	40
Table 4-12.  Backwash Solids Sample ICP/MS Results	40
Table 4-13.  Distribution Sampling Results	41
Table 4-14.  Summary of Capital Investment for BSLMHP Treatment System	43
Table 4-15.  O&M Cost for BSLMHP, MN Treatment System	44
                                            Vlll

-------
                           ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap            differential pressure

AAL          American Analytical Laboratories
Al            aluminum
AM           adsorptive media
As            arsenic

bgs           below ground surface
BSLMHP      Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park

Ca            calcium
C/F           coagulation/filtration
Cu            copper

DO           dissolved oxygen
DOM         dissolved organic matter

EPA          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

F             fluoride
Fe            iron
FRP          fiberglass reinforced plastic

GFH          granular ferric hydroxide
gpd           gallons per day
gpm          gallons per minute

HIX          hybrid ion exchanger
hp            horsepower

ICP-MS       inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID            identification
IX            ion exchange

LCR          Lead and Copper Rule

MCL          maximum contaminant level
MDL          method detection limit
MDH         Minnesota Department of Health
MEI          Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg           magnesium
Mn           manganese
Mo           molybdenum
mV           millivolts

Na            sodium
NA           not applicable
NaOCl        sodium hypochlorite
                                            IX

-------
NRMRL      National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NTU          nephelometric turbidity units

O&M         operation and maintenance
OIT          Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD          Office of Research and Development
ORP          oxidation-reduction potential

PE           professional engineer
P&ID         piping and instrumentation diagrams
POU          point-of-use
psi           pounds per square inch
PVC          polyvinyl chloride

QA           quality assurance
QAPP         quality assurance project plan
QA/QC       quality assurance/quality control

RO           reverse osmosis
RPD          relative percent difference
rpm          rotations per min

Sb           antimony
SDWA       Safe Drinking Water Act
SMCL        Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
STS          Severn Trent Services

TBD          to be determined
TDS          total dissolved solids
TOC          total organic carbon
TSS          total suspended solids
TTHM        total trihalomethane

V            vanadium

-------
                                   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the operator, Mr. Bill Tix of the Big Sauk Lake
Mobile Home Park (BSLMHP) in Sauk Centre, MN. Mr. Tix monitored the treatment system daily and
collected samples from the treatment and distribution system on a regular schedule throughout this
reporting period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without his efforts.

Ms. Tien Shiao, who is currently pursuing a Master's degree at Yale University, was the Battelle study
lead for this demonstration project.
                                              XI

-------
                                Section 1.0: INTRODUCTION
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 (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000.  On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003 to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.

In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems 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 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 Big  Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park (BSLMHP) in Sauk Centre, MN was one of them.

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.  Kinetico's Macrolite® Arsenic Removal Technology was selected for
demonstration at the BSLMHP site.

As of December 2008, 39 of the 40 systems were operational, and the performance evaluation of 32
systems was completed.

-------
1.1        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, iron
[Fe], and pH) at the 40 demonstration sites.  An overview of the technology selection and system design
for the 12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital 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.

1.2        Project Objectives

The objective of the Round 1 and Round 2 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 40 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 Kinetico Macrolite® CP-213f arsenic removal system at
BSLMHP in Sauk Centre, MN from July 13, 2005, through October 6, 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 Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/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
250W
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270W
l,806(c)
1,312W
1,61 5W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM(E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM (E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14W
13(a)
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127W
466W
l,387(c)
l,499(c)
7827(c)
546W
1,470W
3,078(c)
1,344W
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
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(b)
50
37
35W
19W
56<">
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8

-------
                                 Table 1-1.  Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(Mg/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)(g)
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HDC)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69w
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HTX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a)  Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b)  Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(c)  Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d)  Withdrew from program in 2008.
(e)  Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Amaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f)  Including nine residential units.
(g)  Including eight under-the-sink units.

-------
                        Section 2.0:  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the 15-month system operation, the following conclusions
were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.

Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:

       •   KMnO4, selected over chlorine because of the presence of elevated total organic carbon
           (TOC) and ammonia in source water, was effective in oxidizing As(III), reducing its
           concentrations from 21.9 (ig/L (on average) in source water to 1.0 (ig/L after the contact
           tanks.  KMnO4 also was effective in oxidizing soluble iron. Soluble As(V) adsorbed onto
           and/or co-precipitated with iron solids, forming arsenic-laden solids ready to be filtered by
           the Macrolite® media.

       •   The Macrolite® filters removed arsenic-laden iron solids and met the arsenic MCL. However,
           particulate breakthrough from the Macrolite® filters was observed in 13 out of 60 sampling
           events.  After incrementally shortening the backwash interval from 2,743 to 916 gal, total
           arsenic and iron were reduced to below their respective MCL and secondary maximum
           contaminant level (SMCL).

       •   Oxidation of Mn(II) with KMnO4 was affected by dissolved organic matter (DOM) in raw
           water, forming fine colloidal particles that passed through 0.45-(im disc filters.  At least 4.5
           mg/L of KMnO4 was needed to form filterable manganese solids for Macrolite® filtration.
           This dosage was determined based on a series of jar tests and subsequent field trials.

       •   The Macrolite® filtration process removed about 85% of total phosphorous.

       •   Except for manganese, the water quality in the distribution system was improved after
           installation of the treatment  system, as evidenced  by the reduced arsenic and iron
           concentrations meeting the respective MCL and SMCL and little or no changes to the pH,
           alkalinity, lead, and copper.

Simplicity of required system O&Mand operator skill levels:

       •   The daily demand on the operator was about 5 min, which included performing O&M
           activities such as mixing the KMnO4 solution, measuring the consumption of KMnO4,
           adjusting the chemical feed  pump, and working with the vendor to troubleshoot and perform
           minor on-site repairs.

       •   The system experienced some operational issues primarily related to the control of backwash.
           The control discs installed on top of the duplex units had to be changed repeatedly with
           difference sizes to reduce the backwash interval, thus increasing the backwash frequency.

       •   There was no significant downtime with the operation of the system during the performance
           evaluation period.

Process residuals produced by the technology:

       •   Each filter was backwashed with treated water after processing every  916 gal of water,
           producing 130 gal of wastewater. The amount of water supplying the distribution system was
           86% of the total water production.

-------
       •   The backwash water contained, on average, 72 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS), 130
           (ig/L of total arsenic, 19.5 mg/L of total iron, and 7.2 mg/L of total manganese.
           Approximately 35.4 g (0.08 Ib) of solids per filter were discharged to the septic system and
           then to a sanitary sewer.

       •   The backwash solids contained, on average, 2.03 mg/g (or 0.2%) of arsenic, 190 mg/g (or
           19%) of iron, and 136 mg/g (or 13.6%) of manganese.

Cost of the technology:

       •   The capital investment cost including equipment, engineering, and installation was $63,547,
           or $3,177 per gpm of the system design capacity.

       •   The incremental O&M cost was $0.36/1000 gal, including chemical usage, electricity
           consumption, 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 of the
Macrolite® treatment system began on July 13, 2005.  Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected
and/or considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance was
evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the target MCL of 10 |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.

               Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received
Purchase Order Established
Letter of Understanding Issued
Letter Report Issued
Engineering Package Submitted to MDH
Permit Granted by MDH
Study Plan Issued
Macrolite® Unit Shipped
Macrolite® Unit Delivered
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
08/31/04
12/06/04
02/17/05
02/24/05
01/10/05
03/09/05
03/28/05
06/14/05
06/21/05
06/10/05
06/16/05
06/24/05
07/03/05
07/13/05
               MDH = Minnesota Department of Health
           Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objective
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
Cost-Effectiveness
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
-Task analysis of preventive 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 O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data
and qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system
automation, extent of preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling
and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and
safety practices.  The staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet.

The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
wastewater produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash waste water was sampled and analyzed for
chemical characteristics.

The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm or gpd of design capacity and the
O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital cost for equipment,
engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for chemical supply, electricity consumption, 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, with the exception of Saturdays and
Sundays, the plant operator recorded system operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, volume, and
hour meter readings on a Daily System Operation Log Sheet; checked the potassium permanganate
(KMnO4) tank 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 problems encountered, corrective actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and
labor required, 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), and
oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and recorded the data on a Weekly Water Quality  Parameters Log
Sheet.  The system was backwashed automatically, except during the monthly backwash sampling events
when the system was backwashed manually to enable backwash wastewater sampling.  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 KMnO4 was tracked on the Daily System Operation Log Sheet.  Electricity usage
was estimated based on the hours of operation and the chemical feed pump motor size.  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 the KMnO4 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 wellhead, across the treatment train,
during Macrolite® filter backwash, and from the distribution system. The sampling schedules and
analytes measured during each sampling event are listed in Table 3-3.  Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram
of the treatment system along with the analytes and sampling schedules at each sampling location.

-------
                    Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source Water












Treatment
Plant Water












Backwash
Wastewater



Backwash
Solids

Distribution
Water


Sample Locations'50
IN












IN, AC, TA/TB,
TC/TD




IN, AC, TT







BW




BW


Three Non-LCR
Residences

No. of
Samples
1












4





3







2




1


3



Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)









Weekly





Monthly







Monthly




Once


Monthly



Analytes
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP

Off-site: As(III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NO3,
NO2, NH3, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, turbidity, alkalinity,
TDS, and TOC
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off-site: As(total),
Fe(total), Mn(total), SiO2,
PO4, turbidity, and
alkalinity
Same as weekly analytes
shown above plus the
following:
Off-site: As (soluble),
As(III), As(V), Fe
(soluble), Mn (soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, and
TOC
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
pH, turbidity, TDS, and
TSS
Total Mg, Al, Si, P, Ca,
V, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn,
As, Cd, Sb,Ba,andPb
As (total), Fe (total), Mn
(total), Cu, Pb, pH, and
alkalinity
Date(s) Samples
Collected
Table 4-1












Appendix B





Appendix B







Table 4- 11




Table 4-12


Table 4-13


(a) Abbreviation corresponding to sample location in Figure 3-1, i.e., IN = at wellhead; AC = after contact
tanks; TA/TB = after tanks TA/TB, TC/TD = after tanks TC/TD; TT = after tanks TA/TB and TC/TD
combined; BW = at backwash discharge line

-------
                                                   INFLUENT
        pHM, temperature^), DO,
       As speciation, Fe (total and soluble),
                    Mn (total and soluble), -
          Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
                  TOC, turbidity, alkalinity
        pHW, temperature'3), DOW, ORPM,
       As speciation, Fe (total and soluble),
                    Mn (total and soluble),
          Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
                  TOC, turbidity, alkalinity
                                 Sauk Centre, MN
                          Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System
                                  Design Flow: 20 gpm
1
•* 	 1 DA:KMnO4
r
CONTACT TANKS

                               pH
-------
Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and
holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA- 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 visit to the site, one set of source water samples was
collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (see 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. During the system performance evaluation study, 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 wellhead (IN), after the contact tanks (AC), and after Tanks
A/B and Tanks C/D  combined (TT), were speciated on-site and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table
3-3 for monthly treatment plant water. For the next three weeks, samples were collected at IN, AC, after
Tanks A/B (TA/TB) and after Tanks C/D (TC/TD) and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for
the weekly treatment plant water.

3.3.3       Special  Study - KMnO4 Jar Tests. Because significantly elevated soluble manganese
concentrations were  measured in the treated water after the Macrolite® filters, a series of jar tests  were
conducted at Battelle's laboratories on November 7, 2005, using the treated water taken at the TT location
from the site to determine an appropriate KMnO4 dosage for complete oxidation of Mn(II) and formation
of filterable manganese  solids.

The jar tests consisted of six 1-L jars of the treated water with increasing dosages of KMnO4 ranging from
1.0 to 3.0 mg/L (Table 3-4). One jar was used as a control with no KMnO4 addition. The jars were
placed on a Phipps & Byrd overhead stirrer/jar tester with an illuminated base. The jars were  mixed for a
total of 31 min at various mixing speeds: 200 rotation/min (rpm) for 1 min immediately after the  KMnO4
addition, followed by 100 rpm for 19 min and 28 rpm for 11 min. After the specified contact time, the
supernatant in each jar was filtered with 0.20-|o,m disc filters and analyzed for arsenic, iron, and
manganese using Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS). The pH and ORP values of
the contents in each jar also were measured using a VWR Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter at
the beginning and end of each jar test. The results of the jar tests are discussed in Section 4.5.1.
                          Table 3-4.  Summary of Jar Test Parameters
Parameter
Mix Time (min)(a)
KMnO4 (mg/L)
Jarl
31
0
Jar 2
31
1.0
Jar 3
31
1.5
Jar 4
31
2.0
Jar 5
31
2.5
Jar 6
31
3.0
         (a)  Mixing Speeds: 1 min at 200 rpm, 19 min at 100 rpm, and 11 min at 28 rpm.
3.3.4       Backwash Wastewater. Backwash wastewater samples were collected monthly by the plant
operator. One backwash wastewater sample was collected as one of the tanks in each duplex unit was
backwashed.  For each of the first three sampling events, one grab sample was taken as the bulk of the
solids/water mixture was being discharged from the sample tap located on the backwash water discharge
line but before the backwash totalizer. Unfiltered samples were analyzed for pH, total dissolved solids
(TDS), and turbidity measurements. Filtered samples using 0.45-(im disc filters were analyzed for
soluble As, Fe, and Mn analyses. Starting from November 15, 2005, during the fourth sampling event,
the sampling procedure was modified to include the collection of composite samples for total As, Fe, and
                                              11

-------
Mn as well as TSS analyses. This modified procedure involved diverting a portion of backwash
wastewater at approximately 1 gpm into a clean, 32-gal plastic container over the duration of the
backwash for each set of duplex tanks. After the content in the container was thoroughly mixed,
composite samples were collected and/or filtered on-site with 0.45-(im disc filters. Analytes for the
backwash samples are listed in Table 3-3.

3.3.5       Residual Solids. Residual solids produced from backwash were collected once from the
backwash discharge line on September 21, 2006, and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3.

3.3.6       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 May 2005,
four sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected from three residences within the
disribution system. Following the system startup,  distribution system sampling continued on a monthly
basis at the same three locations.

The three homes selected for the sampling had been included in the Park's Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)
sampling.  The homeowners collected samples following an instruction sheet developed according to the
Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002).  First draw
samples were collected from a cold-water faucet located upstream of the softener in each home.  (Note
that the samples thus collected were not from a frequently used kitchen or bathroom faucet nor from a
faucet that was commonly used for human consumption.) To ensure  collection of stagnant water, the
faucet was not used for at least 6 hr. Dates and times of sample collection and last water usage were
recorded for calculations of the stagnation time. Analytes for the distribution system water are listed in
Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not performed for the distribution water samples.

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 EPA-endorsed 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 a specific water facility,  sampling date, a two-letter code for
a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if necessary).
The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification.  The labeled
bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate 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 FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included.
The chain-of-custody forms and airbills 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.
                                               12

-------
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 analylses were stored at Battelle's ICP-MS Laboratory. Samples for other water
quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up by couriers from American Analytical
Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and TCCI Laboratories (TCCI) in Lexington, OH, both of which
were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained
with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final disposition.  All samples were
archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed
of properly thereafter.

3.5         Analytical Procedures

The analytical procedures described in detail in  Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004)
were followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories.  Laboratory quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision,
accuracy, method detection limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria estrablished 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
VWR Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use
following the procedures provided in the user's  manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy
by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value.  The plant operator
collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Symphony SP90M5 probe in the beaker
until a stable value was obtained. 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: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Preexisting Treatment System Infrastructure
Located at 43987 County Road 24 in Sauk Centre, MN, BSLMHP had a water system sized to supply
water for up to 50 mobile home connections or approximately 100 residents. There were 37 mobile
homes in the park during the study period. Prior to the demonstration study, the facility reported an
average daily demand of 7,500 gpd and a peak daily demand of 16,000 gpd. The system typically
operated approximately 6 hr/day.  Figure 4-1 shows the preexisting well house at the facility.

The water system was supplied intermittently by two wells (i.e., Wells No. 1 and 2) installed at a depth of
approximately 90 ft below ground surface (bgs). Well No. 2, the newest well, was used as the primary
well and Well No. 1, the old well, a backup well.  Well No. 2 was equipped with a 1 !/2-horsepower (hp),
4-in submersible pump installed on a 60-ft drop pipe and rated for 25 gpm at 180 ft H2O (or 78 lb/in2
[psi]). The pump installed in the backup well reportedly had a similar capacity, but records were no
longer available. Figure 4-2 shows the existing piping and two 62-gal Champion pressure tanks in the
well house. There was no disinfection or other treatment at the wellheads, although most residents had
water softeners in their homes.

4.1.1       Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on August 31, 2004, and
subsequently analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3. The results of source water analyses, along
with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those independently
collected and analyzed by the vendor, Battelle, and MDH are presented in Table 4-1.

As shown in Table 4-1, total arsenic concentrations in the source water of both wells ranged from 17.0 to
32.0 (ig/L.  Based on the August 31, 2004, speciation tests  of Well No. 2 water, the total arsenic
                    Figure 4-1. Preexisting Well House at BSLMHP, MN Site
                                              14

-------
            Figure 4-2. Existing Well Piping and Pressure Tanks at BSLMHP, MN Site
concentration was 25.3 (ig/L, of which 20.7 (ig/L was in the soluble form. Of the soluble arsenic,
13.6 ng/L existed as As(III) (65.7%) and 7.1 ng/L as As(V) (34.3%).

Iron concentrations in source water extracted from both wells ranged from 3,000 to 3,400 (ig/L, existing
entirely as soluble iron based on August 31, 2004 results. A rule of thumb is that the soluble iron
concentration should be at least 20 times the soluble arsenic concentration for effective removal of arsenic
onto iron solids (Sorg, 2002). Based on the August 31, 2004, speciation results, the  soluble iron level was
152 times higher than soluble arsenic level. As such, there was no need to supplement the natural iron for
arsenic removal. The proposed treatment process was designed to reduce iron levels in the treated water
to below the secondary MCL of 300 |o,g/L.

Manganese levels of 130 to  150 (ig/L were above the SMCL of 50 (ig/L.  The pH values ranged from 7.1
to 7.4, which were within the target range of 5.5 to 8.5 for the iron removal process.  TOC levels at 3.9 to
4.9 mg/L were high and because of the high levels, KMnO4 was used to oxidize iron and arsenic.  The use
of KMnO4 should eliminate the formation of disinfection byproducts, which could occur if
prechlorination was implemented.  In April 2005, EPA conducted a disinfection byproduct formation test
on source water and found that after 96 hr, the total trihalomethane (TTHM) level was 0.11 mg/L,
existing almost completely as chloroform. The MCL for TTHM is 0.080 mg/L.  This further confirmed
the need to use an alternate oxidant to chlorine.  The ammonia level at  1.2 mg/L also was elevated and
could significantly increase the chlorine demand should chlorine be used as an oxidant. The turbidity of
the water was 30 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU), presumably caused by iron precipitation during
sample collection and transit. Hardness ranged from 300 to 360 mg/L, silica from 21 to 25 mg/L, and
sulfate from <4 to 5.4 mg/L.  Based on the historical data provided by MDH, there was no apparent
difference in water quality between Wells No. 1 and 2. Total arsenic concentrations ranged from 26.0 to
32.0 (ig/L for Well No. 1 and from 26.0 to 28.0 (ig/L for Well No. 2; total iron concentrations were 3,400
for Well No. 1 and 3,000 (ig/L for Well No. 2; and total manganese concentrations were 140 (ig/L for
Well No. 1 and 130 ng/L for Well No. 2.
                                               15

-------
                          Table 4-1.  BSLMHP, MN Water Quality Data
Parameter
Unit
Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Total N (Nitrite + Nitrate) (as N)
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (soluble)
Mg (total)
Gross-Alpha
Gross-Beta
Radon
Radium-228
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
"g/L
"g/L
"g/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
"g/L
"g/L
"g/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
Facility
Well 2
Data
Not
specified
7.4
NS
NS
NS
355
305
NS
NS
4.9
NS
NS
NS
NS
1.5
NS
5.2
24
0.02
26
NS
NS
NS
NS
3,200
NS
140
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
14
72
30
NS
NS
NS
NS
Kinetico
Well 2
Data
10/14/03
7.3
NS
NS
NS
364
330
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<1.0
0.46
<4.0
21.4
<0.5
17
NS
NS
NS
NS
3,060
NS
150
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
13
81
32
NS
NS
NS
NS
Battelle
Well 2
Data
08/31/04
7.1
NS
1.48
-98
363
360
30
338
3.9
NS
0.04
<0.01
1.2
<1.0
<0.1
<5.0
25
<0.1
25.3
20.7
4.6
13.6
7.1
3,078
3,149
150
154
<0.1
<0.1
0.17
<0.1
17
87
35
NS
NS
NS
NS
MDH
Welll
Data
01/25/01 -
08/10/04
7.3
NS
NS
NS
350
310

-------
several different sampling points, including residences and the wellhouse distribution entry piping, ranged
from 18.4 to 28.0 |o,g/L based on MDH treated water sampling data shown in Table 4-1.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The treatment processes at the BSLMHP site included KMnO4 oxidation, co-precipitation/adsorption, and
Macrolite® pressure filtration. Macrolite® is an engineered, low-density, spherical ceramic filtration
media manufactured by Kinetico and approved for use in drinking water applications under NSF
International (NSF) Standard 61. Macrolite® filtration systems can be operated at a hydraulic loading rate
of 10 gpm/ft2 (vendor claim), which is at least two times higher than that for most conventional filtration
media. The physical properties of this media are summarized in Table 4-2.  The vendor states that
Macrolite® media is chemically inert and compatible with chemicals such as oxidants and ferric chloride.


                  Table 4-2. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media
Property
Color
Thermal Stability (°F)
Sphere Size Range (mm)
Sphere Size Range (in)
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Particle Density (g/cm3)
Particle Density (lb/ft3)
Value
Taupe, Brown to Gray
2,000
0.35-0.25
0.014-0.009
0.86
54
2.05
129
                      Source: Kinetico


Figure 4-3 is a schematic and Figure 4-4 a photograph of the Macrolite® CP-213f arsenic removal system.
The treatment system was operated as an on-demand system and the volume of water treated was based
on water usage. The well pump turned on when the pressure tank pressure reached 45 psi and shut off at
60 psi. The primary system components consisted of a KMnO4 feed system (with the metering pump
interlocked with a totalizer located after the pressure tanks and prior to the treatment system), two contact
tanks, four pressure filtration tanks (two each within each duplex unit), and associated pressure and flow
instrumentation.  Various instruments were installed to track system performance, including the inlet and
outlet pressure after each filter, flowrate to the distribution system, and backwash flowrate. All plumbing
for the system was Schedule 80 PVC with the necessary valves, sampling ports, and other features. Table
4-3 summarizes the design features of the Macrolite® pressure filtration system.  The major process steps
and system components are presented as follows.

       •   Potassium Permanganate Oxidation - KMnO4 was used to oxidize As(III), Fe(II), and
           Mn(II) in source water.  KMnO4 was selected in place of chlorine to prevent the formation of
           disinfection byproducts due to the presence of high TOC in the source water. The KMnO4
           addition system consisted of a 150-gal day tank, a Pulsatron metering pump, and an overhead
           mixer (Figure 4-5). The working solution was prepared by adding 0.75 gal (or 10 Ib) of
           KMnO4 crystals with 97% minimum purity into 40 gal of water to form a 3% KMnO4
           solution.  During the one-year study period, the  21-in diameter and 31.5-intall KMnO4tank
           was re-filled 11 times when the tank level reached an average of 16.7 in. The KMnO4 feed
           pump was sized with a maximum capacity of 44 gpd or 6.9 L/hr. However, the pump was
                                              17

-------
    Macrolite®CP-213
 Arsenic Removal System
Pressure
Tanks















1 i
Raw Water from Well

F^
m
X
to
CO

^





T
r^
m
X
CD
CO

^r
45-60 psi
          Chemical
           Metering I
             Pump
                            Retention
                             Tanks
                                              X

                                             CO
in
X

CO
                                                         Backwash Waste
      10
      X

      CO
in
X

CO
               to Septic
                                                             Filtered Water
                                                             to Distribution
                                    Two (2) Duplex Macrolite® Filters
                                            Free Standing
Figure 4-3. Process Schematic of Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System
    Figure 4-4. Photograph of Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System
            (1.  Duplex Units, 2. Contact Tanks, 3. Pressure Filters,
           4. Chemical Day Tank, and 5. Totalizer on Raw Water Line)
                                   18

-------
        Table 4-3. Design Specifications for Macrolite® CP-213f Pressure Filtration System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
KMnO4 Dosage (mg/L as [KMnOJ)
3.3
Calculated KMnO4 demand based on arsenic, iron,
and manganese in source water; actual demand higher
due to presence of TOC in source water
Contact Tanks
Tank Size (in)
No. of Tanks
Configuration
Contact Time (min/tank)
36 D x57H
2
Parallel
20
205 gal each tank
-
-
Based on peak flowrate of 20 gpm; actual contact time
based on on-demand flowrate
Filtration Tanks
Tank Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/tank)
No. of Tanks
Configuration
Media Quantity (ftVtank)
Freeboard Measurements (in/tank)
Filtration Rate (gpm/ft2)
Pressure Drop (psi)
Throughput before Backwash (gal)
Backwash Hydraulic Loading Rate
(gpm/ft2)
Backwash Duration (min/tank)
Wastewater Production (gal)
System Design Flowrate (gpm)
Maximum Daily Production (gpd)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
13 D x54H
0.92
4
Parallel
1.5
28
5.4
15
2,743
6.5
20
130
20
28,800
56
-
-
-
Between two duplex units and between two filtration
tanks within each duplex unit
20-in bed depth in each tank
Measured by vendor's contractor on 12/07/05 from
top of filtration tank to top of media bed
Based on a 5 gpm system flowrate through each
filtration tank; actual filtration rate based on demand
Across a clean bed
Based on initial field setting
Based on a 6-gpm backwash flowrate through each
filtration tank
-
For each tank
Peak flowrate; actual flowrate based on demand
Based on peak flowrate, 24 hr/day
Estimated based on peak daily demand(a)
(a) Based on historic peak daily demand of 16,000 gpd.
           flow-paced and the actual rate of KMnO4 addition varied based on the influent flowrate to the
           treatment system. During the one-year system operation, KMnO4 dosages varied from 1.3 to
           6.5 mg/L. The operator indicated that the mixer was only turned on when the KMnO4
           crystals were mixed initially with water in the day tank.

           Contactor - Two 36-in by 57-in fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) contact tanks arranged in
           parallel provided at least 20 min of contact time when operating at the design (or peak)
           flowrate of 20 gpm. The longer retention time was designed to aid in the formation of
           manganese particles.

           Pressure Filtration - The filtration system consisted of downflow filtration through two sets
           of dual-pressure filtration tanks arranged in parallel. Each duplex unit was comprised of two
           13-in by 54-in FRP tanks and a control valve. Each filtration tank was filled with
           approximately 20-in (1.5 ft3) of 40/60 mesh Macrolite® media supported by 3-in (0.25 ft3) of
           garnet underbedding.  The standard operation had four tanks online, each treating a maximum
           of 5 gpm for a hydraulic loading rate of 5.4 gpm/ft2. With four tanks online, the maximum
           system flowrate was 20 gpm. However, as shown in Figure 4-3, the system had an on-
           demand configuration with two pressure tanks located ahead of the treatment system. The
                                              19

-------
                     Figure 4-5. KMnO4 Feed System

actual flowrate through the system varied based on water demand, but was limited to less
than 20 gpm by flow restrictors located on the duplex units.

The control valve (Kinetico Mach 1250) located on top of each duplex unit (Figure 4-6)
consisted of a gear stack, which determines the throughput between two consecutive
backwash cycles. The control valve consisted of three chambers: inlet, outlet, and
regeneration and only the influent water was measured and recorded by the gear stack.
             Figure 4-6. Kinetico's Mach 1250 Control Valve
                                   20

-------
  Backwash Operations - Backwash was a fully automated process triggered by a pre-set
  throughput measured by the gear stack associated with the control valve located on top of
  each duplex unit. The spent filtration tank was backwashed with the treated water from the
  other tank within the duplex unit and the resulting wastewater was discharged to a septic tank
  and then the sanitary sewer. The backwash time for each tank during each backwash cycle
  was 20 min from start to finish including 15 min of backwash at 6 gpm and a 5 min filter-to-
  waste rinse also at 6 gpm.  The backwash process used about 130 gal of the treated water per
  tank (or per cycle). As discussed in section 4.4.2, it was necessary to incrementally increase
  the backwash frequency from the initial field setting of every 2,743 gal to every 916 gal.
  Figure 4-7 shows the backwash flow paths for the two tanks in each duplex unit (labeled as
  Tank A and Tank B); each of the two tanks was backwashed on an alternating basis after a
  pre-set throughput of 916 gal. The major steps involved in the backwash process are
  discussed as follows:
Tank A
Throughput
gal
0
458
0
458
458
916
0
458

• II

'^
m
•

/mm'
TankB
Throughput
Gal
0
458
458
916
0
458
458
916

• II
• II
•

• II
• II
1111111111
System startup using No. 6 control valve
to backwash after 916 gal of combined
throughput from both Tanks A and B.
Step 1 . Backwash of Tank A required
after 916 gal of combined throughput
from both Tanks A and B.
Step 2. Tank A backwashed with 130 gal
of treated water from Tank B (which was
not accounted toward the set throughput
of 9 16 gal).
Step 3 . Backwash of Tank B required
after 916 gal of combined throughput
from both Tanks A and B.
Step 4. TankB backwashed with 130 gal
of treated water from Tank A (which was
not accounted toward the set throughput
of 9 16 gal).
Step 5. Backwash of Tank A required
after 916 gal of combined throughput
from both Tanks A and B.
Step 6. Tank A backwashed with 130 gal
of treated water from Tank B (which was
not accounted toward the set throughput
of 9 16 gal).
Service^ackwash cycles continued as
depicted above.
Key
Throughput through Tanks A and B before Tank A Was Backwashed
Throughput through Tanks A and B before Tank B Was Backwashed
Clean Bed
       Figure 4-7. Backwash Flow Path for One Duplex Unit with a No. 6
     Control Valve for a Throughput of 916 gal between Backwash Cycles
                                     21

-------
           Again, both Tanks A and B provided the treated water in parallel.  The backwash cycles were
           continuously repeated as shown in Steps 4 through 6 in Figure 4-7 during the treatment
           system operation. One set of duplex tanks functioned as one unit and always had a filtration
           capacity between 25% (immediately after backwash of one tank at Step 4) and 75% (right
           before backwash of the other tank at Step 5).

4.3        System Installation

This section provides a summary of system installation activities including permitting, building
construction, and system shakedown.

4.3.1       Permitting. Engineering plans for the system permit application were prepared by the
vendor. The plans included diagrams and specifications for the  Macrolite® CP-213f arsenic removal
system, as well as drawings detailing the connections of the new unit to the preexisting facility
infrastructure.  The plans were submitted to MDH on March 28, 2005, and MDH granted its approval of
the application on June 14, 2005.

4.3.2       Building Construction.  The existing well house had an adequate footprint to house the
arsenic treatment system.  The permit approval issued by MDH  on June 14, 2005, indicated a need for an
air gap, between the drain and the filter-to-waste line outlet, two times the diameter of the filter-to-waste
line and a need for all chemicals to be injected on the lower half of the influent pipe. Figure 4-5 shows
the chemical injection line located on the top half of the influent pipe.  In addition, MDH required the
filter-to-waste line and sewer connection to have at least a 50-ft distance from Well No. 1 and Well No. 2
wellheads and  at a lower elevation.

4.3.3       System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The Macrolite® system was shipped on
June 10, 2005, and delivered to the site on June  16, 2005.  A subcontractor to the vendor off-loaded and
installed the system, including piping connections to the existing entry and distribution system. System
installation was completed by June 24, 2005, and the system shakedown was completed by July 3, 2005.

Shakedown activities included disinfection of the contact and filtration tanks and backwash of Macrolite®
filtration media. The bacteriological test was passed on July 1, 2005. During the startup trip in July, the
vendor conducted operator training for system O&M. Battelle arrived on-site on July 13, 2005, to
perform system inspections  and conduct operator training for system sampling and data collection. The
first set of samples for the one year performance evaluation study was taken on July 13, 2005. No major
mechanical or installation issues were noted at system startup; however, several pieces of equipment
shown in the vendor's June  16,  2005 piping and instrumental diagrams (P&ID) were missing and several
installed items did not meet the permit requirements. A list of punch-list items was summarized as
follows:

           •   Install an hour meter.
           •   Install one raw water sample tap.
           •   Install one backwash sample tap.
           •   Install one sample tap after duplex units TA/TB and TC/TD.
           •   Install one pressure gauge after  duplex units TA/TB and TC/TD.
           •   Replace the defective pressure gauge beneath the left most pressure tank.
           •   Install a level sensor on the KMnO4 day tank.
           •   Install a !/2-inch ball valve on the KMnO4 injection tube.
           •   Move the KMnO4 injection port from the top half of the influent pipe to the lower half
               per permit requirements.
                                              22

-------
           •  Verify that the air gap was two times the filter-to-waste pipe between the drain and the
              filter-to-waste pipe.

All punch-list items were resolved by the vendor by September 30, 2005.

4.4        System Operation

4.4.1       Operational Parameters. Table 4-4 summarizes the operational parameters for the one year
system operation, including operational time, throughput, flowrate, and pressure.  Detailed daily
operational information is provided in Appendix A.

Between July 13, 2005, and October 1, 2006, the primary well pump operated for 2,052 hr, with an
average daily operating time of 4.6 hr/day based on the readings of an hour meter installed on the primary
well on September 28, 2005.  This daily operating time was lower than the 6 hr/day estimated by the Park
owner and higher than the 3.4 hr/day estimated during the first six months of system operations. Prior to
September 28, 2005, the operational time was estimated based on wellhead totalizer readings and an
average well pump flowrate of 21 gpm. The total system throughput was 2,017,215 gal based on readings
of a totalizer installed on the treated water line. The average daily demand was 4,523 gal (versus 7,500
gal provided by the park owner) and the peak daily demand occurred on July 21, 2005, at 14,300 gal
(compared to 16,000 gpd provided by the park owner).

The flowrates through the CP-213f system varied due to the on-demand system configuration. On-
demand flowrates from the two pressure tanks  located upstream of the system ranged from 1 to 15 gpm
and averaged 4.0 gpm, corresponding to an average contact time of 103 min, which was five times longer
than the design value of 20 min.  At 4.0 gpm, the hydraulic loading rate to the filter was 1.1 gpm/ft2,
compared to the design value of 5.4 gpm/ft2. Macrolite® filter media is rated for a maximum hydraulic
loading rate of 10 gpm/ft2.

At flowrates of 1 to 15 gpm, the inlet pressure to the treatment system ranged from 40 to 66 psi
(compared to the pressure tank set points from 45 to 60 psi) and the outlet pressure ranged from 22 to 57
psi. Total pressure differential (Ap) readings across the system ranged from 0 to 25 psi depending on the
flowrates. Ap readings ranged from 0 to 23 psi across Tanks A and B and from 0 to 22 psi across Tanks
C and D, based on inlet and outlet pressure gauge readings.

During the performance evaluation study, 1,133 backwash cycles took place. Throughput values between
two consecutive backwash cycles were reduced incrementally from 6,857 to 916 gal, increasing daily
backwash cycles to as many as 11.  There was  one outlier on August 9, 2005, when over 1,720 gal of
backwash wastewater was produced (equivalent to 13 backwash events in a single day).  The vendor's
contractor determined that sediment was lodged in the purge/control valve on one of the duplex units,
preventing the valve from being closed; therefore, the duplex unit was stuck in the backwash mode before
the operator bypassed the system.

4.4.2       Backwash. Backwash was initiated by a throughput setting  determined by the control valve
and associated gear stack located on top of each duplex unit.  Table 4-5 summarizes the backwash
frequency based on the use of five different control valves and two different gear stacks installed over the
study period. The vendor switched out the control valves five times (including one that was done
mistakenly) due to observations of particulate arsenic, iron, and manganese breakthrough from the
Macrolite®  filters. A No. 5 valve geared to backwash after a throughput of 2,743 gal was used initially
from system startup on July 13, 2005, through  September 20, 2005.  The calculated throughput values
between two consecutive backwash cycles averaged 2,449 gal based on the total volume of water treated
                                              23

-------
               Table 4-4. System Operation from July 13, 2005, to October 1, 2006
Parameter
Values
Primary Well Pump (Well No. 2)
Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Range of Flowrates (gpm)
Average Flowrate (gpm)
2,052(a)
4.6(a)
ll-31(b)
21(b)
System Throughput/Demand
Throughput to Distribution (gal)
Average Daily Demand (gpd)
Peak Daily Demand (gpd)
2,017,215
4,523
14,300
CP-213f System - Service Mode
Range of Flowrates (gpm)
Average Flowrate (gpm)
Range of Contact Times (min)
Average Contact Time (min)
Range of Hydraulic Loading Rates to Filters (gpm/ft2)
Average Hydraulic Loading Rate to Filters (gpm/ft2)
Range of System Inlet Pressure (psi)
Range of System Outlet Pressure (psi)
Range of Ap Readings across System (psi)
l-15(c)
4.0(c)
27-412
103
0.3-4. l(d)
l.l(d)
40-66
22-57
0-25
CP-213 System - Backwash Mode
Number of Backwash Cycles (or Tanks Backwashed)
Throughput between Backwash Cycles (gal)
Number of Backwash Cycles (or Tanks Backwashed) Per Day
l,133(e)
916-6857®
0-11
              (a) Hour meter installed on September 28, 2005. Run time before September 28,
                 2005 estimated based on wellhead totalizer readings and average well
                 flowrate of 21 gpm.
              (b) Based on raw water line totalizer and hour meter readings; excluding data
                 from September 29, October 5, and October 6, 2005.
              (c) Based on flow meter readings located on treated water line recorded starting
                 September 28, 2005.
              (d) Cross-sectional area for each tank was 0.92 ft2 with four tanks in parallel.
              (e) Based on totalizer readings on backwash water discharge line and 130 gal of
                 wastewater produced during backwash of each tank.
              (f) Backwash triggered by volume of water treated based on settings of control
                 discs located on top of each set of duplex filtration tanks.
and the total number of tanks backwashed.  The number of tanks backwashed per day ranged from 0 to 5
except for the outlier on August 9, 2005, discussed in Section 4.4.1. Because of breakthrough of
particulate arsenic, iron, and manganese, the vendor dispatched its contractor to the site to install anew
control valve in an attempt to curb the particulate breakthrough. While one with a higher number should
have been used, a lower number control valve (i.e., No. 2 geared to backwash after a throughput of 6,857
gal) was inadvertently installed and used between September 21 through 29, 2005.  On September 30,
2005, the No. 2 valve was replaced with a No. 7 valve, which was geared for a throughput of 1,957 gal.
The average throughput for the No. 7 valve was 1,932 gal and the number of tanks backwashed per day
ranged from 0 to 5.  For this reason, a No. 8 valve was subsequently installed on December 7, 2005 to
further reduce the throughput to 1,714 gal.  The actual throughput was 1,684 gal and the number of tanks
backwashed per day ranged from 1 to 5. After this changeout, particulate breakthrough continued.
Therefore, a No. 6 control valve with a smaller gear at 5,500 gal was installed to backwash every 916 gal.
The actual throughput was 916 gal and the number of tanks backwashed per day ranged from 1 to 11.
                                               24

-------
     Table 4-5. Sizes of Control Valve and Respective Throughput between Backwash Cycles






Duration
07/13/05-09/20/05
09/21/05-09/29/05
09/30/05-12/06/05
12/07/05-01/17/06
01/18/06-10/01/06





Control
Valve
No. 5(a)
No. 2(a)
No. 7(a)
No. 8(a)
No. 6(b)
Design
Throughput
between
Consecutive
Backwash
Cycles
(gal)
2,743
6,857
1,957
1,714
916
Average
Throughput
between
Consecutive
Backwash
Cycles
(gal)
2,449
3,469
1,932
1,684
916

Number of
Backwash
Cycles (or
Tanks
Backwashed)
(No./day)
0-5
0-3
0-5
1-5
1-11


Backwash
Water
Generation
Ratio
(%)
5.5
2.8
6.6
7.2
7.9
        (a) A 13,700-gal gear used.
        (b) A 5,500-gal gear used.
Except for disc No. 2, the ratios of backwash water generated ranged from 5.5% to 7.9% and averaged
7.2%.

4.4.3       Residual Management. Residuals produced by the Macrolite® system consisted of
backwash water and associated solids, which were discharged to a nearby septic system and then to a
sanitary sewer.

4.4.4       System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity.  During system operation, total arsenic and
iron breakthrough was observed in service mode and the backwash frequency had to be increased
incrementally. Even after reducing the throughput value to 916 gal between backwash cycles, there was
one incidence of total arsenic and iron breakthrough, therefore, the entire TC/TD module had to be
replaced on May 12, 2006. Further, during the second half of the 15-month demonstration study, the
pressure gauge for Duplex Unit TC/TD and the totalizer on the backwash line were both broken and had
to be replaced (see Appendix A).  The totalizer to distribution and the totalizer on the raw water line were
re-set once and twice, respectively (see Appendix A). The flow meter on the treated water line was
discolored and could not be read (see Appendix A).

The required system O&M and operator skill levels are discussed according to pre- and post-treatment
requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventive maintenance activities,
and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.

Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pretreatment consisted of KMnO4 addition for the oxidation
of arsenic, iron, and manganese.  Specific chemical handling requirements are further discussed below
under chemical handling and inventory requirements. KMnO4  was selected as an alternative oxidant to
chlorine due to the high TOC levels in source water and the potential to form disinfection byproducts.
However, as discussed in Section 4.5.1, the source water had a  relatively high KMnO4 demand, thus
resulting in difficulties in controlling manganese levels (both particulate and soluble forms) in the treated
water.

System Automation.  All major functions of the treatment system were automated and required only
minimal operator oversight and intervention if all functions were operating as intended. Automated
processes included system startup in service mode when the well was energized; backwash initiation
based on throughput; and system shutdown when the well pump was shut down.  However, as noted in
Section 4.4.1, an operational issue did arise with automated backwash on August 9, 2005. In addition, the
                                              25

-------
pump on the primary well (Well No. 2) developed a leak and had to be shut down temporarily on January
4, 2006 for repairs. During the Well No. 2 repair period, Well No. 1 was used. The leak on the Well
No. 2 pump was repaired the next day and the primary well resumed its normal operation thereafter. Also,
the operator discovered an airlock in the chemical feed pump several times during the second half of the
demonstration study.

Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill set required to operate the
Macrolite® system was limited to observation of the process equipment integrity and operating parameters
such as pressure and flow. The daily demand on the operator was about 5 min to visually inspect the
system and record operating parameters on the log sheets.  Other skills needed including performing
O&M activities such as replenishing the KMnO4 solution in the chemical day tank, monitoring backwash
operations, and working with the vendor to troubleshoot and perform minor on-site repairs.

For the state of Minnesota, there are five water operator certificate class levels, i.e., A, B, C, D, and E,
with Class A being the highest. The certificate levels are based on education, experience, and system
characteristics, such as water source, treatment processes, water storage volume, number of wells, and
population affected. The operator for the  BSLMHP system has a Class D certificate.  Class D requires a
high school diploma or equivalent with at least one year of experience in operating  a Class  D or E system
or a postsecondary degree from an accredited institution.

Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive  maintenance tasks recommended  by the vendor included
daily to monthly visual inspection of the piping, valves, tanks, flow meters, and other system components.

Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. KMnO4 addition was  implemented since the
system startup on July 13, 2005. Mixing of the KMnO4 solution required only 10 min to complete, as
reported by the operator. The  chemical consumption was checked each day as part of the routine
operational data collection.  Several adjustments were made over time to optimize the KMnO4 dosage for
the oxidation of arsenic, iron, and manganese.

4.5         System Performance

The performance of the Macrolite® CP-213f arsenic removal system was evaluated based on analyses of
water samples collected from the treatment plant, backwash lines, and distribution system.

4.5.1      Treatment Plant  Sampling.  Water samples were collected at five locations across the
treatment train:  at the wellhead (IN), after the contact tanks (AC), after the first set of duplex unit tanks  A
and B (TA/TB), after the second set of duplex tanks C and D (TC/TD), and after the two sets of duplex
tanks combined (TT).  Sampling was conducted on 60 occasions (including four duplicate  sampling
events) during the 15-month system operation, with field speciation performed on samples  collected from
the IN, AC, and TT locations for 17 of the 60 occasions. Table 4-6 summarizes the arsenic, iron, and
manganese analytical results.  Table 4-7 summarizes the results of the other water quality parameters.
Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical  results through the 15-month system operation. The
results of the water treatment plant sampling  with a varying KMnO4 dosage before  and after the
November 7, 2005, manganese jar tests are discussed below.

Arsenic and Iron Removal. Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 19.1 to 36.6 |o,g/L
and averaged 27.5 |o,g/L with soluble As(III) as the predominant species averaging  21.9 |o,g/L (Table 4-6
and Figure 4-8). Some amounts of particulate arsenic and soluble As(V) also were  present  in raw water,
with concentrations averaging 2.2and 3.5  |o,g/L, respectively. The total arsenic concentrations measured
during the 15-month study period were consistent with those of the historical source water sampling
(Table 4-1), although As(III) concentrations were significantly higher, representing over 80% (on
                                              26

-------
average) of the total concentrations in source water (as compared to 54% during the August 31, 2004,
source water sampling). The existence of As(III) as the predominating arsenic species was consistent
with the low DO concentrations (averaged 1.2 mg/L, Table 4-7) and low ORP values (averaged -41 mV)
in source water.  One set of total arsenic data was not included in the summary table because the data
were considered outliers. These were samples taken on August 8, 2006.
             Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
Parameters
As
(total)
As
(soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe
(total)
Fe
(soluble)
Mn
(total)
Mn
(soluble)
Sample
Location
IN(a)
AC(b)
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT(c)
IN
AC
TT(c)
IN
AC
TT(c)
IN
AC
TT(c)
IN
AC
TT(c)
IN(a)
AC(b)
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT(c)
IN
AC
TT(c)
IN(d)
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT(c)
IN
AC
TT(c)
Unit
HS/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Sample
Count
59
59
40
40
21
17
17
18
17
17
18
17
17
18
17
17
18
59
59
40
40
21
17
17
18
59
60
40
40
21
17
17
18
Concentration
Minimum
19.1
18.6
2.4
2.5
2.0
15.3
1.8
1.9
0.1
10.6
0.1
12.8
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.7
1.3
478
633
<25
<25
<25
127
<25
<25
102
246
2.3
5.2
12.1
110
11.2
12.6
Maximum
36.6
36.1
29.8
17.5
17.7
30.3
8.7
6.2
6.1
32.8
10.9
27.4
5.4
4.4
16.5
8.4
4.9
3,758
3,173
2,363
1,140
1,067
3,274
306
41
176
2,076
1,002
971
1,091
159
1,075
1,062
Average
27.5
26.8
6.6
6.4
5.9
25.4
4.4
3.5
2.2
22.7
1.7
21.9
1.0
1.2
3.5
3.4
2.3
2,385
2,295
201
211
194
2,223
31
<25
130
1,059
355
369
388
132
362
314
Standard
Deviation
4.3
3.9
5.5
3.6
4.4
4.1
2.2
1.5
1.9
5.7
3.3
4.5
1.3
1.3
3.8
1.9
1.1
772
669
456
332
322
966
71.1
6.6
12.2
338
320
314
302
11.5
344
316
      (a)  08/08/06 data considered outliers and not included in table.
      (b)  11/02/05 data considered outliers and not included in table.
      (c)  Included data taken at TA/TB and TC/TD locations on 12/08/05.
      (d)  09/07/05 data considered outliers and not included in table.
      One-half of detection limit for non-detect samples used for calculations; duplicate samples included in
      calculations.
                                                27

-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results
Parameters
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
Total P(b)
(as PO4)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
Sample
Location
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TT(a)
IN
AC
TT(a)
IN
AC
TT(a)
IN(C)
AC(d)
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TT(e)
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
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
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
59
58
40
40
19
17
17
18
17
17
18
17
17
18
48
48
36
36
13
59
59
40
40
19
59
59
40
40
19
14
14
15
48
48
32
32
16
48
48
32
32
16
48
48
o ^
32
32
16
Concentration
Minimum
338
321
341
343
356
0.1
0.2
0.1
<1
<1
<1
O.05
O.05
O.05
117
136
5.0
5.0
32.1
22.4
22.1
22.2
22.5
21.7
1.5
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.3
2.3
2.7
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.1
9.3
9.4
9.3
9.2
9.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
Maximum
396
390
389
391
392
0.3
0.3
0.3
<1
<1
<1
0.06
0.06
0.3
603
584
432
220
196
29.4
28.6
28.4
28.2
24.7
36.0
11.0
14.0
14.0
11.0
4.8
4.6
4.8
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.7
14.9
14.1
12.5
12.8
13.8
3.6
2.3
2.0
2.1
2.0
Average
366
368
366
365
371
0.2
0.2
0.2
<1
<1
<1
O.05
O.05
O.05
417
400
61.6
62.4
73.3
24.2
24.2
24.3
24.4
23.4
25.5
5.6
1.4
1.7
1.6
3.3
3.2
3.1
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
10.5
10.6
10.4
10.4
11.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
Standard
Deviation
12.7
11.2
10.0
10.6
11.4
0.05
0.04
0.05
-
-
-
0.01
0.01
0.05
131
118
79.3
54.0
56.0
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.8
10.4
2.0
2.6
2.6
2.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.7
1.3
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
                                28

-------
      Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameters
ORP
(Continued)
Total
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sample
Location
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TT(a)
IN
AC
TT(a)
IN
AC
rprp(a)
Unit
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
48
48
32
32
16
17
17
18
17
17
18
17
17
18
Concentration
Minimum
-76
1
-9
-12
6
243
256
280
161
145
167
82.0
95.3
96.9
Maximum
2
403
334
299
336
383
346
346
228
201
212
155
145
144
Average
-41.0
88.0
79.1
81.5
110
315
311
314
190
186
187
127
125
126
Standard
Deviation
14.9
76.4
60.2
56.2
85.0
29.6
21.5
17.9
15.5
13.4
11.8
16.2
11.4
10.3
    (a) Included data taken at TA/TB and TC/TD locations on 12/08/05.
    (b) Total P not analyzed until 10/05/05.
    (c) 08/08/06 data considered as outlier and not included in table.
    (d) 11/02/05 data considered outlier and not included in table.
    (e) Included data taken at TA/TB and TC/TD locations on 01/17/06.
    One-half of detection limit for non-detect samples are used for calculations. Duplicate samples included in
    calculations.
Total iron concentrations in raw water averaged 2,385 (ig/L, existing almost entirely in the soluble form.
The presence of predominating soluble iron was consistent with the presence of predominating As(III) as
well as low DO concentrations and low ORP values.  Given the average soluble iron and soluble arsenic
levels in source water, this corresponded to an iron to arsenic ratio of 88:1, which was well above the
target ratio of 20:1 for effective arsenic removal by iron removal (Sorg, 2002). As shown in Table 4-6
and Figure 4-9, total iron concentrations varied widely from 478 to 3,758 |o,g/L with possible seasonal
variations. Two pieces of iron data were considered as outliers and not included in the data analyses as
noted on Table 4-6. Varying iron concentrations could affect KMnO4 dosage, which was critical to the
formation of filterable manganese solids, as discussed later in this subsection.

After KMnO4 addition and after the contact tanks, soluble arsenic concentrations averaged 4.4 (ig/L, of
which 1.0 (ig/L was As(III), indicating effective oxidation of As(III) to As(V). As(V) concentrations
after the contact tanks, however, were low, ranging from 1.7 to 8.4 (ig/L and averaging 3.4 (ig/L. Any
As(V) formed apparently was adsorbed onto and/or co-precipitated with iron solids, as evidenced by the
significantly elevated particulate iron and particulate arsenic levels (i.e., 2,264 and 22.7 (ig/L [on
average], respectively) after the contact tanks.  The near complete precipitation of soluble iron observed
suggested effective Fe(II) oxidation even in the presence of 3.3 mg/L of TOC (on average) (Table 4-7).
Researchers have reported that Fe(II)-KMnO4  reaction rates are more rapid than KMnO4-DOC
interactions (Knocke et al., 1994).  It appears that the elevated TOC levels in raw water did not adversely
impact As(III) and Fe(II) oxidation.  Note that based on tank level measurements, KMnO4 dosages used
during the performance evaluation study ranged from 1.3 to 6.5 mg/L (as KMnO4). The effects of
KMnO4 dosage on  Mn(II) oxidation and removal are discussed later in  this subsection.

From July 13, 2005, to October 4, 2006, total arsenic concentrations in the treated water ranged from 2.0
to 29.8 (ig/L and averaged 6.4 (ig/L (Table 4-6).  Soluble arsenic concentrations in the treated water
ranged from 1.9 to 6.2 (ig/L and averaged 3.5 (ig/L. As shown in Figure 4-10, out of the 60 sampling
                                               29

-------
                                       Arsenic Speciation at Wellhead (IN)
              3"
n
                                                                             DAs (participate
                                                                             • As (III)
                                                                             QAs(V)
                                     Arsenic Speciation after Contact Tank (AC)

50.0 -
_ 40.0 -
c
£ 30.0 -
S
o
* 20.0 -
10.0 -

KMn04pump KMnO4pump
stroke ength ^ stroke length






|-|



I





	


:







=








=









-





-









-









	























|-|










-1



	










-






"





r-|





DAs (participate)
• As (III)
DAs (V)





=







-






-
                                 Arsenic Speciation after Total Combined Effluent (TT)

— 40.0 -
I
| 30.0-
1
* 20.0 -
10.0 -
stroke length





H I n H
stroke length



Samples were taken atTAATB

^^Jnnnn
• As (I II)
OAs(V)





n n N
Figure 4-8. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Locations
                                                 30

-------
     4,000
     3,500
                                                                           -At Wellhead (IN)
                                                                           -After KMnO4 Addition and Contact Tanks (AC)
                                                                           - Filter Effluent (TAfTBfTCfTD/TT)
                                                                           -KMnO4 Dosage
-- 9.0
                                                                                                        -- 8.0
                                                                                                        -- 7.0
                                                                                                        -- 1.0
                                                                                                          0.0
        07/13/05    09/01/05     10/21/05    12/10/05    01/29/06    03/20/06    05/09/06    06/28/06    08/17/06
   Figure 4-9.  Total Iron Concentrations After Contact Tanks and after Macrolite® Filters
      60.0
                                                                          -At Wellhead (IN)
                                                                          -After KMnO4 Addition and Contact Tanks (AC)
                                                                          - Filter Effluent (TA/TB/TC/TD/TT)
                                                                          -KMnO4 Dosage
                                                                                                        -- 8.0
                                                                                                        -- 7.0
      40.0 -
      20.0 -
                                                                                                         0.0
       07/13/05    09/01/05    10/21/05    12/10/05    01/29/06    03/20/06    05/09/06    06/28/06    08/17/06
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Concentrations After Contact Tanks and after Macrolite® Filters
                                                       31

-------
occasions, total arsenic concentrations in the treated water exceeded the 10-(ig/L MCL for a total of 13
times, mostly due to particulate breakthrough from the Macrolite® filters.  As shown in Figure 4-9, the
elevated total arsenic concentrations were accompanied by elevated total iron concentrations. The iron
concentrations in the treated water ranged from <25 to 2,363 (ig/L and averaged 204 (ig/L, with almost all
existing as particulate iron.  Soluble iron levels were <25 (ig/L as measured in water samples filtered with
0.45-(im disc filters.  On September 7, 2005, the total arsenic concentration in the treated water exceeded
10 (ig/L due to low KMnO4 dosage, as evidenced by the negative ORP readings across the treatment train,
resulting in incomplete As(III) and  Fe(II) oxidation.

A study has shown that Fe(II) complexed with DOM might be difficult to remove via oxidation and
subsequent precipitation of Fe(OH)3(s).  This was due to the formation of colloidal iron that had a size
fraction small enough to pass through 0.2-|o,m disc filters.  However, this phenomenon would be affected
by the concentration and nature of the DOM in water (Knocke et al, 1994). The formation of colloidal
iron did not appear to be an issue at the BSLMHP site with primarily particulate iron present after the
contact tanks and after the Macrolite® filters (e.g. a size fraction large enough to be retained by a 0.45-jam
disc filter). The increase in particulate iron also corresponded with an increase in particulate arsenic,
indicating iron breakthrough from the Macrolite® filters.

In order to better control particulate breakthrough from the filtration tanks, the control valves located on
top of the two duplex units were replaced three times from No. 5 to No. 7, from No. 7 to No. 8, and then
from No. 8 to No. 6 during the study to allow for more frequent backwash. (Note that No. 2 was
erroneously installed and used for a short duration before the mistake was caught and corrected). Table 4-
8 lists the operating duration, valve number, gear volume, number of occurrence during which total
arsenic concentrations exceeded 10 (ig/L, and total iron concentrations with arsenic exceeding 10 (ig/L.
           Table 4-8. Control Valve Sizes and Corresponding Occurrences of High Total
                                Arsenic and Iron Concentrations
Duration
07/13/05-09/20/05
09/21/05-09/29/05
09/30/05-12/06/05
12/07/05-01/17/06
01/18/06-10/04/06
Control
Valve
No.
No. 5
No. 2(a)
No. 7
No. 8
No. 6
Gear
Volume
(gal)
13,700
13,700
13,700
13,700
5,500
Num-
ber of
Occur-
rence
3
-
4
2(b)
4
Total Arsenic
Concentration
Exceeding 10 jig/L
in Filter Effluent
Min
12.3
-
10.1
11.3
10.5
Max
21.5
-
29.8
12.6
12.7
Avg
16.3
-
17.1
12.1
11.6
Total Iron
Concentration with
Arsenic Exceeding 10
jig/L in Filter Effluent
Min
465
-
336
978
<25
Max
1,140
-
2,363
1,023
973
Avg
807
-
1,078
996
658
     (a) Incorrect disc inadvertently installed and corrected soon after installation.
     (b) Including field duplicate.
The use of Valve No. 5 and No. 7 resulted in three and four occurrences, respectively, with arsenic
concentrations measured as high as 29.8 (ig/L and iron concentrations as high as 2,363 (ig/L.  Valve No. 8
was installed on December 7, 2005, and the treated water samples collected during December 7, 2005,
through January 17, 2006, contained an average of 12.1 and 996 (ig/L of total arsenic and iron,
respectively. Valve No. 6 with a smaller-volume gear designed for even more frequent backwash than
Valve No. 8 was installed on January 18, 2006. The treated water sample collected during January 18 to
October 1, 2006, contained an average of 11.6 and 658 (ig/L of total arsenic and iron, respectively, which
were the lowest for the entire performance period. However, there were still  three sampling events on
                                               32

-------
February 15, April 24, and May 2, 2006 that had elevated arsenic and iron due to particulate arsenic and
iron breakthrough. By October 4, 2006, total arsenic and iron had remained below the arsenic MCL and
iron detection limit for nine consecutive sampling events, therefore, the treatment system was considered
working properly and a decision was made to conclude the performance evaluation.

Manganese. As shown in Table 4-6, total manganese concentrations in raw water ranged from 102 to
176 |og/L and averaged 130 |o,g/L , which existed almost entirely in the soluble form. The manganese
levels in raw water exceeded its secondary MCL of 50 |o,g/L.

Figure 4-11 and Table 4-9 show total and soluble manganese concentrations after KMnO4 addition and
after the contact tanks (AC) and after the Macrolite® filters (TA/TB, TC/TC, and TT) over time. Before
and on November 15, 2005, total manganese levels after the  contact tanks ranged from 416 to 1,126 |o,g/L
and averaged 856 |o,g/L, with 38 to 94% comprised of "soluble" manganese based on the use of 0.45-(im
disc filters. During this time  period, the KMnO4 dosage was incrementally decreased from the initial
level of 3.8 to 1.4 mg/L, and then increased to 2.6 mg/L by adjusting the paced-pump stroke length from
33 to 15%, and then to 26%.  The KMnO4 dosage was decreased from the initial level of 3.8 mg/L
because elevated total and "soluble" manganese levels at 900 (average) and 377 (ig/L, respectively, were
thought, at the time, to have been caused by overdosing of KMnO4. Decreasing the KMnO4 dosage from
3.8 to 3.4 and then to 3.0 mg/L did not appear to help reduce the manganese concentrations, with total and
"soluble" levels measured, for example, at 1,097 and 850 (ig/L, respectively, on August  18, 2005.  A
further decrease in KMnO4 dosage to 1.4 mg/L helped reduce the total manganese levels, which, however,
were still higher than those in raw water at 5 81 and 416 (ig/L, respectively, on August 31 and September
7, 2005. This low level of KMnO4 addition also caused significantly elevated arsenic and iron
concentrations in the treated water due to  incomplete oxidation of As(III) and Fe(II) as discussed in
Section 4.5.1. Increasing the KMnO4 dosage back to 2.6 mg/L returned the total manganese
concentrations to 676 to 1,042 (ig/L, with most (i.e., 468 to 946 (ig/L) existing in the "soluble" form.

The addition of 1.4 mg/L to 3.8 mg/L of KMnO4 during July 13 through November 15, 2005, resulted in
significantly elevated manganese levels not only after the contact tanks, as discussed above, but also after
the Macrolite® filters (ranging from  428 to 1,091 |o,g/L and averaging 722 |o,g/L, Figure 4-11 [bottom]  and
Table 4-9). Further, manganese in the treated water existed almost entirely (i.e., 535 to 1,062 (ig/L) in the
"soluble" form based on the use of 0.45-(im filter discs for obtaining the soluble fractions.

Mn(II) oxidation by KMnO4 is dependent on the KMnO4 dosage, pH, temperature, and DOM concentra-
tion in raw water. The reaction between KMnO4 with Mn(II) is typically rapid and complete at pH values
ranging from 5.5 to 9.0. However, elevated DOM levels can increase the KMnO4demand due to
competition between these species and resulting kinetic effects (Knocke et al., 1987). Some researchers
suggest that DOM can interfere with the formation of MnO2  solids  by exerting KMnO4 demand and,
possibly, forming complexes with fractions of Mn(II), thus rendering it less likely to be oxidized
(Gregory and Carson, 2003).  When modeling the Mn(II) oxidation with KMnO4, Carlson et al. (1999)
determined that incorporating a term to account for the DOM demand for MnO4" significantly improved
the prediction of the MnO4" consumption.  The incorporation of DOM into the oxidation  term to account
for complexation between DOM and Mn(II) also was postulated but no data were collected as part of that
study. Further, high levels of DOM in source water also can form fine colloidal MnO2 particles, which
may not be filterable by conventional gravity or pressure  filters. Knocke et al. (1991) defined colloidal
particles as those passing through 0.20-|om filters and requiring ultrafiltration for removal.

The presence of significantly elevated "soluble" manganese levels after the contact tanks and after the
Macrolite® filters, even with the use of less than the theoretical demand of KMnO4 for reduced arsenic,
iron, and manganese (i.e., 3.3 mg/L), prompted the speculation that the "soluble" manganese measured
                                               33

-------
                                                                                              10.0
 2,000 -
 1,500 -
 1,000
   500 -
   07/13/05    09/01/05    10/21/05    12/10/05    01/29/06    03/20/06    05/09/06   06/28/06    08/17/06
                                                                                             - 10.0
2,000 -
1,500 -
1,000 -
 500 -
                                                                                              0.0
  07/13/05    09/01/05     10/21/05    12/10/05    01/29/06    03/20/06    05/09/06    06/28/06    08/17/06

     Figure 4-11.  Total and Soluble Manganese Concentrations Following Contact
                        Tanks (Top) and Macrolite* Filters (Bottom)
                                                34

-------
        Table 4-9. Correlations between Pump Stroke Length, KMnO4 Dosage, and Total
                            and Soluble Manganese Concentrations
Duration
07/13/05 to 08/07/05
08/08/05 to 08/13/05
08/14/05 to 08/30/05
08/3 1/05 to 09/07/05
09/08/05 to 11/15/05
11/16/05 to 11/20/05
11/2 1/05 to 12/04/05
12/05/05 to 01/20/06
01/2 1/06 to 02/02/06
02/03/06 to 06/15/06
06/16/06 to 08/0 1/06
08/02/06 to 10/04/06
Stroke
Length
(%)
33
30
26
15
26
40
38
40
42
45
40
24
Average
KMnO4
Dosage
(Hg/L)
3.8
3.4
3.0
1.4
2.6
5.2
4.4
5.6
5.8
4.4
3.5
3.8
Total Mn
at AC
Location
(Hg/L)
634-1,126
(900)
N/A
871-1,097
(984)
416-581
(499)
676-1,042
(894)
N/A
1,123
1,031-1,506
(1,216)
1,160-1,164
(1,162)
807-1,652
525-2,076
(1,308)
246-1,385
(878)
Soluble
Mn at AC
Location
(Hg/L)
377
N/A
850
N/A
468-946
(649)
N/A
N/A
108-166
(137)
182
11.2-60.1
705-1,075
(890)
157-264
(199)
Total Mn
at TA/TB,
TC/TD,
andTT
Locations
(Hg/L)
428-727
(551)
N/A
467-1,010
(651)
430-906
(662)
548-1,091
(802)
N/A
432-1,002
(717)
201-673
(399)
210-280
(236)
19.0-486
2.5-499
(244)
2.3-185
(48)
Soluble Mn
at TA/TB,
TC/TD,
andTT
Locations
(Hg/L)
391
N/A
1,000
N/A
535-1,062
(744)
N/A
N/A
138-202
(177)
250
36.7-132
161-490
(326)
12.6-184
(94)
      N/A = Data not available
      Data in parentheses representing average values.
might, in fact, be colloidal particles that had passed through the 0.45-um disc filters.  Therefore, jar tests
were performed on November 7, 2005, to determine if higher KMnO4 dosages might help overcome the
DOM effect and form larger filterable MnO2 solids in the treated water. Prior to the start of the jar tests,
the additional KMnO4 demand of a Macrolite®-treated water sample (to which 3.0 mg/L of KMnO4 had
already been added based on the KMnO4 consumption in the chemical day tank during the week of
sampling) was pre-determined by titrating 1 L of the water with a 1-g/L KMnO4titrant. After 2.5 mL of
the titrant was added, the water being titrated developed a dark yellow color, and was filtered, after about
10 min, with 0.20-|o,m disc filters to remove any suspended solids including  MnO2. The filtrate was
observed to have a pink color, indicating the presence of KMnO4 residual.

Five KMnO4 dosages ranging from 1.0 to 3.0 mg/L were then selected for the jar tests using the same
Macrolite®-treated water sample mentioned above. (These dosages would be in addition to the  KMnO4
already added to the  water to be treated). After 31 min of mixing time (including 1 min at 200 rpm, 19 at
100 rpm, and 11 min at 28 rpm), the water in the jars was filtered separately with 0.20-(im disc  filters and
analyzed for soluble  arsenic, iron, and manganese. Table 4-10 summarizes the results of the jar tests.

During mixing, jars No. 2 to 4 formed large brown floes  in a pale to dark yellow solution (Figure  4-12).
Jars No. 5 to 6 had smaller brown floes in a dark copper solution. As shown in Table 4-10, soluble iron
levels in all jars were below the MDL of 25 |o,g/L, suggesting that effective oxidation and removal of iron
                                              35

-------
                    Table 4-10. Jar Test Results for Macrolite®-Treated Water
Parameter
KMnO4 Added (mg/L)(a)
Mixing Time (min)
Initials/Final^ pH@ 16.8°C
Initial(b)/Final(c) ORP @ 16.8°C
Residual KMnO4 (mg/L)(d)
As(soluble)(e)(ug/L)
Fe(soluble)(e)(ug/L)
Mn(soluble)(e)(ug/L)
1
0
31
7.70/7.68
283/353
0.04
5.5
<25
1,090
2
1.0
31
7.80/7.67
292/360
0.01
4.5
<25
102
o
J
1.5
31
7.81/7.70
400/363
0.05
3.3
<25
0.8
4
2.0
31
7.71/7.62
440/369
0.07
o o
J.J
<25
11.0
5
2.5
31
7.74/7.60
509/493
0.35
3.2
<25
399
6
3.0
31
7.76/7.61
521/515
0.63
3.1
<25
469
     (a) Dosage was in addition to the 3.0 mg/L already added to the water prior to jar tests.
     (b) Reading taken approximately 15 min into jar test.
     (c) Reading taken at end of 31 min jar test.
     (d) CAIROX® Method 103 (DPD spectrophotometry) for determination of KMnO4 residual.
     (e) Filtered with 0.20-um filters.
had already been achieved prior to the jar tests. Soluble arsenic levels decreased slightly from 5 .5 |o,g/L to
3 . 1 |og/L in jar No. 6 (the one with the highest KMnO4 dosage 3 .0 mg/L). Only soluble manganese
concentrations varied significantly, decreasing from 1,090 (ig/L in jar No. 1 to <1 ug/L in jar No. 3 and
then increasing to 469 ug/L in jar No. 6. Knocke et al. (1990) reported that kinetics for Fe (II) oxidation
are faster than for Mn (II) oxidation when KMnO4 is used as the oxidant. The relevant stoichiometric
equations are shown as follows:
3Fe2+ + KMnO4 + 7H2O -> 3Fe(OH)3
                                   MnO
3Mn2+ + 2KMnO4 + 2H2O -» 5 MnO
                                                          2(s)
                                                                2(s)
                                                               2K+
                                                                     K+
                                   Figure 4-12. Jar Test Setup
                                               36

-------
In the control sample, the "soluble" manganese level was high presumably due to the slower Mn(II)
oxidation kinetics and the presence of DOM as discussed above. The 1,090 (ig/L of "soluble" manganese
in the control sample confirmed that the manganese most likely was present as colloidal particles since
the sample analyzed had already been filtered with 0.2 (im disc filters.  Increasing the KMnO4 dosage to
1.5 mg/L (on top of the 3.0 mg/L already added to the water prior to the jar tests) appeared to be sufficient
to overcome the effects of DOM, allowing formation of filterable manganese particles. As a result, only
0.8 (ig/L of manganese that passed through the 0.2-(im filters was reported as "soluble" manganese.
Further increasing the KMnO4 dosage up to 3 mg/L increased the soluble manganese level up to 469
(ig/L, suggesting excess KMnO4 in the treated water. The presence of KMnO4 was supported by the
elevated residual KMnO4 levels and the elevated ORP readings (see results of jars No. 4 and 5).

Based on the jar test results, it was determined that an additional 1.5 mg/L of KMnO4 was needed to
attain filterable manganese solids.  Therefore, the KMnO4 dosage to the treatment system was increased
on November 15, 2005 for a target dosage of 4.5 mg/L. The KMnO4 pump stroke length was increased
incrementally from 26 to 38-45% to achieve  an average dosage of 4.4 to 5.8 mg/L between November 15,
2005, and June 15, 2006. In response, soluble manganese concentrations at the AC location, as
determined by the use of 0.45-(im disc filters, were reduced to as low as 35 (ig/L (on average during
February 3 through June 15, 2006, as shown in Table 4-9) while total manganese concentrations remained
as high as 1,179 (ig/L (on average during February 3 through June 15, 2006).  Meanwhile, total and
soluble manganese concentrations, as determined, again, by the use of 0.45-(im disc filters in the filter
effluent, were reduced, on average, to 163 and 78 (ig/L, respectively, during the same test period (i.e.,
February 3 through June 15, 2006). The data clearly demonstrated that it was necessary to increase the
KMnO4 dosage in order to convert MnO2 colloids to particles filterable by the Macrolite® pressure filters.

Controlling a proper KMnO4 dosage always is a challenging task, especially if water quality varies.
Starting from June 13, 2006, the operator observed pink color in the treated water, apparently due to
overdosing of KMnO4.  A careful review of analytical data revealed that significant decreases in arsenic
and iron concentration in raw water, as shown in Figures 4-9 and 4-10, occurred, although manganese and
TOC concentrations remained relatively constant. Decreasing arsenic and iron concentrations caused
total and soluble  manganese concentrations at the AC location to increase to  1,308 and 890 (ig/L,
respectively, even at a somewhat reduced KMnO4 dosage of 3.5 mg/L during June 16 through August 1,
2006. From August 2 through October 4, 2006, at a dosage of 3.8 mg/L, total and soluble manganese
concentrations were reduced to 878 and 199 (ig/L, respectively, on average, at the AC location, and to 48
and 94 (ig/L, respectively, after the pressure filters.  These concentrations were close to but still above the
SMCL for manganese.

TOC.  TOC levels in raw water were elevated, ranging from 2.3 to 4.8 mg/L and averaging 3.3 mg/L.
Due to these high TOC levels, KMnO4 was used as the oxidant to oxidize reduced arsenic, iron, and
manganese.  TOC levels were reduced by 3 to 6% across the treatment train, with 3.2 mg/L, on average,
at the AC location and 3.1 mg/L after the pressure filters. These observation were consistent with the
results of prior research, which had shown only minimal organic carbon removal (i.e., <10%), via KMnO4
oxidation, in source water containing Mn (II) and DOC (Salbu and Steinnes,  1995; Knocke et al., 1990).

Other Water Quality Parameters. DO levels remained low across the treatment train (with average
values ranging from 1.0 to  1.2 mg/L), but ORP values increased across the treatment train (ranging from -
76 to 2 mV before versus 1 to 403 mV after KMnO4 addition). Not included in the findings were two
outliers on September 7 and October 26, 2005, where the ORP values after the contact tanks were
negative due to low KMnO4 dosage.  The ORP value on September 7, 2005, was negative because the
stroke length on the KMnO4 pump was turned down to  15% on August 31, 2005. pH values of raw water
had an average value of 7.3, which remained  unchanged after treatment. Average alkalinity results
ranged from 365  to 371 mg/L (as CaCO3) across the treatment train.  Average total hardness results
                                              37

-------
ranged from 311 to 315 mg/L (as CaCO3) across the treatment train (the total hardness is the sum of
calcium hardness and magnesium hardness).  The water had an almost even split of calcium and
magnesium hardness. Fluoride concentrations were 0.2 mg/L in raw water and after contact tanks and
were not affected by the Macrolite® filtration. The average nitrate concentration was <0.05 mg/L (as N)
across the treatment train.  There was no detection of sulfate and the silica concentrations remained at
approximately 24 mg/L (as SiO2) across the treatment train.

Total phosphorous analyzed starting from October 5, 2005 to October 4, 2006, showed an average of 423
(ig/L (as P) in raw water and 63.8 (ig/L (as P) in treated water (Figure 4-13). This 85% removal was most
likely achieved through adsorption onto iron  solids. The elevated total phosphorous levels were further
confirmed by analyzing a raw water sample taken on December 14, 2005, for the various phosphorous
species according to EPA Method 365.3 by Sierra Environmental Monitoring, Inc. It was determined that
the total phosphorous level in raw water was  0.58 mg/L (as P), present primarily as total hydrolyzable
phosphorous at 0.51 mg/L (as P). According to EPA Method 365.3, total  hydrolyzable phosphorous
includes both polyphosphorous and organic phosphorous.  It also was later confirmed  by EPA Method
507 that no organopesticides were present in  source water.  There were other potential sources for
elevated phosphorous in groundwater. Based on research conducted by the Sauk River Watershed
District, the  Sauk River and Big Sauk Lake have sediment, phosphorous, and nitrates caused by non-point
source discharges from septic systems, agriculture, and urban runoff (Post, 2005). The historical
monitoring data for the surface water of Big Sauk Lake show a maximum total phosphorous level of 0.4
mg/L (as P)  (Sauk River Watershed District,  2006) and the Big Sauk Lake is located approximately 1000
ft from the BSLMHP well house.
      600 -
At Wellhead (IN)
After Contact Tanks and KMnO4 Addition (AC)
Combined Tank Effluent (TA/TB/TC/TD/TT)
KMnO4 Dosage
                                                                                       T 10.0
                                                                                        - 9.0
                                                                                       -- 8.0
                                                                                       -- 7.0
                                                                                       -- 6.0
                                                                                            O
                                                                                            o*
                                                                                       -- 1.0
                                                                                         0.0
       07/13/05   09/01/05   10/21/05
                                 12/10/05    01/29/06   03/20/06   05/09/06    06/28/06    08/17/06
 Figure 4-13.  Total Phosphorous Concentrations After Contact Tanks and After Macrolite® Filters
                                               38

-------
4.5.2       Backwash Wastewater Sampling. Table 4-11 summarizes the analytical results from the 14
backwash wastewater sampling events. For Events 1, 2, and 3, only pH, turbidity, TDS, and soluble
arsenic, iron, and manganese were analyzed for the samples collected at the outfall of the backwash
wastewater discharge line. Soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations in the backwash water
ranged from 3.5 to 8.5, <25 to 63, and 560 to 736 (ig/L, respectively. The high "soluble" manganese
concentrations in the backwash wastewater reflected the similar levels of manganese in treated water (i.e.,
337 to 946 (ig/L prior to November 15, 2005) used for backwashing.

Starting from November 15, 2005, backwash wastewater samples were collected using the modified
sampling procedure  discussed in Section 3.3.4. Turbidity was replaced by TSS, and total arsenic, iron,
and manganese were added to the analyte list. Due to changes to the control disc on top of each duplex
unit, the data collected from Events 7 to 14 when the control disc was kept constant at 6 are discussed
herein. For both duplex units, total arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations in the backwash
wastewater ranged from 39 to 335 (ig/L, 4.8 to 44.5 mg/L, and 1.6 to 14.0 mg/L, respectively, and the
respective average concentrations were 130 (ig/L,  19.5 mg/L, and 7.2 mg/L. TSS levels ranged from 22.0
to 150 mg/L, averaging 72 mg/L. The wide variations (as high as one order of magnitude) in these
measurements  were  attributed, in part, to the difficulties in collecting representative samples containing
suspended solids.  Based on 72 mg/L of TSS in 130 gal of backwash wastewater produced by one tank,
approximately 35.4 g (0.078 Ib) of solids were discharged to the septic system and then to a sanitary
sewer, with the solids containing 63.7 mg of arsenic, 9.6 g of iron, and 3.5 g of manganese. The soluble
arsenic and iron concentrations were similar to those prior to November 15, 2005.  However, the soluble
manganese concentrations were significantly lower (ranging from 1.0 to 175 (ig/L), which mirrored the
treatment results due to the use of a higher KMnO4 dosage.

Table 4-12 presents  the total metal results of backwash solid samples collected from Tanks A and B.
Arsenic, iron, and manganese levels averaged 2.03 mg/g (or 0.2%), 190 mg/g (or  19%),  and 136 mg/g (or
13.6%), respectively. Based on 35.4 g of solids produced by each tank, the amount of arsenic, iron, and
manganese existed would be 72 mg, 6.7 g, and 4.8 g, respectively, which are similar to those presented
above via the analysis of backwash wastewater samples.  Total phosphorous in the backwash solids also
was noteworthy at an average of 32.8 mg/g (3.28%).

4.5.3       Distribution System Water Sampling. Table 4-13 summarizes the results of the
distribution system sampling events. Figure 4-14 provides plots to contrast total As, Fe, and Mn
concentrations before and after system startup.  The water quality was  similar among the three residences
in the distribution system. After the treatment system began operation, arsenic and iron concentrations
decreased from average baseline levels of 23.4 and 2,791 (ig/L to 8.1 and 173 (ig/L, respectively.
Manganese concentrations increased significantly from average baseline levels of 130 (ig/L due  to the
additon of various amounts of KMnO4. Lead concentrations remained fairly constant and averaged 0.6
and 1.6 (ig/L before  and after system startup, respectively (except for a spike of 25.2 (ig/L at DS3 on June
14, 2006). Copper concentrations increased from the baseline level of 1.8 to 18.5 (ig/L,  including a spike
of 228 (ig/L. Several factors including low pH, high temperature, and  soft water with lower dissolved
minerals can increase the  solubility of copper in drinking water in contact with plumbing fixtures.
However, none of these factors would have been associated with the operation of the treatment system.
Alkalinity and pH concentrations remained fairly constant.

As noted in Table 4-13, a few pieces of data were considered invalid because samples were taken from
infrequenctly used sample taps and showed uncharacteristically high arsenic, iron, and/or manganse
concentrations. Otherwise, most arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations in the distribution system
were comparable to  those in the treated water except for three occasions when treated water had elevated
concentrations due to particulate breakthrough  (as  marked on Figure 4-14). These spikes were not
reflected in the distribution water samples. In general, except for manganese, the  water quality in the
                                               39

-------
                                          Table 4-11.  Backwash Water Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Date
09/08/05
09/20/05
10/12/05
ll/15/05(a)
12/08/05
01/10/06
02/08/06
03/07/06
04/05/06
05/02/06
06/08/06
07/26/06
08/21/06
09/20/06
Average^'
KMnO4 Dosage
mg/L
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
5.6
5.6
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
3.5
3.8
3.8
4.1
Control Disc
No.
5
5
7
7
8
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
BW1 (Tank A/B)
O.
s.u.
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.3
VI
«
H
mg/L
576
550
356
54
224
360
328
336
358
352
344
358
340
366
348
VI
VI
H
mg/L
NS
NS
NS
102
210
130
116
66
22
96
132
45
52
74
75
(K
<
"3
o
H
Mg/L
NS
NS
NS
329
417
363
313
178
132
107
53.0
46.3
87.3
140
132
Soluble As
Mg/L
3.9
3.6
4.4
6.9
0.5
3.3
3.3
3.7
3.5
2.6
3.6
6.5
4.2
4.8
4.0
Particulate As
Mg/L
NS
NS
NS
322
416
360
310
174
128
104
49.4
39.8
83.1
135
128
<0
tu
"3
o
H
Mg/L
NS
NS
NS
63,108
77,641
43,384
37,949
24,100
13,245
18,220
30,376
6,005
13,076
15,458
19,804
&
_«
fi
_s
"o
v>
Mg/L
<25
<25
<25
163
201
128
75
24
<25
31
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
1
"3
o
H
Mg/L
NS
NS
NS
1,595
16,178
12,265
12,571
11,502
4,869
5,320
9,432
2,272
4,068
8,699
7,342
Soluble Mn
Mg/L
624
624
685
836
350
341
35.1
33.0
92.1
79.6
175
1.0
17.8
18.9
56.6
BW2 (Tank C/D)
Q.
S.U.
7.3
7.3
7.3
VI
«
H
mg/L
544
368
350
VI
VI
H
mg/L
NS
NS
NS
*
<
"3
o
H
Mg/L
NS
NS
NS
Soluble As
Mg/L
3.5
8.5
4.3
Particulate As
Mg/L
NS
NS
NS
4»
tu
"3
o
H
Mg/L
NS
NS
NS
&
_«
fi
_s
"o
v>
Mg/L
<25
<25
63
1
"3
o
H
Mg/L
NS
NS
NS
1
_«
fi
_s
"o
v>
Mg/L
560
736
656
Data not shown due to suspected sampling errors
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.3
334
326
340
342
410
326
334
346
346
365
351
175
16W
150
60
8w
90
90
12(«y
30
106
68
397
114
335
177
72.4
100
53.9
38.9
65.5
172
127
2.9
5.3
3.7
5.6
3.5
2.8
3.8
6.6
4.4
6.4
4.6
394
109
331
171
68.8
97.6
50.1
32.3
61.1
166
122
75,485
14,069
44,534
24,391
10,317
18,149
21,748
4,803
8,774
21,504
19,278
39
304
80
<25
46
29
34
<25
<25
<25
30
14,159
4,016
14,055
11,516
2,700
4,850
7,202
2,112
2,772
11,294
7,063
348
376
38.6
40.5
92.0
76.4
163
2.1
27.2
16.4
57.0
(a)  Modified backwash procedures implemented since November 15, 2005. For Events 1 to 3, turbidity was measured at 170, 160, and 120 NTU from Tank
    A/B and 120, 17, and 410 NTU from Tank C/D, respectively.
(b)  Data represent averages of Events 7 to 14 when Disc No. 6 was used throughout the duration.
(c)  Data appeared uncharacteristically low.
                                       Table 4-12. Backwash Solids Sample ICP/MS Results
Date: Location
09/21/06: TankA
09/21/06: Tank B
Average
Mg
mg/g
15.1
10.4
12.7
Al
mg/g
0.5
0.4
0.4
Si
Mg/g
633
387
510
P
mg/g
31.7
33.9
32.8
Ca
mg/g
80.5
85.5
83.0
V
Mg/g
14.1
15.4
14.8
Mn
mg/g
121
151
136
Fe
mg/g
183
198
191
Ni
Mg/g
3.55
3.69
3.62
Cu
Mg/g
9.88
5.59
7.74
Zn
Mg/g
245
232
238
As
mg/g
1.92
2.14
2.03
Cd
Mg/g
<0.5
0.5
<0.5
Sb
Mg/g
<0.5
0.5
O.5
Ba
mg/g
5.15
5.47
5.31
Pb
Mg/g
3.57
2.71
3.14
Fe/As
Ratio
95
93
94
     Note: Data represent averages of triplicate analysis.

-------
                                               Table 4-13. Distribution Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
Date
02/16/05
03/23/05
04/19/05
05/23/05
Average
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
07/26/05
09/07/05
09/27/05
11/02/05
11/29/05
12/15/05
01/17/06
02/21/06
03/29/06
04/24/06
05/25/06
06/14/06
07/13/06
DS1
Residence - 1st Draw
O>
H
=
_o
03
=
M
03
55
hr
7.0
6.0
6.2
5.8
NA
7.3
8.5
8.3
12.5
8.0
11.3
9.0
7.0
7.5
8.5
10.0
8.0
10.5
Average || NA
W
s.u.
7.2
7.3
7.0
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.4
Alkalinity
mg/L
382
362
377
384
376
365
356
370
361
365
374
383
361
361
375
357
382
364
367
Total As
Mg/L
24.3
21.9
25.3
25.7
24.3
5.1
14.2
4.3
6.8
4.1
4.1
24.1W
3.8
3.7
4.6
7.6
6.0
15.5
8.0
£
"3
£
Mg/L
2,649
2,175
2,878
2,578
2,570
73
52
72
<25
266
57
l,999(a)
<25
41
63
303
<25
<25
229
1
"3
£
Mg/L
128
130
141
124
131
722
438
687
976
367
400
923W
119
191
102
228
236
294
437
.Q
a.
Mg/L
0.6
0.4
2.4
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.3
2.1
0.2
0.9
1.2
1.0
0.2
0.8
0.5
0.4
2.2
0.9
0.8
=
U
Mg/L
4.1
2.2
3.9
0.7
2.7
0.4
0.2
11.0
8.8
6.2
3.9
21.8
5.5
6.4
3.2
4.6
228
112
DS2
Residence - 1st Draw
01
H
=
_o
03
=
M
03
55
Hr
8.3
8.3
10.0
7.3
NA
9.3
9.0
7.3
7.0
6.0
8.0
8.5
8.2
7.4
8.0
8.0
8.5
9.8
31.7 || NA
W
Q.
S.U.
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.2
7.4
7.5
Alkalinity
mg/L
374
367
395
370
377
374
352
361
352
365
374
383
365
369
375
353
361
364
365
Total As
Mg/L
19.8
26.2
15.3
24.2
21.4
5.4
12.7
5.1
7.9
3.6
5.7
4.9
7.8
5.2
7.4
5.8
12.4
17.4
7.8
£
"3
£
Mg/L
2,792
4,986
2,137
2,639
3,139
84
<25
127
142
57
184
187
132
239
109
113
429
27
142
1
"3
£
Mg/L
129
147
127
123
132
617
516
717
950
369
443
267
34.1
8.5
104
98
250
55.6
333
.Q
a.
Mg/L
0.6
0.3
1.6
<0.1
0.8
0.4
<0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.2
1.2
1.5
0.5
03
0.2
9.2
1.1
=
U
Mg/L
0.2
2.5
3.4
0.4
1.6
0.2
1.7
<0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.7
4.5
1.5
1.2
30
4.4
71.5
DS3
Residence - 1st Draw
01
H
=
_o
03
=
M
03
55
hr
NS
7.3
8.4
8.8
NA
9.3
8.0
9.5
9.3
9.3
9.0
7.5
9.5
10.0
9.0
93
9.0
8.5
6.9 || NA
W
Q.
S.U.
NS
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.6
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.4
74
7.3
7.4
7.5
Alkalinity
mg/L
NS
376
386
379
380
370
365
374
365
361
374
383
365
352
384
353
374
360
368
Total As
Mg/L
NS
26.3
24.6
22.6
24.5
6.3
13.9
4.2
8.5
3.7
6.3
4.9
4.0
4.9
28.3
5 1
8.6
13.8
8.6
£
"3
£
Mg/L
NS
2,590
2,751
2,649
2,663
162
84
98
37
222
279
342
<25
286
84
280
<25
<25
147
1
"3
£
Mg/L
NS
128
133
119
127
612
525
659
935
478
468
226
216
323
183
202
356
304
422
.0
a.
Mg/L
NS
<0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
<0.1
1.1
0.2
1.1
1.0
4.7
<0.1
1.6
0.1
0.9
25.2
1.0
2.9
=
U
Mg/L
NS
1.9
0.4
0.9
1.1
0.6
1.4
1.0
0.3
2.4
0.7
3.2
4.2
0.9
2.4
1.8
193
5.9
16.8
(a)  Sample tap not used on a regular basis.
Arsenic MCL = 10 ug/L, ironMCL = 300 ug/L,
BL = baseline sampling, NS = not sampled, NA
manganese SMCL = 50 ug/L, lead MCL = 50 ug/L, and copper MCL =1.3 mg/L.
= not analyzed

-------
                	DS1     -•- DS2      —* —DS3
Figure 4-14. Effects of Treatment System on Arsenic (top), Iron (middle), and
                Manganese (bottom) in Distribution System
                                   42

-------
distribution system has improved after installation of the treatment system, as evidenced by the reduced
arsenic and iron concentrations meeting the respective MCL and SMCL and little or no changes to the
pH, alkalinity, lead, and copper.
4.6
System Cost
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated.  This required tracking of the capital cost for equipment,
engineering, and installation cost and the O&M cost for chemical supply, electrical power use, and labor.
The cost associated with improvements to the building and any other discharge-related infrastructure,
which were outside of the scope of the demonstration project, was paid by the host site and not included
in the treatment system cost.

4.6.1       Capital Cost. The capital investment was $63,547 for the CP-213f system (Table 4-14).
The equipment cost was $22,422 (or 35% of the total capital investment), which included cost for the four
pressure filtration tanks, Macrolite® media, contact tanks, process valves and piping, instrumentation and
controls, a chemical feed system (including a storage tank with a secondary containment), additional
sample taps and totalizer/meters, shipping, equipment assembly labor, and system warranty.
           Table 4-14.  Summary of Capital Investment for BSLMHP Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Cost
Media and Tanks
Process Valves and Piping
Chemical Feed
Chemical Storage and Secondary
Containment
Instrumentation and Controls
Additional Flowmeter/Totalizers
Shipping
Labor
Equipment Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
$8,549
$1,935
$1,150
$680
$1,079
$359
$750
$7,920
$22,422
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35%
Engineering Cost
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Engineering Total
-
-
-
-
$15,620
$1,750
$2,857
$20,227
-

-
32%
Installation Cost
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
—
—
—
—
-
$5,000
$2,913
$12,985
$20,898
$63,547
—
—
—
33%
100%
The site engineering cost covered the cost for preparing a process design report and required engineering
plans, including a general arrangement drawing, P&IDs, interconnecting piping layouts, tank fill details,
an electrical on-line diagram, and other associated drawings.  After reviewed and certificated by a
Minnesota-registered professional engineer (PE), the plans were submitted to the MDH for permit review
                                               43

-------
and approval (Section 4.3.1). The engineering cost was $20,227, which was 32% of the total capital
investment.

The installation, shakedown, and startup cost covered the labor and materials required to unload, anchor,
plumb, and mechanical and electrical connections for proper operation (Section 4.3.3). All installation
activities were performed by the vendor's subcontractor, and startup and shakedown activities were
performed by the vendor with the operator's assistance. The installation, startup, and shakedown cost was
$20,898, about 33% of the total capital investment.

Using the system's rated capacity of 20 gpm (or 28,800 gpd), the capital cost of $63,547 was normalized
to be $3,177/gpm (or $2.21/gpd). The capital cost of $63,547 was converted to an annualized cost of
$5,998/year using a capital recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a 20-year return.
Assuming that the system was operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at the design flowrate of 20 gpm to
produce 10.5 million gallons (Mgal) of water per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.57/1,000 gal.
However, since the system only produced 2.0 Mgal of water over the 15-month study period (see Table 4-
4), corresponding to an annual production of 1.6 Mgal, the unit capital cost was increased to $3.75/1,000
gal at this reduced rate of production.

4.6.2       Operation and  Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost primarily included cost associated
with chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor (Table 4-15).  The actual usage rate for the
KMnO4 stock solution was approximately 72 Ib (or 5.3 gal) for the entire performance period.
Incremental electrical power consumption was calculated for the chemical feed pump.  The power
demand was calculated based on the total operational hours throughout the duration of the
performance study, the chemical feed pump horsepower, and the unit cost from the utility bills.
                  Table 4-15. O&M Cost for BSLMHP, MN Treatment System
Cost Category
Volume of Water Processed (gal)
Value
2,017,215
Assumption
From 07/13/05 through 10/01/06 (see Table 4-4)
Chemical Usage
Chemical Unit Price ($/lb)
Total Chemical Consumption (Ib)
Chemical Usage (lb/1,000 gal)
Total Chemical Cost ($)
Unit Chemical Cost ($/l,000 gal)
$2.07
72.4
0.036
$149.87
$0.07
97% KMnO4 in a 55-lb pail (approximately 4
gal) based on June 2005 and January 2006
invoices for the two pails used during the study
Or 5. 3 gal
—
—
—
Electricity
Electricity Unit Cost ($/kwh)
Estimated Electricity Usage (kwh)
Estimated Electricity Cost ($)
Estimated Power Use ($/l,000 gal)
0.067
257
$17.19
$0.01
—
Calculated based on 2,052 hr of operation of a
0.17-hp chemical feed pump
—
—
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Total Labor Hours (hr)
Total Labor Cost ($)
Labor Cost ($/l,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
0.42
27
564
$0.28
$0.36
5 min/day; 5 days a week
Based on 64 weeks of study period
Labor rate = $2 1/hr
—
-
                                              44

-------
The routine, non-demonstration related labor activities consumed about 25 min per week (or 5 min per
day, 5 days a week), as noted in Section 4.4.4.  Based on this time commitment and a labor rate of $21/hr,
the labor cost was $0.28/1,000 gal of water treated. In sum, the total O&M cost was approximately
$0.36/1,000 gal for the entire period of the demonstration study.
                                               45

-------
                                 Section 5.0: REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
       Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Carlson, Kenneth H., and William R. Knocke. 1999. "Modeling Manganese Oxidation with KMnO4 for
       Drinking Water Treatment." JAWWA 125(10): 892-896.

Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
       Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
       EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
       Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

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." JAWWA 90(3): 103-113.

EPA.  2001.  National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
       and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFRPart 9, 141, and 142.

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.  2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal
       Register, 40 CFRPart 141.

Gregory, D., and K. Carlson. 2003. "Effect of Soluble Mn Concentration on Oxidation Kinetics ."
       JAWWA 95(1): 98-108.

Knocke, William R., Hoehn, Robert C.; Sinsabaugh, Robert L. 1987. "Using Alternative Oxidants to
       Remove Dissolved Manganese from Waters Laden with Organics."  JAWWA, 79(3): 75-79.

Knocke, William R., John E. Van Benschoten, Maureen J. Kearney, Andrew W. Soborski, and David A.
       Reckhow. 1990. Alternative Oxidants for the Remove of Soluble Iron and Manganese. Final
       report prepared for the AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO.

Knocke, William R., John E. Van Venschoten, Maureen J. Kearney, Andrew W, Soborski, and David A.
       Reckhow. 1991.  "Kinetics of Manganese and Iron Oxidation by Potassium Permanganate and
       Chlorine Dioxide." JAWWA 83(6): 80-87.

Knocke, William R., Holly L. Shorney, and Julia D. Bellamy.  1994. "Examining the Reactions Between
       Soluble Iron, DOC, and Alternative Oxidants During Conventional Treatment."  JAWWA 86(1):
       117-127.

Post, Tim.  2005. "Pollution Cleanup Cost is Hard to Comprehend." Minnesota Public Radio. Available
       at: http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/10/10_postt_impairedcleanup/.

Salbu, B. and E. Steinnes. 1995.  Trace Elements in Natural Waters. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
                                             46

-------
Sauk River Watershed District. 2006. "Monitoring Our Resources."  Available at:
       http: //www. srwdmn.org/monitoring/html.

Sorg, T.J.  2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, AWWA, 28(11): 15.

Wang, L., W. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design:  U.S. EPA
       Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.  EPA/600/R-05/001.  U.S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
       OH.
                                             47

-------
      APPENDIX A




OPERATIONAL DATA SHEETS

-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at BSLMHP, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Date
07/13/05
07/1 4/05
07/1 5/05
07/16/05
07/1 7/05
07/18/05
07/1 9/05
07/20/05
07/21/05
07/22/05
07/23/05
07/24/05
07/25/05
07/26/05
07/27/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
07/30/05
07/31/05
08/01/05
08/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
08/05/05
08/06/05
08/07/05
08/08/05
08/09/051"' ">
08/10/05
08/11/051C)
08/12/05
08/13/05
08/14/05
08/15/05
08/16/05
08/17/05
08/18/05
08/19/05
08/20/05
08/21/05
08/22/05
08/23/05
08/24/05
08/25/05
08/26/05
08/27/05
08/28/05
Time
21:13
20:10
20:00
NM
NM
18:45
19:10
19:00
18:30
20:00
NM
NM
19:30
20:10
23:15
20:15
18:15
NM
NM
19:05
20:30
23:55
23:55
22:00
NM
NM
21:30
21:30
NM
18:00
20:30
NM
NM
21:00
21:30
20:00
19:15
20:30
NM
NM
20:20
22:10
21:00
21:15
NM
NM
NM
New Well
Hour
Meter
(Hr)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Dally
Operation
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gai)
117,750
124,730
131,610
NM
NM
153,050
162,175
173,250
187,720
195,400
NM
NM
209,650
213,670
217,700
221,880
225,220
NM
NM
243,890
249,947
254,680
258,315
262,300
NM
NM
274,320
281,515
NM
286,400
291,600
NM
NM
306,690
312,100
315,460
321,320
325,940
NM
NM
337,400
342,540
346,940
350,620
353,590
NM
NM
Dally
Volume
(gai)
NA
6,980
6,880
NA
NA
NA
9,125
11,075
14,470
7,680
NA
NA
14,250
4,020
4,030
4,180
3,340
NA
NA
18,670
6,057
4,733
3,635
3,985
NA
NA
12,020
7,195
NA
4,885
5,200
NA
NA
15,090
5,410
3,360
5,860
4,620
NA
NA
11,460
5,140
4,400
3,680
2,970
NA
NA
Average
Flowrate
(gpm)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pressure Tanks
Pressure
Tankl
(psig)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
52
46
45
53
45
NM
NM
60
55
NM
50
56
NM
NM
54
45
55
49
54
NM
NM
54
60
46
48
53
NM
NM
Pressure
Tank 2
(psig)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
72
72
72
72
72
NM
NM
72
72
NM
46
50
NM
NM
49
40
54
45
50
NM
NM
51
59
44
44
50
NM
NM
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psig)
42
54
40
NM
NM
58
40
45
45
48
NM
NM
47
41
58
41
56
NM
NM
58
42
41
49
42
NM
NM
58
55
NM
42
48
NM
NM
46
43
55
42
47
NM
NM
48
50
42
40
48
NM
NM
TA/TB
(psig)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
44
NM
40
38
NM
NM
42
38
30
36
42
NM
NM
45
46
40
34
43
NM
NM
TC/TD
(psig)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
38
NM
34
30
NM
NM
34
30
22
30
38
NM
NM
40
40
34
30
40
NM
NM
OUT
(psig)
30
37
30
NM
NM
45
36
22
35
42
NM
NM
45
40
55
40
53
NM
NM
48
40
38
46
40
NM
NM
50
42
NM
40
37
NM
NM
40
39
30
36
43
NM
NM
42
47
40
33
46
NM
NM
AP
Across
System
(psig)
12
17
10
NA
NA
13
4
23
10
6
NA
NA
2
1
3
1
3
NM
NM
10
2
3
3
2
NM
NM
8
13
NM
2
11
NA
NA
6
4
25
6
4
NA
NA
6
3
2
7
2
NA
NA
Volume to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Daily
Volume
(gai)
NA
7,000
6,700
NA
NA
NA
8,900
10,800
14,300
7,400
NA
NA
13,900
3,900
3,900
3,900
3,200
NM
NM
18,100
5,900
4,500
3,600
3,700
NM
NM
11,600
5,100
NM
4,200
5,000
NA
NA
14,600
5,100
3,400
5,530
4,205
NA
NA
10,315
5,110
3,930
3,640
2,535
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(kgal)
4,870
4,980
5,220
NA
NA
5,940
6,290
6,730
7,220
7,580
NA
NA
8,050
8,180
8,290
8,530
8,650
NM
NM
9360
9600
9720
9840
10080
NM
NM
10,570
12,290
NM
13,030
13,180
NM
NM
13,670
13,790
14,110
14,240
14,620
NM
NM
15,410
15,530
15,900
15,900
16,280
NM
NM
No. of Tanks
Backwashed
NM
1
2
NM
NM
NM
3
3
4
3
NM
NM
4
1
1
2
1
NM
NM
5
2
1
1
2
NM
NM
4
13
NM
6
1
NM
NM
4
1
2
1
3
NM
NM
6
1
3
0
3
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
NA
110
240
NA
NA
NA
350
440
490
360
NA
NA
470
130
110
240
120
NA
NA
710
240
120
120
240
NA
NA
490
1,720
NA
740
150
NA
NA
490
120
320
130
380
NA
NA
790
120
370
0
380
NA
NA
KMnO4
Application
KMn04
Tank
Level
(in)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
30.0
29.6
29.3
28.9
28.7
NM
NM
NM
27.4
NM
27.1
26.8
NM
NM
25.8
25.4
25.3
24.9
24.6
NM
NM
23.9
23.8
23.5
23.4
23.1
NM
NM
Average
KMn04
Dose
(mg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.8
NA
NA
3.7
NA
NA
3.2
NA
NA
2.5
NA
NA

-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at BSLMHP, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Date
08/29/05
08/30/05
08/31/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
09/03/05
09/04/05
09/05/05
09/06/05
09/07/05
09/08/05
09/09/05
09/10/05
09/11/05
09/12/05
09/13/05
09/14/05
09/1 5/05
09/1 6/05
09/17/05
09/18/05
09/19/05
09/20/05
09/21/05™
09/22/05
09/23/05
09/24/05
09/25/05
09/26/05
09/27/05
09/28/05""
09/29/05
09/30/05™
10/01/05
10/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
10/05/05
10/06/05
10/07/05
10/08/05
10/09/05
10/10/05
10/11/05
10/12/05
10/13/05
10/14/05
10/15/05
10/16/05
Time
21:00
21:00
22:30
21:30
21:15
NM
NM
20:00
21:30
20:15
21:15
20:30
NM
NM
21:00
22:15
23:50
22:00
21:00
NM
NM
20:00
17:30
20:00
20:15
20:00
NM
NM
21:15
20:30
19:15
19:30
21:30
NM
NM
21:30
21:30
23:30
18:30
18:30
NM
NM
NM
18:45
17:15
20:00
20:00
NM
NM
New Well
Hour
Meter
(Hr)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
0.3
3.2
6.1
NM
NM
15.8
18.9
21.0
23.7
26.2
NM
NM
NM
38.1
40.9
43.9
47.2
NM
NM
Dally
Operation
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.9
2.9
NA
NA
9.7
3.1
2.1
2.7
2.5
NA
NA
NA
11.9
2.8
3.0
3.3
NA
NA
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gai)
367,570
374,860
379,390
382,630
385,820
NM
NM
401,775
406,930
411,250
416,000
421,010
NM
NM
431,850
436,525
441,515
444,535
447,250
NM
NM
460,655
465,515
470,455
475,120
478,010
NM
NM
490,360
494,550
497,655
500,910
506,255
NM
NM
520,265
524,758
529,135
531,448
535,065
NM
NM
NM
552,115
556,015
560,295
565,165
NM
NM
Dally
Volume
(gai)
13,980
7,290
4,530
3,240
3,190
NA
NA
15,955
5,155
4,320
4,750
5,010
NA
NA
10,840
4,675
4,990
3,020
2,715
NA
NA
13,405
4,860
4,940
4,665
2,890
NA
NA
12,350
4,190
3,105
3,255
5,345
NA
NA
14,010
4,493
4,377
2,313
3,617
NA
NA
NA
17,050
3,900
4,280
4,870
NA
NA
Average
Flowrate
(gpm)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
31
NA
NA
24
24
35
14
24
NA
NA
NA
24
23
24
25
NA
NA
Pressure Tanks
Pressure
Tankl
(psig)
50
48
55
48
45
NM
NM
51
50
50
60
54
NM
NM
46
45
48
60
55
NM
NM
51
45
62
60
45
NM
NM
54
50
60
52
50
NM
NM
60
55
65
60
45
NM
NM
NM
50
64
50
50
NM
NM
Pressure
Tank 2
(psig)
48
43
50
46
42
NM
NM
50
49
46
55
50
NM
NM
44
43
48
60
53
NM
NM
50
48
60
58
43
NM
NM
51
47
60
50
50
NM
NM
57
52
60
56
43
NM
NM
NM
48
60
47
49
NM
NM
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psig)
44
42
49
43
40
NM
NM
46
45
40
59
55
NM
NM
41
45
43
55
52
NM
NM
46
45
55
53
43
NM
NM
47
45
55
43
45
NM
NM
54
50
57
55
43
NM
NM
NM
42
57
44
45
NM
NM
TA/TB
(psig)
40
40
48
40
38
NM
NM
42
43
40
55
52
NM
NM
36
40
41
52
50
NM
NM
42
52
46
55
40
NM
NM
42
43
50
40
42
NM
NM
50
46
56
40
38
NM
NM
NM
38
54
38
40
NM
NM
TC/TD
(psig)
32
30
40
32
36
NM
NM
35
34
32
48
46
NM
NM
30
35
34
46
45
NM
NM
34
46
43
50
32
NM
NM
34
40
44
32
40
NM
NM
50
44
52
42
38
NM
NM
NM
36
53
36
40
NM
NM
OUT
(psig)
40
39
46
40
38
NM
NM
44
42
40
54
50
NM
NM
38
44
41
52
50
NM
NM
42
44
52
52
38
NM
NM
43
43
51
40
43
NM
NM
52
49
55
50
37
NM
NM
NM
38
54
38
40
NM
NM
AP
Across
System
(psig)
4
3
3
3
2
NA
NA
2
3
0
5
5
NA
NA
3
1
2
3
2
NA
NA
4
1
3
1
5
NA
NA
4
2
4
3
2
NA
NA
2
1
2
5
6
NA
NA
NA
4
3
6
5
NA
NA
Volume to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
6.0
5.5
1.0
NM
NM
0.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
10.0
NM
NM
NM
9.0
2.5
9.0
2.5
NM
NM
Daily
Volume
(gai)
13,775
5,900
4,095
3,125
3,120
NA
NA
14,625
4,725
4,205
4,275
5,040
NA
NA
9,645
4,255
4,435
2,925
2,700
NA
NA
12,265
4,095
4,495
4,445
3,000
NA
NA
11,670
4,185
2,755
3,840
3,850
NA
NA
12,880
4,060
4,175
2,295
3,350
NA
NA
NA
15,975
3,503
3,862
4,500
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(kgal)
16,940
17,460
17,710
17,850
18,050
NM
NM
18,900
19,290
19,430
19,820
19,940
NM
NM
20,600
20,870
21,260
21,260
21,390
NM
NM
22,160
22,820
23,100
23,100
23,100
NM
NM
23,580
23,580
23,580
23940
24190
NM
NM
25,080
25,470
25,640
25,640
25,720
NM
NM
NM
26,590
26,970
27,360
27,610
NM
NM
No. of Tanks
Backwashed
5
4
2
1
2
NM
NM
7
3
1
3
1
NM
NM
5
2
3
0
1
NM
NM
6
5
2
0
0
NM
NM
4
0
0
3
2
NM
NM
7
3
1
0
1
NM
NM
NM
7
3
3
2
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gai)
660
520
250
140
200
NA
NA
850
390
140
390
120
NA
NA
660
270
390
0
130
NA
NA
770
660
280
0
0
NA
NA
480
0
0
360
250
NA
NA
890
390
170
0
80
NA
NA
NA
870
380
390
250
NA
NA
KMnO4
Application
KMnO4
Tank
Level
(in)
22.4
22.0
21.9
21.8
21.6
NM
NM
21.4
21.2
21.1
20.9
20.6
NM
NM
20.1
19.9
19.6
19.5
19.4
NM
NM
18.7
18.5
18.2
18.0
17.9
NM
NM
31.8
31.6
31.5
31.3
31.0
NM
NM
30.3
30.1
29.9
29.8
29.6
NM
NM
NM
28.8
28.6
28.4
28.2
NM
NM
Average
KMn04
Dose
(mg/L)
2.5
NA
NA
2.1
NA
NA
2.7
NA
NA
2.6
NA
NA
2.6
NA
NA
2.5
NA
NA
NA
2.6
NA
NA

-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at BSLMHP, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
1 0/1 7/05
10/18/05
1 0/1 9/05
10/20/05
10/21/05
10/22/05
10/23/05
10/24/05
1 0/25/05
10/26/05
1 0/27/05
10/28/05
1 0/29/05
1 0/30/05
10/31/05
11/01/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
11/04/05
11/05/05
11/06/05
11/07/05
11/08/05
11/09/05
11/10/05
11/11/05
11/12/05
11/13/05
11/14/05
11/15/05
11/16/05
11/17/05
11/18/05
11/19/05
11/20/05
11/21/05
11/22/05
11/23/05
11/24/05
11/25/05
11/26/05
11/27/05
11/28/05
11/29/05
11/30/05
12/01/05
12/02/05
1 2/03/05
1 2/04/05
Time
20:30
20:15
20:15
21:30
20:30
NM
NM
20:00
22:15
18:30
18:30
21:30
NM
NM
18:30
18:30
18:00
16:30
19:00
NM
NM
18:30
17:00
19:30
21:15
23:15
NM
NM
17:00
18:00
18:30
18:00
17:30
NM
NM
10:15
18:00
21:00
17:30
18:30
NM
NM
17:00
18:30
14:30
18:00
21:00
NM
NM
New Well
Hour
Meter
(Hr)
59.3
62.5
66.1
70.5
74.0
NM
NM
82.4
85.1
87.4
89.9
92.6
NM
NM
100.5
103.1
105.9
108.0
111.0
NM
NM
117.5
120.8
124.4
127.8
130.4
NM
NM
138.0
141.0
144.3
146.8
149.5
NM
NM
159.5
162.9
167.3
169.8
173.4
NM
NM
183.2
187.2
189.9
193.8
197.9
NM
NM
Dally
Operation
(hr)
12.1
3.2
3.6
4.4
3.5
NA
NA
8.4
2.7
2.3
2.5
2.7
NA
NA
7.9
2.6
2.8
2.1
3.0
NA
NA
6.5
3.3
3.6
3.4
2.6
NA
NA
7.6
3.0
3.3
2.5
2.7
NA
NA
10.0
3.4
4.4
2.5
3.6
NA
NA
9.8
4.0
2.7
3.9
4.1
NA
NA
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gai)
NM
588,375
594,000
600,975
606,505
NM
NM
619,765
623,865
627,435
630,865
634,755
NM
NM
646,195
650,988
654,345
657,425
662,185
NM
NM
672,242
677,078
682,527
687,695
691,776
NM
NM
702,762
707,505
713,153
716,935
721,161
NM
NM
736,144
741,535
748,605
752,270
758,198
NM
NM
773,853
779,725
783,735
790,125
796,286
NM
NM
Dally
Volume
(gai)
NA
NA
5,625
6,975
5,530
NA
NA
13,260
4,100
3,570
3,430
3,890
NA
NA
11,440
4,793
3,357
3,080
4,760
NA
NA
10,057
4,836
5,449
5,168
4,081
NA
NA
10,986
4,743
5,648
3,782
4,226
NA
NA
14,983
5,391
7,070
3,665
5,928
NA
NA
15,655
5,872
4,010
6,390
6,161
NA
NA
Average
Flowrate
(gpm)
NA
NA
26
26
26
NA
NA
26
25
26
23
24
NA
NA
24
31
20
24
26
NA
NA
26
24
25
25
26
NA
NA
24
26
29
25
26
NA
NA
25
26
27
24
27
NA
NA
27
24
25
27
25
NA
NA
Pressure Tanks
Pressure
Tankl
(psig)
55
58
65
50
54
NM
NM
65
55
52
60
60
NM
NM
55
64
55
65
56
NM
NM
60
54
65
55
56
NM
NM
55
55
55
63
63
NM
NM
62
65
65
58
55
NM
NM
55
55
54
55
54
NM
NM
Pressure
Tank 2
(psig)
52
54
60
48
50
NM
NM
60
52
49
55
55
NM
NM
50
60
50
60
54
NM
NM
55
50
60
45
54
NM
NM
53
50
49
60
60
NM
NM
60
62
60
60
50
NM
NM
52
50
50
50
50
NM
NM
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psig)
48
51
56
52
55
NM
NM
56
50
44
53
54
NM
NM
48
58
46
57
51
NM
NM
48
46
57
41
51
NM
NM
48
47
53
58
56
NM
NM
60
58
58
52
42
NM
NM
46
46
44
41
44
NM
NM
TA/TB
(psig)
45
43
52
48
40
NM
NM
52
46
30
45
50
NM
NM
45
54
42
52
44
NM
NM
44
38
48
40
45
NM
NM
33
42
50
54
54
NM
NM
55
54
52
50
40
NM
NM
41
42
40
39
40
NM
NM
TC/TD
(psig)
44
42
50
45
40
NM
NM
50
44
30
44
50
NM
NM
44
52
40
52
44
NM
NM
44
38
48
39
44
NM
NM
32
42
50
54
52
NM
NM
54
53
52
48
40
NM
NM
40
40
39
38
40
NM
NM
OUT
(psig)
45
45
52
46
40
NM
NM
50
47
31
48
50
NM
NM
46
53
41
53
45
NM
NM
45
40
50
40
46
NM
NM
35
40
49
55
55
NM
NM
55
55
55
50
38
NM
NM
40
42
40
39
41
NM
NM
AP
Across
System
(psig)
3
6
4
6
15
NA
NA
6
3
13
5
4
NA
NA
2
5
5
4
6
NA
NA
3
6
7
1
5
NA
NA
13
7
4
3
1
NA
NA
5
3
3
2
4
NA
NA
6
4
4
2
3
NA
NA
Volume to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
3.0
7.5
2.5
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.0
1.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
NM
NM
0.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
NM
NM
2.5
6.0
8.0
2.5
1.0
NM
NM
2.5
6.0
5.0
1.0
0.0
NM
NM
7.5
5.0
7.5
1.0
1.5
NM
NM
1.0
3.0
1.0
7.5
1.5
NM
NM
Daily
Volume
(gai)
16,780
4,390
5,195
6,335
5,055
NA
NA
12,265
3,750
3,360
3,105
3,635
NA
NA
10,480
3,643
3,927
2,930
4,315
NA
NA
8,826
4,749
5,050
4,640
3,705
NA
NA
10,081
4,209
5,095
3,470
3,860
NA
NA
13,405
4,805
6,240
3,250
5,330
NA
NA
14,115
5,230
3,350
5,855
5,250
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(kgal)
28,870
29,130
29,380
29,740
29,990
NM
NM
30,510
30,860
30,980
31,230
31,350
NM
NM
31,960
32,080
32,440
32,560
32,800
NM
NM
33,490
33,630
33,990
34,230
34,470
NM
NM
35,290
35,530
35,910
36,040
36,290
NM
NM
37,450
37,840
38,480
38,740
38,990
NM
NM
40,010
40,380
40,870
41,120
41,630
NM
NM
No. of Tanks
Backwashed
10
2
2
3
2
NM
NM
4
3
1
2
1
NM
NM
5
1
3
1
2
NM
NM
5
1
3
2
2
NM
NM
6
2
3
1
2
NM
NM
9
3
5
2
2
NM
NM
8
3
4
2
4
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gai)
1,260
260
250
360
250
NA
NA
520
350
120
250
120
NA
NA
610
120
360
120
240
NA
NA
690
140
360
240
240
NA
NA
820
240
380
130
250
NA
NA
1,160
390
640
260
250
NA
NA
1,020
370
490
250
510
NA
NA
KMnO4
Application
KMn04
Tank
Level
(in)
27.3
27.0
26.8
26.4
26.2
NM
NM
25.5
25.3
25.1
24.9
24.8
NM
NM
24.3
24.0
23.8
23.7
23.4
NM
NM
NM
22.6
22.3
22.1
21.9
NM
NM
21.3
20.9
20.4
20.0
19.6
NM
NM
18.3
18.0
17.5
17.3
NM
NM
NM
29.6
29.1
28.8
28.3
27.8
NM
NM
Average
KMnO4
Dose
(mg/L)
2.6
NA
NA
2.5
NA
NA
3.0
NA
NA
2.8
NA
NA
5.0
NA
NA
3.5
NA
NA
4.8
NA
NA

-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at BSLMHP, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Date
12/05/05
12/06/05
12/07/05
12/08/05
12/09/05
12/10/05
12/11/05
12/12/05
12/13/05
12/14/05
12/15/05
12/16/05
12/17/05
12/18/05
1 2/1 9/05
12/20/05
12/21/05
12/22/05
12/23/05
12/24/05
12/25/05
1 2/26/05
12/27/05
12/28/05
12/29/05
12/30/05
12/31/05
01/01/06
01/02/06
01/03/0619'
01/04/06
01/05/06
01/06/06
01/07/06
01/08/06
01/09/06
01/10/06
01/11/06
01/12/06
01/13/06
01/14/06
01/15/06
01/16/061"'
01/17/06
01/18/06
01/19/06
01/20/06
01/21/06
01/22/06
Time
21:30
20:00
19:00
13:00
18:00
NM
NM
18:00
19:30
19:30
18:00
07:12
NM
NM
21:00
18:00
19:00
19:30
NM
NM
NM
18:30
18:00
19:15
19:30
19:00
NM
NM
10:30
12:30
17:00
10:00
19:30
NM
NM
18:00
17:00
17:00
19:15
19:00
NM
NM
17:00
21:00
21:00
18:30
19:30
NM
NM
New Well
Hour
Meter
(Hr)
210.0
213.1
216.7
219.0
224.1
NM
NM
235.4
239.4
242.8
246.3
249.4
NM
NM
266.2
270.9
277.3
281.7
NM
NM
NM
300.8
304.9
309.7
313.5
316.9
NM
NM
331.5
336.2
336.4
341.2
345.8
NM
NM
362.3
366.4
370.5
376.1
380.5
NM
NM
394.7
399.8
403.9
408.4
413.3
NM
NM
Dally
Operation
(hr)
12.1
3.1
3.6
2.3
5.1
NA
NA
11.3
4.0
3.4
3.5
3.1
NA
NA
16.8
4.7
6.4
4.4
NA
NA
NA
19.1
4.1
4.8
3.8
3.4
NA
NA
14.6
4.7
0.2
4.8
4.6
NA
NA
16.5
4.1
4.1
5.6
4.4
NA
NA
14.2
5.1
4.1
4.5
4.9
NA
NA
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gai)
815,166
819,866
825,832
829,900
838,490
NM
NM
854,915
860,890
865,680
870,304
874,955
NM
NM
901,055
908,815
918,785
925,035
NM
NM
NM
954,207
960,977
966,885
972,455
977,105
NM
NM
1,000,155
7,500
12,050
19,415
26,705
NM
NM
52,188
58,248
64,648
73,283
79,668
NM
NM
101,633
109,390
115,461
122,700
130,332
NM
NM
Dally
Volume
(gai)
18,880
4,700
5,966
4,068
8,590
NA
NA
16,425
5,975
4,790
4,624
4,651
NA
NA
26,100
7,760
9,970
6,250
NA
NA
NA
29,172
6,770
5,908
5,570
4,650
NM
NM
23,050
NA
4,550
7,365
7,290
NM
NM
25,483
6,060
6,400
8,635
6,385
NM
NM
21,965
7,757
6,071
7,239
7,632
NM
NM
Average
Flowrate
(gpm)
26
25
28
29
28
NA
NA
24
25
23
22
25
NA
NA
26
28
26
24
NA
NA
NA
25
28
21
24
23
NM
NM
26
NA
NA
26
26
NM
NM
26
25
26
26
24
NM
NM
26
25
25
27
26
NM
NM
Pressure Tanks
Pressure
Tankl
(psig)
55
54
54
65
64
NM
NM
64
55
65
65
55
NM
NM
55
59
62
60
NM
NM
NM
54
65
54
54
55
NM
NM
65
60
65
56
55
NM
NM
55
65
65
54
55
NM
NM
65
65
65
65
55
NM
NM
Pressure
Tank 2
(psig)
50
50
50
60
60
NM
NM
60
50
60
60
50
NM
NM
48
55
56
60
NM
NM
NM
50
60
50
47
45
NM
NM
60
55
59
53
52
NM
NM
50
60
60
50
50
NM
NM
60
60
60
60
50
NM
NM
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psig)
41
49
44
57
56
NM
NM
59
48
56
55
40
NM
NM
45
53
53
59
NM
NM
NM
42
55
45
44
42
NM
NM
57
58
55
50
48
NM
NM
45
55
59
43
45
NM
NM
59
57
58
58
40
NM
NM
TA/TB
(psig)
38
42
39
52
51
NM
NM
56
46
52
49
30
NM
NM
39
48
48
52
NM
NM
NM
37
43
40
40
40
NM
NM
56
53
52
44
40
NM
NM
40
51
52
39
38
NM
NM
52
50
55
52
38
NM
NM
TC/TD
(psig)
36
42
36
50
50
NM
NM
54
44
50
47
30
NM
NM
38
47
47
52
NM
NM
NM
36
42
38
39
40
NM
NM
55
52
50
44
40
NM
NM
38
52
50
38
36
NM
NM
50
50
52
50
38
NM
NM
OUT
(psig)
37
45
37
52
52
NM
NM
55
45
52
49
30
NM
NM
40
48
48
54
NM
NM
NM
37
45
40
40
40
NM
NM
55
52
50
45
40
NM
NM
40
53
52
38
38
NM
NM
52
52
50
50
38
NM
NM
AP
Across
System
(psig)
4
4
7
5
4
NA
NA
4
3
4
6
10
NA
NA
5
5
5
5
NA
NA
NA
5
10
5
4
2
NA
NA
2
6
5
5
8
NA
NA
5
2
7
5
7
NA
NA
7
5
8
8
2
NA
NA
Volume to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
3.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
6.0
NM
NM
3.0
5.0
2.5
4.0
10.0
NM
NM
6.0
7.5
4.0
4.0
NM
NM
NM
5.0
5.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
NM
NM
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
7.5
NM
NM
4.0
1.0
12.0
5.0
3.0
NM
NM
8.0
12.5
5.0
4.0
3.0
NM
NM
Daily
Volume
(gai)
16,870
4,345
5,445
3,220
7,310
NA
NA
15,230
5,500
4,360
4,170
4,200
NA
NA
23,690
6,970
8,900
5,690
NA
NA
NA
25,740
4,900
5,925
4,845
2,320
NA
NA
21,300
6,080
3,940
6,130
6,000
NA
NA
21,500
4,835
5,495
7,125
5,465
NA
NA
NA
6,280
5,165
5,675
6,045
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(kgal)
43,020
43,150
43,400
43,880
44,580
NM
NM
45,550
45,800
45,920
46,290
46,500
NM
NM
47,820
48,290
48,880
49,230
NM
NM
NM
51,000
51,470
51,820
52,170
52,310
NM
NM
53,930
54,400
54,750
55,210
55,680
NM
NM
57,200
57,890
58,140
58,790
59,170
NM
NM
60,810
61,430
61,820
62,720
63,730
NM
NM
No. of Tanks
Backwashed
11
1
2
4
5
NM
NM
7
2
1
3
2
NM
NM
10
4
5
3
NM
NM
NM
14
4
3
3
1
NM
NM
12
4
3
4
4
NM
NM
12
5
2
5
3
NM
NM
13
5
3
7
8
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gai)
1,390
130
250
480
700
NA
NA
970
250
120
370
210
NA
NA
1,320
470
590
350
NA
NA
NA
1,770
470
350
350
140
NA
NA
1,620
470
350
460
470
NA
NA
1,520
690
250
650
380
NA
NA
1,640
620
390
900
1,010
NA
NA
KMnO4
Application
KMnO4
Tank
Level
(in)
26.0
25.6
25.1
24.7
23.9
NM
NM
22.3
21.7
21.3
20.6
20.4
NM
NM
17.8
17.0
30.6
30.0
NM
NM
NM
27.4
26.8
26.1
25.6
25.2
NM
NM
23.0
22.4
21.9
21.1
20.5
NM
NM
17.9
17.3
31.0
30.2
29.6
NM
NM
27.6
26.9
26.3
25.6
24.9
NM
NM
Average
KMnO4
Dose
(mg/L)
5.1
NA
NA
5.4
NA
NA
5.4
NA
NA
NA
6.1
NA
NA
5.6
NA
NA
5.5
NA
NA
5.7
NA
NA

-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at BSLMHP, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Date
01/23/06
01/24/06
01/25/06
01/26/06
01/27/06
01/28/06
01/29/06
01/30/06
01/31/06
02/01/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
02/04/06
02/05/06
02/06/06°'
02/07/06
02/08/06
02/09/06
02/10/06
02/11/06
02/12/06
02/13/06
02/14/06
02/15/06
02/16/06
02/17/06
02/18/06
02/19/06
02/20/06
02/21/06
02/22/06
02/23/06
02/24/06
02/25/06
02/26/06
02/27/06°'
02/28/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
03/05/06
03/06/06
03/07/06
03/08/06
03/09/06
03/10/06
03/11/06
03/12/06
Time
18:00
19:00
17:30
17:30
21:30
NM
NM
19:30
17:30
18:00
18:00
NM
NM
NM
18:00
20:30
18:15
18:45
18:00
NM
NM
19:00
22:00
22:30
15:00
16:15
NM
NM
18:00
17:15
19:00
17:45
18:00
NM
NM
15:00
20:30
19:00
19:30
18:30
NM
NM
18:15
18:00
18:30
18:00
16:00
NM
NM
New Well
Hour
Meter
(Hr)
427.0
432.0
436.3
440.2
445.5
NM
NM
458.7
462.9
468.3
473.1
NM
NM
NM
494.5
499.1
503.1
507.7
511.3
NM
NM
525.7
529.2
534.0
538.2
543.6
NM
NM
559.5
563.9
569.5
573.6
577.3
NM
NM
592.4
598.8
603.8
608.5
613.1
NM
NM
631.0
NM
642.8
646.9
651.9
NM
NM
Dally
Operation
(hr)
13.7
5.0
4.3
3.9
5.3
NA
NA
13.2
4.2
5.4
4.8
NA
NA
NA
21.4
4.6
4.0
4.6
3.6
NA
NA
14.4
3.5
4.8
4.2
5.4
NA
NA
15.9
4.4
5.6
4.1
3.7
NA
NA
15.1
6.4
5.0
4.7
4.6
NA
NA
17.9
NA
11.8
4.1
5.0
NA
NA
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gai)
150,146
157,404
163,684
169,625
176,807
NM
NM
195,955
201,643
209,147
215,755
NM
NM
NM
247,085
253,375
259,058
265,713
271,540
NM
NM
290,560
294,955
301,410
307,385
314,770
NM
NM
337,085
342,428
349,857
355,833
361,970
NM
NM
381,985
389,466
396,361
402,705
408,940
NM
NM
434,635
442,510
451,135
456,510
462,545
NM
NM
Dally
Volume
(gai)
19,814
7,258
6,280
5,941
7,182
NM
NM
19,148
5,688
7,504
6,608
NM
NM
NM
31,330
6,290
5,683
6,655
5,827
NM
NM
19,020
4,395
6,455
5,975
7,385
NM
NM
22,315
5,343
7,429
5,976
6,137
NM
NM
20,015
7,481
6,895
6,344
6,235
NM
NM
25,695
7,875
8,625
5,375
6,035
NM
NM
Average
Flowrate
(gpm)
24
24
24
25
23
NM
NM
24
23
23
23
NM
NM
NM
24
23
24
24
27
NM
NM
22
21
22
24
23
NM
NM
23
20
22
24
28
NM
NM
22
19
23
22
23
NM
NM
24
NA
12
22
20
NM
NM
Pressure Tanks
Pressure
Tankl
(psig)
60
55
65
55
65
NM
NM
65
65
65
55
NM
NM
NM
55
65
65
54
58
NM
NM
55
65
60
65
65
NM
NM
60
55
65
54
55
NM
NM
65
65
60
65
65
NM
NM
65
60
65
60
65
NM
NM
Pressure
Tank 2
(psig)
57
50
60
50
60
NM
NM
60
60
60
50
NM
NM
NM
50
60
60
49
53
NM
NM
50
60
53
60
60
NM
NM
55
50
60
49
50
NM
NM
60
60
55
60
60
NM
NM
60
55
60
55
60
NM
NM
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psig)
50
47
58
40
66
NM
NM
50
59
58
40
NM
NM
NM
49
52
53
43
50
NM
NM
41
56
50
54
55
NM
NM
50
45
59
41
44
NM
NM
56
55
52
60
58
NM
NM
58
52
58
50
58
NM
NM
TA/TB
(psig)
47
42
35
36
56
NM
NM
44
50
52
38
NM
NM
NM
42
50
52
39
48
NM
NM
38
52
50
52
52
NM
NM
48
43
52
36
42
NM
NM
54
52
52
52
54
NM
NM
54
50
54
50
56
NM
NM
TC/TD
(psig)
46
42
36
35
55
NM
NM
44
52
52
38
NM
NM
NM
42
50
52
38
46
NM
NM
38
52
48
50
52
NM
NM
48
42
52
36
42
NM
NM
54
52
50
52
52
NM
NM
54
48
52
48
54
NM
NM
OUT
(psig)
46
43
38
35
56
NM
NM
45
52
52
38
NM
NM
NM
42
50
50
40
48
NM
NM
40
52
48
50
53
NM
NM
48
42
54
36
40
NM
NM
54
52
48
50
52
NM
NM
55
50
54
48
54
NM
NM
AP
Across
System
(psig)
4
4
20
5
10
NA
NA
5
7
6
2
NA
NA
NA
7
2
3
3
2
NA
NA
1
4
2
4
2
NA
NA
2
3
5
5
4
NA
NA
2
3
4
10
6
NA
NA
3
2
4
2
4
NA
NA
Volume to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
2.5
7.5
4.0
12.5
2.5
NM
NM
7.5
7.5
7.5
NM
NM
NM
NM
2.0
2.5
4.0
12.5
4.0
NM
NM
5.0
4.0
2.5
4.0
2.0
NM
NM
4.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
7.5
NM
NM
5.0
2.0
2.0
12.0
8.0
NM
NM
7.5
6.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
NM
NM
Daily
Volume
(gai)
15,585
5,650
5,150
4,810
5,740
NA
NA
15,300
4,645
6,030
5,225
NA
NA
NA
25,475
5,125
4,430
5,370
4,815
NA
NA
15,315
3,685
5,669
4,461
5,865
NA
NA
18,340
4,395
6,195
4,840
3,650
NA
NA
17,060
7,020
5,540
5,350
5,150
NA
NA
21,140
6,030
7,420
4,670
4,540
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(kgal)
66,250
67,170
67,910
68,550
69,430
NM
NM
71,850
72,545
73,565
74,420
NM
NM
NM
76,270
76,770
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
131
870
1,480
NM
NM
3,860
4,850
5,740
6,480
7,220
NM
NM
11,048
11,690
12,480
13,205
13,910
NM
NM
No. of Tanks
Backwashed
19
7
6
5
7
NM
NM
19
5
8
7
NM
NM
NM
14
4
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
1
6
5
NM
NM
18
8
7
6
6
NM
NM
29
5
6
6
5
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gai)
2,520
920
740
640
880
NA
NA
2,420
695
1,020
855
NA
NA
NA
1,850
500
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
131
739
610
NA
NA
2,380
990
890
740
740
NA
NA
3,828
642
790
725
705
NA
NA
KMnO4
Application
KMn04
Tank
Level
(in)
23.0
22.3
21.6
21.0
20.4
NM
NM
18.4
17.9
17.1
31.0
NM
NM
NM
30.5
29.8
29.2
28.5
27.9
NM
NM
25.9
25.4
NM
24.2
23.4
NM
NM
21.0
20.4
19.5
18.9
18.1
NM
NM
16.0
30.8
30.0
29.4
28.8
NM
NM
26.1
25.5
24.3
23.8
23.1
NM
NM
Average
KMn04
Dose
(mg/L)
5.8
NA
NA
5.2
NA
NA
NA
5.8
NA
NA
5.6
NA
NA
6.2
NA
NA
5.5
NA
NA
6.3
NA
NA

-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at BSLMHP, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Date
03/13/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
03/16/06
03/17/06
03/18/06
03/19/06
03/20/06
03/21/06
03/22/06
03/23/06
03/24/06
03/25/06
03/26/06
03/27/06
03/28/06
03/29/06
03/30/06
03/31/06
04/01/06
04/02/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
04/05/06
04/06/06
04/07/06
04/08/06
04/09/06
04/1 0/06
04/11/06
04/1 2/06
04/1 3/06
04/1 4/06
04/1 5/06
04/1 6/06
04/1 7/06
04/1 8/06
04/19/06
04/20/06
04/21/06
04/22/06
04/23/06
04/24/06
04/25/06
04/26/06
04/27/06
04/28/06
04/29/06
04/30/06
Time
New Well
Hour
Meter
(Hr)
Dally
Operation
(hr)
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gal)
Dally
Volume
(gal)
Average
Flowrate
(gpm)
Pressure Tanks
Pressure
Tankl
(psig)
Pressure
Tank 2
(psig)
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psig)
TA/TB
(psig)
TC/TD
(psig)
OUT
(psig)
iP
Across
System
(psig)
Volume to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
Daily
Volume
(gal)
Backwash
Totalizer
(kgal)
No. of Tanks
Backwashed
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
KMnO4
Application
KMn04
Tank
Level
(in)
Average
KMn04
Dose
(mg/L)
No operational data taken.
NM
NM
17:00
17:00
17:15
17:30
18:30
NM
NM
19:00
18:30
17:30
19:00
15:30
NM
NM
18:30
21:15
17:30
19:00
16:30
NM
NM
20:30
21:00
19:30
19:15
18:00
NM
NM
20:30
19:45
18:30
19:00
18:00
NM
NM
NM
NM
728.5
732.2
736.1
739.5
743.6
NM
NM
755.3
758.6
762.2
766.2
769.6
NM
NM
781.3
785.3
789.3
793.7
796.8
NM
NM
809.9
813.8
817.6
821.1
825.2
NM
NM
838.9
843.3
847.5
851.5
855.1
NM
NM
NA
NA
76.6
3.7
3.9
3.4
4.1
NA
NA
11.7
3.3
3.6
4.0
3.4
NA
NA
11.7
4.0
4.0
4.4
3.1
NA
NA
13.1
3.9
3.8
3.5
4.1
NA
NA
13.7
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.6
NA
NA
NM
NM
560,870
564,783
569,450
572,834
577,678
NM
NM
590,687
594,073
598,075
602,460
606,212
NM
NM
619,907
624,975
628,282
632,960
636,144
NM
NM
649,393
653,515
657,412
660,518
664,120
NM
NM
678,925
683,660
687,732
691,724
696,130
NM
NM
NM
NM
98,325
3,913
4,667
3,384
4,844
NM
NM
13,009
3,386
4,002
4,385
3,752
NM
NM
13,695
5,068
3,307
4,678
3,184
NM
NM
13,249
4,122
3,897
3,106
3,602
NM
NM
14,805
4,735
4,072
3,992
4,406
NM
NM
NM
NM
21
18
20
17
20
NM
NM
19
17
19
18
18
NM
NM
20
21
14
18
17
NM
NM
17
18
17
15
15
NM
NM
18
18
16
17
20
NM
NM
NM
NM
65
65
60
54
55
NM
NM
56
65
53
55
65
NM
NM
65
60
65
65
60
NM
NM
60
65
62
65
65
NM
NM
65
58
62
65
65
NM
NM
NM
NM
60
60
55
50
50
NM
NM
51
60
50
50
60
NM
NM
60
55
60
60
55
NM
NM
55
60
56
60
60
NM
NM
60
54
60
60
60
NM
NM
NM
NM
54
53
50
41
44
NM
NM
50
55
45
44
55
NM
NM
55
48
54
56
50
NM
NM
48
56
50
55
54
NM
NM
56
48
55
55
56
NM
NM
NM
NM
52
52
44
39
38
NM
NM
46
54
42
42
53
NM
NM
52
46
52
51
46
NM
NM
46
54
48
54
52
NM
NM
54
43
52
52
50
NM
NM
NM
NM
50
50
44
38
39
NM
NM
44
52
41
41
52
NM
NM
50
44
52
54
46
NM
NM
46
53
48
54
50
NM
NM
54
42
50
52
52
NM
NM
NM
NM
52
50
45
40
40
NM
NM
48
52
43
42
53
NM
NM
52
45
50
55
45
NM
NM
45
54
46
52
50
NM
NM
54
44
50
50
52
NM
NM
NA
NA
2
3
5
1
4
NA
NA
2
3
2
2
2
NA
NA
3
3
4
1
5
NA
NA
3
2
4
3
4
NA
NA
2
4
5
5
4
NA
NA
NM
NM
2.5
2.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
NM
NM
6.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
NM
NM
3.0
2.5
4.0
2.5
3.0
NM
NM
2.5
5.0
2.5
2.5
4.4
NM
NM
4.0
4.0
2.5
4.0
2.5
NM
NM
NA
NA
79,650
3,370
3,910
2,980
3,905
NA
NA
11,043
2,882
3,120
3,725
3,015
NA
NA
11,770
3,440
3,564
4,031
2,605
NA
NA
10,960
3,625
3,405
2,520
3,205
NA
NA
12,705
3,910
3,588
3,202
4,310
NA
NA
NM
NM
25,620
26,129
26,770
27,150
27,890
NM
NM
29,546
29,935
30,700
31,214
31,850
NM
NM
33,470
33,950
34,590
35,110
35,590
NM
NM
37,430
37,920
38,320
38,820
39,210
NM
NM
40,900
41,540
42,020
42,670
42,910
NM
NM
NM
NM
90
4
5
3
6
NM
NM
13
3
6
4
5
NM
NM
12
4
5
4
4
NM
NM
14
4
3
4
3
NM
NM
13
5
4
5
2
NM
NM
NA
NA
11,710
509
641
380
740
NA
NA
1,656
389
765
514
636
NA
NA
1,620
480
640
520
480
NA
NA
1,840
490
400
500
390
NA
NA
1,690
640
480
650
240
NA
NA
NM
NM
28.0
27.5
27.0
26.6
26.1
NM
NM
24.8
24.5
24.0
23.6
23.1
NM
NM
21.8
21.3
20.8
20.4
20.0
NM
NM
18.5
18.0
17.6
17.4
17.1
NM
NM
29.6
29.1
28.8
28.3
27.9
NM
NM
NA
NA
6.1
NA
NA
5.8
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
5.1
NA
NA
5.3
NA
NA

-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at BSLMHP, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Date
05/01/06
05/02/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
05/05/06
05/06/06
05/07/06
05/08/06
05/09/06
05/10/06
05/11/06
05/12/06
05/13/06
05/14/06
05/15/06
05/16/06
05/17/06
05/18/06
05/19/06
05/20/06
05/21/06
05/22/06
05/23/06
05/24/06
05/25/06
05/26/06
05/27/06
05/28/06
05/29/06
05/30/06
05/31/06
06/01/06
06/02/06
06/03/06
06/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
06/07/06
06/08/06
06/09/06
06/10/06
06/11/06
06/12/06
06/13/06
06/14/06
06/15/06
06/16/06
06/1 7/06
06/1 8/06
Time
18:30
18:00
19:30
18:30
20:30
NM
NM
20:00
19:30
19:00
19:30
19:00
NM
NM
18:30
17:00
18:00
19:00
18:30
NM
NM
18:00
19:30
18:00
20:00
20:30
NM
NM
18:30
18:00
19:30
19:00
19:00
NM
NM
18:00
19:30
21:00
20:00
19:30
NM
NM
19:45
10:45
10:00
11:00
18:45
NM
NM
New Well
Hour
Meter
(Hr)
868.5
872.8
878.2
881.9
886.3
NM
NM
899.2
903.2
907.1
911.8
915.8
NM
NM
929.6
933.3
937.8
942.2
947.0
NM
NM
959.8
964.9
969.2
973.6
978.1
NM
NM
993.6
1,000.3
1,005.0
1,009.7
1,013.1
NM
NM
1,033.1
1,040.8
1,048.3
1,055.2
1,060.0
NM
NM
1,075.2
1,080.6
1,086.1
1,092.0
1,096.7
NM
NM
Dally
Operation
(hr)
13.4
4.3
5.4
3.7
4.4
NA
NA
12.9
4.0
3.9
4.7
4.0
NA
NA
13.8
3.7
4.5
4.4
4.8
NA
NA
12.8
5.1
4.3
4.4
4.5
NA
NA
15.5
6.7
4.7
4.7
3.4
NA
NA
20.0
7.7
7.5
6.9
4.8
NA
NA
15.2
5.4
5.5
5.9
4.7
NA
NA
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gai)
709,110
713,825
719,724
724,085
728,804
NM
NM
743,227
747,378
750,920
756,468
760,761
NM
NM
775,537
779,063
783,828
788,350
793,380
NM
NM
807,144
812,170
816,478
820,676
825,136
NM
NM
843,715
849,920
857,110
862,820
868,480
NM
NM
890,661
900,945
910,484
919,732
924,661
NM
NM
940,067
945,160
950,879
956,284
960,503
NM
NM
Dally
Volume
(gai)
12,980
4,715
5,899
4,361
4,719
NM
NM
14,423
4,151
3,542
5,548
4,293
NM
NM
14,776
3,526
4,765
4,522
5,030
NM
NM
13,764
5,026
4,308
4,198
4,460
NM
NM
18,579
6,205
7,190
5,710
5,660
NM
NM
22,181
10,284
9,539
9,248
4,929
NM
NM
15,406
5,093
5,719
5,405
4,219
NM
NM
Average
Flowrate
(gpm)
16
18
18
20
18
NM
NM
19
17
15
20
18
NM
NM
18
16
18
17
17
NM
NM
18
16
17
16
17
NM
NM
20
15
25
20
28
NM
NM
18
22
21
22
17
NM
NM
17
16
17
15
15
NM
NM
Pressure Tanks
Pressure
Tankl
(psig)
65
60
65
65
60
NM
NM
65
65
60
65
65
NM
NM
65
63
65
60
65
NM
NM
65
60
65
65
60
NM
NM
60
60
65
65
65
NM
NM
60
65
60
65
60
NM
NM
65
60
65
65
62
NM
NM
Pressure
Tank 2
(psig)
55
55
55
55
55
NM
NM
60
60
55
60
60
NM
NM
60
58
60
55
60
NM
NM
60
54
60
60
55
NM
NM
54
55
60
60
60
NM
NM
54
60
55
60
54
NM
NM
60
55
60
60
56
NM
NM
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psig)
50
48
50
50
48
NM
NM
56
55
48
56
55
NM
NM
55
52
58
52
56
NM
NM
56
50
54
55
48
NM
NM
50
48
54
55
55
NM
NM
48
54
48
54
50
NM
NM
54
52
55
55
52
NM
NM
TA/TB
(psig)
48
46
50
50
48
NM
NM
54
53
44
54
54
NM
NM
52
49
54
50
52
NM
NM
48
45
50
52
46
NM
NM
48
46
50
52
50
NM
NM
45
52
45
50
46
NM
NM
50
48
52
50
46
NM
NM
TC/TD
(psig)
46
45
46
46
46
NM
NM
54
54
44
52
52
NM
NM
52
48
54
50
52
NM
NM
48
46
50
52
45
NM
NM
48
45
52
52
50
NM
NM
44
50
42
50
45
NM
NM
52
47
48
46
46
NM
NM
OUT
(psig)
48
46
48
48
46
NM
NM
56
55
46
54
54
NM
NM
53
50
55
52
54
NM
NM
49
46
50
52
45
NM
NM
50
45
52
52
52
NM
NM
45
52
44
52
46
NM
NM
52
48
50
48
48
NM
NM
AP
Across
System
(psig)
2
2
2
2
2
NA
NA
0
0
2
2
1
NA
NA
2
2
3
0
2
NA
NA
7
4
4
3
3
NA
NA
0
3
2
3
3
NA
NA
3
2
4
2
4
NA
NA
2
4
5
7
4
NA
NA
Volume to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
6.0
3.0
2.5
4.0
3.0
NM
NM
5.0
2.5
4.0
3.0
2.5
NM
NM
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
NM
NM
2.5
3.0
2.5
3.0
2.0
NM
NM
1.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
NM
NM
3.0
2.5
5.0
15.0
3.0
NM
NM
3.0
4.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
NM
NM
Daily
Volume
(gai)
10,520
4,130
4,890
3,750
4,080
NA
NA
11,990
3,515
2,525
5,140
3,300
NA
NA
12,680
2,790
4,115
3,975
3,910
NA
NA
11,180
4,520
3,500
3,540
3,690
NA
NA
15,555
4,825
6,325
4,605
4,780
NA
NA
18,310
8,800
7,895
7,585
3,906
NA
NA
12,309
4,225
4,850
4,405
3,455
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(kgal)
44,660
45,250
46,130
46,520
47,170
NM
NM
49,230
49,730
50,180
50,850
51,670
NM
NM
53,350
53,990
54,480
55,020
55,870
NM
NM
57,840
58,380
58,990
59,490
60,110
NM
NM
62,640
63,205
64,410
65,310
66,205
NM
NM
68,750
69,940
71,140
72,120
72,740
NM
NM
74,570
75,320
75,940
76,670
77,170
NM
NM
No. of Tanks
Backwashed
13
5
7
3
5
NM
NM
16
4
3
5
6
NM
NM
13
5
4
4
7
NM
NM
15
4
5
4
5
NM
NM
19
4
9
7
7
NM
NM
20
9
9
8
5
NM
NM
14
6
5
6
4
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gai)
1,750
590
880
390
650
NA
NA
2,060
500
450
670
820
NA
NA
1,680
640
490
540
850
NA
NA
1,970
540
610
500
620
NA
NA
2,530
565
1,205
900
895
NA
NA
2,545
1,190
1,200
980
620
NA
NA
1,830
750
620
730
500
NA
NA
KMnO4
Application
KMnO4
Tank
Level
(in)
26.6
26.1
25.5
25.0
24.4
NM
NM
23.0
22.5
22.1
21.5
21.1
NM
NM
19.6
19.1
18.8
18.1
17.5
NM
NM
16.1
15.5
15.0
14.5
14.0
NM
NM
11.8
11.1
10.3
9.6
31.5
NM
NM
28.6
27.5
26.5
25.5
25.0
NM
NM
23.5
23.0
22.6
21.8
21.4
NM
NM
Average
KMnO4
Dose
(mg/L)
6.1
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
6.5
NA
NA
6.3
NA
NA
6.2
NA
NA
6.1
NA
NA
5.9
NA
NA

-------
                      US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at BSLMHP, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Date
06/19/06
06/20/06
06/21/06
06/22/06
06/23/06
06/24/06
06/25/06
06/26/06w
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
07/1 0/06W
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
21:30
21:30
20:00
20:00
21:15
NM
NM
17:00
16:00
19:00
18:00
20:00
NM
NM
18:00
18:30
19:30
22:00
18:30
NM
NM
19:45
18:00
19:30
16:00
20:00
NM
NM
10:30
18:00
18:30
18:00
16:30
17:00
NM
18:30
NM
NM
NM
18:30
NM
NM
18:00
19:00
19:30
19:30
NM
NM
NM
New Well
Hour
Meter
(Hr)
1,115.8
1,121.8
1,127.2
1,132.6
1,138.4
NM
NM
1,159.3
1,166.0
1,172.9
1,179.4
1,187.1
NM
NM
1,207.2
1,215.6
1,223.3
1,234.5
1,240.6
NM
NM
1,265.4
1,274.5
1,283.5
1,289.0
1,297.3
NM
NM
1,321.3
1,327.9
1,334.3
1,340.1
1,346.9
NM
NM
1,367.3
NM
NM
NM
1,399.4
NM
NM
1,426.3
1,437.1
1,445.2
1,453.1
NM
NM
NM
Dally
Operation
(hr)
19.1
6.0
5.4
5.4
5.8
NA
NA
20.9
6.7
6.9
6.5
7.7
NA
NA
20.1
8.4
7.7
11.2
6.1
NA
NA
24.8
9.1
9.0
5.5
8.3
NA
NA
24.0
6.6
6.4
5.8
6.8
NA
NA
20.4
NA
NA
NA
32.1
NA
NA
26.9
10.8
8.1
7.9
NA
NA
NA
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gai)
979,050
984,847
989,895
994,324
999,548
NM
NM
17,428
23,850
31,974
36,820
44,780
NM
NM
66,010
74,317
81,771
93,120
98,525
NM
NM
124,576
134,585
144,274
149,137
156,903
NM
NM
179,460
185,288
190,557
195,010
202,065
NM
NM
219,801
NM
NM
NM
250,475
NM
NM
277,425
289,145
295,965
301,057
NM
NM
NM
Dally
Volume
(gai)
18,547
5,797
5,048
4,429
5,224
NM
NM
17,880
6,422
8,124
4,846
7,960
NM
NM
21,230
8,307
7,454
11,349
5,405
NM
NM
26,051
10,009
9,689
4,863
7,766
NM
NM
22,557
5,828
5,269
4,453
7,055
NM
NM
17,736
NM
NM
NM
30,674
NM
NM
26,950
11,720
6,820
5,092
NM
NM
NM
Average
Flow/rate
(gpm)
16
16
16
14
15
NM
NM
14
16
20
12
17
NM
NM
18
16
16
17
15
NM
NM
18
18
18
15
16
NM
NM
16
15
14
13
17
NM
NM
14
NM
NM
NM
16
NM
NM
17
18
14
11
NM
NM
NM
Pressure Tanks
Pressure
Tankl
(psig)
65
65
65
65
65
NM
NM
65
65
60
65
65
NM
NM
65
65
65
65
65
NM
NM
65
Pressure
Tank 2
(psig)
60
60
60
60
60
NM
NM
60
60
55
60
60
NM
NM
60
60
60
60
60
NM
NM
60
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psig)
55
55
56
55
55
NM
NM
55
54
50
55
54
NM
NM
52
54
55
55
55
NM
NM
55
TA/TB
(psig)
50
50
52
50
52
NM
NM
48
50
48
52
50
NM
NM
52
52
50
50
52
NM
NM
50
TC/TD
(psig)
52
50
52
52
52
NM
NM
48
50
50
50
50
NM
NM
52
50
40
50
50
NM
NM
52
OUT
(psig)
52
50
52
52
52
NM
NM
50
50
50
52
52
NM
NM
52
52
50
52
52
NM
NM
52
Pressure readings not recorded.
65
NM
NM
NM
60
NM
NM
NM
58
NM
NM
NM
58
NM
NM
NM
56
NM
NM
NM
55
NM
NM
NM
AP
Across
System
(psig)
3
5
4
3
3
NA
NA
5
4
0
3
2
NA
NA
0
2
5
3
3
NA
NA
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
NA
NA
NA
Volume to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
4.0
7.5
2.0
10.0
5.0
NM
NM
0.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
4.0
NM
NM
4.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
10.0
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Daily
Volume
(gai)
14,925
4,435
3,980
3,235
3,985
NA
NA
13,035
4,720
5,015
4,320
5,565
NA
NA
13,735
7,580
5,340
8,350
3,820
NA
NA
18,190
6,935
6,875
3,350
5,150
NA
NA
15,500
3,880
3,660
4,070
3,580
NA
NA
11,270
NA
NA
NA
19,730
NA
NA
18,440
8,170
4,965
5,335
NA
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(kgal)
79,260
80,130
80,650
81,270
81,780
NM
NM
84,100
84,870
85,850
86,720
87,420
NM
NM
89,720
90,640
91,370
92,540
93,010
NM
NM
95,580
96,530
97,490
97,970
98,860
NM
NM
101,070
101,700
102,200
102,820
103,320
NM
NM
105,360
NM
NM
NM
109,250
NM
NM
111,440
112,830
113,740
114,520
NM
NM
NM
No. of Tanks
Backwashed
16
7
4
5
4
NM
NM
18
6
8
7
5
NM
NM
18
7
6
9
4
NM
NM
20
7
7
4
7
NM
NM
17
5
4
5
4
NM
NM
16
NM
NM
NM
30
NM
NM
17
11
7
6
NM
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gai)
2,090
870
520
620
510
NA
NA
2,320
770
980
870
700
NA
NA
2,300
920
730
1,170
470
NA
NA
2,570
950
960
480
890
NA
NA
2,210
630
500
620
500
NA
NA
2,040
NA
NA
NA
3,890
NA
NA
2,190
1,390
910
780
NA
NA
NA
KMnO4
Application
KMn04
Tank
Level
(in)
21.0
20.5
19.9
19.3
18.9
NM
NM
31.5
31.0
30.4
29.6
29.0
NM
NM
27.1
26.3
25.5
24.5
24.0
NM
NM
21.5
20.9
20.8
20.8
20.8
NM
NM
18.8
18.1
17.6
31.5
31.5
NM
NM
30.5
NM
NM
NM
29.5
NM
NM
28.0
27.5
27.0
26.8
NM
NM
NM
Average
KMn04
Dose
(mg/L)
6.2
NA
NA
4.8
NA
NA
4.8
NA
NA
1.3
NA
NA
3.0
NA
NA
2.4
NA
NA
3.3
NA
NA
NA
>
oo

-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at BSLMHP, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Date
08/07/06
08/08/06
08/09/06
08/10/06
08/11/06
08/12/06
08/1 3/06
08/14/06
08/1 5/06
08/16/06
08/1 7/06
08/18/06
08/1 9/06
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
09/1 6/06
09/1 7/06
09/18/06
09/19/06
09/20/06
09/21/06
09/22/06
09/23/06
09/24/06
Time
09:00
08:30
11:45
06:30
15:00
NM
NM
17:00
20:00
20:00
21:00
NM
NM
NM
17:00
18:00
19:00
18:30
20:00
NM
NM
18:00
19:00
16:00
20:30
18:00
NM
NM
NM
20:00
19:00
18:30
17:00
NM
NM
17:30
18:00
19:00
17:00
20:00
NM
NM
18:00
18:15
18:30
20:00
18:30
NM
NM
New Well
Hour
Meter
(Hr)
1,484.2
1,491.5
1,497.6
1,501.7
1,506.0
NM
NM
1,523.6
1,529.8
1,541.0
1,545.6
NM
NM
NM
1,565.0
1,570.5
1,574.9
1,579.6
1,584.3
NM
NM
1,598.2
1,602.8
1,606.8
1,612.8
1,617.5
NM
NM
NM
1,639.9
1,644.1
1,649.8
1,653.5
NM
NM
1,667.7
1,672.5
1,678.0
1,682.4
1,687.7
NM
NM
1,702.2
1,706.0
1,711.0
1,716.0
1,721.0
NM
NM
Dally
Operation
(hr)
31.1
7.3
6.1
4.1
4.3
NA
NA
17.6
6.2
11.2
4.6
NA
NA
NA
19.4
5.5
4.4
4.7
4.7
NA
NA
13.9
4.6
4.0
6.0
4.7
NA
NA
NA
22.4
4.2
5.7
3.7
NA
NA
14.2
4.8
5.5
4.4
5.3
NA
NA
14.5
3.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
NA
NA
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(gai)
324,624
329,842
334,861
338,497
342,647
NM
NM
359,670
366,217
377,433
382,385
NM
NM
NM
402,298
407,608
412,355
417,285
422,680
NM
NM
438,345
443,832
448,695
455,369
460,430
NM
NM
NM
483,908
488,662
495,037
499,065
NM
NM
514,335
519,667
525,352
530,053
535,806
NM
NM
551,497
556,440
561,625
567,193
572,038
NM
NM
Dally
Volume
(gai)
23,567
5,218
5,019
3,636
4,150
NM
NM
17,023
6,547
11,216
4,952
NM
NM
NM
19,913
5,310
4,747
4,930
5,395
NM
NM
15,665
5,487
4,863
6,674
5,061
NM
NM
NM
23,478
4,754
6,375
4,028
NM
NM
15,270
5,332
5,685
4,701
5,753
NM
NM
15,691
4,943
5,185
5,568
4,845
NM
NM
Average
Flowrate
(gpm)
13
12
14
15
16
NM
NM
16
18
17
18
NM
NM
NM
17
16
18
17
19
NM
NM
19
20
20
19
18
NM
NM
NM
17
19
19
18
NM
NM
18
19
17
18
18
NM
NM
18
22
17
19
16
NM
NM
Pressure Tanks
Pressure
Tankl
(psig)
50
65
65
65
65
NM
NM
65
65
65
65
NM
NM
NM
65
65
65
60
60
NM
NM
56
65
65
65
65
NM
NM
NM
65
65
65
60
NM
NM
65
60
65
60
65
NM
NM
65
65
65
65
60
NM
NM
Pressure
Tank 2
(psig)
47
60
60
60
60
NM
NM
60
60
60
60
NM
NM
NM
60
60
60
55
56
NM
NM
52
60
60
60
60
NM
NM
NM
60
60
60
55
NM
NM
60
55
60
55
60
NM
NM
60
60
60
60
55
NM
NM
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psig)
43
56
58
57
55
NM
NM
56
54
56
55
NM
NM
NM
58
58
56
52
50
NM
NM
48
56
55
56
55
NM
NM
NM
57
56
58
52
NM
NM
56
50
56
54
56
NM
NM
56
55
58
56
52
NM
NM
TA/TB
(psig)
33
53
57
56
54
NM
NM
55
50
54
53
NM
NM
NM
54
55
54
52
48
NM
NM
44
55
53
54
53
NM
NM
NM
55
55
56
50
NM
NM
55
48
54
52
54
NM
NM
54
52
55
54
50
NM
NM
TC/TD
(psig)
32
52
55
54
55
NM
NM
54
52
54
52
NM
NM
NM
54
55
54
50
46
NM
NM
45
53
52
54
52
NM
NM
NM
54
54
55
48
NM
NM
55
46
52
50
52
NM
NM
52
50
56
52
50
NM
NM
OUT
(psig)
33
53
57
57
55
NM
NM
54
52
54
52
NM
NM
NM
55
55
56
52
48
NM
NM
46
54
53
54
53
NM
NM
NM
55
55
56
48
NM
NM
56
48
54
52
54
NM
NM
52
52
56
54
50
NM
NM
AP
Across
System
(psig)
10
3
1
0
0
NA
NA
2
2
2
3
NA
NA
NA
3
3
0
0
2
NA
NA
2
2
2
2
2
NA
NA
NA
2
1
2
4
NA
NA
0
2
2
2
2
NA
NA
4
3
2
2
2
NA
NA
Volume to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Daily
Volume
(gai)
19,520
4,050
4,230
2,610
3,390
NA
NA
NA
5,025
8,670
4,020
NA
NA
NA
14,710
4,045
3,450
3,765
3,900
NA
NA
11,830
3,815
3,625
4,880
NA
NA
NA
NA
20,340
3,495
4,450
2,750
NA
NA
10,960
3,695
3,930
3,340
4,050
NA
NA
10,790
3,480
3,490
3,840
3,270
NA
NA
Backwash
Totalizer
(kgal)
117,750
118,610
119,130
119,770
120,280
NM
NM
122,150
123,050
NM
125,180
NM
NM
NM
127,540
128,180
128,830
129,340
130,080
NM
NM
131,720
132,610
133,130
133,900
134,540
NM
NM
NM
137,560
138,060
138,850
139,370
NM
NM
141,170
141,830
142,590
143,200
143,740
NM
NM
145,640
146,210
146,830
147,350
148,000
NM
NM
No. of Tanks
Backwashed
25
7
4
5
4
NM
NM
18
7
NA
NA
NM
NM
NM
18
5
5
4
6
NM
NM
13
7
4
6
5
NM
NM
NM
NA
4
6
4
NM
NM
14
5
6
5
4
NM
NM
15
4
5
4
5
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
3,230
860
520
640
510
NA
NA
2,380
900
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,360
640
650
510
740
NA
NA
1,640
890
520
770
640
NA
NA
NA
3,020
500
790
520
NA
NA
1,800
660
760
610
540
NA
NA
1,900
570
620
520
650
NA
NA
KMnO4
Application
KMnO4
Tank
Level
(in)
25.3
24.9
24.5
24.5
24.3
NM
NM
23.3
22.6
22.3
21.5
NM
NM
NM
20.8
20.6
20.5
20.0
19.5
NM
NM
18.5
18.1
17.9
17.4
31.5
NM
NM
NM
31.0
30.6
30.3
30.0
NM
NM
29.0
28.8
28.3
28.3
28.0
NM
NM
27.4
27.0
26.8
26.3
26.1
NM
NM
Average
KMn04
Dose
(mg/L)
3.4
NA
NA

4.3

NA
NA
4.0
NA
NA
4.4
NA
NA
NA
4.5
NA
NA
3.2
NA
NA
4.3
NA
NA

-------
                    US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at BSLMHP, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)




Week
No.



64








Date
09/25/06
09/26/06
09/27/06
09/28/06
09/29/06
09/30/06
10/01/06





Time
18:00
17:00
18:30
17:00
16:00
NM
NM

New Well

Hour
Meter
(Hr)
1 ,736.0
1 ,740.0
1 ,744.0
1,748.0
1,753.0
NM
NM

Daily
Operation
(hr)
15.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
NA
NA

Volume to Treatment


Totalizer
(gai)
589,057
594,185
598,958
602,510
608,175
NM
NM

Daily
Volume
(gai)
17,019
5,128
4,773
3,552
5,665
NM
NM

Average
Flowrate
(gpm)
19
21
20
15
19
NM
NM

Pressure Tanks

Pressure
Tankl
(psig)
65
65
60
60
65
NM
NM

Pressure
Tank 2
(psig)
60
60
55
55
60
NM
NM

Pressure Filtration


IN
(psig)
58
56
50
52
58
NM
NM


TA/TB
(psig)
56
54
48
50
56
NM
NM


TC/TD
(psig)
54
52
46
50
54
NM
NM


OUT
(psig)
56
52
48
50
56
NM
NM
AP
Across
System
(psig)
2
4
2
2
2
NA
NA
Volume to
Distribution


Flowrate
(gpm)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM

Daily
Volume
(gai)
11,600
3,470
3,310
2,965
3,265
NA
NA

Backwash


Totalizer
(kgal)
150,030
150,680
151,190
151,810
152,220
NM
NM


No. of Tanks
Backwashed
16
5
4
5
3
NM
NM

Wastewater
Produced
(gai)
2,030
650
510
620
410
NA
NA
KMnO4
Application
KMnO4
Tank
Level
(in)
25.5
25.0
24.8
24.5
24.3
NM
NM
Average
KMnO4
Dose
(mg/L)




4.6
NA
NA
(a)  On 08/09/05, both sets of duplex filters stuck in backwash mode due to sediment dislodged in purge/control valve, preventing it from closing.  System bypassed.
(b)  On 08/09/06, a pressure gauge after each set of duplex filters installed.
(c)  On 08/11/05, pressure gauge on pressure tank 2 replaced.
(d)  On 09/12/05, two flow meters, one on treated water line and one on backwash discharge line, installed although readings not recorded until 09/28/05.
(e)  On 09/28/05, hour meter installed.
(f)  On 09/30/06, pressure gauge changed out for duplex units TC/TD.
(g)  On 01/03/06, totalizer on raw water line re-set.
(h)  On 01/16/06, totalizer to distribution re-set.
(i)  On 02/06/06, totalizer on the backwash line stopped working, therefore, dosage calculated based on totalizer on distribution line.
(j)  On 02/27/06, totalizer on the backwash line fixed.
(k)  On 06/26/06, totalizer on raw water line re-set.
(1)  Starting on 07/10/06, flow meter on the treated  water line was discolored and could not be read.

-------
   APPENDIX B




ANALYTICAL DATA

-------
Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN
Sam pli ng Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Disc No./BW
rrequencv
Alkalinity
(as CaCG,)
rluoride
Su If ate
\litrate (as N)
3 (total) (as P)
Silica (as SiCy
Turbidity
roc
3H
Tern perature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO,)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO,)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
re (total)
-e (sol ubl e)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
%
No./gal
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
SU.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M3/L
M3/L
M9/L
M9/L
M3/L
M9/L
M3/L
M9/L
(a) Samples not taken, (b)
therefore samples not colle
07/13/05
IN
AC
TT
33
5/2,743
352
0.2
<1
0.1

23.3
25.0
NA(a)
7.4
14.9
2.0
-23
383
228
155
36.4
30.3
6.1
13.9
16.5
3,315
2,792
154
133
374
0.2
<1
0.1

23.3
3.1
NA(a)
7.5
12.7
0.7
196
330
197
133
29.6
3.3
26.3
1.6
1.7
3,173
<25
996
377
374
0.2
<1
0.3

22.7
0.6
NAW
7.7
12.3
1.1
219
329
197
132
4.3
3.0
1.3
1.7
1.3
157
<25
428
391
07/20/05
IN
AC
TT
33
5/2,743
365


-

24.7
23.0
-
7.3
11.4
2.5
-29


-
34.7
-
-


2,786

139

365


-

24.4
2.8
-
7.2
12.3
0.5
85


-
26.7
-
-


2,766

634

361


-

24.2
0.5
-
7.2
11.9
0.7
144


-
17.7
-
-


482

561

07/26/050"
IN
AC
TT
33
5/2,743
365


-

23.5
25.0
-
7.4
10.4
3.6
-40


-
26.6
-
-


2,864

137

370


-

23.6
2.9
-
7.3
11.0
1.7
144


-
24.8
-
-


2,704

844

365


-

23.9
0.1
-
7.2
11.0
0.9
173


-
5.5
-
-


45

727

08/02 /05
IN
AC
TT
33
5/2,743
352


-

23.8
26.0
-
7.4
11.2
3.5
-35


-
25.7
-
-


2,964

135

365


-

24.0
4.7
-
7.3
12.1
1.0
154


-
23.0
-
-


2,578

1,126

374


-

23.6
11.0
-
7.3
12.1
1.2
196


-
8.0
-
-


666

487

08/18/05M
IN
AC
TT
26
5/2,743
352
0.2
<1
<0.05

24.1
33.0
4.1
7.2
10.8
0.9
-76
320
188
131
26.4
26.2
0.2
24.1
2.1
2,895
2,954
139
142
365
0.2
<1
O.05

24.2
3.7
3.9
7.3
14.1
0.9
2
317
190
128
23.2
4.8
18.4
2.6
2.2
2,773
<25
1,097
850
361
0.2
<1
<0.05

23.9
0.4
4.0
7.3
13.8
0.7
43
323
187
137
5.1
4.8
0.3
3.4
1.4
<25
<25
1,010
1,000
Easy week samples were taken at TT and not at TA/TB and TC/TD because sample taps were not installed, (c) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 08/
Died that week.
08/24/05
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
26
5/2,743
352


-

29.4
24.0
-
7.3
12.3
1.0
-48


-
30.4
-
-


2,764

130

365


-

28.6
2.9

7.4
12.8
0.8
138


-
31.5
-
-


2,706

871

361


-

28.4
0.7

7.3
12.5
0.7
159


-
3.5
-
-


<25

475

374


-

28.2
0.2

7.4
12.8
1.1
181


-
3.3
-
-


<25

467

7/05. (d) System bypassed on 08/09/05

-------
                                  Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN (Continued)
Sam pli ng Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Disc No./BW
Frequency
Alkalinity
(as CaCO,)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total) (as P)
Silica (as SiOj)
Turbidity
roc
PH
Tern perature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCCy
Ca Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO,)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particu late)
As (III)
As(V)
-e (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
%
No./gal
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
08/31/05
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
15
5/2,743
383
-
-
-

25.8
32.0
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NAW
NAW
-
-
-
27.0

-


2,888
-
133

370
-
-
-

25.6
5.3
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
27.9

-


3,096
-
581

374
-
-
-

25.8
4.2
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
13.8

-


571
-
906

374
-
-
-

25.8
4.2
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
12.3

-


465
-
865

09/07 /05(b)
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
15
5/2,743
361
-
-
-

24.1
13.0
-
7.3
10.8
0.9
-63
-
-
-
20.6

-


1,069
-
NA

365
-
-
-

24.3
6.0
-
7.4
11.3
0.5
.22 W
-
-
-
28.8

-


2,619
-
416

361
-
-
-

24.0
14.0
-
7.3
10.7
0.9
-9
-
-
-
21.5

-


1,052
-
447

365
-
-
-

24.2
14.0
-
7.5
11.5
0.7
-12
-
-
-
17.5

-


1,140
-
430

(a) Onsite water quality parameters not taken, (b) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 09/06/05. (c) Resu
(d) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 09/28/05.
09/14/05
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
26
5/2,743
356
-
-
-

22.6
32.0
-
7.3
11.5
1.5
-49
-
-
-
23.7

-


2,716
-
131

370
-
-
-

22.9
3.4
-
7.2
10.9
0.7
101
-
-
-
24.8

-


2,795
-
1,042

370
-
-
-

22.5
0.2
-
7.2
11.2
0.5
96
-
-
-
2.8

-


<25
-
651

352
-
-
-

22.7
0.3
-
7.2
10.7
0.5
101
-
-
-
4.7

-


78
-
897

09/20/05
IN
AC
TT
26
5/2,743
374
0.2
<1
O.05

22.6
31.0
4.8
7.2
10.7
0.7
-66
307
177
131
27.4
27.6
<0.1
25.6
2.0
3,094
2,883
149
145
374
0.2
<1
<0.05

22.5
3.4
4.6
7.3
13.4
1.0
18
307
178
129
27.1
4.7
22.4
1.7
3.1
2,911
<25
883
533
370
0.2
<1
<0.05

22.2
0.5
4.8
7.2
13.6
0.9
6
306
176
130
2.9
3.2
<0.1
1.5
1.7
<25
<25
616
634
09/27/05(d)
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
26
6/6,857
378
-
-
-

25.7
32.0
-
7.4
9.5
0.8
-54
-
-
-
26.7

-


2,934
-
141

374
-
-
-

25.7
4.1
-
7.4
9.8
1.6
1
-
-
-
25.4

-


2,796
-
676

t was negative due to low KMnO4 dosage, therefore, it was con side red an outlier and not includ
374
-
-
-

25.6
<0.1
-
7.4
9.9
0.7
6
-
-
-
8.4

-


<25
-
802

374
-
-
-

25.3
<0.1
-
7.4
10.0
0.7
8
-
-
-
7.6

-


<25
-
841

ed in calculations.
Cd
to

-------
                                                Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Disc No./BW
rrequencv
Alkalinity
(as CaCO,)
rluoride
Sulfate
\litrate (as N)
P (total) (as P)
Silica (asSDJ
Turbidity
roc
3H
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO,)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO,)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
-e (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
%
No./gal
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
10/05/05(a)
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
26
7/1,959
356



452
23.1
28.0

7.4
10.0
0.9
-64



22.8
-
-
-
-
2,596
-
119
-
321



451
22.6
4.6

7.5
10.0
1.5
175



21.8
-
-
-
-
2,523
-
760
-
352



21.1
23.6
1.2

7.4
10.0
1.2
177



3.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
600
-
374



21.4
25.6
0.1

7.5
10.0
1.3
183



3.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
628
-
1 0/12/05* b)
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
26
7/1 ,959
365
365



471
484
23.2
23.3
34.0
34.0

7.4
10.5
0.7
-58



27.2
28.7
-
-
-
-
2,820
2.874
-
128
130
-
374
370



428
457
23.6
23.6
3.0
3.3

7.4
10.2
1.1
28



25.8
27.6
-
-
-
-
2,562
2.707
-
791
827
-
374
374



51.9
41.1
23.2
23.3
0.4
0.5

7.4
10.3
0.8
35



6.3
5.8
-
-
-
-
142
74
-
687
694
-
365
365



34.4
112
23.2
23.0
0.5
0.5

7.4
10.3
0.8
45



6.3
10.1
-
-
-
-
72
547
-
794
838
-
10/19/05(c)
IN
AC
TT
26
7/1,959
383
0.2
<1
<0.05
511
23.0
34.0
3.7
7.4
10.8
0.8
-56
315
188
128
29.1
25.2
3.8
20.8
4.5
2,680
2,594
128
132
378
0.2
<1
0.05
490
23.2
4.0
3.3
7.4
10.8
1.0
23
315
189
126
27.8
4.0
23.8
0.9
3.1
2,624
25
953
458
383
0.2
<1
<0.05
60.5
21.7
1.3
3.8
7.3
10.8
0.7
29
313
184
129
4.2
2.9
1.3
0.8
2.4
136
<25
548
535
10/26/05(d)
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
26
7/1,959
352



454
24.5
33.0

7.3
10.6
1.1
-50



26.0
-
-
-
-
2,979
-
134
-
365



456
25.1
3.3

7.4
10.5
1.3
-1



26.6
-
-
-
-
2,968
-
888
-
361



28.3
24.1
0.2

7.4
10.5
1.1
28



6.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
852
-
361



34.8
24.5
1.3

7.4
10.6
1.0
33



5.8
-
-
-
-
67
-
846
-
1 1/02/05(e)
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
26
7/1 ,959
361



511
24.7
33.0

7.4
10.0
0.7
-30



25.1
-
-
-
-
3,758
-
176
-
352



NA<«
24.5
3.1

7.4
10.1
0.7
55



NA«
-
-
-
-
NA<«
-
984
-
356



40.6
24.0
0.1

7.4
10.1
1.0
71



5.6
-
-
-
-
62
-
988
-
352



42.9
23.9
0.3

7.4
10.2
0.8
78



4.2
-
-
-
-
48
-
952
-
Cd
OJ
           (a) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 10/06/05. (b) Duplicate sampling week,  (c) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 10/18/05. (d) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 10/27/05.
           (e) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 11/01/05. (f) Result was questionable and not reported.

-------
                                             Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Disc No./BW
rreauencv
Alkalinity
(as CaCO,)
rluoride
Sulfate
\litrate (as N)
3 (total) (as P)
Silica (as SiOj)
Turbidity
roc
3H
Tern perature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO,)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO,)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particu late)
As (III)
As(V)
-e (total)
-e (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
%
No./gal
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
11/09/05
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
26
7/1,959
370

-

504
23.9
33.0
-
7.4
10.0
0.9
-38
-
-
-
36.6
-
-

-
2,549
-
117
-
370

-

486
23.6
3.2
-
7.4
10.2
0.8
39
-
-
-
36.1
-
-

-
2,425
-
1,031
-
365

-

101
24.0
0.1
-
7.4
10.2
0.9
65
-
-
-
11.3
-
-

-
336
-
951
-
370

-

54.5
24.0
0.7
-
7.4
10.4
0.8
68
-
-
-
5.7
-
-

-
68
-
971
-
11/15/05W
IN
AC
TT
40
7/1,959
352
0.2
<1
0.05
498
23.5
34.0
NA""
7.3
9.4
1.3
-39
311
186
125
33.2
28.8
4.4
27.4
1.4
2,774
2,873
130
138
365
0.2
<1
<0.05
502
23.7
3.2
NA
7.3
9.5
1.0
62
321
192
129
34.1
8.7
25.4
5.4
3.3
2,830
306
1,004
945
370
0.2
<1
<0.05
166
23.7
0.9
NA
7.2
9.5
1.0
76
338
212
126
17.1
6.2
10.9
4.4
1.7
1,067
41
1,091
1,062
1 1/29/05(c)
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
38
7/1 ,959
352

-

456
24.3
32.0

7.3
9.8
1.2
-39
-
-
-
30.3
-
-

-
2,793
-
124
-
370

-

494
24.6
4.2

7.3
9.6
1.6
55
-
-
-
34.1
-
-

-
2,761
-
1,123
-
361

-

432
24.7
1.3

7.3
9.6
0.9
65
-
-
-
29.8
-
-

-
2,363
-
1,002
-
356

-

121
25.0
0.5

7.3
9.7
1.0
71
-
-
-
9.2
-
-

-
532
-
432
-
12/08/05
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
40
8/1,714
374
0.2
<1
0.05
400
23.5
26.0
NA*"
7.3
9.6
1.1
-42
296
184
112
24.2
24.4
O.1
24.5
O.1
2,258
2,263
110
110
374
0.2
<1
0.05
394
23.9
3.9
NA
7.3
9.4
1.1
54
295
182
114
24.9
2.7
22.2
0.3
2.4
2,247
<25
1,037
166
370
0.2
<1
0.05
16.2
23.9
0.1
NA(b)
7.3
9.3
0.9
65
304
185
119
2.0
2.0
<0.1
0.3
1.6
<25
<25
203
202
370
0.2
<1
0.05
21.1
23.8
0.5
NA
7.3
9.4
1.1
68
307
185
122
2.1
2.0
0.1
0.4
1.6
<25
<25
187
190
12/14/05(d)
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
40
8/1,714
374
378

-

500
541
25.4
26.1
34.0
35.0

7.3
9.3
1.2
-26
-
-
-
26.4
27.6
-
-

-
2,655
2.832
-
123
125
-
365
374

-

497
490
25.6
26.4
5.1
5.2
-
7.3
9.5
1.1
52
-
-
-
25.6
25.6
-
-

-
2,564
2.558
-
1,242
1.243
-
378
378

-

211
215
25.1
25.5
0.7
0.8
-
7.3
9.3
1.6
59
-
-
-
12.1
11.3
-
-

-
983
978
-
611
611
-
378
378

-

210
220
25.8
24.9
1.9
1.2

7.3
9.2
0.9
64
-
-
-
12.6
12.4
-
-

-
1,001
1.023
-
665
673
-
Cd
           (a) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 11/16/06. (b) TOG samples not taken, (c) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 11/30/05. (d) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 12/15/05.

-------
                                 Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Disc No./BW
=requency
Alkalinity
(as CaCO,)
=luoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total) (as P)
Si lica (as S iO^
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO,)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCQj)
Vlg Hardness
(as CaCO,)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
=e (soluble)
Vln (total)
Vln (soluble)
%
NoVgal
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
01/05/06(a
IN
AC

TT
40
8/1 ,714
378
0.2
<1
<0.05
458
24.9
31.0
3.2
7.3
9.7
0.9
•42
305
190
114
25.9
26.2
<0.1
25.0
1.2
2,737
2,474
125
121
383
0.2
<1
<0.05
423
25.3
5.8
3.1
7.4
10.0
1.0
58
316
195
121
24.9
2.8
22.1
0.4
2.4
2,566
<25
1,506
108
378
0.2
<1
<0.05
51.6
24.7
1.4
3.0
7.3
9.8
1.0
68
318
193
125
3.9
2.2
1.7
0.4
1.7
194
<25
331
138
01/1 0/06 (b)
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
40
8/1,714
374
-
-
-
406
24.4
31.0
-
7.3
9.8
0.9
-38
-
-
-
24.6
-
-
-
-
2,581
-
135
-
378
-
-
-
398
242
4.3
-
7.3
9.6
1.2
62
-
-
-
24.0
-
-
-
-
2,629
-
1,235
-
378
-
-
-
<10
23.8
0.2
-
7.3
10.0
0.9
57
-
-
-
3.0
-
-
-
-
28
-
324
-
383
-
-
-
<10
24.2
4.6
-
7.3
9.8
1.0
61
-
-
-
4.8
-
-
-
-
307
-
366
-
01/17/06(c)
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
40
8/1,714
383
-
-
-
495
25.3
32.0
3.1
7.3
9.6
1.0
-45
-
-
-
25.6
-
-
-
-
2,593
-
130
-
378
-
-
-
483
25.4
6.5
2.9
7.3
9.8
1.1
59
-
-
-
25.9
-
-
-
-
2,427
-
1,031
-
378
-
-
-
32.1
24.1
0.3
2.8
7.3
9.8
1.0
55
-
-
-
2.8
-
-
-
-
27
-
220
-
378
-
-
-
29.0
24.7
3.3
2.8
7.3
10.1
0.9
57
-
-
-
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
201
-
01/26/06
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
42
6/916
383
-
-
-
505
24.5
31.0
-
7.3
10.1
1.1
-29
-
-
-
35.8
-
-
-
-
2,878
-
127
-
387
-
-
-
514
24.2
4.7
-
7.3
9.8
1.0
60
-
-
-
35.5
-
-
-
-
2,768
-
1,160
-
378
-
-
-
30.6
23.7
1.4
-
7.3
9.9
1.1
44
-
-
-
3.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
210
-
374
-
-
-
30.6
242
0.3
-
7.3
9.8
1.1
47
-
-
-
3.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
219
-
01/31/06
IN
AC
TT
42
6/916
359
02
<1
<0.05
601
24.0
33.0
3.2
7.3
10.2
1.2
-20
243
161
82.0
29.1
28.1
1.0
24.5
3.6
3,333
3,274
155
159
368
0.2
<1
<0.05
517
24.2
5.2
3.1
7.3
9.9
0.9
65
280
184
95.3
28.9
2.6
26.3
0.3
2.4
3,050
<25
1,164
182
368
0.2
<1
<0.05
36.0
23.4
0.7
2.9
7.3
9.8
1.1
69
280
183
96.9
3.6
2.2
1.4
0.3
1.9
98
<25
280
250
(a) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 01/04/06. (b) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 01/11/06. (c) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 01/18/06.

-------
                                  Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Disc No./B/V
rreguencv
Alkalinity
(as CaCO,)
rluoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
D (total) (as P)
Silica (asSiOJ
Turbidity
roc
DH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCOa)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCCs)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO,)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
re (total)
re (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
%
No. /gal
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
SU.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
02/08/06
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
45
6/916
354

-
-
537
23.7
32.0
-
7.3
10.2
1.0
-24

-

36.3
-


-
2,628
-
127

362

-
-
530
24.4
7.3
-
7.4
10.0
0.9
65

-

35.8
-


-
2,615
-
982

362

-
-
50.5
24.3
0.9
-
7.3
10.2
1.0
61

-

3.5
-


-
<25
-
39.7

367

-
-
40.3
24.2
1.2
-
7.3
9.9
0.9
70

-

3.1
-


-
<25
-
22.2

02/15/06
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
45
6/916
349

-
-
412
25.6
36.0
-
7.3
9.8
1.1
-36

-

27.2
-


-
2,300
-
102

366

-
-
384
25.5
7.1
-
7.3
9.7
0.9
59

-

26.8
-


-
2,096
-
1,098

341

-
-
155
25.9
1.6
-
7.3
9.7
0.9
59

-

10.9
-


-
782
-
314

391

-
-
98.5
25.0
1.8
-
7.3
9.9
1.0
65

-

8.3
-


-
421
-
219

02/21/06
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
45
6/916
365
361

-
-
523
505
24.8
25.0
33.0
34.0
-
7.3
9.8
1.0
-39

-

31.4
30.6
-


-
2,703
2.705
-
128
125

365
361

-
-
523
498
25.1
25.2
6.4
6.6
-
7.3
9.8
0.9
68

-

32.6
29.9
-


-
2,619
2.647
-
1,181
1.171

365
365

-
-
34.0
34.4
24.9
25.1
1.7
1.6
-
7.3
9.6
0.9
69

-

2.9
3.0
-


-
<25
<25
-
80.2
79.0

356
365

-
-
146
145
24.9
24.7
1.4
1.5
-
7.3
9.8
1.0
70

-

8.8
8.6
-


-
655
650
-
292
290

02/27/06
IN
AC
TT
45
6/916
372
0.2
<1
<0.05
519
24.1
31.0
3.0
7.3
9.8
0.9
-40
342
195
147
26.9
25.7
1.1
24.7
1.0
2,533
2,443
128
127
368
0.2
<1
<0.05
541
23.1
5.6
3.0
7.3
9.9
0.9
70
346
201
145
27.9
2.5
25.4
0.6
2.0
2,583
<25
1,222
60.1
364
0.2
<1
<0.05
146
23.6
0.2
2.7
7.3
9.8
1.0
69
342
198
144
2.3
2.1
0.3
0.7
1.4
75
<25
93.1
81.9
03/07/06
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
45
6/916
365

-
-
318
23.4
23.0
-
7.3
9.8
0.9
-38

-

23.7
-


-
1,780
-
120

365

-
-
334
23.0
7.2
-
7.3
10.0
1.0
69

-

24.3
-


-
1,910
-
1,344

361

-
-
<10
23.4
0.2
-
7.3
9.8
1.0
70

-

2.7
-


-
<25
-
21.7

361

-
-
19.5
22.8
1.2
-
7.3
9.8
1.1
72

-

3.2
-


-
<25
-
28.6

Cd

-------
                                   Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Disc No./BW
Frequency
Alkalinity
(as CaCO,)
=luoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
P (total) (as P)
Si lica (as S iO^
Turbidity
roc
pH
Tern perature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO,)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCQj)
vlg Hardness
(as CaCO,)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
=e (soluble)
vln (total)
vln (soluble)
%
NoVgal
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
03/29/06(a
IN
AC

TT
45
6/916
352
0.2
<1
0.1
533
24.2
36.0
2.9
7.3
10.1
1.1
•43
323
191
133
30.2
27.9
2.3
26.5
1.4
3,008
3,000
133
131
369
0.2
<1
<0.05
584
24.5
7.5
2.9
7.3
9.8
1.0
62
309
180
129
29.9
2.8
27.1
0.3
2.5
2,954
<25
1,088
54.3
356
0.2
<1
<0.05
43.0
23.7
1.0
2.7
7.3
10.2
1.0
68
304
176
128
3.4
2.5
0.8
0.4
2.1
62
<25
156
132
04/05/06(b)
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
45
6/916
356
-
-
-
603
23.5
35.0
-
7.3
10.4
1.0
-39
-
-
-
36.1
-
-
-
-
2,659
-
119
-
360
-
-
-
440
23.9
6.4
-
7.3
10.5
0.9
69
-
-
-
26.8
-
-
-
-
2,180
-
807
-
360
-
-
-
29.6
23.5
1.1
-
7.4
10.4
1.1
71
-
-
-
3.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
114
-
360
-
-
-
29.1
23.6
1.4
-
7.3
10.4
1.0
74
-
-
-
3.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
116
-
04/12/06(c)
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
45
6/916
NA(d)
-
-
-
517
NA(d)
NA(d)
-
7.3
10.5
0.9
•42
-
-
-
32.0
-
-
-
-
2,969
-
131
-
NA(d)
-
-
-
457
NA(d)
NA
-
7.2
10.8
1.0
71
-
-
-
28.5
-
-
-
-
2,647
-
830
-
NA(d)
-
-
-
309
NA(d)
NA
-
7.3
10.8
1.0
73
-
-
-
3.9
-
-
-
-
65
-
128
-
NA(d)
-
-
-
54.9
NA(d)
NA
-
7.3
10.8
0.9
74.1
-
-
-
5.4
-
-
-
-
190
-
186
-
04/1 9/06
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
45
6/916
392
-
-
-
520
23.0
32.0
-
7.2
10.6
1.0
-46
-
-
-
33.9
-
-
-
-
2,664
-
123
-
384
-
-
-
451
23.6
7.7
-
7.3
10.6
1.0
64
-
-
-
27.7
-
-
-
-
2,429
-
888
-
388
-
-
-
39.4
23.0
0.2
-
7.3
10.8
1.0
70
-
-
-
3.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
117
-
375
-
-
-
38.0
24.3
0.3
-
7.3
10.7
1.0
72
-
-
-
3.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
125
-
04/24/06
IN
AC
TT
45
6/916
375
0.2
<1
<0.05
533
22.7
33.0
3.0
7.3
10.8
1.0
-51
314
196
118
31.2
27.7
3.5
24.8
2.9
3,015
2,959
141
141
379
0.2
<1
<0.05
525
23.8
7.3
3.0
7.3
10.8
0.9
74
313
196
118
30.5
1.8
28.7
<0.1
1.7
3,019
<25
1,255
15.3
375
0.2
<1
<0.05
196
23.3
1.0
2.8
7.3
10.9
1.0
79
317
198
119
12.1
1.9
10.3
<0.1
1.8
973
<25
483
60.8
(a) Operator on vacation between 03/13/06 to 03/24/06.  (b) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 04/06/06.
water quality parameters taken on 04/26/06.
(c) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 04/13/06. (d) Samples lost, (e) Onsite

-------
                                 Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Disc No./BW
Frequency
Alkalinity
(as CaCO,)
rluoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
D (total) (as P)
Silica (as SiOj)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCOj)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCQj)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCQ,)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
-e (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
%
No. /gal
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
SU.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
pg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
05/02/06(a)
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
45
6/916
362

-

442
24.2
33.0

7.3
10.6
0.9
-47


-
27.0

-
-
-
2,561

118

379

-

419
24.6
7.2

7.3
10.8
0.9
69


-
25.6

-
-
-
2,476

982

362

-

36.9
23.6
0.8

7.3
10.8
1.0
72


-
3.4

-
-
-
80

128

350

-

163
23.7
4.3

7.3
10.8
1.0
74


-
10.5

-
-
-
867

398

05/08/06
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
45
6/916
358

-

445
24.5
34.0

7.3
10.3
1.0
-52


-
26.0

-
-
-
2,626

128

362

-

434
24.2
6.7

7.4
10.5
1.0
73


-
25.4

-
-
-
2,656

1,076

358

-

23.6
24.3
0.1

7.4
10.4
1.0
67


-
2.6

-
-
-
<25

49.8

358

-

22.6
25.0
0.3

7.3
10.4
0.9
69


-
2.6

-
-
-
<25

60.0

05/1 6/06 
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
45
6/916
355
338

-

496
482
25.1
25.1
30.0
30.0

7.4
10.2
1.0
-47


-
26.6
25.5

-
-
-
2,942
2,866

133
132

351
351

-

471
472
24.9
25.1
6.7
5.5

7.3
10.4
0.9
66


-
25.5
25.2

-
-
-
2,822
2,811

1,411
1,417

355
376

-

14.0
20.7
24.8
24.7
0.3
0.2

7.4
10.5
0.9
68


-
2.7
2.9

-
-
-
<25
41

91.1
105

351
343

-

18.6
13.7
24.6
25.1
0.1
0.2

7.4
10.4
1.0
70


-
2.6
2.6

-
-
-
<25
<25

92.9
96.2

05/24/06
IN
AC
TT
45
6/916
356
0.2
<1
<0.05
521
24.4
34.0
3.1
7.4
10.4
1.1
-48
338
200
138
31.0
29.4
1.6
22.2
7.2
3,005
2,632
126
120
365
0.2
<1
<0.05
504
23.9
7.9
3.0
7.4
10.5
1.0
66
256
145
111
35.9
3.1
32.8
0.2
2.9
2,329
<25
1,497
11.2
361
0.2
<1
<0.05
32.1
24.2
0.6
3.0
7.4
10.5
1.0
71
307
179
128
3.1
2.9
0.2
0.7
2.2
<25
<25
38.2
36.7
05/31/06
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
45
6/916
388

-

432
22.7
29.0

7.4
10.6
1.0
-53


-
24.3

-
-
-
2,395

120

362

-

422
23.6
6.6

7.4
10.8
1.0
78


-
23.5

-
-
-
2,235

1,007

362

-

53.8
23.1
0.4

7.4
10.8
1.0
79


-
2.4

-
-
-
<25

19.0

358

-

54.7
23.7
0.3

7.4
10.8
1.0
79


-
2.6

-
-
-
33

31.6

(a) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 05/03/06. (b) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 05/17/06.

-------
                                                Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Disc No./B/V
rreauencv
Alkalinity
(as CaCQ,)
rluoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
D (total) (as P)
Silica (as SiOJ
Turbidity
roc
}H
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO,)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCCs)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO,)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
re (total)
re (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
%
No. /gal
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
SU.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
ug/L
M9/L
ug/L
M9/L
ug/L
M9/L
06/08/06
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
45
6/916
376

-
-
311
24.2
11.0
-
7.4
10.5
1.0
-44



25.0



-
1,971
-
123

355

-
-
261
24.6
6.9
-
7.4
10.6
1.1
67



23.6



-
1,684
-
1,439

363

-
-
47.4
24.3
2.8
-
7.4
10.7
1.1
69



5.7



-
149
-
413

368

-
-
24.8
24.8
2.4
-
7.4
10.7
1.1
71



4.0



-
8.5
-
178

06/1 3/0 6
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
45
6/916
378

-
-
324
27.1
11.0
-
7.4
10.4
0.9
-50



30.5



-
1,605
-
165

369

-
-
225
25.8
9.3
-
7.4
10.6
1.0
66



25.3



-
1,016
-
1,652

369

-
-
50.0
26.4
7.0
-
7.4
10.8
1.0
68



5.8



-
<25
-
459

359

-
-
55.4
25.8
6.2
-
7.4
10.7
1.0
66



6.2



-
<25
-
486

06/21/06
IN
AC
TT
40
6/916
367
0.3
<1
<0.05
131
22.6
3.9
NA(C)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA
NA(d)
342
202
139
19.9
15.3
4.6
12.8
2.5
600
127
130
124
363
0.3
<1
<0.05
145
23.2
9.7
NA(C)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
331
195
136
20.3
8.6
11.7
0.2
8.4
670
<25
1,500
705
359
0.3
<1
<0.05
52.3
22.4
1.8
NA(C)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
NA(d)
346
204
142
5.0
4.7
0.3
0.2
4.5
<25
<25
127
161
06/27 /06«
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
40
6/916
358

-
-
311
25.8
18.0
-
7.4
10.8
1.0
-41



25.8



-
1,677
-
141

362

-
-
261
26.2
6.4
-
7.4
10.8
1.0
75



21.1



-
1,427
-
1,181

358

-
-
50.2
25.9
2.7
-
7.4
10.8
1.0
78



4.7



-
<25
-
210

358

-
-
43.5
25.9
2.7
-
7.4
10.6
1.0
81



4.4



-
<25
-
218

07/05/06
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
40
6/916
359

-
-
174
24.5
4.2
-
7.4
10.9
0.9
-49



23.5



-
963
-
134

368

-
-
237
24.8
7.3
-
7.4
10.9
1.1
79



25.8



-
1,407
-
1,908

363

-
-
40.2
23.7
6.0
-
7.4
10.9
1.0
80



4.8



-
<25
-
386

359

-
-
41.0
23.6
6.0
-
7.4
10.8
1.0
81



5.1



-
<25
-
395

Cd
           (a) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 06/07/06. (b) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 06/14/06.
           (e) Results were outliers and not reported, (f) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 06/28/06.
(c) TOG samples tailed QC and were not reported, (d) Onsite water quality parameters not taken by operator.

-------
                                  Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Disc No./B/V
rreguencv
Alkalinity
(as CaCO,)
rluoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
D (total) (as P)
Silica (as SiOJ
Turbidity
roc
}H
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCOa)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCCs)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO,)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
re (total)
re (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
(a) Samples lost. (
%
No. /gal
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
SU.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
07/12/06<"
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
40
6/916
369

-
-
135
23.6
2.7
-
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)



19.5
-


-
617
-
118

NA(a)

-
-
181
23.2
6.8
-
NA
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)



20.0
-


-
882
-
655

369

-
-
50.1
23.6
0.3
-
NA*>
NA*>
NA*>
NA*>



12.7
-


-
<25
-
289

356

-
-
51.2
23.3
0.2
-
NA<»'
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)



11.8
-


-
<25
-
303

07/18/06
IN
AC
TT
40
6/916
357
0.2
<1
<0.05
126
22.9
2.5
3.1
NA*>
NA*>
NA*>
NA*>
279
162
116
19.1
16.5
2.6
14.0
2.5
546
148
122
122
357
0.2
<1
O.05
136
23.0
9.0
2.9
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
292
172
120
18.6
8.0
10.6
0.3
7.7
633
<25
2,076
1,075
361
0.2
<1
<0.05
48.8
23.4
6.4
2.9
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
284
167
117
5.2
5.2
0.1
0.3
4.9
<25
<25
499
490
07/26/06
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
40
6/916
367

-
-
188
24.0
4.3
-
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)



24.7
-


-
911
-
131

362

-
-
206
23.4
4.5
-
NA*'
NAM
NA*>
NA*>



26.5
-


-
1,001
-
525

362

-
-
54.3
23.8
0.2
-
NA*>
NA"'
NA*>
NA*>



7.4
-


-
<25
-
2.5

362

-
-
58.9
24.4
0.2
-
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)



7.9
-


-
<25
-
5.2

08/02/06
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
24
6/916
362

-
-
117
23.6
1.5
-
NA
NA(b)
NA(b)



24.2
-


-
796
-
246

354

-
-
44.4
22.2
0.6
-
NA*>
NA*>
NA*1
NA*>



7.8
-


-
<25
-
2.3

358

-
-
48.1
23.2
0.3
-
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)



8.0
-


-
<25
-
7.8

08/08/06
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
24
6/916
349

-
-
NA(C)
24.3
13.0
-
NA*>
NA*>
NA*>
NA*>



NA(C)
-


-
NA(C)
-
139

365

-
-
307
23.0
11.0
-
NA(b)
NA(b>
NA(b)
NA(b)



25.1
-


-
1,837
-
337

357

-
-
40.2
22.9
0.2
-
NA
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)



6.6
-


-
<25
-
10.6

357

-
-
43.5
22.5
0.2
-
NA*>
NA"'
NA*'
NA*'



7.0
-


-
<25
-
13.5

b) Operator did not take water quality parameters, (c) Samples were outliers and were not reported.
Cd
H-*
O

-------
                                Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Disc No./BW
=requencv
Alkalinity
(as CaCO,)
=luoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
3 (total) (as P)
Silica (as SiO^
Turbidity
roc
DH
Temperature
30
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO,)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCOs)
Vlg Hardness
(as CaCO,)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
=e (total)
=e (soluble)
Vln (total)
Vln (soluble)
%
No./gal
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
08/14/06
IN
AC
TT
24
6/916
362
0.1
<1
0.1
322
23.6
18.0
2.3
7.1
10.5
2.2
-7
329
202
126
28.5
24.2
4.4
20.4
3.8
1,845
1,683
141
138
345
0.2
<1
<0.05
320
23.0
5.8
2.3
7.1
10.4
1.9
103
329
200
129
28.0
4.5
23.5
0.7
3.8
1,792
<25
1,247
177
392
0.2
<1
<0.05
36.7
23.9
0.3
2.8
7.1
10.6
1.7
109
320
193
126
4.6
4.0
0.5
0.4
3.6
<25
<25
12.1
12.6
08/2 2/06 
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
24
6/916
396
-
-
-
335
23.7
12.0
-
7.3
11.1
2.0
2
-
-
-
25.7
-
-
-
-
1,474
-
119
-
384
-
-
-
342
23.2
5.6
-
7.3
11.0
2.3
174
-
-
-
25.3
-
-
-
-
1,522
-
924
-
389
-
-
-
50.1
23.2
0.2
-
7.3
11.0
1.9
171
-
-
-
5.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
23.6
-
378
-
-
-
57.3
23.7
0.3
-
7.3
11.0
2.1
169
-
-
-
5.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
21.9
-
09/06/06
IN
AC
TT
24
6/916
394
0.1
<1
<0.05
313
22.4
14.0
3.2
7.3
10.6
2.2
-23
308
180
128
22.2
21.8
0.3
19.8
2.0
1,514
1,264
134
134
390
0.2
<1
<0.05
300
22.1
1.2
3.0
7.3
10.6
2.1
403
305
179
126
21.7
4.1
17.6
0.3
3.8
1,484
<25
1,385
264
392
0.1
<1
<0.05
45.0
22.7
0.4
2.9
7.3
10.6
2.0
336
309
181
128
5.8
5.6
0.2
1.6
4.0
<25
<25
185
184
09/20/06
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
24
6/916
375
-
-
-
284
24.4
16.0
-
7.3
10.0
1.2
-12
-
-
-
22.9
-
-
-
-
1,692
-
122
-
379
-
-
-
286
24.2
6.0
-
7.3
10.2
2.1
370
-
-
-
23.1
-
-
-
-
1,651
-
1,013
-
379
-
-
-
36.6
24.4
0.3
-
7.3
10.0
2.0
334
-
-
-
6.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
84.0
-
382
-
-
-
41.3
23.9
0.4
-
7.3
10.0
2.0
299
-
-
-
6.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
76.5
-
10/04/06
IN
AC
TT
24
6/916
380
0.3
<1
<0.05
350
23.8
14.0
3.3
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
327
192
135
28.1
26.4
1.7
21.5
4.9
1,481
1,419
124
128
385
0.3
<1
<0.05
344
23.2
6.9
3.2
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
325
189
136
26.8
5.0
21.8
0.4
4.6
1,433
<25
997
157
390
0.3
<1
<0.05
40.3
22.9
0.5
3.0
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
299
170
129
5.7
5.6
0.1
3.7
1.9
<25
<25
88.4
86.2
(a) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 08/16/06. (b) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 08/24/06. (c) Onsite water quality parameters not taken.

-------