EPA/600/R-10/033
April 2010
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Abraham S.C. Chen*
Wendy E. CondiiT
Brian J. Yates"
Lili Wang*
"Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693
*ALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43219-0693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained from January 30, 2006 to April
29, 2007 at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Arsenic Removal Technology
Demonstration site in Sabin, MN. The main objective of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of
Kinetico's FM-248-AS arsenic removal system using Macrolite® media in removing arsenic from raw
drinking water to meet the arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |o,g/L. Additionally, this
project evaluated: 1) the reliability of the treatment system for use at a small water facility; 2) the required
system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels; and 3) the cost-effectiveness of the
technology. The project also characterized water in the distribution system and residuals generated by the
treatment process. The types of data collected included system operational data, water quality data (both
across the treatment train and in the distribution system), process residual data, and capital and O&M cost
data.
After engineering plan review and approval by the state, the treatment system was installed and became
operational on January 19, 2006. System inspection and operator training were performed on January 30
and 31, 2006, and the system performance evaluation began officially on January 30, 2006. The system
consisted of two 63-in x 86-in fiberglass reinforced plastic (FJ3P) contact tanks and two 48-in x 72-in
FRP pressure tanks, all configured in parallel. Each pressure tank contained 25 ft3 of Macrolite® media, a
spherical, low density, chemically inert ceramic media designed for filtration rates up to 10 gal/min
(gpm)/ft2 at 125 gpm. The system used prechlorination to oxidize soluble As(III) and Fe(II) and the
contact tank to promote the formation of As(V)-laden iron particles prior to entering the pressure filters.
Later in the study, this prechlorination step also was used to increase oxidation, precipitation, and
subsequent removal of manganese. The system operated at approximately 231 gpm, producing
14,884,800 gal of water through April 29, 2007. This represents an average finished water production of
32,858 gal/day (gpd). The average flowrate corresponds to a contact time of 7.4 min and a filtration rate
of 9.2 gpm/ft2. A number of issues related to the control of backwash frequency and duration were
experienced and are discussed in the report.
Source water had an average pH of 7.3 and an average of total arsenic of 41.8 |o,g/L. The soluble fraction
consisted of both As(V) and As(III) with concentrations varying from <0.1 to 41.7 and from 3.8 to 35.6
Mg/L, respectively. Soluble As(III) concentrations exhibited a decreasing trend and soluble As(V)
concentrations exhibited an increasing trend. Total iron concentrations ranged from 1,005 to 2,757 Mg/L
and averaged 1,350 Mg/L, which existed primarily in the soluble form. Average soluble iron and soluble
arsenic concentrations corresponded to a ratio of 29:1, which was sufficient for arsenic removal via iron
removal. Manganese levels ranged at 153 to 449 |og/L and averaged 341 Mg/L, which existed entirely in
the soluble form. The source water also contained 0.2 mg/L of ammonia (as N), 30.4 Mg/L of phosphorus
(as P), 29.9 mg/L of silica (as SiO2), and 1.7 mg/L of total organic carbon (as C).
With sufficient chlorine addition, soluble As(III) was effectively oxidized to soluble As(V), which was
then adsorbed onto or co-precipitated with iron solids, formed during prechlorination, to become
particulate arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in the treated water were significantly reduced with
concentrations averaging at 6.6 Mg/L at Tanks A and B sampling locations and 8.3 Mg/L at the combined
effluent sampling location. Three exceedances (above the arsenic MCL) experienced were attributed to
particulate arsenic and iron breakthrough. A special study was conducted in November 2006 to
investigate the filter run length; a maximum of 12 hr was recommended to minimize particulate iron and
arsenic breakthrough.
IV
-------
Prechlorination did not effectively oxidize Mn(II). Low rates of manganese removal across the treatment
system and accumulation within the distribution system were issues. Manganese concentrations averaged
114 and 75 |o,g/L within the distribution system before and after system startup, respectively. In June
2006, the facility operator received complaints from a few customers concerning periodic slugs of dark
solids from their taps, which might have been related to iron and/or manganese solids accumulating
within the distribution system. It was hypothesized that the increased chlorine dose from post-
chlorination and contact time within the distribution system resulted in manganese oxidation and
subsequent attachment to pipe walls or iron deposits (tubercules), which are characteristic of older
distribution systems.
Chlorine dosages for prechlorination were subsequently increased to enhance soluble manganese
oxidation and particulate manganese removal by the pressure filters. Conversion from soluble Mn(II) to
manganese solids increased from an average of 38.6% to 71.8% as chlorine residuals increased from an
average value of 0.6 to 1.0 mg/L (as C12). Manganese solids removal rates increased correspondingly to
as high as 92%. Because of additional manganese solids loading, the maximum filter run length was
reduced to 5 hr, which was just below the system median run length of 6 hr based on a 48-hr standby
trigger.
Arsenic concentrations in the distribution system water samples were reduced from a pre-startup average
of 27 |og/L to a post-startup average of 8.7 |o,g/L (excluding two outliers in the first quarter of operation).
In general, total arsenic concentrations in the distribution system water were slightly higher than those in
the treatment system effluent. Iron concentrations decreased significantly and averaged 1,211 |o,g/L and
157 |o,g/L before and after system startup, respectively. Lead and copper concentrations were reduced
slightly since system startup. Alkalinity and pH did not appear to be significantly affected.
Filter tank backwash occurred automatically 1 to 4 times/tank/week, which was triggered primarily by the
48-hr standby time setpoint, due to low operational time of the treatment system. Approximately 521,250
gal of wastewater were generated during the performance evaluation study, which represents
approximately 3.5% of the total amount of water treated. Under normal operating conditions, 1,924 gal of
wastewater and 3.6 Ib of solids were generated per backwash cycle (for two tanks). The solids generated
included 0.6 Ib of elemental iron, 0.03 Ib of elemental manganese, and 0.01 Ib of elemental arsenic.
The capital investment for the system was $287,159, consisting of $160,875 for equipment, $49,164 for
site engineering, and $77,120 for system installation, shakedown, and startup. Using the system's rated
capacity of 250 gpm (or 360,000 gpd), the capital cost was $l,149/gpm or $0.80/gpd. This calculation
does not include the cost of the building to house the treatment system.
The estimated O&M costs included chemical supply, labor and electricity consumption. O&M costs were
estimated at $0.43/1,000 gal.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0: MATERIALS AND METHODS 7
3.1 General Project Approach 7
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 9
3.3.1 Source Water 9
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 9
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater 9
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 9
3.3.5 Residual Solids 9
3.4 Sampling Logistics 12
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 12
3.4.2 Preparation of SampleCoolers 12
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 12
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 14
4.1 Facility Description 14
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 14
4.1.2 Distribution System and Treated Water Quality 18
4.2 Treatment Process Description 19
4.3 Treatment System Installation 22
4.3.1 System Permitting 22
4.3.2 Building Construction 22
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown 23
4.4 System Operation 25
4.4.1 Coagulation/Filtration Operation 25
4.4.2 Backwash Operation 29
4.4.2.1 Backwash Frequency Issues 29
4.4.2.2 Backwash Duration Issues 29
4.4.2.3 Backwash Alarms 30
4.4.3 Residual Management 31
4.4.4 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation 31
4.4.4.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements 31
VI
-------
4.4.4.2 System Automation 31
4.4.4.3 Operator Skill Requirements 31
4.4.4.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities 32
4.4.4.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements 32
4.5 System Performance 32
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 32
4.5.1.1 Arsenic 32
4.5.1.2 Iron 39
4.5.1.3 Manganese 39
4.5.1.4 pH, DO, and ORP 42
4.5.1.5 Chlorine and Ammonia 42
4.5.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters 42
4.5.1.7 Filter Run Length Special Study Addressing Arsenic and Iron
Breakthrough 42
4.5.1.8 Filter Run Length Special Study Addressing Manganese Solids
Removal 43
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling 47
4.5.3 Backwash Solids Sampling 49
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling 49
4.6 System Cost 51
4.6.1 Capital Cost 51
4.6.2 O&MCost 52
5.0: REFERENCES 54
APPENDICES
Appendix A: OPERATIONAL DATA
Appendix B: ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedules and Locations 11
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Pump House at Sabin, MN 15
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Filtration System at Sabin, MN 15
Figure 4-3. Water Tower at Sabin, MN 16
Figure 4-4. Schematic of Kinetico FM-248-AS Arsenic Removal System 20
Figure 4-5. Treatment System Components 20
Figure 4-6. New Building and Associated Infrastructure 23
Figure 4-7. Delivery and Off-Loading of Macrolite® Treatment System Equipment 24
Figure 4-8. Calculated and Instantaneous Flowrate Readings 27
Figure 4-9. Filter Inlet and Outlet Pressure versus Filter Run Time 27
Figure 4-10. Differential Pressure versus Filter Run Time 28
Figure 4-11. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train 36
Figure 4-12. Arsenic Speciation Results at IN, AC, TA, TB, and TT Locations 37
Figure 4-13. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train 38
Figure 4-14. Total Iron versus Total Arsenic Concentrations in Filter Effluent 38
Figure 4-15. Soluble Manganese Conversion versus Total Chlorine Concentration at AC Location 41
Figure 4-16. Total Manganese Concentrations in Filter Effluent versus Total Chlorine Residuals at AC Location..41
Figure 4-17. Paniculate and Soluble Arsenic Concentrations versus Run Time 44
Figure 4-18. Paniculate and Soluble Iron Concentrations versus Run Time 44
Figure 4-19. Paniculate and Soluble Manganese Concentrations versus Run Time 45
vn
-------
Figure 4-20. Paniculate and Soluble Arsenic Concentrations versus Run Time 46
Figure 4-21. Paniculate and Soluble Iron Concentrations versus Run Time 46
Figure 4-22. Paniculate and Soluble Manganese Concentrations versus Run Time 47
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of the Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 3
Table 3 -1. Predemonstration and Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 8
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses 10
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data at Sabin, MN 17
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media 19
Table 4-3. Design Features of Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System 21
Table 4-4. FM-248-AS Treatment System Operational Parameters 26
Table 4-5. Summary of PLC Settings for Backwash Operations 30
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Results 33
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 34
Table 4-8. Soluble Manganese Conversion Rates after Chlorination at Ten Arsenic Removal
Demonstration Sites 40
Table 4-9. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results 48
Table 4-10. Distribution System Sampling Results 50
Table 4-11. Capital Investment for Kinetico FM-248-AS System 52
Table 4-12. O&M Cost for Kinetico FM-248-AS System 53
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
bgs below ground surface
C/F coagulation/filtration
Ca calcium
Cl chlorine
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
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 (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDH Minnesota Department of Health
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
jam micrometer
Mn manganese
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
IX
-------
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
OIP operator interface panel
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
Pb lead
pCi/L picocuries per liter
psi pounds per square inch
psig pounds per square inch gauge
PLC programmable logic controller
POU point-of-use
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
Ra radium
RPD relative percent difference
RO reverse osmosis
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO4 sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TBD to be determined
TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TDH total dynamic head
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
UPS uninterruptible power supply
V vanadium
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Mr. Richard Hayes of Sabin, MN. Mr. Hayes
monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the treatment and distribution systems on a
regular schedule throughout this study period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible
without his support and dedication.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003 to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems to reduce compliance costs. As part of
this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, onsite 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 community water system in the City of Sabin, MN was one of those selected.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of Round 2 sites to 28. Kinetico's Macrolite® arsenic removal system was selected
for demonstration at the Sabin, MN facility.
As of April 2010, 39 of the 40 systems were operational and the performance evaluation of 36 systems
was completed.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13
coagulation/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, and 17 point-of-use (POU) units
(including nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and
eight AM units at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations,
technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, iron
[Fe], and pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design
for the 12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital cost is provided in two EPA reports
(Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic treatment technology
demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific objectives are
to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small
systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill
levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the Kinetico system at the City of Sabin in Minnesota from
January 30, 2006, through April 29, 2007. The types of data collected included system operation, water
quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and capital and O&M
cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NY(d)
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
19(a)
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,806(c)
1,312W
1,615W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM (E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14W
13w
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127(c)
466W
1,387W
l,499(c)
7,827(c)
546(c)
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
1,344W
1,325W
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770W
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(b)
50
37
35W
19w
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
Oig/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service
District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)®
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (fflX)
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; EHX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) Withdrew from program in 2007. Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Arnaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Kinetico's FM-248-AS treatment system with Macrolite® media was installed and operated at Sabin, MN
starting on January 19, 2006. System inspection and operator training were performed on January 30 and
31, 2006. The performance evaluation officially began on January 30, 2006. Based on the information
collected during the performance evaluation study, the following conclusions were made relating to the
overall project objectives.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• Chlorination was effective in oxidizing soluble As(III) to soluble As(V), reducing soluble
As(III) concentrations from 11.6 |o,g/L (on average) in raw water to 0.8 |o,g/L (on average)
after the contact tanks. Chlorine also was effective in oxidizing soluble iron, reducing its
concentrations to less than the method detection limit of 25 (ig/L after the contact tanks and
pressure filters.
• Chlorination was not effective in oxidizing Mn(II). Increasing chlorine residuals from 0.6 to
1.4 mg/L (as C12) (on average) significantly enhanced Mn(II) oxidation, resulting in over 70%
Mn(II) conversion (from about 40%).
• At a ratio of 29:1 (on average), the amounts of soluble iron in source water were sufficient to
turn soluble arsenic (existing primarily as As[V] after Chlorination) into filterable particulate
arsenic.
• Operating the pressure filters at a high filtration rate of 9.2 gpm/ft2 (on average) effectively
removed arsenic to below 10 |o,g/L.
• Filter run lengths up to 12 hr were achievable before particulate arsenic and iron began to
break through. Increased manganese solids loading due to the use of higher chlorine dosages
reduced the useful run length to about 5 hr.
• Servicing one filter while backwashing the other one led to very high pressure in the
operating filter. The system inlet pressure could spike twice as high (e.g., to 63 lb/in2 [psi]),
which could cause the system to be operated outside of the design specifications.
• The treatment system improved water quality within the distribution system, with
concentrations decreasing from 27 to 8.7 |o,g/L (on average) for arsenic, from 1,211 to 157
|o,g/L for iron, and from 114 to 75 |o,g/L for manganese before and after system startup.
Further decreases in manganese concentration were occurring within the distribution system
when comparing to the levels in the treatment system effluent. This is thought to be due to
further oxidation of manganese due to elevated chlorine redisuals (from post-chlorination)
and prolonged contact times within the distribution system.
Required system O&Mand operator skill levels:
• A significant amount of time and effort was required to troubleshoot issues related to control
of backwash frequency and duration, although the daily demand on the operator was only 15
min.
-------
Characteristics of residuals produced by the technology:
• Backwash was effective in restoring the filters' ability to remove arsenic-laden iron particles
and manganese solids.
• The total amount of wastewater produced from backwash, which occurred at a frequency of 1
to 4 times/tank/week, was equivalent to about 3.5% of the amount of water treated.
• The amount of residual solids produced and discharged during each backwash cycle totaled
3.6 Ib, which included 0.6 Ib of elemental iron, 0.03 Ib of elemental manganese, and 0.01 Ib
of elemental arsenic.
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
• The capital investment for the system was $287,159, consisting of $160,875 for equipment,
$49,164 for site engineering, and $77,120 for system installation, shakedown, and startup.
The building cost was not included in the capital investment because it was funded by the city
of Sabin. The unit capital cost was $l,149/gpm (or $0.80/gpd) based on a design capacity of
250 gpm.
• The O&M cost was estimated at $0.43/1,000 gal based on chemical supply, labor, and
electricity consumption costs.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
the Kinetico treatment system began on January 30, 2006, and operational data collection ended on April
29, 2007. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected and considered as part of the technology
evaluation process. The overall system performance was evaluated based on its ability to consistently
remove arsenic to below the target MCL of 10 |o,g/L through the collection of water samples across the
treatment train, as described in the Study Plan (Battelle, 2006). 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 and Demonstration Study Activities
and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received
Purchase Order Established
Engineering Package Submitted to MDH
Letter Report Issued
Discharge Permit Granted by MPCA
System Permit Granted by MDH
Building Construction Began
FM-248-AS System Delivered
Study Plan Issued
Treatment Building Completed
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Began
Performance Evaluation Ended
Date
08/31/04
11/18/04
12/09/04
12/08/04
02/10/05
02/17/05
03/04/05
03/09/05
04/14/05
06/13/05
07/05/05
12/02/05
01/17/06
06/05/06
12/16/05
01/19/06
01/30/06
04/29/07
MDH = Minnesota Department of Health;
MPCA = Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
The O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through quantitative data analysis 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 wastewater was sampled and analyzed for
chemical characteristics.
-------
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 (o,g/L of arsenic MCL in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems
encountered, materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
incurred
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (gpm) (or gal/day [gpd]) of
design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital
cost for equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for chemical supply, electricity
usage, and labor.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis (with the exception of Saturdays and
Sundays), the plant operator recorded system operational data such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and
hour meter readings (see Appendix A) on a Daily System Operation Log Sheet, checked the sodium
hypochlorite (NaOCl) level, and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any
problem occurred, the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor
should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information, including
the problem encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and
labor incurred, on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly basis, the plant operator measured
several water quality parameters onsite, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-
reduction potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded the data on a Weekly Onsite Water Quality
Parameters Log Sheet. Monthly backwash data also were recorded on a Backwash Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and
labor. Consumption of NaOCl was tracked on the Daily System Operation Log Sheet. Electricity usage
was determined from utility bills. Labor for various activities, such as routine system O&M,
troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, was tracked using an Operator Labor Hour
Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as completing field logs, replenishing the
NaOCl solution, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the
vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as performing field
measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the
vendor, was recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
-------
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the treatment plant,
during Macrolite® filter backwash, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the sampling
schedules and analytes measured during each sampling event.
In addition, a flow diagram of the treatment system along with the analytes and schedules at each
sampling location is presented in Figure 3-1. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods,
sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-
endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation
is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit, one set of source water samples was collected
and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (Section 3.4.1). The sample tap was flushed for several
minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted
oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, the plant
operator collected samples weekly, on a four-week cycle, for on and offsite analyses. For the first week
of each four-week cycle, samples were taken at the wellhead (IN), after the contact tank (AC), and after
Tanks A and B combined (TT), and speciated onsite and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for
the monthly treatment plant water sampling. Until September 11, 2006, the "TT" sampling location was
not functional as described in Section 4.3.3. Therefore, "TT" samples were collected at either the TA (on
March 28, May 23, June 20, and August 21, 2006) orthe TB tap (on January 31, February 28, April 25,
and July 18, 2006). For the second, third, and fourth weeks of each four-week cycle, samples were taken
at IN, AC, after Tank A (TA), and after Tank B (TB) and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for
the weekly treatment plant water sampling.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater. Backwash wastewater samples were collected on 13 occasions by
the plant operator. Tubing, connected to the tap on the discharge line, directed a portion of backwash
wastewater at approximately 1 gpm into a clean, 32-gal container over the duration of the backwash for
each tank. After the content in the container was thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected
and/or filtered onsite with 0.45-(im disc filters. Analytes for the backwash samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from three separate locations within
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. Following the system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at
the same three locations.
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). The dates and times
of last water use before sample collection were recorded for calculation of the stagnation time. All
samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that
stagnant water was sampled.
3.3.5 Residual Solids. Residual solids produced by the treatment process consisted of only
backwash wastewater solids. A residual solids sample was collected on one occasion on February 21,
2007. After solids in the backwash wastewater container had settled and the supernatant had been
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedules and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Backwash
Wastewater
Distribution
Water
Residual
Solids
Sample
Locations'3'
IN
IN, AC, TA, and
TB
IN, AC, and
rprp(c)
Backwash
Wastewater
Discharge Line
Three LCR
Residences
Backwash Solids
from Each Tank
No. of
Samples
1
4
3
2
o
J
1
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Once
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Offsite: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Mo (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NH3,
NO2, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P,
TOC, TDS, turbidity, and
alkalinity
Onsite :(b) pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (total
and free)
Offsite: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), SiO2, P,
turbidity, and alkalinity
Same as weekly analytes
shown above plus the
following:
Offsite: As (soluble),
As(III), As(V), Fe
(soluble), Mn (soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NH3, NO3,
SO4, TOC, and TDS
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
pH, TDS, and TSS
Total As, Fe, Mn, Pb, and
Cu, pH, and alkalinity
Total Al, As, Ca, Cd, Cu,
Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb, Si,
andZn
Collection Date(s)
08/31/04
See Appendix B
See Appendix B
See Table 4-9
See Table 4-10
02/21/07
(a) Abbreviations corresponding to sampling locations shown in Figure 3-1; IN = at wellhead; AC = after contact
tanks; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TT = after filter effluent combined.
(b) Chlorine residuals analyzed only at AC, TA, and TB sampling locations.
(c) Four "TT" samples taken from TA tap and four from TB tap before September 11, 2006, due to problems
with TT sample tap (see Section 4.3.3).
DO = dissolved oxygen; ORP = oxidation-reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic
carbon; TSS = total suspended solids
10
-------
INFLUENT
(WELL 2)
Monthly
pHW, temperature^1, DOW, ORPW,
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble), -
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, NH3, NO3, F,
SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, IDS, turbidity, alkalinity
Sabin, MN
Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: 250 gpm
DA: Cl,
pHW>, temperature^, DOW, ORPW
• As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
SiO2, P, turbidity, alkalinity
pHW, temperature^, DOW, ORPW,
C12 (total and free)W, As (total and soluble),
As (III), As (V), Fe (total and soluble), -
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, NH3, NO3, F,
SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, TDS, turbidity, alkalinity
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble), __
Mn (total and soluble)
pH, TDS, TSS
Total Al, As, Ca, Cd,
Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P,
Pb, Si, Zn (each tank)
pHW>, temperature^), DOW, ORPW
C12 (total and free)W, As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2, P,
turbidity, alkalinity
pHW, temperature^, DOW, ORPW,
• C12 (total and free)W, As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2, P,
pHW, temperature^, DOW,
C12 (total and free)W, As (total and soluble),
As (III), As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, NH3, NO3, F,
SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, TDS, turbidity, alkalinity
Footnote
(a) On-site analyses
S^
\
T)
r
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
turbidity, alkalinity
ng Locations
Water Sampl
LEGEND
(iN J At Wellhead
TAG) After Contact Tank
TTA) After Tank A
(JVJ After Tank B
©After Tanks A and B
Combined
( BWJ Backwash Sampling Location
f SS J Sludge Sampling Location
INFLUENT Unit Process
DA: C12 Chlorine Disinfection
tab n -ri
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedules and Locations
11
-------
carefully siphoned, a solids/water mixture was collected into a sample bottle and processed for metals
analysis. The metals analyzed are listed in Table 3-3.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the 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 the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code
for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The
labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate zip-lock® bags and packed in the
cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included. 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.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at the Battelle inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
(ICP-MS) laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and
picked up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and TCCI
Laboratories in New 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 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 (MDLs), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative
percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The QA data
associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared
under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
12
-------
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
VWR Symphony SP90M5 handheld meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following
the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by
measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator
collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the SP90M5 probe in the beaker until a
stable value was obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements using
Hach® DR/820 model chlorine test kits following the users' manual.
13
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Facility Description
Located on First Street in Sabin, MN, the municipal water system provided drinking water to
approximately 500 community members through 175 service connections. Before the commencement of
the arsenic demonstration study in January 2006, the facility typically operated 3 to 4 hr/day to meet the
community's average daily demand of approximately 40,000 gpd. The peak daily demand was
approximately 110,000 gpd. The water system was supplied by groundwater from one old well (Well No.
1) and one new well (Well No. 2), which were alternated on a weekly basis. Installed in 1960, Well No. 1
was 8-in in diameter and 94-ft deep with a 34-ft screen extending from 60 to 94 ft below ground surface
(bgs). Well No. 2, installed in 1993, was 8-in in diameter and 92.5 ft deep with a 25-ft screen set between
67.5 and 92.5 ft bgs.
Well No. 2 was equipped with a 15-horsepower (hp) submersible pump with a design capacity of 250
gpm at a total dynamic head (TDH) of 200 ft of H2O (87 psi). Well No. 1 had a submersible pump with a
similar capacity, but the pump curve information was no longer available. The static water level in the
vicinity of these two wells was approximately 22 ft bgs and the maximum drawdown was 52 ft bgs,
yielding an approximate pressure of 59 psi at the ground level. Actual pressure in the inlet piping varied
from additional aboveground piping headless and/or degradation in pump performance since its
installation in 1993. Both wells were connected to a pre-existing treatment system and the original design
was to connect both wells to the Macrolite® treatment system. However, at the time of the new building
construction, the City completed the connection piping only for Well No. 2. Thus, only Well No. 2 water
was treated during the performance evaluation study.
The pre-existing treatment system consisted of a 210-gpm aeration and gravity filtration system with
approximately 70 ft2 of filter area operating at a hydraulic loading rate of approximately 3 gpm/ft2. The
treatment also included post-chlorination and fluoride addition to reach a free chlorine residual of 0.5
mg/L (as C12) and a fluoride residual of 1.2 mg/L. Figure 4-1 shows the pre-existing pump house. Figure
4-2 shows the pre-existing filtration system and associated piping. A 15-hp booster pump rated for 210
gpm at a discharge pressure of 72 psi (or 165 ft of water) was used to transfer the filtered water to a
75,000-gal water tower located in the vicinity of the pump house (Figures 4-1 and 4-3). From March 11
to March 20, 2006, however, a burst in the water tower standpipe resulted in water being supplied to the
distribution system by high service pumps alone.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected by Battelle from Well No. 1 on
August 31, 2004. Table 4-1 presents the results of the source water analyses, along with those obtained
by EPA prior to the demonstration study on September 30, 2002, those provided by the facility to EPA in
2003 for the demonstration site selection, those submitted by the vendor for its proposal to EPA in 2004,
and those collected by Battelle on July 30, 2003. Based on the discussions with the facility operator and
the representatives of the respective organizations, it was established that the EPA, facility, and vendor
samples also were collected from Well No. 1.
Arsenic. Prior to the performance evaluation study, total arsenic concentrations in Well No. 1 water
varied significantly, ranging from 13.9 to 53.7 |og/L. (Although not collected, Well No. 2 water also
contained varying amounts of arsenic, as observed during the performance evaluation study, with
concentrations ranging from 27.7 to 54.5 ng/L). Based on the July 30, 2003, speciation results for Well
No. 1 water, out of 53.7 |o,g/L of total arsenic, 9.8 |o,g/L (or 18.2%) existed as particulate arsenic and 43.9
|o,g/L (81,8%) as soluble arsenic, including 24.2 |o,g/L of soluble As(V) and 19.7 |o,g/L of soluble As(III).
14
-------
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Pump House at Sabin, MN
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Filtration System at Sabin, MN
15
-------
Figure 4-3. Water Tower at Sabin, MN
The presence of As(III) required the use of an oxidant to oxidize it to As(V). The Kinetico treatment
process included prechlorination to oxidize As(III) to As(V) and subsequent adsorption/co-precipitation
of As(V) onto/with iron solids.
Iron. The source water sampled prior to the performance evaluation study had iron levels ranging from
512 (ig/L to 1,550 |og/L, existing almost entirely as soluble iron. The iron levels were well above the
secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 300 |o,g/L. Typically, the soluble iron concentration in
raw water should be at least 20 times the soluble arsenic concentration to achieve effective arsenic
removal via an iron removal process (Sorg, 2002). The ratio of soluble iron to soluble arsenic
concentrations was approximately 26:1 and 67:1, as calculated for each of the two source water speciation
events on July 30, 2003, and August 31, 2004, respectively. Based on these results, it was determined
that no supplemental iron would be needed during the treatment.
Manganese. Total manganese concentrations in source water measured prior to the performance
evaluation study ranged from 155 (ig/L to 327 |og/L, which existed entirely as soluble manganese based
on the results of the two speciation events. The manganese levels were well above the SMCL of 50 |o,g/L
and are thought to have resulted in some taste and odor complaints during operation of the treatment
system (as reported by the operator in June 2006).
pH. pH values of source water measured before the performance evaluation study ranged from 7.3 to 7.5,
which were within the target range of 5.5 to 8.5 for arsenic removal via adsorption/co-precipitation with
iron solids. As such, no pH adjustment was needed during the treatment.
16
-------
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data at Sabin, MN
Parameter
Unit
Date
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
N03-N02(asN)
NO3 (as N)
NO2 (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
P (as P)
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)
Mo (total)
Mo (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Radium-226
Radium-228
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
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
pCi/L
pCi/L
EPA
Raw
Water
Data
09/30/02
NA
NA
NA
NA
297
Facility
Raw
Water
Data(a)
2003
7.5
NA
NA
NA
295
Kinetico
Raw Water
Data
Before
04/04
7.4
NA
NA
NA
284
685 715 716
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
45
NA
417
26.9
NA
25
NA
NA
NA
NA
512
NA
155
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<25
NA
39
151
75
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
28
NA
470
30, 27(b)
0.04,0.09(b)
41
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,550
NA
310
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
158
78
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1.0
NA
NA
53.5
0.96
470
25.7
<0.1
16
NA
NA
NA
NA
610
NA
230
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
44
155
73
NA
NA
Battelle
Well No. 1
Raw Water
Data
07/30/03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
609
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
53.7
43.9
9.8
19.7
24.2
1,108
1,136
264
278
NA
NA
<0.1
<0.1
2.7
2.8
<0.1
<0.1
34
133
67
NA
NA
Battelle
after
Filtration
Data
07/30/03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
612
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
47
NA
NA
NA
NA
890
NA
204
NA
NA
NA
<0.1
NA
3.1
NA
<0.1
NA
35
135
67
NA
NA
Battelle
Well No. 1
Raw Water
Data
08/31/04
7.3
12.6
5.9
-24
302
752
7.1
2,050
2.0, 1.5(c)
NA
<0.04
0.01
0.19
34
0.12
410
29.7
<0.1
13.9
12.6
1.3
5.1
7.5
854
844
327
331
5.5
5.3
0.30
0.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
43
173
78
NA
NA
MDH
Treated
Water
Data(d)
01/16/01-
10/26/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1
NA
NA
0.05-0.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.93-1.6
410^40
NA
NA
24.4^5.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
42^4
NA
NA
0.2(e)
0.8(e)
(a) Provided by facility to EPA for demonstration site selection.
(b) Data provided by EPA.
(c) Sample taken on September 14, 2004.
(d) Samples taken in treatment plant and locations within the distribution system.
(e) Samples taken on June 23 , 1 994 .
NA = not analyzed; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon
17
-------
Competing Anions. The process of As(V) adsorption and co -precipitation with iron solids can be
affected by the presence of competing anions, such as silica and phosphate. Data obtained by Battelle
before the performance evaluation study (August 31, 2004) revealed 29.7 mg/L of silica (as SiO2) and
<0.1 mg/L of total phosphorus in source water. These data are comparable to the levels reported by other
parties. Published data have shown that silica at high concentrations can significantly impact arsenic
adsorption by iron solids (Smith and Edwards, 2005; Meng et al., 2000; Meng et al., 2002). Batch and
column studies conducted by these investigators document that silica reduces arsenic adsorptive
capacities on ferric oxides/hydroxides at levels even as low as 1.0 mg/L (as SiO2). Arsenic adsorption
may be inhibited in the presence of silica as a result of the following mechanisms:
(1) Adsorption of silica may change the surface properties of adsorbents by lowering the
iso-electric point
(2) Silica may compete for arsenic adsorption sites.
(3) Polymerization of silica may accelerate silica sorption and lower the available
surface sites for arsenic adsorption.
(4) Chemical reactions of silica with divalent cations, such as calcium, magnesium, and barium,
may form precipitates.
As such, the effect of silica was carefully monitored during the performance evaluation study.
Sulfate. Sulfate levels in source water ranged from 410 to 470 mg/L, which were above the sulfate
SMCL of 250 mg/L. Sulfate has not been shown to significantly hamper arsenate adsorption onto iron
solids (Jain and Loeppert, 2000).
TOC. TOC in source water measured by Battelle prior to the performance evaluation study ranged from
1 .5 to 2.0 mg/L, which was not anticipated to adversely impact the treatment system performance.
Other Water Quality Parameters. The presence of As(III) in raw water was consistent with the low
ORP reading (i.e., -24 millivolts [mV]) measured on August 31, 2004. The DO concentration in the same
source water was uncharacteristically high at 5.9 mg/L. DO levels were further monitored during the
study period and averaged 3.4 mg/L. The source water sampled by Battelle on August 31, 2004, had a
turbidity of 7.1 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU), most likely resulting from iron precipitation during
sample collection and transit. The nitrate, nitrite, chloride, and fluoride levels all were below the
corresponding SMCLs. The ammonia level was 0.19 mg/L, which adds to the chlorine demand, but was
not anticipated to adversely impact As(III) or Fe(II) oxidation. Uranium, vanadium, molybdenum, and
antimony levels were low and not anticipated to affect arsenic removal via the iron removal process.
4.1.2 Distribution System and Treated Water Quality. Prior to the commencement of the
performance evaluation study, the distribution system was supplied by two wells, i.e., Wells No. 1 and 2.
Water from both wells blended within the 75,000-gal water tower and the distribution system, which was
constructed of mainly 4-in and 6-in cast iron and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping. Beginning on January
30, 2006 and throughout the performance evaluation study, the distribution system was supplied only by
Well No. 2.
The three locations selected for distribution water sampling were part of the City's historic sampling
network under the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). In addition to lead and copper, coliform, fluoride, and
arsenic were sampled on a quarterly basis and nitrate was sampled on an annual basis. Ra-226 and Ra-
228 were sampled every other year. The historic data from Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) for
treated water are provided in Table 4-1.
18
-------
The historic treated water samples were collected at the entry point (after the treatment plant) and at
various locations within the distribution system, such as residences, businesses (gas stations and cafes),
the fire department, and city hall, from January 16, 2001, through October 26, 2004. As shown in Table
4-1, turbidity readings were <1.0 NTU, NO3-NO2 between <0.05 and 0.15 mg/L (as N), fluoride between
0.93 and 1.60 mg/L, sulfate between 410 and 440 mg/L, arsenic between 24.4 and 45.0 ug/L, radium-226
at 0.2 pCi/L, and radium-228 at <0.8 pCi/L. Fluoride in treated water was higher than in source water
because of fluoride addition at the plant. As expected, the concentrations of the remaining analytes
measured at the entry point and within the distribution system were comparable to those found in source
water.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The treatment process consisted of prechlorination/oxidation, coprecipitation/adsorption, and Macrolite®
pressure filtration. Macrolite®, a spherical, low density, chemically inert, ceramic media manufactured by
Kinetico, is designed to allow for filtration rates up to 10 gpm/ft2 and approved for use in drinking water
applications under NSF International (NSF) Standard 61. The physical properties of Macrolite® are
summarized in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media
Property
Color
Thermal Stability (°C)
Sphere Mesh Size
Sphere Size Range (mm)
Sphere Size Range (in)
Uniformity Coefficient
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Particle Density (g/cm3)
Particle Density (lb/ft3)
Value
Taupe, brown to grey
1,100
40 x60
0.42-0.25
0.165-0.0098
1.1
0.86
54
2.05
129
The FM-248-AS arsenic removal system was composed of two parallel contact tanks, two parallel
pressure filtration tanks, and associated instrumentation to monitor pressure, flowrate, and turbidity (note
that continuous turbidity monitoring was performed only during backwash). The system also was
equipped with a central control panel that housed a touch screen operator interface panel (OIP), a
programmable logic controller (PLC), a modem, and an uninterruptible power supply (UPS). The PLC
automatically controlled the system by actuating PVC pneumatic valves with air supplied by a 7.5-hp, 80-
gal air compressor. The system also featured Schedule 80 PVC solvent bonded plumbing and all of the
necessary isolation and check valves and sampling ports. Figure 4-4 is a simplified system piping and
instrumentation diagram (P&ID). Figure 4-5 contains photographs of the key system components and
control and instrumentation. The system's design specifications are summarized in Table 4-3. The major
process steps are presented as follows:
• Intake. Raw water was pumped from Well No. 2 with a 15-hp booster pump (Gould 3656
M&L Group, Model 13 BF) to provide a design flowrate of 250 gpm at 116 ft TDH.
(Deviating from the original design, Well No. 1 was not piped to the treatment system.)
19
-------
Feed Vteter
Existing
Kinetico FM-248-AS Arsenic Removal System
at50-100psi i
Chemical
Metering
Pump
k
I
1
CD
CO
X
CO
CD
Vc
1
onta
^
u
a
>
c<
C!
*\
Vessels
Flow 11 Turbidity
1>W^
Filter
#1
Filter
#2
^ Backwash V\&ste
"to Sewer by Others
FilteredWaterto
jt—>~ Storage/Distribution
by Others
Figure 4-4. Schematic of Kinetico FM-248-AS Arsenic Removal System
Figure 4-5. Treatment System Components
20
-------
Table 4-3. Design Features of Macrolite* Arsenic Removal System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
NaOCl Demand (mg/L [as C12])
1.7
Based on average oxidant demand from
soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese in
source water plus 0.5 mg/L of target
residual; not including ammonia demand
Contact
No. of Tanks
Configuration
Tank Size (in)
Tank Volume (gal)
Contact Time (min)
2
Parallel
63 D x 86 H
850
6.8
—
—
-
-
-
Filtration
No. of Tanks
Configuration
Tank Size (in)
Tank Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Media Volume (ft3/tank)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Pressure Drop across Clean Bed (psi)
2
Parallel
48 D x 72 H
12.6
25
10
10-12
-
-
-
24-in bed depth of Macrolite®
At 125 gpm
-
Backwash
Ap Setpoint (psi)
Standby Time Setpoint (hr)
Service Time Setpoint (hr)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Turbidity Setpoint (NTU)
Duration (min/tank)
Wastewater Production (gpd)
22
48
24
10
20
5 to 15
Variable
Backwash triggering pressure
-
-
125 gpm
To terminate backwash
Variable based on turbidity readings of
backwash water
Based on PLC set points shown above
Design Specifications
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Maximum Daily Well Production (gpd)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
250
360,000
13-17
—
Based on peak flow, 24 hr/day
Estimate based on historic utilization rate
The system was equipped with piping to bypass the treatment system and two 125-gpm flow-
limiting devices, with one installed after each pressure filtration tank to prevent overrun.
Chlorination. Chlorine was used to oxidize As(III) to As(V) and Fe(II) to Fe(III) and to
maintain a free chlorine residual of approximately 0.2 mg/L (as C12) after the treatment
system. The feed system consisted of a 165-gal day tank containing a 15.6% (as C12) NaOCl
solution and a diaphragm metering pump (Watson Marlow Model 520U/R2) with a
maximum capacity of 42 gpd. The operation of the NaOCl system was tracked by
measurements of NaOCl consumption in the day tank and free and total chlorine residuals
across the treatment train.
Adsorption/Co-precipitation. Two 63-in-diameter by 86-in-tall fiberglass reinforced plastic
(FRP) tanks arranged in parallel were used to provide 6.8 min of contact time to enhance the
formation of iron floes prior to pressure filtration. Each 850-gal tank had one 4-in top flange
and one 4-in bottom flange, which were connected to the exit and inlet piping, respectively,
for an upflow configuration.
21
-------
• Pressure Filtration. Removal of iron solids from the contact tank effluent was achieved via
downflow filtration through two 48-in-diameter, 72-in-tall pressure tanks configured in
parallel. Each tank contained 25 ft3 (or 24 in depth) of 40 x 60 mesh Macrolite® media
loaded on top of fine garnet underbedding filled to 1 in above the 0.006-in slotted, stainless
steel wedge-wire underdrain (Leem/LSS filtration Model L-1712-48). The FRP filtration
tanks were rated for a working pressure of 150 psi and had two 10-in diameter side windows
for media and backwash observations. The tanks were floor-mounted and piped to a valve
rack mounted on a welded, stainless steel frame. The flow through each tank was regulated
to less than 125 gpm using a flow-limiting device to prevent filter overrun, which resulted in
a 10 gpm/ft2 hydraulic loading rate. System operation with both tanks in service could
produce the total design flowrate of 250 gpm. Filtered water was sent to a 57,000-gal
underground clearwell and then pumped to the water tower via two 20-hp high service pumps
(with a variable speed drive for a design capacity of 400 gpm at 140 ft TDH), which were
operated on an alternating basis. The high service pumps also were capable of providing
water directly to the distribution system in the event that the water tower must be taken out of
service (during cleaning, repair, etc.).
• Filter Backwash. Backwashing removed accumulated solids in the filters, thereby reducing
pressure buildup. The filters were automatically backwashed in succession based on service
time, standby time, and/or differential pressure (Ap) setpoints. Backwash began with
draining water from the first filter tank followed by air sparging the filter media with air
supplied at 100 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) for 2 min by a 7.5-hp, 80-gal
SPEEDAIRE air compressor. After a 3-min settling period, the filter tank was backwashed
with treated water from the distribution system until the backwash water had reached the
turbidity threshold setpoint (e.g., 20 NTU) as measured by an on-line Hach® turbidimeter. A
filter-to-waste rinse for 3 min followed using water from the contact tank before returning to
service. The wastewater was sent to a sump that emptied into the sanitary sewer.
4.3 Treatment System Installation
This section provides a summary of the system installation, startup, and shakedown activities and the
associated prerequisites including permitting and building construction.
4.3.1 System Permitting. The system engineering package was prepared by Kinetico and Ulteig
Engineers. The package included a system design report and associated general arrangement diagram and
a P&ID for the FM-248-AS system, electrical and mechanical drawings and component specifications,
and building construction drawings detailing connections from the system to the entry piping. The
engineering package was certified by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and
submitted to MDH for review and approval on March 4, 2005. After MDH's review comments were
addressed, the water supply construction permit was issued by MDH on June 13, 2005, and fabrication of
the system began thereafter. The sanitary sewer extension permit for discharge of backwash water was
received on April 14, 2005.
4.3.2 Building Construction. Building construction began on July 5, 2005, with the excavation
for the building foundation including a 57,000-gal underground clearwell located directly underneath the
building and a 2,350-gal underground sump. The footprint of the building was 48 ft x 56 ft with a roof
height of 17.5 ft to ensure ample space for system housing and operator maneuverability. The building
was fabricated from pre-cast concrete panels and included an 8-ft-wide double panel door at the entrance.
Finished water from the arsenic removal system was stored in the clearwell and wastewater produced
from filter backwash was discharged to the sump that emptied by gravity into the sanitary sewer. In
addition to the filtration room that housed the treatment system, the building also had a chemical room, a
22
-------
mechanical room, a laboratory, an office, and a restroom (see Figure 4-6). The new building was largely
completed prior to the start of the demonstration study on January 30, 2006. However, finishing work
such as improvements to the building ventilation continued until June 5, 2006, when the building was
officially turned over to the city.
Figure 4-6. New Building and Associated Infrastructure
(Clockwise from Top, Left: New Building, Adjacent Office/Laboratory Area, and Electrical Control
Panel, Clearwell Lid [Inset], and Backwash Sump)
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown. The FM-248-AS treatment system was
delivered to the site on December 2, 2005. The vendor, through its subcontractor, off-loaded and installed
the system (Figure 4-7). Installation activities included connections to the entry and distribution piping
and electrical interlocking. Upon completion of system installation and before media loading, the vendor
performed hydraulic pressure testing to ensure that there were no leaks and that the system was
mechanically sound. Macrolite® media loading and initial backwashing (to remove fines) was completed
by December 16, 2005. Work resumed after the holiday break with activities spanning from PLC testing
to instrument calibration, additional backwash testing (to set flow rates), system sanitation (using
chlorine), chlorine residual testing, and operator training (on system O&M). The system startup and
shakedown work was completed by January 19, 2006.
Battelle inspected the system and provided operator training on sample and data collection from January
30 to January 31, 2006. As a result of the system inspections, several punch-list items were identified and
forwarded to the vendor on February 16, 2006, after the site visit. The key items identified and corrective
actions taken included:
23
-------
Figure 4-7. Delivery and Off-Loading of Macrolite® Treatment System Equipment
• Repair TT sampling tap. The TT sample tap did not provide water due to pulling a vacuum
on the effluent line to the clearwell that was open to the atmosphere. The vendor proposed
changing the location of the sample tap and provided a new tap to install on the bottom of the
effluent line on April 25, 2006. However, the sample tap did not yield water until a vacuum
breaker was installed at the highest point of the treated water line prior to the clearwell on
September 11, 2006. Speciation samples were taken from the TA and TB locations (four
samples each) while the TT location sample tap was being repaired.
• Install the missing compressed air flow meter.
• Modify the PLC. The vendor added a decimal place to all hour meter displays by updating
the PLC program on February 28, 2006. However, this PLC programming change led to a
backwash control issue related to the frequency of backwash as discussed under the next
bullet point.
• Resolve backwash control issues. As discussed in Section 4.4.2, the PLC programming
change made on February 28, 2006, led to a failure of the system backwash based on the
backwash setpoints (e.g., 48-hr standby time). As such, the operator had to initiate each
backwash event manually until this issue was resolved with another programming change on
April 11, 2006. In addition, beginning in May 2006, backwash was consistently discontinued
at the end of the 5-min minimum backwash duration. As a temporary measure, the operator
changed the minimum backwash time to 10 min on July 21, 2006, to ensure adequate
backwashing of the pressure filters. The issue was finally resolved through changes in the
PLC logic and cleaning of the sample valve to the Hach® turbidimeter as discussed in Section
4.4.2.
24
-------
4.4 System Operation
4.4.1 Coagulation/Filtration Operation. The operational parameters for the performance
evaluation study period are tabulated and attached as Appendix A with the key parameters summarized in
Table 4-4. From January 30, 2006 through April 29, 2007, the treatment system operated for 1,416 hr
over 455 days, based on the hour meter readings displayed on the PLC. The average daily operating time
was 3.1 hr/day. The service clock on the PLC was reset twice during the performance evaluation study
when: 1) a programming change to add a decimal point to the hour meter readings was made on February
28, 2006; and 2) a backwash control issue was corrected on April 11, 2006, as discussed in Section 4.4.2.
The total system throughput was 14,884,800 gal based on a digital impeller-type flow meter/totalizer
(Data Industrial 200 Series) located on the treatment plant effluent line. This total system throughput was
9.1% lower than the throughput value (i.e., 16,375,670 gal) yielded by a pre-existing mechanical flow
totalizer located at the entry point to the water tower and distribution system over the same time period.
Calibration issues and multiple resets (i.e., six times) of the digital totalizer likely had contributed to the
discrepancies observed. In order to maintain consistency between the totalizer and flowrate readings, the
digital totalizer readings were used to track the system throughput.
Daily demands ranged from 0 to 113,600 gpd and averaged 32,858 gpd, which is equivalent to
approximately 9.1% of the hydraulic use rate (i.e., 360,000 gpd based on the design flowrate of 250 gpm
operating at 24 hr/day). The historic use rate as shown in Table 4-3 was 13% to 17%.
System flowrates ranged from 192 to 245 gpm and averaged 231 gpm, based on instantaneous readings
from the digital flow meter/totalizer installed at the exit side of the pressure filters. The average flowrate
corresponded to an average contact time of 7.4 min in the contact tanks and an average hydraulic loading
rate of 9.2 gpm/ft2 across the filters, compared to the design values of 6.8 min and 10 gpm/ft2,
respectively, as shown in Table 4-3. The daily average system flowrates also were calculated by dividing
the amounts of water treated by the corresponding daily system run times and compared with the
instantaneous flowrate readings. As shown in Figure 4-8, calculated daily average flowrate values were
highly variable, but typically lower than the instantaneous flowrate readings. From system startup until
the PLC update on April 11, 2006, the lack of a decimal place on hour meter readings reduced the
accuracy of the daily average flowrate values. After implementation of the PLC programming changes
described above, the calculated values converged with the instantaneous flowrate readings but still were
approximately 10% lower than the instantaneous flowrate readings from April 11, 2006 through
approximately October 2006.
After October 2006, instantaneous flowrate readings continued to trend higher than daily average flowrate
values and 68 out of 160 daily average flowrate values were below (some significantly below) 200 gpm.
The reason for the large discrepancies in the calculated values is unknown, but may be related to
inaccurate totalizer readings due to instrument calibration and/or scaling of 4 to 20 mA signals to the
PLC. Several PLC changes made in October and December 2006 might have inadvertently changed the
scaling relationship in passing the signal between the digital flow meter/totalizer and PLC. At startup, the
vendor reported an issue with the signal between the digital flow meter/totalizer and PLC with a
discrepancy as high as 11% in instantaneous flowrate readings (with 250 gpm at the flow meter and 223
gpm at the PLC). The difference was attributed to low voltage from a bad card within the digital flow
meter/totalizer based on testing on January 17, 2007. This flow meter/totalizer was then replaced on
January 19, 2007, with a new one, which appeared to be calibrated (with 250 gpm at the flow meter and
248 gpm at the PLC). While onsite during system startup on January 30, 2006, Battelle became aware of
an 8% difference between an instantaneous flowrate reading (i.e., 244 gpm) and a calculated flowrate
value (i.e., 225 gpm) using the digital totalizer reading and a stop watch.
25
-------
Table 4-4. FM-248-AS Treatment System Operational Parameters
Parameter
Operational Period
Value
01/30/06-04/29/07
Coagulation/Filtration Operation
Total Operating Time (hr)
No. of Days System Operating (day)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr/day)
Total Throughput (gal)(a)
Average Daily Demand [Range] (gpd)(a'b)
Average Flowrate [Range] (gpm)(c'd>e)
Average Contact Time [Range] (min)(c)
Average Filtration Rate [Range] (gpm/ft2) (c)
Average Ap across Each Tank [Range] (psi)(d)
Average Ap across System [Range] (psi)(d)
Median Service Time between Backwash Cycles [Range] (hr)
Median Throughput between Backwash Cycles [Range] (gal)
1,416
455
3.1
14,884,800
0-113,600 [32,858]
231 [192-245]
7.4 [6.9-8.9]
9.2 [7.6-9.8]
10 [5-19]
33 [29-39]
6.0 [0.0-18.9]®
83,160 [0-261,954](c)
Backwash Operation
Average Frequency [Range] (times/tank/week)
Number of Cycles (Tank A/Tank B)
Average Flowrate [Range] (gpm)(s)
Average Hydraulic Loading Rate [Range] (gpm/ft2)fe)
Average Duration [Range] (min/tank)(g)
Average Backwash Volume [Range] (gal/tank)(g)
Estimated Filter to Waste Volume (gal/tank)(g>h)
Average Wastewater Produced [Range] (gal/tank)(g>h)
3 [1-4]
205/205
96 [61-125]
7.9 [4.9-10]
10.2 [5-19]
962 [400-1,900]
375
1,337 [775-2,275]
(a) Based on digital totalizer readings recorded at plant effluent.
(b) Excluding January 30 and April 11, 2006, when daily usage could not be recorded.
(c) Based on instantaneous digital flowrate readings at pressure filter outlet.
(d) Pressure and flow data collected on February 7, 2006 not included (with one tank in
service while the other tank was being backwashed).
(e) Days for which treatment plant had no demand not included in calculations.
(f) Data collected from February 28 through March 19, 2006, not included. Filter run
times during this time period were extended (ranging from 18 to 25 hr) due to PLC
control problems as discussed in Section 4.4.2.
(g) Based on data collected during 12 backwash events taking place on January 31,
February 28, March 27, April 18, June 21, July 18, August 8, October 3, and
November 9, 2006, and January 16, January 25, and January 31, 2007.
(h) Estimated based on 3-min filter-to-waste time and 125-gpm flowrate.
System inlet and Tank A and Tank B outlet pressure readings are shown in Figure 4-9. System inlet
pressure ranged from 29 to 63 psi and averaged 33 psi, which were well below the vendor-specified
maximum value of 100 psi. Outlet pressure readings averaged 23 psi for Tank A and 22 psi for Tank B.
The reason for the high system inlet pressure experienced on February 7, 2006 is described below.
The data shown in Figure 4-9 do not include those collected on February 7, 2006, when the pressure and
flowrate readings were recorded with only Tank A in service while Tank B was being backwashed.
During this backwash event, the system inlet pressure spiked almost twice as high to 63 psi, and the
corresponding pressure drop across the system was 63 psi (since the plant effluent was discharged to the
clearwell under the atmospheric pressure). Because there was only one pressure filter (i.e., Tank A) in
service, the amount of the water that was normally filtered through both tanks would be pushed toward
only one tank, thus resulting in a significantly elevated service flowrate (i.e., 155 gpm) and the pressure
26
-------
Figure 4-8. Calculated and Instantaneous Flowrate Readings
7D
en
T; ^n
'«
ft
*
3 /in
M
9
£
it
i ?n -!
o
«
_OJ
c -in
m
0
4 • Inlet Pressure
• Tank A Outlet Pressure
Tank B Outlet Pressure
•
* *
. . . *
* * **» *
* • »* *» • * *
* * * * » * * * *
* * •» ** * *• » » •»» «* * **
» **•» » # # *«•• *» ** * »
*
• • ^ • • K •• ^H A • • * •
jfl * Bu • ••^••^ m UA <• • A
t 4 A A A* A 4 A amm >AI AHA A A A
i Bk U Hi U Jfl •
«• AA4 • • •
A A
A
•
I I I I I I
0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16
Filter Run Time (hrs)
.0
Figure 4-9. Filter Inlet and Outlet Pressure versus Filter Run Time
27
-------
spike (i.e., 63 psi). (Note that a flow restrictor was installed on the effluent line of each tank to regulate
the flow.) Nonetheless, the system pressure even with the pressure spike was still within the 100 psi
maximum value specified by the vendor. This may not be the case for other sites, based on their site-
specific pump curve characteristics and TDH conditions. Thus, it is important to realize that backwashing
one tank, while keeping the other one in service, can lead to significantly elevated inlet pressure and Ap
across the tank in service. The elevated pressure must be accounted for in order to prevent damage to the
system. The flowrate at 155 gpm through Tank A was 22% above the 125-gpm design value. Operating
the system at 22% higher hydraulic loading rate during this time period could result in reduced treatment
performance and shortened filter run length.
Under normal service conditions, Ap readings across the system ranged from 29 to 39 psi omitting an
outlier of 63 psi on February 7, 2006, as discussed above. As shown in Figure 4-10, Ap readings across
Tanks A and B ranged from 5 to 6 and from 7 to 9 psi, respectively, immediately after backwash. The
highest Ap readings observed were 19 psi in both Tanks A and B. In most cases, the Ap readings were
significantly lower than the 22 psi Ap trigger set in the PLC. Under normal operating conditions, the Ap
setpoint was never reached and backwash was triggered only by the standby time of 48 hr.
30
25
20
'w>
* 15
Ou
-o
10
.
1
0
(
* dP TA
A cIP TB
* A A
» »
A » AA
* A A
* «t » A * A
• » MA * *
A A ft «»» »
A AA MIA •» A
L A * A* * A **i AA At A * A * « A
L A A •* «t A *•»* «» • » A • A *
li*»A«»»A» A »
» «*• » * « » + » * »
) 1 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Filter RunTime, hr
Figure 4-10. Differential Pressure versus Filter Run Time
Since system startup, a total of 205 backwash cycles took place for each pressure filter. Backwash
occurred at a frequency of approximately 3 times/tank/week on average (with 205 backwashes occurring
over 455 days or 65 weeks) and ranged from 1 to 4 times/tank/week. Backwash was triggered mainly by
28
-------
the 48-hr standby time due to the low daily run time of 3.1 hr/day. The median value of filter run times
between two consecutive backwash cycles was 6.0 hr, which yielded a median throughput of 83,160 gal.
Over 10-(ig/L total arsenic breakthrough was observed twice in Tank A at 33.5 ug/L on February 14,
2006, and at 10.6 (ig/L on July 26, 2006, and twice in Tank B at 30.8 and 11.1 ng/L on February 14,
2006, and August 1, 2006, respectively. This will be discussed further in Section 4.5.1.1. In addition,
several issues were encountered related to the frequency and duration of backwash, which will be
discussed in Section 4.4.2.
4.4.2 Backwash Operation. Automatic backwash of the Macrolite® pressure filters could be
initiated by one of the three triggers set in the PLC: 22 psi Ap across a single filter, 48-hr standby time, or
24-hr filter run time. Due to short daily operational times, the majority of backwash cycles were triggered
by the standby time setpoint. Occasionally, manual backwash cycles also were initiated including events
for testing and sampling of backwash wastewater and solids. The actual backwash duration for each filter
was determined by the minimum and maximum backwash time settings and the ability of the backwash
wastewater to meet the turbidity threshold setting as measured by the inline Hach® turbidimeter. If
backwash wastewater failed to meet the set threshold prior to reaching the maximum backwash time, the
backwash failure alarm had to be acknowledged and a successful backwash cycle had to be conducted
before the tank could return to the service mode. Backwash was followed by a 3-min filter-to-waste rinse
at 125 gpm to remove any particulates from the filter.
Each pressure filter was backwashed 205 times during the performance evaluation study. Backwash
flowrates ranged from 61 to 125 gpm and averaged 96 gpm, corresponding to a hydraulic loading rate of
7.9 gpm/ft2 (compared to the design value of 10 gpm/ft2). This range of backwash flowrates did not cause
significant media loss during backwash. The backwash duration for each filter lasted from 5 to 19 min, or
10.2 min on average. The amounts of backwash wastewater produced ranged from 400 to 1,900 gal/filter
and averaged 962 gal/filter, based on readings collected during the 12 backwashes. The total amount of
backwash water generated was 367,500 gal, which is about 2.5% of the amount of water treated.
Including 375 gal of filter-to-waste rinse water per filter for each backwash cycle, approximately 521,250
gal of wastewater was generated, which is about 3.5% of the total amount of water treated.
Table 4-5 summarizes the backwash settings first established on January 30, 2006, during system startup
and subsequent modifications on July 21, 2006, October 3, 2006, December 5, 2006 and December 15,
2006. Backwash issues experienced during the study period included backwash frequency and duration
as well as backwash failure alarms, which resulted in further modifications to the PLC on October 3,
2006, December 5, 2006 and December 15, 2006.
4.4.2.1 Backwash Frequency Issues. On February 28, 2006, the vendor performed a PLC
programming change by adding a decimal place to hour meter readings to improve accuracy of daily filter
run time and average system flowrate records. In doing so, the backwash control process was
inadvertently disrupted such that the filters would not backwash based on the 48-hr standby setpoint. As
a consequence, filter run times were significantly extended from an average of 10.2 hr during normal
system operation to 10.8 hr from February 28 to March 7, 2006, 21.2 hr from March 7 to 14, 2006, and
24.2 hr from March 14 to March 19, 2006. These extended filter run times are not included in the
calculations of filter run times as shown in Table 4-4. After March 19, 2006, the operator began to
manually initiate backwash cycles until the PLC program was updated by the vendor and the backwash
control returned to normal operations on April 12, 2006.
4.4.2.2 Backwash Duration Issues. From May 7, 2006, to July 21, 2006, 38 out of 44 backwash
events ended at the minimum backwash time of 5 min, based on the volume of wastewater produced on
the Daily Operational Log Sheet and the average backwash flowrate. In addition, the operator observed
during the June 21, 2006, backwash event that turbidity readings of the backwash wastewater peaked at
29
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of PLC Settings for Backwash Operations
Parameter
(for Each Pressure Filter)
Drain Time (min)
Run Time Trigger (hr)
Standby Time Trigger (hr)
Ap Trigger (psi)
Minimum Backwash Time (min)
Maximum Backwash Time (min)
Turbidity Threshold (NTU)
Low Flowrate Threshold (gpm)
Filter-to-Waste Time (min)
01/30/06(a)
o
J
24
48
22
5
15
20
70
o
J
07/21/06(b)
o
J
24
48
22
10
15
20
70
o
J
10/03/06
3
24
48
22
5/10
15
20
70
3
12/05/06
3
12
48
22
10
15
20
70
3
12/15/06
o
J
12
48
22
5
15
20
70
o
3
(a) Initial setpoint at startup.
(b) Minimum backwash time changed to 10 min due to issues with Hach® turbidimeter
readings.
Bold values indicating changes from previous settings.
12.6 NTU, which was significantly lower than the previously recorded turbidity readings of up to 88 NTU
observed in January 2006 through April 2006. Lower than the established 20-NTU threshold, these
abnormally low turbidity readings caused backwash to stop as soon as reaching the minimum backwash
time of 5 min.
After a discussion with the vendor on July 6, 2006, it was determined that the problem might have been
caused by a failure of the inline Hach® turbidimeter. As a temporary measure on July 21, 2006, the
operator adjusted the minimum backwash time from 5 to 10 min to ensure adequate backwashing of the
pressure filters. A Hach® technician visited the site on August 22, 2006, to troubleshoot the turbidimeter.
During the visit, the technician removed the calibration cup, cleaned and replaced the stained light source
shield, and calibrated the instrument (which was done erroneously using a 4,000 NTU solution). On
October 3, 2006, the operator temporarily reset the minimum backwash time to 5 min and manually
backwashed the filters. During this backwash, the highest level of turbidity observed was 8.1 NTU,
which was still well below the 20 NTU threshold set on the PLC. Because the issue regarding the Hach®
turbidimeter had not been resolved, the operator returned the minimum backwash time setting to 10 min.
After a troubleshooting call by the Hach® technician with the operator on December 15, 2006, it was
confirmed that the problem actually stemmed from a clogged valve in the sample line, which prevented
representative sample water from reaching the Hach® detector. After performing the required
maintenance to the supply line and valve by the operator on December 15, 2006, turbidity readings
returned to normal and the minimum backwash time was reset to 5 min on the PLC.
Possibly due to the changes made on the PLC on December 15, 2006, the operator reported that Tank B
was not backwashed in either the automatic or the manual mode, resulting in >24 hr run time without
backwash. The vendor dialed into the PLC that same day and successfully addressed the issue. Further
observation of the backwash events taking place on January 16 and 25, 2007, indicated that the Hach®
turbidimeter appeared to function properly and that the turbidity readings seemed to be normal in
controlling the backwash time.
4.4.2.3 Backwash Alarms. The operator reported backwash alarms on February 13, 14, 19, and 21,
2006, when backwash water failed to reach the 20-NTU turbidity threshold at the end of the maximum
backwash time of 15 min. The operator addressed these instances by using a bottle brush to clean and
remove media fines from the Hach® turbidimeter body (e.g., the cone-shaped section through which the
water sample flows). Based on the high volume of backwash water recorded on the Daily Operational
30
-------
Log Sheet, failures occurred on six additional occasions on March 14, April 5, April 18, April 23, April
28, and July 4, 2006.
4.4.3 Residual Management. The only residuals produced by the Macrolite® arsenic removal
system were backwash wastewater and filter-to-waste rinse water. Backwash wastewater was discharged
to the building sump, which emptied by gravity to the sanitary sewer. According to the backwash flow
totalizer, 367,500 gal of wastewater were produced during the pressure filter backwashes. Based on a
flowrate of 125 gpm and a duration of 3 min/tank for 205 backwash cycles, 153,750 gal of filter-to-waste
rinse water also were produced. Therefore, over 521,250 gal of wastewater, or 3.5% of the treated water,
were generated as a result of this pressure filtration process.
4.4.4 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation. The simplicity of system operation and operator
skill requirements are discussed including pre- and post-treatment requirements, levels of system
automation, operator skill requirements, preventative maintenance activities, and frequency of
chemical/media handling and inventory requirements. No significant scheduled or unscheduled
downtime was required of the treatment system. However, some O&M issues did arise related to
prechlorination and control of backwash operations as discussed below.
4.4.4.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Prechlorination with a 15.6% NaOCl (as C12)
solution was provided to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) and provide a chlorine residual to the distribution
system. In addition to tracking the depth of the NaOCl solution in the day tank, the operator measured
chlorine levels to ensure that adequate residuals existed throughout the treatment train. A leak was
developed due to a faulty fitting on February 12, 2006, causing improper chlorine injection. Using spare
parts, the operator made a series of repairs between February 14 and 21, 2006. This temporary loss of
chlorine addition resulted in above 10.0-ug/L levels of arsenic in the treated water following both
pressure filters during the February 14, 2006 sampling event. Post-treatment with chlorine provided the
necessary residuals to the distribution system.
4.4.4.2 System Automation. The FM-248-AS arsenic treatment system was automatically controlled
by the PLC in the central control panel. The control panel contained a modem and a touch screen OIP
that facilitated monitoring of system parameters, changing of system setpoints, and checking the alarm
status. Run time, standby time, and Ap settings automatically dictated when the pressure filters should be
backwashed (see settings on Table 4-5). The touch screen OIP also enabled the operator to manually
initiate the backwash sequence. Several issues were experienced related to control of backwash
frequency and duration, and are detailed in Section 4.4.2. Problems with automation of the backwash
process led to an increased need to monitor plant operations and manual intervention by the operator (e.g.,
manually initiating backwashes and/or changing setpoints in the PLC to accommodate Hach®
turbidimeter malfunctioning).
4.4.4.3 Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the daily demand on the
operator was about 15 min for visual inspection of the system and recording of operational parameters,
such as pressure, volume, flowrate, and chemical usage on field log sheets.
For the state of Minnesota, there are five water operator certificate class levels, i.e., A, B, C, D, and E
(Level A representing the most skilled class level). 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 supplied. The certified water operator for the city of Sabin has a Class C
certificate. Class C requires a high school diploma or equivalent with at least three years of experience in
operation of Class A, B, or C systems or a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution with at least
one year of experience in the operation of a Class A, B, C, or D system. After receiving proper training
31
-------
during the system startup, the operator understood the PLC, knew how to use the touch screen OIP, and
was able to work with the vendor to troubleshoot and perform minor onsite repairs.
4.4.4.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities. The vendor recommended several routine maintenance
activities to prolong the integrity of the treatment system (Kinetico, 2005). Preventative maintenance
tasks included recording pressure readings, flowrates, and chemical drum levels, as well as visually
checking for leaks, overheating components, proper manual valve positioning and pumps' lubricant
levels, and any unusual conditions on a daily basis. The vendor recommended checking for trends in the
recorded data on a weekly basis, which might indicate a decline in system performance, and semi-
annually servicing and inspecting ancillary equipment and replacing worn components. Cleaning and
replacement of sensors and replacement of O-ring seals and gaskets of valves should be performed as
needed. In addition, an intermittent compressed air leak developed in Tank B, potentially starting from
June 28, 2006 to July 26, 2006, as noted by elevated DO readings in Tank B on these dates. This issue
was addressed in October 2006, and the DO levels returned to normal.
4.4.4.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements. Since system startup, prechlorination was
required for effective arsenic removal during treatment and maintenance of acceptable residual chlorine
levels after treatment. The operator tracked the NaOCl usage daily and coordinated the solution delivery
and refill with a local chemical supply company. All chemical handling and re-filling activities were
performed by the chemical supply company, which reduced the level of effort required for O&M of the
system by the operator.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the Macrolite® FM-248-AS arsenic treatment 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. The treatment plant water was sampled on 65 occasions
including four duplicate and 15 speciation sampling events. The speciation sampling was performed at
the IN, AC, and TT sampling locations (except for four events taken at TA and four at TB due to effluent
sample tap issues described in Section 4.3.3). A complete set of analytical results are tabulated and
presented in Appendix B. Table 4-6 summarizes the analytical results for arsenic, iron, and manganese.
Table 4-7 summarizes the analytical results of the other water quality parameters. The results of the water
samples collected across the treatment plant are discussed as follows.
4.5.1.1 Arsenic. Figure 4-11 shows total arsenic concentrations measured across the treatment train
and Figure 4-12 presents the results of speciation sampling. Total arsenic concentrations in raw water
ranged from 27.7 to 54.5 |o,g/L and averaged 41.8 |o,g/L. Total arsenic concentrations appeared to
gradually increase over time to as high as 54.5 |o,g/L in the last two months of the performance evaluation
study (Figure 4-11).
Of the soluble fraction (94% [on average]), soluble As(V) was the predominant species with
concentrations ranging from <0.1 to 41.7 |o,g/L and averaging 27.8 |o,g/L. Concentrations of both soluble
As(V) and soluble As(III) varied significantly during the course of the performance evaluation study
(Figure 4-12). Soluble As(III) was initially elevated at 35.6 |o,g/L at system startup on January 31, 2006,
under a more reducing condition (ORP at -13 mV). However, soluble As(III) concentrations decreased to
as low as 3.8 |o,g/L on January 3, 2007, and averaged only 11.6 |o,g/L over the entire study period. Low
levels of particulate arsenic also were present, ranging from <0.1 to 7.6 |o,g/L and averaging 3.0 |o,g/L.
32
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Results
Parameter
As
(total)
As
(soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe
(total)
Fe
(soluble)
Mn
(total)
Mn
(soluble)
Sample Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
Sample
Count
65
65
54
54
7
15
15
4
4
7
15
15
4
4
7
15
15
4
4
7
15
15
4
4
7
65
65
54
54
7
15
15
4
4
7
65
65
54
54
7
15
15
4
4
7
Concentration (ng/L)
Minimum
27.7
28.2
3.9
3.5
6.3
25.0
3.8
3.0
2.3
3.6
<0.1
32.5
2.0
0.7
2.0
3.8
0.2
0.3
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
3.0
2.7
1.2
3.4
1,005
763
<25
<25
33.4
537
<25
<25
<25
<25
153
135
16.9
17.5
42.3
196
81.8
184
99.0
20.9
Maximum
54.5
54.5(a)
10.6(a)
ll.l(a)
10.9
49.2
8.3
3.7
3.7
8.0
7.6
45.2
3.9
3.8
4.9
35.6
2.4
0.6
2.0
3.7
41.7
5.9
3.1
2.8
4.4
2,757
l,748(a)
243.3(a)
235.4(a)
144
1,578
<25
<25
<25
<25
449
452(a)
392(a)
348(a)
370
457
321
305
300
391
Average
41.8
43.3(a)
6.6(a)
6.6(a)
8.3
39.3
4.9
3.3
3.1
5.0
3.0
39.1
2.9
2.3
3.3
11.6
0.8
0.4
0.9
1.1
27.8
4.1
2.9
2.2
3.9
1,350
l,316(a)
76.2(a)
79.8(a)
87.2
1,153
<25
<25
<25
<25
341
334(a)
210(a)
203(a)
198
357
200
262
173
192
Standard
Deviation
6.2
5.3(a)
4.0(a)
3.6(a)
1.9
6.2
1.2
0.3
0.6
1.5
2.1
4.1
0.9
1.6
1.2
7.6
0.6
0.1
0.9
1.2
10.6
0.8
0.2
0.7
0.3
261
173(a)
167(a)
152(a)
37.8
236
-
-
-
-
51.4
58.8(a)
91.6(a)
86.8(a)
128
65.8
87.3
56.7
87.6
144
(a) Results for 02/14/06 sampling event not included because of insufficient chlorine
addition due to a fitting leak.
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect results and duplicate samples included
calculations.
for
33
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
P
(asP)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
Sample
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
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
mg/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
65
64
54
54
7
15
15
4
4
7
15
15
4
4
7
15
15
4
4
7
15
15
4
4
7
65
65
54
54
7
65
64
54
54
7
65
64
54
54
7
13
14
3
4
7
15
15
4
4
7
Concentration
Minimum
284
257
282
278
308
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
376
371
416
372
422
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
27.9
27.4
27.1
26.9
28.0
13.0
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
870
902
978
920
456
Maximum
339
341
342
335
327
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
835
839
845
514
508
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
0.1
55.7
74.1
41.2
48.2
20.9
34.4
34.4
34.9
34.4
30.5
59.0
20.0
18.0
21.0
0.8
1.8
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.8
1,030
1,020
1,000
1,030
992
Average
310
308
307
308
320
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
456
455
525
437
453
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
30.4
32.2
<10
<10
10.1
29.9
29.8
29.4
29.6
29.0
19.6
2.4
.2
.3
0.6
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
948
949
992
977
870
Standard
Deviation
14.1
15.0
14.3
14.0
6.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
110
111
213
58.9
35.7
-
-
-
-
0.0
11.8
13.0
5.6
6.6
7.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.9
8.2
2.6
2.5
3.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
43.0
34.6
10.6
51.6
184
34
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results (Continued)
Parameter
pH
Temperature
DO(a)
ORP
Free
Chlorine
(as C12)
Total
Chlorine
(as C12)
Total
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sample
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
AC
TA
TB
TT
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
Unit
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
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
59
59
46
48
7
59
59
46
48
7
59
59
46
48
7
59
59
46
48
7
59
46
48
7
59
46
48
7
15
15
4
4
7
15
15
4
4
7
15
15
4
4
7
Concentration
Minimum
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.8
6.8
10.2
10.1
10.0
10.2
10.7
2.0
1.2
1.6
0.8
1.8
-13.0
385
400
83.9
422
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
584
536
603
635
662
354
324
345
379
340
210
212
258
246
280
Maximum
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.5
7.7
17.4
17.8
16.4
17.1
14.9
10.9
10.3
8.2
10.6
3.8
476
679
667
696
651
.7
.0
.0
.5
2.1
.3
.4
2.0
746
764
743
691
781
454
456
413
426
470
327
323
329
282
322
Average
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.3
12.7
12.4
12.4
12.4
11.8
3.4
3.4
3.1
3.1
3.1
253
488
501
522
481
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.6
692
686
664
667
707
407
400
373
401
404
285
286
291
266
303
Standard
Deviation
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.4
0.97
0.83
0.77
0.85
0.70
187
76.1
80.7
118
79.9
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.7
50.4
57.1
58.6
24.9
40.0
25.5
34.8
29.1
21.3
42.6
34.1
34.5
29.6
14.9
14.3
(a) Data with uncharacteristically high DO levels on 16 occasions and from June 28, 2006 to
October 26, 2006 (due to air compressor leak) not included in average and standard
deviation calculations.
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect results and duplicate samples included for calculations.
35
-------
Arsenic Concentrations at Sabin. MN
Date
Figure 4-11. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train
After prechlorination and the contact tanks, soluble As(III) was effectively oxidized to soluble As(V),
which was then adsorbed onto or co-precipitated with iron solids, formed during prechlorination, to
become particulate arsenic. This was evidenced by the low level of soluble arsenic (4.9 |o,g/L [on
average]) and significantly elevated particulate arsenic concentrations (39.1 |o,g/L [on average]) in the
samples taken after the contact tanks (Figure 4-12). The water samples collected on February 14, 2006,
showed very little change in arsenic (Figure 4-11) and iron (Figure 4-13) concentrations across the
treatment train, apparently caused by the temporary malfunction of the chlorine injection system starting
on February 12, 2006. The chemical feed system was subsequently repaired with a fitting replacement by
the operator before the February 21, 2006 sampling event.
With sufficient chlorine addition, total arsenic in the treated water was significantly reduced, with
concentrations averaging at 6.6 |o,g/L at the TA and TB and 8.3 |o,g/L at the TT sampling locations (TT
samples were collected starting from September 20, 2006 after installation of a vacuum breaker on the
effluent line). Three arsenic exceedances were experienced on July 26 and August 1, 2006, and March
28, 2007; all were associated with elevated total iron concentrations (Figure 4-14). (Iron in filter effluent
existed entirely as particulate iron based on speciation results shown in Table 4-6). These include arsenic
and iron concentrations at 10.6 and 175 |og/L, respectively, at TA on July 26, 2006; 11.1 and 177 (ig/L,
respectively, at TB on August 1, 2006; and 10.9 and 144 ug/L, respectively at TT on March 28, 2007. As
a consequence of these exceedances, two filter run length studies were conducted to determine the impact
of filter throughput on iron and arsenic breakthrough in treated water (see Section 4.5.1.7). The arsenic
MCL exceedance on February 14, 2006 was due to the temporary loss of chlorine addition as discussed
earlier.
36
-------
Arsen c Spec ation at the Wellhead (IN)
_ 40 -
t
D As (part culate)
As (III)
OAs(V)
R
a
n
01/31/06 02/28/06 03/28/0604/25/06 05/23/06 06/20/06 07/18/06 08/21/06 09/20/06 10/17/06 12/06/06 01/03/07 01/31/07 02/27/07 03/28/07
Arsenic Speciation after Chlorination (AC)
As (part culate)
As (III)
OAsiV)
01/31/06 02/28/06 03/28/06 04/25/06 05/23/06 06/20/06 07/18/06 08/21/06 09/20/06 10/17/06 12/06/0601/03/0701/31/0702/27/0703/28/07
OJ
An.rJs Sp.lHtion •rt.rT.nl A. T.nk B, Kid Comblrud
W31/OB
[TB| (TB)
WM6 0««08 I/IWK &J1/06 »2OT6 IWUnK I2WW V3WT I»1
(TB| |TA] [TA| (IBI ITA| (TTJ III) (TT| |TT| [TI| (TT) (TT|
Figure 4-12. Arsenic Speciation Results at IN, AC, TA, TB, and TT Locations
-------
Iron Concentrations at Sabin. MN
3,000
B _-i_i_^t »_-A-M^^"**=S
"T ' '.^.ir *~,j_t'
0
01/08/06 02/27/06 04/18/06 06/07/06 07/27/06 09/15/06 11/04/06 12/24/06 02/12/07 04/03/07 05/23/07
Date
Figure 4-13. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train
300
250 •
5 200 -
3
C
0
01
g 150 -
0
U
0
01
3
£ 100 -
50
0 -
0
TA
TB
_
•
*A A '-
A
*
4 A
*
»»
•V. -•• ,/ .
*
I ~
A * » »
, I: A *
A
' •
0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Effluent Arsenic Concentration (M9/L)
Figure 4-14. Total Iron versus Total Arsenic Concentrations in Filter Effluent
38
-------
Based on the speciation results from January 31 to August 21, 2006 (at the TA and TB locations), arsenic
in the treated water was present in both soluble and particulate forms, each comprising approximately
50% of the total amounts. The soluble fraction was composed of primarily As(V) with concentrations
averaging 2.9 and 2.2 |og/L after Tanks A and B, respectively; As(III) concentrations averaged 0.4 and 0.9
|o,g/L after Tanks A and B, respectively. Speciation sampling results at the TT location starting from
September 20, 2006, were slightly higher at 3.9 |o,g/L for soluble As(V) and 1.1 |o,g/L for soluble As(III).
Particulate arsenic levels averaged 2.9 |o,g/L at TA, 2.3 |o,g/L at TB, and 3.3 |o,g/L at TT.
4.5.1.2 Iron. Figure 4-13 presents total iron concentrations measured across the treatment train.
Total iron concentrations in raw water ranged from 1,005 to 2,757 |o,g/L and averaged 1,350 |o,g/L, which
existed mostly in the soluble form at 1,153 |o,g/L (on average). The average soluble iron and average
soluble arsenic concentrations in raw water corresponded to a ratio of 29:1 (Table 4-6), which was over
the 20:1 target ratio for effective arsenic removal via the iron removal process (Sorg, 2002). Therefore,
the amount of natural iron present was sufficient for arsenic removal. The raw water pH at 7.3 (on
average) and other water quality parameters to be discussed in the following sections did not appear to
have any adverse effect on arsenic removal by iron solids.
Upon chlorination, soluble iron levels were effectively reduced to below the MDL of 25 |o,g/L after the
contact tanks and Macrolite® filters. The only exception was the February 14, 2006, sampling event,
where no change in iron concentrations was observed across the treatment train due to a temporary
malfunction of the chlorine addition system. The February 14, 2006, data can be seen in Figure 4-13, but
is not included in the average total iron calculations for the AC, TA, and TB samples.
Particulate iron breakthrough from the pressure filters was observed with total iron levels ranging from
33.4 to 144 |og/L in the combined effluent from Tanks A and B. Assuming that the iron present in the
treated water existed entirely in the particulate form, as much as 243.3 |o,g/L particulate iron would have
been measured following Tanks A and B should speciation be performed. Although the amounts of iron
in the filter effluent were significantly below the 300-|o,g/L secondary MCL for iron, the concerns over
particulate arsenic and particulate iron breakthrough from the Macrolite® filters prompted the decision to
conduct a special study to further investigate the filter run length from November 18 to 20, 2006 (see
Section 4.5.1.7).
4.5.1.3 Manganese. Manganese concentrations in raw water ranged from 153 to 449 |o,g/L and
averaged 341 |o,g/L, which existed almost entirely in the soluble form. With prechlorination and 7.4 min
of contact time (on average), only 20.6 to 75.5% of soluble manganese was converted to particulate
manganese after the contact tanks. These results suggest that, while being very effective for As(III) and
Fe(II) oxidation, chlorine was not as effective in oxidizing Mn(II). This is most likely due to slow
oxidation kinetics as observed previously by Knocke et al. (1987), who reported greater than 30 min
Mn(II) oxidation lag times even in systems with a Cl2/Mn ratio of 3.8. Hao et al. (1991) demonstrated
that longer contact times could lead to sufficient manganese oxidation and, thus, enhanced particulate
manganese removal. However, it would not be practical to consider a longer contact time at Sabin, MN
unless more contact tanks were installed at the treatment facility.
Slow Mn(II) oxidation kinetics also were observed at a number of EPA arsenic removal demonstration
sites (Table 4-8), where less than 10% conversion rates were observed at two sites (i.e., Delavan, WI and
Bruni, TX) and 14.6 to 55.0% observed at seven sites. Alvin, TX, however, had high conversion rates,
averaging 93.5%. The contact time did not seem to correlate directly with the conversion rate.
39
-------
Table 4-8. Soluble Manganese Conversion Rates after Chlorination at Ten
Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Anthony, NM
Alvin, TX
Brown City, MI
Bruni, TX
Climax, MN
Delavan, WI
Pentwater, MI
Rollinsford, NH
Sabin, MN
Sandusky, MI
Springfield, OH
Contact
Time
(min)
-------
100
30
20
* 5/2V06 » g/20/06
» 8/21/06* 5/28/06
* 6/20/06
12/6/06 * 7/18/06
4-
,10/17/06
1/3/07
* 1/31/06
0.5 1 1,5
Total Chlorine Residual at AC Location (mg/L)
Figure 4-15. Soluble Manganese Conversion versus Total Chlorine Concentration at AC Location
D>
E 300 -
50 -
Manganese Concentrations at Sabin, MN
Mn SMOL =
E
1.5 «"
Figure 4-16. Total Manganese Concentrations in Filter Effluent versus Total
Chlorine Residuals at AC Location
41
-------
As discussed in Section 4.5.3, the operator had reported discolored water events in June 2006 that might
have been related to elevated manganese levels within the distribution system. It was hypothesized that
further manganese precipitation might have occurred in the clearwell and distribution system, given
additional chlorine dosage upon post-chlorination and substantially longer contact times within the
distribution system. As shown in Figures 4-15 and 4-16, increased chlorine residual levels were found to
significantly decrease effluent manganese concentrations. Nonetheless, a special study was conducted in
May 2007 to determine the resulting impact of increased manganese solids loading on filter run length
under these modified process conditions (see Section 4.5.3).
4.5.1.4 pH, DO, and ORP. pH values in raw water ranged from 6.7 to 7.8 and averaged 7.3. There
was no measurable change in pH across the treatment train. The pH was at a level favorable for As(V)
adsorption onto iron solids. DO levels averaged 3.4 mg/L in source water and 3.1 mg/L in the treated
water. Uncharacteristically high DO readings were recorded by the operator on several occasions that
were not included in the calculation of average and standard deviation values (see footnote in Table 4-7).
Also, elevated DO readings following Tank B starting from June 28, 2006, were not included in the data
analysis because they were related to a compressed air leak that was repaired in October 2006. As a result
of prechlorination, average ORP levels increased from 253 mV in raw water to over 488 mV after the
contact tanks. This further contributed to the oxidizing nature of the process water.
4.5.1.5 Chlorine and Ammonia. Total chlorine residuals ranged from 0 to 2.1 mg/L (as C12) and
averaged 0.7 mg/L (as C12) after the contact tanks. Total chlorine residuals were slightly lower following
the pressure filters, with concentrations ranging from 0 to 2.0 mg/L (as C12) and averaging 0.5 mg/L (as
C12 for TA, TB, and TT locations). Free chlorine residuals averaged 0.3 mg/L (as C12) after the contact
tanks and 0.2 mg/L (as C12 for TA, TB, and TT locations) following the pressure filters; these
concentrations were close to the MDL of 0.1 mg/L (as C12). The difference between the total and free
chlorine was combined chlorine (such as monochloramine), which was formed in the presence of
ammonia (at 0.2 mg/L [as N], on average). (Note that 0.2 mg/L of ammonia [as N] would require 1.5
mg/L of chlorine [as C12] to reach breakpoint chlorination). Because only 0.7 mg/L of total chlorine (or,
more specifically, monochloramine) (as C12) was formed, ammonia in raw water would not have been
completely oxidized. The presence of ammonia and other reducing species, such as soluble As(III),
Fe(II), and Mn(II) in raw water significantly increased the chlorine demand. Compared to the design
value of 1.7 mg/L (as C12) shown in Table 4-3, the actual chlorine dosage was estimated at an average of
2.6 mg/L (as C12), based on solution level measurements and a solution strength of 15.6% (as C12). This
resulted in total chlorine residuals that averaged 0.7 mg/L.
As shown in Table 4-7, total chlorine levels after the contact tanks were highly variable during the
performance evaluation study with an average of 0.7 mg/L and a standard deviation of 0.4 mg/L after the
contact tanks. Although speciation results showed that the levels of prechlorination were adequate for
soluble As(III) and soluble Fe(II) oxidation, the variation in chlorine level might have affected the rate of
Mn(II) oxidation as discussed earlier. The variation in chlorine level could be caused by the control of
the chemical feed pump and/or a declining NaOCl solution strength overtime, which was refilled by the
chemical supplier on a monthly to bi-monthly basis.
4.5.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate, silica, TOC, TDS,
temperature, and hardness levels remained consistent across the treatment train and were not affected by
the treatment process (Table 4-7). Total phosphorus (as P) decreased from an average concentration of
30.4 |o,g/L in raw water to 10.1 |o,g/L after the pressure filters, likely due to removal by iron solids.
Turbidity also decreased from 19.6 to 0.6 NTU with treatment.
4.5.1.7 Filter Run Length Special Study Addressing Arsenic and Iron Breakthrough. Two weekly
and one monthly speciation sampling events resulted in above the MCL levels of total arsenic in the
42
-------
pressure filter effluent, which also contained elevated levels of particulate arsenic and iron (Section
4.5.1.1). For this reason, a special study was conducted from November 18 to 20, 2006, to further
investigate the filter run length to particulate breakthrough. Both filters were backwashed before the start
of the special study. The filters were then allowed to run for a total of 12.4 hr with samples taken from
the TT location at 0, 1.6, 2.4, and 12.4 hr for total and soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese analyses. The
total throughput for the treated water also was recorded at these sampling times. The analytical results
indicated that total arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations in raw water sampled during November
16 through 29, 2006, averaged 39.1, 1,395, and 339 (ig/L, respectively, which were comparable to the
respective average values throughout the performance evaluation study.
Figures 4-17 and 4-18 present the particulate and soluble concentrations of arsenic and iron, respectively,
during the filter run. Immediately after backwash (i.e., 0 hr of run time), the treated water from the
pressure filters contained slightly elevated levels of total arsenic and iron at 8.7 and 116 (ig/L,
respectively. The elevated levels most likely were the result of an incomplete filter-to-waste rinse
following the backwash. Subsequently, the treated water showed the expected gradual increase in arsenic
concentration from 5.8 (ig/L at 1.6 hrto 9.8 (ig/L 12.4 hr. This result seemed to indicate auseful filter
run length of approximately 12 hr, which was higher than the median filter run time of 6 hr based on the
48-hr standby trigger. Soluble arsenic concentrations ranged from 2.3 to 8.0 (ig/L and averaged 4.1 (ig/L
over the duration of the study, indicating the presence of sufficient natural iron for arsenic removal.
After initial particulate iron breakthrough from the pressure filters, total iron levels remained low at <50
(ig/L at 1.6 and 2.4 hr. Significant particulate iron breakthrough occurred sometime between 2.4 and 12.4
hr, as evidenced by the 202 (ig/L of total iron, existing almost entirely as particulate iron, at 12.4 hr.
Breakthrough of particulate iron at this elevated level confirms that the useful filter run length should be
no longer than 12 hr. Any longer run length would result in more particulate arsenic and iron
breakthrough, which certainly is not desirable from the human health and aesthetic perspectives.
In contrast to the behavior of arsenic and iron, manganese was not significantly removed across the
pressure filters (Figure 4-19). An average of 272 (ig/L was measured in the treated water, which was
present primarily in the soluble form. The data also showed no trend in removal with filter run time. This
can be explained by insufficient oxidation of manganese (in the presence of monochloramines and with a
short contact time) and the potential presence of colloidal MnO2 (which would pass through disc filters
and be reported as part of the soluble fraction). As a result of this special study, it was recommended that
filter run lengths be reduced to below 12 hr to minimize arsenic and iron breakthrough. A change to the
run time in the PLC was made on December 5, 2006. A second special study, as discussed below, was
later conducted to investigate the potential for increased particulate manganese removal.
4.5.1.8 Filter Run Length Special Study Addressing Manganese Solids Removal. Additional
measures were taken to increase the oxidation and coagulation of soluble and colloidal manganese to
improve its removal. These were prompted by the low manganese removal discussed earlier and
complaints received from a few customers concerning periodic slugs of dark solids from their taps (which
were thought to have been related to iron and/or manganese solids accumulating within the distribution
system). It was hypothesized that an increase in chlorine residual after post-chlorination and an increase
in contact time within the distribution system might have resulted in further manganese oxidation and
subsequent attachment of MnO2 particles to pipe walls and/or mineral deposits (tuberculation) - which
are characteristic of older distribution systems. Further, the operator also reported "tea-colored" water in
the clearwell. Upon conferring with the vendor on February 21, 2007, it was determined to increase the
chlorine dose during prechlorination to more effectively oxidize manganese and increase its removal.
From February 27 to March 20, 2007, total chlorine residuals were increased to an average of 1.0 mg/L
(as C12), which resulted in 77.2% (on average) manganese removal during that time period. From March
43
-------
12
10
1.6 2.4
RunTime, hrs
12.4
Figure 4-17. Particulate and Soluble Arsenic Concentrations versus Run Time
300
250
200
o 100
u
50
1.6 2.4
Run Time, hrs
12.4
Figure 4-18. Particulate and Soluble Iron Concentrations versus Run Time
44
-------
350
300
250
200
* 150
1.8
1A
12.4
RunTime, hrs
Figure 4-19. Particulate and Soluble Manganese Concentrations versus Run Time
20, 2007, to April 17, 2007, total chlorine residuals were further increased to an average of 1.4 mg/L (as
C12), which resulted in 91% manganese removal. With this change, a question was raised as to whether
the increased loadings from manganese solids would result in earlier arsenic/iron breakthrough and
shorter run lengths. (Note that 10.9 (ig/L of total arsenic, consisting of 4.9 (ig/L of particulate As, 4.4
(ig/L of soluble As[V], and 1.6 (ig/L of soluble As[III] were measured during a field speciation event on
March 28, 2007). As a result, a second special study was conducted on May 23 and 24, 2007, to examine
the effects of increased manganese loading on filter run length.
Both filters were backwashed just before the start of the special study. The filters were then allowed to
run for a total of 6.9 hr with samples collected from the TT location at 4.4, 5.3, 5.6, and 6.9 hr for total
and soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese analyses. Figures 4-20 and 4-21 present the analytical results
for arsenic and iron, respectively. Total arsenic concentrations were measured above the arsenic MCL at
5.3 hr (11.5 (ig/L) and 6.9 hr (11.9 (ig/L), but below the arsenic MCL at 4.4 hr (6.9 (ig/L) and 5.6 hr (8.4
(ig/L). Total iron concentrations also showed a similar trend with particulate iron breakthrough up to 285
(ig/L at 6.9 hr. Total manganese concentrations were effectively lowered to 34 (ig/L, which is below the
SMCL of 50 (iL. Soluble manganese concentrations were lowered to 3.7 (ig/L (Figure 4-22), which was
99% lower than the average soluble manganese concentration (264 (ig/L) during the November 2007
special study. Because the median run length for the treatment system during the performance evaluation
study was 6.0 hr (based on the 48-hr standby time trigger), the filter performance was considered to be
acceptable with an increased chlorine dose and a higher manganese solids removal rate. As a result of the
special study, it was suggested in a June 20, 2007, conference call with the operator to reduce the filter
run length to 5.0 hr for future operations.
45
-------
o
',*
1
5.3
Filter Rim Time (hr)
5.6
Figure 4-20. Particulate and Soluble Arsenic Concentrations versus Run Time
(with 1.8 mg/L of Chlorine [as C12])
5.3 5.6
Filter Run Time (hi)
Figure 4-21. Particulate and Soluble Iron Concentrations versus Run Time
(with 1.8 mg/L of Chlorine [as C12])
46
-------
MJ 30
5
**
I "
5 -
nParticuate Mn
insoluble Mn
4.4
5.3 5.6 6.9
Filtei Run Time (hi)
Figure 4-22. Particulate and Soluble Manganese Concentrations versus Run Time
(with 1.8 mg/L of Chlorine [as C12])
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling. Table 4-9 presents the analytical results of 13 monthly
backwash wastewater sampling events. The backwash water samples collected during Events 1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
9, 11, 12, and 13 were considered to be characteristic of normal operating conditions. Events 3, 6, 8, and
10 were excluded from the evaluation of results for the reasons discussed below:
• For Event 3, relatively low values of total metals and TSS were observed, which most likely
was caused by the timing of the sampling, i.e., soon after the pressure filters had just been
backwashed automatically by the PLC.
• For Event 6, sampling was not considered representative as the filters had been in service for
less than 10 min before backwashing.
• Event 8 was eliminated due to elevated soluble metal results, which were rerun with similar
results.
• Event 10 showed very different results for Tank A and B, which might have been attributable
to the difference in service times for the two tanks (7.5 hr for Tank A and 45 min for Tank
B).
47
-------
Table 4-9. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Date
02/28/06
03/27/06
04/18/06
06/21/06
07/18/06
08/08/06
10/03/06
11/09/06
11/18/06
01/16/07
01/25/07
01/31/07
02/21/07
BW1
Tank A
x
a.
s.u.
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.5
i —
mg/
L
116
220
52
368
550
270
378
120
110
95
75
190
114
^2-
ft
<.
H9/L
444
466
287
688
791
1,011
799
1,302
1,494
658
603
437
346
As (soluble)
H9/L
6.1
26.4
6.6
26.6
8.7
9.7
11.0
56.4(=)
11.3
5.0
12.8
17.0
10.3
As (paniculate)
H9/L
438
439
280
661
783
1,001
788
1,245
1,483
653
590
420
336
^
CD
0
O)
M9/L
45,061
36,502
10,324
143,856
175,722
29,293
65,871
51,016
50,900
37,156
33,444
80,545
25,035
re (soluble)
M9/L
67.3
755
117
827
149
175
168
1,832(=)
181
32.4
224
331
109
3
o
c
^
M9/L
3,086
2,220
1,037
7,815
8,136
1,714
4,280
3,290
2,888
3,133
2,449
2,684
1,619
Uln (soluble)
M9/L
86.4
137
102
354
225
220
197
365(=)
271
160
135
108
53.4
BW2
TankB
x
r^
S.U.
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.5
i —
mg/
L
174
200
42
324
528
135
250
145
135
30
45
145
140
^S-
I
<
M9/L
455
391
273
770
852
1,087
745
1,896
1,697
1400)
528
470
373
As (soluble)
M9/L
11.1
27.6
6.7
24.9
10.5
12.1
10.5
8.9
15.3
4.3
10.3
16.7
10.6
As (paniculate)
M9/L
444
364
267
745
842
1,075
734
1,887
1,682
136
518
453
363
2
o
-------
For Events 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 13, concentrations of total arsenic, iron, and manganese ranged
from 346 to 1,697 (ig/L (averaged 686 (ig/L), 25,035 to 176,777 (ig/L (averaged 69,713 (ig/L), and 1,619
to 8,649 (ig/L (averaged 3,783 (ig/L), respectively, with the majority existing as particulate. Assuming
that 226 mg/L of TSS (i.e., the average TSS) was produced in 962 gal of backwash wastewater per filter
(Table 4-5), approximately 3.6 Ib of solids would have been discharged from both filters during each
backwash event. Based on the average particulate metal data (i.e., 671 (ig/L of particulate arsenic, 69,388
(ig/L of particulate iron, and 3,610 (ig/L of particulate manganese), the solids discharged would have been
composed of 0.01 Ib of arsenic (i.e. 0.3% by weight), 0.6 Ib of iron (i.e. 17% by weight), and 0.03 Ib of
manganese (i.e. 8% by weight).
4.5.3 Backwash Solids Sampling. Backwash solids were collected on February 21, 2007, and
analyzed for total silver, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead and selenium. The samples
were initially to be tested for toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) metals, but due to
inadequate sample volume were switched by the laboratory to total metals analysis. Arsenic, chromium,
and lead were detected at 3,980 mg/kg, 2.42 mg/kg, and 11.4 mg/kg, respectively. Silver and barium
concentrations were measured at 2.02 mg/kg and 151 mg/kg, respectively. Mercury and selenium were
not detected above the detection limit (<0.1 mg/kg and 10.0 mg/kg, respectively).
The arsenic level in the solids averaged 3.98 mg/g (or 0.4%) on February 21, 2007. Based on the
backwash wastewater samples collected on February 21, 2007, the average concentration of particulate
arsenic was 349 (ig/L. Assuming that 127 mg/L of TSS (i.e., the averaged TSS in the backwash
wastewater samples collected on February 21, 2007) was produced in 962 gal of backwash wastewater
from a filter (Table 4-5), the arsenic content in the solids was calculated to be 0.3%. The degree of
inconsistency is considered reasonable, considering that the results are from two independent sampling
systems (i.e., wastewater and backwash solids).
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. Distribution system water samples were collected to
determine if water treated by the arsenic removal system would impact the lead, copper, and arsenic
levels and other water chemistry in the distribution system. Prior to system startup, baseline distribution
water samples were collected on February 14, March 16, April 18, and May 18, 2005. Since system
startup, distribution water sampling continued monthly at the same three locations until March 6, 2007.
The samples were analyzed for pH, alkalinity, arsenic, iron, manganese, lead, and copper and the results
are presented in Table 4-10.
The main differences observed between the baseline samples and samples collected after system startup
were decreases in arsenic concentration at each of the three sampling locations. Arsenic concentrations
were reduced from a pre-startup average of 27 |o,g/L to a post-startup average of 8.7 |o,g/L (excluding two
outliers in the first quarter of operation at DS2 on February 22, 2006 and March 29, 2006). The water
quality was similar except at the DS2 residence, which was located in the older part of town and initially
had higher arsenic and iron levels due to a history of periodic release of particulates (tubercules) from the
distribution system. In general, total arsenic concentrations in the distribution system water were slightly
higher than those in the treatment system effluent (averaging 7.2 (ig/L at the TA, TB, and TT locations).
Desorption and resuspension of arsenic previously accumulated on the distribution pipe surface most
likely are the reason for higher arsenic concentration in the distribution system.
Iron concentrations decreased significantly from a pre-startup average of 1,211 |o,g/L and to a post-startup
average of 157 |o,g/L. Manganese concentrations averaged 114 and 75 |o,g/L before and after system
startup, respectively. In June 2006, the facility operator received complaints from a few customers
concerning periodic slugs of dark solids from their taps, which might have been related to iron and/or
manganese solids accumulating within the distribution system. It was hypothesized that the increased
49
-------
Table 4-10. Distribution System Sampling Results
No. of
Sampling
Events
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Sample Type
Flushed /1st Draw
Sampling Date
02/14/051=)
03/16/05
04/18/05
05/18/05
02/22/06
03/29/06(d)
04/18/06
05/23/06
06/21/06
07/11/06
08/15/06
09/12/06
10/18/06
11/07/06
12/13/06
01/09/07
02/06/07
03/06/07
DS1M
LCR
1st Draw
Stagnation
Time (Mrs)
7.0
6.7
6.9
7.1
8.3
7.0
7.5
7.5
6.5
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.5
7.5
6.5
6.3
7.0
7.3
x
a.
8.0
8.1
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.6
&
:=
£
<,
299
299
324
308
299
290
312
301
289
299
295
333
312
313
313
309
327
317
IS)
6.8
14.8
11.8
29.9
15.0
9.5
8.0
6.0
8.9
6.8
6.3
6.7
10.7
8.1
6.7
7.1
11.6
15.4
O)
39.0
81.7
75.2
861
<25
64.7
67.1
72.4
86.6
48.5
<25
<25
33.7
<25
<25
<25
179
211
i
118
187
119
172
271
294
199
56.3
51.4
39.8
41.6
28.2
36.5
40.7
53.8
45.9
79.8
51.6
.a
r\
0.7
2.7
1.0
4.0
1.0
7.3
1.6
1.6
4.8
2.6
1.8
3.2
3.1
0.6
0.8
1.5
5.8
6.0
3
C_5
116
146
251
262
163
344
390
58.5
444
244
223
236
274
148
90.3
283
226
287
DS2M
LCR
1st Draw
Stagnation
Time (Mrs)
8.0
14.0
17.7
15.0
49.0
67.3
8.6
12.0
11.5
7.0
8.0
14.0
8.0
29.0
33.0
17.5
17.0
13.0
x
a.
8.0
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.6
^>
1
2
<
78.0
294
320
303
295
298
308
292
293
297
295
330
354
315
330
313
322
312
%
63.0
124
14.3
16.7
76.0
39.3
10.3
7.4
12.7
6.7
7.6
7.4
13.1
13.1
8.9
9.6
9.1
13.4
O)
4,527
8,002
140
192
2,889
1,173
167
76.9
209
68.2
55.1
<25
144
<25
<25
91.4
60.6
97.2
i
116
395
25.7
66.8
569
264
110
57.8
199
95.1
72.2
22.7
61.6
25.8
0.1
21.3
52.8
35.0
.a
r\
9.1
23.1
0.3
0.8
26.5
14.7
0.7
2.0
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.6
2.4
0.3
0.6
1.8
3.2
3.5
3
314
747
8.2
107
646
575
116
125
24.1
17.3
22.0
29.7
163
65.4
153
164
151
175
DS3W
LCR
1st Draw
o 'of
H
IM
1
1
^
75.0
308
311
290
299
290
308
292
289
293
290
316
316
320
324
315
318
310
IS)
<
9.6
14.0
9.9
13.7
13.9
4.8
4.2
3.4
4.8
7.3
7.3
6.0
11.9
9.0
7.2
5.5
7.9
8.5
O)
U_
159
101
220
129
36.6
<25
<25
<25
89.4
<25
35.2
38.1
61.1
<25
<25
33.6
180
126
i
57.0
17.8
31.2
68.8
16.4
8.1
6.9
3.1
31.8
4.0
13.0
14.6
26.2
34.8
16.6
14.2
53.2
31.4
.0
Q_
3.3
0.2
5.0
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.4
1.0
2.9
1.1
0.9
0.3
0.6
1.2
2.2
1.9
3
o
91.0
17.1
50.7
38.3
22.4
55.6
96.5
54.8
70.6
103
180
132
87.0
58.0
82.4
130
119
82.9
(a) DS2 sampled on 02/13/05.
(b) Samples taken after softener system.
(c) DS2 located at old section of town.
(d) DS2 and DS3 collected on 03/28/06.
Lead action level =15 ug/L; copper action level =1.3 mg/L.
BL = baseline sampling
ug/L as unit for all analytical parameters except for alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3).
-------
chlorine dose after post-chlorination and the prolonged contact time within the distribution system might
have resulted in further manganese oxidation and subsequent attachment of MnO2 solids to pipe walls
and/or mineral deposits. From January 21, 2006, to January 9, 2007, manganese was not significantly
removed across the pressure filters. For example, total manganese levels averaged 244 |o,g/L in the treated
water during this time period, compared to the average concentration of 79 (ig/L within the distribution
system at the same time. However, chlorine dosages for prechlorination were subsequently raised starting
in January 2007 to enhance manganese removal. In response, the manganese removal rate increased to
92.2%, reducing the total manganese concentration to 30 (ig/L in the treated water by the end of the study
in March 2007. In March 2007, manganese levels for the three distribution samples were 51.6, 35.0, and
31.4 (ig/L, at DS1, DS2, and DS3 respectively, which were still slightly higher than the treated water
effluent.
Alkalinity and pH values remained fairly consistent throughout the performance evaluation study period.
The average lead level was 4.2 (ig/L in the baseline samples and 2.7 (ig/L in the samples taken after
system startup; these concentrations were significantly lower than the action level of 15 (ig/L. The
average copper level was 179 (ig/L in the baseline samples and 169 (ig/L in the samples taken after
system startup; these concentrations also were significantly lower than the action level of 1,300 (ig/L.
4.6 System Cost
The system cost was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and the
O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. Capital cost of the treatment system included cost for
equipment, engineering, and system installation, shakedown, and startup. O&M cost included cost for
chemicals, electricity, and labor. Cost associated with the building, including the clearwell, sump, and
sanitary sewer connections, was not included in the capital cost because it was not included in the scope
of this demonstration project and was funded separately by the city of Sabin.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for the FM-248-AS system was $287,159 (Table 4-11).
The equipment cost was $160,875 (or 56% of the total capital investment), which included the cost for
two contact tanks, two pressure filtration tanks, 50 ft3 of Macrolite®, instrumentation and controls,
miscellaneous materials and supplies, labor, and system warranty. The system warranty cost covered the
cost for repair and replacement of defective system components and installation workmanship for a period
of 12 months after system startup.
The engineering cost covered the cost for preparing the required permit application submittal, including a
process design report, a general arrangement drawing, P&IDs, electrical diagrams, interconnecting piping
layouts, tank fill details, and a schematic of the PLC panel, and obtaining the required permit approval
from MDH. The engineering cost was $49,164, which was 17% of the total capital investment.
The installation, shakedown, and startup cost covered the labor and materials required to unload, install,
and test the system for proper operation. All installation activities were performed by Kinetico's
subcontractor, and startup and shakedown activities were performed by Kinetico with the operator's
assistance. The installation, startup, and shakedown cost was $77,120, or 27% of the total capital
investment.
The total capital cost of $287,159 was normalized to $l,149/gpm ($0.80/gpd) of design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 250 gpm (or 360,000 gpd). The total capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $27,105/yr using a capital recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a
20-yr return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/week at the design flowrate of
250 gpm to produce 131,400,000 gal/yr, the unit capital cost would be $0.21/1,000 gal. The system
51
-------
Table 4-11. Capital Investment for Kinetico FM-248-AS System
Description
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment
Tanks, Valves, and Piping
Macrolite® Media (50 ft3)
Instrumentation and Controls
Air Scour System
Additional Sample Taps and
Totalizers/Meters
Labor
Freight
Equipment Total
$79,349
$10,939
$21,970
$5,373
$1,717
$37,527
$4,000
$160,875
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
56%
Labor
Subcontractor
Engineering Total
$43,450
$5,714
$49,164
-
-
17%
Labor
Subcontractor
Travel
Installation, Shakedown, and Startup
Total Capital Investment
$14,000
$59,250
$3,870
$77,120
$287,159
-
-
-
27%
100%
produced approximately 12,221,660 gal of water on an annual basis, so the unit capital cost increased to
$2.22/1,000 gal.
A 48 ft x 56 ft building with a sidewall height of 17.5 ft was constructed by the city of Sabin to house the
treatment system (Section 4.3.2). The total cost of the building and supporting utilities was $807,000
which, as noted above, was not included in the capital cost.
4.6.2 O&M Cost. The O&M cost included items such as chemicals, electricity, and labor (see
Table 4-12). Prechlorination was performed for oxidation and post-chlorination was performed to
maintain a residual within the distribution system. The chemical consumption was 0.04 lb/1,000 gal for
both pre- and post-chlorination, which corresponded to $0.05/1,000 gal in chemical usage cost. No cost
was incurred for repairs because the system was under warranty. Electrical cost was estimated at
$0.01/1,000 gal based on the power requirements of the control panel and air compressor (7.5 hp).
Electrical bills from before and after treatment system installation were not provided by the City of Sabin.
Routine labor activities for O&M consumed 15 min/day for operational readings at a labor rate of $10/hr
and a $300/month fixed fee. This is equivalent to 1.75 hr/wk on a seven day per week basis. The
estimated labor cost is $0.37/1,000 gal of water treated. The total O&M cost was estimated at
$0.43/1,000 gal of treated water.
52
-------
Table 4-12. O&M Cost for Kinetico FM-248-AS System
Category
Volume Processed (1,000 gal)
Value
14,884,800
Remarks
From 01/30/06 to 04/29/07
Chemical Consumption
Sodium Hypochlorite Unit Price ($/lb)
Consumption Rate (lb/1,000 gal)
Chemical Costs ($71,000 gal)
$1.10
0.04
$0.05
15.6%asCl2
Pre- and post-chlorination at
2.6 mg/L as C12 each
Pre- and post-chlorination at
2.6 mg/L as C12 each
Electricity Consumption
Electricity Cost ($71,000 gal)
$0.01
Based on control panel and 7.5
hp air compressor power
requirements and $0.08/kWh
Labor
Labor (hr/week)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($71,000 gal)
1.75
$0.37
$0.43
15 min/day, 7 days/week
Labor rate = $10/hr +
$300/month fee
53
-------
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.
Battelle. 2006. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology Round 2 at Sabin, MN. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-OO-185, Task
Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal
Register, 40 CFRPart 141.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
Hao, O.J., A.P. Davis, and P.H. Chang. 1991. "Kinetics of Manganese(II) Oxidation with Chlorine."
Journal of Environmental Engineering. 117(3): 359-369
Jain, A. and R.H. Loeppert. 2000. "Effect of Competing Anions on the Adsoprtion of Arsenate and
Arsenite by Ferrihydrite." J. Environ. Qual, 29: 1422-1430.
Kinetico. 2005. The City of Sabin: Installation Manual; Suppliers Literature; and Operation and
Maintenance Manual, Macrolite FM-248-AS Arsenic Removal System. Newbury, OH.
Knocke, W.R., R.C. Hoehn, and R.L. Sinsabaugh. 1987. "Using Alternative Oxidants to Remove
Dissolved Manganese From Waters Laden With Organics." J. AWWA, 79(3): 75-79.
Knocke, W.R., J.E. Van Benschoten, M. Kearney, A. Soborski, and D.A. Reckhow. 1990. "Alternative
Oxidants for the Removal of Soluble Iron and Mn." AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Meng, X.G., S. Bang, and G.P. Korfiatis. 2000. "Effects of Silicate, Sulfate, and Carbonate on Arsenic
Removal by Ferric Chloride." Water Research, 34(4): 1255-1261.
Meng, X.G., G.P. Korfiatis, S.B. Bang, and K.W. Bang. 2002. "Combined Effects of Anions on Arsenic
Removal by Iron Hydroxides." Toxicology Letters, 133(1): 103-111.
Smith, S.D., and M. Edwards. 2005. "The Influence of Silica and Calcium on Arsenate Sorption to
Oxide Surfaces." Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology -AQUA, 54(4): 201-211.
54
-------
Sorg, T.J. 2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, 28(11): 15.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
55
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System
Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Date
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
03/13/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
03/16/06
03/17/06
03/18/06
03/19/06
Tank A
Run
Time
hrs
NA
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
NA
NA
2.0
3.2
2.6
4.8
NA
NA
2.4
2.1
4.7
5.6
4.9
1.6
3.7
2.6
3.7
3.5
9.3
3.1
TankB
Run
Time
hrs
NA
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
NA
1.8
2.0
3.1
2.6
4.8
NA
NA
2.4
2.2
4.7
5.6
4.8
2.1
3.1
2.6
3.7
3.5
9.3
3.3
Ap
Across
Tank A
psig
9
10
NA
NA
NA
10
NA
NA
10
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
NA
NA
10
NA
16
18
NA
Ap
Across
TankB
psig
9
11
NA
NA
NA
11
NA
NA
55
NA
NA
NA
11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17
NA
NA
11
NA
17
19
NA
Ap
Across
System
psig
32
33
NA
NA
NA
33
NA
NA
63
NA
NA
NA
33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
33
NA
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
39
NA
NA
33
NA
36
37
NA
Digital
Flow
Rate
gpm
244
238
NA
NA
NA
243
NA
NA
155
NA
NA
NA
241
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
240
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
240
NA
243
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
222
NA
NA
242
NA
230
226
NA
Daily
Usage
gal
NA
40,700
36,800
26,000
23,500
24,200
48,700
23,600
23,500
41,100
24,200
23,700
23,800
49,700
21,500
29,900
0
49,200
40,800
31,200
40,000
29,900
29,100
21,900
22,700
43,900
23,900
26,800
41,300
32,700
32,700
23,100
23,900
22,100
47,200
NA
26,500
NA
22,800
46,100
36,500
42,800
24,000
30,800
22,600
42,800
30,000
113,600
42,500
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
22
Tank
B
No.
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
22
Cum. Waste-
water Volume
kgal
13.2
13.2
15.4
15.4
17.2
17.2
19.0
19.0
21.2
21.2
21.2
23.7
23.7
26.6
26.6
27.2
29.4
29.4
31.5
31.5
32.2
34.4
34.4
37.3
37.3
39.1
39.1
40.0
41.8
44.1
44.1
44.1
44.1
44.1
44.1
44.1
46.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
5.8
A-l
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System
Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Date
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
04/10/06
04/11/06
04/12/06
04/13/06
04/14/06
04/15/06
04/16/06
04/17/06
04/18/06
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
05/01/06
05/02/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
05/05/06
05/06/06
05/07/06
Tank A
Run
Time
hrs
0.0
0.2
2.8
3.0
3.5
2.3
3.7
3.3
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.2
4.8
2.2
1.4
3.5
2.7
1.9
2.5
3.0
2.9
2.3
NA
2.8
1.6
4.3
5.2
3.1
4.8
0.8
3.7
2.3
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.5
1.5
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.2
4.4
4.4
4.4
0.7
8.0
2.3
2.6
2.3
TankB
Run
Time
hrs
0.0
0.2
2.8
3.0
3.7
2.3
3.7
3.3
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.2
4.7
2.2
1.4
3.5
2.7
1.9
2.6
3.0
2.9
2.3
NA
2.5
1.6
4.3
5.5
2.9
4.8
0.8
3.8
2.2
2.6
2.8
2.5
2.6
1.7
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.2
4.6
4.2
4.6
0.6
8.0
2.3
2.6
2.4
Ap
Across
Tank A
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
7
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17
NA
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ap
Across
TankB
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
9
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15
NA
12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ap
Across
System
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
34
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
NA
NA
NA
31
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36
NA
33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Digital
Flow
Rate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
236
243
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
243
NA
NA
NA
245
243
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
233
NA
240
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
242
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Daily
Usage
gal
0
3,300
25,200
38,600
48,300
25,300
27,300
35,000
30,700
23,600
23,800
24,900
50,500
26,200
12,900
45,600
25,800
23,700
11,900
34,200
34,300
23,500
NA
35,700
21,100
41,900
58,300
24,400
40,800
11,200
49,400
28,200
34,500
35,600
32,800
33,200
18,600
29,800
30,400
31,900
29,100
59,400
0
52,100
8,700
93,800
30,200
33,400
31,200
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
25
26
26
27
27
27
28
28
28
29
27
27
27
27
28
28
29
30
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
37
38
38
39
Tank
B
No.
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
28
28
28
29
27
28
28
28
29
29
30
31
31
31
32
32
32
33
34
34
35
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
38
39
Cum. Waste-
water Volume
kgal
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
10.9
10.9
10.9
12.9
12.9
13.7
14.5
14.5
14.5
16.4
16.4
17.8
17.8
17.8
19.6
16.4
17.5
17.5
17.5
19.8
19.8
21.8
25.2
25.2
25.2
27.2
27.2
30.7
30.7
33.6
33.6
36.5
38.5
38.5
40.1
41.1
44.0
44.0
44.6
45.0
45.0
45.9
A-2
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System
Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
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
06/17/06
06/18/06
06/19/06
06/20/06
06/21/06
06/22/06
06/23/06
06/24/06
06/25/06
Tank A
Run
Time
hrs
3.3
2.8
2.7
0.0
3.1
2.5
2.7
2.4
0.9
3.9
2.6
4.8
2.0
4.2
3.3
3.2
3.0
3.3
3.9
6.2
3.3
3.6
6.4
5.0
4.3
5.9
3.2
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.4
2.8
2.9
2.6
2.8
3.4
3.4
2.8
2.7
3.3
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.3
3.0
2.9
5.8
2.8
0.0
TankB
Run
Time
hrs
3.3
2.8
2.7
0.0
3.1
2.5
2.7
2.4
1.0
3.6
2.7
4.8
2.0
4.2
3.4
3.2
2.9
3.3
3.9
6.1
3.4
4.1
6.0
5.0
4.3
5.9
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.5
2.7
2.9
2.2
3.2
3.5
3.4
2.7
2.7
3.2
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.4
3.0
2.9
5.8
2.7
0.0
Ap
Across
Tank A
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
12
14
NA
14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
NA
NA
14
NA
14
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
Ap
Across
TankB
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
14
11
NA
12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13
NA
NA
16
NA
17
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
Ap
Across
System
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
32
34
34
NA
34
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
33
NA
NA
35
NA
35
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
Digital
Flow
Rate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
242
237
235
NA
239
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
237
NA
NA
234
NA
234
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
Daily
Usage
gal
40,400
36,700
35,500
0
40,700
33,400
36,000
32,400
12,700
50,100
34,600
62,000
26,400
56,500
43,000
42,300
39,100
41,800
50,400
80,500
43,900
46,400
83,600
66,500
54,100
76,800
41,600
38,700
38,500
38,100
45,800
36,000
NA
34,500
37,300
45,700
44,900
36,300
35,100
41,700
39,000
39,500
39,300
44,300
39,400
38,000
78,100
36,800
0
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
46
47
47
48
48
48
49
49
50
50
50
51
52
52
53
54
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
57
58
59
60
60
61
61
62
Tank
B
No.
39
39
40
41
41
42
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
48
49
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
57
58
59
60
60
61
61
62
Cum. Waste-
water Volume
kgal
45.9
46.3
46.8
47.2
47.7
48.1
48.6
48.6
49.5
49.5
50.0
50.4
50.9
51.3
51.3
52.2
52.2
52.7
53.1
53.6
54.0
54.0
54.5
54.9
54.9
55.8
55.8
56.8
57.3
58.2
58.2
59.1
59.1
60.0
60.0
61.0
61.0
61.8
61.8
62.7
62.7
62.7
63.7
64.6
65.5
65.5
66.4
66.4
67.3
A-3
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System
Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Date
06/26/06
06/27/06
06/28/06
06/29/06
06/30/06
07/01/06
07/02/06
07/03/06
07/04/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
07/07/06
07/08/06
07/09/06
07/10/06
07/11/06
07/12/06
07/13/06
07/14/06
07/15/06
07/16/06
07/17/06
07/18/06
07/19/06
07/20/06
07/21/06
07/22/06
07/23/06
07/24/06
07/25/06
07/26/06
07/27/06
07/28/06
07/29/06
07/30/06
07/31/06
08/01/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
08/04/06
08/05/06
08/06/06
08/07/06
08/08/06
08/09/06
08/10/06
08/11/06
08/12/06
08/13/06
Tank A
Run
Time
hrs
2.8
2.7
2.9
3.7
1.9
6.2
2.7
4.0
3.0
4.2
5.5
2.2
2.1
4.7
2.3
5.1
2.3
2.1
4.7
3.7
3.3
2.1
4.0
5.9
2.7
2.3
2.1
2.8
4.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
4.6
2.2
4.6
2.2
2.1
2.3
4.3
5.6
2.9
2.1
2.3
2.3
3.0
3.6
2.5
2.8
1.5
TankB
Run
Time
hrs
2.8
2.7
2.8
3.6
1.8
6.2
2.7
3.9
2.9
4.2
5.5
2.1
2.1
4.9
2.2
5.1
2.3
2.1
4.7
3.8
3.3
2.2
5.0
5.1
2.8
2.3
2.1
2.9
4.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
4.7
2.3
4.6
2.2
2.2
2.3
4.3
5.4
3.1
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.9
3.6
2.5
2.8
2.5
Ap
Across
Tank A
psig
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
13
NA
NA
13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ap
Across
TankB
psig
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
14
NA
NA
14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ap
Across
System
psig
NA
NA
NA
31
NA
NA
34
NA
NA
34
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
35
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
34
NA
NA
NA
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Digital
Flow
Rate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
243
NA
NA
234
NA
NA
237
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
232
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
244
NA
NA
NA
NA
234
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
235
NA
NA
NA
244
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Daily
Usage
gal
37,500
36,100
38,800
48,700
24,600
82,200
35,800
50,600
39,200
55,800
71,300
28,600
27,700
62,900
27,200
67,900
29,900
27,500
61,400
48,200
43,300
28,300
50,000
80,600
35,200
30,600
27,700
36,800
56,200
29,400
29,300
29,200
61,500
28,800
60,300
28,400
29,000
31,000
56,100
72,900
38,300
27,900
30,800
31,000
38,700
47,200
33,400
37,400
33,600
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
63
63
63
65
65
66
66
66
67
67
68
69
69
70
70
71
71
71
72
72
73
73
74
74
74
75
75
76
76
77
77
78
78
78
79
79
80
80
81
81
81
82
82
83
83
84
84
84
85
Tank
B
No.
63
63
63
65
65
66
66
66
67
67
68
69
69
70
70
71
71
71
72
72
73
73
74
74
74
75
75
76
76
77
77
78
78
78
79
79
80
80
80
81
81
82
82
83
83
84
84
84
85
Cum. Waste-
water Volume
kgal
68.3
68.3
68.3
74.6
74.6
76.9
76.9
76.9
80.8
80.8
83.1
84.1
84.1
85.0
85.0
85.9
85.9
85.9
86.8
86.8
87.7
87.7
87.7
87.7
88.7
89.6
89.6
91.5
91.5
93.5
93.5
95.4
95.4
95.4
97.4
97.4
99.3
99.3
100.3
101.2
101.2
103.2
103.2
105.2
105.2
107.1
107.1
107.1
109.0
A-4
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System
Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Date
08/14/06
08/15/06
08/16/06
08/17/06
08/18/06
08/19/06
08/20/06
08/21/06
08/22/06
08/23/06
08/24/06
08/25/06
08/26/06
08/27/06
08/28/06
08/29/06
08/30/06
08/31/06
09/01/06
09/02/06
09/03/06
09/04/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
09/07/06
09/08/06
09/09/06
09/10/06
09/11/06
09/12/06
09/13/06
09/14/06
09/15/06
09/16/06
09/17/06
09/18/06
09/19/06
09/20/06
09/21/06
09/22/06
09/23/06
09/24/06
09/25/06
09/26/06
09/27/06
09/28/06
09/29/06
09/30/06
10/01/06
Tank A
Run
Time
hrs
3.6
2.8
2.8
2.3
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.8
5.4
0.0
2.6
2.8
3.0
2.8
0.0
2.9
2.9
2.5
2.9
2.9
0.0
2.9
2.7
5.6
0.0
2.7
1.1
1.7
3.2
2.7
2.8
4.9
3.2
4.4
2.9
0.2
2.6
2.8
0.1
2.8
2.9
0.0
4.0
3.9
0.2
2.8
2.6
7.2
0.0
TankB
Run
Time
hrs
2.5
2.8
2.9
2.4
2.6
2.1
3.4
2.8
5.3
0.0
2.7
2.8
3.0
2.9
0.0
2.9
2.9
2.5
2.9
3.0
0.0
2.8
2.8
5.6
0.0
2.7
1.1
1.8
3.2
2.8
2.7
4.9
3.2
4.4
2.9
0.2
1.9
3.5
0.2
2.7
2.9
0.0
4.1
3.9
0.2
2.8
2.6
7.2
0.0
Ap
Across
Tank A
psig
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
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
NA
NA
12
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ap
Across
TankB
psig
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
11
NA
NA
NA
NA
15
NA
NA
11
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ap
Across
System
psig
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
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
36
NA
NA
35
NA
NA
NA
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Digital
Flow
Rate
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
240
NA
NA
NA
NA
228
NA
NA
232
NA
NA
NA
238
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Daily
Usage
gal
33,600
37,400
38,200
30,700
34,800
36,500
35,600
37,700
70,600
0
35,000
37,300
38,800
38,000
0
38,300
NA
32,800
38,700
39,200
0
38,100
36,600
54,800
18,900
35,900
15,100
22,800
42,600
37,000
35,400
63,500
39,600
57,600
37,700
2,000
55,000
14,800
2,200
35,900
37,800
0
51,900
50,900
2,900
23,000
22,200
87,300
0
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
85
86
86
87
87
88
88
88
90
90
91
91
92
92
92
93
93
94
94
95
95
95
96
97
97
97
98
98
99
99
99
100
100
101
101
102
102
102
103
103
104
104
105
105
106
106
106
107
107
Tank
B
No.
85
86
86
87
87
88
88
88
89
89
90
90
91
91
92
92
93
93
94
94
95
95
95
96
96
97
97
98
98
99
99
99
100
100
101
101
101
102
103
103
103
104
104
105
105
106
106
107
107
Cum. Waste-
water Volume
kgal
109.0
111.0
111.0
112.9
112.9
114.9
114.9
114.9
117.8
117.8
119.7
119.7
120.6
120.6
121.0
121.9
121.9
123.8
124.7
125.6
126.6
126.6
127.5
128.5
129.3
130.2
131.2
132.1
133.0
133.9
133.9
134.9
135.8
136.7
137.6
138.6
138.6
139.5
141.3
141.3
142.2
143.2
144.1
145.0
145.9
146.3
146.3
147.2
147.2
A-5
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System
Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Date
10/02/06
10/03/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
10/06/06
10/07/06
10/08/06
10/09/06
10/10/06
10/11/06
10/12/06
10/13/06
10/14/06
10/15/06
10/16/06
10/17/06
10/18/06
10/19/06
10/20/06
10/21/06
10/22/06
10/23/06
10/24/06
10/25/06
10/26/06
10/27/06
10/28/06
10/29/06
10/30/06
10/31/06
11/01/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
11/04/06
11/05/06
11/06/06
11/07/06
11/08/06
11/09/06
11/10/06
11/11/06
11/12/06
11/13/06
11/14/06
11/15/06
11/16/06
11/17/06
11/18/06
11/19/06
Tank A
Run
Time
hrs
4.5
0.0
4.4
0.0
4.3
14.5
0.0
4.4
0.0
4.4
0.0
4.1
0.0
4.7
0.0
0.4
2.4
2.4
0.0
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.8
0.0
0.9
4.1
9.8
1.5
2.0
8.5
3.1
8.6
7.9
1.6
4.7
0.0
3.8
1.9
1.4
2.0
2.6
0.0
2.6
2.2
3.5
2.7
2.3
2.4
7.0
TankB
Run
Time
hrs
4.5
0.0
4.4
0.0
4.4
14.5
0.0
4.5
0.0
4.3
0.0
4.2
0.0
4.6
0.0
1.0
1.9
2.4
0.0
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.8
0.0
0.3
4.3
9.9
1.5
2.0
8.6
3.2
7.4
9.0
1.6
5.0
0.0
3.8
1.0
2.4
2.1
2.6
0.0
3.0
2.2
3.6
2.7
2.2
2.4
6.9
Ap
Across
Tank A
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
10
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
6
11
NA
NA
13
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
Ap
Across
TankB
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
12
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
8
13
NA
NA
11
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
Ap
Across
System
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
32
NA
34
NA
NA
NA
NA
32
NA
NA
NA
35
NA
31
NA
NA
NA
32
37
NA
NA
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
33
Digital
Flow
Rate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
229
NA
233
NA
NA
NA
NA
234
NA
NA
NA
230
NA
231
NA
NA
NA
237
220
NA
NA
209
NA
NA
NA
NA
225
Daily
Usage
gal
57,900
0
57,400
0
56,500
179,800
0
57,300
0
56,700
0
54,400
0
60,300
0
6,200
31,900
32,000
0
28,900
30,400
28,700
36,100
400
30,000
32,900
37,100
19,300
25,500
16,500
41,400
25,300
30,100
21,000
62,600
0
49,200
30,000
14,400
26,600
31,900
0
26,500
27,100
32,700
32,100
28,800
NA
86,500
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
108
109
109
110
110
110
111
111
112
112
112
113
113
114
114
115
115
116
116
117
117
117
119
119
120
120
120
121
121
122
122
122
123
123
124
124
124
125
126
126
126
126
126
126
127
128
128
129
129
Tank
B
No.
107
109
109
110
110
110
111
111
112
112
112
113
113
114
114
115
115
116
116
117
117
117
118
118
119
119
120
120
121
121
121
121
122
122
123
123
124
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
126
127
127
128
128
Cum. Waste-
water Volume
kgal
147.6
149.0
149.0
150.8
150.8
150.8
152.6
152.6
154.4
154.4
154.4
156.2
156.2
158.0
158.0
159.7
159.7
161.5
161.5
163.3
163.3
163.3
166.1
166.1
167.8
167.8
168.7
169.6
170.5
171.4
171.4
171.4
173.2
173.2
175.1
175.1
176.0
178.8
178.8
178.8
178.8
178.8
178.8
178.8
180.6
182.6
182.6
184.4
184.4
A-6
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System
Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Date
11/20/06
11/21/06
11/22/06
11/23/06
11/24/06
11/25/06
11/26/06
11/27/06
11/28/06
11/29/06
11/30/06
12/01/06
12/02/06
12/03/06
12/04/06
12/05/06
12/06/06
12/07/06
12/08/06
12/09/06
12/10/06
12/11/06
12/12/06
12/13/06
12/14/06
12/15/06
12/16/06
12/17/06
12/18/06
12/19/06
12/20/06
12/21/06
12/22/06
12/23/06
12/24/06
12/25/06
12/26/06
12/27/06
12/28/06
12/29/06
12/30/06
12/31/06
01/01/07
01/02/07
01/03/07
01/04/07
01/05/07
01/06/07
01/07/07
Tank A
Run
Time
hrs
5.5
3.2
1.5
1.5
1.6
2.9
4.5
3.2
5.8
4.9
1.0
3.2
2.0
2.4
1.3
2.9
2.5
0.0
3.3
5.9
2.9
5.1
4.8
3.8
6.9
2.5
6.4
12.3
1.8
6.0
3.6
1.9
5.9
7.0
3.9
4.2
2.0
13.5
0.5
4.2
5.0
3.4
6.2
1.9
5.2
5.1
2.9
4.7
2.6
TankB
Run
Time
hrs
5.5
3.2
1.4
1.6
1.7
2.9
4.5
3.4
5.6
5.0
1.1
3.0
1.9
2.4
1.3
3.0
2.5
0.0
3.3
5.9
2.9
5.0
4.5
3.8
6.9
2.7
6.3
12.3
1.8
5.6
3.7
1.9
5.9
6.7
3.9
4.6
2.1
6.5
7.2
4.7
4.9
3.5
6.2
2.0
5.5
5.0
2.8
4.6
2.6
Ap
Across
Tank A
psig
18
NA
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
6
8
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
9
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
6
8
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
9
13
NA
Ap
Across
TankB
psig
19
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
7
9
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
8
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
9
8
NA
11
NA
NA
NA
8
15
NA
Ap
Across
System
psig
39
NA
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
32
NA
NA
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
32
NA
30
31
NA
NA
NA
32
NA
32
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
NA
31
32
NA
33
NA
NA
NA
32
32
NA
Digital
Flow
Rate
gpm
211
NA
227
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
227
NA
NA
231
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
229
NA
226
224
NA
NA
NA
232
NA
227
230
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
223
NA
222
229
NA
224
NA
NA
NA
228
192
NA
Daily
Usage
gal
50,400
38,200
18,800
19,400
21,400
20,100
30,600
19,800
29,300
48,000
9,900
41,900
24,300
30,300
16,200
36,400
31,800
0
19,600
31,400
20,100
30,700
13,700
28,200
34,600
21,300
39,900
25,400
22,700
26,300
31,200
24,800
26,300
33,800
15,800
32,200
27,300
26,600
35,500
24,200
36,700
25,700
31,700
24,700
21,300
25,300
24,600
40,100
33,600
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
129
130
130
131
131
132
132
132
133
133
134
134
135
135
135
136
136
137
137
138
138
138
139
139
140
140
140
142
142
142
143
143
144
144
144
145
145
146
146
147
147
147
148
148
149
149
149
150
150
Tank
B
No.
128
129
129
130
130
131
131
131
132
132
132
132
134
134
134
135
135
136
136
137
137
137
138
138
138
140
140
141
141
142
142
143
143
144
144
144
145
145
146
146
147
147
147
148
148
148
149
149
150
Cum. Waste-
water Volume
kgal
184.4
186.2
186.2
188.1
188.1
189.9
189.9
189.9
191.7
191.7
193.6
193.6
195.4
195.4
195.4
197.2
197.2
199.1
199.1
200.9
200.9
200.9
202.8
202.8
203.8
205.7
205.7
208.9
208.9
210.0
211.3
212.6
214.0
215.2
215.2
216.6
218.0
219.4
220.8
222.3
222.7
222.7
223.1
223.5
225.2
225.2
226.5
227.7
228.9
A-7
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System
Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Date
01/08/07
01/09/07
01/10/07
01/11/07
01/12/07
01/13/07
01/14/07
01/15/07
01/16/07
01/17/07
01/18/07
01/19/07
01/20/07
01/21/07
01/22/07
01/23/07
01/24/07
01/25/07
01/26/07
01/27/07
01/28/07
01/29/07
01/30/07
01/31/07
02/01/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
02/04/07
02/05/07
02/06/07
02/07/07
02/08/07
02/09/07
02/10/07
02/11/07
02/12/07
02/13/07
02/14/07
02/15/07
02/16/07
02/17/07
02/18/07
02/19/07
02/20/07
02/21/07
02/22/07
02/23/07
02/24/07
02/25/07
Tank A
Run
Time
hrs
1.6
4.2
3.0
4.9
2.0
7.4
5.9
2.5
1.7
3.6
1.7
1.7
3.7
1.9
1.9
2.6
0.1
2.5
1.4
2.7
1.5
2.6
1.5
2.3
0.5
5.1
4.8
4.5
5.1
7.3
3.5
0.3
1.6
0.9
2.9
3.8
2.2
10.8
3.0
2.7
3.2
0.0
3.1
2.5
2.4
2.9
0.0
2.6
2.8
TankB
Run
Time
hrs
1.6
4.2
2.9
5.0
2.1
7.4
6.0
2.4
1.3
3.7
1.7
1.7
3.7
2.0
1.9
2.7
0.1
2.4
1.4
2.7
1.5
2.6
1.4
2.3
0.6
4.9
4.8
4.5
4.9
7.2
3.6
0.4
1.7
0.8
2.8
3.9
5.0
8.0
3.0
2.7
3.2
0.0
3.1
2.4
2.4
2.9
0.0
2.6
2.8
Ap
Across
Tank A
psig
NA
6
5
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
6
NA
11
NA
9
12
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ap
Across
TankB
psig
NA
6
8
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
8
NA
11
NA
10
13
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ap
Across
System
psig
NA
30
30
NA
NA
NA
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30
NA
31
NA
34
NA
33
35
NA
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Digital
Flow
Rate
gpm
NA
228
227
NA
NA
NA
229
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
230
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
229
NA
231
NA
223
NA
227
220
NA
229
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
227
225
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Daily
Usage
gal
20,600
26,800
32,700
0
55,200
38,300
29,200
30,600
20,400
46,500
22,100
21,700
46,600
25,200
24,600
35,300
1,000
31,700
17,900
34,700
19,400
32,300
18,500
29,700
7,700
30,300
33,100
27,200
36,800
74,500
43,900
4,200
21,400
10,900
35,700
32,100
23,000
11,300
42,400
30,000
39,600
0
40,300
31,900
30,500
37,200
0
33,700
35,100
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
151
151
152
152
152
153
154
154
155
155
156
156
156
157
157
158
158
159
159
160
160
161
161
162
162
163
163
163
164
165
165
165
166
166
167
167
168
168
169
169
170
170
170
171
172
172
173
173
174
Tank
B
No.
150
151
151
151
152
152
153
153
155
155
156
156
156
157
157
158
158
159
159
160
160
160
161
162
162
163
163
163
164
165
165
165
166
166
167
167
168
168
169
169
170
170
170
171
172
172
173
173
174
Cum. Waste-
water Volume
kgal
230.1
231.1
232.1
232.1
233.2
234.2
236.1
236.1
239.2
239.2
241.2
241.2
241.2
243.2
243.2
245.1
245.1
247.7
247.7
249.7
249.7
250.7
251.7
252.7
252.7
254.1
254.1
254.1
255.6
258.0
258.0
258.0
260.2
260.2
262.0
262.0
263.5
263.5
265.2
265.2
267.1
267.1
267.1
268.8
270.5
270.5
272.0
272.0
273.7
A-8
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System
Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Date
02/26/07
02/27/07
02/28/07
03/01/07
03/02/07
03/03/07
03/04/07
03/05/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
03/08/07
03/09/07
03/10/07
03/11/07
03/12/07
03/13/07
03/14/07
03/15/07
03/16/07
03/17/07
03/18/07
03/19/07
03/20/07
03/21/07
03/22/07
03/23/07
03/24/07
03/25/07
03/26/07
03/27/07
03/28/07
03/29/07
03/30/07
03/31/07
04/01/07
04/02/07
04/03/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
04/06/07
04/07/07
04/08/07
04/09/07
04/10/07
04/11/07
04/12/07
04/13/07
04/14/07
04/15/07
Tank A
Run
Time
hrs
3.2
2.9
0.0
0.9
2.6
3.6
0.8
2.6
2.8
4.5
1.6
1.6
3.3
2.5
0.6
3.1
9.9
5.4
3.2
0.0
9.1
7.2
7.9
2.7
0.0
2.9
3.3
2.9
0.0
14.4
1.5
1.9
1.8
1.8
2.4
2.7
0.6
2.4
2.6
2.5
4.4
2.1
2.5
1.1
8.8
3.8
0.0
12.2
5.1
TankB
Run
Time
hrs
3.3
2.9
0.0
0.8
2.7
3.6
0.8
2.7
2.8
4.6
1.6
1.6
3.3
3.0
0.0
3.1
9.9
5.3
3.3
0.0
9.0
7.2
7.9
2.6
0.0
3.0
3.3
2.8
0.0
14.2
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.8
2.5
2.7
0.6
2.4
2.7
2.5
4.4
2.2
2.5
1.1
8.8
4.2
0.0
12.4
5.0
Ap
Across
Tank A
psig
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
6
NA
NA
8
NA
Ap
Across
TankB
psig
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
7
NA
NA
10
NA
Ap
Across
System
psig
NA
NA
NA
31
NA
NA
31
NA
NA
NA
33
NA
NA
NA
NA
33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30
NA
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
29
NA
NA
32
NA
Digital
Flow
Rate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
229
NA
NA
229
NA
NA
NA
226
NA
NA
NA
NA
224
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
231
NA
226
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
230
222
NA
NA
227
NA
Daily
Usage
gal
41,700
36,700
0
11,200
33,100
45,800
10,700
33,400
34,000
19,900
20,700
19,300
42,600
39,000
0
39,100
200
NA
40,600
0
54,800
100
41,100
33,100
0
38,100
41,000
36,700
0
46,800
0
42,200
22,300
22,800
31,500
33,400
8,000
32,100
34,200
31,100
54,100
27,900
31,200
14,400
100
52,300
0
152,900
62,600
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
174
174
175
175
176
176
177
177
178
178
178
179
179
180
180
181
181
182
182
183
183
184
185
185
186
186
187
187
188
189
189
190
190
190
191
191
192
192
193
193
194
194
194
195
195
196
196
197
197
Tank
B
No.
174
174
175
175
176
176
177
177
178
178
178
179
179
180
180
181
181
182
182
183
183
184
185
185
186
186
187
187
188
189
189
190
190
190
191
191
192
192
193
193
194
194
194
195
195
196
196
197
197
Cum. Waste-
water Volume
kgal
273.7
273.7
275.5
275.5
277.1
277.1
278.5
278.5
280.2
280.2
280.2
281.8
281.8
283.3
283.3
285.0
285.0
286.4
286.4
288.2
288.2
288.8
291.2
291.2
292.9
292.9
294.5
294.5
296.0
297.5
297.5
299.2
299.2
299.2
300.8
300.8
302.5
302.5
304.1
304.1
306.2
306.2
306.1
308.4
308.4
310.8
310.8
313.1
313.1
A-9
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System
Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
64
65
Date
04/16/07
04/17/07
04/18/07
04/19/07
04/20/07
04/21/07
04/22/07
04/23/07
04/24/07
04/25/07
04/26/07
04/27/07
04/28/07
04/29/07
Tank A
Run
Time
hrs
2.1
4.7
2.7
2.5
1.2
6.7
9.3
2.0
5.7
3.2
9.6
3.0
3.6
4.0
TankB
Run
Time
hrs
2.0
4.8
2.7
2.6
1.1
6.6
9.1
1.9
5.8
3.0
10.0
2.8
3.6
3.9
Ap
Across
Tank A
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
NA
Ap
Across
TankB
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
NA
Ap
Across
System
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
32
NA
Digital
Flow
Rate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
227
NA
Daily
Usage
gal
24,900
35,500
25,100
32,200
5,900
51,400
33,600
25,100
14,700
40,400
18,700
24,000
28,500
49,300
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
197
198
198
199
199
200
201
202
202
203
204
204
205
205
Tank
B
No.
197
198
198
199
199
200
201
202
202
203
204
204
204
205
Cum. Waste-
water Volume
kgal
313.1
315.6
315.6
318.1
318.1
320.4
322.8
324.8
324.8
327.1
328.1
329.1
330.1
331.0
NA = data not available.
A-10
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l: Analytical Data
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
01/31/06(a)
IN
291
0.2
0.1
376
-
<0.05
10.5
30.0
19.0
1.8
886
7.7
12.0
2.1
-13
-
-
596
386
210
34.2
34.1
0.1
35.6
<0.1
1,470
1,222
343
332
AC
291
<0.05
0.1
376
-
<0.05
13.7
30.3
1.2
1.6
914
7.3
10.9
1.2
623
0.6
2.1
619
383
236
36.9
4.4
32.5
0.9
3.5
1,224
<25
328
151
TB
291
<0.05
0.1
372
-
<0.05
<10
29.7
0.4
20(=)
920
7.3
17.1
0.8
648
0.0(b)
0.0(b)
635
389
246
7.1
3.2
3.8
2.0
1.2
106
<25
169
142
02/14/06(d)
IN
329
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.6
13.0
-
-
7.6
13.0
2.2
-13
-
-
-
-
-
32.8
-
-
-
-
1,431
-
344
-
AC
283
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.1
20.0
-
-
7.0
13.0
2.8
461
1.0
1.2
-
-
-
36.0
-
-
-
-
1,221
-
255
-
TA
283
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.1
18.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33.5
-
-
-
-
1,225
-
319
-
TB
283
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.1
21.0
-
-
7.3
13.0
0.8
650
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
30.8
-
-
-
-
1,128
-
297
-
02/21/06
IN
290
-
-
-
-
-
33.0
30.9
16.0
-
-
7.6
12.6
9.8
331
-
-
-
-
-
42.5
-
-
-
-
1,279
-
329
-
AC
298
-
-
-
-
-
30.3
31.1
1.5
-
-
7.7
12.8
8.9
466
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
41.8
-
-
-
-
1,264
-
316
-
TA
294
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.9
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.2
-
-
-
-
72
-
209
-
TB
290
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.5
0.7
-
-
7.4
12.6
3.1
587
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
-
70
-
192
-
02/28/06
IN
300
0.1
<0.1
425
-
<0.05
31.4
29.7
28.0
1.6
932
7.5
12.5
10.0
410
-
-
680
393
287
40.8
36.3
4.5
17.9
18.4
1,288
1,115
304
305
AC
296
<0.05
<0.1
424
-
<0.05
34.1
31.1
1.6
1.5
954
7.4
13.0
3.9
678
0.9
1.2
680
393
286
44.2
4.0
40.2
1.0
3.0
1,222
<25
293
105
TB
296
<0.05
<0.1
421
-
<0.05
<10
30.2
1.1
1.5
1010
7.2
11.4
3.7
677
0.9
1.1
661
379
282
4.4
3.7
0.7
1.1
2.7
<25
<25
111
99.0
03/06/06
IN
286
-
-
-
-
-
14.0
28.5
16.0
-
-
7.6
13.3
10.9
433
-
-
-
-
-
37.3
-
-
-
-
1,422
-
449
-
AC
290
-
-
-
-
-
20.3
29.6
3.6
-
-
7.3
11.9
3.6
623
0.4
0.7
-
-
-
40.2
-
-
-
-
1,637
-
449
-
TA
290
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.1
2.2
-
-
7.3
12.2
7.5
665
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
-
176
-
126
-
TB
286
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.5
1.2
-
-
7.3
13.2
3.6
670
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
9.8
-
-
-
-
210
-
135
-
(a) Sample taken from TB location because TT sample tap was under vacuum and did not yield water, (b) Slight tint present, but no reading on meter.
(c) Result is an estimated concentration, (d) No treatment due to chlorine fitting leak on 02/12/06.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Data (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
l-ig/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
03/14/06(a)
IN
294
-
-
-
-
-
22.9
29.4
19.0
-
-
7.4
13.2
8.8
38.1
-
-
-
-
-
45.1
-
-
-
-
1,827
-
349
-
AC
294
-
-
-
-
-
21.6
27.4
1.7
-
-
7.3
12.6
3.2
430
0.1
0.6
-
-
-
45.5
-
-
-
-
1,410
-
347
-
TA
289
-
-
-
-
-
<10
27.1
0.7
-
-
7.2
12.9
4.4
566
0.0
0.2
-
-
-
4.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
129
-
TB
294
-
-
-
-
-
<10
26.9
0.5
-
-
7.1
12.0
2.6
578
0.0
0.2
-
-
-
5.4
-
-
-
-
31
-
141
-
03/21/06
IN
290
-
-
-
-
-
16.7
30.5
16.0
-
-
7.6
14.2
9.9
462
-
-
-
-
-
37.9
-
-
-
-
1,566
-
438
-
AC
290
-
-
-
-
-
19.0
29.5
2.0
-
-
7.3
13.1
2.7
442
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
42.8
-
-
-
-
1,748
-
451
-
TA
294
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.2
0.4
-
-
7.4
13.7
5.2
535
0.0
0.4
-
-
-
4.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
158
-
TB
290
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.0
0.8
-
-
7.2
14.6
3.4
619
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
48
-
219
-
03/28/06
IN
289
0.3
<0.1
419
-
<0.05
32.2
30.3
22.0
1.5
966
7.5
12.8
10.6
287
-
-
686
391
295
40.0
36.9
3.1
6.1
30.8
1,936
1,172
313
308
AC
289
0.1
<0.1
415
-
<0.05
33.6
29.4
1.8
1.5
942
7.5
13.8
10.3
529
0.2
0.8
741
435
306
39.8
4.1
35.7
0.4
3.7
1,638
<25
309
193
TA
289
0.1
<0.1
420
-
<0.05
<10
30.4
1.0
1.6
988
7.2
12.6
5.6
496
0.0
0.9
666
373
293
5.4
3.2
2.2
0.4
2.8
64
<25
198
184
04/04/06
IN
288
-
-
-
-
-
26.6
29.7
44.0
-
-
7.3
14.1
6.6
476
-
-
-
-
-
42.5
-
-
-
-
1,386
-
267
-
AC
292
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.2
2.0
-
-
7.3
14.3
4.7
480
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
7.5
-
-
-
-
119
-
186
-
TA
296
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.4
1.1
-
-
7.3
13.5
3.8
543
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
8.9
-
-
-
-
163
-
174
-
TB
292
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.8
1.3
-
-
7.4
13.4
3.1
596
0.0
0.4
-
-
-
9.3
-
-
-
-
175
-
175
-
04/11/06
IN
316
-
-
-
-
-
20.5
29.4
16.0
-
-
7.3
13.6
5.6
433
-
-
-
-
-
42.5
-
-
-
-
1,369
-
323
-
AC
316
-
-
-
-
-
18.1
28.5
1.9
-
-
7.3
15.4
3.8
465
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
43.4
-
-
-
-
1,334
-
320
-
TA
308
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.7
1.4
-
-
7.4
14.7
5.8
567
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
8.2
-
-
-
-
146
-
188
-
TB
321
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.1
0.9
-
-
7.3
13.0
3.4
529
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
7.1
-
-
-
-
112
-
183
-
(a) Backwash control malfunction allowed system to operate without backwashing every 48 hours of standby time from 03/14/06 to 04/11/06.
Manual backwash performed until programming changed.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Data (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
04/18/06
IN
316
321
-
-
-
-
-
36.2
34.8
30.5
28.7
18.0
19.0
-
-
7.3
14.9
2.3
304
-
-
-
-
-
42.0
41.6
-
-
-
-
1,451
1,401
-
302
298
-
AC
312
312
-
-
-
-
-
36.1
37.7
29.4
28.7
1.5
1.6
-
-
7.4
15.5
2.2
385
0.0
0.7
-
-
-
42.4
44.2
-
-
-
-
1,430
1,389
-
305
296
-
TA
312
312
-
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
28.4
28.8
0.5
0.4
-
-
7.3
14.1
2.4
566
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
4.6
4.6
-
-
-
-
27
<25
-
165
158
-
TB
312
312
-
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
28.9
29.3
0.4
0.9
-
-
7.4
15.2
2.1
623
0.2
0.3
-
-
-
4.6
4.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
158
156
-
04/25/06
IN
313
<0.05
<0.1
411
-
<0.05
30.9
29.1
15.0
1.5
944
7.2
16.0
4.8
437
-
-
680
409
271
36.9
34.6
2.3
9.9
24.7
1,417
914
346
352
AC
317
0.1
<0.1
410
-
<0.05
31.1
30.0
1.3
1.5
954
7.1
14.9
2.9
534
0.0
0.1
684
414
270
39.6
4.4
35.2
0.6
3.8
1,516
<25
346
148
TB
317
<0.05
<0.1
514
-
<0.05
<10
29.1
0.4
1.5
948
7.3
15.5
3.1
596
0.1
0.2
682
412
270
3.5
2.3
1.2
<0.1
2.2
31
<25
171
150
05/02/06
IN
300
-
-
-
-
-
;
31.3
17.0
-
-
7.2
13.8
3.4
276
-
-
-
-
-
36.7
-
-
-
-
1,281
-
259
-
AC
292
-
-
-
-
-
;
30.5
1.7
-
-
7.4
13.7
2.6
472
0.1
0.6
-
-
-
37.6
-
-
-
-
1,297
-
259
-
TA
292
-
-
-
-
-
;
30.6
0.5
-
-
7.3
14.0
3.6
465
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
5.5
-
-
-
-
70
-
151
-
TB
296
-
-
-
-
-
;
31.5
0.4
-
-
7.3
13.9
3.1
510
0.0
0.2
-
-
-
4.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
142
-
05/09/06
IN
302
-
-
-
-
-
14.8
31.4
16.0
-
-
7.2
17.4
6.4
60.4
-
-
-
-
-
35.1
-
-
-
-
1,257
-
282
-
AC
297
-
-
-
-
-
16.0
30.9
2.3
-
-
7.0
13.4
3.6
508
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
37.1
-
-
-
-
1,362
-
289
-
TA
297
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.4
1.1
-
-
7.1
16.4
5.5
497
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
5.2
-
-
-
-
77
-
165
-
TB
302
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.1
0.6
-
-
7.1
14.0
3.8
587
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
6.5
-
-
-
-
126
-
171
-
05/1 7/06
IN
298
-
-
-
-
-
14.0
31.6
14.0
-
-
7.2
14.4
2.7
11.9
-
-
-
-
-
36.7
-
-
-
-
1,413
-
378
-
AC
298
-
-
-
-
-
14.5
31.1
1.7
-
-
7.3
12.4
3.3
436
0.0
0.4
-
-
-
37.8
-
-
-
-
1,447
-
369
-
TA
294
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.8
0.4
-
-
7.3
11.7
2.5
469
0.0
0.4
-
-
-
4.9
-
-
-
-
52
-
244
-
TB
302
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.0
0.6
-
-
7.2
11.3
4.0
474
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
5.9
-
-
-
-
92
-
231
-
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Data (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (asCaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
u.g/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
05/23/06
IN
301
0.2
<0.1
835
-
<0.05
<10
30.1
18.0
1.6
990
7.2
12.0
4.0
56.0
-
-
584
354
230
38.6
40.3
<0.1
6.9
33.4
1,203
1,218
389
413
AC
298
0.1
<0.1
839
-
<0.05
<10
30.8
1.6
1.6
1020
7.4
14.5
4.4
450
0.0
0.8
536
324
212
40.6
5.4
35.2
0.2
5.1
1,173
<25
415
228
TA
290
0.1
<0.1
845
-
<0.05
<10
30.0
1.0
1.6
978
7.2
15.3
3.2
479
0.0
0.5
603
345
258
7.1
3.2
3.9
0.3
3.0
67
<25
272
258
05/31/06(a)
IN
299
-
-
-
-
-
50
29.2
19.0
-
-
7.4
14.2
5.3
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
33.4
-
-
-
-
1,307
-
282
-
AC
295
-
-
-
-
-
45.8
28.9
1.7
-
-
7.4
13.7
2.8
437
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
29.9
-
-
-
-
1,142
-
252
-
TA
291
-
-
-
-
-
18.5
29.3
0.6
-
-
7.2
14.5
3.8
455
0.0
0.2
-
-
-
3.9
-
-
-
-
28
-
243
-
TB
295
-
-
-
-
-
20.2
29.1
0.7
-
-
7.2
14.4
3.4
468
0.0
0.7
-
-
-
6.2
-
-
-
-
134
-
224
-
06/06/06
IN
301
-
-
-
-
-
42.5
30.8
19.0
-
-
7.3
14.5
2.8
4.5
-
-
-
-
-
44.3
-
-
-
-
1,465
-
390
-
AC
297
-
-
-
-
-
37.1
31.3
1.2
-
-
7.5
17.8
2.4
405
0.0
0.8
-
-
-
40.3
-
-
-
-
1,216
-
354
-
TA
288
-
-
-
-
-
10.0
30.7
0.7
-
-
7.3
13.3
2.8
452
0.4
0.8
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
235
-
223
-
TB
297
-
-
-
-
-
10.8
30.3
0.5
-
-
7.3
14.8
2.9
460
0.0
0.9
-
-
-
9.3
-
-
-
-
235
-
223
-
06/13/06
IN
302
-
-
-
-
-
36.1
31.9
19.0
-
-
7.4
11.5
2.8
4.5
-
-
-
-
-
46.4
-
-
-
-
1,405
-
431
-
AC
289
-
-
-
-
-
39.6
32.3
2.1
-
-
7.4
13.5
2.4
406
0.0
0.2
-
-
-
49.0
-
-
-
-
1,558
-
430
-
TA
298
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.3
0.4
-
-
7.2
13.7
2.2
451
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
36
-
365
-
TB
298
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.9
0.4
-
-
7.2
12.9
2.6
463
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
6.4
-
-
-
-
65
-
343
-
06/20/06
IN
293
0.2
0.2
421
-
<0.05
34.2
32.2
21.0
NA(b)
1030
7.4
11.0
3.2
21.0
-
-
741
414
327
39.8
38.2
1.6
4.6
33.6
1,370
1,283
442
457
AC
297
0.1
0.2
419
-
<0.05
35.2
32.5
1.4
NA(b)
968
7.5
11.3
2.9
448
0.5
0.5
719
396
323
44.2
3.9
40.3
0.4
3.5
1,378
<25
452
297
TA
301
0.1
0.1
420
-
<0.05
<10
31.9
0.7
NA(b)
1000
7.3
10.8
2.8
464
0.0
0.5
743
413
329
6.4
3.0
3.4
0.3
2.7
116
<25
305
305
(a) Water quality parameters measured on 05/30/06. (b) Sample failed laboratory QA/QC check.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Data (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (asCaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
u.g/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
06/28/06
IN
293
-
-
-
-
-
35.2
32.5
18.0
-
-
7.5
12.1
3.1
23.0
-
-
-
-
-
39.3
-
-
-
-
1,272
-
342
-
AC
297
-
-
-
-
-
33.6
31.7
1.3
-
-
7.5
13.2
3.1
530
0.2
0.7
-
-
-
40.1
-
-
-
-
1,255
-
344
-
TA
293
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.1
0.5
-
-
7.3
14.8
2.5
442
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
4.5
-
-
-
-
35
-
249
-
TB
293
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.8
0.7
-
-
7.4
15.0
10.2
451
0.0
0.7
-
-
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
74
-
248
-
07/10/06
IN
303
-
-
-
<5
-
40.5
30.3
16.0
-
-
7.5
12.1
3.6
71.6
-
-
-
-
-
38.1
-
-
-
-
1,354
-
358
-
AC
299
-
-
-
<5
-
44.0
30.2
3.5
-
-
7.4
12.0
4.3
440
0.0
0.7
-
-
-
44.1
-
-
-
-
1,666
-
370
-
TA
307
-
-
-
<5
-
<10
29.2
0.8
-
-
7.3
11.9
5.9
455
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
5.3
-
-
-
-
78
-
261
-
TB
303
-
-
-
<5
-
<10
29.5
1.6
-
-
7.2
11.5
3.7
466
0.3
0.9
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
94
-
243
-
07/11/06(a)
IN
302
297
-
-
-
-
-
37.8
40.7
29.5
29.8
19.0
19.0
-
-
7.5
12.1
3.6
71.6
-
-
-
-
-
37.9
38.9
-
-
-
-
1,309
1,381
-
348
364
-
AC
297
297
-
-
-
-
-
37.5
42.4
29.8
30.3
2.3
1.6
-
-
7.4
12.0
4.3
440
0.0
0.7
-
-
-
35.1
38.5
-
-
-
-
1,226
1,419
-
325
368
-
TA
302
297
-
-
-
-
-
10.3
<10
29.5
29.5
2.5
0.5
-
-
7.3
11.9
5.9
455
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
6.0
5.1
-
-
-
-
81
62
-
294
285
-
TB
297
302
-
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
29.6
29.4
0.2
0.4
-
-
7.2
11.5
3.7
466
0.3
0.9
-
-
-
6.2
5.8
-
-
-
-
88
97
-
260
259
-
07/18/06
IN
284
0.2
<0.1
434
-
<0.05
27.4
29.3
16.0
1.8
994
7.4
11.3
3.5
25
-
-
636
385
252
38.8
37.6
1.3
11.1
26.5
1,265
1,020
431
432
AC
301
0.1
<0.1
371
-
<0.05
30.5
29.3
2.2
1.8
992
7.6
11.5
3.1
445
0.4
0.8
656
400
256
38.1
3.8
34.3
0.4
3.4
1,372
<25
424
294
TB
288
0.1
<0.1
440
-
<0.05
<10
29.2
0.7
1.8
1030
7.3
11.5
4.0
83.9
0.4
0.9
691
426
266
6.8
3.1
3.7
0.3
2.8
113
<25
314
300
07/26/06
IN
296
-
-
-
-
-
35.3
30.1
16.0
-
-
7.7
12.4
2.3
67.2
-
-
-
-
-
49.8
-
-
-
-
1,375
-
338
-
AC
292
-
-
-
-
-
35.6
30.5
0.9
-
-
7.5
11.5
2.7
445
0.4
0.9
-
-
-
51.3
-
-
-
-
1,385
-
342
-
TA
292
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.1
0.3
-
-
7.3
11.5
2.8
455
0.3
0.9
-
-
-
10.6
-
-
-
-
175
-
216
-
TB
300
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.9
0.9
-
-
7.3
11.2
9.8(b)
464
0.3
0.9
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
158
-
212
-
(a)Water quality parameters measured on 07/10/06. (b) DO levels high on TB due to compressed air line leak.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Data (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
u.g/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
08/01/06
IN
298
-
-
-
-
-
12.9
34.4
15.0
-
-
7.5
12.8
4.0
146
-
-
-
-
-
49.6
-
-
-
-
1,305
-
153
-
AC
294
-
-
-
-
-
20.2
34.4
2.2
-
-
7.5
11.3
4.0
449
0.0
0.6
-
-
-
53.0
-
-
-
-
1,547
-
151
-
TA
294
-
-
-
-
-
<10
34.9
0.3
-
-
7.4
11.3
5.2
458
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
6.2
-
-
-
-
49
-
250
-
TB
298
-
-
-
-
-
<10
34.4
0.4
-
-
7.4
11.0
101(a)
461
0.0
0.7
-
-
-
11.1
-
-
-
-
177
-
255
-
08/09/06
IN
298
-
-
-
-
-
23.6
28.4
59.0
-
-
7.6
14.5
3.0
64.4
-
-
-
-
-
38.9
-
-
-
-
2,757
-
314
-
AC
;
-
-
-
-
-
17.7
;
-
-
-
7.4
12.6
3.4
443
0.4
0.7
-
-
-
44.2
-
-
-
-
1,400
-
135
-
TA
290
-
-
-
-
-
<10
27.9
0.4
-
-
7.3
11.9
3.1
445
0.0
0.7
-
-
-
7.6
-
-
-
-
75
-
226
-
TB
298
-
-
-
-
-
<10
27.8
0.4
-
-
7.4
11.5
9J(a)
455
0.3
0.8
-
-
-
8.6
-
-
-
-
103
-
216
-
08/16/06
IN
290
-
-
-
-
-
27.6
30.2
14.0
-
-
7.7
11.1
3.7
68.1
-
-
-
-
-
39.2
-
-
-
-
1,270
-
346
-
AC
257
-
-
-
-
-
29.8
29.6
1.6
-
-
7.5
10.2
3.9
445
0.5
0.7
-
-
-
40.8
-
-
-
-
1,510
-
353
-
TA
282
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.6
0.6
-
-
7.3
10.5
6.8
451
0.0
0.7
-
-
-
9.4
-
-
-
-
243
-
273
-
TB
278
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.7
1.1
-
-
7.3
10.2
10.6(a)
456
0.4
0.9
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
114
-
243
-
08/21/06
IN
296
0.2
<0.1
421
-
<0.05
30.5
29.1
19.0
1.7
974
7.4
11.7
2.7
23.0
-
-
693
405
289
46.5
43.1
3.4
12.3
30.8
1,424
1,370
357
357
AC
304
0.1
<0.1
427
-
<0.05
34.6
29.0
1.9
1.7
968
7.5
11.7
2.5
440
0.5
0.6
656
374
282
49.6
4.4
45.2
0.5
4.0
1,246
<25
343
221
TA
315
0.1
<0.1
416
-
<0.05
<10
28.8
0.6
1.8
1000
7.5
11.0
2.8
444
0.2
0.5
645
362
283
5.7
3.7
2.0
0.6
3.1
36
<25
266
302
08/30/06
IN
315
-
-
-
-
-
40.5
27.9
13.0
-
-
7.7
11.6
5.0
30.0
-
-
-
-
-
40.4
-
-
-
-
1,337
-
357
-
AC
320
-
-
-
-
-
43.7
28.6
0.8
-
-
7.5
10.7
3.4
452
0.4
0.6
-
-
-
43.6
-
-
-
-
1,439
-
368
-
TA
328
-
-
-
-
-
<10
27.7
0.3
-
-
7.3
11.0
6.6
445
0.0
0.6
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
-
83
-
232
-
TB
315
-
-
-
-
-
13.7
27.0
0.4
-
-
7.1
10.9
4.5
456
0.2
0.7
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
68
-
278
-
(a) DO levels high on TB due to compressed air line leak.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Data (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
09/06/06
IN
294(a)
-
-
-
-
-
26.8
29.0
16.0
-
-
7.6
11.5
2.5
33.8
-
-
-
-
-
39.9
-
-
-
-
1,213
-
371
-
AC
320
-
-
-
-
-
27.7
28.9
1.0
-
-
7.5
10.3
4.0
406
0.5
0.7
-
-
-
40.8
-
-
-
-
1,221
-
380
-
TA
320
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.3
0.3
-
-
7.4
10.5
3.3
421
0.3
0.8
-
-
-
9.4
-
-
-
-
198
-
232
-
TB
324
-
-
-
-
-
<10
27.7
0.3
-
-
7.3
10.7
91 (b)
428
0.4
0.8
-
-
-
6.7
-
-
-
-
107
-
222
-
09/12/06
IN
328
-
-
-
-
-
23.5
29.1
16.0
-
-
7.4
11.4
2.6
39.7
-
-
-
-
-
43.5
-
-
-
-
1,357
-
328
-
AC
323
-
-
-
-
-
22.1
29.7
0.9
-
-
7.5
11.3
4.0
433
0.5
0.7
-
-
-
41.9
-
-
-
-
1,328
-
330
-
TA
307
-
-
-
-
-
<10
27.7
0.2
-
-
7.3
11.4
4.4
450
0.3
0.8
-
-
-
5.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
299
-
TB
335
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.2
0.2
-
-
7.3
11.3
8.5(b)
438
0.3
0.7
-
-
-
4.6
-
-
-
-
31
-
281
-
09/20/06
IN
315
0.2
<0.1
383
-
<0.05
<10
30.8
18.0
1.8
980
7.8
12.3
3.6
39.7
-
-
716
403
313
41.6
34.0
<0.1
10.9
30.0
1,399
1,343
331
330
AC
315
<0.05
<0.1
417
-
<0.05
28.6
31.4
1.8
2.0
958
7.5
11.6
3.8
452
0.3
1.1
708
395
312
44.4
4.9
39.5
0.3
4.6
1,342
<25
330
185
TT
320
0.1
0.2
422
-
0.1
<10
30.5
0.8
1.7
456
7.6
12.2
3.4
441
0.3
1.0
701
388
313
6.5
3.6
2.9
0.2
3.4
59
<25
185
182
09/27/06
IN
324
-
-
-
-
-
49.4
28.6
14.0
-
-
7.7
11.7
2.5
33.8
-
-
-
-
-
35.4
-
-
-
-
1,344
-
329
-
AC
312
-
-
-
-
-
74.1
29.2
1.8
-
-
7.5
11.2
3.4
433
0.3
1.1
-
-
-
37.3
-
-
-
-
1,403
-
323
-
TA
324
-
-
-
-
-
41.2
28.7
0.4
-
-
7.4
11.2
2.6
450
0.3
0.8
-
-
-
5.5
-
-
-
-
51
-
296
-
TB
319
-
-
-
-
-
48.2
28.8
0.6
-
-
7.4
11.5
91(b)
438
0.4
0.8
-
-
-
6.6
-
-
-
-
78
-
257
-
10/04/06
IN
320
-
-
-
-
-
38.2
28.9
15.0
-
-
7.7
13.4
3.6
457
-
-
-
-
-
50.2
-
-
-
-
1,220
-
295
-
AC
323
-
-
-
-
-
38.3
29.5
1.5
-
-
7.4
12.2
3.6
457
0.4
1.0
-
-
-
48.2
-
-
-
-
1,256
-
295
-
TA
314
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.9
0.5
-
-
7.3
12.7
2.7
448
0.0
0.4
-
-
-
9.8
-
-
-
-
150
-
258
-
TB
325
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.4
0.3
-
-
7.3
12.0
7.1(b)
451
0.2
0.9
-
-
-
7.9
-
-
-
-
101
-
212
-
(a) Reanalysis conducted outside of hold time, (b) DO levels high on TB due to compressed air line leak.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Data (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
10/11/06
IN
325
331
-
-
-
-
-
25.3
24.5
30.8
29.9
18.0
18.0
-
-
7.1
12.2
2.9
450
-
-
-
-
-
44.8
44.6
-
-
-
-
1,307
1,322
-
342
346
-
AC
325
325
-
-
-
-
-
26.3
32.1
29.1
29.2
1.3
1.2
-
-
7.1
12.4
3.9
451
0.2
0.4
-
-
-
45.5
47.7
-
-
-
-
1,276
1,255
-
343
312
-
TA
338
342
-
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
29.4
29.6
0.4
0.4
-
-
7.1
12.4
2.8
444
0.2
0.4
-
-
-
6.8
7.0
-
-
-
-
75
136
-
234
237
-
TB
314
323
-
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
30.7
29.5
0.5
0.7
-
-
7.2
12.2
8.2(a)
441
0.2
0.4
-
-
-
6.6
6.8
-
-
-
-
68
70
-
236
238
-
10/17/06
IN
320
0.2
0.2
470
-
<0.05
33.4
28.8
18.0
1.7
930
7.5
15.8
2.7
464
-
-
734
441
293
48.9
45.4
3.5
8.8
36.6
1,389
1,275
413
409
AC
327
0.2
0.2
475
-
<0.05
33.2
29.2
1.6
1.8
914
7.4
14.9
3.5
464
0.0
0.1
662
358
304
46.5
5.1
41.4
0.7
4.4
1,276
<25
384
321
TT
324
0.2
0.2
469
-
<0.05
<10
29.7
0.8
1.8
924
7.3
14.9
2.4
454
0.0
0.1
662
340
322
6.3
4.3
2.0
0.5
3.7
33
<25
370
391
10/26/06
IN
326
-
-
-
-
-
25.6
30.0
21.0
-
-
7.6
11.0
2.8
464
-
-
-
-
-
48.3
-
-
-
-
1,380
-
341
-
AC
314
-
-
-
-
-
25.8
28.8
3.9
-
-
7.8
10.9
2.9
465
0.2
0.3
-
-
-
49.6
-
-
-
-
1,597
-
342
-
TA
316
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.8
1.8
-
-
7.4
11.9
4.8
450
0.2
0.4
-
-
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
392
-
TB
322
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.1
1.4
-
-
7.4
11.0
7.0
441
0.2
0.4
-
-
-
6.7
-
-
-
-
54
-
324
-
11/01/06
IN
318
-
-
-
-
-
35.4
30.2
17.0
-
-
7.7
12.0
2.6
363
-
-
-
-
-
44.8
-
-
-
-
1,369
-
409
-
AC
318
-
-
-
-
-
34.3
29.9
1.5
-
-
7.5
12.0
2.9
389
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
45.4
-
-
-
-
1,406
-
412
-
TA
318
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.7
0.5
-
-
7.3
10.0
1.6
400
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
7.3
-
-
-
-
110
-
318
-
TB
318
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.0
0.9
-
-
7.3
10.9
2.2
409
0.0
0.2
-
-
-
7.6
-
-
-
-
123
-
333
-
11/09/06
IN
312
-
-
-
-
-
25.8
29.0
20.0
-
-
7.7
12.3
2.9
436
-
-
-
-
-
52.6
-
-
-
-
1,167
-
349
-
AC
322
-
-
-
-
-
28.8
29.6
8.5
-
-
7.6
11.9
3.5
423
0.1
0.2
-
-
-
54.5
-
-
-
-
1,252
-
342
-
TA
300
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.6
3.6
-
-
7.5
11.6
2.7
413
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
334
-
TB
310
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.8
92(b)
-
-
7.5
11.6
3.7
406
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
7.5
-
-
-
-
53
-
311
-
(a) DO levels high on TB due to compressed air line leak.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Data (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (asCaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
11/16/06
IN
338
-
-
-
-
-
38.9
28.7
17.0
-
-
7.8
11.9
2.0
333
-
-
-
-
-
50.5
-
-
-
-
1,126
-
353
-
AC
334
-
-
-
-
-
40.8
29.3
1.4
-
-
7.6
11.9
2.7
422
0.1
0.3
-
-
-
52.9
-
-
-
-
1,101
-
322
-
TA
327
-
-
-
-
-
<10
27.9
0.6
-
-
7.4
11.6
2.0
412
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
5.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
291
-
TB
329
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.3
0.6
-
-
7.4
11.6
3.0
407
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
5.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
281
-
11/29/06
IN
316
-
-
-
-
-
28.4
29.9
32.0
-
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
-
-
27.7
-
-
-
-
1,664
-
325
-
AC
312
-
-
-
-
-
30.0
28.0
1.9
-
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
38.0
-
-
-
-
1,485
-
332
-
TA
306
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.4
0.6
-
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
5.1
-
-
-
-
70
-
281
-
TB
314
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.9
0.4
-
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
5.5
-
-
-
-
103
-
348
-
12/06/06
IN
323
0.2
0.2
502
-
<0.05
22.0
28.6
17.0
1.7
906
7.4
10.2
2.8
436
-
-
733
409
323
51.1
49.2
1.9
11.2
38.1
1,156
1,133
386
395
AC
331
0.2
0.2
486
-
<0.05
22.1
27.9
1.4
1.6
902
7.6
10.1
3.7
423
0.1
0.3
731
408
323
49.2
5.0
44.3
0.7
4.3
1,179
<25
373
276
TT
321
0.2
0.2
508
-
<0.05
<10
28.0
0.5
1.6
926
7.7
10.7
3.8
435
0.1
0.6
718
412
306
8.8
4.5
4.3
0.5
4.0
93
<25
289
293
12/13/06
IN
320
-
-
-
-
-
18.3
28.9
46.0
-
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
-
-
30.1
-
-
-
-
2,014
-
322
-
AC
326
-
-
-
-
-
21.1
29.2
1.3
-
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
40.2
-
-
-
-
1,299
-
302
-
TA
322
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.5
0.8
-
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
5.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
259
-
TB
313
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.3
0.4
-
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
6.0
-
-
-
-
25
-
288
-
12/20/06
IN
320
-
-
-
-
-
28.4
29.3
16.0
-
-
7.4
10.5
2.7
437
-
-
-
-
-
50.4
-
-
-
-
1,326
-
373
-
AC
316
-
-
-
-
-
30.0
29.2
1.8
-
-
7.5
10.5
3.7
425
0.0
0.2
-
-
-
49.7
-
-
-
-
1,294
-
368
-
TA
318
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.1
0.9
-
-
7.4
10.5
2.6
415
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
7.0
-
-
-
-
40
-
275
-
TB
318
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.9
0.8
-
-
7.4
10.5
3.3
406
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
7.9
-
-
-
-
83
-
284
-
(a) Water quality parameters were not measured.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Data (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
01/03/07
IN
339
0.2
0.2
417
-
<0.05
23.0
29.6
19.0
1.6
870
7.7
11.5
3.9
232
-
-
717
454
263
49.8
45.5
4.3
3.8
41.7
1,465
1,578
385
398
AC
341
0.2
0.2
435
-
<0.05
20.6
29.9
1.5
1.6
904
7.8
11.5
3.9
504
0.0
0.2
702
453
250
48.8
4.2
44.6
0.3
3.8
1,561
<25
387
316
TT
327
0.2
0.2
439
-
<0.05
<10
28.6
0.4
1.6
918
7.6
11.3
3.4
422
0.1
0.1
710
430
280
6.6
4.1
2.4
0.2
3.9
66
<25
315
314
01/09/07
IN
320
-
-
-
-
-
17.5
29.7
17.0
-
-
7.1
12.5
4.1
390
-
-
-
-
-
46.1
-
-
-
-
1,368
-
345
-
AC
315
-
-
-
-
-
19.1
28.9
1.7
-
-
7.2
11.2
4.8
436
0.0
0.2
-
-
-
45.5
-
-
-
-
1,362
-
336
-
TA
324
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.9
0.4
-
-
7.2
11.3
3.6
407
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
5.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
310
-
TB
324
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.1
0.4
-
-
7.1
11.2
3.3
407
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
41
-
331
-
01/17/07
IN
299
-
-
-
-
-
40.5
29.4
21.0
-
-
7.1
11.0
4.8
441
-
-
-
-
-
31.2
-
-
-
-
1,163
-
380
-
AC
308
-
-
-
-
-
53.0
29.8
2.3
-
-
7.0
10.7
4.5
466
0.0
0.6
-
-
-
38.0
-
-
-
-
1,338
-
330
-
TA
311
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.1
0.4
-
-
7.0
10.9
7.3
470
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
6.8
-
-
-
-
112
-
190
-
TB
301
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.8
0.8
-
-
7.0
10.8
4.3
466
0.0
0.4
-
-
-
6.0
-
-
-
-
89
-
188
-
01/23/07
IN
310
-
-
-
-
-
36.6
28.7
18.0
-
-
6.9
12.2
3.5
440
-
-
-
-
-
33.9
-
-
-
-
1,348
-
312
-
AC
310
-
-
-
-
-
42.3
29.1
1.5
-
-
6.9
11.8
3.6
458
0.1
0.8
-
-
-
44.5
-
-
-
-
1,442
-
323
-
TA
310
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.4
0.7
-
-
6.9
11.6
3.2
476
0.0
0.8
-
-
-
7.1
-
-
-
-
98
-
184
-
TB
328
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.7
0.7
-
-
6.9
11.5
3.1
463
0.1
0.8
-
-
-
7.0
-
-
-
-
115
-
184
-
01/31/07
IN
328
0.2
0.2
431
-
<0.05
55.7
28.5
45.0
1.6
946
6.8
12.2
5.6
432
-
-
727
431
296
29.1
25.0
4.0
10.0
15.0
1,526
537
296
196
AC
304
<0.05
0.2
433
-
<0.05
64.5
28.7
2.2
1.6
922
6.8
11.2
3.9
484
0.1
0.3
746
425
320
43.7
8.3
35.4
2.4
5.9
1,269
<25
313
92.3
TT
320
<0.05
0.2
422
-
<0.05
20.9
28.2
0.6
1.5
936
6.8
11.4
3.7
508
0.0
0.2
711
419
293
10.0
8.0
2.0
3.7
4.3
95
<25
105
88.7
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Data (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
02/06/07
IN
324
-
-
-
-
-
26.5
28.7
19.0
-
-
6.8
14.1
4.0
423
-
-
-
-
-
40.2
-
-
-
-
1,158
-
321
-
AC
320
-
-
-
-
-
27.3
28.8
1.8
-
-
6.9
12.0
2.9
657
0.8
1.0
-
-
-
40.0
-
-
-
-
1,087
-
316
-
TA
317
-
-
-
-
-
<10
27.9
0.6
-
-
6.9
12.2
3.6
616
0.2
0.4
-
-
-
7.9
-
-
-
-
115
-
104
-
TB
327
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.7
0.5
-
-
6.9
12.0
2.8
657
0.5
0.8
-
-
-
5.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
99.3
-
02/13/07
IN
313
313
-
-
-
-
-
42.1
41.5
31.6
30.9
17.0
16.0
-
-
6.7
12.7
4.8
369
-
-
-
-
-
37.4
37.7
-
-
-
-
1,074
1,126
-
331
341
-
AC
318
318
-
-
-
-
-
44.2
44.4
31.0
30.8
2.1
2.9
-
-
6.8
12.0
4.0
585
0.3
0.9
-
-
-
39.2
40.0
-
-
-
-
1,155
1,195
-
332
340
-
TA
315
315
-
-
-
-
-
<10
10.3
31.5
30.9
0.6
0.5
-
-
6.9
12.0
8.2
608
0.1
0.4
-
-
-
5.9
6.2
-
-
-
-
59
59
-
78.8
77.4
-
TB
313
318
-
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
31.7
30.7
0.5
0.6
-
-
6.9
12.0
4.4
628
0.2
0.6
-
-
-
5.2
5.2
-
-
-
-
37
35
-
99.0
96.7
-
02/20/07
IN
330
-
-
-
-
-
43.8
29.9
18.0
-
-
6.8
13.5
4.1
385
-
-
-
-
-
46.6
-
-
-
-
1,092
-
318
-
AC
325
-
-
-
-
-
43.4
30.3
2.9
-
-
6.8
12.3
5.8
589
0.1
0.7
-
-
-
44.6
-
-
-
-
1,153
-
314
-
TA
315
-
-
-
-
-
11.1
30.1
0.4
-
-
6.9
12.6
4.0
581
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
7.7
-
-
-
-
40
-
74.5
-
TB
320
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.5
1.2
-
-
6.9
12.3
3.9
666
0.2
0.6
-
-
-
6.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
87.0
-
02/27/07
IN
316
0.2
0.2
478
-
<0.05
43.0
29.5
14.0
1.8
918
6.9
13.0
2.7
385
-
-
746
433
312
48.8
42.9
5.9
14.0
28.9
1,116
1,108
333
334
AC
314
<0.05
0.5
479
-
<0.05
44.7
29.9
1.8
1.8
932
6.9
11.3
2.2
585
0.6
1.0
764
456
308
47.1
5.2
41.9
1.1
4.1
1,241
<25
335
81.8
TT
318
<0.05
0.2
490
-
<0.05
10.2
29.2
0.6
1.7
940
6.9
11.3
1.8
651
0.3
0.6
781
470
311
9.3
4.9
4.4
1.0
4.0
121
<25
81.1
53.7
03/06/07
IN
322
-
-
-
-
-
18.4
29.1
18.0
-
-
7.0
13.0
4.4
331
-
-
-
-
-
33.7
-
-
-
-
1,019
-
393
-
AC
320
-
-
-
-
-
30.4
28.6
7.0
-
-
7.0
14.3
5.9
561
1.4
1.9
-
-
-
44.1
-
-
-
-
1,328
-
367
-
TA
317
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.2
0.4
-
-
7.0
14.5
6.7
667
0.9
1.3
-
-
-
8.5
-
-
-
-
91
-
47.6
-
TB
312
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.2
1.7
-
-
7.0
14.5
4.0
696
1.0
1.4
-
-
-
8.9
-
-
-
-
106
-
51.1
-
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Data (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
l-ig/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
03/13/07
IN
323
-
-
-
-
-
33.0
28.9
18.0
-
-
7.2
11.9
9.2
446
-
-
-
-
-
44.8
-
-
-
-
1,023
-
299
-
AC
328
-
-
-
-
-
34.2
29.2
2.9
-
-
7.2
11.3
3.5
679
0.8
1.1
-
-
-
44.0
-
-
-
-
1,056
-
292
-
TA
326
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.1
5.0
-
-
7.1
11.4
2.5
624
0.4
0.9
-
-
-
8.3
-
-
-
-
122
-
76.0
-
TB
328
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.2
1.6
-
-
7.1
10.6
3.3
686
0.7
0.8
-
-
-
7.6
-
-
-
-
102
-
71.0
-
03/20/07
IN
325
-
-
-
-
-
46.2
30.5
19.0
-
-
6.9
14.4
5.1
404
-
-
-
-
-
54.5
-
-
-
-
1,140
-
276
-
AC
325
-
-
-
-
-
46.7
30.6
5.1
-
-
6.9
13.2
4.2
575
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
53.8
-
-
-
-
1,170
-
250
-
TA
322
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.1
1.9
-
-
6.9
13.5
3.4
658
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
6.5
-
-
-
-
44
-
85.3
-
TB
327
-
-
-
-
-
11.3
30.7
1.4(a)
-
-
6.9
13.6
3.2
658
0.1
0.3
-
-
-
6.6
-
-
-
-
51
-
82.8
-
03/28/07
IN
306
0.2
0.2
421
-
<0.05
52.9
29.6
16.0
1.8
958
7.2
12.2
3.5
431
-
-
708
395
312
46.8
45.9
0.9
11.4
34.4
1,082
1,014
280
297
AC
303
<0.05
0.3
422
-
<0.05
51.9
29.3
1.9
1.6
984
7.2
11.0
6.1
600
1.7
2.0
687
381
306
46.9
6.6
40.3
1.6
5.0
1,078
<25
274
84.8
TT
308
<0.05
0.2
423
-
<0.05
19.7
29.1
0.8
1.7
992
7.1
11.0
3.2
455
1.5
2.0
664
369
294
10.9
5.9
4.9
1.6
4.4
144
<25
42.3
20.9
04/03/07
IN
316
-
-
-
-
-
34.4
28.3
16.0
-
-
6.8
12.7
4.2
406
-
-
-
-
-
48.4
-
-
-
-
1,215
-
228
-
AC
309
-
-
-
-
-
30.1
28.4
1.9
-
-
6.9
11.3
4.4
579
1.3
1.5
-
-
-
45.0
-
-
-
-
1,190
-
218
-
TA
311
-
-
-
-
-
<10
27.9
0.9
-
-
6.9
11.3
4.8
630
1.0
1.2
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
24.6
-
TB
316
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.1
0.6
-
-
6.8
11.4
3.6
686
1.0
1.3
-
-
-
5.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
27.7
-
04/10/07
IN
315
-
-
-
-
-
46.6
30.0
19.0
-
-
7.1
12.5
3.2
408
-
-
-
-
-
48.3
-
-
-
-
1,005
-
361
-
AC
315
-
-
-
-
-
48.7
29.4
3.4
-
-
7.3
11.7
3.8
600
0.9
1.1
-
-
-
46.5
-
-
-
-
1,024
-
365
-
TA
315
-
-
-
-
-
17.2
29.2
1.6
-
-
7.2
12.4
3.9
631
0.2
0.3
-
-
-
7.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
16.9
-
TB
317
-
-
-
-
-
17.8
29.3
1.9
-
-
7.2
12.1
3.5
640
0.5
0.9
-
-
-
7.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
17.5
-
(a) Reanalysis outside of hold time.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Data (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (asCaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
04/1 7/07
IN
314
-
-
-
-
-
42.1
31.0
18.0
-
-
7.0
12.5
3.3
409
-
-
-
-
-
48.2
-
-
-
-
1,079
-
385
-
AC
312
-
-
-
-
-
43.9
31.2
2.0
-
-
7.3
11.5
3.7
593
0.6
1.0
-
-
-
46.7
-
-
-
-
1,093
-
382
-
TA
314
-
-
-
-
-
11.5
30.5
1.4
-
-
7.1
12.5
3.5
641
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
8.2
-
-
-
-
77
-
25.8
-
TB
312
-
-
-
-
-
12.9
30.9
0.7
-
-
7.2
12.5
3.5
657
0.6
0.8
-
-
-
9.0
-
-
-
-
104
-
34.2
-
B-13
------- |