EPA/600/R-06/152
December 2006
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Climax, MN
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Wendy E. Condit
Abraham S.C. Chen
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0019
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, 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 is funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0019 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The United States 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 groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and 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
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained for the arsenic removal treatment
technology demonstration project at the Climax, Minnesota, site. The objectives of the project were to
evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of Kinetico's Macrolite® pressure filtration process in removing arsenic to
meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |o,g/L; (2) the reliability of the treatment
system; (3) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator's skills; and 4) the
capital and O&M costs of the technology. The project also characterized water in the distribution system
and process residuals produced by the treatment system.
The Macrolite® FM-236-AS arsenic removal system consisted of two 42-in-diameter by 72-in-tall contact
tanks (345 gal), and two 36-in-diameter by 72-in-tall filtration vessels (264 gal), each containing 14 ft3 of
Macrolite® media. The system also included two chemical addition assemblies, one each for
prechlorination and supplemental iron addition. Prechlorination was used to oxidize As(III) to As(V) and
form As(V)-laden iron solids prior to the Macrolite® pressure filtration. The design flowrate was 140
gal/min (gpm), which yielded 5 min of contact time prior to pressure filtration and 10 gpm/ft2 of hydraulic
loading rate to the filters. From August 11, 2004, through August 12, 2005, the system operated for a
total of 2,086 hr at approximately 5.6 hr/day. Based on the totalizer to treatment readings, the system
treated approximately 13,829,000 gal of water with an average daily water demand of 38,560 gal during
this time period. The system operated in the service mode within the flow and pressure specifications.
Operational issues related to the automated backwash process led to a number of backwash failures, but
were later resolved.
Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 31.2 to 51.4 |o,g/L with As(III) being the
predominating species at an average concentration of 35.8 |o,g/L. Iron in raw water existed primarily in
the soluble form with an average value of 485 |o,g/L. This amount of soluble iron corresponded to an
iron:arsenic ratio of 13:1 given the average soluble iron and soluble arsenic levels in raw water. From
August 11, 2004, to January 3, 2005, total arsenic levels in the treated water averaged 14.1 |og/L,
indicating the need for supplemental iron addition to improve arsenic removal.
Supplemental iron addition using ferric chloride was initiated on January 3, 2005, with an average iron
dosage of approximately 0.85 mg/L (as Fe). Total arsenic levels in the treated water were reduced to
6.0 to 9.3 |og/L with no exceedances of arsenic above the 10-|a,g/L MCL. A slight increase in particulate
iron was observed in the Macrolite® filter effluent with concentrations increasing from <25 to 36.8 |o,g/L
before iron addition to <25 to 104 |o,g/L after iron addition. However, filtration of arsenic-laden particles
at a hydraulic loading rate of up to 10.7 gpm/ft2 (compared to 2 gpm/ft2 for conventional gravity filters)
and a median filter run time of 11 hr did not appear to have caused significant penetration of particles
through the Macrolite® filters. The filters were set for backwash at 20 lb/in2 increase in differential
pressure across the filters, 24 hr of run time, or 48 hr of standby time.
After adjustments were made to the backwash control settings, the rate of backwash water generation was
reduced to approximately 1.6% of the amount of treated water produced. The backwash water contained
relatively low levels of soluble arsenic (i.e., 8.7 |o,g/L on average) and soluble iron (i.e., 86.4 |o,g/L on
average); total arsenic levels ranged from 1,420 to 1,850 |o,g/L and total iron levels from 74.2 to
97.6 mg/L. The iron levels in the solids ranged from 2.46 x 105 to 3.12 x 105 |j,g/g and the arsenic levels
from 3,830 to 4,540 |o,g/g. Given an average total suspended solid (TSS) loading of 233 mg/L and 1,000
gal per backwash event, approximately 1.9 Ib of solids were generated per backwash event. The
backwash solids passed the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test for all analytes with
only barium showing detectable concentrations ranging from 0.189 to 0.231 mg/L. The TCLP regulatory
in
-------
limit set by EPA is 5 mg/L for arsenic and 100 mg/L for barium. As such, the backwash solids were non-
hazardous.
Arsenic levels in the distribution system water samples averaged 10.3 jog/L after iron addition, which was
higher than the average arsenic level in the treated water at 7.4 |o,g/L. The higher arsenic levels in the
distribution system are an indication of potential solubilization, destablization, and/or desorption of
arsenic-laden particles/scales in the distribution system. Total iron levels in the distribution system at an
average of 74.7 |o,g/L were also higher in the distribution system, compared to the average value of
41.8 |o,g/L in the treated water. Manganese levels were generally lower in the distribution system samples
at 33.8 |og/L, compared to 83.4 |o,g/L in the treated water. Lead levels in the distribution system were not
affected by the treatment system. Copper concentrations appeared to have increased with concentrations
ranging from 53 to 1,027 |o,g/L after system startup, but the teatment system did not appear to have
impacted the pH, temperature, and/or hardness of the water in the distribution system.
The capital investment cost was $270,530, which included $159,419 for equipment, $39,344 for
engineering, and $71,767 for installation. The equipment cost can vary based on the level of
preassembly, automation, and instrumentation included on the system. Using the system's rated capacity
of 140 gpm (201,600 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $1,932 per gpm ($1.34 per gpd). These
calculations did not include the cost of a building addition to house the treatment system. The total
capital cost of $270,530 was converted to a unit cost of $0.35/1,000 gal, using a capital recovery factor
(CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a 20-year return period. These calculations assumed
that the system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at the system design flowrate of 140 gpm. The
system operated only 5.6 hr/day and produced 13,829,000 gal of water during the study period. At this
reduced usage rate, the total unit cost was increased to $1.85/1,000 gal.
The O&M cost for the system included only incremental expenses associated with the chemical supply,
electricity consumption, and labor. The total O&M cost was estimated at $0.29/1,000 gal. The total cost
for arsenic removal was estimated at $2.14/1,000 gal based on the actual water usage rate and capital and
O&M cost incurred during the one-year demonstration study period.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER i
FOREWORD ii
ABSTRACT iii
APPENDICES vi
FIGURES vi
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x
Section 1.0: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 1
1.3 Project Objectives 2
Section 2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 3
Section 3.0: MATERIALS AND METHODS 4
3.1 General Project Approach 4
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 5
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 5
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection 7
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection 7
3.3.3 Backwash Water Sample Collection 7
3.3.4 Backwash Solid Sample Collection 7
3.3.5 Distribution System Water Sample Collection 7
3.4 Sampling Logistics 8
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 8
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 8
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 8
3.5 Analytical Procedures 9
Section 4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 10
4.1 Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure 10
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 10
4.1.2 Distribution System and Treated Water Quality 13
4.2 Treatment Process Description 13
4.3 System Installation 17
4.3.1 Permitting 17
4.3.2 Building Construction 17
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 18
4.4 System Operation 19
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 19
4.4.2 Backwash 20
4.4.2.1 Backwash Settings 22
4.4.2.2 Other Backwash Problems 24
4.4.3 Residual Management 25
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 25
4.4.4.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements 26
-------
4.4.4.2 System Automation 26
4.4.4.3 Operator Skill Requirements 26
4.4.4.4 Preventive Maintenance Activities 26
4.4.4.5 Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements 26
4.5 System Performance 26
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 29
4.5.1.1 Arsenic and Iron Removal 29
4.5.1.2 Manganese Removal 34
4.5.1.3 Other Water Quality Parameters 34
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling 34
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 37
4.6 System Cost 39
4.6.1 Capital Cost 39
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 40
Section 5.0: REFERENCES 42
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Operational Data A-l
APPENDIX B: Analytical Data B-l
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Pump House at Climax, MN, Site 10
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Wellhead and Associated Piping 11
Figure 4-3. Climax, MN, Water Tower 11
Figure 4-4. Process Schematic of Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System 14
Figure 4-5. Photograph of Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System ® (Control Panel [#1],
Macrolite® Filters [#2 and #3], and Contact Tanks [#4 and #5]) 14
Figure 4-6. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 16
Figure 4-7. New Building Constructed Adjacent to the Pre-Existing Pump House and Water
Tower 18
Figure 4-8. Ap Readings across Macrolite® System and Filtration Vessels A and B 21
Figure 4-9. Backwash Water Turbidity Profiles 23
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Concentrations across Treatment Train 30
Figure 4-11. Total Iron Concentrations across Treatment Train 30
Figure 4-12. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at Wellhead (IN), after Contact Tanks (AC), and
after Tanks A and B Combined (TT) 32
Figure 4-13. Results of Arsenic/Iron Leakage Studies 33
VI
-------
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Technologies and Source Water
Quality Parameters 2
Table 3-1. Completion Dates of Pre-Demonstration Study Activities 4
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 5
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses 6
Table 4-1. Climax, MN, Raw and Treated Water Quality Data 12
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media 13
Table 4-3. Design Specifications for Macrolite® FM-236-AS Pressure Filtration System 15
Table 4-4. Summary of System Operation at Climax, MN 19
Table 4-5. Summary of PLC Settings for Automated Backwash Operations at Climax, MN 21
Table 4-6. Summary of Backwash Parameters 22
Table 4-7. Summary of Backwash Issues Reported During Study Period 24
Table 4-8. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results before and after
Supplemental Iron Addition 27
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results 28
Table 4-10. Backwash Water Sampling Results 35
Table 4-11. Backwash Solid Sample Total Metal Results 36
Table 4-12. Backwash Solid Sample TCLP Results 37
Table 4-13. Distribution Sampling Results 38
Table 4-14. Summary of Capital Investment for the Climax, MN, Treatment System 40
Table 4-15. O&M Cost for the Climax, MN, Treatment System 41
vn
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL
Al
AM
As
BL
BTU-hr
Ca
C/F
Cl
CRF
Cu
DO
EPA
F
Fe
FRP
GFH
gpd
gpm
HOPE
hp
ICP-MS
ID
IX
LCR
MCL
MDL
MDH
MDWCA
Mg
Mn
Mo
mV
Na
NA
NaOCl
American Analytical Laboratories
aluminum
adsorptive media
arsenic
baseline
British Thermal Units per hour
calcium
coagulation/filtration
chlorine
capital recovery factor
copper
dissolved oxygen
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
fluoride
iron
fiberglass reinforced plastic
granular ferric hydroxide
gallons per day
gallons per minute
high-density polyethylene
horsepower
inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
identification
ion exchange
Lead and Copper Rule
maximum contaminant level
method detection limit
Minnesota Department of Health
Mutual Domestic Water Consumer's Association
magnesium
manganese
molybdenum
millivolts
sodium
not applicable
sodium hypochlorite
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NS not sampled
NSF NSF International
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
OIP operator-interface-panel
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
PE professional engineer
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagrams
PLC programmable logic controller
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QAPP quality assurance project plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RPD relative percent difference
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SM system modification
STMGID South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
STS Severn Trent Services
TBD to be determined
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
WRWC White Rock Water Company
UPS uninterruptible power supply
V vanadium
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of the Water Department in Climax,
Minnesota. The staff monitored the treatment system daily and collected samples from the treatment
system and distribution system on a regular schedule throughout this study. This performance evaluation
would not have been possible without their efforts.
-------
Section 1.0: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) mandates that United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and
that are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in the first round of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on
their water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 sites from a list of 115 sites to be the host sites for the
demonstration studies. The water system in Climax, Minnesota, was selected as one of the 17 Round
1 host sites for the demonstration program.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical 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. Kinetico's Macrolite® pressure
filtration process was selected for the Climax, Minnesota, facility.
Following a series of pre-demonstration activities including engineering design, permitting, and system
installation, startup, and shakedown, the performance evaluation of the system began on August 11, 2004,
and was completed on August 12, 2005.
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the 12 Round 1 EPA arsenic removal demonstration host sites include nine
adsorptive media systems, one anion exchange system, one coagulation/filtration system, and one process
modification with iron addition. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, and key
source water quality parameters (including arsenic, iron, and pH) of the 12 demonstration sites. An
overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 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/arsenic/ resource.htm.
-------
1.3
Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 12 full-scale arsenic treatment
technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific
objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small systems
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the Kinetico system in Climax, Minnesota, from August 11,
2004, through August 12, 2005. The types of data collected include system operation, water quality (both
across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and capital and O&M cost.
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Technologies and Source Water Quality Parameters
Demonstration Site
WRWC Public Water
System, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Queen Anne's County, MD
Brown City, MI
Climax, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
Desert Sands MDWCA, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Fruitland, ID
STMGID, NV
Technology
(Media)
AM(G2)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
C/F
SM
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
IX
AM (GFH)
Vendor
ADI
AdEdge
STS
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
USFilter
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
70(a)
100
300
640
140
250
320
145
90(a)
37
250
350
Source Water Quality
As
(Hg/L)
39
36(b)
19(b)
14(b)
39(b)
146(b)
23(b)
33
50
41
44
39
Fe
(Hg/L)
<25
46
270(c)
127«o
546(c)
l,325(c)
39
<25
170
<25
<25
<25
PH
7.7
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.7
8.5
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.4
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; GFH = granular ferric hydroxide; IX = ion
exchange; SM = system modification; MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water Consumer's Association; STMGID :
South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District; STS = Severn Trent Services; WRWC = White Rock
Water Company
(a) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to a reduced flowrate of 40 gpm.
(b) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(c) Iron existing mostly as soluble Fe(II).
-------
Section 2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during one year of system operation, the following conclusions were
made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• With proper pre-chlorination and supplemental iron addition, the Macrolite® pressure
filtration system can consistently remove arsenic to < 10 (ig/L. The addition of ferric
chloride was needed to supplement the natural iron in raw water that had an average soluble
iron to average soluble arsenic ratio of 13:1.
• Natural iron solids appear to have a greater As(V) adsorptive capacity than iron solids formed
from supplemental iron addition. Analyses of backwash solids yield an Fe:As ratio of 67:1,
which is much higher than the 20:1 ratio as a rule of thumb for effective arsenic removal
(EPA, 2001; Sorg, 2002).
• Chlorine was effective in oxidizing As(III) to As(V), reducing As(III) concentrations from
35.8 |o,g/L (on average) in raw water to 2.0 |o,g/L (on average) after the contact tank.
• The pressure filters can be operated at filtration rates as high as 10.7 gpm/ft2; no significant
particulate arsenic leakage was observed under these high filtration rates. After iron addition,
a slight increase in particulate iron (from < 25 to 42.8 |o,g/L [on average]) in the treated water
was observed, however.
• Pre-chlorination oxidized and precipitated approximately 42% of soluble manganese; only
particulate manganese was removed by the Macrolite® filters.
Simplicity of required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• The daily demand for operator labor was approximately 30 min; however, it was necessary
for the operator to closely monitor backwash operational issues and work closely with the
vendor to troubleshoot and perform on-site repairs throughout the study period.
• Backwash problems encountered were caused by improper field settings, turbidimeter
malfunctioning, and power interruptions. The turbidimeter photo cell required frequent
cleaning to maintain normal operations. Programming and hardware changes also were made
to address backwash issues.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• The rate of backwash water generation can be as low as 1.6%. The amount of solids
produced per backwash event was 1.9 Ib, which was composed of approximately 0.54 Ib of
iron and 0.008 Ib of arsenic.
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
• The unit capital cost is $0.35/1,000 gal if the system operates at 100% utilization rate. The
system's real unit cost is $1.85/1,000 gal, based on 5.6 hr/day of system operation and
13,829,000 gal of water production. The O&M cost is $0.29/1,000 gal, based on labor,
chemical usage, and electricity consumption.
-------
Section 3.0: MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the pre-demonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation of the
Macrolite® treatment system began on August 11, 2004, and ended on August 12, 2005. 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 the target
MCL of 10 |o,g/L through the collection of weekly and monthly water samples across the treatment train.
The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency
and extent of equipment 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. Completion Dates of Pre-Demonstration Study Activities
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Letter of Understanding Issued
Letter Report Issued
Engineering Package Submitted to MDH
Permit Issued by MDH
Building Construction Begun
Final Study Plan Issued
Building Construction Completed
Macrolite® System Shipped by Kinetico
Macrolite® System Delivered to Climax, MN
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Date
07/30/03
07/30/03
10/02/03
10/16/03
09/09/03
10/20/03
02/09/04
06/22/04
05/19/04
07/12/04
07/30/04
06/17/04
06/21/04
07/30/04
08/11/04
MDH = Minnesota Department of Health
The required system O&M and operator skill levels were evaluated based on a combination of
quantitative data and qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of
system automation, extent of preventive 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 cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This required the tracking of capital cost for equipment,
engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for chemical supply, electrical power use, and
labor.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the amount of backwash
water produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water was sampled and analyzed for chemical
characteristics.
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and
Operator Skill
Requirements
Cost-Effectiveness
Residual Management
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 ^g/L of arsenic in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems, materials
and supplies needed and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventive maintenance including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed of relevant chemical processes and health and safety
practices
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
-Quantity of the residuals generated by the process
-Characteristics of the aqueous and solid residuals
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
instruction provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a Daily System
Operation Log Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. In the event
of problems, the plant operator would contact the Battelle Study Lead, who then would determine if
Kinetico should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information,
including the problem, course of action taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor,
on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly basis, the plant operator measured pH,
temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and recorded the data on a
Weekly Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet. During the one year study period, the system was
backwashed automatically, except during the monthly backwash sampling events when the system was
backwashed manually to capture the required backwash samples.
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. Ferric chloride consumption was tracked on the Daily Field Log Sheet. Electricity consumption
was tracked through a comparison of utility bills before and after the system became operational. Labor
for various activities, such as the routine system O&M, system troubleshooting and repair, and demonstra-
tion-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Record. The routine O&M included
activities such as completing field logs, replenishing chemical solutions, ordering supplies, performing
system inspections, and others as recommended by the vendor. The 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 the performance of the system, samples were collected at the wellhead, across treatment
plant, during pressure filter backwash, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the sampling
schedules and analytes measured during each sampling event. Specific requirements for the analytical
-------
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses
Sample Type
Source Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Water
Residual
Sludge
Sample Locations^
At Wellhead (IN)
At Wellhead (IN),
After Contact Tanks
(AC),
After Tank A (TA),
After Tank B (TB)
At Wellhead (IN),
After Contact Tanks
(AC),
After Tanks A and B
Combined (TT)
Three LCR Residences
At Backwash Discharge
Line from Tanks A and
B
At Backwash
Discharge Point
No. of
Samples
1
4
3
3
2
2
Frequency
Once during
initial site
visit
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Once
Analytes
As(total), particulate As,
As(III), As(V), Fe (total and
soluble), Mn (total and
soluble), Al (total and
soluble), Na, Ca, Mg, V, Mo,
Sb, Cl, F, S04, Si02, P04,
TOC, turbidity, and alkalinity
On- site: pH, temperature,
DO/ORP, and C12 (free and
total) (except at wellhead)
Off-site: As (total), Fe (total),
Mn (total), SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, and alkalinity
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO/ORP, and C12 (free and
total) (except at wellhead).
Off-site: As(total),
particulate As, As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble), Mn
(total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F,
NO3> SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, and alkalinity
pH, alkalinity, As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), Pb (total),
and Cu (total)
TDS, TSS, turbidity, pH, As
(total and soluble), Fe (total
and soluble), and Mn (total
and soluble)
TCLP Metals
As(Total)
Date(s) Samples
Collected
07/30/03
08/18/04,08/24/04,
08/31/04,09/14/04,
09/21/04, 09/28/04,
10/12/04, 10/19/04,
10/26/04,11/09/04,
11/16/04,12/07/04,
12/14/04,01/11/05,
01/18/05,01/25/05,
02/01/05, 02/16/05,
02/22/05, 03/01/05,
03/15/05,03/22/05
03/29/05, 04/12/05
04/19/05,04/26/05
05/10/05,05/17/05
05/24/05, 06/07/05
06/14/05,06/21/05
07/05/05, 07/12/05
07/19/05,08/02/05
08/11/04,09/07/04,
10/05/04,11/02/04,
11/30/04,01/04/05,
02/08/05, 03/08/05,
04/05/05, 05/03/05,
05/31/05,06/28/05,
07/26/05
Baseline Sampling1- '
01/28/04, 02/23/04
03/22/04, 04/27/04
Monthly Sampling:
08/31/04,09/28/04
10/26/04,11/30/04
12/14/04,01/11/05
02/08/05, 03/08/05,
04/08/05, 05/03/05,
06/14/05, 07/12/05
09/24/04, 10/20/04,
11/16/04,12/13/04,
01/12/05, 02/16/05,
03/22/05, 04/20/05,
05/24/05, 06/21/05,
07/27/05, 11/1 5/05(c)
08/09/05
(a) Abbreviation corresponding to the sample location in Figure 4-6.
(b) Four baseline sampling events performed before system became operational.
(c) Total/soluble metals and total suspended solids (TSS) collected during backwash event on November 15, 2005.
-------
methods including sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1
of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2003).
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection. During the initial visit to the site, one set of source water
samples was collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (see Section 3.4.1). The sample tap
was flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might
cause unwanted oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection. During the system performance evaluation
study, the plant operator collected samples weekly, on a four-week cycle, for on- and off-site analyses.
For the first three weekly events, samples were collected at four locations (i.e., at the wellhead [IN], after
the contact tanks [AC], after Tank A [TA], and after Tank B [TB]) and analyzed for the analytes listed
under the weekly treatment plant analyte list in Table 3-3. For the fourth weekly event, samples taken at
IN, AC, and after Tanks A and B combined [TT] were speciated on-site and analyzed for the analytes
listed under the monthly treatment plant analyte list in Table 3-3.
In addition, two separate studies (one each before and after iron addition) were carried out to assess fitler
performance over the course of five filter runs. A series of filtered (using 0.45-|om disc fillers) and
unfiltered samples were collected at regular intervals throughout the entire duration of these filter runs.
The samples were analyzed for As, Fe, and Mn to determine penetration of any particles through the
Macrolite® filters.
3.3.3 Backwash Water Sample Collection. One backwash water sample was collected from each
vessel during each of the first 11 sampling events from the sample tap located on the backwash water
discharge line. Unfiltered samples were measured on-site for pH and off-site for total dissolved solids
(TDS) and turbidity. Filtered samples using 0.45-(im disc filters were analyzed for soluble As, Fe, and
Mn. During the final sampling event on November 15, 2005, the sampling procedure was modified to
include the collection of composite samples for total As, Fe, and Mn as well as TSS. This modified
procedure involved diverting a portion of backwash water from the backwash discharge line to a 32-gal
plastic container over the duration of the backwash for each vessel and collecting a composite sample
from the container after the content had been well mixed. The composite samples also were filtered using
0.45-(im disc filters and analyzed for soluble As, Fe, and Mn.
3.3.4 Backwash Solid Sample Collection. Backwash solid samples were collected from 1-gal
plastic jars containing backwash water/solids collected during a backwash event on August 9, 2005.
After solids in the jar were settled and the supernatant was carefully decanted, one aliquot of the
solids/water mixture was taken for TCLP testing. The remaining solid/water mixture was air-dried, acid-
digested, and analyzed for Mg, Al, Si, P, Ca, Fe, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Cd, and Pb.
3.3.5 Distribution System Water Sample Collection. Samples were collected from the
distribution system by the plant operator to determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the
water chemistry in the distribution system: specifically, lead and copper levels. From January to
April 2004, prior to the startup of the treatment system, four monthly baseline distribution system
sampling events were conducted at three locations within the distribution system. Following the start-up
of the arsenic adsorption system, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same
three locations.
The three homes selected for the sampling had been included in the City's Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)
sampling. The samples collected at the LCR locations were taken following an instruction sheet
developed according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water
Systems (EPA, 2002). The first draw sample was collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been
-------
used for at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. The sampler recorded the date and time
of last water use before sampling and the date and time of sample collection for calculation of the
stagnation time. Analytes for the baseline samples coincided with the monthly distribution system water
samples as described in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not performed for the distribution system water
samples.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kits preparation, sample cooler preparation, and
sample shipping and handling are discussed as follows.
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2003).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. 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, and waterproof label, consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of
sample collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative.
The sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the 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. For
example, red, orange, yellow, green, and blue were used for IN, AC, TA, TB, and TT sampling locations.
The pre-labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate ziplock bags and packed in the
cooler.
When appropriate, the sample cooler was packed with bottles for the three distribution system sampling
locations and/or the two backwash sampling locations (one for each vessel). In addition, a packet
containing all sampling and shipping-related supplies, such as latex gloves, sampling instructions, chain-
of-custody forms, prepaid Federal Express air bills, ice packs, and bubble wrap, also was placed in the
cooler. Except for the operator's signature, the chain-of-custody forms and prepaid FedEx air bills had
already been completed with the required information. The sample coolers were shipped via FedEx to the
facility approximately one week prior to the scheduled sampling date.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, sample
custodians verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up by couriers from
American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, Ohio, and TCCI Laboratories in New Lexington,
Ohio, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration study. Samples for metal
analyses were stored at Battelle's Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) Laboratory.
The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and
final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of
the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
-------
3.5 Analytical Procedures
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
WTW Multi 340i 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, 400-mL plastic beaker and placed the Multi 340i probe in the beaker until a
stable value was obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements using
Hach™ chlorine test kits following the user's manual.
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2003) were
followed by Battelle's 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 limit (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP, i.e.,
relative percent difference (RPD) of 20%, percent recovery of 80% to 120%, and completeness of 80%.
The quality assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC
Summary Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration
Project.
-------
4.1
Section 4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure
The water treatment system located on West Broadway in Climax, Minnesota, supplies drinking water to
264 community members. Figure 4-1 shows the pre-existing pump house at the facility. The water
source is groundwater from two wells screened in a Quaternary Buried Artesian aquifer. Each well is
141 ft deep with 15 ft of slotted screen. Well No. 1 is 6-in diameter and has a 7.5 horsepower (hp)
submersible pump with a capacity of 140 gpm. Well No. 2 is 8-in diameter and has a 10 hp submersible
pump with a capacity of 160 gpm. These two wells are alternated every month to meet the peak daily
demand of 105,000 gpd based on historic records. Both pumps are used during fire emergencies with a
full capacity of 300 gpm. The treatment system originally consisted of a gas chlorine feed to reach a
target chlorine residual level of 0.6 mg/L. The water also is fluoridated to a target level of 1.0 mg/L.
Figure 4-2 shows the pre-existing wellhead and associated piping. The treated water is stored in a nearby
water tower as shown in Figure 4-3.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on July 30, 2003, and
subsequently analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3. The results of the source water analyses,
along with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those
independently collected and analyzed by EPA, MDH, and the vendor are presented in Table 4-1.
As shown in Table 4-1, total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 31.0 to 41.0 (ig/L. Based
on Battelle's July 30, 2003, sampling results, as much as 90% of the total arsenic, or 34.8 (ig/L, was
found to exist as As(III) and 10% existed as particulate As.
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Pump House at Climax, MN, Site
10
-------
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Wellhead and Associated Piping
Figure 4-3. Climax, MN, Water Tower
11
-------
Table 4-1. Climax, MN, Raw and Treated Water Quality Data
Parameter
Unit
Date
pH
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
TOC
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Mo (total)
Mo (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
S.U.
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HS/L
^g/L
HS/L
^g/L
HS/L
^g/L
^g/L
HS/L
^g/L
HS/L
^g/L
HS/L
^g/L
HS/L
^g/L
^g/L
HS/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Raw Water
Utility
Data
-
7.6
325
256
180
NS
114
27.8(a)
<0.065(a)
NS
38.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
850(a)
NS
NS
NS
145(a)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
170
74.0(a)
25.0(a)
Vendor
Data
-
7.9
332
288
180
0.5
100
29.9
<0.1
NS
31.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
820
NS
NS
NS
170
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
175
76.0
24.0
EPA
Data
10/16/02
NS
328
NS
183
NS
107
28.0
NS
NS
33.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
850
NS
NS
NS
149
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
181
74.3
24.5
Battelle
Data
07/30/03
7.4
304
228
190
1.7
120
27.3
O.10
<1.0
38.7
34.6
4.2
34.8
<0.1
546
540
<10
<10
128
130
0.4
0.4
8.9
8.7
0.1
<0.1
177
60.6
18.5
MDH
Data
2000-2003
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
33.0 to
41.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Treated
Water
MDH
Data
2000-2003
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.5 to 1.6
110 to 120
NS
NS
NS
<1.0to
36.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.6
NS
180 to 190
NS
NS
(a) Data provided by EPA.
NS = not sampled
Iron concentrations in source water ranged from 546 to 850 (ig/L with almost all existing as soluble iron
based on Battelle's July 30, 2003, results. A rule of thumb is that the soluble iron concentration should be
at least 20 times the soluble arsenic concentration for effective removal of arsenic onto iron solids (EPA,
2001; Sorg, 2002). The results from the July 30, 2003, sampling event indicated that the soluble iron
level was approximately 16 times the soluble arsenic level. Because the natural iron content in the source
water was close to the target Fe/As ratio of 20:1, the initial plan was to operate the system without
supplemental iron addition. The manganese levels were elevated, ranging from 128 to 170 (ig/L. The pH
12
-------
values ranged from 7.4 to 7.9. Hardness ranged from 228 to 288 mg/L, silica from 27.3 to 29.9 mg/L, and
sulfate from 100 to 120 mg/L.
4.1.2 Distribution System and Treated Water Quality. The distribution system for Climax,
Minnesota, is supplied by two wells, alternating on a monthly basis. The distribution system materials are
primarily 6-in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe with %-in PVC or copper pipe used at individual homes.
The city conducts quarterly compliance sampling for coliform and fluoride and annual compliance
sampling for arsenic. Prior to this demonstration project, the treatment system consisted of only a gas
chlorine feed to reach a target chlorine residual level of 0.6 mg/L. The water also was fluoridated to a
target level of approximately 1.0 mg/L with fluoride levels in the distribution system ranging from 0.5 to
1.6 mg/L (see Table 4-1). The historic As levels detected within the distribution system at several
different sampling points, including residences, businesses, and at the treatment plant effluent, ranged
from less than the detection limit to 36 |o,g/L based on MDH's treated water sampling data (see Table 4-
1).
4.2 Treatment Process Description
The treatment train for the Climax system includes oxidation, co-precipitation/adsorption, and Macrolite®
pressure filtration. Macrolite® is a low-density, spherical, and chemically inert ceramic media that is
designed for a high-rate filtration up to 10 gpm/ft2. The media, manufactured by Kinetico, is approved for
use in drinking water applications under NSF International 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 (°F)
Sphere Size Range (mm)
Sphere Size Range (in)
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Particle Density (g/cm3)
Particle Density (lb/ft3)
Value
Taupe, Brown to Gray
2,000
0.25-0.35
0.009-0.014
0.86
54
2.05
129
Figure 4-4 is a schematic and Figure 4-5 a photograph of the Macrolite® FM-236-AS Arsenic Removal
System. The primary components consisted of one each chemical feed system for prechlorination and
iron, two contact tanks, two pressure filtration vessels, and associated instrumentation to monitor
pressure, flowrate, and turbidity (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 using a 5-hp,
60-gal vertical air compressor. The system also featured Schedule 80 PVC solvent bonded plumbing and
all of the necessary isolation valves, check valves, and sampling ports. Table 4-3 summarizes the
system's design specifications. Figure 4-6 presents a process flowchart, along with the sampling/analysis
schedule for the system. The major process steps and system components are presented as follows.
• Oxidation - The existing gas chlorine system was initially used for the oxidation of As(III)
and Fe(II) in source water. Because it malfunctioned, the gas chlorine system was replaced
on January 14, 2005 with a sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) feed system, which consisted of a
13
-------
Flow X Turbidih
Feed Water
at 50-100 psi ''
J"
NaOCI FeCI,
Contact
Vessels
42" x 72"
42" x 72"
Filter A
36"x 72"
Filter B
36"x 72"
K^w^H
Backwash Waste
>• io Sewer/Storage
by Others
Filtered Water
-»• to Storage/Distribution
by Others
KlNErrlCQSVSTEMQ2.CDft
Figure 4-4. Process Schematic of Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System
Figure 4-5. Photograph of Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System (Control Panel
[#1], Macrolite® Filters [#2 and #3], and Contact Tanks [#4 and #5])
14
-------
Table 4-3. Design Specifications for Macrolite® FM-236-AS Pressure Filtration System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
Prechlorination Dosage (mg/L [as C12])
Iron Dosage (mg/L [as Fe])
1.2
0.5
Sodium hypochlorite system installed on
01/14/05. Prior to that date chlorine gas was
used. Calculated chlorine demand based on
arsenic, iron, and manganese in source water was
0.6 mg/L. Actual demand was higher due to
presence of ammonia in source water. Target
free chlorine residual was 0.6 mg/L to
distribution system.
Implemented on 01/03/05
Contact
Vessel Size (in)
Number of Vessels
Configuration
Contact Time (min/vessel)
42 D x 72 H
2
Parallel
5
345 gal each tank
—
—
Filtration
Vessel Size (in)
Number of Vessels
Configuration
Media Quantity (ft3/vessel)
Media Type
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Filtration Rate (gpm/ft2)
Ap across Clean Bed (psi)
Maximum Daily Production (gpd)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
Backwash
Backwash Initiating Ap (psi)
Throughput before Backwash (gal)
Backwash Hydraulic Loading Rate
(gpm/ft2)
Backwash Duration (min)
Wastewater Generation (gal)
36 D x 72 H
2
Parallel
14
Macrolite®
140
10
15
201,600
52
20
Variable
8 to 10
Variable
Variable
264 gal each tank
—
—
24-in bed depth of 40/60 mesh Macrolite® in each
vessel
—
70 gpm per vessel
—
—
Based on peak flow, 24 hr per day
Estimated based on peak daily demand(a)
Across bed at end of filter run
Based on PLC settings for pressure differential,
run time, and standby time
—
Based on PLC settings for minimum and
maximum backwash time (e.g. 7 and 15 min,
respectively, factory set points)
Based on PLC settings for minimum and
maximum backwash time (e.g. 7 and 15 min,
respectively, factory set points)
(a) Based on a historic peak daily demand of 105,000 gpd.
5 5-gal day tank and a 6-gal/hr chemical feed pump. The proper operation of the
NaOCl system was tracked by the measurements of free and total chlorine residuals
across the treatment train.
• Supplemental Iron Addition - The system was operated without supplemental iron addition
from August 11, 2004, to January 2, 2005. Beginning on January 3, 2005, an iron addition
system using a ferric chloride solution was used to inject a target dose of 0.5 mg/L of iron
after the prechlorination tap. The iron addition system included one 55-gal polyethylene
15
-------
Monthly
pH
-------
tank with containment, an overhead mixer, a 2.5-gal/hr chemical metering pump, and
a 600-lb capacity drum scale. The working solution was prepared by adding 3 gal of
a 35% ferric chloride stock solution into 47 gal of water. The consumption of the
ferric chloride solution was measured based on the daily readings by the operator of
the weight of the day tank.
• Contact Time - Two 345-gal contact tanks arranged in parallel were used to provide
5 min of contact time to facilitate the formation of iron floes prior to filtration. The
42-in-diameter by 72-in-height contact tanks were constructed of fiberglass
reinforced plastic (FRP) and had 6-in top and bottom flanges. The water passed
through the contact tanks in an upflow configuration.
• Pressure Filtration - Pressure filtration involved downflow filtration through two pressure
vessels arranged in parallel. The 36-in-diameter and 72-in-height FRP vessels, equipped with
6-in top and bottom flanges, were mounted on a polyurethane-coated steel frame. Each
vessel was filled with approximately 24 in (14 ft3) of 40/60 mesh Macrolite® media, which
was underlain by a fine garnet fill layered 1 in above the 0.006-in slotted stainless steel
wedge-wire underdrain. The flow through each vessel was regulated to less than 70 gpm
using a flow-limiting device to prevent filter overrun or damage to the system. The normal
system operation with both tanks would produce a total system flowrate of 140 gpm.
• Backwash - At a 10 gpm/ft2 hydraulic loading rate and 24-in bed depth, the
anticipated pressure drop was 15 pounds per square inch (psi) across a clean bed in
service mode. As the pressure drop across the bed had reached 20 psi, the filter was
automatically backwashed in an upflow configuration. The backwash might also be
triggered by the length of time the system had been in service and/or in stand-by
mode (see Section 4.4.2). During backwash, the water in one of the filtration vessels
was first drained from the vessel and the filter was then sparged with air at 100 psig
for 2 min. After a 5-min settling period, the filtration vessel was backwashed with
treated water at approximately 55 gpm (or 8 gpm/ft2) until the turbidity of the
backwash water had reached a target threshold level of 6 nephelometric turbidity
units (NTU) based on the factory setting. The backwash was conducted one vessel at
a time and the resulting wastewater was sent to a sump before being discharged to the
sanitary sewer. After backwash, the filtration vessel underwent a filter-to-waste
cycle for 5-min before returning to the service mode.
4.3 System Installation
This section provides a summary of system installation activities including permitting, building
construction, and system shakedown.
4.3.1 Permitting. Engineering plans for the system permit application were prepared by Kinetico
and Widseth, Smith, and Nolting. The plans included diagrams and specifications for the Macrolite®
FM-236-AS Arsenic Removal System, as well as drawings detailing the connections of the new system to
the pre-existing facility infrastructure. The plans were submitted to the MDH on February 9, 2004. After
changes were incorporated related to MDH comments from March 22 and May 24, 2004, MDH granted
its approval of the application on June 22, 2004. On November 23, 2004, an approval also was granted
for the installation and startup of a supplemental ferric chloride chemical feed system.
4.3.2 Building Construction. On May 19, 2004, the city began to build a building to house the
treatment system. The 22-ft x 24-ft structure was built as an addition onto the existing concrete block
well house. The building walls were constructed with a wood stud frame and 24-gauge pre-fabricated
metal wall panels and set on a 6-in-thick concrete slab floor with footings. The building also was
17
-------
equipped with an insulated, 10-ft-wide overhead door. Because of a shortage of the interior metal wall
panels, the treatment system was delivered and installed prior to completing the building interior walls.
By July 30, 2004, the city had completed the building along with the sump installation and sanitary sewer
connection, and obtained the duplex sump pumps as required by MDH. Figure 4-7 shows the new
building adjacent to the pre-existing pump house and water tower.
Figure 4-7. New Building Constructed Adjacent to the
Pre-Existing Pump House and Water Tower
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The Macrolite® system was shipped on
June 17, 2004, and delivered to the site on June 21, 2004. The vendor, through its subcontractor,
performed the off-loading and installation of the system, including connections to the entry and
distribution piping and electrical interlocking. The system mechanical equipment installation was
completed by July 30, 2004, when the city completed the backwash sump installation. The system
shakedown was conducted from August 4 to August 7, 2004.
Prior to system startup, the contact tanks and filtration vessels were sanitized using chlorine from the
existing chlorine gas feed system. The Macrolite® filtration media was backwashed at 50 gpm (or
7 gpm/ft2) for 2 to 3 hr to remove fines. During this initial backwash, adjustments were made to the sump
pump to ensure proper drainage of backwash water to the sanitary sewer.
After it was turned to the service mode, the system experienced higher-than-normal system inlet pressure
and lower-than-normal system flowrates. (Note that the system was specified for 140 gpm at a maximum
system inlet pressure of 100 psi.) Careful examination of the operation of the well pumps and the system
revealed that the system encountered an elevated inlet pressure (over 125 psi) with the 10-hp pump in
18
-------
Well No. 2 operating at 126 to 130 gpm. This elevated pressure caused leakage of the seals in the flange
assemblies at the top of the filtration vessels. With the 7.5-hp pump in Well No. 1 operating, the
corresponding inlet pressure was 75 psi at 105 to 115 gpm. It was determined that the factory-installed
flow restrictors had overly restricted the water flow through the system and that removal of some rubber
inserts in the restrictors should resolve the problems. After removal of three inserts from each flow
restrictor, the system inlet pressure was reduced to 59 to 74 psi with flowrates ranging from
approximately 120 gpm for the 7.5 hp pump and 140 gpm for the 10-hp pump.
Other issues noted and corrective actions taken during the system shakedown included the installation of
a bubble trap to reduce entrained air in backwash water as an attempt to alleviate high NTU readings on
the backwash turbidimeter, installation of an hour meter to record cumulative hours of operation, and
connection of the PLC to the pump motor starters to coordinate system operation.
During the August 5 to August 7, 2004 startup trip, the vendor conducted operator training for system
operations and Battelle conducted a system inspection and operator training for system sampling and data
collection. The treated water was sent to the distribution system on August 11, 2004. A Battelle staff
member returned to the site on September 1, 2004, to review system operations and re-train the operator
on proper use of the field handheld meter for pH, temperature, DO, and ORP measurements.
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. Table 4-4 summarizes the operational parameters including
operational time, throughput, flowrate, and pressure. Detailed daily operational data are attached as
Appendix A. The plant operational data were recorded from August 16, 2004, through August 12, 2005.
Table 4-4. Summary of System Operation at Climax, MN
Parameter
Operational Period
Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Throughput to Distribution (gal)
Average Daily Demand (gpd)
Peak Daily Demand (gpd)
Number of Backwash Cycles(a)
Run Time between Backwash Cycles (hr)
Throughput between Backwash Cycles (gal)
Average Flowrate (gpm)
Range of Flowrates (gpm)
Contact Time (min)
Hydraulic Loading Rate to Macrolite® Filters (gpm/ft2)
Ap across Filtration Vessels A and B (psi)
Ap across Entire System (psi)
Values
August 16, 2004 - August 12, 2005
2,086
5.6
13,829,000
38,560
107,100
189
3-20
20,540-131,600
Well No. 1
(7.5 HP)
122
104-134
5.1-6.6
7.4-9.5
5-18
19-30
Well No. 2
(10 HP)
142
121-151
4.6-5.7
8.6-10.7
7-21
21-34
(a) Backwash triggered by 48-hr standby time, 24-hr run time, or 20 psi pressure loss.
Count not including backwash malfunctions on March 14, 2005, and March 30, 2005, which
resulted in multiple successive backwash cycles.
19
-------
Between August 16, 2004, and August 12, 2005, the treatment system operated for approximately
2,086 hr, based on the PLC hour meter readings, with an average daily operating time of 5.6 hr/day. The
total system throughput was approximately 13,829,000 gal based on the flow totalizer readings. The
average daily demand was approximately 38,560 gal and the peak daily demand occurred on July 28,
2005, at 107,100 gal. During this time period, a total number of 189 backwash cycles took place. The
run time between backwash cycles ranged from approximately 3 to 20 hr and the throughput between
backwash cycles from 20,540 to 131,600 gal. The median value of run time was 11 hr and the median
throughput was 73,050 gal between two consecutive backwash cycles. The throughput varied based on
the amount of run time required to meet demand and the corresponding amount of time that the system
was in standby mode. The filter run ended when the system had been in service mode for 24 hr or in
standby mode for 48 hr, unless a pressure-initiated backwash was triggered.
The flowrate through the system varied slightly based on which well pump was operational. When the
Well No. 1 pump (7.5 hp) was operational, the flowrate readings ranged from 104 to 134 gpm with an
average value of 122 gpm. This corresponded to a contact time of 5.1 to 6.6 min, compared to a design
value of 5 min. At these flowrates, the hydraulic loading rates to the filter ranged from 7.4 to 9.5 gpm/ft2,
compared to the design value of 10 gpm/ft2. When the Well No. 2 pump (10 hp) was operational, the
flowrate readings ranged from 121 to 151 gpm with an average value of 142 gpm. This corresponded to a
contact time of 4.6 to 5.7 min and ahydraulic loading rate of 8.6 to 10.7 gpm/ft2, which were closer to the
respective design values.
Figure 4-8 illustrates differential pressure (Ap) readings across the system and filtration Vessels A and B.
With Well No. 1 operating and before iron addition, the Ap readings ranged from 19 to 30 psi across the
system and from 5 to 14 psi across Vessels A and B. With Well No. 2 operating and before iron addition,
the Ap readings ranged from 26 to 33 psi across the system and from 8 to 16 psi across Vessels A and B.
After the start of iron addition, the Ap readings across the system ranged from 19 to 26 psi for Well 1 and
21 to 34 psi for Well 2. There was a slight increase in the Ap readings across Vessels A and B after iron
addition, ranging from 5 to 18 psi for Well 1 and 7 to 21 psi for Well 2. This represents a 4 to 5 psi
increase in the pressure drop across the filters after the start of iron addition. The majority of backwash
cycles during the one year study period occurred as a result of the elapse of the 48-hr standby time. After
each backwash event, a filter-to-waste cycle occurred for 5 min to flush water through the filter bed in the
downflow mode before returning to service.
4.4.2 Backwash. The system PLC was set to initiate a backwash based on four potential triggers:
(1) high differential pressure, (2) standby time, (3) run time, or (4) manual initiation. Table 4-5
summarizes the programming set points associated with these automatic backwash triggers (20 psi Ap, 48
hr of standby time, or 24 hr system run time) and the backwash duration. The backwash duration was
controlled by the minimum and maximum backwash time per vessel and the backwash water turbidity
measured by a Hach™ turbidimeter. Under the factory settings, if the turbidity threshold of 6 NTU was
reached before the minimum backwash time set point, backwash would end at the minimum backwash
time of 7 min. Otherwise, it would continue until the target turbidity threshold was reached. If the
turbidity threshold was not reached at the end of the maximum backwash time of 15 min, then a
backwash failure would be indicated and the operator had to acknowledge the alarm. This would result in
a repeat backwash before the pressure filter could resume service. The use of turbidity as one of the
backwash set points was designed as a potential water-saving measure. Table 4-5 provides a comparison
of the factory settings to the initial field settings at startup of the treatment system on August 11, 2004,
and the modified field settings which were set on January 14, 2005.
20
-------
dP Across Vessel A (psig)
dP Across Vessel B (psig)
dP Across System (psig)
0
08/01/04 09/20/04
07/17/05
09/05/05
Figure 4-8. Ap Readings across Macrolite® System and Filtration Vessels A and B
Table 4-5. Summary of PLC Settings for Automated Backwash Operations at Climax, MN
Parameter
Ap Trigger (psi)
Standby Time Trigger (hr)
Run Time Trigger (hr)
Minimum Backwash Time Per
Vessel (min)
Maximum Backwash Time Per
Vessel (min)
Turbidity Threshold (MTU)
Low Backwash Flow Set Point
(gpm)
Factory
Setting
20
48
24
7
15
6
75
Initial Field Settings
(From 08/11/04 through
01/14/05)
20
48
24
18(a)
15
45
75
Modified Field Settings
(From 01/14/05 through
08/12/05)
20
48
24
5
15
20
75
(a) Minimum backwash time longer than maximum backwash time, which was corrected on
January 14, 2005, when field settings were modified.
Several issues associated with the automated backwash process arose during the one year duration of
system operations, including correction of initial field set points and operational issues associated with the
Hach™ turbidimeter, fuse replacement, and backwash control malfunctions related to electrical power
outages. These issues are discussed as follows.
21
-------
4.4.2.1 Backwash Settings. Table 4-6 summarizes data related to the backwash duration and
backwash water quantity produced under the initial and modified field settings from August 11, 2004,
through January 14, 2005, and from January 14, 2005, through August 12, 2005, respectively. The
backwash flowrate for both time periods was approximately 50 gpm or 7 gpm/ft2, which is lower than the
8 to 10 gpm/ft2 design value. The backwash flowrate was lowered during the system startup to avoid
media loss that was observed when a higher flowrate, such as the factory set point of 75 gpm, was used.
Between August 11, 2004, and January 14, 2005, each backwash cycle lasted for at least 18 min per
vessel with one cycle that lasted for up to 53 min per vessel. The median backwash time was 18 min per
vessel. The wastewater generated from backwash was 800 to 2,650 gal per vessel. The median value was
900 gal corresponding to a 50-gpm backwash flowrate for an 18 min duration. From January 14, 2005, to
August 12, 2005, each backwash cycle lasted for 5 to 306 min per vessel with a median value at 10 min
per vessel. The quantities of backwash water generated ranged from 250 to 15,300 gal per vessel with a
median value of 500 gal per vessel. The maximum value of 15,300 gal was the result of a backwash
control malfunction on March 14, 2005, which will be discussed below.
Since the startup through January 14, 2005, the system produced 126,900 gal of backwash water
(including the initial backwash cycles after media loading). This amount was equivalent to 2.4% of the
total amount of water treated (i.e., 5,275,950 gal) during this time period. The time to backwash each
vessel was at least 18 min, which was the minimum backwash time set by the vendor at the system
startup. This 18-min backwash time was 3 min longer than the factory-set maximum backwash time or
2.6 times longer than the factory-set minimum backwash time (see Table 4-5). In addition, because of
entrained air in the backwash water, the turbidity threshold was reset at an elevated level of 45 NTU at the
system startup (instead of the 6 NTU factory setting).
Table 4-6. Summary of Backwash Parameters
Backwash Parameters
Minimum
Median
Maximum
Initial Field Settings (From 08/11/04 through 01/14/05) (a)
Backwash Duration Per Vessel (min)
Backwash Water Quantity Generated Per Vessel (gal)
18
800
18
900
53(o)
2,650(c)
Modified Field Setting (From 01/14/05 through 08/12/05) (b)
Backwash Duration Per Vessel (min)
Backwash Water Quantity Generated Per Vessel (gal)
5
250
10
500
306(c)
15,300(c)
(a) Seventy-one backwash cycles recorded during this time period (70 for Vessel A;
71 for Vessel B).
(b) One-hundred and nineteen backwash cycles recorded during this time period (119
for Vessel A; 115 for Vessel B). Count not including backwash malfunctions on
March 14, 2005, and March 30, 2005, which resulted in multiple successive
backwash cycles.
(c) Repeat backwash cycles occurred on same day due to failure to reach turbidity
threshold or other backwash control malfunction.
Figure 4-9 includes six backwash water turbidity profiles. Four of the profiles were collected prior to the
start of iron addition on January 3, 2005. These four profiles included two (one for each vessel) recorded
manually by the plant operator over one backwash cycle and two recorded remotely by the vendor using a
dial-in modem over a separate backwash cycle, all with the minimum backwash time set at 18 min and
22
-------
the turbidity threshold set at 45 NTU. As shown in the figure, the data collected manually by the operator
were comparable to those collected remotely by the vendor and the turbidity values of the backwash water
were reduced to below 40 NTU in the first 7 min, and to below 20 NTU after approximately 9 min of
backwashing. For the remaining 9 min of the 18 min minimum set time, the turbidity values leveled off
at 8 to 16 NTU. These results indicate that the 18 min minimum backwash time and the 45 NTU turbidity
threshold settings were overly conservative and could be significantly reduced to save water. (Note that
approximately 900 gal of wastewater was produced per vessel under these field settings.)
On January 14, 2005, the backwash settings were modified to more closely match the factory settings.
The minimum backwash time was changed from 18 to 5 min and the turbidity threshold was lowered
from 45 to 20 NTU. Also presented in Figure 4-9 are two backwash water turbidity profiles with the
modified PLC settings. Even after iron addition that resulted in turbidity readings much higher than
100 NTU, the time to reach 20 NTU remained at approximately 9 to 10 min for both vessels.
Under these modified settings, the treatment system produced 163,500 gal of backwash water from
January 14, 2005, through August 12, 2005. This is equivalent to 1.9% of the total amount of water
treated and represents 0.5% (i.e., reduced from 2.4 to 1.9%) of water savings compared to that under the
initial field settings from August 11, 2004, to January 14, 2005. The water savings potentially could have
been higher, but backwash control problems discussed below in Section 4.4.2.2 significantly increased the
quantity of backwash water generated.
120
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
100 -
Vessel B, Operator Manual, Before Iron Addition, Tmin= 18 MIN
Vessel A, Operator Manual, Before Iron Addition, Tmin = 18 MIN
Vessel B, Kinetico, Before Iron Addition, Tmin = 18 MIN
Vessel A, Kinetico, Before Iron Addition, Tmin = 18 MIN
Vessel B, Kinetico, After Iron Addition, Tmin = 5 MIN
Vessel A, Kinetico, After Iron Addition, Tmin = 5 MIN
01234567
Figure 4-9. Backwash Water Turbidity Profiles
23
-------
4.4.2.2 Other Backwash Problems. In addition to the backwash settings, other backwash problems
were encountered throughout the study period. Table 4-7 summarizes the problems encountered, volume
of backwash water produced as a result of the problems, and corrective actions taken.
Table 4-7. Summary of Backwash Issues Reported During Study Period
Date
10/22/04
11/18/04
11/26/04
12/18/04
01/09/05
02/02/05
02/12/05
02/27/05
03/14/05
03/30/05
04/10/05
06/18/05
06/19/05
06/20/05
07/06/05
Volume of
Backwash Water
Generated from
Vessels A and B
Combined (gal)
3,200
5,300
3,300
1,700
3,300
4,600
6,700
2,400
15,900
14,000
2,600
2,400
3,400
2,400
900
Problem Encountered/Action Taken
Backwash failed to reach turbidity threshold of 45 NTU. Alarm
acknowledged. Manual backwash initiated by operator.
Backwash failed to reach turbidity threshold of 45 NTU. Alarm
acknowledged. Manual backwash initiated by operator.
Backwash failed to reach turbidity threshold of 45 NTU on Vessel A. Alarm
acknowledged. Manual backwash initiated by operator.
Backwash failure noted by operator. Backwash volume within normal limits.
Cause not identified by operator.
Backwash failure due to low flowrate at 35 gpm. Operator initiated a manual
backwash and opened valve to achieve more flow at 50 gpm.
Backwash failed to reach turbidity threshold of 20 NTU. Alarm
acknowledged. Manual backwash initiated by operator.
Backwash failed to reach turbidity threshold of 20 NTU. Alarm
acknowledged. Manual backwash initiated by operator. Operator subsequently
noted deposit on turbidimeter lense and cleaned to restore operation.
Backwash failed to reach turbidity threshold of 20 NTU on Vessel B. Alarm
acknowledged. Manual backwash initiated by operator.
Backwash failure due to loss of control by PLC after power outage. Vessel B
in backwash mode for at least 5 hr, generating 15,300 gal of wastewater. Issue
addressed by operator by re-booting PLC.
Backwash failure due to loss of control by PLC after power outage. Vessel B
in backwash mode for at least 4.5 hr, generating 13,500 gal of wastewater.
Issue addressed by operator by re-booting PLC and replacing a fuse in control
panel.
Backwash failed to reach turbidity threshold of 20 NTU. Alarm
acknowledged. Operator cleaned deposit on turbidimeter lense. After
cleaning, manual backwash was initiated by operator.
Backwash failed to reach turbidity threshold of 20 NTU due to deposit on
turbidimeter lense.
Backwash failed to reach turbidity threshold of 20 NTU due to deposit on
turbidimeter lense.
Backwash failed to reach turbidity threshold of 20 NTU due to deposit on
turbidimeter lense. Operator subsequently cleaned lense on turbidimeter.
Backwash failure noted by operator. Backwash volume within normal limits.
Cause not identified by operator.
As described above, the duration of each backwash cycle was controlled by the backwash water turbidity
reaching a pre-set threshold. Operational issues with the Hach™ turbidimeter resulted in backwash
malfunctions that extended the duration of several backwash cycles over the one year study period. The
first operational issue was related to entrained air in the backwash water and the second related to the
build-up of deposits on the photocell of the Hach™ turbidimeter.
24
-------
After system startup on August 11, 2004, several steps were taken by the vendor to troubleshoot elevated
turbidity readings in the backwash water. It was noted during system shakedown that the turbidity
readings of backwash water remained significantly higher than the factory setpoint of 6 NTU at the end of
each backwash cycle. The turbidity threshold was therefore re-set to 45 NTU in the PLC at system
startup on August 11, 2004. The elevated NTU readings were first addressed through the installation of a
bubble trap on the turbidimeter line (on August 11, 2004), followed by the repair of a leaky air-actuated
valve (on September 15, 2004), and testing of the compressed air supply in November 2004 to ensure that
it did not contribute to entrained air in the backwash water.
On January 14, 2005, the PLC settings were changed to more closely match the factory-defined settings
with the turbidity threshold of 20 NTU, the minimum backwash time of 5 min, and the maximum backwash
time of 15 min. After January 14 to August 12, 2005, the NTU readings at the end of the backwash cycles
ranged from 5.9 to 19.2 with the exception of seven backwash cycles when the backwash did not meet the
turbidity threshold of 20 NTU. Five of these seven cycles were related to the build-up of deposits on the
photocell of the Hach™ turbidimeter. The operator reported that the backwash malfunction on
February 12, 2005, produced 6,700 gal of backwash water and was apparently caused by calcium deposits
on the photocell. To minimize this problem, the glass lens was periodically inspected and cleaned as part
of the routine maintenance. Nevertheless, similar problems reoccurred on April 10, June 18, June 19, and
June 20, 2005.
Two backwash malfunctions occurred relating to electrical problems with the treatment plant. These two
backwash malfunctions produced over 29,900 gal backwash water. Without these two backwash
malfunctions, the backwash water generated would have been reduced to only 1.6% (instead of 1.9%) of
the treated water during the time period from January 14, 2005, to August 12, 2005. These backwash
malfunctions were initially reported to be related to a bad fuse in the control panel. However, it was later
determined that the uncontrolled backwash cycles were likely related to temporary power outages and the
PLC programming logic sequence that controlled the opening and closing of the backwash valves. On
March 14, 2005, approximately 15,300 gal of backwash water was discharged to the sanitary sewer
during the backwash of Tank B (15,900 gallons total from both vessels). At a flowrate of 50 gpm, this
would equate to at least 5 hr of continuous backwash during this cycle. Troubleshooting activities
performed by the operator included turning the system on and off to re-set the PLC and valve settings and
replacing the modem to allow the vendor to dial-in to the PLC. On March 30, 2005, the system
experienced another backwash problem with Tank B operating in a continuous backwash mode for
approximately 4.5 hr generating 13,500 gal of wastewater (14,000 from both vessels). After examination
of the PLC panel, a 5-amp fuse was determined to be bad and subsequently replaced by the operator. No
additional backwash malfunctions of this magnitude were experienced after the fuse replacement through
the end of the study in August 2005. However, the vendor later determined that the uncontrolled
backwash cycles might have been caused by a temporary loss in power to the PLC, which interrupted the
sequence of valve operations. This power interruption subsequently caused the backwash valves to
remain open until manually reset by an operator. This issue was addressed through programming changes
in the PLC logic and the installation of an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) unit on December 15,
2005, to provide back-up power to the PLC. With these repairs taken into account, the rate of backwash
water generation was reduced to approximately 1.6% of the amount of treated water produced.
4.4.3 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the system included only
backwash water, which was discharged to an underground sump and then pumped to a nearby sanitary
sewer line for disposal.
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. No major operational problems were
encountered in the service mode. The only major operational issues encountered were related to the filter
backwash as described in Section 4.4.2. Neither scheduled nor unscheduled downtime had been required
25
-------
since the start of system operations. The required system operation and operator skills are discussed
according to pre- and post-treatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill
requirements, preventive maintenance activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory
requirements.
4.4.4.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pre-treatment at the site included prechlorination
for the oxidation of arsenic and iron and supplemental iron addition to enhance the arsenic removal from
raw water. Specific chemical handling requirements are further discussed under chemical handling and
inventory requirements.
4.4.4.2 System Automation. All major functions of the treatment system are automated and would
require only minimal operator oversight and intervention if all functions are operating as intended. Auto-
mated processes include system startup in the forward feed mode when the well energizes, backwash
cycling based on time or pressure triggers, fast rinse cycling, and system shutdown when the well pump
shuts down. However, as noted in Section 4.4.2, a number of operational issues did arise with the
automated system backwash and associated equipment.
4.4.4.3 Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill set required to
operate the Macrolite® system was limited to observation of the process equipment integrity and operating
parameters such as pressure, flow, and system alarms. The PLC interface was intuitive and all major
system operations were automated as described above. The daily demand on the operator was about
30 min to visually inspect the system and record the operating parameters on the log sheets. Other skills
needed included performing O&M activities such as cleaning the turbidimeter photo cell, monitoring
backwash operational issues, and working with the vendor to troubleshoot and perform minor on-site
repairs.
4.4.4.4 Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks recommended by the
vendor included daily to monthly visual inspection of the piping, valves, tanks, flowmeters, and other
system components. Routine maintenance also may be required on an as-needed basis for the air
compressor motor and the replacement of o-ring seals or gaskets on automated or manual valves
(Kinetico, 2004). Maintenance activities performed by the operator included the repair of a leaky fitting
and removal of rubber inserts in the flow restrictors for each filtration vessel during system startup. On
September 15, 2004, the operator repaired an air leak associated with an air-actuated valve on the bottom
of Tank B. It also was found that cleaning of the turbidimeter photocell was required to prevent the
buildup of deposits. On December 15, 2005, a UPS was installed to address the backwash malfunctions
that occurred during power outages (see Section 4.4.2.2). Other maintenance and troubleshooting
activities were conducted as described in Section 4.4.2 related to the malfunction of automated backwash
operations.
4.4.4.5 Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. Prechlorination was implemented
since the system startup and supplemental iron addition was initiated on January 3, 2005. The iron
addition required only minimal effort (10 min as reported by the operator) to prepare the iron solution
approximately once every two weeks. The sodium hypochlorite and ferric chloride chemical
consumption was checked each day as part of the routine operational data collection.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the Macrolite® FM-236-AS Arsenic Removal System was evaluated based on
analyses of water samples collected from the treatment plant, backwash lines, and distribution system.
26
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
before and after Supplemental Iron Addition(a)
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Mfi/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Mfi/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Number
of
Samples
53
19 [34]
14 [26]
14 [26]
5 [8]
13
5 [8]
5 [8]
13
5 [8]
5 [8]
13
5 [8]
5 [8]
13
5 [8]
5 [8]
53
19 [34]
14 [26]
14 [26]
5 [8]
13
5 [8]
5 [8]
53
19 [34]
14 [26]
14 [26]
5 [8]
13
5 [8]
5 [8]
Concentration
Minimum
31.2
33.4 [18.5]
9.3 [5.2]
9.9 [5.6]
9.7 [6.0]
33.3
11.0 [4.5]
9.7 [4.8]
<0.1
20.9 [15.3]
<0.1 [<0.1]
32.6
1.0 [0.9]
1.0 [1.2]
0.1
9.9 [3.5]
8.1 [3.1]
361
363 [515]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
342
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
112
109 [110]
65.6 [65.1]
66.0 [62.9]
62.6 [57.2]
112
61.7 [59.0]
61.8 [55.5]
Maximum
51.4
72.0 [42.1]
17.9 [9.0]
18.3 [9.7]
19.0 [9.3]
51.3
19.5 [18.3]
16.1 [8.8]
6.8
28.4 [28.4]
3.3 [2.4]
39.8
6.2 [3.1]
5.1 [3.2]
11.5
14.8 [16.9]
11.8 [6.5]
1,209
1,002[1,985]
66.4 [107]
66.0 [122]
36.8 [104]
649
<25 [32.1]
<25 [<25]
505
156 [149]
85.7 [128]
82.6 [126]
86.8 [126]
145
78.9 [89.1]
80.9 [91.5]
Average
36.5
39.4 [35.1]
11.3 [6.6]
12.1 [6.9]
14.1 [7.4]
37.8
14.7 [11.7]
12.6 [6.5]
0.7
24.1 [23.4]
1.5 [0.9]
35.8
2.6 [2.0]
2.5 [2.0]
2.1
12.2 [9.7]
10.1 [4.5]
540
563 [1,359]
<25 [46.7]
<25 [56.3]
<25 [41.8]
485
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
136
126 [132]
74.3 [92.7]
73.3 [93.1]
70.6 [91.9]
126
69.1 [76.6]
69.1 [76.4]
Standard
Deviation
4.2
9.0 [3.9]
2.3 [0.9]
2.5 [1.0]
4.1 [1.2]
4.4
3.8 [3.8]
3.0 [1.3]
1.9
3.1 [3.9]
1.5 [0.8]
2.3
2.2 [0.7]
1.7 [0.7]
3.0
2.1 [3.8]
1.6 [1.2]
117
145 [234]
20.2
[27.1]
16.3
[27.7]
12.2
[38.0]
78.7
0.0 [8.0]
0.0 [0.0]
53.9
11.9 [8.6]
5.9 [15.1]
5.3 [14.5]
9.4 [25.9]
10.5
7.4 [10.1]
7.1 [11.5]
(a) Number in parentheses representing data compiled after start of iron addition on January 3,
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect samples for calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
2005.
27
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
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
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
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
Number
of
Samples
53
53
40
40
13
31
13
13
13
13
13
13
53
53
40
40
13
53
53
40
40
13
13
13
13
53
53
40
40
13
48
48
36
36
12
48
48
36
36
12
48
48
36
36
12
Concentration
Minimum
294
284
288
292
284
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.4
105
100
107
0.05
O.05
O.05
0.05
O.05
16.8
26.8
27.0
27.0
27.5
0.04
O.04
O.04
0.1
0.2
0.1
O.I
O.I
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.3
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.9
Maximum
540
535
562
544
336
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.5
154
155
155
0.1
O.I
O.I
0.1
0.6
39.2
30.5
30.4
30.6
29.8
0.07
0.05
0.11
18.0
15.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
12.4
10.8
10.7
11.0
10.4
4.1
2.6
2.2
4.9
2.5
Average
326
323
324
324
313
0.7
0.4
0.5
1.0
123
121
122
0.1
O.I
O.I
O.I
0.07
28.7
28.7
28.5
28.5
28.8
0.04
O.04
O.04
6.3
1.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
9.1
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.9
.7
.5
.3
.6
.5
Standard
Deviation
35
33
41
38
19
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
15
15
14
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.16
2.3
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.02
0.01
0.03
2.3
2.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.4
28
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Cont'd)
Parameter
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
AC
TA
TB
TT
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
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
Number
of
Samples
42
42
30
30
11
48
36
36
12
48
36
36
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Concentration
Minimum
-128
121
218
222
223
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.2
202
201
196
130
130
128
67.9
61.3
58.9
Maximum
-63
382
379
364
347
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.6
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
283
279
278
188
185
185
94.4
93.7
93.0
Average
-77
247
257
259
268
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.9
231
229
232
151
151
153
79.8
77.9
78.8
Standard
Deviation
10
50
42
39
48
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
25
22
24
16
15
16
9.4
9.0
9.6
One-half of the detection limit was used for non-detect samples for calculations.
Duplicate samples are included in the calculations.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 53 occasions
(including four duplicate sampling events) during the one year period of system operations. Field
speciation also was performed for 13 of the 53 occasions. Table 4-8 summarizes the arsenic, iron, and
manganese analytical results. Table 4-9 summarizes the results of the other water quality parameters.
Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results for the one year duration of system operations.
The results of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
4.5.1.1 Arsenic andiron Removal. Figure 4-10 shows total arsenic levels across the treatment train
over the duration of the one-year study period. Total arsenic levels in raw water ranged from 31.2 to
51.4 |o,g/L. From August 11, 2004, to January 2, 2005, total arsenic levels in the treated water ranged
from 9.7 to 19.0 |o,g/L. As noted below, it was determined that there was insufficient natural iron in raw
water to achieve effective arsenic removal to below the 10 |o,g/L MCL. After supplemental iron addition
was implemented on January 3, 2005, total arsenic levels in the treated water were reduced to 6.0 to
9.3 ng/L with no exceedances of arsenic above the 10 |o,g/L level throughout the one-year study period.
Figure 4-11 shows the total iron levels across the treatment train over the duration of the one-year study
period. Total iron levels in raw water ranged from 361 to 1,209 |o,g/L and averaged 540 |o,g/L. As shown
in Table 4-8, iron in raw water existed primarily in the soluble form with an average value of 485 |o,g/L.
Given the average soluble iron and soluble arsenic levels in source water, this corresponded to an
29
-------
At Wellhead
After Contact Tanks
After Tank A
After Tank B
After Tanks A and B Combined
8/10/04 9/9/04 10/9/04 11/8/04 12/8/04 1/7/05 2/6/05 3/8/05 4/7/05 5/7/05 6/6/05 7/6/05 8/5/05
Date
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Concentrations across Treatment Train
—»— At Wellhead
-X— After Contact
A After Tank A
—»—After Tank B
—8—After Tanks A and B Combined
8/10/04 9/9/04 10/9/04 11/8/04 12/8/04 1/7/05 2/6/05 3/8/05 4/7/05 5/7/05 6/6/05 7/6/05 8/5/05
Date
Figure 4-11. Total Iron Concentrations across Treatment Train
30
-------
iron:arsenic ratio of 13:1, which was below the target ratio of 20:1 for effective arsenic removal (EPA,
200l;Sorg, 2002).
On January 3, 2005, supplemental iron addition was started at a target dosage of 0.5 mg/L of iron using a
ferric chloride solution. Figure 4-11 shows the increase in iron concentrations after the contact tanks
following the initiation of iron addition, which was equivalent to an average iron dose of 0.85 mg/L (as
Fe). Figure 4-11 also shows a slight increase in iron concentrations in the treated water, with total iron
levels (existing solely as particulates) ranging from <25 to 122 |og/L, indicating iron leakage from the
Macrolite® filters after the start of supplemental iron addition. However, no apparent correlation was
observed between the corresponding particulate iron and particulate arsenic levels (to be discussed under
Arsenic Speciation).
Arsenic Speciation. Figure 4-12 shows the arsenic speciation results. Total arsenic concentrations in
raw water averaged 36.5 |o,g/L with As(III) existing as the predominant species with concentrations
ranging from 32.6 to 39.8 |o,g/L and averaging 35.8 |og/L. Only trace amounts of particulate As and As(V)
existed in raw water with concentrations averaging 0.7 and 2.1 |o,g/L, respectively. These results
compared well with those of the July 30, 2003, source water sampling.
After prechlorination and the contact tanks, As(III) concentrations ranged from 0.9 to 3.1 |o,g/L (except
one data point at 6.2 |o,g/L), suggesting effective oxidation of As(III) to As(V) with chlorine. Particulate
arsenic concentrations after the contact tanks ranged from 15.3 to 28.4 |og/L. As expected, after
prechlorination and the contact tanks, iron existed solely in the particulate form. The corresponding free
and total chlorine concentrations after the contact tanks averaged 0.9 and 1.9 mg/L, respectively (see
Table 4-9). The chlorine demand was elevated due to the presence of ammonia in the raw water at 0.6 to
0.8 mg/L, which led to the formation of combined chlorine.
Prior to the start of supplemental iron addition, total arsenic concentrations in the combined effluent (TT)
ranged from 9.7 to 19.0 |o,g/L and averaged 14.1 |og/L, of which 8.1 to 11.8 |o,g/L existed as As(V).
Particulate arsenic levels in the treated water were low, ranging from 0.1 to 3.3 |og/L. After the start of
supplemental iron addition on January 3, 2005, total arsenic concentrations at the TT location averaged
7.4 |og/L. As(V) concentrations in the combined effluent ranged from 3.1 to 6.5 |o,g/L and averaged
4.5 |og/L. It should be noted that further As(V) removal via adsorption was observed across the filters
with As(V) levels averaging 9.7 |o,g/L before and 4.5 |o,g/L after the pressure filters, respectively. This
seems to suggest that the iron particles accumulated within the filters had some additional adsorptive
capacity for As(V). Particulate As levels in the treated water were low, ranging from <0.1 to 2.4 |o,g/L
and averaging 0.9 |o,g/L.
Arsenic and Iron Leakage. Because the treatment plant samples discussed above were collected on a
weekly basis at varying filter run lengths, additional treatment plant sampling was performed to further
establish the performance of the filters throughout the duration of several filter runs. A series of filtered
and unfiltered samples were collected after the filters during five filter runs before and after the start of
supplemental iron addition.
Figure 4-13 (a) shows the particulate and soluble arsenic concentration in the treated water over an 8-hr
filtration run before the start of supplemental iron addition. Arsenic concentrations in the treated water
existed primarily in the soluble form (at 11.2 to 14.6 |o,g/L) and there was very little particulate arsenic (at
<1 to 1.1 ng/L) in the treated water, indicating little As leakage through the Macrolite® filters. This
observation was further supported by low levels of particulate iron in the treated water (<25 to 136 |o,g/L)
over the 8-hr run length. The presence of soluble arsenic over the 10 |o,g/L level in the treated water
31
-------
Arsenic Species at the Wellhead (IN)
OAs (particulate;
DAs (V)
Arsenic Species after Contact Tanks (AC)
DAs (particulate)
• As(V)
DAs (III)
began on 01/03/05
8/11/04 9/7/04 10/5/04 11/2/04 11/30/04 1/4/05 2/8/05 3/8/05 4/5/05 5/3/05 5/31/05 6/28/05 7/26/05
Date
Arsenic Species after Tanks A and B Combined (TT)
_ 40
1
I 30
|
o
< .,„
DAs (particulate)
• As(V)
DAs (III)
Iron addition
began on 01/03/05
8/11/04 9/7/04 10/5/04 11/2/04 11/30/04 1/4/05 2/8/05 3/8/05 4/5/05 5/3/05 5/31/05 6/28/05 7/26/05
Date
Figure 4-12. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at Wellhead (IN), after
Contact Tanks (AC), and after Tanks A and B Combined (TT)
32
-------
Before Iron Addition (a)
12 -
Total Run Length at 8.0 hrs
^^=
—
~
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time in Service (Hrs)
• As (participate)
DAs (soluble)
After Iron Addition (b)
Total Run Length
at 10.3 hrs
Total Run Length
at 18.3 hrs
Total Run Length
at 8.4 hrs
Total Run Length
at 12 hrs
12 0
Time in Service (Hrs)
Figure 4-13. Results of Arsenic/Iron Leakage Studies
33
-------
throughout the 8-hr filtration run confirmed the need for supplemental iron addition for further As(V)
removal.
Figure 4-13(b) shows the participate and soluble arsenic concentrations in the treated water over the span
of four filtration runs following the start of iron addition on January 3, 2005. The filter run time between
consecutive backwash events ranged from 8.4 to 18.3 hr. Again, arsenic in the treated water existed
primarily in the soluble form (at 5.3 to 7.1 |o,g/L) with very low participate arsenic concentrations at <1 to
2.3 |o,g/L. The particulate iron levels ranged from <25 to 121 |o,g/L in the treated water; no significant
increasing trend in particulate As or Fe concentrations was observed over the span of the four filter runs.
The results indicate that the Macrolite® filters performed well with minimal particulate arsenic and iron
leakage at high loading rates (i.e. 7.4 to 10.7 gpm/ft2) compared to 2 gpm/ft2 for conventional sand filters
as specified in the Recommended Standards for Water Works or Ten State Standards (Great Lakes-Upper
Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers, 2003).
4.5.1.2 Manganese Removal. Total manganese levels in raw water ranged from 112 to 218 |o,g/L
with an outlier at 505 |o,g/L (see Table 4-8). Manganese in raw water existed primarily in the soluble form
at levels ranging from 112 to 145 |o,g/L. After prechlorination and the contact tanks, soluble manganese
concentrations decreased to 59.0 to 89.1 |o,g/L. An average of 42% of the soluble manganese was
precipitated to become particulate manganese. This incomplete oxidation of Mn(II) is consistent with
previous findings that the oxidation of Mn(II) by free chlorine has slow kinetics for pH values below 8.5.
(Knocke et al., 1987; 1990). Unlike MnOx-coated media, Macrolite® does not promote Mn(II) removal
via adsorption with the presence of chlorine. Only particulate manganese was filtered out by the
Macrolite® filters, leaving soluble manganese in the treated water at levels ranging from 55.5 to
91.5 ng/L.
4.5.1.3 Other Water Quality Parameters. As shown in Table 4-9, DO levels remained low across
the treatment train, with average values ranging from 1.3 to 1.7 mg/L, but ORP values significantly
increased after chlorine addition ranging from -63 to -128 mV before chlorination to 121 to 382 mV after
chlorination. The pH values of the raw water had an average value of 7.5 and pH values of the treated
water had an average value of 7.4. Average alkalinity results ranged from 313 to 326 mg/L (as CaCO3)
across the treatment train. Average total hardness results ranged from 229 to 232 mg/L (as CaCO3) across
the treatment train (the total hardness is the sum of calcium hardness and magnesium hardness). The
water had predominantly calcium hardness. Fluoride concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 1.0 mg/L in raw
water and after contact tanks and were not affected by the Macrolite® filtration. Fluoride averaged 1.0
mg/L in the combined effluent samples after the fluoridation step. No significant levels of nitrate or
orthophosphate were detected in raw water. Average sulfate concentrations ranged from 121 to 123 mg/L
across the treatment train. The silica (as SiO2) concentration remained at approximately 28 mg/L across
the treatment train.
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. The source of the backwash water is treated water. Table 4-10
summarizes the analytical results from the twelve backwash water sampling events. For the first 11
sampling events, only pH, turbidity, TDS, and soluble As, Fe, and Mn were analyzed for the grab samples
collected at the backwash water discharge line. Prior to iron addition (from Events 1 to 4), soluble arsenic
and iron concentrations in the backwash water averaged 16.0 |o,g/L and 21.0 |o,g/L, respectively. After
iron addition (from Events 5 to 11), soluble arsenic concentrations decreased and averaged 8.7 |og/L,
while soluble iron concentrations increased and averaged 86.4 |o,g/L (excluding the July 27, 2005, data
that had uncharacteristically high soluble As, Fe, and Mn). After iron addition, the soluble iron levels in
the backwash water increased due to equilibrium with the higher total iron levels (e.g., iron particulates)
in the backwash water. However, the soluble arsenic levels decreased, due to increased adsorption onto
the iron particulates in the backwash water.
34
-------
Table 4-10. Backwash Water Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
09/24/04
10/20/04
-------
For the last sampling event on November 15, 2005, TSS and total As, Fe, and Mn also were analyzed for
the composite samples collected using the modified backwash procedure discussed in Section 3.3.3. The
results showed total iron levels in the backwash water at 74.2 to 97.6 mg/L and total arsenic levels at
1.42 to 1.85 mg/L. TSS levels in the backwash water ranged from 188 to 278 mg/L.
Table 4-11 presents the results of total metals analysis for two backwash water solid samples collected on
August 9, 2006. The iron levels in the solids ranged from 2.46 x 105 to 3.12 x 105 |j,g/g and the arsenic
levels from 3,830 to 4,540 |o,g/g. This yields an Fe:As ratio of 67:1, which is much higher than the 20:1
ratio as a rule of thumb for effective arsenic removal (EPA, 2001; Sorg, 2002). These data suggest that
natural iron solids may have a greater As(V) adsorptive capacity than iron solids formed from
supplemental iron addition. According to jar tests performed by Lytle (2005), the adsorption process
would be more favorable when the oxidation of As(III) to As(V) occurs prior to the addition of
supplemented iron. Table 4-11 also provides an estimate of the amount of solids generated during the
backwash event. This estimate assumes an average TSS of 233 mg/L and a backwash volume of 1,000
gallons for two vessels. Approximately 1.9 Ib of solids would be generated per backwash event including
0.54 Ib of iron and 0.008 Ib of arsenic.
Table 4-12 shows the TCLP results of the backwash water solids. The samp les were filtered through
0.7 jam glass fiber filters. The solid-liquid compositions were 5.6% solid and 94.4% liquid for Sample
BW1 and 8.57% solid and 91.4% liquid for Sample BW2. The filtrates were preserved with HNO3 until
they could be digested for metal analyses. Both samples were found to require Extraction Fluid No. 1
(EF1), which contains 5.7 mL of acetic acid and 64.3 mL of NaOH with a pH of 4.93. Two 10-gram
solid portions of each sample were extracted with EF1 on a rotary agitation device for 18 hr. The solids
were filtered off and discarded. The extracts were digested along with the initial filtrates for metal
analyses according to EPA Methods 200.7 for Ag, As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Se and 245.1 for Hg. The
results for each sample were obtained by adding the filtrate and extract results based on their percentage
of the sample. The TCLP results of the backwash solids showed no detectable arsenic concentrations in
the leachate. Only barium showed detectable concentrations ranging from 0.189 to 0.231 mg/L. The
TCLP regulatory limit set by EPA is 5 mg/L for arsenic and 100 mg/L for barium.
Table 4-11. Backwash Solid Sample Total Metal Results
Sample
ID
Units
Al
As
Ca
Cd
Cu
Fe
Mg
Mn
P
Pb
Ni
Si
Zn
Vessel A-
Solids A
mg/g
5.95E+03
5.03E+03
3.60E+04
5.00E-02
2.92E+01
3.56E+05
2.89E+03
1.21E+04
8.92E+03
2.25E+00
4.24E+00
5.70E+01
2.92E+01
Vessel A
-Solids B
mg/g
6.15E+03
5.21E+03
3.69E+04
5.00E-02
2.97E+01
3.53E+05
2.97E+03
1.24E+04
9.02E+03
2.12E+00
4.04E+00
7.06E+01
3.00E+01
Vessel A
-Solids C
mg/g
4.62E+03
3.38E+03
2.21E+04
2.00E-02
2.23E+01
2.28E+05
2.26E+03
7.99E+03
5.50E+03
1.73E+00
2.90E+00
4.82E+01
2.23E+01
Average
mg/g
5.57E+03
4.54E+03
3.17E+04
4.00E-02
2.71E+01
3.12E+05
2.71E+03
1.08E+04
7.81E-K)3
2.03E+00
3.73E+00
5.86E+01
2.72E+01
Vessel B
-Solids A
mg/g
2.76E+03
3.81E+03
2.44E+04
8.00E-02
2.58E+01
2.51E+05
3.02E+03
8.95E+03
6.21E+03
2.51E+00
8.85E+00
3.84E+01
7.21E+01
Vessel B
-Solids B
mg/g
2.97E+03
3.78E+03
3.93E+04
8.00E-02
2.75E+01
2.53E+05
3.26E+03
8.84E+03
6.44E+03
2.69E+00
9.54E+00
6.83E+01
7.58E+01
Vessel B
-Solids C
mg/g
2.72E+03
3.90E+03
2.45E+04
8.00E-02
2.51E+01
2.35E+05
3.01E+03
9.15E+03
5.94E+03
2.55E+00
8.53E+00
6.24E+01
6.94E+01
Average
mg/g
2.82E-K)3
3.83E+03
2.94E-KJ4
8.00E-02
2.61E+01
2.46E+05
3.09E+03
8.98E-KJ3
6.19E+03
2.59E+00
8.97E-KJO
5.64E+01
7.24E+01
Solids
Ibs
8.20E-03
8.10E-03
5.90E-02
1.20E-07
5.20E-05
5.40E-01
5.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.40E-02
4.50E-06
1.20E-05
1.10E-04
9.70E-05
36
-------
Table 4-12. Backwash Solid Sample TCLP Results
Parameter
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Se
Si
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Vessel A
08/09/05
0.05
0.189
O.05
0.05
O.I
O.003
0.3
O.05
Vessel B
08/09/05
0.5
0.231
O.05
0.05
O.I
O.003
0.3
O.05
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. The results of the distribution system sampling are
summarized in Table 4-13. The stagnation times for the samples ranged from 5.8 to 24 hr with an
average stagnation time of 10.3 hr.
There was no major change in pH values, which ranged from 7.4 to 7.6 before the system became
operational and 7.3 to 7.9 (with one outlier at 8.0 for DS1 Event 11) after the system became operational.
Alkalinity levels ranged from 198 to 331 and from 294 to 339 mg/L (as CaCO3) before and after
treatment system startup, respectively.
Arsenic concentrations in the baseline samples ranged from 21.8 to 52.3 |o,g/L and averaged 37.0 |o,g/L.
These values were consistent with those in the raw water (i.e. 31.2 to 51.4 |o,g/L and averaged 36.5 |o,g/L)
as shown in Table 4-8. Arsenic concentrations decreased at each of the three sampling locations after
system startup.
Arsenic levels in the distribution system ranged from 11.3 to 17.0 |o,g/L (averaged 14.1 |o,g/L) before iron
addition (from Events 1 to 5 [except for DS1 in Event 1]), and from 5.9 to 14.1 |o,g/L (averaged
10.3 |o,g/L) after iron addition (from Events 6 to 12). However, arsenic levels in the treated water
decreased to 9.3 to 18.3 |o,g/L (averaged 11.7 |o,g/L) before iron addition and 5.2 to 9.7 |o,g/L (averaged
6.97 |og/L) after iron addition (Table 4-8). Arsenic levels in the distribution system were higher than
those in the treated water, indicating solubilization, destablization, and/or desorption of arsenic-laden
particles/scales in the distribution system (Lytle, 2005). One outlier event occurred on August 31, 2004,
when the operator reported a "red water" slug from the DS1 tap, which contained signficiant solids and
elevated levels of arsenic, iron, manganese, lead, and copper.
Iron concentrations in the baseline samples were high ranging from 36.6 to 580 |o,g/L and averaging
286 |og/L. Since system startup, iron levels in the distribution system decreased significantly with an
average of 43.2 |o,g/L before iron addition and 74.7 |o,g/L after iron addition. These values were still
higher than the corresponding average iron levels of <25 |o,g/L before iron addition and 41.8 |o,g/L after
iron addition in the treated water. These data again may suggest some solublization, destabilization,
and/or desoprtion of iron particles within the distribution system (Lytle, 2005).
The manganese levels in the distribution system samples averaged 65.6 |o,g/L in the baseline samples and
decreased to an average of 33.8 |o,g/L after the system startup. In general, total managanese levels in the
distribution samples were lower than those in the treated water (averaged 83.4 |o,g/L). This may be due to
further oxidation of Mn(II) and adsorption and/or coating onto metal oxide scales in the distribution
37
-------
Table 4-13. Distribution Sampling Results
inpling Events
«
CO
=3
6
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Location
ID
1-
so Q
01/28/04
02/23/04
03/22/04
04/27/04
08/31/04(a)
09/28/04
10/26/04
1 l/30/04(b)
12/14/04
01/11/05
Fluoride
NA
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.5
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.0
0.8
1.4
1.0
0.8
0.9
DS2
As Gig/L)
39.2
49.0
35.0
22.9
15.9
15.0
13.5
17.0
13.1
11.8
9.3
11.5
12.2
13.0
9.9
14.1
Fe (ng/L)
371
417
260
36.6
<25
74.6
35.4
81.0
52.6
109
69.6
70.6
73.1
188.2
29.9
78.8
—
"Si
e
65.8
45.4
42.3
17.0
12.7
47.4
12.6
49.9
23.4
25.1
13.9
14.4
10.0
51.3
21.3
16.0
J
~5i)
A
j=
—
4.1
3.9
4.6
0.5
1.9
3.3
1.2
4.2
1.6
2.4
1.6
1.7
3.1
6.0
1.2
2.1
~5i)
A
O
208
195
215
55.8
122
145
110
187
121
106
112
139
141
142
63
61
n Time (hr)
•=
OS
a
OS
55
6.0
15.5
6.9
6.8
7.5
18.0
18.5
7.2
17.0
16.3
16.3
18.0
12.0
16.0
14.3
16.3
-
r&
X
e.
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.5
7.6
7.9
7.5
f (mg/L as CaCO3)
Alkalinit;
286
300
323
299
306
308
316
309
301
328
339
326
330
329
326
330
~6o
Fluoride
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
0.6
0.9
0.5
1.4
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.9
DS3
As (ng/L)
52.3
41.7
45.8
25.1
13.9
12.9
12.0
16.0
11.3
7.4
5.9
10.3
10.9
9.4
9.3
11.9
Fe (ng/L)
580
321
472
71.0
<25
<25
31.7
61.6
35.0
180
46.1
88.7
92.5
67.9
<25
46.7
•&>
e
111
82.4
89.0
40.8
25.0
51.5
25.1
27.9
23.0
33.0
46.9
58.0
56.6
36.9
40.3
34.1
~5i)
A
j=
—
4.7
0.9
3.0
0.7
1.0
2.2
1.2
3.3
3.5
2.9
3.3
1.8
2.8
2.2
1.7
1.6
Cu (ng/L
402
230
335
86.6
110
119
213
593
1,027
407
108
247
367
375
370
223
OJ
oo
(a) Homeowner at DS1 noticed a flush of red water during sample collection.
(b) DS2 taken on 12/07/04 for this sampling event.
(c) DS3 taken on 01/12/05 forthis sampling event.
NA = not analyzed; BL = baseline sampling
Lead action level = 15 ug/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L
ug/L as unit for all analytical parameters except for pH (S.U.) and alkalinity (mg/L [as CaCO3])
-------
system. Note that an average of 0.9 mg/L as C12 of free chlorine residuals were maintained in the
distribution system.
Lead levels in the distribution system ranged from 0.3 to 6.0 |o,g/L with no samples exceeding the action
level of 15 |o,g/L (with the excpetion of the August 31, 2004, sample collected at the DS1 location). Lead
levels in the distribution system did not appear to have been affected by the operation of the arsenic
treatment unit. Copper concentrations in the distribution system ranged from 19.7 to 401.8 |o,g/L and
averaged 155 mg/L in the baseline samples and ranged from 53.4 to 1,027 |o,g/L and averaged 266 mg/L
after the system startup. The copper levels appeared to have increased overall after system startup, but no
samples exceeded the 1,300 |o,g/L action level with the exception of the August 31, 2004, event noted
above. Several factors can increase the solubility of copper in drinking water in contact with plumbing
fixtures including low pH, high temerature, and soft water with fewer dissolved minerals. However, the
treatment system did not appear to have any impact on these factors.
4.6 System Cost
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This included the tracking of capital cost for equipment,
engineering, and installation and O&M cost for chemical supply, electrical power consumption, and
labor. However, the cost associated with the building, sanitary sewer connections, and other discharge-
related infrastructure was not included in the treatment system cost, because it was not included in the
scope of the demonstration project, and was funded separately by the demonstration site.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for the Climax system was $270,530 (Table 4-14),
which included $159,419 for equipment, $39,344 for engineering, and $71,767 for installation. The
equipment cost included the Macrolite® media, contact tanks, filtration skid, instrumentation and controls,
labor (including activities for the system shakedown), system warranty, and freight and sales tax. The
system warranty included repair and/or replacement of any equipment or installation workmanship for a
period of twelve months after system startup. The iron addition system purchased and installed by
January 3, 2005, included one 55-gal polyethylene tank with secondary containment, a tank mixer, a 2.5-
gal/hr chemical metering pump, and a 600-lb capacity drum scale. The equipment cost was 59% of the
total capital investment.
The engineering cost included preparing a process design report and the required engineering plans,
including a general arrangement drawing, piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs), interconnecting
piping layouts, tank fill details, a schematic of the PLC panel, an electrical on-line diagram, and other
associated drawings, as well as obtaining required permit from MDH. After certified by a Minnesota-
registered professional engineer (PE), the plans were submitted to the MDH for permit review and
approval. The engineering cost was 15% of the total capital investment.
The installation cost included the labor and materials for system unloading and anchoring, plumbing, and
mechanical and electrical connections. The installation cost was 26% of the total capital investment.
The total capital cost of $270,530 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 140 gpm
(201,600 gpd), which resulted in $1,932 per gpm ($1.34 per gpd). The total capital cost of $270,530 was
converted to a unit cost of $0.35/1,000 gal, using a CRF of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a 20-
year return period. These calculations assumed that the system operated 24 hour a day, seven days a
week, at the system design flowrate of 140 gpm. The system operated only 5.6 hr/day and produced
13,829,000 gal of water during the study period. At this reduced usage rate, the total unit cost was
increased to $1.85/1,000 gal.
39
-------
Table 4-14. Summary of Capital Investment for the Climax, MN, Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Cost
Media, Filter Skid, and Tanks
Air Compressor
Control Panel
Labor
Warranty
Additional Flowmeter/Totalizers
Iron Addition Equipment
Freight and Sales Tax
Equipment Total
1
1
1
-
-
1
1
1
-
$66,210
$2,346
$11,837
$43,005
$11,950
$2,622
$5,259
$16,190
$159,419
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
59%
Engineering Cost
Labor
Subcontractor
Engineering Total
-
-
-
$38,094
$1,250
$39,344
-
-
15%
Installation Cost
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
$12,914
$6,163
$52,690
$71,767
$270,530
-
-
-
26%
100%
A 22-ft x 24-ft building was built as an addition onto the existing concrete block well house for $88,256.
The building walls were constructed with a wood stud frame and 24-gauge pre-fabricated metal wall
panels and set on a 6-in-thick concrete slab floor with footings. The building also was equipped with an
insulated, 10-ft-wide overhead door. The building construction cost includes all of the required
insulation, mechanical, and electrical work. The building was heated with a 60,000 British Thermal Units
per hour (BTU-hr) heater. The connection to the existing water main required 16 linear ft of 6-in-
diameter C900 pipe and cost $4,650. The initial budget called for $6,730 for connection to the sanitary
sewer with 145 ft of 6-in-diameter PVC pipe. However, after plan review by the MDH, a code
requirement was identified to complete the sanitary sewer connection at a distance greater than 50 ft from
the wellhead. An underground storage tank was placed at a distance of 50 ft from the well house to hold
the backwash water prior to pumping to the sewer. The cost for this change was approximately $12,000.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included primarily chemical supply,
electricity consumption, and labor. Because the system was under warranty during the one-year study
period, no expenses were incurred for repairs to the system. These expenses are summarized in
Table 4-15. Since chlorination was performed prior to this demonstration study, the incremental cost for
the sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution was assumed to be negligible. The usage rate for the ferric
chloride stock solution was approximately 80 gal or 900 pounds on an annual basis. The incremental
power cost was estimated based on the change in electric utility bills for a one year timeframe before and
after the treatment plant installation. The routine, non-demonstration related labor activities consumed
about 30 min per day, as noted in Section 4.4.4. Based on this time commitment and a labor rate of
$21/hr, the labor cost was $0.22/1,000 gal of water treated. The total O&M cost was approximately
$0.29/1,000 gal based on labor, chemical usage, and electricity consumption.
40
-------
Table 4-15. O&M Cost for the Climax, MN, Treatment System
Cost Category
Volume processed (kgal)
Value
13,829
Assumptions
From 08/16/04 through 08/12/05 (see Table 4-4)
Chemical Usage
Ferric Chloride Unit Price ($/lb)
Ferric Chloride Consumption
Rate (lb/1,000 gall)
Chemical cost ($71,000 gal)
$0.40
0.065
$0.03
35% ferric chloride in a 600 Ib drum
80 gal or 900 pounds on an annual basis
Electricity
Power use ($71,000 gal)
$0.04
Based on additional electrical cost after
treatment plant startup; not including propane
cost to heat building
Labor
Average weekly labor (hr)
Labor cost ($71, 000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
2.5
$0.22
$0.29
30 min/day; five days a week
Labor rate = $2 1/hr
—
41
-------
Section 5.0: REFERENCES
Chen, A., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal Technologies:
U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-04/201.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, RC. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Fed. Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems. .
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers. 2003. Recommended Standards
for Water Works. Health Education Services. Albany, NY.
Kinetico. 2004. Operation and Maintenance Manual for Macrolite® Model FM-236-AS at Climax,
Minnesota Water Department, Newbury, OH.
Knocke, W.R., Hoehn, R. C.; Sinsabaugh, R. L. 1987. "Using Alternative Oxidants to Remove Dissolved
Manganese from Waters Laden with Organics." J. AWWA, 79(3): 75.
Knocke, W.R., Van Benschoten, J.E., Kearney, M., Soborski, A., and Reckhow, D.A., 1990. Alternative
Oxidants for the Remove of Soluble Iron and Manganese. Final report prepared for the AWWA
Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Lytle, D. 2005. Coagulation/Filtration: Iron Removal Processes Full-Scale Experience. EPA Workshop
on Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water in Cincinnati, OH, August 16-18.
Sorg, T.J. 2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, AWWA, 28(11): 15.
Wang, L., W. Condit, and A. 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.
42
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Page 1 of 13)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
N03-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L«
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L<»
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
08/11/04
IN
323
0.5
<0.04
<0.1
28.6
110
6.1
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
262
170
91.5
35.9
35.7
0.2
33.4
2.3
533
469
117
123
AC
311
0.5
<0.04
<0.1
28.2
110
0.6
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
259
168
91.1
33.8
11.0
22.8
1.0
10.0
516
<25
114
65.1
TT
295
1.4
<0.04
<0.1
28.8
110
0.2
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
260
168
91.1
9.7
9.7
<0.1
1.0
8.7
32.6
<25
66.2
67.1
08/18/04(<1)
IN
303
-
-
<0.1
29.1
-
6.7
7.6
10.1
2.6
NA(e)
-
-
-
-
-
37.2
-
-
-
-
620
-
131
-
AC
299
-
-
<0.1
29.1
-
0.8
7.5
10.0
2.6
NA(e)
0.6
3.0
-
-
-
36.9
-
-
-
-
585
-
127
-
TA
295
-
-
<0.1
29.1
-
0.4
7.6
10.0
2.2
NA(e)
0.6
3.0
-
-
-
10.3
-
-
-
-
66.4
-
75.5
-
TB
299
-
-
<0.1
28.9
-
0.4
7.6
10.1
2.2
NA(e)
0.6
3.0
-
-
-
10.0
-
-
-
-
66.0
-
73.0
-
08/24/04<0
IN
316
-
-
<0.1
28.5
-
4.9
7.6
9.1
4.1®
NA(e)
-
-
-
-
-
34.0
-
-
-
-
430
-
128
-
AC
308
-
-
<0.1
28.1
-
0.5
7.5
10.7
1.0
NA(e)
0.6
3.0
-
-
-
34.0
-
-
-
-
406
-
126
-
TA
304
-
-
<0.1
28.5
-
0.2
7.5
8.8
1.8
NAW
0.6
3.0
-
-
-
9.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
68.1
-
TB
312
-
-
<0.1
28.4
-
0.3
7.5
8.8
1.8
NA(e)
0.6
3.0
-
-
-
10.1
-
-
-
-
25.5
-
71.9
-
08/31/041"
IN
314
-
-
<0.1
28.7
-
6.5
7.6
8.6
2.2
NA(e)
-
-
-
-
-
42.2
-
-
-
-
527
-
130
-
AC
310
-
-
<0.1
28.5
-
1.1
7.5
8.9
2.3
NA(e)
0.6
3.0
-
-
-
44.6
-
-
-
-
602
-
129
-
TA
310
-
-
<0.1
29.1
-
0.6
7.4
10.7
2.1
NA(e)
0.6
3.0
-
-
-
12.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
77.7
-
TB
310
-
-
<0.1
28.4
-
0.5
7.4
11.0
1.3
NA(e)
0.6
3.0
-
-
-
12.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
74.0
-
(a) as CaCO3 (b) as PO4 (c) On-site measurements were not collected, (d) On-site measurements were taken on August 20, 2004. (e) On-site measurement was not recorded correctly, (f) On-site
measurements for TA and TB were taken on August 23, 2004. (g) Sample was potentially aerated during sample collection, (h) On-site WQ measurements were taken on September 3, 2004.
IN = at wellhead; AC = after contact tanks; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TT = after Tanks A and B combined. NA = data not available
-------
Table A-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Page 2 of 13)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Fluoride
NO3-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
mg/L«
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
|xg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
09/07/04
IN
314
0.3
<0.04
<0.1
28.5
120
4.8
7.6
9.8
2.8
NA(d)
-
-
210
130
79.6
44.9
38.2
6.7
36.0
2.2
469
492
146
145
AC
302
0.3
<0.04
<0.1
29.0
120
0.6
7.5
9.7
2.6
NA([1)
0.6
3.0
208
130
78.2
42.3
13.9
28.4
1.1
12.8
483
<25
138
78.9
TT
302
1.1
<0.04
<0.1
29.1
120
0.6
7.4
8.6
1.6
NA([1)
0.6
3.0
204
128
75.8
15.4
12.1
3.3
1.2
10.9
<25
<25
86.8
80.9
09/14/04
-------
Table A-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Page 3 of 13)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
NO3-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L«
mg/L«
mg/Lw
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
10/05/04
IN
313
-
0.2
<0.04
<0.06
28.5
110
8.6
7.5
8.3
1.0
-80
-
-
283
188
94.4
36.9
35.7
1.2
35.7
<0.1
540
520
115
116
AC
317
-
0.2
<0.04
<0.06
28.5
110
0.6
7.4
8.1
1.9
163
1.0
3.0
279
185
93.7
37.6
11.4
26.2
1.5
9.9
551
<25
115
61.7
TT
313
-
1.0
<0.04
<0.06
28.8
110
0.1
7.3
8.3
1.0
317
1.0
3.0
278
185
93.0
10.1
10.0
0.1
1.8
8.1
<25
<25
62.6
61.8
10/12/04
IN
305
-
-
-
<0.06
28.7
-
7.7
7.5
8.6
1.6
-63
-
-
-
-
-
35.0
-
-
-
-
548
-
123
-
AC
305
-
-
-
<0.06
28.2
-
1.0
7.4
8.6
1.1
170
1.0
3.0
-
-
-
72.0
-------
Table A-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Page 4 of 13)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
N03-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L«
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
re/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
11/02/04
IN
304
-
0.2
<0.04
<0.06
27.9
120
5.3
7.6
9.0
1.4
-66
-
-
238
151
87.0
39.3
39.0
0.3
36.9
2.1
361
354
113
114
AC
304
-
0.2
<0.04
<0.06
28.2
120
0.4
7.4
8.7
1.9
309
1.0
2.2
240
154
86.1
38.7
17.8
20.9
3.0
14.8
363
<25
112
64.9
TT
287
-
0.6
<0.04
<0.06
28.5
120
0.1
7.4
8.6
1.4
347
1.0
2.2
239
153
86.1
16.3
15.3
1.0
3.5
11.8
<25
<25
69.2
66.5
11/09/04
IN
304
-
-
-
<0.06
28.2
-
6.0
7.6
9.1
1.4
-68
-
-
-
-
-
34.1
-
-
-
-
520
-
131
-
AC
304
-
-
-
<0.06
28.2
-
0.5
7.4
9.1
1.8
311
1.0
2.2
-
-
-
33.8
-
-
-
-
550
-
135
-
TA
299
-
-
-
<0.06
27.8
-
0.5
7.4
8.7
1.4
332
1.0
2.2
-
-
-
9.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
78.5
-
TB
304
-
-
-
<0.06
28.1
-
0.3
7.4
8.9
1.9
328
1.0
2.2
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
78.9
-
11/16/04
IN
328
0.7
-
-
<0.06
28.4
-
6.3
7.6
9.0
1.5
-70
-
-
-
-
-
34.9
-
-
-
-
508
-
126
-
AC
308
-
-
-
<0.06
28.6
-
0.9
7.4
9.1
1.9
314
1.0
2.2
-
-
-
35.1
-
-
-
-
538
-
128
-
TA
312
-
-
-
<0.06
28.3
-
0.5
7.4
9.1
1.5
326
1.0
2.2
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
74.6
-
TB
324
-
-
-
<0.06
28.6
-
0.5
7.4
9.1
1.9
330
1.0
2.2
-
-
-
10.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
74.0
-
11/30/04
IN
313
-
0.6
<0.04
<0.06
28.1
120
6.8
7.6
9.3
2.2
-128
-
-
222
148
74.3
51.4
51.3
0.1
39.8
11.5
524
505
125
125
AC
309
-
0.6
<0.04
<0.06
28.5
120
0.7
7.4
8.6
2.3
321
1.0
2.2
219
146
73.4
41.6
19.5
22.1
6.2
13.3
448
<25
109
75.0
TT
296
-
1.4
<0.04
<0.06
28.0
120
0.5
7.4
8.5
2.5
333
1.0
2.2
241
162
79.1
19.0
16.1
2.9
5.1
11.0
36.8
<25
68.2
69.1
(a)asCaCO3 (b) as PO4
IN = at wellhead; AC = after contact tanks;
TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TT = after Tanks A and B combined
-------
Table A-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Page 5 of 13)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
N03-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L«
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
re/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
12/07/04
IN
325
0.8
-
-
<0.06
27.9
-
6.9
7.6
8.8
2.5
-68
-
-
-
-
-
33.4
-
-
-
-
551
-
122
-
AC
325
-
-
-
<0.06
28.5
-
0.6
7.4
8.5
1.9
289
0.2
0.9
-
-
-
33.4
-
-
-
-
564
-
120
-
TA
325
-
-
-
<0.06
28.5
-
0.4
7.3
8.4
1.9
295
0.2
0.9
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
70.2
-
TB
309
-
-
-
<0.06
29.1
-
0.5
7.3
8.4
2.2
298
0.2
0.9
-
-
-
10.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
69.7
-
12/14/04
IN
318
0.7
-
-
<0.06
28.9
-
8.3
7.5
8.5
1.8
-89
-
-
-
-
-
36.4
-
-
-
-
651
-
137
-
AC
301
-
-
-
<0.06
28.9
-
1.1
7.4
8.8
1.7
301
0.2
0.9
-
-
-
35.6
-
-
-
-
616
-
135
-
TA
301
-
-
-
<0.06
28.6
-
1.0
7.4
8.7
1.5
298
0.2
0.9
-
-
-
9.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
75.9
-
TB
305
-
-
-
<0.06
28.8
-
0.3
7.4
8.4
2.5
304
0.2
0.9
-
-
-
13.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
71.4
-
01/04/05
-------
Table A-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Page 6 of 13)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
NO3-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L«
mg/L«
mg/Lw
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
01/18/05
-------
Table A-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Page 7 of 13)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
N03-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L«
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
02/16/05
IN
334
0.7
-
-
<0.05
30.5
-
7.2
7.6
9.8
1.7
-82
-
-
-
-
-
35.5
-
-
-
-
569
-
123
-
AC
317
-
-
-
<0.05
30.5
-
1.4
7.5
8.6
1.2
240
1.3
2.2
-
-
-
37.9
-
-
-
-
1,791
-
139
-
TA
334
-
-
-
<0.05
29.9
-
0.2
7.5
8.4
1.4
262
1.3
2.2
-
-
-
7.1
-
-
-
-
107
-
69.6
-
TB
334
-
-
-
<0.05
30.6
-
0.2
7.5
8.4
1.4
265
1.3
2.2
-
-
-
7.4
-
-
-
-
122
-
71.8
-
02/22/05
IN
360
0.7
-
-
<0.05
28.8
-
5.7
7.6
9.1
1.9
-80
-
-
-
-
-
32.1
-
-
-
-
581
-
117
-
AC
333
-
-
-
<0.05
29.4
-
1.2
7.5
8.8
1.4
252
0.9
1.9
-
-
-
33.6
-
-
-
-
1,425
-
126
-
TA
328
-
-
-
<0.05
27.6
-
0.2
7.5
8.5
1.5
256
0.9
1.9
-
-
-
5.5
-
-
-
-
31.1
-
92.3
-
TB
328
-
-
-
<0.05
28.6
-
<0.1
7.5
8.8
1.5
259
0.9
1.9
-
-
-
5.7
-
-
-
-
36.0
-
90.8
-
03/01/05
IN
540
0.6
-
-
<0.05
28.3
-
4.9
7.7
8.4
1.6
-82
-
-
-
-
-
37.6
-
-
-
-
449
-
120
-
AC
535
-
-
-
<0.05
28.4
-
6.7
7.6
8.4
0.7
238
1.1
2.0
-
-
-
42.1
-
-
-
-
1,985
-
128
-
TA
562
-
-
-
<0.05
28.1
-
0.6
7.6
8.6
1.0
237
1.1
2.0
-
-
-
6.7
-
-
-
-
38.2
-
97.1
-
TB
544
-
-
-
<0.05
27.8
-
0.7
7.6
8.6
1.6
243
1.1
2.0
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
-
37.1
-
126
-
03/08/05
IN
334
-
0.5
<0.05
<0.05
29.9
149
5.8
7.6
8.5
1.1
-78
-
-
208
139
68.5
34.4
38.3
<0.1
38.5
<0.1
455
427
123
127
AC
326
-
0.5
<0.05
<0.05
29.9
144
1.3
7.5
8.5
1.2
212
0.6
1.2
207
146
61.3
35.7
13.5
22.1
2.1
11.4
1,198
<25
133
82.0
TT
334
-
1.0
<0.05
<0.05
29.8
144
0.2
7.5
8.5
1.7
223
0.6
1.2
202
143
58.9
8.0
7.6
0.4
2.4
5.3
<25
<25
126
82.0
(a)asCaCO3 (b) as PO4
IN = at wellhead; AC = after contact tanks; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TT = after Tanks A and B combined
-------
Table A-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Page 8 of 13)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
N03-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L«
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
03/15/05
IN
334
0.6
-
-
<0.05
29.6
-
5.5
7.6
9.1
1.6
-79
-
-
-
-
-
34.3
-
-
-
-
484
-
133
-
AC
334
-
-
-
<0.05
30.5
-
1.3
7.6
8.7
0.8
228
0.6
1.2
-
-
-
36.6
-
-
-
-
1,254
-
149
-
TA
326
-
-
-
<0.05
30.4
-
0.2
7.5
8.9
1.4
246
0.6
1.2
-
-
-
6.4
-
-
-
-
57.0
-
115
-
TB
330
-
-
-
<0.05
30.3
-
0.1
7.6
8.8
1.3
243
0.6
1.2
-
-
-
6.9
-
-
-
-
50.2
-
104
-
03/22/05
IN
320
0.7
-
-
<0.05
29.3
-
5.5
7.5
9.0
1.3
-67
-
-
-
-
-
38.4
-
-
-
-
570
-
137
-
AC
324
-
-
-
<0.05
29.4
-
1.1
7.4
9.0
1.5
218
0.5
1.2
-
-
-
39.0
-
-
-
-
1,327
-
137
-
TA
320
-
-
-
<0.05
29.1
-
0.1
7.4
9.1
1.2
234
0.5
1.2
-
-
-
9.0
-
-
-
-
80.8
-
118
-
TB
324
-
-
-
<0.05
28.7
-
0.3
7.4
9.1
1.2
236
0.5
1.2
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
77.9
-
Ill
-
03/29/05
IN
327
0.8
-
-
<0.05
28.8
-
4.1
7.5
9.0
2.1
-69
-
-
-
-
-
33.4
-
-
-
-
520
-
128
-
AC
318
-
-
-
<0.05
29.1
-
1.1
7.4
8.7
1.3
222
0.5
1.2
-
-
-
33.4
-
-
-
-
1,196
-
130
-
TA
323
-
-
-
<0.05
29.2
-
0.2
7.4
9.5
1.0
226
0.5
1.2
-
-
-
7.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
83.6
-
TB
318
-
-
-
<0.05
29.1
-
0.4
7.4
9.0
1.0
230
0.5
1.2
-
-
-
6.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
81.0
-
04/05/05
IN
339
-
0.6
<0.05
<0.05
28.9
105
7.5
7.4
8.9
1.9
-72
-
-
243
158
84.7
36.3
36.3
<0.1
33.7
2.6
625
649
127
137
AC
330
-
0.6
<0.05
<0.05
29.4
103
1.1
7.4
8.9
1.34
219
0.8
1.4
239
158
80.5
36.8
12.5
24.3
2.8
9.7
1,397
<25
136
83.5
TT
326
-
1.2
<0.05
0.6
29.1
107
<0.1
7.4
9.0
1.4
236
0.8
1.4
246
161
84.3
8.7
8.8
<0.1
2.3
6.5
<25
<25
114
86.4
(a)asCaCO3 (b) as PO4
IN = at wellhead; AC = after contact tanks; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TT = after Tanks A and B combined
-------
Table A-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Page 9 of 13)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
NO3-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L«
mg/L«
mg/L(a)
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
04/12/05
IN
333
333
0.6
0.7
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
29.2
29.5
-
6.1
4.9
7.4
9.0
2.0
-74
-
-
-
-
-
34.7
32.1
-
-
-
-
592
529
-
124
130
-
AC
333
337
-
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
26.8
29.8
-
1.1
2.3
7.3
8.7
2.0
220
0.8
1.4
-
-
-
34.8
31.9
-
-
-
-
1,461
1,462
-
131
139
-
TA
333
324
-
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
28.9
29.2
-
0.1
0.2
7.4
9.0
1.3
223
0.8
1.4
-
-
-
5.6
5.8
-
-
-
-
53.0
49.1
-
105
94.3
-
TB
333
333
-
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
29.1
29.3
-
0.2
0.5
7.4
8.7
1.3
229
0.8
1.4
-
-
-
5.6
5.8
-
-
-
-
58.0
62.3
-
94.8
89.7
-
04/19/05
IN
401
0.7
-
-
<0.05
28.9
-
7.3
7.4
10.0
2.0
-74
-
-
-
-
-
36.0
-
-
-
-
553
-
127
-
AC
343
-
-
-
<0.05
29.5
-
1.5
7.4
9.3
1.8
224
0.8
1.6
-
-
-
32.4
-
-
-
-
1,469
-
140
-
TA
334
-
-
-
<0.05
28.9
-
0.4
7.3
9.3
1.8
229
0.8
1.6
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
32.4
-
94.1
-
TB
339
-
-
-
<0.05
28.6
-
0.2
7.4
9.3
1.6
232
0.8
1.6
-
-
-
6.3
-
-
-
-
39.8
-
93.9
-
04/26/05
IN
337
0.6
-
-
<0.05
29.4
-
5.4
7.5
8.8
1.9
-75
-
-
-
-
-
35.6
-
-
-
-
529
-
112
-
AC
342
-
-
-
<0.05
28.7
-
1.2
7.4
9.0
1.6
223
0.8
1.5
-
-
-
35.9
-
-
-
-
1,291
-
122
-
TA
337
-
-
-
<0.05
28.5
-
0.2
7.3
8.9
1.7
226
0.8
1.5
-
-
-
6.0
-
-
-
-
37.1
-
93.9
-
TB
333
-
-
-
<0.05
29.4
-
0.4
7.4
9.0
1.6
231
0.8
1.5
-
-
-
6.4
-
-
-
-
38.4
-
94.6
-
05/03/05
IN
329
-
0.5
<0.05
<0.05
28.7
130
4.5
7.5
8.9
1.9
-75
-
-
202
134
67.9
35.2
35.9
<0.1
34.2
1.8
484
473
137
141
AC
333
-
1.0
<0.05
<0.05
28.9
126
0.2
7.4
8.9
2.5
226
0.7
1.3
201
134
67.3
33.8
11.5
22.3
1.4
10.1
1,264
<25
141
89.1
TT
333
-
0.5
<0.05
<0.05
28.8
129
1.0
7.4
8.9
1.9
234
0.7
1.3
196
132
64.3
7.1
6.6
0.4
1.5
5.1
72.1
<25
123
91.5
(a)asCaCO3 (b) as PO4
IN = at wellhead; AC = after contact tanks;
TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TT = after Tanks A and B combined
-------
Table A-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Page 10 of 13)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
N03-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L«
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
05/10/05
-------
Table A-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Page 11 of 13)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
N03-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L<»
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/Lw
mg/Lw
Hg/L
Mg/L
re/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
06/07/05
IN
308
0.8
-
-
<0.05
29.3
-
8.8
7.4
9.3
0.7
-80
-
-
-
-
-
39.7
-
-
-
-
714
-
135
-
AC
339
-
-
-
<0.05
29.3
-
1.6
7.3
9.0
0.9
233
1.3
1.8
-
-
-
38.5
-
-
-
-
1,400
-
136
-
TA
334
-
-
-
<0.05
29.0
-
0.5
7.3
8.8
1.0
238
1.3
1.8
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
-
31.5
-
94.2
-
TB
343
-
-
-
<0.05
28.8
-
1.2
7.3
8.9
1.3
241
1.3
1.8
-
-
-
6.3
-
-
-
-
59.6
-
89.0
-
06/14/05
IN
334
0.7
-
-
<0.05
29.5
-
5.6
7.4
8.7
1.1
-79
-
-
-
-
-
41.4
-
-
-
-
550
-
127
-
AC
326
-
-
-
<0.05
29.4
-
1.5
7.3
8.8
1.3
228
1.1
1.8
-
-
-
41.6
-
-
-
-
1,487
-
130
-
TA
330
-
-
-
<0.05
29.4
-
0.3
7.3
8.8
0.8
232
1.1
1.8
-
-
-
7.6
-
-
-
-
46.8
-
86.8
-
TB
326
-
-
-
<0.05
29.9
-
0.5
7.4
8.9
0.9
236
1.1
1.8
-
-
-
6.6
-
-
-
-
64.9
-
87.9
-
06/21/05
IN
330
0.7
-
-
<0.05
28.6
-
6.3
7.4
8.7
1.4
-75
-
-
-
-
-
37.5
-
-
-
-
563
-
128
-
AC
330
-
-
-
<0.05
28.4
-
1.5
7.3
8.7
1.3
235
0.9
1.8
-
-
-
40.6
-
-
-
-
1,508
-
136
-
TA
330
-
-
-
<0.05
28.2
-
1.0
7.3
8.7
1.1
236
0.9
1.8
-
-
-
6.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
77.9
-
TB
330
-
-
-
<0.05
28.0
-
0.3
7.3
8.7
1.6
240
0.9
1.8
-
-
-
7.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
80.1
-
06/28/05
IN
308
-
0.3
0.1
<0.05
28.9
110
18.0
7.4
10.9
1.3
-77
-
-
249
164
85.5
39.1
38.7
0.4
38.0
0.7
534
526
125
123
AC
330
-
0.3
<0.05
<0.05
28.9
100
15.0
7.4
10.6
1.2
222
1.0
1.7
235
160
74.9
37.2
10.6
26.6
3.1
7.5
1,558
32.1
128
69.9
TT
308
-
0.9
0.1
<0.05
28.8
118
0.7
7.4
10.4
1.1
228
1.0
1.7
247
163
83.8
6.9
6.3
0.6
3.2
3.1
<25
<25
74.1
69.0
(a)asCaCO3 (b) as PO4
IN = at wellhead; AC = after contact tanks; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TT = after Tanks A and B combined
-------
Table A-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Page 12 of 13)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
NO3-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L«
mg/L«
mg/L(a)
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
07/05/05
IN
308
308
0.6
0.6
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
28.6
28.4
-
4.2
4.4
7.5
9.0
0.4
-75
-
-
-
-
-
33.2
33.4
-
-
-
-
444
408
-
130
122
-
AC
308
308
-
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
28.3
28.8
-
1.3
1.2
7.4
9.1
1.0
239
1.0
1.7
-
-
-
33.1
33.7
-
-
-
-
1,269
1,226
-
127
124
-
TA
308
308
-
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
28.3
28.1
-
0.2
0.2
7.4
9.4
1.0
236
1.0
1.7
-
-
-
6.5
7.9
-
-
-
-
61.3
93.6
-
102
81.9
-
TB
308
308
-
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
28.3
27.8
-
<0.1
0.2
7.4
9.0
1.4
233
1.0
1.7
-
-
-
7.7
7.9
-
-
-
-
62.7
92.0
-
106
82.6
-
07/12/05
IN
321
0.7
-
-
<0.05
27.7
-
11.0
7.5
9.1
0.7
-79
-
-
-
-
-
36.1
-
-
-
-
423
-
148
-
AC
330
-
-
-
<0.05
27.6
-
2.9
7.4
8.9
1.0
227
0.5
1.2
-
-
-
36.2
-
-
-
-
1,179
-
148
-
TA
317
-
-
-
<0.05
27.8
-
0.2
7.4
8.9
0.5
233
0.5
1.2
-
-
-
7.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
107
-
TB
317
-
-
-
<0.05
27.0
-
0.4
7.4
9.0
1.0
235
0.5
1.2
-
-
-
7.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
100
-
07/19/05
IN
308
0.6
-
-
<0.05
28.1
-
0.1
7.5
9.1
0.7
-82
-
-
-
-
-
35.4
-
-
-
-
547
-
130
-
AC
308
-
-
-
<0.05
28.3
-
5.8
7.4
9.0
0.9
230
0.4
1.0
-
-
-
34.8
-
-
-
-
1,331
-
135
-
TA
308
-
-
-
<0.05
28.3
-
0.1
7.4
8.9
0.8
235
0.4
1.0
-
-
-
7.6
-
-
-
-
57.1
-
86.8
-
TB
308
-
-
-
<0.05
27.9
-
0.2
7.4
9.0
0.5
239
0.4
1.0
-
-
-
7.9
-
-
-
-
73.7
-
148
-
07/26/05
IN
317
-
0.5
0.1
<0.05
27.4
114
6.6
7.4
8.8
0.7
-81
-
-
205
136
69.2
33.5
33.6
<0.1
34.3
<0.1
523
516
148
132
AC
321
-
0.4
0.1
<0.05
27.7
119
1.9
7.4
8.8
0.6
229
0.7
1.4
218
145
73.3
33.8
10.5
23.3
1.9
8.6
1,339
27.0
107
82.2
TT
317
-
0.4
0.1
<0.05
27.5
117
0.1
7.4
8.8
0.9
239
0.7
1.4
225
150
75.3
7.1
5.4
1.7
2.0
3.4
81.7
<25
100
78.8
(a)asCaCO3 (b) as PO4
IN = at wellhead; AC = after contact tanks;
TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TT = after Tanks A and B combined
-------
Table A-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Page 13 of 13)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
NO3-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L«
mg/L«
mg/L(a)
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
08/02/05
IN
321
0.7
-
-
<0.05
27.7
-
8.3
7.5
8.9
0.7
-78
-
-
-
-
-
31.2
-
-
-
-
581
-
120
-
AC
317
-
-
-
<0.05
27.7
-
1.5
7.4
8.8
0.7
225
1.2
1.9
-
-
-
31.8
-
-
-
-
1,431
-
125
-
TA
321
-
-
-
<0.05
27.0
-
0.2
7.4
8.9
0.4
232
1.2
1.9
-
-
-
5.2
-
-
-
-
32.2
-
78.5
-
TB
326
-
-
-
<0.05
27.2
-
0.9
7.4
8.9
1.0
234
1.2
1.9
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
-
70.0
-
80.6
-
(a)asCaCO3 (b) as PO4
IN = at wellhead; AC = after contact tanks; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TT = after Tanks A and B combined
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 1 of 23)
Week
No.
2
3
4
Date
08/16/04
08/17/04
08/18/04
08/19/04
08/20/04
08/21/04
08/22/04
08/23/04
08/24/04
08/25/04
08/26/04
08/27/04
08/28/04
08/29/04
08/30/04
08/31/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
09/03/04
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
5.0
NA
7.8
4.0
7.6
8.7
10.6
9.2
9.4
5.2
4.5
4.9
6.0
6.9
3.3
14.8
NA
NA
NA
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.0
9.6
4.4
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
307050
348300
394840
418120
466000
523000
590700
645200
705180
737300
765240
797100
835770
880300
901550
994280
1037180
1109340
1141780
Daily Volume
(kgal)
NA
41
47
23
48
57
68
55
60
32
28
32
39
45
21
93
43
72
32
Pressure Filtration
-Si
Z&
70
71
68
68
65
65
67
64
64
65
62
63
65
63
64
65
69
74
72
^
21
60
59
60
60
65
65
53
56
54
53
55
55
55
55
56
56
60
61
59
"Si
n '1
H &
60
59
60
60
62
65
53
56
54
53
55
56
56
55
56
56
60
61
59
H -a
tJ 'x
o &
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
40
41
41
40
41
41
40
41
41
41
41
41
AP across
Tank A (psig)
10
12
8
8
0
0
14
8
10
12
7
8
10
8
8
9
9
13
13
AP across
Tank B (psig)
10
12
8
8
3
0
14
8
10
12
7
7
9
8
8
9
9
13
13
AP across
System (psig)
29
30
27
27
24
24
26
24
23
24
22
22
24
23
23
24
28
33
31
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
110
104
107
108
124
122
120
119
117
118
118
117
118
119
119
117
139
135
138
Totalizer
(kgal)
NA
367.0
414.1
438.5
488.2
549.5
622.8
680.4
745.1
780.1
809.0
842.8
884.3
931.0
953.0
1052.8
1097.7
1174.6
1208.4
Daily Volume
(kgal)
NA
NA
47
24
50
61
73
58
65
35
29
34
42
47
22
100
45
77
34
Backwash
6
<
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TB No.(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24.5
24.5
24.5
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Iron
Solution
£
1
3
£
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 2 of 23)
Week
No.
4
(con't)
5
6
Date
09/04/04
09/05/04
09/06/04
09/07/04
09/08/04
09/09/04
09/10/04
09/11/04
09/12/04
09/13/04
09/14/04
09/15/04
09/16/04
09/17/04
09/18/04
09/19/04
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
3.8
5.3
3.8
6.2
3.4
3.9
5.6
3.8
3.3
6.0
4.4
4.6
4.3
3.1
5.6
3.4
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
1166780
1210860
1238880
1284700
1310250
1339150
1381950
1410220
1435060
1480460
1515480
1547420
1579600
1602560
1645770
1671370
|
"3
1!
25
44
28
46
26
29
43
28
25
45
35
32
32
23
43
26
Pressure Filtration
'o*
£&
69
69
73
73
71
72
72
73
72
73
73
74
73
72
70
72
"o*
< 'I,
H &
59
59
62
64
61
59
62
62
59
62
63
60
60
61
60
60
"a*
n 'i
H &
59
59
62
64
61
59
62
62
59
62
63
60
60
61
60
60
H '3
t> '%
0 &
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
40
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
AP across
Tank A (psig)
10
10
11
9
10
13
10
11
13
11
10
14
13
11
10
12
AP across
Tank B (psig)
10
10
11
9
10
13
10
11
13
11
10
14
13
11
10
12
AP across
System (psig)
28
28
32
32
30
31
31
33
31
32
32
33
32
31
29
31
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
144
143
138
136
144
136
139
137
141
139
138
137
138
138
139
139
Totalizer
(kgal)
1237.2
1280.7
1310.3
1359.4
1386.2
1415.7
1460.3
1491.2
1517.3
1564.8
1600.0
1633.8
1667.9
1691.9
1736.9
1763.8
|
"3
>
^t
a*
29
44
30
49
27
30
45
31
26
48
35
34
34
24
45
27
Backwash
~6
Z
f(
H
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
«
H
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
26.2
26.2
26.2
27.8
27.8
27.8
29.5
29.5
31.2
31.2
31.2
32.9
32.9
34.5
34.5
34.5
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Iron
Solution
03
J=
1
3
£
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cd
to
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 3 of 23)
Week
No.
7
8
9
Date
09/20/04
09/21/04
09/22/04
09/23/04
09/24/04
09/25/04
09/26/04
09/27/04
09/28/04
09/29/04
09/30/04
10/01/04
10/02/04
10/03/04
10/04/04
10/05/04
10/06/04
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.6
4.6
3.6
6.5
6.6
5.5
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
3.8
4.9
4.3
1.4
7.2
4.8
4.9
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
1700440
1737480
1769760
1780760
1835860
1871540
1908140
1944060
1979880
2016080
2051560
2087000
2117460
2132460
2172180
2225180
2260160
Daily Volume
(kgal)
29
37
32
11
55
36
37
36
36
36
35
35
30
15
40
53
35
Pressure Filtration
-Si
Z&
70
70
73
69
70
73
74
70
73
74
70
64
63
64
62
65
65
^
21
60
60
59
60
61
62
63
60
61
64
60
55
54
55
55
55
56
"Si
n '1
H &
60
61
59
60
61
62
63
60
61
64
60
55
54
55
55
55
56
H -a
tJ 'x
o &
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
40
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
AP across
Tank A (psig)
10
10
14
9
9
11
11
10
12
10
10
9
9
9
7
10
9
AP across
Tank B (psig)
10
9
14
9
9
11
11
10
12
10
10
9
9
9
7
10
9
AP across
System (psig)
29
29
32
28
29
32
33
29
33
33
29
23
22
23
21
24
24
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
142
138
140
144
140
139
138
143
138
136
138
118
123
122
124
118
118
Totalizer
(kgal)
1793.4
1831.7
1864.9
1875.6
1933.8
1970.7
2008.7
2045.8
2081.9
2118.3
2153.9
2189.7
2221.1
2252.2
2286.9
2332.0
2368.3
Daily Volume
(kgal)
30
38
33
11
58
37
38
37
36
36
36
36
31
31
35
45
36
Backwash
6
<
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
TB No.(a)
24
24
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
27
28
28
29
29
29
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
36.3
36.3
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
39.8
39.8
39.8
41.5
41.5
41.5
43.3
43.3
45.0
45.0
45.0
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Iron
Solution
£
1
3
£
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 4 of 23)
Week
No.
9
(con't)
10
11
Date
10/07/04
10/08/04
10/09/04
10/10/04
10/11/04
10/12/04
10/13/04
10/14/04
10/15/04
10/16/04
10/17/04
10/18/04
10/19/04
10/20/04
10/21/04
10/22/04
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
4.8
6.1
5.3
5.6
5.6
6.5
4.7
4.7
6.5
5.2
37.6
9.0
7.4
6.6
2.9
2.9
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
2291000
2328580
2365220
2402050
2438560
2481460
2511620
2541420
2584280
2610280
2621000
2678600
2693220
2735340
2754540
2773660
Daily Volume
(kgal)
31
38
37
37
37
43
30
30
43
26
11
58
15
42
19
19
Pressure Filtration
-Si
Z&
62
63
65
62
62
62
64
63
63
64
62
65
65
62
63
65
^
21
55
56
56
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
54
55
55
54
56
56
"Si
n '1
H &
55
56
56
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
54
55
55
54
56
56
H -a
tJ 'x
o &
41
41
41
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
41
40
41
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
7
7
9
7
6
6
8
7
7
8
8
10
10
8
7
9
AP across
Tank B (psig)
7
7
9
7
6
6
8
7
7
8
8
10
10
8
7
9
AP across
System (psig)
21
22
24
21
22
22
24
23
23
24
22
24
24
22
22
25
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
124
122
118
123
122
122
119
123
121
121
124
124
122
125
120
120
Totalizer
(kgal)
2400.1
2439.2
2477.4
2515.5
2553.4
2596.3
2627.5
2657.8
2702.1
2728.1
2740.4
2801.2
2816.3
2859.3
2879.2
2899.1
Daily Volume
(kgal)
32
39
38
38
38
43
31
30
44
26
12
61
15
43
20
20
Backwash
6
<
27
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
30
31
32
32
33
33
34
TB No.(a)
30
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
33
34
35
35
36
36
37
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
46.7
46.7
46.7
48.5
48.5
50.2
50.2
51.9
51.9
51.9
53.6
55.3
55.3
57.0
57.0
60.2
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Iron
Solution
£
1
3
£
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 5 of 23)
Week
No.
11
(con't)
12
13
Date
10/23/04
10/24/04
10/25/04
10/26/04
10/27/04
10/28/04
10/29/04
10/30/04
10/31/04
11/01/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
11/04/04
11/05/04
11/06/04
11/07/04
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
2.1
NA
NA
9.2
13.6
7.9
15.1
6.9
4.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.9
5.6
4.1
4.3
4.2
5.8
4.3
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
2783660
NA
2806130
2831550
2858650
2909150
2937450
2984850
3012960
3050770
3094040
3126530
3160360
3192660
3239980
3272280
Daily Volume
(kgal)
10
NA
NA
25
27
51
28
47
28
38
43
32
34
32
47
32
Pressure Filtration
-Si
Z&
63
NA
64
64
63
61
62
62
63
67
67
67
68
68
67
67
^
21
56
NA
56
56
52
52
53
53
56
56
55
56
56
56
55
55
"Si
n '1
H &
56
NA
56
56
52
54
53
53
56
58
55
56
56
56
55
55
H -a
tJ 'x
o &
40
NA
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
7
NA
8
8
11
9
9
9
7
11
12
11
12
12
12
12
AP across
Tank B (psig)
7
NA
8
8
11
7
9
9
7
9
12
11
12
12
12
12
AP across
System (psig)
23
NA
24
24
23
21
22
22
23
27
27
27
28
28
27
27
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
118
NA
122
121
120
125
122
121
120
142
144
143
141
140
144
143
Totalizer
(kgal)
2909.1
NA
2933.0
2959.6
2987.3
3039.8
3070.0
3119.7
3147.2
3187.4
3232.2
3265.4
23.3
56.4
104.5
138.6
Daily Volume
(kgal)
10
NA
NA
27
28
53
30
50
28
40
45
33
NA
33
48
34
Backwash
6
<
Fail
NA
35
35
35
36
36
36
37
37
38
38
38
39
39
39
TB No.(a)
NA
NA
38
38
38
39
39
39
40
40
41
41
41
42
42
42
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
NA
NA
62.0
62.0
62.0
63.8
63.8
63.8
65.7
65.7
67.5
67.5
67.5
69.4
69.4
69.4
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Iron
Solution
£
1
3
£
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 6 of 23)
Week
No.
14
15
16
Date
11/08/04
11/09/04
11/10/04
11/11/04
11/12/04
11/13/04
11/14/04
11/15/04
11/16/04
11/17/04
11/18/04
11/19/04
11/20/04
11/21/04
11/22/04
1 1/23/04
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
4.1
4.9
5.6
2.7
5.6
5.2
2.7
5.2
4.1
5.1
3.5
5.6
2.9
5.6
2.9
5.6
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
3304550
3343060
3386260
3407620
3450540
3499810
3512940
3552670
3585830
3625530
3652760
3698840
3720640
3764700
3787710
3831510
Daily Volume
(kgal)
32
39
43
21
43
49
13
40
33
40
27
46
22
44
23
44
Pressure Filtration
"Si
gl
68
68
71
71
70
71
71
71
68
68
67
67
68
67
67
68
"Si
2s
55
55
55
55
57
55
55
56
56
56
55
55
56
55
56
57
"M
£s
58
58
59
59
58
55
56
58
56
56
57
56
57
56
56
58
H '3
tJ '&
0 &
40
40
40
40
40
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
13
13
16
16
13
16
16
15
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
AP across
Tank B (psig)
10
10
12
12
12
16
15
13
12
12
10
11
11
11
11
10
AP across
System (psig)
28
28
31
31
30
30
31
31
28
28
27
27
28
27
27
28
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
142
142
142
141
140
144
142
140
145
144
145
144
143
144
144
142
Totalizer
(kgal)
171.4
211.2
255.9
278.0
322.6
364.2
386.1
428.2
461.8
502.8
529.6
575.9
599.5
608.1
669.1
714.3
Daily Volume
(kgal)
33
40
45
22
45
42
22
42
34
41
27
46
24
9
61
45
Backwash
TA No.(a)
40
40
41
41
41
42
42
42
43
43
45
45
45
45
46
46
~6
«
43
43
44
44
44
45
45
45
46
46
48
48
48
48
49
49
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
71.2
71.2
73.0
73.0
73.0
74.8
74.8
74.8
77.7
77.7
82.9
82.9
82.9
82.9
85.1
85.1
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Iron
Solution
Weight Lbs
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 7 of 23)
Week
No.
16
(con't)
17
18
Date
11/24/04
11/25/04
11/26/04
11/27/04
1 1/28/04
11/29/04
11/30/04
12/01/04
12/02/04
12/03/04
12/04/04
12/05/04
12/06/04
12/07/04
12/08/04
12/09/04
12/10/04
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.4
5.9
5.8
4.2
3.3
5.8
4.6
6.0
5.9
3.1
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
3.5
5.0
0.1
3.2
4.7
4.6
8.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
3859560
3898840
3899940
3924810
3961790
3997760
4041460
4077260
4116660
4156000
4184360
4207380
4246680
4277380
4318280
4358000
4378500
Daily Volume
(kgal)
28
39
1
25
37
36
44
36
39
39
28
23
39
31
41
40
21
Pressure Filtration
-Si
Z&
67
67
67
67
67
66
70
62
62
63
63
60
60
61
60
60
59
^
21
55
55
56
56
57
55
56
54
55
56
56
51
51
52
52
52
51
"Si
n '1
H &
56
56
57
59
59
56
58
55
57
58
58
53
53
54
54
53
52
H -a
tJ 'x
o &
40
40
40
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
12
12
11
11
10
11
14
8
7
7
7
9
9
9
8
8
8
AP across
Tank B (psig)
11
11
10
8
8
10
12
7
5
5
5
7
7
7
6
7
7
AP across
System (psig)
27
27
27
26
27
26
30
22
22
23
23
20
20
21
20
20
19
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
144
143
141
145
142
145
141
123
121
124
121
128
125
123
125
124
126
Totalizer
(kgal)
742.5
783.9
783.9
809.8
847.6
884.6
926.7
962.6
1001.5
1040.4
1068.4
1091.4
1131.9
1163.1
1205.5
1246.6
1276.8
Daily Volume
(kgal)
28
41
0
26
38
37
42
36
39
39
28
23
41
31
42
41
30
Backwash
6
<
47
47
47
49
49
50
50
50
51
51
51
52
52
53
53
53
54
TB No.(a)
50
50
50
51
51
52
52
52
53
53
53
54
54
55
55
55
56
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
86.8
86.8
86.8
90.1
90.1
91.9
91.9
91.9
93.7
93.7
93.7
95.5
95.5
97.2
97.2
97.2
99.0
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Iron
Solution
£
1
3
£
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 8 of 23)
Week
No.
18
(con')
19
20
Date
12/11/04
12/12/04
12/13/04
12/14/04
12/15/04
12/16/04
12/17/04
12/18/04
12/19/04
12/20/04
12/21/04
12/22/04
12/23/04
12/24/04
12/25/04
12/26/04
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
5.9
5.9
3.0
5.1
7.4
5.3
5.0
3.7
6.0
5.3
4.8
4.2
5.6
5.4
4.4
4.4
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
4419900
4458320
4479540
4514180
4563300
4600350
4634350
4659360
4701000
4736540
4770240
4799940
4838940
4875270
4904850
4935370
Daily Volume
(kgal)
41
38
21
35
49
37
34
25
42
36
34
30
39
36
30
31
Pressure Filtration
"Si
gl
60
64
60
61
62
61
61
60
60
61
60
61
61
61
62
60
"Si
2s
52
52
51
52
53
51
52
51
51
52
51
52
51
51
53
51
"M
£s
53
53
53
53
54
53
55
52
52
54
54
54
53
53
54
52
H '3
tJ '&
0 &
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
8
12
9
9
9
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
9
9
AP across
Tank B (psig)
7
11
7
8
8
8
6
8
8
7
6
7
8
8
8
8
AP across
System (psig)
20
24
20
21
22
21
21
20
20
21
20
21
21
21
22
20
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
123
119
128
124
121
125
121
126
123
122
125
123
125
124
122
125
Totalizer
(kgal)
1309.6
1350.4
1372.2
1407.7
1459.0
1497.0
1531.9
1556.0
1601.1
1637.7
1671.1
1701.2
1740.4
1778.4
1808.4
1839.3
Daily Volume
(kgal)
33
41
22
36
51
38
35
24
45
37
33
30
39
38
30
31
Backwash
TA No.(a)
54
54
55
55
55
56
56
57
57
57
58
58
59
59
59
60
~6
«
56
56
57
57
57
58
58
59
59
59
60
60
61
61
61
62
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
99.0
99.0
100.7
100.7
100.7
102.5
102.5
104.2
104.2
104.2
106.0
106.0
107.8
107.8
107.8
109.5
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
NA
NA
48
32
47.5
17
35
8
24
42
17
36
10
28
46
16
Iron
Solution
Weight Lbs
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 9 of 23)
Week
No.
21
22
23
Date
12/27/04
12/28/04
12/29/04
12/30/04
12/31/04
01/01/05
01/02/05
01/03/05
01/04/05
01/05/05
01/06/05
01/07/05
01/08/05
01/09/05
01/10/05
01/11/05
01/12/05
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
4.7
5.7
4.1
6.2
3.2
4.9
5.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.3
5.7
3.5
5.3
4.3
6.0
4.3
4.2
3.4
6.5
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
4968950
5007000
5035240
5076650
5099000
5134000
5168750
5187850
5232970
5258390
5298390
5331420
5378220
5408050
5441150
5467550
5518960
Daily Volume
(kgal)
34
38
28
41
22
35
35
19
45
25
40
33
47
30
33
26
51
Pressure Filtration
-Si
Z&
61
60
60
62
60
60
61
65
72
72
70
73
67
67
68
69
68
^
21
52
51
51
52
52
52
53
53
54
51
54
55
54
54
56
52
54
"Si
n '1
H &
54
52
52
53
53
53
54
56
57
55
57
57
57
56
58
56
57
H -a
tJ 'x
o &
40
40
40
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
9
9
9
10
8
8
8
12
18
21
16
18
13
13
12
17
14
AP across
Tank B (psig)
7
8
8
9
7
7
7
9
15
17
13
16
10
11
10
13
11
AP across
System (psig)
21
20
20
21
20
20
21
25
32
32
30
33
27
27
28
29
28
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
123
126
123
121
130
124
122
148
143
140
141
140
143
139
143
141
143
Totalizer
(kgal)
1872.6
1911.8
1940.5
1982.2
2005.2
2040.6
2076.0
2092.2
2139.0
2165.3
2203.7
2236.3
2283.5
2313.2
2345.6
2371.2
2423.0
Daily Volume
(kgal)
33
39
29
42
23
35
35
16
47
26
38
33
47
30
32
26
52
Backwash
6
<
60
61
61
61
63
63
63
64
64
64
65
66
66
67
68
68
69
TB No.(a)
62
63
63
63
64
64
64
65
65
65
66
67
67
68
69
69
70
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
109.5
111.3
111.3
111.3
112.2
113.9
113.9
115.6
115.6
115.6
117.6
119.3
119.3
122.6
124.2
124.2
126.0
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
36
11
31
46
0
23
34
7
24
43
17
1
31
8
17
37
15
Iron
Solution
£
1
3
£
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
388
279
212
106
52
362
332
306
290
254
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 10 of 23)
Week
No.
23
(con't)
24
25
Date
01/13/05
01/14/05
01/15/05
01/16/05
01/17/05
01/18/05
01/19/05
01/20/05
01/21/05
01/22/05
01/23/05
01/24/05
01/25/05
01/26/05
01/27/05
01/28/05
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
4.4
4.1
3.2
5.0
5.3
5.1
3.5
6.5
3.0
6.2
3.6
4.3
4.9
3.6
3.2
6.0
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
5552000
5583000
5608200
5648000
5688000
5727350
5754000
5805900
5827530
5873430
5901060
5934000
5972380
5999230
6025080
6071580
Daily Volume
(kgal)
33
31
25
40
40
39
27
52
22
46
28
33
38
27
26
47
Pressure Filtration
-Si
Z&
68
71
67
70
67
71
66
72
73
70
71
68
69
71
68
74
^
21
56
57
54
56
54
54
55
56
56
56
57
55
55
56
56
54
"Si
n '1
H &
57
59
56
58
57
57
57
58
58
59
59
57
57
58
57
58
H -a
tJ 'x
o &
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
12
14
13
14
13
17
11
16
17
14
14
13
14
15
12
20
AP across
Tank B (psig)
11
12
11
12
10
14
9
14
15
11
12
11
12
13
11
16
AP across
System (psig)
28
31
27
30
27
31
26
32
33
30
31
28
29
31
28
34
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
141
139
142
139
144
138
144
138
138
140
140
144
140
137
143
134
Totalizer
(kgal)
2457.4
2488.7
2513.7
2553.1
2595.1
2634.1
2661.4
2713.9
2737.1
2783.0
2811.3
2844.5
2884.5
2912.3
2939.0
2986.7
Daily Volume
(kgal)
34
31
25
39
42
39
27
53
23
46
28
33
40
28
27
48
Backwash
6
<
69
70
71
71
72
72
73
73
73
74
74
75
75
75
76
76
TB No.(a)
70
71
72
72
73
73
74
74
74
75
75
76
76
76
77
77
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
126.0
126.9
127.6
127.6
128.6
128.6
129.6
129.6
129.6
131.4
131.4
132.4
132.4
132.4
133.3
133.3
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
34
5
18
36
16
32
4
20
43
16
35
0
24
44
16
35
Iron
Solution
£
1
3
£
228
228
216
188
158
132
113
78
61
456
436
412
384
366
348
316
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 11 of 23)
Week
No.
25
(con't)
26
27
Date
01/29/05
01/30/05
01/31/05
02/01/05
02/02/05
02/03/05
02/04/05
02/05/05
02/06/05
02/07/05
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 12 of 23)
Week
No.
28
29
30
Date
02/14/05
02/15/05
02/16/05
02/17/05
02/18/05
02/19/05
02/20/05
02/21/05
02/22/05
02/23/05
02/24/05
02/25/05
02/26/05
02/27/05
02/28/05
03/01/05
03/02/05
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
7.9
4.4
4.4
4.7
4.7
4.9
5.3
5.3
3.9
4.1
3.7
3.9
7.1
4.5
4.3
NA
NA
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.5
1.1
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
6635000
6667000
6697260
6728000
6759640
6792000
6824700
6859400
6880340
6907000
6932000
6957860
7005460
7036260
7065060
7100780
7109480
Daily Volume
(kgal)
50
32
30
31
32
32
33
35
21
27
25
26
48
31
29
36
9
Pressure Filtration
-Si
Z&
60
63
60
63
60
64
66
62
63
63
59
65
63
59
63
66
67
^
21
50
51
50
53
51
53
50
52
52
55
52
51
52
50
53
54
53
"Si
n '1
H &
52
53
51
54
52
54
52
53
54
57
52
53
54
51
54
56
55
H -a
tJ 'x
o &
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
10
12
10
10
9
11
16
10
11
8
7
14
11
9
10
12
14
AP across
Tank B (psig)
8
10
9
9
8
10
14
9
9
6
7
12
9
8
9
10
12
AP across
System (psig)
20
23
20
23
20
24
26
22
23
23
19
25
23
19
23
26
27
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
131
122
130
121
131
127
114
123
120
115
130
115
122
130
124
145
144
Totalizer
(kgal)
291.1
323.8
355.2
387.1
420.8
451.1
488.5
523.9
544.5
572.0
598.0
624.9
673.2
705.2
735.2
771.2
780.5
Daily Volume
(kgal)
52
33
31
32
34
30
37
35
21
28
26
27
48
32
30
36
9
Backwash
6
<
90
90
91
91
92
92
92
93
93
94
94
94
95
96
96
97
97
TB No.(a)
87
87
88
88
89
89
89
90
90
91
91
91
92
93
93
95
95
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
151.6
151.6
152.6
152.6
153.6
153.6
153.6
154.6
154.6
155.7
155.7
155.7
157.6
159.2
159.2
161.6
161.6
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
7
20
17
37
8
27
44
14
32
3
23
43
10
20
38
10
30
Iron
Solution
£
1
3
£
311
286
262
238
211
184
156
128
108
85
66
45
436
411
388
364
359
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 13 of 23)
Week
No.
30
(con't)
31
32
Date
03/03/05
03/04/05
03/05/05
03/06/05
03/07/05
03/08/05
03/09/05
03/10/05
03/11/05
03/12/05
03/13/05
03/14/05
03/15/05
03/16/05
03/17/05
03/18/05
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
3.9
6.3
3.4
4.6
1.5
4.1
3.7
3.7
4.0
3.8
3.3
3.9
8.0
2.9
3.8
4.3
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
7140480
7190640
7217240
7254000
7265670
7298170
7326070
7355460
7386160
7416860
7442460
7509360
7535000
7558000
7588060
7621280
Daily Volume
(kgal)
31
50
27
37
12
33
28
29
31
31
26
67
26
23
30
33
Pressure Filtration
-Si
Z&
65
64
65
65
65
68
66
67
66
68
69
64
67
65
66
65
^
21
54
53
54
53
53
52
55
54
55
53
52
53
56
54
52
54
"Si
n '1
H &
56
55
56
54
52
53
57
56
57
56
54
55
57
55
54
55
H -a
tJ 'x
o &
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
11
11
11
12
12
16
11
13
11
15
17
11
11
11
14
11
AP across
Tank B (psig)
9
9
9
11
13
15
9
11
9
12
15
9
10
10
12
10
AP across
System (psig)
25
24
25
25
25
28
26
27
26
28
29
24
27
25
26
25
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
150
143
138
143
145
138
146
145
148
144
140
151
149
150
147
150
Totalizer
(kgal)
812.7
863.9
891.2
929.2
940.6
974.4
1003.3
1033.7
1065.5
1096.2
1122.9
1154.0
1217.7
1241.1
1272.3
1306.8
Daily Volume
(kgal)
32
51
27
38
11
34
29
30
32
31
27
31
64
23
31
35
Backwash
6
<
98
98
98
99
100
100
101
101
102
102
102
103
103
104
104
105
TB No.(a)
96
96
96
97
98
98
99
99
100
100
100
102
132
133
133
134
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
162.5
162.5
162.5
164.4
165.4
165.4
166.6
166.6
167.6
167.6
167.6
183.5
183.9
184.3
184.6
185.6
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
1
19
40
9
21
40
11
31
2
22
44
0
33
18
39
9
Iron
Solution
£
1
3
£
337
305
286
262
254
233
213
193
171
150
132
86
69
486
466
443
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 14 of 23)
Week
No.
32
(con't)
33
34
Date
03/19/05
03/20/05
03/21/05
03/22/05
03/23/05
03/24/05
03/25/05
03/26/05
03/27/05
03/28/05
03/29/05
03/30/05
03/31/05
04/01/05
04/02/05
04/03/05
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.1
5.2
4.8
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
3.6
4.5
4.5
3.4
3.8
4.0
3.7
4.4
3.4
3.8
5.6
3.8
3.3
NA
NA
NA
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
7650240
7686000
7722160
7749160
7779360
7810460
7840400
7875200
7902550
7932750
7976350
8007350
8034950
8060000
8095580
8127000
Daily Volume
(kgal)
29
36
36
27
30
31
30
35
27
30
44
31
28
25
36
31
Pressure Filtration
"Si
gl
66
64
67
64
66
64
65
64
66
64
65
65
67
59
60
63
"Si
2s
52
53
53
53
53
53
53
54
53
54
54
53
54
51
50
49
"M
£s
55
54
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
53
57
58
58
52
52
51
H '3
tJ '&
0 &
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
14
11
14
11
13
11
12
10
13
10
11
12
13
8
10
14
AP across
Tank B (psig)
11
10
12
9
11
9
10
9
11
11
8
7
9
7
8
12
AP across
System (psig)
26
24
27
24
26
24
25
24
26
24
25
25
27
19
20
23
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
148
150
146
151
145
151
145
150
145
151
144
143
140
127
123
121
Totalizer
(kgal)
1336.7
1373.8
1411.5
1438.2
1470.4
1502.4
1533.1
1568.9
1597.2
1628.2
1672.8
1703.4
1730.5
1757.2
1794.0
1826.3
Daily Volume
(kgal)
30
37
38
27
32
32
31
36
28
31
45
31
27
27
37
32
Backwash
TA No.(a)
105
106
106
107
107
108
108
109
109
109
109
111
111
112
112
112
~6
«
134
135
135
136
136
137
137
138
138
138
138
186
186
187
187
187
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
185.6
186.5
186.5
187.5
187.5
188.5
188.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
204.9
204.9
205.9
205.9
205.9
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
29
10
29
20
40
12
31
2
23
42
11
15
35
6
24
42
Iron
Solution
Weight Lbs
422
398
374
356
335
313
296
272
253
232
202
182
164
141
113
88
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 15 of 23)
Week
No.
35
36
37
Date
04/04/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
04/07/05
04/08/05
04/09/05
04/10/05
04/11/05
04/12/05
04/13/05
04/14/05
04/15/05
04/16/05
04/17/05
04/18/05
04/19/05
04/20/05
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
5.2
4.2
4.6
5.6
4.7
5.1
5.4
5.1
5.5
4.8
5.2
6.5
8.7
4.7
6.8
3.5
5.1
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
8159300
8188260
8218320
8257080
8287480
8319000
8355840
8388640
8422360
8455460
8489460
8528760
8587360
8617250
8662000
8676040
8718450
Daily Volume
(kgal)
32
29
30
39
30
32
37
33
34
33
34
39
59
30
45
14
42
Pressure Filtration
-Si
Z&
60
61
59
60
63
59
61
63
59
60
63
59
66
67
63
63
60
^
21
52
50
50
52
49
50
50
49
51
50
49
51
51
49
53
51
50
"Si
n '1
H &
53
52
51
53
51
51
51
51
52
51
51
52
52
51
54
53
51
H -a
tJ 'x
o &
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
8
11
9
8
14
9
11
14
8
10
14
8
15
18
10
12
10
AP across
Tank B (psig)
7
9
8
7
12
8
10
12
7
9
12
7
14
16
9
10
9
AP across
System (psig)
20
21
19
20
23
19
21
23
19
20
23
19
26
27
23
23
20
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
128
126
130
127
122
131
125
120
130
126
120
130
115
110
122
121
127
Totalizer
(kgal)
1859.6
1889.3
1920.1
1960.1
1991.4
2023.8
2061.9
2095.6
2130.5
2164.6
2199.7
2240.3
2300.7
2331.3
2377.5
2390.2
2426.0
Daily Volume
(kgal)
33
30
31
40
31
32
38
34
35
34
35
41
60
31
46
13
36
Backwash
6
<
113
113
114
114
114
116
116
116
117
117
117
118
118
118
119
119
120
TB No.(a)
188
188
189
189
189
191
191
191
192
192
192
193
193
193
194
194
195
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
206.8
206.8
207.7
207.7
207.7
210.3
210.3
210.3
211.3
211.3
211.3
212.3
212.3
212.3
214.1
214.1
215.1
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
12
31
2
19
39
0
17
36
6
24
44
13
29
47
14
35
17
Iron
Solution
£
1
3
£
60
42
448
418
393
366
337
311
281
256
229
196
149
123
86
496
468
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 16 of 23)
Week
No.
37
(con't)
38
39
Date
04/21/05
04/22/05
04/23/05
04/24/05
04/25/05
04/26/05
04/27/05
04/28/05
04/29/05
04/30/05
05/01/05
05/02/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
05/05/05
05/06/05
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
4.5
7.4
5.0
5.5
5.7
2.6
5.2
4.3
4.6
5.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.5
4.2
9.5
5.5
9.5
5.5
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
8748358
8790260
8823760
8858380
8895280
8913180
8947880
8977890
9007490
9044340
9072240
9105360
9179660
9221720
9295820
9337350
Daily Volume
(kgal)
30
42
34
35
37
18
35
30
30
37
28
33
74
42
74
42
Pressure Filtration
"Si
gl
63
59
60
63
63
61
59
60
62
63
66
68
65
70
65
65
"Si
2s
50
51
50
49
51
49
50
50
48
51
53
52
51
51
54
55
"M
£s
52
52
51
52
53
50
51
51
50
53
54
54
52
54
56
57
H '3
tJ '&
0 &
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
13
8
10
14
12
12
9
10
14
12
13
16
14
19
11
10
AP across
Tank B (psig)
11
7
9
11
10
11
8
9
12
10
12
14
13
16
9
8
AP across
System (psig)
23
19
20
23
23
21
19
20
22
23
26
28
25
30
25
25
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
120
130
126
121
121
125
132
125
122
121
146
143
147
138
147
145
Totalizer
(kgal)
2456.8
2507.9
2542.5
2578.4
2615.4
2633.4
2668.1
2699.0
2730.7
2768.9
2797.5
2831.7
2908.5
2952.2
3027.4
3069.3
Daily Volume
(kgal)
31
51
35
36
37
18
35
31
32
38
29
34
77
44
75
42
Backwash
TA No.(a)
120
121
121
121
122
122
123
123
123
124
124
124
125
125
126
127
~6
«
195
196
196
196
197
197
198
198
198
199
199
199
200
200
201
202
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
215.1
216.1
216.1
216.1
217.0
217.0
217.9
217.9
217.9
218.9
218.9
218.9
219.9
219.9
220.9
221.9
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
36
4
23
40
11
31
1
20
40
9
28
47
13
31
9
8
Iron
Solution
Weight Lbs
443
404
377
347
317
302
276
243
228
196
178
157
106
77
455
424
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 17 of 23)
Week
No.
39
(con't)
40
41
Date
05/07/05
05/08/05
05/09/05
05/10/05
05/11/05
05/12/05
05/13/05
05/14/05
05/15/05
05/16/05
05/17/05
05/18/05
05/19/05
05/20/05
05/21/05
05/22/05
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
5.0
7.5
4.1
2.8
6.0
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.2
6.8
3.3
4.9
8.6
3.6
3.5
4.5
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
9376670
9434920
9466660
9488260
9534690
9568440
9601380
9633480
9666180
9720180
9745400
9782100
9849400
9875300
9903100
9938300
Daily Volume
(kgal)
39
58
32
22
46
34
33
32
33
54
25
37
67
26
28
35
Pressure Filtration
-Si
Z&
68
65
70
72
66
70
65
68
69
69
69
65
70
65
67
64
^
21
54
54
56
53
53
52
55
54
52
54
51
53
52
54
52
53
"Si
n '1
H &
56
56
57
56
54
54
56
56
56
56
54
56
54
56
55
55
H -a
tJ 'x
o &
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
14
11
14
19
13
18
10
14
17
15
18
12
18
11
15
11
AP across
Tank B (psig)
12
9
13
16
12
16
9
12
13
13
15
9
16
9
12
9
AP across
System (psig)
28
25
30
32
26
30
25
28
29
29
29
25
30
25
27
24
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
140
147
140
137
144
137
144
141
140
142
141
146
136
149
142
147
Totalizer
(kgal)
3110.0
3167.4
3201.1
3221.8
3269.9
27.8
61.5
94.5
128.1
184.3
209.1
246.8
315.9
341.2
369.6
404.7
Daily Volume
(kgal)
41
57
34
21
48
NA
34
33
34
56
25
38
69
25
28
35
Backwash
6
<
127
128
128
128
129
129
130
130
130
131
131
132
132
133
133
134
TB No.(a)
202
203
203
203
204
204
205
205
205
206
206
207
207
208
208
209
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
221.9
222.9
222.9
222.9
224.0
224.0
225.0
225.0
225.0
226.0
226.0
227.1
227.1
228.1
228.1
229.1
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
27
2
22
42
18
36
8
27
46
15
28
19
33
16
36
7
Iron
Solution
£
1
3
£
398
358
336
322
290
268
246
225
202
166
126
108
60
467
449
424
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 18 of 23)
Week
No.
42
43
44
Date
05/23/05
05/24/05
05/25/05
05/26/05
05/27/05
05/28/05
05/29/05
05/30/05
05/31/05
06/01/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
06/04/05
06/05/05
06/06/05
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.9
12.5
5.9
8.5
5.5
6.4
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
6.1
6.1
6.3
5.3
2.5
4.3
4.3
4.3
9.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
9986400
10033000
10081760
10121620
10141280
10174000
10209000
10242440
10314260
10370560
10452060
10488120
10545620
10579760
10624160
Daily Volume
(kgal)
48
47
49
40
20
33
35
33
72
56
82
36
58
34
44
Pressure Filtration
"Si
gl
68
66
70
67
67
65
67
68
67
60
63
59
60
62
65
"Si
2s
51
55
53
54
52
54
52
53
54
50
57
50
50
49
51
"M
£s
54
56
54
56
55
55
54
54
56
52
53
51
51
51
53
H '3
tJ '&
0 &
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
17
11
17
13
15
11
15
15
13
10
6
9
10
13
14
AP across
Tank B (psig)
14
10
16
11
12
10
13
14
11
8
10
8
9
11
12
AP across
System (psig)
28
26
30
27
27
25
27
28
27
20
23
19
20
22
25
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
141
144
138
143
143
147
138
136
144
126
121
133
126
123
117
Totalizer
(kgal)
455.4
502.6
551.9
591.9
611.6
645.1
680.1
715.2
788.2
846.8
931.1
968.0
1027.8
1063.0
1109.0
Daily Volume
(kgal)
51
47
49
40
20
34
35
35
73
59
84
37
60
35
46
Backwash
TA No.(a)
134
135
135
136
136
137
137
137
138
138
139
140
140
140
141
~6
«
209
210
210
211
211
212
212
212
213
213
214
215
215
215
216
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
229.1
230.1
230.1
231.1
231.1
232.1
232.1
232.1
233.2
233.2
234.2
235.3
235.3
235.3
236.3
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
24
17
34
14
36
6
35
45
14
29
5
4
19
37
6
Iron
Solution
Weight Lbs
392
360
327
299
287
264
242
220
168
120
55
453
417
378
344
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 19 of 23)
Week
No.
44
(con't)
45
46
Date
06/07/05
06/08/05
06/09/05
06/10/05
06/11/05
06/12/05
06/13/05
06/14/05
06/15/05
06/16/05
06/17/05
06/18/05
06/19/05
06/20/05
06/21/05
06/22/05
06/23/05
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
5.3
4.0
7.8
9.3
8.1
0.0
8.4
8.7
7.0
4.6
8.1
10.9
8.7
12.1
12.0
7.6
9.4
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
10659000
10669360
10721280
10778980
10832280
10832280
10889880
10948520
10993000
11020450
11074350
11142250
11200350
11277220
11358260
11409380
11467180
Daily Volume
(kgal)
35
10
52
58
53
0
58
59
44
27
54
68
58
77
81
51
58
Pressure Filtration
-Si
Z&
66
66
63
61
65
66
63
63
65
60
66
68
63
62
63
63
63
^
21
52
53
51
52
52
53
51
51
50
51
50
50
51
53
50
51
51
"Si
n '1
H &
53
55
53
53
53
55
53
53
52
52
52
53
52
54
51
53
52
H -a
tJ 'x
o &
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
14
13
12
9
13
13
12
12
15
9
16
18
12
9
13
12
12
AP across
Tank B (psig)
13
11
10
8
12
11
10
10
13
8
14
15
11
8
12
10
11
AP across
System (psig)
26
26
23
21
25
26
23
23
25
20
26
28
23
22
23
23
23
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
115
114
122
124
115
114
127
125
116
127
113
110
123
121
120
124
122
Totalizer
(kgal)
1143.8
1152.2
1206.4
1264.5
1318.9
1318.9
1376.6
1438.0
1484.0
1511.1
1566.5
1636.2
1695.9
1775.5
1859.8
1913.0
1972.5
Daily Volume
(kgal)
35
8
54
58
54
0
58
61
46
27
55
70
60
80
84
53
60
Backwash
6
<
141
141
142
143
143
143
144
145
145
146
146
147
149
150
151
152
153
TB No.(a)
216
216
217
218
218
218
219
220
220
221
221
222
224
225
226
227
228
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
236.3
236.3
237.3
238.4
238.4
238.4
239.4
240.4
240.4
241.4
241.4
243.8
247.2
249.6
251.3
252.3
253.2
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
24
43
12
11
24
47
15
12
29
18
34
43
12
5
10
14
6
Iron
Solution
£
1
3
£
315
292
250
198
154
154
106
58
20
426
380
318
270
201
133
90
464
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 20 of 23)
Week
No.
46
(con't)
47
48
Date
06/24/05
06/25/05
06/26/05
06/27/05
06/28/05
06/29/05
06/30/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
07/03/05
07/04/05
07/05/05
07/06/05
07/07/05
07/08/05
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
7.6
9.4
5.4
7.3
9.1
3.7
5.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.1
7.8
3.0
0.0
8.8
8.6
4.4
9.3
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
11517000
11575580
11610780
11655000
11715000
11737420
11771000
11795890
11836000
11856540
11856540
11926440
11966440
12001240
12051340
Daily Volume
(kgal)
50
59
35
44
60
22
34
25
40
21
0
70
40
35
50
Pressure Filtration
"Si
gl
66
62
60
62
63
66
66
66
64
64
64
63
61
62
64
"Si
2s
52
51
50
53
54
50
50
54
54
54
54
51
51
52
53
"M
£s
53
52
51
54
54
52
53
56
56
56
56
52
52
53
54
H '3
tJ '&
0 &
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
14
11
10
9
9
16
16
12
10
10
10
12
10
10
11
AP across
Tank B (psig)
13
10
9
8
9
14
13
10
8
8
8
11
9
9
10
AP across
System (psig)
26
22
20
22
23
26
26
26
24
24
24
23
21
22
24
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
122
121
118
122
119
114
113
146
144
121
121
133
147
130
140
Totalizer
(kgal)
2024.4
2084.7
2121.1
2166.0
2227.6
2250.5
2284.2
2308.4
2350.8
2371.7
2371.7
2443.3
2484.7
2520.6
2573.2
Daily Volume
(kgal)
52
60
36
45
62
23
34
24
42
21
0
72
41
36
53
Backwash
TA No.(a)
153
154
154
155
155
155
156
156
157
158
158
159
160
160
163
~6
«
228
229
229
230
230
230
231
231
232
233
233
234
235
235
237
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
253.2
254.2
254.2
255.2
255.2
255.2
256.1
256.1
257.1
258.0
258.0
259.0
259.9
260.9
263.0
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
23
7
20
4
18
34
6
27
8
19
43
8
2
18
8
Iron
Solution
Weight Lbs
420
366
336
296
245
224
194
177
372
351
351
301
274
250
208
Cd
to
o
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 21 of 23)
Week
No.
48
(con't)
49
50
Date
07/09/05
07/10/05
07/11/05
07/12/05
07/13/05
07/14/05
07/15/05
07/16/05
07/17/05
07/18/05
07/19/05
07/20/05
07/21/05
07/22/05
07/23/05
07/24/05
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
3.8
10.9
3.6
9.2
5.8
8.3
6.7
2.5
6.7
5.2
8.7
10.2
6.0
8.2
5.0
7.3
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
12081500
12139400
12167900
12239760
12281160
12349360
12401000
12421000
12472550
12511750
12577850
12656700
12704880
12764880
12804600
12860000
Daily Volume
(kgal)
30
58
29
72
41
68
52
20
52
39
66
79
48
60
40
55
Pressure Filtration
-Si
Z&
65
64
65
71
64
65
66
67
66
69
65
65
67
65
67
70
^
21
54
53
55
53
54
52
55
52
55
54
54
54
53
54
54
54
"Si
n '1
H &
56
54
55
54
55
53
56
54
56
55
55
56
54
55
55
55
H -a
tJ 'x
o &
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
11
11
10
18
10
13
11
15
11
15
11
11
14
11
13
16
AP across
Tank B (psig)
9
10
10
17
9
12
10
13
10
14
10
9
13
10
12
15
AP across
System (psig)
25
24
25
31
24
25
26
27
26
29
25
25
27
25
27
30
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
140
140
146
139
147
146
145
142
144
141
148
141
143
147
143
138
Totalizer
(kgal)
2604.1
2663.2
2691.2
2766.3
2812.3
2877.8
2928.3
2948.4
3000.0
3042.6
3108.9
3191.5
3240.7
25.5
66.6
123.3
Daily Volume
(kgal)
31
59
28
75
46
66
51
20
52
43
66
83
49
NA
41
57
Backwash
6
<
164
166
167
167
168
168
169
169
170
170
171
171
172
173
174
174
TB No.(a)
238
239
240
240
241
241
242
242
243
243
244
244
245
245
247
247
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
264.0
265.8
266.8
266.8
267.8
267.8
268.8
268.8
269.8
269.8
270.8
270.8
271.8
272.8
273.8
273.8
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
20
8
13
28
16
30
8
29
7
25
7
19
12
10
18
34
Iron
Solution
£
1
3
£
187
144
123
72
468
424
388
375
340
312
268
213
182
138
112
74
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 22 of 23)
Week
No.
51
52
53
Date
07/25/05
07/26/05
07/27/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
07/30/05
07/31/05
08/01/05
08/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
08/05/05
08/06/05
08/07/05
08/08/05
08/09/05
Well#l
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.1
13.7
10.3
15.6
7.9
13.8
9.0
10.3
11.2
Well#2
Daily
Operational
(hr)
4.4
5.8
6.9
14.1
7.4
11.2
7.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Totalizer to
Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
12893860
12937160
12991780
13098880
13154680
13238080
13292640
13390900
13477200
13541900
13640260
13692160
13780660
13835720
13902770
13976000
Daily Volume
(kgal)
34
43
55
107
56
83
55
98
86
65
98
52
89
55
67
73
Pressure Filtration
'oil
gl
68
64
68
68
68
65
65
65
59
60
64
60
65
60
60
65
'oil
2s
56
54
52
52
53
54
54
50
50
50
51
51
50
51
51
50
"M
E&
57
55
54
53
54
55
55
52
51
51
52
52
52
52
52
51
H '3
tJ '&
0 &
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP across
Tank A (psig)
12
10
16
16
15
11
11
15
9
10
13
9
15
9
9
15
AP across
Tank B (psig)
11
9
14
15
14
10
10
13
8
9
12
8
13
8
8
14
AP across
System (psig)
28
24
28
28
28
25
24
25
19
20
24
20
25
20
20
25
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
141
146
140
141
140
147
141
112
127
126
125
122
114
123
125
119
Totalizer
(kgal)
156.3
201.2
258.1
368.7
425.8
510.1
565.9
667.3
757.1
822.7
925.0
979.2
1070.4
1126.6
1195.9
1272.0
Daily Volume
(kgal)
33
45
57
111
57
84
56
101
90
66
102
54
91
56
69
76
Backwash
TA No.(a)
175
175
176
177
178
179
179
180
181
182
183
183
184
185
185
186
~6
«
248
248
249
250
251
252
252
253
254
255
256
256
257
258
258
259
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
274.8
274.8
275.8
276.8
277.8
278.8
278.7
278.7
280.2
281.2
282.6
282.6
283.6
284.6
284.6
285.6
Time Since
Last BW (hr)
7
25
15
10
9
2
18
4
0
8
3
19
10
6
20
10
Iron
Solution
Weight Lbs
51
451
410
335
294
237
198
115
36
420
334
298
214
164
108
496
-------
Table B-l: Daily System Operation Log (Page 23 of 23)
Week
No.
53
(con't)
Date
08/10/05
08/11/05
08/12/05
Well#l
•3
§
^C5
I 06
12.2
6.2
7.1
Well#2
•3
§
^3
III
NA
NA
NA
Totalizer to
Treatment
11
14048840
14090140
14136200
i
o
^-
II
73
41
46
Pressure Filtration
-a
Z '*
64
60
59
2e
51
52
50
;a
CQ "*
H &
52
52
51
H ^
0 &
40
40
40
t
% &
£ ^
« -=
— a
< H
13
8
9
*5B
£ W
M
— a
< H
12
8
8
'oil
'33
£ c
3 1
1/3
24
20
19
Flow /Totalizer to
Distribution
v
& _
II
E S
122
125
134
11
1348.3
1391.8
1439.4
i
o
^-
11
76
44
48
Backwash
i?
o
H
187
188
189
i?
6
Z
n
H
262
263
264
QJ
| «
111
287.5
288.6
290.4
IT
.5 >£
so S
1*
£3
0
15
14
Iron
Solution
J
^
'3
398
363
322
NA = not available
(a) Cumulative count of number of backwashes for Vessel A and B
(b) Digital totalizer meter re-set itself automatically to zero.
(c) From February 7, 2005, forward corrected labeling of well numbers by operator.
Cd
to
OJ
------- |