EPA/600/R-08/005
January 2008
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN
Six-Month Evaluation Report
by
Wendy E. Condit
Abraham S.C. Chen
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
November 14, 2007
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained from the first six months of the
EPA arsenic removal technology demonstration project at the Sabin, MN facility. The main objective of
the project is to evaluate the effectiveness of Kinetico's FM-248-AS arsenic removal system using
Macrolite® media in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of
10 |og/L. Additionally, this project evaluates (1) the reliability of the treatment system for use at small
water facilities, (2) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels, and
(3) the cost-effectiveness of the technology. The project also characterizes water in the distribution
system and residuals generated by the treatment process. The types of data collected include system
operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), process residuals,
and capital and O&M costs.
After engineering plan review and approval by the state, the FM-248-AS treatment system was installed
and became operational on January 19, 2006. The system consisted of two 63-in-diameter, 86-in-tall
fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) contact tanks and two 48-in-diameter, 72-in-tall FRP pressure tanks,
all configured in parallel. Each pressure tank contained 25 ft3 of Macrolite® media, which is a spherical,
low density, chemically inert ceramic media designed for filtration rates up to 10 gal/min (gpm)/ft2. The
system used prechlorination to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) and the contact tank to improve the formation of
As(V)-laden particles prior to entering the pressure filters. The system operated at approximately 238
gpm for 3.0 hr/day (on average), producing 6,650,000 gal of water through July 30, 2006. The average
flowrate corresponded to a contact time of 7.1 min and a filtration rate of 9.5 gpm/ft2. A number of issues
related to the control of the frequency and duration of backwash operation were experienced as discussed
in the report.
The source water had an average pH of 7.4 and total arsenic concentrations ranged from 32.8 to
49.8 |og/L, with the soluble fraction consisting of As(V) at 23.9 |o,g/L and As(III) at 13.2 |og/L.
Concentrations of both As(V) and As(III) varied considerably during the course of this six-month study
period, with As(III) concentrations exhibiting a decreasing trend and As(V) concentrations exhibiting an
increasing trend especially during the first month. Total iron concentrations ranged from 1,203 to
1,936 |og/L, which existed primarily in the soluble form with an average concentration of 1,135 |o,g/L.
J^aw water soluble iron and soluble arsenic concentrations corresponded to a ratio of 31:1. Total arsenic
concentrations in treated water averaged 6.3 |o,g/L and ranged from 3.5 to 10.6 |o,g/L. Due to total arsenic
breakthrough at 10.6 |o,g/L on July 26, 2006, a run length study will be conducted during the next six-
month period.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after the second quarter of operations
demonstrated a considerable decrease in arsenic (27.4 to 7.1 |og/L), iron (1,211 to 75 |og/L), and
manganese (114 to 60 |o,g/L). Further decreases were observed in manganese concentrations within the
distribution system, when compared to the concentrations in the filter effluent (i.e., 203 and 217 [on
average] following Tanks A and B) to those in the distribution system (i.e., 60 |o,g/L [on average] in the
second quarter of system operation). Copper (179 to 127 |o,g/L) and lead concentrations (4.2 to 1.3 |o,g/L)
also decreased. Alkalinity and pH did not appear to be significantly affected.
Filter tank backwash occurred automatically about 3 times/tank/week, which was triggered primarily by
the 48-hr standby time setpoint, due to low operational time of the treatment system (i.e., 3.0 hrs/day).
Approximately 161,550 gal of wastewater, or 2.4% of the amount of water treated, was generated during
the first six months. Under normal operating conditions, the backwash wastewater contained 116 to
550 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS), 29.8 to 176.8 mg/L of iron, 2.0 to 8.6 mg/L of manganese, and
IV
-------
6.1 to 27.6 |o,g/L of arsenic, with the majority existing as participates. The average amount of solids
discharged per backwash cycle was approximately 5.2 Ib, including 1.6 Ib of elemental iron, 0.09 Ib of
elemental manganese, and 0.01 Ib of elemental arsenic.
The capital investment for the system was $287,159, consisting of $160,875 for equipment, $49,164 for
site engineering, and $77,120 for system installation, shakedown, and startup. Using the system's rated
capacity of 250 gpm (or 360,000 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $l,149/gpm or $0.80/gpd. This
calculation does not include the cost of the building to house the treatment system.
The estimated O&M costs included chemical supply and labor. O&M costs were estimated at
$0.69/1,000 gal and will be refined at the end of the one-year evaluation period.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 7
3.1 General Project Approach 7
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 10
3.3.1 Source Water 10
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 10
3.3.3 Backwash Water 10
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 10
3.3.5 Residual Solids 10
3.4 Sampling Logistics 10
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 10
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 12
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 12
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13
4.1 Facility Description 13
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 13
4.1.2 Distribution System and Treated Water Quality 18
4.2 Treatment Process Description 18
4.3 Treatment System Installation 21
4.3.1 System Permitting 22
4.3.2 Building Construction 22
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown 22
4.4 System Operation 24
4.4.1 Coagulation/Filtration Operation 24
4.4.2 Backwash Operation 27
4.4.2.1 Backwash Frequency Issues 27
4.4.2.2 Backwash Duration Issues 27
4.4.2.3 Backwash Alarms 28
4.4.3 Residual Management 28
4.4.4 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation 28
4.4.4.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements 28
VI
-------
4.4.4.2 System Automation 29
4.4.4.3 Operator Skill Requirements 29
4.4.4.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities 29
4.4.4.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements 29
4.5 System Performance 29
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 30
4.5.1.1 Arsenic 30
4.5.1.2 Iron 34
4.5.1.3 Manganese 36
4.5.1.4 pH, DO, andORP 38
4.5.1.5 Chlorine and Ammonia 38
4.5.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters 38
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling 38
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 39
4.6 System Cost 39
4.6.1 Capital Cost 39
4.6.2 O&MCost 41
5.0 REFERENCES 43
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA A-l
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES B-l
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations 11
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Pump House at Sabin, MN 14
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Filtration System at Sabin, MN 14
Figure 4-3. Water Tower at Sabin, MN 15
Figure 4-4. Schematic of Kinetico's FM-248-AS Arsenic Removal System 20
Figure 4-5. Treatment System Components 20
Figure 4-6. New Building and Associated Infrastructure 23
Figure 4-7. Delivery and Off-Loading of Macrolite® Treatment System Equipment 23
Figure 4-8. Calculated and Instantaneous Flowrate Readings 26
Figure 4-9. Differential Pressure Versus Filter Run Time 26
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train 34
Figure 4-11. Arsenic Speciation Results at Wellhead (IN), after Contact Tank (AC), after
Tank A (TA), and after Tank B (TB) 35
Figure 4-12. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train 36
Figure 4-13. Total Manganese Concentrations Across Treatment Train 37
Figure 4-14. Total Manganese Concentrations Versus Total Chlorine Residuals 37
vn
-------
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of the Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 3
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 8
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses 9
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data at Sabin, MN 16
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media 18
Table 4-3. Design Features of Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System 21
Table 4-4. FM-248-AS Treatment System Operational Parameters 25
Table 4-5. Summary of PLC Settings for Backwash Operations 28
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Results 31
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 32
Table 4-8. Backwash Water Sampling Results 40
Table 4-9. Distribution System Sampling Results 40
Table 4-10. Capital Investment for Kinetico's FM-248-AS System 41
Table 4-11. O&M Costs for Kinetico's FM-248-AS System 42
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
bgs below ground surface
C/F coagulation/filtration
Ca calcium
Cl chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
FedEx Federal Express
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDH Minnesota Department of Health
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
jam micrometer
Mn manganese
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
mV millivolts
Na sodium
IX
-------
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detected
NS not sampled
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
OIP operator interface panel
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
Pb lead
pCi/L picocuries per liter
psi pounds per square inch
psig pounds per square inch gauge
PLC programmable logic controller
PO4 orthophosphate
POU point-of-use
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
Ra radium
RPD relative percent difference
RO reverse osmosis
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO4 sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TBD to be determined
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
UPS uninterruptible power supply
V vanadium
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Mr. Richard Hayes of Sabin, MN. Mr. Hayes
monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the treatment and distribution systems on a
regular schedule throughout this study period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible
without his support and dedication.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic 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 on March 25, 2003
to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community and
non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site. As of October 2007, 37 of the 40
systems were operational and the performance evaluation of 25 systems was completed.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the community water system in the city of Sabin, MN was one of those selected.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of Round 2 sites to 28. Kinetico's Macrolite® arsenic removal system was selected
for demonstration at the Sabin, MN facility.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13 coagula-
tion/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, and 17 point-of-use (POU) units (including
nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and eight AM units
at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors,
system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, Fe, and pH) at the 40
demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 Round 1
demonstration sites and the associated capital cost is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004;
Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA website at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 40 full-scale arsenic treatment
technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific
objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small
systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator
skill levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the Kinetico system at Sabin, MN during the first six months
from January 30 through July 30, 2006. The types of data collected included system operation, water
quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and capital and
preliminary O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(ug/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton,NY(d)
Newark, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (ARM 200)
AM(E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70w
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250W
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19w
27(a)
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,806(c)
l,312(c)
1,615W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM(E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM (E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340W
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14w
13W
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127W
466W
l,387(c)
1,499W
7827(c)
546(c)
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
1,344W
l,325(c)
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90W
50
37
35W
19w
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
Oig/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service
District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU R0(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)fe)
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (fflX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69w
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; EHX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) Replaced Village of Lyman, NE site which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Amaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Kinetico's FM-248-AS treatment system with Macrolite® media was installed and operated at Sabin, MN
starting on January 19, 2006. Based on the information collected during the first six months of operation,
the following preliminary conclusions were made relating to the overall project objectives.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• Chlorination was effective in oxidizing As(III) to As(V), reducing As(III) concentrations
from 13.2 |o,g/L (on average) in raw water to 0.6 |o,g/L (on average) after the contact tanks.
Fe(II) also was readily oxidized in the presence of chlorine with soluble iron concentrations
being reduced to below the method reporting limit of 25 |o,g/L after the contact tanks and after
the pressure filters. Chlorination was not as effective in oxidizing Mn(II). Depending on the
chlorine dosage, 35% to 68% of manganese remained in the soluble form, which, therefore,
was not removed by the pressure filters.
• Supplemental iron was not required because the level of natural iron in raw water was
sufficient for arsenic removal to below 10 |o,g/L. The soluble iron to arsenic ratio was 31:1,
above the recommended 20:1 ratio for effective arsenic removal. With prechlorination,
As(V) was formed and co-precipitated with and/or adsorbed onto the iron solids also formed
during Chlorination. This converted arsenic primarily to the particulate form before entering
into the Macrolite® pressure filters.
• Operating the pressure filters at a high filtration rate of 9.5 gpm/ft2 (on average) can remove
arsenic to below the 10 |o,g/L MCL. However, the median filter run length experienced
during this six-month study period was only 6.2 hr. Some particulate arsenic and iron
breakthrough did occur in the pressure filter effluent, including one sampling event with the
concentration over 10 |o,g/L. Consequently, a filter run length study will be carried out during
the next six-month study period.
• The treatment system experienced pressure spikes to as high as 63 pounds per square inch
(psi) during backwash (or two times the average inlet pressure under normal service
conditions). This occurred due to the flow being directed to only one tank that remained in
service (while the second tank was in backwash) and the presence of a flow restrictor on the
treated water line. For this site, the normal inlet pressure was relatively low at 33 psi during
the service cycle, so the doubling of the inlet pressure during backwash could be
accommodated and was within the 100 psi maximum inlet pressure specifications. However,
this will not be the case for all sites, based on their site-specific pump curve characteristics
and total dynamic head conditions.
• The treatment system significantly improved water quality in the distribution system after the
second quarter of system operation. A considerable decrease was observed in arsenic (27.4 to
7.1 |og/L), iron (1,211 to 75 |og/L), and manganese (114 to 60 |o,g/L) concentrations by the
second quarter of operations. Further decreases in manganese concentrations were observed
within the distribution system with total manganese levels being 70% lower in the
distribution system than in the plant effluent. Copper and lead also decreased slightly, while
alkalinity and pH did not appear to be affected.
-------
Required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• Although the daily demand on the operator was only 15 min, a significant amount of time and
effort was required to troubleshoot issues related to control of the frequency and duration of
backwash events.
Characteristics of residuals produced by the technology:
• Backwash appeared to be effective in restoring the filters' effectiveness in removing arsenic-
laden iron particles and manganese solids. The total amount of wastewater produced from
backwash, which occurred at a frequency of approximately 3 times/tank/week, was
equivalent to about 2.4% of the amount of water treated.
• The amount of residual solids produced and discharged during each backwash cycle totaled
5.2 Ib, which included 1.6 Ib of elemental iron, 0.09 Ib of elemental manganese, and 0.01 Ib
of elemental arsenic.
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
• The capital investment for the system was $287,159, consisting of $160,875 for equipment,
$49,164 for site engineering, and $77,120 for system installation, shakedown, and startup.
The building cost was not included in the capital investment, since it was funded by the city
of Sabin. The unit capital cost was $l,149/gpm (or $0.80/gpd) based on a design capacity of
250 gpm.
• The O&M cost was estimated at $0.69/1,000 gal based on chemical supply and labor costs.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
the Kinetico treatment system began on January 30, 2006. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data
collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance was
evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the target MCL of 10 |o,g/L tracked
through the collection of water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the system was
evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and
replacement. The unscheduled downtime and repair information was recorded by the plant operator on a
Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data and
qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation,
extent of preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory,
and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and safety practices. The
staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
water produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water was sampled and analyzed for chemical
characteristics.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (gpm) (or gal/day [gpd]) of
design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital
cost for equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for chemical supply, electricity
usage, and labor.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received
Purchase Order Established
Engineering Package Submitted to MDH
Letter Report Issued
Discharge Permit Granted by MPCA
System Permit Granted by MDH
Building Construction Began
FM-248-AS System Delivered
Study Plan Issued
Building Completed
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Began
Date
08/31/04
11/18/04
12/09/04
12/08/04
02/10/05
02/17/05
03/04/05
03/09/05
04/14/05
06/13/05
07/05/05
12/02/05
01/17/06
06/05/06
12/16/05
01/19/06
01/30/06
MDH = Minnesota Department of Health;
MPCA = Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objective
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
Cost-Effectiveness
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 ng/L of arsenic MCL in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems
encountered, materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
incurred
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis (with the exception of Saturdays and
Sundays), the plant operator recorded system operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and
hour meter readings on a Daily System Operation Log Sheet, checked the sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)
level, and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problem occurred, the
plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted for
troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information, including the problem
encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred,
on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly basis, the plant operator measured several water
quality parameters on-site, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded the data on a Weekly On-Site Water Quality
Parameters Log Sheet. Monthly backwash data also were recorded on a Backwash Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and
labor. Consumption of NaOCl was tracked on the Daily System Operation Log Sheet. Electricity usage
was determined from utility bills. Labor for various activities, such as routine system O&M,
troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, was tracked using an Operator Labor Hour
Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as completing field logs, replenishing the
NaOCl solution, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the
vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as performing field
measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the
vendor, was recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Backwash
Water
Distribution
Water
Residual
Solids
Sample
Locations'3'
At Wellhead (IN)
At Wellhead (IN),
after Contact Tank
(AC),
after Tank A (TA),
and after Tank B
(TB)
At Wellhead (IN),
after Contact Tank
(AC), and
after Tanks A and
B Combined (TT)(c)
Backwash
Discharge Line
Three LCR
Residences
Backwash Solids
from Each Tank
No. of
Samples
1
4
o
5
2
3
2
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly(d)
Monthly
Twice
Analytes
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off-site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, NH3, NO2,
NO3, Cl, F, SO4, SiO2, P,
TOC, TDS, turbidity, and
alkalinity
On-site :(b)pH,
temperature, DO, ORP,
and C12 (total and free).
Off-site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), SiO2, P,
turbidity, and alkalinity
Same as weekly analytes
shown above plus the
following:
Off-site: As (soluble),
As(III), As(V), Fe
(soluble), Mn (soluble),
Ca, Mg, NH3, NO3, F,
SO4, TOC, and TDS
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
pH, TDS, andTSS
As (total), Fe (total), Mn
(total), Pb, Cu, pH, and
alkalinity
Total Al, As, Ca, Cd, Cu,
Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb, Si,
andZn
Collection Date(s)
08/31/04
02/14/06, 02/21/06
03/06/06, 03/14/06
03/21/06, 04/04/06
04/11/06,04/18/06,
05/02/06, 05/09/06,
05/17/06,05/31/06,
06/06/06, 06/13/06,
06/28/06, 07/10/06,
07/11/06,07/26/06
01/31/06,02/28/06,
03/28/06, 04/25/06,
05/23/06, 06/20/06,
07/18/06
02/28/06, 03/27/06
04/18/06, 06/21/06
07/18/06
02/14/05(e), 03/16/05(e)
04/18/05(e), 05/18/05(e)
02/22/06, 03/29/06
04/18/06, 05/23/06
06/21/06,07/11/06
TBD
(a) Abbreviation corresponding to sampling location in Figure 3-1.
(b) Chlorine residuals analyzed only at AC, TA, and TB sampling locations.
(c) Because TT sample tap did not yield water (see Section 4.3.3), three "TT" samples were taken from TA tap and
four taken from TB tap during this study period.
(d) May 2006 sample not collected.
(e) Baseline sampling events performed before system startup.
TBD = to be determined
-------
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the treatment plant,
during Macrolite® filter backwash, and from the distribution system. The sampling schedules and
analytes measured during each sampling event are listed in Table 3-3. In addition, a flow diagram of the
treatment system along with the analytes and schedules at each sampling location is presented in
Figure 3-1. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers,
preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of
the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit, one set of source water samples was collected
and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (Section 3.4.1). The sample tap was flushed for several
minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted
oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, the plant
operator collected samples weekly, on a four-week cycle, for on- and off-site analyses. For the first week
of each four-week cycle, samples taken at the wellhead (IN), after the contact tank (AC), and after Tanks
A and B combined (TT), were speciated on-site and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for
monthly treatment plant water. (For the six-month study period, the "TT" sampling location was not
functional and an alternate sampling strategy was used as described in Section 4.3.3.) For the next three
weeks, samples were collected at IN, AC, after Tank A (TA), and after Tank B (TB) and analyzed for the
analytes listed in Table 3-3 for the weekly treatment plant water.
3.3.3 Backwash Water. Backwash water samples were collected monthly by the plant operator.
Tubing, connected to the tap on the discharge line, directed a portion of backwash water at approximately
1 gpm into a clean, 32-gal container over the duration of the backwash for each tank. After the content in
the container was thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected and/or filtered on-site with 0.45-
(im disc filters. Analytes for the backwash samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to the system startup from February to May 2005,
four sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected from three residences within the
distribution system. Following the system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly
basis at the same three locations.
The homeowners collected samples following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and
Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The dates and times
of last water usage before sampling and sample collection were recorded for calculation of the stagnation
time. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least 6 hr to
ensure that stagnant water was sampled.
3.3.5 Residual Solids. Residual solids produced by the treatment process included backwash
solids, which were not collected during the initial six months of this demonstration.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
10
-------
INFLUENT
(WELL 2)
Monthly
pHW temperature^), DQ
C12 (total and free)
-------
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sample Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, colored-coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample
collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The
sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code
for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The
labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate Ziplock® bags and packed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included. The chain-of-
custody forms and air bills were complete except for the operator's signature and the sample dates and
times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following week's
sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-
MS) Laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up
by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and TCCI Laboratories in
New Lexington, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration study. The
chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final
disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the
required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy,
method detection limits (MDLs), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative
percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The quality
assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary
Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
VWR Symphony SP90M5 handheld meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following
the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by
measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator
collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the SP90M5 probe in the beaker until a
stable value was obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements using
Hach™ chlorine test kits following the user's manual.
12
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Facility Description
Located on First Street in Sabin, MN, the municipal water system supplies drinking water to
approximately 500 community members through 175 service connections. Before the commencement of
the arsenic demonstration study in January 2006, the facility typically operated 3 to 4 hr/day to meet the
community's average daily demand of approximately 40,000 gpd. The peak daily demand was
approximately 110,000 gpd. The water system was supplied by groundwater from one old well (a.k.a.
Well No. 1) and one new well (a.k.a. Well No. 2), which were alternated on a weekly basis. Installed in
1960, the old well was 8-in in diameter and 94-ft deep with a 34-ft screen extending from 60 to 94 ft
below ground surface (bgs). The new well, installed in 1993, was 8-in in diameter and 92.5 ft deep with a
25-ft screen set between 67.5 and 92.5 ft bgs.
The new well was equipped with a 15-horsepower (hp) submersible pump with a design capacity of 250
gpm at a total dynamic head of 200 ft of H2O (87 psi). The old well had a submersible pump with a
similar capacity, but the pump curve information was no longer available. The static water level in the
vicinity of these two wells was approximately 22 ft bgs and the maximum drawdown was 52 ft bgs,
yielding an approximate pressure of 59 psi at the ground level. Actual pressure in the inlet piping might
vary from additional above ground piping headless and/or degradation in pump performance since its
installation in 1993. Both the old and new wells were connected to a pre-existing gravity filtration system
and the original design was to connect both wells to the Macrolite® treatment system. However, at the
time of the new building construction, the City completed the connection piping only for the new well.
Thus, only the new well, or Well No. 2, water was treated during the demonstration study.
The pre-existing treatment system consisted of a 210-gpm aeration and gravity filtration system with
approximately 70 ft2 of filter area operating at a hydraulic loading rate of approximately 3 gpm/ft2. The
treatment system also included a NaOCl and a fluoride addition system to reach a free chlorine residual of
0.5 mg/L (as C12) and 1.2 mg/L for fluoride, respectively. Figure 4-1 shows the pre-existing pump house;
Figure 4-2 shows the pre-existing filtration system and associated piping. A 15-hp booster pump rated for
210 gpm at a discharge pressure of 72 psi (or 165 ft H2O) was used to transfer the filtered water to a
75,000-gal water tower located in the vicinity of the pump house (Figures 4-1 and 4-3). The pre-existing
treatment system and former building were demolished and removed from the site.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected from Well No. 1 on August
31, 2004. Table 4-1 presents the results of the source water analyses, along with those obtained by EPA
prior to the demonstration study in September 2002, those provided by the facility to EPA in 2003 for the
demonstration site selection, those submitted by the vendor for its proposal to EPA in 2004, and those
collected by Battelle on July 30, 2003. Based on the discussions with the facility operator and the
representatives of the respective organizations, it was established that the EPA, facility, and vendor
samples also were collected from Well No. 1.
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in Well No. 1 water varied significantly, ranging from 13.9 to
53.7 ng/L. Although no source water sample was collected from Well No. 2 prior to the demonstration
study, similar, but less significant, variations in arsenic concentration were observed in Well No. 2 water
during the first six-month demonstration study period, with concentrations varying from 32.8 to
49.8 |og/L. Based on the July 30, 2003 speciation results for Well No. 1 water, out of 53.7 |o,g/L of total
arsenic, 9.8 |o,g/L (or 18.2%) was particulate arsenic and 43.9 |o,g/L was soluble arsenic, which consisted
13
-------
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Pump House at Sabin, MN
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Filtration System at Sabin, MN
14
-------
Figure 4-3. Water Tower at Sabin, MN
of 24.2 ng/L (or 45.1%) as As(V) and 19.7 ng/L (or 36.7%) as As(III). The presence of As(III) was
consistent with the low ORP reading (i.e., -24 millivolts (mV)) measured on August 31, 2004. The DO
concentration in the same source water, however, was uncharacteristically high at 5.9 mg/L. DO levels
will be further monitored during the study period. The presence of As(III) required the use of an oxidant
to oxidize it to As(V). The Kinetico treatment process included prechlorination to oxidize As(III) to
As(V) and subsequent adsorption and co-precipitation of As(V) onto the iron solids also formed during
prechlorination.
Iron. The source water had iron levels ranging from 512 to 1,550 |o,g/L, existing almost entirely as
soluble iron. The iron levels were well above the iron secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of
300 |og/L. Typically, the soluble iron concentration in raw water should be at least 20 times the soluble
arsenic concentration in order to achieve effective arsenic removal via the iron process (Sorg, 2002). The
ratio of soluble iron to soluble arsenic concentrations was 26 to 67, as calculated for each of the two
source water speciation events on July 30, 2003, and August 31, 2004. Based on these results, it was
determined that no supplemental iron would be added to raw water during the treatment.
Manganese. Total manganese concentrations in source water ranged from 155 to 327 |o,g/L. Based on
the results of the two speciation events, manganese existed entirely as soluble manganese with
concentrations ranging from 278 (ig/L to 331 |o,g/L. The manganese levels were above the SMCL of
50 |og/L. The proposed treatment system was anticipated to provide for some manganese removal, but its
effectiveness was to be evaluated as part of this demonstration project, due to the inherently slow
oxidation kinetics of manganese during chlorination.
15
-------
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data at Sabin, MN
Parameter
Unit
Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
NO3- NO2 (as N)
NO3 (as N)
NO2 (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
P (as P)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Mo (total)
Mo (soluble)
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HR/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HR/L
HB/L
W?/L
EPA
Raw
Water
Data
09/30/02
NA
NA
NA
NA
297
Facility
Raw
Water
Data(a)
2003
7.5
NA
NA
NA
295
Kinetico
Raw
Water
Data
Before
04/04
7.4
NA
NA
NA
284
685 715 716
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
45
NA
417
26.9
NA
25
NA
NA
NA
NA
512
NA
155
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
28
NA
470
30,
27(b)
0.04,0.09(b)
41
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,550
NA
310
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1.0
NA
NA
53.5
0.96
470
25.7
<0.1
16
NA
NA
NA
NA
610
NA
230
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Battelle
Well
No. 1
Raw
Water
Data
07/30/03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
609
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
53.7
43.9
9.8
19.7
24.2
1,108
1,136
264
278
NA
NA
0.1
0.1
2.7
2.8
Battelle
after
Filtration
Data
07/30/03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
612
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
47
NA
NA
NA
NA
890
NA
204
NA
NA
NA
0.1
NA
3.1
NA
Battelle
Well
No. 1
Raw
Water
Data
08/31/04
7.3
12.6
5.9
-24
302
752
7.1
2,050
2.0,
1.5(c)
NA
O.04
O.01
0.19
34
0.12
410
29.7
O.I
13.9
12.6
1.3
5.1
7.5
854
844
327
331
5.5
5.3
0.30
0.12
NA
NA
MDH
Treated
Water
Data(d)
01/16/01-
10/26/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1
NA
NA
O.05-0.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.93-1.6
410-440
NA
NA
24.4-45.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16
-------
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data at Sabin, MN (Continued)
Parameter
Unit
Date
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Radium-226
Radium-228
HB/L
W?/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
EPA
Raw
Water
Data
09/30/02
<25
NA
39
151
75
NA
NA
Facility
Raw
Water
Data(a)
2003
NA
NA
31
158
78
NA
NA
Kinetico
Raw
Water
Data
Before
04/04
NA
NA
44
155
73
NA
NA
Battelle
Well
No. 1
Raw
Water
Data
07/30/03
<0.1
0.1
34
133
67
NA
NA
Battelle
after
Filtration
Data
07/30/03
<0.1
NA
35
135
67
NA
NA
Battelle
Well
No. 1
Raw
Water
Data
08/31/04
NA
NA
43
173
78
NA
NA
MDH
Treated
Water
Data(d)
01/16/01-
10/26/04
NA
NA
42-44
NA
NA
0.2(e)
<0.8(e)
(a) Provided by facility to EPA for demonstration site selection.
(b) Data provided by EPA.
(c) Sample taken on September 14, 2004.
(d) Samples taken in treatment plant and locations within the distribution system.
(e) Samples taken on June 23, 1 994.
NA = not analyzed; IDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon
pH. The pH values of source water ranged from 7.3 to 7.5, which were within the target range of 5.5 to
8.5 for arsenic removal via adsorption/co-precipitation with iron hydroxides. As such, no pH adjustment
was needed during the treatment.
Competing Anions. The process of As(V) adsorption and co-precipitation with iron solids can be
affected by the presence of competing anions, such as silica and phosphate. Data obtained by Battelle
showed 29.7 mg/L of silica (as SiO2) and <0.1 mg/L of total phosphorus, comparable to the levels
reported by other parties. Published data have shown that silica at high concentrations can significantly
impact arsenic adsorption by iron solids (Smith and Edwards, 2005; Meng et al., 2000; Meng et al.,
2002). Batch and column studies conducted by these authors document that silica reduces arsenic
adsorptive capacities on ferric oxides/hydroxides. Arsenic adsorption may be inhibited in the presence of
silica as follows: (1) adsorption of silica may change the surface properties of adsorbents by lowering the
iso-electric point or pH^; (2) silica may compete for arsenic adsorption sites; (3) polymerization of silica
may accelerate silica sorption and lower the available surface sites for arsenic adsorption; and (4)
chemical reactions of silica with divalent cations, such as calcium, magnesium, and barium, may form
precipitates. As such, the effect of silica was carefully monitored during the demonstration study. The
sulfate levels in source water ranged from 410 to 470 mg/L, which were above the sulfate SMCL of
250 mg/L. Sulfate has not been shown to significantly hamper arsenate adsorption onto iron solids (Jain
and Loeppert, 2000).
TOC. Total organic carbon (TOC) in source water ranged from 1.5 to 2 mg/L, which was not anticipated
to adversely impact the treatment system performance.
Other Water Quality Parameters. The source water was very turbid at 7.1 nephelometric turbidity
units (NTU), most likely resulting from iron precipitation during the sample collection and transit. The
nitrate, nitrite, chloride, and fluoride levels all were below the corresponding SMCLs. The ammonia
level at 0.19 mg/L would add to the chlorine demand, but was not anticipated to adversely impact As(III)
or Fe(II) oxidation. Uranium, vanadium, molybdenum, and antimony levels were low and not anticipated
to affect arsenic removal via the iron removal process.
17
-------
4.1.2 Distribution System and Treated Water Quality. Prior to the commencement of the
demonstration study, the distribution system at the City of Sabin was supplied by two wells, i.e., Wells
No. 1 and 2. Water from both wells blended within the 75,000-gal water tower and the distribution
system, which was constructed of mainly 4-in and 6-in cast iron and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping.
During the demonstration study beginning in January 2006, the distribution system was supplied only by
Well No. 2.
The three locations selected for distribution water sampling for this demonstration study were part of the
City's historic sampling network under the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). In addition to lead and copper,
coliform, fluoride, and arsenic were sampled on a quarterly basis and nitrate was sampled on an annual
basis. Ra-226 and Ra-228 were sampled every other year. The historic data from Minnesota Department
of Health (MDH) for treated water are provided in Table 4-1.
The historic treated water samples were collected at the entry point (after the treatment plant) and various
locations within the distribution system, such as residences, businesses (gas stations and cafes), fire hall,
and city hall, from January 16, 2001, through October 26, 2004. As shown in the table, turbidity readings
were <1.0 NTU, NO3-NO2 between <0.05 and 0.15 mg/L (as N), fluoride between 0.9 and 1.6 mg/L,
sulfate between 410 and 440 mg/L, arsenic between 24.4 and 45.0 mg/L, sodium between 42 to 44 mg/L,
radium-226 at 0.2 pCi/L, and radium-228 at <0.8 pCi/L. Compared to those in source water, fluoride
concentrations were somewhat elevated due to fluoridation at the plant. As expected, the concentrations
of the rest of the analytes measured at the entry point and within the distribution system were comparable
to those found in source water (except for radium, for which no data were available for source water).
4.2
Treatment Process Description
Kinetico's FM-248-AS arsenic removal system was installed at the Sabin, MN site for the demonstration
study. The treatment train included prechlorination/oxidation, coprecipitation/adsorption, and Macrolite®
pressure filtration. Macrolite®, a spherical, low density, chemically inert, ceramic media manufactured by
Kinetico, is designed to allow for filtration rates up to 10 gpm/ft2 and approved for use in drinking water
applications under NSF International Standard 61. The physical properties of Macrolite® are summarized
in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media
Property
Color
Thermal Stability (°C)
Sphere Mesh Size
Sphere Size Range (mm)
Sphere Size Range (in)
Uniformity Coefficient
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Particle Density (g/cm3)
Particle Density (lb/ft3)
Value
Taupe, brown to grey
1,100
40x60
0.42-0.25
0.165-0.0098
1.1
0.86
54
2.05
129
The FM-248-AS arsenic removal system was composed of two parallel contact tanks, two parallel
pressure filtration tanks, and associated instrumentation to monitor pressure, flowrate, and turbidity (note
that continuous turbidity monitoring was performed only during backwash). The system also was
18
-------
equipped with a central control panel that housed a touch screen operator interface panel (OIP), a
programmable logic controller (PLC), a modem, and an uninterruptible power supply (UPS). The PLC
automatically controlled the system by actuating PVC pneumatic valves with air supplied by a 7.5-hp, 80-
gal air compressor. The system also featured Schedule 80 PVC solvent bonded plumbing and all of the
necessary isolation and check valves and sampling ports. Figure 4-4 is a simplified system piping and
instrumentation diagram (P&ID). Figure 4-5 contains photographs of the key system components and
control and instrumentation. The system's design specifications are summarized in Table 4-3. The major
process steps are presented as follows:
• Intake. Raw water was pumped from Well No. 2 along with a 15-hp booster pump to
provide a design flow rate of 250 gpm. (Deviating from the original design, Well No. 1 was
not piped to the treatment system for the duration of the study). The system was equipped
with piping to bypass the treatment system and two 125-gpm flow-limiting devices, with one
installed after each pressure filtration tank, to prevent overrun.
• Chlorination. Chlorine was used to oxidize As(III) to As(V) and Fe(II) to Fe(III) and to
maintain a free chlorine residual of approximately 0.5 mg/L (as C12) after the treatment
system. The feed system consisted of a 165-gal day tank containing a 15.6% (as C12) NaOCl
solution and a diaphragm metering pump with a maximum capacity of 42 gpd. The proper
operation of the NaOCl system was tracked by the measurements of NaOCl consumption in
the day tank and free and total chlorine residuals across the treatment train.
• Adsorption/Co-precipitation. Two 63-in-diameter by 86-in-tall fiberglass reinforced plastic
(FRP) tanks arranged in parallel were used to provide 6.8 min of contact time to enhance the
formation of iron floes prior to pressure filtration. Each 850-gal tank has one 4-in top flange
and one 4-in bottom flange, which are connected to the exit and inlet piping, respectively, for
an upflow configuration.
• Pressure Filtration. Iron floe removal from the contact tank effluent was achieved via
downflow filtration through two 48-in-diameter, 72-in-tall pressure tanks configured in
parallel. Each tank contained 25 ft3 (or 24 in) of 40 x 60 mesh Macrolite® media loaded on
top of fine garnet underbedding filled to 1-in above the 0.006-in slotted, stainless steel
wedge-wire underdrain. The FRP filtration tanks were rated for a working pressure of 150
psi and had two 10-in diameter side windows for media and backwash observations. The
tanks were floor mounted and piped to a valve rack mounted on a welded, stainless steel
frame. The flow through each tank was regulated to less than 125 gpm using a flow-limiting
device to prevent filter overrun. System operation with both tanks in service could produce a
total design flowrate of 250 gpm. Filtered water was sent to a 57,000-gal underground
clearwell and then pumped to the water tower via two 20-hp high service pumps, which were
operated on an alternating basis.
19
-------
Kinetico FM-248-AS Arsenic Remo/al System
Flow 1 1 Turbidity
Feed Water
at 50-100psi
Chemical
Metering
Pump
co
00
Contact
Vessels
Filter
#1
Filter
#2
^ Backwash Waste
to Sewer by Others
Filtered Water to
• Storage/Distribution
by Others
Existing
Figure 4-4. Schematic of Kinetico's FM-248-AS Arsenic Removal System
Figure 4-5. Treatment System Components
20
-------
Table 4-3. Design Features of Macrolite* Arsenic Removal System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
NaOCl Demand (mg/L [as C12])
1.7
Based on average oxidant demand from
soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese in source
water plus 0.5 mg/L of target residual; not
including ammonia demand
Contact
No. of Tanks
Configuration
Tank Size (in)
Tank Volume (gal)
Contact Time (min)
2
Parallel
63 D x 86 H
850
6.8
—
—
-
-
-
Filtration
No. of Tanks
Configuration
Tank Size (in)
Tank Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Media Volume (ft3/vessel)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Pressure Drop across Clean Bed (psi)
2
Parallel
48 D x 72 H
12.6
25
10
10-12
-
-
-
24-inbed depth of Macrolite®
At 125 gpm
-
Backwash
Ap Setpoint (psi)
Standby Time Setpoint (hr)
Service Time Setpoint (hr)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Turbidity Setpoint (NTU)
Duration (min/tank)
Wastewater Production (gpd)
22
48
24
10
20
5 to 15
Variable
Backwash triggering pressure
-
-
125 gpm
To terminate backwash
Variable based on turbidity readings of
backwash water
Based on PLC set points shown above
Design Specifications
Peak Flowrate (gpm)
Maximum Daily Well Production
(gpd)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
250
360,000
13-17
—
Based on peak flow, 24 hr/day
Estimate based on historic utilization rate
4.3
Filter Backwash. Backwash removed solids accumulating in the filters, thereby reducing
pressure buildup. The filters were automatically backwashed in succession in an upflow
configuration based on service time, standby time, and/or differential pressure (Ap) setpoints.
Backwash began with draining water from the first filter tank followed by air sparging the
filter media at 100 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) for 2 min. After a 3-min settling
period, the filter tank was backwashed with treated water from the distribution system until
the backwash water had reached the turbidity threshold setpoint (e.g., 20 NTU) as measured
by an on-line Hach™ turbidimeter). Afterwards, the filter tank underwent a filter-to-waste
rinse for 3 min using water from the contact tank before returning to service. The resulting
wastewater was sent to a sump that emptied into the sanitary sewer.
Treatment System Installation
This section provides a summary of the system installation, startup, and shakedown activities and the
associated prerequisites including permitting and building construction.
21
-------
4.3.1 System Permitting. The system engineering package, prepared by Kinetico and Ulteig
Engineers, included a system design report and associated general arrangement and a P&ID for the FM-
248-AS system, electrical and mechanical drawings and component specifications, and building
construction drawings detailing connections from the system to the entry piping. The engineering
package was certified by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and submitted to
MDH for review and approval on March 4, 2005. After MDH's review comments were addressed, the
water supply construction permit was issued by MDH on June 13, 2005, and fabrication of the system
began thereafter. The sanitary sewer extension permit for discharge of backwash water was received on
April 14,2005.
4.3.2 Building Construction. Building construction began on July 5, 2005, with the excavation
for the building foundation including a 57,000-gal underground clearwell located directly underneath the
building and a 2,350-gal underground sump. The footprint of the building was 48 ft x 56 ft with a roof
height of 17.5 ft. The building was fabricated from pre-cast concrete panels and included an 8-ft-wide
double panel door at the entrance. Finished water from the arsenic removal system was stored in the
clearwell and wastewater produced from filter backwash was discharged to the sump that emptied by
gravity into the sanitary sewer. In addition to the filtration room that housed the treatment system, the
building also had a chemical room, a mechanical room, a laboratory, an office, and a restroom (see Figure
4-6). The new building was largely completed prior to the start of the demonstration study on January 30,
2006. However, finishing work such as improvements to the building ventilation continued until June 5,
2006, when the building was officially turned over to the city of Sabin.
4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown. The FM-248-AS treatment system was
delivered to the site on December 2, 2005. The vendor, through its subcontractor, off-loaded and installed
the system (Figure 4-7). Installation activities included connections to the entry and distribution piping
and electrical interlocking. Upon completion of system installation and before media loading, the vendor
performed hydraulic pressure testing to ensure that there were no leaks and that the system was
mechanically sound. Macrolite® media loading and initial backwashing (to remove fines) was completed
by December 16, 2005. Work resumed after the holiday break with activities spanning from PLC testing
to instrument calibration, additional backwash testing (to set flow rates), system sanitation (using
chlorine), chlorine residual testing, and operator training (on system O&M). The system startup and
shakedown work was completed by January 19, 2006.
Battelle inspected the system and provided operator training on sample and data collection from January
30 to January 31, 2006, and the performance evaluation officially began on January 31, 2006. As a result
of the system inspections, several punch-list items were identified and forwarded to the vendor after the
site visit. The key items identified and corrective actions taken included:
• Repair TT sampling tap. The TT sample tap did not provide water due to pulling a vacuum
on the effluent line to the clearwell that was open to the atmosphere. The vendor proposed
changing the location of the sample tap and provided a new tap to install on the bottom of the
effluent line on April 25, 2006. However, the sample tap did not yield water until a vacuum
breaker was installed at the highest point of the treated water line prior to the clearwell on
September 11,2006.
22
-------
Figure 4-6. New Building and Associated Infrastructure
(Clockwise from Top, Left: New Building, Adjacent Office/Laboratory Area, and Electrical
Control Panel, Clearwell Lid [Inset], and Backwash Sump)
Figure 4-7. Delivery and Off-Loading of Macrolite® Treatment System Equipment
23
-------
• Modify the PLC to show a decimal place for all hour meter displays on the control panel.
The vendor added a decimal place to all hour meter displays by updating the PLC program on
February 28, 2006. However, this PLC programming change led to a backwash control issue
related to the frequency of backwash as discussed under the next bullet point.
• Resolve backwash control issues related to the PLC programming change described above
and the Hach™ turbidimeter. As discussed in Section 4.4.2, the PLC programming change
made on February 28, 2006, led to the failure of the system to backwash based on the
backwash setpoints (e.g., 48-hr standby time). As such, the operator had to initiate each
backwash event manually until this issue was resolved with another programming change on
April 11, 2006. In addition, beginning in May 2006, backwash was consistently discontinued
at the end of 5-min minimum backwash duration. This issue was not resolved during the first
six-month study period as discussed in Section 4.4.2. As a temporary measure, the operator
changed the minimum backwash time to 10 min on July 21, 2006, to ensure adequate
backwashing of the pressure filters.
4.4 System Operation
4.4.1 Coagulation/Filtration Operation. The operational parameters for the first six months of
system operation are tabulated and attached as Appendix A with the key parameters summarized in Table
4-4. From January 30, 2006 through July 30, 2006, the treatment system operated for approximately
546 hr, based on the hour meter readings displayed on the PLC; the average daily operating time was
3.0 hr/day. (The service clock on the PLC was reset twice during this study period when: 1) a
programming change to add a decimal point to the hour meter readings was made on February 28, 2006;
and 2) a backwash control issue was corrected on April 11, 2006, as discussed in Section 4.4.2). The
total system throughput was approximately 6,650,000 gal based on flow totalizer readings on the PLC.
The average daily demand was 37,049 gal/day, which is equivalent to a 10% hydraulic utilization rate.
The system flowrates ranged from 222 to 245 gpm and averaged 238 gpm, based on instantaneous
readings from the flow meter/totalizer installed at the exit side of the pressure filters. The average
flowrate corresponded to an average contact time of 7.1 min in the contact tanks and an average hydraulic
loading rate of 9.5 gpm/ft2 across the filters, compared to the design values of 6.8 min and 10 gpm/ft2,
respectively, as shown in Table 4-3. The daily average system flowrates also were calculated by dividing
the amounts of water treated by the corresponding daily system run times and are compared with the
instantaneous flowrate readings. As shown in Figure 4-8, the calculated average flowrate was highly
variable due to the lack of a decimal place on the hour meter reading, which reduced the accuracy of the
calculation. During the second quarter of operations, after implementation of the PLC programming
changes described above, the readings converged with the instantaneous flow rate approximately 8%
higher than the daily average system flow rate. This is consistent with the values measured at system
startup, which indicated an instantaneous flow rate of 244 gpm and a calculated average flowrate of 225
gpm (based on a digital totalizer reading [i.e., 15,300 gal] and a stop watch reading [i.e., 68 min]).
Under normal service conditions, Ap readings across the system ranged from 31 to 39 psi. As shown in
Figure 4-9, Ap readings across each filter over the course of a filter run increased from approximately 7
psi immediately after backwash up to 19 psi after 21 hr of filter run time. At the median filter run time of
6.2 hr, the corresponding Ap reading across the bed was approximately 12 psi, which was significantly
lower than the 22 psi Ap trigger set in the PLC. Under normal operating conditions, the Ap setpoint was
never reached and backwash was triggered only by the standby time of 48 hr.
24
-------
Table 4-4. FM-248-AS Treatment System Operational Parameters
Parameter
Operational Period
Value
01/30/06-07/30/06
Coagulation/Filtration Operation
Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr/day)
Total Throughput (gal)
Average Daily Demand (gpd)
Median Service Time between Backwash Cycles [Range] (hr)
Median Throughput between Backwash Cycles [Range] (gal)
Average Flowrate [Range] (gpm)(b>c)
Average Contact Time [Range] (min)(b)
Average Filtration Rate [Range] (gpm/ft2)(b)
Average Ap across Each Tank [Range] (psi)(c)
Average Ap across System [Range] (psi)(c)
546
3.0
6,650,000
37,049
6.2 [0.8-13.3] (a)
88,536 [11,424-189,924]
238 [222-245]
7.1 [6.9-7.7]
9.5 [8.8-9.8]
11.7 [7-19]
33 [31-39]
Backwash Operation
Average Frequency (times/tank/week)
Number of Cycles (Tank A/Tank B)
Average Flowrate [Range] (gpm)(d)
Average Hydraulic Loading Rate [Range] (gpm/ft2)
Average Duration [Range] (min/tank)(d)
Average Backwash Volume [Range] (gal/tank)(d)
Estimated Filter to Waste Volume (gal/tank)(e)
Average Wastewater Produced [Range] (gal/tank)
3
81/81
107 [105-110]
8.5 [8.4-8.8]
10 [5-19]
1,003 [400-1,900]
375
1,378 [775-2,675]
(a) Data collected from February 28 through March 19, 2006 not included. Filter run times
during this time period were uncharacteristically long (ranging from 18 to 25 hr), caused
by the PLC control problems discussed in Section 4.4.2.
(b) Based on instantaneous flowrate readings from flow meter/totalizer for service.
(c) Pressure and flow data collected on February 7, 2006 not included (with one tank in
service while the other tank was being backwashed).
(d) Based on readings recorded by operator on monthly backwash logsheet.
(e) Estimated based on 3-min filter-to-waste time and 125-gpm flow rate.
The data shown in Figure 4-9 do not include those collected on February 7, 2006, when the pressure and
flowrate readings were recorded with only one pressure filter (Tank A) in service while the other (Tank
B) was being backwashed. During this backwash event, the influent pressure spiked almost twice as high
up to 63 psi and the corresponding pressure drop across the system was 63 psi (since the plant effluent
was discharged to the clearwell under the atmospheric pressure). This spike in pressure occurs with each
backwash event and is due to only one tank being in service and the increased pressure drop caused by the
flow restrictor on the effluent line of that tank. During this backwash event, the Ap reading across Tank
A was only 10 psi (because it had just been backwashed and returned to service) and the corresponding
flowrate through Tank A was 155 gpm. While one tank is off-line for backwash (Tank B), the inlet
pressure at 63 psi through the on-line tank (Tank A) was below the 100 psi manufacturer specifications.
For this site, the normal inlet pressure was relatively low at 33 psi, so the doubling of the inlet pressure
with only one tank on-line could be accommodated. However, this will not be the case for all sites, based
on their site-specific pump curve characteristics and total dynamic head conditions. The flowrate at 155
gpm through Tank A was slightly above the 125 gpm limit per tank. This suggests that the system is able
to operate with only one tank on-line, but the hydraulic loading at 12.3 gpm/ft2 is slightly higher than the
design specification of 10 gpm/ft2 during this time period.
25
-------
350
300 -
250 -
E 200 -
M- 150 -
100 -
50 -
Daily Average Flowrate
nstantaneous Flowrate
01/03/06 01/23/06 02/12/06 03/04/06 03/24/06 04/13/06 05/03/06 05/23/06 06/12/06 07/02/06 07/22/06 08/11/06
Date
Figure 4-8. Calculated and Instantaneous Flowrate Readings
5.0
10.0 15.0
Filter Run Time, hrs
20.0
25.0
Figure 4-9. Differential Pressure Versus Filter Run Time
26
-------
Since system startup, a total of 81 backwash cycles took place for each pressure filter. Backwash
occurred at a frequency of approximately 3 times/tank/week and was triggered mainly by the 48-hr
standby time due to the low daily run time of 3.0 hr/day. The median value of filter run times between
two consecutive backwash cycles was 6.2 hr, which yielded a median throughput of 88,536 gal. Because
total arsenic breakthrough at 10.6 jog/L was observed on July 26, 2006 (as discussed in Section 4.5.1.1),
the filter run time will be further examined during the next six-month study period. In addition, several
issues were encountered related to the frequency and duration of backwash, which will be discussed in
Section 4.4.2. As noted in Table 4-4, these data were not included in the filter run time calculations.
4.4.2 Backwash Operation. Automatic backwash of the Macrolite® pressure filters could be
initiated by one of the three triggers set in the PLC: 22 psi Ap across a filter, 48-hr standby time, or 24-hr
filter run time. Due to short daily operational times, the majority of the backwash cycles were triggered
by the standby time setpoint. Occasionally, manual backwash cycles also were initiated, but primarily for
testing and sampling of backwash water and solids. The actual backwash duration for each filter was
determined by the minimum and maximum backwash time settings and the ability of the backwash water
to meet the turbidity threshold setting as measured by an in-line Hach™ turbidimeter. If backwash water
failed to meet the set threshold prior to reaching the maximum backwash time, the backwash failure alarm
had to be acknowledged and a successful backwash cycle had to be conducted before the tank could
return to the service mode. Backwash was followed by a 3-min filter-to-waste rinse to remove any
particulates from the filter.
Each pressure filter was backwashed 81 times during the first six-month study period. Backwash
flowrates ranged from 105 to 110 gpm and averaged 107 gpm; the corresponding backwash hydraulic
loading rates ranged from 8.4 to 8.8 gpm/ft2 and averaged 8.5 gpm/ft2. This range of backwash flowrates
did not cause significant media loss during backwash. The backwash duration for each filter lasted for 5
to 19 min, or 10 min on average. The amount of backwash water produced averaged 1,003 gal with a
range of 400 to 1,900 gal. Overall, the amount of backwash water generated was 100,800 gal, about 1.5%
of the total amount of water treated. Including 375 gal of filter-to-waste rinse water per filter for each
backwash cycle, approximately 161,550 gal of wastewater was generated, which is about 2.4% of the
total amount of water treated.
Table 4-5 summarizes the backwash settings established on January 30, 2006 during system startup and
on July 21, 2006 to modify the minimum backwash time due to a Hach™ turbidimeter malfunction.
Backwash issues experienced during the first six months of system operation included backwash controls
related to the frequency and duration of backwash, as well as backwash failure alarms.
4.4.2.1 Backwash Frequency Issues. On February 28, 2006, the vendor implemented a PLC
programming change that added a decimal place to the hour meter readings to improve accuracy of daily
filter run time and average system flowrate records. In doing so, the backwash control process was
inadvertently disrupted so that the filters were not properly backwashed based on the 48-hour standby
setpoint. As a consequence, filter run times were significantly extended from an average of 6.2 hr during
normal system operation to 18.1 hr from February 28 to March 7, 2006, 24.8 hr from March 7 to 14,
2006, and 23.7 hr from March 14 to March 19, 2006. These extended filter run times are not included in
the calculations of filter run times as shown in Table 4-4. After March 19, 2006, the operator manually
initiated backwash cycles until the PLC program was updated by the vendor and the backwash control
returned to normal operations on April 11, 2006.
4.4.2.2 Backwash Duration Issues. From May 7, 2006 to July 21, 2006, 38 out of 44 backwash
events terminated at the minimum backwash time of 5 min, based on the volume of wastewater recorded
on the Daily Operational Log Sheet and the average backwash flowrate. In addition, the operator
observed during the June 18, 2006, backwash event that the turbidity readings of the backwash water
27
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of PLC Settings for Backwash Operations
Parameter
(for Each Pressure Filter)
Drain Time (min)
Run Time Trigger (hr)
Standby Time Trigger (hr)
Ap Trigger (psi)
Minimum Backwash Time (min)
Maximum Backwash Time (min)
Turbidity Threshold (NTU)
Low Flowrate Threshold (gpm)
Filter-to-Waste Time (min)
01/30/06
-------
to ensure that adequate residuals existed throughout the treatment train. Insufficient chlorine was dosed
due to a chlorine fitting leak reported by the operator as starting on February 12, 2006. Using spare parts,
the operator made a series of repairs between the February 14 and 21, 2006 sampling events to restore
prechlorination. No post-treatment was required for the arsenic removal system.
4.4.4.2 System Automation. The FM-248-AS arsenic treatment system was automatically controlled
by the PLC in the central control panel. The control panel contained a modem and a touch screen OIP
that facilitated monitoring of system parameters, changing of system setpoints, and checking the alarm
status. Run time, standby time, and Ap settings automatically dictated when the pressure filters should be
backwashed (see settings on Table 4-5). The touch screen OIP also enabled the operator to manually
initiate the backwash sequence. Several issues were experienced related to control of the frequency and
duration of backwash events, which are detailed in Section 4.4.2. Problems with automation of the
backwash process led to an increased need to monitor plant operations and manual intervention by the
operator (e.g., manually initiating backwashes and/or changing setpoints in the PLC to accommodate
Hach™ turbidimeter malfunctions).
4.4.4.3 Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the daily demand on the
operator was about 15 min for visual inspection of the system and recording of operational parameters,
such as pressure, volume, flowrate, and chemical usage on field log sheets. For the state of Minnesota,
there are five water operator certificate class levels, i.e., A, B, C, D, and E (A being the highest). The
certificate levels are based on education, experience, and system characteristics, such as water source,
treatment processes, water storage volume, number of wells, and population affected. The certified water
operator for the city of Sabin has a Class C certificate. Class C requires a high school diploma or
equivalent with at least three years of experience in operation of Class A, B, or C systems or a bachelor's
degree from an accredited institution with at least one year of experience in the operation of a Class A, B,
C, or D systems. After receiving proper training during the system startup, the operator understood the
PLC, knew how to use the touch screen OIP, and was able to work with the vendor to troubleshoot and
perform minor on-site repairs.
4.4.4.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities. The vendor recommended several routine maintenance
activities to prolong the integrity of the treatment system (Kinetico, 2005). Preventative maintenance
tasks included recording pressure readings, flowrates, and chemical drum levels, as well as visually
checking for leaks, overheating components, proper manual valve positioning and pumps' lubricant
levels, and any unusual conditions daily. The vendor recommended checking for trends in the recorded
data on a weekly basis, which might indicate a decline in system performance, and semi-annually
servicing and inspecting ancillary equipment and replacing worn components. Cleaning and replacement
of sensors and replacement of o-ring seals and gaskets of valves should be performed as needed. In
addition, an intermittent compressed air leak developed in Tank B, potentially starting from June 28, 2006
to July 26, 2006, as noted by elevated DO readings in Tank B on these dates. This issue will be addressed
during the second six-month study period.
4.4.4.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements. Prechlorination was required for effective
treatment since system startup. The operator tracked the NaOCl usage daily and coordinated the solution
delivery and refill with a local chemical supply company. All chemical handling and re-filling activities
were performed by the chemical supply company, which reduced the level of effort required for O&M of
the system by the operator.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the Macrolite® FM-248-AS arsenic treatment system was evaluated based on
analyses of water samples collected from the treatment plant, backwash lines, and distribution system.
29
-------
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 27 occasions
including two duplicate events and seven speciation events during the first six months of system
operation. Table 4-6 summarizes the analytical results for arsenic, iron, and manganese. Table 4-7
summarizes the results of the other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of
analytical results. The results of the water samples collected across the treatment plant are discussed as
follows.
4.5.1.1 Arsenic. Figure 4-10 shows total arsenic concentrations measured across the treatment train
and Figure 4-11 presents the results of seven speciation events. Total arsenic concentrations in raw water
ranged from 32.8 to 49.8 |o,g/L and averaged 39.6 |o,g/L. Of the soluble fraction (93%), As(V) was the
predominating species, except for the time period just after system startup as shown in Figure 4-11, with
concentrations ranging from <0.1 to 33.6 |o,g/L and averaging 23.9 |o,g/L. Significant amounts of As(III)
also existed with concentrations ranging from 4.6 to 35.6 |o,g/L and averaging 13.2 |o,g/L. Concentrations
of both As(V) and As(III) varied considerably during the course of this six-month study period, with
As(III) concentrations exhibiting a decreasing trend and As(V) concentrations an increasing trend
especially during the first month.
Low levels of particulate As also were present with concentrations averaging 1.9 |o,g/L. The total arsenic
concentrations measured during this study period were lower than that of the raw water sample collected
on July 30, 2003, but higher than that collected on August 31, 2004 (Table 4-1). Note that the
groundwater source for the demonstration study was from the new well (or Well No. 2) and that the pre-
demonstration samples were collected only from the old well (or Well No. 1).
After prechlorination and the contact tanks, As(III) was effectively oxidized to As(V), which, in turn, was
adsorbed onto or co-precipitated with iron solids, also formed during prechlorination, to become
particulate As. This was as evidenced by the low levels of soluble arsenic (3.8 to 5.4 |o,g/L) and
significantly elevated particulate As concentrations (i.e., 36.2 |o,g/L on average) in the samples taken after
the contact tanks. The water samples collected on February 14, 2006, showed very little change in arsenic
(Figure 4-10) and iron (Figure 4-12) concentrations across the treatment train, which corresponded well
with the problem encountered with the chlorine injection system that developed a leak starting from
February 12, 2006, caused by a faulty fitting. The leak was repaired by the operator before the February
21, 2006 sampling event.
With sufficient chlorine addition, total arsenic concentrations ranged from 3.9 to 10.6 |o,g/L and averaged
6.2 |o,g/L after Tank A and ranged from 3.5 to 9.9 |o,g/L and averaged 6.4 |o,g/L after Tank B. Based on the
speciation results from three TA and four TB samples, arsenic in the filter effluent was present in both
soluble and particulate forms, each comprising roughly 50% of the total amounts. The soluble fraction
was composed of primarily As(V), with As(III) concentrations averaging at only 0.3 and 0.9 |o,g/L after
Tanks A and B, respectively. Exceedance of the arsenic MCL occurred once after Tank A at 10.6 |o,g/L
on July 26, 2006. The exceedance was attributed to potential particulate breakthrough of the filter due to
the slightly elevated iron levels in the filter effluent (see Section 4.5.1.2). For this reason, a filter run
length study will be conducted during the next six-month study period. Another factor that also might
have contributed was the increase in the influent arsenic level up to 51.3 |o,g/L compared to the average
influent arsenic level of 39.6 |o,g/L.
30
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Results
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sample
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
Sample
Count
27
27
23
24
7
7
3
4
7
7
3
4
7
7
3
4
7
7
3
4
27
27
23
24
7
7
3
4
27
27
23
24
7
7
3
4
Concentration (|J.g/L)
Minimum
32.8
28.2
3.9
3.5
34.1
3.8
3.0
2.3
<0.1
32.5
2.2
0.7
4.6
0.2
0.3
<0.1
0.1
3.0
2.7
1.2
1,203
763
<25
<25
914
<25
<25
<25
259
252
126
111
305
105
184
99
Maximum
49.8
51.3(a)
10.6(a)
9.9(a)
40.3
5.4
3.2
3.7
4.5
40.3
3.9
3.8
35.6
1.0
0.4
2.0
33.6
5.1
3.0
2.8
1,936
l,748(a)
235(a)
235(a)
1,283
<25
<25
<25
449
452
365
343
457
297
305
300
Average
39.6
40.5(a)
6.2(a)
6.4(a)
36.9
4.3
3.2
3.1
1.9
36.2
3.2
2.3
13.2
0.6
0.3
0.9
23.9
3.7
2.8
2.2
1,404
l,364(a)
81.9(a)
92.5(a)
1,135
<25
<25
<25
350
350(a)
217(a)
203 «
371
202
249
173
Standard
Deviation
4.0
5.0(a)
1.9(a)
1.8(a)
2.1
0.5
0.1
0.6
1.6
3.0
0.9
1.6
10.8
0.3
0.1
0.9
11.8
0.7
0.1
0.7
160
202(a)
61.3(a)
61.5(a)
129
-
-
-
54.7
57.4(a)
63.1(a)
57.6(a)
61.9
74.4
61.2
87.6
(a) Results for 02/14/06 sampling event not included because of insufficient chlorine
addition due to a fitting leak.
(b) One-half of detection limit used for non-detect results and duplicate samples included for
calculations.
31
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
Total P
(asP)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
Total
Organic
Carbon
(TOC)
Total
Dissolved
Solids
(TDS)
pH
Sample
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
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
HB/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
Sample
Count
27
27
23
24
7
7
3
4
7
7
3
4
7
7
3
4
7
7
3
4
26
26
22
23
27
27
23
24
27
27
23
24
5
5
1
3
7
7
3
4
25
25
19
22
Concentration
Minimum
284
283
283
283
<0.05
0.05
0.06
0.05
O.I
O.I
0.1
O.I
376
371
420
372
O.05
0.05
O.05
O.05
<10
<10
<10
<10
28.5
27.4
27.1
26.9
13.0
0.9
0.3
0.2
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
886
914
978
920
7.2
7.0
7.1
7.1
Maximum
329
317
312
321
0.25
0.09
0.09
0.05
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
835
839
845
514
O.05
0.05
O.05
O.05
50.0
45.8
18.5
20.2
32.5
32.5
31.9
31.9
44.0
20.0
18.0
21.0
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1,030
1,020
1,000
1,030
7.7
7.7
7.4
7.4
Average
300
297
296
298
0.16
0.06
0.08
0.03
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
474
465
562
437
O.05
0.05
O.05
O.05
27.9
26.8
6.1
5.9
30.3
30.2
29.8
29.9
18.8
2.5
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
963
963
989
977
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.3
Standard
Deviation
11.0
8.3
7.8
9.6
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
160
166
245
58.9
-
-
-
-
11.9
12.4
3.2
3.3
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
5.8
3.6
3.6
4.2
0.1
0.1
-
0.2
47.3
34.4
11.0
51.6
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
32
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results (continued)
Parameter
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free
Chlorine
(as C12)
Total
Chlorine
(as C12)
Total
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sample
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
AC
TA
TB
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
Unit
°C
°C
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
25
25
19
22
25
25
19
22
25
25
19
22
25
19
22
25
19
22
7
7
3
4
7
7
3
4
7
7
3
4
Concentration
Minimum
11.0
10.9
10.8
11.2
2.1
1.2
2.2
0.8
-13
385
442
83.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
584
536
603
635
354
324
345
379
210
212
258
246
Maximum
17.4
17.8
16.4
17.1
6.6
4.7
5.9
4.0
476
678
665
677
1.0
0.4
0.9
2.1
0.9
1.1
741
741
743
691
414
435
413
426
327
323
329
282
Average
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
3.7(a)
3.2(a)
3.8(a)
3.0(a)
171
479
499
530
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.5
0.5
658
662
671
667
390
392
377
401
267
270
293
266
Standard
Deviation
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
L4(a)
0.8(a)
1.3(a)
0.9(a)
186
72.1
59.3
127
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
55.3
68.4
69.9
24.9
19.5
34.5
34.3
21.3
40.2
38.9
35.6
14.9
(a) Data with uncharacteristically high DO levels on 02/21/06, 2/28/06, 03/06/06, 03/14/06, 03/21/06,
03/28/06, 06/28/06, and 07/26/06 not included in the maximum, average, and standard deviation
calculations.
(b) One-half of detection limit used for non-detect results and duplicate samples included for calculations.
33
-------
60
50 --
•T 40--
—»-At Wellhead (IN)
-•-After Contact Tank (AC)
-A-After Tank A (TA)
-X- After Tank B (TB)
1/31/2006 2/20/2006 3/12/2006 4/1/2006 4/21/2006 5/11/2006 5/31/2006 6/20/2006 7/10/2006 7/30/2006
Date
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train
4.5.1.2 Iron. Figure 4-12 presents total iron concentrations measured across the treatment train.
Total iron concentrations in raw water ranged from 1,203 to 1,936 |o,g/L and averaged 1,404 |o,g/L, which
existed primarily in the soluble form at 1,135 |o,g/L. The average soluble iron and average soluble arsenic
concentrations in raw water corresponded to a ratio of 31:1 (Table 4-6), which was over the 20:1 target
ratio for effective arsenic removal (Sorg, 2002). The amount of natural iron was sufficient for arsenic
removal. The influent pH at 7.4 (on average) and other water quality parameters to be discussed in the
following sections did not appear to have any adverse effect on arsenic removal by iron solids.
Upon chlorination, soluble iron levels were effectively reduced to below the method reporting limit of
25 |og/L after the contact tanks and after the Macrolite® filters. The only exception was the February 14,
2006, sampling event, where no change in iron concentrations was observed across the treatment train.
As discussed previously in Section 4.4.4.1, insufficient chlorine was added to the treatment system due to
a problem with the chlorine injection system during February 12 to 21, 2006. The February 14, 2006,
data are shown in Figure 4-12, but not included in the average total iron calculations for the AC, TA, and
TB samples.
Iron breakthrough from the pressure filters were observed with total iron levels ranging from <25 to 235
Hg/L and particulate iron levels ranging from <25 to 103 |og/L (not including the February 14, 2006, data
as discussed above). As shown in Figure 4-12, total iron levels averaged 81.9 |o,g/L for Tank A and
92.5 |og/L for Tank B and were maintained below the 300 |o,g/L secondary MCL for iron. Because of the
concerns over particulate arsenic and iron breakthrough from the Macrolite® filters, as observed on July
26, 2006, a filter run length study will be conducted during the next six-month study period.
34
-------
Arsenic Speciation at the Wellhead (IN)
45
40 -
| 25 -
<> 20-
c
* 15 -
01/31/06 02/28/06 03/28/06 04/25/06 05/23/06
Date
06/20/06 07/18/06
Arsenic Speciation after Contact Tank (AC)
45
40
— 35
o 30 "
I 25-
§
O
o 20-
"* 15
10
5-
0
DAs (partculate)
• As (III) (soluble)
DAs (V) (soluble)
-
01/31/06
=
02/28/06 03/28/06 04/25/06 05/23/06 06/20/06 07/18/06
Date
Arsenic Speciation after Tank A (TA) and Tank B (TB)
Note: Combined sample tap at TT location was not operational. Tank
A (TA) sampled on 03/28/06, 05/23/06, and 06/20/06 and Tank B (TB)
sampled on 01/31/06, 02/28/06, 04/25/06, and 07/18/06 during
monthly Speciation events.
Figure 4-11. Arsenic Speciation Results at Wellhead (IN), after Contact
Tank (AC), after Tank A (TA), and after Tank B (TB)
35
-------
2500
2000 -
—•-At Wellhead (IN)
-•—After Contact Tank (AC)
-*-After Tank A (TA)
-x- After Tank B (TB)
1/31/2006 2/20/2006 3/12/2006 4/1/2006 4/21/2006 5/11/2006 5/31/2006 6/20/2006 7/10/2006 7/30/2006
Date
Figure 4-12. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train
4.5.1.3 Manganese. Manganese concentrations in raw water ranged from 259 to 449 |o,g/L and
averaged 350 |og/L, which existed almost entirely in the soluble form at 371 |o,g/L (on average). Figure 4-
13 presents total manganese concentrations across the treatment train. With prechlorination and 7.1-min
contact time, only 32% to 65% of soluble manganese was converted to particulate manganese after the
contact tanks. These results suggest that, while being very effective for As(III) and Fe(II) oxidation,
chlorine was not as effective in oxidizing Mn(II). Further, the rate of conversion from soluble to
particulate manganese appears to vary with the chlorine dosage. As shown in Figure 4-14, total
manganese removal across the filters varied widely from 14% to 72% and averaged 40%. The rate of
removal was influenced by the chlorine dosage with higher total chlorine residuals after the contact tank
associated with increased manganese removal across the filter. For example, on June 13, 2006, the total
chlorine residual was low at only 0.2 mg/L and the manganese effluent levels were elevated at 343 to
365 |og/L, which represented only 15% to 20% removal. However, a 63% manganese removal rate was
achieved earlier on February 28, 2006, with 1.2 mg/L of total chlorine residual. Previous studies also
have found that incomplete oxidation of Mn(II) occurs using free chlorine at pH values less than 8.5
(Knocke et al., 1987 and 1990; Condit and Chen, 2006). Because Macrolite® filters removed only
particulate manganese, the soluble fraction after the contact tanks (i.e., 202 |o,g/L on average) remained
essentially unchanged after the pressure filters (i.e., 249 and 173 |o,g/L after Tanks A and B, respectively).
However, as discussed in Section 4.5.3, precipitation of manganese might have occurred after the treated
water entered the distribution system, given additional chlorine dosage, upon post-chlorination, and
substantially longer contact time within the distribution system. During the next six-month study period,
an increased chlorine dosage will be implemented to study its potential effect on manganese oxidation
across the treatment train.
36
-------
600
500 --
200 --
100 --
-*-At Wellhead (IN)
-•-After Contact (AC)
-A-After Tank A (TA)
-X-After Tank B (TB)
Mn Secondary MCL = 50 ng/L
1/31/2006 2/20/2006 3/12/2006 4/1/2006 4/21/2006 5/11/2006 5/31/2006 6/20/2006 7/10/2006 7/30/2006
Date
Figure 4-13. Total Manganese Concentrations Across Treatment Train
500
- 450
-»-Total Chlorine (AC)
-»-Inlet Mn
—*— TankA Mn
-*-TankBMn
0.0
01/03/06 01/23/06 02/12/06 03/04/06 03/24/06 04/13/06 05/03/06 05/23/06 06/12/06 07/02/06 07/22/06 08/11/06
Date
Figure 4-14. Total Manganese Concentrations Versus Total Chlorine Residuals
37
-------
4.5.1.4 pH, DO, and ORP. pH values in raw water ranged from 7.2 to 7.7 and averaged 7.4. There
was no measurable change in pH across the treatment train. The pH was at a level favorable for As(V)
adsorption onto iron solids. Average DO levels across the treatment train ranged from 3.0 to 3.7 mg/L.
Uncharacteristically high DO readings were recorded by the operator on eight occasions during the
weekly sampling events (see Table 4-7). These elevated DO readings were not included in the calculation
of average and standard deviation values for DO levels. In addition, elevated DO readings experienced in
Tank B on June 28, 2006 and July 26, 2006 were related to a compressed air leak addressed during the
next six-month study period. As a result of prechlorination, average ORP levels increased from 171 mV,
on average, in raw water to over 479 mV, on average, after the contact tanks.
4.5.1.5 Chlorine and Ammonia. Total chlorine residuals ranged from 0 to 2.1 mg/L (as C12) and
averaged 0.7 mg/L (as C12) at the AC location and were slightly lower at the TA and TB locations,
ranging from 0 to 1.1 mg/L (as C12) and averaging 0.5 mg/L (as C12). Free chlorine residuals averaged
0.2 mg/L (as C12) at the AC location and 0.1 mg/L (as C12) at the TA and TB locations and were close to
the method detection limit of 0.1 mg/L (as C12), indicating negligible amounts in treated water. The
difference between the total and free chlorine was monochloramine, which was formed in the presence of
ammonia (at 0.16 mg/L [as N], on average). (Note that 0.16 mg/L of ammonia (as N) would form
0.8 mg/L of monochloramine [as C12] upon chlorination). Because only 0.5 to 0.7 mg/L of total chlorine
(or, more specifically, monochloramine) (as C12) was formed, ammonia in raw water would not have been
completely oxidized. This observation was supported by some amounts of ammonia measured, i.e., 0.06,
0.08, and 0.03 mg/L (as N), on average, after the contact tanks and after Tanks A and B, respectively.
The presence of ammonia and other reducing species, such as As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II) in raw water
significantly increased the chlorine demand. Compared to the design value of 1.7 mg/L (as C12) shown in
Table 4-3, the actual chlorine dosage was estimated at an average of 4.8 mg/L (as C12), based on solution
level measurements and a solution strength of 15.6% (as C12).
As shown in Table 4-7, total chlorine levels after the contact tanks were highly variable during the six-
month study period with an average value of 0.7 mg/L and a standard deviation of+/- 0.4 mg/L.
Although speciation results showed that the levels of prechlorination were adequate for As(III) and Fe(II)
oxidation, the variation in chlorine levels may have affected the rate of Mn(II) oxidation. The variation in
chlorine levels could be caused by the control of the chemical feed pump and/or a declining NaOCl
solution strength overtime, which was refilled by the chemical supplier on a monthly to bi-monthly basis.
4.5.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate, silica, TOC, TDS,
temperature, and hardness levels remained consistent across the treatment train and were not affected by
the treatment process (Table 4-7). TOC levels were 1.6 mg/L in raw water and remained unchanged
across treatment train. Total phosphorus (as P) decreased from an average concentration of 27.9 |o,g/L in
raw water to 6.0 |og/L after the pressure filters, likely due to removal onto iron solids. Turbidity also
decreased from 18.8 to < 1.6 NTU with treatment.
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. Table 4-8 presents the analytical results of five monthly
backwash water sampling events. The backwash water collected during Events 1, 2, 4, and 5 was
considered characteristic of normal operating conditions. During these events, pH values ranged from 7.3
to 7.6; TDS from 938 to 1,030 mg/L (excluding Event 5); and TSS from 116 to 550 mg/L. For these
events, concentrations of total arsenic, iron, and manganese ranged from 391 to 852 |o,g/L, 29,838 to
176,777 |o,g/L, and 2,009 to 8,649 |o,g/L, respectively, with the majority existing as particulate. Event 5 on
July 18, 2006, corresponded to a filter run length of 6.0 hrs, but yielded the highest TSS at 550 mg/L and
iron solids levels at 177 mg/L. Relatively low values of total metals and TSS were observed for Event 3,
most likely due to the timing of the sampling, that is the manual backwash cycles might have been
initiated soon after the pressure filters had just been backwashed automatically by the PLC, thus having
38
-------
fewer solids in backwash water for sampling. Using the average TSS of 310 mg/L for Events 1,2,4, and
5 and an average of 1,003 gal of backwash water per tank, approximately 5.2 Ib of solids would have been
generated and discharged per backwash cycle (for two tanks). This includes 1.6 Ib of elemental iron, 0.09
Ib of elemental manganese, and 0.01 Ib of elemental arsenic.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Table 4-9 summarizes the results of the distribution
system sampling. The water quality was similar except at the DS2 residence, which was located in the
older part of town and had higher iron levels due to a history of periodic release of particulates from the
distribution system. The treatment system appeared to have beneficial effects on the water quality in the
distribution system. For the first three months after system startup, arsenic, iron, and manganese levels
declined from the respective baseline levels, but were still relatively elevated especially at the DS2
residence. By the second quarter, the arsenic, iron, and manganese levels had decreased even further
from average baseline levels of 27.4, 1,211, and 114 |o,g/L to 7.1, 75, and 60 |o,g/L (on average),
respectively, which, except for manganese, were similar to those of the treatment plant effluent. Further
reduction in manganese concentration was observed within the distribution system. For example, total
manganese levels averaged 217 |o,g/L in Tank A effluent and 203 |o,g/L in Tank B effluent, compared to
the average concentration of 60 |o,g/L in the distribution system in the second quarter of system operation.
In June 2006, the facility operator received complaints from a few customers concerning periodic slugs of
dark solids from their taps, which, among others, might have been iron and/or manganese solids
accumulating within the distribution system. In the second quarter, copper decreased slightly from 179 to
127 |o,g/L (on average) and lead decreased from 4.2 to 1.3 |o,g/L (on average). Alkalinity and pH values
remained fairly consistent throughout the six-month study period.
4.6 System Cost
The system cost was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and the
O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. Capital cost of the treatment system included cost for
equipment, engineering, and system installation, shakedown, and startup. O&M cost included cost for
chemicals, electricity, and labor. Cost associated with the building, including the clearwell, sump, and
sanitary sewer connections, was not included in the capital cost because it was not included in the scope
of this demonstration project and was funded separately by the city of Sabin.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for the FM-248-AS system was $287,159 (Table 4-10).
The equipment cost was $160,875 (or 56% of the total capital investment), which included cost for two
contact tanks, two pressure filter tanks, 50 ft3 of Macrolite®, instrumentation and controls, miscellaneous
materials and supplies, labor, and system warranty. The system warranty cost covered the cost for repair
and replacement of defective system components and installation workmanship for a period of 12 months
after system startup.
The engineering cost covered the cost for preparing the required permit application submittal, including a
process design report, a general arrangement drawing, P&IDs, electrical diagrams, interconnecting piping
layouts, tank fill details, and a schematic of the PLC panel, and obtaining the required permit approval
from MDH. The engineering cost was $49,164, which was 17% of the total capital investment.
The installation, shakedown, and startup cost covered the labor and materials required to unload, install,
and test the system for proper operation. All installation activities were performed by Kinetico's
subcontractor, and startup and shakedown activities were performed by Kinetico with the operator's
assistance. The installation, startup, and shakedown cost was $77,120, or 27% of the total capital
investment.
39
-------
Table 4-8. Backwash Water Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Date
03/27/06
04/18/06
06/21/06
07/1SW6
BW1
Backwash Vessel No. 1
z:
Q.
s.u.
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.3
73
CO
Q
mcj/L
938
978
958
1.030
1,010
CO
CO
mcj/L
116
220
52
368
550
cc
-5
<&
05
<
HS"-
444
466
287
688
791
"S"
-Q
IS
o
y>_.
05
<
Hf/L
6.1
26.4
8.6
26.6
8.7
Qj'
ts
Z5
O
1
&
co
'
-O
13
"o
-2--
£
USt
67.3
755
117
827
149
TO
-5
«:--
£
M9'L
3,086
2.220
1,037
7.815
8.136
'oT
_Q
IS
O
00
£
HS/L
86.4
137
102
354.
225
BW2
Backwash Vessel Mo. 2
•n
Q
S.U.
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.4
CO
Q
rng/L
964
940
968
994
776
CO
CO
mg/L
174
200
42
324
528
to
•5
«=-•
to
<
HS/L
455
391
273
770
852
"
Stagnation
Time (hrs)
ao
140
17.7
15.0
€<0
67.3
ae
120
11.5
7.0
a.
ao
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.5
:»
re
_c
"™
<.
TS.O
294
320
303
2SS
298
308
292
293
297
(ft
<.
63.0
124
143
167
76.0
39.3
103
7.4
12.7
67
a)
LL.
4,527
8,002
140
192
2,889
1,173
167
76.9
209
68.2
C
116
395
25.7
668
569
264
110
57.8
199
951
A
Q_
9.1
23.1
03
08
26.5
147
Q7
20
02
0.1
O
314
747
82
107
&*
575
116
125
241
173
DS3<«
Stagnation
Time (hrs)
11.6
80
9.0
80
80
80
7.0
85
90
7.5
X
83
80
82
7.9
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.4
7.5
:»
X.
_c
"™
<;
75.0
308
311
290
293
290
308
292
289
2S3
tn
«£
96
140
9.9
137
1S9
48
42
34
48
7.3
CD
159
101
220
129
36.6
<25
<25
=25
894
<25
1 f
57.0 33
17.8 02
31.2 5.0
688 04
164 03
81 05
69 09
31 04
31.8 04
40 1.0
t>
91.0
17.1
517
383
224
55.6
96.5
548
706
103
(a) DS2 sampled on 02/13/05, (b) Samples taken after softener system; (c) DS2 located at old section of town; (d) DS2 and DS3 collected on 03/28/06
Lead action level = 15 |ig/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L; BL = baseline sampling
|ig/L as unit for all analytical parameters except for alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3).
-------
Table 4-10. Capital Investment for Kinetico's FM-248-AS System
Description
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment
Tanks, Valves, and Piping
Macrolite® Media (50 ft3)
Instrumentation and Controls
Air Scour System
Additional Sample Taps and
Totalizers/Meters
Labor
Freight
Equipment Total
$79,349
$10,939
$21,970
$5,373
$1,717
$37,527
$4,000
$160,875
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
56%
Labor
Subcontractor
Engineering Total
$43,450
$5,714
$49,164
-
-
17%
Labor
Subcontractor
Travel
Installation, Shakedown, and Startup
Total Capital Investment
$14,000
$59,250
$3,870
$77,120
$287,159
-
-
-
27%
-
The total capital cost of $287,159 was normalized to $l,149/gpm ($0.80/gpd) of design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 250 gpm (or 360,000 gpd). The total capital cost also was converted to a unit
cost of $0.21/1,000 gal using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a
20-yr return period. This calculation assumed that the system operated 24 hr/day at its rated capacity.
Because the system operated at approximately 238 gpm (Table 4-4), producing 6,650,000 gal of water
from January 30 to July 30, 2006, the total unit cost increased to $2.00/1,000 gal.
A 48 ft x 56 ft building with a sidewall height of 17.5 ft was constructed by the city of Sabin to house the
treatment system (Section 4.3.2). The total cost of the building and supporting utilities was $807,000
which, as noted above, was not included in the capital cost.
4.6.2 O&M Cost. The O&M cost included items such as chemicals, electricity, and labor (see
Table 4-11). Prechlorination was performed for oxidation and post-chlorination was performed to
maintain a residual within the distribution system. The chemical consumption was 0.31 lb/1,000 gal for
both pre- and post-chlorination, which corresponded to $0.35/1,000 gal in chemical usage cost. No cost
was incurred for repairs because the system was under warranty. A comparison of the electrical bills
before and after system installation will be conducted for the one-year study period. Routine labor
activities for O&M consumed 15 min/day for operational readings at a labor rate of $10/hr and a
$300/month fixed fee. This is equivalent to 1.75 hr/wk on a seven day per week basis. The estimated
labor cost is $0.34/1,000 gal of water treated. The total O&M cost was estimated at $0.69/1,000 gal of
treated water.
41
-------
Table 4-11. O&M Costs for Kinetico's FM-248-AS System
Category
Volume Processed (1,000 gal)
Value
6,650,000
Remarks
From 01/30/06 to 07/30/06
Chemical Consumption
Sodium Hypochlorite Unit Price ($/lb)
Consumption Rate (lb/1,000 gal)
Chemical Costs ($71,000 gal)
$1.10
0.31
$0.35
15.6%asCl2
Pre- and post-chlorination
Pre- and post-chlorination
Electricity Consumption
Electricity Cost ($71,000 gal)
TBD
To be evaluated on annual basis
Labor
Labor (hr/week)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($71,000 gal)
1.75
$0.34
$0.69
15 mm/day, 7 days/week
Labor rate = $10/hr +
$300/monthfee
TBD = to be determined
42
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Battelle. 2006. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology Round 2 at Sabin, MN. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-OO-185, Task
Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Condit, W.E. and A.S.C. Chen. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal, U.S. EPA
Demonstration Project at Climax, MN, Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-
06/152. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal
Register, 40 CFRPart 141.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
Jain, A. and R.H. Loeppert. 2000. "Effect of Competing Anions on the Adsoprtion of Arsenate and
Arsenite by Ferrihydrite." J. Environ. Qual, 29: 1422-1430.
Kinetico. 2005. The City of Sabin: Installation Manual; Suppliers Literature; and Operation and
Maintenance Manual, Macrolite FM-248-AS Arsenic Removal System. Newbury, OH.
Knocke, W.R., R.C. Hoehn, and R.L. Sinsabaugh. 1987. "Using Alternative Oxidants to Remove
Dissolved Manganese From Waters Laden With Organics." J. AWWA, 79(3): 75-79.
Knocke, W.R., J.E. Van Benschoten, M. Kearney, A. Soborski, and D.A. Reckhow. 1990. "Alternative
Oxidants for the Removal of Soluble Iron and Mn." AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Meng, X.G., S. Bang, and G.P. Korfiatis. 2000. "Effects of Silicate, Sulfate, and Carbonate on Arsenic
Removal by Ferric Chloride." Water Research, 34(4): 1255-1261.
Meng, X.G., G.P. Korfiatis, S.B. Bang, and K.W. Bang. 2002. "Combined Effects of Anions on Arsenic
Removal by Iron Hydroxides." Toxicology Letters, 133(1): 103-111.
43
-------
Smith, S.D., and M. Edwards. 2005. "The Influence of Silica and Calcium on Arsenate Sorption to
Oxide Surfaces." Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology - AQUA,54(4): 201-211.
Sorg, T.J. 2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, 28(11): 15.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
44
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
Date
01/30/06
01/31/06
02/01/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
02/04/06
02/05/06
02/06/06
02/07/06
02/08/06
02/09/06
02/10/06
02/11/06
02/12/06
02/13/06
02/14/06
02/15/06
02/16/06
02/17/06
02/18/06
02/19/06
02/20/06
02/21/06
02/22/06
02/23/06
02/24/06
02/25/06
02/26/06
Tank A
Cumulative
Run Time
hrs
33.0
35.0
38.0
40.0
42.0
44.0
48.0
50.0
52.0
55.0
57.0
60.0
62.0
66.0
68.0
70.0
72.0
74.0
77.0
80.0
82.0
85.0
87.0
89.0
91.0
94.0
96.0
98.0
Run
Time
hrs/day
NA
2.4
2.4
2.0
2.0
2.2
3.5
2.1
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
4.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.8
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.9
1.9
2.1
TankB
Cumulative
Run Time
hrs
32.0
34.0
37.0
39.0
41.0
43.0
47.0
49.0
51.0
54.0
56.0
59.0
61.0
65.0
67.0
69.0
71.0
73.0
76.0
79.0
81.0
84.0
86.0
88.0
90.0
93.0
95.0
97.0
Run
Time
hrs/day
NA
2.4
2.4
2.0
2.0
2.2
3.5
2.1
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
4.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.8
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.9
1.9
2.1
Pressure Filtration
Inlet-
TA
psig
9
10
NA
NA
NA
10
NA
NA
10
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
Inlet-
TB
psig
9
11
NA
NA
NA
11
NA
NA
55
NA
NA
NA
11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
32
33
NA
NA
NA
33
NA
NA
63
NA
NA
NA
33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
33
Flow
rate
gpm
244
238
NA
NA
NA
243
NA
NA
155
NA
NA
NA
241
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
240
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
240
Gallon
Usage
gpd
NA
48,557
29,588
25,874
23,338
27,014
42,997
24,467
23,500
41,100
24,200
23,700
23,314
50,721
21,061
29,838
NA
49,371
40,800
31,662
39,425
27,635
31,770
22,366
22,313
42,916
23,067
28,314
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
Tank
B
No.
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
Cum.
Volume
kgal
13.2
13.2
15.4
15.4
17.2
17.2
19.0
19.0
21.2
21.2
21.2
23.7
23.7
26.6
26.6
27.2
29.4
29.4
31.5
31.5
32.2
34.4
34.4
37.3
37.3
39.1
39.1
40.0
-------
A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
5
6
7
8
Date
02/27/06
02/28/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
03/05/06
03/06/06
03/07/06
03/08/06
03/09/06
03/10/06
03/11/06
03/12/06
03/13/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
03/16/06
03/17/06
03/18/06
03/19/06
03/20/06
03/21/06
03/22/06
03/23/06
03/24/06
03/25/06
03/26/06
Tank A
Cumulative
Run Time
hrs
102.0
NA
3.3
5.3
8.5
11.1
15.9
NA
20.0
22.4
24.5
29.2
34.8
39.7
41.3
45.0
47.6
51.3
54.8
64.1
67.2
67.2
67.4
70.2
73.2
76.7
79.0
82.7
Run
Time
hrs/day
3.9
NA
NA
2.0
3.1
2.4
5.1
NA
NA
2.4
2.2
4.4
5.2
4.9
1.7
3.6
2.7
3.8
3.5
9.3
2.9
0.0
0.2
2.8
2.8
3.8
2.0
3.7
TankB
Cumulative
Run Time
hrs
101.0
1.5
3.3
5.3
8.4
11.0
15.8
NA
19.7
22.1
24.3
29.0
34.6
39.4
41.5
44.6
47.2
50.9
54.4
63.7
67.0
67.0
67.2
70.0
73.0
76.7
79.0
82.7
Run
Time
hrs/day
3.9
NA
1.8
2.0
3.0
2.4
5.1
NA
NA
2.4
2.3
4.4
5.2
4.8
2.3
3.0
2.7
3.8
3.5
9.3
3.1
0.0
0.2
2.8
2.8
4.0
2.0
3.7
Pressure Filtration
Inlet-
TA
psig
NA
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
NA
NA
10
NA
16
18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12
Inlet-
TB
psig
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17
NA
NA
11
NA
17
19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
NA
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
39
NA
NA
33
NA
36
37
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
34
Flow
rate
gpm
NA
243
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
222
NA
NA
242
NA
230
226
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
236
Gallon
Usage
gpd
40,375
33,044
33,067
23,084
23,380
20,426
50,272
22,897
26,155
NA
23,843
43,645
33,932
43,009
25,753
30,028
23,081
43,495
30,000
113,521
39,484
0
3,261
24,923
35,517
52,811
22,545
27,491
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
Tank
B
No.
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
Cum.
Volume
kgal
41.8
44.
44.
44.
44.
44.
44.
44.
46.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
-------
A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
9
10
11
12
Date
03/27/06
03/28/06
03/29/06
03/30/06
03/31/06
04/01/06
04/02/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
04/05/06
04/06/06
04/07/06
04/08/06
04/09/06
04/10/06
04/11/06
04/12/06
04/13/06
04/14/06
04/15/06
04/16/06
04/17/06
04/18/06
04/19/06
04/20/06
04/21/06
04/22/06
04/23/06
Tank A
Cumulative
Run Time
hrs
86.0
88.3
90.7
93.0
95.2
100.0
102.2
103.6
107.1
109.8
111.7
114.2
117.2
120.1
122.4
112.7
115.5
117.1
121.4
126.6
129.7
134.5
135.3
139.0
141.3
144.0
146.7
149.3
Run
Time
hrs/day
3.8
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.1
5.0
2.1
1.5
3.6
2.7
2.0
2.4
2.8
2.9
2.4
NA
2.8
1.6
4.0
5.1
3.3
5.3
0.7
3.7
2.3
2.7
2.6
2.4
TankB
Cumulative
Run Time
hrs
86.0
88.3
90.8
93.1
95.3
100.0
102.2
103.6
107.1
109.8
111.7
114.3
117.3
120.2
122.5
112.7
115.2
116.8
121.1
126.6
129.5
134.3
135.1
138.9
141.1
143.7
146.5
149.0
Run
Time
hrs/day
3.8
2.2
2.3
2.6
2.1
4.9
2.1
1.5
3.6
2.7
2.0
2.5
2.8
2.9
2.4
NA
2.5
1.6
4.0
5.4
3.1
5.3
0.7
3.8
2.2
2.6
2.7
2.3
Pressure Filtration
Inlet-
TA
psig
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
7
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17
NA
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inlet-
TB
psig
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
9
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15
NA
12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
NA
NA
NA
31
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36
NA
33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Flow
rate
gpm
243
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
243
NA
NA
NA
245
243
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
233
NA
240
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Gallon
Usage
gpd
40,417
29,810
21,968
26,796
23,268
52,696
24,854
13,873
46,471
25,412
24,395
11,626
31,549
34,205
24,737
NA
35,259
21,144
39,410
57,344
26,065
45,439
10,378
48,924
28,239
34,669
33,905
29,894
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
24
24
24
25
25
25
26
26
27
27
27
28
28
28
29
27
27
27
27
28
28
29
30
30
30
31
31
32
Tank
B
No.
24
24
24
25
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
28
28
28
29
27
28
28
28
29
29
30
31
31
31
32
32
32
Cum.
Volume
kgal
10.9
10.9
10.9
12.9
12.9
13.7
14.5
14.5
14.5
16.4
16.4
17.8
17.8
17.8
19.6
16.4
17.5
17.5
17.5
19.8
19.8
21.8
25.2
25.2
25.2
27.2
27.2
30.7
-------
A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
13
14
15
16
Date
04/24/06
04/25/06
04/26/06
04/27/06
04/28/06
04/29/06
04/30/06
05/01/06
05/02/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
05/05/06
05/06/06
05/07/06
05/08/06
05/09/06
05/10/06
05/11/06
05/12/06
05/13/06
05/14/06
05/15/06
05/16/06
05/17/06
05/18/06
05/19/06
05/20/06
05/21/06
Tank A
Cumulative
Run Time
hrs
151.8
153.3
155.5
157.8
160.2
162.4
166.8
171.2
175.6
176.3
184.3
186.6
189.2
191.5
194.8
197.6
200.3
200.3
203.4
205.9
208.6
211.0
211.9
215.8
218.4
223.2
225.2
229.4
Run
Time
hrs/day
2.9
1.5
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.1
4.0
5.0
4.2
0.7
8.4
2.2
2.6
2.2
3.4
2.8
2.8
0.0
3.1
2.5
2.6
2.4
0.9
3.9
2.5
4.6
2.2
3.9
TankB
Cumulative
Run Time
hrs
151.6
153.3
155.4
157.7
160.1
162.3
166.9
171.1
175.7
176.3
184.3
186.6
189.2
191.6
194.9
197.7
200.4
200.4
203.5
206.0
208.7
211.1
212.1
215.7
218.4
223.2
225.2
229.4
Run
Time
hrs/day
3.0
1.6
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.1
4.2
4.8
4.4
0.6
8.4
2.2
2.6
2.3
3.4
2.8
2.8
0.0
3.1
2.5
2.6
2.4
1.0
3.6
2.6
4.6
2.2
3.9
Pressure Filtration
Inlet-
TA
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
12
14
NA
14
NA
Inlet-
TB
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
14
11
NA
12
NA
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
32
34
34
NA
34
NA
Flow
rate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
242
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
242
237
235
NA
239
NA
Gallon
Usage
gpd
38,805
18,000
31,073
30,253
32,191
27,880
54,656
NA
49,685
9,032
98,881
29,187
33,704
29,500
41,554
36,074
36,671
NA
40,308
33,078
34,956
32,949
13,072
50,031
33,733
59,839
28,519
52,221
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
32
33
33
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
37
38
38
39
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
43
44
44
45
Tank
B
No.
33
34
34
35
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
38
39
39
39
40
41
41
42
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
Cum.
Volume
kgal
30.7
33.6
33.6
36.5
38.5
38.5
40.1
41.1
44.0
44.0
44.6
45.0
45.0
45.9
45.9
46.3
46.8
47.2
47.7
48.1
48.6
48.6
49.5
49.5
50.0
50.4
50.9
51.3
-------
A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
17
18
19
20
Date
05/22/06
05/23/06
05/24/06
05/25/06
05/26/06
05/27/06
05/28/06
05/29/06
05/30/06
05/31/06
06/01/06
06/02/06
06/03/06
06/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
06/07/06
06/08/06
06/09/06
06/10/06
06/11/06
06/12/06
06/13/06
06/14/06
06/15/06
06/16/06
06/17/06
06/18/06
Tank A
Cumulative
Run Time
hrs
232.7
235.9
238.9
242.2
246.1
252.3
255.6
259.2
265.6
270.6
274.9
280.8
284.0
287.0
289.9
292.8
296.2
299.0
301.9
304.5
307.3
310.7
314.1
316.9
319.6
322.9
325.9
328.9
Run
Time
hrs/day
3.5
3.2
3.0
3.3
4.1
8.3
2.7
3.4
6.2
5.1
4.2
6.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.9
3.3
2.8
2.9
3.6
2.1
3.5
3.6
2.9
2.6
3.5
2.7
3.1
TankB
Cumulative
Run Time
hrs
232.8
236.0
238.9
242.2
246.1
252.2
255.6
259.7
265.7
270.7
275.0
280.9
284.2
287.2
290.1
293.0
296.5
299.2
302.1
304.3
307.5
311.0
314.4
317.1
319.8
323.0
325.9
328.9
Run
Time
hrs/day
3.6
3.2
2.9
3.3
4.1
8.1
2.8
3.8
5.8
5.1
4.2
6.1
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
3.4
2.7
2.9
3.1
2.3
3.6
3.6
2.8
2.6
3.4
2.6
3.1
Pressure Filtration
Inlet-
TA
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
NA
NA
14
NA
14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inlet-
TB
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
13
NA
NA
16
NA
17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
33
NA
NA
35
NA
35
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Flow
rate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
237
NA
NA
234
NA
234
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Gallon
Usage
gpd
45,935
42,300
39,318
41,598
52,591
107,333
36,289
43,557
81,506
67,342
52,780
78,769
39,750
39,636
39,685
38,100
45,080
35,776
NA
48,421
27,390
46,838
46,886
37,151
33,584
43,799
34,539
40,513
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
45
46
46
46
47
47
48
48
48
49
49
50
50
50
51
52
52
53
54
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
57
Tank
B
No.
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
48
49
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
57
Cum.
Volume
kgal
51.3
52.2
52.2
52.7
53.1
53.6
54.0
54.0
54.5
54.9
54.9
55.8
55.8
56.8
57.3
58.2
58.2
59.1
59.1
60.0
60.0
61.0
61.0
61.8
61.8
62.7
62.7
62.7
-------
A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
21
22
23
24
Date
06/19/06
06/20/06
06/21/06
06/22/06
06/23/06
06/24/06
06/25/06
06/26/06
06/27/06
06/28/06
06/29/06
06/30/06
07/01/06
07/02/06
07/03/06
07/04/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
07/07/06
07/08/06
07/09/06
07/10/06
07/11/06
07/12/06
07/13/06
07/14/06
07/15/06
07/16/06
Tank A
Cumulative
Run Time
hrs
331.9
335.2
338.2
341.1
346.9
349.7
349.7
352.5
355.2
358.1
361.8
363.7
369.9
372.6
376.6
379.6
383.8
389.3
391.5
393.6
398.3
400.6
405.7
408.0
410.1
414.8
418.5
421.8
Run
Time
hrs/day
3.3
3.2
3.1
2.8
5.8
2.4
0.0
2.9
2.8
2.8
3.3
2.1
5.5
3.1
3.6
3.3
3.9
5.6
2.3
2.2
4.0
2.7
4.2
3.0
2.1
4.7
3.5
3.5
TankB
Cumulative
Run Time
hrs
331.8
335.2
338.2
341.1
346.9
349.6
349.6
352.4
355.1
357.9
361.5
363.3
369.5
372.2
376.1
379.0
383.2
388.7
390.8
392.9
397.8
400.0
405.1
407.4
409.5
414.2
418.0
421.3
Run
Time
hrs/day
3.2
3.3
3.1
2.8
5.8
2.4
0.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
3.2
2.0
5.5
3.1
3.5
3.2
3.9
5.6
2.2
2.2
4.2
2.6
4.2
3.0
2.1
4.7
3.6
3.5
Pressure Filtration
Inlet-
TA
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
13
NA
NA
13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14
NA
Inlet-
TB
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
14
NA
NA
14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16
NA
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
NA
NA
34
NA
NA
34
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
35
NA
Flow
rate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
243
NA
NA
234
NA
NA
237
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
232
NA
Gallon
Usage
gpd
43,299
42,699
40,555
36,480
77,615
32,058
0
38,710
37,862
37,523
43,830
27,062
72,752
41,407
45,798
43,123
51,212
72,457
30,417
29,222
53,437
32,211
55,904
39,285
26,884
61,103
45,158
46,531
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
58
59
60
60
61
61
62
63
63
63
65
65
66
66
66
67
67
68
69
69
70
70
71
71
71
72
72
73
Tank
B
No.
58
59
60
60
61
61
62
63
63
63
65
65
66
66
66
67
67
68
69
69
70
70
71
71
71
72
72
73
Cum.
Volume
kgal
63.7
64.6
65.5
65.5
66.4
66.4
67.3
68.3
68.3
68.3
74.6
74.6
76.9
76.9
76.9
80.8
80.8
83.1
84.1
84.1
85.0
85.0
85.9
85.9
85.9
86.8
86.8
87.7
-------
A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
25
26
Date
07/17/06
07/18/06
07/19/06
07/20/06
07/21/06
07/22/06
07/23/06
07/24/06
07/25/06
07/26/06
07/27/06
07/28/06
07/29/06
07/30/06
Tank A
Cumulative
Run Time
hrs
423.9
427.9
433.8
436.5
438.8
440.9
443.7
448.0
450.2
452.4
454.6
459.2
461.4
466.0
Run
Time
hrs/day
2.1
4.0
5.2
3.1
2.4
1.9
3.0
4.4
2.2
2.0
2.4
4.5
2.1
4.4
TankB
Cumulative
Run Time
hrs
423.5
428.5
433.6
436.4
438.7
440.8
443.7
447.9
450.1
452.3
454.5
459.2
461.5
466.1
Run
Time
hrs/day
2.2
5.0
4.5
3.2
2.4
1.9
3.1
4.3
2.2
2.0
2.4
4.6
2.2
4.4
Pressure Filtration
Inlet-
TA
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
11
NA
NA
Inlet-
TB
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
13
NA
NA
Inlet-
Effluent
psig
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
33
NA
NA
Flow
rate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
244
NA
NA
NA
NA
234
NA
NA
Gallon
Usage
gpd
28,438
50,035
70,384
40,197
32,023
25,118
38,936
57,971
29,420
27,029
32,171
59,878
27,984
57,581
Backwash
Tank
A
No.
73
74
74
74
75
75
76
76
77
77
78
78
78
79
Tank
B
No.
73
74
74
74
75
75
76
76
77
77
78
78
78
79
Cum.
Volume
kgal
87.7
87.7
87.7
88.7
89.6
89.6
91.5
91.5
93.5
93.5
95.4
95.4
95.4
97.4
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
-------
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (asCaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
01/31/06(a
IN
291
0.2
0.1
376
-
<0.05
10.5
30.0
19.0
1.8
886
7.7
12.0
2.1
-13
-
-
596
386
210
34.2
34.1
0.1
35.6
<0.1
1,470
1,222
343
332
AC
291
<0.05
0.1
376
-
<0.05
13.7
30.3
1.2
1.6
914
7.3
10.9
1.2
623
0.6
2.1
619
383
236
36.9
4.4
32.5
0.9
3.5
1,224
<25
328
151
TB
291
<0.05
0.1
372
-
<0.05
<10
29.7
0.4
20(=)
920
7.3
17.1
0.8
648
0.0(b)
0.0(b)
635
389
246
7.1
3.2
3.8
2.0
1.2
106
<25
169
142
02/14/06(d)
IN
329
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.6
13.0
-
-
7.6
13.0
2.2
-13
-
-
-
-
-
32.8
-
-
-
-
1,431
-
344
-
AC
283
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.1
20.0
-
-
7.0
13.0
2.8
461
1.0
1.2
-
-
-
36.0
-
-
-
-
1,221
-
255
-
TA
283
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.1
18.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33.5
-
-
-
-
1,225
-
319
-
TB
283
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.1
21.0
-
-
7.3
13.0
0.8
650
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
30.8
-
-
-
-
1,128
-
297
-
02/21/06
IN
290
-
-
-
-
-
33.0
30.9
16.0
-
-
7.6
12.6
9.8
331
-
-
-
-
-
42.5
-
-
-
-
1,279
-
329
-
AC
298
-
-
-
-
-
30.3
31.1
1.5
-
-
7.7
12.8
8.9
466
0(b)
0.02
-
-
-
41.8
-
-
-
-
1,264
-
316
-
TA
294
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.9
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.2
-
-
-
-
72
-
209
-
TB
290
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.5
0.7
-
-
7.4
12.6
3.1
587
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
-
70
-
192
-
02/28/06(d)
IN
300
0.1
<0.1
425
-
<0.05
31.4
29.7
28.0
1.6
932
7.5
12.5
10.0
410
-
-
680
393
287
40.8
36.3
4.5
17.9
18.4
1,288
1,115
304
305
AC
296
<0.05
<0.1
424
-
<0.05
34.1
31.1
1.6
1.5
954
7.4
13.0
3.9
678
0.9
1.2
680
393
286
44.2
4.0
40.2
1.0
3.0
1,222
<25
293
105
TB
296
<0.05
<0.1
421
-
<0.05
<10
30.2
1.1
1.5
1010
7.2
11.4
3.7
677
0.9
1.1
661
379
282
4.4
3.7
0.7
1.1
2.7
<25
<25
111
99.0
03/6/06(d)
IN
286
-
-
-
-
-
14.0
28.5
16.0
-
-
7.6
13.3
10.9
433
-
-
-
-
-
37.3
-
-
-
-
1,422
-
449
-
AC
290
-
-
-
-
-
20.3
29.6
3.6
-
-
7.3
11.9
3.6
623
0.4
0.7
-
-
-
40.2
-
-
-
-
1,637
-
449
-
TA
290
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.1
2.2
-
-
7.3
12.2
7.5
665
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
-
176
-
126
-
TB
286
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.5
1.2
-
-
7.3
13.2
3.6
670
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
9.8
-
-
-
-
210
-
135
-
(a) Sample taken from TB location because TT sample tap was under vacuum and did not yield water, (b) Slight tint present, but no reading on meter.
(c) Estimated concentration, (d) No treatment due to chlorine fitting leak on 02/12/06. A series of repairs were made between 02/14/06 and 02/21/06 to restore prechlorination.
(d) Backwash control malfunction allowed system to operate without backwashing every 48 hours of standby time until PLC change on 04/11/06.
-------
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
u.g/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
03/14/06(a)
IN
294
-
-
-
-
-
22.9
29.4
19.0
-
-
7.4
13.2
8.8
38.1
-
-
-
-
-
45.1
-
-
-
-
1,827
-
349
-
AC
294
-
-
-
-
-
21.6
27.4
1.7
-
-
7.3
12.6
3.2
430
0.1
0.6
-
-
-
45.5
-
-
-
-
1,410
-
347
-
TA
289
-
-
-
-
-
<10
27.1
0.7
-
-
7.2
12.9
4.4
566
0.0
0.2
-
-
-
4.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
129
-
TB
294
-
-
-
-
-
<10
26.9
0.5
-
-
7.1
12.0
2.6
578
0.0
0.2
-
-
-
5.4
-
-
-
-
31
-
141
-
03/21/06(b)
IN
290
-
-
-
-
-
16.7
30.5
16.0
-
-
7.6
14.2
9.9
462
-
-
-
-
-
37.9
-
-
-
-
1,566
-
438
-
AC
290
-
-
-
-
-
19.0
29.5
2.0
-
-
7.3
13.1
2.7
442
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
42.8
-
-
-
-
1,748
-
451
-
TA
294
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.2
0.4
-
-
7.4
13.7
5.2
535
0.0
0.4
-
-
-
4.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
158
-
TB
290
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.0
0.8
-
-
7.2
14.6
3.4
619
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
48
-
219
-
03/28/06
IN
289
0.3
<0.1
419
-
<0.05
32.2
30.3
22.0
1.5
966
7.5
12.8
10.6
287
-
-
686
391
295
40.0
36.9
3.1
6.1
30.8
1,936
1,172
313
308
AC
289
0.1
<0.1
415
-
<0.05
33.6
29.4
1.8
1.5
942
7.5
13.8
10.3
529
0.2
0.8
741
435
306
39.8
4.1
35.7
0.4
3.7
1,638
<25
309
193
TA
289
0.1
<0.1
420
-
<0.05
<10
30.4
1.0
1.6
988
7.2
12.6
5.6
496
0.0
0.9
666
373
293
5.4
3.2
2.2
0.4
2.8
64
<25
198
184
04/04/06
IN
288
-
-
-
-
-
26.6
29.7
44.0
-
-
7.3
14.1
6.6
476
-
-
-
-
-
42.5
-
-
-
-
1,386
-
267
-
AC
292
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.2
2.0
-
-
7.3
14.3
4.7
480
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
7.5
-
-
-
-
119
-
186
-
TA
296
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.4
1.1
-
-
7.3
13.5
3.8
543
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
8.9
-
-
-
-
163
-
174
-
TB
292
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.8
1.3
-
-
7.4
13.4
3.1
596
0.0
0.4
-
-
-
9.3
-
-
-
-
175
-
175
-
04/11/06
IN
316
-
-
-
-
-
20.5
29.4
16.0
-
-
7.3
13.6
5.6
433
-
-
-
-
-
42.5
-
-
-
-
1,369
-
323
-
AC
316
-
-
-
-
-
18.1
28.5
1.9
-
-
7.3
15.4
3.8
465
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
43.4
-
-
-
-
1,334
-
320
-
TA
308
-
-
-
-
-
<10
28.7
1.4
-
-
7.4
14.7
5.8
567
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
8.2
-
-
-
-
146
-
188
-
TB
321
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.1
0.9
-
-
7.3
13.0
3.4
529
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
7.1
-
-
-
-
112
-
183
-
(a) Backwash control malfunction allowed system to operate without backwashing every 48 hours of standby time until PLC change on 04/11/06.
(b) Backwash manually initiated by operator until PLC change on 04/11/06.
Manual backwash performed until programming changed.
-------
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
04/18/06
IN
316
321
-
-
-
-
-
36.2
34.8
30.5
28.7
18.0
19.0
-
-
7.3
14.9
2.3
304
-
-
-
-
-
42.0
41.6
-
-
-
-
1,451
1,401
-
302
298
-
AC
312
312
-
-
-
-
-
36.1
37.7
29.4
28.7
1.5
1.6
-
-
7.4
15.5
2.2
385
0.0
0.7
-
-
-
42.4
44.2
-
-
-
-
1,430
1,389
-
305
296
-
TA
312
312
-
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
28.4
28.8
0.5
0.4
-
-
7.3
14.1
2.4
566
0.0
0.1
-
-
-
4.6
4.6
-
-
-
-
27
<25
-
165
158
-
TB
312
312
-
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
28.9
29.3
0.4
0.9
-
-
7.4
15.2
2.1
623
0.2
0.3
-
-
-
4.6
4.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
158
156
-
04/25/06
IN
313
<0.05
<0.1
411
-
<0.05
30.9
29.1
15.0
1.5
944
7.2
16.0
4.8
437
-
-
680
409
271
36.9
34.6
2.3
9.9
24.7
1,417
914
346
352
AC
317
0.1
<0.1
410
-
<0.05
31.1
30.0
1.3
1.5
954
7.1
14.9
2.9
534
0.0
0.1
684
414
270
39.6
4.4
35.2
0.6
3.8
1,516
<25
346
148
TB
317
<0.05
<0.1
514
-
<0.05
<10
29.1
0.4
1.5
948
7.3
15.5
3.1
596
0.1
0.2
682
412
270
3.5
2.3
1.2
<0.1
2.2
31
<25
171
150
05/02/06
IN
300
-
-
-
-
-
:
31.3
17.0
-
-
7.2
13.8
3.4
276
-
-
-
-
-
36.7
-
-
-
-
1,281
-
259
-
AC
292
-
-
-
-
-
;
30.5
1.7
-
-
7.4
13.7
2.6
472
0.1
0.6
-
-
-
37.6
-
-
-
-
1,297
-
259
-
TA
292
-
-
-
-
-
:
30.6
0.5
-
-
7.3
14.0
3.6
465
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
5.5
-
-
-
-
70
-
151
-
TB
296
-
-
-
-
-
;
31.5
0.4
-
-
7.3
13.9
3.1
510
0.0
0.2
-
-
-
4.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
142
-
05/09/06
IN
302
-
-
-
-
-
14.8
31.4
16.0
-
-
7.2
17.4
6.4
60.4
-
-
-
-
-
35.1
-
-
-
-
1,257
-
282
-
AC
297
-
-
-
-
-
16.0
30.9
2.3
-
-
7.0
13.4
3.6
508
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
37.1
-
-
-
-
1,362
-
289
-
TA
297
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.4
1.1
-
-
7.1
16.4
5.5
497
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
5.2
-
-
-
-
77
-
165
-
TB
302
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.1
0.6
-
-
7.1
14.0
3.8
587
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
6.5
-
-
-
-
126
-
171
-
05/17/06
IN
298
-
-
-
-
-
14.0
31.6
14.0
-
-
7.2
14.4
2.7
11.9
-
-
-
-
-
36.7
-
-
-
-
1,413
-
378
-
AC
298
-
-
-
-
-
14.5
31.1
1.7
-
-
7.3
12.4
3.3
436
0.0
0.4
-
-
-
37.8
-
-
-
-
1,447
-
369
-
TA
294
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.8
0.4
-
-
7.3
11.7
2.5
469
0.0
0.4
-
-
-
4.9
-
-
-
-
52
-
244
-
TB
302
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.0
0.6
-
-
7.2
11.3
4.0
474
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
5.9
-
-
-
-
92
-
231
-
-------
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
05/23/06
IN
301
0.2
<0.1
835
-
<0.05
<10
30.1
18.0
1.6
990
7.2
12.0
4.0
56.0
-
-
584
354
230
38.6
40.3
<0.1
6.9
33.4
1,203
1,218
389
413
AC
298
0.1
<0.1
839
-
<0.05
<10
30.8
1.6
1.6
1020
7.4
14.5
4.4
450
0.0
0.8
536
324
212
40.6
5.4
35.2
0.2
5.1
1,173
<25
415
228
TA
290
0.1
<0.1
845
-
<0.05
<10
30.0
1.0
1.6
978
7.2
15.3
3.2
479
0.0
0.5
603
345
258
7.1
3.2
3.9
0.3
3.0
67
<25
272
258
05/31/06(a)
IN
299
-
-
-
-
-
50
29.2
19.0
-
-
7.4
14.2
5.3
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
33.4
-
-
-
-
1,307
-
282
-
AC
295
-
-
-
-
-
45.8
28.9
1.7
-
-
7.4
13.7
2.8
437
0.3
0.6
-
-
-
29.9
-
-
-
-
1,142
-
252
-
TA
291
-
-
-
-
-
18.5
29.3
0.6
-
-
7.2
14.5
3.8
455
0.0
0.2
-
-
-
3.9
-
-
-
-
28
-
243
-
TB
295
-
-
-
-
-
20.2
29.1
0.7
-
-
7.2
14.4
3.4
468
0.0
0.7
-
-
-
6.2
-
-
-
-
134
-
224
-
06/06/06
IN
301
-
-
-
-
-
42.5
30.8
19.0
-
-
7.3
14.5
2.8
4.5
-
-
-
-
-
44.3
-
-
-
-
1,465
-
390
-
AC
297
-
-
-
-
-
37.1
31.3
1.2
-
-
7.5
17.8
2.4
405
0.0
0.8
-
-
-
40.3
-
-
-
-
1,216
-
354
-
TA
288
-
-
-
-
-
10.0
30.7
0.7
-
-
7.3
13.3
2.8
452
0.4
0.8
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
235
-
223
-
TB
297
-
-
-
-
-
10.8
30.3
0.5
-
-
7.3
14.8
2.9
460
0.0
0.9
-
-
-
9.3
-
-
-
-
235
-
223
-
06/13/06
IN
302
-
-
-
-
-
36.1
31.9
19.0
-
-
7.4
11.5
2.8
4.5
-
-
-
-
-
46.4
-
-
-
-
1,405
-
431
-
AC
289
-
-
-
-
-
39.6
32.3
2.1
-
-
7.4
13.5
2.4
406
0.0
0.2
-
-
-
49.0
-
-
-
-
1,558
-
430
-
TA
298
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.3
0.4
-
-
7.2
13.7
2.2
451
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
36
-
365
-
TB
298
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.9
0.4
-
-
7.2
12.9
2.6
463
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
6.4
-
-
-
-
65
-
343
-
06/20/06
IN
293
0.2
0.2
421
-
<0.05
34.2
32.2
21.0
NA(b)
1030
7.4
11.0
3.2
21.0
-
-
741
414
327
39.8
38.2
1.6
4.6
33.6
1,370
1,283
442
457
AC
297
0.1
0.2
419
-
<0.05
35.2
32.5
1.4
NA(b)
968
7.5
11.3
2.9
448
0.5
0.5
719
396
323
44.2
3.9
40.3
0.4
3.5
1,378
<25
452
297
TA
301
0.1
0.1
420
-
<0.05
<10
31.9
0.7
NA(b)
1000
7.3
10.8
2.8
464
0.0
0.5
743
413
329
6.4
3.0
3.4
0.3
2.7
116
<25
305
305
(a) Water quality parameters measured on 05/30/06. (b) Sample failed laboratory QA/QC check.
-------
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
TDS
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
06/28/06
IN
293
-
-
-
-
-
35.2
32.5
18.0
-
-
7.5
12.1
3.1
23.0
-
-
-
-
-
39.3
-
-
-
-
1,272
-
342
-
AC
297
-
-
-
-
-
33.6
31.7
1.3
-
-
7.5
13.2
3.1
530
0.2
0.7
-
-
-
40.1
-
-
-
-
1,255
-
344
-
TA
293
-
-
-
-
-
<10
31.1
0.5
-
-
7.3
14.8
2.5
442
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
4.5
-
-
-
-
35
-
249
-
TB
293
-
-
-
-
-
<10
30.8
0.7
-
-
7.4
15.0
10.2(b)
451
0.0
0.7
-
-
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
74
-
248
-
07/10/06
IN
303
-
-
-
<5
-
40.5
30.3
16.0
-
-
7.5
12.1
3.6
71.6
-
-
-
-
-
38.1
-
-
-
-
1,354
-
358
-
AC
299
-
-
-
<5
-
44.0
30.2
3.5
-
-
7.4
12.0
4.3
440
0.0
0.7
-
-
-
44.1
-
-
-
-
1,666
-
370
-
TA
307
-
-
-
<5
-
<10
29.2
0.8
-
-
7.3
11.9
5.9
455
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
5.3
-
-
-
-
78
-
261
-
TB
303
-
-
-
<5
-
<10
29.5
1.6
-
-
7.2
11.5
3.7
466
0.3
0.9
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
94
-
243
-
07/11/06(a)
IN
302
297
-
-
-
-
-
37.8
40.7
29.5
29.8
19.0
19.0
-
-
7.5
12.1
3.6
71.6
-
-
-
-
-
37.9
38.9
-
-
-
-
1,309
1,381
-
348
364
-
AC
297
297
-
-
-
-
-
37.5
42.4
29.8
30.3
2.3
1.6
-
-
7.4
12.0
4.3
440
0.0
0.7
-
-
-
35.1
38.5
-
-
-
-
1,226
1,419
-
325
368
-
TA
302
297
-
-
-
-
-
10.3
<10
29.5
29.5
2.5
0.5
-
-
7.3
11.9
5.9
455
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
6.0
5.1
-
-
-
-
81
62
-
294
285
-
TB
297
302
-
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
29.6
29.4
0.2
0.4
-
-
7.2
11.5
3.7
466
0.3
0.9
-
-
-
6.2
5.8
-
-
-
-
88
97
-
260
259
-
07/18/06
IN
284
0.2
<0.1
434
-
<0.05
27.4
29.3
16.0
1.8
994
7.4
11.3
3.5
25
-
-
636
385
252
38.8
37.6
1.3
11.1
26.5
1,265
1,020
431
432
AC
301
0.1
<0.1
371
-
<0.05
30.5
29.3
2.2
1.8
992
7.6
11.5
3.1
445
0.4
0.8
656
400
256
38.1
3.8
34.3
0.4
3.4
1,372
<25
424
294
TB
288
0.1
<0.1
440
-
<0.05
<10
29.2
0.7
1.8
1030
7.3
11.5
4.0
83.9
0.4
0.9
691
426
266
6.8
3.1
3.7
0.3
2.8
113
<25
314
300
07/26/06
IN
296
-
-
-
-
-
35.3
30.1
16.0
-
-
7.7
12.4
2.3
67.2
-
-
-
-
-
49.8
-
-
-
-
1,375
-
338
-
AC
292
-
-
-
-
-
35.6
30.5
0.9
-
-
7.5
11.5
2.7
445
0.4
0.9
-
-
-
51.3
-
-
-
-
1,385
-
342
-
TA
292
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.1
0.3
-
-
7.3
11.5
2.8
455
0.3
0.9
-
-
-
10.6(c)
-
-
-
-
175
-
216
-
TB
300
-
-
-
-
-
<10
29.9
0.9
-
-
7.3
11.2
9.8(b)
464
0.3
0.9
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
158
-
212
-
(a)Water quality parameters measured on 07/10/06. (b) DO levels high on TB potentially due to compressed air line leak, (c) Exceedance of arsenic MCL occurred.
------- |