EPA/600/R-06/006
March 2006
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal
USEPA Demonstration Project at Climax, 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. 0019
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document is funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0019 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency
strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and
the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program
is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions
to environmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the
environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained from the first six months of the
arsenic removal treatment technology demonstration project at the Climax, MN site. The objectives of
the project are to evaluate (1) the effectiveness of Kinetico's Macrolite® pressure filtration process in
removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |og/L, (2) the
reliability of the treatment system, (3) the simplicity of required system operation and maintenance
(O&M) and operator's skills, and (4) the cost-effectiveness of the technology. The project also is
characterizing water in the distribution system and process residuals produced by the treatment system.
The Macrolite® FM-236-AS arsenic removal system at the Climax, MN site consisted of two 42-inch-
diameter by 72-inch-tall contact tanks (345 gal) and two 36-inch-diameter by 72-inch-tall pressure vessels
(264 gal), each containing 14 ft3 of Macrolite® media. The design flowrate was 140 gal per minute (gpm),
which yielded 5 min of contact time prior to pressure filtration. From August 11, 2004 through February
28, 2005, the system operated for a total of 1,075 hrs at approximately 5.3 hrs per day. Based on the
totalizer to treatment readings, the system treated approximately 6,758,000 gal of water with an average
daily water demand of 34,850 gal during this time period. The system operated in the service mode
within the flow and pressure specifications provided by the vendor. During this time period, however,
operational issues were noted with the automated backwash process that led to relatively frequent
backwash failure conditions as discussed in this report.
Total arsenic concentrations in the source water ranged from 32.1 to 51.4 |o,g/L with As(III) being the
predominating species at an average concentration of 35.5 |og/L. Prechlorination was used to oxidize
As(III) to As(V) and promote the precipitation of iron solids prior to the Macrolite® pressure filtration.
From August 1 1, 2004 to January 3, 2005, the total arsenic levels in the treated water ranged from 9.7 to
19 |o,g/L and averaged 14. 1 |o,g/L, indicating that the natural iron content of the water was not high enough
for sufficient arsenic removal to below 10 |o,g/L. The natural soluble iron concentrations in the raw water
varied from 342 to 520 |o,g/L and averaged 455 |o,g/L. This corresponds to an iron:arsenic ratio of 12: 1
given the average soluble iron and soluble arsenic levels in the source water. Supplemental iron addition
using ferric chloride was subsequently initiated on January 3, 2005 in order to provide sufficient iron for
effective arsenic removal. After iron addition at a target dose of 0.5 mg/L, total arsenic levels in the
treated water averaged 6.0 |o,g/L. However, a slight increase in iron leakage from the Macrolite® filters
was noted with total iron levels (existing solely as particulates) in the treated water ranging from <25 to
122
During this time period, the rate of backwash water production ranged from 2.2% to 2.4% of the treated
water production. Prior to the iron addition, soluble arsenic concentrations in the backwash water ranged
from 12.3 to 21.6 |o,g/L and soluble iron concentrations ranged from <25 to 39.9 |o,g/L. After iron
addition, soluble arsenic concentrations decreased and ranged from 6.4 to 9.2 |og/L, while soluble iron
concentrations increased and ranged from 27.3 to 148 |o,g/L.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after the system operation showed a
decrease in the arsenic levels at all three sampling locations. Arsenic concentrations in the baseline
samples ranged from 21.8 to 52.3 |og/L. Since the treatment system startup, arsenic levels in the
distribution samples decreased from 1 1.3 to 17.0 |o,g/L before iron addition to 5.9 to 1 1.8 |o,g/L after iron
addition. Neither lead nor copper concentrations at the sample sites appeared to have been affected by the
operation of the system.
IV
-------
The capital investment cost was $249,081, which included $137,970 for equipment, $39,344 for
engineering, and $71,767 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 140 gpm (201,600 gallons
per day [gpd]), the capital cost was $1,779 per gpm ($1.24 per gpd) and equipment-only cost was $986
per gpm ($0.68 per gpd). These calculations did not include the cost of a building addition to house the
treatment system.
O&M costs for the Macrolite® FM-236-AS system included only incremental costs associated with the
chemical supply, electricity, and labor. O&M costs were estimated in this report at $0.27/1,000 gal and
will be refined at the end of the one-year evaluation period.
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x
Section 1.0: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 1
1.3 Project Objectives 2
Section 2.0 CONCLUSIONS 3
Section 3.0: MATERIALS AND METHODS 5
3.1 General Project Approach 5
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 6
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 6
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection 7
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection 8
3.3.3 Backwash Water Sample Collection 8
3.3.4 Backwash Solid Sample Collection 8
3.3.5 Distribution System Water Sample Collection 8
3.4 Sampling Logistics 8
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 8
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 9
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 9
3.5 Analytical Procedures 9
Section 4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 10
4.1 Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure 10
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 10
4.1.2 Distribution System 13
4.2 Treatment Process Description 13
4.3 System Installation 17
4.3.1 Permitting 17
4.3.2 Building Construction 17
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 17
4.4 System Operation 18
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 18
4.4.2 Backwash 20
4.4.2.1 Backwash Settings 21
4.4.2.2 Hach™ Turbidimeter and Related Backwash 23
4.4.3 Residual Management 23
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 23
4.5 System Performance 24
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 24
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling 31
VI
-------
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 31
4.6 System Costs 34
4.6.1 Capital Costs 34
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs 35
5.0 REFERENCES 36
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA A-l
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA B-l
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Pump House at Climax, MN, Site 10
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Wellhead and Associated Piping 11
Figure 4-3. Climax, MN, Water Tower 11
Figure 4-4. Process Schematic of the Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System at the Climax,
MNSite 14
Figure 4-5. Photograph of the Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System at the Climax, MN Site 14
Figure 4-6. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 16
Figure 4-7. New Building at Climax, MN Adjacent to the Pre-Existing Water Tower 18
Figure 4-8. Differential Pressure Readings across the Macrolite® System and Pressure
Vessels A andB 20
Figure 4-9. Backwash Water Turbidity versus Time Plot for Climax, MN 23
Figure 4-10. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at the Inlet, After Contact Tanks, 29
Figure 4-1 la. Arsenic in Treated Water Before Iron Addition versus Run Time 30
Figure 4-1 Ib Arsenic in Treated Water After Iron Addition versus Run Time 30
Figure 4-12. Total Iron Concentrations Versus Time 31
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Technologies and Source Water
Quality Parameters 2
Table 3-1. Completion Dates of Pre-Demonstration Study Activities 5
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 5
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses 7
Table 4-1. Climax, MN, Water Quality Data 12
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media 13
Table 4-3. Design Specifications for the Macrolite® FM-236-AS Pressure Filtration System 15
Table 4-4. Summary of Macrolite® FM-26-AS System Operation at the Climax, MN, Site 19
Table 4-5. Summary of PLC Settings for Automated Backwash Operations at Climax, MN 21
Table 4-6. Summary of Backwash Parameters at Climax, MN 22
Table 4-7. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results Before and After
Supplemental Iron Addition 26
Table 4-8. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results 27
Table 4-9. Backwash Water Sampling Results 32
Table 4-10. Distribution Sampling Results 33
Table 4-11. Summary of Capital Investment for the Climax, MN, Treatment System 34
Table 4-12. O&M Costs for the Climax, MN, Treatment System 35
vn
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL
Al
As
BTU-hr
Ca
Cl
CRF
Cu
DO
EPA
F
Fe
FRP
GFH
gpd
gpm
HOPE
hp
ICP-MS
ID
IX
LCR
MCL
MDL
MDH
Mg
Mn
Mo
mV
Na
NA
NaOCl
NRMRL
NTU
O&M
ORD
American Analytical Laboratories
aluminum
arsenic
British Thermal Units per hour
calcium
chlorine
capital recovery factor
copper
dissolved oxygen
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
fluoride
iron
fiberglass reinforced plastic
granular ferric hydroxide
gallons per day
gallons per minute
high-density polyethylene
horsepower
inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
identification
ion exchange
Lead and Copper Rule
maximum contaminant level
method detection limit
Minnesota Department of Health
magnesium
manganese
molybdenum
millivolts
sodium
not applicable
sodium hypochlorite
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
nephelometric turbidity units
operation and maintenance
Office of Research and Development
Vlll
-------
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
PE professional engineer
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagrams
PLC programmable logic controller
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QAPP quality assurance project plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RPD relative percent difference
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
TBD to be determined
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
V vanadium
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of the Water Department in Climax, MN.
The Climax, MN staff monitored the treatment system daily and collected samples from the treatment
system and distribution system on a regular schedule throughout this reporting period. This performance
evaluation would not have been possible without their efforts.
-------
Section 1.0: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) mandates that United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and
that are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003 to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in the first round of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on
their water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 sites from a list of 115 sites to be the host sites for the
demonstration studies. The water system in Climax, MN was selected as one of the 17 Round 1 host sites
for the demonstration program.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical review
panel reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it
determined were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other
technical reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the
information provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water
programs of the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site. Kinetico's Macrolite®
pressure filtration process was selected for the Climax, MN facility.
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the 12 Round 1 EPA arsenic removal demonstration host sites include nine
adsorptive media systems, one anion exchange system, one coagulation/filtration system, and one process
modification with iron addition. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, and key
source water quality parameters (including arsenic, iron, and pH) of the 12 demonstration sites. The
technology selection and system design for the 12 demonstration sites have been reported in an EPA
report (Wang et al., 2004) posted on an EPA Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/
resource.htm).
-------
1.3
Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 12 full-scale arsenic treatment
technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific
objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small
systems.
• Determine the simplicity of required system operation and maintenance (O&M)
and operator's skill levels.
• Determine the cost-effectiveness of the technologies.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
This report summarizes the results gathered during the first six months of the Kinetico Macrolite® FM-
236-AS system operation from August 11, 2004 through February 28, 2005. The types of data collected
include system operational data, water quality data (both across the treatment train and in the distribution
system), residuals characterization data, and capital and preliminary O&M cost data.
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Technologies and
Source Water Quality Parameters
Demonstration Site
Bow, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Queen Anne's County, MD
Brown City, MI
Climax, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
Desert Sands MDWCA, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Fruitland, ID
STMGID, NV
Technology
(Media)
AM(G2)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
C/F
SM
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
IX
AM (GFH)
Vendor
ADI
AdEdge
STS
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
USFilter
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
70(a)
100
300
640
140
250
320
145
90(a)
37
250
350
Source Water Quality
As
(Hg/L)
39
36(b)
19(b)
14(b)
39(b)
146(b)
23(b)
33
50
41
44
39
Fe
(Hg/L)
<25
46
270(c)
127(c)
546(c)
l,325(c)
39
<25
170
<25
<25
<25
PH
7.7
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.7
8.5
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.4
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration process;
GFH = granular ferric hydroxide; IX = ion exchange process; SM = system modification;
MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water Consumer's Association;
STMGID = South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District; STS = Severn Trent Services.
(a) Due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation, the design flowrate is reduced by 50%.
(b) Arsenic exists mostly as As(III).
(c) Iron exists mostly as soluble Fe(II).
-------
Section 2.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the first six months of system operation, the following
conclusions were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• Before supplemental iron addition was initiated, total arsenic levels in the treated water
averaged 14.1 |o,g/L, indicating that the natural iron content of the water was not high
enough for sufficient arsenic removal to below 10 |o,g/L. After supplemental iron
addition was implemented, total arsenic levels in the treated water averaged 6.0 |o,g/L.
• The natural soluble iron concentrations in the raw water averaged 455 |og/L.
Supplemental iron was added at a dose of 0.4 to 0.8 mg/L with an average value
of 0.65 mg/L (as Fe). Total iron concentrations in the treated water ranged from
<25 |o,g/L to 66.4 |o,g/L before supplemental iron addition. Total iron
concentrations in the treated water ranged from <25 |o,g/L to 122 |o,g/L after
supplemental iron addition. The iron in the treated water existed primarily as
particulate iron, indicating some leakage from the filter.
• Total manganese had an average concentration of 138.5 (ig/L in the raw water.
Before supplementation iron addition, manganese in the treated water averaged
70.6 |og/L. After supplemental iron addition, manganese in the treated water
averaged 63.8 |o,g/L. This represents a removal rate between 49% and 54% for
manganese.
Simplicity of required system O&M and operator's skill levels:
• Operational issues were experienced during system shakedown related to higher
than expected pressure drops across the treatment system. This was addressed
through modification of the flow restrictors on each filter vessel. In addition, some
backwash issues were experienced due to turbidimeter maintenance problems and
inadequate field settings for the Macrolite® filter backwash.
• There was no unscheduled downtime during the first six months of operation.
• Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the system
were minimal, with a typical daily demand on the operator of 30 min. Other
skills needed included performing O&M activities such as cleaning the
turbidimeter photo cell, monitoring backwash operational issues, and working
with the vendor to troubleshoot and perform minor on-site repairs.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• Residuals produced by the operation of the treatment system included backwash water.
Prior to the iron addition, the soluble arsenic concentrations in the backwash water
ranged from 12.3 to 21.6 |o,g/L and the soluble iron concentrations ranged from <25 to
39.9 ng/L. After iron addition, the soluble arsenic concentrations decreased and ranged
-------
from 6.4 to 9.2 |o,g/L, while the soluble iron concentrations increased and ranged from
27.3 to 148
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
Using the system's rated capacity of 140 gallons per minute (gpm) (201,600 gallons per
day [gpd]), the capital cost was $1,779 per gpm ($1.24 per gpd) and equipment-only cost
was $986 per gpm ($0.68 per gpd). These calculations did not include the cost of the
building construction.
Based on a 30-min-per-day time commitment and a labor rate of $21/hr, the labor cost
was $0.22/1,000 gal of water treated. The total O&M cost including labor was
approximately $0.27/1,000 gal. The O&M costs included estimates of the projected
chemical usage, electrical usage, and labor rates and will be verified during the next
reporting period.
-------
Section 3.0: MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the pre-demonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation of the
Macrolite® treatment system began on August 11, 2004. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected
and/or considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall performance of the system
was determined based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to the target MCL of 10 |o,g/L; this was
monitored through the collection of weekly and monthly water samples across the treatment train. The
reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and
extent of equipment repair and replacement. The unscheduled downtime and repair information were
recorded by the plant operator on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Completion Dates of Pre-Demonstration Study Activities
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Submitted to Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Letter of Understanding Issued
Letter Report Issued
Engineering Package Submitted to Minnesota
Department of Health (MDH)
Permit Issued by MDH
Building Construction Initiated
Final Study Plan Issued
Building Construction Completed
Macrolite® Unit Shipped by Kinetico
Macrolite® Unit Delivered to Climax, MN
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
07/30/03
07/30/03
10/02/03
10/16/03
09/09/03
10/20/03
02/09/04
06/22/04
05/19/04
07/12/04
07/30/04
06/17/04
06/21/04
07/30/04
08/11/04
08/11/04
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
Simplicity of Operation
and Operator Skill
Cost-Effectiveness
Residual Management
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 M-g/L of arsenic in effluent
-Unscheduled downtime for system
-Frequency and extent of repairs to include man hrs, problem description,
description of materials, and cost of materials
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of system automation for data collection and system operation
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and man hrs
-Task analysis of preventive maintenance to include man hrs per month and
number and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed of safety requirements and chemical processes
-Capital costs including equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M costs including chemical and/or media usage, electricity, and labor
-Quantity of the residuals generated by the process
-Characteristics of the aqueous and solid residuals
-------
Simplicity of the system operation and the level of operator skill required were evaluated based on a
combination of quantitative data and qualitative considerations, including any pre-treatment and/or post-
treatment requirements, level of system automation, operator skill requirements, task analysis of the
preventive maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory
requirements, and general knowledge needed for safety requirements and chemical processes. The
staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on a Daily Field Log Sheet.
The cost-effectiveness of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design
capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This required the tracking of capital costs such
as equipment, engineering, and installation costs, as well as O&M costs for chemical supply, electrical
power use, and labor hrs. The capital costs have been reported in an EPA report (Chen et al., 2004)
posted on an EPA Web site (http ://www. epa. gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/re source .htm).
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the amount of backwash
water produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water was sampled and analyzed for chemical
characteristics.
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection. On a daily
basis, the plant operator recorded system operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer readings,
and hour meter readings on a Daily Field Log Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal
system operations. In the event of problems, the plant operator would contact the Battelle Study Lead,
who then would determine if Kinetico should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator
recorded all relevant information on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly basis, the plant
operator measured temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP),
and recorded the data on a Weekly Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet. During the six-month study
period, the system was backwashed automatically, except during the monthly backwash sampling events
when the system was backwashed manually to capture the required backwash samples.
Capital costs for the Kinetico Macrolite® system consisted of costs for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M costs consisted primarily of costs for chemicals, electricity, and labor.
Ferric chloride consumption was tracked on the Daily Field Log Sheet. The electricity use was tracked
through a comparison of utility bills before and after the system became operational. Labor hrs for
various activities, such as the routine system O&M, system troubleshooting and repair, and
demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Record. The routine O&M
included activities such as filling field logs and performing system inspections. The demonstration-
related work included activities such as performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples,
and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead. The demonstration-related activities were recorded, but
not used for the cost analysis.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the performance of the system, samples were collected from the source, treatment plant,
distribution system, and filtration vessel backwash. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedules and
analytes measured during each sampling event. 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, 2003).
-------
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Water
Residual
Sludge
Sample
Locations'3'
At Wellhead
(IN)
At Wellhead
(IN), After
Contact Tanks
(AC), After
Tank A (TA),
After Tank B
(TB)
At Wellhead
(IN), After
Contact Tanks
(AC), and After
Tanks A and B
Combined (TT)
Three LCR
Residences
At Backwash
discharge line
from Tanks A
andB
At backwash
discharge point
No. of
Sampl
es
1
4
o
J
3
2
2-3
Frequency
Once
during the
initial site
visit
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
TBD
Analytes
As(total), paniculate As, As(III),
As(V), Fe (total and soluble), Mn
(total and soluble), Al (total and
soluble), Na, Ca, Mg, V, Mo, Sb,
Cl, F, SO4, SiO2, PO4, TOC, and
alkalinity.
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO/ORP, and C12 (free and total)
(except at wellhead).
Off-site: As (total), Fe (total), Mn
(total), SiO2, PO4, turbidity, and
alkalinity.
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO/ORP, and C12 (free and total)
(except at wellhead).
Off-site: As(total),
paniculate As, As(III), As(V), Fe
(total and soluble), Mn (total and
soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, PO4, turbidity, and alkalinity.
pH, alkalinity, As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), Pb (total), and
Cu (total)
TDS, turbidity, pH, As (soluble),
Fe (soluble), and Mn (soluble)
TCLP Metals
As(Total)
Date(s) Samples
Collected
07/30/03
08/18/04, 08/24/04,
08/31/04,09/14/04,
09/21/04, 09/28/04,
10/12/04, 10/19/04,
10/26/04, 11/09/04,
11/16/04, 12/07/04,
12/14/04,01/11/05,
01/18/05, 01/25/05,
02/01/05, 02/16/05,
02/22/05
08/11/04,09/07/04,
10/05/04, 11/02/04,
11/30/04,01/04/05,
02/08/05
Baseline Sampling(b)
01/28/04, 02/23/04
03/22/04, 04/27/04
Monthly Sampling:
08/31/04,09/28/04
10/26/04, 11/30/04
12/14/04,01/11/05
02/8/05
09/24/2004,
10/20/2004,
11/16/2004,
12/13/2004,
01/12/2005,
02/16/2005
TBD
(a) The abbreviation in each parenthesis corresponds to the sample location in Figure 4-6.
(b) Four baseline sampling events were performed before the system became operational.
TBD = to be determined.
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection. During the initial visit to the site, one set of source water
samples was collected for detailed water quality analyses. The source water also was speciated for
particulate and soluble As, iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), aluminum (Al), and As(III) and As(V). The
sample tap was flushed for several min before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which
-------
might cause unwanted oxidation. Arsenic speciation kits and containers for water quality samples were
prepared as described in Section 3.4.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection. During the system performance evaluation
study, water samples were collected across the treatment train by the plant operator. Samples were
collected weekly on a four-week cycle. For the first three weekly events, treatment plant samples were
collected at four locations (i.e., at the wellhead [IN], after the contact tanks [AC], after Tank A [TA], and
after Tank B [TB]) and analyzed for the analytes listed under the weekly treatment plant analyte list in
Table 3-3. For the fourth weekly event, treatment plant samples were collected for arsenic speciation at
three locations (i.e., IN, AC, and after Tanks A and B combined [TT]) and analyzed for the analytes listed
under the monthly treatment plant analyte list in Table 3-3.
3.3.3 Backwash Water Sample Collection. Two backwash water samples were collected during
each of the six sampling events from the sample taps located at the backwash water effluent line from
each vessel. Unfiltered samples were measured on-site for pH using a field pH meter and a 1-gal sample
was sent to American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) for total dissolved solids (TDS) and turbidity
measurements. Filtered samples using 0.45-(im disc filters were sent to Battelle's inductively coupled
plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) laboratory for soluble As, Fe, and Mn analyses. Arsenic speciation
was not performed for the backwash water samples.
3.3.4 Backwash Solid Sample Collection. Backwash solid samples were not collected in the
initial six months of this demonstration. Two to three solid/sludge samples will be collected from the
backwash discharge point at the site. A dipper (EPA III-l) or a scoop (EPA II-3) will be used for solid
sample collection. The solid/sludge samples will be collected in glass jars and submitted to TCCI
Laboratories for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests.
3.3.5 Distribution System Water Sample Collection. Samples were collected from the
distribution system by the plant operator to determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the
water chemistry in the distribution system; specifically, lead and copper levels. From January 2004 to
April 2004, prior to the startup of the treatment system, four monthly baseline distribution system
sampling events were conducted at three locations within the distribution system. Following the start-up
of the arsenic adsorption system, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same
three locations.
The three homes selected for the sampling had been included in the City's Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)
sampling. Arsenic speciation was not performed for the distribution water samples. The samples
collected at the LCR locations were taken following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead
and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The first draw
sample was collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least six hrs to ensure that
stagnant water was sampled. The sampler recorded the date and time of last water use before sampling
and the date and time of sample collection for calculation of the stagnation time. Analytes for the
baseline samples coincided with the monthly distribution system water samples as described in Table 3-3.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kits preparation, sample cooler preparation, and
sample shipping and handling are discussed as follows:
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
-------
Arsenic speciation kits were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures
detailed in Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2003).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. All sample bottles were new and contained appropriate
preservatives. Each sample bottle was taped with a pre-printed, colored-coded, and waterproof label.
The sample label consisted of sample identification (ID), date and time of sample collection, sampler
initials, location, sent to, analysis required, and preservative. The sample ID consisted of a two-letter
code for a specific water facility, the sampling date, a two-letter code for a specific sampling location, and
a one-letter code for the specific analysis to be performed. The sampling locations were color-coded for
easy identification. For example, red, orange, yellow, green, and blue were used for IN, AC, TA, TB, and
TT sampling locations. Pre-labeled bottles were placed in one of the plastic bags (each corresponding to
a specific sampling location) in a sample cooler. When arsenic speciation samples were to be collected,
an appropriate number of arsenic speciation kits also were included in the cooler.
When appropriate, the sample cooler was packed with bottles for the three distribution system sampling
locations and/or the two backwash sampling locations (one for each vessel). In addition, a packet
containing all sampling and shipping-related supplies, such as latex gloves, sampling instructions, chain-
of-custody forms, prepaid Federal Express air bills, ice packs, and bubble wrap, also was placed in the
cooler. Except for the operator's signature, the chain-of-custody forms and prepaid Federal Express air
bills had already been completed with the required information. The sample coolers were shipped via
Federal Express to the facility approximately one week prior to the scheduled sampling date.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, sample
custodians verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample label identifications were checked against the chain-of-custody forms and the samples were
logged into the laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies were addressed with the field sample
custodian, and the Battelle Study Lead was notified.
Samples for water quality analyses by Battelle's subcontract laboratories were packed in coolers at
Battelle and picked up by a courier from either AAL (Columbus, OH) or TCCI Laboratories (New
Lexington, OH). The samples for arsenic speciation analyses were stored at Battelle's ICP-MS
Laboratory. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through
analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the
respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures are described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle,
2003). Field measurements of pH, temperature, and DO/ORP were conducted by the plant operator using
a WTW Multi 340i handheld meter, which was calibrated prior to use following the procedures provided
in the user's manual. The plant operator collected a water sample in a 400-mL, plastic beaker and placed
the Multi 340i probe in the beaker until a stable measured value was reached. The plant operator also
performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach™ chlorine test kits.
Laboratory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the guidelines provided in
the QAPP (Battelle, 2003). Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy, method detection limit (MDL), and
completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP, i.e., relative percent difference (RPD) of 20%,
percent recovery of 80% to 120%, and completeness of 80%. The QA data associated with each analyte
will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC summary report to be prepared under separate cover and to be
shared with the other 11 demonstration sites included in the Round 1 arsenic study.
-------
4.1
Section 4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure
The water treatment system located on West Broadway in Climax, MN supplies drinking water to
264 community members. Figure 4-1 shows the pre-existing pump house at the facility. The water
source is groundwater from two wells in a Quaternary Buried Artesian aquifer. Each well is 141 feet
deep with 15 feet of slotted screen. Well No. 1 is 6 inches in diameter and has a 7.5 horsepower (hp)
submersible pump with a capacity of 140 gpm. Well No. 2 is 8 inches in diameter and has a 10 hp
submersible pump with a capacity of 160 gpm. These two wells are alternated every month to meet the
peak daily demand of 105,000 gpd based on historic records. Both pumps are used during fire
emergencies with a full capacity of 300 gpm. The treatment system originally consisted of a gas chlorine
feed to reach a target chlorine residual level of 0.6 mg/L. The water also is fluoridated to a target level of
1.0 mg/L. Figure 4-2 shows the pre-existing wellhead and associated piping. The treated water is stored
in a nearby water tower as shown in Figure 4-3.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on July 30, 2003 and
subsequently analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3. The results of the source water analyses,
along with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those
independently collected and analyzed by EPA, MDH, and the vendor are presented in Table 4-1.
As shown in Table 4-1, total arsenic concentrations in the source water ranged from 31 to 41 (ig/L. Based
on the July 30, 2003 sampling results, as much as 90% of the total arsenic, or 34.8 (ig/L, was found to
exist as As(III) and 10% existed as particulate As.
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Pump House at Climax, MN, Site
10
-------
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Wellhead and Associated Piping
Figure 4-3. Climax, MN, Water Tower
11
-------
Table 4-1. Climax, MN, Water Quality Data
Parameter
Unit
Date
pH
Total Alkalinity
Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate
TOC
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Al
Soluble Al
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total V
Soluble V
Total Mo
Soluble Mo
Total Sb
Soluble Sb
Total Na
Total Ca
Total Mg
—
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
Hg/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
^g/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Utility
Data
Not Specified
7.6
325.0
256.0
180.0
NS
114.0
27.8(a)
<0.065(a)
NS
38
NS
NS
NS
NS
850(a)
NS
NS
NS
145(a)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
170.0
7400
25(a)
Vendor
Data
Not Specified
7.9
332
288
180.1
0.45
100
29.9
<0.1
NS
31
NS
NS
NS
NS
820
NS
NS
NS
170
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
175
76
24
EPA
Data
10/16/02
NS
328.2
NS
183.0
NS
106.5
28.0
NS
NS
33
NS
NS
NS
NS
850
NS
NS
NS
149.3
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
180.9
74.3
24.5
Battelle
Data
07/30/03
7.4
304.0
227.6
190.0
1.7
120.0
27.3
O.10
<1.0
38.7
34.6
4.2
34.8
<0.1
546.3
540.4
<10
<10
128.3
130.0
0.4
0.4
8.9
8.7
<0.1
0.1
177.2
60.6
18.5
MDH
Raw
Water
Data
2000-2003
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
33 to 41
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
MDH
Treated
Water
Data
2000-2003
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.46 to 1.6
110 to 120
NS
NS
NS
<1.0to36
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
O.6
NS
180 to 190
NS
NS
(a) Data provided by EPA.
NS = not sampled.
Iron concentrations in the source water ranged from 546 to 850 (ig/L with almost all existing as soluble
iron based on July 30, 2003 results. A rule of thumb is that the soluble iron concentration should be at
least 20 times the soluble arsenic concentration for effective removal of arsenic onto iron solids (Sorg,
2002). The results from the July 30, 2003 sampling event indicated that the soluble iron level was
approximately 16 times the soluble arsenic level. Because the natural iron content in the source water
was close to the target Fe/As ratio of 20:1 value, the initial plan was to operate the system without
supplemental iron addition. The manganese levels were relatively elevated, ranging from 128.3 to 170
(ig/L. The pH values ranged from 7.4 to 7.9, which were within the target range of 5.5 to 8.5 for the iron
removal process. Hardness ranged from 228 to 288 mg/L, silica from 27 to 29 mg/L, and sulfate from
100 to 120 mg/L.
12
-------
4.1.2 Distribution System and Treated Water Quality. The distribution system for Climax, MN is
supplied by two wells, alternating on a monthly basis. The distribution system materials are primarily
6-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe with %-inch PVC or copper pipe used at individual homes. The
city conducts quarterly compliance sampling for coliform and fluoride and annual compliance sampling
for arsenic. Prior to this demonstration project, the treatment system consisted of only a gas chlorine feed
to reach a target chlorine residual level of 0.6 mg/L. The water also was fluoridated to a target level of
approximately 1.0 mg/L with fluoride levels in the distribution system ranging from 0.5 to 1.6 mg/L (see
Table 4-1). The historic As levels detected within the distribution system at several different sampling
points, including residences, businesses, and at the treatment plant effluent, ranged from non-detect to 36
|o,g/L based on MDH treated water sampling data (see Table 4-1).
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The treatment train for the Climax system includes oxidation, co-precipitation/adsorption, and Macrolite®
pressure filtration. Macrolite® is a low-density, spherical, and chemically inert ceramic media that is
designed for a high-rate filtration up to 10 gpm/ft2. The media, manufactured by Kinetico, is approved for
use in drinking water applications under NSF Standard 61. The physical properties of Macrolite® are
summarized in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite* Media
Property
Color
Thermal Stability (°F)
Sphere Size Range (mm)
Sphere Size Range (inch)
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Particle Density (g/cm3)
Particle Density (lb/ft3)
Value
Taupe, Brown to Gray
2,000
0.35-0.25
0.014-0.009
0.86
54
2.05
129
Figure 4-4 is a schematic and Figure 4-5 a photograph of the Macrolite® FM-236-AS Arsenic Removal
System. The primary components consist of a chemical feed system for prechlorination and iron addition
(one each), two contact tanks, two pressure filtration vessels, and associated pressure and flow
instrumentation. The Macrolite® treatment system is fully automated with an operator interface,
programmable logic controller (PLC), and modem housed in a central control panel. The control panel is
connected to various instruments used to track system performance, including inlet and outlet pressure
after each filter, system flowrate, backwash flowrate, and backwash turbidity with a Hach™ high range
turbidimeter. All plumbing for the system is Schedule 80 PVC and the skidded unit is pre-plumbed with
the necessary isolation valves, check valves, sampling ports, and other features. A 5-hp, 60-gal vertical
air compressor also is included in the system. Table 4-3 summarizes the design features of the Macrolite®
pressure filtration system.
Figure 4-6 presents a process flowchart, along with the sampling/analysis schedule, for the 140 gpm
Macrolite® system. The major process steps and system components are presented as follows:
• Oxidation - The existing gas chlorine system was initially used for the oxidation of As(III) and
Fe(II) in source water. Because the existing equipment malfunctioned, the gas chlorine system
was replaced with a liquid sodium hypochlorite feed system on January 14, 2005.
13
-------
Feed Water
FeCI3
Addition
Backwash Waste
> to Sewer/Storage
by Others
Filtered Water
*• to Storage/Distribution
by Others
KINETICQSYSTEM.CDR
Figure 4-4. Process Schematic of the Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System
Figure 4-5. Photograph of the Macrolite Pressure Filtration System
14
-------
Table 4-3. Design Specifications for the Macrolite® FM-236-AS Pressure Filtration System
Parameter
Prechlorination Dosage (mg/L [as C12])
Iron Dosage (mg/L [as Fe])
Value
1.2
0.5
Remarks
Sodium hypochlorite system installed on 01/14/05.
Prior to that date chlorine gas was used. The
calculated chlorine demand based on arsenic, iron,
and manganese in source water was 0.6 mg/L.
Actual demand was higher due to the presence of
ammonia in source water. Target free chlorine
residual was 0.6 mg/L to distribution.
Implemented on January 3, 2005
Contact Vessels
Vessel Size (inch)
No. Vessels
Contact Time (min/vessel)
42 D x 72 H
2
5
345 gal each tank
—
—
Filtration Vessels
Vessel Size (inch)
No. Vessels
Configuration
Media Quantity (ft3/vessel)
Media Type
Filtration Rate (gpm/ft2)
Pressure Drop (psi)
Backwash Initiating Pressure (psi)
Throughput before Backwash (gal)
Backwash Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Duration (min)
Wastewater Production (gal)
System Design Flowrate (gpm)
Maximum Daily Production (gpd)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
36 D x 72 H
2
Parallel
14
Macrolite®
10
15
20
Variable
8 to 10
Variable
Variable
140
201,600
52
264 gal each tank
—
—
24-inch bed depth of 40/60 mesh Macrolite® in each
vessel
—
—
Across a clean bed
Across bed at end of filter run
Based on PLC settings for pressure, run time, or
standby set points.
—
Based on PLC settings for minimum and maximum
backwash times (e.g. 7 to 15 min from factory set
points).
See above
—
Based on peak flow, 24 hrs per day
Estimated based on peak daily demand(a)
(a) Based on a historic peak daily demand of 105,000 gpd
• Co-Precipitation/Adsorption with Supplemental Iron Addition - The system was operated
without supplemental iron addition from August 11, 2004 to January 2, 2005. Beginning on
January 3, 2005, an iron addition system was used to inject a target dose of 0.5 mg/L of iron after
the prechlorination tap using a ferric chloride solution. The iron addition system included a day
tank, a metering pump, and a scale. The working solution was prepared by adding 3 gal of a 35%
ferric chloride stock solution into 47 gal of water.
• Contact - Two 345-gal contact tanks arranged in parallel were used to provide 5 min of contact
time to facilitate the formation of iron floes prior to filtration. The 42-inch-diameter by 72-inch-
height contact tanks were constructed of fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) and had 6-inch top
and bottom flanges.
• Pressure Filtration - Pressure filtration involved downflow filtration through two
vessels arranged in parallel. The 36-inch-diameter and 72-inch-height FJ3P vessels,
equipped with 6-inch top and bottom flanges, were mounted on a polyurethane-coated
15
-------
Monthly
INFLUENT
pHO), temperature^),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
Climax, MN
Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: 140 gpm
pHO), temperature^),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
pHW, temperature^), DO/ORF
-------
steel frame. Each vessel was filled with approximately 24 inches (14 ft3) of 40/60 mesh
Macrolite® media, which was underlain by a fine garnet fill layered 1 inch above the
0.006-inch slotted stainless steel wedge-wire underdrain. The flow through each vessel
was regulated to less than 70 gpm using a flow-limiting device to prevent filter overrun
or damage to the system. The normal system operation with both tanks would produce a
total system flowrate of 140 gpm.
• Backwash Operations - At a 10 gpm/ft2 hydraulic loading rate and 24-inch bed depth, the
anticipated pressure drop was 15 pounds per square inch (psi) across a clean bed in service mode.
As the pressure drop across the bed had reached 20 psi, the filter was automatically backwashed
in an upflow configuration. The backwash might also be triggered by the length of time the unit
had been in service and/or in stand-by mode (see Section 4.4.2 for more information). During
backwash, the water in one of the filtration vessels was first drained from the vessel and the filter
was then sparged with air for 2 min at a pressure of 100 psig. After a 5-min settling period, the
filtration vessel was backwashed with treated water at a flowrate of approximately 55 gpm (8
gpm/ft2) until the turbidity of the backwash water had reached a target threshold level of 6
nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) based on the factory setting. The backwash was conducted
one vessel at a time and the resulting wastewater was sent to a sump and then to the sanitary
sewer. After backwash, the filtration vessel underwent a filter-to-waste cycle for five min before
returning to the service mode.
4.3 System Installation
This section provides a summary of system installation activities including permitting, building
construction, and system shakedown.
4.3.1 Permitting. Engineering plans for the system permit application were prepared by Kinetico
and Widseth, Smith, and Nolting. The plans included diagrams and specifications for the Macrolite® FM-
236-AS Arsenic Removal System, as well as drawings detailing the connections of the new unit to the
pre-existing facility infrastructure. The plans were submitted to the MDH on February 9, 2005. After
changes to the design were incorporated related to MDH comments received on March 22 and May 24,
2004, MDH granted its approval of the application on June 22, 2004. On November 23, 2004, an
approval also was granted for the installation and startup of a supplemental ferric chloride chemical feed
system.
4.3.2 Building Construction. The building construction was initiated on May 19, 2004 and the
city was able to accommodate shipping and off-loading of the treatment system by June 21, 2004. A 22-ft
x 24-ft building was built as an addition onto the existing concrete block well house. The building walls
were constructed with a wood stud frame and 24-gauge pre-fabricated metal wall panels and set on a 6-
inch-thick concrete slab floor with footings. The building also was equipped with an insulated, 10-ft-
wide overhead door. Because of a shortage of the interior metal wall panels, the treatment system was
delivered and installed prior to completing the building interior walls. By July 30, 2005, the city had
completed the building along with the sump installation and sanitary sewer connection, and obtained the
duplex sump pumps as required by MDH. Figure 4-7 shows the new building adjacent to the pre-existing
pump house and water tower.
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The Macrolite® system was shipped on
June 17, 2005 and delivered to the site on June 21, 2005. A subcontractor to Kinetico off-loaded and
installed of the system, including piping connections to the existing entry and distribution system. The
system mechanical equipment installation was completed by July 30, 2004 when the city completed the
backwash sump installation. The system shakedown was conducted from August 4 to 7, 2004.
17
-------
Figure 4-7. New Building Constructed Adjacent to the Pre-Existing
Pump House and Water Tower
Shakedown activities included disinfection of the contact and filtration tanks, backwash of Macrolite®
filtration media, and troubleshooting of the city's sump pump operation. Issues noted during the
shakedown included high system pressure and abnormally low system flowrate caused by the flow
restrictors. With the 10 hp pump in Well No. 2, the flowrate ranged from 126 to 130 gpm with an
elevated inlet pressure of >125 psi, resulting in seal problems on the pressure vessels. With the 7.5 hp
pump in Well No. 1, the flowrate ranged from 105 to 115 gpm at an inlet pressure of approximately 70
psi. These problems were addressed by removing some rubber inserts from the flow restrictors, which
reduced the system pressure and resulted in flowrates ranging from approximately 120 gpm for the 7.5 hp
pump and 140 gpm for the 10 hp pump. Other action items noted during the system shakedown included
installation of a bubble trap to reduce entrained air in the backwash water to alleviate high readings on the
backwash turbidimeter, installation of an hour meter, and connection of the PLC to the pump motor
starters to coordinate system operation. During the August 5 to August 7, 2004 startup trip, Kinetico
conducted operator training of system operations and Battelle conducted operator training for system
sampling and data collection. The treated water was sent to the distribution system on August 11, 2004.
A Battelle staff member returned to the site on September 1, 2004 to review system operations and to
further train the operator on proper operation of the water quality meter and probes.
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the first six months of the system
operation are summarized in Table 4-4, including operational time, throughput, flowrate, and pressure
information. Detailed daily operational information also is attached as Appendix A. The plant
operational data were recorded beginning August 16, 2004 and the system continued to operate through
February 28, 2005 with only a few operational problems for the first six months of the demonstration
period.
18
-------
Table 4-4. Summary of Macrolite® FM-26-AS System Operation at the Climax, MN, Site
Parameter
Operational Period
Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Throughput to Distribution (kgal)
Average Daily Demand (gpd)
Peak Daily Demand (gpd)
Number of Backwash Cycles(a)
Run Time Between Backwash Cycles (hrs)
Throughput Between Backwash Cycles (gal)
Average Flowrate (gpm)
Range of Flowrates (gpm)
Contact Time (min)
Hydraulic Loading to Macrolite® Filters (gpm/ft2)
Pressure Differential across Filtration Vessels A/B (psi)
Pressure Differential across Entire System (psi)
Values
August 16, 2004 - February 28, 2005
1,075
5.3
6,758
34,850
92,730
96
3-16
22,600 - 101,700
Well No. 1
(7.5 HP)
122
104-131
5.3-6.6
7.4-9.3
5-17
19 to 30
Well No. 2
(10 HP)
141
134-148
4.7-5.1
9.5-10.5
8-21
25 to 34
(a) Backwash was triggered by 48-hr standby, 24-hr run time, or pressure loss of 20 psi. Only three pressure-
initiated backwashes occurred during this study period.
Between August 16, 2005 and February 28, 2005, the treatment system operated for approximately 1,075
total hrs, based on the PLC hour meter readings with an average daily operating time of 5.3 hrs per day.
The total system throughput was approximately 6,758,000 gal based on the flow totalizer readings. The
average daily demand was approximately 34,850 gal and the peak daily demand occurred on August 31,
2004 at 92,750 gal. During this time period, a total number of 96 backwashes took place. The run time
between backwash cycles ranged from approximately 3.0 to 16 hrs and the throughput between two
consecutive backwash cycles ranged from approximately 22,600 to 101,700 gal. The median value of run
time was 10 hrs and the median throughput was 71,000 gal. The throughput varied based on the amount
of run time required to meet demand and the corresponding amount of time that the system was in
standby mode. The filter run ended when the system had been in service mode for 24 hrs or in standby
mode for 48 hrs, unless a pressure-initiated backwash was triggered.
The flowrate through the system varied slightly based on which well pump was operational. When the
Well No. 1 pump (7.5 hp) was operational, the flowrates ranged from 104 to 131 gpm with an average
value of 122 gpm. This corresponded to a contact time of 5.3 to 6.6 min compared to a design value of 5
min. At these flowrates, the hydraulic loading rates to the filter ranged from 7.4 to 9.3 gpm/ft2 compared
to the design value of 10 gpm/ft2. When the Well No. 2 pump (10 hp) was operational, the flowrates
ranged from 134 to 148 gpm with an average value of 141 gpm. This corresponded to a contact time of
4.7 to 5.1 min and a hydraulic loading rate to the filter of 9.5 to 10.5 gpm/ft2, which was much closer to
the respective design values.
Figure 4-8 illustrates differential pressure readings across the system and pressure vessels A and B. With
Well No. 1 operating and before iron addition, the differential pressure readings ranged from 19 to 30 psi
across the system and from 5 to 13 psi across the pressure vessels A and B. With Well No. 2 operating
19
-------
40 -,
35
10 -
5 —
-dP Across Vessel A (psig)
-dP Across Vessel B (psig)
-dP Across System (psig)
08/01/04
09/20/04
11/09/04
Date
12/29/04
02/17/05
Figure 4-8. Differential Pressure Readings across the Macrolite System and
Pressure Vessels A and B
and before iron addition, the differential pressure readings ranged from 26 to 33 psi across the system and
from 8 to 16 psi across pressure vessels A and B.
Iron addition did not appear to have impacted the pressure drop across the system with values ranging
from 19 to 33 psi before iron addition and from 19 to 34 psi after iron addition. There was a slight
increase in the differential pressure readings across vessels A and B after iron addition, but only three
pressure-initiated backwashes were noted after the start of iron addition from January 3, 2005 through
February 28, 2005. The majority of backwashes during the six-month time frame occurred as a result of
the elapse of the 48-hr standby time. After each backwash event, a filter-to-waste cycle occurred for five
min to flush water through the filter bed in the downflow mode before returning to service.
4.4.2 Backwash. The system PLC was set to initiate a backwash based on four potential triggers:
1) high differential pressure, 2) standby time, 3) run time, or 4) manual initiation. Table 4-5 summarizes
the programming set points associated with these automatic backwash triggers (20 psi differential
pressure, 48 hr of standby time, or 24 hr system run time) and the backwash duration. The backwash
duration was controlled by the minimum and maximum backwash time per vessel and the backwash
water turbidity measured by a Hach™ turbidimeter. Under the factory settings, if the turbidity threshold
of 6 NTU was reached before the minimum backwash time set point, backwash would end at the
minimum backwash time of 7 min. Otherwise, it would continue until the target turbidity threshold was
reached. If the turbidity threshold was not reached at the end of the maximum backwash time of 15 min,
then a backwash failure would be indicated and the operator had to acknowledge the alarm. This would
20
-------
result in a repeat backwash before the pressure filter could resume service. The use of turbidity as one of
the backwash set points was designed as a potential water-saving measure.
Table 4-5 also provides a comparison of the factory settings to the initial field settings at startup of the
treatment system and the modified field settings were set on January 14, 2005.
Table 4-5. Summary of PLC Settings for Automated Backwash Operations at Climax, MN
Parameter
Differential Pressure Trigger (psi)
Standby Time Trigger (hrs)
Run Time Trigger (hrs)
Minimum Backwash Time Per
Vessel (min)
Maximum Backwash Time Per
Vessel (min)
Turbidity Threshold (MTU)
Low Backwash Flow Set Point
(gpm)
Factory
Setting
20
48
24
7
15
6
75
Initial Field Settings
(From 08/11/04 through
01/14/05)
20
48
24
18W
15
45
75
Modified Field Settings
(From 01/14/05 through
02/28/05)
20
48
24
5
15
20
75
(a) Kinetico's initial field setting for the minimum backwash time was longer than the maximum backwash time.
This was corrected in the January 14, 2005 modified field settings.
Several issues associated with the automated backwash process arose during the first six months of
system operation, including correction of initial field set points and operational issues associated with the
Hach™ turbidimeter. These issues are discussed as follows:
4.4.2.1 Backwash Settings. Table 4-6 summarizes data related to the backwash duration and
backwash water quantity produced under the initial and modified field settings from August 11, 2005
through January 14, 2005 and from January 14, 2005 through February 28, 2005, respectively. The
backwash flowrate for both time periods was approximately 50 gpm or 7 gpm/ft2, which is lower than the
8 to 10 gpm/ft2 design flowrate. The backwash flowrate was lowered in the field at startup to avoid media
loss that was observed when a higher flowrate was used such as the factory set point of 75 gpm.
Between August 11, 2005 and January 14, 2005, each backwash event lasted for at least 18 min per vessel
with one event that lasted for up to 53 min per vessel. The median backwash time was 18 min per vessel.
The wastewater generated from backwash was 900 to 2,650 gal per vessel. The median value was 900 gal
corresponding to an 18 min duration at the 50-gpm backwash flowrate. From January 14, 2005 to
February 28, 2005, each backwash event lasted for at least 5 to 10 min per vessel with a median value at
10.5 min per vessel. The quantities of backwash water generated ranged from 250 to 3,000 gal per vessel
with a median value of 525 gal per vessel.
Since the startup through January 14, 2005, the system produced 126,900 gal of backwash water
(including the initial backwash events after media loading). This amount was equivalent to 2.4% of the
total amount of water treated (i.e., 5,275,950 gal) during this time period. The time to backwash each
vessel was at least 18 min, which was the minimum backwash time set by the vendor at the system
startup. This 18-min backwash time was 3 min longer than the factory-set maximum backwash time or
2.6 times longer than the factory-set minimum backwash time (see Table 4-5). In addition, because of
21
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Backwash Parameters
Backwash Parameters
Minimum
Median
Maximum
Initial Field Settings (From 08/11/04 through 01/14/05)40 NTU) were
removed from the Macrolite® filters in the first 7 min. The turbidity values in the backwash water were
below 20 NTU after approximately 9 min of backwashing. For the remaining 9 min of the 18 min
minimum set time, the turbidity values leveled off at 8 to 16 NTU. These results indicate that the 18 min
minimum backwash time and the 45 NTU turbidity threshold settings were overly conservative and could
be significantly reduced to save water. (Note that approximately 900 gal of wastewater was produced per
vessel under these field settings.)
As noted above, the turbidity readings of the backwash water remained at levels higher than 45 NTU
during five backwash events for both vessels A and B. The elevated NTU readings were first addressed
through the installation of a bubble trap on the turbidimeter line (on August 11, 2005), repair of a leaking
air-actuated valve (on September 15, 2004), and testing of the compressed air supply to ensure that it did
not contribute to entrained air in the backwash water. After these repairs and during troubleshooting of
backwashing operations in December 2004, it was noted that the NTU readings at the end of a backwash
cycle ranged from 7.9 to 33.1 NTU with 7 out of 9 readings below 12.5 NTU.
On January 14, 2005, the backwash settings were modified to more closely match the factory settings.
The minimum backwash time was changed from 18 to 5 min and the turbidity threshold was lowered
from 45 to 20 NTU. Also presented in Figure 4-9 are two backwash water turbidity profiles with the
modified PLC settings. Even after iron addition that resulted in turbidity readings much higher than 100
NTU, the time to reach 20 NTU remained at approximately 9 to 10 min for Vessel A and B. As shown in
Table 4-6, under these modified settings, the treatment system produced 32,300 gal of backwash water
from January 14, 2005 through February 28, 2005. This is equivalent to approximately 2.2% of the total
22
-------
120
100
Vessel B, Operator Manual, Before Iron Addition, Tmin= 18 MIN
Vessel A, Operator Manual, Before Iron Addition, Tmin = 18 MIN
Vessel B, Kinetico, Before Iron Addition, Tmin = 18 MIN
Vessel A, Kinetico, Before Iron Addition, Tmin = 18 MIN
Vessel B, Kinetico, After Iron Addition, Tmin = 5 MIN
Vessel A, Kinetico, After Iron Addition, Tmin = 5 MIN
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
01234567
Figure 4-9. Backwash Water Turbidity versus Time Plot for Climax, MN
amount of water treated and this represents 0.2% of water savings compared to the initial field settings
with a 2.4% backwash water generation rate from August 11, 2004 to January 14, 2005. The water
savings potentially could have been higher, but backwash problems were experienced from January 14,
2005 to February 28, 2005 that significantly elevated the quantity of backwash water generated.
4.4.2.2 Hack™ Turbidimeter and Related Backwashes. The backwash event on February 12, 2005
produced 6,700 gal of backwash water apparently caused by calcium deposits on the photocell of the
Hach™ turbidimeter. The amount of wastewater produced represented over 20% of the total quantity of
backwash water discharged between January 14 and February 28, 2005. The deposits occurred because
of the evaporation of water in contact with the hot glass surface, preventing the turbidimeter from
detecting accurate turbidity levels, which in turn led to backwash problems. To minimize this problem,
the glass lens was periodically inspected and cleaned as part of the routine maintenance of the system.
4.4.3 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the Macrolite® system
included only backwash water, which was discharged to an underground sump and then pumped to a
nearby sanitary sewer line for disposal.
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. No major operational problems were
encountered in the service mode. The only major operational issues encountered were related to the
Macrolite® filter backwash as described in Section 4.4.2. Neither scheduled nor unscheduled downtime
had been required since the start of system operations. The simplicity of system operation and operator
23
-------
skill requirements are discussed according pre- and post-treatment requirements, levels of system
automation, operator skill requirements, preventive maintenance activities, and frequency of
chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pre-treatment at the site included prechlorination for the
oxidation of arsenic and iron and supplemental iron addition to enhance the arsenic removal from raw
water. Specific chemical handling requirements are further discussed below under chemical handling and
inventory requirements.
System Automation. All major functions of the treatment system are automated and would require only
minimal operator oversight and intervention if all functions are operating as intended. Automated
processes include system startup in the forward feed mode when the well energizes, backwash cycling
based on time or pressure triggers, fast rinse cycling, and system shutdown when the well pump shuts
down. However, as noted in Section 4.4.2, a number of operational issues did arise with the automated
system backwash and associated equipment.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill set required to operate the
Macrolite® system was limited to observation of the process equipment integrity and operating parameters
such as pressure, flow, and system alarms. The PLC interface was intuitive and all major system
operations were automated as described above. The daily demand on the operator was about 30 min to
visually inspect the system and record the operating parameters on the log sheets. Other skills needed
including performing O&M activities such as cleaning the turbidimeter photo cell, monitoring backwash
operational issues, and working with the vendor to troubleshoot and perform minor on-site repairs.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks recommended by the vendor included
daily to monthly visual inspection of the piping, valves, tanks, flowmeters, and other system components.
Routine maintenance also may be required on an as-needed basis for the air compressor motor and the
replacement of o-ring seals or gaskets on automated or manual valves (Kinetico, 2004). During this
reporting period, maintenance activities performed by the operator included the repair of a leaky fitting
and removal of plugs on the flow restrictors for each pressure vessel upon startup of the system. On
September 15, 2004, the operator repaired an air leak associated with an air-actuated valve on the bottom
of Tank B. It also was found that cleaning of the turbidimeter photocell was required to prevent the
buildup of deposits. Other maintenance and troubleshooting activities were conducted as described in
Section 4.4.2 related to the malfunction of automated backwash operations.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. Prechlorination was implemented since the
system startup and supplemental iron addition was initiated on January 3, 2005. The iron addition
required only minimal effort (10 min as reported by the operator) to prepare the iron solution
approximately once every two weeks. The sodium hypochlorite and ferric chloride chemical
consumption was checked each day as part of the routine operational data collection.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the Macrolite® FM-236-AS Arsenic Removal System was evaluated based on
analyses of water samples collected from the treatment plant, backwash lines, and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Water samples were collected at five locations through the
treatment train: at the inlet (IN), after the contact tanks (AC), after pressure vessels A and B (TA and TB),
and after vessels A and B combined (TT). Field-speciated samples from the IN, AC, and TT locations
were collected once every four weeks throughout this reporting period. Table 4-7 summarizes the
arsenic, iron, and manganese analytical results. Table 4-8 summarizes the results of the other water
24
-------
quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results through the first six months
of system operation. The results of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are
discussed below.
Arsenic and Iron. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the Macrolite® pressure
filtration process was the concentration of total arsenic in the treated water. The treatment plant water
was sampled on 28 occasions (including two duplicate sampling events) during the first six months of
system operation, with field speciation performed on samples collected from the IN, AC, and TT
locations for 7 of the 28 occasions. Figure 4-10 shows the arsenic speciation results.
Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 32.1 to 51.4 |o,g/L and averaged 37.2 |o,g/L
(Table 4-7). As(III) was the predominant species in the raw water, ranging from 32.6 to 39.8 |o,g/L and
averaging 35.5 |o,g/L. Only trace amounts of particulate As and As(V) existed, with concentrations
averaging 1.2 and 3.2 |o,g/L, respectively. The arsenic concentrations measured during this six-month
period were consistent with those in the raw water sample collected on July 30, 2003 (Table 4-1). Total
iron concentrations in the raw water ranged from 361 to 1,002 |o,g/L and averaged 551 |o,g/L, which
existed primarily as the soluble form with an average value of 456 |o,g/L. This amount of soluble iron
corresponded to an iron:arsenic ratio of 12:1 given the average soluble iron and soluble arsenic levels in
the source water.
After prechlorination and the contact tanks, the As(III) concentrations ranged from 0.9 to 3.0 |o,g/L
(except one data point at 6.2 ng/L), suggesting effective oxidation of As(III) to As(V) with chlorine. The
particulate arsenic concentrations after the contact tanks ranged from 15.3 to 28.4 |o,g/L. After
prechlorination and the contact tanks, iron existed solely in the particulate form, ranging from 363 to
1,002 ng/L. The corresponding total and free chlorine measurements after the contact tanks averaged 2.4
mg/L and 1.0 mg/L, respectively (see Table 4-8). The chlorine demand was elevated due to the presence
of ammonia in the raw water at 0.6 to 0.8 mg/L, which leads to the formation of combined chlorine.
Prior to the start of supplemental iron addition, total arsenic concentrations in the combined effluent (TT)
ranged from 9.7 to 19 |o,g/L and averaged 14.1 |o,g/L, of which 8.1 to 11.8 |o,g/L existed as As(V). The
particulate arsenic levels in the treated water were relatively low and ranged from 0.1 to 3.3 |o,g/L.
Additional data were collected to observe the total and soluble arsenic and iron concentrations over the
span of one filtration run. As shown in Figure 4-1 la, over the 8-hr filtration run, arsenic concentrations in
the treated water existed primarily in the soluble form (at 11.2 to 14.6 |og/L) and there was very little
particulate arsenic (at <1 to 1.1 ng/L) in the treated water, indicating little particulate As leakage through
the Macrolite® filters. This observation was further supported by the low levels of particulate iron in the
treated water (<25 to 186 ng/L). The presence of arsenic over the MCL in the treated water throughout
the 8-hr filtration run confirmed the need for supplemental iron addition for further As(V) removal.
On January 3, 2005, the supplemental iron addition was started at a target dosage of 0.5 mg/L of iron
using a ferric chloride solution. Figure 4-12 shows the increase in iron levels after the contact tanks once
iron addition was initiated. Based on the daily use rate of the iron solution and the mix ratio, between
0.6 and 0.8 mg/L of iron was added into the raw water depending on the system flowrate. Since January
3, 2005, total As concentrations at the TT location averaged 6.0 |o,g/L. The As(V) concentrations in the
combined effluent ranged from 3.6 to 4.0 |o,g/L and averaged 3.8 |o,g/L. The particulate As levels ranged
from 0.6 to 1.2 |o,g/L and averaged 0.9 |og/L. Figure 4-12 also shows a slight increase in the iron leakage
from the Macrolite® filters after the start of supplemental iron addition, with total iron levels (existing
solely as particulates) in the treated water ranging from <25 to 122 |o,g/L.
25
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results Before
and After Supplemental Iron Addition(a)
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
Units
Hg/L
HB/L
Hg/L
HB/L
Hg/L
HB/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Number
of
Samples
28
28
21
21
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
28
28
21
21
7
7
7
7
28
28
21
21
7
7
7
7
Minimum
Concentration
32.1
33.4 [18.5]
9.3 [5.3]
9.9 [5.6]
9.7 [6.0]
33.3
11.0 [4.5]
9.7 [4.8]
0.1
20.9 [15.3]
0.1 [0.6]
32.6
1.0 [0.9]
1.0 [1.2]
0.1
9.9 [3.6]
8.1 [3.6]
361
363 [515]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
342
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
113
109 [110]
65.6 [65.1]
66.0 [62.9]
62.6 [57.2]
112
61.7 [59]
61.8 [55.5]
Maximum
Concentration
51.4
72 [37.9]
17.9 [7.1]
18.3 [7.4]
19.0 [6.0]
51.3
19.5 [18.3]
16.1 [5.4]
6.7
28.4 [28.3]
3.3 [1.2]
39.8
6.2 [1.4]
5.1 [1.4]
11.5
14.8 [16.9]
11. 8 [4.0]
1,209
1,002 [1,791]
66.4 [107]
66.0 [122]
36.8 [26.3]
520
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
505
156 [143]
85.7 [92.3]
82.6 [104]
86.8 [70.3]
145
78.9 [67.1]
80.9 [68.3]
Average
Concentration
37.2
39.4 [32.5]
11.3 [5.9]
12.1 [6.5]
14.1 [6.0]
38.7
14.7 [11.4]
12.6 [5.1]
1.2
24.1 [21.8]
1.5 [0.9]
35.5
2.6 [1.2]
2.5 [1.3]
3.2
12.2 [10.3]
10.1 [3.8]
551.1
563 [1,354]
<25 [44.6]
<25 [65.8]
<25 [<25]
455.6
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
138.5
125.7 [128.1]
74.3 [79.8]
73.3 [84.6]
70.6 [63.8]
121.3
69.1 [63.1]
69.1 [61.9]
Standard
Deviation
5.2
9.0 [5.9]
2.3 [0.6]
2.5 [0.7]
4.1 [0.0]
5.9
3.8 [9.8]
3.0 [0.4]
2.4
3.1 [9.2]
1.5 [0.4]
2.4
2.2 [0.4]
1.7 [0.1]
3.8
2.1 [9.4]
1.6 [0.3]
149.4
145 [394]
20.2 [36.6]
16.3 [40]
12.2 [9.8]
75.2
0.0 [0.0]
0.0 [0.0]
72.3
11.9 [11.8]
5. 9 [11.0]
5.3 [15.6]
9.4 [9.3]
11.5
7.4 [5.7]
7.1 [9.1]
*Number in parentheses is data complied after the start of iron addition on January 3,
One-half of the detection limit was used for non-detect samples for calculations.
Duplicate samples are included in the calculations.
2005.
Figure 4-1 Ib shows the arsenic concentrations in the treated water collected over the span of two filtration
runs following the start of iron addition on January 3, 2005. After 3 to 4 hrs into the filtration runs, total
arsenic levels were well below 10 |o,g/L and the particulate arsenic concentrations increased only slightly
from <1 to 1.4 |o,g/L at the start of the run to 2.0 to 2.2 |o,g/L about 3 to 4 hrs into the run. Additional data
will be collected on the run time performance of the treatment system with iron addition over the next six
months of the study.
26
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Silica
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
Number
of
Samples
28
28
21
21
7
12
7
7
7
7
7
7
28
28
21
21
7
28
28
21
21
7
7
7
7
28
28
21
21
7
25
25
19
19
6
25
25
19
19
6
Minimum
Concentration
294
284
288
292
284
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.6
110
110
110
0.05
O.05
O.05
0.05
O.05
16.8
27.1
27.3
27.3
28.0
0.04
O.04
O.04
3.0
0.4
0.1
O.I
O.I
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.3
Maximum
Concentration
360
355
355
337
334
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.5
154
155
155
0.1
O.I
O.I
0.1
O.I
30.5
30.5
29.9
30.6
29.8
0.05
O.05
O.05
8.6
1.4
1.0
1.1
0.6
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.4
12.4
10.7
10.7
11.0
9.1
Average
Concentration
316.9
310.6
312.5
311.2
301.6
0.7
0.4
0.4
1.1
123.4
122.1
122.1
0.1
O.I
O.I
0.1
O.I
28.2
28.6
28.4
28.5
28.7
0.05
O.05
O.05
6.2
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.3
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
9.1
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.6
Standard
Deviation
13.9
14.6
15.1
11.8
17.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
15.1
15.2
15.2
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
2.3
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.04
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.3
27
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
AC
TA
TB
TT
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Number
of
Samples
25
25
19
19
6
19
19
13
13
5
25
19
19
6
25
19
19
6
7
7
7
Minimum
Concentration
1.0
0.9
0.7
1.0
1.0
-128
121
222
228
258
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
2.2
210
208
204
Maximum
Concentration
4.1
2.6
2.2
4.9
2.5
-63
382
379
364
347
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.6
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
283
279
278
Average
Concentration
1.9
1.6
1.4
1.9
1.6
-78
274
292
292
312
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
239
237
239
Standard
Deviation
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.5
14
65
44
39
34
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.4
26.3
25.6
25.1
One-half of the detection limit was used for non-detect samples for calculations.
Duplicate samples are included in the calculations.
Manganese. Total Mn levels in the influent ranged from 113 to 146 |o,g/L with an outlier at 505 |o,g/L
(see Table 4-7). The Mn in the raw water existed primarily as soluble Mn at levels ranging from 112 to
145 ng/L. After prechlorination and the contact tanks, the soluble Mn concentrations were decreased to
59 to 78.9 |o,g/L. An average of 43% of the soluble Mn was converted to particulate Mn. Only particulate
Mn was filtered out by the Macrolite® filters, leaving soluble Mn in the treated water at levels ranging
from55.5to80.9ng/L-
Other Water Quality Parameters. In addition to arsenic, iron, and manganese analyses, other water
quality parameters were analyzed to provide insight into the chemical processes occurring within the
treatment system. The results of the water quality parameters are included in Appendix B and are
summarized in Table 4-8. DO levels remained low across the treatment train (with average values
ranging from 1.4 to 1.9 mg/L), but ORP values increased after chlorine addition (ranging from -63 to -128
mV before chlorination versus 121 to 382 mV after chlorination). The pH in the raw water had an
average value of 7.6 and the pH in the treated water had an average value of 7.4. Average alkalinity
results ranged from 302 to 317 mg/L (as CaCO3) across the treatment train. Average total hardness
results ranged from 237 to 239 mg/L (as CaCO3) across the treatment train (the total hardness is the sum
of calcium hardness and magnesium hardness). The water had predominantly calcium hardness.
28
-------
Arsenic Species at the Inlet (IN)
n
Iron addition 1/03/05
Arsenic Species after After Contact Tanks (AC)
Iron addition 1/03/05
y
11/2/04
Date
Arsenic Species at the Combined Effluent (TT)
Q
Iron addition 1/03/05
11/2/04 11/30/04
Date
1/4/05 2/8/05
Figure 4-10. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at the Inlet (IN), after Contact Tanks (AC), and
after Combined System Effluent (TT) Sampling Locations
29
-------
18.0
16.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
Run Time (Mrs)
8.0
Figure 4-lla. Arsenic in Treated Water before Iron Addition versus Run Time
18.0
16.0
14.0
-7 12.0
5 10.0
< 6.0
Run Time (Mrs)
Figure 4-llb. Arsenic in Treated Water after Iron Addition versus Run Time
30
-------
Total Iron Results for Climax, MN
2000
1800 -
8/10/04
9/9/04
10/9/04
11/8/04
12/8/04
i 1/7/05
2/6/05
Date
Note: Possible data outlier for After Contact sample on 02/08/05 as iron addition continued at target dosage
rate during week of 02/07/05 to 02/13/05.
Figure 4-12. Total Iron Concentrations versus Time
Fluoride concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 0.7 mg/L in the raw water and after contact tanks and were not
affected by the Macrolite® filtration. Fluoride averaged 1 . 1 mg/L in the combined effluent samples after
the fluoridation step. No nitrate or phosphate was detected in the raw water. Average sulfate
concentrations ranged from 122 to 123 mg/L across the treatment train. The silica (as SiO2) concentration
remained at approximately 28 mg/L across the treatment train.
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. Backwash of the Macrolite® filters was performed using treated
water. The analytical results from the six backwash water sampling events are summarized in Table 4-9.
Samples collected from the sample ports located in the backwash water discharge lines from each vessel
were analyzed for pH, turbidity, TDS, and soluble As, Fe, and Mn. Prior to the iron addition, the soluble
arsenic concentrations in the backwash water ranged from 12.3 to 21.6 |o,g/L and the soluble iron
concentrations ranged from <25 to 39.9 |o,g/L. After iron addition, the soluble arsenic concentrations
decreased and ranged from 6.4 to 9.2 |o,g/L, while the soluble iron concentrations increased and ranged
from 27.3 to 148
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Distribution system samples were collected to
determine the impact of the arsenic removal system on the lead and copper level and water chemistry in
the distribution system. Prior to the installation and operation of the system, baseline distribution water
samples were collected monthly at three LCR residences from January to April 2004. Following the
installation of the system, distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three
locations. The samples were analyzed for pH, alkalinity, and total arsenic, iron, manganese, lead, and
copper. The results of the distribution system sampling are summarized in Table 4-10.
31
-------
Table 4-9. Backwash Water Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Date
09/24/04
10/20/04(a)
11/16/04
12/13/04
01/12/05
02/16/05
Vessel A
M
a.
S.U.
7.1
7.6
7.9
7.7
7.5
7.5
Turbidity
NTU
45
54
60
38
140
14(b)
!/5
0
H
mg/L
908
824
826
798
648
808
As (soluble)
Hg/L
14.8
21.6
15.6
12.3
9.2
7.2
Fe (soluble)
ug/L
<25
<25
<25
34.6
148.0
83.4
Mn (soluble)
Hg/L
37.4
413.0
49.6
69.8
86.7
73.1
Vessel B
M
a.
S.U.
7.2
7.5
7.9
7.6
7.5
7.5
Turbidity
NTU
52
29
48
7
120
14(b)
!/5
0
H
mg/L
990
774
840
758
646
798
As (soluble)
ug/L
17.9
19.5
14.1
12.5
7.8
6.4
Fe (soluble)
ug/L
<25
30.7
<25
39.9
87.1
27.3
Mn (soluble)
ug/L
24.9
235.0
54.8
72.7
81.8
68.7
TDS = total dissolved solids.
(a) Soluble Mn was re-ran to give similar results for both samples for this date.
(b) Low turbidity on 02/16/05 might have been caused by analytical errors.
The main difference observed before and after the operation of the system was a decrease in the arsenic
concentrations at each of the sampling locations. Arsenic concentrations in the baseline samples ranged
from 21.8 to 52.3 |o,g/L. The arsenic levels measured since the treatment system started ranged from 11.3
to 17.0 |o,g/L before iron addition and 5.9 to 11.8 |o,g/L after iron addition. One exception occurred on
August 31, 2004 when the operator reported a "red water" slug from the Distribution Sample 1 (DS1) tap,
which contained signficiant solids and elevated levels of arsenic, iron, manganese, lead, and copper. Iron
concentrations in the baseline samples were high and ranged from 25.1 to 579.8 |o,g/L before the system
installation. Since system startup, iron levels in the distributed water decreased with an average of
48.4 ng/L before iron addition and an average of 90.9 |o,g/L after iron addition. The manganese levels in
the distribution system samples averaged 65.7 |o,g/L in the baseline samples collected before startup and
decreased to an average of 35.4 |o,g/L after the treatment system began operation.
There was no major change in measured pH values in the distribution system, which ranged from 7.4 to
7.6 before the system became operational and 7.3 to 7.7 after the system became operational. Alkalinity
levels in the distribution system ranged from 198 to 331 mg/L as CaCO3 before, and 294 to 339 as CaCO3
after.
Lead levels in the distribution system ranged from 0.3 to 4.7 |o,g/L with no samples exceeding the action
level of 15 |o,g/L (with the excpetion of the August 31, 2004 sample collected at the DS1 location). Lead
levels in the distribution system did not appear to have been affected by the operation of the arsenic
treatment unit. Copper concentrations in the distribution system ranged from 19.7 to 401.8 |o,g/L in the
baseline samples. Copper concentrations in the distribution system ranged from 53.4 to 1,027 |o,g/L after
the system was started (with no samples exceeding the 1,300 |o,g/L action level with the exception of the
August 31, 2004 event noted above).
32
-------
Table 4-10. Distribution Sampling Results
mpling Events
«
CO
=3
6
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
Location
ID
1-
so Q
01/28/04
02/23/04
03/22/04
04/27/04
08/31/04
Flouride
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.5
0.9
0.6
1.4
0.7
1.2
1.0
Df
As (ng/L
37.2
34.1
40.4
21.8
483
14.6
14.9
15.6
12.1
10.7
8.0
»1
Fe Oig/L)
372
212
276
39.5
13,903
70.7
58.3
54.5
<25
71.5
69.4
•&i
e
89.1
86.5
81.6
37.3
1,291
76.6
29.7
37.1
26.2
45.4
26.2
~ei)
A.
a
—
2.5
0.3
0.3
0.6
142
2.2
1.7
3.4
2.8
2.0
2.3
_
~ei)
A.
O
61.9
26.0
28.8
19.7
6,605
62.5
53.4
281
297
233
241
m Time (hrs)
•£
«
a
«
55
8.9
8.8
10.0
8.0
12.0
12.0
6.4
12.0
8.0
24.0
12.0
-
&
X
e.
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
y (mg/L as CaCO3)
Alkalinit
282
298
307
299
314
304
316
317
301
294
326
T&
Flouride
NA
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.5
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.0
DS2
As (ng/L
39.2
49.0
35.0
22.9
15.9
15.0
13.5
17.0
13.1
11.8
9.3
Fe Oig/L)
371
417
260
36.6
<25
74.6
35.4
81.0
52.6
109
69.6
•&i
§
65.8
45.4
42.3
17.0
12.7
47.4
12.6
49.9
23.4
25.1
13.9
J
"ex
A.
a
—
4.1
3.9
4.6
0.5
1.9
3.3
1.2
4.2
1.6
2.4
1.6
_
~5i)
A
O
208
195
215
55.8
122
145
110
187
121
106
112
m Time (hrs)
•£
«
a
«
55
6.0
15.5
6.9
6.8
7.5
18.0
18.5
7.2
17.0
16.3
16.3
_
SE-
X
e.
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
y (mg/L as CaCO3)
Alkalinit
286
300
323
299
306
308
316
309
301
328
339
S
~Sn
g
Flouride
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
0.6
0.9
0.5
1.4
0.6
1.0
1.0
DS3
1
1/3
•<
52.3
41.7
45.8
25.1
13.9
12.9
12.0
16.0
11.3
7.4
5.9
Fe Oig/L)
580
321
472
71.0
<25
<25
31.7
61.6
35.0
180
46.1
•&i
§
111
82.4
89.0
40.8
25.0
51.5
25.1
27.9
23.0
33.0
46.9
Pb (ng/L
4.7
0.9
3.0
0.7
1.0
2.2
1.2
3.3
3.5
2.9
3.3
Cu (ng/L
402
230
335
86.6
110
119
213
593
1,027
407
108
OJ
OJ
(a) Homeowner at DS1 noticed a flush of red water during sample collection.
(b) DS2 was taken on 12/7/04 for this sampling event.
(c) DS3 was taken on 1/12/05 for this sampling event.
NA = not analyzed; BL = baseline sampling.
Lead action level =15 ug/L; copper action level =1.3 mg/L
The unit for analytical parameters is ug/L except for pH (S.U.) alkalinity (mg/L [as CaCO3])
-------
4.6 System Costs
The cost-effectiveness of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design
capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This included the tracking of capital costs
such as equipment, engineering, and installation costs and O&M costs such as media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electrical power use, and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Costs. The capital investment for the Climax system was $249,081 (Table 4-11), which
included $137,970 for equipment, $39,344 for engineering, and $71,767 for installation. The equipment
costs include the costs for the Macrolite® media, contact tanks, filtration skid, instrumentation and
controls, labor (including activities for the system shakedown), and system warranty. The equipment
costs were 55% of the total capital investment. The engineering cost included the costs for preparing a
process design report and the required engineering plans, including a general arrangement drawing,
piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs), interconnecting piping layouts, tank fill details, a
schematic of the PLC panel, an electrical on-line diagram, and other associated drawings. After certified
by a Minnesota-registered professional engineer (PE), the plans were submitted to the MDH for permit
review and approval. The engineering costs were 16% of the total capital investment.
Table 4-11. Summary of Capital Investment for the Climax, MN, Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
Media, Filter Skid, and Tanks
Air Compressor
Control Panel
Additional Flowmeter/Totalizers
Labor
Warranty
Equipment Total
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
$66,210
$2,346
$11,837
$2,622
$43,005
$11,950
$137,970
-
-
-
-
-
-
55%
Engineering Costs
Labor
Subcontractor
Engineering Total
-
-
-
$38,094
$1,250
$39,344
-
-
16%
Installation Costs
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
$12,914
$6,163
$52,690
$71,767
$249,081
-
-
-
29%
100%
The installation costs included the costs for labor and materials for system unloading and anchoring,
plumbing, and mechanical and electrical connections. The installation costs were 29% of the total capital
investment.
The total capital cost of $249,081 and equipment cost of $137,900 were converted to a unit cost of
$0.23/1,000 gal and $0.13/1,000 gal, respectively, using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.06722 based
on a 3% interest rate and a 20-year return period (Chen et al., 2004). These calculations assumed that the
system operated 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, at the system design flowrate of 140 gpm. The system
operated only 5.3 hrs a day and produced 6,758,000 gal of water during the six month period. At this
34
-------
reduced usage rate, the total unit cost and equipment-only unit cost were increased to $1.32/1,000 gal and
$0.73/1,000 gal, respectively. Using the system's rated capacity of 140 gpm (201,600 gpd), the capital
cost was $1,779 per gpm ($1.24 per gpd) and equipment-only cost was $986 per gpm ($0.68 per gpd).
These calculations did not include the cost of the building construction.
A 22-ft x 24-ft building was built as an addition onto the existing concrete block well house for $88,256.
The building walls were constructed with a wood stud frame and 24-gauge pre-fabricated metal wall
panels and set on a 6-inch-thick concrete slab floor with footings. The building also was equipped with
an insulated, 10-ft-wide overhead door. The building construction cost includes all of the required insula-
tion, mechanical, and electrical work. The building was heated with a 60,000 British Thermal Units per
hour (BTU-hr) heater. The connection to the existing water main required 16 linear ft of 6-inch-diameter
C900 pipe and cost $4,650. The initial budget called for $6,730 for connection to the sanitary sewer with
145 ft of 6-inch-diameter PVC pipe. However, after plan review by the MDH, a code requirement was
identified to complete the sanitary sewer connection at a distance greater than 50 ft from the wellhead.
An underground storage tank was placed at a distance of 50 ft from the well house to hold the backwash
water prior to pumping to the sewer. The cost for this change was approximately $12,000.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs. O&M costs include primarily costs associated with
chemical supply, electricity, and labor. These costs are summarized in Table 4-12. Since chlorination
was performed prior to this demonstration study, the incremental cost for the sodium hypochlorite
(NaOCl) solution was assumed to be negligible. The usage rate for the ferric chloride stock solution was
approximately 75 gal or 853 pounds per year. Incremental electrical power consumption associated with
the increased total dynamic head was assumed to be negligible. The power demand was based on vendor
specifications for the PLC and air compressor and will be verified with utility bills from the site during
the next reporting period. The routine, non-demonstration related labor activities consumed about 30 min
per day, as noted in Section 4.4.4. Based on this time commitment and a labor rate of $21/hr, the labor
cost was $0.22/1,000 gal of water treated. In sum, the total O&M cost was approximately $0.27/1,000
gal. The O&M costs included estimates of the projected chemical usage, electrical usage, and labor rates
and will be verified during the next reporting period.
Table 4-12. O&M Costs for the Climax, MN, Treatment System
Cost Category
Projected volume processed (kgal)
Value
6,758
Assumptions
From 08/1 1/04 through 02/28/05 (see Table 4-4)
Chemical Usage
Projected chemical cost ($/l,000 gal)
$0.03
Ferric chloride usage of 75 gal or 853 pounds per year; Unit
cost was $0.40/lbs for 35% ferric chloride in a 600 Ib drum.
Electricity
Projected power use ($/l,000 gal)
$0.02
Based on estimate of power usage for PLC and air
compressor
Labor
Average weekly labor (hrs)
Projected labor cost ($/l,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
2.5
$0.22
$0.27
30 min/day; Five days a week
Labor rate = $2 1/hr
-
35
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2003. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. EPA NRMRL.
November 17.
Battelle. 2004. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at Climax, MN. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No.
0019 for U.S. EPA NRMRL. July 12.
Chen, A., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal Technologies:
U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-04/201.
U.S. EPA NRMRL, 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 (March): 103-113.
EPA, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Kinetico. 2004. Operation and Maintenance Manual, Macrolite® Model FM-236-AS, Climax, Minnesota
Water Department. June 2004.
Sorg, T.J. 2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, AWWA, 28(11): 15.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic
and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Fed. Register,
66:14:6975. January 22.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance
for Public Water Systems. Prepared by EPA's Office of Water. EPA/816/R-02/009. February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking
Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141. March 25.
Wang, L., W. Condit, and A. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA Arsenic
Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S. EPA
NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH.
36
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Climax, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Daily System Operation
Week
No.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Date
08/16/04
08/17/04
08/18/04
08/19/04
08/20/04
08/21/04
08/22/04
08/23/04
08/24/04
08/25/04
08/26/04
08/27/04
08/28/04
08/29/04
08/30/04
08/31/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
09/03/04
09/04/04
09/05/04
09/06/04
09/07/04
09/08/04
09/09/04
09/10/04
09/11/04
09/12/04
09/13/04
09/14/04
09/15/04
09/16/04
09/17/04
09/18/04
09/19/04
09/20/04
09/21/04
09/22/04
09/23/04
09/24/04
09/25/04
09/26/04
09/27/04
09/28/04
09/29/04
09/30/04
10/01/04
10/02/04
10/03/04
10/04/04
10/05/04
10/06/04
10/07/04
10/08/04
10/09/04
10/10/04
10/11/04
10/12/04
10/13/04
10/14/04
10/15/04
10/16/04
10/17/04
10/18/04
10/19/04
10/20/04
10/21/04
10/22/04
10/23/04
10/24/04
Well #1
Hour
Meter
(hr)
NA
57:10
64:56
68:54
76:33
85:14
95:52
105:04
114:27
119:40
124:11
129:03
135:06
142:02
145:20
160:06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
306:14
310:51
314:27
320:54
327:28
332:55
337:44
343:48
349:09
354:45
360:22
366:52
371:34
376:17
382:48
388:00
425:34
434:34
441:57
448:30
451:25
454:22
456:27
NA
Daily
Operational
(hr)
5.0
NA
7.8
4.0
7.6
8.7
10.6
9.2
9.4
5.2
4.5
4.9
6.0
6.9
3.3
14.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.6
4.6
3.6
6.5
6.6
5.5
4.8
6.1
5.3
5.6
5.6
6.5
4.7
4.7
6.5
5.2
37.6
9.0
7.4
6.6
2.9
2.9
2.1
NA
Well#2
Hour
Meter
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
166:07
175:42
180:04
183:52
189:11
192:56
199:11
202:33
206:25
212:00
215:51
219:10
225:08
229:29
234:02
238:21
241:28
247:07
250:33
254:20
259:12
263:29
264:55
272:07
276:53
281:45
286:28
291:15
296:02
300:41
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.0
9.6
4.4
3.8
5.3
3.8
6.2
3.4
3.9
5.6
3.8
3.3
6.0
4.4
4.6
4.3
3.1
5.6
3.4
3.8
4.9
4.3
1.4
7.2
4.8
4.9
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
307
348
395
418
466
523
591
645
705
737
765
797
836
880
902
994
1037
1109
1142
1167
1211
1239
1285
1310
1339
1382
1410
1435
1480
1515
1547
1580
1603
1646
1671
1700
1737
1770
1781
1836
1872
1908
1944
1980
2016
2052
2087
2117
2132
2172
2225
2260
2291
2329
2365
2402
2439
2481
2512
2541
2584
2610
2621
2679
2693
2735
2755
2774
2784
NA
Daily
Volume
(kgal)
NA
41
47
23
48
57
68
55
60
32
28
32
39
45
21
93
43
72
32
25
44
28
46
26
29
43
28
25
45
35
32
32
23
43
26
29
37
32
11
55
36
37
36
36
36
35
35
30
15
40
53
35
31
38
37
37
37
43
30
30
43
26
11
58
15
42
19
19
10
NA
Ave.
Flowrate
(gpm)
NA
NA
100
98
104
109
106
99
107
103
103
109
107
107
107
105
119
125
124
110
138
125
122
126
125
128
122
125
127
134
117
124
123
127
124
128
127
126
128
128
125
125
127
125
126
127
106
110
69
103
135
107
107
103
114
110
108
110
107
105
110
83
5
107
33
107
110
108
80
NA
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psig)
70
71
68
68
65
65
67
64
64
65
62
63
65
63
64
65
69
74
72
69
69
73
73
71
72
72
73
72
73
73
74
73
72
70
72
70
70
73
69
70
73
74
70
73
74
70
64
63
64
62
65
65
62
63
65
62
62
62
64
63
63
64
62
65
65
62
63
65
63
NA
TA
(psig)
60
59
60
60
65
65
53
56
54
53
55
55
55
55
56
56
60
61
59
59
59
62
64
61
59
62
62
59
62
63
60
60
61
60
60
60
60
59
60
61
62
63
60
61
64
60
55
54
55
55
55
56
55
56
56
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
54
55
55
54
56
56
56
NA
TB
(psig)
60
59
60
60
62
65
53
56
54
53
55
56
56
55
56
56
60
61
59
59
59
62
64
61
59
62
62
59
62
63
60
60
61
60
60
60
61
59
60
61
62
63
60
61
64
60
55
54
55
55
55
56
55
56
56
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
54
55
55
54
56
56
56
NA
OUT
(psig)
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
40
41
41
40
41
41
40
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
40
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
40
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
41
40
41
40
40
NA
AP
across
Tank A
(psig)
10
12
8
8
0
0
14
8
10
12
7
8
10
8
8
9
9
13
13
10
10
11
9
10
13
10
11
13
11
10
14
13
11
10
12
10
10
14
9
9
11
11
10
12
10
10
9
9
9
7
10
9
7
7
9
7
6
6
8
7
7
8
8
10
10
8
7
9
7
NA
AP
across
TankB
(psig)
10
12
8
8
3
0
14
8
10
12
7
7
9
8
8
9
9
13
13
10
10
11
9
10
13
10
11
13
11
10
14
13
11
10
12
10
9
14
9
9
11
11
10
12
10
10
9
9
9
7
10
9
7
7
9
7
6
6
8
7
7
8
8
10
10
8
7
9
7
NA
AP
across
System
(psig)
29
30
27
27
24
24
26
24
23
24
22
22
24
23
23
24
28
33
31
28
28
32
32
30
31
31
33
31
32
32
33
32
31
29
31
29
29
32
28
29
32
33
29
33
33
29
23
22
23
21
24
24
21
22
24
21
22
22
24
23
23
24
22
24
24
22
22
25
23
NA
Volume to Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
110
104
107
108
124
122
120
1-9
1'7
1-8
1-8
1'7
1-8
1 9
1-9
1 7
139
135
138
144
143
138
136
144
136
139
137
141
139
138
137
138
138
139
139
142
138
140
144
140
139
138
143
138
136
138
118
123
122
124
118
118
124
122
118
123
122
122
119
123
121
121
124
124
122
125
120
120
118
NA
Totalizer
(kgal)
NA
367
414
439
488
550
623
680
745
780
809
843
884
931
953
1053
1098
1175
1208
1237
1281
1310
1359
1386
1416
1460
1491
1517
1565
1600
1634
1668
1692
1737
1764
1793
1832
1865
1876
1934
1971
2009
2046
2082
2118
2154
2190
2221
2252
2287
2332
2368
2400
2439
2477
2516
2553
2596
2628
2658
2702
2728
2740
2801
2816
2859
2879
2899
2909
NA
Daily
Volume
(kgal)
NA
NA
47
24
50
61
73
58
65
35
29
34
42
47
22
100
45
77
34
29
44
30
49
27
30
45
31
26
48
35
34
34
24
45
27
30
38
33
11
58
37
38
37
36
36
36
36
31
31
35
45
36
32
39
38
38
38
43
31
30
44
26
12
61
15
43
20
20
10
NA
Ave.
Flowrate
(gpm)
NA
NA
101
103
108
118
115
104
115
112
107
116
114
112
111
113
124
134
129
126
136
132
131
133
127
133
134
131
133
135
124
132
128
133
131
130
131
129
124
135
129
130
131
126
127
128
108
113
144
90
114
111
110
107
119
113
112
110
111
107
113
83
5
113
34
109
114
112
80
NA
Backwash
TA
No.<«
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
30
31
32
32
33
33
34
TB
No.'"
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24
24
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
27
28
28
29
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
33
34
35
35
36
36
37
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24.5
24.5
24.5
26.2
26.2
26.2
27.8
27.8
27.8
29.5
29.5
31.2
31.2
31.2
32.9
32.9
34.5
34.5
34.5
36.3
36.3
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
39.8
39.8
39.8
41.5
41.5
41.5
43.3
43.3
45.0
45.0
45.0
46.7
46.7
46.7
48.5
48.5
50.2
50.2
51.9
51.9
51.9
53.6
55.3
55.3
57.0
57.0
60.2
Fail
NA
NA
NA
Time
Since Last
BW
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Iron
Solution
Weight
(Ibs)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Climax, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Daily System Operation
Week
No.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Date
10/25/04
10/26/04
10/27/04
10/28/04
10/29/04
10/30/04
10/31/04
11/01/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
11/04/04
11/05/04
11/06/04
11/07/04
11/08/04
11/09/04
11/10/04
11/11/04
11/12/04
11/13/04
11/14/04
11/15/04
11/16/04
11/17/04
11/18/04
11/19/04
11/20/04
11/21/04
11/22/04
11/23/04
11/24/04
11/25/04
11/26/04
11/27/04
11/28/04
11/29/04
11/30/04
12/01/04
12/02/04
12/03/04
12/04/04
12/05/04
12/06/04
12/07/04
12/08/04
12/09/04
12/10/04
12/11/04
12/12/04
12/13/04
12/14/04
12/15/04
12/16/04
12/17/04
12/18/04
12/19/04
Well #1
Hour
Meter
(hr)
455:22
464:32
478:05
486:00
501:06
508:00
512:19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
649:11
655:02
660:49
665:04
668:25
674:11
678:46
684:43
690:37
693:44
699:36
705:29
708:32
713:36
721:00
726:20
731:21
735:00
741:03
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
9.2
13.6
7.9
15.1
6.9
4.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.4
5.9
5.8
4.2
3.3
5.8
4.6
6.0
5.9
3.1
5.9
5.9
3.0
5.1
7.4
5.3
5.0
3.7
6.0
WellS2
Hour
Meter
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
517:15
522:51
526:57
531:17
535:29
541:19
545:37
549:45
554:40
560:18
563:01
568:34
573:44
576:25
581:38
585:47
590:53
594:23
600:02
602:56
608:33
611:29
617:06
620:36
625:37
625:45
629:00
633:41
638:16
646:47
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.9
5.6
4.1
4.3
4.2
5.8
4.3
4.1
4.9
5.6
2.7
5.6
5.2
2.7
5.2
4.1
5.1
3.5
5.6
2.9
5.6
2.9
5.6
3.5
5.0
0.1
3.2
4.7
4.6
8.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
2806
2832
2859
2909
2937
2985
3013
3051
3094
3127
3160
3193
3240
3272
3305
3343
3386
3408
3451
3500
3513
3553
3586
3626
3653
3699
3721
3765
3788
3832
3860
3899
3900
3925
3962
3998
4041
4077
4117
4156
4184
4207
4247
4277
4318
4358
4379
4420
4458
4480
4514
4563
4600
4634
4659
4701
Daily
Volume
(kgal)
NA
25
27
51
28
47
28
38
43
32
34
32
47
32
32
39
43
21
43
49
13
40
33
40
27
46
22
44
23
44
28
39
1
25
37
36
44
36
39
39
28
23
39
31
41
40
21
41
38
21
35
49
37
34
25
42
Ave.
Flow/rate
(gpm)
NA
46
33
106
31
114
109
128
129
132
130
128
135
125
130
131
128
131
129
159
82
127
133
130
130
136
125
131
131
130
134
130
137
128
132
131
86
249
112
113
111
115
114
112
115
112
110
118
109
116
114
111
116
113
114
115
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psig)
64
64
63
61
62
62
63
67
67
67
68
68
67
67
68
68
71
71
70
71
71
71
68
68
67
67
68
67
67
68
67
67
67
67
67
66
70
62
62
63
63
60
60
61
60
60
59
60
64
60
61
62
61
61
60
60
TA
(psig)
56
56
52
52
53
53
56
56
55
56
56
56
55
55
55
55
55
55
57
55
55
56
56
56
55
55
56
55
56
57
55
55
56
56
57
55
56
54
55
56
56
51
51
52
52
52
51
52
52
51
52
53
51
52
51
51
TB
(psig)
56
56
52
54
53
53
56
58
55
56
56
56
55
55
58
58
59
59
58
55
56
58
56
56
57
56
57
56
56
58
56
56
57
59
59
56
58
55
57
58
58
53
53
54
54
53
52
53
53
53
53
54
53
55
52
52
OUT
(psig)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP
Tank A
(psig)
8
8
11
9
9
9
7
11
12
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
16
16
13
16
16
15
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
12
12
11
11
10
11
14
8
7
7
7
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
12
9
9
9
10
9
9
9
AP
TankB
(psig)
8
8
11
7
9
9
7
9
12
11
12
12
12
12
10
10
12
12
12
16
15
13
12
12
10
11
11
11
11
10
11
11
10
8
8
10
12
7
5
5
5
7
7
7
6
7
7
7
11
7
8
8
8
6
8
8
AP
System
(psig)
24
24
23
21
22
22
23
27
27
27
28
28
27
27
28
28
31
31
30
30
31
31
28
28
27
27
28
27
27
28
27
27
27
26
27
26
30
22
22
23
23
20
20
21
20
20
19
20
24
20
21
22
21
21
20
20
Volume to Distribution
Flow/rate
(gpm)
122
121
120
125
122
121
120
142
144
143
141
140
144
143
142
142
142
141
140
144
142
140
145
144
145
144
143
144
144
142
144
143
141
145
142
145
141
123
121
124
121
128
125
123
125
124
126
123
119
128
124
121
125
121
126
123
Totalizer
(kgal)
2933
2960
2987
3040
3070
3120
3147
3187
3232
3265
23'"
56
105
139
171
211
256
278
323
364
386
428
462
503
530
576
600
608
669
714
743
784
784
810
848
885
927
963
1002
1040
1068
1091
1132
1163
1206
1247
1277
1310
1350
1372
1408
1459
1497
1532
1556
1601
Daily
Volume
(kgal)
NA
27
28
53
30
50
28
40
45
33
NA
33
48
34
33
40
45
22
45
42
22
42
34
41
27
46
24
9
61
45
28
41
0
26
38
37
42
36
39
39
28
23
41
31
42
41
30
33
41
22
36
51
38
35
24
45
Ave.
Flow/rate
(gpm)
NA
48
34
111
33
120
106
136
133
135
NA
131
137
132
132
135
132
136
134
134
136
135
135
134
128
137
136
26
347
134
134
138
0
133
135
135
82
249
111
112
110
114
117
113
119
116
161
93
116
119
117
116
119
116
110
124
Backwash
TA
No."1
35
35
35
36
36
36
37
37
38
38
38
39
39
39
40
40
41
41
41
42
42
42
43
43
45
45
45
45
46
46
47
47
47
49
49
50
50
50
51
51
51
52
52
53
53
53
54
54
54
55
55
55
56
56
57
57
TB
No."1
38
38
38
39
39
39
40
40
41
41
41
42
42
42
43
43
44
44
44
45
45
45
46
46
48
48
48
48
49
49
50
50
50
51
51
52
52
52
53
53
53
54
54
55
55
55
56
56
56
57
57
57
58
58
59
59
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
62.0
62.0
62.0
63.8
63.8
63.8
65.7
65.7
67.5
67.5
67.5
69.4
69.4
69.4
71.2
71.2
73.0
73.0
73.0
74.8
74.8
74.8
111
111
82.9
82.9
82.9
82.9
85.1
85.1
86.8
86.8
86.8
90.1
90.1
91.9
91.9
91.9
93.7
93.7
93.7
95.5
95.5
97.2
97.2
97.2
99.0
99.0
99.0
100.7
100.7
100.7
102.5
102.5
104.2
104.2
Time
Since Last
BW
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
48
32
47.5
17
35
8
24
Iron
Solution
Weight
(Ibs)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Climax, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
>
Daily System Operation
Week
No.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Date
1220/04
1221/04
1222/04
1223/04
1224/04
1225/04
1226/04
12/28/04
12/29/04
12/30/04
12/31/04
01/01/05
01/02/05
01/03/05
01/04/05
01/05/05
01/06/05
01/07/05
01/08/05
01/09/05
01/10/05
01/11/05
01/12/05
01/13/05
01/14/05
01/15/05
01/16/05
01/17/05
01/18/05
01/19/05
01/20/05
01/21/05
01/22/05
01/23/05
01 24/05
01 25/05
01 26/05
01 27/05
01 28/05
01 29/05
01/30/05
02/01/05
02/02/05
02/03/05
02/04/05
02/05/05
02/06/05
02/07/05M
02/08/05
02/09/05
02/10/05
02/11/05
02/12/05
02/14/05
02/15/05
02/16/05
02/17/05
02/18/05
02/19/05
02/20/05
02/21/05
02/22/05
02/23/05
02/24/05
02/25/05
02/26/05
02/27/05
02/28/05
Welltl
Hour
Meter
(hr)
746:19
751:09
755:21
761:00
766:25
770:48
775:10
785:36
789:43
795:57
799:06
804:00
809:14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
944:35
948:26
952:56
959:14
964:36
968:30
973:47
978:58
983:41
987:30
990:46
997:15
1009:43
1014:10
1018:34
1023:15
1027:57
1032:50
1038:07
1043:22
1047:14
1051:22
1055:01
1058:55
1066:00
1070:27
1074:47
Daily
Operational
(hr)
5.3
4.8
4.2
5.6
5.4
4.4
4.4
5.7
4.1
6.2
3.2
4.9
5.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.9
3.8
4.5
6.3
5.4
3.9
5.3
5.2
4.7
3.8
3.3
6.5
7.9
4.4
4.4
4.7
4.7
4.9
5.3
5.3
3.9
4.1
3.7
3.9
7.1
4.5
4.3
Well#2
Hour
Meter
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
811:31
817:14
820:43
826:02
830:17
836:19
840:39
844:48
848:12
854:40
859:03
863:07
866:18
871:16
876:31
881 :34
885:06
891:35
894:34
900:45
904:19
908:35
913:30
917:03
920:18
926:20
930:17
933:46
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Daily
Operational
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.3
5.7
3.5
5.3
4.3
6.0
4.3
4.2
3.4
6.5
4.4
4.1
3.2
5.0
5.3
5.1
3.5
6.5
3.0
6.2
3.6
4.3
4.9
3.6
3.2
6.0
3.9
3.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Volume to Treatment
Totalizer
(kgal)
4737
4770
4800
4839
4875
4905
4935
5007
5035
5077
5099
5134
5169
5188
5233
5258
5298
5331
5378
5408
5441
5468
5519
5552
5583
5608
5648
5688
5727
5754
5806
5828
5873
5901
5934
5972
5999
6025
6072
6102
6130
6206
6232
6262
6304
6339
6364
6399
6433
6566
6591
6513
6555
6635
6667
6697
6728
6760
6792
6825
6859
6880
6907
6932
6958
7005
7036
7065
Daily
Volume
(kgal)
36
34
30
39
36
30
31
38
28
41
22
35
35
19
45
25
40
33
47
30
33
26
51
33
31
25
40
40
39
27
52
22
46
28
33
38
27
26
47
30
28
53
26
30
42
36
25
35
34
NA
NA
NA
43
50
32
30
31
32
32
33
35
21
27
25
26
48
31
29
Ave.
Flowrate
(gpm)
112
116
118
115
112
112
116
111
114
111
118
119
111
139
132
122
125
130
129
115
133
129
133
126
127
132
134
127
130
126
133
121
124
129
129
130
126
133
128
129
134
113
112
112
110
110
106
111
111
NA
NA
NA
110
104
120
115
109
112
110
103
110
90
108
114
111
112
115
111
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psig)
61
60
61
61
61
62
60
60
60
62
60
60
61
65
72
72
70
73
67
67
68
69
68
68
71
67
70
67
71
66
72
73
70
71
68
69
71
68
74
68
68
60
61
64
60
66
67
62
63
60
64
65
60
60
63
60
63
60
64
66
62
63
63
59
65
63
59
63
TA
(psig)
52
51
52
51
51
53
51
51
51
52
52
52
53
53
54
51
54
55
54
54
56
52
54
56
57
54
56
54
54
55
56
56
56
57
55
55
56
56
54
54
54
53
51
50
53
51
53
52
53
52
53
48
50
50
51
50
53
51
53
50
52
52
55
52
51
52
50
53
TB
(psig)
54
54
54
53
53
54
52
52
52
53
53
53
54
56
57
55
57
57
57
56
58
56
57
57
59
56
58
57
57
57
58
58
59
59
57
57
58
57
58
56
57
54
52
52
53
53
55
54
54
53
55
51
51
52
53
51
54
52
54
52
53
54
57
52
53
54
51
54
OUT
(psig)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
AP
across
Tank A
(psig)
9
9
9
10
10
9
9
9
9
10
8
8
8
12
18
21
16
18
13
13
12
17
14
12
14
13
14
13
17
11
16
17
14
14
13
14
15
12
20
14
14
7
10
14
7
15
14
10
10
8
11
17
10
10
12
10
10
9
11
16
10
11
8
7
14
11
9
10
AP
across
TankB
(psig)
7
6
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
7
7
7
9
15
17
13
16
10
11
10
13
11
11
12
11
12
10
14
9
14
15
11
12
11
12
13
11
16
12
11
6
9
12
7
13
12
8
9
7
9
14
9
8
10
9
9
8
10
14
9
9
6
7
12
9
8
9
AP
across
System
(psig)
21
20
21
21
21
22
20
20
20
21
20
20
21
25
32
32
30
33
27
27
28
29
28
28
31
27
30
27
31
26
32
33
30
31
28
29
31
28
34
28
28
20
21
24
20
26
27
22
23
20
24
25
20
20
23
20
23
20
24
26
22
23
23
19
25
23
19
23
Volume to Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
122
125
123
125
124
122
125
126
123
121
130
124
122
148
143
140
141
140
143
139
143
141
143
141
139
142
139
144
138
144
138
138
140
140
144
140
137
143
134
144
141
131
127
120
130
115
113
122
119
131
126
117
130
131
122
130
121
131
127
114
123
120
115
130
115
122
130
124
Totalizer
(kgal)
1638
1671
1701
1740
1778
1808
1839
1912
1941
1982
2005
2041
2076
2092
2139
2165
2204
2236
2284
2313
2346
2371
2423
2457
2489
2514
2553
2595
2634
2661
2714
2737
2783
2811
2845
2885
2912
2939
2987
3018
3047
3124
3152
3182
3226
3262
11™
47
82
115
141
163
208
291
324
355
387
421
451
489
524
545
572
598
625
673
705
735
Daily
Volume
(kgal)
37
33
30
39
38
30
31
39
29
42
23
35
35
16
47
26
38
33
47
30
32
26
52
34
31
25
39
42
39
27
53
23
46
28
33
40
28
27
48
32
29
55
28
30
44
36
25
36
35
33
27
21
45
52
33
31
32
34
30
37
35
21
28
26
27
48
32
30
Ave.
Flowrate
(gpm)
116
115
119
116
117
114
118
114
116
111
122
120
113
118
136
126
120
128
130
114
130
125
134
131
128
131
132
133
129
129
135
130
124
132
130
136
131
137
132
133
137
116
119
112
116
112
106
112
113
116
116
108
115
110
122
119
114
120
103
118
112
89
111
119
115
114
120
115
Backwash
TA
No."1
57
58
58
59
59
59
60
61
61
61
63
63
63
64
64
64
65
66
66
67
68
68
69
69
70
71
71
72
72
73
73
73
74
74
75
75
75
76
76
78
78
82
82
82
83
83
83
84
84
85
85
85
89
90
90
91
91
92
92
92
93
93
94
94
94
95
96
96
TB
No."1
59
60
60
61
61
61
62
63
63
63
64
64
64
65
65
65
66
67
67
68
69
69
70
70
71
72
72
73
73
74
74
74
75
75
76
76
76
77
77
79
79
81
81
81
82
82
82
83
83
84
84
84
86
87
87
88
88
89
89
89
90
90
91
91
91
92
93
93
Wastewater
Produced
(kgal)
104.2
106.0
106.0
107.8
107.8
107.8
109.5
111.3
111.3
111.3
112.2
113.9
113.9
115.6
115.6
115.6
117.6
119.3
119.3
122.6
124.2
124.2
126.0
126.0
126.9
127.6
127.6
128.6
128.6
129.6
129.6
129.6
131.4
131.4
132.4
132.4
132.4
133.3
133.3
134.4
135.3
140.9
140.9
140.9
141.9
141.9
141.9
143.0
143.0
143.9
143.9
143.9
150.6
151.6
151.6
152.6
152.6
153.6
153.6
153.6
154.6
154.6
155.7
155.7
155.7
157.6
159.2
159.2
Time
Since Last
BW
(hr)
42
17
36
10
28
46
16
11
31
46
0
23
34
7
24
43
17
1
31
8
17
37
15
34
5
18
36
16
32
4
20
43
16
35
0
24
44
16
35
0
19
0
19
37
6
25
43
13
30
1
21
42
14
7
20
17
37
8
27
44
14
32
3
23
43
10
20
38
Iron
Solution
Weight
(Ibs)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
388
279
212
106
52
362
332
306
290
254
228
228
216
188
158
132
113
78
61
456
436
412
384
366
348
316
294
275
213
192
168
135
106
85
58
476
451
430
411
377
311
286
262
238
211
184
156
128
108
85
66
45
436
411
388
(a) Cumulative count of number of backwashes for vessel A and B.
(b) Digital totalizer meter re-set itself automatically to zero.
(c) From 02/07/05 forward corrected labeling of well numbers by operator.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
N03-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
mg/L«
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
Mfi/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
08/11/04
IN
323
-
0.5
<0.04
<0.1
28.6
110
6.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
261.6
170.1
91.5
35.9
35.7
0.2
33.4
2.3
533
469
117
123
AC
311
-
0.5
<0.04
<0.1
28.2
110
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
259.2
168.1
91.1
33.8
11.0
22.8
1.0
10.0
516
<25
114
65.1
TT
295
-
1.4
<0.04
<0.1
28.8
110
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
259.5
168.4
91.1
9.7
9.7
<0.1
1.0
8.7
32.6
<25
66.2
67.1
08/18/04
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
N03-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L0"
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
09/07/04
IN
314
mg/L
0.3
<0.04
<0.1
28.5
120
4.8
7.6
9.8
2.8
-
-
-
209.8
130.2
79.6
44.9
38.2
6.7
36.0
2.2
469
492
146
145
AC
302
-
0.3
<0.04
<0.1
29.0
120
0.6
7.5
9.7
2.6
-
0.6
3.0
207.9
129.7
78.2
42.3
13.9
28.4
1.1
12.8
483
<25
138
78.9
TT
302
-
1.1
<0.04
<0.1
29.1
120
0.6
7.4
8.6
1.6
-
0.6
3.0
203.8
128.0
75.8
15.4
12.1
3.3
1.2
10.9
<25
<25
86.8
80.9
09/14/04
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
NO3-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L^
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L«
mg/L(a)
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
10/05/04
IN
313
-
0.2
<0.04
<0.06
28.5
110
8.6
7.5
8.3
1.0
-80
-
-
282.8
188.4
94.4
36.9
35.7
1.2
35.7
<0.1
540
520
115
116
AC
317
-
0.2
<0.04
<0.06
28.5
110
0.6
7.4
8.1
1.9
163
1.0
3.0
278.7
185.0
93.7
37.6
11.4
26.2
1.5
9.9
551
<25
115
61.7
TT
313
-
1.0
<0.04
<0.06
28.8
110
0.1
7.3
8.3
1.0
317
1.0
3.0
278.0
185.0
93.0
10.1
10.0
0.1
1.8
8.1
<25
<25
62.6
61.8
10/12/04
IN
305
-
-
-
<0.06
28.7
-
7.7
7.5
8.6
1.6
-63
-
-
-
-
-
35.0
-
-
-
-
548
-
123
-
AC
305
-
-
-
<0.06
28.2
-
1.0
7.4
8.6
1.1
170
1.0
3.0
-
-
-
72.0
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
N03-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
Hg/L
re/L
|xg/L
re/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
jxg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
11/02/04
IN
304
-
0.2
<0.04
<0.06
27.9
120
5.3
7.6
9.0
1.4
-66
-
-
237.6
150.6
87.0
39.3
39.0
0.3
36.9
2.1
361
354
113
114
AC
304
-
0.2
<0.04
<0.06
28.2
120
0.4
7.4
8.7
1.9
309
1.0
2.2
240.2
154.1
86.1
38.7
17.8
20.9
3.0
14.8
363
<25
112
64.9
TT
287
-
0.6
<0.04
<0.06
28.5
120
0.1
7.4
8.6
1.4
347
1.0
2.2
239.1
153.0
86.1
16.3
15.3
1.0
3.5
11.8
<25
<25
69.2
66.5
1 1/09/04
IN
304
-
-
-
<0.06
28.2
-
6.0
7.6
9.1
1.4
-68
-
-
-
-
-
34.1
-
-
-
-
520
-
131
-
AC
304
-
-
-
<0.06
28.2
-
0.5
7.4
9.1
1.8
311
1.0
2.2
-
-
-
33.8
-
-
-
-
550
-
135
-
TA
299
-
-
-
<0.06
27.8
-
0.5
7.4
8.7
1.4
332
1.0
2.2
-
-
-
9.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
78.5
-
TB
304
-
-
-
<0.06
28.1
-
0.3
7.4
8.9
1.9
328
1.0
2.2
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
78.9
-
11/16/04
IN
328
0.7
-
-
<0.06
28.4
-
6.3
7.6
9.0
1.5
-70
-
-
-
-
-
34.9
-
-
-
-
508
-
126
-
AC
308
-
-
-
<0.06
28.6
-
0.9
7.4
9.1
1.9
314
1.0
2.2
-
-
-
35.1
-
-
-
-
538
-
128
-
TA
312
-
-
-
<0.06
28.3
-
0.5
7.4
9.1
1.5
326
1.0
2.2
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
74.6
-
TB
324
-
-
-
<0.06
28.6
-
0.5
7.4
9.1
1.9
330
1.0
2.2
-
-
-
10.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
74.0
-
11/30/04
IN
313
-
0.6
<0.04
<0.06
28.1
120
6.8
7.6
9.3
2.2
-128
-
-
222.1
147.8
74.3
51.4
51.3
0.1
39.8
11.5
524
505
125
125
AC
309
-
0.6
<0.04
<0.06
28.5
120
0.7
7.4
8.6
2.3
321
1.0
2.2
219.4
146.0
73.4
41.6
19.5
22.1
6.2
13.3
448
<25
109
75
TT
296
-
1.4
<0.04
<0.06
28.0
120
0.5
7.4
8.5
2.5
333
1.0
2.2
241.1
162.0
79.1
19.0
16.1
2.9
5.1
11.0
36.8
<25
68.2
69.1
CO
(a) as CaCO3.
(b) as PO4.
IN =at the inlet; AC = after contact tanks; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TT = after Tanks A and B combined.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
NO3-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L«
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
12/07/04
IN
325
0.8
-
-
<0.06
27.9
-
6.9
7.6
8.8
2.5
-68
-
-
-
-
-
33.4
-
-
-
-
551
-
122
-
AC
325
-
-
-
<0.06
28.5
-
0.6
7.4
8.5
1.9
289
0.2
0.9
-
-
-
33.4
-
-
-
-
564
-
120
-
TA
325
-
-
-
<0.06
28.5
-
0.4
7.3
8.4
1.9
295
0.2
0.9
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
70.2
-
TB
309
-
-
-
<0.06
29.1
-
0.5
7.3
8.4
2.2
298
0.2
0.9
-
-
-
10.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
69.7
-
12/14/04
IN
318
0.7
-
-
<0.06
28.9
-
8.3
7.5
8.5
1.8
-89
-
-
-
-
-
36.4
-
-
-
-
651
-
137
-
AC
301
-
-
-
<0.06
28.9
-
1.1
7.4
8.8
1.7
301
0.2
0.9
-
-
-
35.6
-
-
-
-
616
-
135
-
TA
301
-
-
-
<0.06
28.6
-
1.0
7.4
8.7
1.5
298
0.2
0.9
-
-
-
9.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
75.9
-
TB
305
-
-
-
<0.06
28.8
-
0.3
7.4
8.4
2.5
304
0.2
0.9
-
-
-
13.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
71.4
-
01/04/05M)
IN
296
-
0.7
<0.04
<0.06
29.0
130
3.0
7.6
8.4
1.0
-77
-
-
215.1
138.6
76.5
32.3
33.3
<0.1
32.6
0.7
376
342
116
112
AC
284
-
0.7
<0.04
<0.06
29.7
120
1.3
7.4
8.5
1.8
315
1.5
2.2
214.1
138.3
75.8
32.8
4.5
28.3
0.9
3.6
1,499
<25
118
67.1
TT
284
-
1.5
<0.04
<0.06
29.8
120
0.4
7.4
8.5
1.7
307
1.5
2.2
215.2
139.7
75.5
6.0
4.8
1.2
1.2
3.6
<25
<25
70.3
68.3
01/11/05
IN
314
0.6
-
-
<0.06
29.8
-
4.9
7.6
8.4
1.0
-80
-
-
-
-
-
35.1
-
-
-
-
463
-
125
-
AC
302
-
-
-
<0.06
29.7
-
1.0
7.5
8.3
1.3
242
0.8
1.4
-
-
-
35.5
-
-
-
-
1186
-
126
-
TA
310
-
-
-
<0.06
29.3
-
0.2
7.5
8.2
1.5
247
0.8
1.4
-
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
67.2
-
89.0
-
TB
298
-
-
-
<0.06
28.5
-
0.2
7.4
8.4
2.1
252
0.8
1.4
-
-
-
7.2
-
-
-
-
63.6
-
94.6
-
(a) as CaCO3.
(b) as PO4.
(c) Iron addition began on 01/03/05.
(d) Water quality measurements were taken on 01/05/05.
IN =at the inlet; AC = after contact tanks; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TT = after Tanks A and B combined.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
NO3-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
mg/L(!l)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
rag/I*'
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(!l)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
01/18/05
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Climax, Minnesota (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Fluoride
NO3-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/Lw
mg/L«
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
jxg/L
Hg/L
re/L
|xg/L
re/L
Hg/L
02/16/05
IN
334
0.7
-
-
<0.05
30.5
-
7.2
7.6
9.8
1.7
-82
-
-
-
-
-
35.5
-
-
-
-
569
-
123
-
AC
317
-
-
-
<0.05
30.5
-
1.4
7.5
8.6
1.2
240
1.3
2.2
-
-
-
37.9
-
-
-
-
1,791
-
139
-
TA
334
-
-
-
<0.05
29.9
-
0.2
7.5
8.4
1.4
262
1.3
2.2
-
-
-
7.1
-
-
-
-
107
-
69.6
-
TB
334
-
-
-
<0.05
30.6
-
0.2
7.5
8.4
1.4
265
1.3
2.2
-
-
-
7.4
-
-
-
-
122
-
71.8
-
02/22/05
IN
360
0.7
-
-
<0.05
28.8
-
5.7
7.6
9.1
1.9
-80
-
-
-
-
-
32.1
-
-
-
-
581
-
117
-
AC
333
-
-
-
<0.05
29.4
-
1.2
7.5
8.8
1.4
252
0.9
1.9
-
-
-
33.6
-
-
-
-
1,425
-
126
-
TA
328
-
-
-
<0.05
27.6
-
0.2
7.5
8.5
1.5
256
0.9
1.9
-
-
-
5.5
-
-
-
-
31.1
-
92.3
-
TB
328
-
-
-
<0.05
28.6
-
<0.1
7.5
8.8
1.5
259
0.9
1.9
-
-
-
5.7
-
-
-
-
36.0
-
90.8
-
(a) as CaCO3.
(b) as PO4.
IN =at the inlet; AC = after contact tanks; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TT = after Tanks A and B combined.
------- |