-------
several different sampling points, including residences and the wellhouse distribution entry piping, ranged
from 18.4 to 28.0 |o,g/L based on MDH treated water sampling data shown in Table 4-1.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The treatment train for the BSLMHP system includes KMnO4 oxidation, co-precipitation/adsorption, and
Macrolite® pressure filtration. Macrolite® is an engineered ceramic filtration media manufactured by
Kinetico and approved for use in drinking water applications under NSF International (NSF) Standard 61.
Macrolite® is a low-density, spherical media, designed to allow for filtration rates, as claimed by the
vendor, up to 10 gpm/ft2, a hydraulic loading rate higher than that for most conventional filtration media.
The physical properties of this media are summarized in Table 4-2. The vendor considers Macrolite®
media chemically inert and compatible with chemicals such as oxidants and ferric chloride.
Table 4-2. Physical Properties of M2 Macrolite® Media
Property
Color
Uniformity Coefficient
Sphere Size Range (mm) [mesh]
Nominal Size (mm)
Bulk Density (g/cm3) [Ib/ft3]
Specific Gravity
Value
Variable
1.1
0.21 -0.42 [40
x70]
0.3
0.86 [54]
2.05
Figure 4-3 is a schematic and Figure 4-4 a photograph of the Macrolite® CP-213f arsenic removal system.
The treatment system was operated as an on-demand system and the volume of water treated was based
on water usage. The well pump turned on when the pressure tank pressure reached 45 psi and shut off at
60 psi. The primary system components consisted of a KMnO4 feed system (with the metering pump
interlocked with a totalizer located after the pressure tanks and prior to the treatment system), two contact
tanks, four pressure filtration tanks (two each within each duplex unit), and associated pressure and flow
instrumentation. Various instruments were installed to track system performance, including the inlet and
outlet pressure after each filter, flowrate to the distribution system, and backwash flowrate. All plumbing
for the system was Schedule 80 PVC with the necessary valves, sampling ports, and other features. Table
4-3 summarizes the design features of the Macrolite® pressure filtration system. The major process steps
and system components are presented as follows:
• Potassium Permanganate Oxidation - KMnO4 was used to oxidize As(III), Fe(II), and
Mn(II) in source water. KMnO4 was selected to help reduce the formation potential of
disinfection by-products due to the presence of high TOC levels in source water. The
KMnO4 addition system consisted of a 150-gal day tank, a Pulsatron metering pump, and
an overhead mixer (Figure 4-5). The working solution was prepared by adding 0.75 gal
(or 10 Ib) of KMnO4 crystals with 97% minimum purity into 40 gal of water to form a
3% KMnO4 solution. During the six-month study period, the 21-in diameter and 31.5-in
tall KMnO4 tank was re-filled a total of four times when the tank level reached an
average of 17.4 in. The KMnO4 feed pump was sized with a maximum capacity of 44
gpd or 6.9 L/hr. However, the pump was flow-paced and the actual rate of KMnO4
addition varied based on the influent
17
-------
Backwash Waste
Macrolite® CP-213
Arsenic Removal System
Pressure
Tanks
-P
Raw Water from Well
^-
F-
X
'$
^r:
T
F^
ID
x
&
br
s
X
CO
s
x
CO
to Septic
Filtered Water
to Distribution
45-60 psi
Chemical
Metering [~
Pumpr
Retention
Tanks
S
x
CO
in
x
Two (2) Duplex Macrolite® Filters
Free Standing
Figure 4-3. Process Schematic of Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System
Figure 4-4. Photograph of Macrolite® Pressure Filtration System
(1. Duplex Units, 2. Contact Tanks, 3. Pressure Tanks,
4. Chemical Day Tank, and 5. Totalizer on Raw Water Line)
18
-------
Table 4-3. Design Specifications for Macrolite® CP-213f Pressure Filtration System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
KMnO4 Dosage (mg/L as [KMnO4])
3.3
Calculated KMnO4 demand based on arsenic, iron, and
manganese in source water; actual demand higher due
to presence of TOC in source water
Contact Tanks
Tank Size (in)
No. of Tanks
Configuration
Contact Time (min/tank)
36 D x 57
H
2
Parallel
20
205 gal each tank
-
-
Based on peak flowrate of 20 gpm; actual contact time
based on on-demand flowrate
Filtration Tanks
Tank Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/tank)
No. of Tanks
Configuration
Media Type
Media Quantity (ftVtank)
Freeboard Measurements (in/tank)
Filtration Rate (gpm/ft2)
Pressure Drop (psi)
Throughput before Backwash (gal)
Backwash Hydraulic Loading Rate
(gpm/ft2)
Backwash Duration (min/tank)
Wastewater Production (gal)
System Design Flowrate (gpm)
Maximum Daily Production (gpd)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
13 D x54H
0.92
4
Parallel
Macrolite®
1.5
28
5.4
15
2,743
6.5
20
130
20
28,800
56
-
-
-
Between two duplex units and between two filtration
tanks within each duplex unit.
40/60 mesh media
20-in bed depth in each tank
Measurements taken by vendor's contractor on
12/07/05 from top of filtration tank to top of media bed
Based on a 5 gpm system flowrate through each
filtration tank; actual filtration rate based on demand
Across a clean bed
Based on initial field design
Based on a 6-gpm backwash flowrate through each
filtration tank
-
For each tank
Peak flowrate; actual flowrate based on demand
Based on peak flowrate, 24 hr/day
Estimated based on peak daily demand(a)
(a) Based on historic peak daily demand of 16,000 gpd.
flowrate to the treatment system. During the first six months of system operation,
KMnO4 dosages varied from 2.1 to 6.1 mg/L. The operator indicated that the mixer was
only turned on when the KMnO4 crystals was mixed initially with water in the day tank.
• Contact - Two 36-in by 57-in fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) contact tanks arranged
in parallel provided at least 20 min of contact time when operating at the design (or peak)
flowrate of 20 gpm. The longer retention time was designed to aid in the formation of
manganese particles before Macrolite® filtration.
• Pressure Filtration - The filtration system consisted of downflow filtration through two
sets of dual-pressure filtration tanks arranged in parallel. Each duplex unit was
comprised of two 13-in by 54-in FRP tanks and a control valve. Each filtration tank was
filled with approximately 20-in (1.5 ft3) of 40/60 mesh Macrolite® media supported by 3-
in (0.25 ft3) of garnet underbedding. The standard operation had both tanks of a pair
online with each pressure tank treating a maximum of 5 gpm for a hydraulic loading rate
19
-------
Figure 4-5. KMnO4 Feed System
of 5.4 gpm/ft2. With four tanks online, the maximum system flowrate was 20 gpm.
However, as shown in Figure 4-3, the system had an on-demand configuration with two
pressure tanks located ahead of the treatment system. The actual flowrate through the
system varied based on water demand, but was limited to less than 20 gpm by flow
restrictors located on the duplex units.
The control valve (Kinetico Mach 1250) located on top of each duplex unit (Figure 4-6)
consisted of a gear stack, which determines the throughput between two consecutive
backwash cycles. The control valve consisted of three chambers: inlet, outlet, and
regeneration and only the influent water was measured/recorded by the gear stack.
Figure 4-6. Kinetico's Mach 1250 Control Valve
20
-------
Backwash Operations - Backwash was a fully automated process triggered by a pre-set
volume throughput measured by the control valve located on top of each duplex unit.
The spent filtration tank was backwashed with the treated water from the other tank
within the duplex unit and the resulting wastewater was discharged to a sanitary sewer.
The backwash duration for each tank was 20 min from start to finish including 15 min of
backwash at a flowrate of 6 gpm and a 5 min filter-to-rinse cycle at 6 gpm. The
backwash used about 130 gal of the treated water per tank. As discussed in section 4.4.2,
it was necessary to increase the frequency of backwash from the initial field setting of
every 2,743 gal to every 1,714 gal over the six-month study period. Figure 4-7 depicts
the backwash flow paths for one duplex unit (labeled as Tank A and Tank B), which were
backwashed on an alternating basis after a pre-set throughput of 1,714 gal. The major
steps involved in the backwash process are discussed as follows:
Tank A
Throughput
TankB
Throughput
System startup using No. 8 control disc
geared to backwash after 1,714 gal of
combined throughput from both Tanks A
andB.
Step 1. Backwash of Tank A required
after 1,714 gal of combined throughput
from both Tanks A and B.
Step 2. Tank A backwashed with 130 gal
of treated water from Tank B (which was
not accounted toward the set throughput
of 1,714 gal).
Step 3. Backwash of Tank B required
after 1,714 gal of combined throughput
from both Tanks A and B.
Step 4. TankB backwashed with 130 gal
of treated water from Tank A (which was
not accounted toward the set throughput
of 1,714 gal).
Step 5. Backwash of Tank A required
after 1,714 gal of combined throughput
from both Tanks A and B.
Step 6. Tank A backwashed with 130 gal
of treated water from Tank B (which was
not accounted toward the set throughput
of 1,714 gal).
Service^ackwash cycles continued as
depicted above.
Key
Throughput through Tanks A and B before Tank A Was Backwashed
Throughput through Tanks A and B before Tank B Was Backwashed
Clean Bed
Figure 4-7. Backwash Flow Path for One Duplex Unit with Control Disc
No. 8 and a Throughput of 1,714 gal between Backwash Cycles
21
-------
Again, both Tank A and Tank B provide the treated water in parallel. The backwash
cycles were continuously repeated as shown in Steps 4 through 6 during the treatment
system operation. One set of duplex tanks functioned as one unit and always had a
filtration capacity between 25% (immediately after backwash of one tank at Step 4) and
75% (right before backwash of the other tank at Step 5).
4.3 System Installation
This section provides a summary of system installation activities including permitting, building
construction, and system shakedown.
4.3.1 Permitting. Engineering plans for the system permit application were prepared by the
vendor. The plans included diagrams and specifications for the Macrolite® CP-213f arsenic removal
system, as well as drawings detailing the connections of the new unit to the pre-existing facility
infrastructure. The plans were submitted to MDH on March 28, 2005, and MDH granted its approval of
the application on June 14, 2005.
4.3.2 Building Construction. The existing well house had an adequate footprint to house the
arsenic treatment system. The permit approval issued by MDH on June 14, 2005, indicated a need for an
air gap two times the diameter of the filter-to-waste line and a need for all chemicals to be injected on the
lower half of the influent pipe. Figure 4-6 shows the chemical injection line located on the top half of the
influent pipe. In addition, MDH required the drain line and sewer connection to have at least a 50-ft
distance from Well No. 1 and Well No. 2 wellheads and at a lower elevation.
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The Macrolite® system was shipped on
June 10, 2005 and delivered to the site on June 16, 2005. A subcontractor to the vendor off-loaded and
installed the system, including piping connections to the existing entry and distribution system. The
system installation was completed by June 24, 2005, and the system shakedown was completed by
JulyS, 2005.
Shakedown activities included disinfection of the contact and filtration tanks and backwash of Macrolite®
filtration media. The bacteriological test was passed on July 1, 2005. During the startup trip in July, the
vendor conducted operator training for system O&M. Battelle arrived on-site on July 13, 2005, to
perform system inspections and conduct operator training for system sampling and data collection. The
first set of samples for the one year performance evaluation study was taken on July 13, 2005. No major
mechanical or installation issues were noted at system startup; however, several pieces of equipment
shown in the vendor's June 16, 2005 piping and instrumental diagrams (P&ID) were missing and several
installed items did not meet the permit requirements. A list of punch-list items was summarized as
follows:
• Install an hour meter.
• Install one raw water sample tap.
• Install one backwash sample tap.
• Install one sample tap after duplex units TA/TB and after duplex units TC/TD.
• Install one pressure gauge after duplex units TA/TB and after duplex units TC/TD.
• Replace the defective pressure gauge beneath the left most pressure tank.
• Install a level sensor on the KMnO4 day tank.
• Install a !/2-inch ball valve on the KMnO4 injection tube.
• Move the KMnO4 injection port from the top half of the influent pipe to the lower half
per permit requirements.
22
-------
• Verify that the air gap was two times the filter-to-waste pipe between the drain and the
filter-to-waste pipe.
All punch-list items were resolved by the vendor by September 30, 2005.
4.4 System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. Table 4-4 summarizes the operational parameters for the first six
months of system operation, including operational time, throughput, flowrate, and pressure. Detailed
daily operational information also is provided in Appendix A.
Between July 13, 2005, and January 17, 2006, the primary well pump operated for approximately 617 hr,
with an average daily operating time of 3.4 hr/day (compared to 6 hr/day provided by the park owner
prior to the demonstration study) based on the readings of an hour meter installed on the primary well on
September 28, 2005. Prior to this time period, the operational time was estimated based on the wellhead
totalizer readings and an average well pump flowrate of 25 gpm. The total system throughput during the
first six months was approximately 863,470 gal based on the totalizer before entering the distribution
system. The average daily demand was 4,617 gal (vs. 7,500 gal provided by the park owner) and the peak
daily demand occurred on July 21, 2005, at 14,300 gal (compared to!6,000 gpd provided by the park
owner).
The flowrates through the CP-213f system varied due to the on-demand system configuration.
Withdrawn from the two pressure tanks located upstream of the system, the on-demand flowrates ranged
from 1 to 15 gpm and averaged 4.4 gpm, corresponding to a contact time of 27 to 410 min compared to a
design value of 20 min. At these flowrates, the hydraulic loading rates to the filter ranged from 0.3 to 4.1
gpm/ft2 compared to the design value of 5.4 gpm/ft2. Note that Macrolite® filter media is rated for a
maximum hydraulic loading rate of 10 gpm/ft2.
At flowrates of 1 to 15 gpm, the inlet pressure to the system ranged from 40 to 60 psi (compared to the
pressure tank set points from 45 to 60 psi) and the outlet pressure ranged from 22 to 55 psi. The total
pressure differential (AP) readings across the system ranged from 0 to 25 psi depending on the flowrates.
The AP across Tanks A and B ranged from 0 to 25 psi and across Tanks C and D from 2 to 16 psi based
on inlet and outlet pressure gauge readings.
During this time period, a total number of 431 backwash cycles took place. The throughput values
between two consecutive backwash cycles ranged from 1,714 to 6,857 gal depending on the settings of
the control disc located on top of each set of duplex units. The backwash frequency ranged from 0 to 5
tanks backwashed per day. There was one outlier on August 9, 2005, when over 1,720 gal of backwash
water was produced (equivalent to 13 backwash events in a single day). The vendor's contractor
determined that sediment was lodged in the purge/control valve on one of the duplex units, preventing the
valve from being closed; therefore, the duplex unit was stuck in the backwash mode before the operator
bypassed the system.
4.4.2 Backwash. The backwash was initiated by throughput. The control disc located on top of
each duplex unit determined the throughput before backwash. Table 4-5 summarizes the backwash
frequency based on four control disc sizes installed over the six-month study period. The vendor
switched out the control discs four times (although one was done in error) due to observations of
particulate arsenic, iron, and manganese breakthrough through the Macrolite® filters. Control disc No. 5
geared to backwash after a throughput of 2,743 gal was used from system startup on July 13, 2005,
through September 20, 2005. The actual throughput values between two consecutive backwash cycles
averaged 2,449 gal based on the total volume of water treated and the total number of tanks
23
-------
Table 4-4. System Operation from July 13, 2005 to January 17, 2006
Parameter
Values
Primary Well Pump (Well No. 2)
Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Range of Flowrates (gpm)
Average Flowrate (gpm)
617.3(a)
3.4(a)
23-3 l(b)
25(b)
System Throughput/Demand
Throughput to Distribution (gal)
Average Daily Demand (gpd)
Peak Daily Demand (gpd)
863,470
4,617
14,300
CP-213f System - Service Mode
Range of Flowrates (gpm)
Average Flowrate (gpm)
Range of Contact Times (min)
Average Contact Time (min)
Range of Hydraulic Loading Rates to Filters (gpm/ft2)
Average Hydraulic Loading Rate to Filters (gpm/ft2)
Range of System Inlet Pressure (psi)
Range of System Outlet Pressure (psi)
Range of Ap Readings across System (psi)
l-15(c)
4.4(c)
27^10
114
0.3-4.1
2.2
40-60
22-55
0-25
CP-213 System - Backwash Mode
Number of Backwash Cycles
Throughput between Backwash Cycles (gal)
Number of Backwash Cycles Per Day
431(d)
l,714-6,857(e)
0-5
(a)
Hour meter installed on September 28, 2005. Run time before this period
estimated based on wellhead totalizer readings and average well flowrate of
25 gpm.
Based on totalizer on raw water line and hour meter readings; excluding data
from September 29, October 5, and October 6, 2005.
Based on flow meter readings located on treated water line recorded starting
September 28, 2005.
Based on totalizer readings on backwash water discharge line and 130 gal of
wastewater produced during backwash of each tank.
(e) Backwash triggered by volume of water treated based on settings of control
discs located on top of each set of duplex filtration tanks.
(b)
(c)
(d)
backwashed. The number of tanks backwashed per day ranged from 0 to 5 except for the outlier on
August 9, 2005, discussed in Section 4.4.1. Because breakthrough of particulate arsenic, iron, and
manganese was observed, the vendor dispatched its contractor to the site to install a new control disc in an
attempt to curb the particulate breakthrough. While a higher number disc should have been used, a disc
with a lower number (i.e., No. 2 geared to backwash after a throughput of 6,857 gal) was inadvertently
installed by the contractor between September 21 through 29, 2005. On September 30, 2005, No. 2 disc
was replaced with a No. 7 disc, which was geared for a throughput of 1,957 gal. The average throughput
for the No. 7 disc was 1,932 gal and the number of tanks backwashed per day ranged from 0 to 5. For this
reason, control disc No. 8 was subsequently installed on December 7, 2005 to further reduce the
throughput to 1,714 gal. The actual throughput was 1,684 gal and the number of tanks backwashed per
day ranged from 1 to 5.
24
-------
Table 4-5. Control Disc Size and Throughput between Backwash Cycles
Duration
07/13/05-09/20/05
09/21/05-09/29/05
09/30/05-12/06/05
12/07/05-01/17/06
Control
Disc
No. 5
No. 2
No. 7
No. 8
Design
Throughput
between
Consecutive
Backwash
Cycles
(gal)
2,743
6,857
1,957
1,714
Average
Throughput
between
Consecutive
Backwash
Cycles
(gal)
2,449
3,469
1,932
1,684
Number of
Tanks
Backwashed
(No./day)
0-5
0-3
0-5
1-5
Backwash
Water
Generation
Ratio
(%)
5.5
2.8
6.6
7.2
However, after the disc No. 8 changeout, particulate breakthrough continued to be observed. Except for
disc No. 2, the ratios of backwash water generated ranged from 5.5% to 7.2% and averaged 6.4%.
4.4.3 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the Macrolite® system
included backwash water and associated solids, which were discharged to a nearby septic system for
disposal.
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. During the first six months of system
operation, several instances of total arsenic and iron breakthrough were observed in service mode and the
backwash frequency had to be increased twice by switching out the control valve on top of each set of
duplex units. The required system O&M and operator skill levels are discussed according to pre- and
post-treatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventive
maintenance activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pre-treatment included KMnO4 addition for the oxidation of
arsenic and iron. Specific chemical handling requirements are further discussed below under chemical
handling and inventory requirements. KMnO4 was selected as an alternative oxidant due to the high TOC
levels in source water and the potential to form disinfection byproducts should chlorine be used as an
oxidant. However, as discussed in Section 4.5.1, it was determined that source water had a relatively
elevated KMnO4 demand, which resulted in some difficulty in controlling the effluent manganese levels
(both particulate and soluble forms) and ensuring that the MnO4" added was completely reduced to form
MnO2 solids.
System Automation. All major functions of the treatment system were automated and would require
only minimal operator oversight and intervention if all functions were operating as intended. Automated
processes included system startup in service mode when the well energized, backwash cycling based on
throughput, fast rinse cycling, and system shutdown when the well pump shut down. However, as noted
in Section 4.4.1, an operational issue did arise with the automated system backwash on August 9, 2005.
Due to the small size of the arsenic treatment system, the operational data was collected manually by the
operator mentioned in the next paragraph.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill set required to operate the
Macrolite® system was limited to observation of the process equipment integrity and operating parameters
such as pressure and flow. The daily demand on the operator was about 5 min to visually inspect the
system and record operating parameters on the log sheets. Other skills needed including performing
O&M activities such as replenishing the KMnO4 solution in the chemical drum, monitoring backwash
operational issues, and working with the vendor to troubleshoot and perform minor on-site repairs.
25
-------
For the state of Minnesota, there are five water operator certificate class levels, i.e., A, B, C, D, and E,
with Class A being highest. The certificate levels are based on education, experience, and system
characteristics, such as water source, treatment processes, water storage volume, number of wells, and
population affected. The operator for the BSLMHP system has a Class D certificate. Class D requires a
high school diploma or equivalent with at least one year of experience in operating a Class A, B, C, or D
system or a postsecondary degree from an accredited institution.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks recommended by the vendor included
daily to monthly visual inspection of the piping, valves, tanks, flow meters, and other system components.
The pump on the primary well (Well No. 2) developed a leak and had to be shut down temporarily on
January 4, 2006 for repairs. Meanwhile, Well No. 1 was turned on as the backup well. The leak on the
Well No. 2 pump was repaired the next day and the primary well resumed its normal operation thereafter..
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. KMnO4 addition was implemented since the
system startup on July 13, 2005. The mixing of the KMnO4 solution required only 10 min to complete, as
reported by the operator. The chemical consumption was checked each day as part of the routine
operational data collection. Several adjustments were made over time to optimize the KMnO4 dosage for
the oxidation of arsenic, iron, and manganese.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the Macrolite® CP-213f arsenic removal system was evaluated based on analyses of
water samples collected from the treatment plant, backwash lines, and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Water samples were collected at five locations across the
treatment train: at the wellhead (IN), after the contact tanks (AC), after the first set of duplex unit tanks A
and B (TA/TB), after the second set of duplex tanks C and D (TC/TD), and after the two sets of duplex
tanks combined (TT). Sampling was conducted on 26 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 26 occasions. Table 4-6 summarizes the arsenic,
iron, and manganese analytical results. Table 4-7 summarizes the results of the other water quality
parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results through the first six months of
system operation. The results of the water treatment plant samples with the addition of a varying amount
of KMnO4 before and after the November 7, 2005, manganese jar tests are discussed below.
Arsenic and Iron Removal. Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 20.6 to 36.6 |og/L
and averaged 27.7 |og/L. As(III) was the predominant species with concentrations ranging from 13.9 to
27.4 |o,g/L and averaging 23.0 |o,g/L (Table 4-6 and Figure 4-8). Only trace amounts of particulate As and
As(V) existed in raw water, with concentrations averaging 2.1 and 4.0 |og/L, respectively. The total
arsenic concentrations measured during this six-month period were consistent with those of the historical
source water sampling (Table 4-1), although the As(III) concentrations were significantly higher,
representing over 83% of the total concentrations in source water (compared to 54% during the August
31, 2004, source water sampling). The existence of As(III) as the predominating arsenic species was
consistent with the low DO concentrations (averaged 1.2 mg/L, Table 4-7) and low ORP values (ranged
from -76 to -23 mV and averaged -46 mV) in source water.
As shown in Table 4-6, total iron concentrations in raw water ranged from 1,069 to 3,758 |o,g/L and
averaged 2,760 |o,g/L. Iron in raw water existed almost entirely in the soluble form with an average value
of 2,691 |o,g/L. The presence of predominating soluble iron also was consistent with the presence of
26
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
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
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TT
Sample
Count
26
26
17
17
9
7
7
7(3)
7
7
?(a)
7
7
?(a)
7
7
?(a)
26
26
17
17
9
7
7
?(a)
26
26
17
17
9
7
7
7(3)
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
20.6
5.6
2.0
2.1
2.9
24.4
2.7
2.0
0.1
18.4
0.1
13.9
0.3
0.4
<0.1
1.7
1.3
1,069
247
12
<25
<25
2,263
<25
<25
110
416
203
187
331
110
108
138
Maximum
36.6
36.1
29.8
17.5
17.7
30.3
8.7
6.2
6.1
26.3
10.9
27.4
5.4
4.4
16.5
o o
J.J
2.4
3,758
3,173
2,363
1,140
1,067
2,954
306
40.7
430
1,506
1,002
971
1,091
145
946
1,062
Average
27.7
26.3
8.8
7.3
7.6
27.0
4.4
3.5
2.1
22.9
2.2
23.0
1.9
1.8
4.0
2.6
1.7
2,760
2,598
394
259
308
2,691
56.3
<25
144
955
648
650
644
132
492
565
Standard
Deviation
4.0
5.5
7.5
4.4
5.7
2.1
2.1
1.5
2.6
2.6
3.9
4.5
1.8
1.5
5.7
0.6
0.3
441
521
635
364
361
255
110
<25
59.7
235
254
257
256
12.2
317
363
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect samples for calculations.
Duplicate samples included calculations.
(a) On December 28, 2005, arsenic speciation results taken at IN, AC, TA/TB, and TC/TD
locations. Average concentration used for TT location.
predominating As(III) as well as low DO concentrations and low ORP values. Given the average soluble
iron and soluble arsenic levels in source water, this corresponded to an iron:arenic ratio of 100:1, which
was well above the target ratio of 20:1 for effective removal of arsenic (Sorg, 2002).
After KMnO4 addition and the contact tanks, As(III) concentrations ranged from 0.3 to 5.4 (ig/L and
averaged 1.9 (ig/L (Table 4-6 and Figure 4-8), suggesting effective oxidation of As(III) to As(V) with
KMnO4. Particulate arsenic concentrations after the contact tanks ranged from 18.4 to 26.3 (ig/L and
averaged 22.9 (ig/L, representing most of the total arsenic (averaged 26.3 (ig/L) after the contact tanks.
After KMnO4 addition and the contact tanks, total iron concentrations averaged 2,598 (ig/L, existing
almost entirely in particulate form. This data suggested effective oxidation of arsenic and iron even in the
27
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
(asP)
P (total)
(asP)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
Sample
Count
26
26
17
17
9
7
7
?(a)
7
7
7(a)
7
7
?(a)
12
12
6
6
6
15
15
12
12
3
26
26
17
17
9
26
26
17
17
9
4
4
4
23
23
14
14
9
23
23
14
14
9
Concentration/Unit
Minimum
352
321
352
352
361
0.2
0.2
0.2
<1
<1
<1
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
0.4
0.1
O.03
O.03
0.1
22.6
22.5
22.5
22.7
21.7
13.0
2.8
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
3.2
3.1
3.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
9.3
9.4
9.3
9.2
9.5
Maximum
383
383
378
383
383
0.2
0.2
0.2
<1
<1
<1
0.06
0.06
0.25
O.05
<0.05
O.05
<0.05
O.05
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
29.4
28.6
28.4
28.2
24.7
35.0
6.5
14.0
14.0
11.0
4.8
4.6
4.8
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.7
14.9
14.1
12.5
12.8
13.8
Average
366
368
369
369
371
0.2
0.2
0.2
<1
<1
<1
0.03
0.03
0.06
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
24.3
24.4
24.4
24.6
23.4
30.0
4.0
1.5
2.0
1.9
4.0
3.7
3.9
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.3
10.7
10.9
10.2
10.3
11.6
Standard
Deviation
11
11
8
9
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0.04
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.0
5.0
1.1
3.4
3.4
3.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.4
1.5
0.8
0.9
1.5
28
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
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
Sample
Count
23
23
14
14
9
23
23
14
14
9
7
7
?(a)
7
7
?(a)
7
7
7(3)
Concentration/Unit
Minimum
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
-76
-22
-9
-12
5.8
296
295
305
177
178
176
112
114
120
Maximum
3.6
3.1
1.6
1.3
1.2
-23
196
177
183
219
383
330
338
228
197
212
155
133
136
Average
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
-46
62
67
72
106
319
315
319
191
189
191
128
126
128
Standard
Deviation
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
14
56
51
55
78
28.8
10.9
12.0
16.6
6.8
11.5
14.0
6.4
5.3
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect samples for calculations.
Duplicate samples included calculations.
(a) On December 8, 2005, arsenic speciation results taken at IN, AC, TA/TB, and TC/TD locations.
presence of elevated TOC levels at 3.2 to 4.8 mg/L (Table 4-7) in raw water. Researchers have reported
that Fe(II)-KMnO4 reaction rates are more rapid than KMnO4-DOC interactions (Knocke et al., 1994).
Based on the presence of primarily particulate arsenic and iron after the contact tanks, it appears that the
elevated TOC levels did not have a significant effect on As(III) and Fe(II) oxidation. Note that KMnO4
dosages used during the six-month study period ranged from 2.1 to 6.1 mg/L (as KMnO4) and averaged
4.8 mg/L. The effects of KMnO4 dosage on Mn(II) oxidation are discussed in the next subsection.
From July 13, 2005, to January 17, 2006, total arsenic concentrations in the treated water ranged from 2.0
to 29.8 ug/L and averaged 7.9 ug/L (Table 4-6). Soluble arsenic concentrations in the treated water
ranged from 2.0 to 6.2 ug/L and averaged 3.5 ug/L. Out of the 26 sampling occasions, total arsenic
concentrations in the treated water exceeded the 10-ug/L MCL for a total of 8 times due to particulate
breakthrough from the Macrolite® filters (Figure 4-9). As shown in Figure 4-10, the elevated total arsenic
concentrations were accompanied by elevated total iron concentrations. The iron concentrations in the
treated water ranged from <25 to 2,363 ug/L and averaged 323 ug/L, with most existing as particulate
iron (Table 4-6). The soluble iron levels were below the method detection limit of <25 ug/L as measured
in water samples filtered with 0.45-um disc filters. On September 7, 2005, the total arsenic concentration
in the treated water exceeded 10 ug/L due to low KMnO4 dosage, which can be seen by the negative ORP
readings across the treatment train, resulting in incomplete oxidation of As(III) and Fe(II). A study has
shown that Fe(II) complexed with dissolved organic matter (DOM) was very difficult to remove via
oxidation and subsequent precipitation of Fe(OH)3(s). This was due to the formation of colloidal iron that
had a size fraction small enough to pass through 0.2-um disc filters. However, this phenomenon would
be affected by the concentration and nature of the DOM in water (Knocke et al., 1994). The formation of
colloidal iron did not appear to be an issue at BSLMHP with primarily particulate iron present after the
29
-------
Arsenic Species at the Inlet (IN)
Arsenic Species After Contact Tanks (AC)
Asenic Speciation After Tanks Combined (TT)
Figure 4-8. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Locations
30
-------
07/13/05 07/27/05 08/10/05 08/24/05 09/07/05 09/21/05 10/05/05 10/19/05 11/02/05 11/16/05 11/30/05 12/14/05 12/28/05 01/11/06
Figure 4-9. Total Arsenic Concentrations at TA/TB, TC/TD, and TT Sampling Locations
07/13/05 07/27/05 08/10/05 08/24/05 09/07/05 09/21/05 10/05/05 10/19/05 11/02/05 11/16/05 11/30/05 12/14/05 12/28/05 01/11/06
Date
Figure 4-10. Total Iron Concentrations at TA/TB, TC/TD, and TT Sampling Locations
31
-------
contact tanks and after the Macrolite® filters (e.g. a size fraction large enough to be retained by a 0.45 jam
disc filter). The increase in particulate iron also corresponded with an increase in particulate arsenic,
indicating iron breakthrough from the Macrolite® filters.
In order to better control particulate breakthrough from the filtration tanks, the control discs located on
top of the two duplex units were replaced twice from Discs No. 5 to No. 7 and, then, from Discs No. 7 to
No. 8 during the six-month duration to allow for more frequent backwash. (Note that Disc No. 2 was
erroneously installed for a short duration before the mistake was caught and corrected). Table 4-8 lists
the disc number, operating duration, total arsenic concentrations exceeding 10 (ig/L, and total iron
concentrations with arsenic exceeding 10 (ig/L. The use of Discs No. 5 and No. 7 resulted in three and
four occurrences, respectively, with arsenic concentrations measured as high as 29.8 (ig/L and iron
concentrations measured as high as 2,363 (ig/L. Disc No. 8 was installed on December 7, 2005, and the
treated water samples collected during December 7, 2005, through January 17, 2006, contained an
average of 4.0 and 194 (ig/L of total arsenic and iron, respectively, which were the lowest for the six-
month period. However, due to particulate arsenic and iron breakthrough observed on December 14,
2005, control disc No. 8 will be switched out to allow even more frequent backwash during the next six-
month period.
Table 4-8. Control Disc Sizes and Corresponding Occurrences with
High Total Arsenic and Iron Concentrations
Duration
07/13/05-09/20/05
09/21/05-09/29/05
09/30/05-12/06/05
12/07/05-01/17/06
Control
Disc
No. 5
No. 2(a)
No. 7
No. 8
Occurrence
1
2
3
N/A
4
5
6
7
8
Total Arsenic
Concentration
Exceeding 10 jig/L
TA/TB
N/A
13.8
21.5
TC/TD
N/A
12.3
17.5
TT
17.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
11.3
N/A
29.8
12.1
11.3(b)
10.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
12.6
12.4(b)
N/A
N/A
17.1
N/A
None
Total Iron Concentration
with Arsenic
Exceeding 10 jig/L
TA/TB
N/A
571
1,052
TC/TD
N/A
465
1,140
TT
482
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
336
N/A
2,363
983
978 (b)
547
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,001
l,023(b)
N/A
N/A
1,067
N/A
None
(a) Incorrect disc inadvertently installed and replaced soon after installation.
(b) Field duplicate.
N/A = data not available
Manganese. As shown in Table 4-6, total manganese concentrations in raw water ranged from 1 10 to
430 |og/L and averaged 144 |o,g/L, which existed primarily in the soluble form at levels ranging from 110
to 145 |og/L and averaging 132 |o,g/L. The manganese levels in raw water exceeded its secondary MCL of
50
Figure 4-11 shows the concentrations of total and soluble manganese after KMnO4 addition and after the
contact tanks over time. Before November 15, 2005, total manganese levels after the contact tanks
ranged from 416 to 1,126 |o,g/L, 38 to 94% of which was present in the soluble form based on the use of
0.45-(im disc filters. As noted in the figure and Table 4-9, the KMnO4 dosage was incrementally
decreased from the initial level of 3.8 mg/L to 1.4 mg/L, and then increased to 2.6 mg/L by adjusting the
32
-------
1,800
1,600 -<•
0.0
07/13/05 07/27/05 08/10/05 08/24/05 09/07/05 09/21/05 10/05/05 10/19/05 11/02/05 11/16/05 11/30/05 12/14/05 12/28/05 01/11/06
Date
Figure 4-11. Total and Soluble Manganese Concentrations at AC Sampling Location
Table 4-9. Correlations Between Pump Stroke Length, KMnO4 Dosage, and
Total and Soluble Manganese Concentrations
Duration
07/13/05 to 08/07/05
08/08/05 to 08/13/05
08/14/05 to 08/30/05
08/3 1/05 to 09/07/05
09/08/05 to 11/15/05
11/16/05 to 11/20/05
11/2 1/05 to 12/04/05
12/05/05 to 01/17/06
Stroke
Length
(%)
33
30
26
15
26
40
38
40
Average
KMnO4
Dosage
(mg/L)
3.8
3.4
3.0
1.4
2.6
5.4
3.1
5.6
Total Mn
at
AC
Location
(mg/L)
634-1,126
Soluble Mn
at
AC
Location
(mg/L)
337
N/A
871-1,097
416-581
676-1,042
850
N/A
468-946
N/A
1,123
1,031-1,506
N/A
108-166
Total Mn
at TA/TB,
TC/TD,
andTT
Location
(mg/L)
428-727
Soluble Mn
at TA/TB,
TC/TD,
andTT
Location
(mg/L)
391
N/A
467-1,010
430-906
548-1,091
1,000
N/A
535-1,062
N/A
432
201-673
N/A
138-202
N/A = Data not available
stroke length of the paced-pump from 33 to 15%, then to 26%. The KMnO4 dosage was decreased from
the initial level of 3.8 mg/L because elevated total and soluble manganese levels at 996 (average) and
377 (ig/L, respectively, were measured after KMnO4 addition and thought, at the time, to have been
caused by overdosing of KMnO4. Decreasing the KMnO4 dosage from 3.8 to 3.4 and then to 3.0 mg/L
did not appear to help reduce the manganese concentrations, with total and soluble levels measured, for
example, at 1,097 and 850 (ig/L, respectively, on August 18, 2005. A further decrease in KMnO4dosage
33
-------
to 1.4 mg/L helped reduce the total manganese levels, which, however, were still higher than those in raw
water at 581 and 416 (ig/L, respectively, on August 31 and September 7, 2005. This low level of KMnO4
addition also caused significantly elevated arsenic and iron concentrations in the treated water due to
incomplete oxidation of As(III) and Fe(II) also discussed in Section 4.5.1. Resuming the KMnO4 dosage
at 2.6 mg/L returned the total manganese concentrations to 676 to 1,042 (ig/L, with most (i.e., 468 to
946 (ig/L) existing in the soluble form, as determined by the use of 0.45-(im disc filters.
The addition of 1.4 mg/L to 3.8 mg/L of KMnO4 during July 13 through November 15, 2005, resulted in
significantly elevated manganese levels not only after the contact tanks, as discussed above, but also after
the Macrolite® filters (ranging from 428 to 1,091 |o,g/L and averaging 722 |o,g/L, Figure 4-12). Further,
manganese in the treated water existed almost entirely (i.e., 535 to 1,062 (ig/L) in the soluble form based
on the use of 0.45-(im filter discs for obtaining the soluble fractions.
1,800
1,600
07/13/05 07/27/05 08/10/05 08/24/05 09/07/05 09/21/05 10/05/05 10/19/05 11/02/05 11/16/05 11/30/05 12/14/05 12/28/05 01/11/06
Figure 4-12. Total Manganese Concentrations at TA/TB, TC/TD, and TT Sampling Locations
Mn(II) oxidation by KMnO4 is dependent on the KMnO4 dosage, pH, temperature, and DOM in raw
water. The reaction of KMnO4 with Mn(II) is typically rapid and complete at pH values ranging from 5.5
to 9.0. However, elevated DOM levels can increase the KMnO4 demand due to competition between
these species and resulting kinetic effects (Knocke et al, 1987). Some researchers suggest that DOM can
interfere with the formation of MnO2(s) solids by exerting KMnO4 demand and, possibly, forming
complexes with fractions of Mn(II), thus rendering it less likely to be oxidized (Gregory and Carson,
2003). When modeling the Mn(II) oxidation with KMnO4, Carlson and co-workers (1999) determined
that incorporating a term in the model to account for the DOM demand for MnO4" significantly improved
the prediction of the MnO4" consumption. The incorporation of DOM into the oxidation term to account
for complexation between DOM and Mn(II) also was postulated but no data was collected as part of that
study. Further, high levels of DOM in source water also can form fine colloidal MnO2 particles, which
may not be filterable by conventional gravity or pressure filters. Knocke et al. (1991) defined colloidal
particles as those passing through 0.20-|om filters and requiring ultrafiltration for removal.
34
-------
The presence of significantly elevated soluble manganese levels after the contact tanks and after the
Macrolite® filters, even with the use of insufficient KMnO4, prompted the speculation that the soluble
manganese measured might, in fact, be colloidal particles that had passed through the 0.45-(im disc filters.
Therefore, jar tests were performed on November 7, 2005, to determine if higher KMnO4 dosages might
help overcome the DOM effect and form larger filterable MnO2 solids in the treated water. Prior to the
start of the jar tests, the additional KMnO4 demand of a Macrolite®-treated water sample (to which 3.0
mg/L of KMnO4 had been added based on the KMnO4 consumption in the chemical day tank during the
week of sampling) was pre-determined by titrating 1 L of the water with a 1-g/L KMnO4titrant. After 2.5
mL of the titrant was added, the water being titrated developed a dark yellow color, and was filtered, after
about 10 min, with 0.20-|o,m disc filters to remove any suspended solids including MnO2. The filtrate was
observed to have a pink color, indicating the presence of KMnO4 residual.
Five KMnO4 dosages ranging from 1.0 to 3.0 mg/L were then selected for the jar tests using the same
Macrolite®-treated water sample mentioned above. (These dosages would be in addition to the KMnO4
already added to the water to be treated). After 31 min of mixing time (including 1 min at 200 rpm, 19 at
100 rpm, and 11 min at 28 rpm), the water in the jars was filtered separately with 0.20-(im disc filters and
analyzed for soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese. Table 4-10 summarizes the results of the jar tests.
Table 4-10. Jar Test Results for Macrolite®-Treated Water
Parameter
Potassium Permanganate Added (mg/L)(a)
Mixing Time (min)
Initial pH(b)
Final pH(c) @16.8°C
Initial ORP(b)@16.8°C
Final ORP(c)
Residual KMnO4 (mg/L)(d)
As(soluble)(e)(ng/L)
Fe(soluble)(e)(ng/L)
Mn(soluble)(e)(ng/L)
1
0
31
7.70
7.68
283
353
0.04
5.5
<25
1,090
2
1.0
31
7.80
7.67
292
360
0.01
4.5
<25
102
o
5
1.5
31
7.81
7.70
400
363
0.05
3.3
<25
0.8
4
2.0
31
7.71
7.62
440
369
0.07
3.3
<25
11.0
5
2.5
31
7.74
7.60
509
493
0.35
3.2
<25
399
6
3.0
31
7.76
7.61
521
515
0.63
3.1
<25
469
(a) Dosage on top of 3.0 mg/L already added to the water prior to jar tests.
(b) Taken approximately 15 min into jar test.
(c) Taken at end of 31 min jar test.
(d) CAIROX® Method 103 (DPD Spectrophotometry) for determination of KMnO4 residual.
(e) Filtered with 0.20-nm filters.
During mixing, jars No. 2 to 4 formed large brown floes in a pale to dark yellow solution (Figure 4-13).
Jars No. 5 to 6 had smaller brown floes in a dark copper solution. As shown in Table 4-10, the soluble
iron levels in all jars were below the method detection limit of 25 |og/L, suggesting that effective
oxidation and removal of iron had already been achieved prior to the jar tests. Soluble arsenic levels
decreased slightly from 5.5 |o,g/L to 3. 1 |o,g/L in jar No. 6 (the one with the highest KMnO4 dosage 3.0
mg/L). Only soluble manganese concentrations varied significantly, decreasing from 1,090 (ig/L in jar
No . 1 to < 1 (ig/L in j ar No . 3 and then increasing to 469 (ig/L in j ar No . 6 . Knocke et al . (1990) reported
that the kinetics for Fe(II) oxidation are faster than for Mn(II) oxidation when KMnO4 is used as the
oxidant. The relevant stoichiometric equations are shown as follows:
3Fe2+ + KMnO4 + 7H2O -> 3Fe(OH)3(s) + MnO2(s) + K+
3Mn2+ + 2KMnO4 + 2H2O
2K+
35
-------
In the control sample, the soluble manganese level was high due to the slower Mn(II) oxidation kinetics
and the presence of DOM as discussed above. The 1,090 (ig/L of "soluble" manganese in the control
sample confirmed that the manganese most likely was present as colloidal particles since the sample
analyzed had already been filtered with 0.2 (im disc filters. Increasing the KMnO4 dosage to 1.5 mg/L (on
top of the 3.0 mg/L already added to the water prior to the jar tests) appeared to be sufficient to overcome
the effects of DOM, allowing filterable manganese particles to form. As a result, only 0.8 (ig/L of
manganese that passed through the 0.2-(im filters was reported as "soluble" manganese. Further,
increasing the KMnO4 dosage up to 3 mg/L increased the soluble manganese level up to 469 (ig/L,
suggesting that excess KMnO4 was present in the treated water. The presence of KMnO4 was supported
by the elevated residual KMnO4 levels and the elevated ORP readings (see results of jars No. 4 and 5).
Figure 4-13. Jar Test Setup
Based on the jar tests results, it was determined that an additional 1.5 mg/L of KMnO4 was needed to
attain filterable manganese solids. Therefore, the KMnO4 dosage to the treatment system was increased
on November 15, 2005 for a target dosage of 4.5 mg/L. The actual dosage after adjusting the stroke
length from 26 to 40% was 5.4 mg/L (Table 4-9). After the increase in dosage, manganese was present
primarily in the particulate form, with concentrations ranging from 1,031 to 1,506 (ig/L. The soluble
manganese was decreased significantly to 108 to 166 (ig/L (Figure 4-11). (Note that as before, 0.45-(im
filters were used to obtain these treatment results). After November 15, 2005, the speciation results
indicated that approximately 7 to 16% was present as soluble manganese in the Macrolite® treated water:
the total manganese concentrations ranged from 201 to 673 (ig/L and the soluble manganese
concentrations ranged from 138 to 202 (ig/L. Based on an average soluble manganese concentration of
177 (ig/L and total manganese concentration of 673 (ig/L, particulate manganese breakthrough of up to
496 (ig/L was experienced from the Macrolite® filters. In the next six-month period, further fine-tuning
will be made to the KMnO4 dosing to determine if soluble manganese may be further reduced to less than
the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 50 (ig/L.
36
-------
TOC. TOC levels in raw water were elevated, ranging from 3.2 to 4.8 mg/L. KMnO4 was used as the
oxidant to prevent the formation of disinfection byproducts. Before November 15, 2005, the effluent
TOC levels ranged from 3.8 to 4.8 mg/L and there was little or no TOC removal across the treatment
train. After November 15, 2005, the influent TOC level was 3.2 mg/L (average) and the effluent TOC
level was 3.0 mg/L (average) with approximately 6% removal. Research has shown that only minimal
organic carbon removal occurs (at less than 10%) via KMnO4 oxidation in source water containing Mn(II)
and DOC (Salbu and Steinnes, 1995; Knocke et al., 1990). However, significant DOC removal with
colloidal iron particles produced by Fe(II) oxidation was observed (Knocke et al., 1994). The
complexation of iron with organic carbon does not appear to be a significant factor at the BSLMHP site as
discussed previously.
Other Water Quality Parameters. DO levels remained low across the treatment train (with average
values ranging from 1.2 to 0.9 mg/L), but ORP values increased across the treatment train (ranging from -
76 to -23 mV before versus 1 to 196 mV after KMnO4 addition). There were two outliers on September 7
and October 26, 2005, where the ORP values after the contact tanks were negative. The ORP on
September 7, 2005, was negative because the stroke on the KMnO4 pump was turned down to 15% on
August 30, 2005. The pH in raw water had an average value of 7.3 and the pH in the treated water had an
average value of 7.3. Average alkalinity results ranged from 366 to 369 mg/L (as CaCO3) across the
treatment train. Average total hardness results ranged from 315 to 319 mg/L (as CaCO3) across the
treatment train (the total hardness is the sum of calcium hardness and magnesium hardness). The water
had an almost even split of calcium and magnesium hardness. Fluoride concentrations were 0.2 mg/L in
raw water and after contact tanks and were not affected by the Macrolite® filtration. The average nitrate
concentration was <0.05 mg/L (as N) across the treatment train. There was no detection of sulfate and the
silica concentrations remained at approximately 24 mg/L (as SiO2) across the treatment train.
Orthophosphate was analyzed between July 13, 2005, and October 5, 2005, and there was no detection.
However, total phosphorous analyzed between October 12, 2005 and January 17, 2006, showed an
elevated average of 0.5 mg/L (as P) in raw water and 0.1 mg/L (as P) in the treated water (Figure 4-14).
This indicates a removal rate of approximately 80% most likely through adsorption onto iron solids. The
elevated total phosphorous levels were further confirmed by analyzing a raw water sample taken on
December 14, 2005, for the various phosphorous species according to EPA Method 365.3 by Sierra
Environmental Monitoring, Inc. It was determined that the total phosphorous level in raw water was at
0.58 mg/L (as P), which was present primarily as total hydrolyzable phosphorous at 0.51 mg/L (as P).
According to the EPA Method 365.3, total hydrolyzable phosphorous includes both polyphosphorous and
some organic phosphorous. It also was later confirmed that no organopesticides were present in source
water by EPA Method 507. There were other potential sources for elevated phosphorous in groundwater.
Based on research conducted by the Sauk River Watershed District, the Sauk River and Big Sauk Lake
have sediment, phosphorous, and nitrates caused by non-point source discharges from septic systems,
agriculture, and urban runoff (Post, 2005). The historical monitoring data for the surface water of Big
Sauk Lake shows a maximum total phosphorous level of 0.4 mg/L (as P) (Big Sauk Lake River
Watershed District, 2006) and the Big Sauk Lake is located approximately 1000 ft from the BSLMHP
wellhouse.
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. Table 4-11 summarizes the analytical results from the six
backwash water sampling events. For the first three sampling events, only pH, turbidity, TDS, and
soluble As, Fe, and Mn were analyzed for the grab samples collected at the backwash water discharge
line. Soluble arsenic concentrations in the backwash water ranged from 3.5 to 8.5 (ig/L; soluble iron
concentrations ranged from <25 to 63 (ig/L; and soluble manganese concentrations ranged from 560 to
736 (ig/L based on the use of 0.45-(im filters. Starting from November 15, 2005, TSS and total As, Fe,
and Mn also were analyzed for the composite sample collected using the modified backwash procedure
discussed in Section 3.3.4. After the modified backwash procedure was implemented, total arsenic
37
-------
10/05/05 10/12/05 10/19/05 10/26/05 11/02/05 11/09/05 11/16/05 11/23/05 11/30/05 12/07/05 12/14/05 12/21/05 12/28/05 01/04/06 01/11/06
Figure 4-14. Total Phosphorous Concentrations at IN, AC, TA/TB,
TC/TD and TT Sampling Locations
concentrations in the backwash water ranged from 114 to 417 (ig/L; total iron concentrations ranged from
14,069 to 77,641 (ig/L; and total manganese concentrations ranged from 1,595 to 16,178 (ig/L. Note that
November 15, 2005, BW2 data had uncharacteristically high total and soluble As and Fe, and, therefore,
were excluded from all calculations. TSS levels in the backwash water ranged from 102 to 210 mg/L and
averaging 154 mg/L (excluding November 15, 2005 BW2 data that had uncharacteristically high As and
Fe and the January 10, 2006, BW2 data that had uncharacteristically low TSS). Using 130 gal of
backwash water produced, this equates to approximately 0.17 Ib of solids generated per backwash event
including 4.4 x 10"4 Ib of arsenic, 0.08 Ib of iron, and 0.01 Ib manganese.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. The results of the distribution system sampling are
summarized in Table 4-12. The main differences observed before and after the operation of the system
were decreases in arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations at each of the three sampling locations.
Arsenic concentrations in the baseline samples ranged from 15.3 to 26.3 |o,g/L. Since the treatment
system started operation, arsenic levels in the distribution system samples ranged from 3.6 to 14.2 |o,g/L
with an average of 6.6 |og/L. Arsenic concentrations mirrored the treatment results after the Macrolite®
filters, except for an outlier at 24.1 |o,g/L on January 17, 2006, when the homeowner did not sufficiently
flush the tap the night before sampling. Total arsenic concentrations exceeded 10 (ig/L at all three
sampling locations on September 7, 2005, due to particulate arsenic and iron breakthrough from the
Macrolite® filters described in Section 4.4.2. Iron concentrations in the baseline samples were high,
ranging from 2.1 to 5.0 mg/L. Since system startup, iron levels in the distributed water decreased
significantly to an average value of 128 |o,g/L (not including the outlier at DS1 on January 17, 2006).
Particulate breakthrough was observed on September 7, November 29, and December 15, 2005 with
elevated iron concentrations ranging from 532 to 2,363 (ig/L after the Macrolite® filters. Iron
concentrations in the distribution system during those days ranged from <25 to 279 (ig/L, indicating
38
-------
Table 4-11. Backwash Water Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Date
09/08/05
09/20/05
10/12/05(a)
11/15/05*'0
12/08/05
01/10/06
BW1
TankA/B
KMnO4 Dosage
mg/L
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
5.6
5.6
Control Disc
No.
5
5
7
7
8
8
B.
S.U.
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.4
Turbidity
NTU
170
160
120
NS
NS
NS
CO
O
X
VI
H
mg/L
576
550
356
54
224
360
NS
NS
NS
102
210
130
Total As
Soluble As
Particulate As
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Hg/L
NS
NS
NS
329
417
363
3.9
3.6
4.4
6.9
0.5
3.3
NS
NS
NS
322
416
360
NS
NS
NS
63,108
77,641
43,384
<25
<25
<25
163
201
128
NS
NS
NS
1,595
16,178
12,265
624
624
685
836
350
341
BW2
Tank C/D
X
e.
S.U.
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.6
7.6
Turbidity
NTU
120
17
410
NS
NS
NS
If!
O
CO
VI
H
mg/L
544
368
350
346
334
326
NS
NS
NS
348
175
16
Total As
Soluble As
Particulate As
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
1
.—
j=
9
1
Hg/L
NS
NS
NS
1,325
397
114
3.5
8.5
4.3
206
2.9
5.3
NS
NS
NS
1,119
394
109
NS
NS
NS
214,211
75,485
14,069
<25
<25
63
29,992
39
304
NS
NS
NS
3,835
14,159
4,016
560
736
656
1,175
348
376
TDS = total dissolved solids; TSS = total suspended solids; NS = not sampled.
(a) Manual backwash performed after Tank A/B had just been backwashed; less particles visually observed
(b) Samples taken on November 15, 2005 re-analyzed with similar results for both samples on this date.
(c) Modified backwash procedures implemented starting November 15, 2005.
-------
Table 4-12. Distribution Sampling Results
Sampling Events
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Date
02/16/05
03/23/05
04/19/05
05/23/05
07/26/05
09/07/05
09/27/05
1 1/02/05
11/29/05
12/15/05
01/17/06
As at Entry Point
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.5
21.51
17.5
8.4/
7.6
5.61
4.2
9.2
11.7/
12.5
2.8/
2.5
DS1
Stagnation Time
hr
7.0
6.0
6.2
5.8
7.3
8.5
8.3
12.5
8.0
11.3
9.0
S3
S.U.
7.2
7.3
7.0
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.5
Alkalinity
mg/L
382
362
377
384
365
356
370
361
365
374
383
1/3
£
'
—
U
Hg/L
24.3
21.9
25.3
25.7
5.1
14.2
4.3
6.8
4.1
4.1
24.1
2,649
2,175
2,878
2,578
73
52
72
<25
266
57
1,999
128
130
141
124
722
438
687
976
367
400
923
0.6
0.4
2.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
2.1
0.2
0.9
1.2
1.0
4.1
2.2
3.9
0.7
0.4
0.2
11.0
8.8
6.2
3.9
21.8
DS2
Stagnation Time
hr
8.3
8.3
10.0
7.3
9.3
9.0
7.3
7.0
6.0
8.0
8.5
S3
s.u.
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.5
Alkalinity
mg/L
374
367
395
370
374
352
361
352
365
374
383
*
QJ
'
—
5
Hg/L
19.8
26.2
15.3
24.2
5.4
12.7
5.1
7.9
3.6
5.7
4.9
2,792
4,986
2,137
2,639
84
<25
127
142
57
184
187
129
147
127
123
617
516
717
950
369
443
267
0.6
0.3
1.6
<0.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.2
0.2
2.5
3.4
0.4
0.2
1.7
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.7
DS3
Stagnation Time
hr
NS
7.3
8.4
8.8
9.3
8.0
9.5
9.3
9.3
9.0
7.5
S3
S.U.
NS
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.6
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.6
Alkalinity
mg/L
NS
376
386
379
370
365
374
365
361
374
383
5
£
1
—
5
Hg/L
NS
26.3
24.6
22.6
6.3
13.9
4.2
8.5
3.7
6.3
4.9
NS
2,590
2,751
2,649
162
84
98
37
222
279
342
NS
128
133
119
612
525
659
935
478
468
226
NS
<0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.1
1.1
0.2
1.1
1.0
4.7
NS
1.9
0.4
0.9
0.6
1.4
1.0
0.3
2.4
0.7
3.2
NS = not sampled; NA = not analyzed/applicable.
40
-------
settling of iron solids within the distribution system piping. On January 17, 2006, due to insufficient
flushing of the sampling tap, the iron concentration at DS1 was 1,999 (ig/L while iron concentrations after
the Macrolite® filters were very close to the detection limit of 25 (ig/L. Manganese levels in the
distribution system baseline samples averaged 130 |o,g/L and increased to an average of 569 |o,g/L after the
treatment system became operational. The manganese concentrations in the distribution system mirrored
the results after the Macrolite® filters.
There was no major change in pH values in the distribution system, which ranged from 7.0 to 7.5 before
system startup and 7.2 to 7.6 after startup. Alkalinity levels in the distribution system ranged from 362 to
395 mg/L (as CaCO3) before and 352 to 383 (as CaCO3) after.
Lead and copper levels in the distribution system did not appear to have been affected by the operation of
the arsenic treatment system. Lead levels in the distribution system ranged from <0.1 to 4.7 |o,g/L with no
samples exceeding the action level of 15 |o,g/L. Copper concentrations ranged from <0.1 to 21.8 |o,g/L
with no samples exceeding the 1,300 |o,g/L action level.
4.6 System Cost
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This required the tracking of the capital cost for equipment,
engineering, and installation cost and the O&M cost for chemical supply, electrical power use, and labor.
However, the cost associated with improvements to the building and any other discharge-related
infrastructure were not included in the treatment system cost. While not included in the scope of the
demonstration project, these activities were funded by the demonstration host site.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment was $63,547, which included $22,422 for equipment,
$20,227 for site engineering, and $20,898 for installation. Table 4-13 presents the breakdown of the
capital cost as provided by the vendor in its proposal to Battelle dated February 17, 2005. The equipment
cost was about 35% of the total capital investment, which included the CP-213f filtration tanks,
Macrolite® media, contact tanks, process valves and piping, instrumentation and controls, a chemical feed
system (including a storage tank with a secondary containment), additional sample taps and
totalizer/meters, shipping, and equipment assembly labor.
The engineering cost included the cost for preparing a process design report and required engineering
plans, including a general arrangement drawing, piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs),
interconnecting piping layouts, tank fill details, an electrical on-line diagram, and other associated
drawings. After certification by a Minnesota-registered professional engineer (PE), the plans were
submitted to the MDH for permit review and approval (Section 4.3.1). The engineering cost was
$20,227, which was 32% of the total capital investment.
The installation cost included the cost for labor and materials for system unloading and anchoring,
plumbing, and mechanical and electrical connections (Section 4.3.3). The installation cost was $20,898
or 33% of the total capital investment.
Using the system's rated capacity of 20 gpm (or 28,800 gpd), the capital cost was normalized to be
$3,177/gpm (or $2.21/gpd). The capital cost of $63,547 was converted to an annualized cost of
$5,998/year using a capital recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a 20-year return.
Assuming that the system was operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at the design flow rate of 20 gpm
to produce 10,500,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.57/1,000 gal. However,
since the system operated an average of 3.4 hr/day at just under 4.4 gpm (see Table 4-4), producing
863,470 gal of water during the six-month period, the unit capital cost was increased to $3.47/1000 gal at
this reduced rate of production.
41
-------
Table 4-13. Summary of Capital Investment for BSLMHP Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Cost
Media and Tanks
Process Valves and Piping
Chemical Feed
Chemical Storage and Secondary
Containment
Instrumentation and Controls
Additional Flowmeter/Totalizers
Shipping
Labor
Equipment Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
—
—
—
$8,549
$1,935
$1,150
$680
$1,079
$359
$750
$7,920
$22,422
-
-
-
-
—
—
—
—
35%
Engineering Cost
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Engineering Total
—
—
—
—
$15,620
$1,750
$2,857
$20,227
—
—
32%
Installation Cost
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
—
—
—
—
-
$5,000
$2,913
$12,985
$20,898
$63,547
—
—
—
33%
100%
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost primarily included cost associated with
chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor (Table 4-14). The usage rate for the KMnO4 stock
solution was approximately 7.5 gal or 100 Ib/yr. Incremental electrical power consumption was
calculated for the chemical feed pump. The power demand was calculated based on the total operational
hours throughout the duration of the six-month study, the chemical feed pump horsepower, and the unit
cost from the utility bills. The routine, non-demonstration related labor activities consumed about 5 min
per day, 5 days a week, as noted in Section 4.4.4. Based on this time commitment and a labor rate of
$21/hr, the labor cost was $0.27/1,000 gal of water treated. In sum, the total O&M cost was
approximately $0.43/1,000 gal. The O&M cost will be verified during the next reporting period.
42
-------
Table 4-14. O&M Cost for BSLMHP, MN Treatment System
Cost Category
Projected Volume Processed (gal)
Value
863,470
Assumption
From 07/13/05 through 01/17/06 (see Table 4-4)
Chemical Usage
Chemical Unit Price ($/lb)
Total Chemical Consumption (Ib)
Chemical Usage (lb/1,000 gal)
Total Chemical Cost ($)
Unit Chemical Cost ($71,000 gal)
$2.07
50
0.058
$103.5
$0.12
97% KMnO4 in a 55-lb pail (approximately 4
gal)
7.5 gal or 100 Ib of KMnO4 per year
Electricity
Electricity Unit Cost ($/kwh)
Estimated Electricity Usage (kwh)
Estimated Electricity Cost ($)
Estimated Power Use ($71,000 gal)
0.067
515
$34.54
$0.04
Calculated based on 617 hr of operation of a
0.17-hp chemical feed pump
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Total Labor Hours (hr)
Total Labor Cost ($)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
0.42
11
$231
$0.27
$0.43
5 min/day; 5 days a week
26 weeks
Labor rate = $2 1/hr
-
43
-------
Section 5.0: REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Carlson, Kenneth H., and William R. Knocke. 1999. "Modeling Manganese Oxidation with KMnO4 for
Drinking Water Treatment." JAWWA 125(10): 892-896.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/20 1 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." JAWWA 90(3): 103-1 13.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal
Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Gregory, D., and K. Carlson. 2003. "Effect of Soluble Mn Concentration on Oxidation Kinetics ."
JAWWA 95(1) :9
Knocke, William R., Hoehn, Robert C.; Sinsabaugh, Robert L. 1987. "Using Alternative Oxidants to
; ; ; ; O " O
Remove Dissolved Manganese from Waters Laden with Organics." JAWWA, 79(3): 75-79.
Knocke, William R., John E. Van Benschoten, Maureen J. Kearney, Andrew W. Soborski, and David A.
Reckhow. 1990. Alternative Oxidants for the Remove of Soluble Iron and Manganese. Final
report prepared for the AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Knocke, William R., John E. Van Venschoten, Maureen J. Kearney, Andrew W, Soborski, and David A.
Reckhow. 1991. "Kinetics of Manganese and Iron Oxidation by Potassium Permanganate and
Chlorine Dioxide." JAWWA 83(6): 80-87.
Knocke, William R., Holly L. Shorney, and Julia D. Bellamy. 1994. "Examining the Reactions Between
Soluble Iron, DOC, and Alternative Oxidants During Conventional Treatment." JAWWA 86(1):
117-127.
Post, Tim. 2005. "Pollution Cleanup Cost is Hard to Comprehend." Minnesota Public Radio. Available
at: http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/10/10jostt impairedcleanup/.
Salbu, B. and E. Steinnes. 1995. Trace Elements in Natural Waters. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
44
-------
Sauk River Watershed District. 2006. "Monitoring Our Resources." Available at:
http: //www. srwdmn.org/monitoring/html.
Sorg, T.J. 2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, AWWA, 28(11): 15.
Wang, L., W. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
45
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at BSLMHP, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Date
07/1 3/05
07/14/05
07/15/05
07/16/05
07/17/05
07/18/05
07/19/05
07/20/05
07/21/05
07/22/05
07/23/05
07/24/05
07/25/05
07/26/05
07/27/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
07/30/05
07/31/05
08/01/05
08/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
08/05/05
08/06/05
08/07/05
08/08/05
08/09/05(a' b
08/10/05
08/1 1/05"
08/12/05
08/13/05
08/14/05
08/15/05
08/16/05
08/17/05
08/18/05
08/19/05
08/20/05
08/21/05
08/22/05
08/23/05
08/24/05
08/25/05
08/26/05
08/27/05
08/28/05
Time
21:13
20:10
20:00
NM
NM
18:45
19:10
19:00
18:30
20:00
NM
NM
19:30
20:10
23:15
20:15
18:15
NM
NM
19:05
20:30
23:55
23:55
22:00
NM
NM
21:30
21:30
NM
18:00
20:30
NM
NM
21:00
21:30
20:00
19:15
20:30
NM
NM
20:20
22:10
21:00
21:15
NM
NM
NM
New Well
Hour
Meter
(hr)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Dally
Operation
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Volume to
Treatment
Dally
Volume
(gal)
NA
6,980
6,880
NA
NA
NA
9,125
11,075
14,470
7,680
NA
NA
14,250
4,020
4,030
4,180
3,340
NA
NA
18,670
6,057
4,733
3,635
3,985
NA
NA
12,020
7,195
NA
4,885
5,200
NA
NA
15,090
5,410
3,360
5,860
4,620
NA
NA
11,460
5,140
4,400
3,680
2,970
NA
NA
Average
Flowrate
(gpm)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pressure Tanks
Pressure
Tankl
(psig)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
52
46
45
53
45
NM
NM
60
55
NM
50
56
NM
NM
54
45
55
49
54
NM
NM
54
60
46
48
53
NM
NM
Pressure
Tank 2
(psig)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
72
72
72
72
72
NM
NM
72
72
NM
46
50
NM
NM
49
40
54
45
50
NM
NM
51
59
44
44
50
NM
NM
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psig)
42
54
40
NM
NM
58
40
45
45
48
NM
NM
47
41
58
41
56
NM
NM
58
42
41
49
42
NM
NM
58
55
NM
42
48
NM
NM
46
43
55
42
47
NM
NM
48
50
42
40
48
NM
NM
TA/TB
(psig)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
44
NM
40
38
NM
NM
42
38
30
36
42
NM
NM
45
46
40
34
43
NM
NM
TC/TD
(psig)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
38
NM
34
30
NM
NM
34
30
22
30
38
NM
NM
40
40
34
30
40
NM
NM
OUT
(psig)
30
37
30
NM
NM
45
36
22
35
42
NM
NM
45
40
55
40
53
NM
NM
48
40
38
46
40
NM
NM
50
42
NM
40
37
NM
NM
40
39
30
36
43
NM
NM
42
47
40
33
46
NM
NM
AP
Across
System
(psig)
12
17
10
NA
NA
13
4
23
10
6
NA
NA
2
1
3
1
3
NM
NM
10
2
3
3
2
NM
NM
8
13
NM
2
11
NA
NA
6
4
25
6
4
NA
NA
6
3
2
7
2
NA
NA
Volume to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Daily
Volume
(gal)
NA
7,000
6,700
NA
NA
NA
8,900
10,800
14,300
7,400
NA
NA
13,900
3,900
3,900
3,900
3,200
NM
NM
18,100
5,900
4,500
3,600
3,700
NM
NM
11,600
5,100
NM
4,200
5,000
NA
NA
14,600
5,100
3,400
5,530
4,205
NA
NA
10,315
5,110
3,930
3,640
2,535
NA
NA
Backwash
No. of Tanks
Backwashed
NM
1
2
NM
NM
NM
3
3
4
3
NM
NM
4
1
1
2
1
NM
NM
5
2
1
1
2
NM
NM
4
13
NM
6
1
NM
NM
4
1
2
1
3
NM
NM
6
1
3
0
3
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
NA
110
240
NA
NA
NA
350
440
490
360
NA
NA
470
130
110
240
120
NA
NA
710
240
120
120
240
NA
NA
490
1,720
NA
740
150
NA
NA
490
120
320
130
380
NA
NA
790
120
370
0
380
NA
NA
KMnO4 Application
KMn04
Tank
Level
(in)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
30.0
29.6
29.3
28.9
28.7
NM
NM
27.8
27.4
NM
27.1
26.8
NM
NM
25.8
25.4
25.3
24.9
24.6
NM
NM
23.9
23.8
23.5
23.4
23.1
NM
NM
Average
KMn04
Dose
(mg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.8
NA
NA
3.4
NA
NA
3.2
NA
NA
2.5
NA
NA
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at BSLMHP, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (continued)
Week
No.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Date
08/29/05
08/30/05
08/31/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
09/03/05
09/04/05
09/05/05
09/06/05
09/07/05
09/08/05
09/09/05
09/10/05
09/11/05
09/12/05
09/13/05
09/14/05
09/15/05
09/16/05
09/17/05
09/18/05
09/19/05
09/20/05
09/21 /051"'
09/22/05
09/23/05
09/24/05
09/25/05
09/26/05
09/27/05
9/28/2005(e)
09/29/05
09/30/05'"
10/01/05
1 0/02/05
1 0/03/05
1 0/04/05
1 0/05/05
1 0/06/05
1 0/07/05
1 0/08/05
10/09/05
10/10/05
10/11/05
10/12/05
10/13/05
10/14/05
10/15/05
1 0/1 6/05
Time
21:00
21:00
22:30
21:30
21:15
NM
NM
20:00
21:30
20:15
21:15
20:30
NM
NM
21:00
22:15
23:50
22:00
21:00
NM
NM
20:00
17:30
20:00
20:15
20:00
NM
NM
21:15
20:30
19:15
19:30
21:30
NM
NM
21:30
21:30
23:30
18:30
18:30
NM
NM
NM
18:45
17:15
20:00
20:00
NM
NM
New Well
Hour
Meter
(hr)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
0.3
3.2
6.1
NM
NM
15.8
18.9
21.0
23.7
26.2
NM
NM
NM
38.1
40.9
43.9
47.2
NM
NM
Dally
Operation
(hr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.9
2.9
NA
NA
9.7
3.1
2.1
2.7
2.5
NA
NA
NA
11.9
2.8
3.0
3.3
NA
NA
Volume to
Treatment
Dally
Volume
(qal)
13,980
7,290
4,530
3,240
3,190
NA
NA
15,955
5,155
4,320
4,750
5,010
NA
NA
10,840
4,675
4,990
3,020
2,715
NA
NA
13,405
4,860
4,940
4,665
2,890
NA
NA
12,350
4,190
3,105
3,255
5,345
NA
NA
14,010
4,493
4,377
2,313
3,617
NA
NA
NA
17,050
3,900
4,280
4,870
NA
NA
Average
Flowrate
(qpm)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
31
NA
NA
24
24
35
14
24
NA
NA
NA
24
23
24
25
NA
NA
Pressure Tanks
Pressure
Tankl
(pslq)
50
48
55
48
45
NM
NM
51
50
50
60
54
NM
NM
46
45
48
60
55
NM
NM
51
45
62
60
45
NM
NM
54
50
60
52
50
NM
NM
60
55
65
60
45
NM
NM
NM
50
64
50
50
NM
NM
Pressure
Tank 2
(pslq)
48
43
50
46
42
NM
NM
50
49
46
55
50
NM
NM
44
43
48
60
53
NM
NM
50
48
60
58
43
NM
NM
51
47
60
50
50
NM
NM
57
52
60
56
43
NM
NM
NM
48
60
47
49
NM
NM
Pressure Filtration
IN
(pslq)
44
42
49
43
40
NM
NM
46
45
40
59
55
NM
NM
41
45
43
55
52
NM
NM
46
45
55
53
43
NM
NM
47
45
55
43
45
NM
NM
54
50
57
55
43
NM
NM
NM
42
57
44
45
NM
NM
TA/TB
(pslq)
40
40
48
40
38
NM
NM
42
43
40
55
52
NM
NM
36
40
41
52
50
NM
NM
42
52
46
55
40
NM
NM
42
43
50
40
42
NM
NM
50
46
56
40
38
NM
NM
NM
38
54
38
40
NM
NM
TC/TD
(pslq)
32
30
40
32
36
NM
NM
35
34
32
48
46
NM
NM
30
35
34
46
45
NM
NM
34
46
43
50
32
NM
NM
34
40
44
32
40
NM
NM
50
44
52
42
38
NM
NM
NM
36
53
36
40
NM
NM
OUT
(pslq)
40
39
46
40
38
NM
NM
44
42
40
54
50
NM
NM
38
44
41
52
50
NM
NM
42
44
52
52
38
NM
NM
43
43
51
40
43
NM
NM
52
49
55
50
37
NM
NM
NM
38
54
38
40
NM
NM
AP
Across
System
(pslq)
4
3
3
3
2
NA
NA
2
3
0
5
5
NA
NA
3
1
2
3
2
NA
NA
4
1
3
1
5
NA
NA
4
2
4
3
2
NA
NA
2
1
2
5
6
NA
NA
NA
4
3
6
5
NA
NA
Volume to
Distribution
Flowrate
(qpm)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
6.0
5.5
1.0
NM
NM
0.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
10.0
NM
NM
NM
9.0
2.5
9.0
2.5
NM
NM
Dally
Volume
(qal)
13,775
5,900
4,095
3,125
3,120
NA
NA
14,625
4,725
4,205
4,275
5,040
NA
NA
9,645
4,255
4,435
2,925
2,700
NA
NA
12,265
4,095
4,495
4,445
3,000
NA
NA
11,670
4,185
2,755
3,840
3,850
NA
NA
12,880
4,060
4,175
2,295
3,350
NA
NA
NA
15,975
3,503
3,862
4,500
NA
NA
Backwash
No. of Tanks
Backwashed
5
4
2
1
2
NM
NM
7
3
1
3
1
NM
NM
5
2
3
0
1
NM
NM
6
5
2
0
0
NM
NM
4
0
0
3
2
NM
NM
7
3
1
0
1
NM
NM
NM
7
3
3
2
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(qal)
660
520
250
140
200
NA
NA
850
390
140
390
120
NA
NA
660
270
390
0
130
NA
NA
770
660
280
0
0
NA
NA
480
0
0
360
250
NA
NA
890
390
170
0
80
NA
NA
NA
870
380
390
250
NA
NA
KMnO4 Application
KMn04
Tank
Level
(In)
22.4
22.0
21.9
21.8
21.6
NM
NM
21.4
21.2
21.1
20.9
20.6
NM
NM
20.1
19.9
19.6
19.5
19.4
NM
NM
18.7
18.5
18.2
18.0
17.9
NM
NM
31.8
31.6
31.5
31.3
31.0
NM
NM
30.3
30.1
29.9
29.8
29.6
NM
NM
NM
28.8
28.6
28.4
28.2
NM
NM
Average
KMnO4
Dose
(mq/L)
2.5
NA
NA
2.1
NA
NA
2.7
NA
NA
2.6
NA
NA
2.7
NA
NA
2.6
NA
NA
NA
2.6
NA
NA
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at BSLMHP, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (continued)
Week
No.
15
16
17
18
19
20
Date
10/17/05
10/18/05
10/19/05
10/20/05
10/21/05
10/22/05
10/23/05
10/24/05
10/25/05
10/26/05
10/27/05
10/28/05
10/29/05
10/30/05
10/31/05
11/01/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
11/04/05
11/05/05
11/06/05
11/07/05
11/08/05
11/09/05
11/10/05
11/11/05
11/12/05
11/13/05
11/14/05
11/15/05
11/16/05
11/17/05
11/18/05
11/19/05
11/20/05
11/21/05
11/22/05
11/23/05
11/24/05
11/25/05
11/26/05
11/27/05
Time
20:30
20:15
20:15
21:30
20:30
NM
NM
20:00
22:15
18:30
18:30
21:30
NM
NM
18:30
18:30
18:00
16:30
19:00
NM
NM
18:30
17:00
19:30
21:15
23:15
NM
NM
17:00
18:00
18:30
18:00
17:30
NM
NM
10:15
18:00
21:00
17:30
18:30
NM
NM
New Wei I
Hour
Meter
(hr)
59.3
62.5
66.1
70.5
74.0
NM
NM
82.4
85.1
87.4
89.9
92.6
NM
NM
100.5
103.1
105.9
108.0
111.0
NM
NM
117.5
120.8
124.4
127.8
130.4
NM
NM
138.0
141.0
144.3
146.8
149.5
NM
NM
159.5
162.9
167.3
169.8
173.4
NM
NM
Daily
Operation
(hr)
12.1
3.2
3.6
4.4
3.5
NA
NA
8.4
2.7
2.3
2.5
2.7
NA
NA
7.9
2.6
2.8
2.1
3.0
NA
NA
6.5
3.3
3.6
3.4
2.6
NA
NA
7.6
3.0
3.3
2.5
2.7
NA
NA
10.0
3.4
4.4
2.5
3.6
NA
NA
Volume to
Treatment
Daily
Volume
(qal)
NA
NA
5,625
6,975
5,530
NA
NA
13,260
4,100
3,570
3,430
3,890
NA
NA
1 1 ,440
4,793
3,357
3,080
4,760
NA
NA
10,057
4,836
5,449
5,168
4,081
NA
NA
10,986
4,743
5,648
3,782
4,226
NA
NA
14,983
5,391
7,070
3,665
5,928
NA
NA
Average
Flowrate
(qpm)
NA
NA
26
26
26
NA
NA
26
25
26
23
24
NA
NA
24
31
20
24
26
NA
NA
26
24
25
25
26
NA
NA
24
26
29
25
26
NA
NA
25
26
27
24
27
NA
NA
Pressure Tanks
Pressure
Tankl
(psiq)
55
58
65
50
54
NM
NM
65
55
52
60
60
NM
NM
55
64
55
65
56
NM
NM
60
54
65
55
56
NM
NM
55
55
55
63
63
NM
NM
62
65
65
58
55
NM
NM
Pressure
Tank 2
(psiq)
52
54
60
48
50
NM
NM
60
52
49
55
55
NM
NM
50
60
50
60
54
NM
NM
55
50
60
45
54
NM
NM
53
50
49
60
60
NM
NM
60
62
60
60
50
NM
NM
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psiq)
48
51
56
52
55
NM
NM
56
50
44
53
54
NM
NM
48
58
46
57
51
NM
NM
48
46
57
41
51
NM
NM
48
47
53
58
56
NM
NM
60
58
58
52
42
NM
NM
TA/TB
(psiq)
45
43
52
48
40
NM
NM
52
46
30
45
50
NM
NM
45
54
42
52
44
NM
NM
44
38
48
40
45
NM
NM
33
42
50
54
54
NM
NM
55
54
52
50
40
NM
NM
TC/TD
(psiq)
44
42
50
45
40
NM
NM
50
44
30
44
50
NM
NM
44
52
40
52
44
NM
NM
44
38
48
39
44
NM
NM
32
42
50
54
52
NM
NM
54
53
52
48
40
NM
NM
OUT
(psiq)
45
45
52
46
40
NM
NM
50
47
31
48
50
NM
NM
46
53
41
53
45
NM
NM
45
40
50
40
46
NM
NM
35
40
49
55
55
NM
NM
55
55
55
50
38
NM
NM
AP
Across
System
(psiq)
3
6
4
6
15
NA
NA
6
3
13
5
4
NA
NA
2
5
5
4
6
NA
NA
3
6
7
1
5
NA
NA
13
7
4
3
1
NA
NA
5
3
3
2
4
NA
NA
Volume to
Distribution
Flowrate
(qpm)
3.0
7.5
2.5
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.0
1.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
NM
NM
0.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
NM
NM
2.5
6.0
8.0
2.5
1.0
NM
NM
2.5
6.0
5.0
1.0
0.0
NM
NM
7.5
5.0
7.5
1.0
1.5
NM
NM
Daily
Volume
(qal)
16,780
4,390
5,195
6,335
5,055
NA
NA
12,265
3,750
3,360
3,105
3,635
NA
NA
10,480
3,643
3,927
2,930
4,315
NA
NA
8,826
4,749
5,050
4,640
3,705
NA
NA
10,081
4,209
5,095
3,470
3,860
NA
NA
13,405
4,805
6,240
3,250
5,330
NA
NA
Backwash
No. of Tanks
Backwashed
10
2
2
3
2
NM
NM
4
3
1
2
1
NM
NM
5
1
3
1
2
NM
NM
5
1
3
2
2
NM
NM
6
2
3
1
2
NM
NM
9
3
5
2
2
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(qal)
1,260
260
250
360
250
NA
NA
520
350
120
250
120
NA
NA
610
120
360
120
240
NA
NA
690
140
360
240
240
NA
NA
820
240
380
130
250
NA
NA
1,160
390
640
260
250
NA
NA
KMnO4 Application
KMnO4
Tank
Level
(in)
27.3
27.0
26.8
26.4
26.2
NM
NM
25.5
25.3
25.1
24.9
24.8
NM
NM
24.3
24.0
23.8
23.7
23.4
NM
NM
NM
22.6
22.3
22.1
21.9
NM
NM
21.3
20.9
20.4
20.0
19.6
NM
NM
18.3
18.0
17.5
17.3
NM
NM
NM
Average
KMnO4
Dose
(mq/L)
2.6
NA
NA
2.5
NA
NA
3.0
NA
NA
2.8
NA
NA
5.0
NA
NA
3.5
NA
NA
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at BSLMHP, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (continued)
Week
No.
21
22
23
24
25
26
Date
11/28/05
11/29/05
11/30/05
12/01/05
12/02/05
12/03/05
12/04/05
12/05/05
12/06/05
12/07/05
12/08/05
12/09/05
12/10/05
12/11/05
12/12/05
12/13/05
12/14/05
12/15/05
12/16/05
12/17/05
12/18/05
12/19/05
12/20/05
12/21/05
12/22/05
12/23/05
12/24/05
12/25/05
12/26/05
12/27/05
12/28/05
12/29/05
12/30/05
12/31/05
01/01/06
01/02/06
01/03/0619'
01/04/06
01/05/06
01/06/06
01/07/06
01/08/06
Time
17:00
18:30
14:30
18:00
21:00
NM
NM
21:30
20:00
19:00
13:00
18:00
NM
NM
18:00
19:30
19:30
18:00
07:12
NM
NM
21:00
18:00
19:00
19:30
NM
NM
NM
18:30
18:00
19:15
19:30
19:00
NM
NM
10:30
12:30
17:00
10:00
19:30
NM
NM
New Wei I
Hour
Meter
(hr)
183.2
187.2
189.9
193.8
197.9
NM
NM
210.0
213.1
216.7
219.0
224.1
NM
NM
235.4
239.4
242.8
246.3
249.4
NM
NM
266.2
270.9
277.3
281.7
NM
NM
NM
300.8
304.9
309.7
313.5
316.9
NM
NM
331.5
336.2
336.4
341.2
345.8
NM
NM
Daily
Operation
(hr)
9.8
4.0
2.7
3.9
4.1
NA
NA
12.1
3.1
3.6
2.3
5.1
NA
NA
11.3
4.0
3.4
3.5
3.1
NA
NA
16.8
4.7
6.4
4.4
NA
NA
NA
19.1
4.1
4.8
3.8
3.4
NA
NA
14.6
4.7
0.2
4.8
4.6
NA
NA
Volume to
Treatment
Daily
Volume
(gal)
15,655
5,872
4,010
6,390
6,161
NA
NA
18,880
4,700
5,966
4,068
8,590
NA
NA
16,425
5,975
4,790
4,624
4,651
NA
NA
26,100
7,760
9,970
6,250
NA
NA
NA
29,172
6,770
5,908
5,570
4,650
NM
NM
23,050
NA
4,550
7,365
7,290
NM
NM
Average
Flowrate
(gpm)
27
24
25
27
25
NA
NA
26
25
28
29
28
NA
NA
24
25
23
22
25
NA
NA
26
28
26
24
NA
NA
NA
25
28
21
24
23
NM
NM
26
NA
NA
26
26
NM
NM
Pressure Tanks
Pressure
Tankl
(psig)
55
55
54
55
54
NM
NM
55
54
54
65
64
NM
NM
64
55
65
65
55
NM
NM
55
59
62
60
NM
NM
NM
54
65
54
54
55
NM
NM
65
60
65
56
55
NM
NM
Pressure
Tank 2
(psig)
52
50
50
50
50
NM
NM
50
50
50
60
60
NM
NM
60
50
60
60
50
NM
NM
48
55
56
60
NM
NM
NM
50
60
50
47
45
NM
NM
60
55
59
53
52
NM
NM
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psig)
46
46
44
41
44
NM
NM
41
49
44
57
56
NM
NM
59
48
56
55
40
NM
NM
45
53
53
59
NM
NM
NM
42
55
45
44
42
NM
NM
57
58
55
50
48
NM
NM
TA/TB
(psig)
41
42
40
39
40
NM
NM
38
42
39
52
51
NM
NM
56
46
52
49
30
NM
NM
39
48
48
52
NM
NM
NM
37
43
40
40
40
NM
NM
56
53
52
44
40
NM
NM
TC/TD
(psig)
40
40
39
38
40
NM
NM
36
42
36
50
50
NM
NM
54
44
50
47
30
NM
NM
38
47
47
52
NM
NM
NM
36
42
38
39
40
NM
NM
55
52
50
44
40
NM
NM
OUT
(psig)
40
42
40
39
41
NM
NM
37
45
37
52
52
NM
NM
55
45
52
49
30
NM
NM
40
48
48
54
NM
NM
NM
37
45
40
40
40
NM
NM
55
52
50
45
40
NM
NM
AP
Across
System
(psig)
6
4
4
2
3
NA
NA
4
4
7
5
4
NA
NA
4
3
4
6
10
NA
NA
5
5
5
5
NA
NA
NA
5
10
5
4
2
NA
NA
2
6
5
5
8
NA
NA
Volume to
Distribution
Flowrate
(gpm)
1.0
3.0
1.0
7.5
1.5
NM
NM
3.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
6.0
NM
NM
3.0
5.0
2.5
4.0
10.0
NM
NM
6.0
7.5
4.0
4.0
NM
NM
NM
5.0
5.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
NM
NM
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
7.5
NM
NM
Daily
Volume
(gal)
14,115
5,230
3,350
5,855
5,250
NA
NA
16,870
4,345
5,445
3,220
7,310
NA
NA
15,230
5,500
4,360
4,170
4,200
NA
NA
23,690
6,970
8,900
5,690
NA
NA
NA
25,740
4,900
5,925
4,845
2,320
NA
NA
21,300
6,080
3,940
6,130
6,000
NA
NA
Backwash
No. of Tanks
Backwashed
8
3
4
2
4
NM
NM
11
1
2
4
5
NM
NM
7
2
1
3
2
NM
NM
10
4
5
3
NM
NM
NM
14
4
3
3
1
NM
NM
12
4
3
4
4
NM
NM
Wastewater
Produced
(gal)
1,020
370
490
250
510
NA
NA
1,390
130
250
480
700
NA
NA
970
250
120
370
210
NA
NA
1,320
470
590
350
NA
NA
NA
1,770
470
350
350
140
NA
NA
1,620
470
350
460
470
NA
NA
KMnO4 Application
KMnO4
Tank
Level
(in)
29.6
29.1
28.8
28.3
27.8
NM
NM
26.0
25.6
25.1
24.7
23.9
NM
NM
22.3
21.7
21.3
20.6
20.4
NM
NM
17.8
17.0
30.6
30.0
NM
NM
NM
27.4
26.8
26.1
25.6
25.2
NM
NM
23.0
22.4
21.9
21.1
20.5
NM
NM
Average
KMnO4
Dose
(mg/L)
4.8
NA
NA
5.1
NA
NA
5.4
NA
NA
5.4
NA
NA
NA
6.1
NA
NA
5.6
NA
NA
-------
US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at BSLMHP, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (continued)
Week
No.
27
28
Date
01/09/06
01/10/06
01/11/06
01/12/06
01/13/06
01/14/06
01/15/06
1/16/2006(n)
01/17/06
Time
18:00
17:00
17:00
19:15
19:00
NM
NM
17:00
21:00
New Wei I
Hour
Meter
(hr)
362.3
366.4
370.5
376.1
380.5
NM
NM
394.7
399.8
Daily
Operation
(hr)
16.5
4.1
4.1
5.6
4.4
NA
NA
14.2
5.1
Volume to
Treatment
Daily
Volume
(qal)
25,483
6,060
6,400
8,635
6,385
NM
NM
21,965
7,757
Average
Flowrate
(qpm)
26
25
26
26
24
NM
NM
26
25
Pressure Tanks
Pressure
Tankl
(psiq)
55
65
65
54
55
NM
NM
65
65
Pressure
Tank 2
(psiq)
50
60
60
50
50
NM
NM
60
60
Pressure Filtration
IN
(psiq)
45
55
59
43
45
NM
NM
59
57
TA/TB
(psiq)
40
51
52
39
38
NM
NM
52
50
TC/TD
(psiq)
38
52
50
38
36
NM
NM
50
50
OUT
(psiq)
40
53
52
38
38
NM
NM
52
52
AP
Across
System
(psiq)
5
2
7
5
7
NA
NA
7
5
Volume to
Distribution
Flowrate
(qpm)
4.0
1.0
12.0
5.0
3.0
NM
NM
8.0
12.5
Daily
Volume
(qal)
21,500
4,835
5,495
7,125
5,465
NA
NA
NA
6,280
Backwash
No. of Tanks
Backwashed
12
5
2
5
3
NM
NM
13
5
Wastewater
Produced
(qal)
1,520
690
250
650
380
NA
NA
1,640
620
KMnO4 Application
KMnO4
Tank
Level
(in)
17.9
17.3
31.0
30.2
29.6
NM
NM
27.6
26.9
Average
KMnO4
Dose
(mq/L)
5.5
NA
NA
5.9
Note:
(a) On 08/09/05, both sets of duplex filters stuck in backwash mode due to sediment dislodged in purge/control valve, preventing it from closing. System
bypassed.
(b) On 08/09/06, a pressure gauge after each set of duplex filters installed.
(c) On 08/11/05, pressure gauge on pressure tank 2 replaced.
(d) On 09/21/05, two flow meters, one on treated water line and one on backwash discharge line, installed although readings not recorded until 09/28/05.
(e) On 09/28/05 hour meter installed.
(f) On 09/30/06, pressure gauge changed out for duplex units TC/TD.
(g) On 01/03/06, totalizer to treatment re-set.
(h) Totalizer to distribution re-set.
NM = not measured
NA = not available
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as
P04)
P (total) (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOG
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
%
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
07/13/05
IN
AC
TT
33
352
0.2
<1
0.1
<0.05
23.3
25.0
14.9
2.0
-23
383
228
155
36.4
30.3
6.1
13.9
16.5
3,315
2,792
154
133
374
0.2
<1
0.1
<0.05
23.3
3.1
7.5
12.7
0.7
196
330
197
133
29.6
3.3
26.3
1.6
1.7
3,173
<25
996
377
374
0.2
<1
0.3
0.05
22.7
0.6
7.7
12.3
1.1
219
329
197
132
4.3
3.0
1.3
1.7
1.3
157
<25
428
391
07/20/05
IN
AC
TT
33
365
-
<0.05
24.7
23.0
7.3
11.4
2.5
-29
-
-
34.7
-
-
-
2,786
-
139
-
365
-
<0.05
24.4
2.8
7.2
12.3
0.5
85
-
-
26.7
-
-
-
2,766
-
634
-
361
-
<0.05
24.2
0.5
7.2
11.9
0.7
144
-
-
17.7
-
-
-
482
-
561
-
07/26/05
IN
AC
TT
33
365
-
<0.05
23.5
25.0
7.4
10.4
3.6
-40
-
-
26.6
-
-
-
2,864
-
137
-
370
-
<0.05
23.6
2.9
7.3
11.0
1.7
144
-
-
24.8
-
-
-
2,704
-
844
-
365
-
<0.05
23.9
0.1
7.2
11.0
0.9
173
-
-
5.5
-
-
-
45
-
727
-
08/02/05
IN
AC
TT
33
352
-
<0.05
23.8
26.0
7.4
11.2
3.5
-35
-
-
25.7
-
-
-
2,964
-
135
-
365
-
<0.05
24.0
4.7
7.3
12.1
1.0
154
-
-
23.0
-
-
-
2,578
-
1,126
-
374
-
<0.05
23.6
11.0
7.3
12.1
1.2
196
-
-
8.0
-
-
-
666
-
487
-
08/18/05(a'b)
IN
AC
TT
26
352
0.2
<1
<0.05
<0.05
24.1
33.0
4.1
7.2
1.0
0.9
-76
320
188
131
26.4
26.2
0.2
24.1
2.1
2,895
2,954
139
142
365
0.2
<1
<0.05
<0.05
24.2
3.7
3.9
7.3
14.1
0.9
2
317
190
128
23.2
4.8
18.4
2.6
2.2
2,773
<25
1,097
850
361
0.2
<1
<0.05
<0.05
23.9
0.4
4.0
7.3
13.8
0.7
43
323
187
137
5.1
4.8
0.3
3.4
1.4
<25
<25
1,010
1,000
08/24/05
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
26
352
-
<0.05
29.4
24.0
7.3
12.3
10.4
-48
-
-
30.4
-
-
-
2,764
-
130
-
365
-
<0.05
28.6
2.9
7.4
12.8
0.8
138
-
-
31.5
-
-
-
2,706
-
871
-
361
-
<0.05
28.4
0.7
7.3
12.5
0.7
159
-
-
3.5
-
-
-
<25
-
475
-
374
-
<0.05
28.2
0.2
7.4
12.8
1.1
181
-
-
3.3
-
-
-
<25
-
467
-
(a) Onsite water quality parameters taken on 08/17/05. (b) System bypassed on 08/09/05 and samples not collected that week.
-------
Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN (continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as
P04)
P (total) (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOG
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
re (total)
-e (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
%
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
08/31/05
-------
Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN (continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as
P04)
P (total) (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOG
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
%
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
10/05/05
-------
Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN (continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as
P04)
P (total) (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
%
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
11/09/05
IN
AC
TA/TB
TC/TD
26
370
-
0.5
23.9
33.0
-
7.4
10.0
0.9
-38
-
36.6
-
2,549
-
117
-
370
-
0.5
23.6
3.2
-
7.4
10.2
0.8
39
-
36.1
-
2,425
-
1,031
-
365
-
0.1
24.0
0.1
-
7.4
10.2
0.9
65
-
11.3
-
336
-
951
-
370
-
0.1
24.0
0.7
-
7.4
10.4
0.8
68
-
5.7
-
68
-
971
-
11/15/05
-------
Analytical Results from Long Term Sampling at BSLMHP, MN (continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Stroke Length
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as
P04)
P (total) (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
%
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
01/05/06
-------