EPA/600/R-08/005 

January 2008 

Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal 

U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN 

Six-Month Evaluation Report 

by 

Wendy E. Condit 

Abraham S.C. Chen 

Battelle 

Columbus, OH 43201-2693 

Contract No. 68-C-00-185 

Task Order No. 0029 

for 

Thomas J. Sorg 

Task Order Manager 

Water Supply and Water Resources Division 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Office of Research and Development 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 

November 14, 2007
DISCLAIMER 

The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) under Task Order 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency’s 

peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any 

opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official 

positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute 

recommendation for use by the EPA. 

ii
FOREWORD

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation’s 

land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to 

formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability 

of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA’s research program is 

providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science 

knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect 

our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future. 

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency’s center for investigation 

of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that 

threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory’s research program is on 

methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and 

subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated 

sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of 

ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that 

reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL’s research provides 

solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve 

the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy 

decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of 

environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels. 

This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory’s strategic long-term research plan. It is 

published and made available by EPA’s Office of Research and Development to assist the user 

community and to link researchers with their clients. 

Sally Gutierrez, Director 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

iii
ABSTRACT 

This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained from the first six months of the 

EPA arsenic removal technology demonstration project at the Sabin, MN facility. The main objective of 

the project is to evaluate the effectiveness of Kinetico’s FM-248-AS arsenic removal system using 

Macrolite® media in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 

10 μg/L. Additionally, this project evaluates (1) the reliability of the treatment system for use at small 

water facilities, (2) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels, and 

(3) the cost-effectiveness of the technology. The project also characterizes water in the distribution 

system and residuals generated by the treatment process. The types of data collected include system 

operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), process residuals, 

and capital and O&M costs. 

After engineering plan review and approval by the state, the FM-248-AS treatment system was installed 

and became operational on January 19, 2006. The system consisted of two 63-in-diameter, 86-in-tall 

fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) contact tanks and two 48-in-diameter, 72-in-tall FRP pressure tanks, 

all configured in parallel. Each pressure tank contained 25 ft3

 of Macrolite® media, which is a spherical, 

low density, chemically inert ceramic media designed for filtration rates up to 10 gal/min (gpm)/ft2

. The 

system used prechlorination to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) and the contact tank to improve the formation of 

As(V)-laden particles prior to entering the pressure filters. The system operated at approximately 238 

gpm for 3.0 hr/day (on average), producing 6,650,000 gal of water through July 30, 2006. The average 

flowrate corresponded to a contact time of 7.1 min and a filtration rate of 9.5 gpm/ft2

. A number of issues 

related to the control of the frequency and duration of backwash operation were experienced as discussed 

in the report. 

The source water had an average pH of 7.4 and total arsenic concentrations ranged from 32.8 to 

49.8 μg/L, with the soluble fraction consisting of As(V) at 23.9 μg/L and As(III) at 13.2 μg/L. 

Concentrations of both As(V) and As(III) varied considerably during the course of this six-month study 

period, with As(III) concentrations exhibiting a decreasing trend and As(V) concentrations exhibiting an 

increasing trend especially during the first month. Total iron concentrations ranged from 1,203 to 

1,936 μg/L, which existed primarily in the soluble form with an average concentration of 1,135 μg/L. 

Raw water soluble iron and soluble arsenic concentrations corresponded to a ratio of 31:1. Total arsenic 

concentrations in treated water averaged 6.3 μg/L and ranged from 3.5 to 10.6 μg/L. Due to total arsenic 

breakthrough at 10.6 μg/L on July 26, 2006, a run length study will be conducted during the next sixmonth period. 

Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after the second quarter of operations 

demonstrated a considerable decrease in arsenic (27.4 to 7.1 μg/L), iron (1,211 to 75 μg/L), and 

manganese (114 to 60 μg/L). Further decreases were observed in manganese concentrations within the 

distribution system, when compared to the concentrations in the filter effluent (i.e., 203 and 217 [on 

average] following Tanks A and B) to those in the distribution system (i.e., 60 μg/L [on average] in the 

second quarter of system operation). Copper (179 to 127 μg/L) and lead concentrations (4.2 to 1.3 μg/L) 

also decreased. Alkalinity and pH did not appear to be significantly affected. 

Filter tank backwash occurred automatically about 3 times/tank/week, which was triggered primarily by 

the 48-hr standby time setpoint, due to low operational time of the treatment system (i.e., 3.0 hrs/day). 

Approximately 161,550 gal of wastewater, or 2.4% of the amount of water treated, was generated during 

the first six months. Under normal operating conditions, the backwash wastewater contained 116 to 

550 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS), 29.8 to 176.8 mg/L of iron, 2.0 to 8.6 mg/L of manganese, and 

iv
6.1 to 27.6 μg/L of arsenic, with the majority existing as particulates. The average amount of solids 

discharged per backwash cycle was approximately 5.2 lb, including 1.6 lb of elemental iron, 0.09 lb of 

elemental manganese, and 0.01 lb of elemental arsenic. 

The capital investment for the system was $287,159, consisting of $160,875 for equipment, $49,164 for 

site engineering, and $77,120 for system installation, shakedown, and startup. Using the system’s rated 

capacity of 250 gpm (or 360,000 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $1,149/gpm or $0.80/gpd. This 

calculation does not include the cost of the building to house the treatment system. 

The estimated O&M costs included chemical supply and labor. O&M costs were estimated at 

$0.69/1,000 gal and will be refined at the end of the one-year evaluation period.

v
CONTENTS 

DISCLAIMER ..............................................................................................................................................ii 

FOREWORD ...............................................................................................................................................iii 

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................iv 

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................vii 

FIGURES....................................................................................................................................................vii 

TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................viii 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................ix 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...........................................................................................................................xi 

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1 

1.1 Background...................................................................................................................................1 

1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal.............................................................................2 

1.3 Project Objectives.........................................................................................................................2 

2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................5

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS...........................................................................................................7 

3.1 General Project Approach.............................................................................................................7 

3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection.......................................................................................8

3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules............................................................................10 

3.3.1 Source Water .................................................................................................................10 

3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water...................................................................................................10 

3.3.3 Backwash Water............................................................................................................10 

3.3.4 Distribution System Water ............................................................................................10 

3.3.5 Residual Solids ..............................................................................................................10 

3.4 Sampling Logistics .....................................................................................................................10 

3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits..........................................................................10 

3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers...................................................................................12 

3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling .....................................................................................12 

3.5 Analytical Procedures.................................................................................................................12 

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................................13 

4.1 Facility Description ....................................................................................................................13 

4.1.1 Source Water Quality ....................................................................................................13 

4.1.2 Distribution System and Treated Water Quality ...........................................................18 

4.2 Treatment Process Description...................................................................................................18 

4.3 Treatment System Installation ....................................................................................................21 

4.3.1 System Permitting..........................................................................................................22 

4.3.2 Building Construction....................................................................................................22 

4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown................................................................22 

4.4 System Operation .......................................................................................................................24 

4.4.1 Coagulation/Filtration Operation...................................................................................24 

4.4.2 Backwash Operation......................................................................................................27 

4.4.2.1 Backwash Frequency Issues..........................................................................27 

4.4.2.2 Backwash Duration Issues ............................................................................27 

4.4.2.3 Backwash Alarms..........................................................................................28 

4.4.3 Residual Management ...................................................................................................28 

4.4.4 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation.........................................................................28 

4.4.4.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements.........................................................28 

vi
4.4.4.2 System Automation .......................................................................................29 

4.4.4.3 Operator Skill Requirements.........................................................................29 

4.4.4.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities.............................................................29 

4.4.4.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements .........................................29 

4.5 System Performance ...................................................................................................................29 

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling .............................................................................................30 

4.5.1.1 Arsenic ..........................................................................................................30 

4.5.1.2 Iron ................................................................................................................34 

4.5.1.3 Manganese.....................................................................................................36 

4.5.1.4 pH, DO, and ORP..........................................................................................38 

4.5.1.5 Chlorine and Ammonia .................................................................................38 

4.5.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters ...................................................................38 

4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling............................................................................................38 

4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling ............................................................................39 

4.6 System Cost ................................................................................................................................39 

4.6.1 Capital Cost ...................................................................................................................39 

4.6.2 O&M Cost .....................................................................................................................41 

5.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................43 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA................................................................................................A-1 

APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES .................................................................................. B-1 

FIGURES 

Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations ........................................... 11 

Figure 4-1. Preexisting Pump House at Sabin, MN................................................................................ 14 

Figure 4-2. Preexisting Filtration System at Sabin, MN......................................................................... 14 

Figure 4-3. Water Tower at Sabin, MN .................................................................................................. 15 

Figure 4-4. Schematic of Kinetico’s FM-248-AS Arsenic Removal System ......................................... 20 

Figure 4-5. Treatment System Components ........................................................................................... 20 

Figure 4-6. New Building and Associated Infrastructure ....................................................................... 23 

Figure 4-7. Delivery and Off-Loading of Macrolite® Treatment System Equipment ............................ 23 

Figure 4-8. Calculated and Instantaneous Flowrate Readings................................................................ 26 

Figure 4-9. Differential Pressure Versus Filter Run Time...................................................................... 26 

Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train........................................................ 34 

Figure 4-11. Arsenic Speciation Results at Wellhead (IN), after Contact Tank (AC), after 

Tank A (TA), and after Tank B (TB)................................................................................... 35 

Figure 4-12. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train ............................................................. 36 

Figure 4-13. Total Manganese Concentrations Across Treatment Train.................................................. 37 

Figure 4-14. Total Manganese Concentrations Versus Total Chlorine Residuals.................................... 37 

vii
TABLES 

Table 1-1. Summary of the Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites........................................................3 

Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates ....................................................7 

Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities ........................................8 

Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses ..........................................................................................9 

Table 4-1. Water Quality Data at Sabin, MN........................................................................................16 

Table 4-2. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media .........................................................18 

Table 4-3. Design Features of Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System....................................................21 

Table 4-4. FM-248-AS Treatment System Operational Parameters .....................................................25 

Table 4-5. Summary of PLC Settings for Backwash Operations ..........................................................28 

Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Results ............................................................31 

Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results ..........................................................32 

Table 4-8. Backwash Water Sampling Results .....................................................................................40 

Table 4-9. Distribution System Sampling Results.................................................................................40 

Table 4-10. Capital Investment for Kinetico’s FM-248-AS System.......................................................41 

Table 4-11. O&M Costs for Kinetico’s FM-248-AS System..................................................................42 

viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

∆p differential pressure 

AAL American Analytical Laboratories 

Al aluminum 

AM adsorptive media 

As arsenic 

ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems 

bgs below ground surface 

C/F coagulation/filtration 

Ca calcium 

Cl chlorine 

CRF capital recovery factor 

Cu copper 

DO dissolved oxygen 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

F fluoride 

Fe iron 

FedEx Federal Express 

FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic 

gpd gallons per day 

gpm gallons per minute 

HIX hybrid ion exchanger 

hp horsepower 

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry 

ID identification 

IX ion exchange 

LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

MDH Minnesota Department of Health 

MDL method detection limit 

MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc. 

Mg magnesium 

μm micrometer 

Mn manganese 

MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

mV millivolts 

Na sodium 

ix
NA not analyzed 

NaOCl sodium hypochlorite 

ND not detected 

NS not sampled 

NTU nephelometric turbidity units 

O&M operation and maintenance 

OIP operator interface panel 

OIT Oregon Institute of Technology 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

ORP oxidation-reduction potential 

P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram 

Pb lead 

pCi/L picocuries per liter 

psi pounds per square inch 

psig pounds per square inch gauge 

PLC programmable logic controller 

PO4 orthophosphate 

POU point-of-use 

PVC polyvinyl chloride 

QA quality assurance 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Ra radium 

RPD relative percent difference 

RO reverse osmosis 

Sb antimony 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SiO2 silica 

SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level 

SO4 sulfate 

STS Severn Trent Services 

TBD to be determined 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TOC total organic carbon 

TSS total suspended solids 

UPS uninterruptible power supply 

V vanadium 

x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Mr. Richard Hayes of Sabin, MN. Mr. Hayes 

monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the treatment and distribution systems on a 

regular schedule throughout this study period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible 

without his support and dedication. 

xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that 

are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA 

established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the 

SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the 

arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA, 

2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule on March 25, 2003 

to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 μg/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community and 

non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006. 

In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective 

technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard 

and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As 

part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA’s Office of Research and Development 

(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal 

technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly 

thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in 

participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their 

water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies. 

In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic 

removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host 

sites, with each site receiving one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel 

reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined 

were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical 

reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information 

provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of 

the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site. As of October 2007, 37 of the 40 

systems were operational and the performance evaluation of 25 systems was completed. 

In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with 

Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration 

sites and the community water system in the city of Sabin, MN was one of those selected. 

In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic 

removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site 

receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to 

review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging 

from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the 

sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state 

regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program, 

reducing the number of Round 2 sites to 28. Kinetico’s Macrolite® arsenic removal system was selected 

for demonstration at the Sabin, MN facility. 

1
2

1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 

The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive 

media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13 coagulation/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, and 17 point-of-use (POU) units (including 

nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and eight AM units 

at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, 

system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, Fe, and pH) at the 40 

demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 Round 1 

demonstration sites and the associated capital cost is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004; 

Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA website at 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html. 

1.3 Project Objectives 

The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 40 full-scale arsenic treatment 

technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific 

objectives are to: 

• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small 

systems. 

• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator 

skill levels. 

• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies. 

• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies. 

This report summarizes the performance of the Kinetico system at Sabin, MN during the first six months 

from January 30 through July 30, 2006. The types of data collected included system operation, water 

quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and capital and 

preliminary O&M cost. 
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 

Demonstration 

Location Site Name Technology (Media) Vendor 

Design 

Flowrate

(gpm) 

(

Northeast/Ohio 

Wales, ME Springbrook Mobile Home Park AM (A/I Complex) ATS 14 Bow, NH White Rock Water Company AM (G2) ADI 70(b) Goffstown, NH Orchard Highlands Subdivision AM (E33) AdEdge 10 Rollinsford, NH Rollinsford Water and Sewer District AM (E33) AdEdge 100 Dummerston, VT Charette Mobile Home Park AM (A/I Complex) ATS 22 Felton, DE Town of Felton C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 375 Stevensville, MD Queen Anne’s County AM (E33) STS 300 Houghton, NY(d) Town of Caneadea C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 550 Newark, OH Buckeye Lake Head Start Building AM (ARM 200) Kinetico 10 Springfield, OH Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park AM (E33) AdEdge 250(e) 

Great Lakes/Interior Plains 

Brown City, MI City of Brown City AM (E33) STS 640 Pentwater, MI Village of Pentwater C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 400 Sandusky, MI City of Sandusky C/F (Aeralater) Siemens 340(e) Delavan, WI Vintage on the Ponds C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 40 Greenville, WI Town of Greenville C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 375 Climax, MN City of Climax C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 140 Sabin, MN City of Sabin C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 250 Sauk Centre, MN Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 20 Stewart, MN City of Stewart C/F&AM (E33) AdEdge 250 Lidgerwood, ND City of Lidgerwood Process Modification Kinetico 250 

Midwest/Southwest 

Arnaudville, LA United Water Systems C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 770(e) Alvin, TX Oak Manor Municipal Utility District AM (E33) STS 150 Bruni, TX 

Webb Consolidated Independent School District AM (E33) AdEdge 40 

Wellman, TX City of Wellman AM (E33) AdEdge 100 Anthony, NM 

Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association AM (E33) STS 320 

Nambe Pueblo, NM Nambe Pueblo Tribe AM (E33) AdEdge 145 Taos, NM Town of Taos AM (E33) STS 450 Rimrock, AZ Arizona Water Company AM (E33) AdEdge 90(b) Tohono O'odham Nation, AZ Tohono O’odham Utility Authority AM (E33) AdEdge 50 Valley Vista, AZ Arizona Water Company AM (AAFS50/ARM 200) Kinetico 37 

3
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued) 

Demonstration 

Location Site Name Technology (Media) Vendor 

Design 

Flowrate

(gpm) 

(μ

Far West

Three Forks, MT City of Three Forks C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 250 Fruitland, ID City of Fruitland IX (A300E) Kinetico 250 Homedale, ID Sunset Ranch Development POU RO(f) Kinetico 75 

gpd 

Okanogan, WA City of Okanogan C/F (Electromedia-I) Filtronics 750 Klamath Falls, OR Oregon Institute of Technology 

POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp) 

and POU AM (ARM 200)(g) Kinetico 60/60/30 

Vale, OR City of Vale IX (Arsenex II) Kinetico 525 Reno, NV 

South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District AM (GFH) Siemens 350 

Susanville, CA Richmond School District AM (A/I Complex) ATS 12 Lake Isabella, CA Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A AM (HIX) VEETech 50 Tehachapi, CA 

Golden Hills Community Service District AM (Isolux) MEI 150 

AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process; RO = reverse osmosis ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services (a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III). (b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation. 

(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II). (d) Replaced Village of Ly

man, NE site which withdrew from program in June 2006. 

(e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Arnaudville, LA from 385 to 77

(f) Including nine residential units. 

(g) Including eight under-the-sink units. 

4
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Kinetico’s FM-248-AS treatment system with Macrolite® media was installed and operated at Sabin, MN 

starting on January 19, 2006. Based on the information collected during the first six months of operation, 

the following preliminary conclusions were made relating to the overall project objectives. 

Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems: 

• Chlorination was effective in oxidizing As(III) to As(V), reducing As(III) concentrations 

from 13.2 μg/L (on average) in raw water to 0.6 μg/L (on average) after the contact tanks. 

Fe(II) also was readily oxidized in the presence of chlorine with soluble iron concentrations 

being reduced to below the method reporting limit of 25 μg/L after the contact tanks and after 

the pressure filters. Chlorination was not as effective in oxidizing Mn(II). Depending on the 

chlorine dosage, 35% to 68% of manganese remained in the soluble form, which, therefore, 

was not removed by the pressure filters. 

• Supplemental iron was not required because the level of natural iron in raw water was 

sufficient for arsenic removal to below 10 μg/L. The soluble iron to arsenic ratio was 31:1, 

above the recommended 20:1 ratio for effective arsenic removal. With prechlorination, 

As(V) was formed and co-precipitated with and/or adsorbed onto the iron solids also formed 

during chlorination. This converted arsenic primarily to the particulate form before entering 

into the Macrolite® pressure filters. 

• Operating the pressure filters at a high filtration rate of 9.5 gpm/ft2

 (on average) can remove 

arsenic to below the 10 μg/L MCL. However, the median filter run length experienced 

during this six-month study period was only 6.2 hr. Some particulate arsenic and iron 

breakthrough did occur in the pressure filter effluent, including one sampling event with the 

concentration over 10 μg/L. Consequently, a filter run length study will be carried out during 

the next six-month study period. 

• The treatment system experienced pressure spikes to as high as 63 pounds per square inch 

(psi) during backwash (or two times the average inlet pressure under normal service 

conditions). This occurred due to the flow being directed to only one tank that remained in 

service (while the second tank was in backwash) and the presence of a flow restrictor on the 

treated water line. For this site, the normal inlet pressure was relatively low at 33 psi during 

the service cycle, so the doubling of the inlet pressure during backwash could be 

accommodated and was within the 100 psi maximum inlet pressure specifications. However, 

this will not be the case for all sites, based on their site-specific pump curve characteristics 

and total dynamic head conditions. 

• The treatment system significantly improved water quality in the distribution system after the 

second quarter of system operation. A considerable decrease was observed in arsenic (27.4 to 

7.1 μg/L), iron (1,211 to 75 μg/L), and manganese (114 to 60 μg/L) concentrations by the 

second quarter of operations. Further decreases in manganese concentrations were observed 

within the distribution system with total manganese levels being 70% lower in the 

distribution system than in the plant effluent. Copper and lead also decreased slightly, while 

alkalinity and pH did not appear to be affected. 

5
Required system O&M and operator skill levels: 

• Although the daily demand on the operator was only 15 min, a significant amount of time and 

effort was required to troubleshoot issues related to control of the frequency and duration of 

backwash events. 

Characteristics of residuals produced by the technology: 

• Backwash appeared to be effective in restoring the filters’ effectiveness in removing arsenicladen iron particles and manganese solids. The total amount of wastewater produced from 

backwash, which occurred at a frequency of approximately 3 times/tank/week, was 

equivalent to about 2.4% of the amount of water treated. 

• The amount of residual solids produced and discharged during each backwash cycle totaled 

5.2 lb, which included 1.6 lb of elemental iron, 0.09 lb of elemental manganese, and 0.01 lb 

of elemental arsenic. 

Cost-effectiveness of the technology: 

• The capital investment for the system was $287,159, consisting of $160,875 for equipment, 

$49,164 for site engineering, and $77,120 for system installation, shakedown, and startup. 

The building cost was not included in the capital investment, since it was funded by the city 

of Sabin. The unit capital cost was $1,149/gpm (or $0.80/gpd) based on a design capacity of 

250 gpm. 

• The O&M cost was estimated at $0.69/1,000 gal based on chemical supply and labor costs. 

6
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 

3.1 General Project Approach 

Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of 

the Kinetico treatment system began on January 30, 2006. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data 

collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance was 

evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the target MCL of 10 μg/L tracked 

through the collection of water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the system was 

evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and 

replacement. The unscheduled downtime and repair information was recorded by the plant operator on a 

Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. 

The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data and 

qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation, 

extent of preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory, 

and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and safety practices. The 

staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. 

The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash 

water produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water was sampled and analyzed for chemical 

characteristics. 

The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (gpm) (or gal/day [gpd]) of 

design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital 

cost for equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for chemical supply, electricity 

usage, and labor. 

Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 

Activity Date 

Introductory Meeting Held 08/31/04 

Draft Letter of Understanding Issued 11/18/04 

Final Letter of Understanding Issued 12/09/04 

Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor 12/08/04 

Vendor Quotation Received 02/10/05 

Purchase Order Established 02/17/05 

Engineering Package Submitted to MDH 03/04/05 

Letter Report Issued 03/09/05 

Discharge Permit Granted by MPCA 04/14/05 

System Permit Granted by MDH 06/13/05 

Building Construction Began 07/05/05 

FM-248-AS System Delivered 12/02/05 

Study Plan Issued 01/17/06 

Building Completed 06/05/06 

System Installation Completed 12/16/05 

System Shakedown Completed 01/19/06 

Performance Evaluation Began 01/30/06 

MDH = Minnesota Department of Health; 

MPCA = Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

7
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 

Evaluation Objective Data Collection 

Performance -Ability to consistently meet 10 μg/L of arsenic MCL in treated water 

Reliability -Unscheduled system downtime 

-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems 

encountered, materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost 

incurred 

System O&M and Operator 

Skill Requirements 

-Pre- and post-treatment requirements 

-Level of automation for system operation and data collection 

-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers 

-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, and 

complexity of tasks 

-Chemical handling and inventory requirements 

-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and 

safety practices 

Residual Management -Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by 

system operation 

Cost-Effectiveness -Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation 

-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor 

3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 

The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to 

instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis (with the exception of Saturdays and 

Sundays), the plant operator recorded system operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and 

hour meter readings on a Daily System Operation Log Sheet, checked the sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) 

level, and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problem occurred, the 

plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted for 

troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information, including the problem 

encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred, 

on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly basis, the plant operator measured several water 

quality parameters on-site, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction 

potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded the data on a Weekly On-Site Water Quality 

Parameters Log Sheet. Monthly backwash data also were recorded on a Backwash Log Sheet. 

The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and 

system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and 

labor. Consumption of NaOCl was tracked on the Daily System Operation Log Sheet. Electricity usage 

was determined from utility bills. Labor for various activities, such as routine system O&M, 

troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, was tracked using an Operator Labor Hour 

Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as completing field logs, replenishing the 

NaOCl solution, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the 

vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as performing field 

measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the 

vendor, was recorded, but not used for the cost analysis. 

8
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses 

Sample 

Type 

Sample 

Locations(a)

No. of 

Samples Frequency Analytes Collection Date(s) 

Source Water At Wellhead (IN) 1 Once 

(during 

initial site 

visit) 

On-site: pH, temperature, 

DO, and ORP 

Off-site: As (total and 

soluble), As(III), As(V), 

Fe (total and soluble), 

Mn (total and soluble), 

U (total and soluble), 

V (total and soluble), 

Na, Ca, Mg, NH3, NO2, 

NO3, Cl, F, SO4, SiO2, P, 

TOC, TDS, turbidity, and 

alkalinity 

08/31/04 

At Wellhead (IN), 

after Contact Tank 

(AC), 

after Tank A (TA), 

and after Tank B 

(TB) 

4 Weekly On-site:(b) pH, 

temperature, DO, ORP, 

and Cl2 (total and free). 

Off-site: As (total), Fe 

(total), Mn (total), SiO2, P, 

turbidity, and alkalinity 

02/14/06, 02/21/06 

03/06/06, 03/14/06 

03/21/06, 04/04/06 

04/11/06, 04/18/06, 

05/02/06, 05/09/06, 

05/17/06, 05/31/06, 

06/06/06, 06/13/06, 

06/28/06, 07/10/06, 

07/11/06, 07/26/06 

Treatment 

Plant Water 

At Wellhead (IN), 

after Contact Tank 

(AC), and 

after Tanks A and 

B Combined (TT)(c) 

3 Monthly Same as weekly analytes 

shown above plus the 

following: 

Off-site: As (soluble), 

As(III), As(V), Fe 

(soluble), Mn (soluble), 

Ca, Mg, NH3, NO3, F, 

SO4, TOC, and TDS 

01/31/06, 02/28/06, 

03/28/06, 04/25/06, 

05/23/06, 06/20/06, 

07/18/06 

Backwash 

Water 

Backwash 

Discharge Line 

2 Monthly(d) As (total and soluble), 

Fe (total and soluble), 

Mn (total and soluble), 

pH, TDS, and TSS 

02/28/06, 03/27/06 

04/18/06, 06/21/06 

07/18/06 

Distribution 

Water 

Three LCR 

Residences 

3 Monthly As (total), Fe (total), Mn 

(total), Pb, Cu, pH, and 

alkalinity 

02/14/05(e), 03/16/05(e)

04/18/05(e), 05/18/05(e) 

02/22/06, 03/29/06 

04/18/06, 05/23/06 

06/21/06, 07/11/06 

Residual 

Solids 

Backwash Solids 

from Each Tank 

2 Twice Total Al, As, Ca, Cd, Cu, 

Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb, Si, 

and Zn 

TBD 

(a) Abbreviation corresponding to sampling location in Figure 3-1. 

(b) Chlorine residuals analyzed only at AC, TA, and TB sampling locations. 

(c) Because TT sample tap did not yield water (see Section 4.3.3), three “TT” samples were taken from TA tap and 

four taken from TB tap during this study period. 

(d) May 2006 sample not collected. 

(e) Baseline sampling events performed before system startup. 

TBD = to be determined

9
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 

To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the treatment plant, 

during Macrolite® filter backwash, and from the distribution system. The sampling schedules and 

analytes measured during each sampling event are listed in Table 3-3. In addition, a flow diagram of the 

treatment system along with the analytes and schedules at each sampling location is presented in 

Figure 3-1. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, 

preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance 

Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of 

the QAPP.

3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit, one set of source water samples was collected 

and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (Section 3.4.1). The sample tap was flushed for several 

minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted 

oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3. 

3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, the plant 

operator collected samples weekly, on a four-week cycle, for on- and off-site analyses. For the first week 

of each four-week cycle, samples taken at the wellhead (IN), after the contact tank (AC), and after Tanks 

A and B combined (TT), were speciated on-site and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for 

monthly treatment plant water. (For the six-month study period, the “TT” sampling location was not 

functional and an alternate sampling strategy was used as described in Section 4.3.3.) For the next three 

weeks, samples were collected at IN, AC, after Tank A (TA), and after Tank B (TB) and analyzed for the 

analytes listed in Table 3-3 for the weekly treatment plant water. 

3.3.3 Backwash Water. Backwash water samples were collected monthly by the plant operator. 

Tubing, connected to the tap on the discharge line, directed a portion of backwash water at approximately 

1 gpm into a clean, 32-gal container over the duration of the backwash for each tank. After the content in 

the container was thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected and/or filtered on-site with 0.45-

μm disc filters. Analytes for the backwash samples are listed in Table 3-3. 

3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to 

determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system, 

specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to the system startup from February to May 2005, 

four sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected from three residences within the 

distribution system. Following the system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly 

basis at the same three locations. 

The homeowners collected samples following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and 

Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The dates and times 

of last water usage before sampling and sample collection were recorded for calculation of the stagnation 

time. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least 6 hr to 

ensure that stagnant water was sampled. 

3.3.5 Residual Solids. Residual solids produced by the treatment process included backwash 

solids, which were not collected during the initial six months of this demonstration. 

3.4 Sampling Logistics 

3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion 

exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998). 

10
FILTER

TANK

A

FILTER

TANK

B

INFLUENT

(WELL 2) Sabin, MN

Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System

Design Flow: 250 gpm

Total Al, As, Ca, Cd, 

Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, 

Pb, Si, Zn (each tank)

DISTRIBUTION 

SYSTEM

Weekly Monthly

Footnote

(a) On-site analyses

As (total and soluble),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble)

pH, TDS, TSS

TA

TB

DA: Cl2

IN

TT

LEGEND

LEGEND

INFLUENT Unit Process

IN At Wellhead

BW Backwash Sampling Location

SS Sludge Sampling Location

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

DA: Cl2 Chlorine Disinfection

After Tanks A and B 

Combined TT

AC After Chlorination

TB After Tank B

TA After Tank A

Water Sampling Locations

BW

SS

SANITARY

SEWER

CONTACT

TANK

CONTACT

TANK

AC

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), ORP(a), 

Cl2 (total and free)(a), As (total),

Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2, P, 

turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), ORP(a), 

Cl2 (total and free)(a), As (total),

Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2, P, 

turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), ORP(a), 

Cl2 (total and free)(a), As (total),

Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2, P, 

turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), ORP(a),

Cl2 (total and free)(a), As (total and soluble),

As (III), As (V), Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, NH3, NO3, F, 

SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, TDS, turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), ORP(a),

Cl2 (total and free)(a), As (total and soluble),

As (III), As (V), Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, NH3, NO3, F, 

SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, TDS, turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), ORP(a),

Cl2 (total and free)(a), As (total and soluble),

As (III), As (V), Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, NH3, NO3, F, 

SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, TDS, turbidity, alkalinity

FILTER

TANK

A

FILTER

TANK

B

INFLUENT

(WELL 2) Sabin, MN

Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System

Design Flow: 250 gpm

Total Al, As, Ca, Cd, 

Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, 

Pb, Si, Zn (each tank)

DISTRIBUTION 

SYSTEM

Weekly Monthly

Footnote

(a) On-site analyses

As (total and soluble),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble)

pH, TDS, TSS

TA

TB

DA: Cl2

IN

TT

LEGEND

LEGEND

INFLUENT Unit Process

IN At Wellhead

BW Backwash Sampling Location

SS Sludge Sampling Location

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

DA: Cl2 Chlorine Disinfection

After Tanks A and B 

Combined TT

AC After Chlorination

TB After Tank B

TA After Tank A

Water Sampling Locations

LEGEND

LEGEND

INFLUENT Unit Process

IN At Wellhead

BW Backwash Sampling Location

SS Sludge Sampling Location

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

DA: Cl2 Chlorine Disinfection

After Tanks A and B 

Combined TT

AC After Chlorination

TB After Tank B

TA After Tank A

Water Sampling Locations

BW

SS

SANITARY

SEWER

CONTACT

TANK

CONTACT

TANK

AC

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), ORP(a), 

Cl2 (total and free)(a), As (total),

Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2, P, 

turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), ORP(a), 

Cl2 (total and free)(a), As (total),

Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2, P, 

turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), ORP(a), 

Cl2 (total and free)(a), As (total),

Fe (total), Mn (total), SiO2, P, 

turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), ORP(a),

Cl2 (total and free)(a), As (total and soluble),

As (III), As (V), Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, NH3, NO3, F, 

SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, TDS, turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), ORP(a),

Cl2 (total and free)(a), As (total and soluble),

As (III), As (V), Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, NH3, NO3, F, 

SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, TDS, turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a), ORP(a),

Cl2 (total and free)(a), As (total and soluble),

As (III), As (V), Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, NH3, NO3, F, 

SO4, SiO2, P, TOC, TDS, turbidity, alkalinity

Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations 

11
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in 

Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004). 

3.4.2 Preparation of Sample Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared 

with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample 

bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a preprinted, colored-coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample 

collection, collector’s name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The 

sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code 

for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if 

necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The 

labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate Ziplock® bags and packed in the cooler. 

In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions, 

chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included. The chain-ofcustody forms and air bills were complete except for the operator’s signature and the sample dates and 

times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following week’s 

sampling event. 

3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were 

packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample 

custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact. 

Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the 

laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant 

operator by the Battelle Study Lead. 

Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICPMS) Laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up 

by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and TCCI Laboratories in 

New Lexington, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration study. The 

chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final 

disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the 

required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter. 

3.5 Analytical Procedures 

The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were 

followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control 

(QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy, 

method detection limits (MDLs), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative 

percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The quality 

assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary 

Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project. 

Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a 

VWR Symphony SP90M5 handheld meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following 

the procedures provided in the user’s manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by 

measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator 

collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the SP90M5 probe in the beaker until a 

stable value was obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements using 

HachTM chlorine test kits following the user’s manual. 

12
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

4.1 Facility Description 

Located on First Street in Sabin, MN, the municipal water system supplies drinking water to 

approximately 500 community members through 175 service connections. Before the commencement of 

the arsenic demonstration study in January 2006, the facility typically operated 3 to 4 hr/day to meet the 

community’s average daily demand of approximately 40,000 gpd. The peak daily demand was 

approximately 110,000 gpd. The water system was supplied by groundwater from one old well (a.k.a. 

Well No. 1) and one new well (a.k.a. Well No. 2), which were alternated on a weekly basis. Installed in 

1960, the old well was 8-in in diameter and 94-ft deep with a 34-ft screen extending from 60 to 94 ft 

below ground surface (bgs). The new well, installed in 1993, was 8-in in diameter and 92.5 ft deep with a 

25-ft screen set between 67.5 and 92.5 ft bgs. 

The new well was equipped with a 15-horsepower (hp) submersible pump with a design capacity of 250 

gpm at a total dynamic head of 200 ft of H2O (87 psi). The old well had a submersible pump with a 

similar capacity, but the pump curve information was no longer available. The static water level in the 

vicinity of these two wells was approximately 22 ft bgs and the maximum drawdown was 52 ft bgs, 

yielding an approximate pressure of 59 psi at the ground level. Actual pressure in the inlet piping might 

vary from additional above ground piping headloss and/or degradation in pump performance since its 

installation in 1993. Both the old and new wells were connected to a pre-existing gravity filtration system 

and the original design was to connect both wells to the Macrolite® treatment system. However, at the 

time of the new building construction, the City completed the connection piping only for the new well. 

Thus, only the new well, or Well No. 2, water was treated during the demonstration study. 

The pre-existing treatment system consisted of a 210-gpm aeration and gravity filtration system with 

approximately 70 ft2

 of filter area operating at a hydraulic loading rate of approximately 3 gpm/ft2. The 

treatment system also included a NaOCl and a fluoride addition system to reach a free chlorine residual of 

0.5 mg/L (as Cl2) and 1.2 mg/L for fluoride, respectively. Figure 4-1 shows the pre-existing pump house; 

Figure 4-2 shows the pre-existing filtration system and associated piping. A 15-hp booster pump rated for 

210 gpm at a discharge pressure of 72 psi (or 165 ft H2O) was used to transfer the filtered water to a 

75,000-gal water tower located in the vicinity of the pump house (Figures 4-1 and 4-3). The pre-existing 

treatment system and former building were demolished and removed from the site. 

4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected from Well No. 1 on August 

31, 2004. Table 4-1 presents the results of the source water analyses, along with those obtained by EPA 

prior to the demonstration study in September 2002, those provided by the facility to EPA in 2003 for the 

demonstration site selection, those submitted by the vendor for its proposal to EPA in 2004, and those 

collected by Battelle on July 30, 2003. Based on the discussions with the facility operator and the 

representatives of the respective organizations, it was established that the EPA, facility, and vendor 

samples also were collected from Well No. 1. 

Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in Well No. 1 water varied significantly, ranging from 13.9 to 

53.7 μg/L. Although no source water sample was collected from Well No. 2 prior to the demonstration 

study, similar, but less significant, variations in arsenic concentration were observed in Well No. 2 water 

during the first six-month demonstration study period, with concentrations varying from 32.8 to 

49.8 μg/L. Based on the July 30, 2003 speciation results for Well No. 1 water, out of 53.7 μg/L of total 

arsenic, 9.8 μg/L (or 18.2%) was particulate arsenic and 43.9 μg/L was soluble arsenic, which consisted 

13
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Pump House at Sabin, MN 

Figure 4-2. Preexisting Filtration System at Sabin, MN 

14
Figure 4-3. Water Tower at Sabin, MN 

of 24.2 μg/L (or 45.1%) as As(V) and 19.7 μg/L (or 36.7%) as As(III). The presence of As(III) was 

consistent with the low ORP reading (i.e., -24 millivolts (mV)) measured on August 31, 2004. The DO 

concentration in the same source water, however, was uncharacteristically high at 5.9 mg/L. DO levels 

will be further monitored during the study period. The presence of As(III) required the use of an oxidant 

to oxidize it to As(V). The Kinetico treatment process included prechlorination to oxidize As(III) to 

As(V) and subsequent adsorption and co-precipitation of As(V) onto the iron solids also formed during 

prechlorination. 

Iron. The source water had iron levels ranging from 512 to 1,550 μg/L, existing almost entirely as 

soluble iron. The iron levels were well above the iron secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 

300 μg/L. Typically, the soluble iron concentration in raw water should be at least 20 times the soluble 

arsenic concentration in order to achieve effective arsenic removal via the iron process (Sorg, 2002). The 

ratio of soluble iron to soluble arsenic concentrations was 26 to 67, as calculated for each of the two 

source water speciation events on July 30, 2003, and August 31, 2004. Based on these results, it was 

determined that no supplemental iron would be added to raw water during the treatment. 

Manganese. Total manganese concentrations in source water ranged from 155 to 327 μg/L. Based on 

the results of the two speciation events, manganese existed entirely as soluble manganese with 

concentrations ranging from 278 μg/L to 331 μg/L. The manganese levels were above the SMCL of 

50 μg/L. The proposed treatment system was anticipated to provide for some manganese removal, but its 

effectiveness was to be evaluated as part of this demonstration project, due to the inherently slow 

oxidation kinetics of manganese during chlorination. 

15
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data at Sabin, MN

Parameter Unit 

EPA 

Raw

Water 

Data 

Facility

Raw 

Water 

Data(a)

Kinetico 

Raw 

Water 

Data 

Battelle 

Well 

No. 1 

Raw 

Water 

Data 

Battelle 

after 

Filtration 

Data 

Battelle 

Well 

No. 1 

Raw 

Water 

Data 

MDH 

Treated 

Water 

Data(d)

Date 09/30/02 2003 Before 

04/04 07/30/03 07/30/03 08/31/04 01/16/01– 

10/26/04 

pH U.S . NA 7.5 7.4 NA NA 7.3 NA 

Temperature °C NA NA NA NA NA 12.6 NA 

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA NA 5.9 NA 

ORP mV NA NA NA NA NA -24 NA 

Total Alkalinity 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 297 295 284 NA NA 302 NA 

Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 685 715 716 609 612 752 NA 

Turbidity NTU NA NA NA NA NA 7.1 <1 

TDS mg/L NA NA NA NA NA 2,050 NA 

TOC mg/L NA NA NA NA NA 2.0, 

1.5(c) NA 

NO3- NO2 (as N) mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05–0.15 

NO3 (as N) mg/L NA NA <1.0 NA NA <0.04 NA 

NO2 (as N) mg/L NA NA NA NA NA <0.01 NA 

Ammonia (as N) mg/L NA NA NA NA NA 0.19 NA 

Chloride mg/L 45 28 53.5 NA NA 34 NA 

Fluoride mg/L NA NA 0.96 NA NA 0.12 0.93–1.6 

Sulfate mg/L 417 470 470 NA NA 410 410–440 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 26.9 30, 

27(b) 25.7 NA NA 29.7 NA 

P (as P) mg/L NA 0.04,0.09(b) <0.1 NA NA <0.1 NA 

As (total) μg/L 25 41 16 53.7 47 13.9 24.4–45.0 

As (soluble) μg/L NA NA NA 43.9 NA 12.6 NA 

As (particulate) μg/L NA NA NA 9.8 NA 1.3 NA 

As(III) μg/L NA NA NA 19.7 NA 5.1 NA 

As(V) μg/L NA NA NA 24.2 NA 7.5 NA 

Fe (total) μg/L 512 1,550 610 1,108 890 854 NA 

Fe (soluble) μg/L NA NA NA 1,136 NA 844 NA 

Mn (total) μg/L 155 310 230 264 204 327 NA 

Mn (soluble) μg/L NA NA NA 278 NA 331 NA 

U (total) μg/L NA NA NA NA NA 5.5 NA 

U (soluble) μg/L NA NA NA NA NA 5.3 NA 

V (total) μg/L NA NA NA <0.1 <0.1 0.30 NA 

V (soluble) μg/L NA NA NA <0.1 NA 0.12 NA 

Mo (total) μg/L NA NA NA 2.7 3.1 NA NA 

Mo (soluble) μg/L NA NA NA 2.8 NA NA NA 

16
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data at Sabin, MN (Continued)

Parameter Unit 

EPA 

Raw 

Water 

Data 

Facility 

Raw 

Water 

Data(a)

Kinetico 

Raw 

Water 

Data 

Battelle 

Well 

No. 1 

Raw 

Water 

Data 

Battelle 

after 

Filtration 

Data 

Battelle 

Well 

No. 1 

Raw 

Water 

Data 

MDH 

Treated 

Water 

Data(d)

Date 09/30/02 2003 Before 

04/04 07/30/03 07/30/03 08/31/04 01/16/01– 10/26/04 

Sb (total) μg/L <25 NA NA <0.1 <0.1 NA NA 

Sb (soluble) μg/L NA NA NA <0.1 NA NA NA 

Na (total) mg/L 39 31 44 34 35 43 42–44 

Ca (total) mg/L 151 158 155 133 135 173 NA 

Mg (total) mg/L 75 78 73 67 67 78 NA 

Radium-226 pCi/L NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.2(e)

Radium-228 pCi/L NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.8(e)

(a) Provided by facility to EPA for demonstration site selection. 

(b) Data provided by EPA. 

(c) Sample taken on September 14, 2004. 

(d) Samples taken in treatment plant and locations within the distribution system. 

(e) Samples taken on June 23, 1994. 

NA = not analyzed; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon 

pH. The pH values of source water ranged from 7.3 to 7.5, which were within the target range of 5.5 to 

8.5 for arsenic removal via adsorption/co-precipitation with iron hydroxides. As such, no pH adjustment 

was needed during the treatment. 

Competing Anions. The process of As(V) adsorption and co-precipitation with iron solids can be 

affected by the presence of competing anions, such as silica and phosphate. Data obtained by Battelle 

showed 29.7 mg/L of silica (as SiO2) and <0.1 mg/L of total phosphorus, comparable to the levels 

reported by other parties. Published data have shown that silica at high concentrations can significantly 

impact arsenic adsorption by iron solids (Smith and Edwards, 2005; Meng et al., 2000; Meng et al., 

2002). Batch and column studies conducted by these authors document that silica reduces arsenic 

adsorptive capacities on ferric oxides/hydroxides. Arsenic adsorption may be inhibited in the presence of 

silica as follows: (1) adsorption of silica may change the surface properties of adsorbents by lowering the 

iso-electric point or pHzpc; (2) silica may compete for arsenic adsorption sites; (3) polymerization of silica 

may accelerate silica sorption and lower the available surface sites for arsenic adsorption; and (4) 

chemical reactions of silica with divalent cations, such as calcium, magnesium, and barium, may form 

precipitates. As such, the effect of silica was carefully monitored during the demonstration study. The 

sulfate levels in source water ranged from 410 to 470 mg/L, which were above the sulfate SMCL of 

250 mg/L. Sulfate has not been shown to significantly hamper arsenate adsorption onto iron solids (Jain 

and Loeppert, 2000). 

TOC. Total organic carbon (TOC) in source water ranged from 1.5 to 2 mg/L, which was not anticipated 

to adversely impact the treatment system performance. 

Other Water Quality Parameters. The source water was very turbid at 7.1 nephelometric turbidity 

units (NTU), most likely resulting from iron precipitation during the sample collection and transit. The 

nitrate, nitrite, chloride, and fluoride levels all were below the corresponding SMCLs. The ammonia 

level at 0.19 mg/L would add to the chlorine demand, but was not anticipated to adversely impact As(III) 

or Fe(II) oxidation. Uranium, vanadium, molybdenum, and antimony levels were low and not anticipated 

to affect arsenic removal via the iron removal process.

17
4.1.2 Distribution System and Treated Water Quality. Prior to the commencement of the 

demonstration study, the distribution system at the City of Sabin was supplied by two wells, i.e., Wells 

No. 1 and 2. Water from both wells blended within the 75,000-gal water tower and the distribution 

system, which was constructed of mainly 4-in and 6-in cast iron and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping. 

During the demonstration study beginning in January 2006, the distribution system was supplied only by 

Well No. 2. 

The three locations selected for distribution water sampling for this demonstration study were part of the 

City’s historic sampling network under the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). In addition to lead and copper, 

coliform, fluoride, and arsenic were sampled on a quarterly basis and nitrate was sampled on an annual 

basis. Ra-226 and Ra-228 were sampled every other year. The historic data from Minnesota Department 

of Health (MDH) for treated water are provided in Table 4-1. 

The historic treated water samples were collected at the entry point (after the treatment plant) and various 

locations within the distribution system, such as residences, businesses (gas stations and cafes), fire hall, 

and city hall, from January 16, 2001, through October 26, 2004. As shown in the table, turbidity readings 

were <1.0 NTU, NO3-NO2 between <0.05 and 0.15 mg/L (as N), fluoride between 0.9 and 1.6 mg/L, 

sulfate between 410 and 440 mg/L, arsenic between 24.4 and 45.0 mg/L, sodium between 42 to 44 mg/L, 

radium-226 at 0.2 pCi/L, and radium-228 at <0.8 pCi/L. Compared to those in source water, fluoride 

concentrations were somewhat elevated due to fluoridation at the plant. As expected, the concentrations 

of the rest of the analytes measured at the entry point and within the distribution system were comparable 

to those found in source water (except for radium, for which no data were available for source water). 

4.2 Treatment Process Description 

Kinetico’s FM-248-AS arsenic removal system was installed at the Sabin, MN site for the demonstration 

study. The treatment train included prechlorination/oxidation, coprecipitation/adsorption, and Macrolite®

pressure filtration. Macrolite®, a spherical, low density, chemically inert, ceramic media manufactured by 

Kinetico, is designed to allow for filtration rates up to 10 gpm/ft2

 and approved for use in drinking water 

applications under NSF International Standard 61. The physical properties of Macrolite® are summarized 

in Table 4-2. 

Table 4-2. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media 

Property Value 

Color Taupe, brown to grey 

Thermal Stability (oC) 1,100 

Sphere Mesh Size 40 × 60 

Sphere Size Range (mm) 0.42–0.25 

Sphere Size Range (in) 0.165–0.0098 

Uniformity Coefficient 1.1 

Bulk Density (g/cm3) 0.86 

Bulk Density (lb/ft3) 54 

Particle Density (g/cm3) 2.05 

Particle Density (lb/ft3) 129 

 

The FM-248-AS arsenic removal system was composed of two parallel contact tanks, two parallel 

pressure filtration tanks, and associated instrumentation to monitor pressure, flowrate, and turbidity (note 

that continuous turbidity monitoring was performed only during backwash). The system also was 

18
equipped with a central control panel that housed a touch screen operator interface panel (OIP), a 

programmable logic controller (PLC), a modem, and an uninterruptible power supply (UPS). The PLC 

automatically controlled the system by actuating PVC pneumatic valves with air supplied by a 7.5-hp, 80-

gal air compressor. The system also featured Schedule 80 PVC solvent bonded plumbing and all of the 

necessary isolation and check valves and sampling ports. Figure 4-4 is a simplified system piping and 

instrumentation diagram (P&ID). Figure 4-5 contains photographs of the key system components and 

control and instrumentation. The system’s design specifications are summarized in Table 4-3. The major 

process steps are presented as follows: 

• Intake. Raw water was pumped from Well No. 2 along with a 15-hp booster pump to 

provide a design flow rate of 250 gpm. (Deviating from the original design, Well No. 1 was 

not piped to the treatment system for the duration of the study). The system was equipped 

with piping to bypass the treatment system and two 125-gpm flow-limiting devices, with one 

installed after each pressure filtration tank, to prevent overrun. 

• Chlorination. Chlorine was used to oxidize As(III) to As(V) and Fe(II) to Fe(III) and to 

maintain a free chlorine residual of approximately 0.5 mg/L (as Cl2) after the treatment 

system. The feed system consisted of a 165-gal day tank containing a 15.6% (as Cl2) NaOCl 

solution and a diaphragm metering pump with a maximum capacity of 42 gpd. The proper 

operation of the NaOCl system was tracked by the measurements of NaOCl consumption in 

the day tank and free and total chlorine residuals across the treatment train. 

• Adsorption/Co-precipitation. Two 63-in-diameter by 86-in-tall fiberglass reinforced plastic 

(FRP) tanks arranged in parallel were used to provide 6.8 min of contact time to enhance the 

formation of iron flocs prior to pressure filtration. Each 850-gal tank has one 4-in top flange 

and one 4-in bottom flange, which are connected to the exit and inlet piping, respectively, for 

an upflow configuration.

• Pressure Filtration. Iron floc removal from the contact tank effluent was achieved via 

downflow filtration through two 48-in-diameter, 72-in-tall pressure tanks configured in 

parallel. Each tank contained 25 ft3

 (or 24 in) of 40 × 60 mesh Macrolite® media loaded on 

top of fine garnet underbedding filled to 1-in above the 0.006-in slotted, stainless steel 

wedge-wire underdrain. The FRP filtration tanks were rated for a working pressure of 150 

psi and had two 10-in diameter side windows for media and backwash observations. The 

tanks were floor mounted and piped to a valve rack mounted on a welded, stainless steel 

frame. The flow through each tank was regulated to less than 125 gpm using a flow-limiting 

device to prevent filter overrun. System operation with both tanks in service could produce a 

total design flowrate of 250 gpm. Filtered water was sent to a 57,000-gal underground 

clearwell and then pumped to the water tower via two 20-hp high service pumps, which were 

operated on an alternating basis. 

19
Kinetico FM-248-AS Arsenic Removal System

Feed Water

Filtered Water to

Storage/Distribution

by Others

Backwash Waste

to Sewer by Others

Chemical

Metering

Pump

Existing

Contact

Vessels

NaOCl

at 50-100 psi

63" x 86"

63" x 86"

48" x 72"48" x 72"

Filter

#1

Filter

#2

P

P P

Flow

Flow Turbidity

Figure 4-4. Schematic of Kinetico’s FM-248-AS Arsenic Removal System 

Figure 4-5. Treatment System Components 

20
Table 4-3. Design Features of Macrolite® Arsenic Removal System

Parameter Value Remarks 

Pretreatment 

 NaOCl Demand (mg/L [as Cl2]) 1.7 Based on average oxidant demand from 

soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese in source 

water plus 0.5 mg/L of target residual; not 

including ammonia demand 

Contact 

 No. of Tanks 2 – 

 Configuration Parallel – 

 Tank Size (in) 63 D × 86 H – 

 Tank Volume (gal) 850 – 

 Contact Time (min) 6.8 – 

Filtration 

 No. of Tanks 2 – 

 Configuration Parallel – 

 Tank Size (in) 48 D × 72 H – 

 Tank Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 12.6 

 Media Volume (ft3/vessel) 25 24-in bed depth of Macrolite®

 Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) 10 At 125 gpm 

 Pressure Drop across Clean Bed (psi) 10–12 – 

Backwash 

 Δp Setpoint (psi) 22 Backwash triggering pressure 

 Standby Time Setpoint (hr) 48 – 

 Service Time Setpoint (hr) 24 – 

 Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) 10 125 gpm 

 Turbidity Setpoint (NTU) 20 To terminate backwash 

 Duration (min/tank) 5 to 15 Variable based on turbidity readings of 

backwash water 

 Wastewater Production (gpd) Variable Based on PLC set points shown above 

Design Specifications 

 Peak Flowrate (gpm) 250 – 

 Maximum Daily Well Production 

(gpd) 360,000 Based on peak flow, 24 hr/day 

 Hydraulic Utilization (%) 13–17 Estimate based on historic utilization rate 

• Filter Backwash. Backwash removed solids accumulating in the filters, thereby reducing 

pressure buildup. The filters were automatically backwashed in succession in an upflow 

configuration based on service time, standby time, and/or differential pressure (∆p) setpoints. 

Backwash began with draining water from the first filter tank followed by air sparging the 

filter media at 100 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) for 2 min. After a 3-min settling 

period, the filter tank was backwashed with treated water from the distribution system until 

the backwash water had reached the turbidity threshold setpoint (e.g., 20 NTU) as measured 

by an on-line HachTM turbidimeter). Afterwards, the filter tank underwent a filter-to-waste 

rinse for 3 min using water from the contact tank before returning to service. The resulting 

wastewater was sent to a sump that emptied into the sanitary sewer. 

4.3 Treatment System Installation 

This section provides a summary of the system installation, startup, and shakedown activities and the 

associated prerequisites including permitting and building construction. 

21
4.3.1 System Permitting. The system engineering package, prepared by Kinetico and Ulteig 

Engineers, included a system design report and associated general arrangement and a P&ID for the FM248-AS system, electrical and mechanical drawings and component specifications, and building 

construction drawings detailing connections from the system to the entry piping. The engineering 

package was certified by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and submitted to 

MDH for review and approval on March 4, 2005. After MDH’s review comments were addressed, the 

water supply construction permit was issued by MDH on June 13, 2005, and fabrication of the system 

began thereafter. The sanitary sewer extension permit for discharge of backwash water was received on 

April 14, 2005. 

4.3.2 Building Construction. Building construction began on July 5, 2005, with the excavation 

for the building foundation including a 57,000-gal underground clearwell located directly underneath the 

building and a 2,350-gal underground sump. The footprint of the building was 48 ft × 56 ft with a roof 

height of 17.5 ft. The building was fabricated from pre-cast concrete panels and included an 8-ft-wide 

double panel door at the entrance. Finished water from the arsenic removal system was stored in the 

clearwell and wastewater produced from filter backwash was discharged to the sump that emptied by 

gravity into the sanitary sewer. In addition to the filtration room that housed the treatment system, the 

building also had a chemical room, a mechanical room, a laboratory, an office, and a restroom (see Figure 

4-6). The new building was largely completed prior to the start of the demonstration study on January 30, 

2006. However, finishing work such as improvements to the building ventilation continued until June 5, 

2006, when the building was officially turned over to the city of Sabin. 

4.3.3 System Installation, Startup, and Shakedown. The FM-248-AS treatment system was 

delivered to the site on December 2, 2005. The vendor, through its subcontractor, off-loaded and installed 

the system (Figure 4-7). Installation activities included connections to the entry and distribution piping 

and electrical interlocking. Upon completion of system installation and before media loading, the vendor 

performed hydraulic pressure testing to ensure that there were no leaks and that the system was 

mechanically sound. Macrolite® media loading and initial backwashing (to remove fines) was completed 

by December 16, 2005. Work resumed after the holiday break with activities spanning from PLC testing 

to instrument calibration, additional backwash testing (to set flow rates), system sanitation (using 

chlorine), chlorine residual testing, and operator training (on system O&M). The system startup and 

shakedown work was completed by January 19, 2006. 

Battelle inspected the system and provided operator training on sample and data collection from January 

30 to January 31, 2006, and the performance evaluation officially began on January 31, 2006. As a result 

of the system inspections, several punch-list items were identified and forwarded to the vendor after the 

site visit. The key items identified and corrective actions taken included: 

• Repair TT sampling tap. The TT sample tap did not provide water due to pulling a vacuum 

on the effluent line to the clearwell that was open to the atmosphere. The vendor proposed 

changing the location of the sample tap and provided a new tap to install on the bottom of the 

effluent line on April 25, 2006. However, the sample tap did not yield water until a vacuum 

breaker was installed at the highest point of the treated water line prior to the clearwell on 

September 11, 2006. 

22
Figure 4-6. New Building and Associated Infrastructure 

(Clockwise from Top, Left: New Building, Adjacent Office/Laboratory Area, and Electrical 

Control Panel, Clearwell Lid [Inset], and Backwash Sump) 

Figure 4-7. Delivery and Off-Loading of Macrolite® Treatment System Equipment 

23
• Modify the PLC to show a decimal place for all hour meter displays on the control panel. 

The vendor added a decimal place to all hour meter displays by updating the PLC program on 

February 28, 2006. However, this PLC programming change led to a backwash control issue 

related to the frequency of backwash as discussed under the next bullet point. 

 

• Resolve backwash control issues related to the PLC programming change described above 

and the HachTM turbidimeter. As discussed in Section 4.4.2, the PLC programming change 

made on February 28, 2006, led to the failure of the system to backwash based on the 

backwash setpoints (e.g., 48-hr standby time). As such, the operator had to initiate each 

backwash event manually until this issue was resolved with another programming change on 

April 11, 2006. In addition, beginning in May 2006, backwash was consistently discontinued 

at the end of 5-min minimum backwash duration. This issue was not resolved during the first 

six-month study period as discussed in Section 4.4.2. As a temporary measure, the operator 

changed the minimum backwash time to 10 min on July 21, 2006, to ensure adequate 

backwashing of the pressure filters. 

4.4 System Operation 

4.4.1 Coagulation/Filtration Operation. The operational parameters for the first six months of 

system operation are tabulated and attached as Appendix A with the key parameters summarized in Table 

4-4. From January 30, 2006 through July 30, 2006, the treatment system operated for approximately 

546 hr, based on the hour meter readings displayed on the PLC; the average daily operating time was 

3.0 hr/day. (The service clock on the PLC was reset twice during this study period when: 1) a 

programming change to add a decimal point to the hour meter readings was made on February 28, 2006; 

and 2) a backwash control issue was corrected on April 11, 2006, as discussed in Section 4.4.2). The 

total system throughput was approximately 6,650,000 gal based on flow totalizer readings on the PLC. 

The average daily demand was 37,049 gal/day, which is equivalent to a 10% hydraulic utilization rate. 

The system flowrates ranged from 222 to 245 gpm and averaged 238 gpm, based on instantaneous 

readings from the flow meter/totalizer installed at the exit side of the pressure filters. The average 

flowrate corresponded to an average contact time of 7.1 min in the contact tanks and an average hydraulic 

loading rate of 9.5 gpm/ft2

 across the filters, compared to the design values of 6.8 min and 10 gpm/ft2, 

respectively, as shown in Table 4-3. The daily average system flowrates also were calculated by dividing 

the amounts of water treated by the corresponding daily system run times and are compared with the 

instantaneous flowrate readings. As shown in Figure 4-8, the calculated average flowrate was highly 

variable due to the lack of a decimal place on the hour meter reading, which reduced the accuracy of the 

calculation. During the second quarter of operations, after implementation of the PLC programming 

changes described above, the readings converged with the instantaneous flow rate approximately 8% 

higher than the daily average system flow rate. This is consistent with the values measured at system 

startup, which indicated an instantaneous flow rate of 244 gpm and a calculated average flowrate of 225 

gpm (based on a digital totalizer reading [i.e., 15,300 gal] and a stop watch reading [i.e., 68 min]). 

Under normal service conditions, ∆p readings across the system ranged from 31 to 39 psi. As shown in 

Figure 4-9, ∆p readings across each filter over the course of a filter run increased from approximately 7 

psi immediately after backwash up to 19 psi after 21 hr of filter run time. At the median filter run time of 

6.2 hr, the corresponding ∆p reading across the bed was approximately 12 psi, which was significantly 

lower than the 22 psi ∆p trigger set in the PLC. Under normal operating conditions, the ∆p setpoint was 

never reached and backwash was triggered only by the standby time of 48 hr. 

24
Table 4-4. FM-248-AS Treatment System Operational Parameters

Parameter Value 

Operational Period 01/30/06–07/30/06 

Coagulation/Filtration Operation

 Total Operating Time (hr) 546 

 Average Daily Operating Time (hr/day) 3.0 

 Total Throughput (gal) 6,650,000 

 Average Daily Demand (gpd) 37,049 

 Median Service Time between Backwash Cycles [Range](hr) 6.2 [0.8–13.3] (a)

 Median Throughput between Backwash Cycles[Range](gal) 88,536 [11,424–189,924] 

 Average Flowrate [Range] (gpm)(b,c) 238 [222–245] 

 Average Contact Time [Range] (min)(b) 7.1 [6.9–7.7] 

 Average Filtration Rate [Range] (gpm/ft2)

(b) 9.5 [8.8–9.8] 

 Average ∆p across Each Tank [Range] (psi)(c) 11.7 [7–19] 

 Average ∆p across System [Range] (psi)(c) 33 [31–39] 

Backwash Operation

 Average Frequency (times/tank/week) 3 

 Number of Cycles (Tank A/Tank B) 81/81 

 Average Flowrate [Range] (gpm)(d) 107 [105–110] 

 Average Hydraulic Loading Rate [Range] (gpm/ft2) 8.5 [8.4–8.8] 

 Average Duration [Range] (min/tank)(d) 10 [5–19] 

 Average Backwash Volume [Range] (gal/tank)(d) 1,003 [400–1,900] 

 Estimated Filter to Waste Volume (gal/tank)(e) 375 

 Average Wastewater Produced [Range] (gal/tank) 1,378 [775–2,675] 

(a) Data collected from February 28 through March 19, 2006 not included. Filter run times 

during this time period were uncharacteristically long (ranging from 18 to 25 hr), caused 

by the PLC control problems discussed in Section 4.4.2. 

(b) Based on instantaneous flowrate readings from flow meter/totalizer for service. 

(c) Pressure and flow data collected on February 7, 2006 not included (with one tank in 

service while the other tank was being backwashed). 

(d) Based on readings recorded by operator on monthly backwash logsheet. 

(e) Estimated based on 3-min filter-to-waste time and 125-gpm flow rate. 

The data shown in Figure 4-9 do not include those collected on February 7, 2006, when the pressure and 

flowrate readings were recorded with only one pressure filter (Tank A) in service while the other (Tank 

B) was being backwashed. During this backwash event, the influent pressure spiked almost twice as high 

up to 63 psi and the corresponding pressure drop across the system was 63 psi (since the plant effluent 

was discharged to the clearwell under the atmospheric pressure). This spike in pressure occurs with each 

backwash event and is due to only one tank being in service and the increased pressure drop caused by the 

flow restrictor on the effluent line of that tank. During this backwash event, the ∆p reading across Tank 

A was only 10 psi (because it had just been backwashed and returned to service) and the corresponding 

flowrate through Tank A was 155 gpm. While one tank is off-line for backwash (Tank B), the inlet 

pressure at 63 psi through the on-line tank (Tank A) was below the 100 psi manufacturer specifications. 

For this site, the normal inlet pressure was relatively low at 33 psi, so the doubling of the inlet pressure 

with only one tank on-line could be accommodated. However, this will not be the case for all sites, based 

on their site-specific pump curve characteristics and total dynamic head conditions. The flowrate at 155 

gpm through Tank A was slightly above the 125 gpm limit per tank. This suggests that the system is able 

to operate with only one tank on-line, but the hydraulic loading at 12.3 gpm/ft2

 is slightly higher than the 

design specification of 10 gpm/ft2

 during this time period. 

25
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

01/03/06 01/23/06 02/12/06 03/04/06 03/24/06 04/13/06 05/03/06 05/23/06 06/12/06 07/02/06 07/22/06 08/11/06

Date

Flowrate, gpm

Daily Average Flowrate

Instantaneous Flowrate

Figure 4-8. Calculated and Instantaneous Flowrate Readings 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Filter Run Time, hrs

Differential Pressure Across Bed, psi

dP Tank A

dP Tank B

Figure 4-9. Differential Pressure Versus Filter Run Time 

26
Since system startup, a total of 81 backwash cycles took place for each pressure filter. Backwash 

occurred at a frequency of approximately 3 times/tank/week and was triggered mainly by the 48-hr 

standby time due to the low daily run time of 3.0 hr/day. The median value of filter run times between 

two consecutive backwash cycles was 6.2 hr, which yielded a median throughput of 88,536 gal. Because 

total arsenic breakthrough at 10.6 μg/L was observed on July 26, 2006 (as discussed in Section 4.5.1.1), 

the filter run time will be further examined during the next six-month study period. In addition, several 

issues were encountered related to the frequency and duration of backwash, which will be discussed in 

Section 4.4.2. As noted in Table 4-4, these data were not included in the filter run time calculations. 

4.4.2 Backwash Operation. Automatic backwash of the Macrolite® pressure filters could be 

initiated by one of the three triggers set in the PLC: 22 psi ∆p across a filter, 48-hr standby time, or 24-hr 

filter run time. Due to short daily operational times, the majority of the backwash cycles were triggered 

by the standby time setpoint. Occasionally, manual backwash cycles also were initiated, but primarily for 

testing and sampling of backwash water and solids. The actual backwash duration for each filter was 

determined by the minimum and maximum backwash time settings and the ability of the backwash water 

to meet the turbidity threshold setting as measured by an in-line HachTM turbidimeter. If backwash water 

failed to meet the set threshold prior to reaching the maximum backwash time, the backwash failure alarm 

had to be acknowledged and a successful backwash cycle had to be conducted before the tank could 

return to the service mode. Backwash was followed by a 3-min filter-to-waste rinse to remove any 

particulates from the filter. 

Each pressure filter was backwashed 81 times during the first six-month study period. Backwash 

flowrates ranged from 105 to 110 gpm and averaged 107 gpm; the corresponding backwash hydraulic 

loading rates ranged from 8.4 to 8.8 gpm/ft2

 and averaged 8.5 gpm/ft2. This range of backwash flowrates 

did not cause significant media loss during backwash. The backwash duration for each filter lasted for 5 

to 19 min, or 10 min on average. The amount of backwash water produced averaged 1,003 gal with a 

range of 400 to 1,900 gal. Overall, the amount of backwash water generated was 100,800 gal, about 1.5% 

of the total amount of water treated. Including 375 gal of filter-to-waste rinse water per filter for each 

backwash cycle, approximately 161,550 gal of wastewater was generated, which is about 2.4% of the 

total amount of water treated. 

Table 4-5 summarizes the backwash settings established on January 30, 2006 during system startup and 

on July 21, 2006 to modify the minimum backwash time due to a HachTM turbidimeter malfunction. 

Backwash issues experienced during the first six months of system operation included backwash controls 

related to the frequency and duration of backwash, as well as backwash failure alarms. 

4.4.2.1 Backwash Frequency Issues. On February 28, 2006, the vendor implemented a PLC 

programming change that added a decimal place to the hour meter readings to improve accuracy of daily 

filter run time and average system flowrate records. In doing so, the backwash control process was 

inadvertently disrupted so that the filters were not properly backwashed based on the 48-hour standby 

setpoint. As a consequence, filter run times were significantly extended from an average of 6.2 hr during 

normal system operation to 18.1 hr from February 28 to March 7, 2006, 24.8 hr from March 7 to 14, 

2006, and 23.7 hr from March 14 to March 19, 2006. These extended filter run times are not included in 

the calculations of filter run times as shown in Table 4-4. After March 19, 2006, the operator manually 

initiated backwash cycles until the PLC program was updated by the vendor and the backwash control 

returned to normal operations on April 11, 2006. 

4.4.2.2 Backwash Duration Issues. From May 7, 2006 to July 21, 2006, 38 out of 44 backwash 

events terminated at the minimum backwash time of 5 min, based on the volume of wastewater recorded 

on the Daily Operational Log Sheet and the average backwash flowrate. In addition, the operator 

observed during the June 18, 2006, backwash event that the turbidity readings of the backwash water 

27
Table 4-5. Summary of PLC Settings for Backwash Operations

Parameter 

(for Each Pressure Filter) 01/30/06(a) 07/21/06(b)

Drain Time (min) 3 3 

Run Time Trigger (hr) 24 24 

Standby Time Trigger (hr) 48 48 

∆p Trigger (psi) 22 22 

Minimum Backwash Time (min) 5 10 

Maximum Backwash Time (min) 15 15 

Turbidity Threshold (NTU) 20 20 

Low Flowrate Threshold (gpm) 70 70 

Filter-to-Waste Time (min) 3 3 

(a) Initial setpoint at startup. 

(b) Minimum backwash time changed to 10-min due to issues with 

HachTM turbidimeter readings. 

peaked at 18 NTU, which was significantly lower than the NTU readings (i.e., up to 88 NTU) observed 

previously in January through April 2006. Lower than the established 20-NTU threshold, these 

abnormally low NTU readings caused backwash to stop as soon as reaching the minimum backwash time 

of 5 min. This issue was reported to the vendor on June 6, 2006, but not yet resolved during the first sixmonth study period. As a temporary measure, the operator adjusted the minimum backwash time from 5 

to 10 min on July 21, 2006 to ensure adequate backwashing of the pressure filters. 

4.4.2.3 Backwash Alarms. The operator reported backwash alarms on February 13, 14, 19, and 21, 

2006 when backwash water failed to reach the 20-NTU turbidity threshold at the end of the maximum 

backwash time of 15 min. The operator addressed these instances by using a bottle brush to clean and 

remove media fines from the HachTM turbidimeter body (e.g. the cone shaped section through which the 

water sample flows). Based on the high volume of backwash water recorded on the Daily Operational 

Log Sheet, failures occurred on six more occasions (March 14, April 5, April 18, April 23, April 28, and 

July 4, 2006). 

4.4.3 Residual Management. The only residuals produced by the Macrolite® arsenic removal 

system were backwash water and filter-to-waste rinse water. Backwash water was discharged to the 

building sump, which emptied by gravity to the sanitary sewer. According to the backwash flow totalizer, 

100,800 gal of wastewater were produced during the pressure filter backwash. Based on a flowrate of 

125 gpm and a duration of 3 min/tank for 81 backwash cycles, 60,750 gal of filter-to-waste rinse water 

also were produced. Therefore, over 161,550 gal of wastewater, or 2.4% of the treated water, was 

generated as a result of this pressure filtration process. 

4.4.4 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation. The simplicity of system operation and operator 

skill requirements are discussed including pre- and post-treatment requirements, levels of system 

automation, operator skill requirements, preventative maintenance activities, and frequency of 

chemical/media handling and inventory requirements. No significant scheduled or unscheduled 

downtime has been required since installation of the treatment system. However, some O&M issues did 

arise related to prechlorination and control of backwash operations as discussed below. 

4.4.4.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Prechlorination with 15.6% as Cl2 solution was 

performed to oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) and to provide chlorine residuals to the distribution system. In 

addition to tracking the depth of the NaOCl solution in the day tank, the operator measured chlorine levels 

28
to ensure that adequate residuals existed throughout the treatment train. Insufficient chlorine was dosed 

due to a chlorine fitting leak reported by the operator as starting on February 12, 2006. Using spare parts, 

the operator made a series of repairs between the February 14 and 21, 2006 sampling events to restore 

prechlorination. No post-treatment was required for the arsenic removal system. 

4.4.4.2 System Automation. The FM-248-AS arsenic treatment system was automatically controlled 

by the PLC in the central control panel. The control panel contained a modem and a touch screen OIP 

that facilitated monitoring of system parameters, changing of system setpoints, and checking the alarm 

status. Run time, standby time, and ∆p settings automatically dictated when the pressure filters should be 

backwashed (see settings on Table 4-5). The touch screen OIP also enabled the operator to manually 

initiate the backwash sequence. Several issues were experienced related to control of the frequency and 

duration of backwash events, which are detailed in Section 4.4.2. Problems with automation of the 

backwash process led to an increased need to monitor plant operations and manual intervention by the 

operator (e.g., manually initiating backwashes and/or changing setpoints in the PLC to accommodate 

HachTM turbidimeter malfunctions). 

4.4.4.3 Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the daily demand on the 

operator was about 15 min for visual inspection of the system and recording of operational parameters, 

such as pressure, volume, flowrate, and chemical usage on field log sheets. For the state of Minnesota, 

there are five water operator certificate class levels, i.e., A, B, C, D, and E (A being the highest). The 

certificate levels are based on education, experience, and system characteristics, such as water source, 

treatment processes, water storage volume, number of wells, and population affected. The certified water 

operator for the city of Sabin has a Class C certificate. Class C requires a high school diploma or 

equivalent with at least three years of experience in operation of Class A, B, or C systems or a bachelor’s 

degree from an accredited institution with at least one year of experience in the operation of a Class A, B, 

C, or D systems. After receiving proper training during the system startup, the operator understood the 

PLC, knew how to use the touch screen OIP, and was able to work with the vendor to troubleshoot and 

perform minor on-site repairs. 

4.4.4.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities. The vendor recommended several routine maintenance 

activities to prolong the integrity of the treatment system (Kinetico, 2005). Preventative maintenance 

tasks included recording pressure readings, flowrates, and chemical drum levels, as well as visually 

checking for leaks, overheating components, proper manual valve positioning and pumps’ lubricant 

levels, and any unusual conditions daily. The vendor recommended checking for trends in the recorded 

data on a weekly basis, which might indicate a decline in system performance, and semi-annually 

servicing and inspecting ancillary equipment and replacing worn components. Cleaning and replacement 

of sensors and replacement of o-ring seals and gaskets of valves should be performed as needed. In 

addition, an intermittent compressed air leak developed in Tank B, potentially starting from June 28, 2006 

to July 26, 2006, as noted by elevated DO readings in Tank B on these dates. This issue will be addressed 

during the second six-month study period. 

 

4.4.4.5 Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements. Prechlorination was required for effective 

treatment since system startup. The operator tracked the NaOCl usage daily and coordinated the solution 

delivery and refill with a local chemical supply company. All chemical handling and re-filling activities 

were performed by the chemical supply company, which reduced the level of effort required for O&M of 

the system by the operator. 

4.5 System Performance 

The performance of the Macrolite® FM-248-AS arsenic treatment system was evaluated based on 

analyses of water samples collected from the treatment plant, backwash lines, and distribution system. 

29
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 27 occasions 

including two duplicate events and seven speciation events during the first six months of system 

operation. Table 4-6 summarizes the analytical results for arsenic, iron, and manganese. Table 4-7 

summarizes the results of the other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of 

analytical results. The results of the water samples collected across the treatment plant are discussed as 

follows. 

4.5.1.1 Arsenic. Figure 4-10 shows total arsenic concentrations measured across the treatment train 

and Figure 4-11 presents the results of seven speciation events. Total arsenic concentrations in raw water 

ranged from 32.8 to 49.8 μg/L and averaged 39.6 μg/L. Of the soluble fraction (93%), As(V) was the 

predominating species, except for the time period just after system startup as shown in Figure 4-11, with 

concentrations ranging from <0.1 to 33.6 μg/L and averaging 23.9 μg/L. Significant amounts of As(III) 

also existed with concentrations ranging from 4.6 to 35.6 μg/L and averaging 13.2 μg/L. Concentrations 

of both As(V) and As(III) varied considerably during the course of this six-month study period, with 

As(III) concentrations exhibiting a decreasing trend and As(V) concentrations an increasing trend 

especially during the first month. 

Low levels of particulate As also were present with concentrations averaging 1.9 μg/L. The total arsenic 

concentrations measured during this study period were lower than that of the raw water sample collected 

on July 30, 2003, but higher than that collected on August 31, 2004 (Table 4-1). Note that the 

groundwater source for the demonstration study was from the new well (or Well No. 2) and that the predemonstration samples were collected only from the old well (or Well No. 1). 

After prechlorination and the contact tanks, As(III) was effectively oxidized to As(V), which, in turn, was 

adsorbed onto or co-precipitated with iron solids, also formed during prechlorination, to become 

particulate As. This was as evidenced by the low levels of soluble arsenic (3.8 to 5.4 μg/L) and 

significantly elevated particulate As concentrations (i.e., 36.2 μg/L on average) in the samples taken after 

the contact tanks. The water samples collected on February 14, 2006, showed very little change in arsenic 

(Figure 4-10) and iron (Figure 4-12) concentrations across the treatment train, which corresponded well 

with the problem encountered with the chlorine injection system that developed a leak starting from 

February 12, 2006, caused by a faulty fitting. The leak was repaired by the operator before the February 

21, 2006 sampling event. 

With sufficient chlorine addition, total arsenic concentrations ranged from 3.9 to 10.6 μg/L and averaged 

6.2 μg/L after Tank A and ranged from 3.5 to 9.9 μg/L and averaged 6.4 μg/L after Tank B. Based on the 

speciation results from three TA and four TB samples, arsenic in the filter effluent was present in both 

soluble and particulate forms, each comprising roughly 50% of the total amounts. The soluble fraction 

was composed of primarily As(V), with As(III) concentrations averaging at only 0.3 and 0.9 μg/L after 

Tanks A and B, respectively. Exceedance of the arsenic MCL occurred once after Tank A at 10.6 μg/L 

on July 26, 2006. The exceedance was attributed to potential particulate breakthrough of the filter due to 

the slightly elevated iron levels in the filter effluent (see Section 4.5.1.2). For this reason, a filter run 

length study will be conducted during the next six-month study period. Another factor that also might 

have contributed was the increase in the influent arsenic level up to 51.3 μg/L compared to the average 

influent arsenic level of 39.6 μg/L. 

30
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Results

Concentration (μg/L) Parameter Sample 

Location

Sample

Count Minimum Maximum Average 

Standard 

Deviation 

IN 27 32.8 49.8 39.6 4.0 

AC 27 28.2 51.3(a) 40.5(a) 5.0(a)

TA 23 3.9 10.6(a) 6.2(a) 1.9 As (total) (a)

TB 24 3.5 9.9(a) 6.4(a) 1.8(a)

IN 7 34.1 40.3 36.9 2.1 

AC 7 3.8 5.4 4.3 0.5 

TA 3 3.0 3.2 3.2 0.1 As (soluble) 

TB 4 2.3 3.7 3.1 0.6 

IN 7 <0.1 4.5 1.9 1.6 

AC 7 32.5 40.3 36.2 3.0 

TA 3 2.2 3.9 3.2 0.9 As (particulate) 

TB 4 0.7 3.8 2.3 1.6 

IN 7 4.6 35.6 13.2 10.8 

AC 7 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.3 

TA 3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 As (III) 

TB 4 <0.1 2.0 0.9 0.9 

IN 7 <0.1 33.6 23.9 11.8 

AC 7 3.0 5.1 3.7 0.7 

TA 3 2.7 3.0 2.8 0.1 As (V) 

TB 4 1.2 2.8 2.2 0.7 

IN 27 1,203 1,936 1,404 160 

AC 27 763 1,748(a) 1,364(a) 202(a)

TA 23 <25 235(a) 81.9(a) 61.3 Fe (total) (a)

TB 24 <25 235(a) 92.5(a) 61.5(a)

IN 7 914 1,283 1,135 129 

AC 7 <25 <25 <25 - 

TA 3 <25 <25 <25 - Fe (soluble) 

TB 4 <25 <25 <25 - 

IN 27 259 449 350 54.7 

AC 27 252 452 350(a) 57.4(a)

TA 23 126 365 217(a) 63.1 Mn (total) (a)

TB 24 111 343 203(a) 57.6(a)

IN 7 305 457 371 61.9 

AC 7 105 297 202 74.4 

TA 3 184 305 249 61.2 Mn (soluble) 

TB 4 99 300 173 87.6 

(a) Results for 02/14/06 sampling event not included because of insufficient chlorine 

addition due to a fitting leak. 

(b) One-half of detection limit used for non-detect results and duplicate samples included for 

calculations. 

31
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 

Concentration Parameter Sample 

Location Unit 

Sample

Count Minimum Maximum Average 

Standard 

Deviation

IN mg/L 27 284 329 300 11.0 

AC mg/L 27 283 317 297 8.3 

TA mg/L 23 283 312 296 7.8 

Alkalinity 

(as CaCO3) 

TB mg/L 24 283 321 298 9.6 

IN mg/L 7 <0.05 0.25 0.16 0.08 

AC mg/L 7 <0.05 0.09 0.06 0.02 

TA mg/L 3 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.02 

Ammonia 

(as N) 

TB mg/L 4 <0.05 0.05 0.03 0.01 

IN mg/L 7 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 

AC mg/L 7 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 

TA mg/L 3 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 

Fluoride 

TB mg/L 4 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 

IN mg/L 7 376 835 474 160 

AC mg/L 7 371 839 465 166 

TA mg/L 3 420 845 562 245 

Sulfate 

TB mg/L 4 372 514 437 58.9 

IN mg/L 7 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 

AC mg/L 7 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 

TA mg/L 3 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 

Nitrate 

(as N) 

TB mg/L 4 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 

IN μg/L 26 <10 50.0 27.9 11.9 

AC μg/L 26 <10 45.8 26.8 12.4 

TA μg/L 22 <10 18.5 6.1 3.2 

Total P 

(as P) 

TB μg/L 23 <10 20.2 5.9 3.3 

IN mg/L 27 28.5 32.5 30.3 1.0 

AC mg/L 27 27.4 32.5 30.2 1.2 

TA mg/L 23 27.1 31.9 29.8 1.1 

Silica 

(as SiO2) 

TB mg/L 24 26.9 31.9 29.9 1.1 

IN NTU 27 13.0 44.0 18.8 5.8 

AC NTU 27 0.9 20.0 2.5 3.6 

TA NTU 23 0.3 18.0 1.6 3.6 Turbidity 

TB NTU 24 0.2 21.0 1.6 4.2 

IN mg/L 5 1.5 1.8 1.6 0.1 

AC mg/L 5 1.5 1.8 1.6 0.1 

TA mg/L 1 1.6 1.6 1.6 - 

Total 

Organic 

Carbon 

(TOC) TB mg/L 3 1.5 1.8 1.6 0.2 

IN mg/L 7 886 1,030 963 47.3 

AC mg/L 7 914 1,020 963 34.4 

TA mg/L 3 978 1,000 989 11.0 

Total 

Dissolved 

Solids 

(TDS) TB mg/L 4 920 1,030 977 51.6 

IN S.U. 25 7.2 7.7 7.4 0.2 

AC S.U. 25 7.0 7.7 7.4 0.2 

TA S.U. 19 7.1 7.4 7.3 0.1 pH 

TB S.U. 22 7.1 7.4 7.3 0.1 

32
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results (continued) 

Concentration Parameter Sample 

Location Unit 

Sample

Count Minimum Maximum Average 

Standard 

Deviation

IN °C 25 11.0 17.4 13.3 1.5 

AC °C 25 10.9 17.8 13.3 1.5 

TA °C 19 10.8 16.4 13.3 1.5 

Temperature 

TB °C 22 11.2 17.1 13.3 1.6 

IN mg/L 25 2.1 6.6 3.7(a) 1.4(a)

AC mg/L 25 1.2 4.7 3.2(a) 0.8(a)

TA mg/L 19 2.2 5.9 3.8(a) 1.3

DO (a)

TB mg/L 22 0.8 4.0 3.0(a) 0.9(a)

IN mV 25 -13 476 171 186 

AC mV 25 385 678 479 72.1 

TA mV 19 442 665 499 59.3 

ORP 

TB mV 22 83.9 677 530 127 

AC mg/L 25 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.3 

TA mg/L 19 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 

Free 

Chlorine 

(as Cl2) TB mg/L 22 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.2 

AC mg/L 25 0.0 2.1 0.7 0.4 

TA mg/L 19 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.2 

Total 

Chlorine 

(as Cl2) TB mg/L 22 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.3 

IN mg/L 7 584 741 658 55.3 

AC mg/L 7 536 741 662 68.4 

TA mg/L 3 603 743 671 69.9 

Total 

Hardness 

(as CaCO3) 

TB mg/L 4 635 691 667 24.9 

IN mg/L 7 354 414 390 19.5 

AC mg/L 7 324 435 392 34.5 

TA mg/L 3 345 413 377 34.3 

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) 

TB mg/L 4 379 426 401 21.3 

IN mg/L 7 210 327 267 40.2 

AC mg/L 7 212 323 270 38.9 

TA mg/L 3 258 329 293 35.6 

Mg 

Hardness 

(as CaCO3) 

TB mg/L 4 246 282 266 14.9 

(a) Data with uncharacteristically high DO levels on 02/21/06, 2/28/06, 03/06/06, 03/14/06, 03/21/06, 

03/28/06, 06/28/06, and 07/26/06 not included in the maximum, average, and standard deviation 

calculations.

(b) One-half of detection limit used for non-detect results and duplicate samples included for calculations. 

33
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1/31/2006 2/20/2006 3/12/2006 4/1/2006 4/21/2006 5/11/2006 5/31/2006 6/20/2006 7/10/2006 7/30/2006

Date

Arsenic Concentration (μg/L)

At Wellhead (IN)

After Contact Tank (AC)

After Tank A (TA)

After Tank B (TB)

As MCL = 10 μg/L

Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Concentrations Across Treatment Train 

4.5.1.2 Iron. Figure 4-12 presents total iron concentrations measured across the treatment train. 

Total iron concentrations in raw water ranged from 1,203 to 1,936 μg/L and averaged 1,404 μg/L, which 

existed primarily in the soluble form at 1,135 μg/L. The average soluble iron and average soluble arsenic 

concentrations in raw water corresponded to a ratio of 31:1 (Table 4-6), which was over the 20:1 target 

ratio for effective arsenic removal (Sorg, 2002). The amount of natural iron was sufficient for arsenic 

removal. The influent pH at 7.4 (on average) and other water quality parameters to be discussed in the 

following sections did not appear to have any adverse effect on arsenic removal by iron solids. 

Upon chlorination, soluble iron levels were effectively reduced to below the method reporting limit of 

25 μg/L after the contact tanks and after the Macrolite® filters. The only exception was the February 14, 

2006, sampling event, where no change in iron concentrations was observed across the treatment train. 

As discussed previously in Section 4.4.4.1, insufficient chlorine was added to the treatment system due to 

a problem with the chlorine injection system during February 12 to 21, 2006. The February 14, 2006, 

data are shown in Figure 4-12, but not included in the average total iron calculations for the AC, TA, and 

TB samples. 

Iron breakthrough from the pressure filters were observed with total iron levels ranging from <25 to 235 

μg/L and particulate iron levels ranging from <25 to 103 μg/L (not including the February 14, 2006, data 

as discussed above). As shown in Figure 4-12, total iron levels averaged 81.9 μg/L for Tank A and 

92.5 μg/L for Tank B and were maintained below the 300 μg/L secondary MCL for iron. Because of the 

concerns over particulate arsenic and iron breakthrough from the Macrolite® filters, as observed on July 

26, 2006, a filter run length study will be conducted during the next six-month study period. 

34
Arsenic Speciation at the Wellhead (IN)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

01/31/06 02/28/06 03/28/06 04/25/06 05/23/06 06/20/06 07/18/06

Date

Arsenic Concentration (μg/L)

As (particulate)

As (III) (soluble)

As (V) (soluble)

Arsenic Speciation after Contact Tank (AC)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

01/31/06 02/28/06 03/28/06 04/25/06 05/23/06 06/20/06 07/18/06

Date

Arsenic Concentration (μg/L)

As (particulate)

As (III) (soluble)

As (V) (soluble)

Arsenic Speciation after Tank A (TA) and Tank B (TB)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

01/31/06 02/28/06 03/28/06 04/25/06 05/23/06 06/20/06 07/18/06

Date

Arsenic Concentration (μg/L)

As (particulate)

As (III) (soluble)

As (V) (soluble)

Note: Combined sample tap at TT location was not operational. Tank 

A (TA) sampled on 03/28/06, 05/23/06, and 06/20/06 and Tank B (TB) 

sampled on 01/31/06, 02/28/06, 04/25/06, and 07/18/06 during 

monthly speciation events.

Figure 4-11. Arsenic Speciation Results at Wellhead (IN), after Contact 

Tank (AC), after Tank A (TA), and after Tank B (TB) 

35
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1/31/2006 2/20/2006 3/12/2006 4/1/2006 4/21/2006 5/11/2006 5/31/2006 6/20/2006 7/10/2006 7/30/2006

Date

Iron Concentration (μg/L)

At Wellhead (IN)

After Contact Tank (AC)

After Tank A (TA)

After Tank B (TB)

Iron Secondary MCL = 300 μg/L

Figure 4-12. Total Iron Concentrations Across Treatment Train 

4.5.1.3 Manganese. Manganese concentrations in raw water ranged from 259 to 449 μg/L and 

averaged 350 μg/L, which existed almost entirely in the soluble form at 371 μg/L (on average). Figure 4-

13 presents total manganese concentrations across the treatment train. With prechlorination and 7.1-min 

contact time, only 32% to 65% of soluble manganese was converted to particulate manganese after the 

contact tanks. These results suggest that, while being very effective for As(III) and Fe(II) oxidation, 

chlorine was not as effective in oxidizing Mn(II). Further, the rate of conversion from soluble to 

particulate manganese appears to vary with the chlorine dosage. As shown in Figure 4-14, total 

manganese removal across the filters varied widely from 14% to 72% and averaged 40%. The rate of 

removal was influenced by the chlorine dosage with higher total chlorine residuals after the contact tank 

associated with increased manganese removal across the filter. For example, on June 13, 2006, the total 

chlorine residual was low at only 0.2 mg/L and the manganese effluent levels were elevated at 343 to 

365 μg/L, which represented only 15% to 20% removal. However, a 63% manganese removal rate was 

achieved earlier on February 28, 2006, with 1.2 mg/L of total chlorine residual. Previous studies also 

have found that incomplete oxidation of Mn(II) occurs using free chlorine at pH values less than 8.5 

(Knocke et al., 1987 and 1990; Condit and Chen, 2006). Because Macrolite® filters removed only 

particulate manganese, the soluble fraction after the contact tanks (i.e., 202 μg/L on average) remained 

essentially unchanged after the pressure filters (i.e., 249 and 173 μg/L after Tanks A and B, respectively). 

However, as discussed in Section 4.5.3, precipitation of manganese might have occurred after the treated 

water entered the distribution system, given additional chlorine dosage, upon post-chlorination, and 

substantially longer contact time within the distribution system. During the next six-month study period, 

an increased chlorine dosage will be implemented to study its potential effect on manganese oxidation 

across the treatment train. 

36
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1/31/2006 2/20/2006 3/12/2006 4/1/2006 4/21/2006 5/11/2006 5/31/2006 6/20/2006 7/10/2006 7/30/2006

Date

Manganese Concentration (μg/L)

At Wellhead (IN)

After Contact (AC)

After Tank A (TA)

After Tank B (TB)

Mn Secondary MCL = 50 μg/L

Figure 4-13. Total Manganese Concentrations Across Treatment Train

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

01/03/06 01/23/06 02/12/06 03/04/06 03/24/06 04/13/06 05/03/06 05/23/06 06/12/06 07/02/06 07/22/06 08/11/06

Date

Total Chlorine, mg/L

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Manganese Concentration, μg/L

Total Chlorine (AC)

Inlet Mn

Tank A Mn

Tank B Mn

Figure 4-14. Total Manganese Concentrations Versus Total Chlorine Residuals

37
4.5.1.4 pH, DO, and ORP. pH values in raw water ranged from 7.2 to 7.7 and averaged 7.4. There 

was no measurable change in pH across the treatment train. The pH was at a level favorable for As(V) 

adsorption onto iron solids. Average DO levels across the treatment train ranged from 3.0 to 3.7 mg/L. 

Uncharacteristically high DO readings were recorded by the operator on eight occasions during the 

weekly sampling events (see Table 4-7). These elevated DO readings were not included in the calculation 

of average and standard deviation values for DO levels. In addition, elevated DO readings experienced in 

Tank B on June 28, 2006 and July 26, 2006 were related to a compressed air leak addressed during the 

next six-month study period. As a result of prechlorination, average ORP levels increased from 171 mV, 

on average, in raw water to over 479 mV, on average, after the contact tanks. 

4.5.1.5 Chlorine and Ammonia. Total chlorine residuals ranged from 0 to 2.1 mg/L (as Cl2) and 

averaged 0.7 mg/L (as Cl2) at the AC location and were slightly lower at the TA and TB locations, 

ranging from 0 to 1.1 mg/L (as Cl2) and averaging 0.5 mg/L (as Cl2). Free chlorine residuals averaged 

0.2 mg/L (as Cl2) at the AC location and 0.1 mg/L (as Cl2) at the TA and TB locations and were close to 

the method detection limit of 0.1 mg/L (as Cl2), indicating negligible amounts in treated water. The 

difference between the total and free chlorine was monochloramine, which was formed in the presence of 

ammonia (at 0.16 mg/L [as N], on average). (Note that 0.16 mg/L of ammonia (as N) would form 

0.8 mg/L of monochloramine [as Cl2] upon chlorination). Because only 0.5 to 0.7 mg/L of total chlorine 

(or, more specifically, monochloramine) (as Cl2) was formed, ammonia in raw water would not have been 

completely oxidized. This observation was supported by some amounts of ammonia measured, i.e., 0.06, 

0.08, and 0.03 mg/L (as N), on average, after the contact tanks and after Tanks A and B, respectively. 

The presence of ammonia and other reducing species, such as As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II) in raw water 

significantly increased the chlorine demand. Compared to the design value of 1.7 mg/L (as Cl2) shown in 

Table 4-3, the actual chlorine dosage was estimated at an average of 4.8 mg/L (as Cl2), based on solution 

level measurements and a solution strength of 15.6% (as Cl2). 

As shown in Table 4-7, total chlorine levels after the contact tanks were highly variable during the sixmonth study period with an average value of 0.7 mg/L and a standard deviation of +/- 0.4 mg/L. 

Although speciation results showed that the levels of prechlorination were adequate for As(III) and Fe(II) 

oxidation, the variation in chlorine levels may have affected the rate of Mn(II) oxidation. The variation in 

chlorine levels could be caused by the control of the chemical feed pump and/or a declining NaOCl 

solution strength over time, which was refilled by the chemical supplier on a monthly to bi-monthly basis. 

4.5.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate, silica, TOC, TDS, 

temperature, and hardness levels remained consistent across the treatment train and were not affected by 

the treatment process (Table 4-7). TOC levels were 1.6 mg/L in raw water and remained unchanged 

across treatment train. Total phosphorus (as P) decreased from an average concentration of 27.9 μg/L in 

raw water to 6.0 μg/L after the pressure filters, likely due to removal onto iron solids. Turbidity also 

decreased from 18.8 to <1.6 NTU with treatment. 

4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. Table 4-8 presents the analytical results of five monthly 

backwash water sampling events. The backwash water collected during Events 1, 2, 4, and 5 was 

considered characteristic of normal operating conditions. During these events, pH values ranged from 7.3 

to 7.6; TDS from 938 to 1,030 mg/L (excluding Event 5); and TSS from 116 to 550 mg/L. For these 

events, concentrations of total arsenic, iron, and manganese ranged from 391 to 852 μg/L, 29,838 to 

176,777 μg/L, and 2,009 to 8,649 μg/L, respectively, with the majority existing as particulate. Event 5 on 

July 18, 2006, corresponded to a filter run length of 6.0 hrs, but yielded the highest TSS at 550 mg/L and 

iron solids levels at 177 mg/L. Relatively low values of total metals and TSS were observed for Event 3, 

most likely due to the timing of the sampling, that is the manual backwash cycles might have been 

initiated soon after the pressure filters had just been backwashed automatically by the PLC, thus having 

38
39

fewer solids in backwash water for sampling. Using the average TSS of 310 mg/L for Events 1, 2, 4, and 

5 and an average of 1,003 gal of backwash water per tank, approximately 5.2 lb of solids would have been 

generated and discharged per backwash cycle (for two tanks). This includes 1.6 lb of elemental iron, 0.09 

lb of elemental manganese, and 0.01 lb of elemental arsenic. 

4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Table 4-9 summarizes the results of the distribution 

system sampling. The water quality was similar except at the DS2 residence, which was located in the 

older part of town and had higher iron levels due to a history of periodic release of particulates from the 

distribution system. The treatment system appeared to have beneficial effects on the water quality in the 

distribution system. For the first three months after system startup, arsenic, iron, and manganese levels 

declined from the respective baseline levels, but were still relatively elevated especially at the DS2 

residence. By the second quarter, the arsenic, iron, and manganese levels had decreased even further 

from average baseline levels of 27.4, 1,211, and 114 μg/L to 7.1, 75, and 60 μg/L (on average), 

respectively, which, except for manganese, were similar to those of the treatment plant effluent. Further 

reduction in manganese concentration was observed within the distribution system. For example, total 

manganese levels averaged 217 μg/L in Tank A effluent and 203 μg/L in Tank B effluent, compared to 

the average concentration of 60 μg/L in the distribution system in the second quarter of system operation. 

In June 2006, the facility operator received complaints from a few customers concerning periodic slugs of 

dark solids from their taps, which, among others, might have been iron and/or manganese solids 

accumulating within the distribution system. In the second quarter, copper decreased slightly from 179 to 

127 μg/L (on average) and lead decreased from 4.2 to 1.3 μg/L (on average). Alkalinity and pH values 

remained fairly consistent throughout the six-month study period. 

4.6 System Cost 

The system cost was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and the 

O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. Capital cost of the treatment system included cost for 

equipment, engineering, and system installation, shakedown, and startup. O&M cost included cost for 

chemicals, electricity, and labor. Cost associated with the building, including the clearwell, sump, and 

sanitary sewer connections, was not included in the capital cost because it was not included in the scope 

of this demonstration project and was funded separately by the city of Sabin. 

4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for the FM-248-AS system was $287,159 (Table 4-10). 

The equipment cost was $160,875 (or 56% of the total capital investment), which included cost for two 

contact tanks, two pressure filter tanks, 50 ft3

 of Macrolite®, instrumentation and controls, miscellaneous 

materials and supplies, labor, and system warranty. The system warranty cost covered the cost for repair 

and replacement of defective system components and installation workmanship for a period of 12 months 

after system startup. 

The engineering cost covered the cost for preparing the required permit application submittal, including a 

process design report, a general arrangement drawing, P&IDs, electrical diagrams, interconnecting piping 

layouts, tank fill details, and a schematic of the PLC panel, and obtaining the required permit approval 

from MDH. The engineering cost was $49,164, which was 17% of the total capital investment. 

The installation, shakedown, and startup cost covered the labor and materials required to unload, install, 

and test the system for proper operation. All installation activities were performed by Kinetico’s 

subcontractor, and startup and shakedown activities were performed by Kinetico with the operator’s 

assistance. The installation, startup, and shakedown cost was $77,120, or 27% of the total capital 

investment. 
Table 4-8. Backwash Water Sampling Results 

Table 4-9. Distribution System Sampling Results 

(a) DS2 sampled on 02/13/05, (b) Samples taken after softener system; (c) DS2 located at old section of town; (d) DS2 and DS3 collected on 03/28/06 Lead action level = 15 μg/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L; BL = baseline sampling μg/L as unit for all analytical parameters except for alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3). 

40
Table 4-10. Capital Investment for Kinetico’s FM-248-AS System 

Description Cost 

% of Capital 

Investment Cost 

Equipment 

Tanks, Valves, and Piping $79,349 - 

Macrolite® Media (50 ft3) $10,939 - 

Instrumentation and Controls $21,970 - 

Air Scour System $5,373 - 

Additional Sample Taps and 

Totalizers/Meters $1,717 - 

Labor $37,527 - 

Freight $4,000 - 

Equipment Total $160,875 56% 

Labor $43,450 - 

Subcontractor $5,714 - 

Engineering Total $49,164 17% 

Labor $14,000 - 

Subcontractor $59,250 - 

Travel $3,870 - 

Installation, Shakedown, and Startup $77,120 27% 

Total Capital Investment $287,159 - 

The total capital cost of $287,159 was normalized to $1,149/gpm ($0.80/gpd) of design capacity using the 

system’s rated capacity of 250 gpm (or 360,000 gpd). The total capital cost also was converted to a unit 

cost of $0.21/1,000 gal using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a 

20-yr return period. This calculation assumed that the system operated 24 hr/day at its rated capacity. 

Because the system operated at approximately 238 gpm (Table 4-4), producing 6,650,000 gal of water 

from January 30 to July 30, 2006, the total unit cost increased to $2.00/1,000 gal. 

A 48 ft × 56 ft building with a sidewall height of 17.5 ft was constructed by the city of Sabin to house the 

treatment system (Section 4.3.2). The total cost of the building and supporting utilities was $807,000 

which, as noted above, was not included in the capital cost. 

4.6.2 O&M Cost. The O&M cost included items such as chemicals, electricity, and labor (see 

Table 4-11). Prechlorination was performed for oxidation and post-chlorination was performed to 

maintain a residual within the distribution system. The chemical consumption was 0.31 lb/1,000 gal for 

both pre- and post-chlorination, which corresponded to $0.35/1,000 gal in chemical usage cost. No cost 

was incurred for repairs because the system was under warranty. A comparison of the electrical bills 

before and after system installation will be conducted for the one-year study period. Routine labor 

activities for O&M consumed 15 min/day for operational readings at a labor rate of $10/hr and a 

$300/month fixed fee. This is equivalent to 1.75 hr/wk on a seven day per week basis. The estimated 

labor cost is $0.34/1,000 gal of water treated. The total O&M cost was estimated at $0.69/1,000 gal of 

treated water. 

41
Table 4-11. O&M Costs for Kinetico’s FM-248-AS System 

Category Value Remarks 

Volume Processed (1,000 gal) 6,650,000 From 01/30/06 to 07/30/06 

Chemical Consumption 

Sodium Hypochlorite Unit Price ($/lb) $1.10 15.6% as Cl2

Consumption Rate (lb/1,000 gal) 0.31 Pre- and post-chlorination 

Chemical Costs ($/1,000 gal) $0.35 Pre- and post-chlorination 

Electricity Consumption 

Electricity Cost ($/1,000 gal) TBD To be evaluated on annual basis 

Labor 

Labor (hr/week) 1.75 15 min/day, 7 days/week 

Labor Cost ($/1,000 gal) $0.34 

Labor rate = $10/hr + 

$300/month fee 

Total O&M Cost ($/1,000 gal) $0.69 

TBD = to be determined

42
5.0 REFERENCES 

Battelle. 2004. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology. 

Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Battelle. 2006. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic 

Removal Technology Round 2 at Sabin, MN. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task 

Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal 

Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. 

EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Condit, W.E. and A.S.C. Chen. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal, U.S. EPA 

Demonstration Project at Climax, MN, Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R06/152. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research 

Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998. 

“Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation.” J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113. 

EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal 

Register, 40 CFR Part 141. 

EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems. 

EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 

EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance 

and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142. 

Jain, A. and R.H. Loeppert. 2000. “Effect of Competing Anions on the Adsoprtion of Arsenate and 

Arsenite by Ferrihydrite.” J. Environ. Qual., 29: 1422-1430. 

Kinetico. 2005. The City of Sabin: Installation Manual; Suppliers Literature; and Operation and 

Maintenance Manual, Macrolite FM-248-AS Arsenic Removal System. Newbury, OH. 

Knocke, W.R., R.C. Hoehn, and R.L. Sinsabaugh. 1987. “Using Alternative Oxidants to Remove 

Dissolved Manganese From Waters Laden With Organics.” J. AWWA, 79(3): 75-79. 

Knocke, W.R., J.E. Van Benschoten, M. Kearney, A. Soborski, and D.A. Reckhow. 1990. “Alternative 

Oxidants for the Removal of Soluble Iron and Mn.” AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO. 

Meng, X.G., S. Bang, and G.P. Korfiatis. 2000. "Effects of Silicate, Sulfate, and Carbonate on Arsenic 

Removal by Ferric Chloride." Water Research, 34(4): 1255-1261. 

Meng, X.G., G.P. Korfiatis, S.B. Bang, and K.W. Bang. 2002. "Combined Effects of Anions on Arsenic 

Removal by Iron Hydroxides." Toxicology Letters, 133(1): 103-111. 

43
Smith, S.D., and M. Edwards. 2005. "The Influence of Silica and Calcium on Arsenate Sorption to 

Oxide Surfaces." Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology - AQUA,54(4): 201-211. 

Sorg, T.J. 2002. “Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected.” Opflow, 28(11): 15. 

Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA 

Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, 

OH. 

44
APPENDIX A 

OPERATIONAL DATA 
A-1. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System Operation Log She

Tank A Pressure Filtration 

Cumulative 

Run Time 

Run 

Time 

Tank B 

Cumulative 

Run Time 

Run 

Time 

InletTA Inlet- TB Inlet- Effluent Flow rate Gallon Usage 

Week 

No. Date hrs hrs/day hrs hrs/day psig psig psig gpm gpd 

01/30/06 33.0 NA 32.0 NA 9 9 32 244 NA 01/31/06 35.0 2.4 34.0 2.4 10 11 33 238 48,557 02/01/06 38.0 2.4 37.0 2.4 NA NA NA NA 29,588 02/02/06 40.0 2.0 39.0 2.0 NA NA NA NA 25,874 02/03/06 42.0 2.0 41.0 2.0 NA NA NA NA 23,338 02/04/06 44.0 2.2 43.0 2.2 10 11 33 243 27,014 

1 

02/05/06 48.0 3.5 47.0 3.5 NA NA NA NA 42,997 02/06/06 50.0 2.1 49.0 2.1 NA NA NA NA 24,467 02/07/06 52.0 2.0 51.0 2.0 10 55 63 155 23,500 02/08/06 55.0 3.0 54.0 3.0 NA NA NA NA 41,100 02/09/06 57.0 2.0 56.0 2.0 NA NA NA NA 24,200 02/10/06 60.0 3.0 59.0 3.0 NA NA NA NA 23,700 02/11/06 62.0 2.0 61.0 2.0 9 11 33 241 23,314 

2 

02/12/06 66.0 4.1 65.0 4.1 NA NA NA NA 50,721 02/13/06 68.0 2.0 67.0 2.0 NA NA NA NA 21,061 02/14/06 70.0 2.0 69.0 2.0 NA NA NA NA 29,838 02/15/06 72.0 2.0 71.0 2.0 NA NA NA NA NA 02/16/06 74.0 2.0 73.0 2.0 NA NA NA NA 49,371 02/17/06 77.0 3.0 76.0 3.0 NA 8 31 240 40,800 02/18/06 80.0 3.0 79.0 3.0 NA NA NA NA 31,662 

3 

02/19/06 82.0 2.0 81.0 2.0 NA NA NA NA 39,425 

02/20/06 85.0 2.8 84.0 2.8 NA NA NA NA 27,635 02/21/06 87.0 2.2 86.0 2.2 NA NA NA NA 31,770 02/22/06 89.0 2.0 88.0 2.0 NA NA NA NA 22,366 02/23/06 91.0 2.0 90.0 2.0 NA NA NA NA 22,313 02/24/06 94.0 2.9 93.0 2.9 NA NA NA NA 42,916 02/25/06 96.0 1.9 95.0 1.9 NA NA NA NA 23,067 

4 

02/26/06 98.0 2.1 97.0 2.1 8 14 33 240 28,314 

A-1
A-1. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Con

A-2

Tank A Pressure Filtration 

Cumulative 

Run Time 

Run 

Time 

Tank B 

Cumulative 

Run Time 

Run 

Time 

InletTA Inlet- TB Inlet- Effluent Flow rate Gallon Usage 

Week 

No. Date hrs hrs/day hrs hrs/day psig psig psig gpm gpd 

02/27/06 102.0 3.9 101.0 3.9 NA NA NA NA 40,375 02/28/06 NA NA 1.5 NA 7 8 31 243 33,044 03/01/06 3.3 NA 3.3 1.8 NA NA NA NA 33,067 03/02/06 5.3 2.0 5.3 2.0 NA NA NA NA 23,084 03/03/06 8.5 3.1 8.4 3.0 NA NA NA NA 23,380 03/04/06 11.1 2.4 11.0 2.4 NA NA NA NA 20,426 

5 

03/05/06 15.9 5.1 15.8 5.1 NA NA NA NA 50,272 

03/06/06 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 22,897 03/07/06 20.0 NA 19.7 NA NA NA NA NA 26,155 03/08/06 22.4 2.4 22.1 2.4 NA NA NA NA NA 03/09/06 24.5 2.2 24.3 2.3 NA NA NA NA 23,843 03/10/06 29.2 4.4 29.0 4.4 NA NA NA NA 43,645 03/11/06 34.8 5.2 34.6 5.2 NA NA NA NA 33,932 

6 

03/12/06 39.7 4.9 39.4 4.8 19 17 39 222 43,009 

03/13/06 41.3 1.7 41.5 2.3 NA NA NA NA 25,753 03/14/06 45.0 3.6 44.6 3.0 NA NA NA NA 30,028 03/15/06 47.6 2.7 47.2 2.7 10 11 33 242 23,081 03/16/06 51.3 3.8 50.9 3.8 NA NA NA NA 43,495 03/17/06 54.8 3.5 54.4 3.5 16 17 36 230 30,000 03/18/06 64.1 9.3 63.7 9.3 18 19 37 226 113,521 

7 

03/19/06 67.2 2.9 67.0 3.1 NA NA NA NA 39,484 03/20/06 67.2 0.0 67.0 0.0 NA NA NA NA 0 03/21/06 67.4 0.2 67.2 0.2 NA NA NA NA 3,261 03/22/06 70.2 2.8 70.0 2.8 NA NA NA NA 24,923 03/23/06 73.2 2.8 73.0 2.8 NA NA NA NA 35,517 03/24/06 76.7 3.8 76.7 4.0 NA NA NA NA 52,811 03/25/06 79.0 2.0 79.0 2.0 NA NA NA NA 22,545 

8 

03/26/06 82.7 3.7 82.7 3.7 12 13 34 236 27,491 
A-1. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Con

A-3

Tank A Pressure Filtration 

Cumulative 

Run Time 

Run 

Time 

Tank B 

Cumulative 

Run Time 

Run 

Time 

InletTA Inlet- TB Inlet- Effluent Flow rate Gallon Usage 

Week 

No. Date hrs hrs/day hrs hrs/day psig psig psig gpm gpd 

03/27/06 86.0 3.8 86.0 3.8 8 9 31 243 40,417 03/28/06 88.3 2.2 88.3 2.2 NA NA NA NA 29,810 03/29/06 90.7 2.2 90.8 2.3 NA NA NA NA 21,968 03/30/06 93.0 2.6 93.1 2.6 NA NA NA NA 26,796 03/31/06 95.2 2.1 95.3 2.1 NA NA NA NA 23,268 04/01/06 100.0 5.0 100.0 4.9 NA NA NA NA 52,696 

9 

04/02/06 102.2 2.1 102.2 2.1 NA NA NA NA 24,854 04/03/06 103.6 1.5 103.6 1.5 8 8 31 243 13,873 04/04/06 107.1 3.6 107.1 3.6 NA NA NA NA 46,471 04/05/06 109.8 2.7 109.8 2.7 NA NA NA NA 25,412 04/06/06 111.7 2.0 111.7 2.0 NA NA NA NA 24,395 04/07/06 114.2 2.4 114.3 2.5 7 9 31 245 11,626 04/08/06 117.2 2.8 117.3 2.8 8 10 31 243 31,549 

10 

04/09/06 120.1 2.9 120.2 2.9 NA NA NA NA 34,205 

04/10/06 122.4 2.4 122.5 2.4 NA NA NA NA 24,737 04/11/06 112.7 NA 112.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 04/12/06 115.5 2.8 115.2 2.5 NA NA NA NA 35,259 04/13/06 117.1 1.6 116.8 1.6 NA NA NA NA 21,144 04/14/06 121.4 4.0 121.1 4.0 17 15 36 233 39,410 04/15/06 126.6 5.1 126.6 5.4 NA NA NA NA 57,344 

11 

04/16/06 129.7 3.3 129.5 3.1 10 12 33 240 26,065 

04/17/06 134.5 5.3 134.3 5.3 NA NA NA NA 45,439 04/18/06 135.3 0.7 135.1 0.7 NA NA NA NA 10,378 04/19/06 139.0 3.7 138.9 3.8 NA NA NA NA 48,924 04/20/06 141.3 2.3 141.1 2.2 NA NA NA NA 28,239 04/21/06 144.0 2.7 143.7 2.6 NA NA NA NA 34,669 04/22/06 146.7 2.6 146.5 2.7 NA NA NA NA 33,905 

12 

04/23/06 149.3 2.4 149.0 2.3 NA NA NA NA 29,894 
A-1. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Con

A-4

Tank A Pressure Filtration 

Cumulative 

Run Time 

Run 

Time 

Tank B 

Cumulative 

Run Time 

Run 

Time 

InletTA Inlet- TB Inlet- Effluent Flow rate Gallon Usage 

Week 

No. Date hrs hrs/day hrs hrs/day psig psig psig gpm gpd 

04/24/06 151.8 2.9 151.6 3.0 NA NA NA NA 38,805 04/25/06 153.3 1.5 153.3 1.6 NA NA NA NA 18,000 04/26/06 155.5 2.3 155.4 2.2 NA NA NA NA 31,073 04/27/06 157.8 2.3 157.7 2.3 NA NA NA NA 30,253 04/28/06 160.2 2.4 160.1 2.4 NA NA NA NA 32,191 04/29/06 162.4 2.1 162.3 2.1 NA NA NA NA 27,880 

13 

04/30/06 166.8 4.0 166.9 4.2 NA NA NA NA 54,656 05/01/06 171.2 5.0 171.1 4.8 NA NA NA NA NA 05/02/06 175.6 4.2 175.7 4.4 8 9 31 242 49,685 05/03/06 176.3 0.7 176.3 0.6 NA NA NA NA 9,032 05/04/06 184.3 8.4 184.3 8.4 NA NA NA NA 98,881 05/05/06 186.6 2.2 186.6 2.2 NA NA NA NA 29,187 05/06/06 189.2 2.6 189.2 2.6 NA NA NA NA 33,704 

14 

05/07/06 191.5 2.2 191.6 2.3 NA NA NA NA 29,500 05/08/06 194.8 3.4 194.9 3.4 NA NA NA NA 41,554 05/09/06 197.6 2.8 197.7 2.8 NA NA NA NA 36,074 05/10/06 200.3 2.8 200.4 2.8 NA NA NA NA 36,671 05/11/06 200.3 0.0 200.4 0.0 NA NA NA NA NA 05/12/06 203.4 3.1 203.5 3.1 NA NA NA NA 40,308 05/13/06 

15 

205.9 2.5 206.0 2.5 NA NA NA NA 33,078 

05/14/06 208.6 2.6 208.7 2.6 NA NA NA NA 34,956 05/15/06 211.0 2.4 211.1 2.4 NA NA NA NA 32,949 05/16/06 211.9 0.9 212.1 1.0 9 10 32 242 13,072 05/17/06 215.8 3.9 215.7 3.6 12 14 34 237 50,031 05/18/06 218.4 2.5 218.4 2.6 14 11 34 235 33,733 05/19/06 223.2 4.6 223.2 4.6 NA NA NA NA 59,839 05/20/06 225.2 2.2 225.2 2.2 14 12 34 239 28,519 

16 

05/21/06 229.4 3.9 229.4 3.9 NA NA NA NA 52,221 
A-1. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Con

A-5

Tank A Pressure Filtration 

Cumulative 

Run Time 

Run 

Time 

Tank B 

Cumulative 

Run Time 

Run 

Time 

InletTA Inlet- TB Inlet- Effluent Flow rate Gallon Usage 

Week 

No. Date hrs hrs/day hrs hrs/day psig psig psig gpm gpd 

05/22/06 232.7 3.5 232.8 3.6 NA NA NA NA 45,935 05/23/06 235.9 3.2 236.0 3.2 NA NA NA NA 42,300 05/24/06 238.9 3.0 238.9 2.9 NA NA NA NA 39,318 05/25/06 242.2 3.3 242.2 3.3 NA NA NA NA 41,598 05/26/06 246.1 4.1 246.1 4.1 10 13 33 237 52,591 05/27/06 252.3 8.3 252.2 8.1 NA NA NA NA 107,333 

17 

05/28/06 255.6 2.7 255.6 2.8 NA NA NA NA 36,289 05/29/06 259.2 3.4 259.7 3.8 14 16 35 234 43,557 05/30/06 265.6 6.2 265.7 5.8 NA NA NA NA 81,506 05/31/06 270.6 5.1 270.7 5.1 14 17 35 234 67,342 06/01/06 274.9 4.2 275.0 4.2 NA NA NA NA 52,780 06/02/06 280.8 6.1 280.9 6.1 NA NA NA NA 78,769 06/03/06 284.0 3.1 284.2 3.2 NA NA NA NA 39,750 

18 

06/04/06 287.0 3.1 287.2 3.1 NA NA NA NA 39,636 06/05/06 289.9 3.0 290.1 3.0 NA NA NA NA 39,685 06/06/06 292.8 2.9 293.0 2.9 NA NA NA NA 38,100 06/07/06 296.2 3.3 296.5 3.4 NA NA NA NA 45,080 06/08/06 299.0 2.8 299.2 2.7 NA NA NA NA 35,776 06/09/06 301.9 2.9 302.1 2.9 NA NA NA NA NA 06/10/06 304.5 3.6 304.3 3.1 NA NA NA NA 48,421 

19 

06/11/06 307.3 2.1 307.5 2.3 NA NA NA NA 27,390 

06/12/06 310.7 3.5 311.0 3.6 NA NA NA NA 46,838 06/13/06 314.1 3.6 314.4 3.6 NA NA NA NA 46,886 06/14/06 316.9 2.9 317.1 2.8 NA NA NA NA 37,151 06/15/06 319.6 2.6 319.8 2.6 NA NA NA NA 33,584 06/16/06 322.9 3.5 323.0 3.4 NA NA NA NA 43,799 06/17/06 325.9 2.7 325.9 2.6 NA NA NA NA 34,539 

20 

06/18/06 328.9 3.1 328.9 3.1 NA NA NA NA 40,513 
A-1. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Con

A-6

Tank A Pressure Filtration 

Cumulative 

Run Time 

Run 

Time 

Tank B 

Cumulative 

Run Time 

Run 

Time 

InletTA Inlet- TB Inlet- Effluent Flow rate Gallon Usage 

Week 

No. Date hrs hrs/day hrs hrs/day psig psig psig gpm gpd 

06/19/06 331.9 3.3 331.8 3.2 NA NA NA NA 43,299 06/20/06 335.2 3.2 335.2 3.3 NA NA NA NA 42,699 06/21/06 338.2 3.1 338.2 3.1 NA NA NA NA 40,555 06/22/06 341.1 2.8 341.1 2.8 NA NA NA NA 36,480 06/23/06 346.9 5.8 346.9 5.8 NA NA NA NA 77,615 06/24/06 349.7 2.4 349.6 2.4 NA NA NA NA 32,058 

21 

06/25/06 349.7 0.0 349.6 0.0 NA NA NA NA 0 06/26/06 352.5 2.9 352.4 2.9 NA NA NA NA 38,710 06/27/06 355.2 2.8 355.1 2.8 NA NA NA NA 37,862 06/28/06 358.1 2.8 357.9 2.7 NA NA NA NA 37,523 06/29/06 361.8 3.3 361.5 3.2 8 9 31 243 43,830 06/30/06 363.7 2.1 363.3 2.0 NA NA NA NA 27,062 07/01/06 369.9 5.5 369.5 5.5 NA NA NA NA 72,752 

22 

07/02/06 372.6 3.1 372.2 3.1 13 14 34 234 41,407 

07/03/06 376.6 3.6 376.1 3.5 NA NA NA NA 45,798 07/04/06 379.6 3.3 379.0 3.2 NA NA NA NA 43,123 07/05/06 383.8 3.9 383.2 3.9 13 14 34 237 51,212 07/06/06 389.3 5.6 388.7 5.6 NA NA NA NA 72,457 07/07/06 391.5 2.3 390.8 2.2 NA NA NA NA 30,417 07/08/06 393.6 2.2 392.9 2.2 NA NA NA NA 29,222 

23 

07/09/06 398.3 4.0 397.8 4.2 NA NA NA NA 53,437 07/10/06 400.6 2.7 400.0 2.6 NA NA NA NA 32,211 07/11/06 405.7 4.2 405.1 4.2 NA NA NA NA 55,904 07/12/06 408.0 3.0 407.4 3.0 NA NA NA NA 39,285 07/13/06 410.1 2.1 409.5 2.1 NA NA NA NA 26,884 07/14/06 414.8 4.7 414.2 4.7 NA NA NA NA 61,103 07/15/06 418.5 3.5 418.0 3.6 14 16 35 232 45,158 

24 

07/16/06 421.8 3.5 421.3 3.5 NA NA NA NA 46,531 
A-1. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Sabin, MN - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Con

A-7

Tank A Pressure Filtration 

Cumulative 

Run Time 

Run 

Time 

Tank B 

Cumulative 

Run Time 

Run 

Time 

InletTA Inlet- TB Inlet- Effluent Flow rate Gallon Usage 

Week 

No. Date hrs hrs/day hrs hrs/day psig psig psig gpm gpd 

07/17/06 423.9 2.1 423.5 2.2 NA NA NA NA 28,438 07/18/06 427.9 4.0 428.5 5.0 NA NA NA NA 50,035 07/19/06 433.8 5.2 433.6 4.5 NA NA NA NA 70,384 07/20/06 436.5 3.1 436.4 3.2 NA NA NA NA 40,197 07/21/06 438.8 2.4 438.7 2.4 NA NA NA NA 32,023 07/22/06 440.9 1.9 440.8 1.9 NA NA NA NA 25,118 

25 

07/23/06 443.7 3.0 443.7 3.1 8 9 31 244 38,936 07/24/06 448.0 4.4 447.9 4.3 NA NA NA NA 57,971 07/25/06 450.2 2.2 450.1 2.2 NA NA NA NA 29,420 07/26/06 452.4 2.0 452.3 2.0 NA NA NA NA 27,029 07/27/06 454.6 2.4 454.5 2.4 NA NA NA NA 32,171 07/28/06 459.2 4.5 459.2 4.6 11 13 33 234 59,878 07/29/06 461.4 2.1 461.5 2.2 NA NA NA NA 27,984 

26 

07/30/06 466.0 4.4 466.1 4.4 NA NA NA NA 57,581 
APPENDIX B 

ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
B-1

Sampling Date 01/31/06(a) 02/14/06(d) 02/21/06 02/28/06(d) 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AC TB IN AC TA TB IN AC TA TB IN AC TB 

291 291 291 329 283 283 283 290 298 294 290 300 296 296 

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ammonia (as N) mg/L 0.2 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - - - 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 Fluoride mg/L 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - - - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Sulfate mg/L 376 376 372 - - - - - - - - 425 424 421 Sulfide mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

10.5 13.7 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 33.0 30.3 <10 <10 31.4 34.1 <10 

Total P (as P) μg/L

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

30.0 30.3 29.7 30.6 31.1 31.1 30.1 30.9 31.1 30.9 31.5 29.7 31.1 30.2 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

19.0 1.2 0.4 13.0 20.0 18.0 21.0 16.0 1.5 0.6 0.7 28.0 1.6 1.1 

Turbidity NTU 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

TOC mg/L 1.8 1.6 2.0(c) - - - - - - - - 1.6 1.5 1.5 TDS mg/L 886 914 920 - - - - - - - - 932 954 1010 pH S.U. 7.7 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.0 - 7.3 7.6 7.7 - 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.2 Temperature °C 12.0 10.9 17.1 13.0 13.0 - 13.0 12.6 12.8 - 12.6 12.5 13.0 11.4 DO mg/L 2.1 1.2 0.8 2.2 2.8 - 0.8 9.8 8.9 - 3.1 10.0 3.9 3.7 ORP mV -13 623 648 -13 461 - 650 331 466 - 587 410 678 677 Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.6 0.0(b) - 1.0 - 0.0 - 0(b) - 0.0 - 0.9 0.9 Total Chlorine mg/L - 2.1 0.0(b) - 1.2 - 0.0 - 0.02 - 0.1 - 1.2 1.1 Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 596 619 635 - - - - - - - - 680 680 661 Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 386 383 389 - - - - - - - - 393 393 379 Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 210 236 246 - - - - - - - - 287 286 282 

34.2 36.9 7.1 32.8 36.0 33.5 30.8 42.5 41.8 6.2 6.1 40.8 44.2 4.4 

As (total) μg/L 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

As (soluble) μg/L 34.1 4.4 3.2 - - - - - - - - 36.3 4.0 3.7 As (particulate) μg/L 0.1 32.5 3.8 - - - - - - - - 4.5 40.2 0.7 As (III) μg/L 35.6 0.9 2.0 - - - - - - - - 17.9 1.0 1.1 As (V) μg/L <0.1 3.5 1.2 - - - - - - - - 18.4 3.0 2.7 

1,470 1,224 106 1,431 1,221 1,225 1,128 1,279 1,264 72 70 1,288 1,222 <25 

Fe (total) μg/L 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Fe (soluble) μg/L 1,222 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - 1,115 <25 <25 

343 328 169 344 255 319 297 329 316 209 192 304 293 111 

Mn (total) μg/L 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mn (soluble) μg/L 332 151 142 - - - - - - - - 305 105 99.0 

 (a) Sample taken from TB location because TT sample tap was under vacuum and did not yield water. (b) Slight tint present, but no reading on meter. 

(c) Estimated concentration. (d) No treatment due to chlorine fitting leak on 02/12/06. A series of repairs were made between 02/14/06 and 02/21/06 to restore prechlorination. 

(d) Backwash control malfunction allowed system to operate without backwashing every 48 hours of standby time until PLC change on 04/11/06.
B-2

Sampling Date 03/14/06(a) 03/21/06(b) 03/28/06 04/04/06 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AC TA TB IN AC TA TB IN AC TA IN AC TA TB 

294 294 289 294 290 290 294 290 289 289 289 288 292 296 292 

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ammonia (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - 0.3 0.1 0.1 - - - - Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - 419 415 420 - - - - Sulfide mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - 

22.9 21.6 <10 <10 16.7 19.0 <10 <10 32.2 33.6 <10 26.6 <10 <10 <10 

Total P (as P) μg/L

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

29.4 27.4 27.1 26.9 30.5 29.5 29.2 30.0 30.3 29.4 30.4 29.7 30.2 29.4 29.8 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

19.0 1.7 0.7 0.5 16.0 2.0 0.4 0.8 22.0 1.8 1.0 44.0 2.0 1.1 1.3 

Turbidity NTU 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - 1.5 1.5 1.6 - - - - TDS mg/L - - - - - - - - 966 942 988 - - - - pH S.U. 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.4 Temperature °C 13.2 12.6 12.9 12.0 14.2 13.1 13.7 14.6 12.8 13.8 12.6 14.1 14.3 13.5 13.4 DO mg/L 8.8 3.2 4.4 2.6 9.9 2.7 5.2 3.4 10.6 10.3 5.6 6.6 4.7 3.8 3.1 ORP mV 38.1 430 566 578 462 442 535 619 287 529 496 476 480 543 596 Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.1 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.2 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Chlorine mg/L - 0.6 0.2 0.2 - 0.5 0.4 0.3 - 0.8 0.9 - 0.3 0.5 0.4 Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - - - 686 741 666 - - - - Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - - - 391 435 373 - - - - Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - - - 295 306 293 - - - - 

45.1 45.5 4.7 5.4 37.9 42.8 4.9 5.8 40.0 39.8 5.4 42.5 7.5 8.9 9.3 

As (total) μg/L 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - 36.9 4.1 3.2 - - - - As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - 3.1 35.7 2.2 - - - - As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - 6.1 0.4 0.4 - - - - As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - 30.8 3.7 2.8 - - - - 

1,827 1,410 <25 31 1,566 1,748 <25 48 1,936 1,638 64 1,386 119 163 175 

Fe (total) μg/L 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - 1,172 <25 <25 - - - - 

349 347 129 141 438 451 158 219 313 309 198 267 186 174 175 

Mn (total) μg/L 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - 308 193 184 - - - - 

(a) Backwash control malfunction allowed system to operate without backwashing every 48 hours of standby time until PLC change on 04/11/06. (b) Backwash manually initiated by operator until PLC change on 04/11/06. Manual backwash performed until programming changed. 
B-3

Sampling Date 04/18/06 04/25/06 05/02/06 05/09/06 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AC TA TB IN AC TB IN AC TA TB IN AC TA TB 

316 312 312 312 313 317 317 300 292 292 296 302 297 297 30

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 

321 312 312 312 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ammonia (as N) mg/L - - - - <0.05 0.1 <0.05 - - - - - - - - Fluoride mg/L - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - - - - Sulfate mg/L - - - - 411 410 514 - - - - - - - - Sulfide mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - - - 

36.2 36.1 <10 <10 30.9 31.1 <10 - - - - 14.8 16.0 <10 <1

Total P (as P) μg/L 34.8 37.7 <10 <10 - - - - - - - - - - - 

30.5 29.4 28.4 28.9 29.1 30.0 29.1 31.3 30.5 30.6 31.5 31.4 30.9 30.4 31.

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 

28.7 28.7 28.8 29.3 - - - - - - - - - - - 

18.0 1.5 0.5 0.4 15.0 1.3 0.4 17.0 1.7 0.5 0.4 16.0 2.3 1.1 0.6 

Turbidity NTU 

19.0 1.6 0.4 0.9 - - - - - - - - - - - 

TOC mg/L - - - - 1.5 1.5 1.5 - - - - - - - - TDS mg/L - - - - 944 954 948 - - - - - - - - pH S.U. 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.1 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.0 7.1 7.1 Temperature °C 14.9 15.5 14.1 15.2 16.0 14.9 15.5 13.8 13.7 14.0 13.9 17.4 13.4 16.4 14.DO mg/L 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.1 4.8 2.9 3.1 3.4 2.6 3.6 3.1 6.4 3.6 5.5 3.8 ORP mV 304 385 566 623 437 534 596 276 472 465 510 60.4 508 497 58Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.0 0.0 0.2 - 0.0 0.1 - 0.1 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Chlorine mg/L - 0.7 0.1 0.3 - 0.1 0.2 - 0.6 0.5 0.2 - 0.5 0.3 0.3 Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 680 684 682 - - - - - - - - Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 409 414 412 - - - - - - - - Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - 271 270 270 - - - - - - - - 

42.0 42.4 4.6 4.6 36.9 39.6 3.5 36.7 37.6 5.5 4.3 35.1 37.1 5.2 6.5 

As (total) μg/L 

41.6 44.2 4.6 4.6 - - - - - - - - - - - 

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - 34.6 4.4 2.3 - - - - - - - - As (particulate) μg/L - - - - 2.3 35.2 1.2 - - - - - - - - As (III) μg/L - - - - 9.9 0.6 <0.1 - - - - - - - - As (V) μg/L - - - - 24.7 3.8 2.2 - - - - - - - - 

1,451 1,430 27 <25 1,417 1,516 31 1,281 1,297 70 <25 1,257 1,362 77 12

Fe (total) μg/L 

1,401 1,389 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - 914 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - 

302 305 165 158 346 346 171 259 259 151 142 282 289 165 17

Mn (total) μg/L 

298 296 158 156 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - 352 148 150 - - - - - - - - 
B-4

Sampling Date 05/23/06 05/31/06(a) 06/06/06 06/13/06 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AC TA IN AC TA TB IN AC TA TB IN AC TA 

301 298 290 299 295 291 295 301 297 288 297 302 289 298 

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ammonia (as N) mg/L 0.2 0.1 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - Fluoride mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - Sulfate mg/L 835 839 845 - - - - - - - - - - - Sulfide mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - - - - - - 

<10 <10 <10 50 45.8 18.5 20.2 42.5 37.1 10.0 10.8 36.1 39.6 <10 

Total P (as P) μg/L

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

30.1 30.8 30.0 29.2 28.9 29.3 29.1 30.8 31.3 30.7 30.3 31.9 32.3 31.3 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

18.0 1.6 1.0 19.0 1.7 0.6 0.7 19.0 1.2 0.7 0.5 19.0 2.1 0.4 

Turbidity NTU 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

TOC mg/L 1.6 1.6 1.6 - - - - - - - - - - - TDS mg/L 990 1020 978 - - - - - - - - - - - pH S.U. 7.2 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.2 Temperature °C 12.0 14.5 15.3 14.2 13.7 14.5 14.4 14.5 17.8 13.3 14.8 11.5 13.5 13.7 DO mg/L 4.0 4.4 3.2 5.3 2.8 3.8 3.4 2.8 2.4 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.2 ORP mV 56.0 450 479 0.7 437 455 468 4.5 405 452 460 4.5 406 451 Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.0 0.0 - 0.3 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.4 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 Total Chlorine mg/L - 0.8 0.5 - 0.6 0.2 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 0.9 - 0.2 0.3 Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 584 536 603 - - - - - - - - - - - Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 354 324 345 - - - - - - - - - - - Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 230 212 258 - - - - - - - - - - - 

38.6 40.6 7.1 33.4 29.9 3.9 6.2 44.3 40.3 9.7 9.3 46.4 49.0 5.6 

As (total) μg/L 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

As (soluble) μg/L 40.3 5.4 3.2 - - - - - - - - - - - As (particulate) μg/L <0.1 35.2 3.9 - - - - - - - - - - - As (III) μg/L 6.9 0.2 0.3 - - - - - - - - - - - As (V) μg/L 33.4 5.1 3.0 - - - - - - - - - - - 

1,203 1,173 67 1,307 1,142 28 134 1,465 1,216 235 235 1,405 1,558 36 

Fe (total) μg/L 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Fe (soluble) μg/L 1,218 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - - - - 

389 415 272 282 252 243 224 390 354 223 223 431 430 365 

Mn (total) μg/L 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mn (soluble) μg/L 413 228 258 - - - - - - - - - - - 

(a) Water quality parameters measured on 05/30/06. (b) Sample failed laboratory QA/QC check. 
B-5

Sampling Date 06/28/06 07/10/06 07/11/06(a) 07/18/06 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit 

IN AC TA TB IN AC TA TB IN AC TA TB IN AC TB 

293 297 293 293 303 299 307 303 302 297 302 297 284 301 288 

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 

- - - - - - - - 297 297 297 302 - - - 

Ammonia (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.2 0.1 0.1 Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 434 371 440 Sulfide mg/L - - - - <5 <5 <5 <5 - - - - - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.0

35.2 33.6 <10 <10 40.5 44.0 <10 <10 37.8 37.5 10.3 <10 27.4 30.5 <10 

Total P (as P) μg/L

- - - - - - - - 40.7 42.4 <10 <10 - - - 

32.5 31.7 31.1 30.8 30.3 30.2 29.2 29.5 29.5 29.8 29.5 29.6 29.3 29.3 29.2 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 

- - - - - - - - 29.8 30.3 29.5 29.4 - - - 

18.0 1.3 0.5 0.7 16.0 3.5 0.8 1.6 19.0 2.3 2.5 0.2 16.0 2.2 0.7 

Turbidity NTU 

- - - - - - - - 19.0 1.6 0.5 0.4 - - - 

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.8 1.8 1.8 TDS mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 994 992 103pH S.U. 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.3 Temperature °C 12.1 13.2 14.8 15.0 12.1 12.0 11.9 11.5 12.1 12.0 11.9 11.5 11.3 11.5 11.5 DO mg/L 3.1 3.1 2.5 10.2(b) 3.6 4.3 5.9 3.7 3.6 4.3 5.9 3.7 3.5 3.1 4.0 ORP mV 23.0 530 442 451 71.6 440 455 466 71.6 440 455 466 25 445 83.9 Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.2 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.3 - 0.0 0.0 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 Total Chlorine mg/L - 0.7 0.3 0.7 - 0.7 0.5 0.9 - 0.7 0.5 0.9 - 0.8 0.9 Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 636 656 691 Ca Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 385 400 426 Mg Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 252 256 266 

39.3 40.1 4.5 5.6 38.1 44.1 5.3 5.8 37.9 35.1 6.0 6.2 38.8 38.1 6.8 

As (total) μg/L 

- - - - - - - - 38.9 38.5 5.1 5.8 - - - 

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 37.6 3.8 3.1 As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.3 34.3 3.7 As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 11.1 0.4 0.3 As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 26.5 3.4 2.8 

1,272 1,255 35 74 1,354 1,666 78 94 1,309 1,226 81 88 1,265 1,372 113 

Fe (total) μg/L 

- - - - - - - - 1,381 1,419 62 97 - - - 

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,020 <25 <25 

342 344 249 248 358 370 261 243 348 325 294 260 431 424 314 

Mn (total) μg/L 

- - - - - - - - 364 368 285 259 - - - 

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 432 294 300 

(a)Water quality parameters measured on 07/10/06. (b) DO levels high on TB potentially due to compressed air line leak. (c) Exceedance of arsenic MCL occurred.