EPA/600/2-87/034
May 1987
NITRATE REMOVAL PB87-194S77
FROM CONTAMINATED WATER SUPPLIES
VOLUME II
FINAL REPORT
by
Gerald A. Guter
Bovle Engineering Corporation
Bakersfield, California 93302-0670
Cooperative Agreement No. CR808902-01-02
Project Officer
Richard Lauch
Drinking Water Research Division
Water Engineering, Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
WATER ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMECTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(PeaSe u cd Ins:n c: o u o , ihe re r be/oie comp1eitr J
I. REPORT NO.
EPA/600/2-87/034 12.
3 RECIPiENTS ACCESSJC,N NO
4 TITS.EANOSUBTITLE
NITRATE REMOVAL FROM CONTAMINATED WATER SUPPLIES,
VOLUME I I, FINAL REPORT
5 REPORT DATE
Nay 1987
6 PERPOPMINGORGANIZATIQNCOOE
I AUTMOR{S)
Cerald A. Cuter
8 PERFORMING ORGANiZATION REPORT NO
PERFORMINO ORGAN 1?ATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Boyle Eng rteerin Corporation
Bakersfield, CA 933020670 for
McFarland Mutual Water Co., 406 Second St.,
McFarland, CA 932501118
*0 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11 CONTRACT/GRANTP.0
CR808902
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Water Engineering Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
US Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
IS TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
1 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
*5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Richard P. Lauch (5135697 37) EPA/600/2-861115 is
Volume I. Design and Initial Performance of a Nitrate Removal Pant (PB 87 145470)
16. ABSTRACT
Nitrate removal from drinking water using the ion exchange process was evaluated
for a 1 cigd plant at McFarland, CA. The plant supplied most of the communitys water
needs during 1985 and 1986. This document is the second of a twovolume report and
tocuses on operation and matr*tenance (O&M) costs and plant performance from December
1, 1984 to January 1, 1987. Volume 1 focused on plant design and the first six months
of automatic operation. Actual O&M cost for the plant based on design capacity of
1 mgd was 8.5 cents per 1000 gallons. Low 06 1 costs are attributed to a drop In
nitrate and su1f re concentrations in the source ater, partial regeneration, auto-
matic operation, and celecomputer communications for the plant. Capital cost for the
nitrate removal plant was 9.9 cents per 1000 gallons when amortized over 20 years at
8% interest. Total plant cost for capitaL and 0&M was 18.4 cents per 1000 gallons
based on design capacity of 1 mgd. The average flow through the plant over the two
year period was 0.47 mgd. Total cost, based on actual flow of 0.47 mgd, was 34.2
cents per 1000 gallons. Average nitrate concentration in the blended product water
over the two year period when the plant was in operation was 5.9 mg N0 3 NIL. The
nitrate concentrations in the blended water ranged from 3.4 to 8.8 mg N0 3 N/L over
the period.
7. EY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
1. DESCRIPTORS
b IOENT!FIERS,OPEN ENDED TERMS
C. COSATI Ficid/Gioup
18. 0*STR 1BUTION STATEMENT
19 SECURITY CLASS fThis R.porij
UNCLASSIFIED
21 NO O PAGES
131
20 SECURITY CLASS (ThIs p g l
UNCLASSIFIED
22 PRICE
EPA Fo .. 2flO (Ray. 4_fl PPEVIOU6 EDITION 16 OBIGLETE
I
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly
or in part by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency under assistance agreement number CR 808902-01-02 to
McFarland Mutual Water Company. It has been subject to the
Agencys peer and administrative review, and it has been
approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endoresement
or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress
wLth protecting the Nations land, air, and water systems. Under a man-
date of national environmental laws, the agency strives to formulate and
inpiement actions leading to a compatible b4lance between human activities
and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. The Clean
Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Toxic Substances Controi.
Act are thrce of the major congressional laws that provide the framework
foL restoring and maintaining the integrity of our Nations water, for
preserving and enchancing the water we drink, and for protec;ing the en
vircinnent from toxic substances. These laws direct EPA to perform re-
search to define our environmental problems, measure the impacts, and
search for solutions.
The Water Engineering Research Laboratory is that component of EPAs
Research and Development program concerned with preventing, t. eating, and
managing municipal and Industrial wastewater discharges; establishing
practices to prevent its deterioration during storage and di3tribution;
and assessing the nature and controllability of releases cf toxic sub-
stances to the air, water, and land from manufacturing processes and
subsequent product uses. This publication is one of the products of
that research and provides a vital cominunIcatiou link between the re-
search and the user community.
When polluted groundwater serv.?s as a source of public drinking
water, pollutants must be removed to levels below standards regulated
by the Safe Drinking Water Act (Public Law 93523). Nitrate is one of
the pollutants frequently found in groundwater used for drinking water
supplies, and is the cause of serious and occasionally fatal poisonings
in infants. This document is the second of a twovolume report and
focuses on the cost and performance of a one million gallon per day
anion exchange planc for removing nitrate from drinking water.
Francis T. Mayo, DIrector
Water Engineering Research Laboratory
iii
-------
Nitrate removal f rum contaminated water using the iOn exchange
process was evaluated at a 1 million gal a day (mgd) plant at McFarland,
CA. The plant supplied nost of the ccirniunitys water needs during .985
and 1986. This document stnrnarizes the second of a twovolume report
and focuses on analysis of operation and maintenance (G&M) costs and
plant performance from December 1, l98L to January 1, 1987. Volume I
focused on the design and the first 6 months of its automatic operation.
Accurate cost and operational data were obtained to determine
actual treataent costs. When the plant started operation, nitrate
levels in the raw water were 15.8 mg N03NfL. As operation continued
over the 3 yrs., nitrate levels fell, as well as the amount of other
anions. A correlation was observed between longterm monthly puiipirig
rate and nitrate level in the raw water.
It is believed that this data coirprises the most carprehertsive
cost and performance information ever accumulated on an .on exchange
nitrate removal system for the production of safe drinking water I rcm
contaminated groundwater. Extensive data on disposal of waste Iran the
plant is also included.
Actual O&M costs were 36% lower than previously reported. 0&M cost
was 8.5 cents per 1,000 gal. based on design capacity of 1 rngd. Capital
cost was 9.9 cents per 1,000 gal when amortized over 20 yrs at 8%
interest. Therefore, total cost was 18.14 cents per 1,000 gal based on
design capacity of 1 rngd. The average plant flow over the two year
period was 0.147 nigd and therefore total cost was 314.2 cents per 1,000
gal based on actual flow of 0. i7 mgd.
These lower costs are attributable to a number of factors that
include drop in nitrate and sulfate levels in the raw water, auto-
matic operation, automatic hourly nitrate measurement, automatic record
trig of plant operating conditions, daily remote telecorrputer ccnrainica
tion, operation based on partial regeneration, and a column design
which p ovided nearly 100% column efficiency.
lv
-------
Wastewater coI position and production were studied to
characterize the type of wastewater produced. The wastewater
entered the local sewer collection system and eventually w3s
disposed of as irrigation water for cotton production. Soil
and water conditions were monitored over a 4 yr. period at the
disposal area. Only slight effects were noted in soil
chara. teristics and groundwater composition from nearby wells.
Approcimately 125 tons of waste solids are disposed of per
year e t the si.te and a serious impact is expected to occur on
a long- term basis. This is of special cone rn because of a
second plant to be operational in McFarland in 1987.
This report was submitted in fulfiflment of Cooperative Agreement !o.
808902-01-02 by McFarland ttutual Water Co. under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a period from Septerrbe 1
1, 1981 to 1arch 31, 1987, and work was completed as of t arch 31, 1987. Boyle
Engineering Corporation served as subcontractor.
V
-------
COFITEUTS
Foreword . iii
Abstract iv
Tables ix
Figures x
Board of Directors xi
Acknowledgements x ii
1. Introduction 3.
2. conclusions and Recommendations 3
3. continuation of Plant Operation 7
Period of Data 7
Daily Operating Logs 7
Monthly Reports 7
chemical Composition of Raw, Treated
and Blended Water 21
Plant settings 21
Evaluation of Primary Plant
Performance to January 1, 1986 24
Criteria of Primary Performance 24
Estimates of Salt Dosage, Brine
Use Factor, and Nitrate Leakage 25
Comparison of Plant Performance to
Projected Performance 39
Effluent Histories 39
Secondary Plant Performance 1985 41
Other Plant Data 1985 41
4. capital, Operation and Maintenance Costs 44
capital Costs 4 4
Operation and Maintenance Costs 44
Total Costs 50
5. Wastewater Quality and Disposal 57
Quality 57
Brine Disposal Studies 59
Frequency of Sampling 64
Data Obtained 64
Interpretation of Soil and Water
Quality Data 76
vii
-------
Direct Effect on Cotton Yield .
Changes in Soil Characteristics
Impact on Groundwater in Wastewater
Disposal Area
Continuous Nitrate Analyses
Remote Monitoring of Plant Operation
Nitrate Selective Resins
Brine Recycling Tests
Plant Operation During 1936
Changes in Plant Operation
Improvement in Pumped Water Quality
At Nitrate Plant 101
References 104
Appendices 105
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
76
77
78
81
87
91
96
97
97
viii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Plant Records December 1984 8
2 Plant Records January 1985 9
3 Plant Records February 1985 10
4 Plant Records March 1985 11
5 Plant Records April 1985 12
6 Plant Records May 1985 1
7 Plant Records June 1985 14
8 Plant Records July 1985 15
9 Plant Records August 1985 16
10 Plant Records September 1985 17
11 Plant Records October 1985 18
12 Plant Records November 1985 19
13 Plant Records December 1985 20
14 Monthly Anion Analyses by Certified Lab 22
15 Summary of Operating Data to January 1, 1986 23
16 Projected and Observed Plant Data 40
17 Secondary Plant Performance Factors 42
18 Other Plant Operating Data 43
19 Capital Costs, McFarland Well 2 Plant (1983) 45
20 Capital Costs, McFarland Well 4 Plant (1983) 46
21 Operation and Maintenance Costs 47
22 Total Costs 51
23 Variable O&M Costs 54
24 Result of TOC Analyses a
25 Inorganic Composition of Nitrate Plant
Waste Regenerant Samples 60
26 Municipal Treatment Plant Effluent Chemistry
For McFMWCo Nitrate Plant 65
27 Municipal Plant Effluent Irrigation Wate
Parameters 66
28 Soil Monitorir. 3 Program for McMWC0
Nitrate Plant Discharge, Area 1 67
29 So 1.1 Monitoring Program for McMWC0
Nitrate Plan Discharge, Area 2 68
30 Soil Monitoring Program for McMWC0
Nitrate Plant Discharge, Area 3 69
31 Soil Monitoring Program for McMWCo
Nitrate Plant Discharge, Area 4 70
32 Soil Monitoring Program for McMWCo
Nitrate Plant Discharge, Area 5 71
lx
-------
Soil Monitoring Program for McMWC0
Nitrate Plant Discharge, Summary Data 72
City Well
Walrop Well
Zaninovich Well 75
Special Resin Characteristics 91
Nitrate Levels 1986 98
1986 Secondary Plant Performance Factors 99
1 Dec. 1984 Projected
2 Jan. 3985 Projected
3 Feb. 1985 Projected
4 Mar. 1985 Projected
5 Apr. 1985 Projected
6 May 1985 Projected
7 Jun. 1985 Projected
8 July 1985 Projected
9 Aug. 1985 Projected
10 Sep. 1985 Projected
11 Oct. 1985 Projected
12 Nov. 1985 Projected
13 Dec. 1385 Projected
14 O&M Cost at Various
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Operating Data 26
Operating Data 27
Operating Data 28
Operating Data 29
Operating Data 30
Operating Data 31
Operating Data 33
Operating Data 33
Operating Data 34
Operating Data 35
Operating Data 36
Operating Data 37
Operating Data 38
Well Use Factors 55
TABLES (Cont)
Number
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
FIGURES
Number Page
Variation in Wastewater Composition (Anions) 61
Variation in Wastewater Composition (Other) 62
Wastewater Disposal Area 63
Nitrate Level Recording 82
Nitrate Analyser 84
Chromatogram of Nitrate and Chloride 86
Modem Program Flow Chart 88
Print Out of Telecoinputer Report 90
Effluent History for A-biD Resin 92
Effluent History for T-Butyl Resin 93
History of Untreated Nitrate Level and Pumping
Rate McFarland Well No. 2 102
x
-------
McFARLAND MUTUAL WATER COMPANY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
1977
R.V. LANKFORD
EARL HoLDEr AN
ARTHUR .3 . SCHNEIDER
MJ. McMILLAN
DONALD E. MOORE
1978
ROY CHANDLER
R.V. L1 NKFORD
DONALD E. MOORE
ARTHUR.3 . SCHNEIDER
EARL HOLDERMAN
1979
EARL HOLDERMAN
ROY CHANDLER
LV. LkNKPORD
ARTHUR.3. SCHNEIDER
DONALD E. MOORE
1980
FRED.3. HAAS
DON CORER
R.V. LA.NKFORD
DONALD E. MOORE
ARTHUR J. SCHNEIDER
1981
DON CORER
ROBERT McLAUGHLIN
ARTHUR.3. SCHNEIDER
FRED.3. HAAS
DONALD E. MOORE
) 9 87
FRED J. HAAS
DONALD J. POWELL
RCBERT McLAUGHLIN
MIC}L. L FLETCHER
ARTURO MUNOZ
1982
DONALD L. POWELL
DON CORER
ARTHUR .3. SCHNEIDER
ROBERT McLAUGHLIN
FRED.3. HAAS
1983
DONALD L. POWELL
FRED .3. HAAS
ROBERT McLAUGHLIN
DON CORER
ARTHUR.3. SCHNEIDER
1984
FRED J. HAAS
DONALD L. POWELL
ROBERT McLAUGHLIN
DON CORER
VERN BLAIR
1985
FRED .3. HAAS
DONALD .3. POWELL
ROBERT McLAUGHLIN
MICHAEL FLETCHER
fERN BLAIR
1986
FREDJ. HAAS
DONALD J. POWELL
ROBERT McLAUGHLIN
MICHAEL FLETCHER
fERN BLAIR
x i
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This final volume of the report represents the
culmination of a project that started in 1977. Over this
period of time, several people have qiven support,
encouragement and assistance.
The Board of Directors of the McFarland Mutual Water
Company provided much encouragement by their continuous
support. The list on the previous page gives the membership
of the Boards over these years.
The author also acknowledges the assistance and support
of the Managers of the McFarland Mutual Water Company, Mr.
Carroll Hurst (deceased) and Mr. Clifford Ford.
Acknowledgement is made of valued technical assistance
and guidance from Dick Lauch and Tom Sorg of EPA and from
colleagues in the Bakersfield Office of Boyle Engineering
Corporation including the following: David L. Hardan, Ernest
0. Kartinen, and Stephen Paliska.
xii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTI ON
This is the second volume of the final report under the
blcFarland, California nitrate removal demonstration project.
This project involved the design, construction and operation
of a Nitrate Removal Plant at Well No. 2 owned and operated by
the McFarland Mutual Water Company (McMWC0). This volume
covers the nitrate plant operation from December 1, 1984 to
January 1, 1987. Volume 1 covered the design, start up and
initial performance of the plant. The period of operation
spanned by these two volumes is from November of 1983 to
January of 1987, covering a total operational period of 38
months. During most of this time the plant functioned as the
communitys primary water supply.
The plant continues to serve the community as a major
source of safe drinking water. The demonstration of the
technical and cost feasibility of the plant has lead to the
planning or expansion of nitrate treatment for other wells in
the community. A second plant is presently under construction
at Well Nc. 4 and is anticipated to be operational in the
Summer of 1987. This ieport includes cost information on the
second McFarland nitrate plant. A third project is presently
in the planning stage to treat other wells with the existing
plants.
The sponsors of this project felt that the results should
be made available as soon as possible. They, therefore, asked
that Volume I (Reference 1) cover the first six months of
automatic plant operation as well as the plint design. The
demonstration plant program was prolonged and the preparation
of this second volume was delayed by an extensive emergency
water quality study Lich was done in McFarland. Although the
study was unrelated to the plants operation, the continuous
nitrate removal plant operation was required to supply a
constant water quality to the community as requested by health
officials during an epedimiological study. This prevented
those changes in the plant operation and the anlayses of their
effect from being made as required under the contract until
all water quality tests had been completed.
The extended plant operation described herein is a bonus
result of this program extension and represents a windfall of
1
-------
extra data. Under the original agreement between the project
sponsor and the McFarland Mutual Water Company, the flitrate
plant was to be operated for only a six month period as the
primary water source for the community. In actuality, the
plant became the primary source for nearly three years.
Experimental work was also done under this program on nitrate
selective resins, wastewater recycling, automatic nitrate
monitoring, and telecz mputer monitoring. These subj cts are
also addressed in this volume.
The grant period covered by both volumes of this report
is from September 1981 to April 1987. The work effort is a
followup to work done under a previous grant (Reference 2).
Much information on the design of the plant and the
related research has been previously published and is referred
to in this report. In addition to the above two references,
the following list of previously published papers contains
information developed under both grants.
A paper was presented at the 1983 AWWA National
Conference held in Las Vegas on the projected costs of
construction and operation of the McFarland plant (Reference
3).
A paper on use of a computer program to estimate effluent
histories was presented at the 1984 AWWA National Conference
in Dallas (Reference 4).
At the same Conference, a paper was presented on the
first six month period of operation of the plant (Reference
5). This paper was also published in the May 1986 AWWA
Journal (Reference 6).
A paper on further development and use of the computer
program to simulate the operation of the nitrate removal plant
was presented at the 1985 AWWA National Conference in
Washington DC. (Reference 7).
A U.S. Patent was issued October, 1984 on the use of a
nitrate .3elective resin in water treatment (Reference 8).
2
-------
SECTIOU 2
CONCUJSTON AND RECOMMFIJDATIONS
1. The nitrate plant at Well No. 2 in McFarland, California was success-
fully operated during 1985 and 1986 to provide the cormiunity with 3143
million gallons of drinking water meeting the nitrate standards. This
amount of water met 57% of the demand. I tai1ed data on water production,
waste production, and all costs of operation and rainteriance were recorded
and analyzed to detennine actual treatment costs. Costs are also given for
a second nitrate plant which will be operational in 1987. t ta on the
operation of the Well 2 nitrate plant is included between November 1983 and
January, 1987. It is believed that this data corprises the nost cQ-iprehen
sive cost and performance information ever accumulated on a nitrate removal
system for groundwater treatment.
2. Total annual cost for capital a noritzation (20 yrs at 8% interest) was
$36,222 and total 0&M cost was $30,712 (based on desi i capacity of 1 mgd).
The cost per 1,000 gallons on this basis is 18.1 1 cents ($59.95 per acre
foot). This 0&M cost was 36% lower than previously reported. Total costs
were 25% lower than previsouly reported. These lower costs are due to
several factors: lower interest rates, improved water quality fran the
well, and efficient use of regenerant chemicals by optimizing adjustment of
the plant to give nearly 100% column efficienty using partial regenera-
tion and blending. The plant actually processed an average of 0.117 ngd
over the 19851986 period. Based on the actual flow of 0.147 mgd, J7% of
design capacity, capital cost was 21.1 cents per 1000 gal (amoritzied over
20 years at 8% interest) and 0&M cost was 13.1 cents per 1000 gal for a
total of 314.2 cents per 1000 gal.
3. The plant produced 65.8% (197.14 MG) of the water demand by the connunity
in 1985 and 118.5% (1145.58 MG) of the demand in 1986.
11. This report focuses on the 1985 and 1986 operatioial years. Actual 0&M
costs for the Mcl?arland, CA consumer over this period was 7.14 cents per
1000 gallons of water produced. If an additional a nount is added to this
0&M cost to set aside for replacement or renovation of the plant in 20
years (based on 1983 construction cost) the total 0&M cost would be 9.81
cents per 1000 gallons. This is approximately 10% of the current consumer
price presently charged in McFarland, CA.
5. Over the two year period of operation 98.2% of the water
3
-------
pumped from the well was distributed to the system after
nitrate reduction to approximately 30 mg/L*. The 1.8% not
distributed was discharged as wastewater.
6. The amount of wastewater produced per 1000 gallons of
distributed water consisted 1.4 gal of brine, 6.6 gal of rinse
water, and 10.3 gal of backwash water. These values are also
considerably less than previously reported because of finer
plant adjustments and improvements in untreated water quality.
7. The plant was operated with a three-foot deep bed in 1985
and a fivefoot bed in 1986. No differences in performance
were observed which could be attributed to the two different
depths.
8. The amount of resin lost and lowering of resin capacity
during the three years of operation were insignificant. No
replacement resin costs are included in the above O&M costs.
9. A significant finding was made which-.may effect future
operation of the two nitrate plants in McFarland. As Well No.
2 is used there is a long tern improvement in the groundwater
quality. The concentration of all anions drops to nearly 50%
of their values before the plant was placed in operation. A
correlation of nitral-e in the well can be rnade with rate of
pumping. At times when pumping rate was highest nitrate
levels fell below 10 mg/L N03-N/L. When pumping rate dropped
nitrate levels rose. The data implies that if the well is
continuously pumped, need for nitrate treatment would be
considerably less. Methods of managing well operation are
being studied to use this information.
10. The plant continued to cperate automatically.
Approximately one hour of time by a trained operator was
required to perform routine tasks. The operator was assisted
by a remote telecomputer monitoring system to provide expert
plant monitoring and assistance in adjusting the plant for
optimum operation and to avert problems.
11. Nitrate analyses were performed automatically every hour
of a twentyfour hour day. These data we e transmitted to a
computer file and to recording charts as permanent records.
12. Experimental work continued on development of resins with
nitratetosulfate selectivity. One resin, a tributyl amine
strong base resin showed unusually high selectivity. A United
States Patent was issued on use of :his resin in nitrite
removal as a result of this work.
* Divide by 4.43 to convert to mg N03-N/L, for example
30 mg N03/L.= 6.8 mg N03N/L.
4
-------
13. Co puter prograns to simulate the ion exchange process
were widely used during these studies. The programs were
useful in the development of nitrate sciective resins and in
assessing plant erforinance.
14. The above costs do not include costs of disposing wastes
from the plant. The composition of these wastes was
deterinn ed and laboratory studies on their reuse by recycling
were made.
15. During the 193586 period over 250 tons of salt were
consumed in the nitrate removal provess. The water containing
these waste salts was disposed to the McFarland sewer
collection system where it was bl nded with raw municipal
waste, treated in aeration ponds nd disposed to 120 acres of
irrigated cotton crops.
16. The disposal of this large quantity of waste salt to the
environment poses serious questions as to the fate of these
materials and the impact on the local environment.
17. A monitoring program was conducted starting prior to
plant construction and was continued through the 1986 growing
season to determine these environmental effects on irrigation
water, soil quality, and groundwater quality.
18. Increases in TDS of the irrigation water were observed
consistent with that to be expected from the plant operation.
No water quality parameters significantly changed to effect
the use of the water in cotton irrigation.
19. Soil chemistry changed slightly and showed increased
sodium and less calcium. The indices used show that a sodium-
calcium equilibrium has been reached and no further changes
are to be expected unless additional brine is discharged.
20. There was a significant increase in nitrate content of
the soil water over the monitoring period. This impact is
being studied by the City of McFarland to see if fertiliz r
costs can be reduced.
21. Groundwater samples were taken from three different wells
adjacent to the disposal area. Although there are indications
that the waste salts have reached the groundwater table in
cation content, there was no observable increase in nitrate or
TDS levels in the wells. It is expected, however, that
groundwater deterioration will eventually occur.
22. Disposal of wastewater from a nitrate plant remains a
problem which will intensify in McFarland when the second
5
-------
plant beco!nes operational. Monitoring of the disposal area
should continue. Methods of reusing and recovery of
wastewater salts need to be developed to reduce the discharge
of these materials to a minimum.
6
-------
SECTION 3
CONTINUATION OF PLANT OPERATION
PERIOD 01 DATA
The c ata period covered in this report begins as of
December 1, 1985, immediately after the period covered in
volume I (Reference 1) of this final report arid continues to
January 1, 1987. Data for the months preceeding December 1985
are also list3d in most of the following data tables for
comparison. Data for the period up to January 1, 1986 is
given detailed analysis and is believed to adequately
represent the treatment costs. Data for the year 1986 is
listed in summary form and is important because of the use of
the five-foot resin bed instead of the threefoot bed which
was used earlier.
DAILY OPERATI IG LOGS
Daily records of flows, flow rates, and nitrate levels
were maintained throughout the above period of operation.
Data was obtained by manual readings and record keeping and by
automatic data logging by the microprocessor. The plant was
operated entirely in the autonatic mode. The most time
consuming tasks of the operator were the logging of data and
record keeping records of operations.
MOWFHL REPORTS
From the daily reports described above, monthly reports
were complied in conformance with the requirements of the
California State Division of Health. Tables 1 through 13
summarize the plant operating records through 1905. Monthly
summary records for 1986 are given in Section 9 of this
report, daily records are included in the Appendix. During
the entire period of operation water was pumped to the
distribution mains.
In the above tables, column 2 gives the daily quantities
of water pumped to the distribution system. This was a blend
of the treated water and bypassed water is given in columns 3
and 4. Column 5 lists the daily amounts of saturated brine
that were used for regeneration. The next two columns list
the average daily nitrate levels in the blended water
7
-------
T LE 1
PLANT RECORDS DECEII5ER 1984
A eraqe Nitrate ag/I
ol Nater In Sle ded water Gallons ci WasteMater
Total
Gallons
To Treated By- Saturated Dilute Slow Gallons
Date System By I I Passed brine As N03 As N brine Rinse Batkwish Wastewater
1 671000 412700 259300 360 24.5 5.53 660 7210 4910 12780
2 700000 309900 390100 359 20.5 4.63 440 1220 2440 10100
5 576000 355100 220900 359 23.4 5.29 450 11340 2430 14220
4 518000 332200 185800 425 24.4 5.51 710 3610 4320
5 62800C 402200 225500 538 24.8 5.60 670 10680 11350
6 682000 433500 246500 360 25.0 5.65 610 7140 1680 9430
7 725000 465400 259600 538 25.8 5.83 930 10820 2260 14010
8 617000 400300 216100 539 22.6 5.11 910 l( i20 1880 13610
9 46000 29900 16100 -- 24.2 5.41 - 11 0 1120
10 510000 329000 181000 359 24.8 5.60 350 7210 4340 11900
I I 655000 423500 234500 353 24.4 5.51 590 1213 3163 7953
12 629000 402700 226300 539 24.0 5.42 920 10810 6000 17730
13 668003 425100 242900 359 24.0 5.42 620 7210 4440 12270
14 671000 426100 244900 539 24.8 5.60 920 10810 6330 18060
IS 682900 437800 245100 539 20.8 4.70 910 6690 4200 13600
16 638030 414900 223100 359 25.2 5.69 620 9340 6150 16110
Il 599000 376400 222600 360 20.6 1.85 630 7210 4320 12100
18 679500 398300 281200 449 28.6 6.46 810 8375 5240 14925
19 679500 398300 281200 449 27.4 6.1° 810 8375 5240 14925
70 827000 476700 350300 539 26.8 6.05 670 10810 6430 17910
21
22 -
23
24 - -
25 -
26 -
27 - -
28 -- - - --- - ---
29
30 -- - *
38
TOTAL 12401900 7641000 4754900 8322 *24.33 5.50 13220 165890 72573 248683
I Averaged Values
8
-------
TABLE 2
PLANT REC&R S JAH ARY Io 5
Averaqe Nitrate g/l
SaUoni of Water in Blended Water Bullons of Waiteiater
Calloni -- Total
To Treated By Saturated Dilute Sloi 6a l lons
Dite Sy te. By C I Pisied Brine As 1103 Al N Brine Rinse Backuash Wastesater
2 - - -
3
4 -
5
6 - . -
7 - -.
B
9 333000 121500 211500 179 23.B 5.39 520 520
10 203000 156400 46600 180 24.0 5.43 540 540
11 228000 175200 32000 180 27.4 6.20 540 - 540
12
13 -
14 250000 108800 141200 - 26.4 5.99
15 167200 167200 --- 359 26.0 5.89 780 1210 4620 12610
16 235000 170800 64200 179 23.2 5.25 520 3610 2230 6360
17 247000 225500 21500 ISO 27.0 6,11 520 3600 2260 6380
lB 294000 178200 115800 180 27.6 6,25 530 3610 2390 6530
19
20 - --- - -
21 283000 283000 359 25.8 5.84 1030 7210 4820 13060
22 5?4000 459600 134400 539 22.6 5,12 1570 10310 7120 19500
23 642000 415400 226600 539 26.0 5.89 1540 10830 7000 1 370
24 635000 402300 232700 359 25.6 5.80 190 7220 4620 12630
25 472000 2939DD 178100 - 26.6 6,02
26 653500 582200 71300 -- 33.6 7.61
27 -
29 652000 254400 391600 539 28.0 6.34 1600 10B20 7090 19510
29 671000 427100 243900 359 29.B 6.75 780 7210 4420 12410
30 613000 388600 224400 534 29.0 6.57 1210 7210 4620 13040
31 653000 391300 281700 467 26.8 6.07 1252 8084 6149 15485
TOTAL 7825700 5201400 2624300 5132 I 26.6 I 6.03 13122 97424 57339 158485
Averaqed Values
9
-------
[ ABLE 3
PLANT RECO..DS FE9RU R v 1985
Average Nitrate e q / I
Gallons of Water In Blended bater Gallons of Wastewater
Gallons Total
To Treated By- Saturated Dilute S1o Gallons
C 4 te Systes By 1 I Passed Brtne As N03 As N Bnne Rinse Backwash bastewater
1 559000 398600 160400 359 28.4 6.43 1070 7210 4630 12910
2 640000 499300 140700 539 26.6 6.02 1580 10810 6640 19030
3 686000 524400 161600 538 30.4 6.88 1040 7740 4400 13180
4 624000 489400 134600 360 29.6 6.70 1060 10290 6630 17980
5 175000 137200 37800 179 28.6 6.47 270 3600 2190 6060
6 620000 489700 130300 360 28.8 6.52 740 7210 4730 12680
7 639000 506000 133000 538 30.6 6.93 1530 10820 6980 19330
8 590000 469200 120800 539 29.4 6.66 1540 8610 4800 14950
9 657000 522700 134300 359 30.6 6.93 1010 9410 6750 17170
10 569000 466300 102700 539 31.8 7.20 1550 5060 7060 13670
11 630000 514600 115400 410 28.4 6.43 1160 12970 4706 18836
12 63o000 523400 112600 488 26.6 6.02 1410 10810 6780 19000
13 617000 501200 115800 539 25.4 5.75 1520 10820 5100 17440
14 675000 532000 142200 360 24.6 5.57 730 7210 6160 14100
15 673000 519400 153600 538 28.8 6.52 1240 10310 6900 18950
16 706000 342800 163200 539 28.0 6.34 1270 10920 4680 16770
17 618000 526300 151700 360 26.6 6.02 1020 1210 66 10 14840
18 653000 527200 125800 539 28.b 6.47 1140 10810 6680 19530
19 660000 527500 132500 53 ? 26.8 6.07 1260 8200 4490 13950
20 632000 531500 150500 359 25.0 5.66 830 9530 6760 17420
21 689000 527400 161600 539 26.6 6.02 1500 10810 6700 19010
22 745000 563400 131600 540 27.4 6.20 1490 10820 5160 17470
23 728000 290100 437900 179 28.6 6.47 480 3600 3810 7C90
24 688000 263100 424900 359 28.4 6.43 770 7210 2210 10190
25 295000 219700 75300 360 31.4 7.11 1000 7210 2240 10450
26 349000 250600 58400 119 29.0 6.57 200 3610 1530 5340
27 703000 459800 243200 487 26.0 5.89 1460 8970 10430
28 279000 168800 110200 157 26.4 5.98 406 3429 1884 5719
29 - --
30
i i
TOTAL 16845000 12492400 4352600 11781 I 28.1 a 6.37 30576 235909 137210 403695
a Average Value
10
-------
rAELE 4
PLA? T RECORDS NARCH 1905
Average Ifitrate eq/i
Sattcr s of ater In Blended later Gallons of kastewater
G alLons _ __
l Treated By Saturates DUute iow Gallons
Date Systea fy I I Passed Sruie As 1i03 As N B -e Rinse hckiash Wasteetter
I 283000 177700 110300 126 27.4 6.20 490 3600 1970 6060
2 301000 172000 129000 180 26.6 6.02 480 3610 1400 5490
3 - --
4 285000 190300 94700 179 26.0 5.89 220 3600 2250 6070
5 290000 200000 90000 190 24.8 5.61 500 3610 2150 6260
6 332000 205900 126200 180 25.0 5.66 430 3600 2 10 6160
7 261000 181600 19400 179 24.4 5.52 500 3610 3370 7480
O 245000 209300 39700 I SO 24.0 5.43 500 3600 2210 6310
9 286000 181800 104200 100 24.8 5.61 460 3610 2190 6250
10 190000 131800 58200 I9 24.4 5.52 470 3600 2160 6230
II 234000 201000 93000 IeO 24.0 5.43 470 3610 2210 6290
12 293000 120500 172500 190 25.2 5.71 190 3600 2140 5930
13 299000 192500 106500 179 24.8 5.61 470 10820 2150 13440
14 275000 186300 88700 180 29.0 a.51 300 600 2190 3090
15 230000 156300 73700 179 33.2 7.52 480 3610 2170 6260
16
Il
19 26 .00Q 1 750G 71500 IS O 27.4 6.20 980 1062 2250 4292
19 27 000 181600 86400 180 26.0 5.99 470 2600 2200 5270
20 262000 97400 164600 Ii? 25.6 5.80 470 420 2120 3010
21 292.300 292300 180 27.0 6.11 460 360 2160 2980
22 251000 181100 75900 126 24.0 5.43 460 3600 2190 6250
23 - - ---
24 --
25 253000 112000 81000 180 25.0 5.66 4770 3612 1620 10002
26 298000 206000 92000 179 21.6 4.89 450 3600 2090 6140
27 291000 205400 85600 180 25.4 5.15 410 3610 2360 6440
28 259000 174800 83200 180 24,4 5.52 470 3600 2300 6370
29 292000 204500 91500 190 -- 470 3610 2200 6280
30 -- - --
31
TOTAL 6615300 4415500 2199800 4205 a 25.7 I 5.81 15430 80754 52160 148344
I Avaraqe Values
11
-------
TABLE 5
PLANT RE 0RDS APRIL 1 85
A eraqe Ltrate aq/
£allons of Water In Blended water Sallons of agteuater
6a1l ns 1 otat
I a Treated 9y Saturated Oilute Slow Sallons
Ode Lystea By I I Passed Brine As N03 As N Brine Rinse Backwash Wutewater
1 179000 109100 69900 239 25.6 5.80 450 3610 2520 6580
2 144000 45200 98800 24.6 5.37 10 10
3 285000 153100 131°00 180 25.4 5.15 220 3610 2610 6440
4 312000 269900 103100 190 23.4 5.30 450 3938 2510 6899
5 393000 268000 125000 359 21.6 4.89 920 1200 5110 13240
6 --- -
7
8 257000 216600 40400 119 26.0 5.99 440 3810 2330 6590
9 203000 156800 46200 190 23.6 5.34 ISO 3800 2520 6270
ID 216000 201200 7480G 180 19.8 4.48 120 3610 2490 6220
Ii 307000 230400 76600 1 0 17.6 3.99 410 3600 2510 6520
12 112000 86200 23800 I SO 19.0 4.30 120 3830 2490 6440
13 -
14 - -
15 285000 134000 151000 341 21.0 4 5 400 3610 2500 6510
16 282000 201600 80400 180 20.6 4.66 410 3600 2490 6500
17 336000 254700 81300 190 2&.0 4.75 - 400 3600 2090 6080
18 299000 117000 182(00 171 18.6 4.21 410 4283 24* 7153
19 327000 203100 123900 306 23.6 5.34 610 7220 4950 12980
20 - - -
21 - -
22 217000 113200 103800 Il? 20.4 4.62 320 3610 245u 6380
23 253000 186300 66100 190 17.6 3.98 390 3600 2450 b440
24 248000 186100 61900 180 19.0 4.30 410 3610 4180 8200
25 201000 139100 61900 Il, l6. 3.76 410 3600 2420 6430
26 219000 204400 74600 111 22.4 5.07 410 3610 2470 6490
27
29 - - --
29 259000 191800 67200 179 22.4 5.07 140 3600 262(1 6360
30 263000 184100 78900 180 22.0 4.98 390 3610 10 4010
31 -
1cT L 5837000 3910900 1926100 4295 a 21.4 54.86 8160 84181 56370 148731
C Average Value
12
-------
[ ABLE 6
C Average Value
PL.PN1 RECORDS NAY 1995
Total
Sa lt o n
Was tent
Average Nitrate mqil
Gallons L f Water In Blended Water
To Treated By Saturated
Date System By I I Passed Brine As P 403 As N
6allcns of Wastewater
Dilute Slow
Brine Rinse Backuash
I
362000
282000
80000
309
21.4
4.84
790
7210
330
8330
2
266000
167600
9W400
: o
23.0
5.21
220
3600
3820
3
384000
293300
90700
180
23.4
5.15
120
3610
3130
4
-
S
-
--
-
---
-
-
---
6
253000
200400
52600
ISO
25.8
5.84
300
3600
-
3900
7
328000
259800
68200
359
27.6
6.25
640
6340
1750
3730
8
-
-
---
-
--
9
568000
44000
124000
359
28.8
6.52
830
7210
4960
13000
10
205000
157600
47400
180
28.4
6.43
410
3600
2300
6310
I I
177000
134000
43000
27.4
6.20
-
12
-
-
-
-
13
158000
123300
34700
180
27.6
6.25
120
3610
2600
6330
14
222000
112100
109300
359
22.4
5.07
660
7210
4910
12840
15
328000
289100
38900
359
24.6
5.57
80
7210
5140
13150
16
270000
232500
37500
180
29.6
6.70
410
3610
30194
34214
17
292000
2V500
64500
359
28.0
6.34
5320
7210
2674
15204
18
-
--
-
19
-
-
-
-
20
191000
187200
3800
180
31.6
7.15
474
3600
2400
t474
21
203000
17u300
32100
180
21.4
6.20
190
3610
2330
6130
22
261000
230200
30800
170
26.4
5.98
410
3600
2310
6320
23
-
-
27.8
6.27
--
24
215000
183300
29700
127
26.6
6.02
360
3624
2400
6384
25
---
-
--
26
-
-
--
-
-
27
-
--
-
-- -
-
---
28
--
-
28.0
6.34
--
-
-
29
195000
690500
104500
718
27.4
6.20
1690
14410
15990
32080
30
334000
291200
42800
180
25.0
5.66
480
3010
2330
5820
31
8000
222400
35600
359
27.0
6.11
930
7810
4900
[ 3640
TOTAL
6070000
4900!0
1169100
5148
4 26.7
1 o.04
15154
103684
87569
206406
13
-------
TABLE 1
PLANT RECORDS W1E 1965
A eraqe Nitrate e q/I
Ea 1ons al Water In blended later
6iIto s
To Treated by Saturated
1 121000 101800 19200
2
3 194000 169300 25700
4 793000 690000 103000
5 693000 600000 93000
6 740000 644100 95900
7 743000 659600 83400
B 1418000 1297900 180100
9
80 723000 634400 8 00
ii 750000 668200 68800
12 751000 561000 190000
13 633000 609400 223800
14 784000 568600 215400
15 75000 56700 18300
16
17
18 459000 347500 111500
19 940000 689400 250600
20 469000 329700 139300
21 717000 513900 203100
22 717000 513900 203100
23 717000 513900 203100
24 952000 673000 219000
25 951000 668800 228200
26 967000 613600 293400
21 970000 274200 695800
28 1047000 723500 323500
29 1872000 1286200 585900
30 -
31
1 Avei a;e Value
30
6430
26590
20100
19920
33020
469 0
56820
31000
24530
26640
20060
88010
Date Syste. 8y I I Passed Brine As N03 As N
Gallons of Wasteeater
Dilute Sloi
Brine Rinse
lotal
Eallons
Backwash Wastewater
27.2 6.16
179 27.8 6.29
7 19 34.4 7.19
539 27.6 6.25
538 35.6 8.06
845 29.4 6.66
1431 32.8 7.43
718 24.4 5.52
899 20.0 4.53
539 17.0 3.85
119 18.4 4.17
538 15.0 3.40
360 15.2 3.44
539 24.4 5.52
718 24.0 5.43
359 27.6 6.25
539 28.0 6.34
5 39
539
119 19.0 4.30
718 24.0 5.43
119 23.4 5.30
664 27.0 6.11
898 24.0 5.4!
1258 23.6 5.34
20 10
340 3600
1910 14120
1400 10920
1390 10810
2320 18030
3820 28940
1890 14420
2320 16200
1360 12640
1840 14420
1330 10890
880 7210
1350 10820
1860 14420
920 * 7210
1377 11275
1317 11275
1377 11275
1790 14420
8830 14420
1730 1420
1760 84420
2200 18020
3050 25240
2490
10260
7890
7120
12670
14110
42310
12480
10530
10330
7840
2920
7710
10470
5080
11722
11722
11722
10460
10680
10360
10500
10570
800
19980
26750
13210
24374
24314
24374
26610
26930
26510
26680
30790
29090
TOTAL. 19482000 14467600 4994400 16238 a 24.8 a 5.61
41441 329525 253646 624682
14
-------
TABLE 8
PLANT RECORDS JULY 1985
Average Nitrate mg/I
Sallons of Water In Blended Water
- -
To Treated Er Saturated
Date System By I I Passed Brine As 103 As N
14
TOTAL 21418100 15009500 6408400
0 4 26.! a Ά50
37646 337681 242492
617819
a Average Value
Sallois of Wastewater
Dilute S1 i
Brtne Rtnse Backwash
Total
Gallons
last e nter
1
952000
654)00
297300
-
26.5
6.00
1740
1442
10510
26670
2
343000
673900
269300
--
28.4
6.43
1180
14420
10530
26730
3
962000
6626 0
25940 )
-
25.6
5.80
18u0
14420
10300
26520
4
941000
651500
295500
-
27.8
6.29
1800
14420
10190
26410
5
950000
657600
292400
-
27.0
6.11
1810
14423
10406
26639
6
950000
657600
292400
-
.00
1810
14423
10406
26639
1
950000
657600
252400
-
-
.00
1810
14423
30406
26639
8
673000
495500
377500
21.0
6.11
1340
10810
1650
19800
9
942000
655300
28 1700
25.8
5.84
1720
14420
10010
26150
ID
Ά53000
655100
296900
21.0
4.15
1660
14420
10300
26380
I I
383000
246500
11e500
21.4
4.84
650
7210
5t90
13250
12
-
---
---
-
---
---
-
-
--
---
13
-
-
--
-
--
--
Is
--
-
-
---
-
-
- -.
--
16
552600
201000
357200
-
28.4
a,43
1250
10810
7550
19610
17
18
1037000
847000
716OO
5B°500
32* C
2t/5 3
--
26.0
26.6
5.89
6.02
1480
1546
14420
14420
100 50
10430
25980
26398
19
922000
638100
283500
--
20.6
4 ,66
1520
14430
10520
26470
20
966500
669700
296200
-
19.8
4.48
1495
14420
10425
26340
21
966500
6697t 0
29 S00
--
---
.00
1495
14120
10425
263 0
22
000
616600
213400
-
20.0
4.53
1410
£4420
10230
26120
23
351000
201200
14 200
-
29.2
6.61
350
3610
2610
6570
24
357000
253300
103700
--
40.0
9.06
690
7210
5210
13110
25
640000
47110C
168900
---
23.2
5.25
1010
9613
6866
11569
26
640000
471100
368500
-
--
.00
1010
9613
6886
17569
27
640000
471100
165900
-
--
.00
1010
9613
6826
17569
28
640000
471100
168900
.00
1070
9613
6886
11569
29
948000
675600
212400
27.0
6.11
1340
:4420
10580
2634C
30
724300
601000
123300
--
28.4
6,43
1290
14420
10590
26300
31
145000
604100
140900
28.0
8.34
1320
34420
10400
26140
15
-------
TABLE 9
PLANT RECORDS AUOUSI 1955
Average Nitrate eq / I
Sallons of Meter In b1en ea Miter SaLIaiis of Mastewater
Gallons - 1 tai
To Treated By Saturated Dikte Slow Gallons
Date Syste. By I I Passed Brine As N03 4s i Brine Rinse Backwash Wastewatei
I 854000 609200 245900 718 27.0 6.11 1440 11560 7990 20990
2 907300 636600 270700 658 25.6 5.80 1460 14173 10646 26279
3 907300 636 OG 210700 658 - 146) 14173 10646 26279
4 907300 636600 210700 658 1460 14173 10646 26279
5 867000 604700 262300 719 28.0 6.34 1540 14420 10480 26440
6 933000 640400 292600 718 27.6 6.25 1540 12310 8000 21850
7 900000 636500 263200 547 29.0 6.57 1160 12930 10830 24920
8 55700t 657200 299900 711 31.0 7.v2 1410 14420 10670 26560
9 879700 605200 274500 697 30.0 6.79 1590 14286 9721 25603
10 879700 605200 274500 697 - - 1590 14286 9727 25603
II 879700 605200 274500 697 - -- 1590 14286 9727 25603
12 905000 627100 277900 B55 29.0 6.57 693) 18C30 13310 39270
13 902000 618900 293100 719 21.0 6.11 1390 14420 10810 26420
14 925000 649100 275900 718 29.0 6.57 1620 14420 9960 26000
15 953000 708300 244700 665 28.4 6.43 1640 14420 11470 27530
16 926000 829600 91400 539 29.4 6.α 1250 10520 8110 20180
17 906000 623300 292700 719 30.4 6.58 1120 11920 10465 23505
18 908000 623300 292100 719 - 1120 11920 10465 23505
19 912000 626800 285200 719 27.4 a.:o 1670 19420 10520 31610
20 948000 650700 297300 718 25.6 5.50 1650 12790 7190 21630
21 955000 650600 304400 712 27.4 6.20 1610 13830 10520 25960
22 274000 189000 85000 180 31.0 7.0 340 5830 5380 11550
23 931300 434200 497100 760 29.8 6.75 1696 13526 9743 24965
24 931300 434200 497100 760 - -- 1696 13526 9743 24965
25 931300 434200 497100 760 - 1696 13526 9743 249o5
26 1250100 1250100 539 29.0 6.57 1240 14170 10210 25620
27 473500 322400 151100 359 26.6 6.02 625 1215 5240 13280
2i 473500 322400 151100 35? - 825 7215 5240 13280
29 921500 621100 299800 643 28.4 6.43 1490 12620 9080 23190
30 921500 621700 299800 643 - - 1490 12620 9080 23190
31 954500 627100 327400 705 30.2 6.84 1680 14420 12960 29060
TOTAL 21172500 18737400 8435100 20269 I 22.5 6.45 49278 407675 298128 155081
I Average delue
16
-------
TABLE 10
PLANT RECORDS SEPIEtBER £ O5
Average Nitrate eq/I
Ga11on of Water In Blended ater 6a1lcn of Wastewater
Gal Ion Total
To Treated By Saturated Dilute Slow Gallons
Date System By I Passed 9 me As 1103 As U Brine Rinse Backwash Wastewater
1 954500 621100 327400 705 26.0 5.89 1680 14420 12960 29060
2 948000 686400 261600 718 6.4 5.98 1750 14420 5550 21720
3 889000 580000 309000 719 25.6 5.80 1760 14420 10650 26830
4 169000 119400 49600 - 24.8 5.61 20 20 - 40
5 839000 575500 263500 118 --- --- 1660 14420 10420 26500
6 1012000 685400 326600 699 -- --- 2100 1699 10220 14019
7 834000 519500 254500 - 539 23.0 5.21 1350 11900 10360 23610
8 885000 601000 284000 718 25.0 5.66 1790 12370 7740 21900
9 889000 603800 285200 539 21.6 4.89 1330 12860 10190 24380
ID 769000 421700 347300 360 24.0 5.43 920 7240 5060 13220
II 766000 523700 242300 538 28.0 6.34 1310 10810 7150 19270
12 722000 501200 220800 539 -- - 980 10810 8000 19790
13 884000 606600 277400 641 1446 13220 8883 23549
14 894000 606600 277400 641 37.4 8.47 1446 13220 8383 23549
15 884000 608600 277400 641 28.0 6.34 1446 13220 8883 23549
16 801000 554400 246600 642 24.0 5.43 970 10910 7380 19160
Il 875600 622000 253600 756 25.4 5.75 1470 14420 9270 25160
19 767500 106500 661000 419 25.0 5.66 2780 23250 14520 40550
19 767500 108500 661000 41- - - 2780 23250 14520 40550
20 761000 540200 220900 731 - --- 1343 12016 8016 21435
21 761000 540200 220800 731 23.& 5.39 1343 12016 8076 21435
22 781000 540200 220900 131 21.4 4.84 1343 12016 8076 2 145
23 916000 653300 262700 718 20.6 4.66 1500 14420 9770 25690
24 794000 540300 253700 539 23.6 5.34 1220 10810 7410 19440
25 818000 581900 236100 719 25.2 5.71 1610 14420 8230 24260
26 821000 581200 239800 5.39 1230 10810 8630 20670
7 951000 662300 280700 719 1640 14420 9780 25840
LB 884500 613000 271500 719 23.4 5.30 19135 12695 8565 39395
29 884500 613000 271500 719 28.6 47 18135 12695 9565
30 844000 599400 254600 539 23.0 5.21 5430 14270 9720 29420
31 - - -
-- -------
TOTAL 24736100 16168900 8567200 18553 a 25.2 a 5.70 81917 377367 265537 724821
I Average Value
17
-------
IABLE I I
PLA T RECORDS OCTO8ER 1 5
Averaqe itra e e iI
Gallons o water In Slen ed eater 6aUons of Wastewater
- 6a 1 1. ons Total
To Treated Sy Saturated Dilute Sloe Ga llons
Date Syste. By I I Passed Br ne As 1 (03 As 1( Bnne Rinse Backeash Wasteeater
I 876000 602700 273300 39 26,0 5.89 1700 1 410 9190 25300
2 862000 585900 212200 867 26.0 5.89 1060 10820 7590 19470
3 861000 590100 270900 719 25.4 5.75 1480 14420 9600 25500
4 846300 579000 261300 599 24.8 5.61 1423 12016 8043 21482
5 846300 579000 261300 599 - 1423 12016 8043 21°92
6 846300 575000 267300 599 - 1423 12016 8043 21422
7 882000 605900 276100 664 22.0 4.98 1460 14420 9640 25520
8 832000 562200 269800 539 25.2 5.71 -1270 10810 1140 19220
9 644000 439000 205000 539 24.6 5.57 1010 10820 7250 17080
(0 929000 602500 326200 719 25.0 5.66 1530 13950 7200 22680
II 846600 416400 430200 419 22.0 6.34 586 8566 6243 15795
12 846600 416400 430200 419 33.0 7.47 986 8566 6243 15795
13 816600 416400 30200 419 27.8 6.29 986 8566 6243 15755
14 56000 19300 38700 --- 24.0 5.43 10 - - 10
15 98000 65200 32200 359 25.6 5.80 850 7210 4470 12530
16 345000 117400 227600 180 24,4 5.52 430 3600 2330 6360
17 334000 196700 137300 237 24.0 5.43 530 3610 2420 6560
18 753600 I6900 234100 519 25.0 5.66 1350 12013 8020 2 1 S3
19 753600 $18900 234700 579 --- --- 1350 12013 8020 21 a.s
20 753600 518900 234100 519 - 1350 12013 6020 21303
21 595000 424200 170800 357 23.6 5.34 520 7210 4950 t2aS O
22 549000 385700 163300 359 22.4 5.07 850 1210 4760 12820
23 413000 322700 90300 539 25.0 5.66 1280 10820 7300 19400
24 542000 422800 119200 359 24.4 .52 840 1210 4850 12900
25 589700 458900 129800 461 25.6 5.80 1036 9613 6330 16979
26 562700 458900 129800 461 - - 1036 9613 6330 16979
27 588700 458900 129800 461 - 1036 9613 6330 16979
28 621000 490600 140400 539 23.0 5.21 1380 10810 7100 19290
29 525000 402100 122900 359 25.6 5.80 950 1210 4550 12710
30 413000 3 1 .7400 105600 539 27.4 6.20 1290 10810 7050 19150
31 462000 350600 111400 360 24.4 5.52 760 1210 4800 12770
T0i .L 20066600 13527400 6539200 14448 23.3 4 5.73 33585 299184 198099 5303b7
I Average Value
18
-------
TABLE 12
PLANT RECORDS HOVE BER 1985
Averaqe Nitrate sq/i
Gailcns of Water In Blended Water Ealions of Wastewater
Ba llons Total
To Treated By Saturated Dilute Slow
Date System 6y 1 X Passed Brine As l O3 As N Brine Rinse Backwash Wastewater
1 306000 228000 78000 239 20.4 4.62 500 48*6 3106 8412
2 306000 228000 78000 239 -- 500 4806 3106 8412
3 306000 22800 78000 239 - 500 4806 3106 8412
4 497000 378600 118400 359 24.4 5.52 600 7210 4620 12430
5 650000 490700 159300 539 25.0 5.66 860 10820 6910 16590
6 638000 484100 153300 539 22.0 4.98 1010 10810 7090 18910
7 633000 493800 139200 539 22.4 5.07 1060 10820 7050 18930
8 787700 593700 194000 359 23.0 5.21 1166 10813 6590 185 9
9 787700 593700 194000 359 - 1166 10813 6590 18569
10 787700 593700 194000 359 - 1166 10813 6590 18569
Ii 650000 490700 159300 359 860 10820 6910 859i)
12 584000 453200 130800 360 24.0 5.43 1460 7210 5870 [ 4540
13 638000 472000 166000 359 26.0 5.89 740 7200 4550
14 970D0 494900 102100 359 29.4 6.43 530 7210 4720 12460
15 612000 451700 160300 359 27.0 6.11 703 7210 4726 l253
lb 612000 451700 160300 359 - 703 7210 4726
17 612000 451700 160300 359 - 703 7210 4726 12639
18 516000 289700 228300 359 27.2 6.16 550 7220 4730 l23 .
19 705000 603500 101500 360 29.2 6.61 4500 1210 4630 163t.,)
20 557000 482200 74800 359 V.6 6.25 8000 7210 4470 19690
21 620000 540600 79400 539 27.0 6.11 1010 8900 4580 14490
22 600700 523400 77300 360 27.4 6.20 653 7866 5166 13685
23 600700 523400 77300 360 - - 653 7866 5166 13685
24 600700 523400 77300 3o0 653 7866 5166 13.685
25 594000 516600 77400 331 27.6 6.25 780 7210 4560 12550
26 619000 619000 --- 359 26.0 5.89 560 7210 4690 12460
27 897000 797900 99100 656 24.0 5.43 373 12016 7706 21095
28 897000 797900 99100 656 1313 12018 7706 21095
29 897000 797900 99100 656 - 1373 12016 7706 21095
30 897000 797900 99100 656 -- 1373 12016 7706 21095
31 - -
TOTAL 19007200 15 2200 3615000 12295 25.5 a 5.77 37078 257209 164968 459255
a AYeraqe Value
19
-------
TABLE 13
PLANT RECORDS DECEMBER i925
Aver qe Nitrate .η i!
Gallons of Water In blended later 6allons of Wastewater
Gallons Total
To Treated By Saturated Dilute Slow 6alloni
Date Syste. By I I Passed Brine As N03 As N Brine Rir.se Backwash Wastewater
2 489000 483500 5500 354 26.0 5.89 16440 7210 2660 26310
3 588000 538400 49800 360 27.0 6.11 1000 7210 6430 14640
4 558000 513900 44100 359 27.4 o.20 610 7200 4690 12500
5 526800 484400 42400 359 27.0 6.11 758 7038 3S08 11704
6 526800 484400 42400 359 - 758 7038 3908 11704
7 528900 484400 42400 359 758 7038 3908 11704
8 526800 484400 42403 359 758 7038 3908 11704
9 586000 519100 66900 359 24.4 5.52 840 7900 5610 14350
10 548000 406200 141800 359 23.4 5.30 B50 7210 2920 10980
11 588000 404800 193200 180 22.0 4.99 440 3600 4670 8710
12 633000 413300 219700 359 25.0 5.66 690 7210 4680 12580
13 607700 337100 270600 240 24.0 5.43 460 1800 307 2567
14 607700 337100 210600 240 - 460 1800 307 2567
IS 607700 337100 270600 240 - - 460 1800 307 2567
16 644000 348400 295600 179 26.4 5.98 170 360 3680 4210
17 579000 312700 266300 359 26.0 5.89 - 5190 510 4910 10610
18 658000 351800 300200 240 26.4 5.98 6410 3600 2390 12400
19 503000 277900 225100 179 23.8 5.39 390 3610 2610 6610
20 755600 414700 340900 29? 26.6 6.02 660 6006 3737 10403
21 755600 414700 340900 299 --- - 660 6006 3737 10403
2i 755600 414700 340900 299 - - 660 6006 3737 10403
23 1086900 966900 120000 180 -- 395 3729 2666 6190
24 1086900 966900 120000 180 - - 395 3729 2666 6790
25 1086900 966900 120000 180 - 395 3729 2665 6790
26 1086900 966900 120000 lEO -- 395 3729 2666 6790
27 1086900 966900 120000 180 -- 395 3729 2666 6790
28 1086900 966900 120000 lEO - 395 3729 2686 6790
29 1086900 966900 120000 180 - 395 3729 2666 6790
30 1086900 966900 120000 180 395 3729 2866 6790
31 1089500 1089500 - 180 -- - 3350 3605 2445 9400
TOTAL 22355800 1 ,593700 4762100 7960 25.4 4 5.75 45932 140627 96787 283346
Average Value
20
-------
delivered to the distribution system. The remainder of the
columns list the type of wastewater produced and the daily
totals. The last line of each of the above tables gives the
total water quantities and monthly average nitrate levels.
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF RAW. TREATED AND BLENDED WATER
Table 14 lists the anion compositions of raw water from
Well No. 2, treated, and blended water. These data are taken
from monthly analyses performed by a State certified
laboratory.
It can be noted that the raw water quality gradually
improved and nitrate values dropped below the maximum
contaminant level in June 1985. Continuation of operation was
required by the State of C 1ifornia to maintain nitrate below
7.9 mg N03-N/L (35 mg N03/L). Decreases in the other
interferring anions also occurred over this period of
operation. In January, 1986 the plant was taken out of
operation to modify the brine distributors and install the
fivefoot beds. It can be noted that nitrate levels in raw
water began to increase in early 1986 following this period of
shutdown. An analysis of these trends is given in Section 10
of this report.
Pk NT SETTINGS
Table 15 shows brine dosages and service batch with
monthly summaries of other data. The December, 1984 plant
settings were the same as for the immediate previous months.
Salt dose was maintained at 5.61 pounds per cubic foot of
resin (1.5 BV of 6%). Actual measured amounts varied, but
averaged 5.42. If the plant were shut down and then restarted
out of sequence, some vessels could receive either a double
regeneration or less than one and cause an increase or
decrease in this average number. Changes in service batches
were made in December, 1985 to reflect lower nitrate levels in
raw water. The percent of treated water in the distributed
blend was manually adjusted from time to time to reflect
actual or anticipated seasonal changes in untreated water
composition and to maintain the nitrate level below 7.9 mg
N03-N/L (35 mg N03-L) as required by the State operating
permit.
Although ri trate levels in untreated water tended to
decrease from irc 1 nth to month, these changes were not
significant enough to require major changes in operating
conditions. In December, 1985 nitrate levels were well below
the MCL in the untreated water. However, the plant was kept
in operation according to the State permit.
21
-------
TABLE 14
MONTHLY ANION ANALYSES BY CERTIFIED LAB
G/L
Nitrate ** Sulfate * Bicarbonal-e Chloride
To nth Raw Trt Bind Raw Trt Bind Raw Trt Bind Raw Trt Bind
184 7]. 25 4J 1i5 0 34 104 100 102 88 203 169
484 66 21 37 95 0 38 113 21 38 84 208 161
584 60 20 28 100 0 16 100 38 80 77 22 177
684 56 13 26 95 0 27 87 75 50 75 177 158
784 58 14 24 85 0 21 70 57 67 74 174 148
884 50 10 14 80 0 0 69 61 55 68 155 154
984 49 3 20 76 0 17 75 43 49 58 148 128
1084 51 13 31 60 0 36 80 21 50 60 166 122
11 84 62 17 28 80 0 28 82 47 54 62 159 112
1284 50 15 27 75 0 26 78 70 45 59 139 117
185 58 18 37 90 0 42 88 85 63 90 155 121
285 52 16 28 82 0 29 78 12 57 57 172 115
385 44 12 28 70 0 32 76 48 65 55 144 119
485 52 14 22 80 0 17 81 90 64 61 135 127
585 49 13 15 68 0 0 75 22 17 60 159 165
685 43 12 21 68 0 21 67 13 46 53 153 109
785 41 12 20 55 0 20 66 17 44 50 137 102
885 41 11 60 0 63 10 49 140
985 40 11 19 60 0 22 60 21 36 47 131 94
1085 40 11 21 73 0 19 77 23 47 63 125 94
1185 40 17 0 92
1285 33 9 28 50 0 31 67 62 65 46 100 67
186 35 9 21 52 0 25 64 11 49 44 131 83
286 52 7 29 80 0 34 75 21 62 67 86 104
386 36 11 20
486 37 3 23
586 52 10 36
686 63 12 39
786 48 12 39
886 50 16 28
986 58 18 31
1086 47 13 24
1186 33 16 24 49 68 38
1286 49 18 23 75 79 63
* 0 = less than 5.00
** Concentration of nitrates are given as mg N03/L.
To convert to mg N03-N/L, divide values in above table by 4.43.
22
-------
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OP OPERATING DATA TO .JANUARY 1, 1986 DATA
Salt Dose
Mg/L in Blends
Lbs/Cu Ft Lbs/Kgal %Treated* 1000 Gal Cu MG
_ 9D _ _9!_ 2 _ D4 A Y E
689 5.99 2.01 65.20 21.20 9.79 5307 5.31
7-89 6.35 2.*e 7*.00 22.30 5.0 3595 9.91
6.96 2.89 87.20 29.70 5.50 3002 11.91
9-89 6.90 2.69 80.90 23.90 5.29 9295 16.15
10-89 6.35 2.10 69.50 23.80 5.38 9738 20.89
1189 6.55 2.62 83.80 23.20 5.29 3771 29.66
6.36 2.99 76.10 23.20 5.2 f 9110
1269 5.60 1.70 61.70 29.33 5.99 12902 91.17
1 OS 5.08 1.111 66.50 26.60 5.01 7826 99.00
2- 6 5 9.85 1.85 79.20 20.10 6.35 16695 65.09
3 05 9.90 1.60 66.70 25.70 5.01 6615 72.96
f-OS 5.63 1.95 67.03 21.90 9.83 9037 76.30
S-OS 5.91 2.29 00.70 26.70 6.03 6070 89.37
6-89 5.78 2.21 79.30 29.80 5.60 19962 103.03
7-85 5.56 2.09 70.10 25.10 5.90 21918 129.25
885 5.57 1.97 69.00 28.50 6.99 27173 152.92
9-8 5 5.91 1.99 SS .qO 25.20 5.69 29736 177.15
10es 5.50 1.91 67.90 25.30 5.71 20067 197.22
1165 9.97 1.71 01.00 25.50 5.76 19007 216.23
1285 5.53 1.90 78.70 25.90 -S.7f 22356 230.59
5.92 1.89 70.98 29.66 9.00 16139
Service Batch Per Vessel (gallons) BV
Prior to 11/6/85 l659.OOx 100 260.93
11/6/85 2000.00 314.56
12/12/85 2 500.OOx 100 393.21
1/1/86 5ft beds tnstallcd
* Averages per gLven month
23
-------
Plant adjustments were made in December to accomodate the
installation of the fivefoot resin beds and to reflect the
drop in raw water nitrate.
EVALUATION OF PRIMARY PLP NT PERFORMANCE TO JANUARY 1, 1986
For the purpose of this analysis, as in Volume 1 of this
report, plant performance data is considered to be primary and
secondary in nature.
Prir ary performance relates to ch mica1 factors involved
in the process such as nitrate leakage, regenerant used, brine
efficiencies and effluent histories. These factors together
with the resin used determina the primary adjustments which
must be made to operate the plant successfully and
efficiently. These parameters are also predictable based on
various models of resin interaction with feed and product
waters.
Secondary performance factors relate to non-critical
plant adjustments such as the amount of water used for
diluting brine, blending raw with treated water, and
backwashing. These factors, although important for proper
plant operation, are not critical for achieving best chemical
efficiency but are more related to hydraulic efficiency.
These parameters are more or less left to the operator to
determine and may vary due to physical design of the plant.
CRITERIA OF PRIMARY PERFORMANCE
Primary performance data is evaluated by comparing the
actual performance data with that which can be estimated from
ion exchange theory. The major parameters related to
operating cost here are nitrate leakage and the consumption of
regenerant salt per amount of nitrate removed from raw water.
During the 1985-1986 period of operation only one brine dosage
(although brine dosages varied due to lack of precise control)
and bed life were used while blending percentages were
frequently altered. The latter parameter is not considered an
adjustment to the ion exchange system per se but rather an
adjustment to the distribution system only because changes in
blend percentages do not effect brine use efficiency (BUF).
Five criteria can be used to evaluate plant performance.
These are:
1. Salt Dosage Reguir.inents
2. Brine Use Factors
3. Nitrate Leakages
4. Column Efficiency
5. Effluent Histories
24
-------
These quantities can be measured and compared to
projected values or estimates from theoretical considerations
to determine if the plant performance was optimum or, if not,
to determine the cause of inefficiency.
ESTIMATES OF SALT DOSAGE. BRINE
USE FACTOR. ArID NITRATE LEAKAGE
The amount of salt required for regenerating a nitrate
spent bed can be estimated by the method described in
Reference 2 provided a Type I or II strong base anion resin is
used. Various factors must be known or closely estimated
about the feed water and product water compositions and resin
properties. Actually, before starting operation of the plant
such a calculation was made to adjust initial salt loading and
useful bed volumes to breakthrough, BV(N).
The plant operating parameters were adjusted as described
in Volume 1 of this report (Reference 1) and were as reviewed
above. They were maintained until January of 1986 when
changes were made to accoinodate the fivefoot deep resin bed.
From the amount of nitrate, sulfate, bicarbonate and
chloride ions in the raw water (See Table 14) and using 1300
meq/L for anion resin capacity and a value of 4 for the
nitrate to chloride selectivity coefficient, K(NC), nitrate
leakages at given brine dosages can be predicted by the method
referred to above. From this information a Brine Use Facto±
(BUF) can also be predicted. The BUF is defined as the
chemical equivalents of sodium chloride consumed as
regenerating brine by the plant to remove one chemical
equivalent of nitrate from the feed water. This value is
always greater than one in an ion exchange plant because
chloride is required for the removal of other anions from the
spent resin bed. Because of the higher selectivity of the
resin for nitrate than chloride further inefficiency is
introduced.
Projected nitrate leakage and the best achievable BUF
based on ion exchange theory and the particular process
employed were estimated for each month using the average brine
dosages and the service By. The results of these estimates
are shown in Figures 1 through 13.
Each Figure is a self-consistent set of data or
conditions representing chemical parameters for the feed
water, product water, regenerant and resin composition. This
set of conditions is the best performance expected from a
theoretical model of the process (Reference 2). The required
input for the calculations are the resin capacity, the service
By, feed water composition, the first six lines of each
25
-------
WATER AND COLUMN CHEMISTRY
FOR PLANT BV OF 260
MG N03/L = 50
MG N03N/L = 11.2943302
SULFATE MG/L = 75
CHLORIDE MG/L = 59
BICARBONATE MG/L = 78
VOL.CAPACITY (EO/L)= 1.3
BV(N)= 475
NITRATETOCHLORIDE ED CONST
MG N03/L IN TREATED WATER
MS N03N/L IN TREATED WATER
MOLE FRACTION N03 IN TREATED WATER
MOLE FRACTION N03 ON RESIN AT RUN START
BV(N)OF REGENERATED RESIN
POUNDS NACL TO REMOVE S04 FROM ONE CU FT
MOLE FRACT.N03 ON RESIN END OFRUN
POUNDS NACL/Cu FT TO REMOVE N03
POUNDS NACL/cu FT RESIN NEEDED
BY OF 67..NACL NEEDED
BRINE USE FACTOR
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL TREATED WATER-
PER CENT TREATED N BLEND
POUNDS NACL/i000 GAL BLENDED WATER @ 30 MG/L
FIGURE 1 DEC. 1984 PROJECTED OPERATING DATA
=4
= 13.6
= 3.07205783
= .0413127814
= .14702864
= 405.85111
RESIN= 1.48068237
= .264447994
= 4.1219653
= 5.60264768
= 1.49803414
= 9-8138331
2.88083489
= 54.9450549
N03= 1.58287631
26
-------
WATER AND COLUMN CHEMISTRy
FOR PLANT By OF 260
MG N03/L 58
MG NO3N/L = 13.1014231
SULFATE MG/L 90
CHLORIDE MG/L = 68
BICARBONATE MG/L = 88
VOL.CAPACITY (EO/L)= 1.3
BV(N)= 403
NITRATETO_CHLORIDE ED CONST = 4
MG NO3/L IN TREATED WATER = 21
MG N03N/L IN TREATED WATER = 4.7436187
MOLE FRACTION N03 IN TREATED WATER = .054908681
MOLE FRACTION N03 ON RESIN AT RUN START = .188572004
3V(N)OF REGENERA RESIN = 327.772937
POUNDS NACL TO REPICVE S04 FROM ONE CU FT RESIN= 1.77681885
tIOLE FRACT.N03 ON RESIN END OFRUN = .307926843
POUNDS NACL/ClJ FT TO REMOVE N03 = 3.27414384
POUNDS NACL/CU FT RESIN NEEDE = 5.05096268
BV OF 6Y. NACL NEEDED = 1.35052479
BRINE USE FACTOR = 8.70400586
POUNDS NACL! 1000 GAL TREATED WATER = 2.59716304
PER CENT ThEATED IN BLEND = 75.6756757
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL BLENDED WATER @ 30 MG/L r O3 1.96542063
FIGURE 2 JAN. 1985 PROJECTED OPERATING DATA
27
-------
WATER AND COLUMN CHEMISTRY
FOR PLANT BV OF 260
MG N03/L = 52
MG NQ3N/L = 11.7461035
SULFATE MG/L = 82
CHLORIDE MG/L = 57
BICARBONATE t iG/L = 78
VCL.CAPACITv (EO/L)= 1.3
BV(N): 448
NITRATETO_CHLORIDE ED CONST = 4
MG N03/L IN TREATED WATER = 17.6
MG N03N/L IN TREATED WATER = 3.97560425
MOLE FRACTION N03 IN TREATED WATER = .0522651212
MOLE FRACTION N03 ON RESIN AT RUN START = .180723827
BV(N)OF REGENERATED RESIN = 367.735226
POUNDS NACL TO REMOVE S04 FRGM ONE LU FT RESIN= 1.61887939
MOLE FRACT.N03 ON RESIN END OFRUN = .291691569
POUNDS NACL/CU FT TO REMOVE N03 = 3.235C 9994
POUNDS NACL/CU FT RESIN NEEDED = 4.85396933
BV OF 67. NACL NEEDED = 1.29785249
BRINE USE FACTOR = 8.99674134
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL TREATED WATER = 2.49587019
PER CENT TREATED IN BLEND = 63.9534994
POUNDS NACL/loflo GAL BLENDED WATER @ 30 MG/L N03= 1.59619605
FIGURE 3 FEB. 1985 PROJECTED OPERATING 0A,A
28
-------
WATER AND COLUMN CHEMISTRY
FOR PLANT BV OF 260
MG N03/L 44
MG N03-N/L = 9.93901062
SULFATE MG/L = 70
CHLORIDE MG/L = 55
BICARBONATE MG/L = 76
JOL.CAPACITV (EQ/L)= 1.3
BV(N)= 520
NITRATETO-CHLORIDE EO CONST = 4
MG NO3/L IN TREATED WATER = 13.25
MG N03-N/L IN TREATED WATER - = 2.99299751
MOLE FRACTION N03 IN TREATED WATER = .0430587778
MOLE FRACTION N03 ON RESIN AT RUN START .152531633
BV(N)DF REGENERATED RESIN 440.983926
POUNDS NACL TO REMOVE S04 FRCM ONE Cu FT RESIN= 1.38197021
MOLE FRACT.N03 ON RESIN END OFRUN - = .251725182
POUNDS NACL/Cu FT TO REMOVE N03 = 3.52239285
POUNDS NACL/C(j FT RESIN NEEDED = 4.90436306
BV OF 67. NACL NEEDED = 1.31132702
BRINE USE FACTOR = 10. 1691401
POUNDS NACL/ 1000 GAL TREATED WATER = 2.52178273
PER CENT TREATED IN BLEND = 45.Z2B4 53
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL BLENDED WATER @ 30 MG/L N03= 1.14812872
FiGURE 4 MAR. 1985 PROJECTED OPERATING DATA
29
-------
4ATER AND COLUMN CHEMISTRY
FOR PLANT BY OF 260
MG NO3/L = 52
MG N03-N/L = 11.7461035
SULFATE M )
CHLORIDE P1G/L = 61
BICARBONATE MG/L = 81
VOL.CAPACITY (EO/L) 1.3
BV(N) 451
NITRATETO-CHLORIDE EQ CONST = 4
MG N03/L IN TREATED WATER 14.7
MG N03N/L IN TREATED WATER = 3.205309
MOLE FRACT:oN NO . IN TREATED WATER = .0427081731
MOLE FRACTIUN 1403 ON RESIN AT RUN START = .151430706
BV(N)OF REGENERATE?) RESIN = :83.5031
POUNDS NACL TO REMOE 504 FROM ONE CU FT RESIN 1.57939433
MOLE FRACT.NO3 ON RESIN END OFRUN = .271753267
POUNDS NACL/CU FT TO REMOVE NO = 4.07710755
POUNDS PJACL/CU FT RESIN NEEEED = 5.65650208
BY OF 67. NACL NEEDED = 1.5124371
BRINE USE FACTOR = 9.66909589
FOUNDS NACL/1000 GAL TPEATED WATER 2.90856 37
PER CENT TREATED IN BLEND = 58.96 123 :
PflUNDS IJACLJ1000 GAL BLENDED WATER @ 30 11 iL NO3= 1.71549472
FIGURE 5 APR. 1985 PROJECTED CPERATThIG DATA
30
-------
WATER AND COLUMN CHEMISTRY
FOR PLANT BY OF 260
=4
13.15
2.97040886
.041:715114
147214577
429. 180524
1. :42485:5
2&85978
S I%7 t
.t. JI
5.41560886
S A flr.fl7
£
9.63174261
= 2.7 5466107
= 52.998605 :
N33 1.47583153
FIGURE 6 MAY 1985 PROJECTED OPERAT iNG DATA
MG N03/L 49
MG N03-N/L = 11.0684436
SULFATE MG/L 68
CHLORIDE MG/L = 60
BICARBONATE MG/L = 75
VOL.CAPACITY (EO/L) 1.3
BV(N)= 503
NITRATETO-CHLORIDE EQ CONST
MG N03/L IN TREATED WATER =
MG N03N/L IN TREATED WATER =
MOLE FRACTION N03 IN TREATED WATER =
MOLE FRACTION N03 ON RESIN AT RUN START
BVCN)OF REGENERATED RESIN =
POUNDS NACL TO REMOVE S04 FROM ONE CU FT RESIN
MOLE FRACT.N03 ON RESIN END OFRUN =
POLNDS NACL/CU FT TO REMOVE N03 =
POUNDS NACL/CU FT RESIN NEEDED =
BY CF 67. NACL NEEDED =
BRINE USE FACTOR
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL TREATED WATER
PER CENT TREATED t N BLEND
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL BLENDED WATER @ 30 MG/L
31
-------
=4
10. 15
9-;74QQ4
CL48_048 55
126108468
469.502441
1.3424 55 :5
207641
4. 43793271
5.78041906
4
£
= 11.2194254
= 2.97224293
= 39.5738204
N03= 1.17623008
FIGURE 7 JUN. 1985 PROJECTED OPERAT G DATA
WATER AND COLUMN CHEMISTRY
FOR PLANT BV OF 260
MS N03/L = 43
MG N03N/L = 9.71312401
SULFATE MG/L = 68
CHLORIDE MG/L = 53
BICARBONATE MG/L = 67
VOL.CAPACITY (EO/L)= 1..:
DV(N)= 537
NITRATETOCHLORIDE EO CCNST
MS N03/L IN TREATED WATER =
MS N03N/L IN TREATED WATER =
MOLE FRACTION N03 IN rREATED WATER
MOLE FRACTION N03 ON RESIN AT RUN START =
BV(N)OF REGENERATED RESIN =
POUNDS NACL TO REMOVE S04 FROM ONE CU FT RESIN=
MOLE FRACT.N03 ON RESIN END OFRUN
POUNDS NACL/CU FT REMOVE N03 =
POUNDS NACL/CJ FT RESIN NEEDED =
DV OF 67. NACL NEEDED =
BRINE USE FACTOR
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL TREATED WATER
PER CENT TREATED IN BLEND
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL BLENDED WATER @ 30 MG/L
32
-------
WATER AND COLUMN CHEMISTRY
FOR PLANT BV OF 260
MG N03/L = 41
MG N03N/L
SULFATE MG/L
CHLORIDE M6/L
BICARBONATE MG/L = 66
VOL.CAPACITY (EO/L)= 1.3
BV(N)= 609
NITRATETO--CHLORIDE EO CONST
MG N03/L IN TREATED WATER
MG N03N/L IN TREATED WATER =
MOLE FRACTION N03 IN TREATED WATER
MOLE FRACTION N03 ON RESIN AT RUN START =
BV(N)OF REGENERATED RESIN =
POUNDS NACL TO REMOVE S04 FROM ONE CU FT RESIN=
MOLE FRACT..N03 ON RESIN END OFRUN =
POUNDS NACL/CU FT TO REMOVE N03 =
POUNDS NACL/CU FT RESIN NEEDED =
BV OF 67. NACL NEEDED =
BRINE USE FACTOR
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL TREATED WATER
PER CENT TREATED IN BLEND
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL BLENDED WATER @ 30 MG/L
FIGURE 8 JULY 1985 PROJECTED OPERATING DATA
= 9.2613Z08
c-c.
C.
=4
= 8.8
1. 987bZ212
033027 146
120 19 048
Z36.. 150781
1. 08583374
- 224070016
4. 57920235
5.66503609
1.51471553
= 11.2174347
= 2.91291449
= 34. 1614907
N03= .995095009
33
-------
WATER AND COLUMN CHEMiSTRY
FOR PLANT BV OF 260
GAL TREATED
IN BLEND
GAL BLENDED
FIGURE 9 AUG. 1985 PROJECTED OPERAT1NG DATA
9. 26l 5O8
MG N03/L = 41
MG N03N/L
SULFATE MG/L = 60
CHLORIDE MG/L = 49
BICARBONATE MG/L =
VOL.CAPACITY (E0/L)= 1.3
BV(N)= 587
NITRATETOCHLORIDE EO CONST
MG N03/L IN TREATED WATER =
MG N03-N/L IN TREATED WATER =
MOLE FRACTION N03 IN TREATED tAIATER =
MOLE FRACTION N03 ON RESIN AT RUN START =
BVCN)OF REGENERATED RESIN =
POUNDS NACL TO REMOVE S04 FROM ONE CU FT RESIN=
MOLE FRACT.N03 ON RESIN END OFRUN =
POUNDS NACL/CU FT TO REMOVE N03 =
POUNDS NACL/CU FT RESIN NEEDED =
BV OF 67. NACL NEEDED =
BRINE USE FACTOR
POUNDS NACL/1000
ER CENT TREATED
POUNDS NACL/lOOo
=4
9.21
2.08041563
f A
_..,,_,_a a _,
124568772
514.138868
1.1845459
71 17159
A
p.
5. 57311839
1.49013861
= 11.1777523
WATER = 2.86565117
= 34.6020761
WATER @ 30 M6/L N03= .991574798
34
-------
WATER AND COLUMN CHEMISTRY
FOR PLANT BV OF 260
MG N03/L = 40
MG N03-N/L
SULFATE MG/L
CHLORIDE MG/L = 47
BICARBONATE MG/L = 60
VOL.CAPACITY (EO/L)= 1.
BV(N)= 596
NITRATETOCHLORIDE EQ CONST
MG N03/L IN TREATED WATER =
MG NO N/L IN TREATED WATER =
MOLE FRACTION N03 IN TREATED WATER =
MOLE FRACTION N03 ON RESIN AT RUt L ST, RT =
BV(N)OF REGENERATED RESIN =
POUNDS NACL TO REMOVE S04 FROM ONE CU FT RESIN=
MOLE FRACT.N03 ON RESIN END OFRUN =
POUNDS NACL/CLJ FT TO REMOVE NO =
POUNDS NACL/CU FT RESIN NEEDED =
By OF 67. NACL NEEDED =
BRINE USE FACTOR
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL TREATED
PER CENT TREATED IN BLEND
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL BLENDED
FIGURE 10 SEP. 1985 PROJECTED OPERATING DATA
= 9.0354642
= 60
=4
8.21
1 8545°03
r r , L
L iJ J
.115148027
527. 4292 8
1. 1845459
.217696414
4.72510489
5.90965079
1. 580 1205
11.8527201
WATER = 3.038693
- I iV L A
WATER @ 0 MG/L N03= .955864526
35
-------
WATER ND COLUMN CHEMISTRY
FOR PLANT BV OF 260
=4
11.2
2. 52992 98
.047 198401
q
4 SI / J
Art - nc%
.,.Ja_ _,_ _
1.44119751
21B681 74
4. 05 08884
5. 49620635
1.46959528
12. 168123
= 2.8261447]
= 34.722222
WATER i 0 MG,. N0= .981300266
FIGURE 11 OCT. 1965 PROJECTED OPERATiNG DATA
= 9.0354642
MG N03/L = 40
MG N03-N/L
SULFATE MG/L = 73
CHLORIDE MG/L =
BICARBONATE MG/L = 77
VOL.CAPACITY (EO/L)= 1.
BV(N)= 522
NITRATETO-CHLORIDE EO CONST
MG N03/L IN TREATED WATER
MG N03N/L IN TREATED WATER =
MOLE FRACTION N03 IN TREATED WATER
MOLE FRACTION N03 ON RESIN AT RUN START =
BV(N)OF RECENERATED RESIN =
POUNDS NACL TO-REMOVE S04 FROM ONE CU FT RESIN
MOLE FRACT.N03 ON RESIN END OFRUN =
POUNDS NACL/CU FT TO REMOVE N0 =
POUNDS NACL/CU FT RESIN NEEDED =
BV OF 67. NACL NEEDED =
BRINE USE FACTOR
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL TREATED WATER
PER CENT TREATED IN BLEND
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL BLENDED
36
-------
WATER AND COLUMN CHEMISTRY
FOR PLANT DV CF 362
MS N03/L 40
MG N03-N/L
SULFATE MG/L
CHLORIDE MG/L = 47
BICARBONATE MG/L = 60
VOL.CAPACITY (EO/L)= 1
BV(N) 596
NITRAThT0-CHLORIDE EO CONST =
tIG N03/L IN TREATED WATER =
115 N03N/L IN TREATED WATER
MOLE FRACTION N03 IN TREATED WATER =
MOLE FRACTION N03 ON RESIN AT RUN START =
BV(N)OF RE6ENERATED RESIN =
POUNDS NACL TO REMOVE S04 FROM ONE CU FT RESIN=
MaLE FRACT.N03 ON RESIN END OFRUN =
POUNDS NACL/CU FT TO REMOVE N03
POUNDS NACL/CU FT RESIN NEEDED =
DV OF fr7. NACL NEEDED
BRINE USE FACTOR
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL TREATED WATER
PER CENT TREATED IN BLEND
POUNDS NACL/1000 GAL BLENDED WATER @ 30 MG/L
FIGURE 12 NOV. 1985 PROJECTED OPERATiNG DATA
= 9.0354642
= 60
4
11.65
2. 63157895
0447099986
157689149
502. 072537
1.64925236
285017934
4.08188987
5.73114223
1 .53239097
9.25762618
2.11656211
= 35.2733686
N03= .746582756
37
-------
WATER AND COLUMN CHEMISTRY
FOR PLANT By OF 400
GAL TREATED
IN BLEND
GAL BLENDED
=4
9-97
2.25203945
0405252063
144529555
597.945018
1.51864859
58822359
4.11111249
5.62976108
1.50528371
10. 1310888
= 1.88160464
= 13.0264872
P403= .245106987
FiGURE 13 DEC. 1985 PROJECTED OPERATiNG DATA
PIG N03/L 33
PIG P403-N/L = 7.45425796
SULFATE MS/L = 50
CHLORIDE MG/L 46
BICARBONATE MG/L = 67
VOL.CAPACITY (EQ/L)= 1.3
BV(N)= 698
NITRATE-TOCHLORIDE EO CONST
MG N03/L IN TREATED WATER
PIG N03-N/L IN TREATED WATER =
MOLE FRACTION N03 IN TREATED WATER =
MOLE FRMCTION N03 ON RESIN AT RUN START =
BV(N)OF REGENERATED RESIN =
POUNDS NACL TO REMOVE SO4 FROM ONE Cu FT RESIN=
MOLE FRACT..N03 ON RESIN END OFRLJN =
POUNDS NACL/CU FT TO REMOVE N03 =
POUNDS NACL/CU FT RESIN NEEDED =
BV OF 67. NACL NEEDED =
BRINE USE FACTOR =
POUNDS NACL/1000
PER CENT TREATED
POUNDS NACL/1000
WATER
WATER @ 30 MG/L
38
-------
Figure, line 8, an equi.librium constant, and line 9, the
nitrate leakage. Line 7 gives the service BV for a completely
regenerated resin. All other data pertains to a partially
regenerated bed.
To estimate a nitrate leakage at a given brine dosage the
latter parameter is an input and the leakage is an output.
The input value for the service BV must always be less than
the value in line 7 wnich represents 100% bed usage.
The other data listed in the Figures is obtained as
fallout from the calculations. For example, an estimate of
salt required to remove the sulfate from the resin is made and
can be compared with the amount of salt required to remove
only nitrate. In Figure 1 these amounts are 1.48 lbs/cu. ft.
and 4.12 lbs/cu. ft. respectively. Therefore, if sulfate were
not present, 26% less salt would be required.
COMPARISON OF PLANT PERFORMANCE TO PROJECTED PERFORMANCE
The measure of overall plant efficiency used in McFarland
is a comparison of the observed BUF with the BUF as shown in
the Figures 1 through 13. This comparison is made in Table
16. The ratio of these two multiplied by one hundred
represents a plant performance factor given in the last column
of Table 16. This factor is here called Column Efficiency
which is the percent of the best performance which can be
expected (or what can be considered practically achievable).
This factor represents how well the resin bed is performing in
conjunction with the hydraulic and mechanical features of the
plant. It is independent of the chemical processing
efficiency described above as BUF.
The average Column Efficiency for the thirteen months
shown in Table 16 was 96.27. This means that during this
period of time the plant was operated in such a manner that it
removed 96.27% of the nitrate that it would be expected to
remove after chemical inefficiencies are accounted for.
Table 16 also compares the actual nitrate leakage values
in the treated water to what was projected to be obtained.
The average values obtained were 95.1% of the theoretical
value.
EFFLUENT HISTORIES
Although effluent histories can be estimated from
computer programs as was demonstrated in previous publications
(References 4 and 7), this data is not easily obtainable from
an operating plant unless the beds are run beyond their
capacity. This would be accompanied by nitrate dumping and,
consequently, would be unsafe operation. Effluent history
39
-------
TABLE 16
PROJECTED AND OBSERVED PLANT DATA
Treated
Water
1itrate
Mg/L
BLJF
Column
Efficiency
N03/L
N/L
tise
Factor
Obsv.
Pro- i.
Obsv.
Proj.
Date Obsv. Proj.
1284
15.00
13.60
3.39
3.07
10.29
9.80
95.24
185
ie.oo
21.00
4.07
4.74
8.17
8.70
106.49
285
16.00
17.60
3.61
3.98
8.67
9.00
103.81
385
12.00
13.25
2.71
2.99
9.85
10.20
103.55
485
14.00
14.70
3.16
3.32
5.57
9.70
101.36
585
13.00
13.15
2.94
2.97
9.66
9.63
99.69
685
12.00
10.15
2.71
2.29
11.99
11.22
93.58
785
12.00
880
2.71
1.99
12.55
11.21
8?.32
885
11.00
9.21
2.48
2.08
11.94
11.18
93.63
985
11.00
8.21
2.48
1. 5
13.10
11.85
90.46
1085
11.00
11.20
2.48
2.53
12.19
12.17
99.84
1185
17.00
11.65
3.84
2.63
11. 0
9.26
80.52
1285
9.00
9.97
2.03
2.25
9.80
10.13
103.37
13.15
12.50
2.97
2.82
10.71
10.31
96.27
40
-------
data was reported in Reference 1 up to nitrate breakthrough
and found to be close to the computer generated data. No
further histories were taken during the last two years of
operatic.
SECONDARY PLANT PERFORNANCE 1985
The factors describing the secondary plant performance
for the 1985 year are given in Table 17. These factors are
independent of chemical processing and relate to the
generation of wastewater. The month of highest production was
August 1935 providing over 27 million gallons of delivered
water and is close to the maximum delivery capacity of the
well. Although the amounts for the wash and backwash water
are a set value per cycle, they appear to vary because the
month may end with or without the week end amounts being
included.
The overall percentages of brine and wastewater are
compared in the last two lines of Table 17. The wastewater
disposed to the sewer system was only 2.53% of the water
pumped giving a remarkably high water recovery percentage of
97.47%.
OTHER PL NT DATA - 1985
Other operating data of interest is given in Table 18
which shows the average monthly brine dose for the
regeneration of each vessel. The number of regenerations
varied from about one to three per day. The amount of sodium
chloride used varied from about 11,000 pounds to 53,000 pounds
per month. The amount delivered per truck load to the site is
25,000 pounds per each delivery. The peak month requires
about two deliveries per month and the low month required one
delivery about every two months. Th last column gives the
service volume settings per month. These settings were
increased during the last two months to accomodate the
improvement in water quality and the anticipated changes for
testing the five-foot resin bed operation.
41
-------
TABLE 1Y
SECONDARY PLANT PERFORMANCE FACTORS
Thousand
Gallons of Wastewater
Produced Water Gallons of Brine ( hundreds of gallons)
Date Blend Treated Saturated Dilute Rinse Backwash Total
1284 12402 7647 8322 13220 1658 725 2516
185 7826 5201 5132 13722 874 573 1584
285 16845 12492 11781 30576 2359 1372 4036
385 6615 4415 4205 15430 807 521 1483
485 5837 3910 4295 8180 841 563 1487
585 6070 4900 5148 15154 1036 875 2064
685 19462 14467 16238 41441 3295 2536 6246
785 21418 15009 16500 37646 3376 2424 6178
885 27173 18737 20269 49278 4076 2981 7550
985 24736 16168 l8553 81917 3773 2655 7248
1085 20067 13527 14448 33585 2991 1980 5308
1185 19007 15392 12295 37078 2572 1649 4592
1285 22356 17593 12500 45932 1406 967 2833
Monthly -- ----
Average 16139 11497 11514 32550 2236 1525 4087
% of
Blend 100.00 71.24 .07 .20 1.39 .95 2.53
% of
Trtd 140.38 100.00 .10 .28 1.95 1.33 3.55
42
-------
TABLE 18
OTHER PLANT OPERATING DATA
Average
Setting
Avg Brine* Pounds of of Service
Dose per Number of Sodium Volume per
Regeneration Regenerations Chloride Each Month
Date Igallons) Dur ,ng Month Per Month ( BV) **
1284 179.90 46.26 2028 260
185 163.10 31.46 13584 260
285 155.89 75.57 31184 260
385 157.43 26.71 11130 260
485 181.54 23.66 11368 260
585 173.64 29.65 13626 260
685 185.54 87.52 42981 260
785 181.72 90.80 43675 260
885 178.82 113.35 53 52 260
985 189.68 97.81 4 ,i.09 260
1085 176.56 81.83 38243 260
1185 183.85 66.88 32544 306
1285 180.69 69.18 33087 365
* For 85 cubic foot resin bed
** - One BV = 635.8 gallons
43
-------
SECTION 4
CAPITAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
CAPITAL COSTS
The capital costs for the construction of the nitrate
plant at Well No. 2 were reported in Volume 1 (Reference 1)
and are given here again in Table 19 for comparison to the
costs of the second nitrate plant being constructed at Well
No. 4. Table 19 shows costs for two different sizes of
vessels and resin beds to accommodate threefoct deep beds and
five-foot beds. The project sponsors were interested in data
to compare the performance of the two bed sizes and the
resulting cost differences. Consecuently, the first McFarland
plant was constructed with the taller vessels to accommodate
both beds. The cost was $355,638.
Costs for the second McFarland plant are given in Table
20 and total $392,720, an increase of $37,082 over the first
plant. Although the plant capacities are the sane, overall
design differences amount for the increase. The major cost
increase s due to the control building. The McFarland
decision makers requested a mo.re sophisticated building which
could serve as a laboratory as well as a control room for the
plant and one wit - higher quality aesthetics. The laboratory
is intended for use on future projects. The first plant has a
smaller prefabricated building for this purpose at a much
lower cost. Other differences exist between the two plants.
The cost for the process controller for the second plant
includes programming the plant operation and automatic
reporting and record keeping. It also includes hardware and
software for remote monitoring and plant adjustment by a host
computer/modem system.
The engineering design and procurement costs are actual
contract values.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
In Volume 1 (Reference 1) and previous publications
(References 3, 5 and 6) operation and maintenance costs were
based on a mix of actual and estimated cost data. These costs
have been revised using figures from the McFarland Mutual
Water company files kept for the years 1985 and 1986. The
44
-------
TABLE 19
CAPITAL COSTS, McFARLM D WELL NO. 2 PL .NT (1983)
ITEM
I.X. Vessels (3 included)
On-site Construction
Brine Tank
Other
Resin 255 Cu. ft (3 ft depth)
424 Cu. ft (5 ft depth)
VESSEL SIZE
G D x 6H 6D x 10H*
$111,741
81,154
18,700
40,045
40,045
35,000
56,610
Sub Total
$271,407
$309,250,
Engineering & Athninistratjon
15%
40,711
46,388
Total
$311,118
$355,638
*NcFarlandls Plant
$ 96,511
81,151
18,700
45
-------
TABLE 20
CAPITAL COSTS, McFARLAND WELL 4 PLANT (1987)
ITEM COST
I.X. Vessels (3 ea, 6 ft dia x 6 ft H ft) $ 73,540
On-Site Construction 130,000
Brine Tank 16,917
Other * 64,263
Resin 255 Cu ft (3 ft depth) 48,000
Sub Total - $ 332,720
Engineering & Administration (15%) 60,000
TOTAL $ 192,720
* Includes Process Controller $ 50,763
Nitrate Analyzer 13,500
46
-------
TABLE 21
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
YEAR
COST ITEM
1985
1986
Air Ccmpresser
Hach Kits, Reagents
D.I. Water Service
Piping Supplies
Omega, Panel Repair
Meter Repair
Dionex Repair
AMATEK, batch meter repair
Grainger Compresser Repair
Heater Repair
Valve Actuator Springs
Coinpresser
Chemical Analyses
Telephone
Operator (One Hr/Day)
Engineering/Operator Assist
23 .81
555.99
162 .50
4.20
180.00
692.95
545.15
161. 5
21.60
391.40
49 .50
120.16
3420.05
6000.00
37. 50
1326.00
Sub Total
13273.66
16337.19
Annual Average
Production Related Costs
14805.42
Average $ Per
million gal
P 1 ivered
103.30
245.98
284.85
3505.00
973.21
494.50
398.82
3420.05
5547.98
Salt
Electrical
Sub Total
3464.20
4623.80
18.93
3760.00
2740.00
24.b5
7224.20
7363.80
47
-------
cost data are listed in Table 21.
An explanation of the major cost items in Table 21
follows:
Air Compressors
Two air compressors were purchased in 1985. One was the
main compresser which broke down due to freezing temperatures.
At that zixne, a portable compresser was purchased for use
while the main compresser was being repaired.
Hach Kits. Reagents
These supplies are the nitrate analysis kits for nitrate
and the reagents including nitrate standards for calibration
of the ion chroinatograph.
D.t. Water
Distilled water is required for the nitrate analyses and
for reagents for the ion chromatograph.
Salt
This is the regenerating chemical used in the nitrate
removal process. Latest price per ton was $37.50 delivered to
McFarland.
Omega. Panel Repair
Repairs and rewiring done to main control panel to
reactivate power supply and connect to modem.
Meter Repair
Some components of the outside flow meters were replaced.
Dionex Repair
Repairs were made to the ion chroinatograph. The high
pressure pumps and some valves were replaced. Major expense
during 1986 was replaceirent of the motherboard and
installation of injection valves of latest design. This
Dionex unit had been in service since 1982 on the research
program preceeding the plant operation. These are the first
major repair costs for the instrument. It is expected that
these will not be reocurring costs.
Amatek. Batch Meter Repair
Replacement and repair of the batch meters for measuring
the flow through the vessels was necessary. Problems occurred
48
-------
due to moisture entering the gear box in the transmitter.
Valve Actuator Springs
Some of the automatic valves would not close properly.
This problem was traced to broken actuator springs which had
corroded severely. New springs were purchased and coated for
corrosion protection.
Electrical Power
The electrical power costs were taken from the monthly
power bills. 10% of the power costs were attributed to the
plant and 90% attributable to the cost of bringing water to
the surface. This apportionment is based on actual
measurements of power consumed with the plant operating and
without the plant operating.
Chemical Analyses
The State operating permit requires analyses by certified
laboratory on a monthly basis. Only the distributed water
nitrate levels and electrical conductivity are required. For
prcper operation of the plant it is also desirable to have
monthly checks on untreated and treated .ater of nitrate,
bicarbonate, sulfate, and chloride.
Telephone
A telephune is used at the plant for operation of the
computer modem system and for the convenience of the operator.
Qperator
One hour per day of assistant operator tine is required.
This is an estimate based on the three years experience.
Routine tasks take about one-half hour per day. Some days
when start up and shut down occur or minor repairs are
required take more time. The routine tasks involve changing
the charts on recorders, checking water level in brine tank,
reviewing previous days data, doing Hach test of nitrate,
recording meter readings.
Encd neering/Operator
Because some aspects of the plant require technical
skills beyond what is expected to be available in a small
community, some professional engineering services are required
for proper and economical plant operation. This involves
plant adjustments of brine dose and service volume, rinse and
wash water adjustments, calibration and maintenance of ion
chromatograph, plant inspection and recommendation of repairs,
49
-------
and routine tests on ion exchange resin. In addition, this
involves the remote monitoring of daily operation by computer
modem and maintenance of records of modem acquired data. The
1985 costs for this item were taken from invoices to the water
company f r this period. The 1986 cost was estimated because
separate billings were not made during this time.
TOTAL COSTS
Cost analyses were d :e in different ways to produce
formal normalized technical analyses which allow cost
comparisons between aifferent processes and comparison to
previously made estimates. Cost analyses were also done for
the benefit of the McFarland water user. The latter costs are
more compatible with the cost accounting procedures of the
MCFMWCo and aie significant to the water ussr because these
costs are paid by each householder served by the McFMWCo.
Total consumer cost j Jj amount which must paid y j g
consumers for the entire water system including capital
amortization of all facilities plus all O&M costs ar
management expenses . The most significant part of the total
consumer (or user) cost for this study is the incremental
consumer costs due to the nitrate plant. These incremental
costs are referred to in this report as, CN, consumer costs .
See mathematical definition for CN on page 52.
The cost analyses were done in the following sequence:
Case 1 Total costs are calculated assuming funds for capital
costs were borrowed at current interest rates for repayment
over 20 years.
Case 2 The cost to the McFarland consumer is calculated on
the above basis by prorating cost over the annual water
consumption rate and partial use of the plant is taken into
consideration.
Case 3 The cost to the McFarland consumer for the cost of
operation and maintenance only.
Case 4 The cost to the McFarland consumer for the cost of
operation and maintenance and setasides to pay for a
replacement plant.
Total Cost Case 1
Total costs of operating the McFarland plant include the
cost of amortizing the original Diant investment plus the O&M
costs. These costs are listed in Table 22.
This representation of costs is the conventional method
of placing cost on a normalized basis. The method is useful
50
-------
TABLE 22
TOTAL C0 ,TS
Annual $/1000
O&M Costs Costs Gallons S/Acre-Ft
O&M Fixed Costs* 14805.42 .041 13.3:
Electric $18.93/mg 6909.45 .019 6. 1S
Salt $24.65/mg 8997.25 .025 8.15
Su Total 30712.12 .085 27.69
Capital Costs
$355,638 8% 20 ys 36221.73 .099 32.26
Total Costs 66933.85 .184 59.95
* See Table 21
51
-------
for comparing one process with another and for comparing
projected with actual costs (Reference 9). The electrical
power and salt costs are prorated for the design pacity of
the ?lant (1MG per day) and are based on actual tt .,o O&M cost
experience. The previous conparable cost estimate given in
volume 1 (Reference 1) was $39,756 for the total annual cost
(or 24.5 cents per 1000 gallons). Table 22 is based on actual
cost records and current interest rates rather than projected.
Annual cost is $66,934 (or 18.3 cents per 1000 gallons).
Actual costs are 25% lower than were projected. This
difference is due to use of a 2% lower interest rate for
amortizing capital. 8% is a current figure for public utility
projects. O&M costs are 36% lower than were projected; These
costs are also lower than those published in a recent study
(Reference 9).
Total Cost Case 2
Although the above cost estimates follow .the guidelines
of conventional cost reporting, they do not relate directly to
the water consumer. Water Company Board of Directors and
residents often ask what these costs mean to them as
consumers. All costs must eventually be passed to the
consumer.
There are two aspects to determining consumer costs of
operating a well with nitrate removal. First, the well (and
plant) may not be used 100% of the time. This means the cost
of operation is less than the 100% value of Table 22.
Secondly, the annual capital cost must be paid by the consumer
whether the well and plant are used or not used. If the
annual capital plant costs are prorated over the annual
amount of water delivered to the consumer, the share which
each consumer must pay can be estimated and will be inversley
proportional to water usage. Consumer costs, CN, can be
estimated as follows:
The total consumers water cost can be calculated without
the nitrate well and plant in operation and then compared to
the total cost obtained whan the nitrate well and plant are in
partial (or full) use. The difference is the consumer costs
due to the nitrate plant. The water system in McFarland
consists of several wells, distribution mains, and storage
tanks, with control and monitoring systems. If the amortized
annual capital cost is CS and the annual cost to operate the
system is CSO, then the total annual water cost (AWC) is;
AWC = CS + CSO (1)
When the nitrate plant is added to the system and placed
in operation, CS is increased by the annual capital cost of
the nitrate system, CP, and the annual cost of operating the
52
-------
water system is increased by the 0&M cost for the nitrate
plant, CPO. The total annual water cost with the nitrate
plant (AWCN) is;
AWCN = CS4-CSO+CP+CPO (2)
As pointed out above and shown in Table 21 and 22, the
O&M costs can be classed as variabl or fixed. Variable costs
are designated as VO and fixed are FO., i.e.;
Nitrate Plant O&M Costs CPO = F0+FVO (3)
VO is the variable cost when the plant is in full
production capacity, and f is the well (plant) use factor.
Thus, fVO is the actual variable 0&M costs.
The total consumers water cost per 1000 gallons, without
the nitrate plant is AWC pro-rated over the number of thousand
gallon units of water consumed per year, AR. The tota)
consumers water cost, per 1000 gallons, with the nitrate
plant is AWCN, also pro-rated over AR. The amount paid, per
each 1000 gallons used, by each consumer for the nitrate plant
CN is;
CN = AWCN/AR - AWC/AR (4)
Or if Equations (1) and (2) are substituted into Equation (4);
CN = C P/AR + C P0/AR (5)
Substituting Equation (3);
CN = CP/AR + FO/AR + fVQ/AR (6)
In McFarland, the annual rate cf water consumption is 300
million gallons (AR is 300,000 which is the number of 1000
gallon units consumed per year), the annual amortized plant
cost is $36,221.73 (from Table 22), the annual fixed O&M
costs, FO, are $14,805.42, and the variable O&N costs, f 1 10,
must be calculated based on the costs shown in Tables 21 and
22 and the well and plant usage rate or factor. In 1985, the
plant produced 54.85% of its capacity and in 1986, 39.88%.
The variable O&M costs for full capacity operation, VO, are
$15,906.70. The latter costs were calculated and are
represented in Table 23 and Figure 14.
Therefore, the consumers cost for the nitrate plant and
its operation in 1985 was:
CN = 36221.73/300,000+14805.42/300 ,000
+(.5485x15906.70)/300, 000
= .121+.049+.029 = 24.49 cents per 1000 gallons
53
-------
TABLE 23
VARIABLE O M COSTS
U
$11000 Gallons at Different
Well Use Factors
Annual
0 & H C s Costs
Electric $18.93/mg 6909.45 .019 .017 .015 .013 .011 .009 .008 .007 .006 .005
Salt $ 2 4.65/mg 8997.25 .025 .022 .020 .017 .015 .012 .010 .009 .008 .007
Total 30712.12 .084 .084 .086 .088 .094 .103 .119 .151 .217 .418
-------
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7
WELL USE FACTOR
.8 .9 1.0
FIG. 14 O&M COST AT VARIOUS
WELL USE FACTORS
LP)
.027
.024
.021
.015
.012
.009
.00
.003
U
I-n
7,
Salt
Electric
-------
In 1986:
CM = .121 + .049 + .021 = 19.1 cents per 1000 gallons
The average over the two year period is 21.8 cents. This
cost is 22% of the highest rate per 1000 gal1on currently
charged by the Water Company (See Thble 22).
If the well and plant are rot used, the CosL to the
consumer is 17 cents per 1000 gallons consumed.
Total Cost Cases 3 and
From the above figures the community of McFarland can
estimate the impac+ of construction grants on their water
bills. The nitrate plant at Well Mo. 2 was constructed from a
100% Housing and Urban Development grant. The second nitrate
plant is being constructed also from a 100% appropriation from
the State of California. The payback for these capital
expenditures is zero. The actual costs are for the 0&M terms
of Equation (6).
The average two year consumer cost based on the grants
received is 7.4 cents per 1000 aallons (7.6% of the highest
water rate).
The Water Company should set funds aside for construction
of replacement plants. Tc replace a $355,000 plant in 20
years (assuming zero inflation and an 8% return) $602.70
should be reserved per month ($7,232.40 per year).
Pro-rating this payment over the 300MG annual water usage
rate gives 2.41 cents per 1000 gallons.
Consumer cost for nitrate treatment in McFarland can then
be realistically estimated as 2.41 4 7.40 or 9.81 cents per
1000 gallons.
56
-------
SECTION 5
WASTEWATER QUALITY AND DISPOSAL
QUALITY
December of 1985 was the last month of operation of the
plant with the three-foot resin beds. On December 17
wastewater samples were collected and submitted for inorganics
analyses.
In January, 1986 resin from Vessel 3 was added to Vessel
1 to bring the bed depth to 5feet and ti-c Lemalnder was
pldced in Vessel 2. Vessel 2 and 3 were filled to the five
foot level with new resin. The resin status then was;
Vessel 1 5ft old resin
Vessel 2 3ft old resin
2ft new resin
Vessel 3 5ft new resin
Vessels 2 anc 3 were allowed to rinse slowly for 24 hours
to wash the fresh resin. The plant was restarted on Febr-iary
18 after winter maintenance ar 1 d repair. Samples were then
collected for Total Organic Carbon analysis (TOC) from Vessels
1 and 3 for comparison of old and new resin. Samples of brine
and untreated water were also taken.
All samples were collected in containers and bottles with
preservatives and in the manner prescribed by the EPA
Cincinnati Analytical Laboratories who also performed the
analyses.
The results of the TOC analyses are given in Table 24.
Organic material in treated water from both old and fresh
resin is about 70% less than in the untreated water. The
waste brines show much higher organics. The data tends to
indicate that the beds are removing organic material from the
water and that the old resin is doing it better than fresh.
The large difference between old resin brine and fresh resin
brine appears to be too great for this explanation. Both beds
received the same brine dose but samples may have been taken
at different points along the elution curve to catch the
organic peak from the old resin and miss it in the sample from
the fresh resin.
57
-------
TADLE 24
RESULT OF TOC ANALYSES
WU Untreated Water 0.84 mg/L
WTOR Treated Old Resin Vessel #1 0.58 mg/L
WTFR Treated Fresh Resin Vessel #3 0.62 mg/L
BOR Waste Brine Old Resin Vessel #1 56.6 rng/L
BFR Waste Brine - Fresh Resin Vessel #3 4.06 mg/L
58
-------
During this time period, California State Health and County of
Kern health officials were making extensive tests for organic
material in the water supply as part of a State sponsored
study. No organic contaminants were found as a result of this
testing.
The results of the inorganic analyses are listed in Table
25 and the variation of these components with volume of water
through the bed are plotted in Figures 15 and 16. The initial
values represent hold-up treated water (at the terminus of the
run) exiting the bed as brine flow into the top of the bed is
initiated. Table 25, Sample 16 is untreated water and Sample
17 is treated water. Brine makeup water is taken from a
blend. As 180 gallons of saturated brine were injected
samples 1 through 6 were collected. The remainder of samples
were collected as the bed was slowly rinsed. Figure 15 shows
a distinct bicarbonate peak followed by a sulfate peak and
finally a chloride peak. The nitrate pe tk is mixed with the
chloride peak. The latter portion has considerable
regeneration power and is suitable for recycling and recovery.
BRINE DISPOSAL STUDIES
All are concerned about the impact of discharging waste
regeneration chemicals of the above compositions to the
environment of the municipal wastewater facilitics. From
December, 1984 through December, 1986, approximately 251 tons
of salt were used as regenerant by the Nitrate Plant at Well
No. 2.
A program to monitor the soil and water quality
conditions at the municipal wastewater treatment plant was
initiated in 1982 under this grant to determine the effects of
discharging nitrate plant waste brine. The waste generated at
the Well No. 2 plant is discharged directly into the City
sewer collection system and flows by gravity approximately
three miles west to the wastewater treatment plant. Three
aeration lagoons treat the waste before it is transferred to
holding reservoirs. Treated wastewater is then used to
irrigate cottr n grown on a 128 acre plot adja nt to the waste
treatment plant. Addition of this waste into the sewer blends
it with the untreated municipal waste for transport to the
waste treatment plant where it is treated and disposed to the
land.
In general, the addition of the nitrate plant waste was
expected to raise the salt content of the irrigation water.
This, in turn, would have some impact on the soil and water
quality at the disposal site.
Figure 17 shows a plot of the 140 acres containing the
59
-------
TABLE 25
INORGANIC COM1 OSITION OF NTTRATE PLANT WASTE
PEGENERANT SAMPLES
Rardnt ss NO A lka linLcy Specific
+ - 3
Sample 09 PIg Na C l SO 4 as as TOS Conductance pit
No. CaCO 3 N CaCO 3 UMOUS Unitm
mgIL mg/I. mgfL mg/L mg/L mg/I. ngtL mg/ I. 25CC
1 105 0.71 54 84 < 15 9 70 308 508 8.0
2 8 0.52 601 490 20 100 548 2,060 3,306 9.2
3 6 0.25 7,835 1.,910 150 170 3,960 9,200 13,400 9.8
4 6 0.45 7,570 3,270 1,275 330 9,171 19,850 25,710 10 0
5 16 1.15 12,560 ,47O 8,250 660 10,603 35,200 )9,L 0 9.8
6 18 1.58 17,400 5,100 18,800 870 8,945 49,700 46,450 9.?
1 22 1.93 19,960 5,260 25,800 950 7,739 61,000 55,290 9.6
o 8 42 5.20 29,360 11,000 45,600 1,000 3,367 94,000 67,810 9 6
9 225 7.10 41,100 50,500 9,500 3,100 824 115,OCO 103,000 8.2
10 101 1.70 5,880 6,940 i ,410 3)0 221 15,700 21,421 8.8
11 126 1.06 1,620 2,000 255 110 80 4,450 7,610 8.4
12 138 0.86 690 951 83 50 /0 2,050 3,640 9.0
13 130 0.80 424 615 34 34 21 1,300 2,350 8.7
14 122 0.75 292 45) 15 25 13 950 1,740 8.1
15 114 0.72 236 370 < 15 73 10 784 1,420 8.2
16 106 0.68 63 44 55 7 51 271 438 8.1
17 105 0.68 46 10 e < 15 3 48 270 460 7.8
-------
I
FIG. 15
IN WASTE WATER
(AM0Ns)
COMPOSITION
0 300 1000 1500 2000 2500
GALLONS OF WATER THROUGH RESIN BED
VARIATiON
-------
14
8
E
-
FIG. 16
IN WASTEWATER
(OTHER)
COMPOSITION
soo Q
1
I
V
V
I
V
V
/
- .
a
so co
/
pH
a
I
40000
1
/
/
a a
10
/
I
I
/
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
GALLONS OF WATER THROUGH RESIN BED
VARIATION
-------
WALROP
WATER __
SUMP ____
FIGURE 17 WASTEWATER DISPOSAL AREA
ZANINOVICH WELL
STORAGE
RESERVOIR
COTTON CROP
F -
I
TREATMENT PLANT
SITE
ELL
L__
NE 1/4, SEC 9
126 S., R.25E
P
NE >
63
-------
wastewater treatment plant and disposal area.
Effluent water from tha treatment plant was requently
sampled at the outlet of Lagoon 3. Groundwater samples were
obtained from the three agricultural wells shown in Figure 17.
Soil samples were Obtain .d from tne areas marked SAl through
SA-5.
Three samples from each area were obtained at depths 0 to
1 foot, 2 to 3 feet, and 4 to 5 feet.
FREQUENCY OF SAMPLING
Sampling of plant effluent started in June of 1982 and
extended through July of 1986; spanning a four year period.
Most of the samples were obtained in 1984. Sampling after
that period was irregular due to the Cancer Cluster studies
which necessitated extending the testing program for a longer
period than originally planned.
Sampling of the soils was done prior to nitrate plant
operation in July of 1932 to determine preconditions. Final
soil sampling was made in August of 1986. Frequent soil
sampling was not done because the effects on soil are
accumulative in nature; i.e., 1onc term use of the soil is
required for the soilwater equilibria to become established.
Groundwater samples were obtained in January and June of
1982. A final sample was obtained in August, 1986. Again,
frequent samples were not taken because of the long term
required for impact to be noticed.
DATA OBTAINED
Table 26 and 27 sununarjze the results of the analyses of
treatment plant effluent in terms of chemical compositions and
irrigation water qualit parameters. A sample of an actual
laboratory report is included in the Appendix which shows the
method of reporting and gives an explanation of the effect of
the results on soil conditioning and crop production. It is
noted thut no nitrate is reported in the treatment plant
effluent although nitrate is a major constituent of the
nitrate plant wastewater. It is believel that the nitrate is
destroyed by reduction in the sewer trunk line and in the
treatment plant process. The nitrate is converted either to
gaseous nitrogen or ammonia or is organically assimilated. In
the analytical procedures used, ammonia is determined by
balancing cations and anions.
Tables 28 through 33 (groundwater data is listed in
Tables 34, 35 and 36) list the analyses of the soil samples
taken on the two different dates from five different sites and
64
-------
TABLE 26
MUN ICI PAL TREATIIENT PLANT EFFLUENT CHEMISTRY
FOR McFMWC0 NITRATE PLANT
CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS PPM
DATE Na+ Ca++ Mg++ Cl- HCO3- S04-- TDS
06/01/82 104.00 75.00 4.50 68.70 192.30 164.00 634.00
12/21/83 100.00 14.60 .62 62.30 260.00 52.00 526.00
01/05/83 97.00 12.80 .80 59.80 118.00 70.00 368.00
01/11/84 94.00 12.00 .80 55.20 123.00 63.00 359.00
01/27/84 100.00 15.00 .56 54.90 269.00 50.00 523.00
02/01/84 100.00 13.00 .30 19.50 256.00 22.00 421.00
02/16/84 100.00 14.50 .70 58.10 296.00 46.00 556.00
04/12/84 117.00 42.00 3.50 62.00 142.00 170.00 546.00
05/10/84 140.00 30.00 2.30 108.00 286.00 90.00 690.00
05/16/84 145.00 26.50 2.00 108.00 312.00 80.30 707.00
05/23/84 140.00 27.00 3.10 90.10 306.00 80.00 687.00
05/31/84 130.00 27.00 2.30 87.60 272.00 100.00 650.00
06/07/84 1 0.00 34.00 1.40 93.50 288.00 105.00 661.00
06/19/84 140.00 33.00 2.80 95.60 289.00 110.00 704.00
07/02/84 130.00 35.00 2.80 91.00 244.00 145.00 684.00
07/12/84 129.00 35.00 3.30 77.9° 225.00 160.00 662.00
07/20/84 126.00 37.00 2.60 80.40 227.00 150.00 653.00
08/03/84 120.00 33.00 2.60 83.10 208.00 140.00 618.00
03/11/85 181.00 50.00 1.50 192.00 331.00 85.00 876.00
01/21/86 139.00 40.00 1.80 152.00 372.00 11.00 756.00
02/18/86 105.00 20.00 1.00 65.10 302.00 19.00 543.00
07/10/86 102.00 16.00 1.30 54.50 282.00 42.00 529.00
65
-------
TABLE 27
MUNICIPAL PLANT EFFLUENT IRRIGATION WATER PARAMETERS
Salinity CL-
EC ep
Mxnhos/cm (uieqjL) SAR ESP pH
06/01/82 .94 1.94 3.1.5 3.28 7.10
12/21/83 .75 1.76 6.96 8.26 7.30
01/05/83 .52 1.69 7.10 8.44 7.70
01/11/84 .50 1.56 7.08 6.41 7.70
01/27/84 .76 1.55 6.89 8.18 7.60
02/01/84 .74 .55 7.49 8.92 7.80
02/16/84 .74 1.64 6.95 8.25 7.30
04/12/84 .90 .75 4.66 5.32 7.10
05/10/84 1.00 3.05 6.62 7.84 7.00
05/16/84 1.05 3.05 7.33. 8.69 7.40
05/23/84 .95 2.80 6.79 8.05 6.70
05/31/84 .94 2.47 6.44 7.61 7.00
06/07/84 .95 2.64 5.93 6.97 7.10
06/19/84 1.01 2.70 6.28 7.41 6.90
07/02/84 .97 2.57 7.67 6.65 7.10
07/12/84 .94 2.20 5.58 6.52 7.30
07/20/84 .93 2.27 5.39 6.27 7.30
08/03/84 .94 2.29 5.40 6.28 7.00
03/11/85 1.25 5.42 6.87 8. 3 .5 7.60
01/21/86 1.07 4.28 8.46 6.84 7.40
02/18/86 .75 1.84 6.21 7.32 7.70
07/10/86 .70 1.54 6.59 7.80 7.30
66
-------
TABLE 28
SOIL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR McMWCo NITRATE PLANT DISCHARGE
AREA 1
SOIL AREA NLJM8ER
0 to I foot 2 to 3 feet 4 to 5 feet
CONSTITUENT 7182 8/86 Change 7182 8/86 Change 7/82 8186 Change AVCh
pH Sat Soil Paa 6.80 5.50 1.30 6.50 5.80 .70 7.70 6.10 1.60 1.20
Saturation S 25.00 22.00 3.60 25.00 22.00 3.00 39.00 23.00 16.00 7.33
B.C. Mi11i ho 1.40 2.30 .90 1.20 2.30 1.10 1.40 1.50 .20 .70
Calcium S 39.00 39.00 0.00 36.00 32.00 4.00 46.00 31.00 15.00 6.33
.Iagnesium S 8.00 6.00 2.00 10.00 6.00 4.00 10.00 5.00 5.00 3.67
GYPSUm Req. .90 0.00 .90 .90 .90 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.40 .11
ESP 4.76 6.06 1.30 4.41 7.50 3.09 3.37 6.25 2.28 2.42
CaCO3 ppm,clO-3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.90 0.00 82.9027.63
1403-N ppm 6.00 40.00 34.00 3.00 33.00 30.00 3.00 18.00 25.00 26.33
Phosphorous ppm 41.00 45.00 4.00 18.00 38.00 20.00 24.00 27.00 3.00 9.00
K ppm x 10-1 17.10 11.40 5.70 13.40 12.30 1.10 19.00 10.20 8.80 5.20
Na epa 8.00 11.40 3.40 6.70 12.60 5.90 6.70 8.20 1.50 3.60
Cl epa 4.90 2.40 2.50 2.30 2.80 .50 3.00 1.60 1.40 1.13
Boron ppm .70 1.00 .30 .40 1.20 .80 .30 1.00 .70 .60
Zn ppm .80 6.40 5.60 .30 5.00 4.70 .20 4.10 3.90 4.73
S04 epe 4.20 4.00 .20 7.40 4.80 2.60 8.10 3.00 5.10 2.63
Total N 5 .03 .04 .01 .01 .04 .03 .02 .03 .01 .02
Organic Matter .80 .61 .19 .17 .25 .08 .17 .21 .04 .02
Bicarbonate ape 6.20 2.80 3.50 2.30 2.80 .50 2.80 2.60 .20 1.07
Infiltration Ra 4.43 7.92 3.49 4.25 10.47 6.32 13.20 10.27 2.93 2.29
67
-------
TABLE 29
SOIL MO T 1NG PROCRAM FOR McMWC0 NITRATE PLANT DISCHARGE
AREA 2
_____ SOIL AREA NUMBER I
U to 1 foot 2 to 3 _f t 4 to 5 feet
COJSTITUE? T 7/82 8186 Change 7/82 8/8h Change 7/82 8/86 Change Av Ch
pH Sat Soil Pas 6.50 6.80 .30 7.50 6.90 .60 8.00 7.60 .40 .23
Saturation S 31.00 30.00 1.00 24.00 33.00 9.00 23.00 38.00 15.00 7.67
E.C. Hilliahos 1.60 1.40 .20 .80 3.60 2.80 1.10 2.50 1.40 1.33
Calcium 5 54.00 27.0027.00 44.00 41.00 3.00 28.00 41.00 13.00 5.67
Magnesium 5 11.00 6.00 5.00 8.00 9.00 1.00 6.00 16.00 10.00 2.00
Gypsum Req. 0.00 .90 .90 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 :. i0 - 1.40 .17
ESP 2.43 7.29 4.86 2.79 6.85 4.06 6.39 4.18 2.21 2.24
CaCO3 ppzxlo-3 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.20 0.00 4.20 10.00 35.60 25.60 7.13
N03-N ppm 25.00 12.00-13.00 3.00 43.00 40.00 3.00 31.00 28.00 18.33
Phosphorous ppm 78.00 31.00-47.00 18.00 22.00 12.00 24.00 8.0016.00 -17.00
K ppm x 101 28.00 17.4010.60 10.80 20.10 9.30 9.60 17.90 8.30 2.33
Na epa 6.10 9.60 3.50 4.10 17.60 13.50 7.60 9.50 1.90 6.30
Cl epa 3.10 2.20 . 3 2.30 11.00 8.70 1.70 7.40 5.70 4.50
Boron ppm .40 .60 .20 .30 .60 .30 .40 .40 0.00 .17
Zn ppm .80 1.40 .60 .50 1.40 .90 .20 .70 .50 .67
504 epa 3.40 2.80 .60 2.60 6.00 3.40 4.90 6.10 1.20 1.33
Total N 5 .06 .04 .02 .01 .03 .02 .01 .02 .01 .00
Organic Matter 1.80 .53 .55 .28 .32 .04 .10 .11 .01 .17
Bicarbonate epa 8.80 6.10 2.70 3.80 5.20 1.40 2.80 1.10 1.70 1.00
Infiltration Ra 6.23 2.44 3.79 9.90 7.87 2.03 8.71 10.48 1.77 1.35
68
-------
TABLE 30
SOIL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR McMWCo NITRATE PLANT DISCHARGE
AREA 3
SOIL AREA NUMBER I
0 to 1 foot 2 to 3 f t
________________ 7/82 8/86 Change 7/82 8j Change 7/82 8/86 Change Av Ch
pH Sat Soil Pas 6.60 7.20 .60 7.80 8.10 .30
Saturation % 31.00 37.00 6.00 38.00 36.00 2.00
E.C. Millimhoe 1.40 5.50 4.10 1.10 1.30 .20
Calcium % 53.00 51.00 2.00 39.00 2 .00-17.00
Magnesium S 14.00 7.00 7.00 12.00 4.00 8.03
Gy aum Req. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.40
ESP 2.08 6.68 4.60 3.27 7.97 4.70
CaCO3 ppaxl0-3 0.00 29.60 29.60 59.50 51.10 8.40
N03-N ppm 27.00 99.00 72.00 19.00 70.00 1.00
Phobphorou8 ppm 37.00 27.0010.00 12.00 21.00 12.00 23.00 6.00-17.00 5.00
K ppm x 101 26.00 33.70 7.70 16.10 27.20 11.10 35.00 13.7021.30 .83
Na epm 5.20 22.50 17.30 5.20 8.20 3.00 7.20 6.70 .50 6.60
Cl epm 1.30 10.70 9.40 1.90 11.00 9.10 1.60 7.40 5.80 8.10
Boron ppm .30 .60 .30 .30 .40 .10 .80 .40 - .40 0.00
Zn ppm 1.40 1.30 .10 .30 .30 0.00 .30 .30 0.00 .03
S04 epm 2.90 5.90 3.00 2.40 2.30 .10 3.20 2.60 .60 .77
Total N S .05 .04 .01 .02 .02 0.00 .01 .02 .01 0.00
Organic-Matter 1.01 .39 .62 .31 .07 .24 .21 .11 .10 - .32
Bicarbonate epm 7.30 4.00 3.30 2.30 2.80 3.00 2.80 2.20 .60 .30
Infiltration Ra 3.39 6.54 3.15 4.19 2.48 1.71 1.11 18.27 17.16 6.20
CON TITUEt T
4 to 5 feet
7.90 9.20 .30 .40
39.00 35.00 4.00 0.00
1.10 1.10 0.00 1.43
28.00 24.00 4.00 7.67
6.00 6.00 0.00 5.00
2.30 2.30 0.00 .47
6.13 6.69 .56 3.29
43.00 74.30 31.30 17.50
9.00 14.00 5.00 26.C0
69
-------
IABLE 31
SOIL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR MCMWC0 NITRATE PLANT JISCUARGE
AREA 4
SOIL AREA NUMBER
0 to 1 foot 2 to 3 feet 4 to 5 feet
CONSTITUENT /82 8/86 Change 7t 8/86 Cha. ge 7/82 8186 C 7 Av Ch
pH Sat Soil Pas 6.70 6.1 j - .60 7.60 6.60 1.20 7.60 8.20 .60 .40
Saturation % 29.00 30.00 1.00 37.00 28.00 9.00 38.00 27.00 11.00 6. .s
E.C. Miflishos 1.10 5.50 4.40 .60 4.60 4.00 .50 2.70 2.20 3.53
Calcium % 46.00 47.00 1.00 33.00 45.00 12.00 31.00 45.00 14.00 9.00
Magnesium % 10.00 9.00 -1.00 6.00 9.00 3.00 9.00 7.00 2.00 0.00
GypeuS Req. 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 0.00 -1.40 1.40 0.00 -1.40 .93
ESP 3.11 6.95 3.84 3.70 6.98 3.28 3.41 5.02 1.61 2.91
CaCO3 ppmxIO-3 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.60 0.00 8.60 8.20 12.90 4.70 1.30
N03N ppm 13.00 99.00 86.00 3.00 0.00 77.00 3.00 37.00 34.00 65.6?
Phosphorous ppm 52.00 49.00 -3.00 16.00 36.00 12.00 4.00 26.00 22.00 10.33
K ppm x 10I 2l. 0 33.90 12.90 20.00 30.70 10.70 17.70 20.60 2.90 8.83
Na epn 5.90 22.80 16.90 3.90 20.50 16.60 3.50 10.50 7.00 13.50
C l epa 1.20 11.80 10.60 .60 9.90 9.30 .70 4.30 3.60 7.83
Boron ppm .40 1.00 .60 .40 .60 .20 .40 .60 .20 .33
Zn ppm 3.40 6.90 3.50 .50 2.80 2.30 .20 .80 .60 2.13
S04 epa 2.00 8.30 6.30 1.60 7.30 5.70 1.70 4.60 2.90 4.97
Total N % .05 .05 0.00 .01 .03 .02 .01 .03 .02 .01
Organic Matter .84 .46 - .38 .07 .32 .25 .14 .11 .03 .05
Bicarbonate epa 9.00 4.20 -4.8Q 4.00 4.50 3.00 3.50 2.60 .90 .90
Infiltration Ra 2.40 7.63 5.23 .35 7.50 7.15 7.00 7.45 .45 4.28
70
-------
TABLI 32
SOIL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR MCMWCo NITRATE PLANT DISCHARGE
AREA S
SOiL AqEA NUMBER
0 to 1 foot 2 to 3 feet 4 to 5 feet
CONSTITUENT 7/82 8/86 Change _jL82 8/S6 Change 7/82 8/86 Change Av Ch
pH Sat Soil Pam 6.10 7.20 1.10 6.60 7.40 .80 5.40 7.90 i.ro 1.13
Saturation % 23.00 28.00 5.30 20.00 30.00 10.00 19.00 39.00 20.00 11.67
E.C. Milliehos 2.40 1.60 .80 .80 1.40 .60 1.00 1.10 .10 .03
Ca1ciu % 49.00 35.00-14.00 28.00 32.00 4.00 33.00 33.00 0.00 -3.33
Magnesium % 6.00 6.00 0.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 8.00 6.00 2.00 .67
Gypsum Req. 0.00 .50 .50 1.40 .90 .50 .91) .90 0.00 0.00
ESP 5.93 6.95 1.02 6.20 6.98 .78 5.05 5.02 .03 .59
CaCO3 ppmxlo-3 0.00 20.70 20.70 0.00 30.00 30.00 0.00 70.00 70.00 40.23
N03N ppm 9.O 21.00 12.00 3.00 17.00 14.00 3.000 11.00 8.00 11.43
Phosphorous ppm 48.00 31.00-17.00 21.00 30.00 12.00 16.00 21.00 5.00 0.00
K ppm x 101 7.40 14.20 6.80 8.80 16.20 7.40 6.20 17.20 11.00 8.40
Na epm 11.70 9.30 2.40 5.70 8.50 2.80 6.50 6.30 .20 .07
Cl ep 1.90 1.10 .80 4.40 1.10 3.30 3.50 1.20 2.30 2.13
Boron ppm .70 .80 .10 .50 .80 .30 .80 .40 .40 0.00
Zn ppm 5.20 1.10 -4100 .40 1.60 1.20 1.20 1.90 .70 .73
SG4 epm 2.IC 2.30 .20 4.20 1.90 2.30 67.70 4.2063.50 21.87
Total N % .02 .03 .01 .01 .33 .02 .01 .02 .01 .01
Organic Matter .87 .39 .48 .31 .36 .05 .21 .21 0.00 .14
Bicarbonate epe 2.50 6.00 3.50 3.30 5.40 3.00 2.00 3.20 1.20 2.57
Infiltration Ra 7.26 9.37 2.11 2.97 8.39 5.42 6.27 7.56 1.29 2.94
71
-------
TABLE 33
SOEL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR ticWCo NITRATE PLANT DISCHARGE
SUMMARY DATA
8.83 8.40
1 .s.50 .07
7.83 2.13
.33 0.00
2.13 .73
4.97 21.87
.01 .01
.05 .14
.90 2.57
4.28 2.94
SOIL RE.
CONSTITUENT SA 1 SA 2 SA 3 SA 4 SA 5
pH Sat Soil Pas 1.20 .23 .40 - .40 1.13
Saturation % 7.33 7.67 0.00 6.33 11.67
S.C. Millicnhos .70 1 33 1.43 3,53 .03
Calcium % - 6.33 5.67 7.67 9.00 3.33
Magnesium % - 3.67 2.00 5.00 0.00 .6?
Gypsum Req. .1 .17 .47 .93 0.00
ESP 2.4 2.24 3.29 2.91 .59
CaCO3 ppmxlo3 27.63 7.13 17.50 1.30 40.23
N03N ppm 26.33 18.33 26.00 65.67 11.33
Phosphorous ppm 9.00 17.00 5.00 10.33 0.00
K ppm x 10-1 5.20
Na epm 3.60
2.33 .83
6.30 6.60
Cl epo 1.13 4.50 8.10
Boron ppm .60 .17 0.00
Zn ppm 4.73 .67 .03
S04 epm 2.63 1.33 .77
.02 .00 0.00
.02 .17 .32
1.00 .30
1.35 6.20
Total N %
Organic Mat %
Bicarbonate epm
Infiltration Ra
1 .07
2 .29
72
-------
TABLE 34
CITY WELL
GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR McFMWCo NITRATE PLANT DISCHARGE
IRRIGATION WELL. WATER ANALYSES
CITY WELL AT WASTEWATER TREAThENT PLANT
CONSTITUENT PPM
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Carbonate
Bicarbonate
Chloride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N03)
TDS
CaCO3 Hardness
Boron
9.5 13.9
0.0 0.0
28.0 27.0
6.8 3.4
36.4 39.0
8.1 11.7
22.0 27.0
12.4 14.2
124.0 137.0
23.8 35.0
Change
4.90
0.00
2 00
3.40
.90
3.60
9.00
.90
8.00
12.30
ILIR/82 J6/86 Change 6/1/82 816/86
13.9
0.0
27.0
3.4
39.0
11.7
27.0
14.2
137.0
35.0
4.40
0.00
1.00
3.40
2.60
3.60
5.00
1.80
13.00
11.20
9.0
0.0
29.0
6.8
39.9
8.1
18.0
13.3
129.0
22.7
pH
8.60
8.20
.40
8.50
8.20
.30
Salinity
.18
.21
.03
.25
.21
.04
Chlor de
epm
.23
.28
.05
.38
.28
.10
SAg
.
2.29
2.29
2.29
x s*.a
1.88
1.49
.39
1.66
1.49
.17
ESP
2....?
2.07
.30
1.80
2.07
.27
Cjpsum Req.
1.53
1.07
73
-------
TABLE 35
WALROP WELL
GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR McFNWCo NITRATE PLANT DISCHARGE
IRRIGATION WELL WATER ANALYSES
WALRJP WELL
CONSTIT(JE JT PP 1 2/26/82 8j6/8
Calcium 14.5 25.0 10.50
Magnesium o.o 0.0 0.00
Sodium 45.0 51.0 6.00
Carbonate 6.8 2.6 4.20
Bicarbonate 27.7 32.0 4.30
Chloride 26.9 38.2 11.30
Sulfate 46.0 68.0 22.00
Nitrate (as P103) 18.2 22.2 4.C0
TDS 187.0 240.0 53.00
CaCO3 Hardness 36.6 63.2 26.60
Boron
PAYS ICALJCIIEM ICAL
pH 8.70 8.30 .40
Salinity .30 .38 .08
Chloride epm .76 1.08 .32
SAR 2.79
% SAR 2.04 2.23 .19
ESP 3.40 2.78 .62
Gypsum Req. 0.00 0.00 0.00
74
-------
Magnesii
So uin
Carbonate
Bicarbonate
Chloride
Sulfate
Nitrate (r s
TDS
Boron
TABLE 35
ZANINO (ICH WELL
GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR McFMWCo NITRATE PLANT DISCHARGE
IRRIGATION WELL WATER ANALYSES
ZANINOVICH WELL
CG JSTITUET PP1 2/05/82
Ca1ciu . 17.0
1.0
39.5
0.0
78.8
13.5
30.0
.O3) 22.2
203.0
46.7
Change 6/1/82 8/6/86
5.60 15.0 11.4
.50 .9 .5
10.50 31.0 29.0
4.30 6 .8 4.3
35 . 0 39.9 43.3
3.60 13.5 9.9
7.00 26.0 23.0
8.00 22.2 14.2
-67.00 156.0 136.0
16.20 41.2 30.5
CaCO3 Hardness
8/6/86
11.4
.5
29.0
4.3
43.3
9.9
23.0
14.2
136 .0
30 5
8.20
.21
.28
2.29
1.49
2.07
1.07
Change
3.60
.40
2.00
.50
3.40
3 SO
3.00
-8.00
20.00
10.70
.30
.04
- .10
.17
.27
.82
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
p1 1
Salinity
Chloride epm
SAR
S SAR
ES P
Gypsum Req.
7.90
.28
.38
2.52
2.40
1 .58
.30
.07
. 10
-1.03
.33
.5
8.50
.25
38
1.66
1.80
.25
8.20
.21
.28
2.29
1.49
2.07
1.07
75
-------
three different depths. The differences between the initial
and last measurements are given in the column headed changes.
The last column gives the average of the changes for the tnree
different sample depths at a given site. Table 32 compares
a-,erage changes for the five different samples.
Tables 34, 35 and 36 compare the initial and last
irrigation well water quality analyses. The Walrop Well was
not in operation in June of 1982 for sampling. The final
sample for the Wairop well was run only briefly to obtain the
last sample and for that reason may not be representative of
the deeper groun.lwater but is representative of the shal) w
water in the well casing. These wells are large and can
produce 500 to 1000 gpm.
INTERPRETATION OF SL 1L AND WATER OUALITY DATA
There are three main concerns regarding the disposal of
nitrate waste to the municipal wastewater treatment plant and
disposal systems.
1. Direct Effect on Crops
2. Changes in Soil Characteristics
3. Degradation of Groundwater Quality
DIRECT EFFECT ON COTTON YIELD
Salts can be assimilated by certain plants without harm
while others will show effects such as leaf burn if too much
salt is assimilated. The Salinity and Chloride epm of the
irrigation water are two important parameters to indicate the
direct effect on crop production. The salinity of the
irrigation water as shown on Table 1 ranged between 0.76 and
1.25 (Millimhos per cm) while the nitrate plant was in
operation. This range is satisfactory for crops with moderate
to high salt tolerance (see Appendix for scale on salt
tolerance of plants). Cotton has a high salt tolerance.
Yield reduction of cotton is 10% at a Salinity of 10. The
yield reduction at the highest Salinity measured 1.25) at the
disposal site would be well below 10%.
The Chloride epm values range between 1.55 and 5.42.
These values do not affec .. cotton, grain or forage crops but
would affect chloride sensitive crops such as avacado, trus
and stone fruits. (An experiment was conducted at the
disposal area to determine if waste nitrate brine could be
used directly as defloiant on the cotton. No defoliation was
detected even though concentrated brine W3 5 sprayed twice
directly on several rows of mature cotton.)
The Salinity and Chloride epm have not been increased
sufficiently at the disposal site to have any direct effects
76
-------
on cotton yield.
CHANGES IN SOIL CHARACTE±USTICS
Indirect effects of sodium can occur because of the
tendency of sodium to exchange or replace calcium on the
cation exchange sites of the soil. The effect of too much
sodium ( or too little calcium + magnesium) is to prevent
formation of clumped soil particles which allow adequate
drainage. The SAR is a measure of the tendency of an
irrigation water to prevent the formation of the clumps. The
SAR is the sodium absorption ratio and is a function of the
relative amounts of sodium and ca1 ium + magnesium in the
water. SAR values of 6 to 9 are not considered serious except
for fine textured soils (if saturation percentage is over
50%). Table 27 shows highest SAR is 8.46. The saturation
per ..entage of the soil is shown in Tables 28 through 32 are
around 25 to 30.
The SAR values of the irrigation water indicate that the
discharge of the nitrate plant has increased the sodium
content of the soil but not to a degree harmful to the
drainage property of the soil.
The Saturation percent is a soil property which will also
indicate drainage capacity. To determine this value, a soil
sample is first dried and then water is gradually added to the
sample until saturation occurs. Fine soils will absorb higher
amounts of water than coarse soils. If saturation is higher
than 50%, drainage problems will likely occur. Tables 28
through 33 list the Saturation Percentages for the soil
samples. There was an overall net increase of 1.1 in this
factor over the four year period. This is in agreement with
the conclusion drawn from the SAR values.
Infiltration Rate is the last parameter listed in Tables
28 through 33 and is a direct measurement of drainage
capacity. These values indicate there was an overall increase
in drainage capacity of the soil.
The fact that the soil at the disposal area has good
drainage properties as indicated by the Infiltration Rate
accounts for the small change in SAR and Saturation
Percentage.
The SAR, of irrigation water, is also an indicator of the
ESP found in the soil (exchangeable sodium percentage). The
ESP predicted from the SAR is given in Table 27; the ESP
actually measured in the soils are listed in Tables 28 through
33. Although ESP is a property of the soil it can be
determined from the water, because when water and soil are in
equilibrium, the ESP and SAR are related by the ion exchange
77
-------
equilibria of the aqueous ions and those held by the ion
exchange sites. The ESP computed from water composition is a
value which should be obtained if the water and soil have
reached equilibrium values. The actual ESP as measured from
the August 1986 soils are given in Tables 28 through 32 and
are in the range predicted by the Table 27 values. This
indicates that the soils in August 1986 were in equilibrium
with the irrigation water and further changes in soil drainage
characteristics should not be expected.
IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER IN WASTEWATER DISPOSAL AREA
Tables 34, 35 and 36 list the water quality data from the
three wells used for groundwater monitoring. The effect of
the nitrate plant waste discharge on groundwater quality is
more difficult to assess because of the unknown factors
concerning well construction and operation. Other factors
which determine the underground flow direction and rate and
mixing are also unknown. It is assumed that underground
drainage is in a westerly direction. The surface drainage is
in a northwesterly direction. Heavy pumping of c.ny well near
or on the site will alter the general underground flows.
A tail water reservoir is located on the northwest corner
of the disposal site. This is located very close to the
Wairop well which may give a sample composition influenced
more by the tail water composition than the other wells. The
Zaninovich well is located near the irrigation water reservoir
and may be more reflective of irrigation water quality than
the other wells. The City well is located near the lined
lagoons and s more likely to reflect underground coidit ons
except for the generally westerly movement of the underground
water.
It should also be pointed out that a cattle feed lot is
in operation on property east of the disposal site.
Table 34 shows small increases in individual ion
concentrations in the City well up to a 9 ppm increase for
sulfate ion. However, calcium and chloride show increases of
30 to 50%. TDS has increased 8 and 13 ppm. The sodium values
show decreases. Although these increases are not significant
in their magnitude and have little effect on the use of the
water for irrigation, they dn indicate that waste from the
nitrate plant has reached the underground water.
Of the ions in the nitrate waste the anions are more
likely to be found in the underground water because the cation
exchange properties of soil would retard the downward movement
of the cations. The sodium ions are retained in the soil by
displacement of calcium ions. Thus, a calcium ion increase in
the groundwater is expected to occur. The increase in
78
-------
chloride is expected because anion exchange does not occur at
the normal soil pH values. Further leaching of soil by the
nitrate plant waste may eventually show an increased sodium
level to refl ct an eq ilibrium condition.
Table 35 lists composition of only two different samples
from the W lrop well. The same relative increases have
occurred as in the City well but intensified. Calcium,
chloride, and sulfate are increased by the highest percentages
in this case. Sodium has also increased but to a lesser
extent. The sampling of this well was done without running
the well for a prolonged period and could not, therefore,
represent deep groundwater conditions. This may account for
the higher mineral content.
Table 36 lists compositions of samples taken from the
Zaninovich well. These samples show significant decreases in
mineral content over the sampling period. Possibly, the
sample taken in February of 1982 was obtained during a period
of low water use and the composition is representative of
shallow water composition of that time. (Compare to the
August, 1986 sample of the Walrop well, Table 10.) The
samples of June 19fl2 and August 1986 are closer in
composition, however, no correlation between the changes in
individual ions and nitrate plant discharge can be made.
None of the well samples shc wed significant increases in
nitrate levels, although nitrate levels increased
significantly in the soil samples, Table 33. Nitrate (as NO3
increased by as much as 293 ing/l (or 65.7 as N) in Soil Area
4. No fertilizer applications had been made by the operator
of the disposal site since spring.
The groundwater sampling at this time can be considered
inconclusive because of the contradictory data obtained.
However, some conclusions can be made.
1. It appears that the City well and the Wairop well show
the relative increases in calcium and chloride which
can be expected from ion exchange of soil minerals with
the nitrate plant waste. -
2. Data from the Wairop well which shows a 28% increase in
TDS may not be valid due to bad sampling.
3. No increased mineralization is shown in the Zaninovich
well.
No significant increases in nitrate levels are shown in
any of the wells.
5. The soil and groundwater monitoring program should be
continued especially because a second nitrate plant will
79
-------
5. The soil and groundwater monitoring program should be
continueu especially because a second nitrate plant will
be in operation in 1987.
6. ma City of McFarland Engineering st f should assess the
increased nitrate content of the soil. 5avings in
fertilizer costs nay be realizable.
80
-------
SECTION 6
CONTINUOUS NITRATE ANALYSES
Nitrate levels ar measured and recorded hourly at the plant.
An example of a 24 hour chart showing the nitrate levels is -
shown in Figure 18. The length of each line is proportional
to nitrate. The line is developed by conductivity peaks which
rise and fall over approximately one minute. Nitrate levels
are also checked daily at the plant with Mach equipment.
The investig?tion of instrumental methods of analysis for
monitoring the perfor iance of the nitrate plant was a part of
this Re arch and DaL nstration project. A DIONEX ion
chromatograph w s purchased in 1982 for the research program.
Experience with the instrument indicated that it could be
adapted to use as a . ontinuous nitrate analyser to monitor
plant operation.
The model purchased was the ?120i which had just become
available at that time. The instrument and its method of
analysis was found to be virtually invaluable in research
applications. Chloride, nitrate and sulfate in the ground
water concentrations found in McFarland were easily and
frequently determined using the DIONEX columns and eluents
suggested for these ions. T e system uses a separacor column
(with a guarc column) followed by fibre suppresser.
Reagents used were a bicarbonate-carbonate mixture as eluent
and an acid solution for regene-ating the suppresser. -
Cons iderable time and chemistry experience was required to
esta5lish-a routine to do the water analyses. Changes in
eluerit concentrations had to be tested by tri i and error to
get good separation between nitrate and sulfate ions. These
changes were required as the column aged or new columns were
installed and were ixne consuming. Once the routine,eluent
concentrations and flow rates were established, automatic
operation was tested with the view of using the method for on
stream plant monitoring.
Automatic operation posed a problem in that residence time for
the different ions slowly changed with use. Consequently, it
was not possible to program the autoion controller to read a
peak at the proper times. An additional prok lem occurred with
repeated automatic operation. The columns tended to slowly
81
-------
FIGuRE 18
NITRATE LEVEL RECORDfPIG
82
-------
develop a back pressure which upon continuous operation caused
several leaks to occur. The system would normally operate at
less than 1000 psi. When this pressure was exceeded leaks in
the eluent line caused erratic readings. Another cause of
erratic readings was gas binding of the high pressure pumps.
The bicarbonate eluent would, upon standing in its reservoir
and in the feed lines and vaLves, degas enough to cause this
problem. Passage of C02 into the conductivity cell would
destroy the base line.
In monitoring the plant operation it is only of interest to
measure nitrate. Ion chromatography also gives peaks for
chloride and sulfate. This poses another problem.
Approximately five minutes must pass before a nitrate peak is
read and another five minutes must pass before the sulfate is
eluted. This limits both response time from sample injection
and also limits turn around time.
It is estimated that if the DIONEX were to be used
automatically for frequent analyses (one to five times per
hour) on a continuous 24 hour basis 365 days per year the
system would require a trained analytical chemist to
calibrate, mix and adjust eluent concentration, reprogram the
controller, change columns, fix leaks and change columns. In
addition, maintenance on valves and high pressure pumps were
also required, although not as exacting.
The short column lifetime (approximately 3 weeks) and cost of
column replacement excluded the system for use as a plant
monitor.
The system in use at the present time is an adaptation of the
ion chromatography method. The same pumps, valves, and flo z
system is used, but the chemistry has been irastically changed
to overcome many of the difficulties mentioned above. The
system is shown in Figure 19. The system is operated by a
microprocessor to do the following:
1. Start eluent flowing through suppressor/separator coiumn.
2. Turn on sample pump to load the sample containii g
nitrate, chloride, and bicarbonate into the sample loop
of the injection valve (solid lines within valve shown in
Figure 19).
3. Inject the sample by switching the sample loop into tbe
eluent stream (dashed lines in valve) -
4. Adjust base line to zero.
5. Adjust sensitivity of conductivity cell.
83
-------
NO 3 F4CO
CI
CONDUCTIVITY
CELL
WASTE
SIGNAL
TO
CONTROL
PANEL
AND
MODEM
SYSTEM
SUPPRESSOR
SEPARATOR
COLUMNS
FIGURE 19 NITRATE ANALYSER
-------
6. Send conductivity signal to plant control panel and
computer terminal for recording and data storage.
7. Adjust sensitivity back to lowest value to cancel out any
residual. signal.
8. Continue to pump eluent through the sample loop for 10
minutes.
9. Shut off eluent flow.
10. Wait until start of next cycle.
Figure 19 shows the sample passing through a particulate
filter into the valve through the sample 1 op and then to
waste. Eluent is pumped to the valve and through the analyser
column. When the valve is actuated the eluent stream is
pumped through the sample loop and forces the sample through
the conductivity cell for detection.
An example of two superimposed chromatograins is shown in
Figure 20. The nitrate peak develops first and appears in
approximately one minute. The chloride is slow to elute and
is very broad. The 250 mg/L of chloride is well above the
chloride in the sample. For exact calibration a chloride
correction factor needs to be added. The accuracy of the
measurement is sufficient for plant monitoring.
The system requires little attention. Calibration is done
monthly. The columns operate at a low pressure and have a
lifetime of over six months.
Spurious nitrate readings occur when system lines become
clogged and no sample reaches the instrument. If eluent or
sample reservoir runs dry, air enters the system and causes
unsteady base lines and can result in rapid rise in signals.
Other spurious signals have been traced to stray electrical
noise occurring at times in the plant electrical system.
85
-------
20 CHROMATOGRAM OF
ITRATE AND CHLORIDE
C-)
Q
r
C
1 MIN. 2 MIN.
TIME
FIG.
N
-------
SECTION 7
REMOTE I O ITORING OF PLM T OPERATION
The operation of a nitrate removal plart represents new
technology to the water industry. Communities wrio adopt this
method of treating water, especially those with small
technical staffs, may require assistance in adjusting the
plant operation for consistent production of safe drinking
water and to achieve efficient and economical operation. In
McFarland the operator spends only about one hour per day at
the plant (but is on 24 hour call). Much of his time is
devoted to meter readings and distribution system maintenance
and other assigned tasks totally independent and removed frem
the nitrate plant. Remote plant monitoring by Water Company
personnel or outside technical experts is, therefore,
desirable.
During the course of this study and after plant start-up
and checkout the princinal investigator desired to monitor the
plant operation from remote locations. This was accomplished
by using a readily available, low cost personal computer with
a modem attachment.
The equipment used was a Commodore 64 computer, disk
drive, modem and an inputoutput board. This eq ipment can be
purchased for less than $1000. Although the level of quality
repre entea by this equipment may not be acceptable to
professional designers for long term reLiability and use, the
cost of installation is very attractive to operators of small
scale treatment ystems and was certainly adequate for
research and demonstration of this method of plant monitoring.
It can also be stated that over a period of almost three years
of operation this monitoring system did not require any parts
replacement and had not failed to operate except when power
failures occurred. In the latter case, only program
restarting was required.
The second McFarland plant will employ this same method
of monitoring. The program will provide the same tasks
described here and print out monthly reports of operation for
use by State Health officials.
The software for the system was written to employ the
specific equipment used. A flow chart of the program is shown
87
-------
FIGURE 21 MODEM PROGRAM FLOW CHART
Yf:5
88
-------
in Figure 21. Signals from the control panel and nitrate analyzer
are wired to the input-output parts of the computer. After the
program is started, the computer waits for input data to be
received either from the nitrate analyzer or the control panel.
If a phone call is received, the data file is opened and sent to the
host computer calling from a remote location. If a nitrate peak is
detected, the nitrate level ic recorded on the data disk. At the
preset time intervals (usually one ho r), readings from the
control panel are taken to update the data file. The current data
file will contain up to 48 hours of data readings. As each new set
of data is filed, the oldest data is discarded.
Figure 22 shows a sample of the report given in graphical and
numerical format as it is received at a remote location. To
receive the report the remote terminal dials the McFarland plant.
As soon as the call is received the system detects and answers the
call and sends the data shown in Figure 22 to the screen of the
remote terminal. Fiftytwo lines of data are sent and a seven line
message. The first line is the data recorded within the last hour.
The first column is the time of day, the second, third and fourth
columns indicate which of the three ion exchange vessels are in
operation. The fifth column indicates if the well pump is on.
The sixth column gives month and day. The seventh column is the
nitrate level and the last column is the number of hours since the
last change in regeneration. The message at the bottom of Figure
22 does not change unless the operator chooses to do so.
From the data as it is possible to quickly assess whether or
not the plant is operating correctly. If vessel changes or
regenerations do not occur on time, or vessel changes occur out of
sequence, or nitrate readings are drifting upward or do4.mward,
this information would be immediately obvious. In case the data
indicates some of these problems a telephone call to the operator
can be quickly made to discuss operational changes or adjustments.
89
-------
8welcome to mc farland. Ca. t:083540
time wi 113 pmo mmdd no3 11
a afl.na a-
0800 +4 4χ . 1020 22 6
0700 +. 1020 20 5
0600 + -. + 1020 20 4
0500 +. ++ 1020 16 3
0409 ++ .-+ 1020 22 2
0300 . - 4χ 1020 22 1
0200 .-. ++ 100 24 0
01 00 ++ +4- 1020 22 14
2200 +44+ . 1019 24 13
21 00 4+ 4χ 1019 24 12
20 00 ++ ++ *019 20 11
1900 -+4 . 2019 22 10
18 00 +-# ++ . 1019 24 9
1700 4 .- . 2019 24 8
to 00 ..+ 4χ 1019 24 7
1500 1019 24 6
2400 + + + 1019 26 5
13 00 . . 1019 4 4
1200 - 4 1019 22 3
1100 + 4 + -b 1019 22 2
*000 +4+ . 1019 20 1
0900 4+4+ 10*9 18 0
08 00 . 1019 tO 18
0700 ++ . 1019 22 17
06 00 +. 4. 1019 20 16
05 00 +. .4 1019 20 15
0409 +4 .- . 1019 20 14
03 00 4.4+ 1019 20 13
02 00 4-.- 4+ 1019 20 12
0100 ++#+ 1019 20 Ii
00 00 4 -s- +4 1019 20 *0
2300 .-.-.-+ . 1018 20 9
22 00 .-..-+ 1018 20 B
2100 1-+ 1019 18 7
2000 4+4χ 1019 20 6
1900 + ..-. . 1018 20 5
1000 4χ.. l 0t8 20 4
1700 ++.+ 1019 20 3
16 00 s-+ + - . 1018 10 2
1500 +14+ 1018 19 1
1400 -++ 1018 16 0
1300 4χ 4. 1018 16 15
12 00 4. 1018 18 14
11 00 +1 +1 1018 10 13
1) 00 4+ 4+ 1018 18 12
09 00 4+ 4+ 1018 22 11
00 00 . 1018 20 10
0700 4. 4+ . 1018 20 9
06 00 ++ 4 1018 20 8
04 09 +. 4+ 0L8 16 7
03 00 .-. 4+ 1018 20 6
02 00 . . 1018 24 5
01 00 +. + 10 18 2 4
5 foot brine distributor Installed 3 an 6. mOdem orom 2001
service vo luee 400000 aals Oercent treated in blend 30
brine dose = 57 calm
bed deoth 5 ft
nitrate in 50 m /1
sulfate in = 6L) me/I
cnd of data
FIGURE 22 PRINT OUT OF TELECOMPUrER REPORT
90
-------
SECTION 8
NITRATE SELECTIVE RESINS
Experimental work during the 1978 to 1981 grant period
reported in Reference 2 was done to develop resins with higher
nitrate to sulfate selectivity than commercially available
resins. Modifications of the chemical composition and
structure of the trialkylamine divinylbenzene polystryrene
type strong base anion exchange resins were made to nhance
this prop rty.
These resins were prepared in laboratory batches from the
same copolymer base as the Duolite A104 resin manufactured by
Dt lite International, of Redwood City, California. This work
extended into the grant period from 1981 to 1987 on the
tributyl and the tripropyl resin. The e;:periniental work on
these two resins was done in the same manner as was done on
the other resins reported earlier in reference 2.
As a result of this work, a U.S. Patent entitled Removal
of Nitrate From Water Supplies Using Tributyl Amine Strong
Base Anion Exhcnage Resin. (Reference 8). This patent also
includes much of the technical data on the resins reported in
Reference 2 in addition to data on the tripropyl and tributyl
amine derivatives.
A summary of the re in properties is given in Table 37.
Special Resin Characteristics.
The tributyl resin contains three nbutyl radicals
surrounding the central nitrogen atom of the resin structure.
The resultant resin has very high nitrate to sulfate
selectivity. The anion exchange capacity is lower than the
other resins listed. The nitrate to chloride selectivity is
somewhat higher than most of the resins except the tripropyl
resin.
The tributyl resin was studied for nitrate removal in
waters containing the interferring sulfate ion. In general,
if no sulfate ion is present, standd,:d commerciaLly available
resins can be used with high chemical efficiency. If only
small amounts of sulfate are present there is little advantage
to using the tributyl resin unless very low nitrate leakages
are required. If large amounts of sulfate are present, the
91
-------
(I) N values ressured ci i ta1 anIon conccntratfon of 5 eeq er I. for resIn 12 and
50 meq 1 for a Ster re 1ns.
TABLE 31
Special Resin Characteristics
RESIN
COYLI
N J.
DE5IG S IATIOU RESIN BN 30UE Pi0S 9UR( CON1LSII
(A-lO b) ( RIHLTh1L) (A.10 10) (40 10 55) 1.3
Y OUJ4ITRIC
CAPACITY
equivalents
onr lltnr
KN K (l)
(25)
I
R- l ti
TrIaethy l
A. 104
51.0
1.41
3
500
2
9- SE
TrleLhy l
A-104
47.9
1.19
4 Co 6
1000
3
F -MOE
Keltyl -Dtethanol
A-SOt
4 5.1
1.41
10
4
R-(0(0 l
LItyl -Obethanol
A -104
38.9
1.30
50
S
R-T( ON
Triethanol
A-504
33.
5.23
10
6
R-D$LON
DI ne lhy l-Ethano l
A-104
45.7
1.42
50
I
9-DEE0 I
(Sine as A-104)
Dte lhy l-t bhano l
A-lot
43.5
1.29
500
S
R. N-P31
II4Iethy ).Morp5 olIne
A-104
44.6
1.35
4
200
9
R-t(OH-0
Tr leth vn u $
A-10 10
33.1
1.08
10
II
R-TE.N
A- SF
TrIethyI
Tripropyl
Kncroporoui
A-lOt
56 4
33.0
0.99
1.16
( 20 )(fl
12
9.78
Tr lbutyl
A- 104
30.4
0.661
S to 7
11.000
(21 (tllneted from re enerctiora Curvo.
-------
500
/
/
S
/
FIG. 23 EFFLUENT HISTORY
FOR A-1O1D RESIN
400
300
. CHLORIDE
4. a
0
/ BICARBONATE
200
/
100
SULFATE _____
BED VOLUMES
0 160 320
-------
500
I
I
400 I
I
c:
____ ____ ____ _____ SULFATE
300 I -
E I
A BICARBONATE
- --
200 /
CHLORIDE
/ ,#
100 / /
/ / NITRAI
0 B1I I4tUhIt$bll$44tIflhIIl ui tttuu,t s.ti IIHJIJIIIHtWfl
0 160 320
BED VOLUMES
FIG. 24 EFFLUENT HISTORY
FOR T-BUTYL RESIN
-------
use of the tributyl resin has several advantages.
One major advantage of the tributy . resin is illustrated
in Figures 23 and 24. These figures show effluent histories
for water ontaining the following conposition.
Nitrate 93 mg N03/L or 21 mg N03-N/L
Sulfate 288 mg/L
Bicarbonate 214 mg/L
Chloride 124 xng/L
The figures compare the effluent histories from columns
with two different resins: The AbiD (Figure 23) and the
tributyl (Figure 24). The AbiD is the comrnerc al resin used
in the McFarland plant. These curves are computer generated
by a program developed for nitrate removal studies by Boyle
Engineering Corp. (References 4 and 7).
The tributyl resin gives a longer bed run to nitrate
breakthrou h. This has economic advantages in the
construction cost of the plant because smaller resin beds and
vessels can be employed.
The tributyl resin gives an entirely different product
water quality because little sulfate is removed from the
water. This provides a product water lower in chloride wfl1 i
could exceed the secondary standard of 250 rng/L if the
commercial resin were used.
The composite product water composition from a column of
AbiD resin after treating 143 DV of water is;
Chloride 403 mg/L
Sulfate 10 mg/L
Nitrate 5 mg/L
Bicarbonate 190 mg/L
The composite product water composition from a column of
tributyl resin after treating 311 BV of water is;
Chloride 184 mg/L
Sulfate 280 mg/L
Nitrate 12 ing/L
Bicarbonate 202 mg/L
On regeneration the tributyl resin gives a cleaner waste
product because less sulfate is on the column at the end of
the run. Regeneration of the above exhausted columns, each
with one DV of 9% chloride brine, gives the following waste
composition.
95
-------
TABLE 20
WASTE BRINE COMPARISON
Mi l liequiva lents
Per Liter Tributyl A-biD
Nitrate 194 80
Sulfate 49 845
Bicarbonate 72 61
Chloride 1184 513
More nitrate (148% more) is removed from the tributyl
resin. This can be significant in the reduction of operating
costs and amount of waste brine produced.
The lower sulfate and higher chloride in the tributyl
waste provide a waste brine easier to recover useful
quantities of chloride for further use as regenerant.
Plant testing with the tributyl resin has not as yet been
accomplished. Resin prices in these quantities are unknown.
Also, no tests have been un to determine breakage and resin
loss in iong term use.
BRINE RECYCLING TESTS
Regeneration of the tributyl resin with chloride appears
io be more difficult than coininercial resins. However, because
the nitrate to chloride selectivity is higher, lower nitrate
leakages are expected from the partially regenerated resin.
As shown above, the tributyl resin provides a waste hrine
ideal for recycling. Several experiments were conducted on
brine recycling. If only the first 10 to 20 percent of the
regenerant brine is discarded as a first fraction and the
remainder of the brine used in subsequent regenerati is in the
same manner by recycling, optimnn brine use can be achieved.
The amount of brine saved by recycling in some cases can be
quite high, on the order of 50% savings. The extent of
savings depends on the number of fractions used, the amount of
salt per fraction, and the loading on the exhausted column.
96
-------
SECTION 9
PLANT OPERATION DURING 1986
Changes in Plant Qperation
In January, 1986 the plant was shut down for general
maintenance and repositioning of the brine distributors to
accoinodate five-foot deep resin beds in each vessel. Resin
was added in each vessel to bring the resin volume to 142
cubic feet (1060 gallons). This change in the plant was
requested by the EPA to gain additional operating data. The
saturated brine flow was adjusted to 260 gallons per vessel
per regeneration. The service volume was adjusted to 400,000
gallor.s per batch per vessel (377 By).
Raw water compositions were averaged for the prior three
months to make estimates of projocted plant performance. It
was noted that raw water ηuality had improved considerably,
especially in Decomber of 1985 (See Table 14). The raw water
composition used for making he projections and setting the
plant were:
Nitrate as N03 mg/L = 38.0
as N03-N rng/L = 8.58
Sulfate = 64.0
Chloride = 52.0
Bicarbonate = 68.0
The projected results at the above plant settings were:
Nitrate leakage N03 mg/L = 16.9
as N03N mg/L = 3.82
Percent treated in Blend to give desired nitrate level =
38
Projected Brine Use Factor (BUF) = 9.26
The recommended blend was too low to be used by the
plant. Flow meters were not reliable under 20% of the full
scale meter reading (800 gpm). Percer treated in blond was
ad)usted to about 50%.
The plant ran for the entire year at these settings.
97
-------
Monthly data from certified laboratory reports for the
year are listed in Table 14. The average values for the year
1986 are given in Table 38.
TABLE 38
NITRATE LEVELS 1986 (mg/L)
_________NO) N03-N
Raw 41.1 9.28
Treated 11.9 2.69
Blend 26.0 5.87
The observed nitrate leakages were 1.1 mg/L N03N lower
than predicted.
The Secondary Plant performance Factors are given in
Table 39. During this year the plant produced 145.6 million
gallons of water for the distribution system. This is 40.4%
of the plant capacity and 48.5% of the annual water demand for
the community.
The amounts of wastewater and brine used are
significantly lower than the 1985 figures (See Table 17).
These reductions in rinse water and backwash are caused by
longer bed runs because of better raw water quality. Less
brir e for treated water was also used for the same reason.
Less treated water in the distributed blend also reduced these
factors. Savings in wastewater and brine cannot be attributed
to the difference between five-foot bed and three-foot bed.
However, no adjustments were made in total rinse water and
Brine efficiency.
The BUF can be estimated from the 1986 data using the
annual nitrate averages given above. The average nitrate
removed from the feed water was (41.1111.88)/62 or 0.4715
meq/L. The service batch was 400,000 gallons (377 By). The
amount of nitrate removed per run per liter of resin is 377x
.4715 = 177.7 meg nitrate. The amount of sodium chloride used
in regeneration was 259.3 gallons of saturated brine per batch
or 1.30 liters of 1 eg/L chloride of resin. The BUF for the
year was 1300/177.7 = 7.30.
The BUF the plant should have achieved during the year
cannot be calculated on a monthly basis because complete
analyses were not obtained except for four months. If the
analyses can be considered average for the year an annual
expected BUF can be calculated. Using the following averages
for the year:
98
-------
TABLE 39
1986 SECONDARY PLANT PERFORMANCE FACTORS
Hundred Gallons
Gallons of Water of Brine Gallons of Wastewater
Total
Blend to Treated Saturated Dilute Slow Gallons
MONTH System by IX Brine Brine Rinse Backwash Wastewater
1 120000 60015 4283 5570 169350 70850 246770
2 73150 53543 3749 5249 54090 36630 95969
3 166020 62085 3945 5523 57710 39240 102473
4 227890 63899 3573 5002 54110 37180 96292
5 160210 30538 3084 4318 72680 30420 107418
6 5050 1418 389 545 8980 6250 15775
7 118090 74296 3484 4878 70800 46460 122 i38
8 194930 150876 8125 11375 147320 97770 256465
9 18610 15433 945 1323 14450 10090 25863
10 163860 130979 8160 11424 125600 82360 219384
11 90710 79055 5898 8257 102490 61050 171797
12 1J7280 76571 6144 10730 97340 66090 174160
TOTAL 1455800 798710 51779 75193 974920 584390 1634503
% of 100.00 54.86 .04 .05 .67 .40 1.12
Delivered
% of 182.27 100.00 .06 .09 1.22 .73 2.05
Treated
-------
Nitrate N03 n g/L = 42.25
N03-N mg/L = 9.54
Sulfate = 64.0
Chloride = 53.0
Bicarbonate = 71.5
A BUF of 8.53 would be expected. The actual BUF is 16%
better than expected on this basis.
The calculation sho zs that a nitrate leakage of 17.1 mg
N03/L (3.86 ing N03-N/L) would be expected. The actual average
nitrate leakage for the year was 3.065 mg N03-N/L or 79% of
the value expected.
100
-------
SECTION 10
IMPROVEMENT IN PUMPED WATER QUALITY AT NI ATE PLANT
An unexpected improvement in pumped water quality at Well
2 resulted over the course of this study. The use uf the
nitrate plant at Well 2 started in November of 1983. Data
through the end of 1986 is presented in this report. Most of
the pumping occurred in 1985. During this year, 197.4 million
gal 1 ons were pumped from the well. This represents 66% of the
conununitys demand or 55% of the plant capacity. In 1986,
145.6 million gallons were pumped from the well representing
49% of the demand or 40% of the plant capacity.
The improvement in water quality from June 1984 through
December 1986 is represented in Figure 25 as nitrate levels
are plotted vs. time. Pumping rate is also plotted in the
same Figure. Nitrate is seen to drop as pumping rate
increases and as pumping rate drops from the peak in August
1985 nitrate levels again tend to increase. The smoothed data
represents running averages of four previous data points. No
previous historical data exists to compare this data with on
the McFarland wells to determine if this is due to seasonal
nitrate changes or if it is due to pumping rate variations.
There is a definite correlation between pumping rate and
nitrate levels. The same correlation exists with sulfate and
the other ions (not shown).
Apparently, continued use of the nitrate contaminated
well will improve water quality in the well being pumped over
a long period of time. It is common knowledge that this
occurs over a short time, say over the period of a few days.
However, the long term effect has not been previously
demonstrated in McFarland. The use of the nitrate plant has
made this observation possible. It appears that if the
nitrate well (and nitrate plant) use had continued at the same
capacity during 1986, the nitrate level in the well would drop
below the level which would requirt treatment. Pumping could
then continue without treatment or with very little treatment.
A second important conclusion that can be drawn from
these long term observations is that use of Well 2 can
partially compensate for the waste discharged from the plant.
During the yc ars 1985 and 1986 a total of 251 tons of salt
were used by the plant for its regenerations. The waste was
101
-------
00000
N
45 00
40
35
23 +
20 4-
JUN 84 DEC 84 JUN 85 DEC 85 JUN 86 DEC 86
45000
40000
35000
30000
23000
20000
13000
10000
5000
FIG. 25
NITRATE
N N
N
NITRATE
-r
-s
r )
a-
6
0000000000
MCL N
0
N
0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vp
N
-a
0
t.J
N
+
4.
RATE
+
+44.
+
+
+
+
HISTORY OF UNTREATED
LEVEL AND PUMPING RATE
McFARLAND WELL NO. 2
-------
disposed to the irrigated cotton crops at the municipal
disposal site after passing through the waste ater treatment
plant. Assuming that the TDS of the pumped water w s reduced
by 25%, the reduction in solids pumped to the McFarland
environment can be estimated.
If 342 million gallons is pumped frcni Well 2 and the TDS
is reduced by virtue of the long term pumping, the amornt of
solids dumped to the environment is about 140 tons iess than
if long term pumping had not occurred.
103
-------
REFERENCES
1. Guter, G.A. Nitrate Removal from Contaminated Water Supplies
Volume I. Design and Initial Performance of a Nitrate
Removal Plant. EPA Report under Cooperative Agreement CR-
808902022.
2. Guter, G.A. Removal of Nitrate from Contaminated Water
Supplies for Public Use, Final Report. EPA-600/2-82-042,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1982.
3. Guter, G.A. Operation, Performance, And Cost of the
McFarland, CA Nitrate Removal Plant. In: AWWA Seminar
Proceedings. Control of Inorganic Contaminants. Las Vegas,
Nevada, June 5, 1983, No. 20175. pp. 29-49.
4. Guter, G.A. Estimatation of Resin and Water Composition On
Column Performance in Nitrate Ion Exchange. In: AWWA 1984
Annual Proceedings, Dallas, Texas, June 10-14, 1984. pp.
16311649.
5. Lauch, R.P. and Guter, G.A. A One MGD Ion Exchange Plant for
Removal of Nitrate from Well Water. In: AWWA 1984 Annual
Proceedings, Dallas, Texas, June 1014, 1984. pp. 713-733.
6. Lauch, R.P. and Guter, G.A. Ion Exchange for the Removal of
Nitrate from Well Water. AWWA Journal, May 1986. pp. 83
88.
7. Cuter, G.A. and Hardan, D.L. Computer Simulation of Ni -ate
Removal by Ion Exchange. In: AWWA Annual Conference
Proceedings. Washington, D.C., June 23-27, 1985. pp. 293-
1320.
8. Guter, G.A. United States Patent No. 4,479,877 Removal of
Nitrate From Water Supplies Using a Tributyl Amine Strong
Base Anion Exchange Resin. Issued Oct. 30, 1984.
9. Cumerman, R.C. et al. Estimation of Snail System Water
Treatment Costs. EPA 600/2-84/184a U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1984.
104
-------
SALT TOLUANCE OF FIELD CtOPS
IC II MItLIMMOS PIP CL It ZSC
p 4 6 6 IS I? 4 IS II PS 2*
II. -1
C. , ,.. -
3lfl,..,
W6.sI
$..pI .. ---( _ - -
S.T... I .
Si ,. I
C...
r..4b... -
Ike .
P....
23%
NSP *0% 30% TIlLS IIOUCTIOI
SALT TOLEIANCE OF YEGETAILE CROPS
IC, 16 IMUau03 PU CL AT 23.C
7 1 6 I 5 I? 4 6
Sp. c6
I... ,. ,_ I
I ,.t*.Iα 4
C -C i
Cs.. I _ ,.r.. -
S..IT_.. I-
I
Ills p. p., .------=j. -
OS S. -
___________________________
-
*0% )fl liftS It SICtIOl
I....4. ii. , ,.. . -c
t._ ...v.ss. C
I ii Isus. __________________________________________________________
IIfIi I --i
uii -
_______________________________________
wdsI..i p,uI..* --1
I . ..dI... .IOp.--- I I -
*10,3 5. -. I i ----
.6 ..dV.,. . __________________________
$5.4.. I,, 4 .. . . _____________________
1k... .. .l..4s I .4
23%
1% *0% liftS II SUCtION
The i. ,yS Si
..._ ,.-S 4
kS* k sS * is u Si SS.SPd.
C ..es .. .s s,p .-.. ,.M.d ..
i4 .4 d.ia . .s.u. s $s4ui ..
W. 4 th 6.. .. P. ,i6 i ,.i
I es Si iSuci .4 s.., . ..mq sll . .# ,s.
,.. 14 Cs..,, ,., . ..... *0-. 23-.
3o. . .(_
Information t3ke from USD& A rLcuttiare Information Bulletin Ne. 283
FIGURE A-i CROP TOLERANCE
105
SALT TOLERANCE OF FORAGE CIOPS
IC, IS MILLIMNOS PSI ( *1 73C
1 4 6 I IS I? 4 IA IS
20 72
-------
CII UM LABDRATDR1ES, InC.
4103 PIE8C 0AD. 93308 BAXE SFIEW, CAUFORNIA 93303 PH HE 327.47 7
HcFarland Mutual Water Compar.y
209 W. Kern Street
HcFarla.nd, California 93250
Attention: Dr. Cuter
Mth d. Treatment Plant Effluent 3/7/84
Safln y. }Cx 7Q3 (Mmhoa/cm ) @23°C
V. , 7 Io . .. .& ...a. . . .. c .s. p bIs
L. . ... ,d . lu. U
,.Ia y k.,..d - i. lu. . .od...iuIy iou i oI..iou .,
u,u.d . i 4o iou oI. . .o
V.. 1 . 1 ..g 4 ..I,... y hoi d - p.n. ,uIIy iCa.0i06i iu. .. .n..oI
.-o.. , . 4u .o.u. . a..d,i.o. . 1 i o.I , . .I .. I..u .a. .4
Crup ..d . .. y I. . .cM .ng.
1.L TI.. . * .rpuuoi.o* 1 IC io.. ioi9., I0 2O% of il. ,oo.i .η . .I..d
p . . . d b.i. i4 . ..o, io. I.. ..o.i co d .Ca po,CaIC io
I .. . . Ii iu...ly .k. . i...I,.e I . i c.vu. .1 thu . . . .
SaUM$y
ECMmhos/cm 0.71
Bocon, ppm 4.9
kI. 0 3 S.4. i ..p I .. oil au
o 5. I C Soi ,I u .i u.y I . .. u.oη . .. ..r ..i.. u .u y .7 .. .a ...,. l l
b..i p.CId i .u. b . ofl.c ..d
I 0-2 0 Soi..l. ,u., Pu. u.- .ol..uo , .,o . 5...,... o.u .o.oii , ..-
d.o.d _ .4 .
2 0 4 0 O .d 1 i& .. .oi e .u p. . o. .i ..loc ,u.y r.lα
One Repouted 3/15/34
D.ie Rece,.et. 3/7/84
L k ,otz&ory No.: 2487
Chlorda, xpr.s.s.d as opm. i... ... . . ,u.,..u
.004 ooc...A.oIi .,. φ.Lond . . . i...
Pu. .11
t o .p. u..ooa .d ..oP. l ..1 bo.. s.d I.n4. iou..... u .
Abou. tO C.oa.ui u .iaPuo .y Pu. ok7. . iou. ,... u .
CAUTION U..d.. h.g0 . .at . o . .u. . 3 .,o o7. . 1
c.nS teal n u.s Is. On CIu.
CHLORIDE (CJ)= 1.48 epm.
SAR in. . . A..O. . 9. . A nk,lu. ,d .el.. ..d., ... .
Ju.e9..DlC 0.d. p. .o..Oo $ ( C i ?) .4 . ....i .4.. . lo ..q . . .4 *. .u.
541
1.1... 6 9.1.. tO
II. tS P.obi. ro ..oboi,Iy r... . . .u. .I.
liowouo.o . . pu.oe ..iog. -. C)
Ab... 9 Abe .. IS ? . . ..ob.i.Iy p u b i . . . . IJC P, ....(l .. ...d u..o
pn.bI. u.ee 0 1 n .y 000fl. ,nC . .u sb
,oI pu.o. .ea . but.. 20)
!L. P. ..b I . . 7 pu.4P ... p . L . .ea .. 0.41 . . u.u SI
to. i .I. ..Iy RIo. .0 h. 9 4 . ,.i.o .oy
8c o ,(B)= 0.25 ppm
SAR of Water = . 65
ESPofSo, 1 8O __ .
I pHc
Gypsum R.quirem.nt 15.72
tis . i ,..q 9. ..dioI hd c 4.....1
L . i. 100% Gyp./H../I00 GaI./aun.
* R. (-) refers to less than
Values of pHc above 8.4 indicate tendency to
dissolve lime from soil through winch the water
vesj values below 8.4 indicate tendency to
precipitate lime trcm waters applied
B C LABORALORI S
. A #
? ,
6 U 7
J. 1. Fa3
Y 4iatIo WATER ANALYSIS
kb. 0 3
9.1 . . 0 73
o 73. I 3
1.3 .3 0
0... 3.0
U. .. 2
2 - to
t . ..t p . ..eab.I. ., oM.... 4 .. io
Constituents PPM (parts per million)
Calcium, (Ca) 13. Ntrate, (NO 1 ) 0.9 Corbortotes, (CO, ) 0.
B,corbonotes. Q1C0 3 ) 265.
Mognessum. (Mg) 1.5 Nitrate, (N) 0.2 Chlorides, (CI) 52.4
Sodium, (No) 100.
pH 7.6 Sulphotes. (5O ) 38.
Total Hardness as CoCO 3 38.7 (2.3 gr/gal) Total Dssolved SoId 483.
FIGURE A-2 LABORATORY REPORT
106
-------
TABLE A-i
PLANT RECORDS JANUARY 1986
6allone of water
Lallons
To Treated By Saturated
Date Systea By I I Passed Brine
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
Ii
l2
13
14
15
16
17
LB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1039500 1089500 0
6.SOOO 368800 306200
5 3000 315 0 267500
583000 3i5500 267500
58300d 315500 267500
46000 27700 38300
314000 170400 143600
414000 225100 188900
301000 152200 148800
569700 310600 259100
569700 310600 259100
569700 310600 259100
9000 290700 250300
530000 285800 244200
547000 296200 250800
561000 302700 253300
571000 235000 342000
577000 235000 342000
577000 235000 342000
577000 3500 342000
613000 148900 364100
545000 235300 309700
545000 235300 309700
180 3350
359 710
239 38
239 38
239 38
0 0
0 0
126 150
180 380
239 477
239 477
239 477
128 140
180 410
136 420
128 430
180 327
180 327
180 327
180 327
234 100
240 80
240 80
28 -
29
30
31
Ballons of astewater
Total
Dilute Sloe Ballons
Brine Rinse Backiash Wastewacer
3605 2445 9400
7500 4650 12860
1551 2297 3892
1557 2297 3892
1557 2297 3892
440 2420 2860
0 11100 11100
0 2440 2590
0 2460 ?840
4807 2540 7824
4807 2540 1824
4807 2540 7824
3610 4170 7 20
3600 2570 6580
3610 2400 6430
2800 2430 5860
3607 2373 6301
3607 2313 6307
3607 2373 6301
3 07 2313 6301
3610 2630 6310
3605 2350 6 35
3605 2350 fJ35
TOTAL 12495600 6746900 5148700 4285 9103 69505 68418 147026
107
-------
TABLE A-2
PLANT RECORDS FEBRUARY 1986
Sailors of Water SaUons of listewater
Eallons -- Tot 1
lo Ireated By Saturated Dilute Slow Slow Ballons
Date Systes By I I Passed Brine Brire Rinse Backwash Wastewater
2 -- - - - -- - --
3 --- -
4 .
5 - -
6 - -
7
B
9 . --- - - -
10 - - - -- - --
ii .
12 - - -
13 - -
14
[ 5 -
16
I? -
i3 159000 120500 38500 0 0 0 0 0
[ 9 559000 488200 70800 525 720 7210 5160 13090
20 348000 303000 45000 536 686 7210 4840 12736
21 655000 537600 117400 333 253 4810 3333 8796
22 655000 537600 11740* 333 253 4810 3333 8396
23 655000 537600 117400 333 253 4810 3333 8396
24 9 O00 500200 93800 214 240 3600 2fl0 6060
25 9000 492300 96100 260 40 40 2340 2420
26 646000 395900 250100 249 300 3600 2380 6260
21 602000 356200 245800 258 310 3610 2270 6190
2B 1853000 1095100 751900 104 180 10820 7420 18420
29 - - -- - - -- -- - --- -- - -
30 --- --- --
TOTAL 315000 5364200 1950800 3745 3235 50520 36629 90384
108
-------
TABLE A-3
I.ANT RECORDS MARCH 1986
Sullons of Vater Ballons of Wasteiater
6a 11o
To Treated By Saturated Dilute SIC! Ballons
Date Syste. Dy I I Passed Brine Brine
TOTAL 168441Ot 7034400 9809700 4986
3188 68574 45632 117394
Rinse
Bacluash
Wa tewater
2
--
--
3
684000
412100
271900
252
290
3600
2530
6420
4
712000
414400
297600
258
10
3610
2280
5900
5
169000
449300
319700
259
120
3600
2200
5920
6
725000
433800
291200
259
10
3610
2440
6060
7
456000
450500
5500
171
10
2410
1560
3980
8
456000
450500
5500
Ill
10
2410
1560
3980
9
456000
450500
5500
177
10
2410
1560
3980
10
598000
356100
241900
259
0
3600
2 20
6220
II
508500
159700
348800
129
0
3195
1255
4450
12
508500
159700
348800
129
0
3195
1255
4450
13
515000
143500
371500
0
0
0
0
0
14
535300
153100
362200
205
0
3600
2380
5980
15
535300
153100
382200
205
0
3600
2330
5980
16
535300
153100
382200
205
0
3600
2380
5580
17
446600
199000
247600
200
0
3610
252C
6130
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
558000
130000
428000
130
0
1800
1285
3085
20
58000
130000
428000
131
0
1800
1295
3085
11
421600
211400
210200
153
10
1370
812
2192
22
421600
211400
210200
153
10
1370
812
2192
23
421600
211400
210200
153
Id
1370
812
2192
24
421600
211400
210200
153
10
1370
812
2192
25
421600
211400
210200
153
10
1370
812
2192
20
421600
211400
210200
153
10
1370
812
2192
27
995000
212800
782200
167
667
1776
1630
4073
28
995000
212800
132200
167
667
1776
i 30
4013
29
995000
212800
182200
167
667
1776
1630
4073
30
995000
212800
782200
167
6b7
1776
1630
4073
31
778000
116400
661600
24
0
3600
2750
6350
i.09
-------
TABLE A-4
PLANI RECORDS APRIL 1986
1 586000 81400 504600
2 743000 106400 636600
3 765000 209200 555800
4 474300 360600 l13700
5 474300 360600 113700
6 474300 160500 313600
7 585000 200500 384500
8 701000 225200 475800
9 793000 226100 566900
10 835000 226100 608900
11 1199500 806000 393500
12 iiccsoo 806000 393500
13 1199500 806000 393500
14 785000 222900 562100
15 871000 249800 621200
16 7510 0 395300 355700
17 819000 236300 582100
18 1100600 158400 942200
19 1100600 158400 942200
20 1100600 158400 942200
21 936000 241200 694800
22 923300 138100 785200
23 923300 138100 785200
24 923300 138100 785200
25 906500 205200 701300
26 906500 205200 701300
27 906500 205200 701300
28 906500 205200 701300
29 868000 12B200 739800
30 -
31 -
bItt 24757100 7758600 16998500 3809
&allons of Wastewater
6alIon Total
Slow Gallons
Brine Brine Rinse Backwash Wastewater
o 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0
194 0 3610 2450 6060
123 0 466 853 1319
123 0 466 853 1319
123 0 466 853 1319
0 0 10 0 10
236 0 3610 2720 63 0
243 0 3620 1800 3420
0 0 0 420 420
166 0 2404 1701 4111
166 0 2404 17 )1 4111
166 0 2404 1707 4111
0 0 0 0 0
248 0 3610 2380 5990
247 0 3600 2540 6140
0 0 0 0 0
162 0 2737 1647 4384
162 0 2737 1647 438
162 0 2737 1647 4384
242 0 3610 2510 6120
160 0 240 1640 1880
160 0 240 1640 1880
160 0 240 1640 1880
113 0 21816 1203 23019
113 0 21816 1203 23019
113 0 21816 1203 23019
113 0 21816 1203 23019
113 0 0 10 10
0 126475 37183 163658
Gallons of Water
Date Systes By I I Passed
To Treated By Saturated Dilute
110
-------
TABLE A-S
PLANT RECORDS NAY l9 6
6allons of Water Gallon5 of Wastevater
SiUons Total
To Treated By Saturated Dilute S1o 6allons
Date Systes By I I Passed Brine Brine Rinee Backuach Wasteuter
1 736000 720100 15900 2250 0 5300 900 8200
2 312000 90100 221900 255 0 2450 6530 8980
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 715500 194800 523700 106 0 1800 1280 3080
7 719500 194800 523700 106 0 1800 1280 3080
B 755000 212700 545300 0 0 0 0 0
9 811600 232600 579000 182 0 2586 1690 4276
10 811600 232600 579000 182 0 2586 1690 4276
11 811600 232600 579000 182 0 25 6 1690 4276
12 1003000 285200 717800 215 0 3610 2420 6030
13 952300 241600 710700 280 0 0 0 0
14 570000 165800 404400 165 0 3600 2160 5760
IS 524360 150900 373980 185 0 3050 991 4041
16 524850 150900 373960 165 0 3050 991 4041
17 5249& 150900 373960 165 0 3050 951 4041
18 52486 150900 373960 165 0 3050 99! 4041
19 524360 150900 3 3960 165 0 3050 99! 404!
20 524360 153900 373960 165 0 3050 991 404!
21 524860 150900 373960 165 0 3050 991 4041
22 524860 150900 373960 165 0 3050 991 4041
23 524860 150900 373960 165 0 3050 991 4041
24 524860 150900 373960 165 0 3050 991 4041
25 524960 150900 373960 165 0 3050 99! 4041
26 574860 150900 373960 165 0 3050 991 4041
27 524960 150900 373960 165 0 3050 99! 4041
28 524860 150900 373960 165 0 3050 991 4041
29 524860 150900 373960 165 0 3050 99! 4041
30 524960 150900 373960 165 - 3050 991 4041
31 -
TOTAL 16600960 5217100 11383760 6563 0 75118 35496 110614
111
-------
TABLE A-b
PLANT RECORDS JUNE 19B
Gallons of Water Gallons of Wasteiiater
Gallons - Total
To Treated By- Saturatej Dilute Sloe Gallons
Date Syste. By I I Paised Brine Brine Rinse Backuash Wastewater
2 --
3 --- - - -- -
4
5 - -
6 -- --
7
B - - -
9 - --
10 --
II
12 - - -
13
14
15 . -
16 -
17
18
19 - - - --
20
21
22
23 505000 141800 363200 389 20 8980 6250 15250
24 - - - -
25 --
26 -- -- -
27 -
28
29 -
30 - - ---
31
TOTAL 505000 141800 363200 389 20 8980 6250 15250
112
-------
TABLE A-I
PLANT RECORDS JULY 1986
6allons of Water Gallons oI Wastcuater
Gallons Total
To Treated By Saturated Dilute Slow 6a llons
Date Systeo B I S Passed 8rin Brine Rinse Backeash Wastewater
2 - -- - --- --- - - -
3 - --- -- - -
4
5 --- - --- --
6 - -
7 -
B - --- - -- --- - - -
9
10 - --- - -
It
12 - - -- -
L.s - -- -- -
14
15 --- - - -
Lb --- --- -- -- - --
17 64B000 146200 501800 0 0 10 0 10
18 882300 247800 634500 206 0 4210 2007 6217
19 882300 247800 634500 206 0 4210 2007 6217
20 88230 247800 634500 206 0 4210 2007 6217
21 788000 522800 265200 354 0 7210 5000 12210
22 781000 587900 193100 179 0 3600 2570 6170
23 960000 744100 215900 360 0 7210 5230 12440
24 864000 655i 0 208900 255 0 3610 2340 5950
25 649600 504200 145400 214 3 4810 3383 8196
26 649600 504200 145400 214 3 4830 3383 8196
27 649600 504200 145400 214 3 4810 3383 8196
28 805000 375900 429100 359 10 7200 5240 12450
2? 764000 591000 173000 179 0 3610 2270 5880
30 801500 618600 182900 211 5395 3820 9215
31 801500 618600 182900 271 -- 5395 3820 9215
TOTAl. 11808700 7116200 4692500 3488 19 70300 46460 116779
113
-------
T 8LE A-B
2
3
4
S
6
7
a
9
I0
II
22
13
14
15
lb
17
28
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3!
PtAI4T RECORDS AU6UST 1986
792600 624900 283700
798600 614900 183700
759600 614900 183700
764500 533700 180800
764500 583100 180800
734500 571300 163200
734500 571300 163200
849600 613300 236300
849600 613300 236300
849600 623300 2363 0
798000 622400 275600
805500 620500 285000
803500 620500 285000
636000 643200 192800
867600 666600 201000
867600 666600 201000
867600 666600 201000
949700 400400 549300
805000 63310 171900
871000 864300 6700
458000 355600 102400
458000 355600 102400
458000 355600 102400
458000 355600 102400
984600 155300 229300
984600 755300 229300
984600 755300 229300
134000 117200 26800
1DTA1 22335900 26204300 5131600 1930
Sallons of Pater
a11ons of astewater
6 11ons Total
To Treatej By Saturated Diluti Slow 6a1lcn
Oate Syste. Bf I I Passed Brine Brine Rinse Backwash Mastewater
299
10121
299
0
6u14
4097
10111
244
0
6014
4097
10112
244
0
5410
3460
370
270
0
5420
346 )
8870
270
0
2081
3309
4390
0
1082
3309
4390
280
0
361
2544
905
0
351
2544
2895
260
0
361
2544
2905
242
0
7210
4790
12000
242
0
5405
3545
8550
360
0
5405
3545
8950
328
0
7220
4260
21470
329
0
6010
3810
9820
328
0
6010
3610
5820
637
0
6020
3810
9820
424
0
10810
3880
14690
248
0
8210
4760
22970
0
360
2150
2510
244
0
3605
2343
5949
244
0
3605
2343
5943
244
3605
2343
5948
320
0
3605
2343
5948
4807
3164
7911
320
0
4807
3164
7971
0
4807
3264
1971
0 127288 93305 220493
114
-------
TABLE A-9
Pt.ANT RECORDS SEPTEMEER 1986
6allons of Water Callons of Wastewater
------ SaLlon -- lotal
To Treated By Saturated Dilute 6allons
Date System By I I Passed Brine Brine Rinse Backwash Wastewater
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 130200 130500 7700 0 0 0 0 0
5 180000 146800 33200 0 0 20 0 20
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 585000 482600 102400 477 0 6350 2490 0840
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tO 93000 78500 14500 0 0 890 2520 3410
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 46000 19000 27000 0 0 600 0 600
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 8000 7000 1000 0 0 600 0 600
16 45000 36700 8300 0 0 0 0 0
17 37000 32600 4400 0 0 0 0 0
18 46000 39800 6200 229 0 4454 2690 7144
19 114000 98000 16000 0 10 10 0 20
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 63000 60300 2700 0 0 0 0 0
23 112000 Si 9 eO 52l00 0 0 0 0 0
24 130000 113100 16900 0 0 0 0 0
25 142000 119900 22100 239 0 3610 239 3849
2L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 117000 99300 17500 0 0 0 0
31
TOTAL 1856200 1524200 332000 945 10 16534 7939 24483
115
-------
TABLE Ajo
PLANT RECORDS OCTOBER 1986
6allons of water Bllons of Waste dter
To Treated By Saturated Dilut Slow
2
3
4
5
6
.7
B
9
l0
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
164000 67000 97000
429000 373600 55400
122000 91100 30900
o 0 0
o o 0
630000 322800 307200
710000 624700 85300
694000 558700 135300
617000 544500 72500
713000 569100 143900
713000 569100 143900
713000 569100 143900
713000 555100 141300
719000 557500 161500
724000 579000 145000
656000 526600 129400
711300 564500 146800
711300 564500 146600
711300 564500 146800
722000 559900 162100
716000 575500 140500
731000 565700 165303
238000 181900 56100
0 0 0
0 0 0
o 0 0
o o 0
0 0 0
707000 569900 137100
718000 569100 148900
701000 595800 105200
o 0 0 0
0 3610 2470 6080
o o 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 721 4730 5451
o 361 2310 2671
0 360 2490 2850
o 13!4 6966 8350
o 4807 3290 8091
o 4807 3290 8097
0 4807 3250 8097
0 3600 2270 5870
o 7210 5010 12220
0 3610 2350 5960
o 7200 4760 11960
o 4807 3267 8074
0 4807 3267 8074
10 4807 3267 8084
0 3600 2350 5950
o 7210 5040 12250
0 3640 2300 5940
o 3600 2470 6070
o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0
0 3610 2390 6000
3600 2420 6020
6010 4123 10133
Date Syste. By I I Passed Brine Brine
Total
Gallons
RLnse Backwash Wastewater
0
240
0
0
0
247
420
579
327
327
327
487
241
221
466
326
320
320
240
480
23
240
0
0
0
0
0
239
4fl
312
TOTAL 14983900 11829800 3154100 7143 tO 88168 74120 162298
116
-------
TABLE Ali
PLAWT RECORDS I 0VEI 9ER 1986
6allons of Water Sailons of Wastewater
6 a11or s Total
To Treated By Saturated Dlute Slow aU rts
Date Sy teu By I I Passed Briar Brior
1 701000 565800 135200
2 701000 595800 105200
3 693000 426500 266500
4 708000 517600 130400
5 697000 549900 147100
6 39000 29700 9300
7 10000 9300 700
8
9 -
10 667000 532500 134500
11 712000 117300 594700
12 721000 661100 59300
13 691100 691700 0
14 226000 190000 36000
15
16
17 454000 45700 408300
18 604000 465100 138900
19 645000 456300 188700
20 667000 472900 194100
21
22
13
24 662000 474000 188000
25 6330G 436200 196800
26 180500 780500 0
27
28
0 6010 123 0
0 6010 4123 1013.3
0 0 0 0
0 7810 5900 13610
0 3610 3010 6620
0 19580 6020 2560u
0 0 0 0
0 3700 0 3100
0 7210 4590 11800
0 10810 1120 17930
0 7210 4950 12160
0 3610 2270 5890
10 5820 2430 6260
0 4712 4690 9W2
10 0 2560 :io
0 7210 4950 I .β0
0 7210 3870 11080
0 3540 340 3880
0 4999 5990 10969
Rinse Backwash Wastewater
312
312
239
127
124
542
0
206
471
116
494
160
237
458
229
446
466
235
233
29
30
31
TOTAL 11012200 8018500 2933700 6047 20 109051 66936 165774
117
-------
TABLE -12
P1 NT RECORDS DECE?ISER 1986
SaI1CI3 of Water Salloni of Wasteuater
Gal loni Total
To Treated By Saturated Dilute
Date Syitew By 1 1 Pi eo Brine Brine
1 828600 643000 185600
2 673000 467300 205700
3 681000 475600 205400
4 675000 465200 209800
5 317000 220400 96600
6 -
7
8 646000 449100 199900
619000 439600 179400
10 582000 410500 171500
U 239000 169100 69900
12
13
14
15
16
Il
Is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
466100 466300 0
698000 494000 204000
591500 420500 171000
591500 420500 111000
473000 334000 139000
410000 288300 121700
924000 654100 269900
28 -- -
29 524000 403100 120900
30 689000 630900 259100
31 889000 630900 25.9100
237 0
459 0
236 0
462 0
234 0
238 0
469 0
234 0
227 0
236 100
428 1200
335 1120
335 1120
232 530
228 760
437 1170
229 760
447 1195
447 1495
Slow 6a1Len
Rinse 8a k.uach Wastewater
3610 2260 5970
7210 1960 12170
3610 2100 5110
7210 5010 12220
3610 2350 5960
3600 4400 6000
6200 2700 8900
4600 4110 9310
3600 2530 6130
3650 2450 6200
1210 4950 13360
2270 3640 7030
2270 3640 7030
2680 2360 5570
3600 2350 6710
6732 4510 12712
3610 2420 6790
7210 3344 12049
7210 3344 12049
TOIM. 11718700 8482200 323.6500 6150 10050 89692 64028 16317U
118
------- |