EPA/600/R-08/026
April 2008
Arsenic and Uranium Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Upper Bod fish in Lake Isabella, CA
Interim Evaluation Report
by
Lili Wang
Abraham S.C. Chen
Gary M. Lewis
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and sub-
surface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provid-
ing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the first 10 months of
system operation of an arsenic (As) and uranium (U) removal technology being demonstrated at Upper
Bodfish in Lake Isabella, CA. The objectives of the project are to evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of a
hybrid ion exchange (HEX) technology in removing arsenic and uranium to meet the respective maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) of 10 and 30 (.ig/L, (2) the reliability of the treatment system. (3) the required
system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels, and (4) the capital and O&M cost of
the technology. The project also characterizes water in the distribution system and process residuals
produced by the treatment system.
The HIX system designed by VEETech for the Upper Bodfish site consisted of two trailer-mounted,
single-stage fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) vessels, each capable of treating up to 50 gal/min (gpm) of
flow. The vessels were 42-in in diameter and 60-in in height, each containing 27 ft' of ArsenXnp, a hybrid
anion exchange resin impregnated with hydrous iron oxide nano-particles manufactured by Purolite.
During normal operation, one vessel was put into service while the other was on standby.
During the study period from October 13, 2005 through August 3, 2006, the HIX system operated for a
total of 4.631 hr, treating approximately 6,693,700 gal of water from the Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A.
The average daily run time was 15.4 hr/day and the average daily production was 22,300 gal/day (gpd).
The system flowrates ranged from 21 to 29 gpm and averaged 24 gpm, which was 48% of the system
design flowrate. The lower flowrates resulted in longer empty bed contact times (EBCT), i.e., 9.6 to 7.0
min, and lower hydraulic loading rates, i.e., 2.2 to 3.0 gpm/ft2.
Source water from Well CH2-A had near-neutral pH values of 6.8 to 7.2, 88 to 145 mg/L of alkalinity (as
CaCO3), 36 to 41 mg/L of sulfate, and 40 to 48 mg/L of silica. In addition, the well water contained 36.5
to 47.3 (ig/L of total arsenic with As(V) being the predominating species at an average concentration of
40.9 (.ig/L. The source water also contained 26.6 to 38.9 (,ig/L of total uranium, with concentrations
exceeding the 30-(ig/L MCL most of the time.
During the first 10 months of system operation, total arsenic concentrations in the treated water were
reduced to <0.1 (ig/L initially and gradually increased to 10.5 (.ig/L after 33,100 bed volumes (BV) of
throughput. This run length was 65% higher than the vendor-provided estimate of 20,000 BV.
Meanwhile, uranium was completely removed to below the detection limit of 0.1 (ig/L throughout the 10-
month study period. A laboratory rapid small-scale column test (RSSCT) on the Upper Bodfish water
using the ArsenXnp media achieved a similar run length of 28,000 BV for arsenic and over 50,000 BV for
uranium. The better-than-expected performance of the full-scale system might have resulted from the
lower flowrates and longer EBCTs experienced by the HLX system. The HIX system did not require
backwashing due to an insignificant headless buildup across the adsorption vessel.
Comparison of the distribution system water sampling results before and after system startup showed
significant decreases in arsenic concentrations at three residences. The arsenic concentrations measured
at the taps of these residences typically were higher than those of the plant effluent and mirrored the
breakthrough behavior of arsenic in the plant effluent. Uranium was not present in the distribution system
during the baseline sampling when Well CH2-A was not in service, and is not expected to be present after
system startup due to the absence of uranium in the treatment effluent. The HIX system did not appear to
have any effects on other water quality parameters in the distribution system.
At 33,100 BV, the uranium loading on the ArsenXnp media was estimated to be 0.13% (by wet weight).
According to EPA's A Regulators ' Guide to the Management of Radioactive Residuals from Drinking
Water Treatment Technologies (EPA, 2005), uranium is considered "source material" and may be subject
IV
-------
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) licensing requirements if a water system generates
uranium-containing residuals. However, uranium is exempt from NRC regulations if it makes up less
than 0.05% (by weight), or an "unimportant quantity." of the residuals, (10 CFR 40.13). Although it is
not clear how this 0.05% is defined and how the "residuals" are quantified, there is a possibility that the
spent media may be classified as non-exempt material, and thus can be subject to relevant regulations on
storage, transportation, and disposal. If so. the spent media may not be regenerated at Mobile Processing
Technology (MPT)'s facility in Memphis, TN as planned because it is not licensed to process non-exempt
material. Therefore, three options were proposed by the vendor and are being evaluated for spent media
disposition, including 1) partial onsite regeneration to reduce the uranium loading to below the 0.05%
"unimportant quantity", followed by offsite regeneration to further remove arsenic and uranium, 2)
complete onsite regeneration to remove both arsenic and uranium from the media, and 3) replacement and
disposal of the spent media at a permitted facility. The approach for actual spent media disposition will
be described in the Final Performance Evaluation Report.
The capital investment cost was $114,070, which included $82,470 for equipment, $12,800 for
engineering, and $18,800 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 50 gpm, the capital cost
was $2,281/gpm (or $1.58/gpd).
The O&M cost for the FflX system included only incremental cost associated with the system operation,
such as media regeneration or replacement and disposal as well as labor for routine operation. The
vendor estimated $12,700 for partial onsite regeneration (not including any additional cost for the
subsequent offsite regeneration), $15,900 for complete onsite regeneration, and $21,950 for media
replacement and disposal. By averaging the media regeneration or replacement cost over the useful life
of the media (i.e., 33,100 BV or 6,685,000 gal), the cost per 1,000 gal of water treated for these three
options would be $1.90, $2.38, and $3.28/1,000 gal, respectively. The HIX system did not require
electricity to operate. Routine activities to operate and maintain the system consumed only 50 min per
week and the estimated labor cost was $0.13/1,000 gal of water treated.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 6
3.1 General Project Approach 6
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 6
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 7
3.3.1 Source Water 10
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 10
3.3.3 Distribution System Water 10
3.4 Sampling Logistics 10
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 10
3.4.2 Preparation of Sample Coolers 10
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13
4.1 Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure 13
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 14
4.1.2 Distribution System 16
4.2 Treatment Process Description 16
4.3 System Installation 22
4.3.1 Permitting 22
4.3.2 Building Preparation 23
4.3.3 Installation. Shakedown, and Startup 23
4.4 System Operation 23
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 23
4.4.2 Residual Management 24
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 26
4.5 System Performance 27
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 27
4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling 35
4.6 System Cost 37
4~6.1 Capital Cost 38
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 38
VI
-------
5.0: REFERENCES 41
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
OPERATIONAL DATA
ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 3-2. Distribution Map of Upper Bodfish Site 11
Figure 4-1. Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A in Lake Isabella, CA 13
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Aeration Tank at Upper Bodfish in Lake Isabella, CA 14
Figure 4-3. P&ID of HTX Treatment System (Provided by VEETech) 18
Figure 4-4. F£LX System Layout on Trailer (Provided by VEETech) 19
Figure 4-5. HTX Trailer-Mounted System under a Canopy 20
Figure 4-6. Bag Filter Assemblies 21
Figure 4-7. HTX Media Vessel with Pressure Release Port on Left and Media Sampling Ports at
Middle and on Right 21
Figure 4-8. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, BF, and AF Sampling Locations 30
Figure 4-9. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve - Full-Scale System 31
Figure 4-10. Total Uranium Breakthrough Curve - Full-Scale System 31
Figure 4-11. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves - Laboratory7 RSSCT 32
Figure 4-12. Uranium Breakthrough Curves - Laboratory RSSCT 32
Figure 4-13. Distribution of Uranium Carbonate and Hydroxide Complexes as a Function of pH 33
Figure 4-14. Silica Concentrations at Upper Bodfish 35
Figure 4-15. Total As Concentrations in Distribution System at Upper Bodfish 37
Figure 4-16. Media Regeneration and Replacement Cost Curves 40
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 6
Table 3-2. General Types of Data 7
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Chemical Analytes 8
Table 4-1. Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A Source Water Quality Data 15
Table 4-2. Typical Physical and Chemical Properties of ArsenX1113 Media 17
Table 4-3. HTX Treatment System Specifications and Design Parameters 17
Table 4-4. Summary of HTX System Operation 23
Table 4-5. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Uranium, Iron, and Manganese 28
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results 29
Table 4-7. Comparison of Full-Scale System and Laboratory7 RSSCT Media Run Length 33
Table 4-8. Distribution System Sampling Results 36
Table 4-9. Capital Investment Cost for the HTX System 38
Table 4-10. Operation and Maintenance Cost for HTX System 39
Vll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
AC asbestos cement
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
BAT best available technology
bgs below ground surface
BV bed volume
Ca calcium
Cal Water California Water Service Company
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
C/F coagulation/filtration process
Cl chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluorine
Fe iron
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gph gallons per hour
gpm gallons per minute
HLX hybrid ion exchange(r)
hp horse-power
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
MPT Mobile Processing Technology
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
Na sodium
NA not available
ND not detectable
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
PO4 phosphate
POE point of entry
POU point of use
psi pounds per square inch
PVC poly vinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
RSSCT rapid small-scale column test
SBA strong-base anion
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO42" sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
U uranium
V vanadium
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of the California Water Service
Company (Cal Water) in Lake Isabella, California. The primary operator, Mr. Mike Adams, monitored
the treatment system and collected samples from the treatment plant and distribution system on a regular
schedule throughout this reporting period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible
without their support and dedication.
x
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and are
known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA. EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 ug/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, onsite demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects mat were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
host sites. California Water Service Company (Cal Water)'s Upper Bodfish facility in Lake Isabella,
California, was among those selected for the Round 2 demonstration.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28. In February 2005, VEETech's hybrid ion exchange (HIX) technology
using ArsenXnp media was selected for removal of arsenic and uranium from source water at the Upper
Bodfish site in Lake Isabella. CA.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13 coagula-
tion/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, and 17 point-of-use (POU) units (including
nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and eight AM units
at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors,
system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, Fe, and pH) at the 40
demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 Round 1
demonstration sites and the associated capital costs are provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004;
Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA website at
http://w\\w.epa.gov7ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/d\v/arsenic/tech/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 40 full-scale arsenic treatment
technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific
objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the HFX system at the Upper Bodfish site in Lake Isabella,
CA during the first 10 months of operation from October 12, 2005 through August 3, 2006. The types of
data collected include system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the
distribution system), residuals, and capital and preliminary O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
Fe
(ug/L)
pH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales. ME
Bow, NH
Goffstown, NH
Rolliiisford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
SteveiisviUe, MD
Houghton, NYld)
Buckeye Lake, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rolliiisford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake ITead Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Llome Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM(G2)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (ARM 200)
AM(E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70W
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250(e)
38la)
39
33
36la)
30
30(a)
19(a;
27la)
15(a)
25(a)
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
27[)lc,
1,806IC)
l,312(c)
l,615(c)
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sank Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM(E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM(E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
USFilter
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14«u
13"°
16'-a)
20(aJ
17
39la)
34
25la)
42^
146la)
127io
466(c)
1,387IC)
l,499'c)
7827IC)
546ic)
l,470'c)
3,078(c)
l,344'cl
l,325(c)
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Aniaudville, LA
Alvin. TX
Bnmi. TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo. NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odliam Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770(ei
150
40
100
320
145
450
90
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(Hg/L)
Fe
(Hg/L)
pH
Far West
Three Forks. MT
Fruitland. ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls. OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susauville, CA
Lake Isabella. CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
California Water Service Company
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POEAM
(Adsorbsia/ARM
200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM
200)fg)
FX (Arsenex FI)
AM (GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM(HTXorArsenXnp)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69(c)
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media; C/F = coagulation/filtration; GFH = granular ferric hydroxide; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(in).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% after system was switched from parallel to serial configuration.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(FI).
(d) Replaced Village of Lyman, NE site which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(e) Faculties upgraded Springfield, OH system from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI system from 210 to 340 gpm, and Arnaudville, LA system from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected from the first 10 months of the HIX system operation, the following
was summarized and concluded relating to the overall objectives of the technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic and uranium removal technology for use on small systems:
• ArsenXnp media is effective at removing arsenic and uranium to below their respective
MCLs. The treatment system achieves a run length of 33,100 bed volume (BV) at 10-(.ig/L
arsenic breakthrough, which is 65% higher than the vendor projected run length. Uranium is
completely removed to below the detection limit of 0.1 ^g/L throughout the entire study-
period.
• The presence of silica at 43.4 mg/L (as SiO2) has little or no effect on ArsenXnp performance.
Silica removal was observed only for the initial 1.000 BV.
• The use of ArsenXnp does not alter water quality parameters, such as pH. alkalinity, sulfate,
fluoride, nitrate, and hardness.
Required system operation and maintenance and operator skill levels:
• The system requires little attention from the operator. The daily demand is only
10 min to visually inspect the system and record operational parameters.
• System operation does not require additional skills beyond those necessary to operate
the preexisting water supply equipment. The system is operated by a State-certified
operator who possesses Level 2 certifications for both treatment and distribution
systems.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• Because backwash was not required during the entire test run. no backwash wastewater or
solids were produced.
• Residuals produced by the treatment system comprise only spent media, which contains
arsenic and uranium. The disposition of spent media is still to be determined.
Cost of the Technology:
• Based on the system's rated capacity of 50 gallons per minute (gpm), the capital cost is
$2,281 per gpm of the design capacity (or $1.58/gallons per day [gpd]).
• Cost of media regeneration or replacement is the most significant add-on cost. The labor cost
for routine O&M activities is $0.13/1,000 gal. Neither chemicals nor electricity are required
for the HIX system.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study
of the HIX treatment system began on October 12, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data
collected and/or considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall performance of the
system was determined based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic and uranium to their respective
MCLs of 10 ng/L and 30 (.ig/L; this was monitored through the collection of (bi)weekly and monthly
water samples across the treatment train, as described in the Study Plan (Battelle, 2005). The reliability
of the system was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of
repair and replacement activities. The unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by
the plant operator on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation received by Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Plans Submitted to CDPH
Final Study Plan Issued
System Permit Issued bv CDPH
HIX System Shipped and Arrived
System Installation and Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
October 14, 2004
April 11. 2005
April 18, 2005
May 6, 2005
May 24, 2005
June 2. 2005
July 19, 2005
August 2, 2005
October 4, 2005
August 24. 2005
September 23, 2005
October 4, 2005
October 12, 2005
CDPH = California Department of Public Health
The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data
and qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system
automation, extent of preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling
and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and
safety practices. The staffing requirements for system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per (gpm or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital cost for equipment,
engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media regeneration or replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electricity usage, and labor.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed weekly and monthly system O&M and data collection following the
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis (except for Saturdays and Sundays),
-------
Table 3-2. General Types of Data
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and
Operator Skill
Requirements
Residuals Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 u.g/L of arsenic and 30 ug/L of uranium in
treated water
-Unscheduled downtime for system
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems,
materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of system automation for data collection and system operation
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventive maintenance including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
the plant operator recorded system operation data, such as pressure, flow rate, totalizer, and hour meter
readings on a Daily Field Log Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system
operations. In the event of problems, the operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who then
determined if the vendor should be contacted for troubleshooting. The operator recorded all relevant
information, including the problem encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and
associated cost and labor incurred, on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly basis, the plant
operator measured field water quality parameters, including pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO),
oxidation-reduction potential (ORP). and residual chlorine, and recorded the data on a Weekly Onsite
Water Quality Parameter Log Sheet.
The capital cost forme HIX system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and system
installation. The O&M cost consisted primarily of the cost to regenerate or replace the spent media and
the labor to operate the system. No chemicals or electricity was required by the HIX system. Labor for
various activities such as routine system O&M. troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related
work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included
activities, such as completing field logs, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as
recommended by the vendor. The demonstration-related activities, including performing field
measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the
vendor, were recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the performance of the HIX system, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the
treatment plant, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the schedules and chemical analytes
for each sampling event. In addition, Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the treatment system along
with the analytes and schedules at each sampling location. Specific sampling requirements for analytical
methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the
EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic
speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Chemical Analytes
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Sampling
Locations*3'
At Wellhead (IN)
At Wellhead (IN).
before HIX Filter
(BF), after HIX
Filter (AF)
Three Residences
including One
Historic LCR
Sampling
Location
No. of
Sampling
Locations
1
3
3
Frequency
Once during
initial site
visit
Weekly or
Biweekly
Monthly
Monthly*1
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature.
DO, and ORP
Offsite: As (total and
soluble), As(IH), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble).
V (total and soluble).
Na, Ca, Mg, NH3. NO3,
NO2, Cl, F, SO4. SiO2,
PO4, TDS, TOC,
turbidity, and alkalinity
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Offsite: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), U
(total), Ca, Mg, SiO:, P,
turbidity, and alkalinity
Onsite: pH, temperature.
DO. and ORP
Offsite: As (total and
soluble), As(HI), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble).
Mn (total and soluble).
U (total and soluble).
Ca, Mg, F. NO3, SO4,
SiO2, P, turbidity, and
alkalinity
pH, alkalinity. As (total),
Fe (total). Mn (total), Pb
(total), and Cu (total)
Sampling
Date
10/14/04
10/19/05, 10/26/05,
11/02/05, 11/16/05,
12/01/05, 12/08/05,
01/04/06, 01/25/06,
02/22/06, 03/22/06,
04/19/06, 05/17/06,
06/01/06,06/22/06,
07/19/06,
07/26/06'°'
10/13/05. 11/08/05,
12/28/05.01/11/06,
02/08/06. 03/08/06,
04/04/06. 05/03/06,
06/14/06. 07/06/06,
08/03/06
Baseline sampling:
08/10/05, 08/30/05,
09/13/05,09/28/05
Monthly sampling:
10/26/05, 12/08/05,
01/04/06, 02/22/06,
03/22/06, 04/26/06,
05/17/06, 06/22/06,
07/19/06
(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 3-1.
(b) Four baseline sampling events performed from August to September 2005 before system became operational.
(c) Analyzed for As (total) only.
LCR = Lead and Copper Rule: TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon
-------
Monthly
pH'"', temperature'"',
DOW, ORP'3', As speciation,
Fe (total and soluble).
Mn (total and soluble)
U (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg. F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P.
turbiditv, alkalinity
pH'3', temperature'8',
DO'"', ORP'3', As speciation.
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble) •
LI (total and soluble).
Ca. Mg, F. NO,. SO4, SiO,, P.
turbidity, alkalinity
INFLUENT
(UPPER BODFISH WELL CH2-A)
Lake Isabella, CA
HEX Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: 50 gpm
Weekly
pH, temperature'"', DO'3',
ORP'3'. As (total). Fe (total),
Mn (total), U (total), Ca, Mg,
SiO2, P, turbidity, alkalinity
pH'3', temperature'"',
DO'3'. ORP'3'. As speciation.
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble)
U (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO,, SO4, SiO2, P,
turbidity, alkalinity
1
' i
r
BAG FILTER BAG FILTER
i
/VES
\ A
r i
SEL] [VES
*' J IB
r
SEL\
w j
pH'3'. temperature'3', DO'a',
ORP'a', As (total). Fe (total).
Mn (total), U (total), Ca, Mg,
SiO2, P, turbidity, alkalinity
g LEGEND
| (IN) At Wellhead
| (BF) Before HK Filter
$ (\?\ After FflX Filter
S \3/ (Vessel A or B)
1
INFLL1ENT Unit Process
^
Chlorine/Phosphate
Addition Point
pH'3', temperature'3', DO'3',
ORP'3', As (total), Fe (total),
Mn (total), U (total), Ca. Mg,
SiO,, P, turbidity, alkalinity
AERATOR
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Footnotes
(a) On-site analyses
(b) One vessel in service while
the other in stand-by mode
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations for Upper Bodfish Site
-------
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial visit to the site, one set of source water samples was
collected and speciation using an arsenic speciation kit was performed (see Section 3.4.1). The sample
tap was flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which
might cause unwanted oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, the plant
operator collected samples weekly, on a four-week cycle, from October 13 to December 8, 2005, for on-
and offsite analyses. For the first week of each four-week cycle, samples taken at the wellhead (IN),
before the FflX filter (BF), and after the FHX filter (AF), were speciated onsite and analyzed for the
analytes listed in Table 3-3 for monthly treatment plant water. For the remaining weeks, samples were
collected at the same three locations and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for the weekly
treatment plant water. Beginning from December 28, 2005 through August 3, 2006, sampling frequency
was reduced from weekly to biweekly. For the first biweekly event in each four-week cycle, samples
were collected at the three locations and analyzed for the analytes listed under the monthly treatment plant
water. For the second biweekly event, samples were collected from the same three locations and analyzed
for the analytes listed under the weekly treatment plant water.
3.3.3 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine any impact of the MX system on the water chemistry in the distribution system, specifically,
the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. From August to September 2005, prior to startup of the FHX system,
four baseline distribution sampling events were conducted at three locations in the distribution system.
Following startup of the HIX system, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the
same three locations, with the exception of DS2 on March 22, 2006.
Three residences were selected for distribution water sampling, including 179 Spring Court ('TJS1"), 66
Spring Court ("DS2"), and 2216 Rembach Avenue ("DS3") Only one residence (i.e., DS2) was part of
the historic Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling network serviced primarily by the treatment well.
Figure 3-2 is a distribution map showing the three sampling locations. The homeowners of the residences
collected samples following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring
and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The dates and times of last water usage
before sampling and sample collection were recorded for calculation of the stagnation time. It was
required that all samples were to be collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least
6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kit preparation, sample cooler preparation, and sample
shipping and handling are discussed as follows:
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(ni) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sample Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, colored-coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample
collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The
sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code
for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
10
-------
Provided by California Water Service Company
Figure 3-2. Distribution Map of Upper Bodfish Site
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The
labeled bottles for each sampling locations were placed in separate Ziplock™ bags and packed in the
cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included. The chain-of-
custody forms and airbills were complete except forme operator's signature and the sample dates and
times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following week's
sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for offsite analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
11
-------
Samples for metal analyses were stored and analyzed at Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass
spectrometry (ICP-MS) laboratory. Samples for other water quality parameters were packed in separate
coolers and picked up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and
TCCI Laboratories in New Lexington. OH, both of which were contracted by Battelle for this
demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of
preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate
laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy,
method detection limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative
percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The quality
assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary
Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
VWR Symphony SP90MS handheld multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use
following the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy
by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator
collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the WTW probe in the beaker until a stable
value was obtained.
12
-------
4.1
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure
Cal Water's Kern River Valley District owns and operates three wells, i.e.. CH-1, CH2-A, and CH-3,
which serve approximately 600 residences at Upper Bodfish in Lake Isabella, CA. The population
increases in the summer months due to an influx of tourists. The average monthly demand is 1.000,000
gal (or 34,000 gpd) and the peak monthly demand is 1.900.000 gal (or 64.000 gpd). The water demand is
met primarily by Well CH-1 (rated at 50 gpm) and Well CH2-A (rated at 38 gpm). which jointly produce
a maximum of 86,400 gpd. Well CH-3, located adjacent to CH2-A, has been taken out of service for an
extended period of time.
Well CH2-A was selected for this EPA demonstration study due to the elevated arsenic and uranium
levels in the water. Drilled in 1980, Well CH2-A is 6-in in diameter and 348 ft deep with a static water
level of 336 ft below ground surface (bgs). The well is equipped with a 3-horsepower (hp) pump that
produces 38 gpm of flow (well pump curve was unavailable). Prior to the installation of the HIX system,
the well operated only during the summer months and had an average, monthly production rate of
190,000 gal and a peak monthly production of 870,000 gal. Figure 4-1 shows the preexisting Well CH2-
A wellhead and associated piping in a fenced area.
Figure 4-1. Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A in Lake Isabella, CA
The preexisting treatment for Well CH2-A consisted of aeration, chlorination, and phosphate addition.
Aeration was performed in a 7-ft diameter by 12 ft tall 3,500-gal steel tank (Figure 4-2) to remove radon.
Prior to entering the aerator, water was injected with chlorine for disinfection and a phosphate blend
solution for corrosion and scale control. The target chlorine residual level was 1.0 mg/L (as C12) and the
target phosphate level was 0.5 mg/L (as PO4). The treated water was then pumped to the distribution
system by a 10-hp booster pump.
13
-------
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Aeration Tank at Upper Bodfish in Lake Isabella, CA
Well CH-1, drilled in August 1986. is located approximately a quarter of a mile southeast of Well CH2-A.
The well water did not contain elevated arsenic or uranium so the well was previously used as the lead
well. Existing treatment consisted of chlorination and phosphate addition at the wellhead.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected from Well CH2-A on October
14, 2004 by a Battelle staff member who attended an introductory meeting for this project. Source water
also was filtered for soluble arsenic, iron, manganese, uranium, and vanadium, and speciated for As(III)
and As(V) using a field speciation method modified from Edwards (1998) by Battelle (Wang et al., 2000).
In addition, pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were measured onsite using a WTW 340i meter which failed
to work properly at the time. Thus, these data were not reported in Table 4-1. The analytical results from
the source water sampling event are presented in Table 4-1 and compared to those provided by Cal Water
for the EPA demonstration site selection and those collected historically by CDPH during September 18,
2002, through November 16, 2005. Source water quality data collected during the 10-month study period
are discussed in Section 4.5.1.
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 35.4 to 41.3 |Jg/L. Based on the
October 14, 2004 speciation results, out of 35.4 jig/L of total arsenic (mostly soluble), 35.0 |^g/L existed
as As(V), which could be removed directly by the HLX system without preoxidation.
Uranium. Total uranium concentrations in Well CH2-A ranged from 27.0 to 35.0 |-ig/L, which
potentially could exceed its MCL of 30 |j,g/L (see discussion in Section 4.5.1 regarding the conversion
between the Federal and California MCLs for uranium). Based on the October 14,2004 speciation
results, uranium existed entirely in the soluble form.
Radon. Radon is a radioactive gas released by uranium-bearing rocks and soil. Total radon
concentrations in source water ranged from 22,294 to 40,000 pCi/L based on radioactivity analysis
conducted from March 9 to November 16, 2004. As noted above, there was a preexisting aeration tank to
remove radon from water prior to distribution.
14
-------
Iron and Manganese. According to the facility data, the total iron concentration of source water was 800
|.ig/L. Iron concentrations reported by Battelle and CDPH were less than the respective reporting limits of
25 and 100 (ig/L. According to VEETech, iron can bind to the surface of the HIX media, thus increasing
the capacity and removal efficiency for arsenic. Manganese concentrations in source water were as low-
as 1.1 (.ig/L, which existed mainly in the soluble form.
Table 4-1. Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A Source Water Quality Data
Parameter
Date
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
As(total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(in)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
Rn (total)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M-S/L
W?/L
^g/L
M-S/L
W?/L
V&L
W?/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
^g/L
pCi/L
HS/L
M-S/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
CDPH
Data
09/18/02-11/16/05
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
83
0.1
229
NA
1.0
<0.04
NA
10.8
1.1
38.6
NA
NA
41.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
<100
NA
<20
NA
27-35
NA
22,294-40,000
NA
NA
27.6
35.2
1.7
Facility
Data(a)
2002
7
NA
NA
NA
85
86
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
38
40
0.07
37
NA
NA
NA
NA
800
NA
20
NA
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.0
34.0
2.0
Battelle
Data
10/14/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
85
91
0.4
234
<0.7
1.2
0.01
0.05
11.0
1.1
36.0
44.7
0.06
35.4
35.8
O.I
0.8
35.0
<25
<25
1.1
0.8
31.5
31.7
NA
0.6
0.4
36.7
32.5
2.5
(a) Provided by Cal Water to EPA for site selection.
NA = not available; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon
Competing An ions. Silica and phosphate are potential competing anions in source water. Concentrations
of silica in source water ranged from 40 to 44.7 mg/L (as SiO2), which, according to the vendor, might
15
-------
accumulate on the HIX media to adversely affect the removal efficiency of arsenic and uranium.
Phosphate concentrations in source water were below the detection limits of 0.06 and 0.07 mg/L as
reported by Battelle and the facility, respectively.
Other Water Quality Parameters. pH values of raw water averaged 7.0, which is favorable for arsenic
adsorption onto the HIX media; total alkalinity values averaged 85 mg/L (as CaCO3), and fluoride
averaged 1.1 mg/L. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 36 to 38.6 mg/L; sodium from 27.6 to 36.7 mg/L;
calcium from 32.5 to 35.2 mg/L; magnesium from 1.7 to 2.5 mg/L; and chloride from 9 to 11.0 mg/L.
The presence of these ions in source water was not expected to significantly affect the arsenic removal by
the HIX media, however, sulfate and chloride could affect the uranium removal during the IX process.
4.1.2 Distribution System. The distribution system at the Upper Bodfish site consisted of
approximately 200 connections supplied by Wells CH-1 and CH2-A (CH-3 was inactive). The
distribution system piping materials included steel, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and asbestos cement (AC).
Service lines were typically composed of galvanized steel, copper, or PVC piping. Fire hydrant flushing
was not performed regularly due to a water shortage by recent drought conditions. A blended poly- and
ortho-phosphate solution has been used for iron sequestration and corrosion control in the distribution
system. Due to exceedance over the copper action level, the LCR sampling program was conducted
annually at 10 selected residences with the most recent sampling taking place in June 2003 and August
2004. In addition, samples were collected monthly from the distribution system for bacterial analysis.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
The HIX technology marketed by VEETech is a fixed bed adsorption system utilizing a hybrid
polymeric-inorganic exchanger, known as ArsenXnp, for arsenic and uranium removal. Manufactured by
Purolite, ArsenXnp incorporates nanoparticle technology originally developed by Dr. Arup SenGupta of
Lehigh University, PA and further refined by SolmeteX, Inc., of Northborough, MA. ArsenXnp is NSF 61
certified for use in municipal water treatment systems. Table 4-2 presents physical and chemical
properties of the media. ArsenXnp consists of hydrous iron oxide nanoparticles impregnated into a
standard strong-base anion (SBA) exchange resin. The iron content is approximately 25% (as Fe by dry
weight). The ArsenXnp media utilizes the iron chemistry to adsorb arsenic from water and simultaneously
removes uranium by its base material - anionic exchange resin. The SBA resin is known for having a
high selectivity and a high capacity for uranium removal (Clifford, 1999). Previous EPA studies
suggested that the resin technology would be a cost-effective method for removing uranium from small
community water supplies (Sorg, 1988). Ion exchange is listed as one of the Best Available Technologies
(BATs) for uranium treatment.
Table 4-3 presents relevant specifications and key design parameters. Figure 4-3 is a piping and
instrumentation diagram (P&ID). The system consists of two single-stage, fiberglass reinforced plastic
(FRP) vessels connected in parallel. Each vessel is capable of treating 50 gpm of flow. During normal
operations, one vessel is placed in service while the other is on standby. This configuration allows
continuous system operation should one vessel be shipped off site for regeneration. Approximately 27 ftj
of ArsenXnp media was loaded into each vessel to a packing height of 2.8 ft. As water passed
downwardly through the media bed, arsenic and uranium were removed via a combination of adsorption
and IX processes. Mounted on a 16 ft long and 6 ft wide trailer for easy transportation, the system was
instrumented with ball valves, gauges for pressure, temperature, and flow, and sample collection ports.
Figure 4-4 presents the layout of the HLX system on the trailer. Figure 4-5 is a photograph of the trailer-
mounted HIX system.
16
-------
Table 4-2. Typical Physical and Chemical Properties of ArsenXnp Media
Parameter
Physical Form and Appearance
Polymer Structure
Matrix Structure
Bead Size (mm [mesh])
Bulk Density (lb/ft3 [g/L])
Moisture Content (%)
Arsenic Capacity (g As/L)
Contact Time (min)
Specific Service Flowrate (BV/h [gpni/ft3])
Max. Operating Temperature (°C [°F])
Operational pH(S.U.)
Value
Reddish-brown spherical beads
Polystyrene crosslinked with
divinyl benzene
Macro-porous matrix impregnated with
iron nanoparticles
0.3-1.2 [16 x 50]
49-52 [790-840]
55-60
0.5^.0
(depending on raw water composition and
operating conditions)
2.5 to 3.0
Typical 20-24 [2.5-3.0]
up to 43 [4.0]
80 [176]
4.5-8.5
Source: Purolite
Table 4-3. HIX System Specifications and Design Parameters
Design Parameter
No. of Vessels
Vessel Size (in)
Type of Media
Quantity of Media (ft3)
Backwash
Pressure Drop (psi)
Area of Cross Section (ft2)
Media Bed Depth (ft)
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Peak Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
Specific Service Flow Rate (gpm/ft3)
EBCT (min)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Estimated Throughput to 10-ug/L
As Breakthrough (gal)
Average Daily Demand (gal)
Estimated Media Life (month)
No. of Regenerations (time/year)
Value
2
42 OD x 60 H
ArsenXnp
27
None
3
9.6
2.8
50
38
4.0
1.4
5.3
15,000-20,000
3,000,000-4,000,000
22,800-34,200
4
3
Remark
One in operation, one in stand-by
—
Per vessel
—
1 psi/ft of media
— ,
-
-
Based on well pump capacity
Based on 38 gpm flowrate
Based on 38 gpm flowrate
Based on 38 gpm flowrate
Based on 10-ug/L arsenic
breakthrough
1 BV = 202 gal
10-15 hr of operation
—
-
17
-------
By-pass line (by Cal water)
^l VB5 .-pf-.
> V1
._ ! 'i VB6 ^
-CTL^
t
r TT • T Sample Tap
x -'1
2" Sch 80 PVC
2" Sch 80 PVC -^
•^ VB8
VB3 _J
WeUPump
(existing)
Bodfish Well CH2-A
\t^ VB4
5um Paniculate/Sediment
Prefilter
VB2
. VB1
/
/
- PI
-^7 _ iAn n ^_
/ j
COLUMN I
HIX
Sample port (typical)
COLUMN H
HDC
Legend:
VB: BaU Valve
VC: Check Valve
FI: Flow Indicator
PI: Pressure Indicator
TI: Temperature Indicator
FT: Flow Totalizer
Notes:
a. Each HEX column will be 3.5' Dia x 5' High
b. The HEX columns will be made out of FRP material
c. The HEX columns will contain Lifting Lugs for easy placement
and removal from the trailer
d. The interconnecting piping will use unions / quick connectors
for easy assembly and disassembly
Figure 1: Piping & Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID)
for a SOgpm system for Removal of Arsenic and
Uranium from drinking water using Hybrid Ion Exchanger
(HIX) at Upper Bodfish well CH2-A,CA
Client: Battelle/California Water Service
Blind Flange (typical) ^~
VC2
i VB10
2" Sch 80 PVC
Sample Tap
) /"fin
'
vcl
To the
Equalization
Tank
(Existing)
REV
0
DATE
04/25/2005
05/16/2005
COMMENTS
INITIAL SUBMISSION
INCORPORATED FINAL LOU C<
VEETech, P.C
942 Millbrook Avenue, Suite 6
Aiken, South Carolina 29803
Figure 4-3. P&ID of fflX Treatment System (Provided by VEETech)
-------
72,00
15,00
78,00
T
192,30
PLAN VIEW
\-\ix
Column I
36.00
mx
Column II
_ 42,CO .
VIEW X-
Figure No:
Drawn By:
RS
Checked By:
AKS
VIEW Y-Y
No~e: All Dimensions are in inches
Figure 2: System Layout on Trailer
Client: Battelle/California Water Service
Date:
07/18/2005
VEETech,P.C
942 Millbrook Avenue, Suite 6
Aiken, South Carolina 29803
Figure 4-4. HEX System Layout on Trailer (Provided by VEETech)
-------
Figure 4-5. Trailer-Mounted HEX System under a Canopy
The HIX treatment system includes the following major process steps and system components:
• Intake - Raw water from Well CH2-A was pumped to the system via a 3-hp pump that
produced 38 gpm of flow. An hour meter was installed on the well pump to record the
operation time.
• Bag-Filter - Two l-|im bag-filter assemblies were installed prior to the HIX vessels to
remove sediment/particulate matter from the influent water. The bag-filter housing was 9-in
in diameter and 3 ft high and constructed of stainless steel (Figure 4-6). Water passed
through only one bag-filter assembly at any given time. Once the differential pressure
reached 5 pounds per square inch (psi), flow was diverted to the second bag-filter assembly to
allow the bag filter in the first assembly to be replaced. Historical data for the site indicated
the presence of elevated silica concentrations. The insoluble silica can be removed along
with sediments by the bag filter, thus eliminating the need for HIX vessel backwash.
• HIX Media Vessels - Each media vessel was 42-in in diameter by 60-in tall and contained
approximately 27 ft3 of ArsenXnp media. Each vessel was equipped with lifting lugs to
facilitate removal and placement of the vessel from and to the trailer, one pressure release
port, and two sampling ports to draw samples of the media, if needed, for arsenic and
uranium analysis. Under the peak flow rate of 38 gpm, the hydraulic loading rate to each
vessel was 4.0 gpm/ft2 and the empty bed contact time (EBCT) was 5.3 min. Figure 4-7
shows one media vessel and the associated lifting lugs (located at the bottom of the vessel),
pressure release port (the left side arm extending from the top of the vessel), and media
sampling ports (the middle and right side arms extending from the top of the vessel).
• Media Vessel Regeneration and Rinsing - When effluent arsenic or uranium concentrations
exceed the respective MCL, water flow is diverted to the stand by vessel for continuous
system operation and the spent media vessel is taken off-line and either regenerated or
20
-------
Figure 4-6. Bag Filter Assemblies
Figure 4-7. HIX Media Vessel with Pressure Release Port and
Media Sampling Ports
21
-------
replaced. According to the vendor, the media can be regenerated and reused for up to 20
cycles based on the water chemistry of Well CH2-A. During this demonstration study period,
bed breakthrough of arsenic at 10 (.ig/L occurred at approximately 33,100 BV and flow was
diverted to the stand by column. Potential options for media regeneration or replacement are
further discussed in Section 4.4.2.
• Chlorine and Phosphate Addition - Prior to entering the aerator, water was injected with
chlorine for disinfection and phosphate for corrosion and scale control. A sodium
hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution (prepared by adding 1 gal of a 12.5% solution into 15 gal of
water) was stored in two 35-gal drums manifolded together and injected by a solenoid-driven
metering pump with a maximum capacity of 1.0 gal/hr (gph). The target free chlorine
residual was 1.0 to 1.5 mg/L (as C12). A blended phosphate solution, SeaQuest, was diluted
by mixing 1 Ib of the solution into 7.5 gal of water in a 35-gal drum. The SeaQuest solution
consisted of 22.7% (minimum) of polyphosphate and 7.6% (minimum) of orthophosphate,
which provided sequestration for iron, manganese and hardness in water and corrosion
control by forming a protective film on metal pipes in the distribution system. The diluted
solution was injected by a similar solenoid-driven metering pump at a target level of 0.35 to
0.5 mg/L (as PO4).
• Aerator - Effluent from the HIX system passed through the existing aerator to remove radon
prior to entering the distribution system. The aerator was 7-ft in diameter and 12 ft tall with a
storage capacity of 3.500 gal. Treated water entered the aerator through a 2-in galvanized
steel pipe and a screened vent located at the top of the aerator to allow volatilized radon to
dissipate to the atmosphere.
• Booster Pump - The treated water was pumped to the distribution system by a preexisting
10-hp booster pump.
4.3 System Installation
This section discusses system installation activities including permitting, building construction, and
system shakedown.
4.3.1 Permitting. The permit application for the HIX system was simplified and expedited by
CDPH because 1) only a "temporary" permit was granted and valid for the duration of the EPA
demonstration study, and 2) waste disposal was not anticipated to be an issue considering that the HIX
system would not require backwash and that any spent media would be shipped offsite for regeneration as
originally proposed by the vendor.
The submittal for the permit application included a site plan prepared by Cal Water and documents
prepared by VEETech, including HIX system diagrams, specifications, and an O&M manual. After the
vendor incorporated review comments from Cal W'ater and Battelle, the submittal package was sent to
CDPH for review on August 2, 2005. CDPH e-mailed its review comments to Cal Water on August 5,
2005, which were addressed in a revised O&M manual by VEETech on August 9, 2005. CDPH provided
Approval-to-Construct on August 24, 2005.
According to CDPH, upon completion of the EPA demonstration study, a permanent permit must be
secured by Cal Water if it plans on keeping the HIX system and continuing its operation. Cal Water also
must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements as part of the
permitting process. A regular water supply permit application takes 30 days for initial completeness
review by CDPH. Once the application has been determined complete, it normally takes 90 days to issue
a final permit document.
22
-------
4.3.2 Building Preparation. Cal Water opted to install a canopy-type enclosure around the HIX
treatment system (Figure 4-5). Therefore, grading of the ground around the system was the only building
preparation required. Manufactured by Carport Cover, the canopy was 12 ft wide, 21 ft long, and 10 ft
high, with two extra panels. The cost of the canopy was approximately $1,860.
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. Following successful hydraulic testing of the
system at Mobile Processing Technology (MPT's) Memphis, TN facility, the trailer-mounted FflX system
was hauled to the site by a pickup truck on September 20, 2005, and arrived at the site on September 23,
2005. Cal Water plumbed the system between the well and the distribution system using 2-in diameter
polyethylene piping and completed the system installation on September 29, 2005. VEETech was on site
on October 3, 2005 to conduct the system shakedown and complete it the next day. The bacteriological
test was passed on October 5, 2005.
During the startup trip in October, the vendor conducted operator training for system O&M. Battelle staff
arrived at the site on October 12, 2005 to perform system inspections and conduct operator training for
sampling and data collection. The first set of samples for the performance evaluation study was collected
on October 13, 2005. No major mechanical or installation issues were identified at system start-up.
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters forme first 10 months of system
operation were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-4.
From October 13, 2005 through August 3, 2006, the system operated for 4,631 hr, based on the well
pump hour meter readings collected daily. This cumulative operating time represents a use rate of 64%
during this 43-week period. The system operated for 15.4 hr/day on average.
Table 4-4. Summary of HIX System Operation
Operational Parameter
Duration
Cumulative Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Cumulative Throughput (gal)
Cumulative Throughput (BV)(al
Average (Range) of Flowrate (gpm)
Average (Range) of EBCT (min)
Average (Range) of Inlet Pressure (psi)
Average (Range) of Outlet Pressure (psi)
Average of Ap across System (psi)
Value/Condition
10/13/05-08/03/06
4,631
15.4
6.693,716
33,137
24 (21-29)
8.5 (6.9-9.5)
8.1(1-13)
7.1(2-11)
1
(a) Calculated based on 27 ft3 of media in operating vessel
During the first 10 months, the system treated 6,693,716 gal, or 33,137 BV, of water based on the
totalizer readings on the operating vessel. Bed volume calculations were based on the 27 ft3 of media in
the operating vessel. Flowrates to the system ranged from 21 to 29 gpm and averaged 24 gpm. The
average system flowrate was 37% lower than the 38-gpm peak flowrate (Table 4-3) or 52% lower than
the 50-gpm design flowrate. Based on the flowrates to the system, the EBCT for the operating vessel
varied from 6.9 to 9.5 min and averaged 8.5 min. As a result, the actual EBCT was 37% (based on the
peak flowrate) or 52% (based on the design flowrate) higher than the design EBCT of 5.3 min. The inlet
and outlet pressure of the HIX system averaged 8.1 and 7.1 psi, respectively, indicating 1 psi of headless
23
-------
across the system. The pressure readings, however, were found to be inaccurate due to the use of pressure
gauges with a span of 0 to 100 psi for this low pressure system. Prior to the installation of the HIX
system, the wellhead pressure was approximately 10 psi, just enough to deliver water to the aerator.
4.4.2 Residual Management. Backwashing of the HIX system was not required, thus no wastewater
was generated. The only residual generated by the HIX system operation was 27 ft3 of spent media.
Depending on if and how the spent media is to be regenerated or replaced, arsenic- and/or uranium-laden
wastewater may be produced. The vendor originally estimated that the media would process
approximately 15,000 to 20,000 BV of water before it is taken offline and shipped to and regenerated
through a proprietary process at MPT's facility in Memphis. TN. However, because the media actually
processed approximately 33,100 BV of water and completely removed uranium from source water, the
uranium loading on the HIX media was calculated to be approximately 0.13% (by weight) (see
calculations in Section 4.5.1).
According to EPA's A Regulators ' Guide to the Management of Radioactive Residuals from Drinking
Water Treatment Technologies (EPA, 2005), uranium is considered ''source material" and may be subject
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) licensing requirements if a water system generates
uranium-containing residuals. However, uranium is exempt from NRC regulations if it makes up less
than 0.05% (by weight), or an "unimportant quantity/' of the residuals (10 CFR 40.13). Although it is not
clear how this 0.05% is defined and how the "residuals" are quantified, there is a possibility that the spent
media may be classified as non-exempt material, and can be subject to relevant regulations on storage,
transportation, and disposal. If so, the spent media may not be regenerated at MPT's facility in Memphis,
TN as planned because it is not licensed to process non-exempt material.
Three options were proposed by the vendor and are being evaluated for spent media disposition. These
options assume that the uranium loading of the spent media indeed exceeds the 0.05% limit.
• Option 1: Partial onsite regeneration
• Option 2: Complete onsite regeneration
• Option 3: Disposal and replacement of spent media
Each of these options is described below.
Option 1: Partial Onsite Regeneration. This option involves regenerating the spent media with a brine
solution in situ to reduce the uranium loading to below the "unimportant limit," followed by shipping the
partially regenerated media to MPT's facility for further regeneration. Onsite regeneration is
accomplished by applying a 10% brine solution at a flowrate of 5 to 6 gpm for over 30 min, rinsing the
media with finished water, and collecting the spent brine and rinse water in separate storage tanks. Upon
confirming that the uranium loading is below the 0.05% "unimportant limit," the media is shipped to
MPT for further regeneration and the uranium-laden spent brine is disposed of in accordance with
applicable regulations. According to the vendor, it may take three weeks for the partially-regenerated
media to be regenerated and shipped back to the site.
One issue associated with offsite regeneration is mat the regenerated media may lose its original NSF
61 certification and, therefore, may need to be recertified before use. A special committee led by NSF
International and consisting of EPA officials, state regulators, and media manufacturers is currently-
preparing guidance documents to address the recertification issue of regenerated media. According to the
vendor, regenerated ArsenXnp media (up to 10 times of regeneration) have already been certified to the
NSF 61 standard by the Water Quality Association. Regardless, the use of regenerated media must be
approved by CDPH.
24
-------
Option 2: Complete Onsite Regeneration. This option involves sequential regeneration of uranium
and, then, arsenic from the spent media. The vendor-provided regeneration procedure includes the
following steps:
1) Backwashing the spent media at 15 gpm for about 20 min
2) Applying a 15% brine solution rinse at 2.5 to 3 gpm to strip uranium off the media
3) Backwashing the media again for about 10 min
4) Applying 500 gal of a 2% caustic and 1% brine solution at 3 gpm to strip arsenic from the
media
5) Rinsing the media with 400 gal of well water at 15 to 20 gpm
6) Rinsing the media with 500 gal of either a 2% acetic acid solution or carbon dioxide-sparged
w
-------
A viable solution to handle the spent media generated at the site is currently being sought collectively by
EPA, the vendor, Cal Water, and CD PH. The ultimate decision on spent media handling will be
described in a final performance evaluation report.
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. There were no operational problems with the
HIX system during the first 10 months of system operation, resulting in no unscheduled downtime for the
system. The only problem arising during the study period was the inaccurate readings on the pressure
gauges so that the pressure drop across the HIX vessel could not be determined. The system O&M and
operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to pre- and post-treatment requirements, levels
of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventive maintenance activities, and frequency of
chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The majority of arsenic at this site existed as As(V). As such, a
preoxidation step was not required. The only pretreatment required was the use of a l-(im bag filter to
remove sediments/particulate matter from the raw water. Post-treatments included aeration (for radon
removal), post-chlorination, and zinc orthophosphate addition (for corrosion control), which had been
practiced previously at the site.
System Controls. The HIX system was a passive system, requiring only the operation of the supply well
pump to feed water through the vessels. The system does not contain any moving or rotating parts or
equipment and all valves were manually activated. The inline flowmeter was solar powered so that the
only electrical power required was that needed to run the supply well pump. The system operation was
controlled manually, but would shut offence the aeration tank was full.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the
system were minimal. The operator was on site typically five times a week and spent approximately 10
min each day performing visual inspections and recording system operating parameters on the daily log
sheets. The operator replaced the bag filter periodically. Normal operations of the system did not require
additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the existing water supply equipment.
The State of California requires that all individuals who operate or supervise the operation of a drinking
water treatment facility must possess a water treatment operator certificate and those who make decisions
on maintenance and operation of any portion of the distribution system must possess a distribution
operator certificate (CDPH, 2001). Operator certifications are granted by CDPH after minimum
requirements are met, which include passing an examination and maintaining a minimum amount of
hours of specialized training. There are five grades of operators for both the water treatment (i.e., Tl to
T5) and distribution (i.e., Dl to D5), with T5 and D5 being the highest. The operator for the Upper
Bodfish water system possessed T2 and D2 certifications for treatment and distribution, respectively.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included such items as periodic checks
of flowmeters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. As recommended by the
vendor, bag filters should be replaced after the differential pressure across the filter had reached 5 psi.
However, the differential pressure across the filter had been showing negative values due to inaccurate
pressure readings. The operator used his own judgment to change out the filter periodically. Typically,
the operator performed these duties only when he was on site for routine activities.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. After installation of the HIX system, chlorine
and phosphate addition continued at the Upper Bodfish site. Inventory requirements for these two
chemicals remained the same as before. The only inventory requirement associated with the HIX system
was to keep additional bag filters onsite to facilitate change-out when needed.
26
-------
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected from the
treatment plant and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Treatment plant water samples were collected at IN, BF. and
AF sampling locations across the treatment train on 29 occasions, including three duplicates, with field
speciation performed in 11 of the 29 occasions. Table 4-5 summarizes the analytical results for arsenic.
uranium, iron, and manganese; Table 4-6 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters.
Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results through this 10-month study period. The results
of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
Arsenic Removal. Figure 4-8 contains three bar charts showing the concentrations of total As,
particulate As, and As(III) and As(V) of the soluble fraction at the IN, BF, and AF sampling locations for
each of the 11 speciation events. Total As concentrations in raw water ranged from 36.5 to 47.3 |-ig/L and
averaged 40.8 ng/L. Of the soluble fraction, As(V) was the predominating species, ranging from 36.3 to
44.9 |ig/L and averaging 40.9 |J,g/L. The particulate As concentrations were low, averaging 0.5 ^g/L.
The arsenic concentrations were consistent with those measured during source water sampling in October
2004 (Table 4-1).
The key parameters for evaluating the effectiveness of the HTX system were arsenic and uranium
concentrations in treated water, which were plotted in Figures 4-9 and 4-10, respectively. Arsenic
concentrations in treated water gradually increased from <0.1 to 10.5 (.ig/L after treating approximately
33,100 BV of water, which was 65% higher than the vendor's estimated 20,000 BV. The average
flowrate to the system was 52% lower than the 50-gpm design flow value (Table 4-3); thus the actual
EBCT was 112% longer man the design EBCT. The longer EBCT may have contributed, in part, to the
better-than-expected media performance.
As part of another EPA study (Westerhoff et al., 2007), a rapid small-scale column test (RSSCT) was
conducted in the laboratory by Battelle and Arizona State University to evaluate the arsenic and uranium
removal from the Upper Bodfish water by five different adsorptive media, including ArsenXnp, E33,
GFH, MetsorbG, and Adsorbsia GTO (the last two are titania-based media). Figures 4-11 and 4-12
present the arsenic and uranium breakthrough curves from the RSSCT columns, respectively. Table 4-7
summarizes the run length of each media observed in the full-scale system and RSSCTs. All RSSCT
columns were scaled to a 5.3 min full-scale EBCT except for the two titania-based media, which were
scaled to 2.5 min EBCT. As shown in Figure 4-11, the two iron-based media, E33 and GFH, exhibited
the best arsenic removal, with a run length of approximately 44,000 and 50,000 BV, respectively.
ArsenXnp achieved a run length of approximately 28,000 BV, similar to the 33.100 BV observed from the
full-scale system. MetsorbG and Adsorbsia GTO had a rather short run length of approximately 21,000
and 16,000 BV, respectively.
Based on the system throughput and arsenic concentrations before and after the treatment during the 10-
month operation, the mass of arsenic removed by the media was estimated to be 984 g. The weight of 27
ft3 of media in one vessel was 1,404 Ib (i.e., 637 kg) based on the bulk density of 52 lb/ft3. Therefore, the
arsenic loading onto the media was approximately 1.5 g/kg of media or 0.15% (by weight).
Uranium Removal. Originating from rocks and mineral deposits, uranium found in most drinking water
sources is naturally occurring and contains three isotopes: U-238 (over 99% by weight), U-235, and U-
234. Due to varying amounts of each isotope in the water, the ratio of uranium concentration (|J,g/L) to
activity (pCi/L) varies with drinking water sources from region to region. Based on considerations of
27
-------
kidney toxicity and carcinogenicity, EPA proposed a uranium MCL of 20 jog/L in 1991 (corresponding to
30 pCi/L based on a mass/activity ratio of 1.5 pCi/|jg); the final rule was set at 30 ng/L in December 2000
after the conversion factor was revised to 1 pCi/ng (EPA, 2000b). California adopted revisions in the
radionuclide regulations in June 2006 (http:/A\ ww.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/Regulations/R-12-02/PDFs/R-
12-02-FINALRegText.pdf). The California current MCL for uranium is 20 pCi/L, which is equivalent to
30 |Jg/L (same as the federal MCL) using a conversion factor of 0.67 pCi/|jg (Note: in California, a
conversion factor of 0.67 pCi/ng is used to convert uranium from activity to mass). In this study, uranium
was analyzed by an ICP-MS method (EPA Method 200.8) with the results expressed in |4g/L. Uranium
activity (pCi/L) was not reported herein to avoid potential confusion associated with the use of different
conversion factors.
Table 4-5. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Uranium, Iron, and Manganese
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(TH)
As(V)
U (total)
U (soluble)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mil (total)
Mil (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
EN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
Sample
Count
29
29
29
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
29
29
29
11
11
11
29
29
29
11
11
11
29
29
29
11
11
11
Concentration (jag/L)
Minimum
36.5
35.8
<0.1
36.6
36.5
0.12
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.13
0.13
<0.1
36.3
36.2
<0.1
26.6
26.6
<0.1
31.2
30.5
<0.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
0.2
Maximum
47.3
45.8
10.5
45.2
45.2
10.3
2.1
1.5
<0.1
0.9
0.8
1.0
44.9
44.5
10.1
38.9
38.7
<0.1
37.9
38.1
0.1
41
40
<25
<25
<25
<25
0.9
1.0
1.7
0.8
1.1
1.6
Average
40.8
40.5
(a)
41.4
41.4
Jal
0.5
0.5
Jal
0.5
0.4
(a)
40.9
41.0
(al
33.0
32.6
<0.1
34.2
33.9
0.05
13
13
<25
<25
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
Standard
Deviation
2.4
2.4
(a.)
2.8
2.7
Ja)
0.7
0.6
Ja)
0.3
0.3
(a)
2.8
2.7
(al
3.1
2.9
0.0
2.0
2.4
0.0
5.3
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
One-half of detection limit used for concentrations less than detection limit for calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
(a) Statistics not meaningful; see arsenic breakthrough curves at AF location in Figure 4-9.
28
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
EN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
EN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
IN
BF
AF
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
28
29
29
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
25
25
25
25
25
25
21
21
21
24
24
24
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
Concentration
Minimum
88.0
92.0
88.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
36.0
35.0
35.0
0.9
0.9
0.1
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
39.5
41.0
15.9
0.1
0.1
O.I
6.8
6.8
6.4
8.2
9.3
10.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
198
195
205
69.6
60.0
60.1
60.6
60.0
60.1
5.6
4.5
5.5
Maximum
145
132
132
1.3
1.6
1.4
41.0
43.0
42.0
1.3
1.3
1.7
0.02
0.02
0.01
47.5
48.2
46.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
7.2
7.1
7.3
25.0
25.0
25.0
4.3
3.7
3.8
479
489
495
95.7
89.3
92.3
90.0
89.3
92.3
10.4
10.6
10.3
Average
101
100
101
1.1
1.2
1.2
38.7
39.4
38.7
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.01
0.01
0.01
43.4
43.4
41.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
7.0
6.9
6.9
18.0
17.6
17.7
2.5
2.4
2.3
376
355
338
89.6
82.7
83.5
82.7
82.7
83.5
6.9
6.9
6.9
Standard
Deviation
9.7
7.2
7.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
2.0
2.5
2.4
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.4
6.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
4.7
4.4
4.2
0.7
0.6
0.6
75.8
89.0
95.9
5.8
6.0
6.4
6.1
6.0
6.4
1.1
1.2
1.1
One-half of detection limit used for concentrations less than detection limit for calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
29
-------
Arsenic Speciation at Wellhead (IN)
i: 25
I
DAs (participate)
• As (III)
OAs(V)
10/13/2005 11/8/2005 12/28/2005 1/11/2006 2/8/2006 3/8/2006 4/5/2006 5/3/2006 6/14/2006 7/6/2006 8/3/2006
Date
Arsenic Speciation Before Filtration (BF)
DAs (participate)
BAs UN)
DAs(V)
10/13/2005 11/8/2005 12/28/2005 1/11/2006 2/8/2006 3/8/2006 4/5/2006 5/3/2006 6/14/2006 7/6/2006 8/3/2006
Arsenic Speciation After Filtration (AF)
130
|25-i
i
0 20
10/13/2005 11/8/2005 12/28/2005 1/11/2006 2/8/2006 3/8/2006 4/5/2006 5/3/2006 6/14/2006 7/6/2006 8/3/2006
Figure 4-8. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, BF, and AF Sampling Locations
30
-------
50
45
40
35
3 30
|
1 25-1
o 20
W
<
15-
10
5
-At Wellhead (IN)
Before Filtration (BF)
-After Filtration (AF)
10
15 20
Bed Volumes (103)
25
30
35
Figure 4-9. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve - Full-Scale System
45
40
35
-30
3
g 20
C
O
o
D 15 H
10-
5
-At Wellhead (IN)
- Before Filtration (BF)
-After Filtration (AF)
0 U * * * * * *-*-
* A ft-* r*
10
15 20
Bed Volumes (x1000)
25
30
35
Figure 4-10. Total Uranium Breakthrough Curve - Full-Scale System
31
-------
Effluent Arsenic Concentration (ug/L)
->. N> CO Ji. C
D O O O O C
•a
AE33 D
DHIX
OGFH D .
X MetsorbG (ReSc=1 000**) °
oGTO(ReSc=1000**) n A
Influent Cone = 41 ug/L D o u u £
D .
0 A
0 A 0
° »»
„ X O
° 0
o A ^
X^ A O
» nu^vSf n^n /^iC\v
20,000 40,000 60,000
Bed Volumes Treated
80,000
(Source: Westerhoff et al, 2007)
Figure 4-11. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves - Laboratory RSSCT
1
__l
O5
^
c
g
2
-i-»
c
(D
O
0
O
E
^g
C
TO
^
0)
3
UJ
ou
70 :
60 :
50 :
-
40 :
30 :
-
20 :
10 :
n ?
Influent Cone = 56 ug/L
A A
A A ^ ^ ^
o
o o
A o o
o
>^ X A E33
^ D MIX
x OGFH
X MetsorbG (ReSc=1000**)
ij^vKn nn nn nnnm n m
20,000 40,000 60,000
Bed Volumes Treated
80,000
(Source: Westerhoff et al., 2007)
Figure 4-12. Uranium Breakthrough Curves - Laboratory RSSCT
32
-------
Table 4-7. Comparison of Full-Scale System and
Laboratory RSSCT Media Run Lengths
Test
Full-Scale
RSSCT
Media
ArsenXnp
ArsenXnp
E33
GFH
MetsorbG
Adsorbsia GTO
Media Run Length (BV)
10-jig/L Arsenic
33,100
28,000
44,000
50,000
21.000
16.000
30-jig/L Uranium
> 33, 100
> 50,000
12,000
25,000
> 24,000(al
26.000
(a) Column failed at about 24,000 BV due to pressure buildup and bed compaction
Total uranium concentrations in raw water ranged from 26.6 to 38.9 (.ig/L and averaged 33.0 (ig/L, which
were consistent with previous data shown in Table 4-1. Figure 4-10 shows mat uranium was completely
removed to below the 0.1-^ig/L detection limit throughout the 10-month period. Based on the system
throughput and the average uranium concentrations before and after the treatment system, the mass of
uranium removed by ArsenXnp media was estimated to be 835 g. The weight of 27 ff of media in one
vessel was calculated to be 1,404 Ib (i.e., 637 kg) based on the bulk density of 52 lb/ftj. Therefore,
the uranium loading on the FflX media was calculated to be 1.3 (.ig/mg of media or 0.13% (by weight).
Figure 4-12 presents the uranium breakthrough curves from the RSSCT columns. ArsenXnp removed
uranium better than the other four media and it continued to remove uranium to less man 1 (.ig/L as
sampling was discontinued at about 50,000 BV due to complete arsenic breakthrough.
Uranium has four oxidation states: III, IV, V, and VI: only the IV and VI oxidation states are stable. The
most stable state of uranium in aerated aqueous solution under acidic conditions (pH <5.0) is UO22 ,
which fonns soluble complexes with common anions in water, such as CO32, F", Cl". NO3", SO42", and
HPO42". Carbonate is the most important uranium ligand in natural water. Figure 4-13 presents the
distribution of uranium carbonate and hydroxide complexes as a function of pH in aerobic groundwater at
a CO2 partial pressure of 0.01 atmospheres (Langmuir, 1978). Under neutral and slightly alkaline
conditions, UO22+ combines with biarbonate and carbonate anions to form uranyl carbonates, UO2(CO3)22"
and UO2(CO3)34, which have a strong affinity for IX resins.
pH
(Source: Langmuir, 1978)
Figure 4-13. Distribution of Uranium Carbonate and
Hydroxide Complexes as a Function of pH
33
-------
In many bench, pilot, and full-scale uranium IX studies, SBA resins have demonstrated enormous
capacities for the uranyl carbonate complexes - UO2(CO3)22" and UO2(CO3)34". For example, in a pilot-
scale study conducted at Chimney Hill, Texas (Zhang and Clifford. 1994; Clifford and Zhang, 1995), a
SBA column was operated continuously for 478 days for a total throughput of 302,000 BV at pH 7.6 to
8.2. The feed water contained 120 ug/L uranium and 25 pCi/L of radium in a background water quality
of 310 mg/L TDS. 150 mg/L alkalinity, 47 mg/L chloride, and <1 mg/L sulfate (very low sulfate water).
Despite the high uranium capacity, IX systems generally are not operated for 500 days to uranium
breakthrough because of problems with resin fouling and excessive pressure drop. Run lengths in the
range of 30.000 to 50.000 BV would be more appropriate for uranium removal from drinking water
(Clifford, 1999).
Effect of pH and Silica. The effective operational life of ArsenXnp is strongly influenced by the pH and
silica concentration of the water, and decreases strongly as both pH and silica increase. It is known mat
the capacity of iron-based media for arsenic decreases as the pH increases. The pH values of raw water
measured at the IN sampling location ranged from 6.8 to 7.2 and averaged 7.0 (Table 4-6). This near-
neutral pH condition is desirable for metal oxide adsorptive media to remove arsenic.
Several batch and column studies found that silica reduced arsenic adsorptive capacity of ferric
oxides/hydroxides and activated alumina (Meng et al., 2000; Meng et al., 2002; Smith and Edwards,
2005). Mechanisms proposed to describe the role of silica in iron-silica and iron-arsenic-silica systems
included: 1) adsorption of silica may change the surface properties of adsorbents by lowering the iso-
electric point or pHzpc, 2) silica may compete for arsenic adsorptive sites, 3) polymerization of silica may
accelerate silica sorption and lower the available surface sites for arsenic adsorption, and 4) reaction of
silica with divalent cations, such as calcium, magnesium and barium, may form precipitates. Laboratory
data provided by Solmetex showed that the effect of silica is most noticeable at pH values 8 or above and
that ArsenXnp can tolerate the presence of 30 mg/L silica at neutral pH. Figure 4-14 plots the silica
concentrations across the treatment train. The HIX system initially reduced silica concentrations;
however, silica breakthrough occurred after treating approximately 1,000 BV. Silica concentrations in
raw water and treated water averaged 43.4 and 41.4 mg/L, respectively.
Effect of Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity ranged from 88 to 145 mg/L (as CaCO3) in raw
water and remained unchanged after treatment. Sulfate, fluoride, and nitrate were measured monthly;
their concentrations in raw water ranged from 36 to 41 mg/L for sulfate, 0.9 to 1.3 mg/L for fluoride, and
0.9 to 1.3 mg/L (as N) for nitrate and remained unchanged after treatment. Therefore, ArsenXnp did not
seem to alter the concentrations of these common anions in the water. Although it is possible that some
sulfate might have been removed by the anionic resin substrate of ArsenXnp, the sulfate breakthrough had
occurred so quickly that even the first sample (collected at 200 BV) did not show apparent sulfate
removal.
DO levels in raw water ranged from 1.6 to 4.3 mg/L and averaged 2.5 mg/L; ORP readings of raw water
ranged from 198 to 479 mV and averaged 376 mV (excluding one outlier on November 2, 2005). Both
parameters indicated that the well water was oxidizing, which was consistent with the presence of As(V)
in water. Although the data showed some variations from time to time, the range and average of the DO
and ORP measurements at IN, BF, and AF locations were very similar, resulting in little or no changes
after treatment.
Total iron concentrations were below the detection limit of 25 ug/L for all the measurements, except for
one detection of 41 ug/L at IN and 40 ug/L at BF on January 4, 2006 (Appendix B). Total manganese
levels ranged from below 0.1 ug/L to 1.7 ug/L for all the measurements with no significant changes after
treatment. Total hardness ranged from 60.0 to 95.7 mg/L (as CaCO3), and also remained relatively
constant throughout the treatment train.
34
-------
60 -i
50 -
O
5)
ui 40
at
I
fan
§
O 20
10 -
-At Wellhead (IN)
Before Filtration (BF)
-After Filtration (AF)
10
15 20
Bed Volumes (x1000)
25
30
35
Figure 4-14. Silica Breakthrough Curve - Full-Scale System
4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling. Distribution water samples were collected at three
residences before and after the installation/operation of the HIX system to determine whether the HIX
system had any impacts on the lead and copper levels and water chemistry in the distribution system. The
samples were analyzed for pH, alkalinity, arsenic, iron, manganese, lead, and copper; the results are
presented in Table 4-8. Uranium was not monitored because of its absence in the plant effluent.
The most noticeable change in the distribution system after HIX system startup was the reduction in
arsenic concentrations at each of the sampling locations, as shown in Figure 4-15. Baseline arsenic
concentrations ranged from 16.2 to 44.2 (ig/L and averaged 26.2 (ig/L at all three locations, which did not
resemble those of Well CH2-A, which ranged from 36.5 to 47.3 ng/L and averaged 40.8 ng/L during the
study period (Section 4.5.1). The distribution system was supplied primarily by Well CH-1 (it did not
contain elevated arsenic or uranium) with Well CH2-A as a backup well prior to the HIX system startup
(see Section 4.1). Although only DS2 was served primarily by Well CH2-A. all three locations exhibited
similar trends in arsenic concentrations after the HLX system startup: the arsenic concentrations at the DS
locations initially decreased gradually but were much higher than those in the plant effluent, which were
below 1 |-ig/L; then the arsenic concentrations at the DS locations began to climb, following the arsenic
breakthrough behavior of the plant effluent. The arsenic concentrations were higher than those in the
plant effluent most of the time, suggesting that possible solubilization, destablization, and/or desorption
of arsenic-laden particles/scales might have ocurred in the distribution system (Lytle. 2005).
35
-------
Table 4-8. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Date
08/10/05(a)
08/30/05(b)
09/13/05
09/28/05
10/26/05
12/08/05
01/04/06
02/22/06
03/22/06
04/26/06
05/17/06
06/22/06
07/19/06
DS1
Non-LCR Residence
1st draw
Stagnation Time
hrs
7.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.0
5.8
7.0
13.0
8.0
8.5
8.3
I
Q
s.u.
7.1
6.7
7.0
6.7
7.1
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.1
7.1
7.3
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
mg/L
106
101
101
110
92
88
101
104
103
104
101
100
101
-------
50
45 1
40
35
3" 30
I*
25-1
Baseline
20
15
10
5
0 -
08/01/05
After system startup on 10/12/05
09/30/05 11/29/05 01/28/06 03/29/06
Sampling Date
05/28/06
07/27/06
09/25/06
Figure 4-15. Total As Concentrations in Distribution System at Upper Bodfish
Lead concentrations decreased from an average baseline level of 4.6 |.ig/L to 1.7 (.ig/L after system
startup. Copper concentrations remained fairly low at the DS2 and DS3 residences. However, at the DS1
residence, the copper concentrations exceeded the action level of 1.300 |ig/L on October 26, 2005 and
January 4 and March 22, 2006. A copper concentration of 1,213 (.ig/L was reported prior to system
installation; therefore, it was unlikely that the HIX system had contributed to the elevated copper
concentrations at the DS1 residence.
pH, alkalinity, and manganese concentrations remained fairly consistent; baseline levels were 6.9, 107
mg/L, and 0.9 (.ig/L and stayed at 7.3. 101 mg/L, and 0.5 (ig/L, respectively, after system startup. Iron
was not detected for all baseline samples except for measurements of 630 and 35 (ig/L on August 10 and
September 13, 2005 and for all samples collected after system startup except for measurements of 34 and
58 (.ig/L on January 4 and July 19, 2006.
4.6
System Cost
The system cost was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design capacity and the
O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The capital cost included the cost for equipment, site
engineering, and installation. The O&M cost included the estimated costs for three different options of
residual management (i.e., partial media regeneration, complete media regeneration, and media
replacement) and labor cost.
37
-------
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation of the
HEX system was $114,070 (see Table 4-9). The equipment cost was $82,470 (or 73% of the total capital
investment), which included $25,250 for the trailer-mounted HIX unit, $21,600 for the ArsenXnp media
(54 ft3 of media to fill two vessels at $400/ft3), $2,500 for shipping, and $33,120 for labor. The labor cost
included $1,920 for procurement of the system, $19,200 for technical support and trouble shooting for the
duration of the study, $10,000 for initial system hook-up on the trailer, and $2.000 for travel.
The engineering cost included the cost for preparation of a process flow diagram of the treatment system,
equipment drawings, and a schematic of the equipment layout used as part of the permit application
submittal (see Section 4.3.1). The engineering cost was $12,800, or 11% of the total capital investment.
The installation cost included the cost for providing equipment and labor to anchor the trailer-mounted
unit, to perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, to perform system shakedown and startup, and to
conduct operator training. The installation was performed jointly by VEETech and Cal Water. The
installation cost was $18,800, or 16% of the total capital investment.
Table 4-9. Capital Investment Cost for the HIX System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment
Equipment Cost
HIX Trailer-Mounted Unit
HIX media(ft3)
Shipping
Vendor Labor
Equipment Total
1
54
—
—
—
$25,250
$21,600
$2,500
$33,120
$82,470
—
—
—
—
73%
Engineering Cost
Vendor Labor
Engineering Total
—
—
$12,800
$12,800
—
11%
Installation Cost
Material
Subcontractor Labor
Subcontractor Travel
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
$1,500
$10,000
$500
$4,800
$2,000
$18,800
$114,070
—
—
—
—
—
16%
100%
The total capital cost of $114,070 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 50 gpm (72,000 gpd),
which resulted in $2,281/gpm of design capacity (or $1.58/gpd). The capital cost also was converted to
an annualized cost of $10,767/year by multiplying by a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on
a 7% interest rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week at the design flowrate of 50 gpm to produce 26,280,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost
would be $0.41/1,000 gal. The system operated 15.4 hr/day at 24 gpm (see Table 4-4). Based on this
reduced use rate, the system would produce only 8,094,240 gal of water in one year (assuming 365 days
per year) and the unit capital cost would increase to $1.33/1,000 gal.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. Table 4-10 presents the vendor-provided cost
breakdowns for each of three residual management options and the labor cost for routine O&M.
Although regeneration did not occur during the first 10 months of the study, the cost to either regenerate
38
-------
or replace the spent media would represent the majority of the O&M cost. The vendor estimated $12,700
for partial onsite regeneration not including any additional cost for the subsequent offsite regeneration,
$15,900 for complete onsite regeneration, and $21,950 for spent media replacement and disposal. By
averaging the media regeneration or replacement costs over the useful life of the media, the cost per
1,000 gal of water treated was plotted as a function of the media run length in BV (or the system
throughput in gal) as shown in Figure 4-16. The media run length in BV was calculated by dividing the
system throughput by the quantity of media in the operating tank, i.e., 27 ft3. The FflX system processed
approximately 33,100 BV (or 6,685,000 gal) prior to reaching the 10-(ig/L arsenic breakthrough; based on
this volume, the unit cost for partial onsite regeneration, complete onsite regeneration, and spent media
replacement/disposal would be $1.90, $2.38, and $3.28/1,000 gal, respectively.
Table 4-10. Operation and Maintenance Cost for HIX System
Cost Category
Volume processed (kgal)
Value
6,694
Assumptions
Through August 3, 2006
Partial Onsite Regeneration
Labor ($)
Material and supplies ($)
Transportation ($)
Equipment and piping ($)
Field supervision
Radiation monitoring and health physics support
Subtotal
$3.000
$100
$2,000
$2,300
$2.500
$2,800
$12,700
Complete Onsite Regeneration
Labor ($)
Travel ($)
Material and supplies ($)
Transportation and disposal cost for uranium wastes ($)
Equipment and piping ($)
Field supervision ($)
Radiation monitoring and health physics support ($)
Sampling and analysis ($)
Subtotal
$2.300
$1,100
$300
$5,600
$2.300
$1,600
$1,700
$1,000
$15.900
Media Replacement
Labor ($)
Travel and field supervision ($)
Material and supplies ($)
Disposal of 27 ft3 spent media
Sample analysis
Virgin HIX media
Subtotal
$1,000
$2,000
$200
$9,000
$300
$9,450
$21.950
Unit cost of $3 507 ft3
Labor for Routine O&M
Average weekly labor (lir)
Labor ($/l,000 gal)
0.83
$0.13
50 min/wk
Labor rate = $26/hr
The HIX treatment system did not contain any parts or equipment requiring electricity. Therefore, no
additional electrical cost was incurred by the HIX system operation.
Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed
only 50 min per week, as noted in Section 4.4.3. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $0.13/1,000 gal
of water treated.
39
-------
$50.00
$40.00
- $30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$000
Partial On-Site Regeneration Cost
— — Complete On-Site Regeneration Cost
- Spent Media Disposal and
Replacement Cost
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Media Working Capacity (BV)
Note: 1 BV = media volume in active vessel
25,000
30,000
35,000
Figure 4-16. Media Regeneration and Replacement Cost Curves
40
-------
5.0: REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Battelle, 2005. Study Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology at Lake Isabella, CA.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
CDPH. 2001. California Code of Regulations (CCR). Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 13. Operator
Certification Regulations. California Department of Public Healths.
Chen. A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Clifford, D.A. 1999. "Ion Exchange and Inorganic Adsorption." Chapter 9 in R. Letterman (ed.), Water
Quality and Treatment Fifth Edition. McGraw Hill, Inc., New York, NY. .
Clifford, D.A., and Z. Zhang, 1995. 'Removing Uranium and Radium from Ground Water by Ion
Exchange Resins." In Ion Exchange Technology: Recent Advances in Pollution Control by A.K.
Sengupta, Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Technomic Publishing Company, 1-59.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations m As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2005. A Regulators ' Guide to the Management of Radioactive Residuals from Drinking Water
Treatment Technologies. EPA/816/R/05/004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2003. "Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic."
Federal Register, 40 CFRPart 141.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2001. "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and Newr Source Contaminants Monitoring." Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA, 2000a. Radionuclides Notice of Data Availability Technical Support Document. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2000b. "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Radionuclides Final Rule." Federal
Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
Langmuir, D. 1978. "Uranium Solution -Mineral Equilibrium at Low Temperatures with Applications to
Sedimentary Ore Deposits." Geochimica et Cosmoshimica, 42: 547-569.
41
-------
Lytle. D.A. 2005. Coagulation/Filtration: Iron Removal Processes Full-Scale Experience. EPA
Workshop on Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water in Cincinnati, OH. August 16-18.
Meng, X.G., G.P. Korfiatis, S.B. Bang, and K.W. Bang. 2002. "Combined Effects of Anions on Arsenic
Removal by Iron Hydroxides." Toxicology Letters, 133(1): 103-111.
Meng, X.G., S. Bang, and G.P. Korfiatis. 2000. "Effects of Silicate, Sulfate, and Carbonate on Arsenic
Removal by Ferric Chloride." Water Research, 34(4): 1255-1261.
Smith, S.D., and M. Edwards. 2005. "The Influence of Silica and Calcium on Arsenate Sorption to
Oxide Surfaces." Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology -AQUA, 54(4): 201-211. .
Sorg, T.J. 1988. "Methods for Removing Uranium from Drinking Water/' J. AWWA, 80(7): 105.
L Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design:U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati.
OH.
Wang, L., A.S.C. Chen, and K.A. Fields. 2000. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Ion
Exchange and Activated Alumina Plants. EPA/600/R-00/088. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Westerhoff, .P., T. Benn, A.S.C. Chen. L. Wang, and L.J. Gumming. 2007. Assessing Arsenic Removal
by Metal (Hydr)Oxide Adsorptive Media Using Rapid Small Scale Column Tests. Prepared under
Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Zhang, Z., and D.A. Clifford. 1994. "Exhaustion and Regeneration of Resins for Uranium Removal/1 J.
AWWA, 86(4): 228-241.
42
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Day of
Week
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
M
T
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
F
Date & Time
10/12/05 10:40
10/13/059:00
10/14/058:45
10/17/059:00
10/18/059:20
10/19/05 12:00
10/20/059:15
10/21/058:00
10/24/0517:00
10/25/05 12:30
10/26/05 10:00
10/27/057:15
10/28/058:16
10/31/05 14:30
11/01/059:15
11/02/0510:35
11/03/057:25
11/04/057:35
11/07/059:00
11/08/0512:00
11/09/057:30
11/10/0511:00
11/11/058:00
11/15/056:35
11/16/059:05
11/17/059:30
11/18/059:00
11/21/0511:45
11/22/0510:00
11/28/0515:00
11/29/058:50
11/30/0513:32
12/01/0510:15
12/02/059:30
12/05/05 13:30
12/06/05 10:15
12/07/05 15:30
12/08/05 10:00
12/09/059:00
12/16/05 14:30
Hour Meter
Op Hours
NA
15.4
23.6
19.8
22.6
23.6
21.3
22.9
46.7
19.4
21.3
1.6
5.2
35.0
18.9
25.3
20.9
24.2
10.6
3.3
17.4
27.0
21.5
9.8
14.6
24.4
22.9
77.1
10.9
0.0
17.7
24.6
20.7
23.3
9.2
20.4
29.5
11.8
0.4
4.8
Cumulative
Op Hours
NA
15.4
39.0
58.8
81.4
105.0
126.3
149.2
195.9
215.3
236.6
238.2
243.4
278.4
297.3
322.6
343.5
367.7
378.3
381.6
399.0
426.0
447.5
457.3
471.9
496.3
519.2
596.3
607.2
607.2
624.9
649.5
670.2
693.5
702.7
723.1
752.6
764.4
764.8
769.6
Treatment System
Pressure Filtration
Influent
psig
7.5
7.5
7
7
9
6
7
7.5
6
6
7
8
3
6
7
6.5
8
8
9
8
7.5
7
8
8
7.5
8
8
7
0
0
9
9
10
7
7
7
7
7
2
0
Post Bag-
Filter
psig
8
10
8
10
10
8
8
8
7
8
8
9
5
8
9
8
8
9
10
9
9
8
8.5
9
9
9
9
9
4
0
8
8
9
9
10
9
9
9
4
0
Effluent
psig
8.5
9.5
9
8
10
7
8
8.5
7
7
8
8
6
6
8
7.5
8.5
9
10
8
8
8
8.5
8
8
9
8.5
7
6
3
8
8
9
10
10
11
9.5
10
8
2
AP
Bag-Filter
psig
-0.5
-2.5
-1
-3
-1
-2
-1
-0.5
-1
-2
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-1.5
0
-1
-1
-1
-1.5
-1
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-1
-1
-2
-4
0
1
1
1
-2
-3
-2
-2
-2
-2
0
APHIX
Vessel
psig
-0.5
0.5
-1
2
0
1
0
-0.5
0
1
0
1
-1
2
1
0.5
-0.5
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0.5
2
-2
-3
0
0
0
-1
0
-2
-0.5
-1
-4
-2
AP
System
psig
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
3
0
1
1
0.5
1
1
0
0.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
0.5
0
6
3
-1
-1
-1
3
3
4
2.5
3
6
2
Influent
Flow
Totalizer
gpm
25.3
26.6
24.0
25.3
28.0
24.0
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
24.0
25.3
0.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
28.0
25.3
24.0
22.6
22.6
NM
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
0
0.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
25.3
22.6
22.6
24.0
0.0
0.0
Throughput
gal
NA
22,698
34,195
28,626
32,916
34,241
30,343
32,487
66,725
27,757
30,141
30,615
21,895
7,762
27,077
35,835
29,546
34,128
15,009
5,282
25,532
38,680
30,157
NA
35,463
34,697
32,526
108,149
15,244
83
25,744
35,161
29,011
32,944
13,371
32,488
38,724
17,752
15
45
Cumulative
Throughput
gal
NA
22,698
56,893
85,519
118,435
152,676
183,019
215,506
282,231
309,988
340,129
370,744
392,639
400,401
427,478
463,313
492,859
526,987
541,996
547,278
572,810
611,490
641,647
NA
677,110
711,807
744,333
852,482
867,726
867,809
893,553
928,714
957,725
990,669
1,004,040
1,036,528
1,075,252
1,093,004
1,093,019
1,093,064
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
BV
106
220
392
536
702
874
1,027
1,190
1,526
1,665
1,816
1,969
2,079
2,118
2,254
2,434
2,582
2,754
2,830
2,856
2,984
3,178
3,330
3,402
3,508
3,682
3,845
4,388
4,465
4,466
4,595
4,772
4,918
5,083
5,150
5,299
5,508
5,599
5,599
5,599
Average
Flowrate
gpm
NA
25.0
24.6
24.5
24.7
24.6
24.1
24.0
24.2
24.1
23.9
NA
NA
24.4
24.2
23.9
23.9
23.8
24.1
26.5
24.8
24.2
23.7
25.0
24.3
24.0
24.0
23.7
23.6
NA
24.6
24.2
23.7
23.9
24.6
24.5
23.9
25.9
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)
Week
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Day of
Week
T
W
R
W
R
F
T
W
R
M
T
W
R
F
T
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
Date & Time
12/20/0517:00
12/21/0511:50
12/22/050:00
12/28/059:00
12/29/0515:00
12/30/058:45
01/03/06 9:00
01/04/06 9:30
01/05/069:10
01/09/0612:30
01/10/0612:30
01/11/0610:20
01/12/069:20
01/13/068:30
01/18/069:00
12/29/0515:00
12/30/058:45
01/23/0614:08
01/24/0613:00
01/25/0621:48
01/26/0611:30
01/27/06 9:00
01/30/0612:05
01/31/0614:00
02/01/0620:10
02/02/0611:15
02/03/0613:07
02/06/069:15
02/07/0610:30
02/08/06 9:00
02/09/06 9:20
02/10/068:10
02/13/0613:29
02/14/0613:05
02/15/068:00
02/16/068:40
02/17/068:00
02/21/0611:20
02/22/0610:30
02/23/0616:20
02/24/0612:05
Hour Meter
Op Hours
4.7
15.0
4.1
8.7
23.6
18.0
98.7
13.3
15.0
0.1
10.3
17.0
18.1
18.3
82.1
38.4
18.3
210.8
13.0
20.9
21.7
21.3
71.7
20.2
18.1
19.7
21.8
68.1
21.3
21.0
20.8
22.8
74.7
20.3
15.8
22.7
21.0
97.0
23.0
27.8
17.6
Cumulative
Op Hours
774.3
789.3
793.4
802.1
825.7
843.7
942.4
955.7
970.7
970.8
981.1
998.1
1,016.2
1,034.5
1,116.6
1,155.0
1,173.3
1,384.1
1,397.1
1,418.0
1,439.7
1,461.0
1,532.7
1,552.9
1,571.0
1,590.7
1,612.5
1 ,680.6
1,701.9
1,722.9
1,743.7
1 ,766.5
1,841.2
1,861.5
1,877.3
1,900.0
1,921.0
2,018.0
2,041.0
2,068.8
2,086.4
Treatment System
Pressure Filtration
Influent
psig
7.5
7
0
8
7
8
8
9
9
0
8
8.5
7.5
8
8
7.5
8
6
8.5
7.5
7.5
8
7
8
8
7
6
7
7.5
8
8
8
6
7.5
9
10
9
8
8.5
7
7.5
Post Bag-
Filter
psig
10
10
4
9
10
9
9
10
10
0
9
9
9.5
9.5
10
10
10
9
12
9
9.5
10
9
10
9.5
9.5
9.5
9
9.5
10
9
9
9
10
10
11
10
9.5
10
9.5
9.5
Effluent
psig
10
10
6
10
10
10
10
11
11
4
10
10.5
10.5
11
11
11
11.5
9
11
10
10.5
10
10
10.5
10.5
10
9.5
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
10
11.5
11
10.5
10
9
9.5
AP
Bag-Filter
psig
-2.5
-3
-4
-1
-3
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
-1
-0.5
-2
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-2
-3
-3.5
-1.5
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1.5
-2.5
-3.5
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-3
-2.5
-1
-1
-1
-1.5
-1.5
-2.5
-2
APHIX
Vessel
psig
0
0
-2
-1
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-4
-1
-1.5
-1
-1.5
-1
-1
-1.5
0
1
-1
-1
0
-1
-0.5
-1
-0.5
0
-1
-0.5
0
-1
-1
0
1
0
-0.5
-1
-1
0
0.5
0
AP
System
psig
2.5
3
6
2
3
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
3
3
3
3.5
3.5
3
2.5
2.5
3
2
3
2.5
2.5
3
3.5
3
2.5
2
2
2
3
1.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1.5
2
2
Influent
Flow
Totalizer
gpm
0.0
24.0
0.0
24.0
24.0
22.6
22.6
24.0
25.1
0.0
24.0
24.0
22.4
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
22.6
29.3
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
25.3
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
Throughput
gal
NA
NA
6,003
13,199
34,529
25,794
140,994
19,397
22,592
32
16,097
25,175
26,602
26,883
120,053
56,459
26,756
306,802
18,997
30,299
31 ,350
30,287
102,103
28,868
25,784
28,990
31,519
96,208
30,631
29,894
30,021
32,081
105,510
39,032
12,799
32,399
30,114
136,871
32,233
39,432
25,130
Cumulative
Throughput
gal
NA
NA
1,099,067
1,112,266
1,146,795
1,172,589
1,313,583
1,332,980
1,355,572
1,355,604
1,371,701
1,396,876
1,423,478
1,450,361
1,570,414
1,626,873
1,653,629
1,960,431
1,979,428
2,009,727
2,041,077
2,071,364
2,173,467
2,202,335
2,228,119
2,257,109
2,288,628
2,384,836
2,415,467
2,445,361
2,475,382
2,507,463
2,612,973
2,652,005
2,664,804
2,697,203
2,727,317
2,864,188
2,896,421
2,935,853
2,960,983
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
BV
5,636
5,748
5,778
5,844
6,018
6,147
6,856
6,954
7,067
7,067
7,149
7,275
7,409
7,544
8,148
8,432
8,566
9,087
9,183
9,335
9,493
9,645
10,159
10,305
10,434
10,581
10,739
11,223
11,377
1 1 ,527
1 1 ,674
1 1 ,839
12,370
12,516
12,630
12,793
12,944
13,632
13,793
13,991
14,117
Average
Flowrate
gpm
26.1
25.1
25.0
25.5
24.8
24.2
24.2
24.7
25.5
NA
26.5
25.0
24.9
25.0
24.7
24.9
24.7
24.6
24.8
24.6
24.5
24.1
24.1
24.2
24.1
25.0
24.4
23.9
24.4
24.1
23.7
24.5
23.9
24.2
24.4
24.1
24.2
23.9
23.7
24.0
24.1
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)
Week
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
30
31
32
Day of
Week
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
Date & Time
02/27/06 9:30
02/28/06 16:00
03/01/06 9:00
03/02/06 1 1 :45
03/03/06 8:40
03/06/06 12:48
03/07/06 14:40
03/08/06 8:30
03/09/06 2:00
03/10/062:40
03/13/068:45
03/14/06 10:00
03/15/069:10
03/16/069:30
03/17/06 14:46
03/20/069:10
03/21/06 10:15
03/22/06 9:00
03/23/06 1 1 :00
03/24/06 9:30
03/27/06 14:35
03/28/06 8:30
03/29/06 9:00
03/30/06 11:30
03/31/0620:30
04/03/06 15:00
04/04/06 9:45
04/05/06 9:20
04/06/06 10:00
04/07/06 8:40
04/10/069:00
04/18/06 12:30
04/19/069:00
04/20/06 12:45
04/21/06 8:45
04/25/06 9:00
04/26/06 10:30
04/27/06 13:00
04/28/06 9:50
05/01/06 10:00
05/02/06 12:30
05/03/06 8:30
05/08/06 9:25
05/09/06 14:20
05/10/06 17:15
05/11/06 10:20
05/12/06 15:00
05/15/06 10:30
05/16/06 14:40
05/17/069:00
05/18/06 13:30
05/19/068:00
Hour Meter
Op Hours
65.7
30.2
13.4
20.5
21.0
73.1
25.8
15.9
29.6
21.6
66.2
25.2
20.6
24.4
29.4
66.3
25.0
22.5
26.6
22.1
77.3
17.9
21.1
26.6
21.2
77.2
18.9
19.4
22.5
22.8
79.1
1.1
19.5
28.0
19.7
96.4
23.3
26.7
20.6
52.1
15.0
20.1
50.2
12.4
9.7
5.1
20.0
30.0
19.7
13.9
19.6
16.0
Cumulative
Op Hours
2,152.1
2,182.3
2,195.7
2.216.2
2,237.2
2,310.3
2,336.1
2,352.0
2,381.6
2,403.2
2,469.4
2,494.6
2,515.2
2,539.6
2,569.0
2,635.3
2,660.3
2,682.8
2,709.4
2,731.5
2,808.8
2,826.7
2,847.8
2,874.4
2,895.6
2,972.8
2,991.7
3,011.1
3,033.6
3,056.4
3,135.5
3,136.6
3,156.1
3,184.1
3,203.8
3,300.2
3,323.5
3,350.2
3,370.8
3,422.9
3,437.9
3,458.0
3,508.2
3,520.6
3,530.3
3,535.4
3,555.4
3,585.4
3,605.1
3,619.0
3,638.6
3,654.6
Treatment System
Pressure Filtration
Influent
psig
8
9
9
12
10
10
10
11
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7.5
8.5
8.5
8
8.5
8.5
9
9
0
11
8
8.5
8
8
8
8
8.5
11
8
8.5
11
10
0
10
9
10
9
10
10
9
Post Bag-
Filter
psig
9
10
10
12
10
9.5
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
9.5
10
10
9.5
10
10
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
10
9.5
10
10
10
4
13
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
12
10
10
12
11
4
11
10
11
10
11
10
9
Effluent
psig
9
10
10
7.5
6
7
5.5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5.5
5.5
6
6
6
5
5
5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5
5.5
6
6
6
0
5
6
4
5
5
5
5
5
5.5
4
5
4
4
0
4
3
4
2
4
3
2.5
AP
Bag-Filter
psig
-1
-1
-1
0
0
0.5
0
1
-2
-2
-2
-1
-2
-2
-1.5
-2
-2
-1.5
-2
-2
-1.5
-1.5
-2
-1
-1
-2
-1
-1.5
-1
-1
-4
-2
-2
-1.5
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1.5
-1
-2
-1.5
-1
-1
-4
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0
APHIX
Vessel
psig
0
0
0
4.5
4
2.5
4.5
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4.5
4
3.5
4
5
4.5
4.5
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
8
4
6
5
5
5
5
5
6.5
6
5
8
7
4
7
7
7
8
7
7
6.5
AP
System
psig
1
1
1
-4.5
-4
-3
-4.5
-5
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2.5
-2.5
-2
-2
-2
-3
-3
-3
-2
-3
-3
-3
-3
-2.5
-3
-3
0
-6
-2
-4.5
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3.5
-5.5
-4
-3.5
-7
-6
0
-6
-6
-6
-7
-6
-7
-6.5
Influent
Flow
Totalizer
gpm
22.6
24.0
22.6
29.3
22.6
22.6
23.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
22.7
22.6
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
0.0
29.3
22.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
28.0
22.6
22.6
26.6
25.3
0.0
25.3
22.6
25.3
22.6
24.0
24.0
24.0
Throughput
gal
98,696
35,792
19,463
29,525
30,159
103,299
36,140
22,880
42,126
30,691
93,197
35,450
29,604
34,266
41,290
92,907
35,279
31,317
37,227
30,963
108,125
24,907
30,540
37,973
30,017
109,303
26,797
28,271
32,446
32,711
103,006
411
30,366
40,279
28,240
137,134
33,576
37,927
29,106
73,644
22,473
28,880
73,173
19,421
14,135
16,314
21,488
45,426
28,810
20,218
28,302
23,103
Cumulative
Throughput
gal
3,059,679
3,095,471
3,114,934
3,144,459
3,174,618
3,277,917
3,314,057
3,336,937
3,379,063
3,409,754
3,502,951
3,538,401
3,568,005
3,602,271
3,643,561
3,736,468
3,771,747
3,803,064
3,840,291
3,871,254
3,979,379
4,004,286
4,034,826
4,072,799
4,102,816
4,212,119
4,238,916
4,267,187
4,299,633
4,332,344
4,435,350
4,435,761
4,466,127
4,506,406
4,534,646
4,671,780
4,705,356
4,743,283
4,772,389
4,846,033
4,868,506
4,897,386
4,970,559
4,989,980
5,004,115
5,020.429
5,041,917
5,087,343
5,116,153
5,136,371
5,164,673
5,187,776
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
BV
14,613
14,792
14,890
15,038
15,190
15,707
15.938
16,002
16,211
16,367
16,834
17,012
17,160
17,331
17,538
18,004
18,180
18,337
18.524
18,679
19,220
19,345
19.498
19,688
19,839
20,386
20,520
20,662
20,824
20,988
21,504
21,506
21,658
21,859
22,001
22,687
22,855
23,045
23,190
23,559
23,672
23,816
24,182
24,294
24,350
24,392
24,539
24,767
24,911
25,012
25,153
25,269
Average
Flowrate
gpm
25.4
20.0
24.5
24.3
24.3
23.9
30.1
24.0
23.8
24.2
23.7
23.8
24.2
23.7
23.7
23.6
23.8
23.5
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.5
24.4
24.1
23.9
23.9
23.9
24.6
24.3
24.1
22.0
NA
26.3
24.2
24.2
24.0
24.3
23.9
23.8
23.8
25.2
24.2
24.0
30.4
24.3
27.5
24.8
25.5
24.6
24.5
24.3
24.3
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)
Week
33
36
37
41
43
Day of
Week
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
M
T
W
R
M
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
Date & Time
05/22/06 8:45
05/23/0612:20
05/24/06 8:30
05/25/0614:45
05/26/0615:00
05/30/0614:15
05/31/0617:45
06/01/0610:50
06/02/0613:11
06/06/0614:31
06/07/0614:54
06/08/0614:15
06/09/0613:28
06/12/0617:30
06/13/0617:30
06/14/0610:30
06/15/0616:00
06/16/069:30
06/19/0610:00
06/20/0617:30
06/21/0618:30
06/22/06 9:45
06/23/06 7:30
06/26/0611:50
06/27/0614:00
06/28/0611:30
06/29/0614:00
07/03/06 8:25
07/05/0613:50
07/06/0611:00
07/07/0617:30
07/10/068:00
07/12/069:30
07/13/0615:10
07/14/067:40
07/17/0614:30
07/18/0615:00
07/19/069:00
07/20/0614:00
07/21/067:30
07/24/06 6:00
07/25/0610:40
07/26/06 7:30
07/27/06 9:00
07/31/0615:00
08/01/0611:30
08/02/0610:00
08/03/06 8:30
08/04/06 7:30
Hour Meter
Op Hours
30.6
5.8
5.6
13.6
3.3
64.2
6.1
5.5
16.2
65.5
18.5
19.8
23.2
34.1
6.5
4.5
18.8
7.7
36.9
20.4
13.0
6.6
11.7
71.4
15.3
12.9
23.3
86.6
44.8
21.5
20.2
60.4
1.5
29.4
16.8
79.0
24.3
0.6
2.7
1.6
1.7
2.3
21.1
25.1
47.8
2.2
20.8
24.5
23.1
Cumulative
Op Hours
3,685.2
3,691.0
3,696.6
3,710.2
3,713.5
3,777.7
3,783.8
3,789.3
3,805.5
3,871.0
3,889.5
3,909.3
3,932.5
3,966.6
3,973.1
3,977.6
3,996.4
4,004.1
4,041.0
4,061.4
4,074.4
4,081.0
4,092.7
4,164.1
4,179.4
4,192.3
4,215.6
4,302.2
4,347.0
4,368.5
4,388.7
4,449.1
4,450.6
4,480.0
4,496.8
4,575.8
4,600.1
4,600.7
4,603.4
4,605.0
4,606.7
4,609.0
4,630.1
4,655.2
4,703.0
4,705.2
4,726.0
4,750.5
4,773.6
Treatment System
Pressure Filtration
Influent
psig
1
9
10.5
0
9.5
2
2
11
11
12
12
12.5
13
0
7.5
8
7
8.5
8
7.5
8
8.5
9
8.5
0
8
8
8
8
9
9.5
8
9
7
7.5
7
7
9
9
8
10
9
8
8
0
8.5
8
8.5
8.5
Post Bag-
Filter
psig
4
9
10
4
9
4
4
10
8.5
9
9
9
9
5
9
9
9
10
9
9
9.5
9.5
10
9
4
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
9
9
9
9
11
11
9
11
10
9
9
3
9.5
9
9
9
Effluent
psig
1
3
3
0
3
0
0
2
3
2
1
7
7
0
3
6
5.5
6
6
6
6
6
6.5
6
4
6
5.5
6
6
6.5
6.5
6
6
5.5
6
6
5.5
6.5
6
6
6.5
6
6
6
0
6
6
6
6
AP
Bag-Filter
psig
-3
0
0.5
-4
0.5
-2
-2
1
2.5
3
3
3.5
4
-5
-1.5
-1
-2
-1.5
-1
-1.5
-1.5
-1
-1
-0.5
-4
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-0.5
-2
-2
-2
-1.5
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-3
-1
-1
-0.5
-0.5
APHIX
Vessel
psig
3
6
7
4
6
4
4
8
5.5
(
8
2
2
5
6
3
3.5
4
3
3
3.5
3.5
3.5
3
0
3
3.5
3
3
3.5
3.5
4
5
3.5
3
3
3.5
4.5
5
3
4.5
4
3
3
3
3.5
3
3
3
AP
System
psig
0
-6
-7.5
0
-6.5
-2
-2
-9
-8
-10
-11
-5.5
-6
0
-4.5
-2
-1.5
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
4
-2
-2.5
-2
-2
-2.5
-3
-2
-3
-1.5
-1.5
-1
-1.5
-2.5
-3
-2
-3.5
-3
-2
-2
0
-2.5
-2
-2.5
-2.5
Influent
Flow
Totalizer
gpm
0.0
24.0
28.0
0.0
24.0
0.0
0.0
26.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
0.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
25.3
24.0
24.0
24.0
25.3
26.6
22.6
0.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
23.3
29.3
22.6
22.6
21.3
22.6
28.0
26.6
24.0
29.3
26.6
22.6
22.6
0.0
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
Throughput
gal
43,887
9,367
8,417
20,580
5,275
93,889
9,710
8,726
24,236
94,599
26,526
28,149
32,218
49,417
9,852
6,876
27,652
11,189
55,685
30,337
19,696
9,578
17,383
101,679
21,831
22,578
30,596
121,561
63,221
29,902
28,915
84,041
1,261
42,280
23,432
109,371
33,685
1,136
4,279
2,519
2,862
3,867
30,275
35,097
67,816
3,679
32,216
31,259
32,057
Cumulative
Throughput
gal
5,231,663
5,241,030
5,249,447
5,270,027
5,275,302
5,369,191
5,378,901
5,387,627
5,411,863
5,506,462
5,532,988
5,561,137
5,593,355
5,642,772
5,652,624
5,659,500
5,687,152
5,698,341
5,754,026
5,784,363
5,804,059
5,813,637
5,831,020
5,932,699
5,954,530
5,977,108
6,007,704
6,129,265
6,192,486
6,222,388
6,251,303
6,335,344
6,336,605
6,378.885
6,402,317
6,511,688
6,545,373
6,546,509
6,550,788
6,553,307
6,556,169
6,560,036
6,590,311
6,625,408
6,693,224
6,696,903
6,729,119
6,760,378
6,792,435
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
BV
25,488
25,535
25,578
25,680
25,707
26,177
26,226
26,269
26,390
26,863
26,996
27,137
27,298
27,546
27,596
27,630
27,768
27,824
28,102
28,254
28,351
28,401
28,488
28,996
29,106
29,204
29,372
29,977
30,296
30,446
30,590
31,011
31,018
31,229
31.346
31.894
32,063
32,068
32,089
32,102
32,117
32,136
32,287
32,462
32.802
32,820
32,981
33,137
33,298
Average
Flowrate
gpm
24.1
27.3
25.5
25.4
27.5
24.6
27.1
26.5
25.2
24.3
24.1
24.0
23.3
24.4
25.9
25.7
24.8
24.5
25.3
25.1
25.0
25.6
25.0
24.0
24.1
25.6
24.2
23.5
24.0
23.4
24.1
23.4
NA
24.2
23.5
23.3
23.4
29.6
26.2
27.1
29.3
28.3
24.1
23.5
23.9
27.5
26.1
21.5
23.4
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume (10J)
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
10/13/05
IN
-
106
-
1.2
38
1.1
<10
-
43.5
-
0.3
-
6.8
18.2
2.0
198
83.6
-
77.0
-
6.6
-
39.6
-
38.8
0.8
0.9
37.9
<25
-
<25
0.4
-
0.3
35.3
-
35.6
BF
-
101
-
1.2
42
1.1
<10
-
43.6
-
0.3
-
6.9
17.8
1.9
213
85.0
-
78.4
-
6.6
-
41.1
-
39.6
1.5
0.7
38.9
<25
-
<25
0.4
-
0.3
34.4
-
34.3
AF
0.2
101
-
1.2
40
0.1
<10
-
23.2
-
0.2
-
6.8
18.0
1.9
230
88.3
-
81.1
-
7.2
-
0.3
-
0.3
<0.1
0.7
<0.1
<25
-
<25
0.6
-
0.4
<0.1
-
<0.1
10/19/05
IN
-
145
-
-
-
-
<10
-
41.5
-
0.7
-
7.0
20.2
2.1
258
89.3
-
83.0
-
6.3
-
41.9
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
33.8
-
-
BF
-
132
-
-
-
-
<10
-
41.5
-
0.4
-
7.0
19.7
1.9
195
90.0
-
83.7
-
6.3
-
42.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
33.6
-
-
AF
0.9
132
-
-
-
-
<10
-
39.9
-
0.4
-
7.0
19.5
2.2
205
88.4
-
82.3
-
6.2
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.4
-
-
O.1
-
-
10/26/05
IN
-
92
-
-
-
-
<10
-
44.0
-
0.1
-
7.0
16.6
2.0
370
91.8
-
85.6
-
6.2
-
43.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.1
-
-
33.3
-
-
BF
-
97
-
-
-
-
<10
-
43.3
-
<0.1
-
7.0
16.4
2.1
298
93.8
-
87.5
-
6.3
-
43.8
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.1
-
-
34.0
-
-
AF
1.8
101
-
-
-
-
<10
-
41.1
-
<0.1
-
6.9
16.4
2.0
268
93.9
-
87.7
-
6.2
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.5
-
-
<0.1
-
-
11/02/05
IN
-
92
-
-
-
-
30
-
43.9
-
0.1
-
6.9
21.1
2.3
NAla)
93.3
-
87.1
-
6.2
-
41.8
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
35.2
-
-
BF
-
92
-
-
-
-
30
-
43.3
-
0.3
-
7.0
19.9
2.5
NAla)
94.4
-
88.0
-
6.4
-
41.5
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
34.0
-
-
AF
2.4
88
-
-
-
-
<10
-
43.3
-
<0.1
-
6.9
19.7
2.2
NAla)
98.9
-
92.3
-
6.6
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
11/08/05
IN
-
356
-
1.1
37
1.1
18
-
43.0
-
0.4
-
7.0
16.4
2.5
303
93.5
-
86.7
-
6.8
-
36.5
-
36.6
<0.1
0.3
36.3
<25
-
<25
0.9
-
0.7
35.9
-
35.7
BF
-
92
-
1.1
38
1.1
18
-
43.1
-
0.4
-
7.0
16.4
2.1
336
93.8
-
86.8
-
7.0
-
36.2
-
36.5
0.1
0.3
36.2
<25
-
<25
1.0
-
0.7
36.2
-
35.9
AF
3.0
101
-
1.2
37
1.0
<10
-
41.6
-
0.1
-
6.9
16.4
2.0
321
95.2
-
88.3
-
6.9
-
0.1
-
0.1
0.1
0.3
O.1
<25
-
<25
0.9
-
0.8
0.1
-
0.1
11/16/05
IN
-
101
-
-
-
-
<10
-
41.5
-
<0.1
-
7.0
17.6
NA(D
)
293
92.9
-
87.2
-
5.7
-
39.5
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.4
-
-
34.9
-
-
BF
-
97
-
-
-
-
<10
-
42.1
-
O.1
-
7.0
17.1
NA(B
)
291
91.0
-
86.5
-
4.5
-
40.2
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.7
-
-
33.3
-
-
AF
3.5
97
-
-
-
-
<10
-
41.1
-
O.1
-
7.0
17.1
NA(B
)
294
97.3
-
91.4
-
5.9
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.7
-
-
O.1
-
-
(a) ORP probe not operational.
(b) DO probe was not operational.
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Day of
Week
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
M
T
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
F
Date & Time
10/12/05 10:40
10/13/059:00
10/14/058:45
10/17/059:00
10/18/059:20
10/19/05 12:00
10/20/059:15
10/21/058:00
10/24/0517:00
10/25/05 12:30
10/26/05 10:00
10/27/057:15
10/28/058:16
10/31/05 14:30
11/01/059:15
11/02/0510:35
11/03/057:25
11/04/057:35
11/07/059:00
11/08/0512:00
11/09/057:30
11/10/0511:00
11/11/058:00
11/15/056:35
11/16/059:05
11/17/059:30
11/18/059:00
11/21/0511:45
11/22/0510:00
11/28/0515:00
11/29/058:50
11/30/0513:32
12/01/0510:15
12/02/059:30
12/05/05 13:30
12/06/05 10:15
12/07/05 15:30
12/08/05 10:00
12/09/059:00
12/16/05 14:30
Hour Meter
Op Hours
NA
15.4
23.6
19.8
22.6
23.6
21.3
22.9
46.7
19.4
21.3
1.6
5.2
35.0
18.9
25.3
20.9
24.2
10.6
3.3
17.4
27.0
21.5
9.8
14.6
24.4
22.9
77.1
10.9
0.0
17.7
24.6
20.7
23.3
9.2
20.4
29.5
11.8
0.4
4.8
Cumulative
Op Hours
NA
15.4
39.0
58.8
81.4
105.0
126.3
149.2
195.9
215.3
236.6
238.2
243.4
278.4
297.3
322.6
343.5
367.7
378.3
381.6
399.0
426.0
447.5
457.3
471.9
496.3
519.2
596.3
607.2
607.2
624.9
649.5
670.2
693.5
702.7
723.1
752.6
764.4
764.8
769.6
Treatment System
Pressure Filtration
Influent
psig
7.5
7.5
7
7
9
6
7
7.5
6
6
7
8
3
6
7
6.5
8
8
9
8
7.5
7
8
8
7.5
8
8
7
0
0
9
9
10
7
7
7
7
7
2
0
Post Bag-
Filter
psig
8
10
8
10
10
8
8
8
7
8
8
9
5
8
9
8
8
9
10
9
9
8
8.5
9
9
9
9
9
4
0
8
8
9
9
10
9
9
9
4
0
Effluent
psig
8.5
9.5
9
8
10
7
8
8.5
7
7
8
8
6
6
8
7.5
8.5
9
10
8
8
8
8.5
8
8
9
8.5
7
6
3
8
8
9
10
10
11
9.5
10
8
2
AP
Bag-Filter
psig
-0.5
-2.5
-1
-3
-1
-2
-1
-0.5
-1
-2
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-1.5
0
-1
-1
-1
-1.5
-1
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-1
-1
-2
-4
0
1
1
1
-2
-3
-2
-2
-2
-2
0
APHIX
Vessel
psig
-0.5
0.5
-1
2
0
1
0
-0.5
0
1
0
1
-1
2
1
0.5
-0.5
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0.5
2
-2
-3
0
0
0
-1
0
-2
-0.5
-1
-4
-2
AP
System
psig
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
3
0
1
1
0.5
1
1
0
0.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
0.5
0
6
3
-1
-1
-1
3
3
4
2.5
3
6
2
Influent
Flow
Totalizer
gpm
25.3
26.6
24.0
25.3
28.0
24.0
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
24.0
25.3
0.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
28.0
25.3
24.0
22.6
22.6
NM
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
0
0.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
25.3
22.6
22.6
24.0
0.0
0.0
Throughput
gal
NA
22,698
34,195
28,626
32,916
34,241
30,343
32,487
66,725
27,757
30,141
30,615
21,895
7,762
27,077
35,835
29,546
34,128
15,009
5,282
25,532
38,680
30,157
NA
35,463
34,697
32,526
108,149
15,244
83
25,744
35,161
29,011
32,944
13,371
32,488
38,724
17,752
15
45
Cumulative
Throughput
gal
NA
22,698
56,893
85,519
118,435
152,676
183,019
215,506
282,231
309,988
340,129
370,744
392,639
400,401
427,478
463,313
492,859
526,987
541,996
547,278
572,810
611,490
641,647
NA
677,110
711,807
744,333
852,482
867,726
867,809
893,553
928,714
957,725
990,669
1,004,040
1,036,528
1,075,252
1,093,004
1,093,019
1,093,064
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
BV
106
220
392
536
702
874
1,027
1,190
1,526
1,665
1,816
1,969
2,079
2,118
2,254
2,434
2,582
2,754
2,830
2,856
2,984
3,178
3,330
3,402
3,508
3,682
3,845
4,388
4,465
4,466
4,595
4,772
4,918
5,083
5,150
5,299
5,508
5,599
5,599
5,599
Average
Flowrate
gpm
NA
25.0
24.6
24.5
24.7
24.6
24.1
24.0
24.2
24.1
23.9
NA
NA
24.4
24.2
23.9
23.9
23.8
24.1
26.5
24.8
24.2
23.7
25.0
24.3
24.0
24.0
23.7
23.6
NA
24.6
24.2
23.7
23.9
24.6
24.5
23.9
25.9
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)
Week
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Day of
Week
T
W
R
W
R
F
T
W
R
M
T
W
R
F
T
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
Date & Time
12/20/0517:00
12/21/0511:50
12/22/050:00
12/28/059:00
12/29/0515:00
12/30/058:45
01/03/06 9:00
01/04/06 9:30
01/05/069:10
01/09/0612:30
01/10/0612:30
01/11/0610:20
01/12/069:20
01/13/068:30
01/18/069:00
12/29/0515:00
12/30/058:45
01/23/0614:08
01/24/0613:00
01/25/0621:48
01/26/0611:30
01/27/06 9:00
01/30/0612:05
01/31/0614:00
02/01/0620:10
02/02/0611:15
02/03/0613:07
02/06/069:15
02/07/0610:30
02/08/06 9:00
02/09/06 9:20
02/10/068:10
02/13/0613:29
02/14/0613:05
02/15/068:00
02/16/068:40
02/17/068:00
02/21/0611:20
02/22/0610:30
02/23/0616:20
02/24/0612:05
Hour Meter
Op Hours
4.7
15.0
4.1
8.7
23.6
18.0
98.7
13.3
15.0
0.1
10.3
17.0
18.1
18.3
82.1
38.4
18.3
210.8
13.0
20.9
21.7
21.3
71.7
20.2
18.1
19.7
21.8
68.1
21.3
21.0
20.8
22.8
74.7
20.3
15.8
22.7
21.0
97.0
23.0
27.8
17.6
Cumulative
Op Hours
774.3
789.3
793.4
802.1
825.7
843.7
942.4
955.7
970.7
970.8
981.1
998.1
1,016.2
1,034.5
1,116.6
1,155.0
1,173.3
1,384.1
1,397.1
1,418.0
1,439.7
1,461.0
1,532.7
1,552.9
1,571.0
1,590.7
1,612.5
1 ,680.6
1,701.9
1,722.9
1,743.7
1 ,766.5
1,841.2
1,861.5
1,877.3
1,900.0
1,921.0
2,018.0
2,041.0
2,068.8
2,086.4
Treatment System
Pressure Filtration
Influent
psig
7.5
7
0
8
7
8
8
9
9
0
8
8.5
7.5
8
8
7.5
8
6
8.5
7.5
7.5
8
7
8
8
7
6
7
7.5
8
8
8
6
7.5
9
10
9
8
8.5
7
7.5
Post Bag-
Filter
psig
10
10
4
9
10
9
9
10
10
0
9
9
9.5
9.5
10
10
10
9
12
9
9.5
10
9
10
9.5
9.5
9.5
9
9.5
10
9
9
9
10
10
11
10
9.5
10
9.5
9.5
Effluent
psig
10
10
6
10
10
10
10
11
11
4
10
10.5
10.5
11
11
11
11.5
9
11
10
10.5
10
10
10.5
10.5
10
9.5
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
10
11.5
11
10.5
10
9
9.5
AP
Bag-Filter
psig
-2.5
-3
-4
-1
-3
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
-1
-0.5
-2
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-2
-3
-3.5
-1.5
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1.5
-2.5
-3.5
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-3
-2.5
-1
-1
-1
-1.5
-1.5
-2.5
-2
APHIX
Vessel
psig
0
0
-2
-1
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-4
-1
-1.5
-1
-1.5
-1
-1
-1.5
0
1
-1
-1
0
-1
-0.5
-1
-0.5
0
-1
-0.5
0
-1
-1
0
1
0
-0.5
-1
-1
0
0.5
0
AP
System
psig
2.5
3
6
2
3
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
3
3
3
3.5
3.5
3
2.5
2.5
3
2
3
2.5
2.5
3
3.5
3
2.5
2
2
2
3
1.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1.5
2
2
Influent
Flow
Totalizer
gpm
0.0
24.0
0.0
24.0
24.0
22.6
22.6
24.0
25.1
0.0
24.0
24.0
22.4
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
22.6
29.3
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
25.3
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
Throughput
gal
NA
NA
6,003
13,199
34,529
25,794
140,994
19,397
22,592
32
16,097
25,175
26,602
26,883
120,053
56,459
26,756
306,802
18,997
30,299
31 ,350
30,287
102,103
28,868
25,784
28,990
31,519
96,208
30,631
29,894
30,021
32,081
105,510
39,032
12,799
32,399
30,114
136,871
32,233
39,432
25,130
Cumulative
Throughput
gal
NA
NA
1,099,067
1,112,266
1,146,795
1,172,589
1,313,583
1,332,980
1,355,572
1,355,604
1,371,701
1,396,876
1,423,478
1,450,361
1,570,414
1,626,873
1,653,629
1,960,431
1,979,428
2,009,727
2,041,077
2,071,364
2,173,467
2,202,335
2,228,119
2,257,109
2,288,628
2,384,836
2,415,467
2,445,361
2,475,382
2,507,463
2,612,973
2,652,005
2,664,804
2,697,203
2,727,317
2,864,188
2,896,421
2,935,853
2,960,983
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
BV
5,636
5,748
5,778
5,844
6,018
6,147
6,856
6,954
7,067
7,067
7,149
7,275
7,409
7,544
8,148
8,432
8,566
9,087
9,183
9,335
9,493
9,645
10,159
10,305
10,434
10,581
10,739
11,223
11,377
1 1 ,527
1 1 ,674
1 1 ,839
12,370
12,516
12,630
12,793
12,944
13,632
13,793
13,991
14,117
Average
Flowrate
gpm
26.1
25.1
25.0
25.5
24.8
24.2
24.2
24.7
25.5
NA
26.5
25.0
24.9
25.0
24.7
24.9
24.7
24.6
24.8
24.6
24.5
24.1
24.1
24.2
24.1
25.0
24.4
23.9
24.4
24.1
23.7
24.5
23.9
24.2
24.4
24.1
24.2
23.9
23.7
24.0
24.1
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)
Week
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
30
31
32
Day of
Week
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
Date & Time
02/27/06 9:30
02/28/06 16:00
03/01/06 9:00
03/02/06 1 1 :45
03/03/06 8:40
03/06/06 12:48
03/07/06 14:40
03/08/06 8:30
03/09/06 2:00
03/10/062:40
03/13/068:45
03/14/06 10:00
03/15/069:10
03/16/069:30
03/17/06 14:46
03/20/069:10
03/21/06 10:15
03/22/06 9:00
03/23/06 1 1 :00
03/24/06 9:30
03/27/06 14:35
03/28/06 8:30
03/29/06 9:00
03/30/06 11:30
03/31/0620:30
04/03/06 15:00
04/04/06 9:45
04/05/06 9:20
04/06/06 10:00
04/07/06 8:40
04/10/069:00
04/18/06 12:30
04/19/069:00
04/20/06 12:45
04/21/06 8:45
04/25/06 9:00
04/26/06 10:30
04/27/06 13:00
04/28/06 9:50
05/01/06 10:00
05/02/06 12:30
05/03/06 8:30
05/08/06 9:25
05/09/06 14:20
05/10/06 17:15
05/11/06 10:20
05/12/06 15:00
05/15/06 10:30
05/16/06 14:40
05/17/069:00
05/18/06 13:30
05/19/068:00
Hour Meter
Op Hours
65.7
30.2
13.4
20.5
21.0
73.1
25.8
15.9
29.6
21.6
66.2
25.2
20.6
24.4
29.4
66.3
25.0
22.5
26.6
22.1
77.3
17.9
21.1
26.6
21.2
77.2
18.9
19.4
22.5
22.8
79.1
1.1
19.5
28.0
19.7
96.4
23.3
26.7
20.6
52.1
15.0
20.1
50.2
12.4
9.7
5.1
20.0
30.0
19.7
13.9
19.6
16.0
Cumulative
Op Hours
2,152.1
2,182.3
2,195.7
2.216.2
2,237.2
2,310.3
2,336.1
2,352.0
2,381.6
2,403.2
2,469.4
2,494.6
2,515.2
2,539.6
2,569.0
2,635.3
2,660.3
2,682.8
2,709.4
2,731.5
2,808.8
2,826.7
2,847.8
2,874.4
2,895.6
2,972.8
2,991.7
3,011.1
3,033.6
3,056.4
3,135.5
3,136.6
3,156.1
3,184.1
3,203.8
3,300.2
3,323.5
3,350.2
3,370.8
3,422.9
3,437.9
3,458.0
3,508.2
3,520.6
3,530.3
3,535.4
3,555.4
3,585.4
3,605.1
3,619.0
3,638.6
3,654.6
Treatment System
Pressure Filtration
Influent
psig
8
9
9
12
10
10
10
11
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7.5
8.5
8.5
8
8.5
8.5
9
9
0
11
8
8.5
8
8
8
8
8.5
11
8
8.5
11
10
0
10
9
10
9
10
10
9
Post Bag-
Filter
psig
9
10
10
12
10
9.5
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
9.5
10
10
9.5
10
10
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
10
9.5
10
10
10
4
13
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
12
10
10
12
11
4
11
10
11
10
11
10
9
Effluent
psig
9
10
10
7.5
6
7
5.5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5.5
5.5
6
6
6
5
5
5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5
5.5
6
6
6
0
5
6
4
5
5
5
5
5
5.5
4
5
4
4
0
4
3
4
2
4
3
2.5
AP
Bag-Filter
psig
-1
-1
-1
0
0
0.5
0
1
-2
-2
-2
-1
-2
-2
-1.5
-2
-2
-1.5
-2
-2
-1.5
-1.5
-2
-1
-1
-2
-1
-1.5
-1
-1
-4
-2
-2
-1.5
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1.5
-1
-2
-1.5
-1
-1
-4
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0
APHIX
Vessel
psig
0
0
0
4.5
4
2.5
4.5
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4.5
4
3.5
4
5
4.5
4.5
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
8
4
6
5
5
5
5
5
6.5
6
5
8
7
4
7
7
7
8
7
7
6.5
AP
System
psig
1
1
1
-4.5
-4
-3
-4.5
-5
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2.5
-2.5
-2
-2
-2
-3
-3
-3
-2
-3
-3
-3
-3
-2.5
-3
-3
0
-6
-2
-4.5
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3.5
-5.5
-4
-3.5
-7
-6
0
-6
-6
-6
-7
-6
-7
-6.5
Influent
Flow
Totalizer
gpm
22.6
24.0
22.6
29.3
22.6
22.6
23.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
22.7
22.6
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
0.0
29.3
22.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
28.0
22.6
22.6
26.6
25.3
0.0
25.3
22.6
25.3
22.6
24.0
24.0
24.0
Throughput
gal
98,696
35,792
19,463
29,525
30,159
103,299
36,140
22,880
42,126
30,691
93,197
35,450
29,604
34,266
41,290
92,907
35,279
31,317
37,227
30,963
108,125
24,907
30,540
37,973
30,017
109,303
26,797
28,271
32,446
32,711
103,006
411
30,366
40,279
28,240
137,134
33,576
37,927
29,106
73,644
22,473
28,880
73,173
19,421
14,135
16,314
21,488
45,426
28,810
20,218
28,302
23,103
Cumulative
Throughput
gal
3,059,679
3,095,471
3,114,934
3,144,459
3,174,618
3,277,917
3,314,057
3,336,937
3,379,063
3,409,754
3,502,951
3,538,401
3,568,005
3,602,271
3,643,561
3,736,468
3,771,747
3,803,064
3,840,291
3,871,254
3,979,379
4,004,286
4,034,826
4,072,799
4,102,816
4,212,119
4,238,916
4,267,187
4,299,633
4,332,344
4,435,350
4,435,761
4,466,127
4,506,406
4,534,646
4,671,780
4,705,356
4,743,283
4,772,389
4,846,033
4,868,506
4,897,386
4,970,559
4,989,980
5,004,115
5,020.429
5,041,917
5,087,343
5,116,153
5,136,371
5,164,673
5,187,776
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
BV
14,613
14,792
14,890
15,038
15,190
15,707
15.938
16,002
16,211
16,367
16,834
17,012
17,160
17,331
17,538
18,004
18,180
18,337
18.524
18,679
19,220
19,345
19.498
19,688
19,839
20,386
20,520
20,662
20,824
20,988
21,504
21,506
21,658
21,859
22,001
22,687
22,855
23,045
23,190
23,559
23,672
23,816
24,182
24,294
24,350
24,392
24,539
24,767
24,911
25,012
25,153
25,269
Average
Flowrate
gpm
25.4
20.0
24.5
24.3
24.3
23.9
30.1
24.0
23.8
24.2
23.7
23.8
24.2
23.7
23.7
23.6
23.8
23.5
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.5
24.4
24.1
23.9
23.9
23.9
24.6
24.3
24.1
22.0
NA
26.3
24.2
24.2
24.0
24.3
23.9
23.8
23.8
25.2
24.2
24.0
30.4
24.3
27.5
24.8
25.5
24.6
24.5
24.3
24.3
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)
Week
33
36
37
41
43
Day of
Week
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
M
T
W
R
M
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
Date & Time
05/22/06 8:45
05/23/0612:20
05/24/06 8:30
05/25/0614:45
05/26/0615:00
05/30/0614:15
05/31/0617:45
06/01/0610:50
06/02/0613:11
06/06/0614:31
06/07/0614:54
06/08/0614:15
06/09/0613:28
06/12/0617:30
06/13/0617:30
06/14/0610:30
06/15/0616:00
06/16/069:30
06/19/0610:00
06/20/0617:30
06/21/0618:30
06/22/06 9:45
06/23/06 7:30
06/26/0611:50
06/27/0614:00
06/28/0611:30
06/29/0614:00
07/03/06 8:25
07/05/0613:50
07/06/0611:00
07/07/0617:30
07/10/068:00
07/12/069:30
07/13/0615:10
07/14/067:40
07/17/0614:30
07/18/0615:00
07/19/069:00
07/20/0614:00
07/21/067:30
07/24/06 6:00
07/25/0610:40
07/26/06 7:30
07/27/06 9:00
07/31/0615:00
08/01/0611:30
08/02/0610:00
08/03/06 8:30
08/04/06 7:30
Hour Meter
Op Hours
30.6
5.8
5.6
13.6
3.3
64.2
6.1
5.5
16.2
65.5
18.5
19.8
23.2
34.1
6.5
4.5
18.8
7.7
36.9
20.4
13.0
6.6
11.7
71.4
15.3
12.9
23.3
86.6
44.8
21.5
20.2
60.4
1.5
29.4
16.8
79.0
24.3
0.6
2.7
1.6
1.7
2.3
21.1
25.1
47.8
2.2
20.8
24.5
23.1
Cumulative
Op Hours
3,685.2
3,691.0
3,696.6
3,710.2
3,713.5
3,777.7
3,783.8
3,789.3
3,805.5
3,871.0
3,889.5
3,909.3
3,932.5
3,966.6
3,973.1
3,977.6
3,996.4
4,004.1
4,041.0
4,061.4
4,074.4
4,081.0
4,092.7
4,164.1
4,179.4
4,192.3
4,215.6
4,302.2
4,347.0
4,368.5
4,388.7
4,449.1
4,450.6
4,480.0
4,496.8
4,575.8
4,600.1
4,600.7
4,603.4
4,605.0
4,606.7
4,609.0
4,630.1
4,655.2
4,703.0
4,705.2
4,726.0
4,750.5
4,773.6
Treatment System
Pressure Filtration
Influent
psig
1
9
10.5
0
9.5
2
2
11
11
12
12
12.5
13
0
7.5
8
7
8.5
8
7.5
8
8.5
9
8.5
0
8
8
8
8
9
9.5
8
9
7
7.5
7
7
9
9
8
10
9
8
8
0
8.5
8
8.5
8.5
Post Bag-
Filter
psig
4
9
10
4
9
4
4
10
8.5
9
9
9
9
5
9
9
9
10
9
9
9.5
9.5
10
9
4
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
9
9
9
9
11
11
9
11
10
9
9
3
9.5
9
9
9
Effluent
psig
1
3
3
0
3
0
0
2
3
2
1
7
7
0
3
6
5.5
6
6
6
6
6
6.5
6
4
6
5.5
6
6
6.5
6.5
6
6
5.5
6
6
5.5
6.5
6
6
6.5
6
6
6
0
6
6
6
6
AP
Bag-Filter
psig
-3
0
0.5
-4
0.5
-2
-2
1
2.5
3
3
3.5
4
-5
-1.5
-1
-2
-1.5
-1
-1.5
-1.5
-1
-1
-0.5
-4
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-0.5
-2
-2
-2
-1.5
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-3
-1
-1
-0.5
-0.5
APHIX
Vessel
psig
3
6
7
4
6
4
4
8
5.5
(
8
2
2
5
6
3
3.5
4
3
3
3.5
3.5
3.5
3
0
3
3.5
3
3
3.5
3.5
4
5
3.5
3
3
3.5
4.5
5
3
4.5
4
3
3
3
3.5
3
3
3
AP
System
psig
0
-6
-7.5
0
-6.5
-2
-2
-9
-8
-10
-11
-5.5
-6
0
-4.5
-2
-1.5
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
4
-2
-2.5
-2
-2
-2.5
-3
-2
-3
-1.5
-1.5
-1
-1.5
-2.5
-3
-2
-3.5
-3
-2
-2
0
-2.5
-2
-2.5
-2.5
Influent
Flow
Totalizer
gpm
0.0
24.0
28.0
0.0
24.0
0.0
0.0
26.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
0.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
25.3
24.0
24.0
24.0
25.3
26.6
22.6
0.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
23.3
29.3
22.6
22.6
21.3
22.6
28.0
26.6
24.0
29.3
26.6
22.6
22.6
0.0
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
Throughput
gal
43,887
9,367
8,417
20,580
5,275
93,889
9,710
8,726
24,236
94,599
26,526
28,149
32,218
49,417
9,852
6,876
27,652
11,189
55,685
30,337
19,696
9,578
17,383
101,679
21,831
22,578
30,596
121,561
63,221
29,902
28,915
84,041
1,261
42,280
23,432
109,371
33,685
1,136
4,279
2,519
2,862
3,867
30,275
35,097
67,816
3,679
32,216
31,259
32,057
Cumulative
Throughput
gal
5,231,663
5,241,030
5,249,447
5,270,027
5,275,302
5,369,191
5,378,901
5,387,627
5,411,863
5,506,462
5,532,988
5,561,137
5,593,355
5,642,772
5,652,624
5,659,500
5,687,152
5,698,341
5,754,026
5,784,363
5,804,059
5,813,637
5,831,020
5,932,699
5,954,530
5,977,108
6,007,704
6,129,265
6,192,486
6,222,388
6,251,303
6,335,344
6,336,605
6,378.885
6,402,317
6,511,688
6,545,373
6,546,509
6,550,788
6,553,307
6,556,169
6,560,036
6,590,311
6,625,408
6,693,224
6,696,903
6,729,119
6,760,378
6,792,435
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
BV
25,488
25,535
25,578
25,680
25,707
26,177
26,226
26,269
26,390
26,863
26,996
27,137
27,298
27,546
27,596
27,630
27,768
27,824
28,102
28,254
28,351
28,401
28,488
28,996
29,106
29,204
29,372
29,977
30,296
30,446
30,590
31,011
31,018
31,229
31.346
31.894
32,063
32,068
32,089
32,102
32,117
32,136
32,287
32,462
32.802
32,820
32,981
33,137
33,298
Average
Flowrate
gpm
24.1
27.3
25.5
25.4
27.5
24.6
27.1
26.5
25.2
24.3
24.1
24.0
23.3
24.4
25.9
25.7
24.8
24.5
25.3
25.1
25.0
25.6
25.0
24.0
24.1
25.6
24.2
23.5
24.0
23.4
24.1
23.4
NA
24.2
23.5
23.3
23.4
29.6
26.2
27.1
29.3
28.3
24.1
23.5
23.9
27.5
26.1
21.5
23.4
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume (10J)
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
10/13/05
IN
-
106
-
1.2
38
1.1
<10
-
43.5
-
0.3
-
6.8
18.2
2.0
198
83.6
-
77.0
-
6.6
-
39.6
-
38.8
0.8
0.9
37.9
<25
-
<25
0.4
-
0.3
35.3
-
35.6
BF
-
101
-
1.2
42
1.1
<10
-
43.6
-
0.3
-
6.9
17.8
1.9
213
85.0
-
78.4
-
6.6
-
41.1
-
39.6
1.5
0.7
38.9
<25
-
<25
0.4
-
0.3
34.4
-
34.3
AF
0.2
101
-
1.2
40
0.1
<10
-
23.2
-
0.2
-
6.8
18.0
1.9
230
88.3
-
81.1
-
7.2
-
0.3
-
0.3
<0.1
0.7
<0.1
<25
-
<25
0.6
-
0.4
<0.1
-
<0.1
10/19/05
IN
-
145
-
-
-
-
<10
-
41.5
-
0.7
-
7.0
20.2
2.1
258
89.3
-
83.0
-
6.3
-
41.9
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
33.8
-
-
BF
-
132
-
-
-
-
<10
-
41.5
-
0.4
-
7.0
19.7
1.9
195
90.0
-
83.7
-
6.3
-
42.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
33.6
-
-
AF
0.9
132
-
-
-
-
<10
-
39.9
-
0.4
-
7.0
19.5
2.2
205
88.4
-
82.3
-
6.2
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.4
-
-
O.1
-
-
10/26/05
IN
-
92
-
-
-
-
<10
-
44.0
-
0.1
-
7.0
16.6
2.0
370
91.8
-
85.6
-
6.2
-
43.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.1
-
-
33.3
-
-
BF
-
97
-
-
-
-
<10
-
43.3
-
<0.1
-
7.0
16.4
2.1
298
93.8
-
87.5
-
6.3
-
43.8
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.1
-
-
34.0
-
-
AF
1.8
101
-
-
-
-
<10
-
41.1
-
<0.1
-
6.9
16.4
2.0
268
93.9
-
87.7
-
6.2
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.5
-
-
<0.1
-
-
11/02/05
IN
-
92
-
-
-
-
30
-
43.9
-
0.1
-
6.9
21.1
2.3
NAla)
93.3
-
87.1
-
6.2
-
41.8
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
35.2
-
-
BF
-
92
-
-
-
-
30
-
43.3
-
0.3
-
7.0
19.9
2.5
NAla)
94.4
-
88.0
-
6.4
-
41.5
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
34.0
-
-
AF
2.4
88
-
-
-
-
<10
-
43.3
-
<0.1
-
6.9
19.7
2.2
NAla)
98.9
-
92.3
-
6.6
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
11/08/05
IN
-
356
-
1.1
37
1.1
18
-
43.0
-
0.4
-
7.0
16.4
2.5
303
93.5
-
86.7
-
6.8
-
36.5
-
36.6
<0.1
0.3
36.3
<25
-
<25
0.9
-
0.7
35.9
-
35.7
BF
-
92
-
1.1
38
1.1
18
-
43.1
-
0.4
-
7.0
16.4
2.1
336
93.8
-
86.8
-
7.0
-
36.2
-
36.5
0.1
0.3
36.2
<25
-
<25
1.0
-
0.7
36.2
-
35.9
AF
3.0
101
-
1.2
37
1.0
<10
-
41.6
-
0.1
-
6.9
16.4
2.0
321
95.2
-
88.3
-
6.9
-
0.1
-
0.1
0.1
0.3
O.1
<25
-
<25
0.9
-
0.8
0.1
-
0.1
11/16/05
IN
-
101
-
-
-
-
<10
-
41.5
-
<0.1
-
7.0
17.6
NA(D
)
293
92.9
-
87.2
-
5.7
-
39.5
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.4
-
-
34.9
-
-
BF
-
97
-
-
-
-
<10
-
42.1
-
O.1
-
7.0
17.1
NA(B
)
291
91.0
-
86.5
-
4.5
-
40.2
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.7
-
-
33.3
-
-
AF
3.5
97
-
-
-
-
<10
-
41.1
-
O.1
-
7.0
17.1
NA(B
)
294
97.3
-
91.4
-
5.9
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.7
-
-
O.1
-
-
(a) ORP probe not operational.
(b) DO probe was not operational.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume (10J)
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
12/01/05
IN
-
88
-
-
-
-
<10
-
45.2
-
0.1
-
7.1
19.1
3.9
415
88.6
-
81.5
-
7.0
-
39.2
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
O.1
-
-
26.6
-
-
BF
-
92
-
-
-
-
<10
-
44.5
-
0.1
-
7.0
18.2
3.0
453
87.9
-
81.0
-
7.0
-
39.5
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
26.6
-
-
AF
4.9
88
-
-
-
-
<10
-
44.7
-
O.1
-
7.0
17.4
3.0
453
91.5
-
84.4
-
7.1
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.1
-
-
<0.1
-
-
12/08/05
IN
-
97
-
-
-
-
<10
-
44.0
-
0.3
-
7.0
12.9
NA(a)
332
92.2
-
85.8
-
6.4
-
42.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
29.2
-
-
BF
-
97
-
-
-
-
<10
-
42.8
-
0.2
-
7.0
14.1
NA(a)
411
89.9
-
83.6
-
6.3
-
40.5
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
29.1
-
-
AF
5.6
106
-
-
-
-
<10
-
44.1
-
0.1
-
7.0
14.4
NA(a)
426
89.5
-
83.3
-
6.2
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
<0.1
-
-
12/28/05
IN
-
97
-
1.1
36
1.0
<10
-
44.2
-
0.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
93.6
-
87.3
-
6.3
-
39.4
-
40.0
<0.1
0.4
39.6
<25
-
<25
0.6
-
0.8
33.6
-
33.6
BF
-
101
-
1.1
36
1.0
<10
-
45.6
-
0.7
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
93.7
-
87.3
-
6.5
-
38.9
-
39.4
<0.1
0.4
39.0
<25
-
<25
0.7
-
1.1
33.8
-
33.6
AF
5.8
97
-
1.1
36
1.0
<10
-
44.8
-
0.7
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
92.6
-
86.2
-
6.5
-
0.3
-
0.7
<0.1
0.4
0.4
<25
-
<25
1.3
-
1.6
<0.1
-
<0.1
01/04/06
IN
-
97
-
-
-
-
<10
-
43.1
-
1.8
-
7.0
17.0
NA(a)
478
89.5
-
82.2
-
7.3
-
39.4
-
-
-
-
-
41.2
-
-
0.5
-
-
32.7
-
-
BF
-
97
-
-
-
-
<10
-
42.2
-
1.7
-
7.0
16.6
NA(a)
489
90.7
-
83.2
-
7.4
-
39.2
-
-
-
-
-
39.9
-
-
0.5
-
-
32.5
-
-
AF
7.0
97
-
-
-
-
<10
-
42.9
-
1.6
-
7.0
13.7
NA(a)
490
90.9
-
83.3
-
7.6
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.4
-
-
<0.1
-
-
01/11/06
IN
-
101
-
1.1
37
1.3
14
-
43.9
-
0.4
-
6.8
11.9
3.1
378
79.9
-
72.7
-
7.2
-
43.0
-
43.2
<0.1
0.8
42.5
<25
-
<25
0.2
-
0.1
30.9
-
32.6
BF
-
97
-
1.1
38
1.3
13
-
44.6
-
0.4
-
6.9
12.1
3.5
265
82.4
-
75.2
-
7.2
-
43.5
-
45.2
<0.1
0.8
44.4
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
0.1
32.0
-
32.8
AF
7.3
101
-
1.1
36
1.7
<10
-
44.9
-
0.4
-
6.9
12.4
2.7
245
80.3
-
73.1
-
7.2
-
0.5
-
0.4
<0.1
0.8
O.1
<25
-
<25
0.6
-
0.7
<0.1
-
<0.1
01/25/06
IN
-
101
101
-
-
-
<10
<10
43.4
43.7
0.5
0.2
6.8
12.2
2.1
432
94.9
95.4
88.5
89.0
6.5
6.5
38.4
37.4
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
0.1
-
30.3
29.8
-
BF
-
101
101
-
-
-
<10
<10
43.7
42.9
0.2
0.2
6.9
12.4
2.0
471
94.9
94.3
88.5
88.1
6.4
6.3
38.6
37.9
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
0.1
-
29.6
29.5
-
AF
9.3
101
101
-
-
-
<10
<10
42.9
43.8
0.3
0.2
7.0
12.5
2.4
445
94.3
95.7
88.1
89.1
6.2
6.5
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.4
0.4
-
0.1
O.1
-
02/08/06
IN
-
96
-
1.0
36
1.1
<10
-
42.6
-
0.8
-
7.0
14.7
4.3
436
69.6
-
60.6
-
9.0
-
42.5
-
42.7
O.1
0.7
42.0
<25
-
<25
O.1
-
0.1
30.6
-
32.7
BF
-
100
-
1.0
35
1.1
<10
-
43.8
-
0.6
-
6.9
14.6
3.7
338
69.3
-
60.0
-
9.3
-
42.4
-
42.8
O.1
0.8
41.9
<25
-
<25
O.1
-
0.1
30.2
-
30.7
AF
11.5
100
-
1.0
35
1.0
<10
-
43.3
-
0.5
-
7.0
14.8
2.9
315
69.9
-
60.1
-
9.8
-
0.4
-
0.4
O.1
1.0
O.1
<25
-
<25
0.2
-
0.2
0.1
-
0.1
(a) DO probe was not operational.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume (10J)
Alkalinity (as
CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
02/22/06
IN
-
100
-
-
-
-
•i n
-
44.9
-
0.6
-
7.2
12.1
3.4
416
88.9
-
82.3
-
6.6
-
41.9
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
34.6
-
-
BF
-
104
-
-
-
-
•i n
-
44.3
-
0.6
-
7.0
12.1
3.2
411
91.5
-
84.8
-
6.7
-
41.8
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
35.1
-
-
AF
13.8
100
-
-
-
-
•i n
-
45.0
-
0.3
-
7.1
12.0
3.4
390
88.8
-
82.2
-
6.6
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.3
-
-
O.1
-
-
03/08/06
IN
-
100
-
1.1
41
1.1
•i n
-
42.0
-
1.0
-
7.0
11.2
2.9
300
94.8
-
87.5
-
7.3
-
40.3
-
39.5
0.8
0.4
39.2
<25
-
<25
0.4
-
0.3
32.1
-
32.1
BF
-
100
-
1.1
40
1.1
j r\
-
41.6
-
0.8
-
7.0
11.2
3.4
305
95.8
-
88.5
-
7.3
-
41.4
-
40.0
1.4
0.4
39.5
<25
-
<25
0.4
-
0.2
31.9
-
31.9
AF
16.0
100
-
1.1
39
1.0
<10
-
42.1
-
0.6
-
7.1
11.6
3.8
325
96.9
-
89.4
-
7.6
-
0.3
-
0.2
<0.1
0.5
<0.1
<25
-
<25
0.5
-
0.4
O.1
-
<0.1
03/22/06
IN
-
103
103
-
-
-
<10
<10
42.3
43.1
0.3
0.3
7.2
25.0
NA""
443
95.7
92.3
90.0
86.7
5.7
5.6
43.1
41.5
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.1
-
30.3
28.4
-
BF
-
99
99
-
-
-
<10
<10
42.8
43.1
0.4
0.3
7.1
25.0
NA""
486
93.6
93.0
88.1
87.3
5.6
5.6
42.8
41.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.1
0.1
-
29.5
27.8
-
AF
18.3
99
99
-
-
-
<10
<10
42.7
42.6
0.3
0.5
7.3
25.0
NA""
495
93.8
93.2
88.3
87.6
5.5
5.6
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.4
0.4
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
04/04/06'"'
IN
-
95
-
1.2
40
1.3
-
-
42.9
-
1.0
-
6.9
8.2
266
285
84.4
-
77.9
-
6.5
-
42.3
-
43.6
<0.1
0.8
42.8
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
0.1
36.7
-
35.6
BF
-
95
-
1.2
40
1.2
-
-
42.2
-
0.6
-
6.9
9.3
1.8
264
85.4
-
78.7
-
6.7
-
41.6
-
42.7
<0.1
0.5
42.2
<25
-
<25
0.1
-
<0.1
34.6
-
36.4
AF
20.5
99
-
1.2
40
1.2
-
-
42.4
-
0.8
-
6.4
10.6
1.6
232
86.5
-
79.8
-
6.7
-
1.2
-
1.5
<0.1
0.5
1.0
<25
-
<25
0.4
-
0.5
<0.1
-
<0.1
04/19/06
IN
-
106
-
-
-
-
18
-
42.1
-
0.3
-
6.8
17.7
1.6
384
94.7
-
84.2
-
10.4
-
38.9
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.2
-
-
27.8
-
-
BF
-
106
-
-
-
-
17
-
42.3
-
0.4
-
6.8
12.7
2.1
345
95.4
-
84.8
-
10.6
-
38.6
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.2
-
-
28.3
-
-
AF
21.7
106
-
-
-
-
<10
-
41.2
-
0.2
-
6.8
17.9
1.5
254
93.2
-
82.8
-
10.3
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
1.7
-
-
<0.1
-
-
05/03/06
IN
-
105
-
1.0
40
0.9
<10
-
45.6
-
0.2
-
7.0
19.9
2.7
408
90.8
-
83.8
-
7.0
-
44.7
-
44.5
0.2
0.2
44.4
<25
-
<25
0.1
-
0.1
35.2
-
35.3
BF
-
97
-
1.0
40
1.0
<10
-
43.9
-
0.4
-
6.9
19.5
2.1
407
88.0
-
81.1
-
6.8
-
43.6
-
44.0
<0.1
0.2
43.8
<25
-
<25
0.1
-
0.1
34.8
-
35.6
AF
23.8
105
-
1.0
40
1.0
<10
-
44.4
-
0.4
-
6.9
19.9
1.9
386
86.6
-
79.7
-
6.9
-
2.2
-
2.2
<0.1
0.1
2.0
<25
-
<25
0.5
-
0.5
O.1
-
<0.1
05/17/06
IN
-
97
-
-
-
-
<10
-
45.2
-
0.6
-
7.0
23.6
2.7
471
80.9
-
73.7
-
7.2
-
41.3
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.3
-
-
37.4
-
-
BF
-
97
-
-
-
-
<10
-
45.2
-
0.7
-
6.9
23.2
2.9
474
85.1
-
77.8
-
7.3
-
42.4
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.3
-
-
35.5
-
-
AF
25.0
97
-
-
-
-
<10
-
45.6
-
0.4
-
7.1
23.4
2.3
494
82.8
-
75.5
-
7.3
-
2.7
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.4
-
-
O.1
-
-
(a) Water quality measurements taken on 04/05/06.
(b) Measurements not taken.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume (10J)
Alkalinity (as
CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
06/01/06
IN
-
96
-
-
-
-
15
-
39.5
-
0.5
-
6.8
20.3
1.9
305
90.2
-
80.7
-
9.5
-
38.8
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
36.6
-
-
BF
-
96
-
-
-
-
14
-
41.0
-
0.2
-
6.8
20.0
2.2
276
86.1
-
76.6
-
9.6
-
35.8
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
34.9
-
-
AF
26.3
100
-
-
-
-
10.0
-
39.1
-
0.9
-
6.9
19.7
2.0
278
91.1
-
82.0
-
9.2
-
3.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
<0.1
-
-
06/14/06
IN
-
106
-
0.9
41
1.0
17
-
47.5
-
0.7
-
6.9
18.6
3.0
401
90.7
-
83.5
-
7.2
-
40.1
-
38.5
1.6
0.1
38.3
<25
-
<25
0.4
-
0.4
38.9
-
37.9
BF
-
102
-
1.0
42
1.0
17
-
48.2
-
0.5
-
6.9
18.1
2.8
386
89.5
-
82.5
-
7.0
-
40.4
-
39.7
0.7
0.2
39.5
<25
-
<25
0.3
-
0.3
38.7
-
38.1
AF
27.6
106
-
1.0
42
0.9
17
-
46.7
-
0.5
-
7.0
18.3
2.6
277
90.0
-
83.2
-
6.8
-
4.4
-
4.4
<0.1
0.1
4.3
<25
-
<25
0.2
-
0.2
O.1
-
<0.1
06/22/06
IN
-
100
-
-
-
-
<10
-
43.8
-
0.8
-
6.9
23.3
1.8
415
95.4
-
87.8
-
7.5
-
41.3
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.6
-
-
37.0
-
-
BF
-
100
-
-
-
-
<10
-
44.3
-
0.6
-
6.9
23.1
2.1
345
90.4
-
82.8
-
7.5
-
38.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.5
-
-
35.7
-
-
AF
28.4
100
-
-
-
-
<10
-
15.9
-
0.4
-
6.9
2.3
2.0
310
94.3
-
87.5
-
6.8
-
4.9
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.2
-
-
O.1
-
-
07/06/06
IN
-
100
-
1.1
<1
0.9
<10
-
43.3
-
0.7
-
7.0
24.3
2.1
453
86.3
-
80.5
-
5.8
-
41.9
-
42.2
<0.1
0.1
42.1
<25
-
<25
0.6
-
<0.1
31.3
-
31.2
BF
-
100
-
1.6
43
1.0
<10
-
44.0
-
0.4
-
7.0
23.5
2.1
470
85.2
-
79.5
-
5.7
-
40.7
-
40.6
0.1
0.1
40.5
<25
-
<25
0.5
-
<0.1
31.0
-
30.5
AF
30.4
100
-
1.4
41
1.0
<10
-
42.8
-
0.4
-
7.0
22.8
2.0
470
88.9
-
82.8
-
6.1
-
8.1
-
7.8
0.3
<0.1
7.7
<25
-
<25
0.6
-
0.2
<0.1
-
<0.1
07/19/06
IN
-
97
97
-
-
-
<10
<10
44.2
43.0
0.4
0.3
6.9
24.2
2.0
479
86.4
86.7
79.6
79.9
6.8
6.8
38.2
37.5
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.5
0.5
-
32.8
32.1
-
BF
-
101
92
-
-
-
<10
<10
42.6
43.8
0.3
0.3
6.9
23.1
2.1
317
85.1
86.1
78.3
79.2
6.8
6.8
37.5
37.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.5
0.5
-
32.9
31.9
-
AF
32.0
97
101
-
-
-
<10
12.7
43.3
43.6
0.5
0.3
6.9
22.3
2.0
251
84.3
91.5
77.8
84.6
6.5
6.9
9.4
9.3
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
7/26/2006(a)
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
46.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BF
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
46.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AF
32.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
08/03/06
IN
-
101
-
1.3
40
0.9
15
-
42.6
-
0.1
-
6.9
23.4
1.8
372
93.3
-
86.7
-
6.6
-
47.3
-
45.2
2.1
0.2
44.9
<25
-
<25
0.2
-
0.1
34.1
-
34.3
BF
-
101
-
1.4
40
0.9
13
-
42.4
-
0.1
-
6.8
22.7
1.5
277
95.3
-
89.3
-
6.0
-
45.8
-
44.8
1.0
0.2
44.5
<25
-
<25
0.1
-
0.2
34.2
-
33.4
AF
33.1
101
-
1.4
41
0.9
13
-
41.8
-
0.1
-
6.8
22.3
1.5
269
93.6
-
87.6
-
5.9
-
10.5
-
10.3
0.2
0.2
10.1
<25
-
<25
0.2
-
0.2
0.1
-
<0.1
(a) Sampling conducted for Total As only between bi-weekly sampling event due to As levels approaching 10 ug/L.
------- |