EPA/600/R-07/024
June 2007
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA
Six-Month Evaluation Report
by
Jody P. Lipps
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order (TO) 0029 of Contract No. 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The 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 provid-
ing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowl-
edge 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 meth-
ods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface
resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sedi-
ments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environ-
ment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the operator of the water treatment system at
Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, California. The operator of the school monitored the
treatment system and collected samples from the treatment system and distribution system on a regular
schedule throughout this reporting period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible
without his support and dedication.
IV
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the first six months
of the performance evaluation of the arsenic removal treatment technology at Richmond Elementary
School in Susanville, California. The objectives of the project are to evaluate 1) the effectiveness of an
Aquatic Treatment Systems, Inc. (ATS) arsenic removal system in removing arsenic to meet the new
arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 (ig/L, 2) the reliability of the treatment system, 3) the
system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill requirements, and 4) the capital and O&M
cost of the technology. The project also characterizes the water in the distribution system and process
residuals produced by the treatment process.
The ATS system consisted of one 25-^.m sediment filter, two 10-in diameter, 54-in tall oxidation
columns, and three 10-in diameter, 54-in tall adsorption columns connected in series. The columns were
constructed of sealed polyglass and loaded with 1.5 ft3 each of either A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media
(consisting of activated alumina and sodium metaperiodate) or A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media
(consisting of activated alumina and a proprietary iron complex). Based on the design flowrate of 12
gal/min (gpm), the empty bed contact time (EBCT) in each column was 0.9 min (or 2.8 min for three
adsorption columns in series) and the hydraulic loading rate to each column was 22 gpm/ft2.
Between September 7, 2005, and March 9, 2006, the As/1200CS system operated an average of 1.7
hr/day for a total of 207 hr, treating approximately 101,000 gal of water. This volume throughput was
equivalent to 9,000 bed volumes (BV) based on 1.5 ft3 of media in the lead adsorption column or 3,000
BV based on 4.5 ft3 of media in three adsorption columns. The average system flowrate was 9.0 gpm,
which yielded an average EBCT of 1.2 min in one adsorption column or 3.6 min in three adsorption
columns.
The oxidizing media was effective at converting As(III), the predominant arsenic species, to As(V)
throughout the six month period, typically lowering the As(III) concentrations from 16.7 ± 9.2 (ig/L to
<0.5 (ig/L. Oxidation of As(III) was achieved, presumably, through a reaction with sodium
metaperiodate, resulting in I" in the column effluent. Analyses of the column effluent indicated elevated
iodine concentrations, which averaged 86.1 (ig/L (as I) following the oxidation columns and 112 (ig/L (as
I) following the adsorption columns (compared to 11 (ig/L [as I], on average, in raw water). Iodine
measured in the column effluent most likely was leached from the oxidation columns as IO4" or other
reaction intermediates. The oxidizing media also showed a significant adsorptive capacity for arsenic
(i.e., 0.20 (ig/mg of media), effectively removing it to <10 (ig/L when processing the first 4,800 BV of
water through the lead oxidation column. Arsenic concentrations after the lead oxidation column reached
the influent levels after approximately 7,500 BV, based on the 1.5-ft3 media bed in the column. After
9,000 BV or six months of system operation, the arsenic concentration after the second oxidation column
was 10.7 (ig/L, which was still below the influent concentrations of about 31 (ig/L.
Arsenic concentrations remained below 0.2 (ig/L in the effluent of the lead adsorption column during the
first six months of operation. This is because the oxidation columns had removed the majority of arsenic
from source water before it reached the adsorption columns.
Aluminum concentrations (existing primarily in the soluble form) in the treated water following
adsorption columns were about 14 to 35 (ig/L higher than those in raw water, indicating leaching of
aluminum from the oxidizing and/or adsorptive media. Even with the increase in aluminum
concentrations following the treatment system, the concentrations were below the secondary drinking
water standard for aluminum of 50 to 200 (ig/L. Leaching of aluminum continued throughout the six-
month study period.
-------
Comparison of distribution system sampling results before and after the operation of the As/1200CS
system showed a significant decrease in arsenic concentration at the three sampling locations during the
first six months of system operation.
The capital investment cost of $16,930 included $8,640 for equipment, $3,400 for site engineering, and
$4,890 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 12 gpm (or 17,280 gal per day [gpd]), the
capital cost was $l,410/gpm (or $0.98/gpd). Annualized capital cost was $l,598/yr based upon 7%
interest rate and 20 year life. The unit capital cost was $0.25/1,000 gal assuming the system operated
continuously at 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at 12 gpm. At the current usage rate, the unit capital cost increased
to $7.91/1,000 gal.
The O&M cost included only incremental cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media
replacement and disposal (for both oxidizing and adsorptive media), electricity consumption, and labor.
Incremental cost for electricity consumption was negligible. Although media replacement and disposal
did not take place during the first six months of operation, the estimated cost was $2,755, $3,850, and
$4,945 for replacing one, two, or three columns, respectively (including replacement media, spent media
disposal, shipping, labor and travel). Cost curves were constructed for replacing one, two, or three
columns to estimate media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water treated as a function of the media
working capacity.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
FIGURES viii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
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 7
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 7
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection 8
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection 9
3.3.4 Residual Solid Sample Collection 9
3.3.5 Distribution System Water Sample Collection 9
3.4 Sampling Logistics 9
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 9
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 9
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 10
3.5 Analytical Procedures 10
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 11
4.1 Facility Description 11
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 11
4.1.2 Distribution System 13
4.2 Treatment Process Description 14
4.3 System Installation 19
4.4 System Operation 20
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 20
4.4.2 Residual Management 21
4.4.3 System Operation, Reliability and Simplicity 21
4.5 System Performance 22
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 23
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 31
4.6 System Costs 33
4.6.1 Capital Costs 33
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs 33
5.0 REFERENCES 36
vn
-------
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
OPERATIONAL DATA
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Treatment Building at Richmond Elementary School 11
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Pressure Tanks 12
Figure 4-3. Schematic of ATS As/1200CS System with Series Operation 16
Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 18
Figure 4-5. As/1200CS System with Oxidation and Adsorption Columns Shown Against Wall
and a Sediment Filter Attached to Wall 19
Figure 4-6. Close-up View of Oxidation and Adsorption Columns with Sample Taps and
Labels 19
Figure 4-7. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species after Oxidation Columns A and B and
the Entire System 26
Figure 4-8. Iodine Concentrations across Treatment Train and Entire System 27
Figure 4-9. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for Treatment Train and Entire System 27
Figure 4-10. Arsenic Mass Removed for Oxidation Column A 28
Figure 4-11. Alkalinity, Sulfate and Nitrate Concentrations Across Treatment Train and Entire
System 30
Figure 4-12. Aluminum Concentrations across Treatment Train (BV Calculations Based upon
1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column) 31
Figure 4-13. Media Replacement Cost Curves for As/1200CS System 35
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. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses 8
Table 4-1. Source Water Quality Data for Richmond Elementary School Site 13
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/I Complex 2000 Adsorptive Media 15
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of ATS As/1200CS System 17
Table 4-4. Summary of As/1200CS System Operations 21
Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Analytical Results 23
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements 24
Table 4-7. Arsenic Mass Removed by Oxidation Column A 29
Table 4-8. Distribution System Sampling Results 32
Table 4-9. Summary of Capital Investment Costs 34
Table 4-10. Summary of O&M Costs 35
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
AWWA American Water Works Association
bgs below ground surface
BV bed volume(s)
Ca calcium
CCR California Code of Regulations
C/F coagulation/filtration
Cl chlorine
Cu copper
DHS Department of Health Services
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR
MCL
MDL
MEI
Mg
Mn
mV
(EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
maximum contaminant level
method detection limit
Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
magnesium
manganese
millivolts
IX
-------
Na sodium
N/A not analyzed
NA not applicable
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detected
NS not sampled
NSF NSF International
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
Pb lead
PO4 orthophosphate
POU point-of-use
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
SBMHP Spring Brook Mobile Home Park
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO4 sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TCCI
TCLP
TCCI Laboratories
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in 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 be the host sites for 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 from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site. As of January 2007, 11 of the 12
systems have been operational and the performance evaluation of six systems has been completed.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the water system at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, California, was one of those
selected.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28. The As/1200CS arsenic treatment system from Aquatic Treatment
System, Inc. (ATS) was selected for demonstration at the Richmond Elementary School site in October
2004.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13
coagulation/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, 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 arsenic, iron,
and pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the
12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital cost is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et
al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA website at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/resource.htm.
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 ATS system at Richmond Elementary School in
Susanville, California, during the first six months from September 7, 2005, through March 7, 2006. The
types of data collected included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the
distribution system), residuals, and capital and preliminary O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of 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
(Mg/L)
Fe
(Mg/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NY(d)
Buckeye Lake, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home 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
70(b)
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250W
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,806(c)
1,312W
1,615W
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
Sauk 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
14w
13(a)
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127W
466W
l,387(c)
1,499W
7827(c)
546W
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
1,344W
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
Arnaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, 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'odham 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(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(b)
50
37
35W
19W
56
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
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
(MS/L)
Fe
(HS/L)
pH
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, 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)(B)
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (fflX)
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
69w
<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; FflX = 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(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% after system was switched from parallel to serial configuration.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(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 during the first six months of operation, the following conclusions
were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• The A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media was effective at converting As(III) to As(V) throughout
the six-month study period, typically lowering As(III) concentrations from an average of 16.7 to
<0.5 (ig/L. The oxidizing media also showed some adsorptive capacity for arsenic with an
estimated adsorptive density of 0.20 (ig of arsenic/mg of media.
• Breakthrough of arsenic at 10 (ig/L through the lead adsorption column did not occur during the
first six months of operation.
• The media was shown to have high capacity for silica. After 9,000 bed volumes (BV) (or six
months into system operation), silica concentrations were reduced from 13.2 mg/L in raw water
to 4.7 mg/L after treatment.
• Some aluminum was leached from the oxidizing and adsorptive media, elevating its
concentrations to as high as 35.3 (ig/L in the column effluent, although concentrations never
exceeded the primary or secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).
Required system operation and maintenance and operator skill levels:
• The weekly demand on the operator was typically 20 min to visually inspect the system and
record operational parameters.
• Operation of the As/1200CS did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to operate
the existing water supply equipment.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• Because the system did not require backwash to operate, no backwash residuals were produced.
• The only residuals produced by the operation of the As/1200CS treatment system would be spent
media. The media was not replaced during the first six months of operation; therefore, no
residual waste was produced during this period.
Technology cost:
• Using the system's rated capacity of 12 gpm (or 17,280 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was
$l,410/gpm(or$0.98/gpd).
• Although media replacement and disposal did not take place during the first six months of
operation, the cost to change out one, two, or three oxidation and/or adsorption columns was
estimated to be $2,755, $3,850, and $4,945, respectively, which included the cost for replacement
media, spent media disposal, shipping, labor and travel.
-------
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 ATS treatment system began on September 7, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected
and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall performance of the system was
determined based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the target MCL of 10 |o,g/L
through the collection of water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the system was
evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and
replacement. The unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a
Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data
and qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system
automation, extent of preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling
and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and
safety practices. The staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (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 replacement and disposal,
chemical supply, electricity usage, and labor.
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
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Package Submitted to California DHS
System Installation and Shakedown Completed
Final Study Plan Issued
Permit issued by California DHS
Performance Evaluation Began
Date
October 26, 2004
April 13, 2005
April 22, 2005
May 13, 2005
May 25, 2005
June 8, 2005
July 5, 2005
July 29, 2005
August 16, 2005
August 17, 2005
August 30, 2005
September 7, 2005
DHS = Department of Health Services
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation
Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and
Operator Skill
Requirements
Residual
Management
Cost-Effectiveness
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-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 automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-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
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, biweekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a regular basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a System Operation Log
Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred,
the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if ATS should be contacted for
troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information, including the problems
encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred,
on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. The plant operator measured water quality parameters
biweekly, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP),
and recorded the data on a Weekly On-Site Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for media replacement, electricity consumption,
and labor. Electricity consumption was determined from utility bills. 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
labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as performing field measurements,
collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the vendor, was
recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the system performance, samples were collected from the wellhead, across the treatment
plant, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedule and analytes measured
during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements for arsenic speciation, 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).
-------
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Residual
Solids
Sample
Location(s)(a)
At Wellhead
(IN)
At Wellhead
(IN), After
Oxidation
Column (OA
and OB), After
Adsorption
Column (TA
toTC)
Three LCR
Locations
Spent Media
from
Adsorption
Columns
No. of
Samples
1
3-6
3
6
Sampling
Frequency
Once during
initial site
visit
Weekly or
Biweekly
Monthly(b)
Once
Analytes
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off-site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Al (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NH3,
NO3, NO2, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, alkalinity, turbidity,
TDS, and TOC
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off-site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Al (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, I, NO3, S2;
SO4, SiO2, PO4, alkalinity,
and/or turbidity
Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu, and
Pb, alkalinity, and pH
TCLP metals
Date(s) Samples
Collected
10/26/04
09/19/05, 10/17/05,
11/02/05,11/21/05,
11/29/05, 12/14/05,
01/05/06,01/17/06,
02/02/06, 02/16/06,
03/02/06, 03/15/06
Baseline sampling:
07/21/05, 08/04/05,
08/24/05
Monthly sampling:
10/17/05, 11/21/05,
12/07/05, 01/19/06,
02/16/06, 03/15/06
To be determined
(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-4.
(b) Three baseline sampling events performed before system became operational.
Bold font indicates that speciation was performed.
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection. During the initial visit to Richmond Elementary School,
one set of source water samples from the well were collected for detailed water quality analysis. The
source water also was speciated for particulate and soluble As, iron, manganese, aluminum, uranium,
vanadium and As(III) and As(V). The sample tap was flushed for several minutes before sampling;
special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted oxidation. Arsenic speciation kits
and containers for water quality samples were prepared as described in Section 3.4.1.
-------
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection. During the system performance evaluation
study, samples were collected by the plant operator weekly or bi-weekly at three to six locations across
the treatment train, including at the wellhead (IN), after the oxidation columns (OA and OB), and after the
adsorption columns (TA to TC). Speciation was performed for As, Fe, Mn, and Al approximately once a
month. On-site measurements for pH, temperature, DO, and ORP also were performed during each
sampling event.
3.3.3 Residual Solid Sample Collection. Because the system did not require backwash, no
backwash residuals were produced during system operations. Additionally, because media replacement
did not take place during the first six months of operation, there were no spent media samples collected.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water Sample Collection. Samples were collected from the
distribution system to determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the
distribution system, specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. From July to August 2005, prior to
the startup of the treatment system, three sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected from
three locations within the distribution system. Following the startup of the arsenic adsorption system,
distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same locations.
The three locations selected were sample taps within the school that had been included in the Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR) sampling in the past. The samples were collected following an instruction sheet
developed according to the Lead and Copper Rule Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water
Systems (EPA, 2002). First-draw samples were collected from cold-water faucets that had not been used
for at least six hours to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. Analytes for the baseline samples
coincided with the monthly distribution system water samples as described in Table 3-3. Arsenic
speciation was not performed for the distribution water samples.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kits preparation, sample cooler preparation, and
sample shipping and handling is 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(III) (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 Sampling 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
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 air bills were complete except for the operator's signature and the sample dates and
-------
times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following week's
sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, sample
custodians verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample label identifications were checked against the chain-of-custody forms and the samples were
logged into the laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies, if noted, were addressed by the field sample
custodian, and the Battelle Study Lead was notified.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-
MS) laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up
by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, Ohio or TCCI Laboratories
(TCCI) in New Lexington, Ohio, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration
study. Sulfide samples were packed in coolers and shipped via FedEx to DHL Laboratories in Round
Rock, TX. 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 detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004)
were followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, TCCI, and DHL 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 SP90M5 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 Symphony SP90M5 probe in the beaker
until a stable value was obtained.
10
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Facility Description
The Richmond Elementary School building is located at 700-585 Richmond Road in Susanville,
California, approximately 85 miles northwest of Reno, Nevada on U.S. 395. The Richmond School
District has approximately 250 students and staff members during the academic year. The school
building is served by a single well (Well No. 2) that operates at an estimated flowrate of 12 gpm. Figure
4-1 shows the pre-existing Well No. 2 pump house located near the southwest corner of the school
building. Well No. 2 is 8-in in diameter and 145-ft deep with a screened interval extending from 75 to
145 ft below ground surface (bgs). The static water level is at approximately 20 ft bgs. Well No. 2 is
equipped with a 1 1A -horsepower (hp) Starite pump and operates for approximately 2.5 hr/day with an
estimated maximum production rate of 2,000 gpd.
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Well No. 2 Pump House
at Richmond Elementary School
There was no pre-existing treatment included at the facility. Groundwater from Well No. 2 was pumped
directly to three hydropneumatic tanks located in the pump house prior to the distribution system.
Figure 4-2 shows the three pre-existing pressure tanks and related system piping.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on October 26, 2004, and
subsequently analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3. The results of the source water analyses,
along with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those obtained
from EPA and the California Department of Health Services (DHS), are presented in Table 4-1.
11
-------
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Pressure Tanks
Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 24 to 37 |o,g/L. Based on the October 26, 2004,
sampling results, the total arsenic concentration in source water was 36.7 |o,g/L, of which 31.9 ng/L (or
87%) existed as As(III) and 4.7 (ig/L (or 13%) as As(V). This speciation result was consistent with a
relatively low DO value of 1.0 mg/L measured during sampling. The ORP reading of 180 mV, however,
was not as low as expected.
pH values of source water ranged between 7.0 and 8.5. The vendor indicated that the A/I Complex 2000
media could effectively remove arsenic as long as the pH values of source water were less than 9.0. As
such, no pH adjustment was planned at this site.
Concentrations of iron (47 to 125 ng/L) and manganese (5.5 to 5.6 |ig/L) in raw water were sufficiently
low so pretreatment prior to the adsorption process was not required. Concentrations of orthophosphate
and fluoride also were sufficiently low (i.e., <0.06 to 0.08 and <0.1 to 0.2 mg/L, respectively) and,
therefore, not expected to affect As adsorption on the A/I Complex 2000 media. Silica concentration was
13.6 to 14.5 mg/L, similar to the level measured in source water at the Spring Brook Mobile Home Park
(SBMHP) site in Wales, Maine. Because the A/I Complex 2000 media was shown to be especially
selective for silica at the SBMHP site (Lipps et al., 2006), the effect of silica on the media for arsenic
adsorption was carefully monitored throughout the study period.
Other water quality parameters as presented in Table 4-1 had sufficiently low concentrations and,
therefore, were not expected to affect arsenic adsorption on the A/I Complex 2000 media.
12
-------
Table 4-1. Source Water Quality Data for Richmond Elementary School Site
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 (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
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
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Facility
Data
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
80
48
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6
N/A
5
N/A
N/A
34
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
<100
N/A
<20
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
66
14
4
EPA
Data
12/02/03
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
84
44
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
<5
N/A
16.9
13.6
0.08
30
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
47
NA
5.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
27.2
14.2
2.1
Battelle
Data
10/26/04
7.5
12.3
1.0
180
82
40
0.9
138
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.05
2.1
0.1
17.0
14.5
0.06
36.7
36.6
0.1
31.9
4.7
125
<25
5.6
5.5
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.2
35.0
11.2
2.9
California DBS
Historic Data
1994-2000
7.0-8.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
99-184
N/A
<2
0.4
N/A
1.3-6.0
0.1-0.2
5.1-13.6
N/A
N/A
24-37
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
<100
N/A
<30
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A = not analyzed
4.1.2 Distribution System. The original distribution system was installed in 1965 and was
reported to consist of copper and galvanized iron piping. More recently, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping
also was used. Compliance samples from the distribution system have been collected every three years
for metals and other analytes such as chloride, fluoride, nitrate, and nitrite. LCR samples have been
collected from five taps within the Richmond School building every five years.
13
-------
4.2 Treatment Process Description
The ATS As/1200CS adsorption system uses A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing mediate oxidize As(III) to
As(V) and then A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media to remove As(V). The A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing
media consists of activated alumina and sodium metaperiodate and the A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive
media consists of activated alumina and a proprietary iron complex. Tables 4-2a and 4-2b present
physical and chemical properties of the adsorptive and oxidizing media, respectively. Both media have
NSF International (NSF) Standard 61 listing for use in drinking water.
The ATS As/1200CS system is a fixed-bed downflow adsorption system designed for use at small water
systems with flowrates of around 12 gpm. When the media reaches its capacity, the spent media may be
removed and disposed of after being subjected to the EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) test. ATS has the columns containing spent media shipped to their office in Massachusetts for
disposal.
The system at Richmond Elementary School is configured in series. The system is designed for the lead
column to be removed upon exhaustion and each of the two lag columns to be moved forward one
position (i.e. the first lag column becomes the lead column, and the second lag column becomes the first
lag column). A new column loaded with virgin media is then placed at the end of each treatment train.
Figure 4-3 shows a schematic diagram of the system composed of the following major system
components:
• Three pre-existing pressure tanks that included two Model WX-252 and one Model WX-
302 Well-X-TROL tanks by AMTROL with a total storage capacity of approximately 250
gal. The pressure tanks were located at the system inlet and served as a temporary storage for
well water. The well pump was turned on when the pressure in the tanks had dropped to
below 40 pounds per square inch (psi) and the well pump was turned off after the tanks had
been refilled and the pressure in the tanks had reached 62 psi.
• One 25-um sediment filter that was 6-in in diameter by 20-in tall. Located at the head of
the treatment train, the filter was used to remove sediment and avoid introducing large
particles directly into the treatment columns.
• Five 10-in in diameter, 54-in tall sealed polyglass columns (Park International) with the
first two loaded with the oxidizing media (1.5 ft3/column) and the remaining three loaded
with the adsorptive media (1.5 ftVcolumn). All columns have riser tubes as well as a valved
head assembly to control inflow, outflow, and by-pass.
• One totalizer/flow meter (Blue-White Industries F-1000) located on the downstream end
of the treatment train to record the flowrate and volume of water treated through the treatment
train.
• One 180-gal Well-Rite pressure tank (by Flexcon Industries in Randolph, Maine) fitted
with a %-hp Goulds booster pump (Model No. C48A94A06). Located at the system outlet,
the booster pump/pressure tank assembly was used to "pull" water from the three pressure
tanks at the system inlet through the two oxidation and three adsorption columns; provide
temporary storage of the treated water; and supply the treated water with the needed pressure
to the distribution system. Upon demand in the distribution system, the pressure tank was
14
-------
Table 4-2a. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/I Complex 2000 Adsorptive Media
Parameter
Value
Physical Properties
Matrix
Physical form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Specific Gravity (dry)
Hardness (kg/in2)
Effective Size (mm)
BET surface area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle Size Distribution (Tyler mesh)
Activated alumina/iron complex
Granular solid
Light brown/orange granules
55
1.5
14-16
0.42
220
<0.1
<5
28 x48(<2% fines)
Ch emical An alysis
Constituents
A1203
NalCM
Fe(NH4)2(S04)2 • 6H20
Weight (%)
90.89 (dry)
3.21 (dry)
5.90 (dry)
Table 4-2b. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/P Complex 2002 Oxidizing Media
Parameter
Value
Physical Properties
Matrix
Physical form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Specific Gravity (dry)
Hardness (lb/in2)
Effective Size (mm)
Bulk Relative Density (g/cm3)
BET surface area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle Size Distribution (Tyler mesh)
Activated alumina/metaperiodate complex
Granular solid
White granules
52 (dry)/61 (wet)
1.5
14-16
0.42
0.90
220
<0.1
<5
28x48 (less than 2% fines)
Ch emical An alysis
Constituents
A1203
NaIC-4
Weight (%)
96.59 (dry)
3.41 (dry)
gradually emptied and the corresponding pressure gradually reduced. The booster pump was
triggered when the pressure in the tank had reduced to 45 psi. After refilling the tank with the
treated water, the booster pump was turned off as the pressure in the tank had reached the
high pressure value of 65 psi.
• Pressure gauges located at the system inlet just prior to the sediment filter, at the head of
each column, and at the system outlet or at the pressure tank. The pressure gauges were used
to monitor the system pressure and pressure drop across the treatment train.
15
-------
N/0
Existing
Pressure
Tank(s)
Well
SPRaw
Oxidation
Worker
Column
10"X 54"
Oxidation
Guard
Column
10"X 54"
Arsenic
Removal
Worker
Column
10" X 54"
Arsenic
Removal
Guard
Column
10"X 54"
Arsenic
Removal
Guard
Column
10"X 54"
Notes:
1) Each of Tanks 1 through 5 is fitted with a valved head assembly to control inflow, outflow and by-pass.
2) The Arsenic Removal System is assembled using 1" I.D. fittings and connections.
(C) ATS 2005
susanvllle schematic
Symbol Key
Ball Valve \^J Pressure Guage
| | Check Valve X Sample Port (SP)
^L Clorination Tap N/O Normally Open Valve Position
9t Drain NIC Normally Closed Valve Position
| Q ] Flow Meter/Totatlzef
12 gpm Flow Restrictor
Schematic is NOT TO SCALE
design by TJB/ATS
Figure 4-3. Schematic of ATS As/1200CS System with Series Operation
-------
• Sampling taps. Sample collection ports (US Plastics) made of PVC were located prior to the
system and following each oxidation and adsorption tank.
The system was constructed using 1-in copper piping and fittings. The design features of the treatment
system are summarized in Table 4-3, and a flow diagram along with the sampling/analysis schedule are
presented in Figure 4-4. A photograph of the system installed is shown in Figure 4-5 and a close-up view
of the oxidation and adsorptive media columns is shown in Figure 4-6.
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of ATS As/1200CS System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Oxidation Columns
Column Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/column)
Number of Columns
Configuration
Media Type
Media Quantity (Ibs)
Media Volume (ft3)
10Dx54H
0.54
2
Series
A/P Complex 2002
78
1.5
-
-
-
-
-
Per column
Per column
Adsorption Columns
Column Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/column)
Number of Columns
Configuration
Media Type
Media Quantity (Ibs)
Media Volume (ft3)
10Dx54H
0.54
3
Series
A/I Complex 2000
83
1.5
-
-
-
-
-
Per column
Per column
Service
System Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min/column)
Maximum Use Rate (gpd)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Throughput To Breakthrough (gal)
Estimated Media Life (months)
Backwash
12
22
0.9
2,000
42,720
479,000
8
-
-
-
Per column, 3.0-min total EBCT for 3
adsorption columns
Based on usage estimate provided by
school
Bed volumes to breakthrough to 10 ug/L
from lead column
Vendor-provided estimate to
breakthrough at 10 ug/L from lead
column based on 1.5 ft3 (11.2 gal) of
media in lead column
Estimated frequency of media change-out
in lead column based on throughput of
2,000 gpd
No system backwash required
17
-------
INFLUENT (WELL 2)
PRESSURE TANKS
'OXIDATION'
COLUMN
B
MEDIA
COLUMN
A
MEDIA
COLUMN
B
TB
MEDIA
COLUMN
C
TC
SEDIMENT FILTER
'OXIDATION'
COLUMN
A
BOOSTER TANK/PRESSURE TANK
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Richmond Elementary School
at Susanville, CA
As/1200CS Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: 12 gpm
Biweekly
pHW, temperature^), DOW,
As (total and/or soluble), As(III), As(V),
• Fe (total and/or soluble), Mn (total and/or soluble),
Al (total and/or soluble), Ca, Mg, F, I, NO3, S2'*),
SO4, SiO2, PO4, turbidity, and/or alkalinity
LEGEND
At Wellhead
After Oxidation Column
(OA-OB)
y-i [-Y/C\ After Adsorption Column
Unit Process
Process Flow
Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
18
-------
Figure 4-5. As/1200CS System with Oxidation and Adsorption Columns Shown
Against Wall and a Sediment Filter Attached to Wall
Figure 4-6. Close-up View of Oxidation and Adsorption Columns with Sample Taps and Labels
4.3
Permitting and System Installation
Engineering plans for the system were prepared by ATS and reviewed by NST Engineering, Inc. The
plans consisting of a schematic and a written description of the As/1200CS system were submitted to the
California DHS for approval on July 29, 2005. The approval granted by the California DHS was dated
August 24, 2005, and received by Battelle on August 30, 2005.
19
-------
The system was placed in the existing treatment building, shown in Figure 4-1, without any addition or
modifications. The As/1200CS system, consisting of factory-packed adsorption columns and pre-
assembled system valves, gauges, and sample taps, was shipped by ATS and delivered to the site on
August 15, 2005. The system installation began that same day, including some re-work of the existing
system piping. The sediment filter was attached to the wall at the head of the treatment train (Figure 4-5).
The media columns were then set into place and plumbed together using copper piping and connections.
The mechanical installation was completed on August 16, 2005. Before the system was put online, the
system piping was flushed and the columns were filled one at a time to check for leaks. Once all columns
were filled, the system was operated for a short period with the treated water going to the sewer. After it
was determined that the system had been operating properly, the system and new pipe were disinfected
according to American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard C651-99 and a sample was
collected for the total coliform test. The system was bypassed until August 30, 2005, after the satisfactory
total coliform sample results were obtained. The first set of samples was collected on September 19,
2005, after the system was put online.
Several punch-list items were identified during a site visit on September 19, 2005, when a system
inspection and operator training were performed by Battelle:
• A totalizer/flowmeter was installed after the booster pump/pressure tank following the
As/1200CS system and measured only the flowrates from the pressure tank to the
distribution. A second totalizer/flowmeter was installed on December 4, 2005, just prior to
the booster pump/pressure tank to measure the flowrates and volume of water treated by the
system.
• An hour meter was installed on the well pump rather than the booster pump. The wellhead
hour meter tracked the amount of time that the well pump operated rather than the system. A
second hour meter was installed on December 9, 2005, on the booster pump to determine the
amount of time that the system operated.
• A check valve was installed on the line that by-passed the booster pump/pressure tank to the
distribution system. To ensure proper system operation, the check valve was replaced with a
ball valve to isolate the line between the end of the treatment train and the distribution
system.
4.4 System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters of the system are tabulated and
attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-4. From September 7, 2005,
through March 9, 2006, Well No. 2 operated for a total of only 74.8 hr, or 0.2 to 2.1 hr/day, based on the
hour meter readings on the well pump. The average daily operating time was 0.7 hr/day, assuming a total
of 114 days during the six-month period when the school was in session (i.e., less weekends, holidays,
and Christmas break). Based on the totalizer and well pump hour meter readings, the Well No. 2
flowrates ranged from 12.0 to 30.7 gpm and averaged 25.2 gpm, excluding one outlier observed in
November 2005 at 48.6 gpm. The measured flowrates were approximately two times the flowrate
provided by the school in October 2004. No pump curve was available prior to the system installation.
The booster pump and the treatment system operated for approximately 207 hr based on the hour meter
readings of the booster pump (note that before the hour meter was installed on the booster pump on
December 9, 2005, the booster pump hours were estimated by multiplying the respective pump hours by a
factor of 2.11, which is the ratio of total booster hours to total pump hours). The daily operational hours
of the booster pump and the system ranged from 0.4 to 4.9 hr/day, excluding 4 outliers and averaged 1.8
hr/day. The operational time represented a utilization rate of approximately 7%.
20
-------
The system flowrates ranged from 5.6 to 9.8 gpm and averaged 9.0 gpm, excluding one outlier on
November 2, 2005 at 17.6 gpm. Therefore, the empty bed contact time (EBCT) for each column ranged
from 1.1 and 2.0 min/column and averaged 1.2 min/column or approximately 3.6 min for the three
adsorption columns in series (compared to the design value of 0.9 min per column or 2.7 min for three
columns). Based on the average flowrate and average daily operating time, the average daily use range
was about 900 gpd (based on 112 school days), which was about 45% of the estimate provided by the
school.
Table 4-4. Summary of As/1200CS System Operations
Operational Parameter
Total Operating Time (hr)
Total Number of School Days (day)
Well No. 2 Operating Time (hr/day)
Booster Pump/Treatment System Operating Time
(hr/day)
Volume Throughput (gal)
Volume Throughput (B V)(a)
Volume Throughput (BV)(b)
Well No. 2 Flowrate (gpm)
Booster Pump/Treatment System Flowrate (gpm)
Daily Use Rate (gpd)
EBCT (mm/column)(a)
Average Pressure in Each Column (psi)(c)
Average Pressure Loss across Each Column (psi)
Value
207
114
0.2-2.1(0.7)
0.4-4.9(1.8)
101,000
9,000
3,000
15.5-30.7(25.2)
5.6-9.8(9.0)
211-1,265(900)
1.1-2.0(1.2)
44,41,35,30,21, 17
5.5
Remarks
From September 7, 2005
to March 9, 2006
Less weekends, holidays,
and Christmas break
Based on one column
Based on three columns
(a) Calculated based on 1.5 ft3 (or 11.22 gal) of media in each column.
(b) Calculated based on 4.5 ft3 (or 33.66 gal) of media in three columns in series.
(c) Pressure readings for IN, OA, OB, TA, TB, and TC, respectively (see Fig. 4-4 for locations).
Figure in parentheses denotes average.
The total system throughput during this 26-week period was approximately 101,000 gal. This
corresponds to 9,000 BV of water processed through a column containing 1.5 ft3 (or 11.2 gal) of media.
For the three columns in series with 4.5 ft3 of media, the system treated approximated 3,000 BV of water.
The pressure loss across each column ranged from 0 to 13 psi and averaged 5.5 psi. The total pressure
loss across each treatment train (five columns in series) averaged 27 psi. The average influent pressure at
the head of the system from the wells was 43.5 psi, and the average pressure following the last column in
each treatment train was 16.6 psi. The booster pump and pressure tank installed after the system provided
pressure to feed the distribution system, and the average pressure after this tank was 46.5 psi.
4.4.2 Residual Management. The only residuals produced by the operation of the As/1200CS
treatment system would be spent media. The media was not replaced during the first six months of
operation; therefore, no residual waste was produced during this period. Because the system did not
require backwash to operate, no backwash residuals were produced.
4.4.3 System Operation, Reliability and Simplicity. The system encountered some operational
difficulties soon after it began operation. On several occasions, the 180-gal pressure tank located at the
system outlet did not provide sufficient water to meet the peak demand of the school. The school's plan
21
-------
was to move two of the pressure tanks currently located at the system inlet to after the oxidation and
adsorption columns to provide extra storage, but this modification did not occur in the first six months of
operation. Note that the system was designed based on information provided by the school estimating the
well flowrate to be approximately 12 gpm. Well pump data collected during the first six months of
operation showed the well flowrate to be closer to 25 gpm. However, the average flowrate of the booster
pump (and the system) was only 9 gpm. Therefore, it would take more time to fill up the 180-gal pressure
tank at the system outlet than the 350-gal tanks at the system inlet. The combined effect of the less
storage capacity at the system outlet and the longer time required to fill the 180-gal tank apparently had
caused the system to be unable to meet the peak demand as observed. Additional discussion regarding
system operation and operator skill requirement are provided below.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The only pretreatment step was the oxidation of As(III) to
As(V) via the oxidizing media installed in the first two columns of the treatment train. No additional
chemical addition or other pre-or post-treatment steps were used at the site.
System Controls. The As/1200CS adsorption system was a passive system, requiring only the operation
of the supply well pump and booster pump to send water to the three pressure tanks at the system inlet
and through the oxidation and adsorption columns to the pressure tank at the system outlet. The media
columns themselves required no automated parts and all valves were manually activated. The inline
flowmeters were battery powered so that the only electrical power required was that needed to run the
supply well pump and booster pump. The system operation was controlled by the pressure switch in the
pressure tank at the system outlet.
The facility at the Richmond School District is considered by California DHS to be a non-transient, non-
community water system. Because it serves more than 25 of the same people for more than 60 days a
year, it is considered a public water system. All individuals who operate or supervise the operation of a
public water system in the state of California must possess a water treatment operator certificate. An
individual who makes decisions addressing the operational activities must possess a distribution operator
certificate. The operational activities are described in Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 13, Subsection
63770(b) of the California Code of Regulations (CCR, 2001).
Operator certifications are granted by the State of California after meeting minimum requirements which
include passing an examination and maintaining a minimum amount of hours of specialized training.
There are five grades of operators for both water treatment (T1-T5) and distribution (D1-D5). Because
Richmond Elementary School has a simple water system and serves a population of less than 1,000, it
qualifies as a Grade 1 (the lowest) for both treatment and distribution. The operator at the Richmond
School District possesses a Tl and Dl certification.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to operate the
As/1200CS system were minimal. The operation of the system did not appear to require additional skills
beyond those necessary to operate the existing water supply system in place at the site.
Preventative Maintenance Activities. The only regularly scheduled preventative maintenance activity
recommended by ATS was to inspect the sediment filters monthly and replace as necessary. The
treatment system operator visited the site about three times per week (approximately 20 min) to check the
system for leaks, and record flow, volume, and pressure readings.
4.5 System Performance
The system performance was evaluated based on analyses of samples collected from the raw and treated
water from the treatment and distribution systems.
22
-------
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-5 summarizes the arsenic, iron, manganese, and
aluminum results from samples collected throughout the treatment plant. Table 4-6 summarizes the
results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results
through the first six months of system operation. The results of the treatment plant sampling are
discussed below.
Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As (participate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Total Al
Soluble Al
Sampling
Location
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
Number
of
Samples
13(a)
ll-13(a)
ll-13(a)
6
5
1-5
6
5
1-5
6
5
1-5
13(a)
6-ll(a)
3-12(a)
6
5
1-5
13(a)
6-ll(a)
3-12(a)
6
5
1-5
13(a)
6-ll(a)
2-12(a)
6
5
1-4
Concentration (ug/L)
Minimum
25.6
Maximum
33.6
Average
30.9
Standard
Deviation
2.3
(b)
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.0
(b)
8.9
28.5
16.7
9.2
(b)
3.4
22.5
14.5
8.7
(b)
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
4.3
<0.1
<0.1
5.0
<0.1
<0.1
<10
13.9
17.5
<10
15.1
13.9
87.7
<25
<25
25.2
<25
<25
7.7
0.4
0.5
7.5
0.2
0.2
<10
34.7
35.3
<10
27.7
31.8
42.8
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
5.7
0.1
0.1
5.8
0.1
0.1
<10
21.5
24.0
<10
19.6
22.4
24.5
0.0
0.0
-
-
0.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
2.9
0.1
0.1
0.0
5.4
4.7
0.0
3.8
6.9
One-half of detection limit used for calculations involving non-detect samples.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
(a) Including one duplicate sample
(b) Statistics not provided; see Figure 4-8 for As breakthrough curves.
Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the As/1200CS adsorption system was the
concentration of arsenic in the treated water. The treatment plant water was sampled on 13 occasions
during the first six months of system operation (including one event with duplicate samples taken), with
field speciation performed on six of the 13 occasions.
23
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Iodine
(as I)
Phosphorus
(as PO4)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
AC
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
°C
°C
°C
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
Number of
Samples
g(a)
2-6(a)
y(a)
8(a)
2-6(a)
y(a)
g(a)
2-6(a)
y(a)
?(a)
l-6(a)
l-7(a)
?(a)
l-6(a)
7(a)
13(a)
ll-13(a)
ll-13(a)
8(a)
2-6(a)
?(a)
8(a)
2-6(a)
?(a)
6
1-6
5
6
1-6
5
6
6
4-5
6
6
4-5
8(a)
3-6(a)
7(a)
8(a)
3-6(a)
?(a)
8(a)
3-6(a)
?(a)
Concentration/Standard Unit
Minimum
83
79
79
0.1
0.1
<0.1
16
16
16
1.4
17.5
36.1
O.03
<0.03
<0.03
13.2
5.6
2.2
O.05
<0.05
O.05
0.2
<0.1
0.2
8.3
7.8
7.4
12.8
12.3
12.8
0.9
0.5
0.4
134
141
135
33.2
31.3
31.1
25.1
23.5
23.4
7.7
7.7
7.7
Maximum
91
97
92
0.2
0.2
0.3
23
22
23
24.5
196
264
0.1
O.03
O.03
15.3
12.9
9.0
0.40
0.20
0.10
1.7
2.3
2.7
8.5
8.2
7.8
16.2
15.9
15.8
3.0
2.6
2.8
321
316
320
46.2
50.7
58.7
36.1
40.2
48.0
10.0
10.5
11.7
Average
87.6
87.0
85.9
0.2
0.2
0.1
17.7
17.5
18.3
10.8
91.2
130
O.03
O.03
O.03
14.4
9.6
7.8
0.08
0.05
O.05
1.0
0.9
1.0
8.4
8.0
7.6
14.6
14.4
14.2
1.6
1.5
1.8
201
216
202
41.3
40.8
42.3
32.3
32.0
34.2
8.9
8.8
9.1
Standard
Deviation
2.3
5.5
3.8
0.16
0.19
0.10
2.3
2.0
2.2
8.6
66
98
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
2.0
2.0
0.13
0.06
0.03
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
65
67
48
4.0
6.1
9.1
3.6
5.3
8.2
0.8
1.0
1.3
One-half of detection limit used for calculations involving non-detect samples.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
(a) Including one duplicate sample.
24
-------
Figure 4-6 contains four bar charts each showing the concentrations of total As, particulate As, As(III),
and As(V) at the wellhead, after the first and second oxidation columns and after the entire system. Total
As concentrations in raw water ranged from 25.6 to 33.6 (ig/L and averaged 30.9 (ig/L (Table 4-5).
As(III) was the predominating species with concentrations ranging from 8.9 to 28.5 (ig/L and averaging
16.7 (ig/L. As(III) concentrations decreased in raw water after the third month of operation for unknown
reasons (Figure 4-6). As(V) also was present in source water, ranging from 3.4 to 22.5 (ig/L and
averaging 14.5 (ig/L. Particulate As was low with concentrations typically less than 1 (ig/L. The influent
arsenic concentrations measured during this six-month period were consistent with those in the raw water
sample collected on October 26, 2004 (Table 4-1), except for the lower levels of As(III) measured during
the last four speciation events from November 2005 through March 2006.
Oxidation of As(III) to As(V) within the oxidation columns was achieved through a reaction with sodium
metaperiodate, a key ingredient loaded on the A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media for As(III) oxidation
(Table 4-2b). At a pH value between 8.3 to 8.5, metaperiodate reacted with H3AsO3, presumably,
following Equation 1 :
IO4 + 4H3 AsO3 -> T + 4HAsO42 + 8FT ( 1 )
Further, metaperiodate would react with any soluble iron, existing as Fe(II), and soluble manganese,
existing as Mn(II), in raw water following Equations 2 and 3:
IO4- + 8Fe2+ + 8H* -> T + 8Fe3+ + 4H2O (2)
IO4 + 4Mn2+ + 4H2O -> I ' + 4MnO2 + 8FT (3)
Therefore, to oxidize 16.7, <25, and 5.8 (ig/L of As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II), respectively, the average
amounts measured in raw water, only 4.2, 3.6 (one half the detection limit used for calculation), and
3.3 (ig/L of I" would be produced stoichiometrically and leached into the column effluent. As such, the
total amount of I" produced would be 11.1 (ig/L, which is lower than the analytical reporting limit of 200
(ig/L for I" by EPA Method 300.0 by ion chromotagraphy. This observation is consistent with the
analytical results (<200 (ig/L of I") reported for the samples collected at the wellhead, after the oxidation
columns, and after the adsorption columns on October 17, 2005.
Total iodine also was analyzed using ICP-MS on seven occasions (including one duplicate) during the
first six months of system operation. Iodine concentrations following the oxidation and adsorption
columns averaged 86.1 and 112 (ig/L [as I], respectively, which were significantly higher than those
measured in raw water (averaging 10.8 (ig/L [as I]). Because only 11.1 (ig/L of total iodine would exist
as I", the iodine present in the column effluent most likely was IO4" or other reaction intermediates. It was
possible that some IO4" was leached from the oxidizing media, but the leaching followed an apparent
decreasing trend as shown in Figure 4-7. The iodine concentrations in the treated water were significantly
reduced to less than 40 (ig/L [as I] after about five months into the system operation. The final sampling
event on March 15, 2006, showed a rebound in iodine concentrations, i.e., 57.5 and 127 (ig/L [as I]
following the oxidation and adsorption columns. The iodine leaching will be closely monitored during
the remainder of the performance evaluation study.
The test results for arsenic removal by the ATS system are shown in Figure 4-8 with total arsenic
concentrations plotted against the bed volumes of water treated. Note that BV was calculated based on
1 .5 ft3 or 1 1 .2 gal of media in a column. The results showed that the oxidizing media not only were
effective at converting As(III) to As(V) but also had some adsorptive capacity for arsenic removal. For
the first sampling event that occurred a couple weeks after system startup, the total arsenic concentration
in the effluent of the lead oxidation column was 2. 1 (ig/L. The arsenic concentrations slowly increased
25
-------
Arsenic Species at Wellhead (IN)
Arsenic Species After 1st Oxidation Tank (OA)
11/2/05 11/29/05 1/5/06 2/2/06
Date
1/5/06 2/2/06
Date
Arsenic Species After 2nd Oxidation Tank (OB)
Arsenic Species After Entire System (TC)
30-
25-
20-
15-
w-
s-
• As(particulate)
DAsfV)
DAs(lll)
11/2/05
11/29/05 1/5/06
Date
2/2/06
^^^
3/2/06
30-
25-
§ 20-
1
10-
5-
0-
• As (participate)
DAs(lll)
OAs(V)
11/2/05 11/29/05 1/5/06 2/2/06 3/2/06
Date
Figure 4-7. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species after Oxidation Columns A and B and Entire System
-------
Iodine
o 100 -
Bed Volumes (x103)
Figure 4-8. Iodine Concentrations across Treatment Train
(BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column)
4 5
Bed Volumes (x103)
Figure 4-9. Arsenic Concentration across Treatment Train
(BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column)
27
-------
thereafter to where arsenic had reached 10 (ig/L, at about 4,800 BV, and then completely broken through
the lead oxidation column, at about 7,500 BV, so that the concentrations following the lead oxidation
column were close to those in raw water. Based on the breakthrough curves shown in Figure 4-8, the
arsenic loading on the oxidation media was estimated to be 0.2 (ig/mg of media, which was identical to
the adsorptive density for the A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media observed at the Wales, Maine
demonstration site (Lipps et al., 2006). Note that the arsenic loading was calculated by dividing the
arsenic mass represented by the shaded area in Figure 4-9 by the amount of media, i.e., 1.5 ft3, in the
column. The arsenic mass removed by Oxidation Column A was estimated to be 7.0 g as shown in
Table 4-7.
Arsenic was detected at concentrations greater than 1 (ig/L after the lag oxidation column at
approximately 6,500 BVs. By 9,200 BVs (or six months into the system operation), the concentration
after the lag oxidation column reached 10.7 (ig/L. Arsenic concentrations after the lead adsorption
column remained at or below 0.2 (.ig/L in the first six months of operation.
Among the anions analyzed, silica, sulfate, alkalinity (existing primarily as HCO3" at pH values between
8.3 and 8.5) and nitrate were present in raw water (Table 4-6) and potentially could compete with arsenic
for adsorption sites. As shown in Figure 4-10, some silica was consistently removed by each oxidation
and adsorption columns throughout the first six months of system operation. Of the other competitive
anions, including HCO3", SO42", and NO3", neither the oxidizing nor the adsorptive media showed removal
capacity (Figure 4-11).
(see Table 4-7 for
mass removal and
loading calculation)
4 5
Bed Volumes (x103)
Figure 4-10. Arsenic Mass Removed for Oxidation Column A
28
-------
Table 4-7. Arsenic Mass Removed by Oxidation Column A
Bed Volumes
Treated
between
Sampling
Points
0.0
400
1,600
1,900
800
100
800
500
400
900
Concentration (jig/L)
Influent
30.0
31.1
33.6
32.4
30.4
31.5
32.8
31.1
33.1
29.2
OA
<0.1
2.1
6.9
3.2
6.3
10.7
17.1
17.9
22.9
29.1
Difference
30.0
29.0
26.7
29.2
24.1
20.8
15.7
13.2
10.2
0.1
Total
Media in First Oxidation Column (mg)
Media Loading (jig of As/mg of media)
jig/L x BV
-------
Alkalinity
Bed Volumes (x103)
Sulfate
=! 40
f
Bed Volumes (x103)
Nitrate
7 8
34567
Bed Volumes (xlO3)
9 10
Figure 4-12. Alkalinity, Sulfate and Nitrate Concentrations across Treatment Train
(BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column)
30
-------
Aluminum. As shown in Table 4-5, total aluminum concentrations in source water were below the
reporting limit of 10 (.ig/L. Aluminum concentrations (existing primarily in the soluble form) in the
treated water following the oxidation and adsorption columns were 14 to 35 (ig/L higher than those in raw
water, indicating leaching of aluminum from the oxidation and adsorptive media. Even with the increase
in aluminum concentration following the treatment system, the concentrations were still below the
secondary drinking water standard for aluminum of 50 to 200 ^ig/L. Leaching of aluminum continued
throughout the study period as shown in Figure 4-12.
Iron and Manganese. Iron concentrations, both total and dissolved, were between less than the reporting
limit and 87.7 ^g/L in source water and below the reporting limit of 25 (ig/L across the treatment train
(Table 4-5). Manganese concentrations in source water also were low, ranging from 4.3 to 7.7 (ig/L and
averaging 5.7 (.ig/L. Manganese concentrations in the treated water following the adsorption columns
were typically below the reporting limit (<1 (ig/L).
Other Water Quality Parameters. Flouride, orthophosphate, total phosphorus, total chlorine and
hardness concentrations remained relatively constant throughout the treatment train.
35 -
1 20 1
< 15 -
5 -
4 5
Bed Volumes (x103)
Figure 4-12. Aluminum Concentrations across Treatment Train
(BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column)
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation and operation of the
treatment system, baseline distribution system water samples were collected from three LCR taps on July
21, 2005, August 4, 2005, and August 24, 2005. Following the installation of the treatment system,
distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations. The results of the
distribution system sampling are summarized in Table 4-8. As expected, prior to the installation of the
arsenic adsorption system, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were similar to those
measured in raw water, ranging from 11.6 to 43.3 (ig/L, averaging 30.6 (.ig/L. After the treatment system
was installed and put into service, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were reduced
31
-------
Table 4-8. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
07/21/05
08/04/05
08/24/05
10/17/05
11/21/05
12/07/05
01/19/06
02/16/06
03/15/06
04/11/06
05/10/06
06/07/06
07/19/06.
08/16/06
09/12/06
DS1
Hall Sink
LCR
1st draw
Stagnation Time
hrs
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
10.0
19.0
11.2
13.9
10.0
>12(a)
>12(a)
i
Q_
s.u.
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.8
7.6
7.8
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.7
Alkalinity
mg/L
88
87
88
88
88
83
85
87
83
88
88
89
92
86
88
CO
tf
MR/L
31.2
36.6
35.4
1.2
1.4
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.3
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.3
0.5
HI
MR/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
36.5
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
c
g
Hfl/L
4.3
5.4
4.9
1.6
1.4
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.5
<0.1
.a
Q_
MR/L
4.6
1.8
3.8
1.9
0.4
0.3
1.9
0.3
0.6
0.7
<0.1
0.1
3.6
1.1
2.0
3
o
Ug/L
13.6
8.7
27.2
4.5
12.9
1.8
9.1
1.6
8.7
9.9
1.5
2.6
16.9
15.1
15.5
DS2
Kitchen Sink
LCR
1st draw
Stagnation Time
hrs
17.8
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12'a'
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
9.9
7.5
12.0
10.8
10.4
>12(a)
13.3
i
Q_
S.U.
8.0
8.1
8.1
7.1
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.8
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.6
Alkalinity
mg/L
88
86
88
88
83
83
86
83
83
88
85
86
92
87
88
CO
tf
ug/L
27.5
23.5
43.3
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.3
1.8
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
2.9
HI
MR/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
28
c
g
ug/L
4.8
4.4
4.7
1.7
0.8
2.2
1.6
0.3
1.7
2.6
0.6
1.1
1.6
0.4
1.4
.a
Q_
ug/L
1.0
0.8
3.2
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.6
<0.1
0.7
0.8
<0.1
0.2
1.9
0.6
6.8
D
o
Hfl/L
4.5
2.9
69.4
1.5
6.8
1.9
2.9
1.5
2.5
7.1
3.1
5.7
12.2
9.3
14.8
DS3
Office Room Sink
LCR
1st Draw
Stagnation Time
hrs
17.8
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a>
>12w
>12(a)
9.9
15.3
11.1
10.8
11.0
>12(a)
13.3
i
Q_
S.U.
8.0
8.1
7.3
7.3
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.8
8.0
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.7
Alkalinity
mg/L
88
77
88
88
83
81
86
83
83
88
192
88
97
90
86
CO
tf
MR/L
35.1
31.2
11.6
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.1
0.8
2.4
3.2
2.8
4.6
4.9
0.7
01
Mfl/L
32.4
<25
45.1
<25
<25
<25
32.8
<25
<25
67.8
27.1
<25
211
39.6
<25
c
g
ug/L
5.0
5.5
25.1
6.1
3.9
3.1
2.7
0.6
0.4
1.1
1.1
0.8
3.0
2.0
1.2
.n
Q_
ug/L
10.4
2.4
6.6
1.5
3.6
5.4
5.9
0.7
1.9
3.5
5.1
4.5
10.6
3.4
0.5
3
o
ug/L
7.0
5.9
83.9
27.3
14.6
17.5
31.5
6.4
38.7
21.9
11.0
10.8
24.2
29.1
8.4
OJ
ho
BL = Baseline sampling; NS = not sampled; NA = data not available.
Lead action level = 15 |jg/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L.
ll!' Exact stagnation time unknown
-------
significantly to less than 1.5 (ig/L (or 0.97 (ig/L on average), which were higher than the concentrations
(<0.2 (ig/L) measured at the distribution entry point.
Similar to those in raw water, iron, and manganese concentrations were low in the distribution system.
Lead and copper values also were low and did not appear to have been affected by the treatment system.
The pH and alkalinity values remained fairly constant throughout the distribution system.
4.6 System Cost
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This required the tracking of the capital cost for the
equipment, site engineering, and installation and O&M cost for the media replacement and disposal,
electricity consumption, and labor. Because the pre-existing building and discharge-related infrastructure
were utilized, no additional cost was incurred for building and discharge, the cost of which, if incurred,
would have been funded by the demonstration host site according to the agreement established between
EPA and the host site.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation was
$16,930 (see Table 4-9) as provided by ATS in a cost proposal to Battelle dated June 8, 2005. The
equipment cost was $8,640 (or 51% of the total capital investment), which included $2,170 for the
treatment system mechanical hardware, $960 for 3 ft3 of the A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media (i.e.,
$320/ft3 or $6.15/lb), $1,440 for 9 ft3 of the A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media (i.e., $320/ft3 or
$5.82/lb), $ 1,950 for the pressure tank and booster pump, and $2,120 for vendor's labor and freight.
The engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of the system layout and footprint, design of the
piping connections to the entry and distribution tie-in points, and assembling and submission of the
engineering plans for the permit application (Section 4.3.1). The engineering cost was $3,400, 20% of the
total capital investment.
The installation cost included the cost of labor and materials to unload and install the treatment system,
pressure tank, and booster pump complete the piping installation and tie-ins and perform the system start-
up and shakedown (Section 4.3.3). The installation cost was $4,890, or 29% of the total capital
investment.
The capital cost of $16,930 was normalized to $l,410/gpm (or $0.98/gpd) of the design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 12 gpm (or 17,280 gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an annualized
cost of $l,598/yr by multiplying by a capital recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a
20-yr return. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at the design flowrate of 12 gpm to
produce 6,300,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.25/1,000 gal. During the first
six months, the system operated an average of 1.7 hr/day at about 9 gpm (see Table 4-4), producing
101,000 gal of water. At this reduced rate of operation, the unit capital cost increased to $7.91/1,000 gal.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost for the As/1200CS treatment system
included only the incremental cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media replacement and
disposal, electricity consumption, and labor, as presented in Table 4-10. Although the media was not
actually replaced during the six-month period, based on the vendor quote, it would cost $3,850 to replace
the media in two columns (either oxidation or adsorption column) at the same time. This cost included
$1,550 for replacement media and spent media disposal ($775/column or $517/ft3), $640 for shipping,
$260 of vendor labor, and $1,400 of vendor travel. Assuming that the labor and travel cost is fixed and
that the shipping cost is proportional to the number of media column replaced, it would cost $2,755,
33
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Capital Investment Cost
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Cost
Oxidation Columns (Without Media)
A/P Complex 2002 Oxidizing Media (ft3)
Adsorption Columns (Without Media)
A/I Complex 2000 Adsorptive Media (ft3)
25-uin Sediment Filter
Piping and Valves
Flow Totalizer/Meter
Hour Meter
Pressure Tank/Booster Pump
Procurement, Assembly, Labor
Freight
Equipment Total
2
3
3
4.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
$240
$960
$360
$1,440
$350
$510
$560
$150
$1,950
$1,000
$1,120
$8,640
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
51%
Engineering Cost
Design/Scope of System (hr)
Travel and Miscellaneous Expenses
Subcontractor Labor
Engineering Total
10
1
-
-
$1,500
$1,400
$500
$3,400
-
-
20%
Installation Cost
Plumbing Supplies/Parts
Vendor Installation Labor (hr)
Subcontractor Labor (hr)
Vendor Travel (day)
Subcontractor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
1
10
6
2
-
-
-
$300
$1,300
$390
$2,800
$100
$4,890
$16,930
-
-
-
-
29%
100%
$3,850, and $4,945 for replacing one. two, and three columns, respectively (Table 4-10). By averaging
the media replacement cost over the 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 (see Figure 4-13). If the
oxidizing media is not replaced at the same time as the adsorptive media, the unit replacement cost can be
estimated separately from the cost curve for one or two columns. Note that the media BV were calculated
by dividing the system throughput by the quantity of media in one column, i.e., 1.5 ftj or 11.2 gal.
Since the AS/1200CS system consists of three adsorptive columns in series, the media in the lead column
will be replaced when the effluent from the third column reaches 10 ug/L of arsenic breakthrough. If the
media in the second column also has completely exhausted its arsenic adsorptive capacity, then it needs to
be replaced at the same time. Due to the use of partially exhausted column(s), it is expected that the run
length for the subsequent service runs would be shorter man the initial run. Therefore, it would require
more frequent change-out and a higher unit replacement cost. To reduce the change-out frequency and
the associated scheduling and coordinating effort, it might be more cost-effective and convenient in the
long run to replace the media in all three columns altogether. The decision on the number of columns to
be changed out will be made during the later part of the study; the actual media replacement cost will be
documented in the final report.
34
-------
Additional electricity use associated with the hour meters on the booster pump and well pump and a new
booster pump following the treatment system was minimal. The routine, non-demonstration-related labor
activities consumed about 20 min/wk as noted in Section 4.4.3. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was
$1.80/1,000 gal of water treated (Table 4-10).
Table 4-10. Summary of O&M Cost
Cost Category
Volume Processed (1,000 gal)
Value
100
Assumptions
From September 9, 2005 through March
9, 2006
Media Replacement and Disposal
Number of Columns Replaced
Media Replacement and Disposal ($)
Shipping ($)
Labor and Travel ($)
Subtotal ($)
Media Replacement and Disposal Cost
($71,000 gal)
1
775
320
1,660
2,755
See
2
1,550
640
1,660
3,850
3
2,325
960
1,660
4,945
Figure 4-13
$755/column or $5 17/ft3 of media
Same cost for changing out 1, 2, or 3
columns
-
Electricity Consumption
Electricity Cost ($71,000 gal)
0.001
Electrical cost negligible
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Labor Cost ($)
Labor Cost ($71, 000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($71,000 gal)
0.33
180
1.80
Adsorptive media
20 min/wk
9 hr x $20/hr, labor rate = $20/hr
-
replacement + oxidizing media replacement +1.80
$50.00
$40.00
8
o_
5
•a
,3 $20.00
System Throughput (x1,000 gal)
168 224 280
— Replacement of 3 Columns
— Replacement of 2 Columns
~ Replacement of 1 Column
$50.00
$40.00
$20.00
15 20 25 30
Media Working Capacity (x1,000 BV)
Note: 1 BV= 1.5 cubic feet = 11.2 gal
Figure 4-13. Media Replacement Cost Curves for As/1200CS System
35
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Aquatic Treatment Systems. 2005. Operations & Maintenance Manual, As/1400CS Duplex Arsenic
Removal System, Richmond School District, Susanville, CA.
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. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at Susanville, California. 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.
CCR (California Code of Regulations). 2001. Operator Certification Regulations. Title 22, Division 4,
Chapter 13. California Department of Health Services.
http://www.dhs.ca. gov/ps/ddwem/teclmical/certification/opcert.html
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Spring Brook Mobile Home Park in Wales, ME. Six-
Month Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-06/090. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Wang, L., W. Condit, and A. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA Arsenic
Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
36
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA - Summary of Daily System Operation
Week
No.
1
2
3
7
9
10
12
13
14
15
Date
09/08/05
09/09/05
09/1 2/05
09/1 3/05
09/1 4/05
09/1 6/05
09/1 9/05
09/20/05
10/17/05
11/01/05
11/02/05
11/21/05
11/29/05
11/30/05
12/04/05
12/05/05
12/08/05
12/09/05
12/12/05
12/13/05
12/14/05
Time
07:00
10:55
15:45
10:28
11:00
07:06
07:15
07:10
10:25
13:06
10:07
14:15
14:20
12:56
12:15
14:45
10:15
10:30
14:04
12:25
09:30
Well No. 2
Hour Meter
Operational
Hours
hrs
_
0.5
1.1
0.3
0.7
1.3
1.0
1.1
11.1
-
7.1
-
7.9
0.5
1.5
0.3
1.5
0.8
1.6
0.3
0.3
Cumulative
Operational
Hours
hrs
10.2
10.7
11.8
12.1
12.8
14.1
15.1
16.2
27.3
-
34.4
-
42.3
42.8
44.3
44.6
46.1
46.9
48.5
48.8
49.1
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
Operational
Hours(a|
hrs
NM
1.4
3.1
0.8
1.9
3.6
2.8
3.1
30.8
-
19.7
-
21.9
1.4
4.2
0.8
4.2
2.2
4.4
1.0
0.7
Cumulative
Operational
Hours
hrs
28.3
29.7
32.8
33.6
35.5
39.1
41.9
45.0
75.8
-
95.5
-
117.4
118.8
123.0
123.8
128.0
130.2
134.6
135.6
136.3
Treatment System Flow Readings
Volume
Treated
gal
_
643
1,238
279
717
1,615
976
1,390
13,668
20,360
360
9,313
1,029
596
1,938
439
1,971
1,107
2,613
524
367
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
3,040
3,683
4,921
5,199
5,916
7,531
8,507
9,897
23,565
43,925
44,285
53,598
54,627
55,223
57,161
57,600
59,571
60,678
63,291
63,815
64,182
Bed Volumes
Treated'"1
BV
_
57
110
25
64
144
87
124
1,218
1,815
32
830
92
53
173
39
176
99
233
47
33
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated
BV
271
328
438
463
527
671
758
882
2,100
3,915
3,947
4,777
4,869
4,922
5,095
5,134
5,310
5,409
5,642
5,689
5,722
fl|n!
sign
< u. S.Q. v>
gpm
NM
7.7
6.8
5.6
6.2
7.5
5.9
7.6
7.3
NM
17.6
NM
7.9
7.2
7.8
8.8
7.9
8.3
9.8
9.2
8.7
Average
Flowrate
(Well Pump)
gpm
_
21.4
18.8
15.5
17.1
20.7
16.3
21.1
24.1
NM
48.6
NM
21.8
19.9
21.5
24.4
21.9
23.1
22.3
29.1
20.4
Treatment System Pressure
Readings
IN
psi
50
41
53
42
55
37
35
36
38
40
41
NM
37
44
48
47
43
45
36
38
36
OA
psi
50
38
53
39
57
42
33
42
35
38
38
NM
35
41
45
44
41
41
35
35
33
OB
psi
50
32
53
33
57
42
27
42
29
32
32
NM
30
36
38
37
35
36
29
29
27
TA
psi
50
27
53
28
57
42
22
42
24
25
26
NM
26
30
31
31
31
31
24
23
22
TB
psi
50
18
52
19
55
40
15
40
15
16
16
NM
18
22
21
21
22
22
15
15
15
TC
psi
50
13
53
15
57
42
11
42
10
12
11
NM
16
18
15
16
17
19
11
10
11
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA - Summary of
Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
18
19
20
21
22
23
Date
01/05/06
01/06/06
01/09/06
01/10/06
01/11/06
01/12/06
01/13/06
01/17/06
01/18/06
01/19/06
01/20/06
01/23/06
01/26/06
01/30/06
02/01/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
02/06/06
02/07/06
02/08/06
02/09/06
Time
08:00
13:10
10:30
10:00
10:25
11:01
14:35
10:45
09:05
09:40
13:40
12:00
11:31
14:30
11:00
12:00
10:00
11:30
14:30
12:00
11:00
Well No. 2
Hour Meter
Operational
Hours
hrs
3.6
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.4
1.2
1.2
0.6
0.7
0.5
2.1
0.8
0.6
0.2
Cumulative
Operational
Hours
Hrs
52.7
53.4
53.6
54.1
54.7
55.4
56.0
56.2
56.7
57.4
58.3
58.7
59.9
61.1
61.7
62.4
62.9
65.0
65.8
66.4
66.6
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
Operational
Hours'31
hrs
9.9
1.7
0.7
1.3
1.7
1.9
1.8
0.5
1.4
1.9
2.0
1.0
3.6
3.3
1.7
1.8
1.7
4.9
2.4
0.8
1.5
Cumulative
Operational
Hours
Hrs
146.2
147.9
148.6
149.9
151.6
153.5
155.3
155.8
157.2
159.1
161.1
162.1
165.7
169.0
170.7
172.5
174.2
179.1
181.5
182.3
183.8
Treatment System Flow Readings
Volume
Treated
gal
5,115
876
370
678
859
975
929
276
717
1,007
1,016
510
1,854
1,746
908
934
916
2,528
1,265
443
738
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
69,297
70,173
70,543
71,221
72,080
73,055
73,984
74,260
74,977
75,984
77,000
77,510
79,364
81,110
82,018
82,952
83,868
86,396
87,661
88,104
88,842
Bed Volumes
Treated'"1
BV
456
78
33
60
77
87
83
25
64
90
91
45
165
156
81
83
82
225
113
39
66
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated
BV
6,178
6,256
6,289
6,349
6,426
6,513
6,596
6,621
6,685
6,775
6,866
6,911
7,076
7,232
7,313
7,396
7,478
7,703
7,816
7,855
7,921
5 ilS.£ w
gpm
8.6
8.6
8.8
8.7
8.4
8.6
8.6
9.2
8.5
8.8
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.8
8.9
8.6
9.0
8.6
8.8
9.2
8.2
Q.
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA - Summary of
Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
24
25
26
27
Date
02/1 4/06
02/1 5/06
02/1 6/06
02/1 7/06
02/22/06
02/24/06
02/27/06
02/28/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
03/06/06
03/07/06
03/09/06
Time
10:15
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:05
12:00
13:00
12:00
09:20
14:00
07:20
08:15
Well No. 2
Hour Meter
Operational
Hours
hrs
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.4
1.3
0.2
1.0
Cumulative
Operational
Hours
Hrs
67.2
67.9
68.1
68.8
69.5
70.4
71.2
71.6
71.9
72.3
73.6
73.8
74.8
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
Operational
Hours(a|
hrs
1.6
2.0
0.5
2.0
2.2
2.5
2.0
1.3
0.8
1.1
3.6
0.4
2.9
Cumulative
Operational
Hours
Hrs
185.4
187.4
187.9
189.9
192.1
194.6
196.6
197.9
198.7
199.8
203.4
203.8
206.7
Treatment System Flow Readings
Volume
Treated
gal
897
970
264
1,095
1,113
1,324
1,042
690
443
555
1,912
211
1,525
Cumulative
Volume Treated
gal
89,739
90,709
90,973
92,068
93,181
94,505
95,547
96,237
96,680
97,235
99,147
99,358
100,883
Bed Volumes
Treated""
BV
80
86
24
98
99
118
93
61
39
49
170
19
136
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated
BV
8,001
8,087
8,111
8,209
8,308
8,426
8,519
8,580
8,619
8,668
8,838
8,857
8,993
Average
Flowrate
(Booster Pump/
System)
gpm
9.3
8.1
8.8
9.1
8.4
8.8
8.7
8.8
9.2
8.4
8.9
8.8
8.8
Average
Flowrate (Well
Pump)
gpm
24.0
24.0
23.8
25.9
27.1
24.6
21.4
27.8
25.3
23.6
24.6
17.6
12.0
Treatment System Pressure
Readings
IN
psi
42
50
44
43
36
37
54
53
42
40
50
52
40
OA
psi
39
48
42
40
35
24
51
50
39
37
47
48
37
OB
psi
33
40
34
33
29
29
44
44
31
30
40
41
32
TA
psi
26
34
28
27
22
23
36
36
26
24
33
34
26
TB
psi
17
22
18
17
9
11
25
24
16
15
21
23
17
TC
psi
12
16
12
12
9
11
18
18
11
11
16
18
14
(a) booster pump hours estimated by multiplying well pump hours by 2.77 until booster pump hour meter installed on 12/09/05.
(b) 1 bed volume = 1.5 ft3 = 11.22 gal
NM = not measured
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Iodine (as 1)
Iodide
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
(as P04)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (asSiO2)
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
mg/L
mg/L(bl
mg/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
ra/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
ug/L
ug/L
|jg/L
09/19/05
IN
-
88
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
18.0
-
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
-
-
13.4
-
0.4
-
8.4
16.2
1.2
162
43.4
-
34.3
-
9.0
-
31.1
-
31.7
<0.1
28.3
3.4
<25
-
<25
4.9
-
5.1
2.7
-
2.0
OA
-
97
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
18.0
-
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
-
-
8.7
-
0.9
-
7.8
15.9
0.5
141
40.9
-
32 .4
-
8.5
-
2.1
-
1.6
0.5
0.5
1.1
<25
-
<25
0.1
-
<0.1
31.2
-
27.7
TA
0.8
92
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
20.0
-
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
-
-
2.2
-
0.2
-
7.4
15.8
0.4
135
40.9
-
32.4
-
8.5
-
0.2
-
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
22.7
-
21.8
10/17/05
IN
-
88
-
0.2
-
20.1
-
<0.2
17.5
-
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
-
-
13.5
-
0.2
-
8.3
14.5
3.0
181
41.1
-
31.5
-
9.6
-
33.6
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
4.5
-
-
<10
-
-
OA
-
88
-
0.2
-
122
-
<0.2
17.6
-
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
-
-
8.5
-
0.2
-
8.1
14.0
2.6
184
41.3
-
31.6
-
9.7
-
6.9
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
20.6
-
-
TA
88
-
0.2
-
263
-
<0.2
17.9
-
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
-
-
3.7
-
0.4
-
7.7
13.6
2.8
191
40.2
-
30.8
-
9.4
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
20.3
-
-
TC
2.1
88
-
<0.1
-
264
-
<0.2
19.2
-
-
0.1
-
<0.05
-
-
0.8
-
0.2
-
7.6
13.6
2.6
197
38.7
-
29.5
-
9.2
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
17.5
-
-
11/02/05
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.03
-
14.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
46.2
-
36.1
-
10.0
-
32.4
-
32.4
<0.1
28.5
3.9
40.8
-
<25
5.2
-
5.0
2.7
-
1.9
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.03
-
6.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
48.2
-
38.5
-
9.8
-
3.2
-
3.3
<0.1
0.1
3.2
<25
-
<25
0.3
-
0.1
20.9
-
17.8
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.03
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
50.7
-
40.2
-
10.5
-
0.6
-
0.6
<0.1
0.1
0.5
<25
-
<25
0.1
-
<0.1
34.7
-
23.0
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.03
-
4.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
58.3
-
46.5
-
11.7
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
35.3
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43.1
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
TC
3.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.03
-
2.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
58.7
-
48.0
-
10.7
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
-
<25
0.2
-
<0.1
31.6
-
31.8
11/21/05
IN
-
88
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
16.9
-
<5
<0.05
-
-
<0.03
-
14.5
-
0.7
-
8.4
12.8
0.9
207
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.4
-
-
-
-
-
47.0
-
-
5.3
-
-
<10
-
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.2
-
-
-
8.2
12.3
0.8
210
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
92
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
17.1
-
-
<0.05
-
-
<0.03
-
6.9
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
14.2
-
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.5
-
-
-
7.8
12.8
0.8
216
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
4.8
88
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
17.2
-
-
<0.05
-
-
<0.03
-
2.3
-
0.4
-
7.7
12.8
0.9
218
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.5
-
-
29.2
-
-
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Iodine (as 1)
Iodide
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
UC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ra/L
Mg/L
|jg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
|jg/L
ug/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
11/29/05
IN
-
-
-
-
-
4.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.1
-
-
-
8.4
13.9
1.6
134
-
-
-
-
-
-
31.5
-
31.4
<0.1
8.9
22.5
39.1
-
<25
5.7
-
5.5
<10
-
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.9
-
-
-
7.9
14.1
1.5
168
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
-
-
-
-
196
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
-
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.2
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
18.0
-
17.5
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.7
-
-
-
7.6
14.2
2.0
175
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
4.9
-
-
-
-
193
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
-
-
-
7.6
13.9
2.5
178
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
0.1
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
-
<25
0.1
-
<0.1
27.0
-
26.1
12714/05
IN
-
89
-
0.1
-
11.3
-
-
16.0
-
<5
<0.05
-
-
<0.03
-
NAIC)
-
1.1
-
8.5
13.9
1.5
198
43.3
-
35.6
-
7.7
-
32.8
-
-
-
-
-
26.4
-
-
4.3
-
-
<10
-
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.2
-
-
-
8.1
14.8
1.9
191
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
85
-
0.2
-
152
-
-
16.0
-
-
<0.05
-
-
<0.03
-
8.8
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
41.3
-
33.6
-
7.7
-
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
13.9
-
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.7
-
-
-
7.7
14.7
2.3
194
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
5.7
87
-
<0.1
-
84.6
-
-
17.0
-
-
<0.05
-
-
<0.03
-
3.1
-
0.9
-
7.6
15.0
1.9
199
43.4
-
35.6
-
7.8
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
20.8
-
-
01/05/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
31.1
-
31.8
<0.1
10.0
21.8
55.4
-
<25
5.3
-
5.25
<10
-
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.9
-
17.9
<0.1
<0.1
17.9
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
25.8
-
23.2
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.8
-
0.7
0.1
<0.1
0.7
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
19.1
-
17.3
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
23.4
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
25.2
-
-
TC
6.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
26.0
-
-
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Iodine (as 1)
Iodide
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
UC
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
01/17/06
IN
-
87
87
0.1
0.1
4.7
9.1
-
16
16
-
0.4
0.1
-
<0.03
<0.03
14.2
14.7
1.7
1.6
-
-
-
-
39.4
39.7
30.5
30.9
8.8
8.8
33.6
32.5
-
-
-
-
87.7
85.0
-
5.9
5.8
-
1.6
1.8
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.4
9.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23.3
22.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
84
84
0.2
0.2
46.6
46.9
-
16
16
-
<0.05
0.2
-
<0.03
<0.03
8.3
8.2
2
2.3
-
-
-
-
35.4
35.9
27.5
27.8
7.8
8.2
1.8
1.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
19.7
18.6
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.4
6.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.5
4.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
6.6
84
84
0.1
0.1
38.9
39.4
-
16
16
-
0.1
0.1
-
<0.03
<0.03
3
2.8
2.3
2.7
-
-
-
-
36.2
36.6
27.9
28.2
8.3
8.3
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
25.6
25.4
-
02/02/06 (a|
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14.4
-
-
-
8.4
16.0
0.0
321
-
-
-
-
-
-
29.2
-
30.8
<0.1
12.2
18.6
38.6
-
<25
7.7
-
7.5
<10
-
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.8
-
-
-
8.2
14.6
0.0
302
-
-
-
-
-
-
29.1
-
30.1
<0.1
1.2
29.0
<25
-
<25
0.4
-
0.1
24.8
-
20.2
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.6
-
-
-
7.9
15.0
0.0
316
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.5
-
6.1
<0.1
0.5
5.6
<25
-
<25
0.4
-
0.2
20.0
-
15.1
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
7.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.0
-
-
-
7.6
15.2
0.0
320
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
-
<25
0.3
-
0.2
22.2
-
13.9
02/16/06
IN
-
91
-
0.2
-
1.4
-
-
23
-
8.1
<0.05
-
-
0.1
-
15.2
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
43.9
-
34.5
-
9.4
-
30.1
-
-
-
-
-
44.6
-
-
6.9
-
-
<10
-
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
87
-
0.3
-
17.5
-
-
22
-
-
<0.05
-
-
<0.03
-
10.3
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
42.0
-
32.6
-
9.4
-
7.2
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
25.3
-
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
8.1
79
-
0.3
-
36.1
-
-
23
-
-
<0.05
-
-
<0.03
-
4.3
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
39.3
-
30.4
-
8.9
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
25.8
-
-
CO
(a) Water quality measurements were taken on 2/3/2006.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)
CO
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Iodine (as 1)
Iodide
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
UC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
ijg/L
ijg/L
ijg/L
03/02/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
28.3
-
28.9
<0.1
12.1
16.7
54.7
-
25.2
6.5
-
6.5
<10
-
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
29.1
-
29.2
<0.1
0.4
28.8
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
21.3
-
17.9
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.7
-
9.3
0.4
0.4
8.9
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
18.1
-
16.5
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
18.0
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
18.8
-
-
TC
8.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
19.1
-
18.5
03/15/06
IN
-
83
-
0.2
-
24.5
-
-
17.9
-
<5
<0.05
-
-
<0.01
-
13.2
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
-
33.2
-
25.1
-
8.1
-
25.6
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
6.5
-
-
<10
-
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
79
-
0.2
-
57.5
-
-
17.5
-
-
<0.05
-
-
<0.01
-
9.0
-
1.2
-
-
-
-
-
31.3
-
23.5
-
7.8
-
10.7
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
19.8
-
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
9.2
83
-
0.3
-
127
-
-
18.1
-
-
<0.05
-
-
<0.01
-
4.7
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
31.1
-
23.4
-
7.7
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
21.9
-
-
------- |