EPA/600/R-09/016
February 2009
Arsenic and Antimony Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District (STMGID), NV
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Lydia J. Gumming
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0019
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) 0019 and 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 staff of Washoe County Department of Water
Resources (WCDWR) in Nevada. The WCDWR staff monitored the treatment system daily and collected
samples from the treatment and distribution systems on a regular schedule throughout this reporting
period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without their efforts.
IV
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the operation of an
arsenic and antimony removal technology demonstrated at the South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District (STMGID) in Washoe County, NV. The objectives of the project were to evaluate
(1) the effectiveness of a Siemens granular ferric hydroxide (GFH) adsorptive media system in removing
arsenic and antimony to meet the respective maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of 10 and 6 (ig/L, (2)
the reliability of the treatment system, (3) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and
operator's skills, 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 system.
The GFH system was a fixed-bed adsorption system that used GFH, an iron-based media, to adsorb
dissolved arsenic and antimony in drinking water supplies. When the media reached its adsorption
capacity, it was removed from the vessels and replaced with new media. Spent media was disposed of at
a sanitary landfill after passing the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. GFH was
produced by GEH Wasserchemie Gmbh and marketed by Siemens under an exclusive agreement.
Designed to treat up to 350 gal/min (gpm) of water, the GFH system at the STMGID site consisted of
three 66-in diameter, 72-in tall vertical carbon steel pressure vessels configured in parallel. Based on the
total media volume of 240 ft3, the empty bed contact time (EBCT) in each vessel (and the entire system)
was 5.1 min and the hydraulic loading rate was 4.9 gpm/ft2.
During Run 1 extending from September 27, 2005 through May 3, 2006, the GFH system operated for a
total of 943 hr. After it began normal daily operation on November 18, 2005, the system operated an
average of 3.8 hr/day. The average flowrate during the 32-week study period was 275 gpm, which was
21% lower than the design flowrate. The lower average flowrate resulted in a higher average EBCT, i.e.,
6.5 min. The system experienced little pressure buildup during operation. Major operational difficulties
involved the system control and data acquisition (SCADA) and programmable logic controller (PLC)
interface and a mechanical problem with the pneumatic butterfly valves for the backwash discharge line.
Otherwise the system was relatively simple to operate, requiring little attention from the operator. The
daily demand on the operator was typically 30 min for routine activities, including visual inspection of the
system and recording of operational parameters.
Breakthrough of arsenic at 10 (ig/L from the GFH system occurred at approximately 7,200 bed volumes
(BV). Breakthrough of antimony at 6 (ig/L occurred at approximately 3,000 BV. The media run length
for arsenic was much shorter than the vendor-projected working capacity of 38,000 BV. The
unexpectedly short run length was probably caused by the presence of competing anions, such as silica
and phosphorous. Silica concentrations in raw water ranged from 51.5 to 95.1 mg/L (as SiO2) and
averaged 72.6 mg/L (as SiO2). Total phosphorous (as P) concentrations ranged from 89 to 150 (ig/L and
averaged 115 (ig/L with some phosphorous existing as orthophosphate. Both silica and phosphorous were
removed effectively by GFH, with silica reaching complete breakthrough about halfway through the 32-
week study period and phosphorous never reaching complete breakthrough.
Because of the short run lengths experienced, another adsorptive media, CFH-0818, a dry iron-based
media supplied by Kemira Water Solutions, Inc., was selected, in conjunction with GFH, for a follow-on
study in Run 2. The selection of the media was based on the results of a series of rapid small-scale
column tests (RSSCT) performed under two separate projects. Prior to Run 2, one of the three vessels
was replaced with GFH while the other two were replaced with CFH-0818. Run 2 took place from April
5, 2007, through July 3, 2007, during which time the system operated for a total of 1,166 hr. The system
was operated at similar flowrates, which averaged 276 gpm. The system daily operating time was longer
than that in Run 1, with an average of 13 hr/day.
-------
In Run 2, breakthrough of arsenic at 10 (ig/L occurred at approximately 3,700 BV; breakthrough of
antimony at 6 (ig/L occurred at approximately 1,225 BV. The media run length for arsenic was shorter
than the RSSCT projected working capacity of 9,000 to 16,000 BV. Significantly lower arsenic
concentrations in source water (i.e., 48.9 (ig/L on average) might have contributed, in part, to the longer
run length observed during the RSSCT tests. However, the RSSCT was useful to help predict the
performance of a full-scale system by indicating the water was challenging to all adsorptive media tested.
Treated water was blended with water from four other STMGID wells about one mile downstream of the
adsorption system. During Run 1, water samples were collected at three locations in the distribution
system, including one non-residential location prior to the blending point and two residences after the
blending point, to evaluate the impact of the adsorption system on water chemistry in the distribution
system. As a combined result of treatment by the GFH system and blending with other source water,
arsenic and antimony concentrations in the distribution system were significantly reduced to below the
respective MCLs (except for one exceedance). There were no noticeable changes in lead or copper
concentrations measured in the first draw samples from two residences. The lead concentrations
remained low (i.e., 1.5 (ig/L or less) in all samples; copper concentrations fluctuated from <1 to 176 (ig/L,
far below the action level of 1.3 mg/L.
The capital investment cost of $232,147 included $157,647 for equipment, $16,000 for site engineering,
and $58,500 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 350 gpm (or 504,000 gpd), the capital
cost was $663/gpm (or $0.46/gpd) of design capacity. The O&M cost evaluated in this report included
only the incremental costs associated with media replacement and disposal, electricity consumption, and
labor. The actual cost to change out the media in all three adsorption tanks was $58,188, including
replacement media, shipping, spent media analysis and disposal, and labor. At the time this report was
prepared, the CFH-0818 was taken off the market indefinitely for making improvements. The unit O&M
cost curve per 1,000 gal of water treated was developed based on the unit cost of GFH and as a function
of the media run length to 10-(ig/L arsenic or 6-(ig/L antimony breakthrough in the combined effluent.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
APPENDICES viii
FIGURES viii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS x
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 1
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 3
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 4
3.1 General Project Approach 4
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 4
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 6
3.3.1 Source Water 6
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 6
3.3.3 Backwash Wsatewater and Residual Solids 9
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 9
3.4 Sampling Logistics 11
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 11
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 11
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 11
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13
4.1 Facility Description 13
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 14
4.1.2 Distribution System 15
4.2 Treatment Process Description 17
4.3 Permitting and System Installation 23
4.3.1 Permitting 23
4.3.2 Building Construction 23
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 24
4.4 System Operation 25
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 25
4.4.2 Backwash 27
4.4.3 RSSCT 28
4.4.4 Media Loading and Removal 28
4.4.5 Residuals Management 29
4.4.6 System Operation, Reliability and Simplicity 29
4.5 System Performance 30
4.5.1 Treatment Plant 30
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling 41
vn
-------
4.5.3 Spent Media Sampling 44
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling 46
4.6 System Cost 46
4.6.1 Capital Cost 46
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 49
5.0 REFERENCES 52
APPENDICES
Appendix A: OPERATIONAL DATA
Appendix B: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 8
Figure 3-2. Distribution Sampling Map 10
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Well No. 9 Pump House 13
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Wellhead Chlorination System 14
Figure 4-3. A Photograph of GFH Media 17
Figure 4-4. Siemens GFH Arsenic/Antimony Removal System 20
Figure 4-5. A New Booster Pump Station 20
Figure 4-6. Backwash Discharge 21
Figure 4-7. Programmable Logic Controller 22
Figure 4-8. Third Pressure Vessel and Associated Plumbing and Monitoring Components 22
Figure 4-9. New Treatment Building and Preexisting Well Pump House 23
Figure 4-10. Delivery of One Adsorption Vessel 24
Figure 4-11. Photographs of Media Replacement 29
Figure 4-12. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species in Influent and Effluent during Run 1 33
Figure 4-13. Arsenic Breakthrough Curves 34
Figure 4-14. Antimony Breakthrough Curves 36
Figure 4-15. Silica Breakthrough Curves 38
Figure 4-16. Phosphorous Breakthrough Curves 39
Figure 4-17. Total As and Sb Concentrations in Distribution System after System Startup 48
Figure 4-18. Media Replacement and Total O&M Curves for GFH System 51
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 2
Table 3-1. Predemonstration and Interim Activities(a) and Completion Dates 5
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 5
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses 7
Table 4-1. Well No. 9 Source Water Quality Data 15
Table 4-2. Summary of Historic Well No. 9 Water Quality Data 16
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of GFH and CFH-0818 Adsorptive Media 18
Table 4-4. Design Specifications of Siemens System 19
Table 4-5. Summary of Siemens Adsorptive System Operations 26
Table 4-6. Number of Bed Volumes until Arsenic Breakthrough at 10 (ig/L 28
Vlll
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Run 1 Analytical Results for Arsenic, Antimony, and Competing Anions 31
Table 4-8. Summary of Run 2 Analytical Results for Arsenic, Antimony and Competing Anions 32
Table 4-9. Summary of Run 1 Other Water Quality Parameter Measurements 40
Table 4-10. Summary of Run 2 Other Water Quality Parameter Measurements 42
Table 4-11. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results 42
Table 4-12. Backwash Solid Total Metal Results 43
Table 4-13. TCLP and Other Waste Characterization Results for Spent Media 44
Table 4-14. Total Metals Analysis Results for Spent Media* 45
Table 4-15. Summary of Arsenic Loading Calculations for Run 1 and Run 2 45
Table 4-16. Distribution System Sampling Results 47
Table 4-17. Summary of Capital Investment Cost of GFH System 49
Table 4-18. Summary of O&M Cost 50
IX
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
BV bed volume(s)
Ca calcium
C12 chlorine
C/F coagulation/filtration
CMU concrete masonry unit
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HOPE high-density polyethylene
hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
kwh kilowatt-hour(s)
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MDWCA Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not available
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
-------
ND not detected
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NTU nephlemetric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P&IDs piping and instrumentation diagrams
Pb lead
PE professional engineer
PO4 orthophosphate
PLC programmable logic controller
PM process modification
psi pounds per square inch
psig pounds per square inch (gauge)
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RCRA Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
RPD relative percent difference
RSSCT rapid small-scale column test
Sb antimony
SCADA system control and data acquisition
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO4 sulfate
STMGID South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
STS Severn Trent Services
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TOC total organic carbon
VOC volatile organic compound
WCDWR Washoe County Department of Water Resources
WRWC White Rock Water Company
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text 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 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies. The
water system at South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District (STMGID) in Washoe County,
NV was selected to participate in this demonstration project.
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 demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the Round 1 demonstration program. 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. A granular ferric
hydroxide (GFH) adsorptive media system proposed by Siemens (formerly known as USFilter) was
selected for demonstration at the STMGID site in Washoe County, NV, for the removal of arsenic and
antimony from drinking water supplies.
Two test runs were conducted during the demonstration at STMGID. Run 1 utilized Siemens' GFH
adsorptive media in all three adsorption vessels. Because of the short run length experienced, both GFH
(in one vessel) and a Kemira CFH-0818 iron-based adsorptive media (in two vessels) were used in Run 2.
The Kemira media was selected based on the results of a series of rapid small-scale column tests
(RSSCTs) and media cost.
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 EPA Arsenic Removal demonstration include nine adsorptive
media systems, one ion exchange system, one coagulation/filtration system, and one process modification
with iron addition. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, and key source water
quality parameters of the 12 demonstration sites.
-------
An overview of the technology selection and system design (Wang et al, 2004) and the associated capital
cost (Chen et al., 2004) is provided on the EPA Arsenic Treatment Technology site at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/tech/research.html. As of November 2008, all of
the systems have been operational and 11 performance evaluations have been completed.
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration Site
WRWC (Bow), NH
Rollinsford, NH
Queen Anne's County, MD
Brown City, MI
Climax, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
Desert Sands MDWCA, NM
Nambe Pueblo Tribe, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Fruitland, ID
STMGID, NV
Technology
(Media)
AM(G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
PM
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
IX (A-300E)
AM (GFH)
Vendor
ADI
AdEdge
STS
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
70(a)
100
300
640
140
250
320
145
90(d)
37
250
350
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
39
36(b)
19(b)
14(b)
39(b)
146(b)
23(b)
33
50
41
44
39
Fe
(Ug/L)
<25
46
270(c)
127(c)
546(c)
l,325(c)
39
<25
170
<25
<25
<25
pH
(S.U.)
7.7
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.7
8.5
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.4
AM = adsorptive media; C/F = coagulation/filtration; IX = ion exchange; PM = process modification;
MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association; STMGID = South Truckee Meadows
General Improvement District; WRWC = White Rock Water Company; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to reduced flowrate of 40 gpm.
(b) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(c) Iron existing mostly as soluble Fe(II).
(d) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to reduced flowrate of 30 gpm.
1.3
Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic removal
technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific
objectives of the demonstration study at STMGID are to:
Evaluate the performance of the GFH arsenic and antimony removal technology
for small systems such as STMGID.
Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator
skill levels.
Characterize process residuals produced by the technology.
Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technology.
This report summarizes the results obtained during the demonstration study at STMGID in Washoe
County, NV, from September 27, 2005, through May 3, 2006, for Run 1 and from April 5, 2007, through
July 3, 2007, for Run 2. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality (both across
the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals characterization, and capital and O&M cost.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during Run 1 and Run 2, the following observations were summarized
and conclusions made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenics and antimony removal technology for use on small systems:
GFH media can remove arsenic and antimony to below their respective MCLs. However, the
media run length for either contaminant was short, with a maximum of 7,200 bed volumes
(BV) for arsenic and 3,000 BV for antimony. The unexpectedly short media life might have
been caused by the presence of high concentrations of silica and phosphorous, which
averaged 72.6 mg/L (as SiO2) and 115.2 (ig/L (as P), respectively, in raw water.
Results of a laboratory rapid small-scale column test (RSSCT) confirmed the short run
lengths of the full-scale GFH system.
Significant reductions in pH (i.e., from 7.1 to <4.5), alkalinity (i.e., from 92 to <1.0 mg/L [as
CaCO3]), and chlorine residuals (i.e., from 0.8 to 0.2 mg/L [as C12]) were observed in the
system effluent during the first several days of system operation of Run 1, indicating removal
of bicarbonate ions and consumption of chlorine by the GFH media.
Required system operation and maintenance and operator skill levels:
Under normal operating conditions, the system requires little attention from the operator. The
daily demand on the operator is typically 30 min for routine activities including visual
inspection of the system and recording of operational parameters.
Operation of the adsorption system does not require additional skills beyond those necessary
to operate the existing water supply equipment. The system is operated by a State of Nevada
certified Level 3 operator.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
The spent GFH media passed the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test
and can be disposed of at a local landfill for non-hazardous wastes.
Backwash was not required when operating the adsorption system.
Cost of the technology:
Using the system's rated capacity of 350 gal/min (gpm) (or 504,000 gal/day [gpd]), the
capital cost is $663/gpm (or $0.46/gpd).
The cost of media replacement is the most significant add-on operational cost. The cost of
replacing 240 ft3 of GFH media in all three adsorption tanks is estimated to be $71,158,
equivalent to a unit cost of $5.51/1,000 gal to $15.51/1,000 gal if the changeout is governed
by the 10-(ig/L arsenic breakthrough curve. If the changeout is governed by the 6-(ig/L
antimony breakthrough curves, the unit cost equivalent is even higher, ranging from
$13.21/1,000 gal to $32.36/1,000 gal.
-------
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 Siemens adsorptive media system began on September 27, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of
data collected as part of the technology evaluation process.
The overall system performance was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic and
antimony (a co-contaminant) to below the respective target MCLs of 10 and 6 |o,g/L through the collection
of weekly and monthly water samples across the treatment train. The study was initially intended to take
place over a one-year period. However, because of short run length issues encountered during the first
run, the performance monitoring was temporarily halted on May 3, 2006, with the exception of collecting
a set of backwash wastewater/solids samples on September 12, 2006. In the interim, the system was
operated, when needed, with blending to meet the MCLs. The performance monitoring resumed after
rebedding of the three adsorption vessels on April 5, 2007, with media selected based on the results of a
series of RSSCT tests performed under a separate project (Westerhoff et al., 2008). The interim period
between the two test runs was longer than desired because of difficulties with obtaining an acceptable
quote for performing media changeout.
The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency
and extent of repairs 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 the preventive 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 gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking of the capital cost for
equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal,
chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor.
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection following the
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. During every site visit, the plant operator recorded
system operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer and hour meter readings on a Daily System
Operation Log Sheet; checked the sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution level; and conducted visual
inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred, the plant operator contacted
the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant
operator recorded all relevant information, including the problem encountered, course of actions taken,
materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor, on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On
a weekly basis, the plant operator measured pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP), and residual chlorine onsite, and recorded the data on a Weekly On-Site Water Quality
Parameters Log Sheet.
-------
Table 3-1. Predemonstration and Interim Activities(a) and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Package Submitted to Washoe County Health Department
Final Study Plan Issued
Permit Issued by Washoe County Health Department
Building Permit Issued
Building Construction Initiated
Building Construction Completed
Siemens Equipment Shipped to Demonstration Site
Plumbing of Siemens GFH System Completed
Hydraulic Test Suspended due to High Wellhead Pressure that
Exceeded Pressure Rating of Adsorption Tanks
Well Pump Reconfiguration Completed
Hydraulic Test and Media Loading Completed
Run 1 Performance Evaluation Commenced
Laboratory RSSCT Completed00
Field RSSCT Analysis Completed/Media Selected(a)
Media Replacement Completed(a)
Run 2 Performance Evaluation Commenced
Date
08/20/03
08/25/03
09/03/03
09/19/03
10/01/03
05/13/04
07/26/04
09/09/04
10/20/04
11/19/04
11/22/04
03/18/05
03/21/05
04/18/05
04/25/05
09/06/05
09/14/05
09/27/05
02/27/06
07/07/06
04/05/07
04/05/07
(a) Interim activities taking place between Runs 1 and 2.
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation
Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and
Operator Skill
Requirements
Residual
Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently remove arsenic and antimony to below 10 and 6
M-g/L, respectively, in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems
encountered, materials and supplies needed, and labor and cost incurred
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of system 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 of relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
process
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical and/or media usage, electricity, and labor
-------
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 and spent media disposal,
chemical and electricity consumption, and labor. Labor for various activities, such as the routine system
O&M, troubleshooting and repair, 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, replenishing
the NaOCl solution, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the
vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work including activities such as performing field
measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the
vendor was recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the system performance, samples were collected routinely by the operator from the wellhead,
across the treatment plant, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedules
and analytes measured during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements for analytical
methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the
EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2003). The procedure for arsenic
speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit on August 20, 2003, one set of source water
samples was collected and speciated using arsenic speciation kits described in Section 3.4.1. The sample
tap was flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which
might cause unwanted oxidation. Analyses for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the first run of the system performance evaluation study,
samples were collected by the plant operator weekly, on a four-week cycle, for on- and off-site analyses.
For the first week of each four-week cycle, samples taken at the wellhead (IN) and after Vessels A, B, and
C combined (TT) were speciated onsite and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for monthly
treatment plant water. For the next three weeks, samples collected at IN and after each adsorption vessel
(i.e., TA, TB, and TC) were analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for the weekly treatment plant
water. A few exceptions include:
Weekly sampling during the weeks of October 17, November 21, December 19, and
December 26, 2005, was not performed.
Weekly sampling during February 7 through March 21, 2006, was reduced to biweekly.
Monthly sampling after March 31, 2006, was reduced to bimonthly.
Orthophosphate was replaced with phosphorus after January 10, 2006, due to difficulties
of meeting the 48-hr holding time requirement for Orthophosphate.
Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the treatment system along with the analytes and schedules at each
sampling location.
During Run 2 of the study, the weekly sampling was reduced to once every three to four weeks and
monthly speciation sampling was discontinued. Samples were collected at IN, TA, TB, TC for total P,
SiO2, As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total), and Sb (total). On-site measurements for pH, temperature, DO,
and ORP were performed during each sampling event. Samples also were analyzed for free and total
chlorine at the after prechlorination (AC) and the TT locations.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Water
Backwash
Solids
Spent Media
Samplin
Locations'3'
IN
IN, TA, TO, and TC
IN, and TT
Three LCR Locations
Backwash Discharge
Line
Backwash Discharge
Line
One to Three Vessels
per Media
No. of
Samples
1
4
2
3
3
3
1 to 3 per
media
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)
Runl:
Weekly(b)
Run 2: once
every three
to four
weeks(d)
Runl:
Monthly0^
Run 2:
None
Monthly
Once
Once
Once
Analytes
Off-site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Sb (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Al (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Mo (total and soluble), Na,
Ca, Mg, Cl, F, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
TOC, alkalinity, and pH
On-Site: pH, temperature, DO,
ORP, and chlorine(c)
Off-Site: As (total), Sb (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total), P (total),
SiO2, alkalinity, and turbidity
On-Site: pH, temperature, DO,
ORP, and chlorine(c)
Off-Site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Sb (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca,
Mg,F,N03, S04,Si02,P04ffi,
P (total), alkalinity, and
turbidity
Total As, Sb, Fe, Mn, Cu, and
Pb, pH, and alkalinity
As (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble)
TDS, TSS, and pH
Mg, Al, Si, P, Ca, V, Mn, Fe,
Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Cd, Sb, Ba,
andPb
TCLP metals
Mg, Al, Si, P, Ca, V, Mn, Fe,
Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Cd, Sb, Ba,
andPb
No. of
Sampling
Events
Pre-Run 1: 1
Run 1: 18
Run 2: 3
Run 1: 6(e)
Run 2: 0
Pre-Run 1: 4
Run 1: 7
Run 2: 0
Run 1: 1
Run 2: 0
Run 1: 1
Run 2: 0
Run 1: 1
Run 2: 1
(a) IN = at wellhead; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B; TC = after Vessel C; TT = after effluent from
Vessels A, B, and C combined; abbreviations corresponding to sampling locations shown in Figure 3-1.
(b) Run 1 weekly sampling skipped during weeks of 10/17/05, 11/21/05, 12/19/05, and 12/26/05; sampling frequency
reduced from weekly to biweekly during 02/07/06 through 03/21/06 and from monthly to bimonthly after 03/31/06.
(c) Chlorine measured at AC and TT only.
(d) Alkalinity and turbidity analyses discontinued.
(e) Samples also collected at TA, TO, and TC locations.
(f) PO4 replaced with P (total) analysis beginning 01/10/06.
-------
INFLUENT
(STMGID WELL #9)
Monthly
pH(3), temperature^3), DO<3),
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble), Mn (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, PO/C), turbidity, alkalinity
pH, IDS,
turbidity,
As (soluble),
Fe (soluble),
Mn (soluble)
Sb (soluble)
South Truckee Meadows
General Improvement District
Reno, NV
GFH Technology
Design Flow: 350 gpm
Weekly
, temperature^, DO^, ORP(3),
^As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
"Sb (total), SiO2, PO4(C), turbidity,
alkalinity
.pHK>, temperature^, DO(3), ORP(3),
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
"Sb (total), SiO2, PO4(C), turbidity,
-^-alkalinity
plF3), temperature^), DO<3), ORP<3),
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble), Mn (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, PO/ฐ), turbidity, alkalinity
Footnotes
(a) On-site analyses
(b) Blending with other source water
(c) PO4 was replaced with P (total)
beginning 1/10/06
LEGEND
Influent
After Chlorination
After Tank (A, B, C)
After Tanks A, B, and C
Combined
Backwash Sampling Location
Sludge Sampling Location
Chlorination
Process Flow
Backwash Flow
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
-------
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Residual Solids. Backwash wastewater samples were collected
during the September 12, 2006, backwash event. A sidestream of backwash water was directed into a
clean, 32-gal container over the duration of backwash for each vessel. After the content in the container
was thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected and/or filtered onsite with 0.45-(im filters.
Analytes for the backwash samples are listed in Table 3-3. The solids in the 32-gal plastic container were
allowed to settle and the supernatant was carefully siphoned using a piece of plastic tubing to avoid
agitation of settled solids in the container. The remaining solids/water mixture was then transferred to a
1-gal plastic jar. After solids in the jar were settled and the supernatant was carefully decanted, one
aliquot of the solids/water mixture was air-dried before being acid-digested and analyzed for the metals
listed in Table 3-3.
The other residual solid produced by the treatment process was spent media. Spent GFH media samples
were collected on March 27, 2007, using a long-handled scoop, while the spent media was being removed
from the vessels. Grab samples were collected from the top (0 to 6 in depth), middle (17 to 23 in), and
bottom layers (34 to 40 in). The media collected from each layer was well-mixed in a clean 5-gal pail
prior to being filled in an unpreserved 1-gal wide-mouth high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle. One
aliquot of each sample was tested for TCLP and another aliquot air dried for metal analyses.
Composite samples of the spent GFH media were collected on February 2, 2007, prior to the media
replacement for site-specific waste characterization required by the local landfill: TCLP regulated metals
(i.e., Ag, As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Fe, Hg, Pb, and Se), TCLP regulated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), paint
filter test, and pH. These samples were collected by the operator under direction of the contractor
responsible for rebedding the media.
At the end of Run 2 on July 3, 2007, one spent sample each of GFH and CFH-0818 was collected
approximately 2 in beneath the bed surface and transferred to an unpreserved 1-gal wide-mouth HDPE
bottle. These samples were analyzed for the metals listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. During the first run of the demonstration, 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, antimony, lead, and copper levels.
Prior to the system startup from June to September 2004, four sets of baseline distribution water samples
were collected from three locations within the distribution system. Following system startup, distribution
system sampling continued monthly at the same locations. Distribution system water sampling was not
performed during the second run of the demonstration because the treated water was blended and it would
not be possible to differentiate the impact caused by the two different media.
The three sampling locations included two residences, which are part of the current STMGID Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR) sampling locations, and one newly-installed sampling station, which was located
4,700 ft downstream from Well No. 9 and 500 ft upstream from a blending point where Well No. 9 water
blended with water from other wells. The two LCR residences selected were located after the blending
point. Figure 3-2 shows a distribution system map and the three distribution system sampling locations.
Homeowners assisted by the Washoe County Department of Water Resources (WCDWR) staff collected
samples 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 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. The
sampler recorded the date and time of last water usage before sampling and the date and time of sample
collection for calculation of the stagnation time. Arsenic speciation was not performed on these samples.
-------
o
WELL #11 WELL#1
I
Explanation
ฎ Washoe County Well
-
-------
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kit preparation, sample cooler preparation, and sample
shipping and handling are discussed below.
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, 2003).
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, waterproof 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 for designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. For
example, red, orange, yellow, green, and blue were used for IN, TA, TB, TC, and TT sampling locations.
The labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in a ziplock bag (each corresponding to a
specific sample location) in the cooler. On a monthly basis, the sample cooler also included bottles for the
distribution system sampling.
In addition, all sampling and shipping-related supplies, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/pre-addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were placed in each
cooler. The chain-of-custody forms and airbills were completed except for the operator's signature and
the sample date and time. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the
following week's sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle'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, OH and Belmont
Labs in Englewood, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration study.
The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and
final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of
the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2003) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and Belmont Labs. 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 QA data
11
-------
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
WTW Multi 340i handheld meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the
procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring
the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a
water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the WTW probe in the beaker until a stable value was
obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine
test kits following the user's manual.
12
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Facility Description
Established in 1981, STMGID provides water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage services to a portion of
the South Truckee Meadows in southern Washoe County, NV. The water systems are operated by
WCDWR. A total of five supply wells (i.e., Wells No. 1, 2, 3, 9, and 11) were used to supply water to
approximately 8,300 customers (see map of service area in Figure 3-2). Well No. 9 on South Virginia
Street and Damonte Parkway was designated for this demonstration study. Drilled in October 1994, Well
No. 9 was constructed of 12-in-diameter casing with a 50-ft slotted screen to a total depth of 130 ft. The
well was equipped with a Hays Model 400T-6GP 10-stage submersible pump with a 50-horsepower (hp)
three-phase motor set at an approximate depth of 60 ft. The well was capable of yielding up to 350 gpm
flow. Figure 4-1 shows the Well No. 9 wellhead and pump house.
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Well No. 9 Pump House
Figure 4-2 shows the preexisting system housed within the pump house. Water treatment consisted of
only chlorination using a gas feed system to reach a target free chlorine residual level of 1.0 mg/L (as
C12). Chlorine gas cylinders were kept in a room partitioned from the rest of the pump house for safety
and connected to the system piping via underground conduit. The chlorine gas feed rate was regulated at
3.5 Ib/day using a panel-mounted automatic switchover rotometer. A dual-cylinder scale was used to
monitor the chlorine gas consumption. Chlorine gas was injected to a side stream where a Baldor 1%- in
centrifugal pump with a 2-hp motor was used to create a venturi effect to mix chlorine gas with carrier
water. Chlorinated water then was blended with source water prior to entering a one-mile-long
transmission main. After reaching the blending station, the treated water was blended with water from
four other wells, i.e., Wells No. 11, 1, 2, and 3, before entering the distribution system.
13
-------
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Wellhead Chlorination System
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples from Well No. 9 were collected at the
wellhead on August 20, 2003, and analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3. The analytical results,
along with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those obtained
by EPA on October 3, 2002, and by the technology vendor in August 2003 in response to EPA's
technology solicitation, are presented in Table 4-1. Additional historic source water quality data,
including historical high and low results for the parameters monitored by the facility between 1992 and
2003, are presented in Table 4-2.
Total arsenic and antimony concentrations of the samples obtained by Battelle on August 20, 2003 were
87.9 and 15.8 |og/L, respectively, which were close to the historic high concentrations of 93 and 18 |o,g/L
for these elements. Based on the speciation results, arsenic existed almost entirely as soluble As(V), with
only a trace amount, i.e., 0.3 |o,g/L, existing as soluble As(III). Antimony existed entirely in the soluble
form. The data obtained/provided by the facility, EPA, and/or the vendor showed somewhat lower
arsenic concentrations, ranging from 45 to 79 |og/L. The facility arsenic speciation data were in
agreement with Battelle's data, with soluble As (V) being the only species detected. Therefore, the
purpose of prechlorination was only to provide chlorine residuals through the treatment train (to prevent
biological growth) and to the distribution system.
pH values of source water ranged from 7.4 to 7.5 based on the samples provided/collected by the facility,
EPA, the vendor, and Battelle for this demonstration study. The values fell within the range of the
historic high and low values, i.e., 7.9 and 6.9, respectively. The GFH adsorptive media selected for this
study adsorbs arsenic and, perhaps, antimony more effectively at the lower end of a pH range extending
from 5.5 to 8.5. With source water pH values ranging from 6.9 to 7.9 historically and 7.4 to 7.5 within
the last several years, no pH adjustment was used at this site.
Competing ions such as silica and phosphate in source water can be adsorbed onto the GFH media, thus
reducing its arsenic and antimony removal capacities. Data obtained by Battelle showed 68.6 mg/L of
silica (as SiO2) and <0.1 mg/L of orthophosphate, comparable to the levels reported by others. Silica
concentrations were high and most likely will impact arsenic and antimony adsorption. Published data
14
-------
Table 4-1. Well No. 9 Source Water Quality Data
Parameter
Sampling Date
pH
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
TOC
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Mo (total)
Mo (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
-
-
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
^g/L
HB/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
STMGID 70
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
6
NS
NS
NS
3
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
113
16
4
Battelle
08/20/03
7.4
100.0
17.1
10.0
0.1
8.0
68.6
<0.10
<1.0
87.9
89.4
<0.1
0.3
89.1
15.8
15.8
<30
<30
<10
<10
0.1
<.l
3.0
3.0
<.l
<.l
36.4
5.1
1.7
(a) Data to EPA for demonstration site selection.
(b) Data provided by EPA.
NS = not sampled
have shown that silica reduced arsenic adsorptive capacity of ferric oxides/hydroxides and activated
alumina (Smith and Edwards, 2005; Meng et al., 2000; Meng et al., 2002) and that the effect of silica was
most noticeable at pH 8 or above. As such, the effect of silica was carefully monitored during this study.
Source water from Well No. 9 had low or less than detectable concentrations of iron, manganese,
aluminum, vanadium, molybdenum, sodium, calcium, magnesium, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and total
organic carbon (TOC).
4.1.2 Distribution System. As shown on the distribution map in Figure 3-2, the distribution
system at the eastern half of STMGID was supplied by five wells, including Wells No. 1, 2, 3, 9, and 11.
(Note that there were five other independently-operated wells, i.e., Well No. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, in the
western half of STMGID.) Water feeding the GFH system was supplied by Well No. 9 only. Water from
Well No. 9 was transported through a 6-in diameter, 1-mile long polyvinyl chloride (PVC) transmission
15
-------
Table 4-2. Summary of Historic Well No. 9 Water Quality Data
Constitute
Unit
Year 2003
Historic High
(1992-2003)
Historic Low
(1992-2003)
Primary Standards
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Fluoride
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Selenium
Thallium
Hg/L
HB/L
mg/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
mg/L
HB/L
W?/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
HB/L
17
80
0.05
<1
<1
1
<5
0.04
0.5
<1
0.9
<0.01
<1
<0.5
18
93
0.06
<1
<1
2
<5
0.17
0.5
<1
2.3
0.01
<1
O.5
6
18
0.01
<1
<1
<1
<5
0.02
0.5
<1
0.6
0.01
<1
O.5
Secondary Standards
Chloride
Color
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
pH
Sulfate
Zinc
TDS
mg/L
-
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
-
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
8
3
0
0.04
0.02
2
0.01
7.2
8
0.01
177
9
5
0.04
0.17
0.07
3
0.01
7.9
9
0.03
195
3
3
0.01
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
6.9
6
0.01
160
Additional Constituents
Lead
Hardness
Calcium
Potassium
Sodium
Silica
HB/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
<5
37
10
5
27
70
<5
37
10
6
45
81
<5
21
5
2
26
65
Data Source: Washoe County Department of Water Resources
line to a blending station where it was blended with water from the other four wells (i.e., Wells No. 11, 1,
2, and 3) at a combined flowrate of approximately 1,400 to 1,500 gpm. Due to elevated arsenic and
antimony concentrations, Well No. 9 was operated under a bilateral compliance agreement with local
regulators. According to the agreement, WCDWR had to collect water quality samples weekly from the
wellhead for arsenic and antimony analyses when the well was in operation. Prior to the demonstration
study, to save analytical and data reporting costs, the well was not operated during periods of low
demand, which normally extended from the beginning of November through the end of February the
following year.
After the blending point, water flows through a 16-in ductile iron transmission main to connect to the
distribution system and then to one 500,000- and one 750,000-gal storage tank. The distribution system
16
-------
consists of 8- to 12-in ductile iron, PVC, and asbestos cement pipe. The residential service lines are
constructed of 3/t-in HDPE with some commercial and irrigation service lines using 1- to 2-in copper pipe.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
The Siemens arsenic treatment system used GFH, a granular ferric hydroxide media, for arsenic and
antimony removal from drinking water supplies (Figure 4-3). Produced by GEH Wasserchemie Gmbh,
the media was imported from Germany and marketed by Siemens under an exclusive marketing
agreement. Because of short run length issues, another media, i.e., CFH-0818, also was tested after
rebedding. CFH-0818 was a dry granular mixture of ferric oxides and hydroxides supplied by Kemira
Water Solutions, Inc. Both GFH and CFH-0818 have received NSF International (NSF) Standard 61
listing for use in drinking water applications. The physical and chemical properties of each media are
presented in Table 4-3.
Source: Siemens
Figure 4-3. A Photograph of GFH Media
Both adsorptive media can remove both As(V) and As(III), but the capacity for As(III) is much less than
that for As(V). The media life for arsenic and antimony removal relies on factors, such arsenic and
antimony concentrations, raw water pH, and the presence of other competing anions. Both media have a
pH operating range of 5.5 to 8.5 with the removal capacity increasing with decreasing pH. Competing
anions such as silica and phosphate are known to adsorb onto ferric hydroxides and reduce arsenic
removal capacity of the media (Meng et al., 2000; Meng et al, 2002).
Once exhausted, spent media are removed from the adsorption vessels and replaced with virgin media.
The spent media can be disposed of as a non-hazardous waste after passing the TCLP test. This single
use media approach eliminates the need for onsite storage of regeneration chemicals and issues related to
the handling, storage, and disposal of concentrated regeneration wastes.
A standard Siemens adsorption system consists of two or more downflow pressure vessels with factory
installed internals for distribution and collection of effluent and backwash flows. The media vessels can
be placed in either parallel or series configuration. According to the vendor, if a consistent 90% reduction
is needed across the system, the series design is used. The parallel design is typically used if the percent
reduction needed is less than 90%. The treatment system at the STMGID site consists of three vertical
pressure vessels configured in parallel with each vessel treating one-third of the incoming flow.
17
-------
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of GFH and CFH-0818 Adsorptive Media
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (kg/L)
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Moisture Content (%)
Grain Size (mm)
Adsorption Density (g/kg)
GFH
p-ferric oxyhydroxide
and ferric hydroxide
Granular
Dark-brown to black
1.15
71.8
47
0.3-2.0
>8 based on wet weight
CFH-0818
Ferric oxide and ferric
hydroxide
Granular
Brown or reddish-brown
1.20
74.9
16
0.8-1.8
Not listed
Chemical Properties
Constituent
Fe (%)
As (mg/kg)
Cd (mg/kg)
Pb (mg/kg)
Cu (mg/kg)
Cr (mg/kg)
Ni (mg/kg)
Zn (mg/kg)
Mn (mg/kg)
GFH
61
<10
<5
<10
30
100
100
100
1,500
CFH-0818
44
<1
<2
3
<5
10
140
400
1,000
Sources: Siemens and Kemira Water Solutions
The site-specific design features of the arsenic removal system are summarized in Table 4-4. Key process
steps and major system components are discussed as follows:
Intake. Raw water pumped from Well No. 9 was prechlorinated before being fed into the
arsenic removal system. The peak flow rate was estimated to be 350 gpm. The existing
wellhead pressure was approximately 180 pounds per square inch (psi), which was higher
than the 100-psi pressure rating of the adsorption vessels. Therefore, the well pump had to be
reconfigured to produce a pressure of less than 100 psi at the system inlet. The well pump
reconfiguration is further discussed in Section 4.3.3.
Prechlorination. Prechlorination with chlorine gas was used to provide chlorine residuals
through the treatment train (to prevent biological growth) and in the distribution system.
Figure 4-2 presents photographs of the prechlorination system, which was located in the
preexisting pump house. The chlorine gas feed rate was 3.5 Ib/day and controlled by a panel-
mounted automatic switchover rotometer. A dual-cylinder scale was used to monitor the
chlorine gas consumption. The chlorine gas was injected to a side stream where it was mixed
with carrier water prior to being drawn into the main line. Chlorinated water was then flown
to the adsorption vessels in a nearby building constructed to house the treatment system. A
sample tap was installed ("AC") on a common feed line to the adsorption vessels to collect
chlorinated water prior to treatment by the adsorptive media.
Adsorption System. The skid-mounted adsorption system consisted of three 66-in x 72-in
carbon steel vessels configured in parallel and rated for 100 psi of working pressure (Figure
4-4). During Run 1, each vessel was loaded with 80 ft3 of GFH media supported by a 2 to 3
mm (with a 1.6 uniformity coefficient) underbedding gravel. During Run 2, one vessel was
18
-------
loaded with 80 ft3 of GFH media and the other two with 80 ft3 each of CFH-0818 media.
Based on the peak flowrate of 350 gpm, the empty bed contact time (EBCT) was 5.1 min and
the hydraulic loading rate was 4.9 gpm/ft2. The system included a header lateral underdrain
with media retaining strainers, front piping, fittings, valves, and meters. A 20-hp booster
pump was installed to boost the effluent pressure back to the preexisting levels of
approximately 180 psi (Figure 4-5).
Table 4-4. Design Specifications of Siemens System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
Chlorine Dosage (Ib/day [as C12])
3.5
For 1.0 mg/L (as C12) of target
free chlorine residual
Adsorbers
Number of Vessels
Configuration
Vessel Size (in)
Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Type of Media
Quantity of Media (ft3/vessel)
Media Depth (in)
3
Parallel
66 D x 72 H
23.8
GFH/CFH
80
40
Vessel height at straight side shell
240 ft3 total
Backwash
Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Duration (min)
Frequency (times/month)
285
12
15-20
1-2
Through each vessel
Adsorption System
Peak Flowrate (gpm)
Flowrate through Each Vessel (gpm)
EBCT (mill/vessel)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Average Use Rate (gpd)
Daily Throughput (BV/day)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Estimated Volume to Breakthrough (gal *106)
Estimated Media Life (day)
350
117
5.1
4.9
336,000
187
38,000
68.2
203
Based on peak flow
Based on 16 hr of daily operation
at 350 gpm
!BV=240ft3= 1,795 gal
Based on lO-^g/L As
breakthrough
Estimated frequency of changeout
at 75% utilization
Backwash. The adsorption vessels were taken offline one at a time for upflow backwash
using treated water to remove particulates and media fines and prevent media compaction.
Backwashing could be initiated manually, semi-automatically, and automatically. Semi-
automatic backwash was set for the system at STMGID, i.e., the programmable logic
controller (PLC) sounds an alarm when it receives a high differential pressure signal across
the adsorption vessels or a time elapsed signal from the adjustable clock and the operator
acknowledges the alarm and initiates the backwash cycle. During a backwash event, all
vessels are backwashed sequentially, using the treated water from the two vessels in service
to backwash the third. Backwash waste water
19
-------
Figure 4-4. Siemens GFH Arsenic/Antimony Removal System
Figure 4-5. A New Booster Pump Station
20
-------
produced was discharged to the sanitary sewer (Figure 4-6). A backwash flowrate and a loss
of head gauges were installed in the front piping. The backwash flowrate gauge was
provided with a 6-in-diameter standard weight pipe flange and installed to the end of the GFH
system backwash waste header piping with standard flange gasket and mounting bolts.
Figure 4-6. Backwash Discharge
Programmable Logic Controller. A control panel was provided for automated system
control (Figure 4-7). This panel was interfaced with the local system control and data
acquisition (SCADA) enclosure as a means for remote communication. The filter system
could be operated locally from the operator interface terminal. Each adsorption vessel had
two electronically actuated butterfly valves and one manual butterfly valve with handwheel
actuator for the process flow control. The electronically actuated valves were the influent
valve and the backwash waste valve. The manual valve was the effluent valve, which
remained open. Pressure gauges were used to monitor the system pressure and pressure drop
across each vessel and the treatment train. In addition, a flowmeter/totalizer was installed in
the effluent line of each adsorption vessel to monitor the flowrate and track the volume
throughput through each vessel (Figure 4-8).
21
-------
Figure 4-7. Programmable Logic Controller
Figure 4-8. Third Pressure Vessel and Associated Plumbing and Monitoring Components
22
-------
4.3
Media Replacement. When the adsorptive capacity of the GFH media was exhausted, the
spent media was taken out of the vessels for disposal and replaced with virgin media.
According to Siemens, the media changeout was to take place once every 203 days based on
the water analysis and a 75% water usage rate. The actual run length of the media was
determined based on the results of the performance evaluation study as discussed in
Section 4.5.
Permitting and System Installation
4.3.1 Permitting. WCDWR prepared engineering plans and permit submittals for the project using
input from Siemens, such as system specifications and process and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs).
The plans included site engineering drawings, equipment tie-ins, and site plans. After certified by a State
of Nevada-registered professional engineer (PE), the submittal package was sent to the Washoe County
Department of Health for review and approval on July 26, 2004. The approval was granted on October
20, 2004.
4.3.2 Building Construction. A building was constructed by STMGID to house the treatment
system. A photograph of the treatment building and pump house is shown in Figure 4-9. The
construction bid for the building was awarded on September 28, 2004. Construction of the building was
delayed because the building contractor did not submit the adequate bonding paperwork for building
permit application. Siemens stored the equipment at its Ames, IA facility until the construction was
completed and delivery of the equipment could be scheduled. Upon payment of building permit fees on
October 25, 2004, the building permit was granted. Building construction began on November 22, 2004,
and was completed the week of March 14, 2005. The free-standing building constructed of concrete
masonry unit (CMU) blocks measured 32 ft x 18 ft, with an interior wall height of 14 ft and a three tab
asphalt shingle roof. Due to the close proximity to a commercial shopping center, the pump house and
treatment building had stone/stucco exterior and/or a stone water table to match the architectural style of
the neighborhood. The building had one walk-through door and an 8-ft x 12-ft rollup door.
Figure 4-9. New Treatment Building and Preexisting Well Pump House
23
-------
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The equipment for the treatment system arrived at
the site on March 21, 2005, and installation began immediately after the system off-loading (Figure 4-10).
Because the well riser pipe and the system inlet piping did not match, a custom piece had to be
constructed to connect the system and the well. Plumbing of the system was completed on April 18,
2005, by Siemens's subcontractor, Christman Construction. The system was originally scheduled for
hydraulic testing before the media loading; however, the hydraulic testing and media loading had to be
put off because it was discovered that the wellhead pressure exceeded the 100-psi pressure rating of the
adsorption vessels. As a result, the wellhead pressure had to be reduced before the adsorption vessels
could be hydraulically tested and subsequently operated. Meanwhile, Siemens collected 1 gal of the
media that had been stored at the site since October 2004 for precautionary testing and determined that
the moisture content of the media was not impacted due to the long term storage.
Figure 4-10. Delivery of One Adsorption Vessel
Reduction of the wellhead pressure was achieved by well pump reconfiguration, which was undertaken
by WCDWR with partial funding provided by EPA. From April to July 2005, WCDWR pursued required
funding and contractors to perform the well pump modification. The well pump reconfiguration work
extended from August 29, 2005, through September 6, 2005. The work involved removing the existing
submersible well pump and motor and associated piping and electrical wiring from the well casing,
removing four stages from the pump, trimming one or more impellers to achieve a new pump design
operating point of 285 ft total dynamic head at 305 gpm, and reinstalling the pump and appurtenances into
the well. The reconfigured well pump produced a maximum pressure of 100 pounds per square inch
(gauge) (psig). A Goulds 4-in booster pump with a Baldor 20-hp motor and a check valve was installed
on the filter discharge piping to boost the pressure back to 180 psi. The booster pump and associated
electrical work was completed by September 6, 2005. The existing SCADA system was modified to
control the well and booster pump. In addition to the initial engineering design, WCDWR also performed
final construction inspections.
24
-------
Following the modification, Siemens's subcontractor returned to the site on September 12, 2005, to
perform hydraulic testing and media loading. The hydraulic testing was conducted by initiating the flow
through each vessel, partially closing the discharge valve, adjusting the flow to approximately 100 gpm,
and measuring the inlet, outlet, and differential pressure across each vessel and the system. The results of
the hydraulic testing on the empty vessels indicated minimal pressure drop across each vessel and the
system at a combined flowrate of 300 gpm, and an evenly balanced flow across each of the three vessels.
The media was loaded following the hydraulic testing. The underbedding support was first installed to a
depth of 12 in. Water was added to the vessel to a depth of approximately 3 ft above the top of the
underbedding support and the GFH media was then loaded to a depth of about 40 in. Due to lack of a
roof hatch, the media loading was conducted manually and took three days to complete. The media
loading was followed by initial backwash that was performed at half of the normal backwash flowrate for
30 to 45 min. The loading of GFH media was completed on September 14, 2005. The system was
subsequently disinfected with a 5.25%NaOCl solution on September 15, 2005, and bacterial samples
were collected on September 16, 2005. The bacterial results passed; however, the PLC did not function
properly so the system could not be put into service. A Siemens technician returned to the site on
September 19, 2005, to complete the startup and perform O&M training. The technician reprogrammed
the PLC to interface with the SCADA system so that the well pump, treatment system, and booster pump
might work together in the service mode.
Battelle made a site visit on September 23, 2005, to conduct system inspections and operator training for
sampling and data collection. Upon careful inspections of the system, a punch list was developed and
summarized as follows:
Revise PLC program to enable automatic backwash.
Replace six 0 to 100 psig pressure gauges with 0 to 150 psig gauges to enable
measurements of the system pressure, which was slightly above 100 psig.
Adjust the PLC totalizer screen to display throughput readings properly.
Increase the pressure set point for automatic backwash from 3 to 7 psi.
The Siemens technician returned to the site during the week of September 26, 2005. The first set of water
samples was collected on September 27, 2005, marking the commencement of the performance
evaluation study at the STMGID site. The items on the punch list were addressed during a site visit by
the Siemens technician on October 11 to 12, 2005. One exception was that the backwash totalizer did not
display properly on the PLC screen. The backwash totalizers were connected to the PLC by the Siemens
technician during a later site visit, which took place on December 22, 2005.
4.4 System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters recorded during Run 1 and Run 2
system operations are tabulated and attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-
5. The operating parameters (e.g., flowrate, EBCT, and pressure) recorded during Run 1 were similar to
those recorded during Run 2 except that the system maintained a longer daily operating time and thus a
higher daily use rate during Run 2.
Run 1. From September 27, 2005, through May 3, 2006, the treatment system operated for
approximately 943 hr based on hour meter readings of the well pump. The system operating schedule
varied during this 32-week study period. In the first three weeks, the system ran for 18 days, with daily
operating hours ranging from 4.0 to 22.1 hr/day and averaging 13.8 hr/day. The system was operated for
25
-------
longer periods of time during startup, but the daily operating time was decreased following a decrease in
water demand. During the following four and a half weeks, the system ran for 16 days, with daily
operating times ranging from 1.2 to 6.8 hr/day and averaging 3.6 hr/day. Starting from November 18,
2005 (except for the three-week duration from December 17, 2005, through January 6, 2006, when the
system was shut down to make repairs as described in Section 4.4.4), the system began operating daily
(including weekends), with daily operating times ranging from 1.7 to 9.7 hr/day and averaging 3.8 hr/day.
The total system throughput during this 32-week period was 15,567,000 gal, equivalent to 8,677 BV of
water processed through the entire system. The BV for the system was calculated based on a total of 240
ft3 (or 1,795 gal) of media in the three adsorption vessels. The total flow processed through the system
was based on the sum of the throughputs through each of the three vessels measured with individual
totalizers. Individually, the number of BV processed through each vessel was slightly different (i.e.,
9,033, 8,390, and 8,609 BV for Vessels A, B, and C, respectively) due to uneven flow distributed through
each vessel. The total system throughput thus obtained was 1.2% lower than that from the master
totalizer at the wellhead.
Table 4-5. Summary of Siemens Adsorptive System Operations
Test Run (Test Duration)
Adsorption Vessel
Adsorptive Media
Total Operating Time (hr)
Throughput Based on Individual Totalizers (kgal)
Throughput (BV)(a)
Range of Flowrate (gpm)
Average Flowrate (gpm)
Range of EBCT (min)(a)
Average EBCT (min)(a)
Average Inlet Pressure (psi)
Average Outlet Pressure (psi)
Average Pressure Loss across Vessel (psi)
Range of Daily Operating Time (hr/day)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr/day)
Throughput Based on Master Flow Totalizer (gal)
Throughput Based on Individual Totalizers (gal)
Throughput (B V)(c)
Range of Combined Flowrate (gpm)
Average Combined Flowrate (gpm)
Range of Daily Use Rate (gpd)
Average Daily Use Rate (gpd)
Inlet Pressure (psi)
Outlet Pressure (psi)
Average Pressure Loss across System (psi)
Run 1 (9/27/05-05/03/06)
A
GFH
943
5,402
9,033
93-107
95
5.6-6.4
6.2
103.6
102.5
1.1
B
GFH
943
5,017
8,390
87-95
89
6.3-6.9
6.7
103.2
102.1
1.4
C
GFH
943
5,148
8,609
89-97
91
6.2-6.7
6.5
102.6
102.0
1.1
1-20
3.8(b)
15,753,000
15,567,000
8,677
205-333
275
46,740-75,924(b)
62,700(b)
102.8
100.8
2
Run 2 (04/05/07-07/03/07)
A
GFH
1166
6,401
10,703
66-148(d)
92
4-9.1
6.5
103.8
102.4
1.4
B
CFH
1166
6,265
10,476
64-104
92
5.8-9.3
6.5
103.1
102.6
0.5
C
CFH
1166
6,246
10,444
48-104
92
5.8-12.5
6.5
102.7
102.7
0
6-17
13
18,848,000
18,910,000
10,541
260-287
276
91,556-278,098
215,280
103.8
101.1
2.7
(a) Calculated based on throughput from individual totalizers and 80 ft3 of media in each vessel.
(b) Calculated based on operational data collected during normal system operations starting from November 18, 2005
through May 2, 2006 (except for a three-week duration when system was shut down for repairs).
(c) Calculated based on combined throughput from individual totalizers and 240 ft3 (or 1,795 gal) of media in three
vessels.
(d) Operator adjusted valves to maintain balanced flow during second run to account for different flow through
vessels. One day imbalanced flow of 148 gpm observed; typically evenly balanced flow achieved, as indicated by
average flowrate.
26
-------
The average flowrates measured by individual flowmeters installed on Vessels A, B, and C were 95, 89,
and 91 gpm, respectively. These values were comparable to calculated average flowrates of 96, 88, and
90 gpm from readings generated by the individual totalizers and well-pump hour meter. Thus, the
flowmeters/totalizers installed on the adsorption vessels appeared to be calibrated accurately. The range
of flowrates through the entire system was 205 to 333 gpm, with an average of 275 gpm (compared to the
design flowrate of 350 gpm). These resulted in EBCTs ranging from 5.6 to 6.7 min with an average of
6.5 min (compared to the design EBCT of 5.1 min). Based on the average flowrate and average daily
operating time, the average volume of water treated each day under normal system operations was
62,700 gpd (Table 4-5).
The average pressure loss across each tank ranged from 1.1 to 1.4 psi. The average influent pressure
reading at the head of the system was 102.8 psi, and the average pressure reading at the combined effluent
was 100.8 psi. Thus, the pressure loss across the system averaged 2.0 psi.
Run 2. From April 5, 2007, through July 3, 2007, the treatment system operated for approximately 1,166
hr based on hour meter readings of the well pump. The system operating schedule varied during this 14-
week study period, increasing in daily operating times from 6 to 13 hr during the first half of the run and
from 14 to 17 hr during the second half, with an overall average of 13 hr/day. The total system
throughput was 18,848,000 gal, equivalent to 10,541 BV of water processed through the entire system.
Again, the total flow processed through the system was based on the sum of the throughputs through each
of the three vessels measured with individual totalizers. The operator made a special effort to adjust
relevant valves to create a balanced flow through the three vessels. Without adjustment, the flow between
the vessels would have been notably unbalanced between the GFH media (Vessel A) and the CFH-0818
media (Vessels B and C). The number of BV processed through each vessel was very similar, i.e.,
10,703, 10,476, and 10,444 BV for Vessels A, B, and C, respectively.
The average flowrates measured by individual flowmeters installed on Vessels A, B, and C were 92 gpm
each. These values were comparable to calculated average flowrates (i.e., 89, 90, and 90 gpm,
respectively) from readings generated by the individual totalizers and well-pump hour meter. The range
of flowrates through the entire system was 260 to 287 gpm, with an average of 276 gpm. This resulted in
an overall average EBCT of 6.5 min. Based on the average flowrate and average daily operating time, the
average volume of water treated each day under normal system operations was 215,280 gpd.
The average pressure loss across Tank A, which contained the GFH, was 1.4 psi. The average pressure
loss across Tank B and Tank C was slightly lower at 0 and 0.5 psi. The average influent pressure reading
at the head of the system was 103.8 psi, and the average pressure reading at the combined effluent was
101.1 psi. Thus, the total pressure loss across the system averaged 2.7 psi.
4.4.2 Backwash. Siemens recommended that the media beds be backwashed, either manually or
automatically, approximately once every 2 to 6 weeks. Automatic backwash could be initiated either by a
timer setting or by a differential pressure (Ap) setting across the vessels. The timer set point was set at the
maximum time allowable, which was 630 hr. Due to the steady pressure in the vessels, the system did not
require backwashing. However, the system was backwashed to test the automatic backwash system about
one month after the system startup with only 219 hr of operating time. Also, although the differential
pressure remained low, the system was backwashed once in September 2006 during the interim period
between the end of performance monitoring for Run 1 and start of performance monitoring for Run 2 and
once during Run 2 in an attempt to improve media run length. As discussed in Section 4.5.1,
backwashing the media had little or no affect on media run length.
27
-------
4.4.3 RSSCT. In an attempt to find an adsorptive media that possessed more adsorptive capacities
for arsenic and antimony, a series of RSSCT tests was performed in the laboratory and field using Well
No. 9 water under two separate projects (Westerhoff et al, 2007). The media tested included four iron-
based media (i.e., GFH, E33, ARM 200, and CFH-12 [similar to CFH-0818 except for a larger granular
size]), two titanium-based media (i.e., Metsorband Adsorbsia GTO), and one hybrid iron oxide/ion
exchange resin-based media (i.e., ArsenXnp). The number of bed volumes until arsenic breakthrough at
10 (ig/L for both laboratory and field tests are summarized in Table 4-6. The results of these studies
indicated that all seven media tested had rather short run lengths for arsenic, thereby, confirming the full-
scale GFH data. In fact, GFH had the longest run length in both tests, followed by Kemira CFH-12.
Because CFH-0818 media was less expensive than GFH, it was selected along with GFH for the second
test run.
Table 4-6. Number of Bed Volumes until Arsenic Breakthrough at 10 ug/L
Media
GFH(a)
E33
ARM200
CFH-12
CFH-12(b)
Metsorb
Adsorbsia GTO
ArsenXnp
Media
Type
Iron-based
Iron-based
Iron-based
Iron-based
Iron-based
Titanium-based
Titanium-based
Iron/IX resin-based
Manufacturer
GEH Wasserchemie
Bayer AG
BASF
Kemira
Kemira
HydroGlobe
Dow Chemcial
Purolite
Laboratory
RSCCT
11,000
NA
7,900
NA
NA
NA
4,500
7,900
Field
RSCCT
16,200
8,700
NA
12,400
9,400
5,200
NA
NA
(a) Selected to simulate full-scale run length.
(b) Air became entrained in column and a second test was conducted using a new column.
4.4.4 Media Loading and Removal. Upon selecting the CFH-0818 media, the process of
procuring the media and installation services began. One difficulty encountered was finding installation
services within the project budget. The cost for spent media removal and disposal and virgin media
reloading as included in the original media replacement quote provided by the vendor in October 2003
was $7,500. However, the cost of services provided by Siemens had risen significantly to $38,500, which
included 75 man-days for manual media loading. Repeated negotiations with Siemens and its local
subcontractor failed to bring the cost down. After contacting several other vendors, installation services
were procured at a more obtainable price of $12,950 in December 22, 2006. The spent media
replacement began on March 26, 2007 (a long lead time was required because of contractor's busy
schedule) and completed in approximately four days. Before the removal of spent media, the heights of
the freeboard were measured from the flange at the top of the vessel to the top of the media bed. No
difference was noted between the initial (before commencement of Run 1) and final measurements (after
completion of Run 1), indicating no media loss. The spent media then was sampled and removed from
each vessel as described in Section 4.5.3.
Media installation is typically accomplished by either bulk placement or slurry transfer. In the bulk
placement method, bulk media containers (i.e., Supersacs) are positioned above atop-mounted access
hatch to a vessel and a bottom bag opening allows the media to flow through a chute into the vessel. This
method may be performed if the vessel is located outdoors or if there is a hatch in the roof to allow access
to the top of the vessel. Because the treatment building at STMGID lacked a roof hatch, Siemens
proposed the slurry transfer method, which uses a portable eductor system to slurry the media into the
vessel (Figure 4-11). However, just before media installation, a Kemira representative who was onsite
28
-------
expressed concern that the high operating pressure (between 50 to 100 psi) could damage the media and
requested that the media be loaded by hand in small increments. With the assistance of the Kemira
representative and WCDWR staff, media loading was completed in two days. A portion of the CFH-0818
was missing from the initial delivery; consequently, the Kemira representative returned on April 5, 2007
to complete the installation. Following installation, the system was backwashed and disinfected. Upon
notification that treated water samples passed the bacteria test, the system was put into operation.
Educator/Vacuum Truck
Figure 4-11. Photographs of Media Replacement
4.4.5 Residuals Management. The only residuals produced by the operation of the GFH
treatment system were backwash wastewater and spent media. The backwash wastewater was discharged
to the sewer directly. The spent media was disposed of as nonhazardous waste in the local landfill.
4.4.6 System Operation, Reliability and Simplicity. In general, operation of the GFH system did
not require additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the existing water system. However,
several problems related to the PLC and system components arose during the first 32-week study period.
Additional discussions regarding system operation and operator skill requirement follow.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The majority of arsenic at this site existed as As(V), therefore,
a preoxidation step was not required. However, prechlorination was provided to prevent biological
growth in the treatment system and maintain chlorine residuals in the distribution system.
29
-------
System Controls. The treatment system was fitted with automated controls to allow for automatic
backwash. During system startup, the system was tested, but failed to perform automatic backwash
because the PLC did not interface with the SCADA system properly. When the system initiated a
backwash cycle, the backwash valves would completely close for 5 to 10 sec as the system attempted to
backwash the next vessel in line. The closed valves caused the system pressure to spike, which, in turn,
caused the well pump to shut off, resulting in an aborted backwash. The SCADA design included a high
pressure well shutoff when a pressure of 125 psi was maintained for more than 5 sec. The PLC program
was revised to eliminate the time delay between valves closing and opening in order to prevent the spike
in the system pressure. The vendor instructed the facility operator to exercise the valves on a routine
basis to prevent sticking. A subsequent site visit also was required to ensure the backwash totalizer
reading would be displayed on the PLC screen during backwash.
Another problem encountered was that the pneumatic butterfly valves associated with the backwash
discharge line were not resting properly, causing the vessels to bleed off pressure as they sat idle. The
existing chlorine gas system had a check valve that was held closed by the pressure in the inlet piping to
the vessels. When the pressure was lost, the check valve opened, allowing water to enter the chlorine gas
lines. The system was turned off for three weeks during December 17, 2005, through January 6, 2006,
while Siemens serviced the butterfly valves and replaced the chlorine gas lines.
Operator Skill Requirements. The State of Nevada has an operator certification program that applies to
all persons who operate community or non-transient, non-community public water systems and to persons
who operate transient non-community systems that utilize surface water as a source. Grade levels of
operator certification start at Grade 1 and progress to Grade 4. The grade level required is determined by
the complexity of the system, such as the population served, type of source water, disinfection method,
treatment for contaminants, and other factors.
Prior to system installation, the preexisting plant required a Grade 2 distribution system operator (i.e., D-
2). The Siemens treatment system was operated by a Grade 3 operator in both treatment and distribution
systems (i.e., D-3 and T-3). A Grade 3 operator requires several post secondary courses of instruction,
such as successful completion of 36 hr college level courses related to drinking water.
Under normal operating conditions, no additional skills were required beyond those necessary to operate
the existing water supply equipment. However, as described above, some initial adjustments to the PLC
made by the Siemens technician were required to achieve the desired interface with the SCADA and
correct readings on the display screen.
Preventative Maintenance Activities. The only regularly scheduled preventative maintenance activity
recommended by the vendor was to exercise the backwash valves occasionally so that they might function
properly in case backwash was needed. The treatment system operator visited the site about five times
per week and stayed for about 30 min each time 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 treatment and
distribution systems.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant. Tables 4-7 and 4-8 summarize the results of arsenic, antimony, and three
competing anions for samples collected across the treatment train during Run 1 and Run 2. Appendix B
contains a complete set of analytical results through the 32- week Run 1 and the 14-week Run 2
performance monitoring. The results of the treatment plant sampling are discussed as follows.
30
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Run 1 Analytical Results for Arsenic, Antimony, and Competing Anions
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Silica (as SiO2)
Total P (as P)
Orthopho sphate
(asP)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
Unit
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HB/L
HB/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Number of
Samples
25
25
25
25
10
6
3
3
3
6
6
3
3
3
6
6
3
3
3
6
6
3
3
3
6
25
23
23
23
10
5
3
3
3
6
25
23
23
23
6
23
21
21
21
7
7
7
7
7
4
Concentration
Minimum
35.0
0.2
0.1
<0.1
0.2
29.5
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
29.1
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
10.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.5
11.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
51.5
5.0
4.9
4.4
9.1
89.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<0.05
0.05
O.05
<0.05
0.05
Maximum
88.0
25.1
20.0
19.8
21.6
79.7
1.4
0.7
0.8
8.4
5.5
1.1
0.9
1.1
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
79.4
1.1
0.5
0.6
8.3
21.0
14.5
14.6
14.5
14.0
15.4
9.9
9.4
9.3
13.9
95.1
75.2
76.0
75.6
72.4
150.4
90.8
87.3
85.5
203.9
0.13
0.05
O.05
O.05
0.05
Average(a)
67.2
-
-
-
-
60.0
-
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
59.7
-
-
-
-
14.6
-
-
-
-
13.6
-
-
-
-
72.6
-
-
-
-
115.2
-
-
-
-
0.08
-
-
-
-
Standard
Deviation(a)
13.0
-
-
-
-
17.4
-
-
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
17.4
-
-
-
-
2.1
-
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
6.7
-
-
-
-
15.6
-
-
-
-
0.03
-
-
-
-
(a) Average and standard deviation only provided for inlet samples; not meaningful for effluent data with
breakthrough curves. One-half of detection limit used for less than detection calculations. Duplicate samples
included in calculations.
31
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Run 2 Analytical Results for Arsenic, Antimony and Competing Anions
Parameter
As (total)
Sb (total)
Silica (as SiO2)
Total P (as P)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
Unit
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Number of
Samples
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
3
3
0
2
2
2
2
0
3
3
3
3
0
Concentration
Minimum
59.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
-
10.0
5.3
4.3
4.4
-
73.7
61.3
49.0
48.8
-
105.9
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
-
Maximum
109.6
55.4
46.2
44.9
-
15.7
14.7
14.5
14.5
-
75.5
75.5
74.0
74.0
-
118.6
91.6
57.6
57.3
-
Average'3'
90.1
-
-
-
-
13.7
-
-
-
-
74.6
-
-
-
-
111.8
-
-
-
-
Standard
Deviation'3'
26.9
-
-
-
-
3.2
-
-
-
-
1.3
-
-
-
-
6.4
-
-
-
-
(a) Average and standard deviation only provided for inlet samples; not meaningful for effluent data with
breakthrough curves. One-half of detection limit used for less than detection calculations. Duplicate samples
included in calculations.
Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the adsorption system was the
concentration of arsenic in the treated water. The treatment plant water was sampled on 25 occasions
during the first 32 weeks of system operation (including one event with duplicate samples taken), with
field speciation performed on six occasions. The treatment plant water was sampled on three occasions
during the 14-week Run 2 test; no speciation sample was taken during this run.
Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 35.0 to 88.0 (ig/L and averaged 67.2 (ig/L during
the Run 1 (Table 4-7) and ranged from 59.4 to 110 (ig/L and averaged 90.1 (ig/L during Run 2 (Table 4-
8). Arsenic existed primarily as soluble As(V), with trace amounts present as soluble As(III) (i.e.,
0.3 (ig/L on average) and particulate (1.2 (ig/L on average). Arsenic speciation results for samples taken
on three occasions at TA, TB, and TC and six occasions at TT during Run 1 are presented in bar charts
shown in Figure 4-12. Except for three occasions, As(V) was the predominating species in the treated
water. As(III) in raw water remained essentially unchanged, with 0.3 (ig/L (on average) entering the
system and 0.2 to 0.3 (ig/L coming out of the system. It was possible that the 0.2 to 0.3 (ig/L of As(III)
observed was an artifact of the arsenic speciation method because the chlorine applied to raw water
should have completely oxidized As(III) to As(V).
Figure 4-13 shows the influent and effluent total arsenic concentrations plotted against the number of bed
volumes processed through each vessel and the entire system at the time of sampling for both runs. (Note
that one BV equals to the combined volume of three parallel adsorptive media beds at 240 ft3 or
1,795 gal.) The influent arsenic concentrations measured during this period showed a steadily increasing
trend, rising from 35.0 (ig/L at the system startup to 88.0 (ig/L by the end of this Run 1. During Run 2,
influent arsenic concentrations increased even higher, up to 110 (ig/L, exceeding the historic high
concentration of 93 (ig/L. It is not clear why the arsenic concentrations continued to rise as observed.
32
-------
Arsenic Speciation at Inlet (IN)
i nn n
90 0 -
80 0 -
J> 60.0 -
^ 50.0 -
3 40.0 -
H 30.0 -
20.0 -
10.0 -
D As (participate)
As(V)
DAs(ni)
n
09/27/05 11/03/05
-
12/07/05 01/10/06 01/31/06 04/12/06
Date
4.0 -
5? 3.0 -
Arsenic Specialtion after Tank A (TA)
a
09/27/05 11/03/05 12/07/05 Not Sampled
Date
Arsenic Speciation after Tank B (TB)
4.0 -
J?
3> 3 o -
-3- '
3 2.0 H
o
H
1.0 -
D As (p articulate)
As(V)
As (IE)
Not Sampled
Arsenic Speciation after Tank C (TC)
DAs (particulate)
As(V)
As (IE)
Not Sampled
Arsenic Speciation after All Tanks (TT)
09/27/05 11/03/05 12/07/05 01/10/06 01/31/06 04/12/06
Date
Figure 4-12. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species in Influent and Effluent during Run 1
33
-------
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0 8.0
Bed Volumes (X 1000)
10.0
12.0
120
110 -
IN
TA (GFH)
TB(CFH-0818)
TC(CFH-0818)
TT (Facility)
2.0
4.0 6.0 8.0
Bed Volumes (X 1000)
Figure 4-13. Arsenic Breakthrough Curves
(Run 1, top; Run 2, bottom)
10.0
12.0
34
-------
Figure 4-13 also plots the total arsenic concentration measured after each vessel at TA, TB, and TC and
after the entire system at TT. WCDWR took TT samples for arsenic analysis by Sierra Environmental
Monitoring Laboratory (Reno, NV) and the results also are plotted in the graphs. In general, WCDWR's
data matched closely with Battelle's data, except for two high data points observed just before and after
the 2,000-BV mark. As shown in the top graph, all three adsorption vessels removed arsenic to <0.5 (ig/L
initially and below 10 (ig/L until approximately 7,200 BV of water had been treated. The system
continued to operate until about 8,700 BV of water because, to meet the MCLs, the treated water could be
blended downstream with low-arsenic and low-antimony water from other source wells supplying the
distribution system. The system was shut down in May 2006 when the effluent arsenic concentrations
had exceeded 20 (ig/L. During the interim between the shutdown of Run 1 in May 2006 and the startup
of Run 2 in April 2007, the system was operated for a brief period from September 12, 2006, through
October 13, 2006 to meet water demand. Before restarting the system, the operator performed backwash
for the three adsorption vessels. After the extended shutdown, the influent concentrations were much
lower upon startup. As a result, the treated effluent concentrations also decreased. The influent and
effluent concentrations soon approached levels observed in May 2006 and the operator shut down the
system.
Run 2 results confirmed the short run length observed during Run 1, with breakthrough at 10 (ig/L
occurring even earlier at approximately 3,700 BV based of the facility TT data (Figure 4-13). Higher
influent arsenic concentrations observed in Run 2 most likely had caused even earlier arsenic
breakthrough from the GFH media in Vessel A. Similar arsenic breakthrough patterns also were observed
for the CFH-0818 media in Vessels B and C. These results were significantly less than the vendor
estimated capacity of 38,000 BV for GFH and the RSSCT estimated capacity of 9,400 to 12,400 BV for
CFH-0818.
The short run length observed for both media was believed to be the result of competitive adsorption by
competing anions, such as silica and phosphorous. The effects of these anions are further discussed in the
following sections.
The 7,200 to 3,700 BV run lengths experienced in Runs 1 and 2 were significantly shorter than the
RSSCT projected run lengths of 9,000 to 16,200 BV (see Table 4-6). Considerably higher arsenic
concentrations in source water (i.e., 67.2 (ig/L [on average] in Run 1 and 90.1 (ig/L [on average] in Run 2
vs. 48.9 (ig/L [on average] in RSSCT) might have contributed to the shorter run lengths observed.
Nonetheless, the RSSCT results were useful in terms of helping predict the performance of a full-scale
system.
Antimony. Total antimony concentrations in raw water measured during Run 1 ranged from 10.2 to 21.0
Hg/L and averaged 14.6 |o,g/L (Table 4-7), existing almost entirely in the soluble form. Influent antimony
concentrations measured during Run 2 ranged from 10.0 to 15.7 (ig/L and averaged 13.7 (ig/L (Table 4-
8). Figure 4-14 shows antimony breakthrough curves from Vessels A, B, and C and the entire system.
The test results obtained by WCDWR on treated water samples also are included in the graphs.
Breakthrough at 6 |o,g/L occurred at approximately 2,000 (facility data) to 3,000 BV (Battelle data) during
Run 1 and 1,225 BV during Run 2, indicating that both media had a limited adsorptive capacity for
antimony.
One pilot study conducted by Siemens in Salt Lake County Service Area No. 3, Utah showed that GFH
could remove antimony up to 50,000 BV. More information on this study can be found at
http://www.canvonwater.com/antimony.htm.
35
-------
System operated
briefly in
September 2006
prior to media
replacement
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0 8.0
Bed Volumes (X 1000)
10.0
12.0
25
20 -
-IN
-TA(GFH)
-TB(CFH-0818)
-TC(CFH-0818)
-TT (Facility)
15 H
-
o
E
5 -
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0 8.0
Bed Volumes (X 1000)
Figure 4-14. Antimony Breakthrough Curves
(Run 1, top; Run 2, bottom)
10.0
12.0
36
-------
Silica. Silica concentrations in raw water ranged from 51.5 to 95.1 mg/L (as SiO2) and averaged 72.6
mg/L (as SiO2) during Run 1 (Table 4-7) and ranged from 73.7 to 75.5 mg/L (as SiO2) during Run 2
(Table 4-8). Silica was removed until reaching complete breakthrough about halfway through the 32-
week study period in Run 1 (Figure 4-15). In Run 2, only two data points were obtained and silica
already had reached complete breakthrough when the second set of samples was taken. Silica adsorption
on porous metal-oxide adsorptive media can be a major factor that impacts arsenic and, perhaps,
antimony, removal by these media (Smith et al., 2005). Several batch and column studies document that
silica reduces arsenic adsorptive capacities on ferric oxides/hydroxides and activated alumina (Meng et
al., 2002; Meng et al., 2000). Mechanisms proposed to describe the role of silica in iron-silica and iron-
arsenic-silica systems include: 1) adsorption of silica may change the surface properties of adsorbents by
lowering the iso-electric point (or pH^), 2) silica may compete for arsenic adsorption sites, 3)
polymerization of silica may accelerate silica sorption but lower the available surface sites for arsenic
adsorption, and 4) chemical reactions of silica with divalent cations such as calcium, magnesium, and
barium may form precipitates. Therefore, the high level of silica in Well No. 9 might have reduced
arsenic and antimony removal capacities of both media.
Phosphorous. Total phosphorous concentrations in raw water ranged from 89.0 to 150.4 (ig/L (as P) and
averaged 115.2 (ig/L during Run 1 (Table 4-7) and ranged from 105.9 to 118.6 (ig/L (as P) and averaged
111.8 (ig/L (as P) during Run 2 (Table 4-8). Orthophosphate was measured on seven occasions during
the first three months of Run 1 system operation, with concentrations peaking at 0.13 mg/L (as P) and
averaging 0.08 mg/L. Total phosphorous was removed to below the method reporting limit of 10 (ig/L
(as P) until about 3,500 BV and then gradually broke through from the adsorption vessels (see
breakthrough curve for Run 1 in Figure 4-16). Phosphorous did not reach 100% breakthrough by the end
of either run. Phosphorous removal by iron-based adsorptive media has been observed at several EPA
arsenic removal demonstration sites (McCall et al, 2006; 2008). Similar to silica, phosphorous apparently
competed with arsenic and, perhaps antimony for available adsorption sites, thus significantly reducing
the useful media life for arsenic and antimony.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Tables 4-9 and 4-10 provide a summary for the water quality
parameters observed during normal system operation for Run 1 and Run 2, respectively. During the first
day of Run 1 operation, the water quality measured was not typical of those measured thereafter. For
example, an elevated iron concentration (i.e., 232 (ig/L) was measured in the influent during startup on
September 27, 2005, compared to <25 (ig/L for all samples collected thereafter. Also, significant
decreases in pH (from 7.1 to <4.5), alkalinity (from 92 to <1.0 mg/L [as CaCO3]), and chlorine residuals
(from 0.8 to 0.2 mg/L [as C12]) were observed in the effluent of adsorption vessels shortly after the system
was placed online, indicating removal of bicarbonate ions and consumption of chlorine by the GFH
media. Within a week, the pH, alkalinity, and chlorine residual levels after the adsorption vessels
returned to normal. Further, elevated total and dissolved manganese concentrations were measured in the
effluent of the adsorption vessels on September 27, 2005, i.e., ranging from 12.4 to 16.8 (ig/L as
compared to an average of 0.1 mg/L for all samples collected thereafter), indicating leaching of some
manganese from the GFH media during the initial operation.
As shown in Tables 4-9 and 4-10, pH values of raw water varied from 6.5 to 7.9, which fell within the
desirable pH range for adsorptive media without any pH adjustment. pH values of the treated water
ranged from 6.4 to 7.6. Therefore, the water pH did not change significantly after the treatment, except
for shortly after the system was placed online. All other constituents in raw water did not appear to have
been altered by the treatment system.
37
-------
100
O>
E,
o
15
'c
o
c
o
o
ro
o
= 30 -
CO
50 -
40 -
20 -
10 -
0.0
System operated
briefly in
September 2006
prior to media
replacement
End of
Run 1
(May 2006);
2.0
4.0 6.0 8.0
Bed Volumes (X 1000)
10.0
12.0
is
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
o 40
8
= 30
CO
20 -
10 -
0
-IN
-TA(GFH)
-TB(CFH-0818)
-TC(CFH-0818)
0.0
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Bed Volumes (X 1000)
Figure 4-15. Silica Breakthrough Curves
(Run 1, top; Run 2, bottom)
10.0
12.0
38
-------
160
140
--. 120 -
o
O
$
o
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0
-IN
-TA
-TB
-TC
-TT
0.0
End of
Run 1
(May 2006)
System operated
briefly in
September 2006
prior to media
replacement
2.0
4.0 6.0 8.0
Bed Volumes (X 1000)
10.0
12.0
160
140 -
--j. 120 -
| loo-
's
+J
80 -
8
o
o
f
60 -
40
20 -
-IN
-TA(GFH)
-TB(CFH-0818)
-TC(CFH-0818)
0.0
2.0
4.0 6.0 8.0
Bed Volumes (X 1000)
10.0
12.0
Figure 4-16. Phosphorous Breakthrough Curves
(Run 1, top; Run 2, bottom)
39
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Run 1 Other Water Quality Parameter Measurements
Parameter
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Fluoride
Nitrate
(asN)
Sulfate
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Turbidity
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
Unit
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
^g/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
Number of
Samples
24
22
22
22
9
5
2
2
2
5
24
22
22
22
9
5
2
2
2
5
5
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
24
22
22
22
5
24
22
22
22
5
Concentration
Minimum
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
6.7
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
88.0
83.0
79.0
80.0
83.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
Maximum
<25
<25
<25
<25
873
<25
<25
<25
<25
72.4
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.7
40.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
1.9
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
7.4
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
101
101
101
97.0
185
2.0
0.8
0.8
1.2
9.5
Average
<25
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
7.0
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.4
93.4
92.2
92.3
92.1
108
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.2
Standard
Deviation
0
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
0.05
0
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
0
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
3.9
3.7
4.8
3.9
43.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
4.1
40
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Run 1 Other Water Quality Parameter Measurements (Continued)
Parameter
pH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
ORP
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
Unit
S.U.
s.u.
S.U.
s.u.
s.u.
ฐc
ฐc
ฐc
ฐc
ฐc
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
Number of
Samples
26
26
26
26
24
26
26
26
26
25
26
26
26
26
25
26
26
26
26
25
Concentration
Minimum
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
14.6
14.6
14.6
10.6
14.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
115
215
236
242
264
Maximum
7.9
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
17.7
17.7
17.7
17.6
17.0
6.2
4.7
4.6
4.6
6.0
381
739
744
753
754
Average
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
16.5
16.4
16.2
15.9
16.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
255
657
672
682
699
Standard
Deviation
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.3
0.6
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
52.8
129
129
130
97.8
Notes: Samples collected on first day of operation, i.e., September 27,2006, not included because they were
not representative of normal operation. See Appendix B for September 27, 2006 results. One-half of
detection limit used for less than detection calculations. Duplicate samples included in calculations.
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling. Backwash wastewater samples were collected on
September 12, 2006, and the analytical results are summarized in Table 4-11.
The average pH value of backwash wastewater was 7.0, similar to the pH values of the treated water used
for backwash. Soluble arsenic concentrations of the backwash wastewater averaged 15.7 |o,g/L, similar to
those of the treated water. Soluble iron and soluble manganese concentrations of the backwash
wastewater averaged 26.5 and 1.6 |o,g/L, respectively, also similar to those of the treated water. Soluble
iron concentrations were considerably lower than the corresponding total iron concentrations, which
averaged 1,984 |o,g/L. The presence of particulate iron most likely was associated with media fines,
because little or no iron was measured in raw water. Assuming that 45 mg/L of TSS was produced in
8,850 gal of backwash wastewater from the vessels (based on totalizer readings), approximately 3.3 Ib of
solids would be discharged during each backwash event. Based on the total metal (or, more correctly,
digested metal) data, the solids discharged would be composed of O.001, 0.145, and 0.002 Ib of arsenic,
iron, and manganese, respectively, assuming 2.4 (ig/L of particulate arsenic, 1,962 (ig/L of particulate
iron, and 34.2 (ig/L of particulate manganese in the backwash wastewater.
Table 4-12 presents total metal results of three backwash solid samples (one each from Vessels A, B, and
C backwash) collected on September 13, 2006 and analyzed in triplicate. Iron levels in the solids ranged
from 168 to 190 mg/g (of dry media) and averaged 178 mg/g (or 18%). Arsenic levels ranged from 0.85
to 0.95 mg/g and averaged 0.90 mg/g (or 0.09%).
41
-------
Table 4-10. Summary of Run 2 Other Water Quality Parameter Measurements
Parameter
Fe (total)
Mn (total)
pH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
ORP
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
Unit
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
^g/L
W?/L
HB/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
ฐc
ฐc
ฐc
ฐc
ฐc
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
Number
of
Samples
3
3
o
J
3
0
3
o
J
3
3
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Concentration
Minimum
<25
<25
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
-
7.1
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.4
17.2
17.3
17.4
17.4
16.7
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.5
121
388
536
477
603
Maximum
<25
<25
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
-
7.6
7.0
7.4
8.0
7.6
18.3
18.5
18.4
18.6
18.4
7.6
7.4
6.1
6.4
5.9
256
676
717
720
742
Average
<25
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
7.3
-
-
-
-
17.9
-
-
-
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
179
-
-
-
-
Standard
Deviation
0
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
-
57
-
-
-
-
One-half of detection limit used for less than detection calculations.
Table 4-11. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results
Vessel
A
B
C
Date
9/12/2006
9/12/2006
9/12/2006
Average
M
a.
S.U.
7.02
6.98
6.97
7.00
in
Q
H
mg/L
208
154
160
174
-------
Table 4-12. Backwash Solid Total Metal Results
Sample ID
BWl-Solids-A
BWl-Solids-B
BWl-Solids-C
Vessel A Average
BW2-Solids-A
BW2-Solids-B
BW2-Solids-C
Vessel B Average
BW3-Solids-A
BW3-Solids-B
BW3-Solids-C
Vessel C Average
Unit
Hg/g
Hg/g
ng/g
v-g/g
v-g/g
v-g/g
v-g/g
v-g/g
v-g/g
v-g/g
v-g/g
ng/g
Mg
5,150
5,291
5,159
5,200
3,993
3,687
3,643
3,774
4,044
3,556
3,889
3,830
Al
29,342
31,087
29,240
29,890
25,329
20,255
21,371
22,318
26,471
17,521
23,512
22,501
Si
,393
,743
,602
,579
,495
,167
,289
,317
,598
,475
,573
,549
P
1,116
1,117
1,097
1,110
1,096
1,078
1,087
1,087
1,059
1,049
1,022
1,043
Ca
18,611
19,067
19,087
18,922
15,243
14,493
15,831
15,189
16,213
14,436
16,102
15,584
V
509
532
525
522
589
589
591
590
564
558
554
559
Fe
172,665
180,765
178,371
177,267
189,544
188,229
186,038
187,937
168,172
167,817
168,416
168,135
Mn
806
845
831
827
761
765
755
760
610
606
613
610
Ni
46.4
46.8
46.7
46.6
39.3
39.5
39.6
39.5
34.7
33.7
34.9
34.4
Cu
1,655
1,675
1,740
1,690
778
784
770
778
1,506
1,522
1,473
1,500
Zn
400
435
455
430
252
232
285
257
356
371
335
354
As
854
875
883
871
936
945
926
936
885
894
872
884
Cd
1.17
1.26
1.35
1.26
0.48
0.45
0.5
0.46
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Sb
3.41
3.98
3.08
3.49
4.61
2.3
2.5
3.14
3.1
1.67
2
2.26
Ba
373
382
376
377
347
338
348
344
331
327
324
327
Pb
56.8
57.9
58.0
57.6
23.7
23.6
23.9
23.8
71.9
73.1
70.7
71.9
Fe/As
ratio
202
207
202
204
203
199
201
201
190
188
193
190
-------
4.5.3 Spent Media Sampling. On March 27, 2007, spent GFH media samples were collected for
total digestive metals and TCLP analyses as part of the demonstration study (Section 3.3.3). The results
of TCLP analysis (Table 4-13) characterized the spent media as a non-hazardous material that could be
disposed of in a sanitary landfill. Among the eight Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
metals analyzed, only barium was detected at 3.1 mg/L. The other RCRA metals were at concentrations
less than the respective method detection limits. Spent GFH samples also were collected by WCDWR on
February 2, 2007 prior to the media replacement for site specific waste characterization required by a
local landfill. WCDWR shared the results of these tests, which, as also shown in Table 4-13, were very
similar to those of the samples taken on March 27, 2007, with only barium detected at 3.4 mg/L.
Table 4-13. TCLP and Other Waste Characterization Results for Spent Media
Parameter
Unit
Method
Concentration
Collected by Battelle
on 03/27/07
Collected by WCDWR
on 02/02/07(a)(b)
TCLP Results
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chrome
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Iron
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
SW1311/6010B
SW1311/6010B
SW1311/6010B
SW1311/6010B
SW1311/6010B
SW7470
SW1311/6010B
SW1311/6010B
SW846/6010A
0.05
3.1
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.003
0.3
0.05
NA
0.1
3.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
NA
0.5
0.1
0.5
Other Waste Characterization Test Results'3'
Paint Filter Test
pH-Saturated Test
TCLP VOCs
Pass/Fail
S.U.
mg/L
SW-846-9095
SW-846-9045A
EPASW1311/8260B
NA
NA
NA
Pass
7.32
All 0.1
(a) Waste characterization test results provided by WCDWR for informational purposes.
(b) WCDWR laboratory followed SW846/6020 method for TCLP analysis for metals.
ICP-MS results of the media analysis are presented in Table 4-14. The virgin GFH media contained
mostly iron at 609 mg/g (as Fe), which is consistent with the vendor reported value of 61% in Table 4-3.
The spent GFH media contained an average of 440 and 324 mg/g of iron for the Run 1 and Run 2 media,
respectively. The lower iron content in the spent media might have contributed to the higher levels of
impurities in the spent media. The virgin CFH-0818 media was not analyzed, but reportedly contained
44% of iron (Table 4-3). The corresponding spent media contained 394 mg/g of iron.
The spent GFH media results indicated that the media removed arsenic and other elements such as P, V,
Cu, Zn, Sb, and Ba as water passed through the tank as evident by the decreasing concentrations from the
top to the bottom of the tank. The average arsenic concentration on the spent GFH media was 2,000 |o,g/g
(0.2%) during Run 1. The spent GFH and CFH-0818 media collected from the top of the tanks at the end
of Run 2 contained 1,655 |o,g/g (0.166%) and 590 |o,g/g (0.059%) of arsenic, respectively.
The arsenic loading on the spent media was also calculated in terms of (ig As/g of dry media by dividing
the arsenic mass represented by the area between the influent and effluent curves on the breakthrough
curves, shown in Figure 4-13, by the amount of dry media in each tank. Table 4-15 presents a summary
of the arsenic loading calculations for each media during Run 1 and Run 2. As shown in this table, the
44
-------
Table 4-14. Total Metals Analysis Results for Spent Media
Location in Tank
Virgin GFH(a)
Mg
MS/g
83.3
Al
MS/g
523
Si
Hg/g
399
P
MS/g
85
Ca
Hg/g
228
V
Hg/g
NA
Fe
uซ/g
609,306
Mn
u-g/g
384
Ni
MS/g
109
Cu
u-g/g
15.9
Zn
l-ig/g
23
As
MS/g
6.6
Cd
Hg/g
0.5
Sb
Hg/g
NA
Ba
Hg/g
NA
Pb
u-g/g
1.8
Run l(b)
Top (GFH)
Middle (GFH)
Bottom (GFH)
Average
519
553
447
506
722
787
462
657
750
953
980
894
1,972
1,912
1,366
1750
3,366
3,295
2,699
3,120
1,656
1,833
687
1,392
440,113
443,477
435,010
439,533
271
291
249
270
60.7
65.7
66.2
64
28.7
40.2
5.4
24.8
243
261
59
188
2,607
2,540
852
2,000
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
27.7
30.0
20.2
26
351
361
299
337
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
Run 2(b)
Top (GFH)
Top (CFH-0818)
425
5402
461
504
2,868
1,511
1,544
1,225
2,571
5,831
NA
NA
324,048
394,014
903
922
36.3
151
14.7
6.19
26
380
1,655
590
0.5
0.5
7.4
3.8
326
532
2.55
2.09
[a) Virgin media characterized in a separate study.
;b) Average compositions calculated from triplicate analyses.
Table 4-15. Summary of Arsenic Loading Calculations for Run 1 and Run 2
Parameter
Media
Volume (ft3)
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Wet Weight (Ib)
Moisture Content (%)
Dry Weight (Ib)
As Removed from Raw Water (g)
Average As Loading (ug/g)
As Concentration in Spent Media (ug/g)
Runl
GFH
240
71.8
17,232
47
9,133
4,556
1,100
2,000
Run 2
GFH
80
71.8
5,744
47
3,044
1,359
984
1,655
Run 2
CFH- 0818
160
74.9
11,984
16
10,067
2,939
644
590
-------
arsenic loadings on the Run 1 GFH media, Run 2 GFH media, and Run 2 CFH-0818 media were 1,100,
984 and 644 |o,g/g, respectively. These calculated arsenic loadings represent the average loadings on the
entire volume of the media. Due to the arsenic concentration gradient from the top to the bottom of the
tanks, these average loadings may or may match the results of the ICP-MS analysis of the respective
media.
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the operation of the GFH system, baseline
distribution water samples were collected from three locations for four consecutive months in 2004.
Following system startup in September 2005, distribution sampling continued on a monthly basis at the
same three locations. The sampling results are presented in Table 4-16. Figure 4-17 plots the total arsenic
and antimony concentrations measured in the distribution system after system startup.
Prior to the installation of the GFH system, total arsenic and antimony concentrations in the distribution
system upstream of the blending point (i.e., at DS1) averaged 87.2 and 16.8 (ig/L, respectively,
representing the high concentrations in Well No. 9 water. Downstream of the blending point (i.e., at DS2
and DS3), total arsenic concentrations averaged 16.7 (ig/L at DS2 and 17.4 (ig/L at DS3, whereas total
antimony concentrations averaged 2.6 (ig/L at DS2 and 2.8 (ig/L at DS3. These values were significantly
lower than those in Well No. 9 water due to blending with low-arsenic and low-antimony water from
other source wells supplying the distribution system. After the GFH system was put into service, both
arsenic and antimony concentrations at all three locations were significantly reduced to below the
respective MCLs (except for one exceedance), as shown in Figure 4-17. These concentration reductions
resulted primarily from treatment by GFH system and blending with other source waters. Due to lack of
records of actual blending ratios and water quality of other source wells, the exact cause of the reductions
observed may not be identified.
Lead levels in the first draw samples from two residences (DS2 and DS3) were low (< 0.1 to 1.5 (ig/L)
and did not appear to be affected by the treatment system. Copper levels fluctuated, ranging from 17.1 to
148 (ig/L before the treatment system was installed and from 0.6 to 176 (ig/L afterwards, which were well
below the copper action level of 1,300 (ig/L. Iron and manganese concentrations in the distribution
system were below the respective detection limits most of the time. The pH and alkalinity values
remained fairly constant in 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 gallons of water treated. This required tracking of the capital cost for the
equipment, site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for the media replacement and disposal,
electricity consumption, and labor. The cost incurred for treatment building construction ($186,000
funded by STMGID) and well reconfiguration (provided by EPA with partial funding of $34,840) were
not included in this cost evaluation.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation was
$232,147 (see Table 4-17) as provided by Siemens in a cost proposal to Battelle dated October 1, 2003.
The equipment cost was $157,647 (or 68% of the total capital investment), which included the cost for
three skid-mounted carbon steel pressure vessels ($45,500), 240 ft3 of GFH media ($238/ft3 or $3.03/lb
for a total cost of $57,000), process piping and valving ($11,000), instrumentation and controls ($9,500),
and field services, labor, and travel ($27,000). The equipment cost also included a change order of
$7,647 for adding three flow meters and three differential pressure gauge assemblies. The items on the
change order were not standard items and were added for monitoring purposes.
46
-------
Table 4-16. Distribution System Sampling Results
No. of
Sampling
Events
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Location
Sample Type
Flushed /1st Draw
Sampling Date
06/09/04
07/08/04
08/11/04
09/08/04
10/25/05
11/30/05
12/14/05
01/18/06
02/15/06
03/15/06
04/12/06
DS1
Non-Residence
1 st Draw
Stagnation Time (hrs)
164
740
211
672
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
I
O.
6.8
6.9
7.4
7.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>ป
.ti
_c
I
<
116
93
94
97
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
65.3
87.9
93.5
108
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ฃ
<25
212
<25
555
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
G
0.6
0.7
0.8
2.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
_Q
D-
8.9
32.6
3.4
46.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
O
13.1
7.6
8.2
13.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
_Q
15.4
15.6
15.3
21.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Flushed1"
i
o.
6.8
6.9
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.1
7.5
7.5
7.6
>ป
.ti
_c
I
<
91
93
94
93
97
88
101
92
104
100
106
3
63.2
81.4
93.4
111
3.1
4.1
4.0
1.2
4.3
4.1
7.2
2
<25
<25
<25
<25
106
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
G
0.1
<0.1
0.5
0.4
1.5
2.3
0.5
0.5
1.0
<0.1
<0.1
_Q
D-
1.4
2.0
0.6
0.7
4.5
2.7
0.6
1.2
0.7
0.5
0.2
3
O
5.2
5.4
7.0
7.6
51.2
4.7
0.9
10.4
6.5
100
2.1
_Q
15.5
15.7
15.2
20.9
2.0
2.1
2.3
10.5
2.2
2.0
3.2
DS2
LCR
1 st Draw
Stagnation Time (hrs)
8.8
NA
10.8
7.0
NA
8.0
13.0
8.5
7.3
7.3
7.5
I
O.
7.1
7.0
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.4
f
I
<
104
97
102
105
106
97
106
101
104
100
106
3
13.1
20.4
15.9
17.6
4.7
5.5
4.2
3.9
4.4
4.0
7.2
ฃ
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
G
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
_Q
D-
0.4
0.3
<0.1
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
3
O
110
43.9
17.1
74.4
11.8
20.9
0.6
172
86.2
176
121
_Q
2.4
2.9
2.2
2.9
0.5
1.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
3.3
DS3
LCR
1 st Draw
Stagnation Time (hrs)
9.5
NA
8
8.3W
NA
7.5
8.5
NA
7.5
7.7
8.0
I
O.
6.9
7.1
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.4
7.4
f
I
<
104
97
102
109
106
88
101
101
104
100
106
3
12.8
19.9
18.1
18.7
4.4
5.2
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.2
6.4
ฃ
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
57.8
<25
<25
c
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
0.5
0.1
_Q
D-
0.3
1.0
0.1
<0.1
1.5
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
1.0
0.4
3
O
121
148
83.0
69.4
75.0
64.1
60.1
87.2
68.9
9.3
107
_Q
2.6
2.8
2.8
3.0
0.4
1.1
2.0
1.7
2.2
1.9
3.1
(a) DS1 was located upstream of the Well No. 9 blending point. First draw sampling discontinued after the baseline sampling due to infrequent use of sample
tap as indicated by the long stagnation time. Stagnation times not appliable for flushed samples.
(b) Resident's roommate may have used the water before the draw.
Lead action level =15 ug/L; copper action level =1.3 mg/L
Unit of ug/L for all anlaytes except for pH and alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)
BL = Baseline Sampling; NA = not available
-------
20
15 -
o
o
5
-- Plant Effluent As
n DS1 As
x DS2As
DSSAs
10-ug/LAsMCL
10/01/05 10/31/05 11/30/05 12/30/05 01/29/06 02/28/06 03/30/06 04/29/06 05/29/06
Sampling Date
20
15 -
c
o
o
SI
1
5
Plant Effluent Sb
A DS1 Sb
X DS2Sb
DSSSb
10/01/05 10/31/05 11/30/05 12/30/05 01/29/06 02/28/06 03/30/06 04/29/06 05/29/06
Sampling Date
Figure 4-17. Total As and Sb Concentrations in Distribution System after System Startup
48
-------
Table 4-17. Summary of Capital Investment Cost of GFH System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
GFH Media (ft3)
Vessels
Process Piping and Valves
Instrumentation and Controls
Field Services and Miscellaneous Items
Labor
Travel
Change Order for Adding Three Flow
Meters and Three Differential Pressure
Gauge Assembles
Equipment Total
240
3
-
-
-
-
-
$57,000
$45,500
$11,000
$9,500
$12,000
$10,000
$5,000
$7,647
$157,647
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
68%
Engineering Costs
Labor
Engineering Total
$16,000
$16,000
7%
Installation Costs
Material
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
$13,500
$30,000
$10,000
$5,000
$58,500
$232,147
25%
100%
WCDWR prepared, at its own cost, the required engineering plans and permit submittals, which included
the system layout and footprint, piping connections to the entry and distribution tie-in points, and system
specifications and P&IDs provided by Siemens. The engineering cost charged by Siemens was $16,000,
about 7% of the total capital investment. The engineering work performed by Siemens was limited to its
system design information and PE-stamped P&IDs. The cost incurred by WCDWR for the plans
preparation and submittals are not included in Table 4-17.
The installation cost included the cost of labor and materials to unload and install the treatment system;
complete the piping installation and tie-ins; and perform the system startup and shakedown (Section
4.3.3). The installation cost was $58,500, or 25% of the total capital investment.
The capital cost of $232,147 was normalized to $663/gpm (or $0.46/gpd) of the design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 350 gpm (or 504,000 gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $21,912 by applying 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
350 gpm to produce 183,960,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.12/1,000 gal.
Using the 3.8 hr/day of average daily system run time and 275 gpm of average system flowrate, the
system would produce only 22,885,500 gal of water per year. At this reduced rate of operation, the unit
capital cost increased to $0.96/1,000 gal.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost for the Siemens GFH system included
only the incremental cost associated with the system, such as media replacement and disposal, electricity
consumption, and labor, as presented in Table 4-18. Additional electricity use associated with the air
49
-------
compressor and PLC was minimal. The routine, non-demonstration-related labor activities consumed
about 30 min/day, 5 day/wk as noted in Section 4.4.6. Therefore, the labor cost was calculated to be
$0.18/1,000 gal of water treated.
Table 4-18. Summary of O&M Cost
Cost Category
Volume Processed (1,000 gal)
Value
15,567
Assumptions
Actual volume treated for 32-week period
Media Replacement and Disposal
Volume of Media Replaced (ft3)
Replacement Media ($)
Labor and Disposal($)
Waste Characterization ($)
Subtotal ($)
Media Replacement and Disposal
Cost ($71,000 gal)
240
57,600
12,950
608
71,158
See Figure 4-18
$240/ft3 of media, includes shipping
Estimated cost
As a function of media run length to 10-
ug/L As or 6-|ag/L Sb breakthrough
Chemical Usage
Chemical Cost ($)
0.00
No additional chemicals required
Electricity
Electricity Cost ($71,000 gal)
0.001
Incremental electrical cost negligible
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Labor Cost ($)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($71,000 gal)
2.5
2,800
0.18
See Figure 4-18
30 min/day, 5 day/wk
80 hr x $35/hr for 32-wk period
Based on 15,567,000 gal of water treated
The unit O&M cost is driven primarily by the cost to replace the spent media and is a function of the
media run length. The media run length is measured by the number of bed volumes treated by the system
until reaching 10-p.g/L arsenic breakthrough or 6-p.g/L antimony breakthrough in the combined effluent,
whichever occurs first. CFH-0818 was tested in an attempt to find a less expensive adsorptive media that
would work as well as the GFH because of the short run length. However, at the time this report was
prepared, the CFH-0818 was taken off the market to make improvements to the product and the
reintroduction of this media is pending further evaluation of the marketplace. The cost estimate focused
on the cost to operate the Siemens adsorptive system utilizing GFH. The pending media replacement cost
is estimated to be $71,158, including 240 ft3 of virgin GFH media ($57,600), labor and spent media
disposal ($12,950), and waste characterization ($608). By averaging the media replacement cost over the
media life, 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 4-18). The media run length in BV was calculated by
dividing the total system throughput by the total quantity of media, i.e., 240 ft3. As shown in this figure,
the unit media replacement cost would be $5.51/1,000 gal for a media run length of 7,200 BV (or
12,925,000 gal) - if the system operation was governed by arsenic. If the system operation was governed
by antimony, the media would be replaced around 3,000 BV (or 5,386,000 gal) and the unit replacement
cost would be higher at $13.21/1,000 gal. Unit costs would be even higher if governed based on the
faster arsenic and antimony breakthrough observed during Run 2 (i.e., $15.51/1,000 gal and $32.36/1,000
gal, respectively).
50
-------
SystemTh rough put (X 1000 gal)
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
Total O&M cost
Media replacement
cost
ra
O)
o
ฃ $15.00
in
o
O
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (xlOOO)
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
40
Figure 4-18. Media Replacement and Total O&M Curves for GFH System
51
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2003. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
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. AWW, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal
Register, 40 CFRPart 141.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
McCall, S.E., L. A.S.C. Chen, and Wang. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH, Six-Month Evaluation Report.
EPA/600/R-06/125. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
McCall, S.E., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2008. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Bow, NH, Final Performance Evaluation Report.
EPA/600/R-08/006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Meng, X.G., S. Bang, and G.P. Korfiatis. 2000. "Effects of Silicate, Sulfate, and Carbonate on Arsenic
Removal by Ferric Chloride." Water Research, 34(4): 1255-1261.
Meng, X.G., G.P. Korfiatis, S.B. Bang, and K.W. Bang. 2002. "Combined Effects of Anions on Arsenic
Removal by Iron Hydroxides." Toxicology Letters, 133(1): 103-111.
Smith, S.D., and M. Edwards. 2005. "The Influence of Silica and Calcium on Arsenate Sorption to
Oxide Surfaces." Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology - AQUA,54(4): 201-211.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
Westerhoff, P., T. Benn, A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, L.J. Cumming. 2007. Assessing Arsenic Removal by
Metal (Hydr)Oxide Adsorptive Media Using Rapid Small Scale Column Tests. Prepared under
Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH
52
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at STGMID in Washoe County, NV - Summary of Run 1 Daily System Operation
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Date
09/27/05
09/28/05
09/29/05
09/30/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
10/05/05
10/06/05
10/07/05
10/10/05
10/11/05
10/12/05
10/13/05
10/17/05
10/18/05
10/19/05
10/20/05
10/21/05
10/24/05
10/25/05
10/26/05
10/27/05
10/31/05
11/01/05
11/02/05
1 1/03/05
1 1/04/05
11/07/05
11/08/05
11/09/05
11/10/05
11/14/05
11/15/05
11/16/05
11/17/05
11/18/05
11/21/05
11/22/05
11/23/05
11/28/05
11/29/05
11/30/05
12/1/05
12/2/05
Pump House
Hour
Meter
Mr
6564.9
6583.8
6587.7
6606.4
6653.3
6666.5
6688.6
6702.2
6716.9
6765.0
6779.8
6788.0
6800.0
6810.4
6810.4
6810.5
6816.2
6816.2
6822.3
6822.4
6829.2
6832.8
6832.8
6837.9
6839.3
6841.9
6846.1
6852.7
6853.9
6859.4
6860.9
6862.9
6864.9
6866.4
6868.0
6871.4
6890.1
6893.4
6898.9
6919.3
6922.9
6924.6
6928.1
6932.5
Avg. Op
Hours
Mr
18.9
11.4
13.8
14.7
14.5
15.5
15.3
15.2
15.4
15.4
14.9
14.7
12.3
11.7
11.2
10.9
10.5
9.5
9.2
9.1
8.9
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.2
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.6
Total
Hours
Mr
4
23
27
45
92
105
128
141
156
204
219
227
239
249
249
249
255
255
261
261
268
272
272
277
278
281
285
292
293
298
300
302
304
305
307
310
329
332
338
358
362
364
367
371
Avg.
Flowrate
gpm
270
288
278
287
286
287
287
287
286
287
331
205
285
282
0
333
287
0
279
166
284
292
0
288
262
282
282
288
278
288
278
275
275
311
271
284
283
278
288
283
278
294
276
284
Total System Operation Data
Master Flow
Meter
gal
116,028,000
116,355,000
116,420,000
116,742,000
117,548,000
117,775,000
118,156,000
118,390,000
118,642,000
119,469,000
119,763,000
119,864,000
120,069,000
120,245,000
120,245,000
120,247,000
120,345,000
120,345,000
120,447,005
120,448,000
120,564,000
120,627,000
120,627,000
120,715,000
120,737,000
120,781,000
120,852,000
120,966,000
120,986,000
121,081,000
121,106,000
121,139,000
121,172,000
121,200,000
121,226,000
121,284,000
121,602,000
121,657,000
121,752,000
122,099,000
122,159,000
122,189,000
122,247,000
122,322,000
Treated
Volume
Kgal
62
327
65
322
806
227
381
234
252
827
294
101
205
176
0
2
98
0
102
1
116
63
0
88
22
44
71
114
20
95
25
33
33
28
26
58
318
55
95
347
60
30
58
75
Total
Treated
Volume
Kgal
62
389
454
776
1,582
1,809
2,190
2,424
2,676
3,503
3,797
3,898
4,103
4,279
4,279
4,281
4,379
4,379
4,481
4,482
4,598
4,661
4,661
4,749
4,771
4,815
4,886
5,000
5,020
5,115
5,140
5,173
5,206
5,234
5,260
5,318
5,636
5,691
5,786
6,133
6,193
6,223
6,281
6,356
Flow
Totalizer
Tank A
gal
21,142
129,929
151,832
258,020
524,876
599,420
725,650
801,333
884,862
1,157,292
1,240,530
1,287,858
1,357,570
1,417,138
1,417,138
1,417,700
1,449,942
1,450,500
1,485,546
1,486,127
1,527,269
1,549,712
1,549,712
1,580,898
1,588,801
1,604,500
1,629,640
1,669,050
1,676,500
1,708,705
1,717,600
1,728,625
1,741,600
1,749,080
1,758,400
1,778,300
1,885,360
1,904,560
1,938,100
2,056,000
2,075,850
2,086,230
2,105,990
2,131,260
Flow
Totalizer
Tank B
gal
20,218
124,431
145,433
248,072
507,150
599,420
725,650
801,333
884,862
1,121,250
1,202,300
1,246,258
1,310,324
1,365,029
1,365,029
1,365,600
1,395,794
1,395,700
1,427,875
1,428,431
1,463,755
1,483,007
1,483,007
1,509,900
1,516,666
1,530,200
1,552,000
1,586,400
1,593,100
1,622,368
1,630,500
1,640,491
1,652,400
1,659,240
1,667,800
1,686,200
1,784,250
1,801,850
1,832,417
1,937,850
1,956,010
1,965,500
1,983,600
2,006,720
Flow
Totalizer
Tank C
gal
20,218
124,431
145,433
248,072
508,370
581,426
705,298
779,650
861,230
1,128,411
1,210,200
1,255,442
1,321,711
1,378,363
1,378,363
1,378,990
1,409,061
1,409,600
1,442,384
1,442,971
1,478,871
1,498,466
1,498,466
1,525,900
1,532,747
1,546,600
1,568,800
1,603,830
1,610,700
1,640,596
1,648,800
1,659,012
1,671,100
1,678,070
1,686,600
1,705,100
1,804,250
1,821,980
1,855,248
1,960,250
1,978,700
1,988,460
2,006,840
2,030,410
Cumulative
Flow
Kgal
62
379
443
754
1,540
1,780
2,157
2,382
2,631
3,407
3,653
3,790
3,990
4,161
4,161
4,162
4,255
4,256
4,356
4,358
4,470
4,531
4,531
4,617
4,638
4,681
4,750
4,859
4,880
4,972
4,997
5,028
5,065
NA
5,113
5,170
5,474
5,528
5,626
5,954
6,011
6,040
6,096
6,168
Cumulative
Bed Volume
#of BV
34.0
211.1
246.8
420.4
858.6
992.3
1202.1
1327.9
1466.5
1899.1
2036.2
2112.4
2223.9
2319.1
2319.1
2320.1
2371.7
2372.2
2428.0
2428.9
2491.6
2525.7
2525.7
2573.4
2585.4
2609.4
2648.0
2708.6
2720.3
2771.3
2785.3
2802.7
2823.4
NA
2849.9
2881.6
3051.2
3081.6
3135.9
3318.9
3350.4
3366.9
3398.2
3438.3
Tank Pressure Operation Data
Tank A
1>P~
0.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Inlet
101.0
103.0
105.0
103.0
104.0
101.0
104.0
103.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
2.0
2.0
104.0
0.0
103.0
0.0
102.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
0.0
104.0
0.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
8.0
106.0
0.0
0.0
104.0
104.0
103.0
106.0
Outlet
100.0
102.0
105.0
103.0
102.0
101.0
103.0
103.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
2.0
2.0
103.0
0.0
101.0
0.0
101.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
101.0
0.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
8.0
105.0
0.0
0.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
Tank B
OP
0.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
0.0
1.4
0.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Inlet
99.0
103.0
106.0
104.0
106.0
103.0
104.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
103.0
3.0
3.0
104.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
101.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
0.0
103.0
0.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
7.0
104.0
0.0
0.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
105.0
Outlet
100.0
102.0
106.0
102.0
101.0
101.0
103.0
103.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
103.0
2.0
2.0
104.0
0.0
101.0
0.0
100.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
101.0
0.0
101.0
101.0
100.0
101.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
7.0
103.0
0.0
0.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
104.0
Tank C
OP
0.5
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.00
1.10
0.00
1.20
0.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
Inlet
100.0
102.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
104.0
2.0
2.0
104.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
101.0
24.0
0.0
0.0
101.0
0.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
7.0
104.0
0.0
0.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
105.0
Outlet
100.0
101.0
102.0
100.0
100.0
99.0
101.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.0
100.0
101.0
2.0
2.0
104.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
101.0
24.0
0.0
0.0
101.0
0.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
7.0
104.0
0.0
0.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
Total System
Pressure Data
1>P~
0.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.2
Inlet
99.0
104.0
105.0
105.0
104.0
103.0
104.0
104.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
104.0
0.0
0.0
104.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
101.0
24.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
101
101
101.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
101.0
103.0
102.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
105.0
Outlet
99.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
100.0
100.0
102.0
101.0
99.0
100.0
100.0
101.0
103.0
0.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
99.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
100
100
100
100
0
100
0
100
99
101
100
0
98
0.0
0
101.0
101.0
100.0
103.0
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at STGMID in Washoe County, NV- Summary of Run 1 Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
11
12
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Date
12/5/05
12/6/05
12/7/05
12/8/05
12/9/05
12/12/05
12/13/05
12/14/05
12/15/05
12/16/05
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
01/24/06
01/25/06
01/26/06
01/27/06
01/30/06
01/31/06
02/01/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
02/06/06
02/07/06
02/08/06
02/09/06
02/10/06
02/13/06
02/14/06
02/15/06
02/16/06
02/17/06
02/21/06
02/22/06
02/23/06
02/27/06
02/28/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
03/03/06
Pump House
Hour
Meter
hr
6945.9
6951.0
6954.4
6958.7
6961.5
6974.9
6979.3
6982.5
6986.6
6991.4
7006.8
7010.5
7014.3
7018.1
7022.4
7035.0
7042.4
7047.2
7050.6
7064.6
7067.8
7074.1
7076.4
7079.7
7091.7
7095.5
7100.1
7105.5
7108.9
7120.7
7124.3
7127.9
7131.0
7135.0
7147.1
7152.1
7155.6
7159.1
7164.1
7180.9
7184.3
7187.3
7205.7
7208.6
7212.1
7215.7
7221.1
Avg.
Op
Hours
hr
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.9
4.9
Total
Hours
hr
385
390
393
398
400
414
418
421
426
430
446
449
453
457
461
474
481
486
490
504
507
513
515
519
531
534
539
544
548
560
563
567
570
574
586
591
595
598
603
620
623
626
645
648
651
655
660
Avg.
Flowrate
gpm
282
353
181
279
280
284
288
281
285
295
NA
288
285
276
275
340
164
271
279
275
276
270
275
273
275
276
275
272
275
274
278
269
274
275
274
270
276
271
277
273
275
267
274
282
271
273
275
Total System Operation Data
Master Flow
Meter
gal
122,549,000
122,657,000
122,694,000
122,766,000
122,813,000
123,041,000
123,117,000
123,171,000
123,241,000
123,326,000
123,537,000
123,601,000
123,666,000
123,729,000
123,800,000
124,057,000
124,130,000
124,208,000
124,265,000
124,496,000
124,549,000
124,651,000
124,689,000
124,743,000
124,941,000
125,004,000
125,080,000
125,168,000
125,224,000
125,418,000
125,478,000
125,536,000
125,587,000
125,653,000
125,852,000
125,933,000
125,991,000
126,048,000
126,131,000
126,406,000
126,462,000
126,510,000
126,812,000
126,861,000
126,918,000
126,977,000
127,066,000
Treated
Volume
Kgal
227
108
37
72
47
228
76
54
70
85
211
64
65
63
71
257
73
78
57
231
53
102
38
54
198
63
76
88
56
194
60
58
51
66
199
81
58
57
83
275
56
48
302
49
57
59
89
Total Treated
Volume
Kgal
6,583
6,691
6,728
6,800
6,847
7,075
7,151
7,205
7,275
7,360
7,571
7,635
7,700
7,763
7,834
8,091
8,164
8,242
8,299
8,530
8,583
8,685
8,723
8,777
8,975
9,038
9,114
9,202
9,258
9,452
9,512
9,570
9,621
9,687
9,886
9,967
10,025
10,082
10,165
10,440
10,496
10,544
10,846
10,895
10,952
11,011
11,100
Flow
Totalizer
Tank A
gal
2,207,880
2,237,370
2,259,500
2,283,850
2,300,000
2,377,000
2,403,000
2,422,000
2,445,000
2,473,000
2,547,000
2,568,000
2,590,000
2,613,000
2,637,000
2,728,000
2,755,000
2,781,000
2,801,000
2,883,000
2,910,000
2,936,000
2,950,000
2,969,000
3,039,000
3,061,000
3,087,000
3,118,000
3,137,000
3,206,000
3,227,000
3,247,000
3,265,000
3,287,000
3,358,000
3,386,000
3,406,000
3,426,000
3,455,000
3,553,000
3,571,000
3,588,000
3,694,000
3,711,000
3,731,000
3,753,000
3,783,000
Flow
Totalizer
TankB
gal
2,076,960
2,103,970
2,127,100
2,149,441
2,164,000
2,235,000
2,258,000
2,275,000
2,297,000
2,322,000
2,389,000
2,408,000
2,428,000
2,449,000
2,471,000
2,554,000
2,579,000
2,603,000
2,621,000
2,696,000
2,712,000
2,745,000
2,758,000
2,775,000
2,839,000
2,859,000
2,884,000
2,912,000
2,930,000
2,993,000
3,012,000
3,030,000
3,047,000
3,068,000
3,133,000
3,159,000
3,177,000
3,195,000
3,222,000
3,312,000
3,329,000
3,345,000
3,442,000
3,458,000
3,476,000
3,496,000
3,523,000
Flow
Totalizer
TankC
gal
2,101,980
2,129,550
2,153,400
2,176,221
2,191,000
2,263,000
2,288,000
2,305,000
2,327,000
2,353,000
2,422,000
2,441,000
2,462,000
2,483,000
2,506,000
2,591,000
2,616,000
2,641,000
2,659,000
2,736,000
2,753,000
2,787,000
2,800,000
2,818,000
2,883,000
2,904,000
2,929,000
2,958,000
2,977,000
3,041,000
3,061,000
3,080,000
3,097,000
3,118,000
3,185,000
3,212,000
3,231,000
3,249,000
3,276,000
3,369,000
3,387,000
3,403,000
3,504,000
3,520,000
3,539,000
3,559,000
3,587,000
Cumulative
Flow
Kgal
6,387
6,471
6,540
6,610
6,655
6,875
6,949
7,002
7,069
7,148
5,005
7,417
7,480
7,545
7,614
7,873
7,950
8,025
8,081
8,315
8,375
8,468
8,508
8,562
8,761
8,824
8,900
8,988
9,044
9,240
9,300
9,357
9,409
9,473
9,676
9,757
9,814
9,870
9,953
10,234
10,287
10,336
10,640
10,689
10,746
10,808
10,893
Cumulative
Bed Volume
#of BV
3560.1
3607.0
3645.5
3684.2
3709.6
3832.2
3873.5
3903.0
3940.4
3984.4
2789.9
4134.3
4169.5
4205.7
4244.1
4388.5
4431.4
4473.2
4504.5
4634.9
4668.3
4720.2
4742.5
4772.6
4883.5
4918.6
4961.0
5010.0
5041.2
5150.5
5183.9
5215.7
5244.7
5280.4
5393.5
5438.7
5470.5
5501.7
5547.9
5704.6
5734.1
5761.4
5930.9
5958.2
5990.0
6024.5
6071.9
Tank Pressure Operation Data
Tank A
OP
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
0
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
Inlet
32.0
8.0
103.0
0.0
104.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
104
104
104
104
103
103
104
103
103
100
104
104
104
103
103
104
104
104
104
104
106
104
104
104
103
104
104
104
104
107
105
105
104
104
104
104
104
Outlet
32.00
8.00
102.0
0.0
103.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
98.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
105.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
106.0
104.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
TankB
OP
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
1.4
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.5
Inlet
32.0
8.0
103.0
0.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
106.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
106.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
104.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
106.0
105.0
104.0
104.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
Outlet
32.0
8.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
TankC
OP
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
0.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.3
0.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
Inlet
31.0
7.0
103.0
0.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
101.0
100.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
105.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
106.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
Outlet
31.0
7.0
103.0
0.0
102.0
101.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
101.0
100.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
Total System
Pressure Data
OP
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.4
0.8
0.8
1.1
0.0
1.1
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.3
0.9
1.7
1.4
Inlet
31.0
6.0
103.0
0.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
106.0
105.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
Outlet
32.0
7.0
101.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
101.0
101.0
100.0
100.0
102
100.0
101.0
101.0
100
101.0
100.0
100.0
99.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.0
101.0
100.0
101.0
101.0
100.0
100.0
103.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
100.0
100.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
101
101
100
101
101
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at STGMID in Washoe County, NV- Summary of Run 1 Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
24
25
26
27
28
28
29
30
31
32
Date
03/06/06
03/07/06
03/08/06
03/09/06
03/10/06
03/13/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
03/16/06
03/17/06
03/20/06
03/21/06
03/22/06
03/23/06
03/24/06
03/27/06
03/28/06
03/29/06
03/30/06
03/31/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
04/05/06
04/06/06
04/07/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
04/05/06
04/06/06
04/07/06
04/10/06
04/11/06
04/12/06
04/13/06
04/14/06
04/17/06
04/18/06
04/19/06
04/20/06
04/21/06
04/24/06
04/25/06
04/26/06
04/27/06
04/28/06
05/01/06
05/02/06
05/03/06
Pump House
Hour
Meter
hr
7232.4
7236.1
7239.9
7244.1
7248.5
7258.7
7263.0
7267.5
7271.6
7276.5
7288.8
7291.3
7295.1
7299.3
7302.7
7315.7
7319.1
7323.3
7327.9
7332.4
7344.3
7347.9
7353.2
7355.2
7361.8
7344.3
7347.9
7353.2
7355.2
7361.8
7381.2
7383.9
7388.2
7392.7
7406.8
7407.0
7410.4
7414.6
7419.6
7427.7
7448.2
7453.6
7460.2
7465.3
7470.4
7492.8
7502.5
7504.3
Avg. Op
Hours
hr
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.8
Total
Hours
hr
671
675
679
683
687
698
702
706
711
715
728
730
734
738
742
755
758
762
767
771
783
787
792
794
801
783
787
792
794
801
820
823
827
832
846
846
849
854
859
867
887
893
899
904
909
932
941
943
Avg.
Flowrate
gpm
274
275
272
274
277
271
275
278
272
276
275
273
268
278
275
273
275
274
272
274
272
273
274
275
275
272
273
274
275
275
274
272
271
274
279
167
275
270
280
272
275
275
275
275
275
272
273
269
Total System Operation Data
Master Flow
Meter
gal
127,252,000
127,313,000
127,375,000
127,444,000
127,517,000
127,683,000
127,754,000
127,829,000
127,896,000
127,977,000
128,180,000
128,221,000
128,282,000
128,352,000
128,408,000
128,621,000
128,677,000
128,746,000
128,821,000
128,895,000
129,089,000
129,148,000
129,235,000
129,268,000
129,377,000
129,089,000
129,148,000
129,235,000
129,268,000
129,377,000
129,696,000
129,740,000
129,810,000
129,884,000
130,120,000
130,122,000
130,178,000
130,246,000
130,330,000
130,462,000
130,800,000
130,889,000
130,998,000
131,082,000
131,166,000
131,531,000
131,690,000
131,719,000
Treated
Volume
Kgal
186
61
62
69
73
166
71
75
67
81
203
41
61
70
56
213
56
69
75
74
194
59
87
33
109
194
59
87
33
109
319
44
70
74
236
2
56
68
84
132
338
89
109
84
84
365
159
29
Total
Treated
Volume
Kgal
11,286
11,347
11,409
11,478
11,551
11,717
11,788
11,863
11,930
12,011
12,214
12,255
12,316
12,386
12,442
12,655
12,711
12,780
12,855
12,929
13,123
13,182
13,269
13,302
13,411
13,123
13,182
13,269
13,302
13,411
13,730
13,774
13,844
13,918
14,154
14,156
14,212
14,280
14,364
14,496
14,834
14,923
15,032
15,116
15,200
15,565
15,724
15,753
Flow
Totalizer
Tank A
gal
3,848,000
3,869,000
3,891,000
3,915,000
3,940,000
3,999,000
4,023,000
4,050,000
4,073,000
4,102,000
4,173,000
4,187,000
4,208,000
4,233,000
4,252,000
4,327,000
4,346,000
4,370,000
4,396,000
4,422,000
4,490,000
4,510,000
4,540,000
4,553,000
4,590,000
4,490,000
4,510,000
4,540,000
4,553,000
4,590,000
4,700,000
4,713,000
4,739,000
4,764,000
4,845,000
4,846,000
4,865,000
4,888,000
4,917,000
4,962,000
5,080,000
5,111,000
5,149,000
5,179,000
5,208,000
5,336,000
5,392,000
5,402,000
Flow
Totalizer
TankB
gal
3,584,000
3,603,000
3,623,000
3,643,000
3,668,000
3,723,000
3,745,000
3,769,000
3,791,000
3,817,000
3,882,000
3,895,000
3,915,000
3,938,000
3,956,000
4,024,000
4,042,000
4,065,000
4,088,000
4,112,000
4,175,000
4,194,000
4,222,000
4,234,000
4,268,000
4,175,000
4,194,000
4,222,000
4,234,000
4,268,000
4,370,000
4,383,000
4,407,000
4,431,000
4,506,000
4,507,000
4,525,000
4,546,000
4,573,000
4,615,000
4,723,000
4,752,000
4,787,000
4,814,000
4,840,000
4,958,000
5,008,000
5,017,000
Flow
Totalizer
TankC
gal
3,650,000
3,669,000
3,690,000
3,713,000
3,737,000
3,793,000
3,816,000
3,841,000
3,863,000
3,890,000
3,958,000
3,971,000
3,992,000
4,015,000
4,034,000
4,105,000
4,124,000
4,147,000
4,171,000
4,196,000
4,262,000
4,281,000
4,312,000
4,323,000
4,359,000
4,262,000
4,281,000
4,312,000
4,323,000
4,359,000
4,467,000
4,480,000
4,505,000
4,513,000
4,611,000
4,612,000
4,631,000
4,654,000
4,683,000
4,729,000
4,842,000
4,872,000
4,908,000
4,936,000
4,964,000
5,086,000
5,139,000
5,148,000
Cumulative
Flow
Kgal
11,082
11,141
11,204
11,271
11,345
11,515
11,584
11,660
11,727
11,809
12,013
12,053
12,115
12,186
12,242
12,456
12,512
12,582
12,655
12,730
12,927
12,985
13,074
13,110
13,217
12,927
12,985
13,074
13,110
13,217
13,537
13,576
13,651
13,708
13,962
13,965
14,021
14,088
14,173
14,306
14,645
14,735
14,844
14,929
15,012
15,380
15,539
15,567
Cumulative
Bed Volume
#of BV
6177.3
6210.1
6245.3
6282.6
6323.9
6418.6
6457.1
6499.4
6536.8
6582.5
6696.2
6718.5
6753.1
6792.6
6823.9
6943.1
6974.4
7013.4
7054.1
7095.9
7205.7
7238.0
7287.6
7307.7
7367.3
7205.7
7238.0
7287.6
7307.7
7367.3
7545.7
7567.4
7609.3
7641.0
7782.6
7784.3
7815.5
7852.8
7900.2
7974.4
8163.3
8213.5
8274.2
8321.6
8367.9
8573.0
8661.6
8677.3
Tank Pressure Operation Data
Tank A
zP
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.5
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
NA
1.0
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.5
0.9
NA
Inlet
104
103
104
103
104
106
104
103
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
105
104
103
104
104
104
104
104
104
102
104
104
104
104
102
105
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
103
103
NA
Outlet
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
105.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
100.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
100.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
NA
TankB
ZP
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
NA
Inlet
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
105.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
104.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
104.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
NA
Outlet
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
NA
TankC
ZP
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.4
NA
Inlet
104.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
NA
Outlet
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
NA
Total System
Pressure Data
ZP
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.7
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.7
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.4
NA
Inlet
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
NA
Outlet
101
101
101
101
101
102
101
100
101
101
100
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
102
101
100
101
101
102
101
100
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
100
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
NA
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at STGMID in Washoe County, NV - Summary of Run 2 Daily System Operation
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
Date
04/05/07
04/06/07
04/10/07
04/11/07
04/12/07
04/17/07
04/18/07
04/19/07
04/20/07
04/24/07
04/25/07
04/27/07
05/01/07
05/04/07
05/09/07
05/15/07
05/18/07
05/30/07
06/08/07
06/12/07
06/20/07
06/27/07
07/03/07
Pump House
Hour
Meter
hr
8549.0
8564.5
8596.2
8605.4
8610.9
8646.6
8651.9
8658.3
8663.8
8694.8
8707.5
8728.4
8768.3
8794.5
8839.8
8925.4
8974.9
9180.4
9325.1
9389.9
9507.6
9612.7
9714.7
Avg. Op
Hours
hr
12.8
8.4
7.9
6.0
7.0
6.2
5.7
6.0
7.6
12.7
10.4
10.1
8.4
9.2
14.3
17.0
17.1
15.9
16.2
14.9
14.8
17.1
Total
Hours
hr
16
47
56
62
98
103
109
115
146
159
179
219
246
291
376
426
631
776
841
959
1064
1166
Avg.
Flow rate
gpm
271
268
268
264
267
264
260
267
266
268
270
271
267
268
271
270
271
270
267
271
269
270
Total System Operation Data
Master Flow
Meter
gal
148,292,000
148,544,000
149,054,000
149,202,000
149,289,000
149,860,000
149,944,000
150,044,000
150,132,000
150,626,000
150,830,000
151,168,000
151,816,000
152,235,000
152,964,000
154,358,000
155,159,000
158,496,000
160,837,000
161,874,000
163,788,000
165,487,000
167,140,000
Treated
Volume
Kgal
252
510
148
87
571
84
100
88
494
204
338
648
419
729
1,394
801
3,337
2,341
1,037
1,914
1,699
1,653
Total
Treated
Volume
Kgal
252
762
910
997
1,568
1,652
1,752
1,840
2,334
2,538
2,876
3,524
3,943
4,672
6,066
6,867
10,204
12,545
13,582
15,496
17,195
18,848
Flow
Totalizer
Tank A
gal
958,400
1,019,500
1,141,000
1,191,000
1,220,000
1,410,000
1,437,000
1,471,000
1,500,000
1,663,000
1,730,000
1,841,000
2,054,000
2,192,000
2,434,000
2,882,000
3,152,000
4,240,000
5,052,000
5,630,000
6,273,000
6,792,000
7,359,000
Flow
Totalizer
TankB
gal
454,300
551,400
744,000
793,000
823,000
1,014,000
1,042,000
1,076,000
1,106,000
1,272,000
1,341,000
1,456,000
1,672,000
1,812,000
2,060,000
2,531,000
2,804,000
3,945,000
4,707,000
4,963,000
5,595,000
6,178,000
6,719,000
Flow
Totalizer
TankC
gal
674,500
772,500
968,000
1,018,000
1,047,000
1,239,000
1,266,000
1,301,000
1,330,000
1,497,000
1,565,000
1,679,000
1,899,000
2,042,000
2,289,000
2,757,000
3,023,000
4,141,000
4,914,000
5,127,000
5,766,000
6,371,000
6,920,000
Cumulative
Flow
Kgal
256
766
915
1,003
1,576
1,658
1,761
1,849
2,345
2,549
2,889
3,538
3,959
4,696
6,083
6,892
10,239
12,586
13,633
15,547
17,254
18,911
Cumulative
Bed Volume
#of BV
142.8
426.9
509.9
559.0
878.4
924.1
981.5
1030.5
1307.0
1420.7
1610.3
1972.0
2206.7
2617.5
3390.6
3841.6
5707.2
7015.5
7599.1
8666.0
9617.5
10541.1
Tank Pressure Operation Data
Tank A
AP
1.4
O.t
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.4
0.8
1.1
1.3
Inlet
104.0
105.0
105.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
105.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
105.0
105.0
103.0
104.0
104.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
104.0
105.0
Outlet
102.0
105.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
100.0
100.0
101.0
103.0
103.0
101.0
106.0
102.0
103.0
100.0
104.0
103.0
104.0
TankB
AP
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.1
0.8
Inlet
104.0
104.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
103.0
105.0
105.0
101.0
104.0
104.0
103.0
101.0
105.0
104.0
105.0
Outlet
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
104.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
103.0
105.0
104.0
101.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
101.0
104.0
103.0
104.0
TankC
AP
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
O./
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.5
Inlet
104.0
104.0
104.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
104.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
100.0
101.0
102.0
105.0
104.0
101.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
101.0
105.0
103.0
105.0
Outlet
103.0
104.0
104.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
104.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
100.0
101.0
102.0
105.0
104.0
101.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
101.0
104.0
103.0
105.0
Total System
Pressure Data
AP
2.0
O./
1.1
1.3
1.4
0.8
0.7
0.7
O./
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
O./
1.1
1.6
1.0
1.3
0.7
0.6
Inlet
104.0
105.0
105.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
106.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
106.0
105.0
103.0
104.0
104.0
105.0
102.0
105.0
104.0
105.0
Outlet
102.0
103.0
103.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
103.0
100.0
100.0
99.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
103.0
102.0
100.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
100.0
103.0
101.0
102.0
Notes:
Tank A contains GFH
Tank B contains Kemira CFH-
Tank C contains Kemira CFH-
0818
0818
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
-------
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as P)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L("
mg/Lw
mg/L1"'
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
09/27/05
IN
-
92
<0.1
6.1
0.9
<0.05
95.1
0.3
7.1
16.2
4.4
269
-
29.3
20.2
9.1
35.0
29.5
5.5
0.4
29.1
232
<25
0.9
1.0
10.2
11.1
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.1
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
TA
0.0
<1
<0.1
<1
0.6
<0.05
6.3
0.1
4.3
16.3
4.3
280
-
24.8
14.9
9.9
0.9
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.5
<25
15.1
15.3
0.2
0.1
TB
0.0
<1
<0.1
<1
0.3
<0.05
4.9
0.1
4.5
16.6
4.8
392
-
27.4
16.6
10.8
0.9
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.5
35.9
-------
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as P)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
Mg/L00
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L('>
mg/L*"
mg/L*"
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
10/25/05
IN
-
92
-
0.1
123
68.5
0.2
7.1
17.0
6.2
307
-
-
50.1
-
-
<25
0.2
-
13.8
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
2.5
88
-
<0.05
<10
5.0
0.2
7.1
17.0
4.7
603
-
-
0.2
-
-
<25
0.1
-
3.2
TB
2.4
88
-
<0.05
<10
48.8
0.5
7.2
16.9
4.6
619
-
-
1.9
-
-
<25
0.3
-
2.8
TC
2.4
88
-
<0.05
<10
47.0
<0.1
7.1
16.9
4.6
629
-
-
0.3
-
-
<25
0.2
-
3.1
11/03/05(*'(1)
IN
-
88
0.1
7
0.9
0.1
128
69.7
0.3
6.7
15.6
1.0
252
17.3
9.5
7.8
60.0
60.1
<0.1
0.4
59.7
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
15.3
14.4
TA
2.7
83
<0.1
8
0.9
<0.05
<10
56.7
0.1
6.6
15.4
1.3
699
18.0
9.9
8.1
1.8
0.7
1.1
0.3
0.3
<25
<25
0.6
0.4
4.7
4.6
TB
2.6
79
<0.1
8
0.9
<0.05
<10
56.1
0.1
6.5
15.3
1.3
723
17.4
9.4
7.9
1.1
0.2
0.9
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
4.0
3.8
TC
2.6
80
<0.1
8
0.9
<0.05
<10
55.5
<0.1
7.0
15.4
1.2
733
17.5
9.4
8.1
1.4
0.3
1.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
0.7
0.2
3.8
3.7
TT
2.6
83
<0.1
8
0.9
<0.05
<10
54.6
9.5
6.7
15.4
1.7
732
0.8
0.8
17.9
9.4
8.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
<0.1
42.4
72.4
0.8
1.9
4.5
4.7
11/08/05
-------
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as P)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
mg/L""
mg/L
rng/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L1"1
mg/L*'1
mg/L""
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
11/15/05
IN
94
-
-
89
69.7
<0.1
6.8
16.7
1.1
245
-
-
-
59.8
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
21.0
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.2
1.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
2.9
91
-
-
<10
59.1
0.1
6.9
17.0
1.7
739
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
7.2
-
TB
2.8
91
-
-
<10
56.7
<0.1
6.9
16.7
1.7
742
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
6.0
-
TC
2.8
91
-
-
<10
56.9
<0.1
6.5
10.7
1.7
753
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
3.0
-
TT
2.8
-
-
-
-
-
6.8
16.7
1.7
739
1.1
1.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11/29/05
IN
88
-
-
130
75.4
2.0
7.0
17.1
0.8
260
-
-
-
71.7
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
15.8
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
3.5
88
-
-
<10
66.8
0.1
6.8
16.9
1.0
675
-
-
-
0.9
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
7.4
-
TB
3.3
92
-
-
<10
65.7
0.1
6.9
16.7
0.9
712
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
7.0
-
TC
3.3
92
-
-
<10
66.8
0.2
6.9
16.6
1.0
721
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
6.7
-
TT
3.4
-
-
-
-
-
6.9
14.9
0.9
730
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12/07/05
IN
88
0.1
7.1
0.9
0.1
132
71.4
0.2
7.2
15.9
1.1
381
-
-
20.1
12.0
8.1
69.3
70.1
<0.1
0.3
69.7
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
15.9
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
3.8
88
<0.1
7.4
0.9
<0.05
13
67.2
<0.1
7.1
15.2
1.3
735
-
-
20.9
12.0
8.9
1.4
1.4
<0.1
0.2
1.1
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
10.0
9.9
TB
3.6
90
<0.1
7.4
0.9
<0.05
<10
65.8
0.2
7.1
15.3
1.3
742
-
-
20.9
11.9
8.9
0.5
0.4
<0.1
0.2
0.2
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
9.6
9.4
TC
3.6
90
<0.1
7.4
0.9
<0.05
<10
65.7
0.1
7.1
15.1
1.3
741
-
-
21.0
12.0
9.1
0.5
0.3
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
9.3
9.3
TT
3.6
91
<0.1
7.4
0.9
<0.05
<10
66.9
0.2
7.1
15.8
4.3
741
1.0
1.0
17.5
10.9
6.6
0.2
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
9.2
9.2
-------
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued)
CO
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as P)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
mg/L"1
mg/L
rng/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L1"'
mg/L("
mg/Lw
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
12/13/05
IN
88
-
-
150
75.5
0.1
7.1
16.8
1.4
202
-
-
-
55.6
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
11.7
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
4.0
92
-
-
39
69.5
0.1
6.9
16.1
1.5
682
-
-
-
2.2
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
7.8
-
TB
3.8
88
-
-
31.4
68.5
0.3
6.9
16.1
1.4
693
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
7.1
-
TC
3.8
92
-
-
32.4
67.5
0.1
6.9
15.7
1.5
711
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
6.9
-
TT
3.9
-
-
-
-
-
6.9
16.1
1.5
703
0.6
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
01/10/06
IN
92
<0.1
6.7
0.9
0.1
105
73.6
0.4
7.4
15.8
1.5
260
-
-
20.6
13.3
7.3
54.0
53.4
0.5
0.3
53.1
<25
<25
0.8
0.2
13.0
12.6
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
4.3
92
<0.1
7
0.9
<0.05
<10
66.2
0.4
7.3
15.1
1.3
264
-
-
22.7
14.5
8.2
1.3
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
7.8
-
TB
4.0
92
<0.1
7
0.9
<0.05
<10
67.5
0.4
7.2
15.0
1.2
273
-
-
22.3
14.3
8.0
0.3
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
7.0
-
TC
4.1
92
<0.1
7
0.9
<0.05
<10
66.1
0.3
7.2
15.1
1.3
273
-
-
22.0
14.3
7.6
0.2
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
6.9
-
TT
4.1
185
<0.1
7
0.9
<0.05
<10
66.7
0.5
7.2
15.9
1.2
264
0.0
0.0
21.9
14.1
7.8
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.2
0.1
<25
25.0
0.9
1.0
7.4
0.4
01/18/06
IN
97
-
-
94.6
73.9
0.4
7.3
16.6
1.4
279
-
-
-
61.1
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
13.7
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
4.6
92
-
-
17.3
70.8
0.2
7.3
16.6
1.3
719
-
-
-
2.0
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
11.6
-
TB
4.3
92
-
-
<10
70.1
0.2
7.2
16.4
1.3
732
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
10.4
-
TC
4.4
92
-
-
<10
68.9
0.2
7.2
16.2
1.3
740
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
10.1
-
TT
4.4
-
-
-
-
-
7.3
15.4
1.4
740
0.9
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as P)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/L1"
mg/L<"
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
01/24/06
IN
-
97
-
124
74.7
0.3
7.4
16.2
1.4
278
-
-
-
75.6
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
14.1
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
4.9
92
-
29.6
71.2
0.4
7.2
14.9
1.3
729
-
-
-
4.1
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
9.5
TB
4.5
97
-
16.6
70.9
0.2
7.1
14.8
1.4
736
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
8.7
TC
4.6
97
-
15.4
70.6
0.4
7.1
15.8
1.3
744
-
-
-
0.9
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
9.0
TT
4.7
-
-
-
7.1
16.0
1.1
749
0.9
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
01/31/06
IN
-
93
0.1
7.0
0.9
96.5
72.1
0.3
7.8
16.5
1.3
256
-
21.8
15.0
6.8
68.2
67.2
1.0
0.3
66.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
16.2
15.4
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
5.1
-
-
-
7.5
17.0
1.3
691
-
-
-
2.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
4.8
-
-
-
7.4
17.0
1.2
709
-
-
-
2.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
4.9
-
-
-
7.4
17.0
1.3
713
-
-
-
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
4.9
93
<0.1
7.1
0.9
13.5
72.4
0.6
7.4
16.7
1.1
725
0.7
0.7
22.1
15.2
6.8
1.7
1.7
<0.1
0.3
1.4
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
10.1
10.3
02/07/06
IN
-
92
-
109
72.6
0.3
7.9
16.8
1.4
380
-
-
-
54.2
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
12.0
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
5.4
92
-
29.7
69
0.7
7.6
16.9
1.3
713
-
-
-
4.4
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
9.3
TB
5.1
90
-
21.1
69.6
0.5
7.6
16.9
1.3
725
-
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
9.2
TC
5.2
91
-
18.6
70.3
0.3
7.5
16.8
1.3
733
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
9.5
TT
5.2
-
-
-
7.5
17.0
1.2
730
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(a) As CaCO3.
-------
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Ortho phosphate (as P)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
Mg/L(Q)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L(Q)
Mg/L(Q)
Mg/L(1)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
02/22/06
IN
96
96
114
116
77.1
76.0
0.5
0.4
7.4
16.8
1.5
263
71.1
75.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
15.1
14.1
AC
-
-
-
-
0.6
0.6
-
-
TA
6.0
96
91
54.0
55.9
73.7
73.8
0.8
0.7
7.3
16.3
1.3
696
6.2
6.7
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
11.7
11.3
TB
5.6
91
96
45.4
46.0
73.4
72.4
0.5
0.4
7.2
14.8
1.3
723
3.5
3.4
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
10.5
10.7
TC
5.7
96
91
44.6
44.7
71.9
75.1
0.5
0.5
7.2
14.6
1.3
731
3.1
3.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
10.6
10.3
TT
5.7
-
7.2
15.2
1.1
707
0.6
0.6
-
-
03/07/06W
IN
-
95
95
70.9
0.4
7.1
17.2
1.2
115
77.7
<25
<0.1
14.2
AC
-
-
-
-
0.6
0.7
-
-
TA
6.5
95
42.3
68.4
0.3
7.0
16.9
1.9
676
7.9
<25
<0.1
10.5
TB
6.0
95
31.8
70.3
0.7
6.9
16.8
1.6
695
4.6
<25
<0.1
10.1
TC
6.1
91
39.9
67.9
1.2
6.9
16.7
1.7
706
3.8
<25
<0.1
10.6
TT
6.2
-
6.9
16.5
1.7
710
0.7
0.7
-
-
03/21/06
IN
-
91
97.9
73
0.3
7.1
16.5
1.7
219
10.2
78.7
<25
<0.1
15.7
AC
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
TA
7.0
91
54.7
69.7
0.3
7.1
16.2
2.1
699
10.6
14.7
<25
<0.1
12.9
TB
6.5
91
47.6
71.2
0.4
7.0
16.1
2.2
710
10.7
6.2
<25
<0.1
12.2
TC
6.6
91
46.6
70.3
0.3
7.0
1.7
2.4
716
11.0
5.7
<25
<0.1
12.1
TT
6.7
-
7.0
15.4
3.3
722
0.7
0.8
-
-
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) Water quality measurements taken on 03/02/06.
-------
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as P)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
mg/L"1
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L1"'
mg/L("
mg/Lw
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
03/28/06
IN
91
-
-
124
72
0.4
6.9
17.1
1.9
220
-
-
22.8
16.7
6.1
80.1
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
14.1
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
7.4
91
-
-
77.0
73.7
0.6
6.9
17.0
2.1
713
-
-
24.2
17.6
6.6
11.1
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
11.1
-
TB
6.9
91
-
-
69.2
70.7
0.4
6.9
17.0
2.3
719
-
-
24.4
17.7
6.6
6.9
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
10.8
-
TC
7.0
95
-
-
66.4
72.4
0.5
6.9
16.5
2.5
723
-
-
24.4
17.7
6.7
6.2
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
10.7
-
TT
7.1
-
-
-
-
-
6.9
16.4
2 2
728
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
04/04/06
IN
95
0.2
7.4
1.0
116
71.8
0.3
7.2
16.5
1.1
218
-
-
25.1
18.4
6.7
78.6
79.7
<0.1
0.2
79.4
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
14.7
14.4
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
7.5
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
16.6
1.3
706
-
-
-
11.1
-
-
-
-
-
TB
7.0
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
16.4
1.4
720
-
-
-
10.8
-
-
-
-
-
TC
7.2
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
15.3
1.5
728
-
-
-
10.9
-
-
-
-
-
TT
7.2
87
0.2
7.4
2.0
67.4
70
0.3
-
16.4
1.5
731
0.7
0.7
26.9
19.5
7.4
8.9
8.4
0.5
0.1
8.3
<25
<25
0.7
1.2
13.7
13.9
04/11/06
IN
101
-
-
102
70
0.7
7.1
17.0
0.8
273
-
-
-
83.8
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
17.6
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.8
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
7.9
97
-
-
63.4
70.1
0.7
7.0
16.9
0.9
730
-
-
-
15.4
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
14.5
-
TB
7.3
101
-
-
63.8
68.4
0.8
7.0
16.6
1.0
744
-
-
-
11.2
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
14.6
-
TC
7.5
97
-
-
64.3
69.4
1.2
7.0
16.5
0.9
751
-
-
-
10.7
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
14.5
-
TT
7.6
-
-
-
62.8
-
7.0
16.4
0.8
754
0.8
0.8
-
11.9
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
14.0
-
(a) As CaCO3.
-------
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as P)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
mg/L1"1
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(1)
mg/L1"1
mg/L*'1
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
04/18/06
IN
-
101
-
-
-
126
71.3
0.6
7.1
15.9
1.1
263
-
-
-
75.7
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
14.2
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
8.1
96
-
-
-
82.9
69.7
0.3
7.0
16.3
1.1
721
-
-
-
13.2
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
11.2
TB
7.6
101
-
-
-
72.5
69.4
0.1
7.0
16.2
1.2
733
-
-
-
9.3
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
11.1
TC
7.7
97
-
-
-
75.6
69.7
0.2
7.0
15.8
1.3
743
-
-
-
8.8
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
10.9
TT
7.8
-
-
-
-
7.0
15.6
1.3
748
0.8
0.9
-
-
11.0
-
-
-
<25
0.4
11.5
04/25/06
IN
-
92
-
-
-
123
72.9
0.2
7.1
17.1
1.6
241
-
-
-
81.5
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
15.0
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
8.5
92
-
-
-
90.8
71.2
0.3
6.9
16.7
2.0
739
-
-
-
17.9
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
12.6
TB
7.9
92
-
-
-
97.3
73
0.3
6.9
16.7
2.0
739
-
-
-
13.3
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
12.4
TC
8.1
96
-
-
-
85.5
72.1
0.2
6.9
16.6
203.0
749
-
-
-
12.1
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
12.2
TT
8.2
-
-
-
204
-
7.1
16.6
2.3
746
0.9
1.0
-
-
18.9
-
-
-
873
40.4
9.1
05/02/06
IN
-
92
-
-
-
109
75.5
0.1
6.9
17.7
1.6
230
-
-
-
88.0
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
14.9
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
9.0
96
-
-
-
87.9
75.2
0.5
6.9
17.7
2.0
215
-
-
-
25.1
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
12.6
TB
8.4
96
-
-
-
84.1
76.0
0.1
6.9
17.7
1.9
236
-
-
-
20.0
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
12.5
TC
8.6
96
-
-
-
83.7
75.6
0.2
6.9
17.6
1.9
242
-
-
-
19.8
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
13.1
TT
8.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
-
21.6
-
-
-
110
2 2
12.6
(a) As CaCO3.
-------
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Ortho phosphate (as P)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
mg/L("
rng/L
mg/L
rng/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/Lw
mg/L"1
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
09/19/06
IN
-
-
112
-
-
-
-
-
70.2
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
13.0
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
10
-
-
82.6
-
-
-
-
-
17.1
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
11.6
TB
9.4
-
-
80.1
-
-
-
-
-
15.8
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
11.7
TC
9.6
-
-
77.0
-
-
-
-
-
14.1
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
11.6
TT
9.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.5
-
-
57.9
-
0.71
11.6
09/28/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
51.3
-
-
-
9.16
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.1
-
-
-
9.99
TB
10.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.8
-
-
-
10.0
TC
10.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16.8
-
-
-
9.87
TT
10.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18.1
-
-
-
9.91
10/03/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
81.9
-
-
-
14.9
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14.9
TA
11.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
31.2
-
-
-
13.6
TB
10.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
28.1
-
-
-
13.2
TC
11.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25.6
-
-
-
12.3
TT
11.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
27.5
-
-
-
13.1
-
(b) As CaCO3.
-------
Run 2 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as P)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Sb
Soluble Sb
10A3
mg/L1"1
rng/L
rng/L
rng/L
mg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L1"1
mg/L"1
mg/L1"1
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
04/05/071"1
IN
.
.
7.6
17.2
4.2
256
_
.
AC
.
.
_
_
0.90
0.92
.
TA
.
.
6.9
17.3
4.1
654
_
.
TB
.
.
7.4
17.4
3.9
536
_
.
TC
.
.
8
17.4
3.9
477
_
.
TT
.
.
7.6
16.7
3.5
603
0.4
0.4
.
4/27/2007
IN
.
106
73.7
7.2
17.9
7.6
121
_
59.4
<25
<0.1
10
AC
.
.
_
_
1.25
0.88
.
TA
1.3
<10
61.3
6.4
17.9
7.4
388
_
0.5
<25
<0.1
5.3
TB
1.5
<10
49
6.4
17.9
6.1
717
_
0.3
<25
<0.1
4.3
TC
1.5
<10
48.8
6.5
17.9
6.4
720
_
0.2
<25
<0.1
4.4
TT
1.4
.
6.4
18
5.9
742
1.2
1.3
.
5/30/2007
IN
.
119
75.5
7.1
18.3
5
157
_
101
<25
<0.1
15.7
AC
.
.
_
_
0.88
0.90
.
TA
5.5
78.7
75.5
7.0
18.5
5.3
643
_
30.6
<25
<0.1
14.4
TB
5.8
46.9
74
7.0
18.4
5.2
666
_
29.2
<25
<0.1
14
TC
5.8
49
74
7.0
18.6
5.3
670
_
28.7
<25
<0.1
13.8
TT
5.7
.
7.0
18.4
5
680
0.8
0.9
.
06/20/07
------- |