EPA/600/R-09/067
August 2009
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Abraham S.C. Chen
Jody P. Lipps
Sarah McCall
Lili Wang
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order (TO) 0029 of Contract No. 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is provid-
ing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowl-
edge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on meth-
ods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface
resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sedi-
ments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environ-
ment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained for the arsenic removal treatment
technology demonstration project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA. The objectives of
the project were to evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of an Aquatic Treatment Systems, Inc. (ATS) arsenic
removal system in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of
10 (ig/L, (2) the reliability of the treatment system, (3) the required system operation and maintenance
(O&M) and operator skills, and (4) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The project also
characterizes water in the distribution system and residuals produced by the treatment process.
The ATS system consisted of three Well-X-TROL pressure tanks; one 25-^.m sediment filter; two 10-in
diameter, 54-in tall oxidation columns; three 10-in diameter, 54-in tall adsorption columns; and one
pressure tank/booster pump assembly before entering the distribution system. Constructed of sealed
polyglass, the columns were loaded with 1.5 ft3 each of either A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media
(consisting of activated alumina and sodium metaperiodate) or A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media
(consisting of activated alumina and a proprietary iron complex) for series operations. Based on the
design flowrate of 12 gal/min (gpm), the empty bed contact time (EBCT) in each column was 0.9 min (or
2.8 min for three adsorption columns in series) and the hydraulic loading rate to each column was 22
gpm/ft2. Because the actual flowrate through the system was slightly lower at 9.3 gpm (on average), the
actual EBCT was slightly longer at 1.2 min and the actual hydraulic loading rate was slightly lower at
17.2 gpm/ft2.
Between September 7, 2005, and June 13, 2007, the treatment system operated for an average of 1.1
hr/day for a total of 442 hr, treating approximately 303,000 gal of water containing 25.1 to 35.4 (ig/L of
arsenic. Arsenic in raw water existed as both soluble As(V) and soluble As(III), with As(III)
concentrations remaining below 47% of the soluble arsenic throughout most of the study period (except
for the first two months). Oxidation of As(III) was achieved through reactions with sodium
metaperiodate (IO4~) within the oxidation columns, producing As(V) and I" as end products. The
oxidation columns remained effective for As(III) oxidation throughout the study period, reducing As(III)
concentrations to less than 2.7, 1.2, and 1.0 (ig/L following the first and second oxidation columns and the
third adsorption column, respectively. As much as 264 (ig/L of IO4 (as I) had leached from the oxidation
and adsorption columns, but the leaching followed an apparent decreasing trend.
The oxidizing media showed a significant adsorptive capacity for arsenic (i.e., 0.18 to 0.20 (ig of As/mg
of dry media), effectively reducing arsenic concentrations to <10 (ig/L after processing 51,600 gal of
water through the lead oxidation column (or 4,600 bed volumes [BV; 1 BV = 1.5 ft3 = 11.22 gal]).
Complete arsenic breakthrough from the lead and lag oxidation columns occurred after processing 79,700
and 193,000 gal of water, respectively, which correspond to 7,100 BV (1 BV = 11.22 gal) through the
lead column and 8,600 BV (1 BV = 22.44 gal) through the lead and lag columns.
Arsenic breakthrough of 10 (ig/L following the lead and first lag adsorption columns occurred after
processing approximately 184,000 and 221,000 gal of water. Complete arsenic breakthrough for the lead
adsorption column took place after processing approximately 227,800 gal of water. The arsenic loading
on the lead adsorption column was 0.23 (ig of As/mg of dry media, which was very close to that on the
oxidation columns as mentioned above. These adsorptive capacities were very close to those observed at
another EPA arsenic demonstration site in Wales, ME, where a similar ATS system was used for arsenic
removal.
The lead and the first lag adsorption columns with spent adsorptive media were replaced after
approximately 18 months of operation. Before changeout, the total arsenic concentration in the system
IV
-------
effluent was 8.4 (ig/L, less than the 10 (ig/L MCL. The spent media in both vessels passed the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test and could be disposed off at a sanitary landfill. However,
the vendor recycled the spent media into another product, thus saving the disposal cost.
Comparison of distribution system water sampling results before and after system startup showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentration at the three sampling locations during the 12 monthly
sampling events. Arsenic concentrations were reduced from an average baseline level of 30.6 to 1.5
(ig/L, which, although low, were still higher than the concentrations (<0.2 (ig/L) measured at the
distribution entry point. Therefore, some dissolution and/or resuspension of arsenic might have occurred
in the distribution system. Lead and copper values also were low and did not appear to have been
affected by the treatment system.
The capital investment cost of $16,930 included $8,640 for equipment, $3,400 for site engineering, and
$4,890 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 12 gpm (or 17,280 gal per day [gpd]), the
capital cost was $l,410/gpm (or $0.98/gpd). The annualized capital cost was $l,598/yr based upon a 7%
interest rate and a 20-year return. The unit capital cost was $0.25/1,000 gal assuming the system operated
continuously at 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at 12 gpm. At the current usage rate of 180,520 gal per year, the unit
capital cost increased to $8.90/1,000 gal.
The O&M cost included only incremental cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media
replacement and disposal, electricity consumption, and labor. The incremental cost for electricity
consumption was negligible. The cost to replace the lead and first lag adsorption columns was $2,310.
Labor and travel would add approximately $1,660 to the total cost. This cost was used to estimate the
O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated as a function of the media run length to the 10-(ig/L arsenic in
the system effluent.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
Section 1.0: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
Section 2.0: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
Section 3.0: MATERIALS AND METHODS 7
3.1 General Project Approach 7
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 8
3.3.1 Source Water 8
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 8
3.3.3 Residual Solids 11
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 11
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 12
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
Section 4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13
4.1 Facility Description 13
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 13
4.1.2 Distribution System 14
4.2 Treatment Process Description 15
4.3 Permitting and System Installation 19
4.4 System Operation 22
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 22
4.4.2 Residual Management 24
4.4.3 System Operation, Reliability and Simplicity 24
4.4.3.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements 24
4.4.3.2 System Controls 24
4.4.3.3 Operator Skill Requirements 25
4.4.3.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities 25
4.5 System Performance 25
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 25
4.5.1.1 Arsenic and Iodine 25
4.5.1.2 Silica, Sulfate, Bicarbonate and Nitrate 33
4.5.1.3 Aluminum 33
4.5.1.4 Iron and Manganese 333
VI
-------
4.5.1.5 Other Water Quality Parameters 33
4.5.2 Spent Media Sampling 35
4.5.2.1 TCLP 35
4.5.2.2 Metals 36
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 37
4.6 System Cost 37
4.6.1 Capital Cost 37
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 39
Section 5.0: REFERENCES 42
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
APPENDIX C: ARSENIC CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Sampling Frequency 10
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Well No. 2 Pump House at Richmond Elementary School 13
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Pressure Tanks 14
Figure 4-3. Schematic of ATS As/1200CS System 18
Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 20
Figure 4-5. Oxidation and Adsorption Columns Shown Against Wall and a Sediment Filter
Attached to Wall 21
Figure 4-6. Close-up View of Oxidation and Adsorption Columns with Sample Taps and
Labels 21
Figure 4-7. Variation of Booster Pump/System Flowrates 23
Figure 4-8. Concentrations of Particulate Arsenic, Soluble As(III), and Soluble As(V) across
Treatment System 28
Figure 4-9. Iodine Concentrations across Treatment Train (BV Calculations Based on 1.5 ft3 of
Media in Each Column) 29
Figure 4-10. Arsenic Concentration across Treatment Train (BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3
of Media in Each Column) 30
Figure 4-11. Arsenic Mass Removed by Oxidation and Adsorption Columns 31
Figure 4-12. Silica Concentrations across Treatment Train (BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3
of Media in Each Column) 34
Figure 4-13. Alkalinity, Sulfate and Nitrate Concentrations across Treatment Train (BV
Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column 344
Figure 4-14. Aluminum Concentrations across Treatment Train (BV Calculations Based upon
1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column) 35
Figure 4-15. Media Replacement Cost Curves for As/1200CS System 41
TABLES
Table 1 -1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 3
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
vn
-------
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses 9
Table 4-1. Source Water Quality Data for Richmond Elementary School Site 15
Table 4-2a. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/P Complex 2002 Oxidizing Media 16
Table 4-2b. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/I Complex 2000 Adsorptive Media 16
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of ATS As/1200CS System 19
Table 4-4. Summary of As/1200CS System Operations 22
Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Analytical Results 26
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements 27
Table 4-7. Arsenic Mass Removed and Loadings on Media 31
Table 4-8. Comparison of Media Run Length and Arsenic Loading at Three Arsenic
Demonstration Sites Using ATS' Media 32
Table 4-9. TCLP Results of Spent Media from Columns A and B 35
Table 4-10. Spent Media Metals Results of Duplicate Samples 36
Table 4-11. Comparison of Media Capacity for Arsenic 37
Table 4-12. Distribution System Sampling Results 38
Table 4-13. Summary of Capital Investment Cost 399
Table 4-14. Summary of O&M Cost 40
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
AWWA American Water Works Association
bgs below ground surface
BV bed volume (s)
Ca calcium
CCR California Code of Regulations
C/F coagulation/filtration
Cl chlorine
Cu copper
DPH Department of Public Health
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
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
IX
-------
N/A not analyzed
Na sodium
NA not applicable
ND not detected
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF NSF International
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
Pb lead
PO4 orthophosphate
POU point-of-use
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
SBMHP Spring Brook Mobile Home Park
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO4 sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TCCI
TCLP
TDS
TO
TOC
TCCI Laboratories
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
total dissolved solids
task order
total organic carbon
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the operator of the water treatment system at
Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA. The operator of the school monitored the treatment
system and collected samples from the treatment system and distribution system on a regular schedule
throughout this reporting period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without his
support and dedication.
XI
-------
Section 1.0: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the water system at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, California was one of those
selected.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28. Aquatic Treatment System, Inc. (ATS) As/1200CS arsenic treatment
system was selected for demonstration at Richmond Elementary School site in October 2004.
As of April 2009, 39 of the 40 systems were operational and the performance evaluation of 32 systems
was completed.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13
coagulation/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, 17 point-of-use (POU) units
(including nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and
eight AM units at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations,
technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, Fe, and
pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12
Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital cost is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al.,
2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA website at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/publications.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 and Round 2 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic
treatment technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The
specific objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small
systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill
levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the ATS system at Richmond Elementary School in
Susanville, CA from September 7, 2005, through June 13, 2007. The types of data collected included
system operation, water quality data (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system),
residuals, and capital and O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NY(cl)
Newark, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (ARM 200)
AM (E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70W
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250W
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270W
l,806(c)
1,312W
1,61 5W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM (E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14W
13(a)
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127w
466W
l,387(c)
l,499(c)
7827(c)
546W
1,470W
3,078(c)
1,344W
l,325(c)
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(b)
50
37
35(a)
19W
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
Fe
Oig/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)®
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HDQ
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69(c>
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media; C/F = coagulation/filtration; GFH = granular ferric hydroxide; FflX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% after system was switched from parallel to serial configuration.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) Withdrew from program in 2007. Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(e) Faculties upgraded Springfield, OH system from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI system from 210 to 340 gpm, and Arnaudville, LA system from 385 to 770 gpm..
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
Section 2.0: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the 21 months of operation, the following conclusions were
made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• The A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media was effective at oxidizing As(III) to As(V), typically
lowering As(III) concentrations from an average of 12.1 to < 1.0 (ig/L throughout the 21-
month study period. Oxidation was achieved via reactions with NaIO4. The oxidizing media
also showed significant adsorptive capacities for arsenic (i.e., 0.18 and 0.20 (ig/mg of dry
media) comparable to adsorptive media. As much as 264 (ig/L of IO4 leached from the
oxidizing and adsorptive media, but the leaching followed an apparent decreasing trend.
• The A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media was effective at removing arsenic to below its
MCL. The run length to breakthrough at 10 (ig/L, however, was short, ranging from 4,930 to
5,470 bed volumes (BV; note that BV was calculated by considering the respective
adsorption column and all preceding columns as one large column). Complete breakthrough
from the lead column occurred at approximately 6,670 BV, resulting in a loading of 0.23 (ig
of As/mg of dry media.
• Aluminum was leached from the oxidation and adsorption columns, with concentrations
(existing primarily in the soluble form) ranging from 13.9 to 40.9 (ig/L. The concentrations
detected were below its secondary drinking water standard.
• Arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were reduced from an average baseline
level of 30.6 to 1.5 (ig/L. Some dissolution and/or resuspension of arsenic might have
occurred because the levels detected in the distribution were higher than the concentrations
(<0.2 (ig/L) measured at the distribution entry point.
Required system operation and maintenance and operator skill levels:
• Very little attention was needed to operate and maintain the system. The weekly demand on
the operator was typically 20 min to visually inspect the system and record operational
parameters.
• Operation of the As/1200CS did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to
operate the existing water supply equipment.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• The system did not require backwash to operate. As a result, no backwash residual was
produced.
• The only residual produced by the treatment system was spent media. The lead and first lag
adsorption columns with spent media were replaced after approximately 18 months of system
operation. The spent media passed the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) test
and could be disposed of as a non-hazardous material; however, the vendor elected to recycle
it into another product to save disposal cost.
-------
Technology cost:
Using the system's rated capacity of 12 gal/min (gpm) (or 17,280 gal/day [gpd]), the capital
cost was $l,410/gpm (or $0.98/gpd).
The cost to change out two adsorption columns (lead and first lag) at a time was $2,310 based
on the invoice provided by the vendor.
-------
Section 3.0: MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
the ATS treatment system began on September 7, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected
and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance was
evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the MCL of 10 |o,g/L through the
collection of water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the system was evaluated by
tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and replacement. Any
unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a Repair and
Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Submitted to Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Package Submitted to California DPH
System Installation and Shakedown Completed
Final Study Plan Issued
Permit issued by California DPH
Performance Evaluation Began
Date
October 26, 2004
April 13, 2005
April 22, 2005
May 13, 2005
May 25, 2005
June 8, 2005
July 5, 2005
July 29, 2005
August 16, 2005
August 17, 2005
August 24, 2005
September 7, 2005
DPH = Department of Public Health
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and
Operator Skill
Requirements
Residual Management
Cost-Effectiveness
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 u.g/L MCL of arsenic in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems, materials and
supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, and complexity
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and safety
practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
-------
The O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through quantitative data and qualitative
considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation, extent of
preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory, and
general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and safety practices. The
staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (or gpm) (or gal/day [gpd]) of
design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital
cost for equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electricity usage, and labor.
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, biweekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a regular basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a System Operation Log
Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred,
the plant operator would contact the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if ATS should be contacted for
troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information, including problems encountered,
course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred, on the Repair
and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a biweekly basis, the plant operator measured several water quality
parameters onsite, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction potential
(ORP), and recorded the data on an Onsite Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for media replacement, electricity consumption,
and labor. Labor for various activities, such as routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and
demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system
O&M included activities such as completing field logs, ordering supplies, performing system inspections,
and others as recommended by the vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities
such as performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the
Battelle Study Lead and the vendor, was recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected 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, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in
Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial visit to Richmond Elementary School, one set of source
water samples was collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (see Section 3.4.1). The sample
tap was flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which
might cause unwanted oxidation. Analytes for the source water sample are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, treatment plant
water samples were collected by the plant operator every other week at three to six locations across the
treatment train at the wellhead (IN), after oxidation columns (OA and OB), and after adsorption columns
(TA, TB, and TC). Sampling, in general, was alternating between events with and without speciation
-------
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Residual
Solids
Sample
Location(s)(a)
At Wellhead
(IN)
At Wellhead
(IN),
After Oxidation
Columns (OA
and OB),
After Adsorption
Columns (TA,
TB, and TC)
Three LCR
Locations
Adsorption
Columns
No. of
Samples
1
3-6
4-6
3
6
Sampling
Frequency
Once (during
initial site
visit)
Once every
four weeks*5
(With
Speciation)
Once every
four weeks*'
(Without
Speciation)
Monthly™
Once (after
media
changeout)
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off-site: As(III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Al (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NH3,
N03, N02, S04, Si02,
PO4, alkalinity, turbidity,
TDS and TOC
Onsite w: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off-site: As(III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Al (total and soluble), and
Si02
Onsite1-0-1: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off-site: As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
Al (total), Ca, Mg, F, I,
N03, S2', S04, Si02, P
(total), alkalinity, and/or
turbidity
Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu, and
Pb, alkalinity, and pH
TCLP metals, Al, As, Cd,
Ca, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg, Mn,
Ni, P, Si, and Zn.
Date(s) Samples
Collected
10/26/04
09/19/05,11/02/05,
11/29/05,01/05/06,
02/02/06, 03/02/06,
03/29/06, 04/27/06,
06/01/06, 06/21/06,
07/20/06, 08/29/06,
09/13/06,10/11/06,
11/15/06,01/10/07,
01/31/07,03/07/07,
03/28/07,04/19/07,
05/16/07,06/13/07
10/17/05,11/21/05,
12/14/05, 01/17/06,
02/16/06,03/15/06,
04/1 1/06, 05/08/06,
06/07/06, 07/06/06,
08/01/06, 09/27/06,
10/26/06,11/29/06,
12/13/06, 12/19/06,
01/18/07,02/15/07,
03/15/07
Baseline sampling:
07/21/05, 08/04/05,
08/24/05
Monthly sampling:
10/17/05,11/21/05,
12/07/05,01/19/06,
02/16/06,03/15/06,
04/11/06,05/10/06,
06/07/06,07/19/06,
08/16/06, 09/12/06
03/14/07(e)
(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-4.
(b) See variations in Figure 3-1 .
(c) Taken only at IN, OA, OB, and/or TC.
(d) Three baseline sampling events performed before system became operational.
(e) Media changed out on 03/14/07; columns shipped to ATS for sample collection on 6/5/07.
TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon;
LCR = lead and copper rule.
-------
samples taken. To accommodate operator's schedules, holidays, and changes of sampling strategy when
approaching the end of the study, the frequency of speciation sampling varied from once every two weeks
to once every eight weeks, and the frequency of regular sampling events (i.e., with no speciation samples
taken) varied from once a week to once every eight weeks (Figure 3-1).
a>
"c
LU
'o
6
| DW/ Speciation BW/O Speciation
0-
9-
8-
7-
6-
b-
4-
3-
2-
1-
1
2
^_
^
3
i m
45678
Frequency (week)
Figure 3-1. Sampling Frequency
Speciation samples were taken from IN, OA, OB, and TC during all speciation sampling events except for
that taking place on September 19, 2005, with samples taken only from IN, OA, and TA; for that on
November 29, 2005, with samples taken only from IN, OB, and TC; and for those on April 19, May 16,
and June 13, 2007, with samples taken only from IN, OA, and OB. Samples taken during the speciation
sampling events were analyzed onsite for pH, temperature, DO, and ORP, and off-site for total and
soluble arsenic, iron, manganese, and aluminum as well as silica (Table 3-3). A number of exceptions
occurred during the speciation sampling events and are summarized as follows:
• Onsite measurements were performed in only 12 out of 22 speciation sampling events.
• Total arsenic and silica were measured at all sampling locations for all speciation sampling
events except for that on September 19, 2005, as noted above.
• Total iron, manganese, and aluminum were analyzed at all sampling locations for nine
speciation sampling events on November 2, 2005, January 5, 2006, March 2 and 29, 2006,
June 1 and 21, 2006, August 29, 2006, October 11, 2006, and March 7, 2007.
• Only arsenic speciation was performed for the last three speciation sampling events on
April 19, 2007, May 16, 2007, and June 13, 2007.
• The list of analytes that should have been performed for a regular sampling event was
inadvertently applied to the speciation sampling events on September 19, 2005, and
August 29, 2006.
10
-------
Water samples were taken from IN, OB, and TC during all regular sampling events except for that on
October 17, 2005, with samples taken from IN, OA, TA, and TC. Similar to speciation samples, samples
taken during the regular sampling events were analyzed both onsite and offsite for the analytes listed in
Table 3-3. Several exceptions occurred during the regular sampling events and are summarized below:
• Onsite measurements were performed in only five out of 19 regular sampling events.
• Total arsenic and silica were measured at all sampling locations for all regular sampling
events except for that on October 17, 2005, as noted above.
• Starting from October 26, 2006, the list of analytes was reduced to total arsenic, iron,
manganese, and aluminum, silica, iodine, and alkalinity.
• Starting from January 18, 2007, the list of analytes was reduced to total arsenic, iron,
manganese, and aluminum, and silica.
• EPA Method 300.0 with ion chromatography was used to measure iodine only once on
October 17, 2005. Since then, inductively-coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) was
used as the replacement method for iodine analyses.
3.3.3 Residual Solids. Because the system did not require backwash, no backwash residuals were
produced during system operations. Spent media samples were collected from the first two adsorption
columns replaced on March 14, 2007. ATS collected one gallon of sample from each column and
shipped the samples to Battelle. Approximately 200 g of the spent media from each container were
collected after being homogenized and placed in one container. One aliquot was tested for TCLP.
Another aliquot (approximately 100 g) was air-dried, crushed (using a mortar and pestle), acid digested,
and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to system startup from July to August 2005, three
sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected from three locations within the distribution
system that were part of the historic sampling network under the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR).
Following system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same
locations for one year.
Samples were collected following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Rule
Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The dates and times of last
water usage before sampling and sample collection were recorded, when possible, for calculating the
stagnation time. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least 6
hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, colored-coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample
11
-------
collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The
sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code
for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The
labeled bottles for each sampling locations were placed in separate Ziploc® bags and packed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included. The chain-of-
custody forms and airbills were complete except for the operator's signature and the sample dates and
times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following week's
sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's ICP-MS laboratory. Samples for other water quality
analyses by Battelle's subcontract laboratories, including American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in
Columbus, Ohio, Belmont Labs in Englewood, Ohio, and TCCI Laboratories (TCCI) in New Lexington,
Ohio, were packed in separate coolers and picked up by a courier. Sulfide samples were packed in
coolers and shipped via FedEx to DHL Laboratories in Round Rock, TX. The chain-of-custody forms
remained with the samples from the time of preparation through collection, analysis, and final disposition.
All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold
time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, Belmont, TCCI, and DHL Laboratories. Laboratory quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms
of precision, accuracy, method detection limits (MDLs), and completeness met the criteria established in the
QAPP (i.e., relative percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of
80%). The quality assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a
QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic
Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
VWR Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use
following the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy
by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator
collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Symphony SP90M5 probe in the beaker
until a stable value was obtained.
12
-------
Section 4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Facility Description
The Richmond Elementary School is located at 700-585 Richmond Road in Susanville, CA,
approximately 85 miles northwest of Reno, Nevada on U.S. 395. Prior to and during the EPA arsenic
removal technology evaluation study, the school had approximately 250 students and staff members
during the academic year. The school building was served by a single well (Well No. 2) operating at an
estimated flowrate of 12 gpm. Figure 4-1 shows the pre-existing Well No. 2 pump house located near the
southwest corner of the school building. Well No. 2 was 8-in in diameter and 145-ft deep with a screened
interval extending from 75 to 145 ft below ground surface (bgs). The static water level was at
approximately 20 ft bgs. Well No. 2 was equipped with a \1A -horsepower Starite pump, operating for
approximately 2.5 hr/day with an estimated maximum production rate of 2,000 gpd.
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Well No. 2 Pump House at
Richmond Elementary School
There was no pre-existing treatment at the facility. Groundwater from Well No. 2 was pumped directly to
three hydropneumatic tanks located in the pump house prior to the distribution system. Figure 4-2 shows
the three pre-existing pressure tanks and related system piping.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on October 26, 2004, and
subsequently analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3. The results of the source water analyses,
along with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those obtained
from EPA and the California Department of Public Health (DPH), are presented in Table 4-1.
Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 24.0 to 36.7 |o,g/L. Based on the October 26,
2004, sampling results, the total arsenic concentration in source water was 36.7 |o,g/L, of which 31.9 |o,g/L
(or 87%) existed as soluble As(III) and 4.7 (ig/L (or 13%) as soluble As(V). This speciation result was
13
-------
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Pressure Tanks
consistent with the relatively low DO value of 1.0 mg/L measured during sampling. The ORP reading of
180 mV, however, was not as low as expected.
pH values of source water ranged between 7.0 and 8.5. The vendor indicated that the A/I Complex 2000
media could effectively remove arsenic as long as the pH values of source water were less than 9.0. As
such, no pH adjustment was planned at this site.
Concentrations of iron (47 to 125 (ig/L) in raw water were sufficiently low so pretreatment prior to the
adsorption process was not required. Concentrations of orthophosphate and fluoride also were low (i.e.,
<0.1 and <0.2 mg/L, respectively) and, therefore, not expected to affect arsenic adsorption on the A/I
Complex 2000 media. Silica concentrations were between 13.6 and 14.5 mg/L, similar to the level
measured in source water at the Spring Brook Mobile Home Park (SBMHP) site in Wales, Maine (Lipps
et al, 2006). Because the A/I Complex 2000 media was shown to be especially selective for silica at the
SBMHP site, the effect of silica on arsenic adsorption was carefully monitored throughout the study
period.
Other water quality parameters as presented in Table 4-1 had sufficiently low concentrations and,
therefore, were not expected to affect arsenic adsorption on the A/I Complex 2000 media.
4.1.2 Distribution System. The original distribution system was installed in 1965 and was
reported to consist of copper and galvanized iron piping. More recently, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping
also was used. Compliance samples from the distribution system were collected every three years for
metals and other analytes such as chloride, fluoride, nitrate, and nitrite. Under the EPA LCR, samples
were collected from five taps within the school building every five years.
14
-------
Table 4-1. Source Water Quality Data for Richmond Elementary School Site
4.2
Parameter
Date
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
W?/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Facility
Data
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
80
48
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6
N/A
5
N/A
N/A
34
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
<100
N/A
<20
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
66
14
4
EPA
Data
12/02/03
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
84
44
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
<5
N/A
16.9
13.6
0.08
30
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
47
NA
5.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
27.2
14.2
2.1
Battelle
Data
10/26/04
7.5
12.3
1.0
180
82
40
0.9
138
1.0
0.1
O.01
O.05
2.1
<0.1
17.0
14.5
O.06
36.7
36.6
0.1
31.9
4.7
125
<25
5.6
5.5
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.2
35.0
11.2
2.9
California DPH
Historic Data
1994-2000
7.0-8.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
99-184
N/A
<2
<0.4
N/A
1.3-6.0
0.1-0.2
5.1-13.6
N/A
N/A
24-37
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
<100
N/A
<30
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A = not analyzed
Treatment Process Description
The ATS As/1200CS adsorption system used A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing mediate oxidize As(III) to
As(V) and then A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media to adsorb As(V). The A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing
media consisted of activated alumina and sodium metaperiodate and the A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive
media consisted of activated alumina and a proprietary iron complex. Tables 4-2a and 4-2b present
physical and chemical properties of the oxidizing and adsorptive media, respectively, provided by ATS.
Both media have NSF International (NSF) Standard 61 listing for use in drinking water.
15
-------
Table 4-2a. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/P Complex 2002 Oxidizing Media
Parameter
Value
Physical Properties
Matrix
Physical form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Specific Gravity (dry)
Hardness (lb/in2)
Effective Size (mm)
Bulk Relative Density (g/cm3)
BET surface area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle Size Distribution (Tyler mesh)
Activated alumina/metaperiodate complex
Granular solid
White granules
51
1.5
14-16
0.42
0.90
320
<0.1
<5
28x48 (less than 2% fines)
Ch emical Analysis
Constituents
A1203
NaIC-4
Weight (%)
96.59 (dry)
3.41 (dry)
Source: ATS
Table 4-2b. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/I Complex 2000 Adsorptive Media
Parameter
Value
Physical Properties
Matrix
Physical form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Specific Gravity (dry)
Hardness (lb/in2)
Effective Size (mm)
BET surface area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle Size Distribution (Tyler mesh)
Activated alumina/iron complex
Granular solid
Light brown/orange granules
51
1.5
14-16
0.42
320
<0.1
<5
28 x48(<2% fines)
Chemical Analysis
Constituents
A12O3
NaIO4
Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2 • 6H2O
Weight (%)
90.89 (dry)
3.21 (dry)
5.90 (dry)
Source: ATS
The ATS As/1200CS system was a fixed-bed downflow adsorption system designed for use at small
water systems with flowrates of around 12 gpm. When a column reaches capacity, the column with spent
media is removed, dewatered, and shipped to ATS' shop in Massachusetts. After being subjected to the
EPA TCLP test, the spent media was either disposed of or recycled for beneficiary use.
The system at the Richmond Elementary School was configured in series. The system was designed to
allow the lead column to be removed upon exhaustion and each of the two lag columns to be moved
forward one position (i.e., the first lag column became the lead column, and the second lag column
16
-------
became the first lag column). A new column loaded with virgin media was then placed at the end of the
treatment train. Figure 4-3 shows a schematic diagram of the system.
The major system components are described as follows:
• Pressure Tanks. Two pre-existing Model WX-252 and one pre-existing Model WX-302
Well-X-TROL tanks by AMTROL with a total storage capacity of approximately 250 gal
were located at the system inlet. These pressure tanks served as a temporary storage for well
water. The well pump was turned on when the pressure in the tanks had dropped to below 40
pounds per square inch (psi) and the well pump was turned off after the tanks had been
refilled and the pressure in the tanks had reached 62 psi.
• Sediment Filter. One 25-(im sediment filter was installed at the head of the treatment train.
The 6-in x 20-in filter was used to remove sediment and avoid introducing large particles
directly into the oxidation and adsorption columns.
• Oxidation Columns. Following the sediment filter were two 10-in x 54-in sealed polyglass
columns (by Park International) each loaded with 1.5 ft3 of A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing
media. Each oxidation column had a riser tube and a valved head assembly to control inflow,
outflow, and by-pass.
• Adsorption Columns. Following the two oxidation columns were three 10-in x 54-in sealed
polyglass columns (by Park International) each loaded with 1.5 ft3 of A/I Complex 2000
adsorptive media. Similar to the oxidation columns, each adsorption column had a riser tube
and a valved head assembly to control inflow, outflow, and by-pass.
• Totalizer/Flow Meter. One Model F-1000 paddlewheel totalizer/flow meter (by Blue-White
Industries) was installed on the downstream end of the treatment train to record the flowrate
and volume of water treated through the treatment train.
• Booster Pump and Pressure Tank. One 180-gal Well-Rite pressure tank (by Flexcon
Industries in Randolph, Maine) fitted with a %-hp Goulds booster pump (Model No.
C48A94A06) was installed at the system outlet. The booster pump/pressure tank was used to
"pull" water from the three pressure tanks at the system inlet through the two oxidation and
three adsorption columns; provide temporary storage of the treated water; and supply the
treated water with the needed pressure to the distribution system. The on/off of the booster
pump was controlled by the low/high pressure switch set at 45/65 psi on the pressure tank.
• Pressure Gauges. One each BII (0-100 psi) pressure gauge was installed at the system inlet
just prior to the sediment filter, at the head of each column, and at the system outlet. The
pressure gauges were used to monitor the system pressure and pressure drop across the
treatment train.
• Sampling Taps. Sampling taps made of PVC (by US Plastics) were located prior to the
system and following each oxidation and adsorption vessel for water sampling.
17
-------
00
Chlormation taps installed but not in use
Pre-Sediment
/> Filter /> O
Existing
Pressure
N/O Tank(s)
SP Raw
Well
10"X54"
10"X 54"
10" X 54"
Arsenic
Removal
Guard
Column
10"X 54"
Arsenic
Removal
Guard
Column
10" X 54"
Notes:
1) Each of Tanks 1 through 5 is fitted with a valved head assembly to control inflow, outflow and by-pass.
2) The Arsenic Removal System is assembled using 1" I.D. fittings and connections.
(C) ATS 2005
susanville schematic.wk4
Symbol Key
Ball Valve ^) Pressure Guage
| | Check Valve X Sample Port (SP)
^L Clorination Tap N/O Normally Open Valve Position
Drain N/C Normally Closed Valve Position
Flow Meter/Totalizer
12 gpm Flow Restrictor
Schematic is NOT TO SCALE
design by TJB/ATS
Figure 4-3. Schematic of ATS As/1200CS System
-------
The system was constructed using 1-in copper piping and fittings. The design features of the treatment
system are summarized in Table 4-3, and a flow diagram along with the sampling/analysis schedule are
presented in Figure 4-4. A photograph of the system installed is shown in Figure 4-5 and a close-up view
of the oxidation and adsorptive media columns is shown in Figure 4-6.
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of ATS As/1200CS System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Oxidation Columns
Column Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/column)
Number of Columns
Configuration
Media Type
Media Quantity (Ibs/column)
Media Volume (ftVcolumn)
10 D x54H
0.54
2
Series
A/P Complex 2002
76.5
1.5
-
-
-
-
See Table 4-2a
Adsorption Columns
Column Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/column)
Number of Columns
Configuration
Media Type
Media Quantity (Ibs/column)
Media Volume (ftVcolumn)
10 D x54H
0.54
o
J
Series
A/I Complex 2000
76.5
1.5
-
-
-
-
See Table 4-2b
Service
System Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (mm/column)
Maximum Use Rate (gpd)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Throughput to Breakthrough (gal)
Estimated Media Life (months)
Backwash
12
22
0.9
2,000
42,720
479,000
8
-
-
-
2.7 min for 3 adsorption columns
Estimate provided by school
To breakthrough at capacity from
lead column
Based on 1.5 ft3 of media in lead column
Based on maximum use rate of 2,000 gpd
No system backwash required
4.3
Permitting and System Installation
Engineering plans for the system were prepared by ATS and reviewed by NST Engineering, Inc. The
plans consisting of a schematic and a written description of the As/1200CS system were submitted to
California DPH for approval on July 29, 2005. The approval was granted by the California DPH on
August 24, 2005.
The system was placed in the existing treatment building, shown in Figure 4-1, without any addition or
modifications. The As/1200CS system, consisting of factory-packed oxidation and adsorption columns
and pre-assembled system valves, gauges, and sample taps, was shipped by ATS and delivered to the site
on August 15, 2005. The system installation began that same day, including some re-work of the existing
system piping. The sediment filter was attached to the wall at the head of the treatment train (Figure 4-5).
The media columns were then set into place and plumbed together using copper piping and connections.
The mechanical installation was complete on August 16, 2005. Before the system was put online, the
system piping was flushed and the columns were filled one at a time to check for leaks. Once all columns
were filled, the system was operated for a short period with the treated water discharged to the sewer.
19
-------
INFLUENT (WELL 2)
PRESSURE TANKS
SEDIMENT FILTER
'OXIDATION'
COLUMN
A
'OXIDATION1
COLUMN
B
MEDIA
COLUMN
A
MEDIA
COLUMN
B
MEDIA
COLUMN
C
TC
BOOSTER TANK/PRESSURE TANK
Richmond Elementary School
at Susanville, CA
As/1200CS Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: 12 gpm
Biweekly
pHW, temperature^, DOW,
As (total and/or soluble), As(III), As(V),
• Fe (total and/or soluble), Mn (total and/or soluble),
Al (total and/or soluble), Ca, Mg, F, I, NO3, S2'*),
SO4, SiO2, PO4, turbidity, and/or alkalinity
LEGEND
IN ) At Wellhead
After Oxidation Column
(OA-OB)
T ."N After Adsorption Column
J (TA-TC)
Unit Process
^ Process Flow
| DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM |
Note: Analyses reduced after approximately one year of sampling
Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
20
-------
Figure 4-5. Oxidation and Adsorption Columns Shown Against Wall
and a Sediment Filter Attached to Wall
Figure 4-6. Close-up View of Oxidation and Adsorption Columns with
Sample Taps and Labels
After it was determined that the system had been operating properly, the system and new pipe were
disinfected according to American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard C651-99 and a sample
was collected for the total coliform test. The system was bypassed until August 30, 2005, when the
satisfactory total coliform sample results were obtained. The first set of samples was collected on
September 19, 2005, after the system was put online.
Several punch-list items were identified by Battelle during a site visit on September 19, 2005, when the
system was inspected and operator training conducted. The punch-list items consisted of the following:
21
-------
4.4
A totalizer/flowmeter was installed after the booster pump/pressure tank following the
As/1200CS system and measured only the flowrates from the pressure tank to the
distribution. A second totalizer/flowmeter placed just prior to the booster pump/pressure tank
was required to measure the flowrates and volume of water treated by the system. The
totalizer/flowmeter was installed on December 4, 2005.
An hour meter was installed on the well pump rather than the booster pump. The wellhead
hour meter tracked the amount of time that the well pump operated rather than the system. A
second hour meter on the booster pump was therefore required to determine the amount of
time that the system operated. The hour meter was installed on December 9, 2005.
A check valve was installed on a line that bypassed the booster pump/pressure tank assembly
from the adsorption columns to the distribution system. The check valve must be replaced
with a ball valve to ensure proper system operations.
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters of the system are tabulated and
attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-4. From September 7, 2005,
through June 13, 2007, Well No. 2 operated for a total of only 238 hr, or 0.1 to 2.1 hr/day, based on hour
meter readings on the well pump. The operational time represented a utilization rate of approximately
2.5% (on average) over the 21-month evaluation period with the well pump operating for an average of
0.6 hr/day. A total of 415 days when the school was in session and when maintenance occurred in the
summer of 2006 was used for calculations. The 415 school days do not include weekends, holidays,
spring breaks, and Christmas break.
Table 4-4. Summary of As/1200CS System Operations
Operational Parameter
Operation Duration
Total Well Operating Time (hr)
Total Booster Pump/Treatment System Operating Time (hr)
Total Number of School Days (day)(a)
Well No. 2 Operating Time (hr/day)
Booster Pump/Treatment System Operating Time (hr/day)
Volume Throughput (gal)
Well No. 2 Flowrate (gpm)(b)
Booster Pump/Treatment System Flowrate (gpm)(c)
Daily Use Rate (gpd)
EBCT (min/column)
Range of Influent Pressure (psi)
Average Pressure in Each Column (psi)(d)
Average Pressure Loss across Each Column (psi)
Value
09/07/05-06/13/07
238
442
415
0.1-2.1 (0.6)
0.1-4.6(1.1)
302,960
4.2-48.6 (21.6)
4.6-32.0
39-2,613 (730)
0.7-1.6(1.2)
31-64(48)
48,45,39,32,23,18
6.1
(a) Less weekends, holidays, spring breaks, and Christmas break plus days when
maintenance occurred in summer.
(b) Calculated based on totalizer and well pump hour meter readings.
(c) Calculated based on totalizer and booster pump hour meter readings; see Figure
4-7 for unexpected flowrate increase.
(d) Pressure readings at IN, OA, OB, TA, TB, and TC, respectively.
Numeric figures in parentheses denote average.
22
-------
Based on totalizer and well pump hour meter readings, calculated Well No. 2 flowrates ranged from 4.2 to
48.6 gpm and averaged 21.6 gpm (excluding three outliers - 61.5, 134.9, and 1.6 gpm observed on
February 9, 2006; May 3, 2006; and March 8, 2007, respectively). As denoted by "*" in Figure 4-7, the
well pump flowrates fluctuated around the average value throughout the course of the evaluation and did
not appear to be affected by the relocation of a 75-gal pressure tank from before to after the treatment
system approximately 12.5 months into system operations. (Note that the relocation decreased the storage
capacity of raw water before treatment and increased correspondingly the storage capacity of treated
water after treatment.) The average well pump flowrate was almost two times the flowrate provided by
the school during the introductory meeting in October 2004. No pump curve was available prior to the
system installation.
Well Pump and Booster Pump/System Flowrates
60
50 -
40 -
I"
Q.
O
fl 30 -
re
2
u_
20 -
10 -
» Calculated Well Pump Flowrate
• Calculated Booster Pump/System Flowrate
A System Instantaneous Flowrate
75-gal storage tank moved from
before to after treatment system;
on/off switch for inlet pressure tanks
changed from 40/62 psi to 60/75 psi
*»
>
. *3
. ft
™ A *
8/31/2005 12/9/2005 3/19/2006 6/27/2006 10/5/2006
Date
1/13/2007
4/23/2007
Figure 4-7. Variation of Booster Pump/System Flowrates
The booster pump and the treatment system operated for 442 hr based on hour meter readings of the
booster pump. Note that before the hour meter was installed on the booster pump on December 9, 2005,
the booster pump run times were estimated by multiplying respective well pump run times by a factor of
2.77, which is the ratio of the total booster pump run time to total well pump run time during the six-
month period following the installation of the hour meter. The daily operational time of the booster pump
and the system ranged from 0.1 to 4.6 hr/day, averaged 1.1 hr/day. The operational time represented a
utilization rate of approximately 4.6%. Again, a total of 415 school days was used for calculations.
Calculated booster pump/treatment system flowrates, denoted by "•," ranged from 4.6 to 12.4 gpm
(except for one outlier at 17.6 gpm) and averaged 8.8 gpm during the first 12.5 months of system
operations, but rose unexpectedly to levels ranging from 12.6 to 32.0 gpm (excluding one outlier 1.9 gpm
observed on March 7, 2007) and averaging 22.3 gpm through the remainder of the evaluation. The
23
-------
sudden increase in flowrate from 8.8 to 22.3 gpm (on average) coincided with the above-mentioned
relocation of a 75-gal pressure tank in September 2006, although no plausible explanation might link the
event to the observed increase. Because a 12-gpm flow restrictor had been installed on the treatment
system since system startup, flowrates above 12 gpm were suspect. This conclusion was further
supported by the relatively constant instantaneous flowrate readings, denoted by "A," taken from the
flow meter/totalizer installed on the treatment system, which ranged from 7.1 to 15.5 gpm (except for one
outlier at 1.6 gpm) and averaged 9.3 gpm throughout the study period. Because these values were very
close to the calculated flowrates before pressure tank relocation, instantaneous flowrate readings were
used to represent system flowrates.
The empty bed contact time (EBCT) for each column ranged from 0.7 and 1.6 min and averaged 1.2 min
(or 3.6 min [on average] if considering the three adsorption columns as one large column). These values
are 33% higher than the design value of 0.9 min per column or 2.7 min for three columns. Based on the
average flowrate and average daily operating time, the average daily use rate was about 730 gpd
(assuming 415 school days), which was about 37% of the estimate provided by the school.
The total system throughput during this 21 month period was approximately 302,960 gal. This
corresponds to 27,000 BV of water processed through a column containing 1.5 ft3 (or 11.2 gal) of media.
For the three columns in series with 4.5 ft3 of media, the system treated approximated 9,000 BV of water.
The pressure loss across each column ranged from 0 to 17 psi and averaged 6.1 psi. The total pressure
loss across the treatment train (five columns in series) averaged 30 psi. The average influent pressure at
the head of the system from the wells was 47.6 psi, and the average pressure following the last column in
each treatment train was 17.5 psi. The booster pump and pressure tank installed after the system provided
52.4 psi of pressure to the distribution system.
4.4.2 Residual Management. The only residual produced by the operation of the As/1200CS
treatment system was spent media. The first two adsorption columns were replaced on March 14, 2007,
after approximately 18 months of system operations. Because the oxidation columns were effectively
reducing As(III) to As(V) throughout the evaluation period, they were not replaced. The system did not
require backwashing to operate and therefore no backwash residual was produced.
4.4.3 System Operation, Reliability and Simplicity. The system encountered some operational
difficulties soon after it began operation. On several occasions, the 180-gal pressure tank located at the
system outlet did not provide sufficient water to meet the peak demand of the school. On September 25,
2006, the system operator moved one of the three 75-gal pressure tanks located at the system inlet to after
the treatment system to provide extra treated water storage.
4.4.3.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The only pretreatment step was the oxidation of
As(III) to As(V) via the oxidizing media installed in the first two columns of the treatment train. No
additional chemical addition or other pre- or post-treatment steps were used at the site.
4.4.3.2 System Controls. The As/1200CS adsorption system was a passive system, requiring only
the operation of the supply well pump and booster pump to send water to the two pressure tanks at the
system inlet and through the oxidation and adsorption columns to the two pressure tanks at the system
outlet (this was changed from three pressure tanks at the system inlet and one pressure tank at the system
outlet as discussed above). The media columns themselves did not have automated parts and all valves
were manually activated. The inline flowmeter was battery powered so that the only electrical power
required was that needed to run the supply well pump and booster pump. The supply well pump was in
place prior to the installation of the ATS treatment system. The system operation was controlled by the
pressure switches in the pressure tank at the system outlet.
24
-------
4.4.3.3 Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to
operate the As/1200CS system were minimal. The operation of the system did not appear to require
additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the existing water supply system in place at the site.
The treatment facility was considered by the California DPH as a non-transient, non-community water
system. Because it served more than 25 of the same people for more than 60 days a year, it was
considered a public water system. All individuals who operate or supervise the operation of a public
water system in the state of California must possess a water treatment operator certificate. An individual
who makes decisions addressing the operational activities must possess a distribution operator certificate.
The operational activities are described in Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 13, Subsection 63770(b) of the
California Code of Regulations (CCR, 2001).
Operator certifications are granted by the State of California after meeting minimum requirements, which
include passing an examination and maintaining a minimum amount of hours of specialized training.
There are five grades of operators for both water treatment (T1-T5) and distribution (D1-D5). Because
the Richmond Elementary School has a simple water system and serves a population of less than 1,000, it
qualifies as a Grade 1 (the lowest) for both treatment and distribution. The school operator possesses a
Tl and Dl certification.
4.4.3.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities. The only regularly scheduled preventative
maintenance activity recommended by ATS was to inspect the sediment filters monthly and replace as
necessary. The treatment system operator visited the site about three times per week (approximately 20
min) to check the system for leaks, and record flow, volume, and pressure readings.
4.5 System Performance
The system performance was evaluated based on analyses of samples collected from the raw and treated
water from the treatment and distribution systems. The system ran from September 7, 2005, through
June 13, 2007. On March 14, 2007, the first two adsorption columns were removed; the third adsorption
column was moved to the lead position; and two new adsorption columns were placed at the end of the
treatment train. Evaluation of the treatment system was based on the original oxidation and adsorption
columns installed.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-5 summarizes the arsenic, iron, manganese, and
aluminum results from samples collected throughout the treatment plant. Table 4-6 summarizes the
results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results
through the 21 months of system operations. The results of the treatment plant sampling are discussed
below.
4.5.1.1 Arsenic and Iodine. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the treatment
system was the concentration of arsenic in the treated water. The treatment plant water was sampled on
44 occasions during the evaluation period (with duplicates taken on three and speciation performed on 22
of the 44 occasions).
Figure 4-8 contains four bar charts each showing the concentrations of total arsenic, particulate As,
soluble As(III), and soluble As(V) at the wellhead, after the first and second oxidation columns and after
the entire system. Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 25.1 to 35.4 (ig/L and averaged
31.7 (ig/L (Table 4-5). For the first two months of the performance evaluation study, soluble As(III) was
the predominating species in raw water with concentrations averaging 28.4 (ig/L. Soluble As(III)
concentrations decreased after the third month of operation for unknown reasons and remained below
47% of the soluble arsenic throughout the remainder of the evaluation period (Figure 4-8) with
25
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Total Al
Soluble Al
Sampling
Location
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
Number
of
Samples
44ta,c)
42^4(a,cl)
37^3(a'd)
2i W
21
O-i yw
21 w
21
O-i yw
21 w
21
0-1 7(a>
41 w
21-39(a'd)
11_38(a,d)
19
18
O-i yw
41 (a)
21-39^
11_38(a,d)
19
18
0-18(d)
41 w
20-39(a'd)
9_38(M)
19
18
0-1 6(a>
Concentration (ug/L)
Minimum
25.1
Maximum
35.4
Average
31.7
Standard
Deviation
2.1
(b)
<0.1
8.3
0.8
1.8
(b)
6.2
28.5
12.1
6.0
(b)
3.4
27.8
19.8
6.2
(b)
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
3.5
<0.1
<0.1
3.5
<0.1
<0.1
<10
13.9
17.5
<10
14.2
13.9
136
<25
<25
41.1
<25
<25
7.7
0.5
0.8
7.5
0.3
0.3
<10
36.2
40.9
<10
35.4
38.6
36.7
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
5.4
<0.1
<0.1
5.2
<0.1
<0.1
<10
23.5
26.6
<10
23.3
26.5
25.9
0.0
0.0
9.5
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
4.9
5.7
0.0
5.4
6.8
One-half of detection limit used for calculations involving non-detect samples.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
(a) Including three duplicate samples
(b) Statistics not provided; see Figure 4-10 for As breakthrough curves.
(c) Outlier removed from statistical analysis
(d) Figures shown reflect range of sampling occasions taking place at specified sampling locations.
concentrations ranging between 6.2 and 15.0 (ig/L (excluding one outlier on April 27, 2006) and
averaging 10.4 (ig/L. Soluble As(V) concentrations ranged from 3.4 to 27.8 (ig/L and averaged
19.8 (ig/L. Particulate arsenic was low with concentrations typically less than 1 (ig/L. The influent
arsenic concentrations measured during this 21-month period were consistent with those in the raw water
sample collected on October 26, 2004 (Table 4-1), except for the lower levels of As(III) measured during
the majority of the evaluation period from November 2005 through June 2007.
Oxidation of As(III) to As(V) within the oxidation columns was achieved via reactions with sodium
metaperiodate, a key ingredient loaded on the A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media for As(III) oxidation
(Table 4-2a). At a pH value between 8.0 to 8.8 (as measured for raw water in Table 4-6), metaperiodate
presumably reacted with H3AsO3 following Equation 1:
IO4 + 4H3AsO3
4HAsO42 + 8H+
(1)
26
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Iodine
(as I)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as
CaC03)
Mg Hardness (as
CaC03)
Sampling
Location
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
AC
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
IN
OA-OB
TA-TC
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
°C
°C
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Number of
Samples
24w
2— 22^'^
0-22(a'd)
16W
2-15(a'd)
0-16(a'd)
16W
2_15(a,cl)
0-16(a'd)
17W
1-16(M)
1_17CM)
18W
4_18(a,d)
2-18(a'd)
41W
4CM2(a'd)
38^1(a'd)
16W
2-15(a'd)
0-16(a'd)
17(a)
2-15ta'd)
0-15(a'd)
17
13-17™
0-15™
17
13-17™
0-15™
12W
8-12(c'd)
0-1 Otc™
16
12-16(d)
0-14™
16W
3-14(a™
0-15(a'd)
16W
3-14(a™
0_15(a,d)
16W
3_14UMU
0_15(a,d)
Concentration/Standard Unit
Minimum
83
79
79
0.1
0.1
<0.1
15
16
16
0.5
16.2
26.1
<10
<10
<10
12.8
5.6
2.2
0.05
O.05
<0.05
0.2
<0.1
0.2
8.0
7.7
7.4
11.4
11.6
12.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
134
141
135
33.2
31.3
31.1
25.1
23.5
23.4
7.7
7.7
7.7
Maximum
121
118
101
0.2
0.3
0.3
23
22
23
24.5
256
707
32.4
29.8
15.5
15.7
15.7
15.1
0.40
0.20
0.10
1.9
2.3
2.7
8.8
8.4
8.2
17.6
17.9
18.3
3.0
2.6
2.8
348
323
609
50.8
50.7
58.7
42.3
40.2
48.0
11.3
10.5
11.7
Average
91.0
91.2
88.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
17.5
18.1
18.7
6.4
95.7
159
<10
<10
<10
14.1
11.3
7.8
0.07
<0.05
O.05
0.9
0.8
0.9
8.4
8.1
7.7
14.7
15.0
14.8
1.4
1.2
1.3
246
248
251
43.0
42.7
43.4
33.9
33.6
35.0
9.1
8.8
8.9
Standard
Deviation
7.3
8.1
4.9
0.05
0.06
0.10
2.1
1.6
1.9
6.7
88
211
7.6
7.3
3.4
0.6
1.8
2.7
0.11
0.05
0.03
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
57
45
100
4.9
5.8
8.0
4.6
5.3
7.4
1.0
0.9
1.1
One-half of detection limit used for calculations involving non-detect samples.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
Figures shown under "Number of Samples" reflect range of samples taken at specified sampling locations.
(a) Including three duplicate samples.
(b) Including two duplicate samples.
(c) Outliers removed from statistical analysis.
(d) Figures shown reflect range of sampling occasions taking place at specified sampling locations.
27
-------
Arsenic Species at Wellhead (IN)
Arsenic Species After 1st Oxidation Tank (OA)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
DAs (particulate)
• As(V)
n As (III)
1
1-1
_
-
-
n •
i-i
-,
1
*
_
H
\\
-
I-,
-
-
1
_
D U
-
-
III
-
30-
J25-
.1
1 20-
§
1 15"
10-
5-
0 -
DAs (particulate)
• As(V)
D As (III)
f
nl
—
1
-
=
-
-i
~
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
r-i
_
-
-
-
p
:
•
P 1
'- -
,(£ d> & .,* ,* & ,* & ,* ,* & ,* ,0* ,0* ,0* ^ ^ .,<•> i-t- ,<<> <& ,<<>
^>>^
rf
$y
Date
•outlier data for 4/27/06 not included.
to
oo
40-
35-
30-
'a 25-
.1
| 20-
« 15-
10-
5-
0-
DAs (particulate)
• As(V)
• As (III)
Arsenic Species After 2nd Oxidation Tank (OB)
r-i
-i
=
-
=
_
I
•
-
n
-i
~
4= ,(£ ^> ,0* ,0* ,0* ,0* ,0* ,0* ,0* ,0* ,0* ,0* ,0* ,0* ^ , ^ ,<<> ^ ,<<> <&
"Speciation not performed at this location on 11/29/05.
Arsenic Species After Entire System (TC)
40
/ (03/14/07)
"Speciation not performed at this location on 9/19/05.
*Speciation not performed at this location on 9/19/05,4/19/07, 5/16/07, and 6/13/07. Outlier data for 10/11/06 not included.
Figure 4-8. Concentrations of Particulate Arsenic, Soluble As(III), and Soluble As(V) across Treatment System
-------
Meanwhile, metaperiodate would react with any soluble iron, existing as Fe(II), and with soluble
manganese, existing as Mn(II), in raw water following Equations 2 and 3 :
IO4-
IO4
8Fe2+ + 8H+
4Mn2+ + 4H2O
8Fe3+ + 4H2O
' + 4MnO2 + 8H+
(2)
(3)
To oxidize the As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II) in raw water, only 9.6 (ig/L of I" would have been produced
stoichiometrically and leached into the column effluent. This amount is lower than the analytical
reporting limit of 200 (ig/L for I" by EPA Method 300.0 by ion chromotagraphy. This observation is
consistent with the analytical results (<200 (ig/L of I") reported for the samples collected at the wellhead,
after the oxidation columns, and after the adsorption columns on October 17, 2005.
Total iodine also was analyzed using ICP-MS on 17 occasions (including two duplicates) during the
evaluation period. Iodine concentrations following the oxidation and adsorption columns averaged 95.7
and 159 (ig/L [as I], respectively, which were significantly higher than those measured in raw water
(averaging 6.4 (ig/L [as I]). Because only 9.6 (ig/L of total iodine would have existed as I", the iodine
present in the column effluent most likely was IO4" or other reaction intermediates. It was possible that
some IO4" leached from the oxidizing media, but the leaching followed an apparent decreasing trend as
shown in Figure 4-9. Iodine concentrations in the treated water were gradually reduced from as high as
264 to <45 (ig/L [as I] about four months before rebedding.
Iodine
300
250 -
200 -
o
150 -
o 100 -
50 -
0 +-
Two outliers with 256 and 707 ug/L of iodine
at OB and TC, respectively, not shown
10 15
Bed Volumes (x103)
Figure 4-9. Iodine Concentrations across Treatment Train
(BV Calculations Based on 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column)
29
-------
As(III) was effectively oxidized in the oxidation columns throughout the entire study period. Its
concentrations were reduced to less than 2.7, 1.2, and 1.0 (ig/L following the first and second oxidation
and the third adsorption columns, respectively. It appeared that some additional oxidation took place in
the three adsorption columns, which also contained NaIO4 as the active oxidizing ingredient (Table 4-2b).
The test results for arsenic removal by the ATS system are shown in Figure 4-10 with total arsenic
concentrations plotted against the bed volumes of water treated (BV was calculated based on 1.5 ft3 or
11.2 gal of media in a column). The results showed that the oxidizing media was effective at not only
converting As(III) to As(V), but also removing arsenic. For the first sampling event that occurred 12 days
after system startup, the total arsenic concentration in the effluent of the lead oxidation column (i.e., OA)
was 2.1 (ig/L. Arsenic concentrations slowly increased thereafter to 10 (ig/L at about 4,600 BV, and then
completely broken through the lead oxidation column at about 7,100 BV.
Arsenic concentrations in the effluent of the lag oxidation column (i.e., OB) remained below 10 (ig/L
until approximately 8,900 BV (or 4,450 BV if considering the two oxidations columns as one large
column) and below influent concentrations until approximately 17,200 BV (or 8,600 BV if considering
the two oxidations columns as one large column). There was a concentration drop following both the lead
and lag oxidation columns between 10,000 and 15,000 BV. It was not clear what contributed to this
concentration drop.
Based on the breakthrough curves shown in Figure 4-10, arsenic loadings on the oxidation media were
between 0.18 and 0.20 (ig of As/mg of dry media. Table 4-7 summarizes the arsenic mass removed by
each oxidation and adsorption columns; detailed calculations of arsenic mass removed are provided in
50
IN
OA
-OB
TA
TA (Run 2)
-•— TB
-D—TB(Run2)
-»—TC
-0—TC(Run2)
MCL=10|jg/L
Media
'Changeout*
45-
40-
35-
> 30
25
15 -
10 - -
0 -I
0 5 10 15 20 25
Bed Volumes (x103)
*Media Changeout of the lead and first lag arsenic (TA and TB) adsorption tank occurred on March 14, 2007. The second lag tank (TC) was moved to the lead
Figure 4-10. Arsenic Concentration across Treatment Train
(BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column)
30
-------
Table 4-7. Arsenic Mass Removed and Loading on Media(
Column
OA
OB
TA
TB
TC
Arsenic Mass Removed
(us)
6,740,472
5,958,431
7,522,304
5,462,514
4,395,407
Capacity(b)
(jig of As/mg of dry media)
0.20
0.18
0.23
0.17
0.13(c)
More detailed calculations provided in Appendix C.
-.3
(a)
(b) Based on a bulk density of 51 Ib/ff* and a moisture content of 5%.
(c) Loading before column shifted to lead position after changeout.
Appendix C. (Note: arsenic loading was calculated by dividing the arsenic mass represented by the
shaded area in Figure 4-11 by the dry weight of the media in one column).
50 -i
45 -
40-
35-
ra 30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10-
(see Appendix C for mass removal
and loading calculations)
10 15
Bed Volumes (x103)
20
25
Figure 4-11. Arsenic Mass Removed by Oxidation and Adsorption Columns
Arsenic concentrations after the lead adsorption column (i.e., TA) reached 10 (ig/L at approximately
16,400 BV (or 5,470 BV if considering the two oxidation columns and one adsorption column as one
large column). Arsenic approached complete breakthrough after the lead column at approximately 20,300
BV (or 6,770 BV if considering the two oxidation columns and one adsorption column as one large
column). Arsenic breakthrough from the lead adsorption column occurred much sooner than projected by
the vendor (i.e., 42,000 BV). Although within the vendor-provided effective limit of <9.0, the relatively
high pH values of source water (averaging 8.4; see Table 4-6) might have contributed, in part, to the early
31
-------
arsenic breakthrough from the adsorption column. Based on the breakthrough curve shown in
Figure 4-10, the arsenic loading on the adsorptive media in the lead column was 0.23 (ig of As/mg of dry
media, which was very close to that on the oxidizing media. The arsenic mass removed by the lead
adsorption column was estimated to be 7.5 g.
Breakthrough curves for the first and second lag columns (i.e., TB and TC) also are presented in Figure 4-
10. Arsenic concentrations from the first lag column (i.e., TB) reached 10 (ig/L at approximately 19,700
BV (or 4,930 BV if considering the two oxidation columns and two adsorption columns as one large
column). Arsenic concentrations from the second lag column (i.e., TC) reached only 8.9 (ig/L at the time
of media changeout. Because arsenic had not completely broken through the first and second lag
columns, the arsenic mass removed by these columns was significantly lower than that by the lead
adsorption column.
The 0.23 (ig of As/mg of dry media adsorptive capacity observed at Susanville, CA is comparable to that
of the same media (i.e., 0.18 to 0.29 (ig of As/mg of dry media [Table 4-8]) evaluated at another arsenic
removal technology demonstration site at Wales, ME (Lipps et al., 2006, 2009a). The Wales system has
two identical treatment trains, each consisting of one oxidation column and three adsorption columns
configured for series operations similar to the Susanville system. At Susanville, CA, arsenic broke
Table 4-8. Comparison of Media Run Length and Arsenic Loading at
Three Arsenic Demonstration Sites Using ATS' Media
Column
Run Length
to 10 jig/L
(BV)
Run Length
to Capacity
(BV)
Arsenic
Loading on
Media at
Capacity
(Hg/mg)
Average
Treatment
Train
Flowrate
(gpm)
Average
Influent
Total Arsenic
Concentration
(HS/L)
Average
Influent
pH
(S.U.)
Average
Influent
Silica
Concentration
(mg/L)
Susanville
OA
OB
TA
TB
TC
4,600
4,450
5,470
4,930
NA
7,100
8,600
6,670
NA
NA
0.20
0.18
0.23
NA
NA
9.3
31.7
8.4
14.1
Dummerston'
TA
TB
TC
TD
TE
TF
5,700
5,400
6,500
6,250
NA
NA
12,000
12,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.50
0.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
<3.6
(Train A);
<4.0
(Train B)
42.2
7.7
12.6
Wales(b>
OA
OB
TA
TB
TC
TD
TE
TF
2,400/2,700
1,200/2,800
3,550/3,350
2,950/3,750
3,575/3,775
3,500/3,800
3,825/3,800
3,775/3,950
4,600/4,700
5,100/5,100
4,900/4,800
4,450/6,100
4,100/4,750
4,325/4,825
4,750/NA
4,625/NA
0.14/0.16
0.10/0.18
0.23/0.19
0.19/0.27
0.18/0.26
0.28/0.21
0.26/0.22(c)
0.28/0.22(c)
4.7
(Train A);
4.9
(Train B)
39.1
8.5
10.5
(a) Lipps et al., 2006 and 2009.
(b) Lipps et al., 2006 and 2009.
(c) Column had not reached capacity.
32
-------
through at 10 (ig/L from each adsorption column after treating 4,930 to 5,470 BV of water, which were
somewhat higher than those observed for the Wales system (i.e., from 2,950 to 3,975 BV), even though
the Wales system had a much lower flowrate (i.e., 5.1 to 5.2 gpm vs. 9.3 gpm per treatment train). At
Susanville, CA, complete breakthrough occurred at 6,670 BV, which also was somewhat higher than that
(i.e., from 4,150 to 6,100 BV) observed at Wales, ME. The Wales source water had a pH value
comparable to that of Susanville (i.e., 8.5 vs. 8.4), but it had higher arsenic and lower silica
concentrations.
A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media had an adsorptive capacity comparable to that of A/I Complex 2000
adsorptive media (i.e., 0.18 to 0.20 vs. 0.23 (ig of As/mg of dry media), although this adsorptive capacity
was somewhat higher than those (i.e., 0.1 to 0.19 (ig of As/mg of dry media) observed at Wales, ME.
The adsorptive capacities of A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media observed at Susanville, CA and Wales,
ME were about half of those (i.e., 0.46 to 0.50 (ig of As/mg of dry media [Table 4-8]) observed for the
third ATS system at Dummerston, VT. The Dummerston system consists of only three adsorption
columns due to the presence of only soluble As(V) in that source water (Lipps et al., 2007, 2009b). As
expected, arsenic breakthrough at 10 (ig/L and at capacity from the Dummerston system occurred after
treating more water at 5,400-6,500 BV and 12,000 BV, respectively. The higher adsorptive capacity and
longer media run length observed at Dummerston were believed to have been caused by the lower pH
value of the source water, which averaged at 7.7 (compared to 8.4 and 8.5 at Susanville and Wales,
respectively). The Dummerston system also had the lowest flowrate at <4.0 gpm per treatment train.
Relatively short run length seemed to be the common result observed for all three ATS systems using A/I
Complex 2000 adsorptive media. The longest was 6,500 BV and the shortest was 2,950 BV. Among
others, pH of source water appeared to be the main factor affecting the media run length.
4.5.1.2 Silica, Sulfate, Bicarbonate and Nitrate. Among the anions analyzed, silica, sulfate,
alkalinity (existing primarily as HCO3" at pH values between 7.4 and 8.8), and nitrate were present in
significant concentrations in raw water (Table 4-6) and some potentially could compete with arsenic for
adsorptive sites. As shown in Figure 4-12, silica was consistently removed by, and did not reach
complete breakthrough from either the adsorption or the oxidation columns. However, HCO3", SO42", and
NO3" showed little to no adsorptive capacity on the media (Figure 4-13).
4.5.1.3 Aluminum. As shown in Table 4-5, total aluminum concentrations in source water were
below detection. Aluminum concentrations (existing primarily in soluble form) in the treated water
following the oxidation and adsorption columns were about 14 to 40 (ig/L, which were higher than those
in raw water, indicating leaching of aluminum from the oxidizing and adsorptive media. With the
increase in aluminum concentrations following the treatment system, the concentrations, however, were
below the EPA secondary drinking water standard for aluminum of 50 to 200 (ig/L and the California
primary MCL of 1 mg/L. Leaching of aluminum continued throughout the study period (Figure 4-14).
4.5.1.4 Iron and Manganese. Iron concentrations, both total and dissolved, were <25 to 136 (ig/L in
source water and below the method reporting limit across the treatment train (Table 4-5). Manganese
concentrations in source water also were low, ranging from 3.5 to 7.7 (ig/L and averaging 5.4 (ig/L.
Manganese concentrations in the treated water following the adsorption columns were typically below the
method reporting limit of 1 (ig/L, indicating complete removal of manganese by the oxidizing and
adsorptive media.
4.5.1.5 Other Water Quality Parameters. Fluoride, orthophosphate, total phosphorus, and hardness
concentrations remained relatively constant throughout the treatment train.
33
-------
20
18 -
16 -
14 -
t 12
c
o
I 10 -
O
55
6 -
2 -
A OA • TB
--A--OB —»—TC
10 15
Bed Volumes (x103)
20
Figure 4-12. Silica Concentrations across Treatment Train
(BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column)
Alkalinity
Bed Volumes (x103) 5- 4Q
BedVolumes(x10;)
25
Figure 4-13. Alkalinity, Sulfate and Nitrate Concentrations across Treatment Train
(BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column)
34
-------
45
40 -
30-
20 -
15-
10-
10 15
Bed Volumes (x103)
20
25
Figure 4-14. Aluminum Concentrations across Treatment Train
(BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column)
4.5.2 Spent Media Sampling. Spent media samples were collected from Adsorption Columns A
and B after media changeout on March 14, 2007. The oxidation columns continued to be effective in
oxidizing As(III) to As(V) and, therefore, were not replaced and no spent oxidizing media samples were
collected. The samples were collected according to Section 3.3.3 for TCLP and total metals analysis and
the analytical results are presented in Tables 4-9 and 4-10, respectively.
Table 4-9. TCLP Results of Spent Media from Columns A and B
Analyte
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Concentration
(mg/L)
<0.10
0.5
O.010
O.010
O.050
O.0020
<0.10
O.010
4.5.2.1 TCLP. The TCLP results indicated that the spent media was non-hazardous and could be
disposed of in a sanitary landfill. Barium was the only metal detected by the TCLP test at a concentration
of 0.5 mg/L, which is well below its limit of 100 mg/L.
35
-------
Table 4-10. Spent Media Metals Results of Duplicate Samples
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Copper
Iodine
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silica
Zinc
Unit
BVA3
V-S/S
V-S/S
V-S/S
V-S/S
V-S/S
V-S/S
v-s/s
v-s/s
v-s/s
vs/s
vs/s
vs/s
ng/g
vs/s
03/14/07
TA
22.9
375,672
384,433
215
220
0.53
0.53
7,717
7,709
2.02
1.91
185
157
9,949
10,593
0.53
0.53
938
975
54.4
55.1
1.00
1.07
164
179
<267
303
<53.4
<53.1
TB
22.9
373,585
378,184
226
230
0.53
0.53
7,568
6,797
1.63
2.15
-
-
10,739
10,295
0.53
0.53
862
872
55.6
52.7
0.88
0.95
164
120
467
<269
<53.7
<53.8
4.5.2.2 Metals. The ICP-MS results indicated that both the lead and the first lag columns (TA and
TB) had reached their capacities for arsenic, as evident by the nearly identical loadings, i.e., 0.22 and 0.23
ug/mg of dry media on both columns. These values also were very close to that estimated via the arsenic
breakthrough curve for Column A, as shown in Table 4-11. For Column B, the breakthrough curve result
was 26% lower. The A/I Complex 2000 dry media mass was calculated based on a moisture content of
8%, as measured in the laboratory, for the ICP-MS results and 5%, based on vendor's literature for the
"as-is" media, for the results from the breakthrough curves.
Except for aluminum, iron, and calcium, all metals analyzed on the spent media were at trace levels. The
average aluminum composition was 38%, equivalent to 72% of A12O3, which was significantly lower than
the 91% specified by ATS (Table 4-2b). The average iron composition was 1%, equivalent to 7% of
Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2'6H2O, which was very close to the specified value of 5.9%. Calcium measured was
0.72%. Iodine composition was 0.02%, equivalent to 0.03% NaIO4, which was significantly lower than
the 3.21% specified by ATS (Table 4-2b). A small amount of NaIO4 might have been consumed to
oxidize any reducing species remaining in the oxidation column effluent; some also was leached into the
treated water as shown in Figure 4-9.
36
-------
Table 4-11. Comparison of Media Capacity for Arsenic
Column
TA
TB
Estimated via
Breakthrough Curves(a)
(Figure 4-11)
Estimated via
Spent Media
ICP-MS Results(b)
(Table 4-10)
(jig of As/mg of dry media)
0.23
0.17
0.22
0.23
(a) Calculations account for 5% moisture content of A/I
Complex 2000 media.
(b) Averages of duplicate analyses.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment
system, baseline distribution system water samples were collected from three LCRtaps on July 21, 2005,
August 4, 2005, and August 24, 2005. Following treatment startup, distribution water sampling continued
on a monthly basis at the same three locations for one year. The results of the distribution system
sampling are summarized in Table 4-12. As expected, prior to the installation of the arsenic adsorption
system, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were similar to those measured in raw water,
ranging from 11.6 to 43.3 (ig/L, averaging 30.6 (ig/L. After system startup, arsenic concentrations in the
distribution system were significantly reduced to less than 4.9 (ig/L (or 1.5 (ig/L on average), which,
although low, were still higher than the concentrations (<0.2 (ig/L) measured at the distribution entry
point. Therefore, some dissolution and/or resuspension of arsenic might have occurred in the distribution
system. Arsenic concentrations remained below 5 (ig/L at all three sampling locations throughout the
one-year monitoring of the distribution system water quality.
Similar to those in raw water, iron and manganese concentrations were low in the distribution system.
Lead and copper values also were low and did not appear to have been affected by the treatment system.
The pH and alkalinity values remained fairly constant throughout the distribution system.
4.6
System Cost
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This included the tracking of the capital cost for the
treatment system such as equipment, site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for electrical
power usage and labor. No cost was incurred for building and discharge-related infrastructure
improvements. If required, this cost would have been funded by the demonstration site and, therefore, not
included in the following cost analyses.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation was
$16,930 (see Table 4-13). The equipment cost was $8,640 (or 51% of the total capital investment), which
included $2,170 for the treatment system mechanical hardware, $960 for 3 ft3 of the A/P Complex 2002
oxidizing media (i.e., $320/ft3 or $6.27/lb), $1,440 for 9 ft3 of the A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media
(i.e., $320/ft3 or $6.27/lb), $1,950 for the pressure tank and booster pump, and $2,120 for vendor's labor
and freight.
The engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of the system layout and footprint, design of the
piping connections to the entry and distribution tie-in points, and assembling and submission of the
engineering plans for the permit application (Section 4.3). The engineering cost was $3,400, or 20% of
the total capital investment.
37
-------
Table 4-12. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
07/21/05
08/04/05
08/24/05
10/17/05
11/21/05
12/07/05
01/19/06
02/16/06
03/15/06
04/11/06
05/10/06
06/07/06
07/19/06
08/16/06
09/12/06
DS1
Hall Sink
LCR
1st draw
Stagnation Time
hrs
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
10.0
19.0
11.2
13.9
10.0
>12(a)
>12(a)
Q.
S.U.
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.8
7.6
7.8
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.7
Alkalinity
mg/L
88
87
88
88
88
83
85
87
83
88
88
89
92
86
88
to
12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
9.9
7.5
12.0
10.8
10.4
>12(a)
13.3
Q.
S.U.
8.0
8.1
8.1
7.1
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.8
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.6
Alkalinity
mg/L
88
86
88
88
83
83
86
83
83
88
85
86
92
87
88
to
«
H9/1-
27.5
23.5
43.3
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.3
1.8
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
2.9
HI
u_
Hg/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
28
c
^
|jg/L
4.8
4.4
4.7
1.7
0.8
2.2
1.6
0.3
1.7
2.6
0.6
1.1
1.6
0.4
1.4
.Q
0_
|jg/L
1.0
0.8
3.2
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.6
<0.1
0.7
0.8
<0.1
0.2
1.9
0.6
6.8
3
O
|jg/L
4.5
2.9
69.4
1.5
6.8
1.9
2.9
1.5
2.5
7.1
3.1
5.7
12.2
9.3
14.8
DS3
Office Room Sink
LCR
1st Draw
Stagnation Time
hrs
17.8
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
>12(a)
9.9
15.3
11.1
10.8
11.0
>12(a)
13.3
Q.
S.U.
8.0
8.1
7.3
7.3
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.8
8.0
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.7
Alkalinity
mg/L
88
77
88
88
83
81
86
83
83
88
192
88
97
90
86
to
«
|jg/L
35.1
31.2
11.6
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.1
0.8
2.4
3.2
2.8
4.6
4.9
0.7
HI
H9/1-
32.4
<25
45.1
<25
<25
<25
32.8
<25
<25
67.8
27.1
<25
211
39.6
<25
c
S
Hg/L
5.0
5.5
25.1
6.1
3.9
3.1
2.7
0.6
0.4
1.1
1.1
0.8
3.0
2.0
1.2
.Q
Q_
|jg/L
10.4
2.4
6.6
1.5
3.6
5.4
5.9
0.7
1.9
3.5
5.1
4.5
10.6
3.4
0.5
3
O
|jg/L
7.0
5.9
83.9
27.3
14.6
17.5
31.5
6.4
38.7
21.9
11.0
10.8
24.2
29.1
8.4
OJ
oo
BL = Baseline sampling; NS = not sampled; NA = data not available.
Lead action level = 15 ug/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L.
(a) Exact stagnation time unknown
-------
Table 4-13. Summary of Capital Investment Cost
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Cost
Oxidation Columns (Without Media)
A/P Complex 2002 Oxidizing Media (ft3)
Adsorption Columns (Without Media)
A/I Complex 2000 Adsorptive Media (ft3)
25-um Sediment Filter
Piping and Valves
Flow Totalizer/Meter
Hour Meter
Pressure Tank/Booster Pump
Procurement, Assembly, Labor
Freight
Equipment Total
2
o
J
o
J
4.5
—
$240
$960
$360
$1,440
$350
$510
$560
$150
$1,950
$1,000
$1,120
$8,640
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
51%
Engineering Cost
Design/Scope of System (hr)
Travel and Miscellaneous Expenses
Subcontractor Labor
Engineering Total
10
1
—
—
$1,500
$1,400
$500
$3,400
—
—
20%
Installation Cost
Plumbing Supplies/Parts
Vendor Installation Labor (hr)
Subcontractor Labor (hr)
Vendor Travel (day)
Subcontractor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
1
10
6
2
—
—
-
$300
$1,300
$390
$2,800
$100
$4,890
$16,930
—
—
—
—
29%
100%
The installation cost included the cost to unload and install the treatment system, pressure tank, and
booster pump, complete the piping installation and tie-ins, and perform system start-up and shakedown
(Section 4.3). The installation cost was $4,890, or 29% of the total capital investment.
Using the system's rated capacity of 12 gpm (or 17,280 gpd), the capital cost was $l,410/gpm (or
$0.98/gpd). The capital cost of $16,930 was converted to an annualized cost of $l,598/yr using a capital
recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a 20-yr return. Assuming that the system was
operated 24 hr a day, 7 days a week at the design flow rate of 12 gpm to produce 6,300,000 gal of water
per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.25/1,000 gal. However, since the system produced 180,520 gal
of water during the first year of system operations, the unit capital cost was increased to $8.90/1,000 gal
at this reduced rate of production.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost for the As/1200CS treatment system
included only incremental cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media replacement and
disposal, electricity, and labor (Table 4-14). For a three-column system operating in series, the media in
the lead column is ideally replaced when the arsenic concentration in the lead column effluent equals the
raw water concentration but before the concentration following the final lag column reaches the 10 (ig/L
target value. Once the lead column is exhausted, the first and second lag columns are moved up to the
lead and first lag positions and a column containing new media is placed in the final lag position. The
method allows the media's capacity for arsenic to be fully utilized before its replacement. If the media
39
-------
has a sharp adsorption front (with a typical S-shaped breakthrough curve) and the anticipated run length is
relatively short; however, it may be more cost-effective to replace the first two or all three columns in the
treatment train when required.
Table 4-14. Summary of O&M Cost
Cost Category
Volume Processed (1,000 gal)
Value
254
Assumptions
From 09/07/5 through 03/09/07
Media Replacement and Disposal
Number of Columns Replaced
Media Replacement and Disposal ($)
Sediment filter and tank accessories
Shipping ($)
Labor and Travel ($)
Subtotal ($)
Media Replacement and Disposal Cost
($71,000 gal)
1
675
115
423
0
(1,660)
1,213
2
1,350
115
845
0
(1,660)
2,310
3
2,025
115
1,268
0
(1,660)
3,408
See Figure 4-15
$675/column or $450/ft3 of media
Because operator conducted changeout,
no labor and travel charged
(quote for vendor to conduct changeout)
—
Electricity Consumption
Electricity Cost ($71,000 gal)
0.001
Electrical cost negligible
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Labor Cost ($)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($71,000 gal)
0.33
782
3.10
20 min/wk
0.33 hr/wk x 79 wk x $30/hr labor rate
-
Adsorptive media replacement + oxidizing media replacement +3.10
At Susanville, the lead and first lag columns were changed out on March 14, 2007 after approximately 18
months of system operation. The cost of the changeout for two columns (lead and first lag) was $2,310
(see cost breakdown in Table 4-14). The spent media was returned to ATS and sold for use in another
product; therefore, there was no additional cost for disposal of spent media. Using this $2,310 quote, the
cost of changing out one and three columns was estimated to be $1,213 and $3,408, respectively. By
averaging the media replacement cost over the life of the media, the cost per 1,000 gal of water treated by
replacing one, two, and three columns at a time was plotted as a function of the media run length in BV in
Figure 4-14. To be consistent with the operational data, the media run length in BV was calculated by
dividing the system throughput by the quantity of media in one column, i.e., 1.5 ft3 (or 11.2 gal).
Additional electricity use associated with the hour meters on the booster pump and well pump and a new
booster pump following the treatment system was minimal. The routine, non-demonstration-related labor
activities consumed about 20 min/wk as noted in Section 4.4.3. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was
$3.10/1,000 gal of water treated (Table 4-14).
As shown in Table 4-14, the unit O&M cost is driven by the cost to replace the spent media and is a
function of the media run length (see Figure 4-15). The electricity cost is minimal. The labor cost is
based on only 20 min/wk of labor to provide a minimum amount of system O&M. Depending on how
consistently the system performs and if any additional troubleshooting is required, the labor cost could
increase significantly after the demonstration study.
40
-------
$40.00
=• $30.00
oi
8
o_
w
,3 $20.00
$10.00
System Throughput (x1,000 gal)
168 224 280
336
392
"Replacement of 3 Columns
• Replacement of 2 Columns
1 Replacement of 1 Column
$40.00
$30.00 TJ
$20.00
$10.00
15 20 25 30
Media Working Capacity (x1,000 BV)
Note: 1 BV= 1.5 cubic feet = 11.2 gal
Figure 4-15. Media Replacement Cost Curves for As/1200CS System
41
-------
Section 5.0: REFERENCES
Aquatic Treatment Systems. 2005. Operations & Maintenance Manual, As/1400CS Duplex Arsenic
Removal System, Richmond School District, Susanville, CA.
Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Battelle. 2005. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at Susanville, California. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task
Order No. 0029 for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
CCR (California Code of Regulations). 2001. Operator Certification Regulations. Title 22, Division 4,
Chapter 13.
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/occupations/Documents/Opcert/OperatorCertificationRegulations.
rjdf
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Spring Brook Mobile Home Park in Wales, ME. Six-
Month Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-06/090. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2007. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Dummerston, VT. Six-Month Evaluation Report.
EPA/600/R-07/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2009a. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Spring Brook Mobile Home Park in Wales, ME.
Final Performance Evaluation Report. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order
42
-------
No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2009b. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Dummerston, VT. Final Performance Evaluation
Report. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Wang, L., W. Condit, and A. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA Arsenic
Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
43
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA - Summary of Daily System Operation
Week
No.
1
2
3
7
9
12
13
14
15
Date
09/08/05
09/09/05
09/12/05
09/13/05
09/14/05
09/16/05
09/19/05
09/20/05
10/17/05
11/01/05
11/02/05
11/21/05
11/29/05
11/30/05
1 2/04/05
1 2/05/05
1 2/08/05
1 2/09/05
1 2/1 2/05
1 2/1 3/05
1 2/1 4/05
Time
07:00
10:55
15:45
10:28
11:00
07:06
07:15
07:10
10:25
13:06
10:07
14:15
14:20
12:56
12:15
14:45
10:15
10:30
14:04
12:25
09:30
Well No. 2
Hour Meter
in
3
O
X
15
c
o
^
S
a>
Q.
O
hrs
0.0
0.5
1.1
0.3
0.7
1.3
1.0
1.1
11.1
_
7.1
-
7.9
0.5
1.5
0.3
1.5
0.8
1.6
0.3
0.3
Cumulative
Operational Hours
hrs
0.0
0.5
1.6
1.9
2.6
3.9
4.9
6.0
17.1
_
24.2
-
32.1
32.6
34.1
34.4
35.9
36.7
38.3
38.6
38.9
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
~
Q.
O
hrs
0.0
1.4
3.1
0.8
1.9
3.6
2.8
3.1
30.7
_
19.7
-
21.9
1.4
4.2
0.8
4.2
2.2
4.4
1.0
0.7
Cumulative
Operational Hours
hrs
0.0
1.4
4.4
5.3
7.2
10.8
13.6
16.6
47.4
_
67.0
-
88.9
90.3
94.5
95.3
99.4
101.7
106.1
107.0
107.7
Treatment System Flow Readings
Volume
Treated
gal
_
643
1,238
279
717
1,615
976
1,390
13,669
20,360
360
9,313
1,029
596
1,938
439
1,971
1,107
2,145
524
367
Cumulative Volume
Treated
gal
0
643
1,881
2,159
2,876
4,491
5,466
6,856
20,525
40,885
41 ,245
50,558
51 ,587
52,183
54,121
54,560
56,531
57,638
59,783
60,307
60,674
Bed Volumes
Treated'"1
BV
_
57
110
25
64
144
87
124
1,218
1,815
32
830
92
53
173
39
176
99
191
47
33
Cumulative Bed
Volumes Treated
BV
_
57
168
192
256
400
487
611
1,829
3,644
3,676
4,506
4,598
4,651
4,824
4,863
5,038
5,137
5,328
5,375
5,408
Booster
Pump/
System
Average
(Instanteous)
Flowrate
gpm
_
7.7 (-)
6.8 (-)
5.8 (-)
6.3 (-)
7.5 (-)
5.9 (-)
7.5 (-)
7.4 (-)
NM
17.6(-)
NM
7.9 (-)
7.1 (-)
7.7 (-)
9.1 (-)
7.8 (-)
8.4 (-)
8.1 (8.1)
8.7(7.1)
8.7 (7.7)
Well
Pump
Average
Flowrate
gpm
_
21.4
18.8
15.5
17.1
20.7
16.3
21.1
20.5
NM
48.6
NM
21.8
19.9
21.5
24.4
21.9
23.1
22.3
29.1
20.4
Treatment System Pressure
Readings
IN
psi
50
41
53
42
55
37
35
36
38
40
41
NM
37
44
48
47
43
45
36
38
36
OA
psi
_
38
_
39
_
42
33
42
35
38
38
NM
35
41
45
44
41
41
35
35
33
OB
psi
_
32
_
33
_
42
27
42
29
32
32
NM
30
36
38
37
35
36
29
29
27
TA
psi
_
27
_
28
_
42
22
42
24
25
26
NM
26
30
31
31
31
31
24
23
22
TB
psi
_
18
_
19
_
40
15
40
15
16
16
NM
18
22
21
21
22
22
15
15
15
TC
psi
_
13
_
15
_
42
11
42
10
12
11
NM
16
18
15
16
17
19
11
10
11
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA - Summary of Daily System Operation
Week
No.
18
19
20
21
22
23
Date
01/05/06
01/06/06
01/09/06
01/10/06
01/11/06
01/12/06
01/13/06
01/17/06
01/18/06
01/19/06
01/20/06
01/23/06
01/26/06
01/30/06
02/01/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
02/06/06
02/07/06
02/08/06
02/09/06
Time
08:00
13:10
10:30
10:00
10:25
11:01
14:35
10:45
09:05
09:40
13:40
12:00
11:31
14:30
11:00
12:00
10:00
11:30
14:30
12:00
11:00
Well No. 2
Hour Meter
in
3
O
X
15
c
o
^
S
a>
Q.
O
hrs
3.6
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.4
1.2
1.2
0.6
0.7
0.5
2.1
0.8
0.6
0.2
Cumulative
Operational Hours
hrs
42.5
43.2
43.4
43.9
44.5
45.2
45.8
46.0
46.5
47.2
48.1
48.5
49.7
50.9
51.5
52.2
52.7
54.8
55.6
56.2
56.4
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
~
Q.
O
hrs
9.9
1.7
0.7
1.3
1.7
1.9
1.8
0.5
1.4
1.9
2.0
1.0
3.6
3.3
1.7
1.8
1.7
4.9
2.4
0.8
1.5
Cumulative
Operational Hours
hrs
117.6
119.3
120.0
121.3
123.0
124.9
126.7
127.2
128.6
130.5
132.5
133.5
137.1
140.4
142.1
143.9
145.6
150.5
152.9
153.7
155.2
Treatment System Flow Readings
Volume
Treated
gal
5,115
876
370
678
859
975
929
276
717
1,007
1,016
510
1,854
1,746
908
934
916
2,528
1,265
443
738
Cumulative Volume
Treated
gal
65,789
66,665
67,035
67,713
68,572
69,547
70,476
70,752
71 ,469
72,476
73,492
74,002
75,856
77,602
78,510
79,444
80,360
82,888
84,153
84,596
85,334
Bed Volumes
Treated'"1
BV
456
78
33
60
77
87
83
25
64
90
91
45
165
156
81
83
82
225
113
39
66
Cumulative Bed
Volumes Treated
BV
5,864
5,942
5,975
6,035
6,112
6,198
6,281
6,306
6,370
6,460
6,550
6,596
6,761
6,916
6,997
7,081
7,162
7,388
7,500
7,540
7,606
Booster
Pump/
System
Average
(Instanteous)
Flowrate
gpm
8.6 (8.7)
8.6 (8.7)
8.8 (9.3)
8.7 (8.5)
8.4 (8.6)
8.6 (9.3)
8.6 (8.7)
9.2(8.1)
8.5 (8.3)
8.8 (7.6)
8.5 (9.5)
8.5 (9.8)
8.6 (7.7)
8.8 (8.9)
8.9 (8.5)
8.6 (9.3)
9.0 (7.9)
8.6 (9.6)
8.8 (8.8)
9.2 (9.8)
8.2 (9.6)
Well
Pump
Average
Flowrate
gpm
23.7
20.9
30.8
22.6
23.9
23.2
26.8
23.0
23.9
22.8
18.8
21.3
25.8
24.3
25.2
24.2
30.5
22.4
26.4
12.3
61.5
Treatment System Pressure
Readings
IN
psi
40
42
46
40
44
47
42
42
41
31
49
53
36
54
40
46
36
55
43
49
54
OA
psi
36
38
44
36
40
44
40
39
39
29
47
50
34
51
37
44
34
52
41
47
51
OB
psi
31
31
36
31
35
38
34
33
33
23
39
42
28
43
31
38
27
44
34
40
44
TA
psi
26
26
30
26
29
31
27
27
27
19
33
35
22
36
26
31
21
36
28
33
36
TB
psi
16
16
20
16
20
21
18
18
18
10
21
24
14
25
16
21
14
24
18
22
25
TC
psi
11
12
16
11
16
16
12
12
13
8
16
18
10
18
11
16
8
19
12
17
18
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA - Summary of Daily System Operation
Week
No.
24
25
26
27
28
29
Date
02/14/06
02/15/06
02/16/06
02/17/06
02/22/06
02/24/06
02/27/06
02/28/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
03/06/06
03/07/06
03/09/06
03/10/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
03/17/06
03/20/06
03/22/06
03/24/06
Time
10:15
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:05
12:00
13:00
12:00
09:20
14:00
07:20
08:15
13:10
15:00
15:00
15:00
14:15
7:00
6:30
Well No. 2
Hour Meter
Operational Hours
hrs
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.4
1.3
0.2
1.0
0.7
1.5
0.1
0.7
0.4
0.9
1.0
Cumulative
Operational Hours
hrs
57.0
57.7
57.9
58.6
59.3
60.2
61.0
61.4
61.7
62.1
63.4
63.6
64.6
65.3
66.8
66.9
67.6
68.0
68.9
69.9
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
~
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA - Summary of Daily System Operation
Week
No.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Date
03/27/06
03/28/06
03/29/06
03/30/06
04/03/06
04/06/06
04/11/06
04/1 7/06
04/1 9/06
04/20/06
04/25/06
04/26/06
04/28/06
05/01/06
05/03/06
05/08/06
05/1 0/06
05/1 6/06
05/1 8/06
05/22/06
05/27/06
Time
11:59
13:30
10:40
10:15
14:00
15:00
9:00
10:45
10:30
10:15
11:30
14:00
14:00
9:45
8:00
7:45
9:15
8:20
14:00
8:55
8:00
Well No. 2
Hour Meter
in
3
O
X
15
c
o
^
S
a>
Q.
O
hrs
0.6
0.7
0.3
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
0.2
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.3
1.6
1.9
1.9
1.9
3.1
1.2
2.4
Cumulative
Operational Hours
hrs
70.5
71.2
71.5
72.9
74.3
75.8
77.2
77.4
78.3
79.3
80.3
80.9
81.6
81.9
83.5
85.4
87.3
89.2
92.3
93.5
95.9
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
~
Q.
O
hrs
2.0
1.7
0.9
2.4
4.1
4.1
3.2
0.7
2.6
2.8
3.0
2.0
2.6
1.0
22.6
9.7
5.5
5.2
3.8
3.5
6.8
Cumulative
Operational Hours
hrs
195.4
197.1
198.0
200.4
204.5
208.6
211.8
212.5
215.1
217.9
220.9
222.9
225.5
226.5
249.1
258.8
264.3
269.5
273.3
276.8
283.6
Treatment System Flow Readings
Volume
Treated
gal
1,046
903
491
1,236
2,149
2,160
1,693
343
1,341
1,500
1,572
1,057
1,363
505
12,947
5,230
2,788
2,669
2,040
1,762
3,575
Cumulative Volume
Treated
gal
106,372
107,275
107,766
109,002
111,151
113,311
115,004
115,347
116,688
118,188
119,760
120,817
122,180
122,685
135,632
140,862
143,650
146,319
148,359
150,121
153,696
Bed Volumes
Treated'"1
BV
93
80
44
110
192
193
151
31
120
134
140
94
101
45
1,154
466
248
238
182
157
319
Cumulative Bed
Volumes Treated
BV
9,480
9,560
9,604
9,714
9,906
10,099
10,250
10,281
10,401
10,535
10,675
10,769
10,890
10,935
12,089
12,555
12,803
13,041
13,223
13,380
13,699
Booster
Pump/
System
Average
(Instanteous)
Flowrate
gpm
8.7 (9.7)
8.9 (9.7)
9.1 (8.4)
8.6(8.1)
8.7 (8.5)
8.8 (9.4)
8.8 (-)
8.2 (8.5)
8.6 (8.6)
8.9 (8.3)
8.7 (8.0)
8.8 (7.6)
8.7 (8.9)
8.4(8.2)
9.5 (9.8)
9.0(8.1)
8.4 (8.4)
8.6 (8.7)
8.9 (8.2)
8.4(7.9)
8.8 (8.5)
Well
Pump
Average
Flowrate
gpm
24.9
21.5
27.3
14.7
25.6
24.0
20.2
28.6
24.8
25.0
26.2
29.4
32.5
28.1
134.9
45.9
24.5
23.4
11.0
24.5
24.8
Treatment System Pressure
Readings
IN
psi
51
50
40
40
41
47
51
54
43
38
46
36
49
42
43
39
41
42
40
42
48
OA
psi
49
47
36
36
37
44
49
51
41
35
43
34
46
39
38
36
37
38
37
39
45
OB
psi
42
40
30
30
31
39
41
46
35
29
36
28
39
33
27
30
31
32
31
33
38
TA
psi
35
33
25
26
26
31
36
40
31
24
30
22
32
26
29
24
25
26
25
27
32
TB
psi
24
22
16
16
16
21
22
31
22
14
21
14
21
16
19
16
16
16
16
18
22
TC
psi
19
16
10
11
11
16
16
24
20
11
16
9
16
11
16
10
11
11
11
12
16
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA - Summary of Daily System Operation
Week
No.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
50
51
52
Date
05/30/06
05/31/06
06/01/06
06/02/06
06/05/06
06/07/06
06/13/06
06/14/06
06/21/06
06/28/06
06/29/06
07/06/06
07/13/06
07/20/06
07/27/06
08/16/06
08/24/06
08/28/06
08/29/06
08/31/06
Time
15:00
14:45
9:00
11:00
13:00
7:45
7:30
15:30
7:40
8:00
9:30
8:00
14:00
8:00
11:30
11:05
7:40
15:00
9:30
9:29
Well No. 2
Hour Meter
Operational Hours
hrs
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.9
1.3
1.6
0.2
1.1
2.1
0.1
0.6
3.0
1.6
0.9
5.3
1.6
1.9
0.4
1.5
Cumulative
Operational Hours
hrs
97.3
97.7
97.9
98.4
99.3
100.6
102.2
102.4
103.5
105.6
105.7
106.3
109.3
110.9
111.8
117.1
118.7
120.6
121.0
121.5
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
•s
~
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA - Summary of Daily System Operation
Week
No.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
63
Date
09/05/06
09/07/06
09/08/06
09/11/06
09/13/06
09/19/06
09/20/06
09/21/06
09/22/06
09/26/06
10/03/06
10/05/06
10/11/06
10/17/06
10/18/06
10/20/06
10/23/06
10/31/06
11/14/06
11/15/06
11/16/06
Time
10:45
11:30
12:00
11:00
9:00
13:00
11:00
11:35
13:30
14:00
14:00
10:15
10:30
8:00
10:30
12:50
12:00
12:50
12:30
10:30
8:50
Well No. 2
Hour Meter
Operational Hours
hrs
1.6
0.9
1.3
0.7
1.2
5.4
0.9
1.1
0.9
2.0
2.7
0.9
2.0
2.3
0.8
3.7
0.5
3.8
5.0
0.6
0.5
Cumulative
Operational Hours
hrs
123.1
124.0
125.3
126.0
127.2
132.6
133.5
134.6
135.5
137.5
140.2
141.1
143.1
145.4
146.2
149.9
150.4
154.2
159.2
159.8
160.3
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
Operational Hours'3'
hrs
3.5
3.0
1.3
1.2
2.4
8.6
1.9
2.1
1.8
2.2
3.3
0.7
1.9
1.9
0.8
4.8
0.4
3.2
4.3
0.3
0.5
Cumulative
Operational Hours
hrs
329.4
332.4
333.7
334.9
337.3
345.9
347.8
349.9
351.7
353.9
357.2
357.9
259.8
361.7
362.5
367.3
367.7
370.9
375.2
375.5
376.0
Treatment System Flow Readings
Volume
Treated
gal
2,164
1,927
855
861
1,557
3,143
1,227
1,313
1,171
1,631
3,727
949
2,230
2,723
798
3,623
541
4,220
5,745
456
620
V
3
Cumulative Vol
Treated
gal
178,593
180,520
181,375
182,236
183,793
186,936
188,163
189,476
190,647
192,278
196,005
196,954
199,184
201 ,907
202,705
206,328
206,869
21 1 ,089
216,834
217,290
217,910
Bed Volumes
Treated""
BV
193
172
76
77
139
280
109
117
104
145
332
85
199
243
71
323
48
376
512
41
55
Cumulative Bed
Volumes Treated
BV
15,919
16,091
16,167
16,244
16,383
16,663
16,772
16,889
16,993
17,138
17,470
17,555
17,754
17,997
18,068
18,391
18,439
18,815
19,327
19,368
19,423
Booster
Pump/
System
Average
(Instanteous)
Flowrate
gpm
10.3(9.6)
10.7(9.3)
11.0(11.9)
12.0(8.2)
10.8(8.3)
6.1 (8.9)
10.8(8.1)
10.4(8.3)
10.8(14.5)
12.4(8.9)
18.8(10.0)
22.6(10.1)
19.6(10.2)
23.9(10.3)
16.6(1.6)
12.6(9.8)
22.5 (9.5)
22.0 (9.9)
22.3(10.1)
25.3(7.1)
20.7(15.5)
Well
Pump
&3
* 1
s!
< u.
gpm
22.5
35.7
11.0
20.5
21.6
9.7
22.7
19.9
21.7
13.6
23.0
17.6
18.6
19.7
16.6
16.3
18.0
18.5
19.2
15.2
20.7
Treatment System Pressure
Readings
IN
psi
55
58
60
39
40
45
48
49
46
55
57
56
55
55
61
55
52
57
64
53
52
OA
psi
53
55
58
36
36
42
45
47
43
52
54
55
51
51
60
52
50
55
62
51
50
OB
psi
48
47
50
29
30
35
38
42
36
46
45
48
43
44
60
45
45
47
56
43
44
TA
psi
40
39
42
22
26
30
32
37
29
39
37
40
36
36
59
38
38
40
49
38
36
TB
psi
30
27
30
14
16
20
22
27
18
30
26
28
24
24
56
26
28
28
38
28
26
TC
psi
23
20
22
9
11
15
16
23
14
24
19
21
18
18
56
19
22
22
31
23
20
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA - Summary of Daily System Operation
Week
No.
65
66
67
68
71
72
74
75
76
77
79
Date
11/27/06
11/28/06
12/07/06
12/11/06
12/12/06
12/13/06
12/19/06
12/20/06
01/08/07
01/090/7
01/10/07
01/18/07
01/31/07
02/02/07
02/05/07
02/06/07
02/14/07
02/15/07
02/22/07
03/07/07
03/08/07
Time
12:55
13:05
14:00
9:30
14:00
8:45
8:00
14:00
14:30
14:10
13:30
7:00
8:00
14:30
13:30
8:30
13:00
10:00
7:00
8:00
8:15
Well No. 2
Hour Meter
in
3
O
X
15
c
o
1
Q.
O
hrs
2.3
0.6
3.8
1.8
0.9
0.1
2.3
1.0
1.3
0.5
0.5
2.6
5.2
1.3
0.4
0.2
3.9
0.4
2.1
3.6
0.5
Cumulative
Operational Hours
hrs
162.6
163.2
167.0
168.8
169.7
169.8
172.1
173.1
174.4
174.9
175.4
178.0
183.2
184.5
184.9
185.1
189.0
189.4
191.5
195.1
195.6
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
3
O
X
15
c
o
1
Q.
O
hrs
1.9
0.4
3.2
1.6
0.9
0.1
1.9
0.8
1.0
0.5
0.4
2.1
4.1
1.1
0.3
0.1
3.1
0.4
1.6
3.1
0.5
Cumulative
Operational Hours
hrs
377.9
378.3
381.5
383.1
384.0
384.1
386.0
386.8
387.8
388.3
388.7
390.8
394.9
396.0
396.3
396.4
399.5
399.9
401.5
404.6
405.1
Treatment System Flow Readings
Volume
Treated
gal
2,230
646
4,399
2,042
1,079
137
2,576
1,088
1,473
591
521
2,970
6,032
1,516
480
192
4,513
506
2,400
353
634
Cumulative Volume
Treated
gal
220,140
220,786
225,185
227,227
228,306
228,443
231,019
232,107
233,580
234,171
234,692
237,662
243,694
245,210
245,690
245,882
250,395
250,901
253,301
253,654
254,288
Bed Volumes
Treated'"1
BV
199
58
392
182
96
12
230
97
131
53
46
265
538
135
43
17
402
45
214
31
57
Cumulative Bed
Volumes Treated
BV
19,622
19,680
20,072
20,254
20,350
20,362
20,592
20,689
20,820
20,873
20,919
21,184
21 ,722
21 ,857
21 ,900
21,917
22,319
22,364
22,578
22,909
22,666
Booster
Pump/
System
"
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA - Summary of Daily System Operation
Week
No.
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
89
90
91
93
Date
03/14/07
03/15/07
03/23/07
03/28/07
04/04/07
04/14/07
04/19/07
04/20/07
04/27/07
05/14/07
05/16/07
05/23/07
06/01/07
06/13/07
Time
15:30
8:30
12:00
7:00
14:00
11:00
8:15
11:00
12:50
13:00
8:00
14:30
12:50
8:00
Well No. 2
Hour Meter
in
3
O
X
15
c
o
^
S
a>
Q.
O
hrs
3.0
0.4
4.1
1.7
3.3
2.8
1.1
1.0
3.9
7.5
0.9
3.9
3.8
4.5
Cumulative
Operational Hours
hrs
198.6
199.0
203.1
204.8
208.1
210.9
212.0
213.0
216.9
224.4
225.3
229.2
233.0
237.5
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
~
Q.
O
hrs
2.8
0.3
3.3
1.5
2.8
2.6
1.3
0.8
3.8
7.0
0.6
3.8
3.3
2.6
Cumulative
Operational Hours
hrs
407.9
408.2
411.5
413.0
415.8
418.4
419.7
420.5
424.3
431.3
431.9
435.7
139.0
441.6
Treatment System Flow Readings
Volume
Treated
gal
3,544
476
4,807
2,056
3,801
3,216
1,418
1,199
4,816
9,160
948
4,707
4,495
4,029
Cumulative Volume
Treated
gal
257,832
258,308
263,115
265,171
268,972
272,188
273,606
274,805
279,621
288,781
289,729
294,436
298,931
302,960
Bed Volumes
Treated'"1
BV
316
42
428
183
339
287
126
107
429
816
84
420
401
359
Cumulative Bed
Volumes Treated
BV
22,982
23,024
23,452
23,635
23,974
24,261
24,387
24,494
24,923
25,739
25,823
26,243
26,644
27,003
Booster
Pump/
System
Average
(Instanteous)
Flowrate
gpm
21.1 (-)
26.4(10.4)
24.3 (9.7)
22.8(10.2)
22.6(10.1)
20.6(11.1)
18.2(10.5)
25.0(10.3)
21.1 (10.4)
21.8(9.7)
26.3(11.3)
20.6(10.2)
22.7(11.1)
25.8(10.1)
Well
Pump
Average
Flowrate
gpm
19.7
19.8
19.5
20.2
19.2
19.1
21.5
20.0
20.6
20.4
17.6
20.1
19.7
14.9
Treatment System Pressure
Readings
IN
psi
_
55
56
55
59
59
60
56
60
57
57
59
57
55
OA
psi
_
53
54
53
57
56
57
54
58
55
55
57
55
53
OB
psi
_
46
46
46
46
47
49
48
50
48
48
49
46
45
TA
psi
_
36
38
38
36
36
39
38
40
40
40
44
36
35
TB
psi
_
28
28
30
26
26
29
30
32
32
32
33
26
28
TC
psi
_
20
22
22
19
18
21
22
26
25
25
25
18
21
(a) booster pump hours estimated by multiplying well pump hours by 2.77 until booster pump hour meter installed on 12/09/05.
(b) 1 bed volume = 1 .5 ft3 = 1 1 .22 gal
>
oo
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Iodine (ICPMS)
Iodine (AAL)
Iodide
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
09/19/05
IN
-
88
0.2
-
-
-
18.0
-
<0.05
<0.05
-
13.4
0.4
8.4
16.2
1.2
162
43.4
34.3
9.0
31.1
31.7
<0.1
28.3
3.4
<25
<25
4.9
5.1
2.7
2.0
OA
-
97
0.2
-
-
-
18.0
-
<0.05
<0.05
-
8.7
0.9
7.8
15.9
0.5
141
40.9
32.4
8.5
2.1
1.6
0.5
0.5
1.1
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
31.2
27.7
TA
0.5
92
<0.1
-
-
-
20.0
-
<0.05
<0.05
-
2.2
0.2
7.4
15.8
0.4
135
40.9
32.4
8.5
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
22.7
21.8
10/17/05
IN
-
88
0.2
20.1
<0.1
<0.2
17.5
-
<0.05
<0.05
-
13.5
0.2
8.3
14.5
3.0
181
41.1
31.5
9.6
33.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.5
-
<10
-
OA
-
88
0.2
122
<0.1
<0.2
17.6
-
<0.05
<0.05
-
8.5
0.2
8.1
14.0
2.6
184
41.3
31.6
9.7
6.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
20.6
-
TA
88
0.2
263
<0.1
<0.2
17.9
-
<0.05
<0.05
-
3.7
0.4
7.7
13.6
2.8
191
40.2
30.8
9.4
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
20.3
-
TC
1.8
88
<0.1
264
<0.1
<0.2
19.2
-
0.1
<0.05
-
0.8
0.2
7.6
13.6
2.6
197
38.7
29.5
9.2
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
17.5
-
11/02/05
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<10
14.2
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
46.2
36.1
10.0
32.4
32.4
<0.1
28.5
3.9
41
<25
5.2
5.0
2.7
1.9
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<10
6.2
-
NA<"
NA<"
NA(a)
NA(a)
48.2
38.5
9.8
3.2
3.3
<0.1
0.1
3.2
<25
<25
0.3
0.1
20.9
17.8
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<10
5.6
-
-
-
-
-
50.7
40.2
10.5
0.6
0.6
<0.1
0.1
0.5
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
34.7
23.0
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<10
4.4
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
58.3
46.5
11.7
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
35.3
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
43.1
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
-
-
TC
3.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<10
2.3
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
58.7
48.0
10.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
0.2
<0.1
31.6
31.8
11/21/05
IN
-
88
0.2
-
-
-
16.9
<5
<0.05
-
<10
14.5
0.7
8.4
12.8
0.9
207
-
-
-
30.4
-
-
-
-
47
-
5.3
-
<10
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.2
-
8.2
12.3
0.8
210
-
-
-
6.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
92
0.1
-
-
-
17.1
-
<0.05
-
<10
6.9
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
14.2
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.5
-
7.8
12.8
0.8
216
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
4.5
88
0.1
-
-
-
17.2
-
<0.05
-
<10
2.3
0.4
7.7
12.8
0.9
218
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
29.2
-
(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Iodine (ICPMS)
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
11/29/05
IN
-
-
-
4.5
-
-
-
-
15.1
-
8.4
13.9
1.6
134
-
-
-
31.5
31.4
<0.1
8.9
22.5
39
<25
5.7
5.5
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.9
-
7.9
14.1
1.5
168
-
-
-
10.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
-
-
196
-
-
-
-
7.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.2
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
18.0
17.5
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.7
-
7.6
14.2
2.0
175
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
4.6
-
-
193
-
-
-
-
2.3
-
7.6
13.9
2.5
178
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
27.0
26.1
12/14/05
IN
-
89
0.1
11.3
16.0
<5
<0.05
<10
NA(b)
1.1
8.5
13.9
1.5
198
43.3
35.6
7.7
32.8
-
-
-
-
26
-
4.3
-
<10
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.2
-
8.1
14.8
1.9
191
-
-
-
17.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
85
0.2
152
16.0
-
<0.05
<10
8.8
0.2
7.7
14.7
2.3
194
41.3
33.6
7.7
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
13.9
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
5.4
87
<0.1
84.6
17.0
-
<0.05
<10
3.1
0.9
7.6
15.0
1.9
199
43.4
35.6
7.8
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
20.8
-
01/05/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14.6
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
31.1
31.8
<0.1
10.0
21.8
55
<25
5.3
5.3
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.8
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
17.9
17.9
<0.1
<0.1
17.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
25.8
23.2
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.1
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
0.8
0.7
0.1
<0.1
0.7
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
19.1
17.3
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
23.4
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
25.2
-
TC
5.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.2
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
26.0
-
(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Sampling error.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Iodine (ICPMS)
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
01/17/06
IN
-
87
87
0.1
0.1
4.7
9.1
16
16
-
0.4
0.1
<10
<10
14.2
14.7
1.7
1.6
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
39.4
39.7
30.5
30.9
8.8
8.8
33.6
32.5
-
-
-
-
88
85
-
5.9
5.8
-
1.6
1.8
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.4
9.8
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
23.3
22.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
84
84
0.2
0.2
46.6
46.9
16
16
-
<0.05
0.2
<10
<10
8.3
8.2
2
2.3
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
35.4
35.9
27.5
27.8
7.8
8.2
1.8
1.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
19.7
18.6
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.4
6.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.5
4.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
6.3
84
84
0.1
0.1
38.9
39.4
16
16
-
0.1
0.1
<10
<10
3.0
2.8
2.3
2.7
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
36.2
36.6
27.9
28.2
8.3
8.3
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
25.6
25.4
-
02/02/06 (b)
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14.4
-
8.4
16.0
0.0
321
-
-
-
29.2
30.8
<0.1
12.2
18.6
39
<25
7.7
7.5
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.8
-
8.2
14.6
0.0
302
-
-
-
29.1
30.1
<0.1
1.2
29.0
<25
<25
0.4
0.1
24.8
20.2
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.6
-
7.9
15.0
0.0
316
-
-
-
5.5
6.1
<0.1
0.5
5.6
<25
<25
0.4
0.2
20.0
15.1
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
7.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.0
-
7.6
15.2
0.0
320
-
-
-
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
0.3
0.2
22.2
13.9
02/16/06
IN
-
91
0.2
1.4
23
8.1
<0.05
20.5
15.2
0.7
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
43.9
34.5
9.4
30.1
-
-
-
-
45
-
6.9
-
<10
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.5
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
30.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
87
0.3
17.5
22
-
<0.05
<10
10.3
0.6
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
42.0
32.6
9.4
7.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
25.3
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
7.8
79
0.3
36.1
23
-
<0.05
<10
4.3
0.5
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
39.3
30.4
8.9
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
25.8
-
(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Water quality measurements were taken on 2/3/2006.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Iodine (ICPMS)
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
03/02/06(b)
IN
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
15.3
-
8.6
14.8
-
329
-
-
-
28.3
28.9
<0.1
12.1
16.7
55
25
6.5
6.5
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
12.9
-
8.4
13.9
-
338
-
-
-
29.1
29.2
<0.1
0.4
28.8
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
21.3
17.9
OB
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
10.7
-
8.3
13.8
-
341
-
-
-
9.7
9.3
0.4
0.4
8.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
18.1
16.5
TA
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
8.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
18.0
-
TB
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
6.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
18.8
-
TC
8.4
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
5.2
-
8.0
15.1
-
342
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
19.1
18.5
03/15/06
IN
-
83
0.2
24.5
17.9
<5
<0.05
<10
13.2
1.5
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
33.2
25.1
8.1
25.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
6.5
-
<10
-
OA
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
12.0
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
24.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
79
0.2
57.5
17.5
-
<0.05
<10
9.0
1.2
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
31.3
23.5
7.8
10.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
19.8
-
TA
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
9.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
6.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
8.9
83
0.3
127
18.1
-
<0.05
<10
4.7
1.1
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
31.1
23.4
7.7
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
21.9
-
3/29/06(c)
IN
-
-
-
-
:
_
-
-
15.2
-
8.8
14.3
0.3
298
-
-
-
32.7
32.1
0.6
15.0
17.1
<25
<25
5.5
5.2
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
;
_
-
-
12.4
-
8.3
14.3
0.4
287
-
-
-
29.5
29.3
0.2
1.8
27.5
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
28.0
29.1
OB
-
-
-
-
;
_
-
-
11.9
8.1
14.6
0.6
287
-
-
-
27.5
27.7
<0.1
1.2
26.6
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
27.2
28.5
TA
-
-
-
-
:
_
-
-
11.1
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
27.1
-
TB
-
-
-
-
;
_
-
-
8.8
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
24.6
-
TC
9.6
-
-
-
;
_
-
-
7.7
7.7
14.6
0.3
288
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
22.3
23.7
CO
(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Water quality measurements taken on 03/09/06 (c) Water quality measurements taken on 03/30/06.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (asCaCO3)
Fluoride
Iodine (ICPMS)
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiOJ
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
04/11/06(b)
IN
-
92
92
0.2
0.2
-
18.2
18.5
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
14.4
14.3
0.6
0.5
8.4
15.1
23.4
348
45.4
50.0
37.5
42.3
7.9
7.7
31.8
30.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
6.4
6.4
-
<10
<10
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.7
11.3
-
7.9
16.5
31.3
323
-
-
-
27.5
27.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
97
97
0.3
0.3
-
18.5
18.4
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
11.4
11.3
0.5
0.5
7.9
15.8
21.4
313
46.9
47.2
39.0
39.4
7.9
7.8
23.2
23.3
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
21.8
21.8
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.8
8.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.8
7.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
10.3
88
92
0.3
0.3
-
18.5
18.5
-
<0.05
0.1
<10
<10
5.7
5.7
0.7
0.7
8.0
15.1
17.3
310
47.9
53.6
40.0
45.9
7.9
7.7
<0.1
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
0.1
-
21.0
20.8
-
04/27/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14.8
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
87.9
75.0
12.9
28.2
46.8
<25
<25
5.6
5.8
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13.1
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
28.4
28.6
<0.1
0.3
28.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
25.3
24.7
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.9
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
25.4
25.1
0.3
0.2
24.8
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
26.3
26.0
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
10.8
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.5
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
25.4
24.8
05/08/06
IN
-
83
0.2
4.4
15
<5
0.1
16.3
14.0
1.9
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
50.8
39.4
11.3
32.7
-
-
-
-
58
-
4.5
-
<10
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.7
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
12.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
83
0.2
242
18
-
0.1
<10
10.2
0.8
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
48.5
38.5
10.0
15.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
25.0
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
12.1
88
0.2
176
19
-
0.1
<10
6.7
2.2
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
49.4
39.4
10.0
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
34.1
-
(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Water quality measurements taken on 04/08/06.
Yellow highlight indicates that data are outliers and not used for system evaluation.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued).
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Iodine (ICPMS)
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
06/01/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
<5(b)
-
-
12.8
-
8.3
17.6
6.6
273
-
-
-
25.1
27.3
<0.1
8.3
19.1
44
41
4.2
4.4
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.5
-
8.1
17.7
7.3
271
-
-
-
24.6
23.8
0.7
0.2
23.7
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
22.9
21.8
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.6
-
7.9
17.9
8.9
296
-
-
-
16.3
15.0
1.3
0.1
14.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
19.0
17.2
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
22.4
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
25.1
-
TC
13.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.5
-
7.7
18.0
6.1
275
-
-
-
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
27.0
26.2
06/07/06
IN
-
93
-
2.3
-
<5
-
<10
14.1
1.2
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
43.9
35.5
8.4
30.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.7
-
<10
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13.0
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
28.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
97
0.3
39.8
19
-
<0.05
<10
13.1
1.3
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
45.9
37.3
8.5
21.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
18.2
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
14.1
93
0.3
43.0
18
-
<0.05
<10
8.1
1.4
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
47.3
38.4
9.0
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
26.1
-
06/21/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14.2
-
8.4
16.3
1.2
262
-
-
-
33.2
33.9
<0.1
6.2
27.7
57
39
5.7
5.7
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.4
-
8.2
16.3
2.3
263
-
-
-
32.8
31.4
1.4
0.8
30.6
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
21.3
19.8
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.3
-
8.0
17.0
0.5
262
-
-
-
19.5
19.6
<0.1
0.2
19.4
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
15.1
14.2
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
23.0
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
24.5
-
TC
14.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.9
-
7.7
18.3
0.5
261
-
-
-
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.2
25.1
23.4
Cd
(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Analyzed outside of hold time.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Iodine (ICPMS)
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
07/06/06
IN
-
88
84
0.3
0.2
5.7
5.4
18
19
-
<0.05
0.1
<10
<10
14.4
14.4
0.5
0.8
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
36.7
37.3
27.7
28.0
8.9
9.3
32.1
30.1
-
-
-
-
50
67
-
5.3
5.9
-
<10
<10
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.0
11.7
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
24.6
23.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
84
84
0.2
0.2
256
245
18
18
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
9.9
10.0
0.6
0.5
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
36.1
35.9
27.5
27.2
8.6
8.7
14.8
14.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.5
0.5
-
22.5
23.0
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.3
9.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.5
5.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.2
8.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.8
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
14.5
84
84
0.2
0.1
682
707
21
19
-
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
6.6
6.2
0.3
0.5
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
34.7
34.5
26.6
26.6
8.0
7.9
4.2
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.6
0.8
-
34.4
34.7
-
07/20/06
IN
-
-
-
-
<5
-
-
13.2
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
32.2
32.2
<0.1
12.8
19.4
<25
<25
3.5
3.5
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.3
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
25.9
26.5
<0.1
0.6
25.8
<25
<25
<.01
<0.1
34.6
35.0
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.5
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
15.5
15.4
0.2
0.2
15.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
27.8
26.2
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
14.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.9
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
40.4
38.6
08/01/06
IN
-
88
0.2
4.3
18
-
<0.05
14.0
15.7
0.6
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
46.6
36.4
10.2
30.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.0
-
<10
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.2
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
23.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
88
0.2
44
18
-
<0.05
<10
11.5
0.4
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
45.1
35.9
9.2
14.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
26.7
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
14.9
84
0.3
58
17
-
<0.05
<10
7.4
0.6
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
44.4
35.5
8.9
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
35.8
-
(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (asCaCO3)
Fluoride
Iodine (ICPMS)
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
08/29/06(b)
IN
-
94
0.3
21
<5
<0.05
-
13.4
14.0
0.3
8.3
15.8
-
266
-
-
-
29.3
31.2
<0.1
7.6
23.6
<25
<25
3.6
3.8
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.4
11.5
-
8.2
15.6
-
251
-
-
-
32.9
29.3
3.6
1.7
27.6
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
27.9
25.2
OB
-
101
0.3
21
-
<0.05
-
10.4
10.8
0.5
8.0
15.6
-
252
-
-
-
23.1
21.8
1.6
1.2
20.6
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
24.4
24.3
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.6
9.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
28.4
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.8
7.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
29.8
-
TC
15.5
101
0.3
22
-
<0.05
-
6.9
6.2
0.4
7.8
15.9
-
253
-
-
-
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
29.3
28.8
09/13/06(c)
IN
-
-
-
-
6.2
-
-
13.8
-
7.9
14.7
-
266
-
-
-
32.0
32.0
<0.1
9.8
22.2
<25
<25
4.2
4.2
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.6
-
7.9
14.8
-
275
-
-
-
30.7
31.2
<0.1
1.8
29.4
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
27.2
25.3
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.5
-
8.6
14.7
-
277
-
-
-
26.6
26.1
0.5
0.5
25.6
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
23.3
23.7
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
16.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
-
8.2
14.7
-
263
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
28.6
27.4
09/27/06
IN
-
95
<0.1
0.8
24
<5
<0.05
<10
14.1
0.7
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
47.2
37.6
9.7
32.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
5.2
-
<10
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.8
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
31.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
93
0.2
16.2
19
-
<0.05
<10
12.5
0.2
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
47.9
38.1
9.8
32.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
24.5
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
17.2
95
0.2
21.6
20
-
<0.05
<10
8.5
0.8
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
46.0
36.4
9.6
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
26.4
-
(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Samples were collected on 8/29/06 and 8/30/06 (only one set of samples were analyzed with the exception of silica (c) Water quality
measurements taken on 09/20/06.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Iodine (ICPMS)
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
10/11/06(b)
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13.6
-
8.0
15.1
2.2
285
-
-
-
34.7
34.9
<0.1
7.1
27.8
25
12
5.0
4.9
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.1
-
8.0
14.8
1.5
259
-
-
-
32.8
31.3
1.5
0.4
30.8
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
26.1
23.6
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.2
-
7.9
14.8
1.4
258
-
-
-
36.9
36.5
0.4
0.5
36.0
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
25.0
23.7
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
20.7
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
27.3
-
TC
17.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
-
7.5
15.5
1.0
257
-
-
-
0.2
0.3
35.6
0.6
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
25.1
24.4
10/26/06
IN
-
91
-
4.6
-
-
-
-
13.9
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
34.0
-
-
-
-
40
-
5.5
-
<10
-
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13.2
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
30.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
91
-
36.7
-
-
-
-
11.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
37.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
21.6
-
TA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.2
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
29.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
18.6
91
-
22.4
-
-
-
-
9.3
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
24.9
-
(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Water quality measurements taken on 10/16/06.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Iodine (ICPMS)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
BV
mg/L
M9/L
ng/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
11/15/06(b)
IN
-
-
-
-
14.1
8.3
14.6
0.6
261
31.9
32.4
<0.1
13.8
18.6
43
<25
5.3
5.2
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
13.2
8.4
15.1
0.5
232
30.5
33.8
<0.1
2.0
31.8
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
24.6
24.3
OB
-
-
-
-
13.0
8.4
15.3
0.8
231
36.3
37.1
<0.1
1.2
35.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
25.1
23.7
TA
-
-
-
-
11.6
-
-
-
-
35.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
11.0
-
-
-
-
12.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
19.3
-
-
-
9.4
8.2
15.6
0.5
232
0.7
0.7
<0.1
0.3
0.4
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
27.7
26.2
11/29/06
IN
-
96
4.5
32.4
13.2
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
33.6
-
-
-
-
47
-
4.5
-
<10
-
OA
-
-
-
29.8
11.6
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
26.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
21.0
-
OB
-
90
61.1
28.8
10.8
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
31.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
20.0
-
TA
-
-
-
15.5
9.7
-
-
-
-
28.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
23.6
-
TB
-
-
-
14.1
7.7
-
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
24.3
-
TC
19.7
92
26.1
14.6
8.0
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
23.8
-
12/13/06
IN
-
91
0.5
-
13.6
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
31.0
-
-
-
-
34
-
5.0
-
<10
-
OA
-
-
-
-
12.8
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
28.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
97
30.5
-
12.4
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
33.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
18.6
-
TA
-
-
-
-
11.3
-
-
-
-
35.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
10.0
-
-
-
-
16.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
20.3
95
30.4
-
9.0
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
21.9
-
Cd
o
(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Water quality measurements taken on 11/16/06.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Iodine (ICPMS)
Total P (as P)
Silica (asSiO2)
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
BV
mg/L
M9/L
ng/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
12/19/06
IN
-
94
0.6
<10
14.0
8.3
12.7
0.9
263
31.6
-
-
-
-
46
-
5.3
-
<10
-
OA
-
-
-
<10
12.6
8.3
13.8
0.6
260
30.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
-
-
OB
-
92
17.9
<10
11.6
8.1
13.1
0.6
259
32.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
18.5
-
TA
-
-
-
<10
11.1
-
-
-
-
39.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
<10
9.8
-
-
-
-
19.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
-
-
TC
20.6
92
44.9
<10
8.7
7.9
13.8
0.7
259
1.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
21.2
-
01/10/07(b)
IN
-
-
-
-
13.8
8.4
11.4
-
298
32.1
32.8
<0.1
7.4
25.4
50
31
5.5
5.8
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
11.8
8.3
11.6
-
270
28.9
29.6
<0.1
0.7
28.9
<25
<25
<0.1
0.3
16.5
15.7
OB
-
-
-
-
11.3
8.3
11.6
-
267
33.1
34.0
<0.1
0.7
33.3
<25
<25
<0.1
0.3
17.4
16.9
TA
-
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
32.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
9.4
-
-
-
-
17.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
20.9
-
-
-
8.1
8.0
12.5
-
264
1.6
1.6
<0.1
0.3
1.3
<25
<25
<0.1
0.3
20.7
19.6
01/18/07
IN
-
91
-
-
14.3
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
33.0
-
-
-
-
136
-
7.3
-
3.1
-
OA
-
-
-
-
13.6
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
33.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
93
-
-
12.2
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
34.8
-
-
-
-
15
-
<0.1
-
24.8
-
TA
-
-
-
-
12.1
-
-
-
-
40.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
10.6
-
-
-
-
24.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
21.2
90
-
-
9.9
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
3.4
-
-
-
-
15
-
<0.1
-
29.5
-
(a) Water quality measurements not taken by operator (b) Water quality measurements taken on 01/12/07.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Silica (as SiO2)
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
01/31/07(b)
IN
-
-
13.8
8.4
13.9
2.6
276
34.4
33.1
1.3
13.9
19.2
30
<25
6.1
6.0
<10
<10
OA
-
-
12.9
8.2
14.5
1.3
296
31.8
30.3
1.5
1.2
29.1
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
36.2
35.4
OB
-
-
11.8
8.2
14.7
1.2
297
35.8
32.7
3.1
1.0
31.7
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
34.3
31.7
TA
-
-
11.4
-
-
-
-
38.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
26.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
21.7
-
9.7
8.0
15.2
1.4
309
5.2
5.5
<0.1
1.0
4.5
<25
<25
<0.1
0.2
40.9
38.6
02/15/07
IN
-
90
14.6
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
31.2
-
-
-
-
28.7
-
5.9
-
<10
-
OA
-
-
11.3
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
25.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
87
15.7
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
32.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
25.9
-
TA
-
-
15.1
-
-
-
-
36.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
12.1
-
-
-
-
29.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
22.3
90
14.1
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
7.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
31.1
-
03/07/07
IN
-
-
13.8
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
29.8
28.8
1.0
8.6
20.2
28
<25
6.1
5.9
<10
<10
OA
-
-
13.1
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
26.2
24.9
1.3
0.6
24.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
28.7
29.3
OB
-
-
12.3
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
28.8
27.4
1.4
0.3
27.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
29.0
29.0
TA
-
-
11.7
-
-
-
-
33.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
34.7
-
TB
-
-
10.7
-
-
-
-
30.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
37.5
-
TC
22.6
-
10.0
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
8.9
8.6
0.3
0.2
8.4
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
37.3
36.5
Cd
to
(a) Water quality measurements not taken by operator, (b) Water quality measurements taken on 02/06/07.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (asCaCO3)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
BV
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
03/15/07(b)
IN
-
121
12.4
14.4
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
32.7
-
-
-
-
25
-
6.1
-
<10
-
OA
-
-
15.1
13.5
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
28.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
118
11.6
13.0
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
32.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
29.5
-
TA
-
-
<10
10.7
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
15.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
<10
1.4
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
23.0
18
<10
0.5
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
<10
-
03/28/07
IN
-
-
-
13.9
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
32.9
32.0
0.9
8.9
23.1
<25
<25
4.2
4.0
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
12.8
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
28.5
27.2
1.3
<0.1
27.2
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
27.5
24.7
OB
-
-
-
11.7
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
34.0
32.7
1.3
<0.1
32.7
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
26.4
24.2
TA
-
-
-
11.0
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
23.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
23.8
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<10
<10
04/19/07
IN
-
-
-
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
35.0
34.0
1.0
12.8
21.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
OA
-
-
-
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
31.2
30.2
1.1
1.9
28.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
OB
-
-
-
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
33.2
31.7
1.5
0.8
31.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
-
-
-
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
30.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
24.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cd
OJ
(a) Water quality measurements not taken by operator (b) Media changeout occurred on March 14, 2007 and TC column was moved to lead position and named TA.
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
BV
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
05/16/07
IN
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
35.4
34.5
0.9
11.3
23.2
OA
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
28.3
26.5
1.8
1.1
25.4
OB
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
33.4
32.0
1.4
0.2
31.9
TA
-
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
30.9
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
TC
26.2
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
06/13/07
IN
-
8.1
16.5
1.2
222
33.2
31.8
1.4
10.1
21.7
OA
-
8.2
17.1
1.2
209
33.6
32.6
1.0
2.7
29.9
OB
-
8.2
16.4
1.0
203
31.3
29.3
2.0
<0.1
29.3
TA
-
-
-
-
-
30.9
-
-
-
-
TB
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
-
-
TC
27.3
7.7
16.9
1.4
195
<0.1
-
-
-
-
(a) Water quality measurements not taken by operator.
-------
APPENDIX C
ARSENIC CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
-------
Arsenic Mass Removed by Oxidation Column A
Bed Volumes
Treated between
Sampling Points
0
500
1,300
1,900
800
100
800
500
400
800
700
Concentration (jig/L)
Influent
32.0
31.1
33.6
32.4
30.4
31.5
32.8
31.1
33.6
29.2
30.1
OA
0.5
2.1
6.9
3.2
6.3
10.7
17.1
17.9
23.3
29.1
30.4
Difference
31.5
29.0
26.7
29.2
24.1
20.8
15.7
13.2
10.3
0.1
0.0
Total Arsenic Mass Removed (ug)
Mass of Media (as is) in Oxidation Column A (mg)
Media Loading (ug of As/mg of dry media)
fig/Lx
BV(a)
-
15,125
36,205
53,105
21,320
2,245
14,600
7,225
4,700
4,160
35
Mass
(US)
-
642,324
1,537,543
2,255,247
905,411
95,340
620,028
306,829
199,598
176,666
1,486
6,740,472
34,700,400
0.20
(a) 1BV= 1.5 ft3 =11.22 gal
Dry media in each column = 32,965,380 mg based on a bulk
density of 51 lb/ft3 and 5% moisture content.
OA = after Oxidation Column A
C-l
-------
Arsenic Mass Removed by Oxidation Column B
Bed Volumes
Treated between
Sampling Points
0
800
100
800
500
400
800
700
600
500
700
700
3,500
300
300
100
200
200
600
900
800
Concentration (jig/L)
OA
3.2
6.3
10.7
17.1
17.9
23.3
29.1
30.4
29.1
24.5
29.5
27.5
24.6
28.1
32.8
24.6
25.9
23.7
32.9
30.7
31.2
OB
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.8
5.5
7.2
9.7
10.7
27.5
23.2
16.3
21.1
19.5
14.8
15.5
14.2
23.1
26.6
32.0
Difference
2.6
5.9
10.1
16.3
17.1
21.5
23.6
23.2
19.4
13.8
2.0
4.3
8.3
7.0
13.3
9.8
10.4
9.5
9.8
4.1
0.0
Total Arsenic Mass Removed (ug)
Mass of Media (as is) in Oxidation Column B (mg)
Media Loading (ug of As/mg of dry media)
fig/Lx
BV(a)
-
3,400
800
10,560
8,350
7,720
18,040
16,380
12,780
8,300
5,530
2,205
22,050
2,295
3,045
1,155
2,020
1,990
5,790
6,255
1,640
Mass
(US)
-
144,390
33,974
448,459
354,605
327,851
766,117
695,621
542,737
352,482
234,846
93,641
936,413
97,463
129,314
49,050
85,785
84,511
245,888
265,635
69,647
5,958,431
34,700,400
0.18
(a) 1BV= 1.5 ft3 =11.22 gal
Dry media in each column = 32,965,380 mg based on a bulk density of 51
lb/ft3 and 5% moisture content.
OA = after Oxidation Column A
OB = after Oxidation Column B
C-2
-------
Arsenic Mass Removed by Adsorption Column A
Bed Volumes
Treated between
Sampling Points
0
800
100
800
500
400
800
700
600
500
700
700
3,500
300
300
100
200
200
600
900
800
500
900
700
400
600
Concentration (jig/L)
OB
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.8
5.5
7.2
9.7
10.7
27.5
23.2
16.3
21.1
19.5
14.8
15.5
14.2
23.1
26.6
32.0
36.9
37.2
36.3
31.4
33.9
TA
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.1
0.7
5.4
6.4
6.2
5.5
4.4
4.1
7.1
10.4
16.0
22.2
29.3
35.2
28.8
35.9
Difference
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.8
1.6
5.3
7.2
9.6
10.7
24.4
22.5
10.9
14.7
13.3
9.3
11.1
10.1
16.0
16.2
16.0
14.7
7.9
1.1
2.6
0.0
Total Arsenic Mass Removed (ug)
Mass of Media (as is) in Adsorption Column A (mg)
Media Loading (ug of As/mg of dry media)
fig/Lx
BV(a)
-
360
43
500
375
470
2,760
4,358
5,025
5,063
12,268
16,415
58,450
3,840
4,200
1,130
2,040
2,120
7,830
14,490
12,880
7,675
10,170
3,150
740
780
Mass
(US)
-
15,288
1,805
21,234
15,925
19,960
117,211
185,053
213,400
214,993
520,973
697,107
2,482,237
163,076
178,364
47,989
86,634
90,032
332,522
615,357
546,984
325,940
431,897
133,773
31,426
33,125
7,522,304
34,700,400
0.23
(a) 1BV= 1.5 ft3 =11.22 gal
Dry media in each column = 32,965,380 mg based on a bulk density of 51
lb/ft3 and 5% moisture content.
OB = after Oxidation Column B
TA = after Adsorption Column A
C-3
-------
Arsenic Mass Removed by Adsorption Column B
Bed Volumes
Treated between
Sampling Points
0
800
700
600
500
700
700
3,500
300
300
100
200
200
600
900
800
500
900
700
400
600
300
300
300
500
600
300
Concentration (jig/L)
TA
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.1
0.7
5.4
6.4
6.2
5.5
4.4
4.1
7.1
10.4
16.0
22.2
29.3
35.2
28.8
35.9
39.9
32.8
40.1
38.3
36.2
33.6
TB
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.7
1.1
2.2
3.3
7.0
12.4
9.7
16.8
19.9
17.1
24.5
26.5
29.3
30.8
Difference
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
2.6
0.7
4.8
5.8
5.6
4.7
3.9
3.7
6.4
9.3
13.8
18.9
22.3
22.8
19.1
19.1
20.0
15.7
15.6
11.8
6.9
2.8
Total Arsenic Mass Removed (ug)
Mass of Media (as is) in Adsorption Column B (mg)
Media Loading (ug of As/mg of dry media)
fig/Lx
BV(a)
-
40
35
15
13
910
1,138
9,538
1,590
1,710
515
860
760
3,030
7,065
9,240
8,175
18,540
15,785
8,380
11,460
5,865
5,355
4,695
6,850
5,610
1,455
Mass
(US)
-
1,699
1,486
637
531
38,646
48,307
405,036
67,524
72,620
21,871
36,522
32,275
128,677
300,034
392,402
347,173
787,351
670,353
355,879
486,680
249,073
227,415
199,386
290,904
238,244
61,791
5,462,514
34,700,400
0.17
(a) 1BV= 1.5 ft3 =11.22 gal
Dry media in each column = 32,965,380 mg based on a bulk density of 51
lb/ft3 and 5% moisture content.
TA = after Adsorption Column A
TB = after Adsorption Column B
C-4
-------
Arsenic Mass Removed by Adsorption Column C
Bed Volumes
Treated between
Sampling Points
0
700
700
3,500
300
300
100
200
200
600
900
800
500
900
700
400
600
300
300
300
500
600
300
400
800
900
1,500
1,100
Concentration (jig/L)
TB
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.7
1.1
2.2
3.3
7.0
12.4
9.7
16.8
19.9
17.1
24.5
26.5
29.3
30.8
32.5
34.0
33.2
33.4
31.3
TC
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.7
1.1
1.4
1.6
3.4
5.2
7.4
8.9
15.0
23.5
30.8
30.9
30.9
Difference
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.7
1.0
2.0
3.1
6.4
11.7
9.0
15.7
18.5
15.5
21.1
21.3
21.9
21.9
17.5
10.5
2.4
2.5
0.4
Total Arsenic Mass Removed (ug)
Mass of Media (as is) in Adsorption Column C (mg)
Media Loading (ug of As/mg of dry media)
fig/Lx
BV(a)
-
140
140
963
165
165
65
120
75
285
743
1,200
1,275
4,275
6,335
4,140
7,410
5,130
5,100
5,490
10,600
12,960
6,570
7,880
11,200
5,805
3,675
1,595
Mass
(US)
-
5,945
5,945
40,875
7,007
7,007
2,760
5,096
3,185
12,103
31,532
50,961
54,146
181,549
269,033
175,816
314,686
217,859
216,585
233,148
450,158
550,381
279,013
334,645
475,638
246,525
156,069
67,736
4,395,407
34,700,400
0.13
(a) 1BV= 1.5 ft3 =11.22 gal
Dry media in each column = 32,965,380 mg based on a bulk density of 51
lb/ft3 and 5% moisture content.
TB = after Adsorption Column B
TC = after Adsorption Column C
C-5
------- |