EPA/600/R-10/011
March 2010
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
EPA Demonstration Project at
Golden Hills Community Services District in Tehachapi, CA
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Abraham S.C. Chen
Gary M. Lewis
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
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base needed to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce future environmental risks.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments, and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public- and private-sector partners to foster technologies
that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; 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 Golden Hills Community Services District (GHCSD) located in
Tehachapi, CA. The objectives of the project were to evaluate (1) the effectiveness of Magnesium
Elektron, Inc.'s (MEI) Isolux™ treatment system in removing arsenic to meet the new 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 skill levels; and (4) the capital and O&M cost of the
technology. The project also characterized water in the distribution system and residuals generated by the
treatment process. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality (both across the
treatment train and in the distribution system), process residuals, and capital and O&M cost.
The Isolux™ arsenic treatment system consisted of two adsorption modules arranged in parallel, capable
of treating up to 150 gal/min (gpm) of flow. Each module, designed for 75 gpm, consisted of a booster
pump, a l-(im bag filter, and two 20-in x 48-in carbon-steel filtration vessels, each containing nine
Isolux™-302M media cartridges. Each media cartridge was 4.55-in in diameter and 42.25-in in length and
contained 0.32 ft3 of Isolux™-302M-a hydrous zirconium oxide media with amphoteric properties.
During the performance evaluation study from October 26, 2005, through March 20, 2007, three media
runs were performed, each operating for a total run time of 1,377, 1,900, and 1,422 hr (or 21.9, 20.2, and
16.7 hr/day). Average flowrates for the runs were 79, 74, and 85 gpm. Based on the average flowrates,
the empty bed contact times (EBCT) ranged from 0.9 to 1.2 min, compared to the design value of 0.5 min.
Among the 13 active wells at GHCSD, only Well C had elevated arsenic concentrations, which averaged
12.2 (ig/L and existed primarily as soluble As(V). The pH values of raw water ranged from 7.4 to 7.9 and
averaged 7.6, which is much lower than the zero point of charge for zirconium hydroxide (i.e., 10 to 11).
During Media Run 1, the system treated approximately 61,600 bed volumes (BV) of water before
reaching 10 (ig/L arsenic breakthrough. This run length was 41% lower than the vendor's estimated
105,000 BV. An excessive amount of sediment was observed in the well water, necessitating frequent
replacement of bag filters prior to the adsorption modules. It was possible that particles passed through
the bag filters blocked (or partially blocked) some passages on the media cartridges' outer membrane,
causing preferential flow and the short run length observed. Examination of the well revealed rusty areas
on the drop-pipe, which prompted a decision by GHCSD to rehabilitate the well.
Following the well rehabilitation and media cartridge changeout, Media Run 2 began on April 27, 2006.
The system treated 92,800 BV of water before reaching 10 (ig/L arsenic breakthrough. Since Media Runs
1 and 2 operated under similar conditions, the well rehabilitation might have, in fact, contributed to the
more extended media life observed. Following media cartridge changeout, Media Run 3 began on August
17, 2006, and ended on March 20, 2007, with the system operating intermittently due to a lower demand
in the winter. The system treated approximately 85,100 BV after reaching 10 (ig/L arsenic breakthrough.
Similar run lengths were observed during Media Runs 2 and 3. The intermittent system operation (i.e.,
16.7 versus 20.2 hr/day) did not seem to affect the media run length.
The treatment system did not require backwash; therefore, spent media cartridges were the only residue
generated. Spent Isolux™-302M media passed TCLP tests and therefore could be disposed of as non-
hazardous waste. However, MEI opted to send the spent media for beneficial reuse.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after system startup showed a slight
decrease in the average arsenic concentration at each of the three sampling locations (i.e., from 2.8, 6.0,
and 5.2 (ig/L to 2.0, 3.3, and 3.1 (ig/L, respectively). Most of the time, arsenic concentrations were much
IV
-------
lower than those of the treatment effluent, presumably due to blending of the treated water with untreated
water from wells where arsenic levels were not of concern. Lead and copper concentrations at the three
sampling locations did not appear to be significantly impacted by the arsenic treatment system.
The capital investment cost was $76,840, which included $58,500 for equipment, $8,500 for engineering,
and $9,840 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 150 gpm, the capital cost was $512/gpm
(or$0.36/gpd).
The O&M cost for the Isolux™ system included cost for media cartridge replacement and labor for routine
operation. Based on the volumes processed during each media run prior to 10 (ig/L arsenic breakthrough,
the total O&M cost, including media cartridge replacement for Media Runs 1, 2, and 3, was $1.35, $0.89,
and $0.98/1,000 gal, respectively. Routine activities to operate and maintain the system consumed only
2.5 hr per week. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $0.14/1,000 gal of water treated, assuming that
the system operates at 79.3 gpm for 19.6 hr/day and 7 days/week to produce 653,000 gal of water per
week.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 6
3.1 General Project Approach 6
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 7
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 7
3.3.1 Source Water 7
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 10
3.3.3 Distribution System Water 10
3.3.4 Residual Solids 10
3.4 Sampling Logistics 10
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 10
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 10
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 12
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13
4.1 Facility Description 13
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 13
4.1.2 Distribution System 16
4.2 Treatment Process Description 16
4.3 Treatment System Installation 22
4.3.1 System Permitting 22
4.3.2 Building Construction 23
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 23
4.4 System Operation 23
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 23
4.4.2 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 26
4.5 System Performance 29
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 29
4.5.2 Distribution System Sampling 42
4.5.3 Spent Media Sampling 42
4.6 System Cost 46
4.6.1 Capital Cost 46
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 48
VI
-------
5.0: REFERENCES 50
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA A-l
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA B-l
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations 9
Figure 3-2. Water Distribution System at GHCSD 11
Figure 4-1. Well C Pump House 13
Figure 4-2. Storage Tanks, Well C Pump House, and Dry Van Container 14
Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Chlorine Addition System 14
Figure 4-4. Replaceable Isolux™-302M Media Cartridges 17
Figure 4-5. Schematic of MEI's Isolux™ Arsenic Treatment System 18
Figure 4-6. Isolux™ Pilot Facility and Isolux™ Media Cartridge 18
Figure 4-7. Isolux™ Adsorption Module at GHCSD 21
Figure 4-8. Schematic of Assembled Isolux™ Media Cartridge 22
Figure 4-9. Isolux™ Treatment System Enclosure (Storage Tank in Background) 23
Figure 4-10. Isolux™ Treatment System Daily Flowrates 25
Figure 4-11. Pressure Readings Across Bag Filter and Module A and Bag Filter and Module B 27
Figure 4-12. Differential Pressure Readings Across Bag Filters 28
Figure 4-13. Differential Pressure Readings Across Modules A andB 28
Figure 4-14. Instantaneous Flowrate vs. Differential Pressure 29
Figure 4-15. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TM Sampling Locations 38
Figure 4-16. Total Arsenic Concentrations Through Treatment System During Media Runs 1 to 3 39
Figure 4-17. Total Mn Concentrations Through Treatment System During Media Runs 1 to 3 41
Figure 4-18. Relationship Between pHand Surface Charge of Media 42
Figure 4-19. Total Arsenic Concentrations in Distribution System 44
Figure 4-20. Spent Media Sampling 44
Figure 4-21. Spent Media Cartridge Removed from Isolux™ System 45
Figure 4-22. Spent Media Cartridge with Outer Membrane Cut Away 46
Figure 4-23. Total O&M Cost, Including Media Replacement 49
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1 and 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 6
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 6
Table 3-3. Sampling and Analysis Schedule for GHCSD Site 8
Table 4-1. Quality of Well C Source Water and GHCSD Treated Water 15
Table 4-2. Properties of Isolux™-302M Media 17
Table 4-3. Isolux™ Arsenic Treatment System Specifications and Design Parameters 20
Table 4-4. Summary of Isolux™ Treatment System Operations 24
Table 4-5. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Zirconium 30
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results 33
Table 4-7. Distribution System Sampling Results 43
Table 4-8. TCLP Results of Spent Media 45
Table 4-9. Spent Media Analysis 47
vn
-------
Table 4-10. Capital Investment for MEFs Isolux™ Treatment System 47
Table 4-11. O&M Cost for MEFs Isolux™ Treatment System 48
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL
AC
AM
As
ATS
bgs
BV
American Analytical Laboratories
asbestos cement
adsorptive media
arsenic
Aquatic Treatment Systems
below ground surface
bed volumes
Ca calcium
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
Cl chlorine
C/F coagulation/filtration
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
GHCSD Golden Hills Community Services District
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 Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
mgd mega gallons per day
mg/L milligrams per liter
Hg/L micrograms per liter
jam micrometer
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
IX
-------
Na sodium
NA not available
ND not detected
NH3 ammonia
NO2 nitrite
NO3 nitrate
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF NSF International
NTU nephlemetric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
PE polyethylene
Pb lead
PO4 orthophosphate
POE point of entry
POU point of use
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
AP pressure differential
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO4 sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
S.U. standard unit
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TO task order
TOC total organic carbon
U uranium
V vanadium
WET whole effluent toxicity
Zpc zero point of charge
Zr zirconium
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of the Golden Hills Community Services
District in Tehachapi, California. The staff monitored the treatment system daily and collected samples
from the treatment and distribution systems on a regular schedule throughout this reporting period. This
performance evaluation would not have been possible without their efforts.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking-water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and are
known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). To clarify implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25, 2003, to
express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required 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 cost. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, onsite demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement published in the Federal Register requested water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking-water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites, and the community water system at Golden Hills Community Services District (GHCSD) in
Tehachapi, CA, 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, EPA convened another technical panel to review
the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA; the number of proposals per site ranged from none
(for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at sites receiving at
least one proposal was made, again through a joint effort of EPA, the state regulators, and the host site.
Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program, reducing the number of sites to
28. In October 2004, Magnesium Elektron, Inc.'s (MEI) Isolux™ arsenic treatment system was selected
for demonstration at GHCSD in Tehachapi, CA.
As of November 2009, 39 of the 40 systems were operational, and the performance evaluation of 34
systems was complete.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Rounds 1 and 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, and 17 point-of-use (POU) units
(including nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and
eight AM units at the OIT site) and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations,
technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, Fe, and
pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12
Round 1 demonstration sites and associated capital cost is provided in two EPA reports (Wang, et al.,
2004 and Chen, et al., 2004). These are posted on the EPA website at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/tech/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The purpose of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic treatment technology
demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking-water supplies at 40 sites. 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 Isolux™ arsenic treatment system at the GHCSD site in
Tehachapi, CA, during the study period from October 25, 2005, through March 20, 2007. The types of
data collected included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the
distribution system), residuals, and capital and preliminary O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1 and 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NY(d)
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
250(e)
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
27W
15w
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,806(c)
l,312(c)
1,615W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM (E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14W
13W
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127W
466(c)
l,387(c)
l,499(c)
7827(c)
546W
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
1,344W
l,325(c)
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
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
35W
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 Rounds 1 and 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
Source Water Quality
As
Oig/L)
Fe
(MS/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)fe)
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HDC)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69w
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; EHX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process; 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% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(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 the program in June 2006.
(e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH, from 150 to 250 gpm; in Sandusky, MI, from 210 to 340 gpm; and in Arnaudville, LA, from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
MEFs Isolux™ arsenic treatment system was installed at GHCSD in Tehachapi, CA, on October 21, 2005,
and was put into service on October 25, 2005. Based on the information collected during the performance
evaluation study, the following conclusions were drawn relating to the overall project objectives.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• The Isolux™-302M media was effective at removing arsenic from drinking water to below the
10 (ig/L MCL. The Isolux™ system achieved useful run lengths of 61,600, 92,800, and
85,100 BV during Media Runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively; this is 12 to 41% lower than the
vendor-projected run length of 105,000 BV.
• Accumulation of submicron particles on the media cartridges might have caused preferential
flow through the media cartridges and the relatively short run length observed during Media
Run 1.
• Most of the time, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were much lower than
those of the treatment system effluent, presumably due to blending of the treated water with
untreated water from wells where arsenic was not a concern. Lead and copper did not appear
to be impacted by the treatment system.
Simplicity of required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• Under normal operating conditions, the system required little attention from the operator.
The daily demand for operator labor was approximately 30 min to inspect the system visually
and record operational parameters.
• Daily operation of the system did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to
operate the existing water-supply equipment. The system was operated by a State of
California-certified operator who has Level 2 certifications for both treatment and distribution
systems.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• Residuals produced by the Isolux™ system included spent media cartridges only; backwash
was not a system requirement. The spent Isolux™-302M media passed Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests and therefore could be disposed of as a non-
hazardous waste. However, MEI sent the spent media for beneficial reuse.
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
• The capital investment cost for the 150-gpm system was $76,840, including $58,500 for
equipment, $8,500 for engineering, and $9,840 for installation. This cost equated to
$512/gpm (or $0.36/gpd), not including cost for the building.
• The unit capital cost was $0.09/1,000 gal if the system operates at a 100% utilization rate.
The system actual unit cost was $0.21/1,000 gal of treated water, based on an average
flowrate of 79.3 gpm and an average daily operating time of 19.6 hr/day. The labor cost for
routine O&M activities was $0.14/1,000 gal of water treated.
-------
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 Isolux™ arsenic treatment system began on October 25, 2005, and ended on March 20, 2007.
Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected and/or 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 target MCL of 10 (ig/L for arsenic through the collection of water samples across the
treatment train, as described in the Study Plan (Battelle, 2005). System reliability was evaluated by
tracking the unscheduled system downtime and the frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The
plant operator recorded the unscheduled downtime and repair information 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 CDPH
Final Study Plan Issued
Permit issued by CDPH
System Installation and Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Began
Date
October 13, 2004
April 12, 2005
April 22, 2005
May 6, 2005
May 24, 2005
June 6, 2005
July 5, 2005
August 4, 2005
September 23, 2005
September 7, 2005
October 2 1,2005
October 26, 2005
CDPH = California Department of Health Services.
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objective
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and
Operator Skill
Requirements
Residual Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 u.g/L of arsenic in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs, including a description of problems,
materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements, including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance, including number, frequency,
and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and for 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 system 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 system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (gpm) (or 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, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by MEI and Battelle. Each day, the plant operator recorded system operational data,
such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings (see Appendix A) on a Daily System
Operation Log Sheet, and also conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any
problem occurred, the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor
should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded on the Repair and Maintenance Log
Sheet all relevant information, including the problem encountered, course of action taken, materials and
supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred. Each week, the plant operator measured several
water quality parameters onsite, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded the data on a Weekly Onsite Water Quality
Parameters Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the Isolux™ system consisted of cost for equipment, site engineering, and system
installation. The O&M cost consisted primarily of the cost for the media replacement and spent media
disposal, electricity, and labor. Electricity consumption was determined using a kilowatt hour meter.
Labor for various activities, such as routine system O&M, troubleshooting, repairs, and demonstration-
related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. Routine O&M included activities
such as completing field logs, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as
recommended by the equipment vendor. Labor was recorded 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, but was not used for the cost analysis.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the system performance, samples were collected from the wellhead, across the treatment
plant, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedule and analytes measured
during each sampling event. Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the treatment system, along with the
analytes and schedule for each sampling location. Specific sampling requirements for arsenic speciation,
analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in
Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2004). Appenidx A of
the QAPP describes the procedure for arsenic speciation.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit on October 13, 2004, 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. Table 3-3 lists analytes for the source water samples.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling and Analysis Schedule for GHCSD Site
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
System
Water
Sample
Locations(a)
IN
IN, AC,
MA, and
MB
IN, AC, and
TM
DS1,DS2,
and DS 3
No. of
Samples
1
4
3
3
Frequency
Once during
initial site
visit
Second,
third, and
fourth weeks
of each 4-
week cycle
(regular
sampling)
First week
of each 4-
week cycle
(speciation
sampling)
Monthly(c)
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Offsite: As(III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NO2,
NO3, NH3, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, TDS,' TOC,
turbidity, and alkalinity
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12
(total)03'
Offsite: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), Zr
(total), Ca, Mg, SiO2, P,
turbidity, and alkalinity
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12
(total)*'
Offsite: As(III), As (V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Zr (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, P, turbidity, and
alkalinity.
As (total), Fe (total), Mn
(total), Pb, Cu, pH, and
alkalinity
Sampling
Date
10/13/04
See Appendix B
See Appendix B
See Table 4-7
(a) Abbreviations corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 3 -1.
(b) Total chlorine residual analyzed at MB or TM beginning on July 5, 2006.
(c) Four baseline sampling events performed from July to August 2005 before the system became
operational.
IN = at wellhead; AC = after chlorination; MA = after Module A; MB = after Module B; TM = after
Modules A and B combined.
DS1 to 3 = distribution system sampling location 1 to 3.
DO = dissolved oxygen; ORP = oxidation-reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total
organic carbon.
-------
INFLUENT
(WELL C)
1st Week of 4-Week Cycle
pHW, temperature(a),DO/ORP(a),
As speciation, Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Zr (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P,
turbidity, and alkalinity
pH^, temperatureW,DO/ORpW, C12 (total),
As speciation, Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Zr (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P,
turbidity, and alkalinity
Tehachapi, CA
ISOLUX™ Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: ISOgpm
2nd, 3rd, and 4th Week of 4-Week Cycl
pHW, temperature^DO/ORPW,
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
Zr (total), Ca, Mg, SiO2, P,
turbidity, and alkalinity
pHW, temperature(a),DO/ORP(a),
C12 (total), As (total), Fe (total),
Mn (total), Zr (total), Ca, Mg,
SiO2, P, turbidity, and alkalinity.
MODULE A
§
mpling Locatic
&Q
£
>
LEGEND
( IN J Influent
f AC J After Chlorination
(MA) Module A Effluent
(MBJ Module B Effluent
TTM) Total Combined Effluent
INFLUENT Unit Process
^ ^
' C12 (total), As (total), Fe (total),
Mn (total), Zr (total), Ca, Mg,
SiO2, P, turbidity, and alkalinity
pH^, temperatureW,DO/ORpW, C12 (total),
As speciation, Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble, Zr (total and soluble,
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P,
turbidity, and alkalinity.
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Footnote
(a) On-site analyses
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations
-------
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, water samples
were collected weekly, on a 4-week cycle, for onsite and offsite analyses. For the first week of each 4-
week cycle, samples taken at the wellhead (IN), after chlorination (AC), and after Modules A and B
combined (TM), were speciated onsite and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 under speciation
sampling. For the next three weeks, samples were collected at IN, AC, after Module A (MA), and after
Module B (MB) and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 under regular sampling. Speciation was
discontinued on October 10, 2006, and since then, samples were collected weekly from IN, AC, MA, and
MB and were analyzed only for total arsenic.
3.3.3 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine any impacts of the Isolux™ arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution
system, specifically arsenic, lead, and copper levels. From July to August 2005, prior to the startup of the
treatment system, four baseline distribution sampling events were conducted at three locations in the
distribution system. Following system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis
at the same three locations for nine occasions.
Three residences were selected for distribution water sampling, including one each on San Lucas
("DS1"), Tiffany Circle ("DS2"), and Early Dawn Court ("DS3"). Only one residence (DS1) was part of
the historic Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling network serviced by the treatment well. Figure 3-2 is
a distribution map showing the three sampling locations. The homeowners of the residences collected
samples following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and
Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The dates and times of last water usage
before sampling and sample collection were recorded for calculations of 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.
3.3.4 Residual Solids. The Isolux™ system did not require backwash; therefore, only spent media
were collected for residual solid analysis. Nine spent media cartridges from the first media run (from
October 26, 2005, to January 17, 2006) were shipped to Battelle on April 13, 2006. Of the nine spent
media cartridges, the outer membrane on one cartridge was opened to expose the media. Spent media
was sampled across the annular space of the cartridge from (1) the outer surface (i.e., immediately under
the porous outer member where water after chlorination entered the media bed); (2) the subsurface
(immediately under the outer surface); (3) the middle; and (4) the inner portion (i.e., where water exited
the media bed) of the cartridge. Metal analyses were conducted on air-dried and acid-digested samples.
Meanwhile, MEI conducted its own TCLP, total threshold limit concentration (TTLC), and soluble
threshold limit concentration (STLC) tests on the spent media and provided the results to Battelle.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
Sampling logistics, including arsenic speciation kit preparation, sample cooler preparation, and sample
shipping and handling, are discussed below.
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species-As(V) and As(III) (Edwards, et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 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-
10
-------
N
0 t400 2,800
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 3-2. Water Distribution System at GHCSD
11
-------
printed, colored-coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), data and time of sample
collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The
sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, the 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 were separated by sampling location, placed in Ziplock™ bags, and packed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling
instructions, chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included.
The chain-of-custody forms and airbills were complete except 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 offsite analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, sample
custodians verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms, were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. The Battelle Study Lead addressed discrepancies noted by the sample
custodians with the plant operator.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelie's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-
MS) laboratory. Samples for other water quality parameters were packed in separate coolers and picked
up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH, and TCCI Laboratories
in New Lexington, OH, both of which were contracted by Battelle for this demonstration study. The
chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final
disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the
required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by the Battelle ICP-MS Laboratory, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms
of precision, accuracy, method detection limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the
QAPP (i.e., relative percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80-120%, 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.
The plant operator conducted field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP using a VWR
Symphony SP90MS handheld multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following
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 VWR probe in the beaker until a stable value was
obtained.
12
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Facility Description
At an elevation of 3,973 ft above sea level, GHCSD is located immediately west of Tehachapi, CA, and
has approximately 7,900 residents. Prior to the demonstration study, there were 13 active wells at
GHCSD, but only Well C had elevated arsenic concentrations up to 20 (ig/L. Figure 4-1 shows the Well
C pump house, which is located near the southeast corner of the district, east of State Route 202.
Drilled in 1997, Well C was 10-in in diameter and 700 ft deep, with a pumping water level of 517 ft
below ground surface (bgs) and a static water level of 258 ft bgs. The well was equipped with a 25-
horsepower (hp) Grundfos pump rated for 145 gpm. The maximum flowrate of the well, however, was
100 gpm, yielding 81,462 and 71,687 gpd (on average) of water in 2003 and 2004, respectively. The well
was controlled by atelemetry system based on time of day (shut off between 12 p.m. and 6 p.m.), level of
water in storage tanks, or both. One 1,000,000- and one 500,000-gal storage tanks, located close to the
Well C pump house and a dry van container that housed the new arsenic treatment system (Figure 4-2),
were used to store water before it entered the distribution system. An existing chlorination system
(Figure 4-3) provided a total chlorine residual of 1.25 mg/L (as C12) in the distribution system.
Figure 4-1. Well C Pump House
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected from Well C on October 13,
2004, by a Battelle staff member who attended an introductory meeting for this project. Source water
also was filtered for soluble arsenic, iron, manganese, uranium, and vanadium and was speciated for
As(III) and As(V). In addition, pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were measured onsite using a WTW 340i
meter. Table 4-1 presents the analytical results from the source water sampling event and compares them
13
-------
Figure 4-2. Storage Tanks, Well C Pump House, and Dry Van Container
Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Chlorine Addition System
14
-------
Table 4-1. Quality of Well C Source Water and GHCSD Treated Water
Parameter
Unit
Date
pH
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 OPO4)
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 (soluble)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
—
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
CDPH
Treated
Water
Data
10/11/00
8.0
NA
NA
180
183
0.06
NA
NA
0.34
<0.02
NA
12
0.23
42
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
<50
NA
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
29
52
13
CDPH
Raw
Water
Data
11/19/03
8.3
NA
NA
170
158
0.19
NA
NA
<0.44
<0.02
NA
15
0.24
45
NA
NA
14
NA
NA
NA
NA
<50
NA
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30
45
11
Facility
Raw
Water
Data00
NA
8.2
NA
NA
175, 180*
183
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14, 15*
NA
26, 50*
28*
O.065*
20, 14*
NA
NA
NA
NA
153,48*
NA
<10, 5*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24,31*
53,51*
13, 12*
Battelle
Raw
Water
Data
10/13/04
6.9(b)
1.7
4.9
171
179
0.2
292
<0.7
0.32
O.01
<0.05
12.0
0.2
40.0
27.0
O.06
14.7
13.0
1.7
3.9
9.2
<25
<25
8.8
5.0
0.8
0.9
2.5
2.4
34.8
52.3
11.8
(a) Provided by the facility to EPA for site selection.
(b) Data questionable.
CDPH = California Department of Public Health; DO = dissolved oxygen;
NA = not available; NTU = nephlemetric turbidity unit; OPJ3 = oxidation-reduction
potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon;
* = EPA sample analysis
to those provided to EPA for site selection by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and the
facility.
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 14 to 20 |o,g/L. Based on the October
13, 2004, speciation results, out of 14.7 |o,g/L of total arsenic, 13.0 |o,g/L existed in the soluble form. Of
the soluble fraction, 9.2 |o,g/L existed as As(V) and 3.9 |o,g/L as As(III). As such, the majority of soluble
15
-------
arsenic can be removed directly by Isolux™-302M media without preoxidation. The presence of As(V) as
the predominating arsenic species implies that Well C water is rather oxidizing. This is somewhat
contradictory to the relatively low DO and ORP levels (i.e., 1.7 mg/L and 4.9 mV, respectively) measured
during the October 13, 2004, sampling event. Care was used during the performance evaluation study to
confirm that these, in fact, were the results of erroneous field measurements.
Interfering Ions. According to MEI, the presence of iron, manganese, phosphate, and silica in source
water can potentially impact the performance of Isolux™-302M media. Total iron concentrations in
source water ranged from <25 to 153 |og/L. Battelle and CDPH results were less than the respective
method reporting limits of 25 and 50 |o,g/L, respectively. The EPA data was 48 |og/L, close to the Battelle
and CDPH data. At 153 |og/L, the facility data was high. Manganese concentrations in raw water were
<10 ng/L, and therefore should not impact Isolux™-302M media performance.
Orthophosphate concentrations were below the reporting limit of 0.06 mg/L. Silica levels ranged from 27
to 28 mg/L. Based on the data collected during the pilot study, MEI concluded that the presence of these
competing ions did not adversely affect Isolux™-302M media performance.
Other Water Quality Parameters. pH values of raw water ranged from 8.2 to 8.3, which is at the high
end of the operational range from 4.0 to 8.5, and could potentially impact Isolux™-302M media
performance. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 26 to 50 mg/L; sodium from 24 to 34.8 mg/L; calcium
from 45 to 53; and magnesium from 11 to 13 mg/L. Total alkalinity concentrations ranged from 170 to
180 mg/L (as CaCO3); hardness from 158 to 183 mg/L (as CaCO3); chloride from 12 to 15 mg/L; and
fluoride from 0.2 to 0.24 mg/L. The presence of these ions in source water was not expected to impede
arsenic removal by Isolux™-302M media.
4.1.2 Distribution System. Prior to and during the performance evaluation study, the distribution
system at GHCSD was supplied by 13 wells, of which two were used as stand-by wells and one was used
only seasonally. The maximum water demand was 2,050,000 gpd, which usually occurred in July. Water
from Well C was pumped first to the 1,000,000- and 500,000-gal storage tanks and then to the
distribution system, while water from the other wells was pumped to the distribution system and then to
the same storage tanks. The distribution system is composed primarily of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and
asbestos cement (AC) piping. Service lines within residences are mainly copper pipe. Under the U.S.
EPA LCR, GHCSD collects samples from customer taps at 20 locations every 3 years. GHCSD also
conducts bacterial analysis monthly at 10 specified locations and quarterly at the wellheads.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
The 150-gpm Isolux™ arsenic treatment system uses Isolux™-302M powder media developed by MEI for
arsenic removal. Table 4-2 presents physical and chemical properties of the media, which has NSF
Standard 61 approval for use in drinking-water applications.
The Isolux™ arsenic treatment system at GHCSD consisted of two parallel adsorption modules, each
containing a booster pump, a flow regulator, a l-(im bag filter, and two parallel carbon steel adsorption
vessels. Each adsorption vessel contained nine replaceable media cartridges (Figure 4-4), or 36 for the
entire system. The system was designed to treat approximately 150 gpm of flow, with 75 gpm by each
module. Figure 4-5 is a schematic of MEI's Isolux™ arsenic treatment system.
Chlorinated water was supplied to the two adsorption modules by a booster pump. As groundwater was
pumped through the media cartridges, soluble arsenic was removed via adsorption, thus reducing total
arsenic concentration to below the 10 (ig/L MCL. A flow totalizer/meter was installed on the downstream
end of each adsorption module to measure throughput and flowrate through each module.
16
-------
Table 4-2. Properties of Isolux™-302M Media
Parameter
Matrix
Physical form
Color
Specific density
Bulk density (lb/ft3)
Particle size (micron)
Mesoporosity (A)
BET surface area (m2/g)
Functional group
Ion exchange capacity (meq/g)
Operational pH
Value
Hydrous zirconium oxide
Amorphous powder
White, bulky powder
3.25
60
1-3 to 40-50
20-40
300-350
Zr-OH
8
4.0-8.5
Source: MEI
Pressure gauges located downstream of the well, flow control valve, bag filter, and adsorption module
were used to monitor the system pressure and pressure drop across the treatment modules. The effluent of
each module was combined and directed into the storage tanks. The system was instrumented with on/off
valves and sample collection ports. The system was installed in an 8-ft x 40-ft enclosure.
Figure 4-4. Replaceable Isolux™-302M Media Cartridges (Provided by MEI)
17
-------
To
6HCSD Well C
o
^
^
...
i
7
r
Existing Chlorination Point
Existing Sample
Valve No. 1
~
Electrical Supply
Existing
Storage
Tank
I
r
1
7
f
Existing Sample
Valve No. 2
Flow totalizer No. 1 \J)
Valve No. 3 /
Sample Valve
No. 5
•
i
• * *
•
^
f
MHM
Supply Header
Valve No. 1
• • •»
„„
Ul
Isolux Module No. 1
- 1
i • :'
7
Sample Valve No. 3
Return Header
Valve No. 2
Flow totalizer No. 2Q
Valve No. 4 2
i
i
:>
i
i
J
^
Isolux Module No. 2
ri
N ,
Sample Valve No. 4
Figure 4-5. Schematic of MEI's Isolux™ Arsenic Treatment System (Provided by MEI)
Independent from this demonstration study, GHCSD hosted a pilot study on Isolux™-302M media from
July 2003 to August 2004 at Well C. Figure 4-6 presents the pilot unit (in the wooden structure) and an
Isolux™ media cartridge used for the pilot study. The initial testing used a 0.8-gpm, 10-in pilot unit
equipped with a 5-(im particulate pre-filter, an activated carbon filter, an Isolux™ media cartridge
(containing 1 Ib of Isolux™-302M media), a flowmeter, and a flow totalizer. After operating for nearly 90
Figure 4-6. Isolux™ Pilot Facility (left) and Isolux™ Media Cartridge (right)
18
-------
days and treating approximately 8,300 gal (or 66,578 bed volumes [BV]) of water, over 2 (ig/L of arsenic
were detected in the treated water. The pilot unit was then scaled up to a 10-gpm unit containing 22 Ib of
Isolux™-302M media. Operating at 8 gpm, the unit treated 254,887 gal (or 92,934 BV) of water from
March 10 through April 3, 2004, prior to reaching 10 (ig/L of arsenic breakthrough. A second adsorption
run with the 10-gpm unit from July 17 through August 29, 2004, yielded slightly better performance
results (i.e., 112,099 BVs) than the first run. Results of the pilot study indicated that:
• The Isolux™ arsenic treatment system could remove arsenic to below a detection limit of 2.0
(ig/L. An elevated pH value of 8.2 and competing ions (including silica, phosphate, and iron)
in the source water did not adversely affect the performance of Isolux™-302M media.
• Pre-treatment of Well C source water was not required.
• Spent Isolux™-302M media passed EPA TCLP and California whole effluent toxicity (WET)
tests, so they could be disposed of as a non-hazardous waste.
• No backwash was required.
Table 4-3 summarizes the key system design parameters for the Isolux™ arsenic treatment system. The
treatment system includes the following major process and system components:
• Intake - Raw water from Well C was chlorinated and fed to the Isolux™ arsenic treatment
system. An hour meter was installed on the well pump to record the operation time.
• Chlorination - Prior to entering the system, water was injected with chlorine for disinfection
purposes. A 12.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaCIO) solution was stored in a 35-gal drum and
injected by a solenoid-driven metering pump with a maximum capacity of 1.0 gal/hr (gph).
Operation of the chlorine feed system was linked to the well pump such that chlorine was
injected only when the well was operating. The system operator monitored chlorine
consumption weekly by recording the chlorine levels in the chlorine supply tank and by
measuring the volume of chlorine added to the tank. The target total chlorine residual was
1.25mg/L(asCl2).
• Isolux™ Adsorption - Two Isolux™ adsorption modules arranged in parallel provided a total
of 150-gpm treatment capacity. Figure 4-7 shows the treatment system installed at GHCSD.
Each Isolux™ adsorption module contained the following elements:
> Booster Pump With Flow Regulator - Use of two booster pumps with flow regulators
(one per module) located prior to the adsorption vessels ensured adequate inlet pressure
to the treatment system. Each EBARA Model CDU booster pump was constructed of
304L stainless steel, rated at 3 hp, and could provide a maximum flowrate of 95 gpm.
The operation of the booster pumps was synchronized with the well pump so that they
would turn on and off at the same time. During the performance evaluation study,
operation of the booster pumps was found to be unnecessary.
> Bag Filter - Each Isolux™ module contained a l-(im bag filter. Source water flowed
through the l-(im bag-type particulate pre-filter to remove any sediment from the source
water. The bag filters were changed periodically due to increased pressure readings.
> Media Vessel - Each module contained two 20-in x 48-in media vessels, with each
vessel containing nine Isolux™-302M media cartridges.
19
-------
Table 4-3. Isolux™ Arsenic Treatment System Specifications and Design Parameters
Design Parameter
No. of modules
Module size (in.)
Module weight (Ib)
Module weight (Ib)
No. of vessels
Vessel size (in.)
No. of cartridges per vessel
Cartridge length (in)
Cartridge OD (in)
Cartridge ID (in)
Cartridge outer membrane nominal
pore size (um)
Cartridge inner membrane nominal
pore size (um)
Cartridge outer membrane thickness
(in)
Cartridge inner membrane thickness
(in)
Cartridge weight (Ib)
Type of media used
Quantity of media per vessel (ft3)
Internal piping
Inlet and outlet connections
Backwashing requirements
Inlet pressure (psi)
Outlet pressure (psi)
Pressure drop (psi)
Area of contact (ft2)
Hydraulic loading rate (gpm/ft2)
Estimated bed contact time (min)
Peak flowrate (gpm)
Average daily throughput to system
(gpd)
Estimated working capacity (BV)
Estimated volume to breakthrough
(gal)
Estimated media life (months)
No. ofBV/day
Value
2
48 W x 48L x 60 H
1,500
3,200
4
20 OD x 48 H
9
42.25
4.55
4.35
30
10
0.20
0.52
21
Isolux™-302M
2.88
2-in schedule 40
PVC glued
1.5-inPVCfemale
national pipe thread
None
80
45
<30
4.1
1.0
0.5
150
100,000
105,000
8,950,000
3
1,200
Remark
Arranged in parallel
-
As shipped (dry with no media)
In operation
Two vessels arranged in parallel per
module; 100 psi-rated carbon steel with
NSF-rated epoxy coating
-
36 cartridges total
-
-
-
Constructed of polyethylene porous
membrane
Constructed of polyethylene porous
membrane
—
—
—
Particle size of 20-40 um
Each cartridge contained 0.32 ft3; two
modules each contained 5.7 ft3; total
was 11. 4 ft3
-
-
—
Into vessels
Outlet from vessels
Across vessels
Per cartridge
Per cartridge
Per cartridge
Maximum flowrate of system
Estimate provided by GHCSD
Bed volumes to 10 ug/L arsenic
breakthrough
1BV= 11.4 ft3 =85.3 gal
Estimated frequency of media cartridge
changeout based on average throughput
of 100,000 gpd
Based on estimated working capacity
versus estimated media life
20
-------
Figure 4-7. Isolux™ Adsorption Module at GHCSD
> Isolux™ Media Cartridges - Each media cartridge was 4.5-in in diameter by 42-in in
height and contained approximately 0.32 ft3 of Isolux™-302M media. The total amount
of media in each module was 5.7 ft3, providing about 0.5 min of contact time at the
specified flowrate of 75 gpm. The media are sandwiched between two thin layers of
tubular membranes constructed of porous polyethylene (PE). The outer membrane
measured 4.55in in diameter by 42.25m in length and had a nominal pore size of 30 (im.
The inner membrane measured 1.60in in diameter by 42.25m in length and had a nominal
pore size of 10 (im. The upper end of the cartridge was completely sealed with a PE end-
cap; the lower end also was sealed with a PE end-cap but with a discharge tube.
Untreated water entered the vessel and passed through the porous outer membrane,
coming into contact with the media within the annular space of the cartridge. After
contacting the media, the water flowed through the porous inner membrane and into the
hollow center portion of the cartridge before flowing downward in the lower (discharge)
portion of the vessel. Figure 4-8 presents a schematic of an assembled Isolux™-302M
media cartridge.
Media Cartridge Replacement - When the capacity of the media cartridges in the vessels
was exhausted, the operator replaced the spent media cartridges with virgin ones. Cartridges
for both modules were replaced at the same time. Thus, 36 cartridges were needed for
complete replacement. One module was completely serviced before service on the second
module began. The spent media cartridges were stored at the facility until enough cartridges
accumulated to facilitate efficient shipment to MEL
21
-------
Assembled Filter Cartridge
Filler Medium Inlet
Water Outlet
~l
J
Filter Medium Inlet
4.3
Figure 4-8. Schematic of Assembled Isolux™ Media Cartridge
Storage Tanks - Treated water from Well C was stored in the 1,000,000- and 500,000-gal
storage tanks before it entered the distribution system.
Treatment System Installation
4.3.1 System Permitting. The permit application for the Isolux™ system was simplified and
expedited by CDPH because (1) only a "temporary" permit was granted and valid for the duration of the
EPA demonstration study and (2) waste disposal was not anticipated to be an issue, considering that the
Isolux™ system would not require backwashing and that any spent media cartridges would be returned to
MEI for disposal.
The submittal for the permit application included a schematic of MEI's Isolux™ arsenic treatment system,
a written description of the system, and an O&M manual. After the vendor incorporated review
comments from GHCSD and Battelle, the submittal package was sent to CDPH for review on August 4,
2005. CDPH provided Approval-to-Construct on September 7, 2005.
According to CDPH, upon completion of the EPA demonstration study, GHCSD must secure a
permanent permit if it plans to keep the Isolux™ system and continue its operation. GHCSD must also
comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements as part of the permitting
process. A regular water supply permit application takes 30 days for initial completeness review by
CDPH. Once the application has been determined complete, it normally takes 90 days to issue a final
permit document.
22
-------
4.3.2 Building Construction. GHCSD installed the Isolux™ system in a steel, dry, van container.
Required building preparation included grading of the ground, installation of floor drains, interconnection
of the piping, and provision of an electrical supply. Distributed by On Site Storage Solutions, the
container was 8 ft wide, 40 ft long, and 8 ft high (Figure 4-9). The cost of the container was
approximately $4,218, including delivery.
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The Isolux™ arsenic treatment system was delivered
to the site on September 16, 2005. The staff of GHCSD performed the off-loading and installation under
the supervision of MEFs local engineer. Installation included piping connections to the existing entry and
distribution system. System installation was completed on October 21, 2005.
4.4
Figure 4-9. Isolux™ Treatment System Enclosure (Storage Tank in Background)
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the performance evaluation study
were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Key parameters for each media run are summarized in
Table 4-4. Media Run 1 began on October 26, 2005, and ended on January 17, 2006, after the arsenic
concentration in the system effluent had reached that of system influent. The well was producing a
significant amount of sediment/particulate matter, making it necessary to replace the bag filters rather
frequently (see Section 4.5.3). Accumulation of well sediment caused a rapid increase in differential
pressure (Ap) across the bag filters.
A video log on Well C was conducted by Bakersfield Well and Pump Company on February 13, 2006, to
determine if any corrective actions would be necessary. The result revealed rusty areas on the drop-pipe,
which prompted GHCSD's decision to rehabilitate the well. From March 7 to 8, 2006, Bakersfield Well
and Pump Company performed well rehabilitation, which included (1) pulling the submersible pump and
23
-------
drop-pipe, (2) wire-brushing and bailing the well casing, and (3) installing 651 ft of new 3-in galvanized-
steel drop-pipe and a new 25-hp Franklin submersible pump rated at 120 gpm. GHCSD also installed a
wire strainer upstream of the system to further reduce the amount of sediment/particulate matter to the
system. Once the well was rehabilitated and the media cartridges were replaced, Media Run 2 began on
April 27, 2006. The treatment system produced water below the arsenic MCL until August 8, 2006,
whereupon arrangements were made to replace the media cartridges, again in both modules. Media Run 3
began on August 17, 2006, and continued through March 20, 2007, which concluded the performance
evaluation study.
Table 4-4. Summary of Isolux™ Treatment System Operations
Operational Parameter
Duration(a)
Module
Total operating time (hr)
No. of days in operation (day)
Average daily operating time
(hr/day)(b)
Throughput to lOug/L As
breakthrough (gal)
Throughput to lOug/L As
breakthrough (BV)(c)
Range of/average flowrate (gpm)(d)
Range of/average EBCT (min)
Range of/average Ap across module
(psi)
Range of/average Ap across bag filter
(psi)
Range of/average combined flowrate
(gpm)(e)
Range of/average daily flowrate
(gpm)(f)
Cumulative throughput to lOug/L As
breakthrough® (gal)
Media run length to lOug/L As
breakthrough (BV)(h)
Media
Runl
10/26/05-01/17/06
A
1,377
63
21.9
2,676,700
62,760
30-59/
40
0.72-1 A/
1.1
12-267
17
0-387
6
B
1,377
63
21.9
2,579,100
60,470
26-59/
40
0.72-1.67
1.1
8-267
16
0-40/
7
62-1187
79
70-977
94
5,255,800
61,600
Media
Run 2
04/27/06-08/15/06
A
1,900
94
20.2
3,903,400
91,520
23-56/
41
0.75-1.97
1.1
2-187
11
0-537
8
B
1,900
94
20.2
3,697,755
86,700
20-69/
37
0.62-2. 1/
1.2
2-197
12
0-407
8
50-1067
74
NA7
NA
7,915,800
92,800
Media
Run 3
08/17/06-03/20/07
A
1,422
85
16.7
3,883,500
91,100
17-7 1/
46
0.60-2.57
0.92
2-207
10
0-847
10
B
1,422
85
16.7
3,249,800
76,200
21-567
39
0.76-2.07
1.1
2-241
13
0-727
9
51-1267
85
55-1427
81
7,256,800
85,100
NA=not available.
(a) System shutdown from January 18 through April 26, 2006, due to well rehabilitation activities.
(b) Calculated based on total operating time and number of days in operation.
(c) Calculated based on throughput from individual totalizer and 5.7 ft3 (or 42.65 gal) of media in each module.
(d) Instantaneous flowrate readings from individual flow meters.
(e) Combined instantaneous flowrate readings from both modules.
(f) Calculated by dividing incremental wellhead volume readings by corresponding operating times.
(g) Breakthrough when average arsenic concentration from both modules exceeded 10 ug/L.
(h) Calculated based on throughput from individual totalizers and 11.4ft3 (or 85.3 gal) of media in both modules
combined.
The Isolux™ treatment system operated for 1,377, 1,900, and 1,422 hr during Media Runs 1, 2, and 3,
respectively, based on the system throughput and average instantaneous flowrate from both modules
24
-------
combined. During Media Runs 1 and 2, from October 26, 2005, through August 15, 2006 (except when
the system was shut down for well rehabilitation), the system operated daily (with some weekends);
average operating times were 21.9 and 20.2 hr/day, respectively. Due to seasonal fluctuation in water
demand, the system only operated periodically during Media Run 3, with an average operating time of
16.7 hr/day.
During the performance evaluation study, the system throughput values at 10 (ig/L arsenic breakthrough
in the combined effluent of both modules were 5,255,800 gal (or 61,600 BV), 7,915,800 gal (or 92,800
BV), and 7,256,800 (or 85,100 BV) during Media Runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The BV for the system
was calculated based on a total of 11.4 ft3 (or 85.3 gal) of media in both modules, while the BV for each
module was based on 5.7ft3 (or 42.65 gal) of media in each module. The total flow processed through the
system was based on the sum of the throughput values through each of the two modules measured, with
individual totalizers installed on the modules. Individually, the number of BV processed through each
module during each media run was slightly different. During Media Runs 1, 2, and 3, Module A
processed 62,760, 91,520, and 91,100 BV, or 4%, 6%, and 20% more water than Module B, respectively.
This indicated an imbalanced flow between Modules A and B.
Figure 4-10 compares instantaneous flowrates through Module A, Module B, combined instantaneous
flowrates, and average flowrates at the wellhead (when the hour meter was functioning correctly). The
average flowrates at the wellhead were calculated by dividing incremental volume readings that the
wellhead totalizer recorded by the corresponding operating times recorded by the hour meter. Due to lack
of equipment and/or equipment failure, hour meter readings used to calculate the average flowrates were
available only from December 8, 2005, through January 17, 2006, and from December 26, 2006, through
March 20, 2007. The flowrates through each module recorded by the individual flow meters/totalizers
1 UU "
140 -
130 -
120 -
110 -
100 -
_ 90 '
E
:lowrate (gp
-vl 0>
O O
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
n
Media Run 1
A
A
A
A
A A '£
A JL fc V
A™ A 4, A
A
la
n
a & n B
4Jji. Sftlfc TJrn
T.W|fl ^j |* ^r
n S
n
System shutdown
due to well
rehabilitation
activities.
Media Run 2
A
A
\ A A ^ A
A A
A A A A
IA Al VL*
£AAA A *|A*/
°A A A
S " A
AA a
<> D
a ^j -Dnng n'H^i Q
<> [^] a ttl Tfcfac
n ncy, ^ ^ff^P
L'ti o
D
on
^ Flowrate through Module A
D Flowrate throught Module B
A Combined Flowrate
Flowrate at Wellhead
Media Run 3
A ^ A
A
AA A A
A A
' ••' / -1 ' V
A A A
A A A
AA A
\.A A „/'.<> *
A A .A *,«l
A ,0,<> <> AAA - •
. A A V '
A 4 \<> A ^ ^y>
A-.BI D ll!%tk nCl ^-^* -^f*^* O1
A €"ji»i.j\ ^^l?n nD -AA^' ^ ''it
^j w ,0, y A [j1
q^ ( 3^5 ^ nftf D DOn1^
a\ an ^ ^Q^ n
'^^_* j-i n ^0, ^ ^j,
T^ ft>n
0 D D
10/14/05 12/13/05 02/11/06 04/12/06 06/11/06 08/10/06 10/09/06 12/08/06 02/06/07
Date
Figure 4-10. Isolux™ Treatment System Daily Flowrates
25
-------
installed on the adsorption modules varied significantly, ranging from 17 to 71 gpm through Module A
and from 20 to 69 gpm through Module B. The average flowrate for all media runs was 42 and was 38
gpm for Modules A and B, respectively. The average flowrate through Module A was 10% higher than
that through Module B, again indicating imbalanced flow. Flowrates calculated based on the totalizer at
the wellhead averaged 94 and 81 gpm for Media Runs 1 and 3, respectively, which was approximately
19% higher than the 79 gpm measured by individual flow meters during Media Run 1 and 4.7% lower
than the 85 gpm measured by individual flow meters during Media Run 3, respectively. Based on the
respective average flowrates, the average EBCTs in Modules A and B were 1.0 and 1.1 min, respectively,
which were 100% and 120 % higher than the design value of 0.5 min as shown in Table 4-3.
Figure 4-11 presents measured pressure readings across the Isolux™ Treatment System. The pressure
readings prior to the bag filter at each module varied significantly due to the accumulation of
particulate/sediment matter in the bag filter and periodic replacement of the bag filter. Prior to the bag
filter, pressure readings ranged from 14 to 106 psi. Inlet or after bag-filter pressure readings varied
somewhat, ranging from 11 to 46 psi; outlet pressures remained relatively constant, ranging from 8 to
17 psi.
Figures 4-12 and 4-13, respectively, presents differential pressure (Ap) readings across bag filters and
across Modules A and B. Ap readings across the bag filters varied significantly, ranging from 0 to 84 psi.
The variation in Ap readings was due mainly to the accumulation of particulates in the bag filter and
replacement of the bag filters. The Ap readings across Modules A and B also varied significantly,
ranging from 2 to 26 psi and averaging 13 and 14 psi, respectively. The variance in Ap readings across
the modules most likely was caused by the significant variation in instantaneous flowrate readings. As
shown in Figure 4-14, there is a direct relationship between Ap across Modules A and B and the
instantaneous flowrate readings.
4.4.2 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. The simplicity of the system operation and
operator skill requirements are discussed according to pre-and post-treatment activities, levels of system
automation, operator skill requirements, preventative maintenance activities, and frequency of
chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The majority of arsenic in raw water existed as As(V). As
such, a pre-oxidation step was not required. However, the facility has a pre-chlorination system in place
for disinfectant purposes. The only pre-treatment required was the use of l-(im bag filters to remove
sediments/particulate matter from raw water.
System Automation. All major functions of the treatment system were automated and would require
only minimal operator oversight and intervention if all functions were operating as intended. The
operator controlled the system operation manually. Once the treated water in the storage tanks reached a
determined level, the high-level alarm was triggered, notifying the operator to shut down the system.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the
system were minimal. The operator was typically onsite five times per week and spent approximately 30
min each day performing visual inspections and recording system operating parameters on the daily log
sheets. The operator replaced the bag filter periodically. Normal operation of the system did not require
additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the existing water supply equipment.
The State of California requires that all individuals who operate or supervise the operation of a drinking-
water treatment facility possess a water treatment operator certificate. The state also requires those who
make decisions on maintenance and operation of any portion of the distribution system possess a
26
-------
110 -T
100 -
90 -
80 -
_ 70 -
"Si
'«
_Q.
| 60-
Itl
\ 50-
3
J,
S 40-
30 -
20 -
10 -
Media Run 1
o o o
System shutdown
due to well
rehabilitation
activities
Media Run 2
Media Run 3
0 0 *
U
6.
DO B>
D oo
AAA D
10/14/05 12/13/05 02/11/06 04/12/06 06/11/06 08/10/06 10/09/06 12/08/06 02/06/07
Date
120
110 -
100 -
90 -
80 -
& 70H
i/i
j! 60
a.
m
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0»
System shutdown
due to well
rehabilitation
activities
Media Run 2
0
10/14/05 12/13/05 02/11/06 04/12/06 06/11/06 08/10/06 10/09/06 12/08/06 02/06/07
Date
Figure 4-11. Pressure Readings Across Bag Filter and Module A (top) and Bag
Filter and Module B (bottom)
27
-------
Across Bag-Filter Module A
Across Bag-Filter Module B
01/22/06
05/02/06
08/10/06
11/18/06
02/26/07
Date
Figure 4-12. Differential Pressure Readings Across Bag Filters
35
30 -
25 -
"3
1
£ 20 -
10 -
10/14/05
01/22/06
05/02/06
08/10/06
11/18/06
02/26/07
Date
Figure 4-13. Differential Pressure Readings Across Modules A and B
28
-------
35
30 -
25 -
"3
I
£ 20-
I
a.
£
1
5
15 -
10 -
5 -
no n
o m oa D
D
O D [U D
D D D D
onaonnnn D
no n o
n n n o
D D OO O
a oo ooo o o o o
oa aa n««na oo <» o o
D D D D D^ O O OO O
^Bnnaa DDQDDODD O OO OOO O
a DDD D& O O OO O
nnnnonaoa oooa a o o o
n n nnn^ n ^n oo oo
a a DDDDDDDDDD0 OO OO HO
D DD ««<»« O
a o oaaaoooo oo oa
o o o a
oo
o o o
o o a on
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Flowrate (gpm)
Figure 4-14. Instantaneous Flowrate vs. Differential Pressure
distribution operator certificate (CDPH, 2001). Operator certifications are granted by CDPH after
minimum requirements are met; these include passing an examination and maintaining a minimum
number of hours of specialized training. There are five grades of operators for both the water treatment
(i.e., Tl to T5) and distribution (i.e., Dl to D5), with T5 and D5 being the highest. The operator of the
Isolux™ system possessed T2 and D2 certifications for treatment and distribution, respectively.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included items such as periodic
checks of flowmeters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. The vendor
recommended replacing the bag filters once it was necessary to replace the media cartridges; however, the
operator had to replace the bag filters periodically due to increased differential pressure readings.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. After installation of the Isolux™ treatment
system, chlorine addition continued at the GHCSD site. Inventory requirements for chlorine addition
remained the same as before. To facilitate change-out when needed, the only onsite inventory
requirements associated with the Isolux™ system were bag filters and media cartridges.
4.5
System Performance
The performance of the Isolux™ arsenic treatment system was evaluated based on analyses of water
samples collected from the treatment plant and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 54 occasions
(including one duplicate sampling), with field speciation performed 11 times. Table 4-5 summarizes the
analytical results for arsenic, iron, manganese, and zirconium.
29
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Zirconium
Parameter
As (total)
As
(soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Sampling
Location
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
MA-R1
MA-R2
MA-R3
MB-R1
MB-R2
MB-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
Unit
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Count
9
16
29
9
16
29
5
11
27
5
11
27
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
Concentration
Minimum
11.4
10.0
9.8
11.5
10.0
10.4
0.3
5.2
5.0
0.4
3.0
0.4
0.4
1.3
4.1
11.1
0.4
11.1
12.1
10.4
11.4
0.4
1.3
3.9
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.26
0.1
0.1
0.15
2.0
0.14
1.5
0.46
0.14
0.24
0.17
0.17
0.17
8.3
9.4
9.6
11.4
10.2
11.2
Maximum
14.0
14.4
16.9
13.9
12.8
16.1
12.4
9.3
11.1
11.9
12.2
11.3
12.2
10.5
4.7
13.9
14.3
12.3
13.9
12.8
12.0
13.1
10.5
4.5
0.99
0.83
1.7
0.31
0.1
0.78
0.16
0.22
0.21
2.8
1.6
1.8
1.2
0.96
0.59
0.96
0.43
0.58
11.1
13.8
10.4
13.4
12.3
11.4
Average
12.7
11.5
12.3
12.5
11.3
12.1
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
12.5
11.9
11.7
12.8
11.7
11.7
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
0.49
0.24
1.1
0.15
0.1
0.52
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
2.5
0.61
1.6
0.76
0.26
0.44
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
10.0
11.1
10.0
12.1
11.5
11.3
Standard
Deviation(a)
0.9
1.2
1.4
0.8
0.9
1.2
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
1.3
1.6
0.8
0.8
1.0
-
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
0.5
0.4
-
0.2
-
-
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
0.4
0.4
-
0.3
0.1
-
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
1.4
1.7
-
0.9
1.0
-
30
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and
Zirconium (Continued)
Parameter
As(V)
(Con't)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn
(soluble)
Sampling
Location
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
MA-R1
MA-R2
MA-R3
MB-R1
MB-R2
MB-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
MA-R1
MA-R2
MA-R3
MB-R1
MB-R2
MB-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
Unit
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Count
4
5
2
9
16
7
9
16
7
5
11
5
5
11
5
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
9
16
7
9
16
2
5
11
5
5
11
5
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
Concentration
Minimum
<0.1
1.1
3.4
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
2.9
2.9
3.7
2.8
2.9
3.5
<0.1
0.17
0.27
<0.1
0.14
0.11
0.13
0.38
0.30
3.4
3.8
3.9
3.2
2.7
3.5
0.02
0.38
Maximum
12.7
10.1
4.3
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
5.3
4.3
4.7
4.8
4.5
3.8
0.23
2.1
0.91
0.64
0.95
0.29
0.31
1.7
0.5
5.3
4.4
4.3
4.8
4.0
3.8
0.56
1.7
Average
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
3.8
3.9
4.1
3.8
3.8
3.6
0.12
1.0
0.56
0.26
0.53
0.20
0.23
0.7
0.4
4.0
4.1
4.1
3.7
3.5
3.6
0.25
0.72
Standard
Deviation(a)
_(b)
_(b)
_(b)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.4
-
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.5
-
0.9
0.2
-
0.8
0.5
-
0.2
0.5
31
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and
Zirconium (Continued)
Parameter
Mn
(soluble)
(Con't)
Zr (total)
Sampling
Location
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
MA-R1
MA-R2
MA-R3
MB-R1
MB-R2
MB-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
Unit
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Count
2
9
16
7
9
16
7
5
11
5
5
11
5
4
5
2
Concentration
Minimum
0.30
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Maximum
0.53
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
Average
0.41
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
Standard
Deviation(a)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(a) Standard deviation for parameters that were non-detect for all samples or had <3 sample
counts are not meaningful and therefore are not presented.
(b) Statistics not meaningful; see arsenic breakthrough curves at MA, MB, and TM locations in
Figure 4-16.
See Appendix B for complete analytical results.
One-half of the detection limit was used for non-detect results, duplicate samples were included
for calculations.
Rl = Media Run 1; R2 = Media Run 2; R3 = Media Run 3.
Table 4-6 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set
of analytical results for the study. Results of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant
are discussed below.
Arsenic Removal. Figure 4-15 contains three bar charts showing the concentrations of total As,
particulate As, As(III), and As(V) at the IN, AC, and TM locations for each of the 11 speciation events.
Arsenic concentrations in source water were consistent for Media Runs 1, 2, and 3 (Table 4-5). Total
arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 9.8 to 16.9 (ig/L and averaged 12.2 (ig/L. As
expected, of the soluble fraction, As(V) was the predominating species, ranging from 8.3 to 13.8 (ig/L and
averaging 10.4 (ig/L. As(III) concentrations ranged from 0.14 to 2.8 (ig/L and averaged 1.6 (ig/L.
Particulate As concentrations were low, averaging 0.61 (ig/L. The arsenic concentrations measured
during the study were consistent with those of the source water sample collected by Battelle on October
13, 2004 (Table 4-1).
As expected, arsenic concentrations at the AC locations were essentially the same as those in source water
and were consistent for Media Runs 1, 2, and 3 (Table 4-5). Total arsenic concentrations ranged from
10.0 to 16.1 (ig/L and averaged 12.0 (ig/L. Of the soluble fraction, As(V) was the predominating species,
ranging from 10.2 to 13.4 (ig/L and averaging 11.6 (ig/L. Due to prechlorination, and thus oxidation of
As(III) to As(V), As(III) concentrations were slightly lower than for source water, ranging from 0.14 to
1.2 (ig/L and averaging 0.49 (ig/L. Particulate As concentrations were low, averaging 0.24 (ig/L.
32
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
Sampling
Location
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
MA-R1
MA-R2
MA-R3
MB-R1
MB-R2
MB-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
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
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
Count
9
16
7
9
16
7
5
11
5
5
11
5
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
Concentration
Minimum
176
188
190
176
184
192
176
184
190
176
188
190
185
171
202
0.14
0.20
0.30
0.14
0.20
0.10
0.14
0.20
0.1
39.0
47.0
46.0
40.0
46.0
46.0
40.0
46.0
46.0
0.36
0.56
0.67
0.35
0.58
0.65
0.35
0.58
0.05
Maximum
330
200
209
198
205
208
194
200
209
189
204
203
189
194
207
0.20
10.2
0.90
0.20
12.3
0.60
0.20
8.4
0.60
46.0
49.0
52.0
46.0
56.0
52.0
46.0
57.0
51.0
0.48
0.72
0.73
0.48
0.75
0.72
0.5
0.69
0.66
Average
201
193
201
188
193
202
186
193
203
182
192
200
187
188
205
0.16
2.3
0.60
0.16
3.1
0.35
0.16
1.9
0.33
42.0
47.8
49.0
42.6
49.4
49.0
43.3
49.4
48.5
0.43
0.65
0.70
0.43
0.68
0.69
0.44
0.64
0.34
Standard
Deviation(a)
48.7
3.8
7.6
7.0
5.6
5.5
7.4
6.4
7.7
5.0
4.6
5.5
2.3
9.4
-
0.0
4.4
-
0.0
5.2
-
0.0
3.6
-
3.2
0.8
-
2.6
4.2
-
2.5
4.5
-
0.1
0.1
-
0.1
0.1
-
0.1
0.0
-
33
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
Silica
(as SiO2)
P
(asP)
Tuibidity
Sampling
Location
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
MA-R1
MA-R2
MA-R3
MB-R1
MB-R2
MB-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
MA-R1
MA-R2
MA-R3
MB-R1
MB-R2
MB-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
MA-R1
MA-R2
MA-R3
MB-R1
MB-R2
MB-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
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
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
Count
9
16
7
9
16
7
5
11
5
5
11
5
4
5
2
9
16
7
9
16
7
5
11
5
5
11
5
4
5
2
9
16
7
9
16
7
5
11
5
5
11
5
4
5
2
Concentration
Minimum
26.7
27.2
26.4
26.9
26.9
26
26.3
23.8
25.8
26.7
27.1
25.6
21.0
26.9
24.4
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
Maximum
29.5
31.7
28.6
28.9
32.3
29.2
28.3
32.8
26.9
27.9
32.0
27.8
28.7
30.5
28.3
<10
15.7
11.1
<10
11.3
11.4
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
1.6
4.6
6.2
1.1
2.6
0.3
1.1
1.1
0.2
0.2
2
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.5
Average
27.7
28.4
27.3
27.8
28.5
27.4
27.2
28.2
26.4
27.3
28.9
26.6
26.1
28.0
26.4
<10
5.4
5.9
<10
5.4
5.9
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.3
0.6
1.0
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4
Standard
Deviation(a)
0.8
1.3
0.7
0.6
1.4
1.0
0.8
2.3
0.4
0.5
1.4
1.0
3.5
1.4
-
-
3.1
2.3
-
1.6
2.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.5
1.1
2.3
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.1
-
34
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
pH
Temperature
DO
Sampling
Location
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
MA-R1
MA-R2
MA-R3
MB-R1
MB-R2
MB-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
MA-R1
MA-R2
MA-R3
MB-R1
MB-R2
MB-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
MA-R1
MA-R2
MA-R3
MB-R1
MB-R2
MB-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
Unit
S.U.
s.u.
S.U.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
°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
Count
9
15
28
9
15
28
8
14
28
8
15
28
6
15
28
9
15
28
9
15
28
8
14
28
8
15
28
6
15
28
6
13
28
6
13
28
6
12
28
6
13
28
5
13
28
Concentration
Minimum
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.5
15.7
14.9
14.5
16.0
19.1
15.2
14.0
19.2
15.8
15.8
19.1
15.8
14.8
19.2
15.2
1.8
2.0
1.4
1.7
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.9
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
Maximum
7.7
7.7
7.9
7.8
7.7
8.0
7.7
7.6
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.9
20.3
30.8
22.6
20.6
26.4
22.2
25.6
26.3
22.0
25.7
26.2
21.9
19.3
26.2
22.9
2.7
3.2
4.5
2.2
3.0
4.2
2.3
2.9
3.6
2.9
4.3
3.5
2.6
2.9
3.6
Average
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.6
18.1
22.1
17.9
18.4
21.4
18.2
18.6
21.4
18.4
19.2
21.3
18.5
17.8
21.9
18.3
2.3
2.5
2.9
1.9
2.2
2.5
2.1
2.3
2.6
2.0
2.5
2.6
2.3
2.3
2.6
Standard
Deviation(a)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
1.3
3.6
2.3
1.4
2.0
2.0
3.4
2.1
1.8
2.9
2.1
1.6
1.6
2.0
2.0
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.5
2.0
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
35
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
ORP
Total
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
MA-R1
MA-R2
MA-R3
MB-R1
MB-R2
MB-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
MA-R1
MA-R2
MA-R3
MB-R1
MB-R2
MB-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
MA-R1
MA-R2
MA-R3
MB-R1
MB-R2
MB-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
Unit
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
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
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Count
9
15
28
9
15
28
8
14
28
8
15
28
6
15
28
9
16
7
9
16
7
5
11
5
5
11
5
4
5
2
9
16
7
9
16
7
5
11
5
5
11
5
4
5
2
Concentration
Minimum
359
257
219
470
280
288
597
285
295
579
293
308
534
66
311
153
158
174
154
116
174
169
163
173
170
166
153
153
171
201
100
117
124
101
116
124
122
122
101
121
122
127
101
122
150
Maximum
472
450
507
647
686
666
675
660
679
676
679
682
680
676
683
184
220
207
186
154
209
184
211
206
184
212
206
184
209
215
137
161
157
138
154
157
137
153
155
137
154
154
136
150
160
Average
422
336
319
585
557
551
643
597
573
645
613
580
629
573
581
174
184
192
175
133
194
176
185
188
176
184
188
173
190
208
127
134
141
126
133
143
130
135
137
130
133
137
124
138
155
Standard
Deviation(a)
38.3
54.5
58.2
62.5
125
132
24.6
116
135
31.0
112
136
56.7
179
136
9.1
15.0
11.2
8.8
9.4
11.9
7.5
11.6
12.0
6.7
11.2
10.6
13.4
14.7
-
10.8
11.1
11.2
10.5
9.4
12.3
6.1
8.7
12.8
6.2
8.2
10.9
16.0
11.1
-
36
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
Mg
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN-R1
IN-R2
IN-R3
AC-R1
AC-R2
AC-R3
MA-R1
MA-R2
MA-R3
MB-R1
MB-R2
MB-R3
TM-R1
TM-R2
TM-R3
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
Count
9
16
7
9
16
7
5
11
5
5
11
5
4
5
2
Concentration
Minimum
41.7
41.0
47.0
42.8
39.8
46.5
42.9
40.7
45.3
42.7
40.9
44.6
47.3
48.4
50.6
Maximum
52.8
59.7
54.0
55.5
57.8
54.9
49.6
58.0
53.5
51.6
57.5
53.6
52.7
58.5
54.5
Average
47.2
50.1
51.1
48.8
50.2
51.5
46.3
50.6
50.4
46.6
50.2
50.8
48.7
52.2
52.5
Standard
Deviation(a)
3.2
4.6
2.8
3.7
4.3
3.0
3.0
4.2
3.4
3.8
4.2
3.7
2.6
3.9
-
(a) Standard deviation for parameters that were non-detect for all samples or had <3 sample
counts are not meaningful, and therefore are not presented.
See Appendix B for complete analytical results.
One-half detection limit used for nondetect results; duplicate samples were included for
calculations.
Rl = Media Run 1; R2 = Media Run 2; R3 = Media Run 3.
The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the Isolux™ system was the concentration of arsenic
in the treated water. The arsenic breakthrough curves for each media run are shown in Figure 4-16, in
which total arsenic concentrations are plotted against the volume of water treated in gallons and bed
volumes (BV).
Bed volumes for MA and MB were calculated based on 5.7 ft3 or 42.65 gal of media in each module;
however, bed volumes of the combined effluent (TM) were calculated based on the combined media
volume and throughput of both modules, since water at the sampling location had been treated by the
entire media volume.
Media Run 1 began with system start-up on October 26, 2005, and ended on January 17, 2006. During
Media Run 1, arsenic concentrations at MA and MB reached 10 (ig/L at approximately 61,600 BV, which
was 41% lower than the 105,000 BV estimated by the vendor. The bag-filters were changed six times due
to increased differential pressure readings caused by the build-up of sediments and particulates. Thus, it
was possible that sub-micron particulates that passed through the bag filters accumulated in and partially
blocked some of the passages on the media cartridges' outer membrane, causing preferential flow through
the media cartridges. Preferential flow could cause portions of a media cartridge to filter a larger amount
of water, thus exhausting the media at a higher rate. To investigate the cartridges, analyses were
conducted on a spent media cartridge; results are presented in Section 4.5.3.
Media Run 2 began on April 27, 2006, following media cartridge change-out and ended on August 15,
2006. Prior to the start of Media Run 2, the well was bailed and wire-brushed on March 7, 2006, and a
wire strainer was installed upstream of the Isolux™ system to reduce the amount of sediment/particulate
matter produced by the well and introduced into the treatment system. During Media Run 2, the initial
37
-------
10/26/05 11/29/05 12/13/05 01/04/06 05/02/06 05/24/06 06/21/06 07/18/06 08/15/06 08/22/06 09/20/06
14 -
12 -
1!
i
! 8-
As concent
4 -
2 -
n -
DAs (particuate)
• As (III)
DAs(V)
n
—
Med
a Run '
-
=
=
Media R
=
|
Me
iaRun
10/26/05 11/29/05 12/13/05 01/04/06 05/02/06 05/24/06 06/21/06 07/18/06 08/15/06 08/22/06 09/20/06
Date
I 6-
DAs(particulate)
• As (III)
DAs(V)
10/26/05 11/29/05 12/13/05 01/04/06 05/02/06 05/24/06 06/21/06 07/18/06 08/15/06 08/22/06 09/20/06
Date
Figure 4-15. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TM
Sampling Locations
38
-------
Isolux™ Media Run 1 (10/26/05 to 01/17/06)
Water-Treated (1,000 gal)
1280 1706
2133 2559
3412 38:
40 50 60
Water Treated (1,000 BV)
Isolux™ Media Run 2 (04/27/06 to 08/15/06)
Water Treated (1,000 gal)
1280 1706 2133 2559 2986
3412 3839 4265
5 8-
i
Water Treated (1,000 BV)
Isolux™ Media Run 3 (08/17/06 to 03/20/07)
Water Treated (1,000 gal)
853 1280 1706 2133 25
2986 3412 3839 4265
Water Treated (1,000 BV)
Figure 4-16. Total Arsenic Concentrations Through Treatment System During Media Runs 1 to 3
39
-------
arsenic concentrations measured at MA and MB were approximately 6.0 and 4.0 ug/L, respectively,
where they remained until gradually increasing to 10 ug/L breakthrough. Arsenic concentrations at MB
reached 10 ug/L at about 86,700 BV; arsenic concentrations at MA increased to 9.3 ug/L after
approximately 91,520 BV. However, the average effluent of MA and MB did not exceed 10 ug/L until
August 8, 2006, after approximately 92,800 BV of throughput. Longer media run lengths were observed
during Media Run 2; however, the calculated system operating time (i.e., 21.9 versus 20.2 hr/day) and
EBCT (i.e., 1.1 versus 1.2 min) were similar. The well thereby rehabilitation might have reduced the
amount of sediments and particulates produced by the well, thereby reducing the potential for preferential
flow through the media cartridges and thus extending the life of the media.
Media Run 3 began on August 17, 2006, following media cartridge change-out and ended with the
conclusion of the performance evaluation study on March 20, 2007. During Media Run 3, initial arsenic
concentrations at MA and MB also were elevated at 7.0 and 3.0 ug/L, respectively. Arsenic
concentrations at MA spiked above 10 ug/L at about 49,700 BV before gradually decreasing to 6.8 ug/L
at 63,600 BV. On March 13, 2007, arsenic concentrations at MB reached 10 ug/L at about 76,200 BV,
while arsenic concentration at MA remained below 10 ug/L at 7.4 ug/L after the system had treated
approximately 82,000 BV of water. The average effluent of MA and MB exceeded 10 ug/L on March 20,
2007, after treating approximately 85,100 BV of water. Similar media run lengths were observed during
Media Runs 2 and 3; the intermittent system operation (i.e., 16.7 versus 20.2 hr/day) did not seem to
affect the media run length.
Iron, Manganese, and Zirconium. The treatment plant water samples were analyzed for total iron,
manganese, and zirconium at each sampling event and for soluble iron, manganese, and zirconium during
speciation sampling. Total and soluble iron concentrations were below the method detection limit of 25
ug/L in source water and throughout the treatment train. Manganese concentrations in source water
ranged from 2.9 to 5.3 ug/L, which existed primarily in the soluble form at an average concentration of
4.1 ug/L. Total manganese concentrations in the effluent of MA and MB averaged 0.6 and 0.3 ug/L,
respectively. Figure 4-17 presents total manganese concentrations versus bed volumes across the
treatment train for all media runs. Zirconium concentrations in raw water and across the treatment train
were below its detection limit of 0.1 ug/L, indicating zirconium was not leached from the Isolux™-302M
media.
pH. The pH of Zero Point of Charge (pH^) for zirconium hydroxide based media such as Isolux™-302M
is 10 to 11. Above the pH of the ZPC, the media surface is negatively charged, and electrostatic repulsion
will occur between the surface and an anion; this repulsion must be overcome for sorption to occur by a
specific chemical bond. As(V) is more strongly sorbed and affected by pH in the range of 4 to 9 (Siegel,
et al., 2007). pH of source water ranged from 7.4 to 7.9 and averaged 7.6, which is well below the pH of
the ZPC and within the operational range of 4 to 8.5 (Figure 4-18).
DO and ORP. DO and ORP readings averaged 2.6 mg/L and 359 millivolts (mV), respectively, in
source water. Both parameters indicated that the well water was oxidizing, which was consistent with the
presence of As(V) in raw water. As a result of prechlorination, the ORP readings at AC, MA, MB, and
TM increased to an average of 597 mV.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity ranged from 176 to 330 mg/L (as CaCO3) in raw water
and remained unchanged after treatment. Sulfate, fluoride, and nitrate were measured during speciation
sampling, and silica was measured at each sampling event. Their concentrations in raw water ranged
from 39 to 52 mg/L for sulfate; 0.1 to 0.9 mg/L for fluoride, with one outlier of 10.2 mg/L; 0.4 to 0.7
mg/L (as N) for nitrate; and 26.4 to 31.7 mg/L for silica (as SiO2) and remained unchanged after
treatment.
40
-------
Isolux™ Media Run 1 (10/26/05 to 01/17/06|
Water Treated (1,000 gal)
854 1281 1708 2135
2562 2989
-•-IN
-•-AC
-t-HA
-•-MB
X TM
0 427
30 40 50
Water Treated (1,000 BV)
Isolux™ Media Run 2 (04/27/06 to 08/15/06)
Water Treated (1,000 gal)
1281 1708 2135 2562
3416 3843 4270
0-4
1
§
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Water Treated (1,000 BV)
Isolux™ Media Run 3 (08/17/06 to 03/20/07)
Water Treated (1,000 gal)
3-4
1
§
-t-HA
-•-MB
X TH
Water Treated (1,000 BV)
Figure 4-17. Total Mn Concentrations Through Treatment System During Media Runs 1 to 3
41
-------
(JO
8
J3
O
Figure 4-18. Relationship Between pH and Surface Charge of Media
(Modified from Stumm and Morgan, 1981)
Total phosphorous (as P) concentrations were below the detection limit of 10 (ig/L for all measurements,
except for four detections of (10.2, 10.6, 15.7, and 11.1 (ig/L on March 30, June 13, June 21, and October
4, 2006, respectively) at the IN location and 11.3 and 11.4 (ig/L on June 13 and October 4, 2006,
respectively, at the AC location (Appendix B). Total hardness ranged from 153 to 220 mg/L (as CaCO3),
and remained relatively constant throughout the treatment train.
4.5.2 Distribution System Sampling. Distribution water samples were collected at three
residences before and after the installation/operation of the Isolux™ system to determine whether the
treatment system had any impacts on the lead and copper levels and water chemistry in the distribution
system. The samples were analyzed for pH, alkalinity, arsenic, iron, manganese, lead, and copper; results
are presented in Table 4-7. Since system startup, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system
decreased slightly from the baseline levels of 2.8, 6.0, and 5.2 (ig/L (on average) to 2.0, 3.3, and 3.1 (ig/L
at the DS1, DS2, and DS3 sampling locations, respectively. These concentrations were somewhat
lower than those of the plant effluent (Figure 4-19), presumably due to blending of the treated water with
untreated water from wells that did not have elevated arsenic levels.
Lead and copper concentrations ranged from <0.1 to 8.7 (ig/L and 19.9 to 885.1 (ig/L, respectively. No
samples exceeded the 15 (ig/L-Pb or 1,300 (ig/L-Cu action levels. Due to blending of water from 12
other wells, it was inconclusive whether these distribution system concentrations had been affected by the
arsenic treatment system.
pH, alkalinity, and manganese concentrations remained fairly consistent, with average baseline levels at
7.6, 173 mg/L, and 0.6 (ig/L, and after startup levels at 7.8, 173 mg/L, and 0.2 (ig/L, respectively. Iron
was not detected in any samples.
4.5.3 Spent Media Sampling. Samples of spent Isolux™-302M media samples from Media Run 1
were collected according to Section 3.3.4 for TCLP and total metals analyses. Figure 4-20 presents
photographs taken during spent media sampling.
The TCLP results provided by MEI (Table 4-8) indicated that the Isolux™-302M media was non-
hazardous and could be disposed of in a standard solid waste landfill. However, MEI opted to send the
spent media cartridges to GemChem, Inc., an Environmental Management Company in Lititz, PA, for
beneficial reuse. The spent media was combined with similar products for use as fill materials in
applications such as quarry reclamation.
42
-------
Table 4-7. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Date
07/19/05
08/04/05
08/16/05
08/30/05
11/01/05
12/06/05
01/04/06
05/17/060)
06/06/06
07/12/060
08/09/06
09/13/06
10/11/06
DS1|a|
LCR Residence
1st draw
Stagnation Time
hrs
10.5
11.0
8.3
9.0
11.8
8.5
11.5
Q.
S.U.
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.8
O
O
ra
O
in
(TJ
"ra
mg/L
176
176
163
163
176
145
180
in
Mg/L
3.1
5.1
1.7
1.5
3.7
2.5
1.6
-------
ns
•5
After system startup on 10/25/06
06/17/05 08/16/05
10/15/05 12/14/05 02/12/06 04/13/06 06/12/06 08/11/06
Sampling Date
Figure 4-19. Total Arsenic Concentrations in Distribution System
Figure 4-20. Spent Media Sampling
(Clockwise from Top Left: Spent Media Surface with Outer Membrane Removed, Visual
of Spent Media from Outer Surface to Inner Membrane [I] and [II], Sample Collection
into Dishes, Mottled Appearance on Outer Surface)
44
-------
Table 4-8. TCLP Results of Spent Media
Parameter
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Se
Ag
Isolux™-302M
Leachate Concentration
(mg/L)
0.05
1.4
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.003
0.3
0.05
Provided by MEL
Visual observations of the spent media cartridge indicated sediment accumulation on the outer membrane
of the cartridge and on the outer surface of the annular space immediately under the outer membrane.
Figure 4-21 shows dark to light brown colors of the outer membrane of a typical cartridge removed from
the system. Once the outer membrane was cut away, the outer surface of the media displayed a mottled
appearance (Figure 4-22), which may be indicative of the actual distribution of the incoming flow. Iron
concentrations of the spent media taken across the annular space of the cartridge averaged 800, 30, <0.5,
and 128 (ig/g for the outer surface, subsurface, mid-portion, and inner portion, respectively, thus
confirming the visual observations of sediment accumulation on the media. The iron concentration
measured at the inner portion was higher than at the mid-portion; this suggests channeling of the
incoming flow, which might have contributed, in part, to the short run length observed during Media Run
1.
Figure 4-21. Spent Media Cartridge Removed from Isolux™ System (Provided by MEI)
45
-------
Figure 4-22. Spent Media Cartridge with Outer Membrane Cut Away (Provided by MEI)
Table 4-9 presents the results of metals analyses. Arsenic concentrations across the annular space of the
media cartridge were relatively consistent, averaging 271, 285, 321, and 249 (ig/g from the outer surface
to the inner portion. These values were lower than the loading (i.e., 814 (ig/g or about 0.08%) based on
the system throughput and the arsenic concentrations before and after the treatment system. The
differences observed most likely were caused by the relatively small quantaties of the samples taken for
the metal analyses. Also, the results of Al, Si, P, Mn, and Cu analyses further support the speculation of
channeling, which resulted in metal concentrations measured at the inner portion being higher than those
of the mid-portion of the media cartridge.
4.6
System Cost
The system cost was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design capacity and the
O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The capital cost included the cost for equipment, site
engineering, and installation. The O&M cost included cost for media cartridges, bag filters, electricity,
and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation of the
Isolux™ treatment system was $76,840 (see Table 4-10). The equipment cost was $58,500 (or 76% of the
total capital investment), which included $48,000 for two 75-gpm Isolux™ Modules, $8,000 for 36
Isolux™ technology media cartridges (18 media cartridges per module), and $2,500 for shipping.
The engineering cost included the cost for preparing the required permit application submittal, including
system specifications, P&IDs, electrical diagrams, interconnection of piping layouts, and obtaining the
required permit approval from CDPH. The engineering cost was $8,500, or 11% of the total capital
investment.
46
-------
Table 4-9. Spent Media Analysis
Sample
Description
Outer
surface
Subsurface
Mid-portion
Inner portion
Analysis
A
B
C
Average
A
B
C
Average
A
B
C
Average
A
B
C
Average
Analyte Concentration (jig/g)
Mg
576
541
602
573
551
551
500
534
500
481
519
500
481
525
517
508
Al
535
485
512
511
187
186
169
181
78.2
47.6
66.8
64.2
116
144
122
127
Si
410
380
375
389
353
379
248
327
400
284
417
367
455
441
426
441
P
722
734
736
731
636
626
627
629
309
280
303
297
383
380
372
378
Ca
5,925
6,030
6,083
6,013
5,620
5,645
5,486
5,584
5,617
5,258
5,592
5,489
5,458
5,686
5,554
5,566
Mn
790
748
776
771
<125
<125
<125
-
<125
<125
<125
-
156
154
162
157
Fe
847
755
799
800
30.3
33.8
26.0
30.0
<0.5
0.5
<0.5
-
118
133
134
128
Ni
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.5
O.5
O.5
-
O.5
0.5
O.5
-
O.5
0.5
O.5
-
Cu
38.2
37.7
39.4
38.4
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.6
O.5
0.5
O.5
-
5.0
5.2
5.2
5.1
Zn
724
723
749
732
789
752
755
765
587
574
572
577
578
584
587
583
As
258
279
275
271
304
290
262
285
334
307
322
321
234
268
246
249
Cd
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.8
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.1
2.0
Pb
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.5
O.5
O.5
-
O.5
0.5
O.5
-
O.5
0.5
O.5
-
The installation, shakedown, and startup cost covered the labor and materials required to unload, install,
and test the system for proper operation. All installation activities were performed by MEI and GHCSD;
startup and shakedown activities were performed by MEI with the operator's assistance. The installation,
startup, and shakedown costs, were $9,840, or 13% of the total capital investment.
Table 4-10. Capital Investment for MEI's Isolux™ Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment
Cost
Equipment
Isolux™ 75 gpm module
Isolux™ technology media cartridges
Freight
Equipment Total
2
36
-
-
$48,000
$8,000
$2,500
$58,500
-
-
-
76%
Engineering
Vendor material
Vendor labor
Subcontractor material
Subcontractor labor
Engineering Total
-
-
-
-
-
$1,500
$2,000
$2,000
$3,000
$8,500
-
-
-
-
11%
Installation, Shakedown, and Startup
Material (mechanical)
Material (electrical)
Vendor labor (mechanical)
Vendor travel
Installation, Shakedown, and Startup
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
-
$500
$300
$6,480
$2,560
$9,840
$76,840
-
13%
100%
47
-------
The total capital cost of $76,840 was normalized to $512/gpm ($0.36/gpd) of design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 150 gpm (or 216,000 gpd). The total capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $7,253/year, using a capital recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and
a 20-year return. Assuming that the system was operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at the design
flow rate of 150 gpm to produce 78,840,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would be
$0.09/1,000 gal. This calculation assumed that the system operated 24 hr/day at its rated capacity. The
system operated 19.6 hr/day (on average) at approximately 79.3 gpm (on average) (see Table 4-4). Based
on this reduced use rate, the system would produce only 34,038,700 gal of water in one year (assuming
365 days per year), and the unit capital cost would increase to $0.21/1,000 gal.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included media cartridge replacement
and disposal, electricity consumption, and labor. Table 4-11 summarizes the O&M cost.
The cost to replace and dispose of the spent media cartridges represented the majority of the O&M cost
(i.e., $7,080 for 36 cartridges in two modules). By averaging this cost over the useful life of the media,
the unit cost per 1,000 gal of water treated was plotted as a function of the media life (i.e., run length in
BV), as shown in Figure 4-23. The media run length (in BV) was calculated by dividing the system
throughput (in gal) by the quantity of media in both modules (i.e., 11.4 ft3 [or 85.3 gal]). The Isolux™
system processed an average of 61,600, 92,800, and 85,100 BV prior to reaching the 10 (ig/L arsenic
breakthrough during Media Runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Based on these volumes, the unit media
replacement cost was $1.35, $0.89, and $0.98/1,000 gal, respectively.
Table 4-11. O&M Cost for MEI's Isolux™ Treatment System
Category
Value
Remarks
Media Cartridge Replacement
Isolux™ media cartridges ($/changeout)
Transportation
Media cartridge replacement ($/ 1,000 gal)
$6,480
$600
See Figure 4-23
36 cartridges (18 cartridges/module)
36 cartridges (18 cartridges/module)
Electricity Consumption
Electricity Cost ($/l,000 gal)
$0.001
Electrical cost negligible
Labor
Labor (hr/week)
Labor Cost ($/l, 000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($/l,000 gal)
2.5
$0.14
See Figure 4-23
30 mm/day, 5 day/week
Labor rate = $37.5/hr(a)
(a) O/M labor would be higher if a contract operator was required.
The Isolux™ treatment modules contained booster pumps that required electricity; however, the booster
pumps were not used during the study. Therefore, additional electrical cost incurred by the Isolux™
system operation was assumed to be negligible.
Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed
2.5 per week as noted in Section 4.4.2. Assuming that the system operates at an average flowrate of 79.3
gpm for 19.6 hr/day and 7 day/week to produce 653,000 gal of water per week, the estimated labor cost
would be $0.14/1,000 gal of water treated.
48
-------
$10.00
$9.00
$8.00
$7.00
=• $6.00
ro
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
O&M Cost (including Media Cartridge
Replacement)
• — Media Cartridge Replacement Cost Only
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000
Media Working Capacity (BV)
Note: 1 BV= media volume in both modules
Figure 4-23. Total O&M Cost, Including Media Replacement
49
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Battelle, 2005. Study Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology at Golden Hills Community
Services District in Tehachapi, CA. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No.
0029, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
CDPH. 2001. California Code of Regulations (CCR). Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 13. Operator
Certification Regulations. California Department of Health Services.
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. 2003. "Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic."
Federal Register, 40 CFRPart 141.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
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.
Siegel, M., Aragon, A., Zhao, H., Everett, R., Aragon, M., Nocon, M., Dwyer, B., Marbury, J., Kirby, C.,
and North, K. 2007. Pilot Test of Arsenic Adsorptive Media Treatment Technologies at Socorro
Springs, New Mexico: Materials Characterization and Phase 1 Results. SAND2007-0161.
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
Stumm, W. and James J. Morgan. 1981. Aquatic Chemistry, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wang, L., W. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design:U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
Wang, L., A.S. C. Chen, and K. Fields. 2000. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Ion
Exchange and Activated Alumina Plants. EPA/600/R-00/088. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
50
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Tehachapi, CA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Treatment System
Module B Floi
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Tehachapi, CA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Module A Pressure (psig)
SYSTEM NOT RUNNING DUE TO WELL ISSUES
-------
Table A-l. U.S. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Tehachapi, CA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Treatment System
Module A Pressure (psi
Before
Bag-
Filter
Module B Pressure
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling At Tehachapi, CA
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Zr (total)
Zr (soluble)
BV
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
^g/L(b>
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
10/26/05|c
IN
-
176
0.2
46
0.47
<10
27.8
<0.1
7.5
18.2
NA(d)
444
-
177
130
47.9
14.0
13.1
0.9
2.0
11.1
<25
<25
3.5
3.4
<0.1
<0.1
AC
-
185
0.2
46
0.48
<10
28.0
0.1
7.6
17.2
NA(d)
616
-
176
128
47.9
12.7
12.4
0.3
0.6
11.8
<25
<25
3.7
3.2
<0.1
<0.1
TM
1.8
185
0.2
46
0.47
<10
21.0
0.1
7.5
17.9
NA(d)
589
-
178
131
47.3
0.4
0.4
<0.1
0.6
<0.1
<25
<25
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
11/01/05
IN
-
185
-
-
-
<10
27.7
<0.1
7.5
20.3
1.8
449
-
181
133
47.7
12.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.6
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
176
-
-
-
<10
27.8
0.2
7.4
20.6
1.7
470
-
182
134
48.2
12.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.6
-
<0.1
-
MA
10.0
180
-
-
-
<10
27.3
0.2
7.5
25.6
2.1
649
-
184
134
49.6
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<0.1
-
MB
9.1
180
-
-
-
<10
27.6
0.1
7.5
25.7
1.9
653
-
183
134
48.8
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
<0.1
-
11/08/05
IN
-
189
-
-
-
<10
26.7
0.4
7.6
18.3
-
468
-
181
133
48.0
12.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.9
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
198
-
-
-
<10
27.2
<0.1
7.6
18.8
-
642
-
176
129
46.7
12.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.9
-
<0.1
-
MA
18.9
189
-
-
-
<10
26.3
<0.1
7.7
18.7
-
647
-
184
137
47.2
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
MB
17.7
176
-
-
-
<10
26.7
<0.1
7.6
18.7
-
659
-
184
137
46.8
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
11/15/05
IN
-
330
-
-
-
<10
27.1
0.1
7.5
19.1
-
359
-
173
131
41.7
13.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.4
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
189
-
-
-
<10
26.9
0.2
7.5
19.5
-
593
-
174
131
42.8
13.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.8
-
<0.1
-
MA
26.1
176
-
-
-
<10
26.7
1.1
7.5
19.7
-
623
-
174
130
43.3
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<0.1
-
MB
24.5
180
-
-
-
<10
26.9
0.2
7.5
19.6
-
625
-
172
129
43.1
1.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
<0.1
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) As P.
(c) Water quality parameters measured on 10/25/05.
(d) Water quality parameter not measured.
IN - influent; MA = after module A; MB = after module B; TM = after combined module effluent.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling At Tehachapi, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Zr (total)
Zr (soluble)
BV
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
11/29/05
IN
-
176
0.1
39
0.48
<10
27.2
0.3
7.6
15.7
2.7
472
-
184
137
46.3
11.4
11.8
<0.1
2.4
9.4
<25
<25
3.6
3.5
<0.1
-
AC
-
189
0.1
41
0.47
<10
27.2
<0.1
7.6
16.0
2.2
578
-
186
138
48.2
11.5
12.1
<0.1
0.7
11.4
<25
<25
3.6
3.5
<0.1
-
TM
32.4
189
0.1
44
0.50
<10
27.5
<0.1
7.3
14.8
2.3
534
-
184
136
47.4
3.3
3.2
0.2
1.0
2.2
<25
<25
0.2
0.0
<0.1
-
12/06/05
IN
-
185
-
-
-
<10
28.1
<0.1
7.7
17.0
2.6
388
-
171
127
43.4
11.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.9
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
189
-
-
-
<10
27.9
<0.1
7.6
17.5
1.8
647
-
178
123
55.5
11.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.8
-
<0.1
-
MA
43.0
189
-
-
-
<10
27.5
<0.1
7.6
17.7
1.8
667
-
169
126
42.9
7.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
MB
41.0
185
-
-
-
<10
27.6
<0.1
7.6
17.5
1.8
672
-
170
127
42.7
6.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
12/13/05
IN
-
185
0.2
40
0.42
<10
29.5
1.6
7.7
17.3
2.2
398
-
153
100
52.8
12.1
11.1
1.0
2.8
8.3
<25
<25
3.8
3.7
<0.1
<0.1
AC
-
180
0.1
40
0.42
<10
28.9
1.1
7.6
17.7
2.2
618
-
154
101
53.3
12.5
13.0
<0.1
1.2
11.8
<25
<25
3.7
3.3
<0.1
<0.1
TM
48.3
185
0.1
40
0.42
<10
28.7
0.2
7.6
18.0
2.3
651
-
153
101
52.7
9.1
9.9
<0.1
0.9
9.0
<25
<25
0.2
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
01/04/06
IN
-
189
-
-
-
<10
27.5
0.3
7.7
18.5
2.2
409
-
177
128
48.6
13.4
13.9
<0.1
2.8
11.1
<25
<25
5.3
5.3
<0.1
-
AC
-
194
-
-
-
<10
27.7
0.1
7.8
19.1
1.7
494
-
174
127
47.5
13.3
13.9
<0.1
0.5
13.4
<25
<25
4.7
4.8
<0.1
-
TM
61.6
189
-
-
-
<10
27.3
0.2
7.7
19.3
2.5
644
-
176
128
47.6
12.2
13.1
<0.1
0.4
12.7
<25
<25
0.3
0.6
<0.1
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) As P.
IN - influent; MA = after module A; MB = after module B; TM = after combined module effluent.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling At Tehachapi, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Zr (total)
Zr (soluble)
BV
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L(b>
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
01/10/06
IN
-
194
-
-
-
<10
27.9
0.2
7.7
18.2
2.2
413
-
171
123
48.1
12.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.4
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
194
-
-
-
<10
28.2
0.1
7.8
19.0
1.8
609
-
176
127
48.8
12.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.3
-
<0.1
-
MA
71.2
194
-
-
-
<10
28.3
0.3
7.7
14.0
2.0
675
-
170
122
48.3
12.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
MB
67.7
189
-
-
-
<10
27.9
0.2
7.7
19.0
2.3
676
-
173
121
51.6
11.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
-
05/02/06
IN
_
192
0.2
48
0.7
<10
28.3
0.3
7.7
14.9
2.1
450
-
185
134
50.3
12.8
12.0
0.8
0.6
11.4
<25
<25
4.3
4.1
0.3
-
AC
_
196
0.2
48
0.7
<10
28.6
0.2
7.7
20.1
3.0
686
-
180
130
49.6
12.8
12.2
0.5
0.2
12.0
<25
<25
4.1
4.0
<0.1
-
TM
5.5
192
0.2
46
0.6
<10
26.9
0.2
7.7
20.4
2.5
66.4
-
182
132
50.0
1.3
1.3
<0.1
0.2
1.1
<25
<25
0.4
0.5
0.1
-
05/10/06
IN
_
192
-
-
-
<10
28.9
0.3
7.5
30.8
-
337
-
180
129
51.5
11.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.0
-
<0.1
-
AC
_
188
-
-
-
<10
28.5
0.2
7.5
20.4
-
571
-
187
134
52.8
12.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.1
-
<0.1
-
MA
2.8
184
-
-
-
<10
23.8
0.4
7.4
20.3
-
629
-
182
130
51.8
6.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.6
-
<0.1
-
MB
18.5
188
-
-
-
<10
28.6
0.1
7.5
19.4
-
634
-
185
132
53.6
3.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.9
-
<0.1
-
05/16/06
IN
-
200
-
-
-
<10
29
0.3
7.6
22.3
-
388
-
213
154
58.7
12.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.7
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
184
-
-
-
<10
28.6
0.2
7.5
20.6
-
392
-
212
154
57.8
11.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.7
-
<0.1
-
MA
11.5
184
<10
28.3
0.3
7.5
20.9
-
541
-
211
153
58.0
5.8
-
-
-
-
<25
1.5
0.1
MB
25.1
192
-
-
-
<10
30
0.2
7.5
21.0
-
563
-
212
154
57.5
3.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
<0.1
-
05/24/06
IN
-
191
0.2
47
0.6
<10
27.2
0.4
7.6
20.0
2.8
353
-
181
130
50.6
14.4
14.3
<0.1
0.5
13.8
<25
<25
4.0
4.4
<0.1
-
AC
-
191
0.2
46
0.6
<10
27.9
0.6
7.5
20.0
2.1
652
-
182
131
51.0
12.3
12.3
<0.1
0.1
12.1
<25
<25
4.0
3.9
<0.1
-
TM
24.8
191
0.2
46
0.6
<10
27.3
0.4
7.5
23.2
2.4
644
-
171
122
48.4
6.2
6.0
0.2
0.2
5.8
<25
<25
1.7
1.7
<0.1
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) As P.
(c) Media replacement took place on February 20, 2006.
IN - influent; MA = after module A; MB = after module B; TM = after combined module effluent.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling At Tehachapi, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Zr (total)
Zr (soluble)
BV
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L(b>
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
05/30/06
IN
-
192
-
-
-
10.2
27.2
0.5
7.5
20.9
2.8
257
-
158
117
41.0
10.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.9
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
192
-
-
-
<10
26.9
0.2
7.5
20.3
2.6
280
-
156
116
39.8
10.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.9
-
0.7
-
MA
22.1
200
-
-
-
<10
25.8
0.4
7.5
20.3
2.2
285
-
163
122
40.7
5.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
<0.1
-
MB
33.2
188
-
-
-
<10
27.1
0.4
7.5
20.3
2.4
293
-
166
125
40.9
3.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<0.1
-
06/06/06
IN
-
190
-
-
-
<10
29.0
0.3
7.6
25.7
2.3
273
-
170
120
49.4
10.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.2
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
194
-
-
-
<10
29.0
0.5
7.6
25.9
2.1
454
-
171
122
49.1
10.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.3
-
<0.1
-
MA
28.9
198
-
-
-
<10
28.5
0.7
7.5
26.0
2.1
647
-
178
125
53.1
5.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
<0.1
-
MB
39.1
194
-
-
-
<10
28.9
0.5
7.5
26.1
2.1
668
-
174
122
51.4
3.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
<0.1
-
06/13/06
IN
-
200
-
-
-
10.6
29.8
0.4
7.6
18.8
2.4
332
-
186
137
49.2
11.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.6
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
200
-
-
-
11.3
30.1
0.6
7.6
19.1
2.2
371
-
190
140
50.5
11.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.8
-
<0.1
-
MA
33.9
200
-
-
-
<10
29.9
0.5
7.5
19.2
2.5
390
-
192
141
50.9
7.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.1
-
<0.1
-
MB
44.4
204
-
-
-
<10
30.1
0.4
7.5
19.1
2.5
409
-
182
133
48.8
3.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.0
-
<0.1
-
06/21/06
IN
-
190
0.2
47
0.7
15.7
27.2
0.3
7.5
22.3
2.5
388
-
220
161
59.7
10.4
10.1
0.3
0.7
9.4
<25
<25
4.3
4.1
<0.1
-
AC
-
186
0.2
56
0.7
<10
27.7
0.4
7.5
21.8
2.1
667
-
200
143
57.0
10.2
10.4
<0.1
0.2
10.2
<25
<25
3.6
3.6
<0.1
-
TM
42.3
190
0.2
57
0.7
<10
27.7
0.5
7.5
21.6
2.3
676
-
209
150
58.5
4.1
4.4
<0.1
0.2
4.3
<25
<25
0.5
0.5
<0.1
-
6/28/2006(c|
IN
-
192
-
-
-
<10
30
0.3
7.5
26.6
3.2
376
-
188
133
54.6
11.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.3
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
200
-
-
-
<10
29.5
0.3
7.5
26.4
2.3
638
-
184
129
54.3
11.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.5
-
<0.1
-
MA
43.3
196
-
-
-
<10
29.3
0.3
7.5
26.3
2.9
659
-
179
126
52.9
5.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.0
-
<0.1
-
MB
52.6
192
-
-
-
<10
29.3
2
7.5
26.2
2.8
665
-
180
128
52.2
6.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.9
-
<0.1
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) As P.
(c) Water quality parameters measured on 06/27/06.
IN - influent; MA = after module A; MB = after module B; TM = after combined module effluent.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling At Tehachapi, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Zr (total)
Zr (soluble)
BV
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L(b>
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
07/05/06
IN
-
193
-
-
-
<10
27.3
0.2
7.4
21.7
2.8
275
-
181
132
49.7
10.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.2
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
193
-
-
-
<10
27.6
0.6
7.5
20.8
2.0
551
-
186
135
50.6
10.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.7
-
<0.1
-
MA
50.9
197
-
-
-
<10
28
0.4
7.5
20.5
2.2
647
-
185
134
50.7
6.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.5
-
<0.1
-
MB
60.2
188
-
-
-
<10
28
0.3
7.5
20.4
4.3
661
1.27
183
133
50.1
5.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
<0.1
-
07/11/06
IN
-
193
-
-
-
<10
27.8
4.6
7.6
22.9
3.1
350
-
181
135
46.9
10.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.1
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
197
-
-
-
<10
26.9
2.6
7.5
21.4
2.3
564
-
187
138
49.7
10.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.2
-
<0.1
-
MA
58.8
197
-
-
-
<10
27.2
0.5
7.5
21.4
2.3
647
-
191
141
50.6
6.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.0
-
<0.1
-
MB
66.0
193
-
-
-
<10
27.6
1.8
7.5
21.3
2.2
656
1.3
183
135
48.4
6.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<0.1
-
07/18/06
IN
-
188
10.2
48
0.7
<10
27.3
0.5
7.6
21.2
2.0
338
-
169
121
47.2
10.5
11.0
<0.1
0.9
10.0
<25
<25
3.6
3.8
<0.1
-
AC
-
205
12.3
46
0.7
<10
27.3
0.6
7.6
21.0
2.0
632
-
165
118
46.7
10.6
11.0
<0.1
0.3
10.6
<25
<25
3.5
2.7
<0.1
-
TM
69.5
171
8.4
49
0.7
<10
30.5
0.4
7.5
21.7
1.7
666
1.6
198
145
53.3
6.8
7.0
<0.1
0.3
6.7
<25
<25
0.5
0.6
<0.1
-
07/26/06(c|
IN
-
188
-
-
-
<10
27.8
0.1
7.6
22.1
2.2
265
-
186
136
50.2
11.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.7
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
196
-
-
-
<10
28.2
0.7
7.6
21.6
2.0
645
-
186
135
50.9
10.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.5
-
<0.1
-
MA
75.4
192
-
-
-
<10
28.5
0.4
7.6
21.6
2.0
660
-
187
136
50.8
7.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<0.1
-
MB
80.9
192
-
-
-
<10
28.5
0.2
7.6
21.6
1.7
665
1.3
186
135
51.1
9.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<0.1
-
08/02/06(d|
IN
-
189
-
-
-
<10
31.7
0.1
7.8
20.3
2.5
310
-
181
136
45.6
11.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.1
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
189
-
-
-
<10
32.3
0.2
7.8
20.2
1.9
563
-
183
137
46.0
11.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.8
-
<0.1
-
MA
82.7
185
-
-
-
<10
32.8
0.1
7.8
20.2
2.3
638
-
185
137
47.6
7.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<0.1
-
MB
86.7
189
-
-
-
<10
32
0.2
7.8
20.2
2.1
661
1.4
181
133
47.5
10.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
<0.1
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) As P.
(c) Water quality parameters measured on 07/25/06.
(d) Water quality parameters measured on 08/01/06.
IN - influent; MA = after module A; MB = after module B; TM = after combined module effluent.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling At Tehachapi, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Zr (total)
Zr (soluble)
BV
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L(b>
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
08/08/06
IN
-
193
-
-
-
<10
27.9
0.2
7.5
20.5
2.1
296
-
186
137
49.3
12.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.1
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
189
-
-
-
<10
27.7
0.6
7.5
20.5
1.8
634
-
182
133
48.8
12.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.7
-
<0.1
-
MA
91.5
189
-
-
-
<10
28.1
1.1
7.5
20.1
2.0
651
-
185
136
49.3
9.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<0.1
-
MB
94.1
189
-
-
-
<10
28.3
0.3
7.5
20.5
1.9
663
1.5
188
137
51.1
12.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<0.1
-
08/15/06
IN
-
198
0.7
49
0.6
<10
28.7
0.1
7.5
20.9
2.0
356
-
187
139
48.4
12.7
12.4
0.4
1.6
10.8
<25
<25
4.0
4.2
<0.1
-
AC
-
190
2.6
51
0.8
<10
28.6
0.1
7.5
21.0
2.2
623
-
186
137
48.9
12.3
12.8
<0.1
0.5
12.3
<25
<25
3.9
3.5
<0.1
-
TM
98.4
194
0.6
49
0.6
<10
27.8
0.2
7.5
21.5
2.5
660
1.5
190
139
50.9
10.5
10.5
<0.1
0.4
10.1
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
<0.1
-
08/22/06
IN
-
209
0.9
46
0.7
<10
27.1
0.3
7.6
21.7
1.9
507
-
193
144
48.4
12.6
12.3
0.4
1.8
10.4
<25
<25
4.1
4.3
<0.1
-
AC
-
207
0.6
46
0.7
<10
27.3
0.3
7.6
21.8
2.1
664
-
202
153
49.6
12.8
12.0
0.8
0.6
11.4
<25
<25
4.8
3.8
<0.1
-
TM
4.4
207
0.6
46
0.7
<10
24.4
0.3
7.5
21.2
2.2
484
1.3
201
150
50.6
4.1
3.9
0.1
0.6
3.4
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
<0.1
-
08/29/06
IN
-
209
-
-
-
<10
26.7
<0.1
7.6
20.8
2.8
323
-
207
157
50.5
12.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.0
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
203
-
-
-
<10
26.8
0.2
7.5
20.9
2.0
614
-
209
157
51.5
11.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.8
-
<0.1
-
MA
11.7
209
-
-
-
<10
25.8
0.1
7.5
20.9
2.0
613
-
206
155
50.2
7.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.9
-
<0.1
-
MB
12.2
201
-
-
-
<10
25.6
0.1
7.5
20.7
2.0
655
1.5
206
154
51.7
2.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<0.1
-
09/05/06
IN
-
199
-
-
-
<10
26.4
0.1
7.5
22.6
2.1
304
-
174
124
50.3
11.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.1
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
208
-
-
-
<10
26
0.1
7.6
22.2
2.1
623
-
174
124
50.3
10.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.7
-
<0.1
-
MA
20.0
208
-
-
-
<10
26.3
0.2
7.6
22.0
2.1
652
-
173
123
49.8
7.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<0.1
-
MB
19.0
202
-
-
-
<10
26
0.1
7.5
21.9
2.1
659
1.4
178
127
50.9
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
<0.1
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) As P.
IN - influent; MA = after module A; MB = after module B; TM = after combined module effluent.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling At Tehachapi, CA (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Zr (total)
Zr (soluble)
BV
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L(b>
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
09/12/06
IN
-
190
-
-
-
<10
27.1
0.3
7.5
20.5
2.1
356
-
192
145
47.0
12.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.7
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
192
-
-
-
<10
27.1
0.1
7.5
20.4
1.5
631
-
192
145
46.5
11.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.8
-
<0.1
-
MA
21.8
190
-
-
-
<10
26.1
0.2
7.5
20.4
2.0
655
-
190
144
45.3
8.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
<0.1
-
MB
20.7
190
-
-
-
<10
26
0.1
7.5
20.3
1.8
674
1.3
186
142
44.6
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
<0.1
-
09/20/06
IN
-
195
0.3
52
0.7
<10
28.6
6.2
7.5
20.0
1.5
261
-
205
151
54.0
12.8
11.1
1.7
1.5
9.6
123
<25
4.1
3.9
<0.1
-
AC
-
202
0.1
52
0.7
<10
29.2
0.3
7.6
20.0
1.8
600.7
-
205
152
53.1
11.7
11.4
0.3
0.2
11.2
<25
<25
3.6
3.5
<0.1
-
TM
26.7
202
<0.1
51
<0.05
<10
28.3
0.5
7.5
20.3
1.5
675
1.3
215
160
54.5
4.7
4.5
0.2
0.2
4.3
<25
<25
0.6
0.5
<0.1
-
09/26/06
IN
-
198
-
-
-
<10
27.6
0.1
7.5
21.0
2.5
344
-
187
134
53.8
13.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.9
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
198
-
-
-
<10
27.6
0.1
7.6
20.7
2.1
594
-
188
134
54.9
11.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.8
-
<0.1
-
MA
30.1
205
-
-
-
<10
26.9
0.2
7.5
20.5
2.2
644
-
183
130
53.4
7.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
<0.1
-
MB
28.6
203
-
-
-
<10
27.5
0.1
7.6
20.6
2.0
658
1.4
185
132
53.6
2.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<0.1
-
10/04/06
IN
-
208
-
-
-
11.1
27.6
0.2
7.7
16.5
3.7
316
-
188
134
53.7
12.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.7
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
203
-
-
-
11.4
27.6
0.2
7.8
17.1
2.6
598
-
190
135
54.7
11.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.7
-
<0.1
-
MA
32.8
205
-
-
-
<10
26.7
0.2
7.8
17.4
2.6
664
-
187
134
53.5
7.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
<0.1
-
MB
31
203
-
-
-
<10
27.8
0.1
7.8
17.4
2.7
671
1.3
186
132
53.2
2.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<0.1
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) As P.
IN - influent; MA = after module A; MB = after module B; TM = after combined module effluent.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling At Tehachapi, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Chlorine
As (total)
BV
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
ug/L
10/10/06
IN
-
7.9
18.0
2.2
350
-
12.3
12.0
AC
-
8.0
18.3
1.8
654
-
12.0
12.2
MA
34.3
7.9
18.7
2.1
671
-
7.7
7.4
MB
32.4
7.9
18.6
1.8
679
1.4
2.7
2.6
10/19/06
IN
-
7.7
18.5
2.3
327
-
12.9
AC
-
7.7
18.9
2.4
622
-
13.3
MA
35.3
7.7
19.0
2.5
656
-
9.7
MB
33.8
7.7
19.0
2.5
664
1.3
3.4
10/25/06
IN
-
7.6
16.5
3.4
280
-
12.7
AC
-
7.6
17.1
2.9
666
-
12.0
MA
38.5
7.6
17.3
2.9
677
-
6.7
MB
36.4
7.6
17.5
3.0
680
1.5
3.1
10/31/06
IN
-
7.6
15.5
2.9
322
-
11.8
AC
-
7.6
16.0
3.0
654
-
11.0
MA
39.9
7.6
16.4
3.2
676
-
6.8
MB
37.6
7.5
16.9
2.8
681
1.4
2.7
11/07/06
IN
-
7.7
19.9
1.4
249
-
12.6
AC
-
7.7
20.1
1.4
631
-
13.0
MA
43.7
7.7
20.2
1.5
651
-
7.3
MB
40.9
7.7
20.2
1.7
659
1.5
3.0
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Chlorine
As (total)
BV
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
ug/L
11/15/06
IN
-
7.7
17.8
3.1
373
-
10.3
AC
-
7.7
18.0
2.7
664
-
10.4
MA
44.8
7.7
18.3
2.8
674
-
6.7
MB
42.1
7.6
18.4
2.5
680
1.35
2.7
11/29/06
IN
-
7.7
14.5
2.4
343
-
10.6
AC
-
7.7
15.2
2.1
666
-
10.7
MA
44.8
7.7
15.8
2.3
679
-
5.0
MB
42.3
7.7
16.3
2.4
681
1.5
2.1
12/05/06
IN
-
7.6
17.5
3.2
402
-
10.7
AC
-
7.7
17.8
2.9
641
-
10.4
MA
45.0
7.7
18.1
2.9
676
-
5.7
MB
42.4
7.7
18.2
3.0
682
1.4
2.3
12/12/06
IN
-
7.7
16.0
4.5
373
-
12.8
AC
-
7.7
16.5
2.8
615
-
12.6
MA
45.1
7.7
16.9
3.1
679
-
6.5
MB
42.4
7.7
16.9
3.1
682
1.3
2.9
12/27/06
IN
-
7.7
14.5
4.3
388
-
16.9
AC
-
7.7
15.4
4.2
600
-
16.1
MA
46.5
7.6
15.8
3.6
620
-
11.1
MB
43.6
7.6
15.8
3.5
627
1.2
4.4
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Chlorine
As (total)
BV
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
ug/L
01/03/07
IN
-
7.7
17.1
3.6
313
-
14.2
AC
-
7.7
17.7
3.2
505
-
13.9
MA
49.7
7.7
17.9
3.2
536
-
10.1
MB
46.9
7.7
18.0
3.3
551
1.4
3.8
01/10/07
IN
-
7.6
16.3
3.1
320
-
13.3
AC
-
7.6
16.9
2.9
638
-
13.0
MA
53.4
7.6
17.2
3.1
654
-
8.7
MB
50.4
7.6
17.3
2.9
657
1.3
5.1
01/23/07
IN
-
7.7
15.8
3.5
301
-
13.2
AC
-
7.7
16.6
3.0
490
-
12.7
MA
57.7
7.7
17.0
3.1
536
-
7.5
MB
53.7
7.7
17.3
3.1
553
1.4
4.9
01/30/07
IN
-
7.4
16.5
2.7
290
-
13.7
AC
-
7.5
16.7
2.3
629
-
12.7
MA
63.6
7.5
17.2
2.5
647
-
6.8
MB
59.9
7.5
17.4
2.5
654
1.3
7.1
02/06/07
IN
-
7.6
18.2
3.2
310
-
11.3
AC
-
7.6
18.6
2.8
516
-
11.3
MA
65.1
7.7
18.8
2.7
540
-
7.0
MB
61.1
7.7
18.8
2.5
551
1.5
6.8
IN - influent; MA = after module A; MB = after module B; TM = after combined module effluent.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling At Tehachapi, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Chlorine
As (total)
BV
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
ug/L
02/13/07
IN
-
7.5
15.1
3.9
263
-
10.5
AC
-
7.6
16.0
2.8
288
-
10.7
MA
67.7
7.6
16.4
2.9
295
-
6.8
MB
63.0
7.6
16.9
2.8
308
1.4
6.8
02/20/07
IN
-
7.8
17.9
2.7
285
-
13.3
AC
-
7.8
18.2
2.2
337
-
13.6
MA
70.0
7.7
18.4
2.5
366
-
8.5
MB
64.4
7.7
18.4
2.4
371
1.6
8.6
02/27/07
IN
-
7.8
15.0
2.8
285
-
11.9
AC
-
7.8
16.0
2.8
330
-
11.5
MA
77.7
7.8
16.1
3.0
347
-
7.1
MB
68.7
7.8
16.5
3.1
354
1.6
8.9
03/06/07
IN
-
7.7
19.9
2.4
235
-
9.8
AC
-
7.6
19.9
2.4
325
-
10.4
MA
79.9
7.7
19.8
2.5
338
-
6.2
MB
70.2
7.7
19.8
2.7
340
1.3
8.1
03/13/07
IN
-
7.8
19.8
2.6
284
-
11.6
AC
-
7.7
19.8
2.5
294
-
11.5
MA
87.8
7.8
19.9
2.7
313
-
7.4
MB
76.2
7.7
19.8
2.6
318
1.5
10.2
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Chlorine
As (total)
BV
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
ug/L
03/20/07
IN
-
7.5
17.5
3.4
219
-
12.8
AC
-
7.5
17.9
2.7
332
-
12.8
MA
91.1
7.5
18.4
3.1
335
-
9.1
MB
79.1
7.5
18.4
3.2
331
1.5
11.3
IN - influent; MA = after module A; MB = after module B; TM = after combined module effluent.
NA = not available.
------- |