EPA/600/R-10/040
April 2010
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Webb Consolidated Independent School District in Bruni, TX
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Shane Williams*
Abraham S.C. Chen"
Lili Wang"
'Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693
*ALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43219-0693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and sub-
surface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provid-
ing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained from the arsenic removal
treatment technology demonstration project at the Webb Consolidated Independent School District (Webb
CISD) in Bruni, TX. The main objective of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of AdEdge
Technologies' AD-33 media in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level
(MCL) of 10 ng/L. Additionally, this project evaluated 1) the reliability of the treatment system (Arsenic
Package Unit [APU]-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH), 2) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and
operator skills, and 3) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The project also characterized the
water in the distribution system and residuals produced by the treatment process. The types of data
collected include system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution
system), process residuals, and capital and O&M cost.
The treatment system consisted of two 42-in x 72-in carbon steel vessels in series configuration, each
containing approximately 22 ft3 of AD-33 pelletized media, which is an iron-based adsorptive media
developed by Bayer AG and marketed under the name of AD-33 by AdEdge Technologies. The
treatment system was designed for a peak flowrate of 40 gal/min (gpm) and an empty bed contact time
(EBCT) of approximately 4.1 min per vessel. Over the performance evaluation period, the actual average
flowrate was estimated at 40 gpm (although with quite a bit of fluctuation), based on readings of an hour
meter interlocked to the well pump and the electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer installed on each
adsorption vessel.
As part of the water treatment system, a pH adjustment/control system was used to adjust pH values of
raw water from as high as 8.3 to a target value of 7.0. A prechlorination system also was used to oxidize
As(III) to As(V) and maintain a target chlorine residual level of 1.2 mg/L (as C12) in the distribution
system. The pH adjustment/control system consisted of a carbon dioxide (CO2) supply assembly, an
automatic pH control panel, a CO2 membrane module (that injected CO2 into a CO2 loop), and an inline
pH probe. The prechlorination system, which was upgraded from the pre-existing system, included a
chemical feed pump, a sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) feed tank, and an inject port located downstream of
the CO2 loop and inline pH probe.
The treatment system began regular operation on December 8, 2005. The 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. Between December 8, 2005, and June 29, 2007, the treatment system treated
5,658,728 gal of water. Since then, a system operator was not available and therefore system
measurements were sporadic from June 30, 2007 through the end of the system performance evaluation
on May 15, 2008. Based on an average daily operating time of 4.2 hr/day and total number of operational
days (i.e., 889 days), the total amount of water treated was estimated at 8,841,000 gal. This estimated
volume throughput was equivalent to 27,000 bed volumes (BV) based on the 44 ft3 of media in both lead
and lag vessels.
Since system startup, the treatment system has experienced component failures associated with the pH
control system and flow meters/totalizers. Leaks were detected in the CO2 supply line; the proportional
flow control valve malfunctioned; and the inline pH probe failed. There were periods when the pH
control system was switched from automatic to manual mode until replacement of certain system
components were performed to address the problems encountered. In addition, errors were encountered
with the system flow meters/totalizers. On two occasions, the system totalizers reset and began totalizing
from zero, likely caused by a programming error. In the first few months of the performance evaluation
study, the issues with the pH control system were resolved and programming updates were prepared to
prevent future totalizer errors. On June 29, 2007, the licensed system operator working for Webb CISD
IV
-------
resigned, which impeded the data collection efforts for the remainder of the system performance
evaluation. Operational and water quality data provided by Webb CISD after June 29, 2007, were
collected by a temporary operator who was not formally trained on operating the system.
Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 46.0 to 68.7 |og/L. Soluble As(III) was the
predominating species, ranging from 31.3 to 42.0 |o,g/L. Chlorine effectively oxidized soluble As(III) to
soluble As(V), reducing soluble As(III) concentrations to an average value of 1.2 |og/L. At the end of the
performance evaluation study on May 15, 2008, total arsenic levels in the treated water were 45.4 and 5.2
Hg/L following the lead and lag adsorption vessels, respectively. Concentrations of phosphorus and
silica, which could interfere with arsenic adsorption by competing with arsenate for adsorption sites,
ranged from <10.0 to 13.7 mg/L (as P) and from 39.1 to 43.9 mg/L (as SiO2), respectively, in raw water.
Concentrations of iron, manganese, and other ions in raw water were not high enough to impact arsenic
removal by the media.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after operation of the system showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentration (from an average of 68.7 (ig/L to an average of 2.4 (ig/L).
The arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were similar to those in the system effluent. Lead
and copper concentrations appeared to have been affected to some extent by the operation of the treatment
system. However, the effects were not trendy, with the lead concentrations becoming mostly lower and
the copper concentrations becoming mostly higher after system startup.
The capital investment cost of $138,642 included $94,662 for equipment, $24,300 for site engineering,
and $19,680 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 40 gpm (or 57,600 gal/day [gpd]), the
capital cost was $3,466/gpm (or $2.41/gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $13,086/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at the
system design flowrate of 40 gpm to produce 21,024,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would
be $0.62/1,000 gal. Because the system operated an average of 4.2 hr/day at 40 gpm, producing an
estimated 3,679,200 gal of water annually, the unit capital cost increased to $3.56/1,000 gal at this
reduced rate of use.
The O&M cost included only the cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media replacement
and disposal, CO2 and chlorine usage, electricity consumption, and labor. Although media replacement
did not occur during the system performance evaluation, the media replacement cost would have
represented the majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to be $11,190 to change out one vessel
(including 22 ft3 AD-33 media and associated labor for media changeout and disposal).
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
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 Sample Collection 9
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection 9
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater/Solids and Spent Media Collection 9
3.3.4 Distribution System Water Sample Collection 9
3.4 Sampling Logistics 9
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 9
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 10
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 10
3.5 Analytical Procedures 10
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 11
4.1 Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure 11
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 11
4.1.2 Treated Water Quality 14
4.1.3 Distribution System 14
4.2 Treatment Process Description 15
4.3 System Installation 24
4.3.1 Permitting 24
4.3.2 Building Preparation 24
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 24
4.4 System Operation 26
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 26
4.4.2 Residual Management 30
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 30
4.5 System Performance 32
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 32
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling 39
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 39
4.6 System Cost 41
VI
-------
4.6.1 Capital Cost 41
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 42
5.0 REFERENCES 45
APPENDICES
Appendix A: OPERATIONAL DATA
Appendix B: ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Pre-existing Water Treatment Facility 11
Figure 4-2. Wellhead at Webb CISD 12
Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Chlorine Addition System 12
Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram forthe APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH System 17
Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedules and Locations 18
Figure 4-6. Process Diagram of CO2 pH Adjustment System and pH/PID Control Panel 20
Figure 4-7. Carbon Dioxide Gas Flow Control System for pH Adjustment 21
Figure 4-8. Chlorination Feed System 22
Figure 4-9. Adsorption System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration 23
Figure 4-10. Maintenance Shop Building 25
Figure 4-11. System Delivery to Site 25
Figure 4-12. System Instantaneous and Calculated Flowrates 28
Figure 4-13a. System Operational Pressure Readings 29
Figure 4-13b. Vessel A Operational Pressure Readings 29
Figure 4-13c. Vessel B Operational Pressure Readings 30
Figure 4-14. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AP, TA, and TB Sampling
Locations 36
Figure 4-15. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves 37
Figure 4-16. Silica (as SiO2) Breakthrough Curves 37
Figure 4-17. pH Values Across Treatment Train Versus Throughput 38
Figure 4-18. Media Replacement and Other Operation and Maintenance Cost 44
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 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 7
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedules and Analytes 8
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for Webb CISD, Bruni, TX 13
Table 4-2. TCEQ Treated Water Quality Data 14
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media 15
Table 4-4. Design Specifications for AdEdge APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH System 19
Table 4-5. Properties of Celgard®, X50-215 Microporous Hollow Fiber Membrane 21
Table 4-6. System Punch-List/Operational Issues 26
Table 4-7. Summary of APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH System Operation 27
vn
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese 33
Table 4-9. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results 34
Table 4-10. Distribution System Sampling Results 40
Table 4-11. Capital Investment Cost for APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH System 41
Table 4-12. Operation and Maintenance Cost for APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH System 43
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
AM adsorptive media
APU arsenic package unit
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
ATSI Applied Technology Systems, Inc.
BET Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
BV bed volume
Ca calcium
C/F coagulation/filtration process
CISD Consolidated Independent School District
Cl chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluorine
Fe iron
gpd gallons per day
gph gallons per hour
gpm gallons per minute
HOPE high-density polyethylene
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
hp horse power
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
ISFET Ion Sensitive Field Effect Transistor
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF NSF International
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
PID Proportional Integral Derivative
PLC programmable logic controller
PO4 phosphate
POU point of use
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO42" sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TCEQ
TCLP
TDS
U
V
voc
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
total dissolved solids
uranium
vanadium
volatile organic compound
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Webb Consolidated Independent School District
and to Mr. George Gonzales, who monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the
treatment and distribution systems throughout this study period. This performance evaluation would not
have been possible without his efforts.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (< 10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems 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 was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration program. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
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 Webb Consolidated Independent School District (CISD) in Bruni, TX was one of those
selected.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28. AdEdge Technologies (AdEdge), using the Bayoxide E33 (AD-33)
media developed by Bayer AG, was selected for demonstration at the Webb CISD site in April 2004.
As of April 2010, 39 of the 40 systems were operational, and the performance evaluation of 36 systems
was completed.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13
coagulation/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, 17 point-of-use (POU) units
(including nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and
eight AM units at the OIT site), and one process modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations,
technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including arsenic, iron,
and pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the
12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital cost is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et
al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA Web site at
http: //www. epa. gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 and Round 2 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 40 full-scale
arsenic treatment technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water
supplies. The specific objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the AdEdge system at the Webb CISD in Bruni, from
December 8, 2005, through May 15, 2008. The data collected included system operational data, water
quality data (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), and capital and preliminary
O&M cost data.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(ug/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
70(b)
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
270W
l,806(c)
1,312W
l,615(c)
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
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
340W
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14W
13W
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127w
466W
l,387(c)
l,499(c)
7827(c)
546W
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
l,344(c)
1,325W
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
56W
45
23W
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(ug/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)(g)
IX(ArsenexII)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM(HIX)
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; HTX = 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 program in June 2006.
(e) Replaced Village of Lyman, NE site which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(f) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gal/min (gpm), Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Arnaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(g) Including nine residential units.
(h) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
AdEdge's APU-50-LL-CS-S-AVH treatment system with AD-33 pelletized media was installed and has
operated at the Webb CISD site in Bruni, TX since December 8, 2005. Based on the information
collected during the system evaluation period, the following summary and conclusion statements are
provided.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• Chlorine was effective in oxidizing soluble As(III) to soluble As(V). Analytical data
confirmed that average soluble As(III) concentrations decreased from 37.5 |o,g/L in raw water
to 1.2 ng/L after chlorination and that average As(V) concentrations increased
correspondingly from 15.0 |o,g/L in raw water to 51.7 |og/L after chlorination. Because very
little iron was present in raw water, little or no particulate arsenic was produced upon
chlorination.
• AD-33 media effectively lowered arsenic concentrations to 5.2 |o,g/L at the end of the
performance evaluation study. The volume throughput was estimated at 27,000 bed volumes
(BV), based on 44 ft3 of media in both lead and lag vessels.
• The operation of the treatment system significantly lowered arsenic concentrations in the
distribution system (i.e., from 68.7 to 2.4 (ig/L, on average). The treatment system did not
appear to have impacted lead or copper concentrations in the distribution system.
Required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• The daily demand on the operator was typically 20 min to visually inspect the system and
record operational parameters, although additional time and effort was required to
troubleshoot the problems associated with the CO2 system.
• Some operational problems related to the CO2 gas flow control system were
encountered during the system operation. Primary problems included a faulty
proportioning valve and failure of the inline pH probe. A reoccurring problem
unrelated to the pH adjustment system was associated with the electromagnetic water
flow meters/totalizers, which randomly reset to zero.
• Operation of the system did not appear to require additional skills beyond those
necessary to operate the existing water supply equipment, with the exception of the
CO2 and pH control portion of the system. The CO2 system required additional
operator training and safety awareness.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• The pressure differential (Ap) measured across the media vessels during the system operation
did not require a backwash. Therefore, no backwash residuals were produced. The average
pressure drop was 13.9 psi through June 27, 2007.
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
• Based on the system's rated capacity of 40 gpm (or 57,600 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost
was $3,466/gpm (or $2.41/gpd) of design capacity.
• Media replacement and disposal did not occur during system performance
evaluation; however, the cost to change out one vessel (22 ft3 AD-33 media) was
estimated to be $ 11,190, which included the replacement media, spent media
disposal, shipping, labor, and travel.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study
of the AdEdge treatment system began on December 8, 2005 and ended on May 15, 2008. Table 3-2
summarizes the types of data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The
overall performance of the system was determined based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to
below the arsenic MCL of 10 (ig/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment plant, as
described in the Study Plan (Battelle, 2005). The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the
unscheduled system downtime and the frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The unscheduled
downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a Repair and Maintenance Log
Sheet.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Plans Submitted to TCEQ
System Permit Issued by TCEQ
APU System Shipped and Arrived
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Final Study Plan Issued
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
November 15, 2004
February 17, 2005
February 23, 2005
March 24, 2005
March 14, 2005
April 1, 2005
April 18, 2005
June 8, 2005
August 3 1,2005
October 13, 2005
November 19, 2005
November 19, 2005
November 30, 2005
December 8, 2005
TECQ = Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data
and qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system
automation, extent of preventive maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and
inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and safety
practices. The staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour
Log Sheet.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This requires tracking of the capital cost for equipment, site
engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, CO2 and
chlorine consumption, electrical power usage, and labor. Data on Webb CISD's O&M cost were limited
to CO2 and chlorine consumption, electricity usage, and labor because media replacement did not take
place during the system performance evaluation.
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and
Operator Skill
Requirements
Residual Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 ug/L of arsenic MCL 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 system automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed of relevant chemical processes and health and safety
practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by system
process
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for media replacement, electricity usage, and labor
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, biweekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a Daily System
Operation Log Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any
problem occurred, the plant operator would contact the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor
should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information, including
the problem encountered, course of action taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and
labor incurred on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. Every other week, the plant operator measured
pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and recorded the data
on an Onsite Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet. The Webb CISD operator resigned during the system
performance evaluation; thus, there is no operational and water quality data after June 29, 2007.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and
labor. CO2 and chlorine consumption was tracked through daily measurements and recorded on Daily
System Operation Log Sheets. Electricity consumption was tracked through the onsite electric meter.
Labor for various activities, such as routine system O&M, system troubleshooting and repair, and
demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine O&M
included activities such as completing field logs, replenishing chemical solutions, ordering supplies,
performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the vendor. The demonstration-related
work, including activities such as performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and
communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and vendor, was recorded but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the performance of the system, samples were collected from the wellhead, across the
treatment plant, from the backwash discharge line, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedules and Analytes
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Water
Sampling
Locations'3'
At Wellhead (IN)
At Wellhead (IN),
after pH
Adjustment (AP),
after Lead Vessel
(TA), and after
Lag Vessel (TB)
Three LCR
Locations Within
School
Backwash
Discharge Line
from Each Vessel
No. of
Sampling
Locations
1
4
4
4
3
2
Frequency
Once during
initial site
visit
First week
of each four-
week cycle
Third week
of each four-
week cycle
Monthlylc)
Monthly(d)
Monthly or
as needed
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NO3,
NO2, NH3, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, turbidity, alkalinity,
TDS, and TOC
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free
and total)03'
Off site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, P, turbidity, and
alkalinity
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free
and total)03'
Offsite: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), SiO2,
P, turbidity, and
alkalinity
Onsite: NA
Offsite: As (total and
soluble)"1, As(III), As(V),
SiO2, and/or P
pH, alkalinity, As, Fe,
Mn, Pb, and Cu
pH, TDS, TSS,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
and Mn (total and
soluble)
Sampling
Date
11/15/04
12/08/05, 01/05/06,
02/01/06, 03/14/06,
04/11/06,05/09/06,
06/06/06,07/11/06,
08/02/06, 08/30/06,
09/28/06, 10/31/06,
11/28/06, 12/12/06,
01/22/07
12/13/05, 01/17/06,
02/15/06, 02/28/06,
03/28/06, 04/25/06,
05/23/06,
06/20/06, 07/19/06,
08/16/06, 09/15/06,
10/11/06, 11/08/06
02/13/07, 03/13/07,
04/17/07, 05/09/07,
06/05/07, 09/20/07,
02/21/08, 04/16/08,
05/15/08
Baseline and
monthly sampling:
See Table 4-10
NA
(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-5.
(b) Except at IN location.
(c) Only As (total) analyzed from 09/20/07 to 05/15/08.
(d) Four baseline sampling events performed from June to September 2005 before system became operational.
LCR = Lead and Copper Rule; NA = not applicable.
-------
the sampling schedule and analytes measured during each sampling event. Specific sampling
requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are
presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2004).
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection. During the initial visit to the site on November 15, 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. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in
Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection. During the system performance evaluation
study, biweekly water samples were collected across the treatment train by the plant operator for onsite
and offsite analyses. Except for a few exceptions, samples were collected during the first week of each
four-week cycle at the wellhead (IN), after pH adjustment and chlorination (AP), after the lead adsorption
vessel (TA), and after the lag adsorption vessel (TB) and analyzed for the analytes listed on Table 3-3.
During the third week of the four-week cycle, samples were taken from the same four locations and
analyzed for the analyte list shown on Table 3-3. Beginning on Feburary 13, 2007, samples were
collected from the same four locations on a monthly basis and analyzed for the analytes shown on
Table 3-3.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater/Solids and Spent Media Collection. Because the system did not
require backwash during the system performance evaluation, no backwash residuals were produced.
Further, because media replacement did not take place, there were no spent media samples collected.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water Sample Collection. Samples were collected from the
distribution system by the plant operator to determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the
water chemistry in the distribution system, specifically the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. From June to
September 2005, prior to the startup of the treatment system, four baseline distribution sampling events
were conducted at three locations within the distribution system. Following startup of the arsenic
adsorption system, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations.
The three locations selected were sample taps within the Webb CISD that had been included in the Lead
and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling in the past. The baseline and monthly distribution system samples
were collected following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring
and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The date and time of last water use
before sampling and the date and time of sample collection were recorded for calculation 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. Analytes for the baseline samples coincided with the monthly
distribution system water samples as described in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not performed for
the distribution system water samples.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including preparation of arsenic speciation kits and sample coolers, and sample
shipping and handling are discussed as follows:
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
-------
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, color-coded, and waterproof label, consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of
sample collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative.
The sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter
code for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code for designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. For
example, red, orange, yellow, and blue were used to designate sampling locations for IN, AP, TA, and
TB, respectively. The prelabeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate zip-lock bags
and packed in the cooler.
When appropriate, the sample cooler was packed with bottles for the three distribution system sampling
locations. In addition, all sampling and shipping-related materials, such as latex gloves, sampling
instructions, chain-of-custody forms, prepaid FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included. Except for
the operator's signature, the chain-of-custody forms and prepaid FedEx air bills had already been
completed with the required information. The sample coolers were shipped via FedEx to the facility
approximately 1 week prior to the scheduled sampling date.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-
MS) Laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up
by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and TCCI Laboratories in
Lexington, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration study. The chain-
of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final
disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the
required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004)
were followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality assuarnce/quality
control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision,
accuracy, method detection limits (MDLs), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP
(i.e., relative percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80% to 120%, and completeness of
80%). The QA data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary
Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
VWR Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use
following the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy
by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator
collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Symphony SP90M5 probe in the beaker
until a stable value was obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements
using Hach chlorine test kits following the user's manual.
10
-------
4.1
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure
Located at 619 Avenue F in Bruni, Texas, the Webb CISD water system supplies water to approximately
230 students and staff members during the academic year. Figure 4-1 shows the pre-existing water
treatment facility. The water system was served by a single well that is 7-in in diameter and
approximately 345 ft deep. The supply well, shown in Figure 4-2, was equipped with a 5-horsepower
(hp), 15-in submersible pump rated for 40 gpm at 300 ft H2O or 130 lb/in2 (psi). The pre-existing system
typically operated for 6 to 8 hr/day, with an average daily demand of 10,000 gpd and an estimated peak
daily demand of 15,000 gpd. The pre-existing treatment included only chlorination with a 10% sodium
hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution to reach a target residual level of 1.2 mg/L (as C12). Figure 4-3 shows the
chlorine addition system at the site. Following chlorination, the treated water was stored in a 15,000-gal
storage tank located in a fenced area in the immediate vicinity of the well and chlorine addition system.
Figure 4-1. Pre-existing Water Treatment Facility
(from Left to Right: Wellhead in front of White Storage Shed, Chlorine Addition
System in Black Rectangular Box, and White Storage Tank for Treated Water)
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected and speciated on November
15, 2004, for onsite and offsite analyses. The results are presented in Table 4-1 and compared to those
taken by the facility for the EPA demonstration site selection.
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 55.6 to 59 |og/L. Based on Battelle's
speciation results, out of 55.2 pg/L of soluble arsenic, 19.6 |o,g/L existed as As(V) and 35.6 |o,g/L as
As(III). Therefore, pre-oxidation of As(III) to As(V) prior to adsorption was required.
11
-------
Figure 4-2. Wellhead at Webb CISD
Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Chlorine Addition System
12
-------
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for Webb CISD, Bruni, TX
Parameter
Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
As(total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
W?/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
^g/L
^g/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Raw Water
Facility
Data00
-
8.1
NA
NA
NA
323
24.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
188
NA
104
NA
NA
59.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
27
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
301
7
2
Battelle
Data
11/15/04
8.0
25.3
1.5
-122
325
23.5
0.7
1,060
0.9
0.04
0.01
0.05
130
1.0
98.0
42.3
0.06
55.6
55.2
0.4
35.6
19.6
<25
<25
4.5
4.3
10.6
10.2
4.4
4.4
333
6.1
2.0
Treated Water
TCEQ
Data
01/12/98-10/26/04
6.8-8.2
NA
NA
NA
232-297
25.0-27.2
NA
781-795
NA
0.3-1.2
0.01
NA
180-229
0.7-0.8
97.4-113
NA
NA
75.9-104
NA
NA
NA
NA
10-51
NA
1-8
NA
<25
NA
NA
NA
272-293
7.1-8.0
1.0-2.3
(a) Provided by facility to EPA for demonstration site selection.
TCEQ = Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
NA = not analyzed
Iron. Iron concentrations in source water were low, typically less than its detection limit of 25 |ag/L. In
general, adsorptive media technologies are best suited to sites with relatively low iron levels (e.g., less
than 300 |ag/L of iron, which is the secondary maximum contaminant level [SMCL] for iron). With
concentrations greater than 300 |ag/L, taste, odor, and color problems can occur in the treated water, along
with an increased potential for fouling of the adsorption system components with iron particulates.
pH. pH values of raw water were between 8.0 and 8.1. At pH values greater than 8.0 to 8.5, the AM
vendor recommends that the pH values be lowered to enhance the adsorptive capacity of the media. The
13
-------
treatment process for the Webb CISD site included a CO2 injection and pH monitoring and control
module prior to arsenic adsorption. The target pH level after pH adjustment was 7.0.
Competing Anions. Arsenic adsorption can be influenced by the presence of competing anions such as
silica and phosphate. Analysis of source water indicated silica levels at 42.3 mg/L and orthophosphate
levels less than its detection limit (i.e., <0.06 mg/L). The effect of silica on arsenic adsorption was
monitored closely during the demonstration study.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Other water quality parameters in source water were below their
respective primary MCLs, including nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia. Also, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and
manganese were below their respective SMCLs. Total dissolved solids (TDS) were measured at 1,060
mg/L, which is above the SMCL of 500 mg/L.
4.1.2 Treated Water Quality. In addition to the source water quality data, Table 4-1 also presents
historic treated water quality data collected by TCEQ from January 1998 through October 2004. These
treated water quality data were similar to the source water quality data provided by the facility and
collected by Battelle. Total arsenic concentrations of the treated water were slightly higher and ranged
from 75.9 to 104 ug/L. No arsenic speciation data were available for the water following chlorination.
pH values ranged from 6.8 to 8.2. Additional analytes including several metals and radionuclides are
summarized in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. TCEQ Treated Water Quality Data
Parameter
Date
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Radium 226
Tritium
Unit
HB/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
TCEQ Data
01/12/98-10/26/04
1-4
39.7-40
<1
0.2-1.2
<10
2.2-7.7
1-12
0.4
1-20
8.5-12.7
1-10
<1
<4-20
26.2-28.3(a)
11.8-12.5
<1
500
(a) over!5pCi/LMCL
4.1.3 Distribution System. The distribution system was constructed primarily of polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) piping and some galvanized piping. The piping within the building was copper. The
distribution system was supplied directly from the 15,000-gal storage tank. The three locations selected
for distribution sampling included one location each in the middle school, high school, and cafeteria.
These locations represented the distribution system sampling and also were part of the school's historic
14
-------
LCR sampling network. The school also sampled for coliform once a month and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), inorganics, nitrate, and radionuclides as directed by the TCEQ, typically once every
two to three years.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The AdEdge arsenic package unit (APU) is a fixed-bed, down-flow adsorption system used for small
water systems in the flow range of 5 to 100 gpm. The system uses Bayoxide E33 media (branded as AD-
33 by AdEdge), an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG, for the removal of arsenic from
drinking water supplies. Table 4-3 presents physical and chemical properties of the media. AD-33 media
is delivered in a dry crystalline form and listed by NSF International (NSF) under Standard 61 for use in
drinking water applications. The media exist in both granular and pelletized forms, which have similar
physical and chemical properties, except that pellets are denser than granules (i.e., 35 lb/ft3 vs. 28 lb/ft3).
For the Webb CISD site, pellets were selected for use.
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media0
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
BET Area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle size distribution (U.S. Standard mesh)
Crystal Size (A)
Crystal Phase
Value
Iron oxide composite
Dry pellets
Amber
35
142
0.3
<15 (by weight)
10 x35
70
a -FeOOH
Chemical Analysis
Constituents
FeOOH
CaO
MgO
MnO
SO3
Na2O
TiO2
SiO2
A1203
P205
Cl
Weight (%)
90.1
0.27
1.00
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.01
(a) Provided by AdEdge
BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
For series operation, when the media in the lead vessel completely exhausts its capacity and/or when the
effluent from the lag vessel reaches 10 (ig/L of arsenic, the spent media in the lead vessel is removed and
disposed of as a non-hazardous waste if it passes the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
test. The media life depends upon the arsenic concentration, the empty bed contact time (EBCT), the
mode or variability of operation (on/off), pH, and concentrations of competing ions in source water.
15
-------
After rebedding, the lead vessel is switched to the lag position and the lag vessel is switched to the lead
position. In general, the series operation better utilizes the media capacity when compared to the parallel
operation because the media in the lead vessel may be allowed to exhaust completely prior to change-out.
During the system performance evaluation, the need for media replacement was never required. At the
end of the performance evaluation study, the arsenic concentrations in the lead and lag vessels were 45.4
(ig/L and 5.2 (ig/L, respectively.
The arsenic treatment system at the Webb CISD site (specifically referred to as the APU-50LL-CS-S-2-
AVH system) consisted of two vessels (i.e., A and B), operating in series. The piping and valve
configuration of the pressure vessels allowed electrically actuated butterfly valves to divert raw water
flow into either Vessel A or Vessel B depending on which was operating as the lead vessel. A simplified
process flow diagram of the treatment system is shown in Figure 4-4. The system was located in the
maintenance building, which provided sufficient space available to house the system. Figure 4-5 is a
generalized process flow sampling diagram of the system that illustrates sampling locations and
parameters analyzed during the demonstration study. Table 4-4 presents key system design parameters.
The key process steps and major components of the water treatment system include:
• Intake. Raw water was pumped from the supply well and fed to the treatment system.
• pH adjustment. pH values of raw water were lowered to a target pH value of 7.0 using CO2,
which was selected for pH adjustment because 1) CO2 is less corrosive than mineral acids,
such as H2SO4, and 2) when the treated water depressurized after exiting the adsorption
vessels, some CO2 may degas, thereby raising pH values of the treated water and reducing its
corrosivity to the distribution piping.
A Carbon Dioxide Gas Flow Control System manufactured by Applied Technology Systems,
Inc. (ATSI) in Souderton, PA was used for pH adjustment. Figure 4-6 presents a process
diagram of the system, which was designed to introduce gaseous CO2into water in a side-
stream configuration, or a CO2 loop. The system, illustrated in Figure 4-7 as a composite of
photographs, consisted of a liquid CO2 supply assembly, an automatic pH control panel, a
CO2 membrane assembly, and a pH probe located downstream of the membrane module:
o Liquid CO2 in two 50-lb cylinders vaporized into gaseous CO2 via a feed vaporizer prior
to entering the pH control panel.
o As the CO2 gas flowed to the pH control panel, the gas flowrate was automatically
controlled and adjusted by a JUMO pH/Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller
and an Alicat mass flowmeter (Figure 4-6) to reach a desired pH setpoint. As an
alternative, manual regulation of the gas flowrate could also be achieved via the use of a
three-way ball valve and a rotameter. Further, a solenoid valve interlocked with the well
pump allowed gas to flow only when the well pump was turned on.
o After flowing out of the control panel, CO2 was injected into water through a Celgard®
microporous hollow fiber membrane module housed in a 1.5-in stainless steel sanitary
cross. Table 4-5 lists the properties and specifications of the hollow fiber membrane
module. The sanitary cross was located in a side stream from the main water line to
allow only a portion of water to flow through the membrane module to minimize the
pressure drop. The membrane introduced CO2 gas into the water at a near molecular
level for rapid mixing/reaction with water to achieve a quick pH response/change.
16
-------
Process Flow Diagram
AdEdge Arsenic Reduction System
Model APU50LL-CS-2-AVH
Reversible Lead/Lag Configuration
Webb Consolidated School
Bruni, Texas
(Series Operation: Vessel A
shown as Lead Vessel)
Pre-chlorination and
CO2 pH adjustment
feed points
New tie in
from Well #3
Sample valve
BV-112B
Skid Battery
Limits
To temp
storage
and
recycle
Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram for APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH System
-------
1 st Week of 4-week Cycle
pHW, temperatunP,
DO/ORPa), As (total and
soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble),-*- -
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NQ SO4, SiQ, P,
turbidity, alkalinity
pFfa), temperature"',
DO/ORPa), C12 (free and total),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble)^- -
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
F, NQ, SO4, SiQ, P,
turbidity, alkalinity
INFLUENT
pH ADJUSTMENT -
CO2 INJECTION
DA: C12
BACKWASH
STORAGE
pH, TDS, TSS,
As (total and soluble)
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble)
pFf^, temperature"',
DO/ORPa), C12 (free and total),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble)^-
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
F, NQ, SO
pH00, temperature"',
DO/ORP"', C12 (free and total),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble)^- -
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
F, NQ, SO,, SiQ, P,
turbidity, alkalinity
1ATMK
(12,000 GAL)
(ss)--**TCLP
ore*,
otal),
(HI),
, Mg,
\,f,
linity
--(B
V.
AM /
•LL
f
STORAGE TANK
(15,000 GAL)
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
Bruni, TX
AD 33 Technology
Design Flow: 40 gpm
3rd Week of 4-week Cycle
pH(a), temperature8',
• - •*• DO/ORP"', As, Fe, Mn,
SiQ, P, turbidity, alkalinity
pH(a), temperature"', DO/ORP"',
• C12 (free and total), As, Fejvln,
SiQ, P, turbidity, alkalinity
pH(a), temperature'*, DO/ORPa),
• C12 (free and total), As, Fejvln,
SiQ, P, turbidity, alkalinity
LEGEND
Influent
After pH Adjustment
and Chlorination
Vessel A Effluent
Vessel B Effluent
BW } Backwash Sampling Location
SS ) Sludge Sampling Location
Chlorine Disinfection
Process Flow
Backwash Flow
pH(a), temperatur^, DO/ORPa),
• C12 (free and total), As, FeJVIn,
SiQ, P, turbidity, alkalinity
Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedules and Locations
18
-------
Table 4-4. Design Specifications for AdEdge APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pre-treatment
Target pH Value after Adjustment (S.U.)
Target Chlorine Residual (as C12)
7.0
1.2
Using CO2
Using NaCIO
Adsorption Vessels
Vessel Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/vessel)
Number of Vessels
Configuration
42 D x 72 H
9.6
2
Series
-
-
-
-
AD-33 Adsorption Media
Media Bed Depth (in)
Media Quantity (Ib)
Media Volume (ft3)
Media Type
27.5
1,540
44
AD-33
770 Ib/vessel
22 ftVvessel
In pelletized form
Service
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (mm/vessel)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Throughput to Breakthrough (gal)
Average Use Rate (gal/day)
Estimated Media Life (months)
40
4.2
4.1
46,900
7,725,000
12,000
21.5
-
-
Based on flowrate of 40 gpm per vessel (8.2
min total EBCT for both lead and lag vessels)
Bed volumes to 10 ug/L total arsenic
breakthrough from lag vessel based on vendor
estimate
1 BV = 22 ft" = 164 gal
Based on 5 hr/day operation at 40 gpm
Estimated frequency of media change-out from
lead vessel based on 12,000 gal/day use rate
Backwash
Pressure Differential Set Point (psi)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Frequency (month/backwash)
Backwash Duration (min/vessel)
Service-to-Waste Fast Rinse Flowrate (gpm)
Fast Rinse Duration (min/vessel)
Wastewater Production (gal/vessel)
10
90
9.4
3-4
20
90
1-4
1,890-2,160
-
-
-
Actual backwash frequency to be determined
-
-
-
-
o Located downstream from the sanitary cross, a Sentron Ion Sensitive Field Effect
Transistor (ISFET) type silicon chip sanitary pH probe with automatic temperature
compensation continuously monitored pH levels of the treated water and sent signals
back to the pFI/PID controller for pH control.
o Throughout the study, the CO2 pH control system supplied CO2 at approximately 14.2
ft3/hr, using about 6.6 Ib/day (based on a gas density of 0.117 Ib/ft3 and an average
operating time of 4.0 hr/day). The CO2 gas supplied from two 50-lb cylinders provided
CO2 for about 7.5 days before requiring change-out.
19
-------
ATSI CO,pH Control
Panel (ATSI)
9' Cable
Source: Applied Technology Systems, Inc. (ATSI)
20 Ib or SOIb
Cylinders for
Gas Supply
-1.5" Dia. PVC Housed
Membrane w/
1" MNPT Connection
on each end for water
0-100psig
Pressure Gage
Water
Pump
/
TibeCciiecnoii I
U ->
1^
X
~[ 1
'
^L
Sentron pH
' Probe
J
o-H •. ,„,. „ , , ~,™ Distance to pH probe
Flow Control Valve
(Distance 10')
Horn
Power In
pH Cable
4-20 mAmp
Signal to
Control
Module
Figure 4-6. Process Diagram of CO2 pH Adjustment System (top) and pH/PID
Control Panel (bottom)
20
-------
Figure 4-7. Carbon Dioxide Gas Flow Control System for pH Adjustment
(Clockwise from Top Left: Liquid CO2 Supply Assembly;
Automatic pH Control Panel; CO 2 Membrane Module; Port for pH Probe)
Table 4-5. Properties of Celgard®, X50-215 Microporous
Hollow Fiber Membrane
Parameter
Porosity (%)
Pore Dimensions (urn)
Effective Pore Size (um)
Minimum Burst Strength (psi)
Tensile Break Strength (g/filament)
Average Resistance to Air Flow (Gurley sec)
Axial Direction Shrinkage (%)
Fiber Internal Diameter, nominal (um)
Fiber Wall Thickness, nominal (um)
Fiber Outer Diameter, nominal (um)
Module Dimensions (in)
Value
40
0.04 xQ.10
0.04
400
>300
50
<5
220
40
300
1.5 x3.0
Data Source: Celgard
21
-------
Prechlorination. The existing chlorination system, as shown in Figure 4-3, was upgraded
and installed inside the maintenance building along with the APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH
system. Chlorine oxidizes As(III) to As(V) prior to the adsorption vessels and provides a
target residual of 1.2 mg/L (as C12) for disinfection in the distribution system. The chlorine
feed system, illustrated in Figure 4-8, included a solenoid-driven, diaphragm-type metering
pump with a capacity range of 0.19 to 8.4 gal/hr (gph), a 50-gal high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) chemical feed tank to store the 10% NaCIO solution, and a chlorine injection port.
Chlorine was injected into the raw water line following the CO2 injection and pH probe, but
prior to the AP sampling location. Operation of the chlorine feed system was linked to the
well pump so that chlorine was injected only when the well was on. Chlorine consumption
was measured using volumetric markings on the outside of the feed tank.
Figure 4-8. Chlorination Feed System
(Clockwise from Top Left: Chlorine Metering Pump;
HDPE Chemical Feed Tank with Secondary Containment; Chlorine Injection Port)
Adsorption. The AdEdge APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH system consisted of two 42-in x 72-in
pressure vessels configured in series, each containing 22 ft3 of AD-33 media. The vessels
were carbon steel construction, skid mounted, and rated for 100-psi working pressure. EBCT
for the system was 4.1 min in each vessel. The hydraulic loading rate to each vessel was
approximately 4.2 gpm/ft2, based on the design flowrate of 40 gpm.
Each pressure vessel was interconnected with schedule 80 PVC piping and five electrically
actuated butterfly valves, which make up the valve tree shown in Figure 4-9. In addition to
the 10 butterfly valves, the system had two manual diaphragm valves on the backwash line
22
-------
and six isolation ball valves to divert raw water flow into either vessel, which reversed the
lead/lag vessel configuration. Each valve operated independently and the butterfly valves
were controlled by a Square D Telemechanique programmable logic controller (PLC) with a
Magelis G2220 color touch interface screen.
Figure 4-9. Adsorption System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration
• Backwash. The vendor recommended that the APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH system be
backwashed, either manually or automatically, on a regular basis to remove particulates and
media fines that accumulate in the media beds. Automatic backwash can be initiated by
either timer or Ap across the vessels. During the backwash cycle, each vessel is backwashed
individually, while the second vessel remains off-line. Backwash is performed upflow at a
flowrate of 90 gpm to achieve a hydraulic loading rate of about 9.3 gpm/ft2. Because the
incoming flowrate from the supply well is insufficient to provide the necessary flow for
backwash, supplemental water is supplied from the treated water storage tank to the head of
the system. Each backwash cycle is set to last for about 20 min/vessel of backwash followed
by 1 to 4 min/vessel of service-to-waste fast rinse, generating a combined total of
approximately 1,890 to 2,160 gal/vessel of wastewater.
The backwash water produced is pumped to a 12,000-gal fiberglass backwash storage tank
located adjacent to the treated water storage tank (see Figure 4-1). Water from the backwash
storage tank is sent to an onsite wastewater plant and then to a series of four stabilization
ponds, which provide approximately 120 days of storage capacity. If the storage capacity of
the stabilization ponds is exceeded, the discharge goes to a normally dry streambed, where it
ultimately evaporates or percolates into the ground.
23
-------
Due to minimal pressure drop across the vessels throughout the study, system backwash was
not performed throughout the performance evaluation study. The pressure drop and the
arsenic concentrations across the vessels were monitored regularly.
• Media Replacement. Based on the analytical results from the final sampling event, total
arsenic concentrations in the treated water were 45.4 and 5.2 |o,g/L following Tanks A and B,
respectively. The total arsenic concentration from the lag vessel did not exceed the MCL of
10 ng/L; therefore, the media in the lead vessel was not replaced during the study period.
Based on the estimate provided by the vendor, breakthrough of arsenic was expected after
about 46,900 BV of water treated or about 21.5 months of system operation, assuming an
average use rate of 5 hr/day operation at 40 gpm.
4.3 System Installation
The installation of the APU system was completed by AdEdge on November 19, 2005. The following
briefly summarizes some of the predemonstration activities, including permitting, building preparation,
and system offloading, installation, shakedown, and startup.
4.3.1 Permitting. An exception submittal package was submitted to TCEQ by Webb CISD on
April 18, 2005, requesting an exception to use data from an alternative site in lieu of conducting an onsite
pilot study as required under Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (30 TAG) §290.42(g). The exception
submittal included a written description of the treatment technology along with a schematic of the system
and relevant pilot- and full-scale data. In addition, a permit application submittal package including a
process flow diagram of the treatment system, mechanical drawings of the treatment equipment, and a
schematic of the building footprint and equipment layout also was submitted to TCEQ for permit
approval on April 18, 2005. TCEQ requested supplemental information, in a response letter dated June 3,
2005, to complete its review of the request. In response, supplementary data were provided by the vendor
on July 14, 2005, Battelle on August 22, 2005, and Southwest Engineers, Inc. on August 29, 2005. Based
on a review of the submitted data (which included revised engineering plans and specifications, dated
August 19, 2005) and discussions with the vendor, Battelle, and EPA, TCEQ granted an exception request
and approval to construct the arsenic removal treatment system on August 31, 2005.
4.3.2 Building Preparation. The existing maintenance shop building as shown in Figure 4-10 had
adequate space to house the planned arsenic treatment system. The maintenance building is a single-story
metal structure with concrete flooring. Additional preparation required the installation of a lockable wire
cage enclosure around the treatment system.
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The treatment system arrived onsite on October 13,
2005. Figure 4-11 shows a photograph of the system arriving at the site. AdEdge and ATSI were onsite
for the system installation during the week of November 14, 2005. ATSI performed the installation and
shakedown of the carbon dioxide gas flow control system for pH adjustment. Meanwhile, AdEdge and
the local operator performed the arsenic treatment system installation and shakedown work, which
included hydraulic testing, media loading (by hand), and media backwash. The system officially went
online and was put into regular service on December 7, 2005. Battelle was onsite on December 8 and 9,
2005, to inspect the system and provide training to the operator for sampling and data collection. As a
result of the system inspections, a punch-list of items was identified, some of which were quickly
resolved and did not affect system operations or data collection, although several problems related to the
pH adjustment system and the media vessel flow meters surfaced throughout the system performance
evaluation. Table 4-6 summarizes the items identified and corrective actions taken. In addition, these
problems are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.3.
24
-------
Figure 4-10. Maintenance Shop Building
Figure 4-11. System Delivery to Site
25
-------
Table 4-6. System Punch-List/Operational Issues
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Punch-List/
Operational Issues
Well pump hour meter not provided
Leak in CO2 supply system
Flow totalizer for Vessels A and B
reset to zero
Inline pH probe reporting pH >8
Malfunctioning proportioning valve
restricted CO2 injection
Inline pH probe not reporting pH
reading
Flow totalizer for Vessels A and B
reset to zero
Corrective Action(s) Taken
• Installed hour meter for well pump
• Checked and tightened all connections
and fittings
• Vendor notified
• No corrective action taken
• Flushed pH probe by -pass line and
increased flowrate through by -pass line
• Replaced proportioning valve
• Replaced pH probe
• Vendor notified
• Problem due to a programming error; a
flash memory card with necessary
programming updates provided by
vendor
Resolution
Date
01/09/06
01/11/06
01/12/06
03/13/06
04/24/06
05/30/06
02/22/06
05/23/06
06/15/06
4.4
TBD = to be determined
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the system performance
evaluation were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-7.
From December 8, 2005, through May 15, 2008, the system operated for a total of 3,725 hr. Due to lack
of a well pump hour meter from system startup through January 9, 2006 and due to the departure of the
Webb CISD APU system operator from June 29, 2007 through the end of the performance evaluation
study, no daily operating time was recorded during these time intervals. (Other operational data were not
collected either since June 29, 2007.) Because the well and the system operated for 2,246 hr in 536 days
from January 10, 2006, through June 29, 2007 (or 4.19 hr/day), the total operating time throughout the
entire study period was estimated by multiplying the daily average of 4.19 hr/day by the total number of
days, i.e., 889 days.
Due to the fact that the system supplied water to Webb CISD (a school), the daily operation times and
throughput values during the weekends and summer breaks were anticipated to be low. However,
investigation of time and throughput during these times did not reveal reductions. On the contrary, daily
operating time and throughput measurements increased significantly during the summer months.
Increased time and throughput during the summer months were caused by summer irrigation.
From December 8, 2005, through June 29, 2007, the amount of water treated by the system was 5,658,728
gal (or 9,945 gals/day). The system ran for 889 days during the performance evaluation study; the
estimated throughput through May 15, 2008 was 8,841,000 gal, or 27,000 BV (1 BV = 44 ft3 of media in
both lead and lag vessels).
26
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH System Operation
Operational Parameter
Duration
Cumulative Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Throughput (gal)
Throughput (BV)(b)
Average (Range) of Calculated Flowrate (gpm)
Average (Range) of EBCT per Vessel (min)(d)
Average (Range) of EBCT for System (min)
Average (Range) of System Inlet Pressure (psi)
Average (Range) of System Outlet Pressure (psi)
Average (Range) of Ap across System (psi)
Average (Range) of Ap across Vessel A (psi)
Average (Range) of Ap across Vessel B (psi)
Actual
12/08/05-06/29/09
2,246(a)
4.19
5,658,728
17,200
Vessel A
40.4 (5-92)(a'c)
Vessel B
40.0 (6-88)(a'c)
Vessel A
4.1 (1.8-32.9)
Vessel B
4.1(1.9-27.4)
8.2
42.0 (32-64)
28.6 (16-54)
13.9 (2-22)
5.7 (1-9)
5.3 (0-8)
Estimated
12/08/05-05/15/08
3,725
4.19
8,841,100
27,000
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(a) From January 10, 2006, through June 29, 2007.
(b) Calculated based on 44 ft3 of media in one vessel.
(c) Not including two outliers on January 29 and 30,
(d) Calculated based on 22 ft3 of media in one vessel.
2007.
Flowrates of the system were tracked by instantaneous flowrate readings from the electromagnetic flow
meter/totalizer on each adsorption vessel, and calculated flowrate values based on hour meter and flow
totalizer readings from the same electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers and a pre-existing positive
displacement type master totalizer installed at the wellhead. As shown in Figure 4-12, the instantaneous
readings for Vessels A and B, denoted by "•" and "A," respectively, were significantly higher than the
corresponding calculated values, denoted by " " and " ," respectively, with an average value of 51 gpm
for the instantaneous readings and 42 gpm for the calculated values. In addition, the calculated values
based on the electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers were significantly higher than those based on the
master totalizer (denoted by "*" in the figure). Although the results produced by the master totalizer were
closer to the design flowrate of 40 gpm, the calculated values by the electromagnetic flow meters/
totalizers were used as system flowrates. This was based on the belief that readings from the
factory-calibrated electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers were more reliable than those from the master
totalizer, for which little information was available regarding its accuracy and installation specifications.
Therefore, for performance evaluation purposes, the data produced by the electromagnetic flow
meter/totalizer on the lag vessel were used to determine system flowrates and total volume treated.
Figure 4-12 also identifies flowrate data that were not consistent with normal operations and caused by an
unintentional resetting of the electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers on two separate occasions. Detailed
discussions regarding the resetting of the totalizers are provided in Section 4.4.3.
27
-------
100
90
80
70
-Totalizer Average Flowrate
-Vessel A (Lead) Instantaneous Flowrate
-Vessel A (Lead) Average Flowrate
Vessel B (Lag) Instantaneous Flowrate
Vessel B (Lag) Average Flowrate
01/09/06
03/25/06
06/08/06
08/22/06
11/05/06
01/19/07
04/04/07
06/18/07
Figure 4-12. System Instantaneous and Calculated Flowrates
At the end of the study, the system treated approximately 8,841,000 gal of water. The amount of water
treated was equivalent to approximately 27,000 BV based on the 44 ft3 of media in both lead and lag
vessels. Calculated flowrates through Vessels A and B averaged 40.4 and 40.0 gpm, respectively, which
was very close to the design value (Table 4-4) derived from the 40-gpm supply well flowrate based on the
pump curve provided by the facility. Based on the average calculated flowrate to the vessels, the EBCT
was 4.1 min per vessel. Due to the fluctuating flowrates observed, the EBCTs varied for the lead and lag
vessels from 1.8 and 32.9 min and from 1.9 to 27.4 min, respectively.
The APU system pressure readings were monitored at the system inlet and outlet and between the lead
and lag vessels. Average Ap readings across the treatment train, lead vessel, and lag vessel for the first
month of system operation were 10, 3, and 4 psi, respectively. On June 29, 2007, average Ap readings
across the treatment train, lead vessel, and lag vessel were 12, 9, and 6 psi, respectively. As such,
minimal pressure increase was observed after 2,384 hr of system operation or after treating 5,658,726 gal
of water. As a result, no media backwash was performed during the system performance evaluation.
Figure 4-13a presents the system operational pressures, inlet, outlet, and differential. Figure 4-13b
presents Vessel A operational pressures, inlet, outlet, and differential. Figure 4-13c presents Vessel B
operational pressures, inlet, outlet, and differential.
28
-------
Operational System Pressure at Bruni, TX Arsenic Demonstration Site
12/08/05 02/26/06 05/17/06 08/05/06 10/24/06 01/12/07 04/02/07 06/21/07
Figure 4-13a. System Operational Pressure Readings
Vessel A Pressure at Bruni, TX Arsenic Demonstration Site
-Vessel A (Lead) Inlet Pressure —D— Vessel A (Lead) Outlet Pressure —n— Vessel A (Lead) Differential Pressure (reading)
12/08/05 02/26/06 05/17/06 08/05/06 10/24/06 01/12/07 04/02/07 06/21/07
Figure 4-13b. Vessel A Operational Pressure Readings
29
-------
Vessel B Pressure at Bruni, TX Arsenic Demonstration Site
12/08/05 02/26/06 05/17/06 08/05/06 10/24/06 01/12/07 04/02/07 06/21/07
Figure 4-13c. Vessel B Operational Pressure Readings
4.4.2 Residual Management. No residuals were produced because neither backwash nor media
replacement was required during the evaluation period.
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. Operational irregularities experienced during
the demonstration study were related to the pH adjustment system and the adsorption vessel flow
meters/totalizers.
As described in Section 4.2, pH adjustment using a CO2 gas flow control system was a process
component. On January 11, 2006, leaks were detected in the CO2 system, resulting in an additional
change-out of a CO2 gas cylinder during the sixth week of system operations. The leaks were tracked to
the supply line where loose fittings were discovered. During the week of March 13, 2006 (the 15th week
of operation), the proportional flow control valve that regulated the CO2 injection rate began operating
improperly. The failure caused pH levels after pH adjustment to remain higher than desired, as indicated
by the inline probe readings, which averaged 7.8 during that week of operation. The pH control system
was switched from the automatic to manual mode until the control valve was replaced on April 24, 2006.
On May 3, 2006, the digital screen on the JUMO pFl/PID controller was not displaying the pH
measurement. A replacement inline pH probe was installed on May 30, 2006, which restored the digital
display on the JUMO pFi/PID controller. The CO2 system failed to consistently adjust pH values to the
target value of 7.0, with the values varying between 6.5 and 8.2. Following the replacement of the faulty
inline pH probe on May 30, 2006, the average pH was 7.2.
On two separate occasions on January 12, 2006, and May 23, 2006, both electromagnetic flow
meters/totalizers malfunctioned, causing the meters to reset and begin totalizing from zero. The failure
was thought to have been caused by a programming error. After being contacted, the vendor provided a
30
-------
flash memory card with the necessary programming updates, which was integrated by the operator on
June 15, 2006, to prevent future reoccurrences of the problems.
The system O&M and operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to pre- and post-
treatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventive maintenance
activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Two pre-treatment processes were required at the Webb CISD
site, i.e., pH adjustment and prechlorination. CO2 was used to lower pH values of raw water from as high
as 8.2 (Table 4-1) to a target value of 7.0 in order to maintain effective adsorption by the AD-33 media.
The CO2 injection point and inline pH probe used to monitor and control the adjusted pH levels were
installed upstream of the chlorine injection point. O&M of the pH adjustment system required routine
system pressure checks and regular change-out of the CO2 supply bottles as pressure was depleted. The
operator also recorded daily pH readings from the inline probe and performed calibration of the pH probe,
as needed. The use of CO2 for pH adjustment also required safety training for and awareness by the
operator, due to potential hazards.
For prechlorination, the existing chlorination system was upgraded and installed inside the maintenance
building, which housed the APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH system. The upgraded chlorination system, as
discussed in Section 4.2 and shown on Figure 4-8, utilized a 10% NaOCl solution to reach a target
residual level of 1.2 mg/L (as C12). The upgraded chlorination system did not require maintenance or
skills other than those required by the previous system. The operator monitored chlorine tank levels,
consumption rates, and residual chlorine levels.
System Automation. The system was fitted with automated controls that would allow for the backwash
cycle to be controlled automatically. The system also was equipped with an automated carbon dioxide
gas flow control system, which included a liquid CO2 supply assembly, an automatic pH control panel, a
CO2 membrane module, and an inline pH probe located downstream of the membrane module. Each
media vessel was equipped with five electrically actuated butterfly valves, which were controlled by a
Square D Telemechanique PLC with a Magelis G2220 color touch interface screen. Although not
automated, the system also was equipped with six isolation ball valves to allow for reversible lead/lag
configuration.
The automated portion of the system did not require regular O&M; however operator awareness and an
ability to detect unusual system measurements were necessary when troubleshooting system automation
failures. The equipment vendor provided hands-on training and a supplemental operations manual to the
operator.
Operator Skill Requirements. The skill requirements to operate the system demanded a higher level of
awareness and attention than the previous system. The system offered increased operational flexibility,
which, in turn, required increased monitoring of system parameters. The operator's knowledge of the
system limitations and typical operational parameters were key to achieve system performance objectives.
The operator was onsite typically five times a week and spent approximately 20 min each day to perform
visual inspections and record the system operating parameters on the daily log sheets. The basis for the
operator skills began with onsite training and a thorough review of the system operations manual;
however, increased knowledge and invaluable system troubleshooting skills were gained through hands-
on operational experience.
TCEQ requires that the operator of the treatment system hold at least a Class D TCEQ waterworks
operator license. The TCEQ public water system operator certifications are classified by Class A through
D. Licensing eligibility requirements are based on education, experience, and related training. The
31
-------
minimum requirements for a Class D license are high school graduate or GED and 20 hr of related
training. Licensing requirements incrementally increase with each licensing level, with Class A being the
highest requiring the most education, experience, and training.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included periodic checks of flow
meters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. Checking the CO2 cylinders and
supply lines for leaks and adequate pressure and calibrating the inline pH probe also were performed.
Typically, the operator performed these duties while onsite for routine activities.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. NaOCl was used for prechlorination; the
operator ordered chemicals as done prior to the installation of the APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH system. CO2
used for pH adjustment was ordered on an as needed basis. Typically, four 50-lb cylinders were used per
month. As the CO2 cylinders were delivered to the site by the CO2 supplier, empty cylinders were
returned for reuse.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected from raw and
treated water and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-8 summarizes the analytical results of arsenic, iron,
and manganese concentrations measured at the four sampling locations across the treatment train.
Table 4-9 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set
of analytical results through the system performance evaluation. The results of the water samples
collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
Arsenic. Treatment plant water samples were collected on 40 occasions (including three duplicate
samples collected during three regular sampling events), with field speciation performed during 20 of the
40 occasions at IN, AP, TA, and TB sampling locations. Figure 4-14 contains four bar charts showing the
concentrations of particulate arsenic, soluble As(III), and soluble As(V) for each speciation event.
Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 46.0 to 68.7 |o,g/L and averaged 57.6 |o,g/L. Soluble
As(III) was the predominating species, ranging from 31.3 to 42.0 (ig/L and averaging 37.5 |o,g/L. Soluble
As(V) also was present in source water, ranging from 6.1 to 23.8 |o,g/L and averaging 15.0 |o,g/L.
Particulate arsenic concentrations were lower, ranging from <0.1 to 12.3 |o,g/L and averaging 5.7 (ig/L.
The arsenic concentrations measured were consistent with those collected previously during source water
sampling (Table 4-1).
Chlorine effectively oxidized As(III) to As(V) prior to the adsorption vessels. After chlorination the
average soluble As(III) and soluble As(V) concentrations were 1.2 and 51.7 |og/L, respectively. Free and
total chlorine residuals were monitored at the AP and TB sampling locations to ensure that the target
chlorine residual levels were properly maintained for disinfection purposes. Free chlorine levels at the
AP location ranged from 0.4 to 2.0 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 0.9 mg/L (as C12); total chlorine levels
ranged from 0.6 to 2.1 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 1.2 mg/L (as C12) (Table 4-9). The residual chlorine
levels measured at the TB location were similar to those measured at the AP location, indicating little or
no chlorine demand through the AD-33 vessels.
32
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese
Parameter
As (total)
As
(soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn
(soluble)
Sample
Location
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
Unit
HS/L
HS/L
Hg/L
Mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
Hg/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
HS/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
Mg/L
^g/L
^g/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
HS/L
^g/L
HS/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
Sample
Count
39
40
40
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
33
33
33
33
17
17
17
17
33
33
33
33
17
17
17
17
Concentration
Minimum
46.0
47.4
1.0
0.2
44.6
44.5
0.8
0.1
0.1
1.2
0.1
0.1
31.3
0.4
0.2
0.1
6.1
43.3
0.1
0.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
2.6
2.9
<0.1
0.1
2.6
2.9
0.1
O.I
Maximum
68.7
88.4
45.4
16.9
56.5
61.0
7.7
2.9
12.3
14.6
1.3
1.8
42.0
3.3
2.9
2.4
23.8
57.7
7.3
1.6
163
190
40.3
44
133.7
62.2
35.3
28.2
14.7
13.6
3.2
5.0
14.5
5.2
3.3
5.1
Average
57.6
59.2
5.5
2.0
52.5
52.9
_(a)
>)
5.7
6.5
>)
_(a)
37.5
1.2
>)
_(a)
15.0
51.7
_(a)
.(a)
31.8
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
5.1
4.0
0.5
0.4
4.9
3.6
0.5
0.6
Standard
Deviation
5.3
7.1
8.0
2.7
3.3
3.7
_(a)
.(a)
3.4
3.5
.(a)
_(a)
3.1
0.8
.(a)
_(a)
3.9
3.5
_(a)
(a)
35.1
32.7
7.6
5.5
30.7
13.0
6.9
3.8
2.8
1.9
0.7
1.0
2.8
0.8
0.8
1.3
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for
calculations.
(a) Statistics not provided; see Figure 4-15 for arsenic breakthrough curves.
33
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
P
(asP)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
ORP
Free
Chlorine
(as CL2)
Sample
Location
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
33
33
33
32
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
32
32
32
32
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
32
21
21
21
21
21
20
20
19
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
0
20
0
18
Concentration
Minimum
305
302
275
312
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.1
91.0
102
98.0
83.0
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
<10
<10
<10
<10
39.1
39.4
13.5
1.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
8.0
7.1
7.0
7.0
21.3
21.2
21.4
21.2
1.1
1.4
0.9
1.3
234
309
337
312
-
0.4
-
0.4
Maximum
357
357
368
402
1.1
1.8
1.5
1.3
137
131
142
136
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
13.7
20.4
<10
10.8
43.9
44.9
50.6
95.8
1.2
1.5
1.9
2.0
8.3
8.1
7.8
7.7
27.1
27.2
27.5
27.4
o o
J.J
4.1
3.4
3.5
378
679
690
700
-
2.0
-
1.7
Average
327
329
326
334
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
110
110
114
113
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
<10
<10
<10
<10
41.5
41.7
40.3
39.9
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.2
7.4
7.3
7.3
25.6
25.9
25.7
25.5
2.0
2.1
1.9
2.0
278
524
578
588
-
0.9
-
0.9
Standard
Deviation
14.1
15.6
17.6
21.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
11.2
7.8
12.5
12.9
-
-
-
-
2.3
3.1
0.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
6.2
13.9
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
1.4
1.5
1.7
2.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
38.5
83.7
98.0
115
-
0.4
-
0.4
34
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
Total
Chlorine
(as CL2)
Total
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sample
Location
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
IN
AP
TA
TB
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
Sample
Count
0
19
0
18
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Concentration
Minimum
-
0.6
-
0.5
17.1
19.1
11.6
14.3
11.3
11.9
7.6
9.9
5.8
5.3
4.0
3.3
Maximum
-
2.1
-
2.1
31.6
30.1
33.0
64.4
22.7
22.8
25.1
48.3
9.3
9.1
13.4
23.3
Average
-
1.2
-
1.1
23.9
23.8
23.8
28.9
16.4
16.4
16.4
19.9
7.5
7.4
7.4
9.0
Standard
Deviation
-
0.4
-
0.5
3.9
3.6
5.5
14.0
3.5
3.3
4.3
9.9
0.9
0.9
2.2
5.2
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for
calculations.
The total arsenic breakthrough curves shown in Figure 4-15 indicate that the lead vessel removed the
majority of arsenic existing predominately as As(V) following chlorination. Total arsenic concentrations
following the lead vessel reached just below 10 (ig/L (i.e., 9.6 (ig/L) after treating approximately 41,000
BV of water (based on the 22 ft3 of media in the lead vessel), which represents approximately 87% of the
working capacity projected by the vendor (Table 4-4). Afterwards, total arsenic concentrations continued
to ramp higher and reached 45.4 (ig/L by the end of the performance evaluation study. By then, the
system had treated an estimated 8,841,000 gal of water (see discussion in Section 4.4.1), equivalent to
27,000 BV based on the 44 ft3 of media in both lead and lag vessel. At this point, arsenic breakthrough
following the lag vessel, based on the laboratory analysis of water samples collected on May 15, 2008,
was 5.2 (ig/L, which was still below the 10-(ig/L MCL.
Competing Anions. Phosphate and silica, which might influence arsenic adsorption, were measured at
the four sampling locations across the treatment train through March 13, 2007. Phosphorus was not
detected during almost all sampling events; however, on February 13, 2007, the phosphorus
concentrations measured at IN, AP, TA and TB were 190, 214, 203, and 167 mg/, respectively. It was not
clear why the phosphorus concentrations were significantly elevated during this sampling event and,
therefore, were considered as outliers and removed from data analyses. Silica concentrations in raw water
ranged from 39.1 to 43.9 mg/L and averaged 41.5 mg/L. Significant silica concentration reductions
(96%, 85%, and 24%, respectively) were noted in TA and TB samples collected during the first three
weeks of system operations, indicating removal by the media. Following the third week of operation the
maximum silica concentration reduction was less than 10%. Figure 4-16 presents the silica breakthrough
curves from the treatment train.
35
-------
Arsenic Species at the Wellhead (IN)
1
//VVVVV
DAs (particulate) BAsfll
Arsenic Species after Vessel A (TA)
[••••----••l
DAs (particulate) •As(lll) MAs(V)
Arsenic Species after pH Adjustment and Chlorination (AP)
DAs (particulate) •As(lll) BAslV)
Arsenic Species after Vessel B (TB)
ra 50
j 40
i
" 30
DAs (particulate) •As(lll) BAslV)
Figure 4-14. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AP, TA, and TB Sampling Locations
-------
Total As vs. Bed Volume
After pH Adjustment and Chlorination (AP)
Lag Vessel TB
20 25 30 35
Bed Volume (103)
Figure 4-15. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves
(Based on 22ft3 of Media in One Vessel)
20
Silica vs Bed Volume
After pH Adjustment and Chlorination (AP)
Lag Vessel B
Bad Volume 10
Figure 4-16. Silica (as SiO2) Breakthrough Curves
(Based on 22ft3 of Media in Each Vessel)
37
-------
Iron and Manganese. Iron and manganese were analyzed through January 22, 2007. The average total
iron concentration in raw water was 31.8 Lig/L (Table 4-8). Average total iron concentrations across the
treatment train were below the detection limit of 25 Lig/L. Total manganese levels in raw water also were
low, ranging from 2.6 to 14.7 Lig/L and averaging 5.1 Lig/L. Manganese existed primarily in the soluble
form even after chlorination. Total manganese levels were reduced to an average of 0.5 and 0.4 Lig/L
following the lead and lag vessels, respectively.
Other Water Quality Parameters. As shown in Table 4-9, pH values of raw water measured at the IN
sample location varied from 8.0 to 8.3 and averaged 8.2. pH values, following CO2 injection for pH
adjustment, at the AP location, varied from 7.1 to 8.1 and averaged 7.4. A pH value of 7.0 at the AP
location prior to the adsorption media was desirable, which, in general, would result in a greater arsenic
removal capacity. Figure 4-17 presents the pH values measured throughout the treatment train.
On two separate occasions (January 5 and 17, 2006), the pH values as measured with a portable VWR
Symphony handheld meter were not reduced following CO2 injection, as indicated by the third and fourth
sets of IN (denoted by "*") and AP data points (denoted by " ") shown in Figure 4-17. In contrast, the
pH values (denoted by "•") measured at the AP location by the inline pH probe were consistently over
1.0 unit less than those measured at the same location by the VWR meter. pH measurements prior to and
following these two isolated events suggest that pH values measured by the VWR meter on January 5 and
17, 2006, most likely were the result of instrument or measurement errors.
pH vs Bed Volume
Proportioning Valve Malfunctioned
6.5
6.0
was replaced.
Inline pH probe failure.
-AtWellhead (IN)
Lead Vessel TA
•Inline pH Adjustment
After pH Adjustment and Chlorination (AP)
-Lag Vessel TB
10
15 20
Bed Volume 103
25
30
35
Figure 4-17. pH Values Across Treatment Train Versus Throughput
(Based on 22ft3 of Media in Each Vessel)
38
-------
Except for the two time periods when the CO2 system was set in the manual mode prior to the
replacement of the proportioning valve and after Vessel A had reached approximately 25,000 BV of
throughput, pH values measured by the VWR meter were significantly lower than those measured by the
inline pH probe, with the pH values varying from 7.2 to 7.6 and averaging 7.4 using the VWR probe, and
varying from 6.5 to 7.6 and averaging 7.0 using the inline probe. The variations observed might be due to
degassing of dissolved CO2 when the water samples were collected from the AP location, thus resulting in
elevated readings measured by the portable VWR meter. An inline pH probe failure occurred early May
2006 (Figure 4-17) and a replacement probe was installed on May 30, 2006, at approximately 12,000 BV.
The replacement of the inline probe did not appear to have narrowed the differences between the two
measurements.
Alkalinity, reported as CaCO3, ranged from 305 to 357 mg/L and averaged 327 mg/L in raw water. As
expected, alkalinity after pH adjustment and adsorption remained essentially unchanged at 326 to 334
mg/L (on average), since carbon dioxide, instead of mineral acids, was used for pH adjustment.
The treatment plant water samples were analyzed for hardness only on speciation weeks. Total hardness,
reported as CaCO3, ranged from 17.1 to 31.6 mg/L and averaged 23.9 mg/L in raw water. Total hardness
existed primarily as calcium hardness. Total hardness remained unchanged at 23.8 to 28.9 mg/L, on
average, following pH adjustment and adsorption.
Sulfate concentrations in raw water ranged from 91.0 to 137 mg/L and averaged 110 mg/L. After pH
adjustment and adsorption, sulfate levels remained unchanged at 113 to 114 mg/L (on average). Fluoride
results ranged from 0.1 to 1.5 mg/L following the treatment vessels. The results indicated that the
adsorptive media did not affect the amount of fluoride in water after treatment.
Average DO levels ranged from 1.9 to 2.1 mg/L throughout the treatment train. ORP readings averaged
278 mV in raw water, but increased to an average of 524 mV after chlorination.
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling. Backwash was not performed during the system
performance evaluation.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment
system, baseline distribution system water samples were collected from the middle school, high school,
and cafeteria on June 15, July 21, August 24, and September 19, 2005. Following the installation of the
treatment system, distribution system water sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three
locations, with samples collected from January through December 2006. The results of the distribution
system sampling are summarized on Table 4-10.
The most noticeable change in the distribution system samples since the system began operation was a
decrease in arsenic concentration. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged from 49.6 to 99.9 (ig/L and
averaged 68.7 (ig/L for all three sampling locations. After the performance evaluation began, arsenic
concentrations were reduced to <5.0 (ig/L (or 2.4 (ig/L on average), which were similar to the arsenic
concentrations in the system effluent.
Lead concentrations ranged from 0.3 to 4.0 (ig/L, with none of the samples exceeding the action level of
15 (ig/L. Copper concentrations ranged from 6.5 to 604 (ig/L, with no samples exceeding the 1,300 (ig/L
action level. Measured pH values ranged from 7.4 to 8.1 and averaged 7.7, which were 0.4 units higher
than the avearge pH value immediately after the adsorption vessels. Compared to an average value of 8.2
before the treatment sytem became operational, the lowered pH values appeared to have some effects on
the lead and copper concentrations in the distribution system. However, the effects did not follow a trend,
with the lead concentrations becoming mostly lower (decreasing from 1.3 to 0.8 |o,g/L [on average] at the
39
-------
Table 4-10. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Events
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Location
M
t|
03 £
vi Q
06/15/05
07/21/05
08/24/05
09/19/05
01/05/06
02/01/06
03/14/06
04/11/06
05/09/06
06/06/06
07/19/06
08/16/06
09/15/06
10/11/06
11/08/06
12/12/06
Middle School
Stagnation
Time (hr)
14.5
15.0
15.6
13.0
14.8
15.0
15.0
15.3
10.8
14.7
NA(a)
Q.
8.3
8.1
8.2
8.1
7.7
7.9
7.6
7.9
7.6
7.8
7.9
Alkalinity
334
330
317
330
343
312
310
323
326
305
319
{*)
<
52.0
54.4
83.1
49.6
2.1
3.4
1.4
3.1
1.3
1.0
1.2
&
<25
70.9
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
|
1.9
13.5
2.2
3.3
O.I
0.4
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.1
2.8
s
1.9
1.2
0.3
1.9
0.8
0.3
0.9
1.0
0.4
1.0
1.4
U
114
7.3
23.9
40.1
209
119
278
113
86.3
234
237
Operator did not take sample, building is not being used.
Operator did not take sample, building is not being used.
Operator did not take sample, building is not being used.
Operator did not take sample, building is not being used.
Operator did not take sample, building is not being used.
High School
Stagnation
Time (hr)
14.8
15.3
15.7
13.3
14.5
15.2
15.2
15.0
14.8
14.8
14.3
15.0
15.8
15.5
15.6
15.0
Q.
8.3
8.2
8.2
8.1
7.7
8.1
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.5
7.4
7.4
Alkalinity
330
330
321
330
348
312
314
311
331
309
319
310
328
344
353
335
i#l
<
53.0
79.2
85.8
51.4
3.5
4.4
2.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.5
4.3
1.5
&
<25
32.8
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
|
1.2
6.0
1.2
1.5
2.4
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.7
1.9
4.8
0.6
<0.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
s
2.3
2.0
0.9
1.5
2.3
0.8
1.8
1.6
0.7
0.7
2.0
2.0
3.3
4.0
1.8
2.5
U
115
44.8
72.5
77.3
308
214
259
337
164
565
316
96.6
322
538
604
427
Cafeteria
=
.3 ^
* &
a m
M S
s |
vi H
15.0
15.5
15.8
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.3
15.2
14.7
14.6
15.3
16.3
15.5
15.7
14.5
16.3
Q.
8.3
8.1
8.2
8.1
7.6
8.1
7.8
7.9
7.7
8.0
8.0
7.7
7.8
7.5
7.3
7.4
Alkalinity
330
330
321
326
334
312
318
315
322
322
315
306
337
349
343
341
{*)
<
77.7
53.3
84.7
99.9
1.4
3.8
1.3
3.6
1.2
0.7
0.9
1.5
0.8
1.1
3.8
1.4
&
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
26.0
<25
<25
|
5.9
6.8
2.1
2.4
O.I
0.6
0.9
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.5
O.I
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.6
£
11.5
2.9
0.3
1.9
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.4
0.6
1.8
0.8
1.0
1.9
2.5
1.7
U
381
106
23.2
44.4
15.4
250
19.7
16.0
6.5
14.9
24.1
16.0
26.2
74.4
116
60.8
Lead action level =15 ng/L; copper action level =1.3 mg/L
Hg/L as unit for all analytes except for pH (S.U.) and alkalinity (mg/L [as CaCO3]).
BL = Baseline Sampling; NA = Not Available
-------
middle school and from 4.2 to 1.1 ng/L [on average] at the cafeteria) and the copper concentrations
becoming mostly higher (increasing from 46.3 to 182.3 |o,g/L [on average] at the middle school and from
77.4 to 345.9 |o,g/L [on average] at the high school).
Alkalinity levels ranged from 305 to 353 mg/L (as CaCO3). Iron was detected in one of the samples;
manganese concentrations ranged from <0.1 to 4.8 (ig/L. The arsenic treatment system did not seem to
affect these water quality parameters in the distribution system.
4.6
System Cost
System cost is 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 includes the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
installation. The O&M cost includes the cost for media replacement and disposal, electrical power use,
and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation of the
treatment system was $138,642 (see Table 4-11). The equipment cost was $94,662 (or 68% of the total
capital investment), which included $55,566 for the skid-mounted APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH unit,
$21,516 forthe CO2 pH control system, $13,200 for the AD-33 media ($300/ft3 or $8.57/lb to fill two
vessels), $2,580 for shipping, and $1,800 for labor.
Table 4-11. Capital Investment Cost for APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment
Equipment Cost
APU Skid-Mounted System (Unit)
CO2 pH Control System
AD-33 Media (ft3)
Shipping
Vendor Labor
Equipment Total
1
1
44
-
-
-
$55,566
$21,516
$13,200
$2,580
$1,800
$94,662
-
-
-
-
-
68
Engineering Cost
Vendor Labor/Travel
Subcontractor Labor/Travel
Engineering Total
-
-
-
$11,800
$12,500
$24,300
-
-
18
Installation Cost
Subcontractor Labor
Vendor Labor
Vendor/ Subcontractor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
$12,574
$4,860
$2,246
$19,680
$138,642
-
-
-
14
100
The engineering cost included the cost for preparing three submittal packages for the exception request,
permit application, and supplemental information forthe permit (see Section 4.3.1). The engineering cost
was $24,300, or 18% of the total capital investment.
The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted unit,
perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, load, and backwash the media, perform system shakedown and
41
-------
startup, and conduct operator training. The installation cost was $19,680, or 14% of the total capital
investment.
The total capital cost of $138,642 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 40 gpm (57,600 gpd),
which resulted in $3,466/gpm of design capacity ($2.41/gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $13,086/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at the
system design flowrate of 40 gpm to produce 21,024,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would
be $0.62/1,000 gal. Because the system operated an average of 4.2 hr/day at approximately 40 gpm (see
Table 4-7), producing an estimated 8,841,100 gal of water during the performance evaluation study or
3,679,200 gal of water annually, the unit capital cost increased to $3.56/1,000 gal at this reduced rate of
use.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included the cost for such items as
media replacement and disposal, CO2 usage, electricity consumption, and labor (Table 4-12). Although
media replacement did not occur during the system performance evaluation, the media replacement cost
would have represented the majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to be $11,190 to change out the
lead vessel. This media change-out cost would have included the cost for media, underbedding, freight,
labor, travel, spent media analysis, and media disposal fee. This cost was used to estimate the media
replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water treated as a function of the projected lead vessel media run length
at the 10 |o,g/L arsenic breakthrough from the lag vessel (Figure 4-18).
The chemical cost associated with system operation included the cost for NaCIO for prechlorination and
CO2 gas for pH adjustment. NaCIO had already been used at the site prior to the installation of the APU
unit for disinfection purposes prior to distribution. The presence of the APU system did not affect the use
rate of the NaCIO solution. Therefore, the incremental chemical cost for chlorine was negligible. The
50-lb CO2 cylinder was replaced four times a month during the system performance evaluation. Each
change-out cost $31.52, which included the replacement and delivery charges. The CO2 cost for the study
period was $3,656 or $0.41/1,000 gal of water treated. The calculated annual CO2 cost, including
delivery, was $1,513.
Comparison of electrical bills supplied by the utility prior to system installation and since startup did not
indicate a noticeable increase in power consumption. Therefore, electrical cost associated with operation
of the system was assumed to be negligible.
Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed
20 min per day, 5 days per week, as noted in Section 4.4.3. The labor cost for the performance evaluation
study was $4,045 or $0.46/1,000 gal of water treated. The calculated annual labor cost was $1,690.
Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $0.46/1,000 gal of water treated. This estimation assumed that
maintenance and operational procedures were consistently performed through the completion of the
system performance evaluation.
42
-------
Table 4-12. Operation and Maintenance Cost for APU-50LL-CS-S-2-AVH System
Cost Category
Estimated Volume Processed (gal)
Value
8,841,000
Assumptions
889 total operational days
Media Replacement and Disposal Cost
Media Replacement ($)
Underbedding and Freight for
Media and Gravel Shipping ($)
Travel and per diem ($)
Vendor and Subcontractor Labor ($)
Media Disposal ($)
Subtotal
Media Replacement and Disposal
($71,000 gal)
$6,600
$330
$1,000
$2,160
$1,100
$11,190
See Figure
4-18
$300/ft3 for 22 ft3 (one media vessel)
Including spent media analysis
Based upon lead vessel media run length at 10-
(o,g/L arsenic breakthrough from lag vessel
CO 2 Usage
Annual CO2 cost ($)
Unit CO2 Cost ($71,000 gal)
$1,513
$0.41
Based on CO2 consumption (50-lb cylinders)
and delivery
Electricity Cost
Electricity ($71,000 gal)
$0.001
Electrical cost assumed negligible
Labor Cost
Average Weekly Labor (min)
Annual Labor Cost ($)
Unit Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
100
$1,690
$0.46
See Figure
4-18
20 min/day, 5 day/week
Labor rate = $19.50/hr
Media replace cost (based upon lead vessel
media run length at 10-|ag/L arsenic
breakthrough from lag vessel) + $0.41 (CO2
cost) + $0.46 (labor cost)
43
-------
O&M cost
Media replacement cost
0 10 20 30 40 50
70 80 90 100
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (xlOOO)
$0.50 -
$0.00
Note: One bed volume equals 22 ft3 (165 gal)
Figure 4-18. Media Replacement and Other Operation and Maintenance Cost
44
-------
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. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at the Webb Consolidated Independent School District in Bruni, Texas.
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.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Fed. Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Wang, L., W. Condit, and A. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA Arsenic
Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
45
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bruni, TX — Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
2
2
-
c
~
7
3
9
Daj of
Veek
~"u
Ffl
l^CP
~ue
'//ed
~tiu
Fn
Mon
~us
'A'Ed
"hu
Fri
rcr
~i,e
•;Ved
"hu
Pr
~uc
•. .-ec
"^u
-••
''Of
-ue
•/;ea
~hu
Fr
"C~
~uE
vVed
-hu
=••
Men
~ue
vVsd
~hu
= r
! 'cr
~ue
Wad
Thu
Fri
Date
2/CEj £
2/0 S/ E
2' 12'' E
2.13.' £
20- E
2'1E; £
2'iE; E
21WM
2/20/OE
2,'21/OE
2/22/OE
2'23'CE
2/25 'CE
2/27.'CE
2'2£.C£
2/2 5/0 E
2/3W05
ci'C2'CE
G1.C3/CE
CI'C-CE
ci CE :;
C1'C5'C5
C1-C9-CE
CMC'06
CMVCE
C '12'C5: :
CH3-C5
CME-'CE
CM7>c£
01/18/06
01/18/06
01/20/05
MOW*
CJ/2£/CE
Ct.'2E'05
01/26/06
01/27/06
0 1/3 0/0 E
01/31/06
02/01/06
02/02/06
02.IC3''C6
Time
•,i.
Cc.'2E
1C:3C
06:30
1C:3C
CS:3C
05:30
'.^
MA
HA
MA
HA
MA
NA
HA
HA
HA
'.i.
1C.CC
CS:CC
C5:3C
CS:CC
BftgO
1C:CC
C5:CC
C9:CC
',-
cs:;c
CS:.'C
08:3-0
09:30
05:30
10:00
05:30
10:00
09:30
09:00
05:00
C=:00
09:00
Operational
Hours
hr
NA
HA
f'j A
- ,~
fj^v
NW
NA
ti"
MA
HA
HA
HA
MA
HA
',;-
:.^
'.^
',-
'.^
NA
'.-
'.^
MA
-.^
1 C
:d.:fi
-£.:"E
EI.S-cc
E7 -1 E
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
fji.
NA
NA
NA
• ^
\^
92.ccc
9«.B3E
i:; :-::
11c.CS-
131.7-E9
1-2.13-
1-E.7E3
c.cl-
',-
oc ^•J^
-E.E--
cC.3EC
73.0SO
•7C CCC
9E.-E1
ICE. CS-
II-. -27
121.23E
131. EE£
1-3. 2E7
172.1--
1S-.-7S
213. CS-3
227. £iC
Vessel A
Usage
gal
HA
23.7=i
11.E2E
2.7EC
10.006
3.7S1
" = -^
NA
HA
HA
HA
HA
MA
ti-
ll A
'.-
'.^
'.^
3E.271
-.1-9
= .533
12.-1-:
1E."E
1C.3-E
E.E29
:.:1-
',-
iL c . •: ^ C
13.1 1C
11.5CE
12.730
c.57E
1I.E2-E
".EE3
5.353
p SQfl
1C. 323
1 1."9
2E.E77
22. 33E
I8£M
1-.-E7
Average
Flov
gpm
NA
HA
N£
h_K
NA
NA
NA
'.^
NA
NA
NA
:,-
tJA
NA
NA
'.^
',^
•._
NA
NA
;."-
HA
',-
il
-\
2-
'.-
ji
--
-E
-3
-2
MA
NA
-1
^7
--
-2
4§
--
47
^g
Pressure
Differential
psi
NA
3.0
3.C
3.C
3.C
3.C
3.C
',-
HA.
NA
NA
HA
fi^r
NA
NA.
HA
',-
',_
1.C
2.0
1.0
1.C
3.C
i C
-.C
E.C
'.-
E.C
E.O
-.:;
E.C
- C
NA
HA.
3.0
'* C
-.0
E.C
E.O
4.0
E.C
E.O
Flowrate
gpm
li"
El
4
-
-
_
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
tlA
NA
NA
• ^
•,^-
^;:
^c
^^
_;
_.:
f C
52
',-
;;
El
E2
E1
E2
NA
NA
;3
;;
;3
—•
E2
53
C1
E3
Cumulative
Totalizer
gal
li".
15.17-
3C.3C-
32.9=2
GJ&4
-C.29C
E1.EE1
',-
HA
HA
HA
HA
MA
l;.u.
NA
HA
'.^
',-
BE.E3C
5S.E21
Sc.21C
1C::. 225
123. 3C9
133.2-7
139. 5C1
c.727
'._
3-E.C-3
-9, -12
El. -25
7-. -07
51. -22
1CC.3EC
1CE.E1-
Hc.E-7
123. -72
13:'>;ic
1-E.EE-:
17E.125
1 57.535
21-5. -ES
231.0^5
Vessel B
Usage
gal
MA
15.17-
11.130
2,658
9.E'2
3.5ES
E.371
tl.A
NA
NA
NA
NA
fJA
NA
NA
MA
lu-
•.-.
33.9E9
3.591
5.E5S
12.C15
1E.CEC
c 93;
S.3E-
6.727
',-
29.31E
13.3S9
12.C17
12.5"i
7.C1E
1E.92E
S 2---
7.533
6.S2E
10. --6
11.9-S
29.2E3
22.EC5
15.521
K.E59
Average
Flow
gpm
NA
MA
'.^
MA
MA
f|A
!.-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
NA
'.^
'.^
NA
NA
MA
•,^
NA
^c
^^
2E
NA
-E
iE
-E
^i
^n
_£
17
35
48
^c
-2
4§
-E
-5
«a
Pressure
Differential
psi
NA
E.C
_
-.
i.
i.
-.
NA
NA
HA
HA
E.C
H~
HA
NA
'.-
E.C
>,^
-.0
-.:
-.;
-.:
c C
E.C
E.:
E.C
E.:
E.C
E.:
E.;
E.O
E.C
HA
HA
E.C
C Q
E.C
E.:
E.:
E.:
E.O
E.O
Inlet
Pressure
psi
HA
^C
40
^£
2S
2£
"'i
V;
NA
NA
NA
-C
NA
NA
NA
NA
-:
•,^
•SO
3€
26
28
33
•?j=
28
->•?.
-'^
-2
|£
28
28
28
'.-
',-
28
-2
-G
2E
-C
?:
2c
2c
Outlet
Pressure
psi
',-
30
^C
2|
25
2£
25
',-
HA
HA
MA
30
HA
NA
HA
HA
M
',-
E'2
28
2E
2E
2 13
2c
2E
£;
E'C
:^
28
25
28
25
'.^
'.^
2E
30
38
i-
28
2E
2E
25
Sfste
Pressure
Differential
psi
HA
1C
i:
1C
1C
10
1C
NA
HA
HA
HA
1C
HA
Hi
HA
HA
1C
HA
s
;
1:
1C
1
i
1
r:
r:
1C
1C
1C
10
1C
:.~
'.^
12
12
t
12
12
12
10
10
n
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
HA
15.17-
3C.3C-
12,962
-2.E3-
-E.25C
E1.E51
KA
HA
NA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
NA
HA
8E.S3C
89.S21
5E.21C
1CE.229
123. 3C9
133. 2-"
139. EC1
1--:.32£
MA
17E.8--
1S9.C13
201,030
214.008
221.023
239. 851
2-3.21
2EE.1-
2E 3.C7
2"3.E1
25E.-E7
31-.73C
337.239
3E6.05C
37C.S-5
Bed
Volumes
Treated1-1
BV
t,^
ES
12
ICO
13C
1-1
1E£
NA
HA
MA
NA
HA
MA
MA
NA
MA
NA
HA
2-E1
zra
293
330
'? =
-cs
426
fH
'.-
E13
6E2
E7-
732
7C7
781
cC2
i ?-
E'C
9SO
1.028
1.CS5
1.1 3C
DH
HA
-_ :-
::
: :
.EC
.5-
.£3
•,^-
HA
HA
HA
l.i.
HA
HA
UA
'.-
NA
I,-
S.5E
E.9-
E.5-
: ;:
: E;
E.51
E.B.E
5.52
.-
E.9-
E.9E
E.91
HM
E S
',-
IIA
5.93
5 75
5 76
S.52
5.52
5.E1
r :;
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bruni, TX — Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Veek
No.
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
Dai of
Vcet
Men
~ue
iVed
~hu
Fr;
l.'cn
~ue
•,';ed
-tin
Fri
:'c-
~ue
'A'ed
~hu
Pri
l.'or-
~ue
•.'v-d
~hb
Fri
Lion
~us
We*
~hu
Fri
I'cr
~ue
•.Ved
~hu
Fri
l.'cn
~ue
;Vsd
~nu
Fri
HOT
~ue
tVed
"hu
Fri
Date
02/06/06
02/07/06
02>'08/ce
C2'C9'C5
C2'1C'C5
02/13/06
OZ.'14/cs
02/15/oe
02/16/06
C2.'17.C6
CZ'ZC.'Cc
02/21)05
02/22/06
02/23/06
C2'2-'C5
C2p27'C5
C2/25'1C5
C3/CJ/C|
C3.'C2/C5
03/c3/Cc
03/06/06
03/07/06
03/08/06
^M^Cc
C3''1C'C=
C-5'1 3'35
CM-/C:
03/15/06
93fl6ffl«
C3'17.C=
C3.2C.C5
03/21 /Ct
03/22/06
03/23/Cc
03/24/05
C3/27/06
03/28/06
C3/29W
CM'C'C:
03/31 ''06
Time
:5:c:
10:00
10:00
1C:CC
C9:5C
CS:CC
CS:CC
05:30
10:00
C8:CC
C9:3C
03:30
09:30
C9:3C
C9:3C
C-'^C
10:CC
C9:3C
NA
NA
10:00
1C:CC
1C:CC
1C:CC
10:CC
:9:c:
S9:CC
C3:CC
C9:CC
C9:CC
C9:CC
03:00
03:00
C9:CC
C9:CC
03:00
08:30
09:00
Veil
Operational
Hours
hr
13.5
i ^
3.C
2.5
2.2
-.8
y
2.3
2.3
;.?
54
y
2.2
^ :
2.2
5.1
2.2
2.1
KA
1.3
1.9
0.7
y
1 :
1 i
:.:
E i
- 5
E.O
J.4
5.7
7.S
10.1
11. C
5.2
£ c
5.2
7.7
:.E
:.:
Vessel A
Flowrate
gpm
5J
51
52
52
EC
52
E2
51
51
50
E2
51
52
E2
ti
5;
52
E2
NA
(IA
.::
5i
EO
52
E2
El
51
-2
t2
1:2
i9
E2
El
E2
52
El
E2
E3
4€
Cumulative
Totalizer
jaj
262.383
271.073
279.832
2ES.12C
252.C3E
'-- ---.
3Cc.32t
313. -73
321.085
335.355
3-9. E-?
3E7.5Cc
363.712
3=9.620
:"E.-:2
3C-E.955
335.397
-CC.38E
r,^
-C3.939
~ OS. 76 i
-1C.E97
-12.9E2
-17. --c
-22 -21
-3C.-5E
--7.2E3
-=C,C3-
-73.291
-87.175
EC1.-9E
522. 2cc
;E:.-:-I
E£2."9
E9:.P"
•:12.52C
•:2E.?"C
c-7.9 7
•:E7.c :
=7- = °
Usage
gal
35. --5
S.OSJ
S.7E9
€.2£8
E.91E
12. -2-
3.5=6
E.1-B
7.616
1-.27c
1-.17£
8.3=3
5.S06
5.108
5.5-2
[3.537
6.338
-.991
NA
3.551
i.S23
1.E29
2.355
-,-Sc
- 57^
E.C--
1c.7Hc
12.5-1
13.197
13.588
1-.319
2C.7=£
2E.I75
22.Z2E
1:.-9:
I-:.:'-;
13.15C
22. Z2"
r.:c:
Average
Flow
gpm
43
«
-9
^2
-5
-3
-°
_:
ii
-2
44
-5
44
--
-3
44
-8
M
NA
-5
-2
--
44
47
44
»5
52
^5
M
-^
-2
44
-7
^5
-3
42
42
48
-2
^c
Pressure
Differential
psi
-.0
*J
-.0
5.C
5.0
5.0
-.C
1.0
2.0
2.C
y
1.0
1.0
1.C
1.0
1C
2.0
2.C
II A
NA
2.0
2.C
2.C
2.C
2.C
2 C
2.C
2.0
2.C
2.0
2.C
2.0
2 C
2.0
2."
2.C-
2.C
2.0
2.C
1.0
Vessel B
Flovrate
gpm
51
51
5;
5;
51
Ct
CT
52
52
5i
5;
52
;;
= 5
51
C1
5;
NA
NA
SO
ra
51
C1!
iT-j
51
52
52
u "J
C^
CO
51
=3
CO
c :•
c^
52
52
5;
-7
Cumulative
Totalizer
gal
2c:.e:i
2"4.9i2
283. 79€
250.133
29-3.1C7
305..620
312.50-
317.58-
325.362
? i.77t
3 4.1C7
3 2.573
3 8. 442
3 -.51 1
3 C.315
3 3.595
4 C.371
-05.522
NA
-09.117
-13.381
-15.S2C
-1E.191
-22.751
-27.75;
-35.99:
453. C5€
-c;.1C7
475.47=
-53.527
cn-7 CC^
525.1 1 1
5ES.C31
59C.575
CC-.35E
c2C 557
53-. 183
555. 91E
r-5 :.72i
5E-.C32
Usage
gal
oc ycT
8.1-1
8.55-
c.3-3
5.558
12.513
3.S-8-
5.180
7.678
14.413
14.332
8.4=6
5.863
5.153
5.735
13.550
= .372
5.151
NA
3.595
L 32L
1.E39
2.371
-.5=0
5 C'7
5.2C5
17.1C3
13.011
13.359
K.C51
1-.-57
21.117
2S.S20
: 2 : - -
13.723
15.-55
13.286
22.735
9 . E Z -
17.31C
Average
gpm
4^
^0
-9
^2
-5
-3
43
43
^_
4^
4i
-=
^^
45
_;
^5
-8
41
FJA
-5
43
44
44
48
--
--_
5;
^c
^c
43
-2
4C.
48
-9
--
42
43
-9
43
4J
Pressure
psi
5.C
5.0
5.0
E.C
E.C
5.0
5.0
5.:
5.0
5 :
5.:
E.C
E.C
5.0
y ;
5.C
5.0
5.:
NA
NA
-.0
5.0
5.:
5.0
c *•
5.0
5.0
5 :
5.0
5 C
4.0
2.C
0.0
1.0
1.C
c.c
2.0
C.C
: :
2.5
Sjstem
Inlet
psi
38
42
38
-3
38
38
EC
44
36
-/s
38
:E
3S
40
^F
42
33
38
1iA
NA
^"
M
3€
2c
?.:
I.;
40
3S
33
2S
: c
c^
38
-C
€0
-±
3 =
48
38
CO
Outlet
psi
zc
3G
2c
2;
2\
26
3S
:'^i
2c
2c
^c
2c
2c
36
i :
2-:
2J
riA
rjA
-C
:'i
24
2-
^ :
22
2E
2:
2-;
26
06
41
26
2:
EC
M
2^
36
2-
-3
Pressure
psi
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1C
10
12
12
12
d
12
U
12
12
NA
NA
1C
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
10
12
14
1C
12
12
12
1-
11
Cumulative
Volume
gal
-C5.-C2
414,543
423.337
-25. 7^0
-35. 70S
448,221
452.105
4E7.28E
-5-.95?
479.376
433.708
502. 174
508,0-3
51-. 212
51 ;.92";
533. 5CC
535.572
5-5.123
NA
5*8,718
553. ES2
555. -21
EE7.792
E62.3E2
5=7.355
575,594
592.597
505. 7CE
= 15.077
633.128
£i"? ccc
6€8,712
637.632
730.27=
74° 999
7 = 0.45;
773.784
753.519.
EC5.323
823.633
Bed
Volumes
BV
1.239
1.264
1.291
1.310
1.32B
1.357
1.378
1. SS-
L-IS
1.4£2
1.50E
1.531
1.5-3
1.E58
1.5:5
1 52"
1 .6--
1.552
NA
1.573
1.688
1.553
1.701
1.71-
1.7?C
1.755
1.857
1.8-7
1.8B7
1.530
1.97-
2.033
2.127
2.225
2.255
2.315
2.359
2. -23
2.455
2.511
pH
:. :2
5.55
5.51
: 5:
: -,L
= 7=
5.71
5.57
:,7-
: : 7
:.7 =
: : :
5.78
: ;;
;.E:
5.5-
= .8;
5.55
'.i.
NA
.: c :
-, c^
7.02
7 55
7.5:
7.73
c.12
8.22
7.55
7. -2
7.3?
7.38
7.51
7.64
7 60
"C
\,-
7.5-
7.31
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bruni, TX — Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Vert.
No.
18
1S
20
21
££
22
24
25
Dai of
Veet
i 'cr
~ue
vVed
~hu
Fri
Man
~ue
iVed
~hu
I'cr
~u&
vVsd
~hu
Fri
Men
~ue
iVed
~hu
Fri
Men
~ue
vVed
~hu
F-
G'~
~u&
v':ed
~hu
Fri
Won
~ue
Wed
~hu
fr:
•':;-
~b£-
Vt'ed
~hu
Fri
Date
C£C3/C€
C4;C4,'oe
04..'OE..'C€
C-.'C=.'Cc
C4.'C7''C£
C4.1C-C:
C4.'n.'C5
C4.'12'C~
C4. 1 ^'C^
::-•!"• •:
:-•!£• E
C4'15' c
C4/2C/C6
Ci.21.-te
C4.24.'CE
C4'25:C5
Ci.'2£;o6
04,27.'OS
C4>28''C=
C £ • v 1 • C: :
CE,.'C2..C€
CE;03.''Oc
CC.'C4'C~
95*09/06
CE'IC'C:
05,.'ii..'05
O5..'i2;c5
CE;IE;OE
CE-H.CE
WflTwe
CE'IE'CE
CE'ls.cE
CE'22'Ci
CE'23'CE "
CE'24.CE
CE.2E..CE
olSeTcF5
Time
C5:CO
09:00
09:00
CB'CC
CS:CC
CE::C
CS:CC
Cc:3C
CE:?C
»- 0"
CE:3C
Cb:3C
08:30
08:30
C£:3C
CE:3C
08:30
03:00
03:30
08:30
08:30
08:30
CS'CC
C 8 : 3 C
C6:3C
08:30
08:30
CE:30
-£:.:C
08:30
08:30
C8: 30
Cc::C
C£:2
C8:3
CE:3
OB:3C
Veil
Operational
Hours
hr
U.7
8.E
S.I
1C.1
'.'•
£ £
7.S
12. C
1£.E
15 -
5.i
8.1
3 c
3.0
7.2
12.4
15.8
B.S
^ ->
10.3
7.4
11.3
i .:
1 C -
16.fi
C i
11. E
10.1
10.1
21.-
:.£
2.E
7 ;
8.5
i: -.
7 5
E. :
20. E
y
Vessel A
Flovrate
gpm
51
52
E1
48
£2
£2
;;
51
£2
49
£2
;3
£1
49
£2
52
iS
E3
C'O
52
EC
EC
;^
£1
E2
EC
50
52
£2
49
52
51
-;
52
-5
E1
£2
EC
Cumulative
Totalizer
gal
7U.575
E13.2E7
834,182
i.:;:.2E:
1. 02!. 07-
1.052.191
l.C££.£l-
1.i:-.2':i
1.1E1.SCS
1.17E.7B7
1. !£;.-?£
1.21£.£:-
1.2:'-.£::
1.2£7.3EC
1 .293. 80S
1.315.455
l.::l.££:
l.:£7.£;i
i.-2i.-;s
1.--5.175
1.-7-.c21
1.E3C.E7E
1. 537.154
i.£-:. 3s;
!.££:. 2£2
1.5-:;. 222
1.:2-.'-"
11C.177
Usage
gal
2-.C31
1E £31
1S.C11
1-.£CC
20.S2E
22.818
25.117
17. £23
;7.;iC
l.'.i-;
19,011
-2.12:
2:. 1C:
33.71£
CC QC^
i.? 15
€.18=
1S.872
2£.J21
16.380
Average
Flo.
gpm
^ c
ff
;3
±L
-\
~2
44
4^
_-
fj
^7
47
;C
48
i j
.:.:
50
4£
4j
-2
43
48
£j
^ I
-i
^£
43
4£
42
LL
39
41
44
*q
^.:
21
47
47
41
Pressure
Differential
psi
2.0
2.E
2.E
2 :
2.E
2.E
2.E
i.£
2 £
2.E
2.E
2.5
2.;
2.5
2.E
2.5
2.^
2.E
2.E
2.5
2.E
2.E
2.5
2.5
2.t
2.E
E.C
4.0
5.0
E.C
5.0
;.c
E.C
y
5.0
E.C
E.C
': :
6.0
Vessel B
Flovrate
gpm
^2
53
E2
49
53
^•5
54
£2
£3
r ^
EC
53
5^
EC
ig
C-i
;;
EC
£4
£^
;;
El
£1
iE
t£
E3
EC
51
C1
£2
49
52
£1
47
52
49
£2
£2
EC.
Cumulative
Totalizer
gal
724. t;4
745.092
7EE.C4E
7:2. C£2
510,333
£2£.C:£
E-E.ECE
EEC C :' 2
;;.£.£7;
1.019.217
1.042.523
1.C€9.Cc5
1.CEE.721
1.121.44C
1.159.E2S
1.1S3.7EC
L2C77EJ
i.2::.77-
i.2£2.;;c
1.2EE.C2E
1.!12.7££
1.338.E55
1.380.917
1.4:r.24£
1.441.35C
l.^;;.:;;
I.-^J.C:"
1.EE1.4E1
1.EEE.C45
1.£;4.2C£
1.EE4.3C9
1.£".£42
1.C4J.3C3
1.EEE.45E
1. =51. 932
14.S1E
31.39E
Usage
gal
40.522
24. £38
1E.9E3
27.C37
1E.2E1
U.7E3
21.415
33. £27
-1 £::
3E.E74
27.17E
23.545
23.306
2?. 542
17.EEE
34.719
48,186
24.124
14.001
iL C . C <- C
1S.1E3
33.0SE
25.731
2E.755
4^. ZE2
2E.331
34.112
2E.C25
25. £7;
E5.334
^ cgs
c.15c
20.104
23.233
:; "£i
19.1E2
2E.477
14.S1E
16.48C
Average
Flov
gpm
;?
48
i^
^£
-2
-2
4E
47
^c
42
48
48
46
45
41
_-
51
46
4]
42
43
49
46
^ 1
43
17
49
4c
42
44
39
4]
M
__
i;
43
^7
12
^ 1
Pressure
Differential
psi
C.
2.
2
2.5
2
-
;.
4.
£ C
5.0
-.:
4.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
E.C
5.0
5.0
E.C
E.C
5.0
E.C
5.0
2 £
c ^
C 0
E.C
5.0
5.0
5.0
-.C
6.0
5,0
-.C
E.C
£ c
£ C
E.C
£ C
Sjstem
Inlet
Pressure
psi
38
36
40
C2
36
-2
38
3c
4C
?:
E:
ci
36
EC
42
38
3c-
58
OS
42
38
-I
E:
f -_
;•;
o;
-:
44
33
«
E2
40
38
EE
;;
•5g
°-
:r
£;
Outlet
Pressure
psi
iC
24
28
4C
2E
JO
24
24
2E
it
°£
ii
2"
EC
2C
iC
34
•^S
2-
2C
^6
3c
EC
48
_-
26
2E
32
26
32
4C
26
2E
4£
2 =
2c
24
24
4£
Pressure
Differential
psi
12
12
12
12
12
12
14
12
12
12
12
1:
12
1C
12
12
14
1C
12
12
12
12
1C
1C
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
14
12
1C
12
12
10
12
12
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
EE4.1EE
888.693
5C.4.E4E
531. £83
545.534
S64.6S7
5SS.106
1. CIS. £33
1.C:i.221
1.1C8.CsE
1.13E.273
1.158.818
1.182.124
1. 208.665
1. 226.322
1,261,041
1. 09.227
1. 33,351
1. 47.3E2
1. 73.378
1. 52.531
1. 2E.E25
1. E2.3E7
1. 78.156
1. 20. 515
1. -£.£-;
i. ;:.= .= i
1. CS.590
1.534.568
1.631.C52
1.ES7.EEC
1."C3.5CE
1.723.910
1.7--.U:
1.7££.£C4
1.SC5,C5c
1.831.533
1.84E.4E1
1.SS2.531
Bed
Volumes
Treated1-1
BV
2.535
2.709
2.7EB
2.J-C
2.ESE
2.541
3,006
3.1C9
3.2EC
3.37E
3.4E1
7 m
3.604
T p^c
3.736
3,6-45
3.592
4.CSE
4. ICE
4.187
4.2-:
- ^-~
4,428
4.EC7
- :-'.:
4.71E
4.£2C
4.5C5
4.984
E.1EE
£.175
5.195
^ ~^ ~
£.327
c • ^_c
E.EC3
E.E84
£.£25
5.680
pH
".£1
7.3E
7.4C
7 ?£
7 -:£
",:1
".34
".45
7 . 3 C
- ;:
7.4]
7.3C
'.21
5.91
7. "2
7.1?
7.28
c.51
7VC3
i_it
7. -2
'.-. :
',^ =
',i.;
fi- :
NA~
'.i. =
*,- :
HJP
' ,~ '
',^.'
r,^:
>,^~
•.^ -
',- :
*,-. :
fiA :
',^:
'.^'
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bruni, TX — Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Veet
No.
26
t<
28
iS
30
31
32
33
M
Da^ of
Veet
~ue
Hted
~hu
p.-
"C"
~ue
'A'ed
~hu
Fri
Her
~u^
iVed
~|-u
Fri
Men
~ue
Wbd
~hu
Fri
l-lcp
~Uf
iVea
~pu
Fn
I 'or
•,Vea
~"U
Men
~ue
',Vsd
Tta
Cri
"c-
-y =
Wed
hu
Fri
' 'c^
~ue
Wad
~b'C5
c7iC6>te
07/10/06
07/11/06
07/1 2 '08
07/13/05
C7 1 4.'C5
C" 17.'CS
07/18/06
07/19/06
07/20/06
C7J2VC;
:"';-•":
07/25/06
07/26/06
C7-27.C5
37-26'C5
Time
08:30
CS:3C
03:30
CE.33
;;•;;
CS:2C
08:30
CS:3C
C6:3C
08:00
08:00
08:00
OB:00
08:00
08:00
C8:CC
CS:OC
C8:CC
OB:CC
OS:00
08:00
08:00
CS:CC
CB:CC
Cb:CC
Ct.CC
08: CO
05:00
08:00
08:00
08:00
08:00
C8:CC
08:00
08:00
08:00
G •: C C
C c : C C:
08:00
08:00
CclCC
Zi.ZZ
Veil
Operational
Hours
hr
W.3
1C.S
5 7
T3
c ~
^.2
IC.c
11.2
10.2
30.3
1-.6
1C.;
'•-
13.E
lc.7
12.€
12.5
?.:
3.0
; c
C O
8.8
9.6
10.3
c.-
^.;
1 ^
S.O
2.^
10.6
10.2
'. -.
11.:
E.I
7.5
10.^
:.l
2C.C
S.O
10.7
1 1 .2
y
Vessel A
gpm
50
^^
E2
E3
E2
^^
;^
^ -
c2
-^.
;C
EC
j;
E2
52
fj
=2
t2
-6
52
"
-8
M
^>
;2
E3
E1
CT
53
52
-8
E2
;.;
51
;;
E3
E3
"
52
53
;;
Cumulative
gal
K3.5S1
171. -c8
1EE.133
233. EE;
21". 12"
227.171
2E3.E28
2£-:.:iE
313.23-
35S.155
-2E.23C
-EC. 793
1-.17S
E1.C3C
92.023
130. C-S
15E.180
173. BSC
1S1.121
1sc.13c
2C8.78'3
22&.5E2
2EE/:::C
2:2. Er:
2^7.:: 3
3:£.3.c3
313. -31
33-.1-E
335.S8B
370.553
3SE.7E-
-15.172
--::--
_;c ;:;.
-7S.E-S
EC-.S81
^2" " - 1
E":.:E3
5SS.35S
629.93-
cc-.--5
E7E.-32
Usage
gal
33. SC-
27.-S7
13.E£E
IE. -23
13.E71
IC.C^-
25.3E7
32. -£7
27.21;
72.521
3S.C75
2 E . E E 3
1-.17S
36.BE1
iO.SS3
35.025
35.132
£_7_CC
7.2^1
15.015
12.E-7
21.175
2E.53S
1 : : : :
15.115
1C.38C
E 3::
20,71-
5.8^3
30.575
25.191
23.- IE
27. "2
12.25-
15.^51
2c.-3^
22. SIS
^E^ :2
22.7CJ
3C.E2E
3-.-EE
1:.:;:
Average
1 lo»
gpm
33
-2
-0
-2
-G
«
-1
«S
--
-0
i5
-1
2-
1E
il
50
-E
3]
40
3S
-0
iO
45
i-
33
39
^7
33
*1
48
-1
^1
-1
;o
-1
-2
-2
-1
o
-8
51
^1
Pressure
Differential
psi
5.C
S.C
€.0
E.C
i.C
- C
5.C
6.0
S.C
5.C
S.C
E.C
6.0
:.3-
6.0
5.0
S.C
6.0
S.C
6.0
S.C
:.3
E.C
S.C
6.0
S.C
S.C
6.0
6.0
5.0
E.C
E.C
;.:
5.0
6.0
5.C
6 0
6.C
5.0
6.0
5.C
6_C
Vessel B
gpm
51
-5
E2
E3
--'
_;
= 5
53
CO
5C
51
EC
51
sa
c';
-^8
^3
53
EC
51
E2
.:;
_ ;
-9
51
E-
52
C'J
c^
5;
-5
52
^•-/
^ •
-^
c?
c^
f ^
Cumulative
gal
6-5.035
32.786
1C6.i8E
12E.3EE
U8.535
175.113
2C7.ES-
235.373
:c;.;i;
3^8,C1S
373.791
1-.293
51,550
52.737
131.155
165.553
175.23-
182. -7-
137.^25
210.105
231.308
257.100
2E-.2E7
i55.3:5
3C5.727
31E.06S
335.726
2^1.550
372.^33
357.715
-21.C58
--E.E27
-;C.Si2
iSO.161
C6.^78
25. S3 :
"c.:'2c
601. K€
631.875
565.^81
S77.ECC
Usage
gal
33.537
27,751
13.559
1 5.E73.
1;'.E3;
1C, CO;
26.518
32.751
27.53.9
73.2^3
23,^03
2E.772
1-.253
37,257
£],2£7
3-8.358
35. -38
£.5^1
7.2-C
1-.S51
12.680
21.203
25.792
27.1E7
15.0S2
13..35E
5.359
20,6-0
5.82i
30,883
25.282
23.3^3
27.EE5
12,1=5
19,333
25.317
23.CE3
-£ ?c:;
22. SIS
30.733
3-. £32
11.C19
Average
Flov
gpm
35
-2
-C
^2
-C
-C
-2
^5
^c
«
£C
-1
2E
-E
il
51
-7
3£
-C
3@
-0
40
45
--
Jj
J9
47
35
40
45
41
41
^ 1
40
4]
4]
42
41
46
48
51
41
Pressure
Differential
psi
5.C
5.0
6.0
£.3
3.3
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.C
4.C
4.0
4.0
£.3
5.0
E.C
4.0
4.0
E.C
5.0
5.0
5.0
0 C
3.3
5.C
5.0
.3
S.C
S.C
E.C
5.0
4.0
E.C
E.C
5.0
5.0
S.O
5 0
r ,:j
4,0
5.0
5.0
E.C
Sgstem
Inlet
Pressure
psi
35
40
38
4£
E:
52
44
16
48
E8
4G
4£
36
3S
o :
53
58
:;
50
3B
5S
56
E:
46
50
-i
44
5^
33
44
54
44
3£
62
38
3S
;:
;E
36
38
36
36
Outlet
Pressure
psi
2^
25
2-
~£
-2
i2
_ ~-
2-
?:
-£•
:-
''.'.
2-
2-
jiC
-f
j.>
2-
2B
24
-•6
^-
-0
2-
-C
"?;
3-
-2
2-1
30
EC
?:
2-
c^
24
24
24
-4
22
24
22
^4
Pressure
Differential
psi
12
12
14
-
10
12
12
12
1C
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
14
12
12
13
12
1C
12
1C
12
14
14
14
14
12
a.
14
14
1-
1-
14
14
14
12
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
1.E9E.EEE
1,924,213
1.938.C1S
1.9E£.E££
1.97C.124
1. Sec. 128
2.005,646
2.C39.2S7
2.C56.5C6
2.140.14 =
2.173.552
2.205.224
2.215.517
2.2EE.E74
2.255.121
2 236 473
2.371.517
2.3SC.55B
2.387.758
2.402.743
2.415.423
2.42-6,632
2,452.424
2.43,3.511
2.EC4.ES3
2.515.C51
2. £23. -13
2.E41.CEC
2.E4E.E74
2.577.757
2.603.C3S
2.:2£.:£2
2.553.551
2.::£.14£
2.685.485
2.711.802
2.734.EE2
2.7E3.EE2
2.806.470
2,837,203
2.871.805
2. ££2. £24
Bed
Volumes
Treated1'1
BY
5.782
5.8-57
E.S05
E 5EE
c.CC;
5,037
6.118
5.218
5.302
6.525
6.646
5.724
6.767
5.881
7.006
7.123
7.231
7.2EE
7.2BC
7.325
7 '':~
7.425
".EC"
7. ESC
7 2"J?
7. SEE
7.EE-
7.747
7.765
7.853
7.335
8.CC7
£.351
8.128
8.187
8.268
E.33E
8.487
8.558
8.550
8.755
£."65
pH
7.C1
',-.'
',- :
'.--
: 7;
7.C1
£ £5
; ^
\.\
• ::
5 8E
: ;^
: .--
7.12
7.C7
7.2C
7.CS
"..;"
7.3C
5.53
£ ;E
" :;£
" !::
; -^
7.CE
7.3E
-. £1
7 15
-. £3
£ £4
: :3
: : '
- ~- -
? cc
> -c
•" "2
: ::
? -^
£.£4
£.£3
: 5:
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bruni, TX — Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
J5
36
"*7
3S
39
-C
il
-2
Da; of
Week
Men
Ur
iVed
~hu
Fr
! 'c"
~L.e
'.-'i'&3
~hu
Fri
Men
~Ui
lAted
~nu
Fr
1 'en
~JE
•P06
08/01. <06
Ca.'02''0€
C8.'C2''C6
CE :-•::
Cc'C7;e;
CE-'CS'Cc
OS/CS''C6
ce; 10/06'
Ca/11/06
OS/U'C6
C8/1E/C6
OB; 16/06
C^TTCc
OB-' is.- 06
CE/2J/C6
C c • - - ' C •:
C8'22|C5
OS.2i/C€
C 8/2 5 '06
0&V2SVC6
OS/25.'06
08/20/06
os/21/06
OS-CrCc
MW04/08
C9-0£>'Cc
Cj9V06/CJ
CS;C7.'C6
C9/CB/06
CS/11/CS
CS-'12-'Cc'
CS''12/Cc"
C9/1-/C6"
cs-15/06
:; IE -:E
CS-1 9.136
05.20/06
09/21/06
05/22/Cc
Time
08:00
08:00
08:00
CS:CC
2.E.2.C
CE:CC
CS:CC
C8:CC
CB:CC
OB:CO
08:00
CB:CC
08:00
C£ -CC
Cc'CC
CE.CC
OfttM
Cc:OC
CB:CC
08:00
CE:2C
08:00
08:00
08:00
06:00
C8:CC
naofl
CB:OC
CS:CC
CB:OC
08:00
08:00
C6.:CC
08:00
08:00
08:00
05:00
08:00
08:00
08:00
Veil
Operational
Hours
hi
1-.1
87
8.3
1C.-
11.:
21.-
1C.7
11. E
12.5
4.3
IE. 2
raj
11.8
11.5
1C. 2
12.0
11.7
15.2
S.C
]4S
25. S
9.7
11.2
1C.1
c.2
10.8
8.2
S.I
12. E
7.8
S.S
-.2
2.:
2.5
; i
: :
i .L.
2.8
2.c
u
Vessel A
Flovrate
gpm
;;
52
CO
CO
t2
52
5C
t il
51
EC
52
EC
52
52
E2
ig
51
51
L'
52
^C
48
51
EC
52
"C
^
-2
j.r
j."1
|g
52
C 0
52
^:
E1
E2
^5
48
EC
Cumulative
Totalizer
gal
712. 2S5
725.285
7E9.C5S
7SS.997
B2C.CSB
:;= ;--
5-C.1 1C
S72.5--
1.CC2.CE6
1 Z ~ - :~ "" ^
1.CEE.9EE
1.C5C.2C2
1.12E.2C7
1.15".c-:7
1.1:: 12?
1 2 1 £ 2 ° "'
1.2-:.E:'i
1.2CC.577
1.22-.S;-:
1. ;•:£.-;;
1.-!7.-£E
1.-CC.2';
1.-;.1.:22
1.E2C.M-
1.E:i.:.7C
1. 5-:i.c 11
1. £7.-C1
1. ::£.7"E
1. -2.2£-
1. •:2."--
1.-::2.2C2
1.-:i1.E:i
i. -j97.ee:
1.7C-.65-
1."11."ic
1.72£.Es£
1.722.172
1.7iO."8
1.7ic.E2?
1.75^.212
Usage
gal
2-7.967
21.58=
22.712
2S.BSS
21.1C1
5:. 725
22.2£2
22. S2-
2S.11E
22.752
22.112
2 :' . 2 2 c
2E.CC-
:-2.-£::
2:.-E:
22.11C
2£.£C£
51. ~2c
2-.-C9
-2.EC7
££.iS2
22.7=1
21. 2-:
25.2£2
1£.1££
21 5-1
17.750
21.275
22.EC2
2C.-£C
1"=.EE£
i.2£"
5.2U
6.851
7.12-
t-.eic
£.E7.i
7.27€
€.078
7.785
Average
Flov
gpm
^f
-i
-8
-8
_^c
^£
52
-5
27
SB
1C
E1
4S
;7
-•:
-2
-2
^c
^=
50
--
39
i~
-8
-3
^7
36
2S
_£
--
37
27
27
•>c
28
26
:_
^2
;:
2c
Pressure
Differential
psi
•£.C
5.0
£.C
£.C
;.:
:.C
£.C
;.:
6.0
£.C
;.c
£.C
6.0
E_C
E :
:.:
;.:
c.C
£.C
7.0
-.0
5.0
5.0
5.C
£.:
5.0
2.C
2.0
-.C
5.C
5.0
5.C
7.C
7.0
:.C
=.
7
7
E.C
c.C
Vessel B
Flovrate
gpm
;.:
53
5-5
;^
^-/
;;
51
51
52
51
t2
51
t2
52
E2
^9
5-2
52
_c
C^
-;
_:
E2
El
E2
i7
^^
43
49
48
EC
53
Ci
c-;
5C
t2
E2
_:.
-5
51
Cumulative
Totalizer
gal
71E.ES2
737.7-8
7c1=EC
791.8-21
£22.221
51C.E51
5--. -57
57S.7E2
1.CC7.SS2
1.C2C.21S
1.C52.52E
1.C9=.1£S
1.121.522
1.1:-.:"=.
1.1 = 2 1:1
1 22- -^ "'
1.2EE.2E-
1.2:;c.:5-E
1.222.2CE
1.277.1ES
1.^6,7-2
1. -59. 787
1.EC1.-77
1.E21.C38
1.5-3.582
1.5;:. 2-1
1.ESE.21S
1 ^ 1 c > -? c
1.£E2.S2£
1.57i.EBC"
1.5S-.11S
1.7C2.2--
1.7C5.E22
1.716.2-Sc
1."22.-:E
1.72£.15£
1.7ii.7ii
1.752.C55
1.7E8.12S
1.7SE.88E
Usage
gal
2B.182
22.066
22.302
2C.1£-1
21.25C
?7 .c ^«
22.C-:
2-.2EE
2£.9-1
22. £2:
32.216
O1 C -5 *V
OC OJ^
22.8-7
2:. £22
22.2E2
2;.£E1
52.272
24,649
-2.85-
69.5S-i
22.0"
31.630
29. £21
1E.-£-
•j" ;cc
17.S7E
21.6E6
2-.OE1
20.65-
1S.E28
9.226
6.17S
.= ?--
7.1Cv
1-.72C
J c^g.
7.215
€.073
7.7^7
Average
Flov
gpm
;5
;2
tj
ig
^c
^7
E2
K
2S
££
•^C
El
EC
tt
-7
-?
-?
^c
46
EC
15
iC
-7
-S
EC
17
3S
*j
1C
-^
27
27
27
'9
2c
0^
2-
ii
29
2€
Pressure
Differential
psi
5.C
£.:
5.0
€.0
E_C
E.C
5.0
5.0
£.2
E.C
5.0
5.0
£.::
-:.:
-: ;:
E :
£.:
5.0
-.0
S.C
2.C
5.0
5.0
E.C
E.C
E.C
3.0
2.C
:.:
2.0
5,0
E.C
:.0
:.:
- C
£ C
:.C
6.0
5.0
5.0
Sfstem
Inlet
Pressure
psi
28
26
-0
28
;£
2£
3c
52
26
26
^~
2-
26
-^
;-;
-:
38
26
-C
28
£6
E-
3€
28
26
ES
6C
EC
62
EC
-2
--
-:
-2
-2
28
-:
26
"C
-0
Outlet
Pressure
psi
2-
2-
26
2-
2£
24
Lt.
.-
22
22
22
22
~±
2:
2-
^ :
2i
±±
28
2-
;;
ii
22
2£
2-
E2
50
-8
c^
3E
28
20
26
22
2:
2-
26
22
52
2c
Pressure
Differential
psi
14
12
14
1i
12
12
1i
B
1-
1 ^
1-
12
1-
12
1-
1-
1 ^
1-
12
1-
12
i:
14
12
12
10
s
;
12
M
1-
\ ^
1-
1£
1-
1-
1i
s
14
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
2.321.0C5
2.597.155
2.1 IE. 175
2.1-S.J21
2.18-.C7c
2.212.017
2.2C1.-92
2. -21. 757
2.E12.9EC
2.E7E.111
3.706.801
2.72E.-22
2.7E-.9CE
2.825.155
3.8E9.2EO
2.91-.E-E
2.921.: 92
2. -2. £22.
2. EC.06B
-j £7 og^
3. 562. -62
2.371.203
Bed
Volumes
Treated1-1
BY
E.9CE
E =,72
9.C-C
9.126
3.222
i.ECI
S.£C2
5.7C6
5.796
9.SEE
9.9J2
1C.CSE
1C. 172
10.272
1C.2-:1
1C.-E2
1C.EE-
10.713
1C. 789
1C. 922
11.12-
11.205
11.201
11.292
11.--E
11.5-1
11.E9E
11.662
11.786
11.E29
11.E69
11.917
11.92-:
11.956
11.";7;
12.C22
12.0^2
12.065
12.08i
12.107
DH
:
^ 78
c.cS
7.22
" 1:
? 2!
7.22
7.22
7.16
".IE
7.:£
7.02
£ 99
: : :
: :. -
£ . 9 C
E ::
7.1-:
r ,i-
c.9i:
£ 7E
7.15
7.2C
7.22
7.21
? ;;
7 =^
7.E1
7.-C
7 "'£
£.92
E.9C
: : :
-E cl
: : :
7.-C
7-1
7. -2
7 28
i1 .-^
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bruni, TX — Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Veefc
No.
43
44
45
-E
47
48
4S
EC
Da| of
V»fl
I'cn
_ue
•A-ed
"hu
= ••
rcr
~u^
vVed
"hu
Fri
Won
~ue
Mad
~tiu
= ^
"C"
~^s
vYed
"l-u
Fri
Won
~ue
Wed
~hu
Fri
•• = -
~U5
Wed
"hu
Fri
(.ton
~ue
Wed
~hu
'••
Won
~ue
Wed
~hu
Fri
Date
CS/2E/C5
cs/26/06
C9.27.'C6
C5'2E' E
C9'29' E
1C'C2. 5
1CC3'C-E
1C''C4/C5
IC/CE.'CE
1 C/Cc/CE
10/OS/C6
ic.ic/CE
10/11/06
1C ''12/0-5
1C'1?'C-:
ic>iE'CE
1C'17/CE
ignawi
1C .'19/05
10/20/06
1 0/23/06
1 0/24/06
1 0/25/06
1C/26/CE
1C-27-C:
1C/3C/C6
IOOI/M
11/C1/C6
11.'C2/C£
11/03/06
11/06/06
11/C7.'CE
11/CS''05
11/09/06
n/io/pj
i_Ki3/oe.
11/14/CE
11/15/06
11''15/C5
11/17/C5
Time
CE:CC
08:00
CS:CO
E:
E:
J;
OS: C
C£:CC
CE:CC
08:00
OS:00
CE:CC
C 'C
C8:CC
C8:CC
08:00
08:00
08:00
08:00
C£:CC
C£:CC
C8:CC
CS:CC
OB:CO
CS:CO
CB:CO
08:00
CE:CO
08:00
08:00
CS:CC
CE:CC
CS:CC
08:00
C8:CO
08:00
Operational
Hours
hi
6.7
2.i
2.9
3.1
-.^
:.9
2.E
2.3
3.8
-.3
6.0
? s
2.9
3.6
2.-
E.2
6.3
IE
2.8
8.1
3.B
2.7
1.6
M
1.9
-t C
2.6
E.O
2.4
7 7
11.7
S.7
-.:
-.3
4.6
7J
2.;
2.2
3.1
2.0
Floviate
gpm
;;
53
; -/
t2
El
;2
;2
El
E3
E2
El
E2
52
E2
;2
51
52
El
£•>
El
52
^9
El
E:
='
-9
E:
51
51
50
El
C'l
-8
t^
E3
48
E2
E3
Cumulative
Totalizer
gal
1.7£S.£2£
1. 77-. 817
1.7C-1.3C-
1.7££.1-3
1.79£.9£7
1.S12.-E:
1.E1J.729
1.E2E.E77
1.E33.17;
1.E-5.727
1.SJC.-E-7
1.EEE.-92
1.E7E.EC9
1. C-:-. 192
1 ~ 9 ~ ° " °
1.913.EE9
1.91J.77-:
1.92E.H1
1.932.9ci
1.9E3.5SE
1. =59. Sic
1.9?3.E-cC
1.9£7.EES
1.971.-C9
1.97;..-;-
1.9E-E.E13
1.997.-BE
2.0C3.E2£
2. 022. 337
2.C-9.Cc?
2.C69.B3S
2.C7S.9-E-
2.C£c.772
2.C99.E-2
2.11E.11C
2.12-.E-EE
2.1?:.21-
2.137.112
2.1-3.3JC
Vessel A
Usage
gal
1-.31-
5.191
t.-S7
£.£39
E.S--
1E,-::
c,27c
7.1-E
7.301
13.E-9
13.7SC
6.CCE
7. 017
p, za.'>
;.7C;
7.-E3
1E.17E
E.217
?.3BE
7.803
21.C3-
5.99:
3.572
3:9:
3.£E1
7.99:
C.-C9
1 1,£72
E.C-1
1E.E11
2£.7-c
2C.7EE
9.11;
9.c1c
1C.77C
1E.EEE
:.-E:
5.C-C-
:.c9:
6.2-8
Average
Flov
gpm
:E
36
37
37
oc
••-
JJ
3£
32
u -1
38
37
-C
-0
^7
;•:
-C
-c
^y
16
92
37
«
L-
?-
;;
^1
39
^2
;1
38
-C
38
•5^
;:
^0
35
±1
37
E2
Pressure
Differential
psi
B.O
6.0
7.0
7
7
p
J.C
:.:
6.0
B.O
7.0
7.C
7.0
7.0
7 C
7.C
7.0
7.0
7.C
7.0
7.C
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.:;
7 C
J
;
: 'J
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.C
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.E
Flovrate
gpm
;;
54
= 1
E:
E2
E:
;;
E2
E-
u •>
E2
^ o
53
E;
;;
52
C }
^2
;-
c^
CO
EC
E2
E-
^^
_:.
EC
51
^"
52
El
1 2
r^
49
^o
E3
-C
E3
5^
Cumulative
Totalizer
gal
1.7EC.C9C
1.7c.::.2-E
1.792.713
1.799.E12
1.ECE.3C9
1.823.652
1 .829.9C2
1.S37.CC-
1.B--.EC-
1.BEB.C2-
1.871.657
1.£79.::;£
1.;;:.E:9
1.895. 2-3
1.9;i.9:C
1.9C9.3C1
1. 92-. 391
1.929.5J9
1.93E.E-7E
1.9i3.E9-
1,S£i.i£-
1.970.382
1.97^.232
1.97B.C2C
1.9E1.7EC
1.9:i.:1 1
1. S55.C11
2.CC7.£C3
2.C13.E77
2.C32.-33
2.058.966
2.C79.E3£
2.3.:;.£ :E
2.056.575
2.i:i.i:9
2. 127. 6-7
2.1 3-.C2-
2.135.620
2. 1-5. -25
2.152.552
Vessel B
Usage
gal
U.2CE
5.155
s -58
£.799
S 797
15,353
5.2-C
7.102
7.ECC
13.E2C
13.633
7.9^9
•: . i : 3
8.57^
.- 7^7
7.321
1E.C9C
5,175
5.3C5
7.719
20.870
5.518
3.65C
3 TBS
3.7EC
7. £31
E.-::
11.E92
E.97-
1E.EEE
2E .5??
2C.E7S
9.32 9
9.711
1C. 593
1B.37E
E.377
c c9-:
E.iCE
£.236
Average
Flov
gpm
;;
35
;
o
~j
•'
Si
3£
33
E2
38
37
-C
-C
^7
3S
^C
-6
-jf
15
52
37
-C
^c
33
17
i-
35
£1
-1
38
-C
;;
';.
9fi
3-:
38
-2
SJ
52
Pressure
Differential
psi
E.C
6.0
6.0
: 3
c 0
E.;
E.C
5,0
E.:
E.C
6.0
6.0
-E.C
E.:
c c
5.C
E C
E.C
c ^
6.0
£.C
6.C
5.0
£.0
E.:
E.C
E.C
5.0
E.:
6.C
5.0
C Q
: ;
E :
5.C
E :
--.-.
6.C
5.0
5.0
Inlet
Pressure
psi
E2
38
-;
ii
-£
-L
-C
40
3€
-*:
-C
--
-E
ii
-2
-i
E«
4g
46
3£
--
-2
-8
E£
-£
3£
c^
58
--
•:£
-?.
-£
-£
3E
c^
E2
EE
50
-C
38
Outlet
Pressure
psi
;-
i-
32
E'i
E'-
:':j
25
28
22
3C
iC
:'3
32
TQ
;c
28
•S2
3-
32
22
30
23
i^
-2
: 2
£^
-2
M
32
3i
36
3^
E'E
2-
-C
EE
£2
36
2-
24
Sjste
Pressure
Differential
psi
g
14
12
12
12
]1
12
12
1-
12
14
14
14
1-
i-L
14
1-
1-
14
15
14
M
14
14
14
15
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
M
\ ^
\-
16
14
16
14
n
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
3.9-EE.414
3.991.EE9
3.555.C37
4. C4.E35
-. IE.EE'3
4. 2E.5EE
4.C35.225
4.042.328
4.C49.S2S
4.053.348
4.075.581
-.C8-.53C
4.C91.S93
4.1CC.EE7
4.1C7.3C4
4.114.525
4.129.71E
-. 34. £93
4.141.155
4. 148.918
4.159.7SB
4.17E.706
4.175.555
4.1 S3. 344
4.1E7.1C4
4.194.93E
4,201.335
4.212.927
4.218.901
4.237.7E7
4.264.250
4.2-86.160
4.294.1E9
4.3C3.SCC
4.314.5;;
-.3E2.971
4.339.34E
4.344.544
4.351.750
4.357.955
Bed
Volumes
Treated1-'
BV
12.1E1
12.155
12.189
12.21C
12.2E7
12.253
12.3C3
12.324
12.347
12.3SB
12.43C
12.4E4
12.47E
12.5C2
12.522
12.E4E
12.E91
12.5C5
12.E2E
12.649
12.713
12.731
12.743
12.7E4
12.7-EE
12.785
12.EC9
12. £44
12. £53
12.92C
13.CC1
13.CEE
13.CS2
13.122
13.154
1E.21C
13.23C
13.247
13.258
13.287
DH
7.14
7.13
7.15
7.31
7_2£
7.22
7.26
7.31
7.42
7.-1
7 ^4
7.32
7.22
7.20
-.41
7 2:
7.29
7.25
7.2£
7.E1
7.23
7.21
7.23
-.24
' 25
7_25
7.2E
7.29
7.31
- ::
7.2-E
-.29
7.2E
7.30
".11
7.11
7.12
7.08
7.12
7.11
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bruni, TX — Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
51 =
52
=•}
. .
cc "
off
^-
5.:
Dag of
VMk
I'cr
~u-
v"(ed
~hu
Fri
Won
~ue
Wed
~hu
Fri
Men
~ue
•A-ed
~hu
Fr
I Icn
~ue
Wed
~hu
Fri
Won
~us
•A-'ed
~hu
Fri
Mori
~ue
vVed
~hu
Fr
us
•.'red
~hii
Fri
Men
~us
vVsd
~tiu
Fri
Date
1 1 '2C.;C5
11/2 1'CS
11/22''C8
11/23''C5
11'2-::
11 '27.:;
11/28/06
11/25/06
ii''3C''C5
12'C1'C5
12'0-^5
12;C5>"5
12/05 ''05
12)C7.'C5
t2-;;-;;
12/TKC6
12/12''CS
12/TM;6
i2.'i-':5
12:'15'C5
12/18/06
12/1S/C6
12)20/06
12)'21/0€
12.Z2>:-:
I2/25''C5
12/25/06
12)27/06
12-2:-C:
12'25 C £
01)02)07
01/03/07
B1/M/07
OK?-"
D1/QBKI7
C1)'C9''C7
01/10/07
01/11/07
01/12''07
Time
Nw
HA
NA
NA
NA
c£:c:
CE:CO
OS:CO
05:00
06: CO
5J;JC
C£:CC
c£:cc
CS:CC
06:00
CE:CC
06:00
; = •;;
:; :c
05:00
tIA
MA
MA
MA
:,-
r,A
MA
MA
•,_
'.-
C5:Cu
05:00
05:00
Z'.'.ZZ
Zl'.ZZ
CS:CC
08:00
08:00
05:00
Veil
Operational
Hours
hr
',-
NA
NA
HA
NA
13.2
i •>
2.8
11
2.2
C i
2.5
3.2
1.0
?.1
-> •*
2.0
1.8
y
1.9
MA
NA
MA
NA
MA
MA
'.-
NA
NA
',-
17.1
1.3
3.0
:.:
?.:
-.0
*J
•> R,
2.5
Vessel A
Flovrate
gpm
h-
NA
tt«
I! A
I! A
EC
ei
i€
52
SC
52
51
52
52
51
51
52
52
51
48
IJ«
MA
MA
NA
NA
r,i-
HA
MA
• ,-
'.-
-S
50
51
52
51
52
-;•
ig
52
Cumulative
Totalizer
gal
',-
MA
NA
NA
Mi-
2.1?£.22c
2.17:. E5c
2.1 81. Si 1
2 .!£-:. HI
2.1;? ; ; ^
2,2^-. 927
2.211.253
2.21s. 173
2 22C.C55
2.227.?£5
2.23-.c21
2.233.E7S
2.2-2.373
2.251.2-c
2. 25=. CC-
li A
fiA.
MA
NA
NA
r,i-
riA
HA
•.^
',-
2 . 2 £7 . £ 7 3
2.250.775
2.25-:. cl:
2.3:-.5£3
2.315.255
2,319,317
2.327. icl
2,?3-.5C-£
2.3-G 121
Usage
gal
'!-
NA
HA
'iA
:.t
i. ^ . c •: ~
:.c3C
5.5 5
i;.i-7
: I' : :
:.££C
1.5E2
T" '' ° :":
7. -3:
3. £57
1 ^C£
8.273
- T c •-,
MA
HA
MA
MA
MA
MA
NA
!l-
•;^
•l-
? 1 . £ £ 5
2 SO'-
;.C37
7.7-£
1-.£5£
8.1"
7. --7
5.213
Average
Flo*
gpm
MA.
NA
MA
NA
NA
32
tt
:•£
3;
^i
3-
37
3£
31
':'-.
-•-
32
'/:
;c
-2
NA.
MA
HA.
NA
NA
N^
NA
NA
HA
',-.
31
j7
^
36
;;
;:
•54
33
31
Pressure
Differential
psi
\-
HA
MA
NA
NA
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.C
7_C
-.:
7.C
7.0
7.0
7.0
MA
HA
NA.
NA
NA
!,i-
MA
MA
\_
',-
7_C
7.C
7.C
7.C
^.:!:
7.C
7.0
7.0
s.o
Vessel B
Flovrate
gpm
M-.
MA
MA
MA
MA
51
;2
i;
53
51
;;
52
53
= ;
52
52
= ;
z'j
52
-5
MA
MA
NA
MA
',»..
MA
MA
MA
M-
',-.
.5
51
52
52
;;
^7
;s
53
Cumulative
Totalizer
gal
!.-
MA
NA
MA
NA.
2.178.162
2.1S-.J72
2.1SC.C5£
2.15£.£C2
2.2C2.S33
2,213. -33
2.21S.7iC
2.22£.5-6
2,225.395
2.235.7C7
2.2-3.C15
2.2-£.75i
2.25C.-3C
2.255.28-
2.2c-.C55
MA
MA
NA
NA
',*,
m
MA
MA
fi"
'.-
2.255.2";
2.25£.1 1-
2.3C-.C25
2. 311. ££2
2.!1£.£££
2.32£.CS5
2. 33-. 07;
2.3-1.350
2.3--.C--
Usage
gal
M-
RA
MA
NA
:;^
25.5CC
c.510
C -5fli
£.7-?
5.831
10.800
S.3C7
C.6C8
1.550
^ ^rc
7.3CE
3.781
3 63-
£.85-
-.775
NA
MA
MA
MA
Mi-.
HA
MA
N~
MA
N.-
31.21-
2.B-1
c S 1 1
7.c57
7.tb-
7.22S
7.SS-C
7,2£E
T.Zc^
Average
Flov
gpm
r,^
NA
NA
MA
NA
32
i^
32
3?
1L
ti
m
3C
31
^c
"
32
34
-:
-2
NA
HA
MA
NA
MA
HA
HA
HA
NA
',-
;:
3fi
jg
:5
;;
3C
33
32
20
Pressure
Differential
psi
',-
HA
NA
NA
NA
5.0
5.0
5.:
2.0
J.C
6.0
6.Q
SJ
B.O
? c
;.:
;.:
:.C
:.:
E.C
NA
NA
',-
NA
',A
MA
',-
NA
NA
•,-
5.0
e.o
5.0
:.C
£.:
€.0
5.0
3.0
S.O
Sfstem
Inlet
Pressure
psi
!,-
NA
NA
HA
NA
-S
Ei
: !:
28
52
iC
-2
~B
3=
5-
--:
£0
38
X
5;
HA
HA
MA
HA
HA
'.-
HA
HA
NA
M-.
£0
iC
35
?£
;£
-:
50
5£
;c
Outlet
Pressure
psi
',-
N-
NA
'.-
NA
3-
-0
-£
2i
48
2i
2£
3-
22
-0
32
3?
22
22
-0
NA
NA.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
'.-
-£
2-
20
22
^~
2-
3c
-0
22
Pressure
Differential
psi
NA
NA
NA
MA
MA
M
1i
1-
1-
1 ^
15
1-
1-
K
1-
1-
(4
K
l ^
M
NA
NA
NA
HA
HA
HA
NA
HA.
HA
I.-.
1-
1 =
16
i;
i-
16
M
1 •:
IB
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
,-
JA
NA
NA
NA
i.383.-85
;.3S5. S€
-.355. 80
i.-C2. 2;
-.-07. 57
-.ilS. 57
-.-25. £-
-.-31. 72
-.-33. 22
-.--1. 31
-.--£. 35
-.-52. 20
L ^cc --
-.-=-. £C£
-.-69. 382
MA
NA
Kf
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.-
•,^
-.5CC.5S7
4,503,438
- 505 3-5
-.517.CC5
-.52-.15C
-.531. -15
A53 .355
-.5- .££-
-.5- .556
Bed
Volumes
Treated1"1
BV
•(-
NA
MA
NA
MA
13,26-
12.3Si
13AC1
13. -21
13. -2S
13. -72
13. -51
13.512
13.517
13.5-C
13.5£2
13.57-
13.585
13.512
13.626
HA
NA
NA
HA
NA
HA
NA
tj.A
HA
NA
13.721
13.73C
13.7-;
13.7"!
13.75:
13. £15
13.8'0
13.552
13. £72
PH
' ,-
NA
NA
•,^-
MA
7.C5
7.02
7.01
7.1-
7 ::;
7."
7.01
7.15
7.15
".12
7.12
7.21
71-
7.20
".:-
NA
NA
fW
:,-
',-
•,_
HA
NA
t,-
',-
".11
7.1£
7.C5
".:-
" ; ;
7.C2
7.0-
£.52
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bruni, TX — Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Veek
No.
59
£0
m
:^
&
54
cc
55
Da] of
Veek
l.lon
~U£
vYed
"hu
Fri
l.lon
~U£
Wed
~hu
Fri
Man
~u?
Wed
~hu
Fri
1.1 on
~ue
Wed
~hu
Fri
Mon
~ue
•.•Yes
~nu
Fri
Mon
~ue
Wed
~hu
Fri
1.1 c n
~ue
vVed
~hu
Fri
I-' on
~ue
Wed
~hu
Fri
Date
01/15/07
01. MS '07
C1'17/C7
01 '13/07
01 '18/07
C1.'22.'C7
01/22/07
01/24/07
G1 '2C'C7
1'25'C7 = =
C1'2S/C7
01/30/07
mourn
02'01.'07
2/C2/C7 = s
C2/C5'C7
C2/C8'C7
C2'C7.'C7
C2.'OS/07
02/09/07
02' 12/0 7
C2'13'C7
C2'14'C7
C2'15'C7
C2'15'C7
02/19/07
02/20/07
02/21/07
02/22/07
02/22/07
C_2/2j^C7
C2/27/C7
O2.'25'07
03/01 'C7
C3/C2'C7
03/05/07
C3iC£/C7
C3'C7'C7
03/08707
02/05/07
Time
08:00
CS:CC
08:00
CB:CC
CS:CC
OS:CC
OS:00
08:00
C8:CC
C="CC
CE:CC
C6:CC
CS:CO
08:00
08:00
CB:CC
CS:CC
CS:CC
CE:CC
OS:00
08:00
CB:CC
OS:CO
CS:CC
CS:CC
OB:CO
03:00
08:00
08:00
08:00
CB:CC
CS:CC
CS:CC
08:00
08:00
CB:CC
OS:CO
CS:CC
08:00
08:00
Veil
Operational
Hours
hr
4.4
^ ^
3.1
y
1.5
0.8
1.4
HA
',-
NA
0.9
13
0.9
1.9
0.8
4.6
y
8.9
4.1
2.9
4.4
2.;
2J
3.7
2.2
-.3
2.1
c c
E.O
C 4
10.;
6.7
3.1
? c
4.9
Iftf
2.4
2.9
1 £
3.7
Vessel A
gprn
51
52
52
52
53
SO
^c
EC
51
52
NA
NA
(M
NA
52
52
51
= '
= 1
51
t-
53
52
5;
54
52
51
52
54
52
-5
47
50
49
50
50
52
51
48
49
Cumulative
gal
2.345,377
2.357.518
2.3=3.5=5
2.557.545
2.371.535
2. 373. Sec
2.378.1:8
2.331.524
2.365.7-c
2. 3;-;. 3:i
2.-C-.17C
2."35.c5c
2.— 1.51C
2. —2. 030
2.--2.7SC
2.-52.-B9
2.-57.C-:3
2. -77. 35;
2,-cc.ll 1
2.491.544
2.456.115
2.503.7^3
2.5Cc,.-c-
2.5H.22-
2.52C.-5S
2.527.E.E3
2.535.353
2.549.727
2. 5=1. £57
2.^73. 5-;
2.t53..3t4
2xCc.c77
2.526.574
2. =.33. =42
2.c42.52S
2. :cc.3£ 1
2.C9C.515
2. 595. 259
2.702.425
2.721.852
Usage
gal
8.25=
5.141
= .077
-.354
3. 5-: 2.
2. 45S
4.200
3.75=
7. £22
= .555
7.3:5
31,-;c
5 354
520
1.760
8.705
- ^ = ^
20.295
8 7C2
c c^^
7.471
4.5B8
5,781
C.74C
-.225
7.404
B 53C
13.225
11.520
11.891
1 = ,=C:
1c,322
19.897
7.0c8
- ° 1 -^
3.337
4. 841
7.06=
19.427
Average
Flov
gpm
21
24
23
40
40
51
50
HA
lift
hA
14 =
437
1C;
C
37
32
42
2S
36
22
iS
31
34
2C
22
26
2=
23
40
ov
27
41
-1
24
24
27
27
28
33
37
Pressure
Differential
psi
8.0
8.0
B.C
s.o
7.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.C
= .C
9.0
s.c
6.0
9.0
S.C
5.C
9.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
E ;
7.0
7.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
=.C
6.0
6.0
Vessel B
Flowrate
gpm
52
53
- -i
5:
54
51
5C
51
52
53
NA
NA
li-
HA
5C
51
L\
51
51
«
5C
5C
CQ
51
52
5C
15
5C
52
CQ
;;
45
;;
46
4 =
1C
50
15
;7
45
Cumulative
Totalizer
gal
2.354.475
2.3=3.354
2.366.316
2.373.551
2.377.156
2.279.552
2.283.926
2.287.770
2.365.640
2.4C2.32S
2.-35.77^
2.43i.56:
2.4i-.£C:
2.447.027
2.448.720
2.455.773
2.4=1.100
2.4JC.315
2.43S.E25
2.492.645
2.5C0.466
2. 504.6=2
2.51C.1CO
2.515.221
2.520.124
2.525.8-SB
2.534. S72
2.547.457
2.558.641
2.569.828
2.5 = 4.651
2.JCC.415
2.515.:;;
2.525.562
2.634.675
2.575.254
2.573.545
16E2J75
L . •'.'.'-. ~. ~ ±
2.7C. .2C4
Usage
gal
9.824
8.915
5.625
4.332
3.547
2.-S4
4.244
3 Si4
6.070
5.498
7.441
25.787
5.225
2.222
1.692
B.C53
4,327
19.216
8.222
5. 1C:
5.321
4.1S5
5.-2E
5.121
2.912
5.754
7.975
12.534
11.184
11.187
15.122
15.454
18.678
5.485
S.CS4
40.576
3.292
^.120
5.105
15.422
Average
Flov
gpm
27
22
22
40
35
52
51
HA
HA
HA
136
41-
97
15
25
25
40
36
33
2S
26
2B
32
2B
2C
26
34
2c
37
O w
24
36
28
31
31
OC
24
24
28
21
Pressure
Differential
psi
1.0
6.0
e.o
6.0
7.0
; Q
6.0
6.0
3.:
€.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
rj
7.0
6.0
5.0
3.3
E.2
; •-•
5.0
5.0
:.3
6.0
5.0
6.0
:.3.
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
5,0
5,0
Sfstem
Inlet
Pressure
psi
c ^
44
•50
-":.
36
34
22
32
38
36
36
40
36
'c
40
28
33
38
36
-4
-i.
-:
35
26
42
40
38
42
t1?.
40
38
-p
3C
40
42
4-
26
42
40
42
Outlet
Pressure
psi
40
26
24
24
^j;
20
13
13
24
22
.;<:
24
20
22
26
22
23
^ii
e5&
30
23
24
-<;
2-
28
24
22
25
s2
^4
22
46
4 =
26
28
30
25
25
23
28
Pressure
Differential
psi
14
13
16
n
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
16-
14
14
IE
IE
16
16
14
14
i ;
14
14
14
16
IE
15
16
16
16
12
14
14
14
14
12
14
12
1-
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
4.559.802
4.553.713
- C7i =-^
4.575.575
4.552.522
4 55= CC=
4,589.250
i cCi7 CQi
4.601.154
4.507,552
4.615.1C3
- r~~ 850
4.65C.125
4,652.351
4.554.044
4.552.357
4, 71:. -^4
4.EE5.54C
4,c53.c:3
4.558,5:9
4.735.75C
4.715.424
4.721.54;
4.725.458
4.722.222
4.740.157
4.752.751
4 76° 56C
4.775.152
4.750.275
4.605.735
4.624.417
-.83C.5C6
4. =40. CCO
4.3 = 3.575
4.EE3.5"2
4.333.100
4. 394. 206
4.910.628
Bed
Volumes
Treated1'1
BV
2,902
2.525
2.547
2.553
3.571
? 979
3.992
4.003
4. 028
4.048
4.070
-.151
-.177
4.184
-.1-:5
4.214
4.227
4.235
4.211
4.226
4.347
4.350
4.27;
-.355
4.407
4.428
- 4C2
4.450
4.524
4.558
4.504
4.552
-.709
4.728
4.~55
4.55 C
4.690
4.903
4.521
4.571
pH
: . ':• t
5.5^
5.54
5 . ! E
'."
7.1-
HM
MM
7.25
'/ '
JM
7.C4
7 ')3
7.12
^ . 3 ':•
".35
" . 3 :.
7.12
".15
7.1c
7.25
7.32
ias
7.41
7.25
".2E
7.52
7.29
7.34
7.41
7.22
7.43
7 ^
7.42
7.5C
7.32
" 3 E
7. -2
j_4|
7.52
>
oo
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bruni, TX— Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Vvek
No.
67
65
65
70
72
7?
H
Dai oF
V;;;.2i5
:.c;c.i;;
f essel A
Usage
gal
11.5E-
-.3EC
-.330
8,718
5. SSI
5.1E7
17.651
11. 7c;
7.51 =
7.381
5. 155
1C. -75
8.030
2.903
1-.27S
12,13-
13.581
11. 2-S
13.332
11,250
31,362
21.SE7
1S.1E?
11.183
-..'1:
Average
Floif
gpm
30
2=
27
30
2E
25
L .'
2 =
it
38
22
27
gq
21
2:
22
iB
23
«
2J
IS
17
-2
2 .'
3-
^7
-c
(7
•>•>
.=
52
^7
-C
32
«
25
48
40
Pressure
Differential
psi
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.C
7 C
7.0
7.C
7.C
7.C
7.0
7.0
7.C
7.0
8.C
E ;
7.0
7 C
;.:;
€.0
7.0
7.C
E.C
7.C
7.0
8.0
: C
7.C
E.C
: .
i.O
9.0
9.0
S.O
3.0
8.0
=.:
Flowrate
gpm
^9
-8
50
i?
-5
51
19
47
i5
-7
49
47
50
51
~\
L\
17
50
££
-C
5C
5C
- ^
51
1.:
50
51
50
51
49
51
51
51
CC
-3
51
EC
51
52
Cumulatiue
Totalizer
gal
2. 71 -.85=
2.71S.15C
2. 722. -S3
2.727.C5S
2. 731. ICC
2. 738.313
2.7-3.557
2.7-E.E32
^. . tt.Cii
2. 755. 312
£. i i C.SC-C
2.7E-.S5-
2.7ES.E23
2.755.355
2.75S.-rS
2.EC7.E52
2.E 1 1.5:5
2.E1E.52-
2.;:i.15c
2.E2:.c-55
2. £31.1 5-
2.S35.-27
2.835.751
2.E-2.5EE
2.E-5C.-3E
2.&t2.itii
2.E-:3.E52
2.£7c.£.J-
2.ES1.E53
2.5CE.5E3
2. SIS. 355
2.532.2-2
2.5-3.CCC
2.572.753
2.5;.i.;.-c
3. CCS. -55
3.018.5=0
3.022.537
:.c:i.;55
Vessel B
Usage
gal
S c^c
^.251
3.3^3
i cpj;
-.0-1
7.213
5.2--
5.C75
-.Cc7
1 E.E 13
:. =7-
E.OCE
-.E2&
5.732
-.11-
E.:E!
3."?7
=.335
2. :72
5.555
-.255
-.233
-.22-
2.E15
7.872
1.S--
11.57C
13.032
1-.57S
1E.72C
1C. £13
12.8-5
1C. 75;
25.7:3
15.177
17.515
S.1C5
3.577
i.cl;
Average
Flov
gpm
25
22
21
25
21
21
22
25
20
3c
18
22
28
13
21
1E
23
25
37
15
•:
15
12
. s
23
31
45
-_
^^
o-
ii
50
- =
;;
28
44
23
ii
3S
Pressure
Differential
psi
5.0
at
c.O
5.0
5.0
6.0
c.C
:.C
5.0
: C
:.C
e.c
E :
5.0
E C
.: Q
-.C
E.C
:.C
: C
E.C
F.C
E.C
7.C
5.0
5.0
6.0
-.c
7.0
-..:
6.0
:.:.:
7.C
7_C
c-C
7.C
".C
7.0
c C
Inlet
Pressure
PSi
4|
-&
-E
-&
c~
5i
52
-E
E2
HA
3S
«
-:
:E
3c
og
3-
40
-;
^ J.
:-
3S
:-
:;
5C
II
: -_
38
•-.:
~J~
;E
4[
3B
:E
-^
^2
::
38-
40
Outlet
Pressure
psi
32
^^
.'i
34
38
40
98
14
4S
•,j-
i-
2E
2S
2-
22
i-
1c
22
2E
2C
!2S
22
2C
22
35
20
22
24
22
2C
2^
^^
22
22
it
22
2C
22
22
S|ste
Pressure
Differential
psi
14
1-
M
1-
M
14
14
1-
1-
MA
14
1-
12
14
14
14
IE
IE
U
1-
12
14
14
14
12
14
1 1
] 1
IE
1-
1
1
1
1
23
2C
IE
16
18
m
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
4.527.817
4,948,381
-.53-.31C
4.52C.31S
5.;i:.17,E
5.C15.513
5.C23.E.-8
5.C2E.52C
5.:::. 215
5.C35.51E
5. C-C. 751
5.C45.C75
5.CE5.17E
5.C57.187
5.1 13.507
5.124,720
5.137.5EE
5.1-E.32-
5.17£.;;7
5. 157.25-
5.21-.77S
5.223.884
5.227,851
5 236 675
Bed
Volumes
Treated1'1
BY
5.001
E.OU
5.024
5.D38
c CCC
5.072
5.C88
5.1C-
5.115
5.1E7
5.1SE
5.21-
5.225
5.2-5
5.25s
5.28-
5.255
5.317
5.325
c 'i2'
5.355
5. 338
5.381
5.350
5.-1-
5.i2C
' c ice
5 455
5,540
5,551
5.524
5.5=3
5.555
5,757
5.5-5
5. ESS
5,325
z '.'>*
5.5€5
pH
"• -0
7.55
7.51
7.58
7 ^c
7.-1
7.35
7. -2
7.40
7.55
- •.=
7.52
7.5C
7 -5
-*.
7,_£
7.35
7.2S
721
7 3:
7.-C
T CT
7.50
7 c-
7JJ
7.27
7, IE
7-1
7 -8
- :-.
7.EE
7,55
7 33
7. -2
- : E
"5:
7.52
" - :
7.52
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Bruni, TX — Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
76
77
7-
79
SC
El
82
Dai or
Vcet
l.'or
~ue
',Ved
Ihu
Fri
Mon
~ue
vVed
~hu
~>.c
'. .-«
~hu
Fri
":;-
~u^
•.Ved
~hu
Fn
Men
~ue
iVed
~hu
Fri
I 'en
~ue
fted
~hu
Fri
Mon
-j5.
Wed
~hu
Fri
Date
CE/14/07
CE.'1E/07
CE;i£;o7
OE/17.'07
CE;1&.'07
OE/21/07
OE/22/07
OE/23/07
OE/24,'07
CE''2E;C7
C£'2S'C7
CE'31'07
C£''C1.''C7
C:^."
C6''CE/07
cs/os/07
05/07/07
os/08/07
06/1 1/07
CS/12/C7
05/13/07
OS •' 14/07
CS''1E''07
CM 8/07
C£'1S'C7
06/20/07
OS/21/07
CE.22/C7
C5/2E/C7
05/25/07
OS/27/07
06/28/07
CS/2B/07
Time
CS:CC
CS:00
03:00
Cc'CC
CB:CC
OS:00
CS'CC
03:CO
CMC
03:00
03:00
03:00
C£:CC
03:00
03:00
CE:CC
CE:CC
03:00
03:00
C3'00
CE:CC
CE:cc
03:00
03:00
03:00
03:00
Veil
Operational
Hours
hr
? :
4.7
2.S
u
£.4
2.3
2.3
2.1
; £
- .7
; :
2.0
? ?
1 £
E 3
47
3.1
*J
S.C
E £
74
7.7
£.1
8.1
7f.
7.6
E.O
E 0
--• --•
2.2
1.3
2.3
3.3
Vessel A
Floorate
gpm
£C
;;
E3
;c
t:2
£2
EC
;i
4£
EO
t2
E1
52
£1
£C
£0
J2
5;
£C
52
E2
E3
C-5
E2
£1
E2
E2
EC
t4
4§
t2
"
45
-3
Cumulative
Totalizer
gal
:.i£2.:ic
3.177.0-1
3.1S3.33E
3.19S.C9C
.211.M2
.217. S7S
.22£.:-E
,2::.-:'£
.241.254
.2EC.383
.2£; '."
.2 ;.1£S
.2 ?.£1£
.2 :.£-!
.i 7.;7^
.3 C.1 12
.? £.— -
.:•' :'.£:£
.:' t.7.':
.; 2.;?2
.- £.:;•;
.- £.11;
-2£ 1 1 £
.-2£.11s
.^28.113
,i28.11B
.-23.115
.-2E.11S
.-2£.11S
.-2-.119
,-12£.-£ ?
!.-!-. 7s£
:.---.;::
Usage
gal
7.B2-
U.731
c.2S^
12.7EE
1£.2:2
£.£27
7.367
E,OSS
10,829
;.n;
:..-2-
£.372
£.£-7
S.T^t
-,1?£
1c.222
£.21-
£.£!2
1-.££1
:2.1:3
27.19i
22. 1£-
23.023
t.;--
£.322
S.EOS
Average
Flov
gpm
t;
E2
37
44
^-7
«
53
«
EO
32
27
.:>
-7
49
^2
46
22
^;
E1
-c
E3
EC
EO
_
12
39
£3
Pressure
DiFFerential
psi
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
3.0
7.0
7.C
I :
7 :
7.0
B.C
S.C
B.C
8.0
B.C
S.C
; :
S.C
S.C
S.C
s.o
S.C
s.o
S.C
S.C
s.o
c n
s.o
s.o
8.0
B.C
s.o
Vessel B
Flowate
gpm
L£
E2
E1
18
EC
EC
ti)
ig
47
48
;;
-^
EC
49
-8
-B
CC
El
-£.
EO
£1
E2
£1
EC
1C
EC
El
-P
EO
^7
EO
E2
-7
4J
Cumulative
Totalizer
gal
3.C:,£.i:-£
3.110.0S8
3.115.021
3.12c.112
? 1-2. 7CC
3.1-S.C71
? 1££.1£:
;.icc.9se
3 171 3-C
3J7B.S74
? 1:".:£1
M9E.O-2
3.2CC.--1
: . iL :•-•. • :
3.213.C E
3.229.1 S
3.23-.1 7
3.2-2.3 £
3.277.3 E
3.3C3.i 4
3,32i.= E
-• ;_.; - -
^ °^I 1 .1
:.!£c.: E
3.-CC.3 7
3,-ll.c 7
3.-2E.7 £
:.-:'£.£ £
3 -3£ -^ E
:.-:£.£ £
3.439.9 2
3. 444. £12
3.-E3.4C4
Usage
gal
7 ~'£^
14.CE2
E.S23
12.091
14 c B3
£.371
7.0BE
4.312
10.372
7 534
£.217
7,961
£.355
S.33E
'j S.&G
1 E 4^-
4.3SS
B.2E2
14.280
2C.c4c
2S.1C5
21.271
22.052
17.4C7
1£.:£1
20.322
11.280
14.07;
12. SEC
_
1,217
4.£10
8.SS2
Average
Flo*
gpm
41
EC
35
i2
^E
46
51
2-8
^S
27
22
46
^5
47
-1
j. j.
1S
44
-S
43
El
4S
46
4£
;;
4£
2E
47
4?
_
11
11
^c
Pressure
Differential
psi
B.C
S.C
S.O
7.C
S.C
•. Z
--
7.C
S.O
7.0
7
7 ;
7
7
7
7.C
7.0
7 :
7_C
7.C
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.C
7.C
7.0
7.C
- -
7 C
; ;
£.C
7.0
6.0
c.C
Sjstem
Inlet
Pressure
psi
3d
38
38
44
°B
s
:
4
:
:
4
-
£
:
:
B
z
g
g
£
S
:
R
4£
40
1 •
3B
G
55-
Outlet
Pressure
psi
2:
22
22
2B
22
22
20
2C
28
2*
20
20
22
aZ
t.v
22
iM
32
2:
iii.
2C
2.2
22
22
2Z
22
22
2:
SM
22
20
22
iC
45
Pressure
Differential
psi
j
B
6
5
j
5
e
4
2
4
;
4
:
£
4
4
=
£
6
s
E
Q
g
g
;
=
6
g
B
4
C
:
2
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
E.3C1.37C
E.3 E.422
.321.34E
.323.43-r
^4^ C24
,3t-.?St
.3=1.480
.3£€.2S2
.37£.££4
::-.15:
:;2.-C£
.4CC.?££
4CC 7^c
.41 E. 100
413.993
.4!4,4£:
.435. 4£1
.447.713
-n ;;:
,4£2,£35
. CS.74S
. 30,019
. E2.081
£5,4££
:E.?4;
. CE.571
. H ;;i
. :1.C2£
. 44. CCS
--.ZZi
= -'4= 22 =
E.E4S.S3E
E.SES.72S
Bed
Volumes
Treated1"1
BV
£.1 = 3
£.2C:
£.22-
£ 2 £ C
£.3CE
£.324
£ .?4J
e.3ci
£352
5.41E
£.44C
:.4cE
£.4£1
S.ECS
£.£21
•:.£££
:.££4
£.£CS
£ . £ £ 2
6.71E
£.75E
£ £ £ C
; =27
:.S£C
7.C25
7. CSC
7.12£
7.16:
7.2C7
7.^:J7
7.2C"
7 211
7.22E
7.2E2
PH
7 4£
7.:;
7^2
7.2"
7 45
7.2E
7 'C
".24
".:':
7.4;
7.4i
7.££
7.3C
7. £4
7 ;.;
7.4_
7 40
7.21
7 22
- _:
7.E3
7.42
7 4;
7.51
7. EC
7. E5
7.;;
7.1;
7 42
7.44
7.1E
".2:
7. IE
7-2
(a) Bed volume = 44 ft3 or 328 gal (equivalent to volume of media in two vessels).
(b) Totalizer or Vessel A re-set on 01/12/06, 05/23/06, 06/15/06, 01/26/07, and 02/02/07.
(c) Totalizer for Vessel B re-set on 01/12/06, 05/26/06, 06/15/06, 01/26/07, and 02/02/07.
(d) Starting 08/10/06, totalizer readings for Vessels A and B are from gal since last backwash reading.
(e) Estimated master totalizer readings due to suspicious reported data.
(f) Operational data not collected week of November 20, 2006.
(h) Operational data not collected week of December 18th and 25th 2006 due to holidays.
NA = not available
Light green highlight indicates calculated value
Red highlight indicates system or well pump not operating
Orange highlight indicates parameter cannot be measured
or is otherwise suspect
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Bruni, TX
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as
CI2)
Total Chlorine (as
CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
12/08/05(a)
IN
-
317
0.5
104
<0.05
0.03
41.8
0.3
8.2
26.6
1.8
325
-
-
17.1
11.3
5.8
51.4
53.1
<0.1
35.8
17.3
<25
<25
4.3
4.2
AP
-
321
0.6
104
<0.05
0.1
41.5
<0.1
7.4
26.7
2.3
679
1.0
1.6
19.3
13.4
5.9
62.2
61.0
1.2
3.3
57.7
<25
<25
4.3
3.4
TA
NA
330
0.5
103
<0.05
<0.03
13.5
<0.1
7.1
24.8
0.9
387
0.1
0.3
27.9
17.2
10.7
3.9
3.4
0.5
2.9
0.6
<25
<25
1.8
1.6
TB
NA
352
0.4
100
<0.05
<0.03
1.7
<0.1
7.3
24.7
1.3
371
-
-
47.2
29.4
17.9
4.0
2.2
1.8
1.6
0.5
<25
<25
5.0
5.1
12/13/05(b)
IN
-
326
-
-
-
<0.03
43.3
<0.1
8.2
24.1
1.5
379
-
-
-
-
-
55.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.7
-
AP
-
330
-
-
-
<0.03
43.5
0.1
7.2
24.0
1.5
592
0.6
-
-
-
-
55.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.4
-
TA
0.2
330
-
-
-
<0.03
25.7
0.2
7.2
24.0
1.8
499
-
-
-
-
-
3.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
TB
0.2
321
-
-
-
<0.03
6.4
0.2
7.2
23.0
2.0
425
-
-
-
-
-
3.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
01/05/06
IN
-
334
0.5
104
<0.05
<0.03
41.7
0.2
8.1
23.5
2.1
234
-
-
19.4
12.0
7.4
51.5
56.5
<0.1
40.4
16.1
<25
<25
3.9
3.7
AP
-
334
0.6
104
<0.05
<0.03
42.3
0.4
8.1
23.5
2.2
533
2.0
2.1
19.1
11.9
7.2
60.1
51.3
8.7
1.5
49.8
<25
<25
3.3
3.3
TA
0.6
312
0.6
112
<0.05
<0.03
34.2
0.2
7.4
23.2
2.1
671
-
-
11.6
7.6
4.0
1.8
1.3
0.4
1.2
0.2
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TB
0.6
312
0.7
114
<0.05
<0.03
31.8
0.2
7.3
23.1
2.0
686
1.5
2.1
15.8
9.9
5.9
1.5
1.3
0.2
1.2
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.2
01/17/06
IN
-
334
-
-
-
<0.03
43.8
1.1
8.0
25.7
2.4
257
-
-
-
-
-
58.8
-
-
-
-
28.8
-
4.5
-
AP
-
330
-
-
-
<0.03
42.8
0.4
8.0
25.9
1.6
538
1.5
1.8
-
-
-
60.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.4
-
TA
1.2
321
-
-
-
<0.03
39.9
0.6
7.1
25.1
1.5
690
-
-
-
-
-
4.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
TB
1.2
312
-
-
-
<0.03
39.6
0.3
7.1
24.2
1.4
700
1.7
1.7
-
-
-
6.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
02/01/06
IN
-
320
0.5
105
<0.05
<0.03
41.7
0.7
8.1
26.7
1.3
239
-
-
23.7
17.0
6.7
61.4
54.3
7.1
40.8
13.5
<25
<25
3.2
3.6
AP
-
320
0.6
104
<0.05
<0.03
42.6
0.3
7.1
26.5
1.4
465
1.6
1.5
22.2
16.9
5.3
56.2
50.8
5.4
3.1
47.7
<25
<25
3.4
3.5
TA
2.0
342
0.5
98
<0.05
<0.03
41.6
0.2
7.3
26.2
1.5
605
-
-
33.0
25.1
7.9
3.4
3.0
0.4
2.9
0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TB
2.0
325
0.6
103
<0.05
<0.03
38.9
0.3
7.4
26.2
1.3
680
1.7
1.7
17.1
13.8
3.3
2.8
2.9
<0.1
2.4
0.5
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
(a) Chlorine measurements taken on 12/09/05.
(b) Water quality measurements taken on 12/15/05.
IN = at wellhead; AP = after pH adjustment; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Bruni, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
02/15/06
IN
-
324
-
-
-
<0.03
41.5
1.0
8.1
26.7
1.1
258
-
-
-
-
-
61.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.2
-
AP
-
324
-
-
-
<0.03
42.3
1.5
7.2
26.9
1.6
546
0.6
0.7
-
-
-
64.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.1
-
TA
2.8
316
-
-
-
<0.03
43.3
1.1
7.3
27.0
1.5
631
-
-
-
-
-
4.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
TB
2.8
328
-
-
-
<0.03
40.2
2.0
7.2
27.1
2.1
663
0.9
1.0
-
-
-
3.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
02/28/06(a)
IN
-
322
314
-
-
-
<0.03
<0.03
40.6
40.7
0.4
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
61.8
57.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
5.1
5.4
-
AP
-
314
318
-
-
-
<0.03
<0.03
41.6
41.0
0.2
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
61.9
57.4
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
3.2
4.6
-
TA
3.3
322
310
-
-
-
<0.03
<0.03
41.8
41.5
0.2
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
2.7
2.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
TB
3.3
335
327
-
-
-
<0.03
<0.03
41.3
41.2
0.2
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.2
2.4
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
03/14/06
IN
-
314
0.7
107
<0.05
<0.01
41.5
0.6
8.2
26.3
1.6
238
-
-
20.1
13.3
6.8
60.3
51.9
8.3
38.7
13.2
<25
<25
4.1
4.1
AP
-
310
0.8
107
<0.05
<0.01
40.6
0.4
7.3
26.7
1.7
569
0.8
1.1
21.2
13.9
7.3
62.3
53.5
8.9
1.9
51.6
<25
<25
3.2
3.1
TA
3.6
322
0.8
106
<0.05
<0.01
41.1
0.3
7.3
26.5
1.3
657
-
-
22.2
14.3
8.0
2.2
1.5
0.7
1.3
0.2
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
TB
3.6
327
0.8
106
<0.05
<0.01
38.7
0.7
7.3
26.6
2.3
662
1.0
1.2
24.2
15.6
8.5
1.7
1.5
0.2
1.3
0.2
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
03/28/06(b)
IN
-
325
-
-
-
-
41.7
0.9
8.2
26.5
1.5
259
-
-
-
-
-
46.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.9
-
AP
-
321
-
-
-
-
42.1
0.9
7.5
27.2
1.8
309
0.5
1.2
-
-
-
50.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.7
-
TA
4.7
325
-
-
-
-
42.6
0.9
7.6
27.4
1.8
532
-
-
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
TB
4.7
325
-
-
-
-
42.1
0.8
7.5
27.4
1.9
587
0.9
1.0
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
04/11/06(c)
IN
-
311
0.7
106
<0.05
<0.01
40.9
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
30.1
22.7
7.4
55.4
51.5
3.8
36.5
15.0
<25
<25
3.5
3.6
AP
-
307
0.8
106
<0.05
<0.01
40.2
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30.0
22.8
7.2
57.2
51.6
5.6
0.5
51.1
<25
<25
3.5
3.4
TA
6.0
315
0.8
107
<0.05
<0.01
40.5
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
27.9
21.3
6.6
1.0
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TB
6.0
315
0.8
108
<0.05
<0.01
42.7
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
29.6
22.6
6.9
0.6
0.6
<0.1
0.4
0.2
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
(a) Water quality parameters not measured.
(b) Water quality measurements taken on 04/05/06.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Bruni, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(CaC03)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
04/25/06(c)
IN
-
331
-
-
-
<10
40.8
0.2
8.2
26.5
1.3
327
-
-
-
-
-
56.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.1
-
AP
-
344
-
-
-
<10
40.8
0.2
7.4
26.3
1.6
603
0.8
1.1
-
-
-
59.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.9
-
TA
7.7
331
-
-
-
<10
41.3
0.7
7.3
26.7
1.6
650
-
-
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
3.8
344
-
-
-
<10
41.2
0.1
7.4
26.6
2.0
623
0.7
0.8
-
-
-
0.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
05/09/06(d)
IN
-
310
0.9
111
<0.05
<10
41.8
0.2
8.1
27.1
1.3
279
-
-
28.6
19.7
9.0
62.9
54.3
8.6
40.2
14.1
<25
<25
3.3
3.3
AP
-
306
1.2
112
<0.05
<10
42.3
0.2
7.2
27.2
1.8
499
1.1
1.2
29.3
20.2
9.1
63.8
55.4
8.4
0.7
54.6
<25
<25
3.1
3.1
TA
9.4
294
1.5
113
<0.05
<10
42.7
0.2
7.3
27.5
2.1
610
-
-
26.8
18.3
8.5
1.0
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TB
4.7
314
1.0
113
<0.05
<10
42.1
0.3
7.3
27.3
2.4
643
1.5
1.5
29.8
21.1
8.8
0.6
0.6
<0.1
0.5
0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
05/23/06(e)
IN
-
313
-
-
-
<10
42.8
0.3
8.3
21.3
3.1
271
-
-
-
-
-
54.8
-
-
-
-
28
-
3.9
-
AP
-
326
-
-
-
<10
41.6
0.5
7.6
21.2
4.1
546
0.5
0.8
-
-
-
50.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.9
-
TA
11.0
338
-
-
-
<10
41.7
0.3
7.5
21.4
3.4
597
-
-
-
-
-
1.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
5.5
318
-
-
-
<10
38.1
0.2
7.5
21.4
3.5
636
0.6
0.7
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
06/06/061'
IN
-
305
0.7
107
<0.05
<10
43.9
0.6
8.2
26.4
2.1
299
-
-
20.2
12.4
7.8
58.5
52.3
6.2
37.0
15.3
<25
<25
2.6
2.6
AP
-
318
0.8
112
<0.05
<10
43.2
0.5
7.3
26.6
2.6
537
0.9
0.9
19.8
12.2
7.6
57.6
51.6
6.1
0.8
50.8
<25
<25
3.0
3.0
TA
12.1
313
0.8
114
<0.05
<10
44.4
0.7
7.2
27.1
2.1
594
-
-
21.0
13.0
8.0
1.1
1.1
<0.1
0.7
0.5
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TB
6.0
318
0.8
136
<0.05
<10
45.3
0.8
7.3
27.1
2.2
620
0.7
0.8
20.5
12.7
7.8
0.8
0.8
<0.1
0.6
0.2
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
06/20/06(9)
IN
-
318
-
-
-
<10
43.9
0.7
8.2
26.7
1.7
234
-
-
-
-
-
67.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.9
-
AP
-
318
-
-
-
<10
44.9
0.7
7.6
26.6
2.6
476
0.9
1.0
-
-
-
66.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.7
-
TA
14.2
330
-
-
-
<10
45.6
0.6
7.6
26.9
2.1
516
-
-
-
-
-
3.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
TB
7.1
330
-
-
-
<10
41.0
0.6
7.5
26.7
1.9
533
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
(c) Water quality measurements taken on 04/20/06.
(d) Water quality measurements taken on 05/04/06.
(e) Water quality measurements taken on 05/12/06.
(f) Water quality measurements taken on 06/01/06.
(g) Water quality measurements taken on 06/19/06.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Bruni, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(CaC03)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
07/11/06
IN
_
320
0.8
137
<0.05
<10
42.3
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
20.0
12.6
7.4
54.8
50.4
4.4
34.2
16.2
49
38
6.0
5.4
AP
_
324
1.0
108
<0.05
<10
42.2
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.4
12.8
7.6
56.4
52.0
4.4
0.7
51.3
<25
<25
4.0
3.4
TA
15.5
328
1.0
106
<0.05
<10
42.1
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
19.7
12.6
7.1
2.4
2.0
0.4
0.7
1.3
<25
<25
0.7
0.1
TB
7.8
NA
1.0
110
<0.05
<10
42.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.7
12.1
6.6
0.8
0.7
<0.1
0.6
0.1
<25
<25
0.6
<0.1
07/19/06(c)
IN
-
319
315
-
-
-
<10
<10
41.2
41.4
0.4
0.4
8.1
26.3
2.3
310
-
-
-
-
-
60.2
61.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
3.7
3.7
-
AP
-
315
315
-
-
-
<10
<10
41.6
41.6
0.2
0.1
7.4
26.8
2.5
390
0.6
0.7
-
-
-
61.3
60.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
3.2
3.0
-
TA
16.4
319
319
-
-
-
<10
<10
39.9
39.7
0.2
0.2
7.8
27.0
2.2
337
-
-
-
-
-
2.6
2.4
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
-
TB
8.2
315
315
-
-
-
<10
<10
40.2
39.7
0.3
0.3
7.7
27.0
2.4
312
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
0.8
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.1
0.1
-
08/02/06
IN
-
316
1.1
91
<0.05
<10
40.2
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
25.3
18.1
7.2
63.9
54.4
9.5
40.7
13.7
<25
<25
3.5
3.5
AP
-
320
1.3
107
<0.05
<10
40.9
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.9
16.4
7.5
64.0
56.9
7.1
0.5
56.4
<25
<25
3.4
3.2
TA
18.1
312
1.3
110
<0.05
<10
38.9
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
16.9
11.9
5.0
8.7
7.7
1.0
0.4
7.3
<25
<25
0.1
0.2
TB
9.0
312
1.3
112
<0.05
<10
37.6
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.9
12.2
5.8
0.5
0.4
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
0.1
0.2
08/16/06(d)
IN
-
310
-
-
-
<10
42.3
0.5
8.2
26.3
2.4
292
-
-
-
-
-
50.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.4
-
AP
-
302
-
-
-
<10
42.5
0.3
7.3
27.0
2.2
478
0.8
0.8
-
-
-
51.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.1
-
TA
20.3
298
-
-
-
<10
41.7
0.1
7.3
26.9
2.3
507
-
-
-
-
-
3.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
TB
10.2
314
-
-
-
<10
43.8
0.2
7.5
27.1
2.2
493
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
08/30/06(e)
IN
-
342
0.2
129
<0.05
<10
39.1
0.4
8.1
25.8
3.3
259
-
-
24.5
17.1
7.4
68.7
56.4
12.3
42.0
14.4
<25
<25
3.4
3.5
AP
-
353
0.9
131
<0.05
<10
39.4
0.2
7.3
26.3
2.4
603
0.8
1.2
24.9
17.6
7.3
69.3
56.5
12.7
1.2
55.4
<25
<25
3.4
3.4
TA
22.6
340
0.9
140
<0.05
<10
39.2
0.4
7.3
26.4
2.3
618
-
-
21.9
15.4
6.5
6.4
5.3
1.1
1.1
4.2
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
TB
11.3
351
0.9
132
<0.05
<10
39.9
0.3
7.3
26.4
2.3
621
0.6
1.0
25.1
16.9
8.2
1.3
1.3
<0.1
1.0
0.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
(c) Water quality measurements taken on 07/24/06.
(d) Water quality measurements taken on 08/14/06.
(e) Water quality measurements taken on 08/31/06.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Bruni, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(CaC03)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
09/15/06
IN
-
335
-
-
-
<10
41.7
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
53.1
-
-
-
-
76
-
2.9
-
AP
-
337
-
-
-
<10
41.3
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
51.6
-
-
-
-
190
-
13.6
-
TA
24.0
342
-
-
-
<10
42.5
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
4.8
-
-
-
-
29
-
<0.1
-
TB
12.0
342
-
-
-
<10
44.3
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
09/28/06
IN
-
344
0.5
105
<0.05
<10
40.5
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
25.7
18.7
7.0
56.4
52.3
4.1
37.9
14.4
163
134
14.7
14.5
AP
-
347
0.5
102
<0.05
10.0
39.9
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
26.8
19.3
7.5
58.1
53.1
5.0
0.9
52.3
<25
<25
3.5
3.5
TA
24.4
331
0.5
104
<0.05
<10
40.2
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
26.9
19.4
7.6
3.2
3.2
<0.1
0.7
2.5
29.6
<25
0.6
0.5
TB
12.2
349
0.5
105
<0.05
<10
41.8
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30.1
21.8
8.3
1.1
1.0
<0.1
0.5
0.5
<25
<25
0.3
0.2
10/11/06
IN
-
355
349
-
-
-
<10
<10
39.6
42.2
1.2
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
53.9
50.5
-
-
-
-
79
113
-
10.1
12.3
-
AP
-
353
349
-
-
-
<10
<10
42.7
42.0
0.6
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
53.0
51.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
4.0
3.6
-
TA
25.0
349
331
-
-
-
<10
<10
41.8
41.1
0.5
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
3.5
3.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.9
0.9
-
TB
12.5
349
344
-
-
-
<10
<10
42.6
41.7
0.4
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.1
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
10/31/06
IN
-
350
0.7
117
<0.05
<10
40.5
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
23.9
16.7
7.2
58.7
53.4
5.3
36.9
16.5
<25
<25
6.3
6.1
AP
-
352
0.7
117
<0.05
<10
40.5
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24.0
16.7
7.3
58.6
53.0
5.7
0.7
52.3
<25
<25
3.3
3.1
TA
25.6
342
0.9
120
<0.05
<10
42.6
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
27.3
20.6
6.7
2.8
2.3
0.6
0.4
1.9
<25
<25
0.8
0.5
TB
12.8
361
0.7
117
<0.05
<10
48.5
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
41.2
32.5
8.7
0.6
0.6
<0.1
0.3
0.2
<25
<25
0.3
0.2
11/08/06(c)
IN
-
340
-
-
-
<10
39.9
0.8
8.2
26.3
3.0
284
-
-
-
-
-
62.0
-
-
-
-
46
-
8.6
-
AP
-
345
-
-
-
<10
40.1
0.8
7.2
26.9
1.9
507
0.9
1.8
-
-
-
64.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.7
-
TA
26.2
336
-
-
-
<10
39.8
1.3
7.3
26.8
2.3
646
-
-
-
-
-
4.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
TB
13.1
349
-
-
-
<10
41.3
1.2
7.2
26.8
1.8
646
0.7
1.1
-
-
-
2.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
(c)Water quality measurements taken on 11/10/06.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Bruni, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(CaC03)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
11/28/06(c)
IN
-
357
0.8
122
<0.05
<10
41.9
0.8
8.2
24.5
2.2
264
-
-
24.8
15.8
9.0
46.0
44.6
1.4
32.5
12.1
<25
<25
3.8
3.8
AP
-
357
0.8
125
<0.05
<10
41.2
0.8
7.4
25.3
1.7
563
0.4
0.6
21.9
13.8
8.1
47.4
44.5
2.9
1.1
43.3
67
62
5.2
5.2
TA
26.8
368
0.8
129
<0.05
<10
47.0
0.7
7.0
22.4
2.1
666
-
-
31.1
17.7
13.4
4.0
3.8
0.2
1.0
2.7
40
31
1.3
1.2
TB
13.4
402
0.7
124
<0.05
<10
25.0
0.6
7.0
21.2
2.0
678
0.5
1.8
49.9
26.6
23.3
1.5
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.2
<25
<25
0.3
0.2
12/12/06
IN
-
325
0.6
110
<0.05
<10
41.6
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
23.7
16.0
7.7
59.0
55.2
3.8
37.8
17.5
53
<25
4.9
4.6
AP
-
339
0.8
111
<0.05
<10
41.8
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.0
15.7
7.2
58.8
56.3
2.5
1.4
54.9
43
33
4.7
4.6
TA
27.1
337
0.8
109
<0.05
<10
40.9
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
25.1
17.2
8.0
3.4
3.1
0.3
1.1
2.1
<25
<25
0.8
0.6
TB
13.6
331
0.8
108
<0.05
<10
40.7
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.3
15.3
7.0
1.3
1.3
<0.1
0.9
0.4
<25
<25
0.3
0.2
01/22/07(d)
IN
-
335
0.8
96
<0.05
<10
40.6
0.5
8.3
25.0
NM
NM
-
-
21.9
14.6
7.4
58.4
55.1
3.3
31.3
23.8
<25
<25
4.4
4.5
AP
-
339
1.0
104
<0.05
<10
40.8
0.6
7.6
25.0
NM
NM
NM
NM
22.0
14.7
7.3
63.6
56.3
7.3
1.7
54.6
<25
<25
3.0
2.9
TA
28.0
339
0.9
121
<0.05
<10
38.6
0.5
7.1
25.0
NM
NM
-
-
17.0
11.7
5.2
5.2
4.7
0.4
1.6
3.1
<25
<25
0.2
0.4
TB
14.0
328
0.9
127
<0.05
<10
37.8
0.4
7.2
25.0
NM
NM
NM
NM
14.3
10.0
4.3
1.7
1.8
<0.1
1.5
0.4
<25
<25
<0.1
0.3
02/13/07M
IN
-
;
-
-
-
190
41.8
;
8.3
25.0
NM
NM
-
-
-
-
-
55.7
51.6
4.1
41.6
10.0
-
-
;
-
AP
-
;
-
-
-
214
42.8
;
7.4
NM
NM
NM
0.8
1.0
-
-
-
53.7
51.2
2.5
0.9
50.3
-
-
;
-
TA
28.7
;
-
-
-
203
40.7
;
7.0
NM
NM
NM
-
-
-
-
-
1.1
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.2
-
-
;
-
TB
14.4
;
-
-
-
167
42.4
;
7.1
NM
NM
NM
1.0
1.1
-
-
-
2.3
2.0
0.2
0.5
1.6
-
-
;
-
03/13/07
IN
-
;
-
-
-
13.7
41.0
;
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
60.2
53.7
6.5
34.1
19.7
-
-
;
-
AP
-
;
-
-
-
12.5
41.4
;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
61.0
52.2
8.7
0.9
51.4
-
-
;
-
TA
30.0
;
-
-
-
5
50.6
;
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
3.2
1.9
1.3
0.6
1.3
-
-
;
-
TB
15.0
;
-
-
-
10.8
95.8
;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.1
1.0
<0.1
0.9
0.1
-
-
;
-
(c) Water quality measurements taken on 12/04/06.
(d) Water quality measurements taken on 01/17/07.
(e) Only As speciation samples collected starting 02/13/07.
(f) Water quality measurements taken on 02/09/07.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Bruni, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
04/17/07
IN
-
:
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
67.5
55.8
11.8
35.3
20.5
:
-
-
-
AP
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
69.1
54.4
14.6
1.2
53.2
;
-
-
-
TA
30.8
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
4.7
3.8
0.9
0.9
2.8
;
-
-
-
TB
15.4
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.5
1.3
0.2
0.9
0.4
;
-
-
-
05/09/07
IN
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
54.2
46.4
7.8
35.4
11.0
;
-
-
-
AP
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
59.4
49.7
9.7
1.2
48.5
;
-
-
-
TA
32.2
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
5.7
5.2
0.5
1.3
3.9
;
-
-
-
TB
16.1
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.0
2.4
<0.1
1.8
0.6
;
-
-
-
06/05/07
IN
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
51.3
46.4
4.9
40.4
6.1
;
-
-
-
AP
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
49.8
46.7
3.0
0.4
46.4
;
-
-
-
TA
33.1
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
3.5
3.2
0.3
0.2
3.0
;
-
-
-
TB
16.6
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.2
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
;
-
-
-
09/20/07
IN
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
AP
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
56.1
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
TA
41.0(c)
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
9.6
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
TB
20.5(c)
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
02/21/08(d)
IN
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
60.4
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
AP
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
88.4
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
TA
50.4(c)
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
17.5
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
TB
25.2(c)
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
16.9
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
(c) Operational data no longer available from operator. Bed volumes estimated based on historical measurements.
(d) IN sample taken on 02/24/08.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Bruni, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
(CaC03)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
04/16/08
IN
-
-
-
-
-
:
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
59.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AP
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
57.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
53.7(c)
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
27.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
26.7(c)
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
05/15/08
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
59.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AP
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
57.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
54.7(c)
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-
-
-
45.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
27.4(c)
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
5.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(c) Operational data no longer available from operator. Bed volumes estimated based on historical measurements.
------- |